(Contrary
to all logic and reason, I have decided to put new material up on this
blog, but only in the form of the columns that I have done for the
Toledo Free Press. This is done for the benefit of those with time to
waste, who likewise do not spend their time reading the website of this
award winning weekly newspaper, and I will go back and add efforts that
were published earlier this year.)
This particular effort was published today on 08/11/2014.
Many will tell you that the United States is the greatest country in
the world. They believe so in large part because this nation, (at least
in theory) under the framework of the Constitution, lives under the
“Rule of Law.”
Now for those unfamiliar with this principle, this means this nation
is governed under the pre-eminence of its laws, and not under the
primacy of any individual or group of individuals. Laws however, have an
internal supremacy of their own.
Municipalities like Toledo, for example, have city councils with the
ability to write and pass laws, which go into effect if the mayor signs
and doesn’t veto them. Those rights are guaranteed under the principle
of “Home Rule,” granted under Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution.
Article XVIII however, states: “Municipalities shall have authority to
exercise all powers of local self-government and to adopt and enforce
within their limits such local police, sanitary and other similar
regulations, as are not in conflict with general laws,” — which is
written vaguely enough to make it a constant subject of judicial, if not
political, interpretation. Translated from “lawyer-speak,” it means
that a city can write laws for itself only as long as the state and
nation agree that such laws don’t conflict with state or federal law.
Confused yet? Then let’s talk about the state level, where legislators
play much the same game. Like their municipal counterparts, laws can be
whatever is passed by the state legislature and signed by the governor.
Once completed, however, state law has the potential to make local laws
obsolete or superfluous, under the conflict portion of Article XVIII.
But that’s not the end.
The efforts of the states in turn are themselves subject to the same
fate under the supremacy of federal laws under Article VI of the
Constitution. Known in fact as the “Supremacy Clause” it states: “This
Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under
the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the
Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in
the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
(I know, blah, blah, blah …) Remove the legal gibberish however, and it
makes clear that when under judicial review, federal law shall deemed
the Supreme “Law of the Land.”
This is where it gets even more confusing. Not only does the president,
like the governor at the state level, have the ability to sign or veto
legislation submitted to him by the legislature, but lately he seems to
feel he has the power to change or delay implementation of certain
politically inconvenient provisions in spite of “shall vs. may” language
within it (something we’ll have to go into in another effort). More
importantly, it’s the executive branch and the president’s attorney
general at the Department of Justice (DOJ) that’s ultimately responsible
for enforcing federal law.
During the current administration there’s been some confusion,
contradiction and what might even be seen as arbitrary behavior where
such enforcement is concerned. The current DOJ sees no voting rights
violation when a couple of Black Panthers with clubs stand outside a
polling place in Pennsylvania, but does see it in a Wisconsin
requirement for photo ID and in Ohio where providing absentee ballots
and 28 days of early voting is apparently insufficient protection.
The DOJ challenged Arizona (and won) for passing a state law to allow
its local and state constabulary to enforce existing federal immigration
law when the federal government seemed unable or unwilling to do so.
(Texas’s governor just recently deployed the Texas National Guard to
assist border enforcement in his state and we have yet to see if this
too will be challenged.)
And then there’s pot …
The DOJ insisted on the supremacy of federal drug laws early on when
challenging “medical” marijuana use in California, but has recently
seemed rather timid regarding recent state laws for recreational use in
Colorado and Washington.
Inconsistent and contradictory federal enforcement of the Supremacy
Clause seems the most generous way of describing the current situation.
Does this erratic and unpredictable legal philosophy leave us confused
as a nation, one ripe for both abuse and for legal challenge? Yes. Worse
yet, it also makes it more likely that regardless of what you do (even
if that’s nothing at all), you could well be guilty of something.
"Though not a professional political operative or someone who has personal experience with running for office, I may have an implausible bit of strategy that might work for the most
desperate or reckless among you: Under-promise and under-deliver.”
Now admittedly while the above is true, I do have some considerable experience in the concept of under-promising, from having made a career out of it. As for under-delivering, I have little fear of contradiction as to my level of expertise in this area; having a lifetime of it to point to.
Recommending it therefore as a political strategy in the last month leading up to an election in "Under-promise And Under-deliver" might have some actual (if rather twisted) value that can only be discovered after reading this offering on the website of the TFP. (Besides, I've already published a disclaimer to cover any potential blame.)
The good news however, is that regardless of the quality of the writing in the column or the value of the advice contained therein, you would still be able to look forward to so much more that's to come in this week's 'Star' edition, not to mention the weekend version of Toledo's largest Sunday circulation and Ohio's Best Weekly newspaper (at least according to the Ohio Society of Professional Journalists), the Toledo Free Press.
It seems that even more "Isn't Funny ..." ideas occurred to me after the first such posting was put up. I even got a few suggestions from friends such as Brad Reynolds that needed to have a place somewhere in a listing. Like the previous list, these little bits of life's ironies are not in fact, the periodic WTH (pardon my capitals)
moments that suddenly occur to us, but more in line with the overall ludicrous nature of what we laughingly call civilization in general, and
our legal and political systems in particular. Because these are additional offerings in a second posting, I couldn't decide how to phrase this one. I therefore chose to both applicable word usages in yet another bit of irony. (Though I suppose that 'Isn't It Also Funny would be a more proper grammatical form. Get over it.)
- Isn't funny that one of the centers of liberalism in this country (Hollywood) makes much of its money from movies depicting things that Liberals absolutely abhor and the rest from traditional Conservative values?
- Isn't it also funny that the government pays people to produce more of things that it says are bad (tobacco and oil), then makes other people pay them in turn (cigarette and gas taxes) for using what are supposed to be the bad products produced under such government encouragement?
- Isn't it funny that the only thing more annoying that a politician giving another fairly well-written, but seemingly endless set of teleprompter prepared remarks are the hours of even more boring analysis, historical perspective, and critical parsing of those remarks by 'inside the beltway' pundits?
- Isn't it funny that some of the worst acting on television comes from those working in reality TV shows that are attempting to portray ... themselves?
- Isn't funny, speaking of reality shows, that many of them are people who are rich or attempting to become so, at a time when those of wealth are considered little more than an object of scorn?
- Isn't it funny that the more channels that you have on your cable system, the less likely that you will be able to find something you want to watch on TV?
- Isn't it funny that after queuing up hundreds of movies on Netflix that you want to make sure to watch at one point, that you can go down the entire list later, unconvinced that you want to give any of them the 90 minutes required?
- Isn't it funny that some of the same states that have very strict laws against driving while under the influence also have drive-thru liquor stores?
- Isn't it funny that wineries take great pains to provide stopper systems to keep air out of wine, but recommend that you let a recently opened bottle 'breathe' before serving it?
- Isn't it funny the longer these lists get, the less amusing any of this becomes?
Yeah, I'm still not laughing either...
