Words, Words, Words! But What Do They Mean?

Do any of us ever listen to what we are saying? Do any of us even know what we are hearing? All too often, the answer is: NO. In this Age of Information—an age of massive amounts of instant information—do we stop to think about the meaning of words?


Just yesterday, I heard a politician vow to his listeners that he would use the line item veto if he were president, and many in the crowd roared and clapped enthusiastically. That man is either ignorant of recent history or simply duping his audience. The Supreme Court answered that one once and for all 12 years ago. (In Clinton v. City of New York, the court ruled 6-3 that the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 violated :”the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution” because it impermissibly gave the President power “to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of statutes that had been duly passed by the United States Congress.”) While many governors do have the power of the line item veto as their state constitutions allow, the U. S. Constitution does not. It is quite explicit about disallowing the executive branch to usurp the powers of the legislative branch. Furthermore, many who cry out for the line item veto also want a weaker executive while demanding a power for him that would give more muscle to the office. Reread Articles I and II of the U. S. Constitution. It is quite clear whose powers belong to whom.


Now let’s talk about another pundit/political candidate bugaboo: those earmarks made famous by (R-Alaska) Senator Ted Stevens’ “Bridge to No Where.” Would I like it better if there were fewer earmarks? Yes, but am I happy when my own Senators and U. S. Representative bring home money to my state for a much needed bridge, grant, or program? You bet! That’s why I voted for them. Naturally, every other state’s bacon is pork. Of course that which comes to my own state is necessary and worthy. Isn’t that what most of us think? We elect men and women to go to Washington to intercede on our state’s behalf and expect those in congress to be proactive in seeing that our state gets what it wants and needs.


Opposing politicians of both parties like to rant and rave over the length of the other party’s bill, as if shorter bills would be the cure-all for all of our problems. Bills are written to anticipate everything that may come up as a result of their passage and to anticipate and close every loop hole possible. I’ve worked with Kentucky Youth Assembly where students propose and write laws. This is no easy process and takes much research, all of which must be contained or referenced within the proposed law. If a bill that encompasses many aspects is over a thousand pages long, think how long the directions were for assembling a child’s bike and compare the two in their scope and magnitude.


When a decision is rendered in the Supreme Court, and we disagree with their interpretation, then the Court is being an “activist court.” What does that even mean? The Supreme Court admittedly has sent down decisions I have found abhorrent from time to time, decisions like Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 2010, for example. But, the Supreme Court is an equal branch of government, a fact many seem to forget. The Court is there to interpret the laws as the justices see fit, according to what is written in the U. S. Constitution. Those who want “originalists” for justices surely don’t understand what that means. Some of the Constitution as originally written would value people of color as 3/5 of a person and make slavery legal (Article I Section ii). This same Article and Section also allows state legislatures—not the voters--to choose U. S. Senators. That was the original idea. Do originalists still want the ballot open only to males and property owners? Women did not get the vote until 1920 with the 19th Amendment. The Constitution is a beautiful doctrine, but it was written in 18th century America and ratified in 1788. Our Founding Fathers had the vision to know that our laws would have to be elastic enough to allow for changes through time. Specifically, Article I, Section viii, clause 8, sometimes called the “Elastic Clause,” states that “The Congress shall have Power—To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper” to execute the powers given to Congress. “Necessary and proper” allows for contingencies in an America and a period of time that the founders could never even imagine, but an America for which they prepared nonetheless.


While a few in the Tea Party reference the Boston Tea Party, they forget that the Tea Party occurred before the Constitution was ever written; furthermore, they were protesting paying a tax when they had no representatives in parliament. The Tea Party was about the lack of representation, not the specific paying of taxes. When the Constitution was penned, Article I, Section ii states that “direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union….” The Founders permitted taxation; therefore, it is not unconstitutional. Gripe about the amount you pay, but remember that taxation by the federal government is explicitly constitutional and so stated in the very first Article of the U. S. Constitution, not as an afterthought.


This is a large and complex country, and our problems are myriad and varied. There are no simple “sound bite” answers, and if that is all you are hearing, I suggest you stop to think for a moment about the probability of that simple solution’s becoming a reality. As citizens, it is our own responsibility to check the truth of what we see, read, and hear. Just because we read it in an e-mail does not make it true. Be careful when you hear some TV pundit make an allegation and then end it with a question. Example: Some say that aliens are now running the military. Is it true? Or be careful when you yourself say “I heard that….” if you are not absolutely certain of your own facts.


Yes, we live in the Age of Information. We network like meth head spiders. We tweet and Face Book, e-mail and text, talk and talk and chat and chat. But do we ever research anything? Not often enough. Maybe it’s time we did.

Fear and Loathing in the U. S. A.

Fear and Hate are a duo with a history as long as humans have peopled the planet. It is that fear of The Other, of those who look different from us, who speak a different language than we do, who practice customs or religions unfamiliar to ours that make us uncomfortable, suspicious, and afraid. It has been so as long as our country has existed, and sadly, still is.


I was naïve, I know, to believe that Americans were on the road to recovery from our ugly past, a past that included: forcing Native Americans onto the Trail of Tears and into reservations on worthless land; of interning Japanese Americans during World War II, even though they had been born here and were citizens of this country; of enslaving African Americans early in our history and then forcing them into economic and social servitude even after the Civil War.


I was rosy-eyed to a fault when I truly believed that the Jim Crow Era would end the moment people heard Martin Luther King’s Dream Speech. And I now know that I was a fool to believe that the election of a black president in my lifetime meant that we had finally come to terms with who were meant to be as a nation, a nation where anyone’s son or daughter could eventually grow up to be president. I hear racial slurs about our president and see signs with racial epithets and depictions not seen in public since the 1960’s except at a Klan or skin-head rally. Disagree with his policies if his views are contrary to yours, but do it without demeaning his parentage or questioning his citizenry. Those who insist that he is an Other, a man illegally holding our highest office because he wasn’t born here--all evidence to the contrary—must be hysterical or hate-filled.


I have lost track of how many groups have been labeled with epithets and regarded as inferior in our history, many of whom continue to be, even in the 21st century: Native Americans, Jews, African Americans, Catholics, Irish, Italians, Eastern Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, Hispanics, Muslims, women, gays and lesbians, people who are mentally challenged, just to name a few.


The United States of America was an idea, inspired by enlightened ideals. Men penning the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, those uttering uplifting phrases like “all men are created equal,” owned slaves and accepted that all free women were little more than chattel. And yet they wrote that we were forming “a more perfect union.” Are we there yet? Obviously not. Are we closer than we have been? Yes. Should we continue to strive for that ideal? Absolutely yes.


Is it all right for all of us to take our eyes off the majesty of the promise in our founding documents? Shouldn’t all of us keep our eyes on that prize? More than ever, each of us has to try harder to treat others as we would have them treat us. Instead of listening to those who spew hatred, turn away and perform a random act of kindness. Try to transform fear of The Other into trying to understand those who seem different and unlike you.


And yes, I know how sappy this sounds, how all unicorns and puppies I seem. I realize that there is plenty of ugly out there and that sociopaths, fanatics, and truly amoral and immoral people exist. But I also know that not all Muslims are al-Qaida, that all African American males are not gang bangers, that all illegals are not part of the Mexican drug cartel, that all strong women are not femi-Nazis, that all gays and lesbians are not a threat to hetero-sexual marriage.


If all of us would just limit our application of that broad brush with which we paint those who are different from us, it would be a beginning. Remember, for every travesty with which you accuse one of “Them,” there is someone of your ilk who has done the same or worse.