POWER TO THE PEOPLE

An important theme seems to run through several recent Supreme Court decisions: that the power in this country belongs to WE THE PEOPLE.  Too many seem to have forgotten this and simply stood by as various governmental bodies seized more and more power that is not rightfully theirs.  The Court did much to right the ship of state in its decisions released this month.

• The Court did not evade its own usurpation of the people’s power.  It acknowledged that it had overstepped its authority when it created an unstated constitutional right out of thin air.  It reversed its error and returned the power to create a right to abortion to the states and the people where it rightfully belongs. (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization)
• On its last day of this term, the Court ruled that governmental agencies (in this case the EPA) do not have expansive, unlimited power to make environmental mandates absent a grant of that power to the agency by the Congress (which is the voice of the people). (West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency)
• In ending President Trump’s remain in Mexico immigration policy, the Court noted that federal law allows such discretionary actions by the Executive.  Because such policy is discretionary, and because the people have chosen a different Executive, it follows that such policy or change in policy reflects the voice of the people. (Biden v. Texas)
• In deciding that a school coach has the right to kneel and pray following a game, the Court reminded us that we have the freedom to exercise religion and that it is not the job of governmental entities to seek out and deny such acts that are not intended to impose a particular religion on anyone.  The Court held that the Constitution neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress such religious expression.  That is, again the Court reminded us not only of our rights and the limitations on government to interfere with those rights, but also of the duty of those who live in a pluralistic society to be tolerant of the beliefs of others. (Kennedy v. Bremerton School District)
• The Court also held that Maine’s “nonsectarian” requirement for tuition assistance violated the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, again protecting the people’s right from government intrusion.  (Carson v. Makin)
• The Court held that representatives of North Carolina’s state House of Representatives and Senate could intervene in voter ID-law litigation.  As such, the people, through those representatives, will have their voices heard.  (Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP)
• The Court held that a state firearm regulation requiring “proper cause” to carry, prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Here, the Court did as the Constitution expects and requires:  it protected the enumerated rights of the people from intrusion and limitation by the government. (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen)

Of course the Court decided more than the above cases, and the summaries of those noted above are brief and simplified; all opinions contain far more detailed legal argumentation and reasoning as well as dissenting or concurring opinions that offer further commentary on the majority decision.

Do I, do most people, like the result of every case?  No.  But the Court's job is not to do what is popular but to read the Constitution and remind us of what it says and make sure that by following our Constitution and rule of law that we maintain our carefully constructed democracy.

I rejoice in the fact that at the end of this term the Court provided us with a number of opinions to remind us of the power structure in our government of/for/by the people.  The governmental institutions exist to serve us, not to control us.  We the people hold the power.  We have certain rights, some enumerated in the Constitution, some which we can ourselves create through our representatives and the political process.  But the rights are ours, not the government's to create, grant, or remove. 

Of course, the exercise of our power requires work.  While protests and demonstrations are a way of voicing opinions and desires in the public square, the way to make those desires a reality as a part of our government and our rule of law, is to work through our elected officials to shape our government.  That begins when we cast our vote.  It requires us to be informed of how our government and our political process works and to understand the ways in which we can exercise our voice.  It also requires us to be gracious when we do not get our way and to understand that we cannot have the diversity and pluralism that make this country great without also exercising tolerance of those with whom we disagree.

I am grateful to the Court for reminding us of these things.  I am grateful that the Framers were wise enough to include a non-political branch of government which can keep us focused on who and what we are and ease us back on course when we forget what our democracy is or how it works. 

I only wish that those who are attacking the Court for judgments the results of which they find displeasing, would understand what the Court’s role is and respect it.  How different the behavior of our current president from that of President Kennedy when faced with a decision not to his liking that prohibited prayer in public school.  The following is from President Kennedy’s News Conference on June 27, 1962:

 QUESTION: Mr. President, in the furor over the Supreme Court's decision on prayer in the schools, some members of Congress have been introducing legislation for Constitutional amendments specifically to sanction prayer or religious exercise in the schools. Can you give us your opinion of the decision itself, and of these moves of the Congress to circumvent it?

PRESIDENT KENNEDY: I haven't seen the measures in the Congress and you would have to make a determination of what the language was, and what effect it would have on the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has made its judgment, and a good many people obviously will disagree with it. Others will agree with it. But I think that it is important for us if we are going to maintain our Constitutional principle that we support the Supreme Court decisions even when we may not agree with them.

In addition, we have in this case a very easy remedy, and that is to pray ourselves and I would think that it would be a welcome reminder to every American family that we can pray a good deal more at home, we can attend our churches with a good deal more fidelity, and we can make the true meaning of prayer much more important in the lives of all of our children. That power is very much open to us.

I would hope that as a result of this decision that all American parents will intensify their efforts at home, and the rest of us will support the Constitution and the responsibility of the Supreme Court in interpreting it, which is theirs, and given to them by the Constitution.

If only our current President, our politicians, and all of our citizens would understand the great gift that we have in this country and that we have the Supreme Court to remind us when we forget.   These opinions should wake us not to fear but to joy in our rights and our responsibilities.  It is our duty to work constructively together through our elected representatives to create the rules that this great nation deserves.

I am both thankful and proud that I am a small part of our country’s legal system.  Like everyone, I do not always agree with the Supreme Court, but I do respect it.  And now that it has blatantly reminded us that we the people have the power, rather than disrespect or work to destroy this great institution I wish the people would understand that they do not need to destroy in order to simply seize the power that they already hold. 

Do we really have a culture of death?

Here’s what I don’t understand – why are so many folks upset that, following the overturning of Roe, there is no Constitutional right to kill babies?   I mean, OK, maybe some women have been brainwashed to believe they have this right, but I have to believe (hope?) that most women are more intelligent than that. 

I mean, most adults can still read, and reading reveals that nearly all credible science and medical professionals agree that life begins at conception and that the embryo and then fetus are human life forms and are alive.  Embryo, then fetus are the earliest stages, but there continue to be developing stages post birth.  Infancy is also an early stage of human development and yet, while a few people do believe post-birth abortion is acceptable I have to believe (hope?) that the vast majority are not OK with killing infants.

Recently I pointed out the scientific/medical position to a pro-abortionist.  The response:  "Did you think I wasn’t aware an embryo is a developing human? You’re stating the obvious and proving my point. It’s ‘developing’ - it’s a group of cells multiplying that develops into a human. A human that the majority of pro-lifers won’t care about the moment they’re born.”  Gosh, so much to unpack in this statement!

What is a Developing Human?

If a developing human is just a clump of cells, and if killing that clump of cells is OK, then we are all in danger.  We all reproduce cells daily.  A child’s brain continues developing long past birth.  Body tissues grow by increasing the number of cells that make them up. Cells in many tissues in the body divide and grow very quickly until we become adults. When we are adults, many cells mature and become specialized for their particular job in the body. (cancerresearchuk.org).  According to Scientific American, “About 330 billion cells are replaced daily, equivalent to about 1 percent of all our cells. In 80 to 100 days, 30 trillion will have replenished—the equivalent of a new you.”

The argument that you can kill a clump of developing cells is clearly disingenuous.  Moreover, even if one were to limit that killing to prebirth, it is hard to understand how anyone can accept unrestricted killing of a human entity (even a living clump of cells is an entity) when it has a unique DNA combination that is a legacy equally contributed from both parents, when it has a beating heart at 21 days after conception and a brain that at 6 weeks is at least partially developed and includes:  a forebrain/cerebrum, which controls certain brain functions , like thinking and problem-solving; a midbrain involved in processing visual and auditory information; and a hindbrain/cerebellum, which manages balance and coordination, as well as the medulla, which is the control center for the body's automatic activities, like blood pressure and heart rate.

Yes, the embryo and fetus are developing.  But so is the 6-month-old child, or the teenager, or the young adult, or even the octogenarian.  If one accepts killing a developing human, where exactly would one draw the line?

Pro-Lifers do care

As to the arguments that pro-lifers don’t care about children after they are born, this too is disingenuous as is the argument that they don’t care about the mothers or that they force people to have children.  I don’t see pro-lifers going around killing babies after they are born.

It is pro-life health centers that offer pregnant women not only health care for them and their child before birth, but who offer solutions for the woman if she is unable, for whatever reason, to keep and raise her child.  They are not afraid to discuss adoption.  They are not afraid to discuss types of childcare.  They are not afraid to discuss job training and parenting assistance.  They are not afraid to discuss taxpayer benefits that may be available to the mother and child. 

Pro-life begins with compassion for the unborn child, but it does not ignore compassion for the pregnant mother, the father, other family members and the compassion for all concerned does not end at the moment of birth.

Failing attempts to justify the killing

I continue to believe (hope?) that most women, indeed most adult humans, are capable of understanding the above.  So, then, how is it that so many believe it is OK to kill over 700,000 developing children a year?

Do women really think that abortion is just a form of birth control?  (Hint, it is not:  birth control prevents a pregnancy and thus a new human from being created; abortion kills a new human after pregnancy occurs, after the new life is created).  Yet, most abortions are to kill children that were conceived during consensual sex.  Things like rape, incest, severe medical necessity are the exceptions.  How can anyone who understands what abortion really is believe that it is just another form of birth control?

Do women really believe lack of an unlimited abortion right is some sort of attack on them?  If they do, then they do not have a very high opinion of themselves, because to believe that they do not have a say in whether or not to engage in consensual sex is the result of a very demeaning view of women. 

Women are powerful, and part of their power is the ability to decline sex, to use birth control, and to understand that whenever they engage in sex that the result could be a pregnancy.  If we are not teaching our children (at an appropriate age) where babies come from, then we do have a problem that needs to be addressed immediately. 

Similarly, if we are not teaching our children (again at an appropriate age) about birth control as well as that no birth control guarantees 100% that pregnancy will not follow intercourse, then we need to address that.  Women and men need to understand that if they have sex they are potentially going to become fathers and mothers.   They need to understand their responsibility in choosing to engage in sex.

Women are also strong enough to accept the consequences of their acts, including participating in the creation of a new life and the responsibility that the mother now has to that life.  (And yes, the responsibility is not hers alone, but neither does she have the absolute and unrestricted right to pronounce a death sentence on that new and innocent life.)

Overturning Roe

I grew up before Roe v. Wade.  I remember abortion arguments in the 60s and 70s.  Yes, abortions were performed, some legally, many illegally.  Some resulted in medical problems or even death for the mother as well as the aborted child.  But most occurred in the early stages and most were “successful” in that they killed the child and left the mother with no physical injuries.  The mental and psychological effects of aborting a pregnancy are another story and continue to be a result of abortions both legal and illegal.

I remember when Roe was decided.  It was not a good legal decision as any number of legal scholars have asserted since 1973.  Most people at the time would have preferred that they retain their ability to speak through their elected representatives and determine for themselves what rules and rights would exist regarding abortion.

In 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson established the idea of “separate but equal”.  That too was a poor decision by the Court and again, it took significant time for the Court to correct itself.  Plessy was overturned in 1954, 58 years after it was decided.  The wheels of justice move slowly, but they do move, and the beauty of our democracy is that we eventually get it right.

Everyone needs to put emotion aside and rejoice in what the Supreme Court had the courage to do in Dobbs: read the Constitution and enforce it by returning power to the states and the people where it rightfully belongs. We the people now have the power to determine exactly what the extent of any right to abortion should be. And, because the right is with the states, because we have a diverse population, the state rules will differ to some extent. This is democracy and we should all rejoice in it. The Dobbs opinion should not really be such a big deal, because all the Supreme Court did was do its job.

Now is the time for people on both sides to reach out and suggest reasonable rules.  They need to stop the hateful and violent protests and begin the peaceful lobbying and letter writing to their elected representatives so that everyone, through those representatives, will have a voice in what their state’s laws regarding abortion and life will be.

But first, I think we need to get over the general premise that seems to be that it is OK to kill a preborn (and sometimes being born or post birth) child.  Exceptional circumstances may, in extraordinary situations, justify such killing, but it is never simply dismissible as OK.  I do not understand that culture of death.  And I hope that anyone who has input into the education of children, whether their own or those of others, will not perpetuate the belief that killing an inconvenient child is OK.  We must learn to be less selfish than that.

Don’t Be Fooled

More precisely, don’t let the politicians and their minions fool you.  They want you to be upset over the Dobbs ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade.  They want to use this for their own political gain, to garner votes for themselves.  They want to make this a really big deal, but really it is not. 

Overturning Roe v. Wade does not make abortion illegal.  Be clear on that.  (My previous post on 6/24 addresses the opinion itself and includes a link to the full opinion.)

All the ruling does is give the people back their voice that is rightfully theirs.  The people themselves, through their elected representatives in each state may now determine their abortion rules or lack thereof.  The power is rightfully theirs and the rules of the states will be diverse reflecting the diversity of our country. 

All that the Supreme Court did was read the Constitution and return the power to the people where it belongs.  The people of each state, exercising their voices through their elected reps, can and will choose a variety of limitations ranging from total bans to no restrictions whatsoever.  Most will likely not stray too far from what has existed under Roe.   This is the way democracy works.  Rather than being angry, everyone should rejoice in their power and if they do not like their state's rules, they can use their voices through their state representatives to change them.

I would hope that in addressing possible state regulations that the legislators and people of each state do not simply react with emotion, fear, and hate, but sit down and spend time researching the many ramifications of abortion laws and listening to the many views that exist.  I would hope that there will be a tolerance of views that are different from one’s own.  Following are some initial thoughts for such discussions.

First, what is abortion? 

I think we have to begin there.  Abortion kills a preborn human.  That preborn child can be called an embryo or fetus depending on its stage of development.  In humans, the embryo is medically defined as “the developing individual from the time of implantation to about the end of the second month after conception.” From the third month to the point of delivery, the individual is called a fetus.  

So, beginning with conception we have a human organism, a human life.  Though not fully formed, it is unique and it is alive.  We have to acknowledge that regardless of stage of pregnancy, abortion ends the life of this unique human organism.  Abortion is quite simply the taking of a human life.

Is ending the life of a pre-born human acceptable, and if so, when?

Acknowledging that abortion is a killing, the people must decide if this is ever acceptable.  Generally we protect life.  Rules are sometimes, but not always, absolute.  Every state has statutes addressing various forms of homicide.  Some will be various degrees of murder, others will be various degrees of manslaughter, and others will be justifiable homicides.   

The people, through their representatives must decide whether they want an absolute ban or an absolute 9+ month permission for abortion.  If neither absolute, then it must be decided what will and what will not be allowed.

Restrictions and permissions might focus on the point during pregnancy at which the abortion is performed and/or the reason for the abortion.  It should be clear that such allowances are exceptions to the general rule that all life is to be protected. 

For me, the idea of setting a specific and perhaps arbitrary time during the pregnancy before which killing is OK and after which it is not does not comport with this country’s basic belief in the value of life.  Many will have religious beliefs that oppose taking a human life.  Some will believe there is a point before which the child is not well-enough formed to be of value.  These are emotional issues, but they must be considered so as to hear all sides and beliefs as well as the science related to such things as when a fetus can feel pain and when it is viable.

If not time, what circumstances should allow an abortion?

Abortion is seen by many as simply another form of birth control.  It is not. 

Most abortions terminate the lives of children conceived during consensual sex.  Should children so conceived be allowed to be aborted simply because they are not wanted by the mother?  This brings us to the tired phrase of “a woman’s right to choose.”  Should she be entitled to engage in consensual sex and then, if she becomes pregnant, be allowed to abort (i.e., kill) her child?  Or does her “right to choose” occur at an earlier stage?

To say that in such consensual cases the woman was not capable of making the choice to have or not to have sex is demeaning to women.  What happens is that the woman is either unaware of or willing to ignore the possible consequences of that act.  If unaware, we need to do a better job of educating our daughters (and sons); if unwilling to take responsibility for her act and its consequences then we also need to do a better job of teaching our children that acts have consequences and that they cannot do whatever they want with impunity; they cannot disregard the effects of their actions on others (including a child that they might conceive).  Abortion is not just another form of birth control, and we need to teach our children that you can’t just dispose of a life because it is inconvenient for you.

But what about rape and incest or circumstances where the child will have significant medical issues or the mother’s life is truly in danger?  These are exceptions that prove the more general rule.  These are the circumstances that might make a specific abortion acceptable in the same way that certain circumstances make a homicide justifiable.  But abortion should not be generally accepted simply in order to allow it in these small percentage of the unwanted pregnancies that now end in the death of the child.  Any exceptions should truly be exceptional.

Who has the right to order the killing?

Another tired phrase is “my body, my choice” which is often combined with “abortion is reproductive health.”  

Beyond the idea noted above that the woman’s choice comes earlier in the process, the reality is that there are two bodies involved here: the woman’s body which is the carrier for the second new human’s body.  Both must be considered.   In this country we do not give any one group of people the right to murder another.

As to reproductive health, again, that involves the health of the woman before pregnancy along with such things as birth control.  Once she begins the reproductive process the health of both her and her child must be considered.  Indeed, the CDC includes both maternal and infant health in its discussions of reproductive health.

Once there is a pregnancy there are two lives to consider.  But there are also others:  the father, perhaps siblings of the preborn child, and other possible family issues.  The pregnant woman may be carrying the child, but that person is also the child of the father, carrying his as well as the mother’s DNA and family legacy.  Should the father have a voice?  And if so, when?  Personally, I think the child consensually conceived is of both father and mother and neither should alone be allowed to terminate that child’s life.

And what about society in general and our obligation and responsibility to protect all life?  Every one of us bears some responsibility in the creation of any right to abort.

Criteria

If abortion is not completely banned or allowed up to and including birth with no exceptions, then there must be criteria for allowing exceptions to whatever rules exist prohibiting abortion.  It is not just the mother, or mother and father, but also the child that must be considered.   Beyond the interests of the parents, the best interests of the child must be considered; those interests do not usually include death.  The exceptions of things like rape; incest; etc. might fall into an exceptional category making certain abortions justifiable even though they take the life of the unborn and innocent child.  But convenience of the parents, or interference in their careers, lifestyle, finances, etc., should not create the extraordinary circumstances that any exception should require.

Facts, Emotion, and Reason

Right now, everyone seems to be coming to grips with the fact that Roe v. Wade is no more.  Emotions are running high.  Sadly, those emotions are being manipulated by politicians and the media as they feed the public fiery rhetoric filled with false facts. 

Feelings are emotional interpretations of events.  The events themselves are generally neutral.  That is the case with this decision – it basically just reasserts the Constitution and its limitations on the federal government with power left to the states and the people.  There are those who want you to believe that is evil, but actually it is empowering.  The key question that everyone must ask is “Are your feelings your own or are they being manipulated?” 

Then, we need to put those emotions aside, listen to those with other views, examine in detail all relevant facts, and move forward with reasonable and rational abortion rules that consider and protect everyone concerned, including the unborn children.

Think and Understand before you React

 In deciding Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Org. today, the Supreme Court did nothing more than read the Constitution and enforce it.  That is, the Court did its job.

Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Org. holds: “The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.”

The Constitution provides specific rights to the people and protects those rights from the government.  It establishes specific federal powers and ensures that those “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (10^th Amendment to U.S. Constitution)

The Constitution is neutral on the question of abortion – neither pro-life nor pro-choice.  It does not address abortion and as such leaves to  the people the question of whether and to what extent a right to abortion exists.

As Justice Kavanaugh stated in his concurring opinion in Dobbs, the Constitution does not prohibit the establishment of additional rights, but those not found in the Constitution cannot be created by the government nor by the Court, but rather must be created by the people through their representatives.

The Justice wrote:

In arguing for a constitutional right to abortion that would override the people’s choices in the democratic process, the plaintiff Jackson Women’s Health Organization and its amici emphasize that the Constitution does not freeze the American people’s rights as of 1791 or 1868. I fully agree.  To begin, I agree that constitutional rights apply to situations that were unforeseen in 1791 or 1868— such as applying the First Amendment to the Internet or the Fourth Amendment to cars. Moreover, the Constitution authorizes the creation of new rights—state and federal, statutory and constitutional.  But when it comes to creating new rights, the Constitution directs the people to the various processes of democratic self-government contemplated by the Constitution—state legislation, state constitutional amendments, federal legislation, and federal constitutional amendments. See generally Amdt. 9; Amdt. 10; Art. I, §8; Art. V; J. Sutton, 51 Imperfect Solutions: States and the Making of American Constitutional Law 7−21, 203−216 (2018); A. Amar, America’s Constitution: A Biography 285−291, 315−347 (2005).

So, before you run out to celebrate or protest that “abortion is now banned” (which is not the result of Dobbs) you might be wise to actually read the Constitution and also read the incredibly thoughtful opinions that together make up the 6-3 decision in Dobbs.  Those opinions explain thoroughly and clearly the sound reasoning behind the Court’s decision.  

         

                     

A link to the full U.S. Constitution and its Amendments can be found here:  US CONST 

A link to the Dobbs decision can be found here:  DOBBS 

The point is, that the rules about abortion are up to the states.  In each state the people, through their representatives, can enact rules and regulations.  Such rules and regulations are for the people and not the Court to create.  In our democracy this is how the voice of the people works and it is how we retain and maintain our government of/for/by the people. 

The voices of those who care about abortion issues should be directed to their state legislatures.  As noted in the Dobbs opinion, the various states have always had differing opinions and rules about abortion, and that is likely to continue following this overturning of Roe.

This democratic process works, even if more slowly than some would like.  It protects us and it is the best form of government that you will find.  So, before trying to destroy it, its Constitution, and its institutions, before trying to radically change to some other governing process, take the time to understand what you already have, because you may not know what you had until its gone. 

Too Many Chefs in The Kitchen

Does no one understand how our representative form of government works?  I’m reminded of the old saying “Too many cooks spoil the soup.”  We’ve got too many people who think its their job to do the cooking and no one understanding what the recipe is.

In my town the city council recently passed a controversial program where council districts could propose sites meeting specific criteria on which to establish legal homeless encampments.  The intent is to create limited, contained spaces that would protect the homeless and as well as any surrounding area and would provide needed social services to the homeless.

This is a new program, just passed, and details are still being discussed.  No sites have been proposed.  The resolution promises that citizens will be made aware of any proposed sites and have the opportunity to comment before the site is confirmed or removed from the proposal.

Nonetheless, there are protests already when, for example, a group of citizens hears a rumor about a proposed location.   Citizens think they should know every site that anyone is even remotely being considered.  They want to see every draft of the proposal as it is written.  And they want all this now. They protest without any actual facts or any reason for the protest other than that they just don’t like the ordinance and think they must know about every breath their council-person takes.  Not only is this disruptive, it also tends to overshadow or eliminate any actual and productive discussion on this issue.

This is just a small example of typical reactions to governmental processes, yet it reflects two important problems that are threatening our democracy.

         1.   Lack of understanding of representative democracy and the people’s role in it. 

Ours is not a pure (direct) democracy in which each and every person has a direct say and in which, as a result, the majority or loudest voice always prevails.  Rather, ours is a representative democracy in which the people hold the power but exercise it through their elected representatives.  

Our government is defined as a Democratic Republic because it operates on principles of both democracy and republics.  It is democratic in that the power ultimately belongs to the people (though exercised by those they elect) and republican because it includes certain rights that are inalienable (not subject to overrule by the majority) and protected by a document such as a constitution, creating rule by law rather than by pure majority.

In such a system, the people must understand their responsibility to select and elect wise individuals who will represent them, and then they must trust those individuals to carry out the daily operations of governing which the people have entrusted to them and elected them to carry out responsibility.  That means that the individuals are not directly involved in every act and every decision made by their elected voices.

And yet we often have the people wanting to look over the shoulders of their representatives, commenting on every keystroke on the computer, commenting not only on drafts and works in progress but even on ideas that are nothing more than part of a brainstorming and compromising process. 

This is not a problem in government alone.  Today everyone seems to think that they are experts in everything and are reluctant to leave the real experts to do their jobs.  The difference is that in governmental duties, if we think that our representatives are not up to the task, we the people can replace them and that is how we fix it if they cannot do their jobs.  We do not jump in thinking we will do their jobs for them.

This interference in the work of the elected officials is not what is meant by government of/for/by the people.  Rather, the people’s input is first and foremost at the time they cast their vote, and beyond that, as to specific governmental functions and processes, they will include specified times and manners for input from the electorate to their elected representative.  Moreover, the people are always free to provide input to their elected officials in any number of ways including phone calls, texts, emails, letters, letters to editors, peaceful protests, etc.

To put it bluntly, the people need to wisely elect, and then let those they elected do their work.  The people need to pay attention to what those they elected do, so that if dissatisfied they can elect someone else in the future, but the people cannot actually butt in and themselves do the work they have assigned to their elected representatives. 

         2.  The unrealistic need for immediacy combined with a belief that each person is entitled to have their way

The citizenry have to allow the processes to work, understanding that for a well-reasoned and rational government there needs to be time to think and not simply react.  And, the citizenry also must understand that because this is a democracy where all and often diverse voices are heard, they will not always get all that they want and indeed at times may be fully disappointed at the outcome of the process.

Yet, we have many in this country who become hysterical at even the thought that things won’t go their way, who demand immediate and favorable to them action on their cause.  And if such immediate gratification is not forthcoming they do not wait for the wheels of government and the democratic process to turn; rather, they in one way or another try to blow it up.

Take the recent SCOTUS leak of a draft opinion possibly overturning Roe v. Wade.  A DRAFT opinion.  In the Court, as with most governmental offices, documents go through several drafts before being finalized and the final document may have little if any resemblance to the initial draft. 

Yet even the thought of Roe v. Wade being overturned sent people and advocacy groups and the press and even the Administration into such a tizzy that not only were many pro-life offices and organizations bombed and hit with other terror attacks, but demonstrators went in violation of federal law to the homes of Justices to protest and one person has now been charged with attempted murder of a Justice.  All because of a first draft that may or may not become reality and a need to immediately demand consolation and retribution for a decision that does not yet exist that is displeasing to those reacting so immaturely to it.

This is not a problem of just one political party (though currently it seems to be the only operative reaction of Democrats who raised it to an art form inciting hysteria over almost every word and even perceived thought of then President Trump).  But we must acknowledge that both sides do jump to conclusions based on rumor and innuendo and then demand that there be some fix for that which has not even yet occurred. 

This is not healthy for several reasons.  First, jumping to unfounded conclusions and then reacting emotionally and sometimes violently is incredibly destructive.  It denies any opportunity to calmly and rationally view an issue, discuss any number of ways of resolving it, and then working to find a solution that addresses concerns of all sides on the issue. 

It also denies the ability to resolve an issue based on actual facts rather than rumor, perception, innuendo and emotion.  When people take positions based on irrational and unfounded beliefs, it is hard to retract and later find common ground.   There are no well thought out objections or discussions, but simply people essentially yelling either “yes” or “no” and demanding they get their way regardless of reason, thought, or possible compromise.  It is really an adult form of infantile name calling and bullying and is in no way productive.

            We need to review and reset our roles in this government of ours.

Everyone in this country, citizens and elected officials alike, need to go back and review our form of government. 

We the people need to understand the importance of our vote, because it is that vote that determines how our voice will be represented.  We need to keep current on what our elected officials are doing and use the processes available to us to voice our opinions to them.

The elected representatives also need to review and understand what their job is.  It is to represent the voice of their electorate – to speak for those who elected them – and not to simply plow forward with their own agenda regardless of the wishes of their constituents. 

Right now we have too many chefs in the kitchen.  The people’s representatives cook the meal, but it must be the meal that their constituents have elected them to cook.  And if the meal is to be edible, then the people must let the chefs they have chosen cook that meal using the recipe given them by the people without nit-picky interference from the people.

And everyone needs to understand that doing it right takes time.  Good laws, regulations, decisions take time to consider the facts and the consequences of various actions.   Interference in government, if done without understanding, can do more harm than good.

Vocal protest is useful to a point, but citizens must understand that in our form of democracy you don’t just keep screaming until you get your way.  A protest expresses the deep passion about an issue by a group of people and it can be a way of telling elected representatives how that group feels.   But resolution of the issue requires more than passion.  It requires time and reason - two things that seem to be lost right now and with them the functionality of our democracy.

Let’s Ask WHY, not WHAT

 Guns and their regulation are once again at the forefront.  Instead of the same old, tried and tired arguments, I would like to see us think more deeply about the problem.  Let’s remember that guns are the instrument, not the instigator of violent acts.  We know what guns are.  It is time that we take a deeper dive into the problem and ask not What, but Why are so many picking up this instrument and using it to commit violent acts.

The following addresses some of the concepts surrounding gun regulation issues, but ultimately moves beyond them to consider the Why of the problem, rather than the What.

Where are the voices of compassion on days there is no mass shooting?

The Democrats, in trouble at the mid-terms, must be delighted that the recent mass shootings have given them a new and compelling talking point as they provide a soap box for their anti-gun mantra:  children are killed and we care, let’s eliminate the weapon that killed them, then all will be fine.  Sounds good until one explores the facts and stops to think for a moment.

Mass shootings make the news.   But while such events kill several individuals at once, they are only a small percent of all the killings that occur daily in this country.  Think about Chicago.  Children are shot and killed every weekend.  According to CBS, in 2021 at least 275 children 16 and under were shot, 43 of them younger than 13.   

It is not only Chicago though.  Cities all across America have seen increases in violence, with and without guns.  Every day of the year there are children caught in the crossfire or otherwise injured and killed by strangers, by other children, by their own parents.  Daily.

We should all be upset by the school shootings and the other mass killing events, but if that sorrow and outrage does not carry over to the individual and far more frequent events, then one must wonder about the sincerity of the mass-shooting outrage.

Restrictions on Gun Ownership and the Constitution

The right to bear arms is a right explicitly set forth in the Constitution.  It appears in the Bill of Rights, along with other core rights such as free speech, freedom to worship, right of assembly, etc.  The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect citizenry from overreach of the federal government.

At the time of our country’s founding, many believed, in part based on their experience, that “governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people.” (The National Constitution Center, constitutioncenter.org) The proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total authority over the army and militia. This concerned many, along with anti-federalist concerns that the people and their rights should be protected from the federal government.  Such concerns led to the Bill of Rights – the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.

While “the Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists’ desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government,” it was “easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.” (constitutioncenter.org)

Compelling governmental interest may allow some regulation or limitation of basic freedoms expressly stated in the Constitution.  A governmental interest is compelling if it is essential and necessary rather than simply a matter of choice, preference, or discretion.  The proposed limitation on fundamental rights must undergo strict scrutiny to show that that limitation is indispensable to achieving the compelling interest.  The government must prove that it cannot achieve its purpose through any other less infringing means.

Moreover, any such regulation must be narrowly focused on a specific harm; the infringement can be no broader than is absolutely essential to achieving the compelling interest.  The government cannot generally prohibit guns any more than it can generally prohibit expression of religion or speech. 

Even the temporary assault weapon ban signed under President Clinton did not ban those weapons from everyone but only sale of certain types of such weapons for the limited period of the ban and with a number of exceptions allowed.  No matter how much we may believe that certain types of weapons should belong only to military and law enforcement, there is likely no compelling governmental interest that, under strict scrutiny, would allow the government to absolutely deny the right to bear such a gun to all citizens.

The problem is, if one thinks today that such broad limitations are acceptable, then that becomes precedent for similar broad limitations on other core freedoms including the freedom to speak, to worship, to assemble.   Thus, if you can ban a type of gun from everyone, it follows, for example, that you can ban a particular type of worship from everyone.  Don’t like what the Lutheran church is preaching – just ban worship there, following a precedent of banning certain guns from everyone.  This is not what our Constitution intended or allows.  (Personally, I hate guns, but I love the Constitution and our freedom more.)

What about licensing?

We often hear the comment:  we register and license cars and drivers, so why not do the same for guns?  First, we must note that this analogy is misplaced since the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution while there is no such guarantee about automobiles or any other transportation device.

Nonetheless, some licensing of our constitutionally protected freedoms is allowed.  For example, peaceful demonstrators, no matter how controversial or unpopular their cause, are allowed to speak their views, but they can be required to obtain a permit to conduct their march or demonstration and such speech can be limited to certain times.  It cannot, however, be banned entirely. 

I’m not sure how this translates to guns, beyond such things as hunting licenses and limitations or perhaps limiting hour and locations for shooting ranges etc.  States of course can enact regulations that define gun free zones, ability and requirements for carrying a concealed weapon, etc.  

We already have these gun licensing laws in place.  We also have criminal statutes that prohibit one from using a firearm in an illegal manner such as to commit a felony, or to assault or murder.  We can, of course, concern ourselves with ensuring that such regulations and statutes are well enforced, but in many of the mass murders as well as other shootings, licensing and similar regulation would have done nothing to stop the event from occurring.

Guns are the tool, not the instigator, of the tragedies

The problem is not the gun, but the one who fires it.  We must recognize that attempts to ban or control guns are a superficial fix and move on to reach the deeper question of Why, not What.  We must question why there is so little respect for human life in this country, why people in this country turn so quickly to violence, even deadly violence, when they are upset or having a dispute with another human being. 

I have touched on this question in past blogs.  I think that in large part it traces back to a lost belief in the concept of something greater than ourselves combined with a rise in the desire for self-satisfaction to the detriment of anything or anyone else. 

Value systems based outside of oneself causes society to adopt rules of behavior toward one another as well as respect humanity as something unique, irreplaceable, and deserving of respect.  A value system that places the self above all else leads to destruction of the social order as the individual seeks constant gratification.

We are becoming different people

In my local newspaper today there was the story of a 20 year old who shot and killed a man as part of a “road rage” incident.  The two did not know each other.  Apparently the 20 year old was driving and came upon the man and his friend walking in the road.  The 20 year old drove by, the man apparently thought he was too close, so when the 20 year old parked nearby the man came to him and angrily accosted him.  A fist fight ensued and when the 20 year old was on the ground he pulled his gun and fired.  The man died.

The sad thing is that this does not sound surprising or terribly out of the ordinary in today's world.  We regularly read stories of basically minor disagreements that end in shooting or stabbing or other violence.  What has happened in society that causes us to have such little regard for human life?  Why is violence our go-to method of settling disputes?

Destroying every gun in this country will not alter this attitude.  What may alter it is a deep look inside ourselves and our current cultural norms. 

The family, once the place where children were taught not only social skills and civility but also a respect for the world outside of themselves is a fading concept.  We have single parent homes, even essentially no parent homes when we see children just weeks old shipped off to daycare for the “convenience” of their parents.  We have dysfunctional families where drugs or similar mental problems overtake the family dynamic. 

Children growing up in dysfunctional families have no healthy model on which to base their own parenting.  Schools, that used to work in consort with parents to teach children necessary academic skills now teach children to keep secrets from parents as they learn about the day’s smorgasbord of genders from which they can choose.

Lost children become lost adults.  They become angry adults.  They become adults who do not understand how to interact with others, how to participate in the give and take that society requires.  They become adults full of hurt, and that hurt spills out in many ways.  And we see this destroying our society and whom and what we are as human beings. 

Today we have more and stricter gun laws than ever before; nonetheless, gun violence (as well as other forms of violence) continues to rise.  Guns are nothing more than a tool and that tool is currently being used to act out the deep dysfunction of our society.  Removing guns will not cure the problem.  Taking a deep look into how we are raising and what we are teaching our children is the only way we can ever heal.