On the Second Amendment and Firearms Ownership

Re:  The Second Amendment

1) Let’s make it clear that the Founders intend for the Right to Bear Arms to be *both* an individual and a collective right.  The individual has the right to have firearms for self-defense and for sustenance [hunting].  The States have the right to create militias to enforce the laws and to provide for defense of the community from external and internal threats – including rebellion and insurrection, which leads us to…

2)  The Second Amendment *does not* enshrine a right of revolution, rebellion, or insurrection.  This is one of the most common myths floating around out there.  It would be illogical [and unwise] for a government to provide for its own destruction through force of arms.  Instead, the Constitution of 1789 provides for multiple mechanisms to change the government:  by legislation; by election; by Amendment; and by calling a Constitutional Convention.  The Constitution also provides that a Constitutional Convention may be called by either the States or by the People directly through some sort of undefined convention system.  A Constitutional Convention – despite language that it is only to propose amendments – is considered to the power to completely rewrite the government as the Convention of 1789 did with the Article of Confederation.  We have never had a Con. Con., though we came close in 1986 [over the issue of a Balanced Budget Amendment].

3)  There is a natural right to revolution against tyranny, but this is not a legal right.  First, in a participatory democratic and free republic such as ours, members of the society who are able to meaningfully participate in that democracy have *no* right of revolution at all.  Only those classes that are not afforded the protection of law or who do not have the right to participate [i.e. vote] have a natural right of revolution.  Thus, blacks prior to 1866 – and maybe before 1964, at least in the segregationist states – had a right to revolution.  Also, women prior to being given the right to vote would have also been within their natural rights to rebellion.  The question of whether these revolutions would have been successful leads us to…

4)  If a group uses its natural right of revolution, it had darn well better win or, if it loses, had better pray that the victors are charitable.  Early in the days of the Republic, the new federal government faced the Whiskey Rebellion.  President Washington’s government took a peaceful route and attempted to negotiate with the rebels.  When that failed, Federal Marshall’s were sent in to enforce the tax laws the rebels were protesting.  Upon successfully quelling the Whiskey Rebellion, Washington’s administration elected to not prosecute the rebels and, when the State of Pennsylvania did, President Washington pardoned those convicted.

Following the Civil War, President Lincoln urged a peaceful reconciliation using the famous phrase “With charity towards all and malice towards none.”  Following his assassination, President Johnson followed this and was nearly impeached by the Radical Republicans in Congress who wanted to see the Confederate Rebels punished.  In fact, only one Confederate was found guilty of treason – the commander of the infamous Andersonville Prison where thousands of Union soldiers died from horrible neglect.

5)  All rights and liberties have bounds and the question of what those bounds are may change over time.  For instance, it used to be that pornography was illegal, but now is generally considered protected by the First Amendment – a case of loosing of bounds.  A reverse situation can be found following the Fourteenth Amendment when the U.S. Supreme Court essentially gutted the protections and privileges of that Amendment – without major protest or opposition from either of the other branches nor from the State government.  This castration of the Fourteenth Amendment lasted until the New Deal and was finally ended in the wake of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

6)  The Constitution says that the State’s may have militias, but subject to rules established by Congress.  A counter-check is given to the States in that the States appoints the officers of the militia.  Also, the Federal government may call upon the militias.  Thus, if a State attempted to rebel using its militia, the Federal government may simply call that militia into service to suppress the rebellion.  Of course, the members of that militia and its officers may attempt to ignore such an order which is really what caused the Secession Crisis of the Winter of 1860/1861 to become a full blown war.  We are taught about Fort Sumter, but in other places Federal troops refused to acquiesce to State demands to surrender Federal forts.  In Texas, Governor Sam Houston resigned rather than attempt to order the State militia to move upon Federal property.

A more recent example is when President Eisenhower called upon the Arkansas National Guard [the National Guard is the modern version of the militia] to enforce the Supreme Court rulings on desegregation.  Fortunately that situation did not devolve into a Second Civil War [on a side note, perhaps if the United States did not have the Soviet Union as our Cold War enemy at the time, the desegregation movement could have become a Second Civil War].

7)  Following the National Guard Act of 1910 (I think), the militias were restructured into two groups – the Structured and Unstructured.  The Structured is the active members of the National Guard that we are most familiar with.  The Unstructured National Guard though included *every* able-bodied and able-minded male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45 who were not conscientious objectors.  Today, in light of Supreme Court case law regarding gender equality, I think it can be argued that every citizen [and perhaps even resident] of the United States, fit in mind and body, is a part of the Unstructured National Guard – unless they have a legitimate conscientious objection to service.

This is one of the theories behind why a military draft is constitutional.  Indeed, if a crisis is severe enough, the qualifications may be expanded to include teenagers and people over 45.  Also, conscientious objectors may be called into non-combat service as happened in WW I and WW II.  Further, those who are not physically fit for combat service [what they used to label as 4-F] may still be drafted to perform essential non-combat service within their capabilities.  For instance, if the U.S. had had to invade Japan in late 1945/early 1946 as had been planned, there were provisions for 4-F recruits to be brought in to serve as support staff and, if manpower shortages were affecting industry, to be compelled to serve in vital industries.

8)  Historically, prior to the American Revolution, many colonies made it an affirmative duty for every male citizen to be prepared for militia service by keeping various lists of equipment – including firearms and ammunition.  If a person had religious objections or refused to participate, they were fined and ordered to pay to provide the equipment to someone who could not afford the necessary equipment themselves.

9)  In light of all of this, it is clear that Congress and the Federal Government may create reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms by creating rules to delineate what it means to be a member of the militia and who is qualified to be in the militia.  Also, State governments may limit what type of weapons may be used for the right of sustenance and when that right may be used.  Thus, we have laws creating hunting seasons and forbidding such things as crossbows or spearfishing by non-tribal individuals.

10)  In one of the few cases dealing with the Second Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Miller case way back in the 1930s that government may forbid the use possession of a sawed-off shotgun as it was not a weapon one would normally expect to see in military service as standard issue.  Indeed, the Geneva Conventions specifically banned shotguns.  At the time of the Miller case, standard issue weaponry was a rifle and, if an officer, a pistol.

So, what are reasonable boundaries for the right to bear arms considering all of the above?  I propose the following.

• Firearm ownership would be mandatory for all qualified citizens pursuant to the duty to be a member of the militia.  That would be those of able-mind, over the age of 18, and not conscientious objectors.  If a cons. obj. then they must pay a fine to support training and production.  Notice that I do not included “able-bodied” as a restriction.  The right to self-defense and the right to hunt should not be limited merely due to physical handicap.  As to those under 18, their right to hunt can be protected by requiring a training program but limiting their right to possess fire-arms to only those used in hunting and in the presence of a qualified adult.

• Every member of the militia would be subject to a period of initial education and training using a nation-wide standardized certification program.  I imagine that this could be done by members of the military or by law enforcement.

• Prior to this training, candidates would be subject to a background check.  Prior felony convictions or substantial misdemeanor violations of the law could be disqualifiers.  This initial training could be done piece-meal to accommodate the trainees personal schedule.  This training would also include what can be fairly called indoctrination classes to foster a pro-American attitude. 

  Also, prior to training, candidates would undergo an initial psychological evaluation which, with modern technology, could be done via computer.  During or following training but prior to certification, a trainer, instructor, supervisor, or group of fellow trainees may recommend that an individual undergo further and more detailed psychological examination by a professional counselor.  Mental illness would not necessarily be prohibitive, if low-level or controlled by medication.  Candidates would also be subject to drug and alcohol testing.

• Further, if there are concerns about a trainee’s loyalty to the American system of liberty, a trainee can, upon recommendation by a supervisor, be subjected to further inquiry by a qualified board of officials.
  Once qualified and certified, a member of the militia is issued basic standard equipment.  I imagine that we would follow the example of nations like Sweden, Switzerland, and Israel in what this would be.  Possibly a set of military fatigues, a gas mask, a rifle, a sealed box of ammunition; maybe a pistol and ammunition; and possible some form of small-caliber machine gun.

• Re-certification training would be required yearly.  This could be as little as a couple of weekends.  This would also give an opportunity for the trainers to evaluate a member’s mental health and, if need be, recommend further inquiry.  Again, there would be drug and alcohol testing at this time.

• Only people who have gone through militia certification may have military grade weaponry.  Again, allowance would be made for minors to hunt and for the disabled to hunt and have personal fire-arms for self-defense.

• Private production of modern style firearms [non-musket; non-flintlocks] would be illegal.  Only government sanctioned monopolies would be allowed to produce these classes of firearms.

• New firearms would only be available for purchase from a government sanctioned facility – such as Alcohol Beverage Control [ABC] stores in some jurisdictions for alcohol.

• Ammunition could still be produced by private businesses and sold and various outlets.  However, it would be taxed at rates based, in part, upon consideration of the lethality or harm caused by the ammo.  Certainly classes of ammunition – armor-piercing, hollow points, etc. – could be banned completely.  One area of protestation regarding this is the question of criminals with body armor.  In all seriousness I suggest that a shotgun blast to the face or a shot gun slug to the armored body will do a great deal to stop an attack by a individual wearing body armor.   [And, with just a touch of facetiousness, I suggest that a flamethrower would be effective against body-armor as well.  And yes, small flamethrowers for agricultural purposes are available for commercial purchase.]

• Black powder muskets and flintlock pistols could still be produced by private business or licensed individuals.
  Every firearm would have a title and registration number similar to what we do with vehicles.  Any private transfer of firearms would have to be registered.  All firearms from before the new rules would need to be registered and titled.  So, no more gun shows or unsupervised gun sales.
  There would be no concealed carry, however open carry by qualified individuals would be allowed.  My thinking on this is that citizens have a right to know which of their fellow citizens is armed so that they may elect to avoid that person or situation.
  While no firearms from before the new rules would be confiscated simply because of their class, ammunition for those weapons could be restricted and be taxed quite heavily.
• Uniform and nation-wide laws and penalties for the violation of those laws would be created.  Severe mandatory-minimums would be established for certain crimes such as theft of a firearm or defacing the registration markings.

• Possession of firearms by non-law enforcement, non-active military is certain places could be prohibited – bars, churches, courthouses.  Though such limits would have to be reasonable and not so restrictive as to effectively ban possession of firearms by the general citizenry.
• Finally, if a member of a household is considered to be mentally unstable or dangerous to themselves or others, even the qualified members of the household may be prohibited from having certain classes of firearms in their homes.

I think the above is a fair balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of society.  I also think it is a fair compromise between the radical positions on both sides of the issue.  And, through ammunition taxation and by financial penalty associated with either non-militia membership or low-level violations of the rules, regulations, and laws of this scheme, I think a substantial part of the costs of this program would be covered thus lowering its financial burden on society.

 If I’ve missed anything, or if anyone has any specific concerns, please feel free to comment.

The Electoral College and Proportional Representation

Recently there’s been a bit of a hubbub in the media over attempts by Republican legislators in a number of states – including my own Wisconsin – to change the way their Electoral College votes [EVs] are allocated.

Of the 51 geopolitical entities (50 states plus D.C.) that are allowed Electoral College votes, 49 of them use a winner-take-all system where the winner of the popular vote in that state takes all of that state’s EVs. However, Maine and Nebraska use a system where their EVs are divided into two classes. Remember that a state is allocated a number of EVs equal to their representation in Congress. Thus, every state has two EV because each state has two senators and at least one EV because every state gets at least one representative in the House. So every state, no matter how small, gets at least 3 EV. The District of Columbia also gets 3 EV even though it is not a state thanks to the 26th Amendments. D.C., however, is capped at 3 EV no matter what it would have if it were a state.

So, Maine and Nebraska divide their EVs into a class based on House of Representative disctricts [representative EVs] and a class of two senatorial EVs. In presidential elections in these states, the winner of the popular vote in each congressional district gets the EV associated with that district and the winner of the state-wide popular votes wins the two senatorial EVs. In practice, this has only led to one split delegation when, in 2008, Barack Obama won one EV in Nebraska (the Omaha district) while John McCain won the other two congressional EVs and the two senatorial EVs.

I have previously discussed how one of the great flaws in our system is the gerrymandering of House districts and the resulting entrenchment of one party-dominated districts and the disenfranchisement of supporters of other political parties in those districts. Under the Maine/Nebraska [ME/NE] system, gerrymandering would become a far more powerful, and dangerous, flaw.

So why are these other states even considering the ME/NE method? Because if it had been in place nationwide, Mitt Romney would have won the 2012 Presidential election. Even if it weren’t nationwide, if only certain key states – Florida, Virginia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, and Minnesota – had used such a system, then neither candidate would have received a majority in the Electoral College and the winner would have been decided by the House of Representatives which would have also resulted in President Romney.

And while such a change would be perfectly constitution, the media has rightfully been making a stink about this as a clear example of the losers deciding to change the rules rather than recognizing their failure as a political party. But what bugs me is how the media keeps referring to this as “proportional representation” when the ME/NE system is really a first-past-the-post system. In a truly proportional representation system, a state’s EVs would be divvied out in proportion to the amount of support a candidate received over the whole state. Pennsylvania considered changing over to a true proportional system a few years ago, but ultimately rejected it.

So how would a truly proportional system have looked like this last election?

Here’s a chart with the raw data. I took the percentage of the popular vote a candidate won and multiplied it to get their raw percentage of the EV they won. Then, using normal rules of round, I rounded this percentage to give the final EV Total.

State	Total EV	Obama %	O-EV	Obama Rounded	Romney %	R-EV	Romney Rounded
AL	9	38.36	3.4524	3	60.55	5.4495	6
AK	3	40.81	1.2243	1	54.80	1.644	2
AZ	11	44.59	4.9049	5	53.65	5.9015	6
AR	6	36.88	2.2128	2	60.57	3.6342	4
CA	55	60.24	33.132	33	37.12	20.416	20
CO	9	51.49	4.6341	5	46.13	4.1517	4
CT	7	58.06	4.0642	4	40.73	2.8511	3
DE	3	58.61	1.7583	2	39.98	1.1994	1
DC	3	90.91	2.7273	3	7.28	0.2184	0
FL	29	50.01	14.5029	15	49.13	14.2477	14
GA	16	45.48	7.2768	7	53.30	8.528	9
HI	4	70.55	2.822	3	27.84	1.1136	1
ID	4	32.62	1.3048	1	64.53	2.5812	3
IL	20	57.6	11.52	12	40.73	8.146	8
IN	11	43.93	4.8323	5	54.13	5.9543	6
IA	6	51.99	3.1194	3	46.18	2.7708	3
KS	6	37.99	2.2794	2	59.71	3.5826	4
KY	8	37.80	3.024	3	60.49	4.8392	5
LA	8	40.58	3.2464	3	57.78	4.6224	5
ME	4	56.27	2.2508	2	40.98	1.6392	2
MD	10	61.97	6.197	6	35.90	3.596	4
MA	11	60.65	6.6715	7	37.51	4.1261	4
MI	16	54.21	8.6736	9	44.71	7.1536	7
MN	10	52.65	5.265	5	44.96	4.496	5
MS	6	43.79	2.674	3	55.29	3.3174	3
MO	10	44.38	4.438	4	53.76	5.376	5
MT	3	41.70	1.251	1	55.35	1.6605	2
NE	5	38.03	1.9015	2	59.80	2.99	3
NV	6	52.36	3.1416	3	45.68	2.7408	3
NH	4	51.98	2.0792	2	46.40	1.856	2
NJ	14	58.34	8.1676	8	40.62	5.6364	6
NM	5	52.99	2.6495	3	42.84	2.142	2
NY	29	63.32	18.3628	18	35.19	10.2051	10
NC	15	48.35	7.2525	7	50.39	7.5585	8
ND	3	38.70	1.161	1	58.32	1.7496	2
OH	18	50.67	9.1206	9	47.69	8.5842	9
OK	7	33.23	2.3261	2	66.77	4.6739	5
OR	7	54.24	3.7968	4	42.15	2.9505	3
PA	20	51.97	10.394	10	46.59	9.318	9
RI	4	62.70	2.508	3	35.24	1.4096	1
SC	9	44.09	3.9681	4	54.56	4.9104	5
SD	3	39.87	1.1961	1	57.89	1.7367	2
TN	11	39.08	4.2988	4	59.48	6.5428	7
TX	38	41.38	15.7244	16	57.17	21.7246	22
UT	6	24.75	1.485	2	72.79	4.3674	4
VT	3	66.57	1.9971	2	30.97	0.9291	1
VA	13	51.16	6.6508	7	47.28	6.1464	6
WA	12	56.16	6.7392	7	41.29	4.9548	5
WV	5	35.54	1.777	2	62.30	3.115	3
WI	10	52.83	5.283	5	45.89	4.589	5
WY	3	27.82	0.8346	1	68.64	2.0592	2
				272			261

As you can see, President Obama would have still won with 272 electoral votes to Mitt Romney’s 261. A razor thin victory, but a victory nonetheless.

But there are some interesting problems that arose from this exercise.

First, in Alabama, strictly sticking to rules of rounding would have led to Obama winning 4 EV instead of 3 which would have given Alabama a total EV of 10 rather than 9. So, I erred in favor of the candidate that won the majority.

Second, in California, Missouri, New York, and Pennsylvania some EVs are missing from the total of Obama and Romney. This is obviously the result of votes cast for third-party candidates, but no single third-party candidate in any of those states won enough of the vote to merit having a full EV. So what do we do with these “missing” EVs?

State	EV	O + R	Missing
CA	55	53	-2
MO	10	9	-1
NY	29	28	-1
PA	20	19	-1

Third, in states with an even number of EVs, a near tie – such as in Ohio – results in an even split while in a state with an odd number of EVs – such as Florida – a near-tie actually gives the overall winner an extra EV.

State	Total EV	Obama %	O-EV	Obama Rounded	Romney %	R-EV	Romney Rounded
FL	29	50.01	14.5029	15	49.13	14.2477	14
OH	18	50.67	9.1206	9	47.69	8.5842	9

Fourth, in large states, the percentage of votes needed to earn an EV is far lower than in small states. For instance, in California, a candidate needs 1.819% of the total vote to earn an elector. But, in Wyoming, a candidate needs 33.34% to earn an elector. Thus, third-party candidates would far better in larger states than in small ones.

One solution to these four problems would be to increase the number of electors by some multiplier such as five, ten, twenty, or even one hundred. But any increase in the total number of electors would increase the chance that no single candidate would win a majority of electors throwing the Presidential election to the House of Representatives to decide. Keep in mind that in such a situation, each state delegation votes within itself and each state gets one vote. Meanwhile, the Vice-President would be selected by the Senate with each Senator voting individually. What a mess.

Still, just remember that whenever anyone calls the Maine/Nebraska system “proportional” they’re simply wrong.

The Evil of States’ Rights: Part I

The idea that the states are co-sovereign with the federal government has been a pernicious vexation in our history.  In each stage of America’s history, our union has become more perfect by reducing the power of the states and increasing the strength of the union government.

Before the Revolution, the colonies were individual and separate units of the greater British Empire subject to the rule of the King and, after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the Westminster Parliament.  But the distance between the colonies and London gave the colonies de facto independence in most things.  Despite this, the colonies were never sovereign and still owed allegiance to the Crown of England.

During the French & Indian War (aka The Seven Years) of 1754-1763 saw the colonies united, with support from the motherland, in what would become by 1756 a world war.  Virginia and Pennsylvania’s claims to the Ohio Valley conflicted with France’s claim to the land between the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers. 

At the beginning of the war, representatives from the northern and middle colonies met in Albany to jointly plan the defense of their colonies and to consider uniting under a single government for defense and other “general purposes.”  This meeting ought to be considered the First Continental Congress, though historians use that designation for the Continental Congress of 1776.

The Albany Plan of Union called for a President-General to be appointed by and supported by the Crown with a Grand Council to be proportioned amongst the Colonies based upon the amount of revenue supplied and chosen by the Colonial Assemblies.  The plan was submitted to the various colonies and to King George III and was universally rejected.  Still, the idea of a continental union of the British colonies had taken root.

Later in 1774, as revolution loomed, the basic structure of the Albany Plan reappeared in the Joseph Galloway’s Plan of Union.  Galloway’s resolution actually called the idea of independence as “abhorrent.”  Narrowly defeated in committee by a vote of 6-5, the the radical revolutionaries won control of the Continental Congress.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch7s3.html

After months of trying to resolve the conflict between the Colonies and Britain, the separate colonies joined together and collectively declared independence from Great Britain in 1776.  Rather than acting as independent sovereigns, the colonies gave up authority on military and foreign affairs to the new union.  Then, under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, the former colonies – now calling themselves states – gave up more authority to the Union.  While the Confederation was mostly toothless, the States gave up the right to restrict travel amongst the former colonies, to make war, to form leagues with other states or with other nations, and to grant titles of nobility.  Further, certain powers were expressly given to the new union government.

During the short existence of the Confederation, various states settled conflicting claims over western territories by agreeing to the Northwest Ordinances, the one true success of the Confederal government.

But the Confederation was a lesser sovereign than the States and so was ineffective.  As the Union was deemed perpetual and indissolvable, a Second (third really) Continental Congress was convened to amend the Article.  The Congress quickly abandoned that idea and moved forward with a plan to write a new Constitution for the Union that would increase the power and authority of the central government.  The basic conflict at the Congress was how much power to give to the Union government. 

One end of the spectrum, led by Alexander Hamilton, called for granting plenary power to the Union and, while not calling for the destruction of the states completely, would have allowed the Union government to appoint the governors of each state and would thus have allowed the Union to veto any law passed by a state legislature, effectively removing an semblance of sovereignty from the states.

At the other end were those delegates who called for mere amendment of the Articles of Confederation.  This notion led to William Patterson’s New Jersey Plan of Union.  The New Jersey Plan clearly showed the belief that each state was an equal and independent member of the Union.  But even under it, the states gave up more powers.  It created a Federal Executive of multiple officers that was authorized to use force to compel compliance.  It made the Articles of Union and all treaties there under the supreme law.

Ultimately, the Second Continental Congress adopted a modified version of James Madison’s Virginia Plan that created a hybrid National/Confederal government and created American federalism.

Almost immediately after the new Constitution was adopted, federal authority was challenged by the Whiskey Rebellion in 1791.  The Whiskey Rebellion lasted until 1794 and saw the first draft (with associated draft riots) and the creation of a 13,000 strong army.  Though it was ultimately resolved peacefully, President Washington asserted federal power and showed a willingness to use force to put down insurrections.  Only two people were killed – one a boy shot when a soldier’s pistol accidentally discharged and a man stabbed to death by a soldier.  Interestingly, Washington had the two soldiers arrested and turned over to civilian authorities for trial.  Both were acquitted.  Mostly forgotten, the Whiskey Rebellion could have lead to the end of the nascent Constitution if the violence had spread or if the government had used too strong of a hand.

To be continued.

 

  

 

 

 

A New Beginning: Part II

So, where do we go from here?

During the lead up to the election, I realized that, while I could do a thorough and accurate analysis of many things, there are others out there who can do it faster, better, and – most relevant to me – actually get paid for it.  Bottom line of it is that I’m not getting paid to do instant analysis.  By the time that I find an open block that allows for deep thinking, the world has moved on to the new newsflash. 

Still, while there was a lot of good analysis, there was also a lot of shallow or embarrassingly derivative and obvious reading of the political tea leaves.

So, no more attempts at instant analysis of current events.  I think I ought to go back to the original idea of the blog:  Proposing a radical reworking of our Constitution.

In the months that I was running for office and working on other things, I continued to think about how our system is flawed and on possible fixes.  The break from the blog made me step back and review my proposed system and allowed me to see some problems with my solutions.

Now, is it presumptuous of me to propose a brand new Constitution for the U.S.? 

Yup.  Downright arrogant really.  I know that these ideas will in all likelihood never have a snowball’s chance of seeing implementation.  But maybe, just maybe, they’ll spur some thoughts in others that will lead to positive change.  A quixotic hope is better than no hope at all, ‘ey?

So, with all that in mind, let’s get started again on making a more perfect union by doing a quick overview of some of my main points.

CHANGING THE NAME

While I probably won’t change the name of the blog since I just renewed the domain registration, if this blog is ever made into a book, I’ll probably call it “United States of America”.  See what I did there?

America has a serious foundational flaw that has lead to almost every internal crisis we’ve ever had:  States’ Rights.

A New Beginning: Part 1

Well, it’s been a long, long time hasn’t it.

I didn’t intend for this to become a dead blog.  Really. 

I enjoyed researching for it and putting together my little articles on ideas to make American government better – even though I knew that’d there was almost no chance of any of the changes being implemented.  Still, they were good as thought-experiments and for discussion, imho.

So, what happened and what’ve I been up to the last half of a year.

We actually have to go back a year-and-a-half to find where things got off the rails a bit.

Last summer, my mother came quite close to death unexpectedly.  She’s had problems with ulcers as long as I can remember and, being a good stubborn mountain woman, never went to the doctor about.  One of the ulcers finally ate all the way through her stomach and ruptured.  She lives almost a thousand miles away from me and so I went to be with her after her emergency surgery.  She survived – Thank God – and is doing well.  Still, it was wobbly for a while there.

My wife was pregnant for most of last year and our son was born in the autumn.  He came a week early, which was fortunate as the umbilical cord had knotted and might have tightened off if he’d been in there much longer.  I took care of our toddler while my wife and son were in the hospital and then, as anyone who’s had kids knows, there were the sleepless first few months.

After the first of the year, things started to get back on track, but then my wife’s father unexpectedly died and we had to deal with that tragedy.  She’s still dealing with it and will for some time.

Less than a month later, my wife had to have her cat put down due to kidney failure.  My wife has a tender heart, especially for cats, and it broke her heart once again.

Then, in March, my wife and I decided to run for office.  It was a last minute decision and was a long shot, but we both felt that we needed to do this.  So, I once again became a politician.

Then, in May, we moved.  Our house had been up for sale for three years with no real offers to speak of.  By a stroke of good luck, we found some people who wanted to rent it and so we became landlords.

Moving is always a stresser and moving with kids is even more stressful all while trying to run for office and maintain a law practice.  May was the month we had to collect nomination signatures and that is a hard, hard task.  Going up to strangers and asking them to sign your papers and give their address – I’d rather go to the dentist.  But, with the help of a few other friends and well-wishers and after one weekend of hard core going at it, we did it.

Then, there was the campaigning and fund-raising.  Ugh.  I hate begging for money, but after the lesson of my last election, I knew it had to be done.  Thankfully, we raised about half of the total costs of the campaign.

Then, my best friend of 22 years died unexpectedly and tragically.  I returned home to Tennessee for his memorial and my heart is still broken.  I miss him so much; he was my brother from another mother.  He was a huge influence on my thinking and was a great sounding board for ideas.  He was also my editor on really important things.

Then, in August, we lost the primary.  Yet another heart-break and, after taking a few months off from my practice, economically devastating.  So I went back to trying to practice law, but my heart wasn’t in it.

Then, in late October, my wife and I decided to try and do a write-in campaign.  More than a long-shot – more the proverbial snowball.  But we needed to do it to say we gave it our all and be able to sleep at night.

Well, we lost on November 6.  And so, here we are.  Trying to find the new normal, praying that nothing bad happens again.

There’s much to be grateful for:  Healthy, happy kids; a warm home; enough to eat; good friends.

And, most of all, that President Obama was re-elected.

It’s Morning in America, Again.  A New America.  An America for the 21^st Century.

Democratic Primary tomorrow.

Well, tomorrow’s my primary for District Attorney. Any prayers and godd vibes would be appreciated.

One of my best friends has died.

Chris Neal.  My college roommate for several semesters.  My debate sparring partner.  He was and is and always shall be a huge influence upon me, poltically, culturally, morally.

http://www.countryuniverse.net/2012/06/19/thank-you-chris-neal/

Thank You, Chris Neal

 

He was my brother from another mother.  I’m going to miss him.

For him:

 

 

Flag of the American Union

Continental Super-Federations are the trend right now.  The European Union, the East Africa Federation (which may supersede the corrupt and ineffective African Union), the proposed Union State in the former Soviet realm, and the Union of South American States; each has the potential to become a new super-power.  Even the British Commonwealth may gain some oomph and become a Third British Empire, if the U.K. leaves the E.U.  Perhaps, in the future, the United States will have to joinwith other nations and form either a North American Union [Canada, U.S., Mexico] or, even better, an American Union that includes Central America and the Caribbean and the Cis-Amazonian nations.

And, of course, ever Continental Super-Federation ought to have a flag.  First, let’s look at the flags of the CSFs mentioned above.

The European Union flag is simple and elegant with it’s 12 stars representing not individual members as in the U.S. flag, but rather the idea of union.  The designer chose 12 stars based upon the Christian imagery of the woman crowned in stars from the Book of Revelation and from Marian iconography.  It also is linked to the idea of 12 gods in the Pantheon; the 12 signs of the Zodiac; the 12 disciples of Jesus, and the 12 hours of a clock face.

The EU Flag

The East Africa Federation has yet to come into existence, and African super-states have a poor track record.  The African Union is a near toothless failure that is divided between the Arab and Islamic north, the Black west and middle, the Ethiopian and Somalian east, and the European and Xhosian south.  But, on paper, it looks like it might have a good chance as it has Kenya as its keystone and, with the memory of the Rwanda mass-madness and genocide still fresh, there is a strong motivation to create an entity that can finally transcend the tribal warfare that has help to cripple Africa.

The East African Community flag

Russian neo-tsar Vladimir Putin has called for the creation of an Eurasian Union, modeled after and as an alternative to the European Union.  But Russia is already part of a super-state with Belarus – the Union State.  Both the Union State and the Eurasian Union are barely veiled proposals to recreate the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, but without the Soviet and Socialist parts.  So it’s only fitting that the Union State flag is uses the old Soviet crimson and gold.

The Union State flag.

The Union of South American Nations is the successor to the Mercosur community.  Formed to create a European-style common market and passport free zone, the USAN may grow as the modern leftists governments of South America coordinate their efforts to bring the continent into the 21st century and to shake off two centuries of American hegemony.

The Union of South American Nations

Not sure why it looks like a hurricane, but still, it’s simple and iconic.

The British Commonwealth could become a new super-power if the U.K. left the EU and focused on bring forth a Third British Empire.  And, if the U.K. followed a federalist model and allowed the Commonwealth to have devolved parliaments for the local government and a a super-parliament for the whole, it would fulfill the dream of Imperial Federation that might have kept Ireland in Britain.  But World War I ended the Imperial Federation movement.  Still, better late than never, ‘ey?

The Commonwealth of Nations flag.

Below is my proposal for an American Union flag.

The five stripes to represent colors from the flags of its member states:   the red of Canada and the British Caribbean, the blue of the U.S., the green of Mexico, the light blue of Central America and the Caribbean, and the gold of the Cis-Amazon/Nueva Granada republics.  These are on a white background to represent peace, hope, and unity.

More on Licensing the Right of Intoxication

A good friend of mine wrote this about my last post:

“At first glance, your idea makes sense. Upon further consideration, however, it falls apart.
In the same way concealed carry permits have failed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, a license to use wouldn’t keep drugs out of the hands of unlicensed users.  Additionally, substances with high addiction potential: heroin, crack cocaine, cocaine, LSD should never be legalized or licensed, period.  The inherent risks and costs to minor children, unborn children, and society at large are simply too great. A licensed young adult uses cocaine. During a drug induced stupor, she has unprotected sex and becomes pregnant. Her license isn’t yet up for review, continues to use and becomes addicted. We now have an addicted mother and an addicted baby. It’s a horrible, downward spiral.”

She then goes on to make sound arguments (the same as found at so many places elsewhere on the net) in support of legalizing marijuana.

There are so many images related to weed out there, so I went with an oldie but a goodie.

Today’s post begins my response to some of her concerns with my proposal.  Before we begin, let me admit that my last post was thin.  But I’m trying to get back into the disciple of writing a blog.

Let me begin with the argument that a set of drugs should not be legalized under any circumstances.   This is a philosophical flaw in many pro-marijuana arguments.  Often advocates say, “look how harmful fill-in-the-blank is; it’s legal, but marijuana is less harmful to individuals and to society.”  Most often the blank is filled with “alcohol”, but I’ve seen “tobacco”, “caffeine”, and even “sugar”, “chocolate”,  or “processed foods” used.  And yes, those things have a measurable impact of individual and societal health.  And yes, caffeine and chocolate have health consequence as caffeine is highly addictive and in excess amounts both are damaging to health (although in moderate amounts both have some health benefit.)

Sugar is of the Devil!

By using the “less harm” argument, the proponents are advocating that we as a society collectively evaluate the harm caused by mind-altering substances and create a line below which substances are legal and across which substances are illegal.  But that line is, in truth, arbitrary, despite any attempts claim a rational basis.  Every mind-altering substance has some harm and thus the prohibitionists are justified in saying that all such substances should be banned.  But not every cigarette smoker gets cancer and not every meth user becomes a member of the living dead.

Nothing funny here. Just sadness. I've represented a number of meth addicts and it is heartbreaking how far down the road they've gone and incarceration won't cure them. The War on Drugs has failed them.

So when a marijuana proponent uses a harm comparison, they are, in a way, lending support to arguments that all psychoactive substances ought to be outlawed.  This is the position of the Mormon Church, the Straight Edge movement, and various other ascetic philosophies.

Under my proposed system of licensing, substances would rated by the harm to the individual’s health, the public and the applicant would be educated about relative harm, are applicants who wish to use harder drugs would be evaluated at higher standards than less harmful drugs.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2810%2961462-6/fulltext”%5DLet’s consider addictiveness.  All mind-altering substances are potentially addicting, either as a result of biological, genetic, or psychological mechanisms.  For instance, marijuana is mildly physically addictive, but can be quite psychologically addictive.  Cigarette are both physically and psychologically addictive, but there is a threshold of usage below which most people are safe from addiction.  According to the book Tipping Point, that threshold appears to be five cigarettes a day on average.  Also, only 23% of users become addicted to heroin compared to 32% for tobacco.   Philosophically, why should the 77% of heroin users who can handle their stuff be penalized for their more susceptible brethern’s problem?

Again, under my proposed system, substances would be rated by their addictive potential and applicants would be evaluated for their family history of addiction, as well as their own personal history and perhaps for their genetic potential for addiction.  Psychological and cognitive testing would be required as well.   Further, applicants would periodically be re-examined and re-evaluated, at a frequency commensurate with the type of license they seek.  A heroin license would probably need monthly check-up while a marijuana license would probably need only a yearly re-examination.  If a person shows signs of addiction or abuse, the supervising agency can limit or pull his or her license.

And get them in touch with this guy.

Let’s consider the effects of withdrawal.  Heroin withdrawal can kill.  But so can the delirium tremens of alcohol withdrawal.  Tobacco is notoriously difficult to quit and caffeine withdrawal can lead to debilitating migraine-like headaches.  Marijuana has such a mild withdrawal that it’s barely even noticed by most users.  Still, withdrawal can be a medical emergency.

Under my proposal, once again substances would be rated by the danger of withdrawal or cessation of use.  If a person has their license pulled or limited, or if they voluntarily give up their license, then the supervising agency would have the resources to help them withdraw of step-down safely.  What is now an underground situation would be treated as a medical issue rather than one of criminality.

Not a safe place to withdraw.

More to come….

Legalize Drugs; Regulate Intoxication

Recently, Christian evangelical super-star Pat Robertson came out in support of the legalization of marijuana.  This was a shocking statement from one of the most well-known and vocal conservative Protestant televangelists.  Indeed, he once ran for the Republican nomination for President.

His reasoning is the same as we see from most pro-legalization advocates.  Simply put:  The War on Drugs has failed and our society needs to seek another solution.

Balancing my personal Christianity with my Americanism is one of my daily quests.  While as a Christian, I do not support anyone becoming enslaved to mind-altering substances or seeking comfort from the false idol of drunkenness, as an American, I do not feel that the government ought to prohibit individuals from seeking their own path.  That includes the use of mind-altering substances.

However, society does have a right to protect the greater community from the harms that result from the abuse of drugs.  Violence, madness, addiction, endangerment, laziness, and neglect are all consequences of drug abuse that society has a right to confront and mitigate.

Blanket prohibition hasn’t done this.  Indeed, it has enriched gansters and criminalized the enslaved.  So how can society allow drug use, but deal with drug abuse.

I propose that we leagalize drugs, but regulate the right to be intoxicated.

Imagine a license to use, similar to a driver’s license, divided into different classes.  Upon reaching a certain age and meeting certain requirements – such as mental health testing, background checks, and an analysis of family addiction and criminality – one could apply to be license to use mind-altering substances.  A person could ask to qualify for only some substances, such as alcohol or marijuana only, or seek a full license that incldued all substances.  Also, to help off-set the costs to society, the higher the class of licensure sought, the more one would have to pay for the privilege.  Further, the higher class would also require more frequent re-evaluation, for instance a license to use heroin could require quarterly re-evaluation while marijuana would require re-evaluation once every four years.

Under this system, the judicial system could revoke a person’s license to become intoxicated as a consequence for criminal behavior, either for a limited period of time or with restoration upon petition.  Further, family members could also have the right to petition either the courts or the licensure administrators to revoke a person’s license upon showing cause.

This system would balance individual rights with collective responsibility.

Thoughts?