Big Brother

 

Every Breath You Take

Every breath you take and every move you make
Every bond you break, every step you take, I'll be watching you
Every single day and every word you say
Every game you play, every night you stay, I'll be watching you

Is your cellphone watching you?

Your smart cell phone may not know if “you’ve been bad or good” and it may not know whether “you’re sleeping” or “you’re awake”, but it probably knows where you have been. It  can use some additional processing to determine where you are between say 12 AM and  4 AM and might decide that the most frequently observed location is your home. It can use some additional processing to determine where you are between  9 AM and 12 PM on weekdays and decide the most frequently observed location is probably your workplace.  

With access to another database, that home location might be used to provide other information such as an address, and the work location might be used to provide a company or agency name and an address. In some cases that information might have been intentionally blurred, but combining datasets might yield information which was not intended to be disclosed. 

There have been court cases where cell phone location has been used to try and associate absence, or presence, near a location with activity at that location.  “Your Honor, my client could not have committed the crime because his cellphone shows he was nowhere near the scene of the crime at the time of the crime.”  So be good for goodness sake.

Stampede

 

Stampede

Stampede they're comin' up to draw
Stampede three thousand herd or more
Here they come a smokin' fire boys you better earn your hire
Stampede and hell to score

Don’t be stampeded.

A stampede is  defined as running away in a large group from something especially because of fear. Man is a group animal and, like any large group, man can be stampeded. A stampede at a concert or sporting event is among the most frightening things. Attendees have been trampled in those stampedes. Deliberately  starting a  stampede is among the worse things that could be done, because the group may act in a way a that is harmful to itself and others.

In Disney’s The Lion King, Scar starts a stampede to kill his brother, King Mustafa and frame his nephew, Simba. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic... The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

If a political party promotes the fear of …immigrants, religions, races, gender, sexual orientation, etc. aren’t they trying to stampede the voting population for their own benefit. When you vote, listen without fear. Don’t let yourself be stampeded.

RINOs

 

This Town Ain't Big Enough for the Both of Us

Zoo time, is she and you time?
The mammals are your favorite type, and you want her tonight
Heartbeat, increasing heartbeat
You hear the thunder of stampeding rhinos, elephants, and tacky tigers
This town ain't big enough for the both of us
And it ain't me who's gonna leave

Should we be hunting stampeding RINOs?

There has been a call for an open season on the hunting of RINOs, which are supposedly Republicans In Name Only. While the Republican Party has a disagreement on the size and role of government with the Democratic Party, both parties vie for the election of Constitutional officers who will swear an oath to support and defend that Constitution. Thus there should be no difference between the parties in the form of government. When Benjamin Franklin was asked what form of government that the founding fathers gave us in the Constitutional Convention, he  famously said “a republic, if you can keep it.”  A republic is not the only from of government that could have been possible. Monarchism or authoritarianism are alternative forms of government. If those who support authoritarians are calling themselves Republicans, then they are truly rINOS, because they do not support the republican form of government.

Those who support a limited, but republican, form of government are the only Republicans worthy of the name. Those who support an authoritarian government are rINOs and are either oath breakers, or potential oath breakers, since they have no intention of honoring the oath to support the Constitution. Those complaining most loudly about RINOS are probably themselves rINOS and it is time for Republicans to take back their party. The commandment to not speak ill of fellow Republicans should not include those rINOS who are only pretending to be Republicans.

Lauren Boebert II

 

Everybody Loves A Clown

Everybody loves a clown, so why don't you?
Everybody laughs at the things I say and do
They all laugh when they see me comin'
But you don't laugh, you just go home runnin'
Everybody loves a clown, so why can't you?
A clown has feelings, too

Colorado, the joke isn’t funny anymore. Take back your clown, please.

 “The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church. That is not how our Founding Fathers intended it” Lauren Boebert,  Cornerstone Christian Center, June 26, 2022.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Lauren Boebert, as Representative for Colorado’s Third Congressional District, swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies. If the Constitution says that Congress is supposed to make no laws establishing religion, which church is Rep. Boebert talking about directing Congress and the government? The Baptists? The Presbyterians? The Catholics? The Methodists? The Muslims? The Buddhists? The Jews? I believe that the founding fathers were pretty clear on the subject, What part of NO does Rep. Boebert not understand?

There are six justices on the current SCOTUS who are Roman Catholics. Let’s have them decide that Papal Infallibly and veneration of the Virgin Mary are the law of the land. While that might make Justice Amy Coney Barrett very happy, I suspect that it would upset the congregation of the Cornerstone Christian Center. Since it would  require Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Sotomayor voting with Justices Alito, Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh, I don’t expect this to happen any time soon, but with this SCOTUS, who knows.

Knowing Your Place

 

Street Fighting Man

Hey! Think the time is right for a palace revolution
But where I live the game to play is compromise solution
Well, then what can a poor boy do
Except to sing for a rock 'n' roll band
'Cause in sleepy London town
There's just no place for a street fighting man, no

What is your place?

Man is a group animal. That means an individual man lives in a group of men. Every group has a leader, a sovereign. The problem is that the best tactics for becoming a leader are not the best tactics  for being a leader.

Leaders are often chosen by domination over challengers for that position  This requires that an individual be better than others, e.g. his challengers. He has the best User Optimal solution.

However once a leader, he should take on a servant’s role for the group. He administers the best System Optimal solution.

The problem is that an individual has a limited life, but the group of which he is member does not have a limited life. Sovereigns will eventually die or be replaced , but the group lives on with a new sovereign. That is meant by the seemingly contradictory phrase the “The King is dead, long live the King.”

Leaders who achieve their position through dominance, seek to prevent challengers to their position, do not wish to have others with power. They wish to surround themselves with those who will protect them, and not protect the group that they are supposed to lead. The only way to remove a dominance leader may be through dominance.

For most members of the group, there is little or no interest in who lead the group. ”Meet  the new boss, same as the old boss.” Dominance sovereigns are tempted to view their position as part of the estate which they can leave to their heirs, not to the group, e.g. Monarchs, but even authoritarians are inclined to believe this. Kim Jong-un, the “Great Leader” of North Korea, is the son of the former leader, Kim Jong-Il, who is the son of the leader before him, Kim Il-sung. In addition to sharing the problem with dominance sovereigns, of being reluctant to give power to anyone else in the group lest that person  challenge them, inherited sovereigns might not even have the best, dominance, User Optimal solution.

In a republic, the sovereign is the group. The United States, in its Constitution, declared that it was a republic. ( As Ben Franklin said, if we can keep it!). The members of its group included all people, living in the States that were being United, without distinction as to race, religion, nationality, citizenship, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age, etc. The only exceptions were Indians who were already members of their own Sovereign Nations, and the provision that chattel slaves counted as only 3/5 of a person ( and chattel slavery was eventually eliminated by the 13^th Amendment).  Officers of the United States NEVER become sovereigns. The sovereignty remains with the People which is why officers of the United States swear an oath to the Constitution, NOT to any individual.

As Senator Corey Booker has said, the most dangerous  words you can utter to an officer of the group are "Do you know who I am?"  The proper response should be "Yes, but don’t worry. I will not let that influence my duty to the group."  Your duty is to the group not yourself, even if you are a leader of that group.

. 

Precedents

 

Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer

Then how the reindeer loved him
As they shouted out with glee
"Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer
You'll go down in history"

Is history a good way to make laws?

Arguing that there is no historical precedent for a law is silly. If that were true, then there would be no ”firsts” because if it were not done before, then there IS  no historical precedent. There ARE historical precedents for legal instances of slavery, genocide, segregation, primo geniture, witch burning, etc. and none of those practices are considered to be acceptable today. Looking at the historical record should not preserve those actions. The Constitution was ratified by individual states and their people to transfer power to a federal government. However individuals in those states recognized the danger of this and did not ratify the Constitution without guaranteeing  certain rights which the individuals did NOT surrender to the government. That is what the Bill of Rights is all about. One of those “Rights” was the Ninth Amendment which reads.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The People wanted to ensure that if they forgot to list a right in the Constitution, that right should NOT be construed as being surrendered to the State. A right does not have to be listed in the Constitution, or the historical record, to be a right retained by the People. Abortion may not be listed in the Constitution, but it  also "forgot" to list cell phones, the internet, internal combustion engines, refrigeration, air conditioning, automobiles, etc. because none of those existed at the time the Constitution was written.

Abortion might be one of those unlisted rights, but it is already protected. Life begins at conception, but legal personhood under the Constitution begins at Birth, NOT Conception. The unborn fetus has moral rights before birth, but it has no constitutional rights before birth. Forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term is taking a woman’s womb until birth by the government without compensation. That action by the state is constitutionally forbidden. Does the state have the right, and responsibility, to protect a viable fetus? Absolutely! That fetus, if viable, is one of the People. Before viability? Not legally one of the People.

Supreme Court III

Revolution

You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We'd all love to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free your mind instead.

But if you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait

On July Fourth, it seems appropriate to ask if we are in another revolution?

The (Supreme) Court serves as a crucial guardian of the rule of law and also plays a central role in major social and political conflicts. Its decisions have profound effects on the life of the nation. Though conflict surrounding the processes by which the President nominates and the Senate confirms Justices is not new, it has become more intensely partisan in recent years.

So goes the introduction to the Final Report of the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States. There has been, IMHO,  a judicial coup in the Supreme Court. A majority of the Court representing  a view of a minority of the Nation have rendered decisions that only intensify this partisan debate. These opinions, IMHO, are themselves “egregiously wrong,” in Justice Alito’s current usage of the word, not the original usage of the word. Justice Thomas has written opinions which make statements that are factually incorrect. Justice Thomas has also stated that constitutional issues on contraception, same gender marriage, etc., should be reviewed, although selfishly not miscegenation, which could effect him personally. If the SCOTUS ruled that one plus one was three, it would not make this statement correct. SCOTUS is supposed to make factual statements to render opinions about the constitutionality of laws. If it does not, it is in conflict with its oath to uphold the Constitution. 

The role of the Chief Justice may be the most significant role in overcoming this judicial coup.  The most important decisions of the United States require a super majority. https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2022/06/supermajority.html. A criminal case requires a unanimous decision. A civil case requires a less than a uniramous decision but still a supermajority. Simple majorities invite a culture of domination, where the majority dominates the minority. The Constitution was designed to insure that the majority does not dominate any minority. Mankind is a group animal. There are decisions that must be decided by the group,  The question is how to make those decisions. 

 A unanimous decision can be blocked by any minority, even a minority of one. A majority decision invites tyranny of the majority,  which is expressly what the Constitution was trying to avoid. An efficient supermajority was found by Caplin and  Nalebuff[1] to be 64%. Within one standard deviation from the mean in a normal distribution will contain 68% of the values. Both are remarkably close to the Constitutional mandate of two-thirds. If two-thirds of a group support a decision then it probably does reflect the decision of the group, not just any majority of that group.

 In keeping with the role of the Chief Justice, it would seem that the decision of HIS Court should reflect the will of the Nation, not just the majority of the court. It takes four justices to decide that Supreme Court will even hear a case. The Chief Justice can, and should, impose a rule that the opinions of HIS Supreme Court are not the binding on the Nation unless a supermajority, not a simple majority, supports that decision. That means under the current SCOTUS,  decisions should require the support of six of the nine justices to be the decision of the nation. To do otherwise is to risk that decisions on gun control, contraception, marriage, and other issues including abortion could be decided by a majority of the SCOTUS but a minority of the nation. 

There are probably other recommendations that are appropriate from the Commission’s Final Report concerning  membership and size of the Court, terms, and term limits,  and other items that are not under the Chief Justice's purview.  On this Fourth of July lets us hope that Chief Justice Roberts can find the time to read the report and help prevent another revolution.

---

[1] Econometrica, Vol. 56, No. 4 (July 1988), 787-814