Texas: Another Reason I'm Moving to the Gun Control Camp

People who look at this and are inspired,
scare the crap out of me. Image from source.

If it isn't clear why a formerly neutral-on-guns guy like me is becoming ever more in the gun control camp, here's one reason: Texas. I don't think I really even need to elaborate, just look at Governor Goodhair there, posing like Yosemite Sam. Then scroll down and read the plastic gun story, the guns for kids story. . .anything from the NRA, especially any utterance by Wayne LaPierre. This cultish, fetishistic, addiction to guns we have as a country is really starting to rub me (and a whole lot of people) the wrong way. And the lunacy of people who proclaim themselves to be patriots, ready to take up arms against the "tyranny" of the federal government? How would that go down exactly? If you think that is a likely outcome in this country, I'd love to hear from you in the comments, about how you think that would go down.

[Excerpt]

Texas House Approves 12 Firearms Bills To Put More Guns In Classrooms And Defy Federal Law

On Saturday, as Texas hosted the National Rifle Association’s annual convention, the Texas House passed 12 gun bills to make it even easier to obtain and possess firearms in the state. The onslaught of legislation contains provisions to allow college students to carry handguns in class and to block any theoretical federal bans on assault weapons or high-capacity ammunition. The 12 bills, a veritable goody bag for gun rights advocates, passed easily in the Republican-dominated House. . .

Read more at: Think Progress

Today is Make or Break for "Obamacare"

Wow. How embarrassing. Image
from source, Think Progress.

UPDATE: Whew! Upheld, almost entirely. Cool, cool. Many conservatives severely butt-hurt about it, cool, cool. And looks like I was right about the issue of the mandate being a tax. Cool!

ORIGINAL POST:

And by make or break, I mean possibly broken apart, or broken altogether. Or maybe--just maybe--it will be upheld. As it pertains to healthcare, I'm currently covered by my husband's company's plan. Score one for inclusive corporations. So, I'm not impacted by the decision either way, at least not as things stand. But I know there are lots of people who are enjoying some health care improvements, such as having adult children on their plans until 26, or the moratorium on preexisting conditions.

The truth is, when the separate parts of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare came from Hillarycare linguistically, and Romneycare genetically) are explained, people really like them. Dress them up with the Obamacare name, and inject some Rush Limbaugh-isms, and it has a very low approval rating. Big surprise. And don't tell me that Republicans pushed this Supreme Court battle "for the American people." It was done to get President Obama on his signature achievement. The "individual mandate" was a Republican idea, originally, after all. And it amounts to a tax. Thanks and congratulations will go to Grover Norquist for it not being called that. Who elected him?

So, one way or the other, this is going to be big news today, all weekend, on the Sunday talk shows, and through next week. Whichever way it goes, it's going to be used by both sides in probably many elections. Unlike many of the other issues of the week or two, this one is going to have lasting impact. And thanks to an oopsie, we already know how it's going to be reported, in each possible outcome! At least from the Chicago Sun-Times. Like the ending of the movie Clue, there are multiple endings to this story, all pre-written, and accidentally released. And in each case, there is a downside for Obama! Liberal media my ass. . . .

[Excerpt]

How Not To Write About Tomorrow’s Supreme Court Decision

Earlier today, the Chicago Sun-Times accidentally posted a pre-written story on tomorrow’s pending Affordable Care Act decision in the Supreme Court, which included ready-to-go intro paragraphs for several possible outcomes. . .

Read them all at: Think Progress

DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. . .Again

Image found at Moorfield Storey Blog

It's irritating sometimes to pay a lot of attention to a particular issue. Because the more intensely you watch it, the longer it seems to take for anything to happen. Like a watched pot, following marriage equality wend its way through the courts can be interminable. Proposition 8 passed in California in November 2008, and has been challenged and beaten in court. The revocation of same-sex marriage rights in California was declared federally unconstitutional. This was in 2010. And here we are in 2012, and gay couples still can't get married, even after the ruling was affirmed.

Of course, as far as legal cases go, this isn't unusual. And if it weren't for the rampant busybodies fighting marriage equality, the whole fight would be over by now. Progress is going very fast, considering. It just feels like forever. Still, our hopes are buoyed often these days. There have been encouraging decisions all over the country recently, even with the party poopers like New Jersey's Chris Christie trying to sit on our parade. Even the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)--that Clinton-era compromise--is getting chunks taken out of its hide. Another judge has ruled it unconstitutional. Frustratingly, DOMA still stands. But its days seem to be numbered.


[Excerpt]


Federal Court Says DOMA Unconstitutional: Analysis of the Ruling

Another day, another victory for equality. Today, Judge Jeffrey White, a George W. Bush appointee to the federal bench, declared the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional as it applied to Karen Golinski. . .

Read more at: TowleRoad

6 Unconstitutional Laws the GOP Has Foisted Upon Us

Image from source, AlterNet

This is a partial list you understand. So much for the laser-like focus on "jobs, jobs, jobs." Instead we get legislation against Sharia Law! Abortion! Homosexuals! (Rant! Froth! Belch!) Sooooo predictable, but somehow every time the pendulum swings back to the right, the voting public seems to forget. This time, I think the pendulum hit one of those Angry Birds TNT crates, and is about to bo careening back to the left. But that's just a guess.

[Excerpt]

6 Crazy, Unconstitutional Laws Right-Wingers Are Blowing Your Money On

They rode into power on a wave of conservative populism, vowing to rein in spending, slash deficits (remember how the Tea Partiers swore they weren't focusing on those “wedge” social issues anymore?), and above all, restore our fealty to the Constitution, a document they claim to hold an almost religious reverence for. . .

Read (much) more at: AlterNet

Thanks to Stupid Monkey Planet for the link.

Oh, Heck. Rep. Joe Heck Supports DOMA. Surprise!

"Does my hair look like a sister wife's?"
No! Not at all!

The other day, encouraged by a friend who is half of a same-sex marriage (as am I), I signed an online petition against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The act has been ruled unconstitutional in part by at least one court, and the Obama Administration agreed, and has decided not to defend the law in court.  Online petitions are literally the least we can do, of course, but this one had the added benefit of sending letters--automatically--to each of our individual Congressmen. Unfortunately, my Congressman is Joe Heck.

In an extreme case of fickle, uninformed and/or abstaining voters, freshman Congresswoman Dina Titus was elected and unelected in the space of two years. I voted for Titus, but have no relative opinion of her. I didn't have time to form one! But I've never been a fan of Heck, who was a perennial candidate for something here in the Las Vegas Valley for many years. Anyway, Heck did do me the courtesy of responding to my letter, even if it was from a nondescript address (NV03JHIMA@mail.house.gov) with an equally vague subject line ("Responding to your message"). What is correspondence coming to in this country?

Anyway, here are excerpts from his letter, with my responses bolded in brackets:

Dear Mr. Greenlee,



Thank you for contacting me to share your opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). I understand your concerns, and appreciate the opportunity to respond to you on this important issue.


As you may know, Dear Mr. Greenlee, [I know, Dear Mr. Heck] the Obama Administration and Attorney General Eric Holder recently stated their belief that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, and as a result, will not defend the law against a legal challenge. DOMA was originally signed into law by President Clinton (P.L. 104-199) [Republicans cannot resist pointing out that Bill Clinton signed this law. They don't cite Clinton for much else, ever, and they don't point out that he now regrets having signed it.] and defines marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman. [Among other things, including preventing the exercise of the Constitution's full faith and credit clause.] The decision by this Administration to abandon the law oversteps presidential authority. [No, it doesn't. Presidents have done this before, notably St. Ronnie Reagan.] The separation of powers clearly outlined by our Constitution gives only the Supreme Court the power to interpret the law - not the President. [And he's not interpreting the law, he's declining to DEFEND it.] Additionally, as the institution of marriage is not a right defined in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, the issue of marriage falls to the people of the states to decide, and the people of Nevada amended the state constitution to provide that definition. [In a laughably transparent campaign to "protect the sanctity of marriage." In NEVADA, home of the quickie divorce and the drive-up window, Elvis impersonator wedding.] Unless the Supreme Court decides that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, it is the responsibility of the Administration to uphold [Refusing to defend in court is not the same thing as enforcement.] the law of the land.


While I agree with President Obama when he says that marriage is between a man and a woman, [Another thing Republicans never fail to point out. Obama's unfortunate, politically expedient stance on marriage is the ONLY thing about the man Heck would likely ever cite. And Obama himself is AGAINST DOMA, and has said his opinion on same-sex marriage is "evolving."] his decision to not defend the law and the voice of the people is disappointing. Speaker of the House John [Boner] Boehner has asked that the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group meet to determine how to uphold its duty and protect the will of the states, and I support these efforts. [Kinda figured.] Please know that I understand your concerns and will follow this matter closely as it moves forward [I'm sure you will. And that you'll continue to tithe, to help support the effort].


For additional information, please visit my website, http://www.heck.house.gov. From this site you can access statements about current events or pending legislation, and receive detailed information about the many services that I am privileged to provide for Nevadans [Blah, blah, blah.].


Again, I appreciate your thoughts [No, you don't] and it is an honor to serve you in Congress [Bite me]. Your suggestions are always welcome, and if ever I may be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me [Oh, I won't].


Sincerely [REALLY?],


DR. JOE [Oh my heck] HECK
Member of Congress

[Color me unimpressed, and unsurprised.]

Health Care Act Ruled Unconstitutional. . .But. . .

FRC's Tony Perkins (No! Mother! Blood!)
Image from source, Think Progress

Oh, this couldn't look much hinkier, could it? A judge in Florida ruled that the "mandate" to buy insurance is un-Constitutional, and therefore the whole act is. That sounds like a heckuva reach, doesn't it? Then, it sounds like the judge is a Tea Party supporter, which isn't in and of itself a disqualifier, but who is he using as source material? The Family Reasearch Council? Are you shitting me? That group--aside from recently being put on the SPLC Hate Group list--is renowned for skewed statistics. Good grief.

[Excerpt]

Tea Party Judge Roger Vinson ‘Borrows Heavily’ From Family Research Council To Invalidate Health Law



. . .But a closer read of his analysis reveals something peculiar. In fact, as Vinson himself admits in Footnote 27 (on pg. 65), he arrived at this conclusion by “borrow[ing] heavily from one of the amicus briefs filed in the case for it quite cogently and effectively sets forth the applicable standard and governing analysis of severability (doc. 123).” That brief was filed by the Family Research Council. . .

Read more at: Think Progress

Hmm. George Washington Would Have Supported Health Care Mandate?

Image from source, Think Progress

Sorta. At least he supported a mandate. Are Republicans (who initially came up with the idea of a health insurance mandate) saying that George Washington went against the Constitution? Interesting. . .

[Excerpt]

Cuccinelli’s Anti-Health Reform Argument Has A George Washington Problem



. . .Cuccinelli’s comparison between health care and guns is unfortunate, since it reveals his utter ignorance of American legal history. Indeed, rather than trying to “imagine” what the reaction to such a hypothetical law might be, Cuccinelli could learn exactly what America’s reaction was to an actual law simply by picking up a history book. As it turns out, President George Washington signed a law that was almost identical to the one Cuccinelli railed against on CBS. . .
 
Read more at: Think Progress

Has the TSA Gone Too Far?

Image from Passport Magazine

I have to fly to Ohio in a few weeks, and so I likely will have the option of either the naked body scan or the full-on groping by the TSA.  I likely will just go through the scanner--though the radiation worries me a bit--but the groping wouldn't bother me. I'm old enough now to have had a doctor staring up my butt, so I don't embarrass easily anymore. But I am a little offended that we must subject ourselves by law to these indignities for the privilege of flying.

It's easy to refer to people who object to these measures as whiners. But are they? I for one loathe being treated as a potential criminal or terrorist. Take for example the practice of many stores that insist upon seeing your receipt before you exit a store. At a Sam's Club or Costco, I get it. It's a club, you're a member, and you play by their rules. But at a Wal-Mart, Best Buy or Fry's? Why do they need to see my receipt, I'm not a thief. I resent being treated as though I might be.

And while I may have no issues being photographed naked, or being fondled by a TSA agent, it is easy to think of scenarios where a person could be traumatized by such a thing. How about a rape victim? An incest survivor? How about a person who has a phobia about being touched? And let's not forget that the cut-off age for the search is twelve years old. That means pre- and current pubescent children are being handled this way. I don't know about you, but I know that I was extremely self-conscious about my body at thirteen years old.

On top of all of this, the procedures themselves aren't even known to be effective. How many potential terrorists have been stopped by the TSA anyway? Wouldn't it be front page news? I know that the dozens of times I've had to remove my belt, shoes, ring, watch and pocket contents have always made me grumble, because it's a pain in the ass, and because I always suspected that it was all theater. Just there to make us feel safe.  Still, some people will insist that it is necessary, and if we want to be safe in flight, we must submit to such indignities.

Hmm. Funny. I live in Las Vegas, tourism capital of the world. We have innumerable targets for destruction here on the ground. If I want to go play the penny slots, should I have to go through a similar procedure at the MGM Grand? How about at Hoover Dam? Disneyland maybe? Are airplanes the terrorists' only targets?

Now that we've acquiesced to this massive change to the security procedures, are we going to stop here? I mean--and I know I'm not the first to posit this--what if a terrorist decides to pack his bomb making materials into his nether regions?  This new procedure was enacted due to the underpants bomber, so I suppose if we get a suppository bomber, we're going to have to bend over and spread 'em? Tell me why that notion would not come to pass, based on what has come before.

The excerpted story below indicates just one horrifying encounter with the new TSA procedures. Another involved a cancer survivor who was forced to present her prosthetic breast to the agent. This procedure is new, and those two examples are likely only the tip of the iceberg.

[Excerpt]

TSA pat-down leaves traveler covered in urine



A retired special education teacher on his way to a wedding in Orlando, Fla., said he was left humiliated, crying and covered with his own urine after an enhanced pat-down by TSA officers recently at Detroit Metropolitan Airport. . .
 
Read more at: MSNBC

Don't Ask, Don't Tell Unconstitutional?

Image from source, Raw Story

Well, yeah.  But will this actually end the policy?  There are many reasons I wouldn't have been fit for the military, starting with my lazy eye, and my general lack of coordination.  But sexual orientation has to head the list of stupid reasons to kick people out.  It's so anachronistic.  Let's hope this is the end of it, or at least the beginning of the end.

[Excerpt]

Judge: Military gay ban ‘unconstitutional’

A federal judge in Southern California on Thursday declared the U.S. military's ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment rights of gay and lesbians. . .

Read more at: Raw Story

Get Ready to Show Your Papers in Arizona

Image from source, MSNBC

This is insane. You don't have to go very far in modern politics to see insane over-reactions, do you?  So, the Police in Arizona will now be compelled to demand any "suspicious" person's papers on sight.  Forget that recognizing illegal aliens on sight is downright impossible. Forget that--despite the batshit insane Governor's insistence--this has to lead to racial profiling.  Remember this: Republicans and conservatives in the state of Arizona have abandoned their "smaller government" principles.  They don't think it is a government over-step to have all people in Arizona carry their citizenship paper by mandate.  They don't think it will be an affront to a person's civil rights to lock them up if they don't have a passport or birth certificate on them at all times.  In case you didn't notice, the birthers won one.  As I said, it's insane.

[Excerpt]

Ariz. governor signs toughest immigration law

Gov. Jan Brewer ignored criticism from President Barack Obama on Friday and signed into law a bill supporters said would take handcuffs off police in dealing with illegal immigration in Arizona, the nation's busiest gateway for human and drug smuggling from Mexico. . .

Read more at: MSNBC

National Day of Prayer Unconstitutional

Image from source, Huffington Post

Well, duh. I've said before here that I'm agnostic--leaning pretty close to atheist--but I don't get hugely riled up about it. Oh, I'll get into contentious arguments online sometimes, but I'm not exactly an activist. When questions come up about the Constitutionality of things like "In God We Trust," or "under God," I simultaneously silently root them on, and roll my eyes. "Just leave it alone, guys" I'll think.

That's because while these issues are clearly un-Constitutional, they are also traditions that--while often not well-known or understood in their origins--are held onto tightly by a majority of the country. Messing with them can be more trouble than it's worth. Judges either have to piss off a huge segment of the population, or they have to make tortured decisions as to why these things are Constitutional. But hey, a win. Now, off to the Supreme Court, I'm sure.

[Excerpt]

National Day of Prayer Unconstitutional, Judge Rules

A federal district judge in Wisconsin has ruled that the 1988 law creating the annual observance of the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional.

"It goes beyond mere 'acknowledgement' of religion because its sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context," U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb ruled Thursday (April 15). . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

Anti-ACORN Law Unconstitutional?

When lawmakers try to enact legislation in a knee-jerk response to some flare-up in faux (or real) outrage, there are often unintended consequences. The attempt to federally defund ACORN may actually either be found un-Constitutional or may have to apply the same rules to countless other government contractors, like Blackwater! Oopsie!

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Patriot Act Unconstitutional?

Wow, why isn't this bigger news? I don't believe I've seen it talked about, or even heard it on talk radio. Maybe I'm reading too much into it? See what you think.

[Excerpt]

Judge Rules Provisions of Patriot Act Unconstitutional

A federal judge today struck down portions of the USA Patriot Act as unconstitutional, ordering the FBI to stop issuing "national security letters" that secretly demand customer information from Internet service providers and other businesses.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in New York ruled that the landmark anti-terrorism law violates the First Amendment and the Constitution's separation of powers provisions because it effectively prohibits recipients of the FBI letters (NSLs) from revealing their existence and does not provide adequate judicial oversight of the process. . .

Read the rest at: WashingtonPost.com