BLAST FROM THE PAST- Friday, November 6, 2020: HOW HAVE WE COME TO THIS? THE INCOMPETENCE, IRRATIONALITY, CRIMINALITY, AND BETRAYAL THAT HAS LEAD THE U.S. TO EDGE OF THE ABYSS. PART 1.

  

Since the Democrats are continuing their efforts to make things as easy as possible for TRUMP to add another Mediocre Legal Mind to the Supreme Court, furthering the FASCIST AGENDA THAT IS THE REAL GOAL OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, it is time to lay out the INCOMPETENCE, IRRATIONALITY, CRIMINALITY, AND BETRAYAL THAT HAS LEAD THE U.S. TO EDGE OF THE ABYSS.

#1- WHY DID THE REPUBLICAN PARTY BLOCK PRESIDENT OBAMAS CHOICE FOR THE SUPREME COURT MERRICK GARLAND?

The simple answer is to block a Well-Respected, Deserving, and Highly Regarded Legal Mind who would not blindly obey their Fascist Ideology. However, it was more than just that;

A TEST:
IT WAS TO SEE HOW MUCH, AND WHAT TYPE OF OPPOSITION REPUBLICANS WOULD FACE IF THEY DECIDED THAT REGAINING POWER AND KEEPING IT, COULD BE ACHIEVED THROUGH UNCONSTITUTIONAL METHODS. WITH A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION COMING UP, JUST HOW FAR COULD THEY PUSH THE DEMOCRATS (ESPECIALLY THOSE IN THE SENATE), INTO GIVING UP POLITICAL GROUND WITHOUT A FIGHT.

Again, here is the Text from SECTION 2 OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION:
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

That's it. There are no Qualifications, What-Ifs, Different Scenarios etc; TO DO CONSTITUTIONALLY WHAT MCCONNELL DID WOULD REQUIRE AMENDING THE DOCUMENT. THERE ARE NO PRECEDENTS THAT WOULD ALLOW THE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER TO DO WHAT HE DID. NONE. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A CASE WHERE A PRESIDENTIAL SUPREME COURT NOMINEE WAS DENIED A HEARING AND VOTE BEFORE THE U.S. SENATE.

I can understand why REPUBLICANS didn't object, (HONOR AND DUTY IS NOT PART OF BEING A REPUBLICAN THESE DAYS), BUT FOR SENATE DEMOCRATS TO ACCEPT THIS IS INEXCUSABLE. EVEN IF THEY ACCEPTED MCCONNELL'S EXPLANATION THAT THE NEXT PRESIDENT SHOULD MAKE THE CHOICE, A LAWSUIT TAKEN INTO COURT WOULD HAVE SET LIMITS AND GUIDELINES. LIKE THE FOLLOWING:

"THAT IN FUTURE ELECTIONS, SHOULD A VACANCY OPEN UP, THE COURT REQUIRES THAT THE SAME STANDARDS AND PRECEDENTS THAT HAVE BEEN SET IN THIS CASE MUST BE FOLLOWED." 

THIS TYPE OF RULING WOULD PREVENT CONTINUOUS PERSONAL PREJUDICES, PARTY POLITICS, AND CRIMINAL INTENT FROM TURNING THE PROCESS INTO A 3 RING CIRCUS.
LIKE MCCONNELL AND TRUMP ARE DOING NOW.

HOW LUDICROUS IS THIS? IF WE, AGAIN, ACCEPT MCCONNELLS EXPLANATION THAT THE NEXT PRESIDENT SHOULD MAKE THE CHOICE, THEN GIVING JUDGE GARLAND THE CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED HEARING BEFORE THE SENATE WOULD NOT HAVE CHANGED THE ULTIMATE OUTCOME. WITH A REPUBLICAN MAJORITY VOTING NOT TO APPROVE PRESIDENT OBAMAS CHOICE, (WHICH THEY CAN DO CONSTITUTIONALLY), THEY COULD HAVE FORCED A DELAY UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION. 

THIS WAS THE REAL TEST, AND SENATE DEMOCRATS FAILED MISERABLY. 

TO BE CONTINUED...

Three recent victories for science. UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS.

 

David-- The Union of Concerned Scientists has been fighting for a healthier planet and putting science-based solutions into action for more than 50 years. Working together with our members and supporters, we’re building the power needed to restore science to its rightful place in our democracy, and we’re confident our most important accomplishments lie ahead. Check out these recent victories that UCS supporters and members like you made possible: Victory #1: Scientific integrity codified in US government We have led the demand for independent, impartial science informing federal policies since 2004, when we coined the term “scientific integrity.” A recently signed presidential memo now includes numerous UCS recommendations on restoring federal science. Read more about it on the UCS blog. Victory #2: First statewide electric truck standard With detailed analysis, active engagement by our experts, and more, we helped move the California Air Resources Board to pass the first statewide electric truck sales standard for truck manufacturers. This is the biggest step to-date for electric trucks, and every diesel truck replaced with an electric truck has an immediate positive impact on public health. Share the great news on Twitter. Victory #3: Stopped EPA from banning science advice We joined an individual advisory committee member in suing the Enivronmental Protection Agency over a policy that banned many of the nation’s top environmental scientists from serving on the agency’s science advisory committees. Several other organizations also filed separate lawsuits challenging the directive. In a win for independent science, a federal court of appeals found that the EPA has a responsibility to ensure that committees are protected from special interest influence. Learn more. I hope you’re proud of these victories, David. By joining the UCS community, they’re what your support can make possible when we stand up for science together. Sincerely, Karla Capers Director of Engagement P.S. You can make your support for science go even further by making a gift today.

Science for a healthy planet and safer world Get updates and alerts from UCS: Text SCIENCE to 662266 About UCS | Contact UCS | Privacy Policy | unsubscribe © Union of Concerned Scientists is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization 2 Brattle Square, Cambridge, MA 02138 (617) 547-5552

THE CONSTITUTION IS MORE THAN JUST THE 2ND AMENDMENT. UPDATE, 4/8/2021.

 

In a recent article Titled; "BY DEFINITION: GUN CONTROL, AND THE 2ND AMENDMENT," I began an analysis of the Meaning contained in the TERMINOLOGY used in the 2ND AMENDMENT. To complement that line of reasoning, I have decided to use this post to look at other parts of the BILL OF RIGHTS, and see if that can aid us in properly interpreting the true meaning contained in the 2nd Amendment. 

To do this, we must understand the following: THAT THE BILL OF RIGHTS CONTAINS TWO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF RIGHTS THAT WERE CREATED AND DRAFTED BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS, AND INTERPRETED BY SUBSEQUENT JUDICIAL REVIEW AND PRECEDENT.

ABSOLUTE RIGHTS- RIGHTS THAT CAN NEVER BE LOST OR TAKEN AWAY BY THE STATE. (ALTHOUGH THEY MAY BE GIVEN UP VOLUNTARILY.) ALSO, THAT THEY ARE NOT DEPENDENT UPON SPECIFIC EVENTS OR CIRCUMSTANCES.

 

For Example:

   Amendment VI- INCLUDES SEVERAL EXAMPLES OF ABSOLUTE RIGHTS.

  "All criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

    

CONTINGENT RIGHTS- RIGHTS EXTENDED TO THE INDIVIDUAL THAT ARE SUBJECT TO POSSIBLE LIMITATION OR TERMINATION DEPENDING ON THE INDIVIDUALS ACTIONS AND/OR INTENT IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS OR SPECIFIC EVENTS. 

    For Example:                                                                                                                        

The First Amendment reads as follows: 

""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

FROM THE FIRST AMENDMENT, WE FIND THE FOLLOWING CONTINGENT RIGHTS.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH-  DOES NOT ALLOW US TO SAY ANYTHING 

WE WANT, ANYWHERE WE WANT, AT ANY TIME, AND USE "FREEDOM

OF SPEECH" AS A UNIVERSAL DEFENSE TO AVOID SANCTIONS OR 

PUNISHMENTS.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION-  DOES NOT ALLOW POLYGAMY, PHYSICAL

ABUSE, CONSUMPTION OF CERTAIN DRUGS, DISCRIMINATION IN THE

EMPLOYMENT SECTOR...AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO BE COVERED 

BY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

FOR OUR PURPOSES, WHEN DISCUSSING THE 2ND AMENDMENT, CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:

THAT EVEN IF YOU HOLD TO THE OPINION THAT EVERY CITIZEN HAS A "RIGHT" TO OWN OR POSSESS A GUN OR FIREARM, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE STATE CANNOT SET GUIDELINES OR RULES TO:

-  RESTRICT THE FIREPOWER OR DESTRUCTIVE POTENTIAL OF EACH FIREARM.

-  SET A MINIMAL STANDARD OF INTELLECTUAL AND/OR

MENTAL COMPETENCE OF THOSE OBTAINING SUCH A WEAPON.

-  MAINTAIN STANDARDS OF MORAL CHARACTER (CRIMINAL) OF THE INDIVIDUAL.

BEFORE THEY ARE ALLOWED TO LEGALLY POSSESS A GUN.

HISTORY HAS SHOWN US THAT UNRESTRICTED SPEECH AND UNINHIBITED RELIGIOUS PRACTICES, IN THE HANDS OF UNSCRUPULOUS AND SELF- CENTERED INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS, CAN CAUSE SUCH DESTRUCTION THAT IT COULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE DESTRUCTION OF WHOLE SOCIETIES AND CULTURES. THIS IS WHY EVEN OUR MOST REVERED "RIGHTS" MUST BE CAREFULLY EXAMINED FOR POSSIBLE ABUSE.

SO, SHOULD WE CONTINUE TO SUBJECT EVERY AMERICAN TO A LEGAL SYSTEM WHERE "RIGHTS" OF FREE SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE "RIGHT"  TO POSSESS AN AUTOMATIC WEAPON WITH AN AMMO CLIP THAT COULD KILL SCORES OF PEOPLE IN ONE OR TWO MINUTES?

To find a reasonable solution, or compromise,

we must ask the following questions.

Question #1-  Do we Agree that there are certain Individuals and/or Groups

that SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ACCESS TO FIREARMS. If so, who and why?

Question #2-   Have Previous Judicial Decisions and Legislative Actions set

 PRECEDENTS as to what ACTIONS ARE PERMISSIBLE and COVERED BY THE

"BILL OF RIGHTS" SET FORTH IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION?

WHAT MANY AMERICANS SEEM TO FORGET IS THE FOLLOWING:

YES, IT SEEKS TO PREVENT UNREASONABLE GOVERNMENT

INTRUSION INTO LIVES OF ITS CITIZENS, BUT IT ALSO...

...CREATES GUIDELINES THAT THOSE SAME CITIZENS DO NOT USE

THE "BILL OF RIGHTS" TO ABUSE AND HARM OTHER CITIZENS WITH

UNREASONABLE, MALICIOUS, AND UNJUSTIFIED WORDS AND ACTIONS.

Question #3- CAN ANY PROPOSED LIMITATIONS ON THE 2ND

AMENDMENT BE...

-   ...UNACHIEVABLE, OR WILL NOT

   PRODUCE DESIRABLE RESULTS?

-  ...AN UNREASONABLE BURDEN 

   ON THE LAW ABIDING GUN OWNER?

-  ...A PUNISHMENT ON HONEST GUN OWNERS, INSTEAD OF

   REINFORCING THE RESPONSIBLE DECISIONS THEY

   ALREADY MAKE?

OUR CLIMATE PLAN. MASS. GUBERNATORIAL CAND. BEN DOWNING.

 DAVID,

We have seen and lived the difference state leadership makes. When Massachusetts had great leaders, we launched a clean energy revolution and led the way on tackling climate change. 

But with the Republican Baker administration at the helm, we lost the urgency that fueled our progress. We lost our will to act. And our economy, environment, infrastructure and social safety net are weaker for it.

After a decade in the State House, Ben kept his promise of a self-imposed term limit. He then went on to dedicate himself to addressing climate change and joined a leading renewable energy company in Massachusetts.

Now, Ben is running for Governor of Massachusetts to bring his deep knowledge and experience in renewable energy to our state government. 

That’s why we’re so excited to announce our campaign’s Climate Plan today — the first of many policies we’ll be rolling out in the coming weeks. 

Exactly what’s in Ben’s Climate Plan?

• Massachusetts will commit to meet 100% of electricity demand with clean energy by 2030.
• Massachusetts will commit to meet all non-electricity demand (heating, cooling and transportation) with clean energy by 2040.
• Massachusetts will make a comprehensive climate justice commitment, requiring that 50% of all climate spending directly benefits designated environmental justice communities and reforms proactively address issues of equity, discrimination, and disproportionate harm.
• Every department within the Massachusetts state government will have in its mission to consider and minimize the impact of their operations on climate change.
• Massachusetts will maximize the transition to a clean energy economy to create new industries, companies and jobs and make the investments needed to keep opportunities local and maximize the economic benefit of all climate-related policies.

We are continually listening and taking into account your thoughts and concerns so we can lead with you and all of our communities in mind. Please take a moment to share your thoughts on our Climate Plan:

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Stay tuned for updates and upcoming policy rollouts!

— Team Ben
 

 

DONATE

PAID FOR BY THE DOWNING COMMITTEE