God's Message to Donald Trump

J.D. Vance said he thought the failed assassination attempt on Donald Trump demonstrated that God intervened to save Mr. Trump.  Mr. Vance may know more about how God communicates than I do, but I wonder if the near miss was actually a warning from God to Mr. Trump. And maybe it wasn't just about politics and maybe not just about his future here on earth.

Supreme Court Must Decide: Is Trump An Insurrectionist?

I've heard a lot of prognostications that the Supreme Court will find some procedural justification to ignore the 14th Amendment and keep Trump on the ballot. That probably means they will ignore whether or not Trump is an insurrectionist.

If they do find some way to keep Trump on the ballot, maybe we can at least put to rest the farce that conservative justices are textualists and believe in originalism.

If they allow him on the ballot for some weak procedural issue, is it to much to ask them as individuals to state whether are not he is an insurrectionist as defined by the 14th Amendment?

The 14th Amendment does not require a jury trial or proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  If they leave Trump on the ballot, every voter will have to decide whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States or gave aid or comfort to someone who did.  

As justices of the United States Supreme Court they have sworn to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  Their legal training, experience and oath to the Constitution should demand that they state clearly whether or not they believe that by the text of the 14th Amendment Trump is an insurrectionist or gave aid or comfort to an insurrectionist.

This issue it before the court and they swore an oath to defend the Constitution.  If they can't say if he is or is not an insurrectionist, what good are they?

Don't Give In To Threats Of Political Violence

I've been seeing comments that using the 14th Amendments to keep Trump off the ballot is unconstitutional and will lead to violence.

As everyone should know, the 14th Amendment is part of the United States Constitution.  So using the 14th Amendment is literally constitutional!

As for violence, Trump lied about the 2020 election being stolen from him and then attempted to stop the transfer of power and in doing so incited violence.

So if he is kept off the ballot we can expect violence.

If he loses the 2024 election we can expect claims the election was stolen again and violence.

If he wins the 2024 election he will implement the plans he has been telling about and we can expect violence.  Violence from Trump's retribution and, possibly, violence from people who refuse to let him: 

 

* Destroy the non-partisan FBI

* Destroy the independent DOJ

* Destroy the rule of law

* Destroy our non-partisan and independent judiciary (he will ignore the courts)

* Use the military for domestic control

* Put his political opponents in jail

* Shut down media that criticize him.

Basically the same goals he had for his first administration, but now with better execution and still no Republican party that will rein him in.

Threats of violence should not be allowed to further any domestic political goals. So I vote to keep him off the ballot and use our intact FBI, DOJ and independent judiciary to handle any domestic violence he incites.

Why Is Trump Stalling Trials?

I hear a lot of politicians and pundits espouse that voters, not courts, should decide if Donald Trump should be president again.  As described in previous blogs, the 14th Amendment in clear text says he should not be allowed to be re-elected.  But courts are the place where Constitutional issues are resolved or at least we hope they would be resolved.

But if politicians and pundits believe so strongly that voters should decide Trump's fitness, why are they not calling for Trump to stop the judicial stalling?  If voters should decide the election, don't they have a right to know if Trump is guilty of any of the dozens of crimes he has been indicted for?  And know before the nomination and election?  If Trump is innocent it would be in his interest to get these trials over with.

If Trump is as innocent as he keeps telling us, he should fighting to get before a jury as soon as possible and be exonerated.

Silly me, I know why he is stalling.  He thinks the DOJ, the judicial system, jurors, the majority of voters, bankers, bus drivers, little old men, election workers, etc. are all against him.  The whole system, actually the whole world is against him and he can't possibly get a fair trial.

Truth is, he knows he is guilty as hell and will do anything to escape punishment for his crimes.

14th Amendment Was Written For Trump

After carefully reading the 14^th Amendment, Section 3, I was struck by how it seems to be perfectly written to fit the situation we currently find ourselves in.

I'm obviously not a Constitutional or legal scholar, but as I hear the comments from people who are experts I'm taken by how we are facing issues similar to those that legislators faced after the Civil War when the 14^th Amendment was written and adopted.

The South was defeated and brought back into the Union, but there were many southerners who would never concede they were wrong or they actually lost (sound familiar?). What was to stop these people from picking up where they left off before the war started and again elect people to state and federal offices to continue to try to break or harm the Union?  Congress believed laws were needed to prevent this. I've heard several ideas were floated and rejected before the 14^th Amendment was adopted (with some later changes). I'll admit the amendment language seems somewhat out of step with other parts of the Constitution, but I think it was intentional.

Let me conjecture why I think the amendment was written as it was and so clearly matches our current needs. The 14th Amendment applies to certain federal and state office holders (civil and military).  For this discussion I'm focusing primarily on the presidency.

The amendment says people are disqualified from holding office again "if previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States,... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.".

These are people who have shown they can't be trusted.   They broke their oath.

The amendment does not require that an insurrectionist be convicted of a crime. I'm guessing that this may have been for several reasons.  The number of people who could have been taken to court for engaging in an insurrection or rebellion after the civil war would have been in the millions.  How could you find enough unbiased jurors in the south to hear the cases?  Most southerners were themselves insurrectionists or had given aid or comfort to an insurrectionist.

Another reason for not requiring a conviction was that in general it was obvious who was an insurrectionist.  Most people did not hide what they believed and what they did.  In fact they were defiantly proud of their actions.  Again, sound familiar?

Since the vast majority of the population of much of the country were obvious insurrectionists the authors set the bar low for disqualification. If a person has engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the U.S. the 14^th Amendment finds the person is disqualified from holding office again. That disqualification could then be appealed to Congress. This put the onus for prompt action to reverse their disqualification on the insurrectionist rather than on election officials or courts.

Why didn't the authors add text that said if an insurrectionist were elected by voters, that should override the disqualification language of the 14^th Amendment? As stated above, in former Confederate states, how many Confederate officers (civil or military) would be overwhelming elected or selected again?  Many voters would clearly believe that insurrectionists had done nothing wrong. They agreed with the insurrectionists. So the 14^th Amendment does not disqualify insurrectionists from voting, it just says you can't vote for a former insurrectionist. Punish the oath breakers not the average voter.

Trump brags that he could shoot someone in a public space and his followers would still vote for him. Or he could be convicted of a felony and they would vote for him. Those supporters are telling us clearly that many of them will vote for him even though his participation in an insurrection is obvious to anyone willing to objectively look at the facts. These voters seem to believe that a person who did not honor their oath to uphold the Constitution or the rule of law should be allowed to further damage our country.

Donald Trump publicly tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power. If you don't believe that, you have to be willfully ignorant. On an almost daily basis he tells us how little he believes in the Constitution and the democratic institutions that have made us the leader of the world. He tells us how he will use his presidential and political power to remake our country. He had one term as president and we know how it went.  It ended with him trying to stop the peaceful transfer if power, a hallmark of our country

If we allow him to be elected again, and he begins to reshape our country in the illegal ways as he is promising, what do we do? (And no, he is not joking. Trump is only about Trump. Anything he says or does is just to help Trump.). Unless Democrats have super majorities in the House and Senate the constitutional solution of impeachment will not be an option (remember, we already tried that).  That will leave Donald Trump free to work very hard to remake this country in his image (as he is telling us he will) with few restrictions on his efforts. 

The Constitution make is clear that there are some candidates that are disqualified from holding office (age, citizenship, impeachment conviction, insurrection). Why should we make an exception for an insurrectionist Donald Trump?

14th Amendment Is Not Unfair to Trump Or Voters

This blog entry is a follow-on to my previous blog on whether the 14^th Amendment should be used to prevent Donald Trump from being president again.

Many Republicans believe that voters should be allowed to make the decision about Trump's fitness to be president again. They think it is unfair and possibly undemocratic to keep him off the ballot using the 14^th Amendment.

Of course they know that the Constitution disqualifies people from the presidency who were not citizens from birth or who are less then 35 years of age. I can only guess why the authors of those provisions thought it was important to include those restrictions in the Constitution. Certainly there are many foreign born, naturalized citizens who are obviously fully qualified to run for the position, but those restrictions are in the Constitution and will be enforced until they are amended.

Conviction in the Senate of impeachment carries the possibility of a sentence that includes the disqualification from holding office again.

So the argument that the use of the 14^th Amendment is merely a political maneuver by Democrats is false. Using the 14^th Amendment is proper use of Constitutional law just as disqualification based on age or citizenship status.

Should Voters Determine Trumps Fate?

Many Republicans are upset with the possibility that Donald Trump may not be allowed to run for the presidency because of his participation in an attempted insurrection. They believe the voters should decide whether or not he is fit to be president.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to that argument. But then I believe Al Gore and Hilary Clinton should have been president because more voters voted for them then for their opponents. Unfortunately, the Constitution and the archaic Electoral College dictated different winners.

I would be more sympathetic to Republican voter complaints of the unfairness of the 14^th Amendment if they coupled it with calls to replace the Electoral College with a simple counting of the votes for each ticket. 

I think the authors of the 14th Amendment specifically meant to exclude voters being allowed to vote for an insurrectionist candidate.  More to come...

14th Amendment Disqualifies Trump From Presidency

You don't see presidential candidates who are less than 35 years old or who are not US citizens by birth because those qualities are required by our constitution. Thanks to former president Trump there is another constitutional requirement that applies to presidential candidates that needs to be considered this cycle.

The 14th Amendment, Section 3 of the US Constitution makes it clear that a former office holder who has taken an oath to defend the Constitution and then participates in an insurrection or gives aid or comfort to a participant is disqualified from holding office. The 14th Amendment does not specify the criteria for imposing disqualification. It also does not require the legal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt or a conviction. We may eventually want an amendment, law or Supreme Court ruling to make this more clear, but for now we are faced with an immediate need and the Constitution provides a solution.

One obvious answer of who would enforce this requirement and decide what criteria they would use might be the person or offices in each state who would determine if a candidate meets other requirements to be on the ballot (such as age and citizenship).  I think the person who makes those decisions in most states is the Secretary of State.

Another option is a court ruling. A court in Colorado was asked to remove Trump's name as a presidential candidate from the Colorado ballot. The judge agreed that former president Trump “incited” the January 6, 2021 riots and backed that with evidence including testimony given to the House January 6^th Committee.

After clearly stating that former president Trump had participated in an insurrection, the judge accepted the defense claim that the presidency was not an office as required in the amendment. The judge agreed that if the authors of the amendment intended for it to apply to a former president they would have explicitly said that. The judge then refused to remove Trump from the ballot.

Granted that the amendment wording is very vague, but that sounds like a judge searching for a way to not remove Trump's name from the ballot. This will have to go to the Supreme Court and would have even if the judge's decision had gone the other way and had removed Trump's name from the ballot.

The most important thing is the judge clearly said former president Trump had participated in an insurrection. Of course, the January 6^th Committee also proved he incited an insurrection. I would argue there is stronger and more timely proof that Trump incited an insurrection.

Former president Donald Trump was impeached by a bipartisan majority in the House (including ten Republicans) for “incitement of insurrection”. Although there were not enough votes in the Senate to convict him, there was a bipartisan majority in the Senate (including seven Republicans) who believed he was guilty as charged. Every Representative and Senator who voted to impeach or convict knew that their vote would not remove former president Trump from office. President Biden had already been sworn in before the final Senate impeachment vote. However, their vote did show they believed former president Trump had participated in an insurrection and should not be allowed to be president again (impeachment conviction means the person is removed from office and disqualified from holding office again).  Their votes had nothing to do with the 14th Amendment, but they clearly declared he had participated in an insurrection and should not be allowed to serve again.

I believe the bipartisan majority votes for impeachment in the House and Senate are enough by themselves to satisfy the constitutional requirement to disqualify former president Donald Trump from becoming president again on a national basis, not just the state level. As I said, this will need Supreme Court approval, but a clear reading of the text should support his disqualification.

I hear a lot of claims that Trump's fitness to hold office again should be decided by voters.  I'm sympathetic to that claim, but the 14th Amendment was written after the Civil War to prevent southern sympathizers from electing people to offices in a government they violently tried to destroy.  That sounds close to the situation we face today.  We have a large segment of the citizens who seem very willing to re-elect a man who lies that the last presidential election was stolen, incited an insurrection, tried to overthrow the validly elected government (as certified by all state governments and many court cases) and continuously brags he will take unconstitutional actions if re-elected. The 14th Amendment is still in the Constitution and until it is revised  or revoked we should use it to counter a charlatan who seriously threatens our country.

 

Text of the 14^th Amendment, Section 3, to the United States Constitution

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

The highlights are mine.

I'm The President! Get Off My Yard Or I'll Nuke You!

Hey you kids, get off my yard!

When I first saw Trump's mug shot I started laughing.  My first thought was he looked like some grumpy old man yelling at the neighbor kids who were walking on his grass again.  

I'm sure he spent a lot of time thinking about what image he wanted to project and then practicing that glare until he got it just right.  He wanted to make sure that his first mug shot looked presidential.  

What a clown.

Presidential Bathroom Reading Material

Mar-a-Lago bathroom reading material.

I've heard of people keeping reading material in their bathroom for when they expect to be in there for a while, but this is ridiculous.

I know political pundits have been wondering why former president Trump took so many presidential documents to Mar-a-Lago, but who would have guessed this is answer?

No Get Out of Jail Free Card for Trump

As one of the justifications for his vote against conviction during the second impeachment of former president Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell said that the acquittal did not allow Trump to escape consequences for his actions before and during the January 6th insurrection. McConnell correctly said Trump could be prosecuted for any crimes committed during or after his presidency after he was no longer president.

Donald Trump faces indictments this year from the DOJ and/or the state of Georgia. Convictions on any one of these additional indictments would be serious enough to disqualify him from ever holding office again. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says any federal office holder, like Trump, who engages "in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or who give aid or comfort to enemies of the United States" is prohibited from holding office again.

Trump is no longer president, but he is already complaining that any legal actions against him should not be allowed since he is a presidential candidate.

By DOJ rules, but not by the constitution, Trump had a "get out of jail free" card for prosecution of any federal crimes while he was in office. (Note, this GOOJF card never applies to state or civil court cases.) Now that he is out of office, we need to make it clear that these cases will go forward whether or not Trump is a candidate or even if he is again elected president.

A wealthy person can't suddenly file for the presidency to delay any federal indictments or convictions until the next presidential election. 

I am not aware of any laws on this subject, but Trump and voters should expect that any indictments this year will be be handled as they would for any other citizen. They won't be delayed by campaign contingencies, the actual election or, should he win, by any responsibilities of his new status as president-elect or president.

Trump and his supporters have to accept the possibility that Trump could be inaugurated in a jail cell or the Oval Office moved to Leavenworth.  

We've all seen enough of Trump's play book to know that once he is indicted he will use every opportunity to slow down the judicial process. He is entitled to the same legal options as any other defendant, but he and his supporters need to accept that these slow downs increase his chances that the legal processes against him will interfere with what they see as his need to campaign or serve. If you can't accept that, don't vote for him in the primary.

Trump supporters have been able to turn a blind eye to Trump's inadequacies for years. From the day he walked down the escalator it has been been very clear that Trump lies about anything and everything. He has only a superficial understanding of the Constitution, science or the Bible. He has no idea of what is expected of a US president who is responsible for the entire country. He does not understand the concepts of independent and impartial judiciary system and justice department. He has practically no understanding of the US place in the world as an advocate and defender of democracy and as a leader who protects us, our allies and and world from countries and organizations that would harm us. Laws and norms that have guided us for centuries mean nothing to him.

Trump believes the world exists to serve him. He has repeatedly shown he is willing to sacrifice the constitution or country if he thinks that is needed to further his goals. His supporters must believe this also since nothing he does seems to affect their fealty. That is why he must face the law as any other citizen would until he is acquitted or convicted and his sentence is completed.

 

Could PI Be A Rational Number?

This is not a normal post for me. Sometimes a combination of observations interest me and generate a train of thought that occupies my idle thoughts for a while. It often helps me to try to explain my thoughts as a way to guide my reasoning which is why I'm writing this post.

My mathematical skills are limited and I would guess that a mathematician could easily answer my simple question.

In math, a fractional number with no repeating number or recurring sequence of digits is called irrational. In decimal, PI is an irrational number. My question is: Is there any base/radix where would PI would not be irrational?

My guess is that the answer is no, PI will always be irrational. But working with computers has shown me that numbers that are irrational in decimal are not necessarily irrational in another base and that decimal numbers that are not irrational may be irrational in another base. (See further below for a further explanation of bases).

Here is a simple example comparing a fraction (one third) in decimal (base 10) and the same fraction (one third) in trinary (base 3).

The decimal fraction 1/3₁₀ is written in decimal as 0.3333...₁₀. The digits 3333... at the end recur an infinite number of times. When dealing with numbers in multiple bases the base is written as a subscript. The equivalent of the decimal fraction for one third (1/3₁₀) is written in trinary as 1/10₃ (again, see below). So one third is written in decimal as 1/10₁₀ or 0.33333₁₀ and in trinary the same one third is written as 1/10₃ or 0.1₃.

This is a simple example of an irrational fraction in decimal that is a simple number in trinary. My guess is that PI is probably always an irrational number, but I would like to hear why that has to be true. If there is a base where PI is not irrational, does that generate additional questions or novel solutions to other questions?

If there is a base where PI is not rational I'm guessing it would be a base that is a prime number or some exotic, non-integer base.

If you are interested, here are some further explanations of number bases.

As we learned in grade school, decimal numbers are made up of 10 digits, 0 thru 9.

0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, etc

Numbers in binary (base 2) are made up of digits 0 thru 1 and numbers in trinary (base 3) are made up of digits 0 thru 2. There are many other commonly used bases such a octal (0 thru 7) and hexadecimal (0 thru F). I would guess there are an infinite number of bases and some bases are not just sequences of integers.

When numbers are written the base can be shown with a subscript. 1₂ means binary, 1₃ means trinary and 1₁₀ means decimal. A number without a subscript is assumed to be decimal.

Here are the beginning numbers for decimal, binary, trinary, octal, hexadecimal so you can see the differences. Octal and hexadecimal are basically just different (more compact) ways to represent binary numbers and are shown here just because I wanted to show them. Decimal and trinary were used in discussions above.

decimal₁₀  binary₂  trinary₃  octal₈  hexadecimal₁₆
1        1      1     1     1
2       10      2     2     2
3       11     10     3     3
4      100     11     4     4
5      101     12     5     5
6      110     20     6     6
7      111     21     7     7
8     1000     22    10     8
9     1001    100    11     9
10    1010    101    12     A
11    1011    102    13     B
12    1100    110    14     C
13    1101    111    15     D
14    1110    112    16     E
15    1111    120    17     F
16   10000    121    20    10

and so on

While thinking about this problem, I used the simple number line from grade school to explore some issues.  (Sorry, the blog editor doesn't allow accurate placement of the arrow, but you get the idea.)

Below I show decimal 3 1/3 on a decimal number line and a trinary number line.

In school we used decimal integer number lines like
+4     +3     +2     +1     0      -1     -2     -3

|______|______|______|______|______|______|______|
     ↑
3 1/3 or 3.3333... in decimal approximately

We can expand the section of the number line from 4 to 3 and then sub-divide.

+4.0   +3.9   +3.8   +3.7   +3.6   +3.5   +3.4   +3.3   +3.2    +3.1  +3.0

|______|______|______|______|______|______|______|______|______|______|
                                                                                        ↑
                                                                    3 1/3 or 3.3333... in decimal approximately

We can expand the section of the number line from 3.4 to 3.3 and then sub-divide.

+3.4   +3.39  +3.38  +3.37  +3.36  +3.35   +3.34 +3.33  +3.32  +3.31   +3.3

|______|______|______|______|______|______|______|______|______|______|
                                                                                        ↑
                                                               3 1/3 or 3.3333... in decimal approximately

We can keep expanding and sub-dividing, but we would never find a place to draw a line for exactly 3.3333.... We could get closer and closer, but we can never get to decimal 3 and 1/3.

If we try a number line again using trinary, we easily find a precise spot.

+11.0  +10.2  +10.1  +10.0
|______|______|______|
                             ↑
Decimal 3 1/3 in trinary exactly

May The Best Fraudster Win

Elephant Shit

Kari Lake, a Trump acolyte and candidate for governor of Arizona, was asked if she would accept the results of the election.  She replied something like "I expect to win the election and I will accept the results".  When pressed if she would accept the results if she lost, she repeated "I expect to win the election and I will accept the results".

The fact the she basically refused to answer that simple question means she will not accept the results if she is not elected.  She obviously is a believer in "heads I win, tails you lose".

She logically can't object if her opponent makes the same election results statement.  That would mean that no matter who wins, someone is going to claim election fraud.  Of course that is insane. 

If Kari Lake really believes she can only lose if there is fraud, why is she campaigning?  Why try to convince voters you are the better candidate if you believe the other side is going to manufacture votes?  She can't know how many fraudulent votes her opponent could muster. 

If Kari Lake really believes the other side is going to produce fraudulent votes, wouldn't she be smart to tell us how the fraud will be committed so it can be prevented? Or maybe manufacture some fraudulent votes for herself? 

So extending Kari Lake's philosophy she believes both candidates will attempt to commit fraud and the winner will be the candidate that was the better fraudster.   

Kari Lake is wrong and should not be elected.  All candidates should commit to accepting the results of elections and to doing their part to make sure that elections are fair and accurate.   

 

MAGA Voting Sticker

 

On behalf of democracy loving Americans, we thank you!

 

Trump, Stay Healthy

It recently occurred to me that I didn't want anything bad to happen to former president Donald Trump. No cancer, no heart attack and certainly no death. It's not because I'm a supporter of his or I'm such a good person that I'm above evil thoughts.

I wouldn't mind at all if Putin soon met his maker.

I think Donald Trump was certainly the worst president in my lifetime.  He has done immense and possibly lasting harm to this country. I think he is despicable and I would be happy to see him gone.  Except that if anything does go wrong with him (other than his current incurable mental illness) his cult following will amaze us all with the astounding conspiracy theories they will concoct.

All the usual suspects will be accused of somehow causing him harm. The fact that they can't find any evidence that would prove that Democrats caused his heart attack will just convince them there was foul play. Probably some some deep state cabal used the most sophisticated science to clog Trump's arteries. Remember, Trump's world class doctor said Trump was so healthy he could live to be 200 years old.

I'm sure we'll hear that there is proof that Democrats promised aliens from outer space they could use earth as a second home for as long as they like if they would just find an untraceable way to get rid of Trump. Possibly by putting small doses of something in the greasy hamburgers he eats. And that may be one of the saner theories.

If the MAGA cult can work themselves into such a rage that they attack the Capital based on Trump's fake hissy fit over a lost election, what will they do when they are convinced the Dear Leader has been physically harmed?

What we need is for Trump to lead a long, healthy, quiet life at Mara-a-Lago reading his Kim Jung Un love letters. Once the MAGA crowd has moved on to the next autocrat, Trump is also free to move on.

 

Repeal The Second Amendment

The United States Constitution is in many ways an amazing document. It has allowed our country to become the envy of the world, but it was not and is not perfect. There have been amendments to correct some flaws and it is now time to fix a remaining flaw.

The Second Amendment needs to be repealed. Just take it out of the Constitution.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Repealing the second amendment doesn't mean all guns become illegal and will be confiscated. What it means is that the laws about guns must be legislated from the perspective of how we as a country want them to impact our society and not from the perspective of a constitutional right where we argue about what the founders actually meant. Gun ownership and use should not be some inalienable right. It should not be a foundational part of our country and enshrined in the Constitution. It's inclusion in the Constitution is one of the reasons we have such a terrible gun violence problem.

Most us drive cars and depend on cars to support our daily lives. But we also know that operating a car is not a right. We have to be licensed and provide insurance among other restrictions. There are rules for different types of vehicles and when and how they can be operated. Those rules are determined by legislation to fit our changing needs. For example, self-driving cars will require many new laws and regulations.

This is the way gun laws should be handled. Laws to define how guns can be used for self-defense, hunting, target shooting can be legislated just like laws that govern drivers, driving, cars, trucks, ATVs, motorcycles, etc., and without needing to quote the founding fathers or the Federalist Papers.

I believe the Second Amendment was written to provide the country with a service; citizen soldiers in militias to defend us from foreign threats which we no longer face. We now have well trained people in the military services, National Guard and Reserves that provide for our defense.

For the constitutional originalists/textualists, I don't see anything in the Second Amendment that provides guidance about personal self-defense or suggest that the amendment was meant to provide ready weapons for citizens to overthrow a misguided government. I also don't understand how the initial dependent clause can be ignored, although that is convenient since militias were male only institutions so the Second Amendment wouldn't apply to women.

And how well has the Second Amendment worked? Are we better off having it? How is our record on gun violence and the number of citizens killed by guns compared to the rest of the industrial world? We've been told for years that all we need is more good people with guns. Yet while gun purchases continue to sky rocket, gun violence increases and still more and more people are killed by guns. Clearly more and more guns are not making us safer or decreasing gun violence.

In my city we have an interstate highway where people are wary to drive for fear of being shot for an awkward lane change or just by a stray bullet. Kids are being killed in their homes from stray shots coming from outside their houses. Do we really want to live this way? And the situation keeps getting worse.

What does it say about us that guns are now the leading cause of childhood deaths? We should be ashamed. More importantly, we must do something about that.

Let's repeal the Second Amendment and start creating laws that allow reasonable ownership and use of guns.

 

Self Defense Begins At School

I suggest that the NRA rephrase one of its old sayings.

The only thing that will stop a bad man with a gun in a school, is a child with a gun.

 

Possible Concomitant Consequences

I have not been closely following the case of Kyle Rittenhouse.  Rittenhouse is the Illinois teenager who says he traveled to Wisconsin with his assault rifle to defend people and businesses from rioters.  He is accused of killing two people and wounding another person while he was in Wisconsin.  There is video evidence showing he shot them.

I did take notice when the trial judge, Bruce Schroeder, ruled that prosecutors could not use the term "victim" or "alleged victim" to describe the people who were killed or shot.  I believe I read he thought that calling these people "victims" would bias the jury against Rittenhouse when he has yet to be convicted of anything.  I don't think that explanation makes sense.

Dictionary.com defines victim as "a person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action...".  These victims were injured.  Whether or not they were injured by Rittenhouse, and if they were, whether or not the injuries were legally justified is what this trial is all about.  We won't know if these people were victims of Rittenhouse until the trial is completed so why not use the term "alleged victims".  The term "alleged" is just acknowledging that this is what the trial is going to determine.  

But the judge has legal training and experience that I don't have, so I was ready to give him the benefit of the doubt.  At least I was until he expanded his ruling.

He went on to say the defense could use the terms "rioters", "looters" and "arsonists" to describe the people who were shot if the the defense presented evidence supporting these descriptions.  

What?

These people have not been convicted of any crime so why can they be labelled by the court as law breakers?   The judge is not willing to allow possible negative bias against Rittenhouse during the trial, OK, but he has no problem labeling the victims as felons and giving Rittenhouse backing from the bench for any self-defense claims.  

I thought justice was supposed to be blind. I don't know of any charges the wounded person is facing. If there are any crimes, they would be alleged until he is convicted.  The two victims who were killed can't be tried or convicted.  They can't defend themselves, so why can't we at least call them "alleged victims"?

I would imagine the prosecutors will call Rittenhouse a murderer which presumes there are victims. So if prosecutors can't call them "victims" what do they call them?  They are not plaintiffs.  How about "possible concomitant consequences"?

 This blog was originally written in November, 2021, before Rittenhouse was acquitted.

Save Our Democracy, STOP THE BIG LIE

Republican Elephant Shit

It is clear the violent insurrectionists who attacked the Capital on January 6th were hoping to prevent the certification of the election of Joe Biden to the presidency and have Donald Trump reinstated as president.  It is becoming clear that former president Donald Trump and his allies (including some elected officials) were also trying to use quasi-constitutional schemes to prevent the certification of the election of Joe Biden and instead certify that Donald Trump had won.  How closely these two groups were working together to complete an insurrection is still being investigated.

These subversive actions were planned even though Joe Biden won the election by roughly seven million popular votes and 76 electoral college votes.  There were various recounts, court cases and certification by all states which affirmed that there was very little if any voter fraud and Joe Biden was the winner.

Yet Donald Trump and most Republicans keep spreading the Big Lie that there was widespread fraud and the election was stolen.  This lie is ominous because it seems to be setting the stage for future manipulation of election results.

The courts and congress will have the final say on how the insurrectionists should be punished and what changes are required to defend our constitution, but I have a different question.

What did the insurrectionists and the people who support them think would happen if they had been successful on January 6th?

Do conservatives think the Democrats would just say something like "Aw shucks, lost again", give up and walk away?

In 2000, Al Gore and the Democrats used all the legal actions at their disposal to get an accurate count of votes in Florida which they believed would show Al Gore won and would be the next President of the United States.  Yet when the Supreme Court (on a purely political split) stopped the Florida count and therefore gave the state to George W. Bush by a roughly 800 vote margin, Gore graciously conceded and Democrats reluctantly accepted the result.

If today's conservatives were on the losing end of a vote count like 2000, what would they do? Keep in mind former President Trump has no intention of ever conceding the 2020 presidential election.  He has made it clear that he does not believe in the peaceful transition of power.  More upsetting are the number of his supporters who agree with his actions.

Now we see Republicans in many areas trying to change state laws to make it easier to manipulate election results in the future to favor them and possibly override election results.  

Speaking for myself, if Republicans someday succeed in overruling voters and changing the results of elections, I, and I expect many other Democrats and independents, will not calmly walk away.

I would prefer that we put in laws and rules that prevent the subversion of our democracy.  If there are differences in how our democracy should be run, I would prefer that those differences be settled in the courts and legislatures, but if those processes fail to defend our democratic principles and processes, extraordinary remedies may be required.  Once a democracy is lost it is difficult to bring it back because the insurrections are even more emboldened to use their illegally won power to retain their positions.

I beg all voters, especially Republicans, who understand how radical and dangerous the Big Lie is to help defend our constitution and country.  Do not support politicians that are willing to damage our democracy to retain their political power.  Don't accept changes to election laws that are claimed to be needed to stop future election fraud.  If a politician won't publicly and clearly state there was no wide spread fraud and Joe Biden is the properly elected president, don't vote for them.  Don't accept a mealy mouthed, elephant shit answer that there were irregularities or state laws were not followed.  Politicians need to say that the states all certified their votes and Biden won. Any other answer damages our democracy.

Credit Due

 I would like to give a shout out to all the people who have declined receiving their COVID vaccine shot.  Those of us waiting for our shot appreciate the chance to move up in line.

I would also like to give a shout out to those people who refuse to wear a mask. I understand we need to have 70 to 80 percent of people vaccinated to get to herd immunity.  That number of people is decreased by people who have already recovered from a bout of COVID.  The brave mask deniers actions that put them at risk of death and serious long term disabilities will decrease the time needed to reach herd immunity.  Mere words cannot express my awe of their selfish and stupid actions.

Mask deniers should also get credit for the family, friends, co-workers and even strangers who they recruited to their cause. Those additional victims will have contributed to the goal of beating the virus with out giving in to the tyranny of the mask.

So mask deniers, what else can I say except "stay the hell away from my family, friends and me!"