Disappointmen

This election season has been a great disappointment to me. What I see is a system that is so far from the dream of government the society that our forefathers envisioned by our founding fathers. Obama has only been able to serve abou 2 1/2 -3 years of his second term in office. Since the middle of last year, Congress has been virtually out of session because members became involved in supporting their positions for the next election. Substantive bills related to signiicant issues facing our country that have been proposed are sent to committee, and never brought to the floor. They stay in Committee so that most of the members of Congress are not fuly aware of their contents. These comittees are, of course, bi-partisan, but generally include senior members of Congress. These committee members then decide whether the bill is to be presented to Congress. Simple bills, like renaming a post office or dedicating a highway the "So and So Memorial Highway", can be passed along to Congress rather quickly, but bills of more susbtantive nature - generally bills related to immgration policies, or term limits, or mminimum wage, or gun control, or the Federal budget - remain in committee. The issue seems to be that if they are brught to a vote, there would be a record available to constituents of how the person they elected to represent them voted. This can be a serious problem in the months preceding an election. Congressmen seem to fear that if their constituents see how they actually voted on an issue, they may not feel that their concerns are being represented. Major bills are often not brought to the floor until one party or the other is sure they have enough votes promised to pass or defeat the bill in question. No longer is there debate on the floor by those supporting or opposing the bill. If there were, those comments and opinions would become part of the federal register which is available to everyone, so constituents back home can know what is transpiring in the great halls of Congress. This is a far cry from the dream of our forefathers. They envisioed a representative democracy where candidates would reach out to the people they wanted to represent, listen to their opinions and ideas, present their own views on what the government should be doing. Bills would be brought to the floor of the Senate or House of Representatives and would be debated on the floor and then voted upon. These activities would all be recorded in the Federal Register as a public record available to anyone who wanted to look for it. This is a far cry from today. Today.the only things you will find are votes on items like the naming of Post Offices. The only time you will find a record of the vote on any substantive issue is after it has been decided behind closed doors. This is certainly a far cry from the vision of how a representative democracy would appear.

DREAM

Now, to get off politics  for a while, even though that can be a little difficult when we're being so bombarded every day.  Last night I had a sort of dream - the kind of dream that makes people wonder, sometimes, whether or not I'm really grounded here on earth.  In the dream, I was a child in my early teens, and somehow started to talk to someone about some of the things that I think about.  It turned out that he taught a sort of class on meditation, and said I could participate if I chose.  Of course I did, so I went with him to the class.  The room was a soft yellow.  There were big pillows on the floor, and two other adults were sitting on them, so I sat down.  There was soft Middle Eastern music and everyone had a cup of tiny colored seeds in front of them, He began a soft meditation with the Indian music in the background.  He had us swirl the seeds around and focus on the patterns that had formed.  The others seemed to go into the meditation deeply, and seemed to be enthralled with what they were doing.  I wanted to be able do that so much, but my logical brain kept saying it was nothing but colored seeds in a cup.  But I wouldn't give up.  I kept staring at the seeds as I heard the music and the soft voice of the man leading the meditation, and gradually my mind began to lose that logical strait-jacket.  I let myself just open up and feel, and as I did, the reality of the seeds began to fade.  The seeds became a portal through which I could perceive the invisible world that lies beyond what we commonly define as "reality".  Everything slowly became even more real and complete.  Everything seemed to expand to dimensions beyond the three that compose our reality that is limited by our logical mind. It was deeeper than anything I had experienced. I wanted to go in more and more deeply, but the logical prt of me kept pulling me back.  It told me that what I was feeling was completely imaginary - that reality was limited to what we could touch or taste or hear or feel.  What I was able to pull out and retain was that those seeds contained the essence of everything that is - that they were all part of the One - just as each and every one of us is part of the One. I so wanted to be able to stay in that awareness with all that is.  It was so warm, so wonderful, so fulfilling, so satisfying to be there.  I wanted to stay, and go further, to absorb more, but I was afraid I would not be able to come back and that many people would be deeply hurt.  They would continue to be part of my world.  I would still be there and be a part of each and every one of them, but they would not be able to maintain their awareness of me.  It was such a beautiful dream, but I could never hurt others like that.  Maybe it will happen when all of humanity, evolves to the same level.  I guess maybe now you can send in the men in white coats.

dream

As the campaign continues on its mad course, I hear many of the candidates focusing on the need to go back to the actUAl wording of the Constitution, but for those of us who read the Constitution it seems that perhaps they need glasses.  For example, thley often refer to our Scond Amendment rights to support free and unrestricted access to any type of firearms to anyone over the age of 18.  But what does lhe Second Amendment actually say?  It says "A well reguated militia, being necessary to the security 0f a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.".   The amendment relates that right to the need for a well regulated militia.  Of coursee, to my knowledge, there  are few, if any, currently active militias (unless one considers the army reserve or actiive duty personnel), but there is, of course, always the possible need of raising one quickly.  There should be no problem in requiring gun owners to register firearms.  Every one who drives a car is required to register it.  In order to drive the car, one must be licensed, and becoming licenses a background check is required to eliminate persons who are blind, or who have a medical problem such as untreatable seizures, of have previously had their license revoked due to dangerous driving habits such as vehicular manslaughter, or repeated offenses related to reckless driving.  They would not allow you to register a 20 ton earth mover.  How is this different from requiring registration and background checks for purchasing a firearm?   The NRA and others who oppose ny type of gun laws  argue that the purpose of any gun law is to take away our guns, but I'm 72 years old and I have never heard of any intent  to take away the right of citizens to purchase or own firearms by any elected political body.  The only purpose behind these arguments is to generate fear in the American people against what the government COULD do, not the reality of what they WOULD do.  There us no evidence gun legislation being considered in any way impact Our Second Amendment rights.   Unfortunately, certain segments of our government who claim to support a "strict interpretation" of our Constitutiom are willing to admit that gun control regulatory regulations in no way violates the "right to keep and bar arms" that is the core of our Second  Amendment rights.

Another example of the violation of  the "Strict Interpretation"  requirement of the Constitution that in order to hold the office of President, a person must be a "natural born Citizen" of the United States specified in Article II Section 1 of the Constitution.  The itzenship of a child has always been defind by the citizenship of the parent, but recently a federal judge has ruld that in order to be a natural born citizen, one must be physically born in the United States.  We have thousands of US servicemen and women stationed overseas, many of them with spouses anad children living off-base in the community some of them for many years.  Under this judge's decision, all children that tlhey might have that were born while they were stationed overseas. Under this judge's decision,  none of these children could be considered a "natural born Citizen" of the Unitd States.  The judge's decision to add, or change, or redefine a commonly understood  definition is in direct conflict with the concept of "strict interpretation of the Constitution" espoused by certain politicians.

We have already had accusations by Congress that the President should not even propose a candidate to replace Scalia on the Suppreme Court.  In fact, one of the Senatoors from Texas has stated that by doing that, he is overstepping his Constitutional authority.  In fact, Congress seems to feel that he is overstopping his authority by issuing excutive orders, and that by so doing, he is usurping their authority to enact any attempt to chande the sttus quo.  In fact, the Senaator from Texas states athat the President is abusing his power by these acts,  H clharges that by thes actions lthe President is trying to LEAD this country.  To lead this country?  Isn't that why we elected him?  Wasn't that the "will of the peope"?  Are the rights of those who elected the Pesident to do his job as delinieated in the Constition to be ingored   in favor of those that Congress hopes are elected nearly a year in the future? Resulting in a Congress evenly divided betwen those that have more conservative values and those who espouse a more liberal interpretation?

Former  Justice Scalia supported a "strict interpretation" of the Constitution.  The current Congress claims that they follow that interpretaion, using that as a basis for refusing to act on the Presidenet's proposed replacement for former Justice Scalia.  Apparently they are unaware of Section Article II, Section 2 of the constitution defining the duties of the President which specify that "He (the President) shall have power, by and with the Advise and Consent of the Semate.to ----------- (to) appoint-------- Judges of the Supreme Court".  A strict interpretation of the Constitution thus cleary states the right (and the responsibility) to appoint a new Supreme Court judge, and the right (and responsibility) of Congress to act  on that proposal, and that right (and responsiblity)