Amendment 2

So Mr. Trump has been in office for 100 days as of tomorrow.  In (um, I guess?) celebration of this, he spoke to the National Rifle Association today.  He stated that his presidency is bringing about the end of an "eight-year assault" on Second Amendment gun ownership rights.  I find this troubling. What exactly are the rights conferred by the Second Amendment, and why were they deemed so important?
Let's start with the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which is at the heart of the endless debate around owning guns.  Amendment 2, The Right to Bear Arms, reads, "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."  The question is....what exactly does this statement mean? 

 We'll start with "Militia" (note the capitalization, which implies the importance of the word).  What is a militia?  Originally, militias were organizations by individual states that were designed to protect each state against threats and/or a tyrannical national government.  We don't really have these organizations anymore.  We do have modern, somewhat similar versions:  The National Guard (not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a different, federal-level organization) is established and controlled by each US state (and 4 territories), and is called upon by the states' governors to respond to disasters like floods and hurricanes.  When you read the above Amendment, militias seem to be the purpose of citizens being armed.  I'm not sure that our modern militias exist to protect the "freedom" of the state though, that doesn't seem to be in their job description.  I'm not even sure what a "free" state refers to...is Oregon more or less free than Kansas? Or Colorado?  Or New Hampshire (after all, their motto is "Live free or die"!) How do you measure that?  And what about the words "well-regulated"?  Regulated around what, and by whom?  Does this mean that their ownership and/or use of arms is regulated?  And finally, what exactly is meant by the word "arms"?  Does that refer to knives, muskets, cannons?  I'm pretty sure that it didn't refer to AK-47 assault rifles, or nuclear missiles, because those didn't exist at the time Amendment 2 was written.

My point is this:  the wording of this Amendment is very unclear, and it was written at a time when the concern of an oppressive federal government attacking its citizens was on the minds of the authors of the Bill of Rights.  The USA of today has very different concerns.  We need to take care in our translation of Amendment 2, and remember that the Bill of Rights was written to protect individuals and states, and make sure that our legislation concerning guns is fulfilling that purpose.

The Dignity of Healthcare Coverage

Hi Ronnie,

To start, thank you for your service. I wish that I could give you more than a thank you, because the service that you (and all the others in the military) provide(d) to this country is invaluable, and deserves a lot more than these two little words. But "thank you" is all I have to give, so I will just offer that with all sincerity. Secondly, thank you for writing this post. It's good to hear from your perspective. I have never served, and service in the military is not something that's close to my life. While my father was in the Navy, that was before I was born, so it's never really been a factor in my life. My step-sister was just promoted to Senior Master Sergeant in the Navy, and I am very proud of her. Interestingly, she and I have had some enlightening conversations about healthcare.

I have lived in other countries in the world that have universal healthcare. When I returned to the States, it was a struggle to get insurance, as I had pre-existing conditions (this was before the ACA went into law). Without health insurance, most doctors wouldn't see me. This caused me much fear and stress and physical pain. When talking to my step-sister about this, she stated, "I have a hard time commenting about "free" healthcare, as I have always had it (career military) and so has my family. I can't imagine how it is for non-military to have to worry about it and try to afford it". This conversation made me really think about healthcare accessibility.

I am grateful that my step-sister and her family are secure in their health care coverage. They absolutely should be. And when she retires in a couple of years, they still should be. After being deployed on four occasions, I think she damn-well deserves the peace of mind that she and her husband and kids will be taken care of when the need arises. I am happy that the tax dollars I pay will help fund this. And I would like to take it a step further. My conversation with her strengthened my conviction that the people of this country are desperately in need of universal healthcare. We owe it to our military folks, without a doubt. I think we also owe it to our teachers, and grocers, and mailmen, and salespeople, and janitors, and everybody else who contributes their efforts and tax dollars in this country. I think that healthcare is a right, much like education, that needs to be accessible to all. I have lived in countries that provide universal healthcare, and interestingly, I paid very similar rates in taxes to those I pay here. It can be done. We need to do it. And Ronnie, I would happily replace my "thank you" to you with a portion of my taxes to make sure that you (and all Americans, both military and not) live out your life with the dignity and peace of mind of available healthcare.

Redistricting/Gerrymandering. It Matters.

“Redistricting” is possibly one of the least sexy words in the English language.  It inspires about the same slightly uncomfortable, yet boredom-inducing dread as cleaning out your great aunt’s storage unit.  It just does not seem to be terribly fun subject to think about, let alone care about. “Gerrymandering” is slightly better.  Gerrymandering sounds a bit more sinister, even scandalous, and maybe even worth a moment of your consideration.  The fact of the matter is, these two words are now functionally the same, and that’s a Bad Thing.  We need to care about this.  We need to care about this A LOT, because the politically-motivated drawing of district lines may ultimately be one of the biggest causes of our country’s inability to function as representative democracy.  As Americans, we all want a functioning democracy, right?  

First, we need to have a quick look at our redistricting process.  Using Census data, each state is divided into districts.  The number of districts is determined by population.  There are a total of 435 districts in the country (Stay with me, this gets better, I promise!).  So, the theory is, each Representative in the House is elected by and responsible to roughly the same amount of citizens.  This sounds great.  Our votes are tallied in our district, and we send our chosen somebody to Washington to represent our interests.  Yay!

Here’s the problem:  the districts are drawn by state legislatures, whose primary motivation for drawing the district map is to ensure their re-election.  Districts, therefore, often have extraordinarily complicated shapes resembling creatures from fairy tales, and the entire purpose of these shapes is to manipulate the voting public into controllable blocks with controllable voting patterns.  A political party currently in power in a state can split (or lump together) their opposition’s voters using census data so that those votes will become functionally ineffective.  Thus, the political party in power can ensure that they stay in power, just by creative mapping.

So why should we care so much?  Because we believe in our representative democracy.  We need to know that our vote matters, that we ACTUALLY elect our Representatives. Otherwise, there is no point in voting.  And voting is our tool for participating in government, for having a say in which policies effect our daily lives, our families, our well-being.

There is a way to ensure that each vote matters, and that elections are not rigged by map lines.  We need legislation dictating that district lines are drawn based on population only, not on politics.   We need to ensure that candidates are chosen by the voters, instead of voters being chosen by the candidates.  We have the technology and data to ensure that voting districts are fairly drawn.  We need to use it.  We need the ruling party – whomever that may be – to not actively silence their opposition. Because opposition and debate, in all their messiness, are a fundamental key to a functioning, active democracy.

Where Are The Great Communicators?

I recently read Charles C. W. Cooke's blog post entitled "Where Are the Great Communicators?" published in National Review.  Then I read it again.  And then again.  I have to say, I find it to be a very thoughtful and reasonable and fascinating commentary on the communication style employed by the current administration.

Charles C. W. Cooke is the editor of National Review Online.  He is a conservative writer, albeit one who doesn't perhaps fit into the stereotypical conservative box.  He's English, for a start, emigrated to the US in 2011.  He has written for the Washington Post and the New York Times, and has several times appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher.  He supports the legalization of marijuana and same-sex marriage, and is a self-described atheist (Wikipedia).  All of his background and his open critiques of Donald Trump and his administration combine to make me ask, who is his audience?  I'm not sure.  He is the editor of a major blog/online magazine, and his writing style is charismatic and clear. But his message contrasts in tone and content with the vast majority of the conservative articles and blog posts that I have seen.  I do know, that after reading this blog post, I plan to become part of his audience.  And I am definitely NOT a conservative.

Cooke's argument is with the communication style of the Trump administration, particularly around the recent announcement of its new health care plan.  He states that both the White House and the Congressional Republicans have been on the defensive with the media, and are putting their energy into pointing out "fake news" instead of communicating their plans in a clear and persuasive manner.  Cooke points out that the Republicans are now in control of the White House and Congress, and yet they are still communicating in the reactive style that they used during the Obama years.  He suggests that much confusion and public outcry could be avoided through the use of clarity, and the communication of plans before dropping surprise policies.  He also laments the lack of charm and statesmanship being shown, which would serve to smooth out some of the relationship issues between the media and the current administration.  

I really enjoyed reading this blog post, and am inspired by the idea that much of the drama and bipartisan reactionism could be alleviated with the use of a more thoughtful and inclusive communication style on the part of the administration.

Battle of the Bathrooms: Effects of Recent Actions on Transgender Students

For more than four years, transgender children in this country have been protected and supported in their right to use the restroom that corresponds with their gender identity while at (public) school.  On Wednesday night, the Departments of Justice and Education under the direction of President Trump withdrew important guidelines implemented by President Obama around these issues.  Title IX, the 1972 federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in education, was interpreted by the Obama administration to include gender identity, and thus guidelines were put into place nationally to prohibit public schools from blocking transgender children from using bathrooms and locker rooms that match their gender identity.

Ria Tabacco Mar's recent opinion piece in the New York Times provides readers with a thorough overview of the importance of this issue, and how the actions of the current administration could affect the daily lives of children throughout the country.  Mar's experience in her position as a staff lawyer at the A.C.L.U.'s Lesbian, Gay, Transgender and H.I.V Project definitely lends her the credibility to speak with great insight on the subject. Her approach to this issue is both logical and passionate, and, I think, attempts to appeal to a wide audience.  I strongly agree with her assertions that the federal government's withdrawal of guidelines and support could have very personal and harmful effects on children across the country. Transgender kids are already at an increased risk for suicide and depression, and without these guidelines in place to ensure their fair and equal treatment, I fear for their well-being and sense of safety in their learning environments. Mar's argument against the administration's recent actions includes links to legal cases involved, evidence concerning the benefit of inclusive policies in schools, and the weaknesses in the arguments justifying these recent changes.  She is logical and persuasive.

The upcoming Supreme Court case will ultimately determine the fate of these children.  Mar states that the current administration will lose this battle.  I hope she's right.

Understanding the Legality Behind Trump's Executive Order on Immigration

The last couple of weeks have been a whirlwind of news regarding Mr. Trump's recent executive order on immigration.  When the order was first announced, the emotional response of so many Americans (myself included) was overwhelming. People with US visas and greencards from all over the world were refused boarding on US-bound flights, or turned around upon arrival, or detained in US airports.  Protests erupted in airports all over the country.  Personal accounts of people directly affected began circulating.  It was dizzying, and for so many people (again, myself included) frightening and confusing.  Then US District Senior Judge James Robart of Seattle issued a nationwide restraining order to temporarily block the ban.  Again, an onslaught of emotion and information erupted.  The White House issued statements, various political figures spoke up, the press published it all.  And then, the three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the stay on the executive order.  And now...it looks like this will go to the Supreme Court to decide if Trump's executive order is lawful.  

In this storm of legal events and reactionary events and press coverage, I found myself looking for information and clarification.  I wanted answers to questions of legality.  What powers, exactly, does the president have in issuing executive orders?  Are their limits to those powers?  What power does the Judiciary branch have in this matter?  How does this process work, and what's the timeframe on it?

I recently found this article by Charlie Savage for the New York Times which greatly helped me understand the recent events, the ruling of the Appeals Court, and the legal issues involved.  The article prints sections of the Court of Appeals' ruling, and follows each with commentary that relates it to the events that I have seen and heard in the media coverage. It does a fantastic job at showing exactly what legal questions are involved, and what the next steps in the process will be.  I especially appreciate reading the excerpts from the ruling, and seeing exactly what areas of the US law they relate to.  

Greetings

Hi All!