For many people this election (and all elections) appears to come down to the issue of abortion.
I believe that life and people are too complex for single-issue voting anyway, but it is a real concern for people. I have had some thoughts on it, and I am going to propose something very radical.
Allow me to suggest that what is wrong about abortion is for the parents, not for the children.
If there is one thing that my faith is sure on, it's that God has a plan for all of us, including the ability to heal and resolve things that are done to us. I believe that any children that could have been born will not miss out on anything that they could have had. Maybe religions that believe unbaptized infants go to Hell have a picture of God where aborted children are erased or punished or something horrible, but that is not our our doctrine, and that is more fear than faith.
For adults to become like God, following His plan, then understanding the power to create life, and to not take that lightly, and to learn the value of chastity and fidelity, then yes, it makes sense that abortion would not be desired or needed for the most part. There might be times when the pregnancy is high risk and you still choose to proceed because of your value for that life, but you are choosing. There is no one forcing you to carry or forcing you to terminate, because it is your choice.
This mindset erases the need to crusade for the unborn, and puts us back to trying to create a better world through service and evangelism.
One friend posted an article recently about how abortions tend to go up during Republican administrations and decrease during Democrat administrations:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/hillary-clinton-is-the-best-choice-for-voters-against-abortion-170258/
That should be the opposite, based on policies, but in a world where you focus more on taking care of the living, and respecting their choices, you have a world that is more welcoming to children.
In a world that tells you "If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em", without working toward a living wage, a lot of people might feel unable to be parents, even if it had been something they wanted.
I often go back to the "fruit of the spirit" as my guide to whether something is right: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance. Do the following circumstances lead to those feelings?
A heartbroken woman, one child already dead, the other with no hope of survival, crying for twelve hours waiting for an ethics committee to decide whether she could end the pregnancy.
http://kutv.com/news/local/utah-womans-resonse-about-late-term-abortion-going-viral-after-presidential-debate
A woman dying in a hospital because her miscarrying was not enough to justify saving her life.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741
Lawmakers saying that abortion in the case of rape isn't an issue because if it were really rape she wouldn't get pregnant.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/19/todd-akin-abortion-legitimate-rape_n_1807381.html
It is not uncommon for those justifying anti-choice laws to start saying really twisted and horrible things, where it appears that they are more concerned with controlling a woman's sexuality than anything else.
Maybe the problem is really that they have chosen the wrong battle.
Sunday, October 30, 2016
Sunday, October 23, 2016
When you need an amendment
We have one unratified amendment left, and then some other laws, but I wanted to stop and focus on when you might have an amendment.
With the first 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights, there was a need to put in the values that were important to the nation that had just set up how it would run. Shortly after that, there is some fine-tuning to be down; this process isn't specific enough, or we forgot to address this issue that has come up now. That is the case for the 11th and 12th, and for the 27th, though ratification was delayed.
Sometimes the amendment is to grant a power not previously specified. The 18th for Prohibition gave the Federal government power to do something they did not previously have the power to do. Now it seems like the silliest amendment, requiring a new amendment to repeal it (the 21st).
The failed Child Labor amendment from last week stems from an inability to regulate interstate commerce in the needed way, to an attempt to instead of regulating the commerce, simply making the protection of children and labor laws regarding them a federal matter.
Many of the successful amendments have been to extend rights and protections. We did not grant this group full citizenship before, and it was wrong of us. A lot of additional legislation has been in support of that.
There may sometimes be confusion over why things work in certain ways. For example, with the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, it was established that not only was slavery not allowed but Black men could vote and were citizens (with Black women still having to wait until the 19th).
There were still many obstacles to the enjoyment of that citizenship. In time that led to the Civil Rights Act (which included the Fair Housing Act) and Voting Rights Act. Without judging their efficacy here, the key issues were nonetheless seen as something that was already constitutional.
It seems like that could have been true for the abolition of the poll tax as well, but that did get an amendment, the 24th. It had previously been argued that the poll tax went against the Equal Protection clause, which certainly sounds reasonable.
Perhaps it was different because people had been talking about it for longer, with opposition to state poll taxes being offered by FDR, continued investigation under Truman, and urging for the amendment from JFK. There were arguments that the laws imposing the poll tax were based on the Constitution, and it could be seen as a states' rights issue.
It may only obfuscate the issue to remember that both Plessy v Ferguson and Brown v Board of Education treated "separate but equal", and they came down on different sides.
I don't know that I can provide much additional clarity, but one thing to remember is that if you study almost any amendment, there is at least one associated legal case that got people thinking about the issue, and whether the current laws were sufficient or even correct. Even with the amendments from the Bill of Rights, there were legal examples of problems that had happened under British rule that inspired them.
Beyond that, sometimes a law that should be sufficient isn't. That may be because there are too many people who don't believe in it. When that is the issue, passing the new legislation will probably not resolve the issue, but it may still provide an avenue for recourse that can be valuable.
But really what you need is better people. We should always be working on that.
With the first 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights, there was a need to put in the values that were important to the nation that had just set up how it would run. Shortly after that, there is some fine-tuning to be down; this process isn't specific enough, or we forgot to address this issue that has come up now. That is the case for the 11th and 12th, and for the 27th, though ratification was delayed.
Sometimes the amendment is to grant a power not previously specified. The 18th for Prohibition gave the Federal government power to do something they did not previously have the power to do. Now it seems like the silliest amendment, requiring a new amendment to repeal it (the 21st).
The failed Child Labor amendment from last week stems from an inability to regulate interstate commerce in the needed way, to an attempt to instead of regulating the commerce, simply making the protection of children and labor laws regarding them a federal matter.
Many of the successful amendments have been to extend rights and protections. We did not grant this group full citizenship before, and it was wrong of us. A lot of additional legislation has been in support of that.
There may sometimes be confusion over why things work in certain ways. For example, with the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, it was established that not only was slavery not allowed but Black men could vote and were citizens (with Black women still having to wait until the 19th).
There were still many obstacles to the enjoyment of that citizenship. In time that led to the Civil Rights Act (which included the Fair Housing Act) and Voting Rights Act. Without judging their efficacy here, the key issues were nonetheless seen as something that was already constitutional.
It seems like that could have been true for the abolition of the poll tax as well, but that did get an amendment, the 24th. It had previously been argued that the poll tax went against the Equal Protection clause, which certainly sounds reasonable.
Perhaps it was different because people had been talking about it for longer, with opposition to state poll taxes being offered by FDR, continued investigation under Truman, and urging for the amendment from JFK. There were arguments that the laws imposing the poll tax were based on the Constitution, and it could be seen as a states' rights issue.
It may only obfuscate the issue to remember that both Plessy v Ferguson and Brown v Board of Education treated "separate but equal", and they came down on different sides.
I don't know that I can provide much additional clarity, but one thing to remember is that if you study almost any amendment, there is at least one associated legal case that got people thinking about the issue, and whether the current laws were sufficient or even correct. Even with the amendments from the Bill of Rights, there were legal examples of problems that had happened under British rule that inspired them.
Beyond that, sometimes a law that should be sufficient isn't. That may be because there are too many people who don't believe in it. When that is the issue, passing the new legislation will probably not resolve the issue, but it may still provide an avenue for recourse that can be valuable.
But really what you need is better people. We should always be working on that.
Sunday, October 16, 2016
The Child Labor Amendment - unratified
Section 1. The Congress shall have power to limit, regulate, and prohibit the labor of persons under eighteen years of age.
Section 2. The power of the several States is unimpaired by this article except that the operation of State laws shall be suspended to the extent necessary to give effect to legislation enacted by the Congress.
The first thing that I thought seeing this as an unratified amendment was that obviously we have done some things without the amendment. There aren't factories full of child workers, at least in this country.
When that did happen, children had accidents at a higher rate than adults. Their development was stunted, both physically and intellectually. As people begin advocating for the children, some states began passing laws about child labor. This raised concerns that states that protected children were at an economic disadvantage by competing against states that still exploited the little beggars.
(And, they could have been literal beggars without the jobs; many of the child laborers had parents who could not afford to feed them without the additional income.)
The first attempts to handle the competitive issue involved prohibiting imports from states who used child labor into states that did not, or placing a fine on the businesses that used child labor. When these laws were contested, they were ruled unconstitutional.
This is actually quite sensible. The laws were taking a child labor issue and turning it into an interstate commerce issue. That led to the amendment proposal, specifically regulating the labor of persons under eighteen years of age.
Technically it could still be ratified, and would require another ten states, but it probably doesn't seem like a need. I remember in my youth that I could get a work permit at age fourteen, but I did not bother because I would not have been able to work past 7 PM. At sixteen there were more options and I started my stint in fast food and retail.
Except, I did still work before that, in unregulated ways. I babysat, where it was always until past 7 and often until 11 PM. I picked berries in the summer, which probably did have some regulations on it, but all I remember was needing a signed permission slip.
Hold that thought.
A lot of changes came with the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. It does have rules regarding child labor, but it was probably more significant that it also provided for 40 hour work weeks, overtime pay, and a national minimum wage. Providing better remuneration for the parents probably made it much less necessary to have the children work anyway, which should have been an additional incentive for keeping the law.
Most people are aware there are some limitations to the protections provided. Employees who can reasonably expect to get tipped do not have to be paid the minimum wage. Certain industries are exempt from paying overtime:
http://www.lni.wa.gov/WorkplaceRights/Wages/Overtime/Exemptions/default.asp
There are practical considerations, but it does still leave some room for exploitation, and a lot of that wiggle room is in agriculture. That may explain the school bus full of teenage berry pickers that I remember, but I am sure it also explains this:
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/l0fvyd/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-nicoteens
We don't need a constitutional amendment to fix this, but we would need to decide it was a problem. Perhaps we would decide that their parents need to be paid more, and that would mean the teenagers don't need to be there. Perhaps we would only decide that the employers should provide the gear and breaks.
There could be a lot of different ways to go, but nothing happens if people don't care.
Section 2. The power of the several States is unimpaired by this article except that the operation of State laws shall be suspended to the extent necessary to give effect to legislation enacted by the Congress.
The first thing that I thought seeing this as an unratified amendment was that obviously we have done some things without the amendment. There aren't factories full of child workers, at least in this country.
When that did happen, children had accidents at a higher rate than adults. Their development was stunted, both physically and intellectually. As people begin advocating for the children, some states began passing laws about child labor. This raised concerns that states that protected children were at an economic disadvantage by competing against states that still exploited the little beggars.
(And, they could have been literal beggars without the jobs; many of the child laborers had parents who could not afford to feed them without the additional income.)
The first attempts to handle the competitive issue involved prohibiting imports from states who used child labor into states that did not, or placing a fine on the businesses that used child labor. When these laws were contested, they were ruled unconstitutional.
This is actually quite sensible. The laws were taking a child labor issue and turning it into an interstate commerce issue. That led to the amendment proposal, specifically regulating the labor of persons under eighteen years of age.
Technically it could still be ratified, and would require another ten states, but it probably doesn't seem like a need. I remember in my youth that I could get a work permit at age fourteen, but I did not bother because I would not have been able to work past 7 PM. At sixteen there were more options and I started my stint in fast food and retail.
Except, I did still work before that, in unregulated ways. I babysat, where it was always until past 7 and often until 11 PM. I picked berries in the summer, which probably did have some regulations on it, but all I remember was needing a signed permission slip.
Hold that thought.
A lot of changes came with the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. It does have rules regarding child labor, but it was probably more significant that it also provided for 40 hour work weeks, overtime pay, and a national minimum wage. Providing better remuneration for the parents probably made it much less necessary to have the children work anyway, which should have been an additional incentive for keeping the law.
Most people are aware there are some limitations to the protections provided. Employees who can reasonably expect to get tipped do not have to be paid the minimum wage. Certain industries are exempt from paying overtime:
http://www.lni.wa.gov/WorkplaceRights/Wages/Overtime/Exemptions/default.asp
There are practical considerations, but it does still leave some room for exploitation, and a lot of that wiggle room is in agriculture. That may explain the school bus full of teenage berry pickers that I remember, but I am sure it also explains this:
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/l0fvyd/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-nicoteens
We don't need a constitutional amendment to fix this, but we would need to decide it was a problem. Perhaps we would decide that their parents need to be paid more, and that would mean the teenagers don't need to be there. Perhaps we would only decide that the employers should provide the gear and breaks.
There could be a lot of different ways to go, but nothing happens if people don't care.
Sunday, October 9, 2016
Unratified amendments
Wikipedia lists six unratified amendments.
Some of them probably don't matter much.
There is one on how to apportion House representatives, but Congress has managed to function without its ratification. There was a proposed amendment that accepting titles of nobility would end US citizenship, but that doesn't come up that often. We can probably get by.
One would have been very bad. The Corwin Amendment attempted to protect slavery, so that Federal decisions would not have been able to overturn it on the state level. It was an attempt to draw back the seceding states - a reminder that many would have been willing to sacrifice human rights for peace. There was some strong support, but it is better that it didn't pass.
The D.C. Voting Rights one is interesting, because it would overturn the 23rd Amendment and bring the voting rights of residents of the District of Columbia more in line with the voting rights of those who reside in states. There is still progress to be made there, and perhaps it would make sense to look at the rights of other US possessions there.
That leaves two more, and they become interesting not merely in terms of what does and does not get supported, but also in what you can do with legislation that does not require amendment.
More on that next week.
Some of them probably don't matter much.
There is one on how to apportion House representatives, but Congress has managed to function without its ratification. There was a proposed amendment that accepting titles of nobility would end US citizenship, but that doesn't come up that often. We can probably get by.
One would have been very bad. The Corwin Amendment attempted to protect slavery, so that Federal decisions would not have been able to overturn it on the state level. It was an attempt to draw back the seceding states - a reminder that many would have been willing to sacrifice human rights for peace. There was some strong support, but it is better that it didn't pass.
The D.C. Voting Rights one is interesting, because it would overturn the 23rd Amendment and bring the voting rights of residents of the District of Columbia more in line with the voting rights of those who reside in states. There is still progress to be made there, and perhaps it would make sense to look at the rights of other US possessions there.
That leaves two more, and they become interesting not merely in terms of what does and does not get supported, but also in what you can do with legislation that does not require amendment.
More on that next week.
Sunday, October 2, 2016
Conference Break
I want to spend some time on the US legal code beyond the Constitution. It's pertinent to previous posts, and important, especially in this particular election year. (No, I'm not studying for the LSAT.)
However, first here on General Conference weekend, I want to confess something. In April I got mad in almost every session. There are two things I specifically still remember. One was the guy who kept emphasizing that Halloween wasn't his favorite holiday, implying we shouldn't like it either without coming right out and saying it. The other was one who mentioned entitlement, assuming that the issue is people receiving aid without working, when if you look into how the system works at all you know that many food aid and housing aid recipients are working and being underpaid, so maybe the real entitlement issue are the job "creators" who will do anything to avoid paying a fair share of taxes or living wages when it would cut into their share.
If you are concerned now that I am apostate or a heathen (or finally have confirmation of what you knew all along), back it up a scooch. I still go to church, pray, read scriptures, fulfill my callings, and all of those things. It does concern me that I am not as enthusiastic for conference as I have been, but I can live with it. I have been thinking about it.
While the one brother did not come right out and say Halloween was evil, it felt like he wanted to. I believe the reason he didn't is because the church celebrates it all the time. As a group we don't believe it's evil. There are other churches that do, and there may have been an increase in that as part of a greater conservative backlash against acceptance of others and liberals (and minorities) holding office. That can affect other people. I think he got the idea from others.
(And I take it personally because I love Halloween, which I have always been very clear about.)
In the same way, it has been very common for conservatives to talk about entitlement as a problem with "other" people, and it sounds good because hard work is a good value, but it pushes a false understanding of how the system currently works, who is receiving aid and what their lives are like, and it reinforces a harsh and not Christ-like attitude. It is reinforced by politicians and pundits and if you didn't look around you could easily believe that the world is full of lazy people looking for handouts and that's the only problem with it. That's not reality, and Christ did not put any caveats on his commandments to help the poor.
When I hear these things in conference, I am not terribly surprised. God uses imperfect people to do His work, which is necessary or I wouldn't be any help, and certainly the members have had a real tendency toward conservatism (and being judgmental).
However, I also see that we have members infected by the world. It's not by the partying, feel-good drugs and sex part of the world. We get scared of that, but it doesn't really have that much appeal for a lot of us. Instead, it's the Pharisaical part of the world and - make no mistake - that is still worldly. And it's even more insidious because it comes with so many trappings of righteousness.
I'm not really saying this as something to keep in mind while watching conference; it's more for the rest of your life. Do you feel love toward others? Can you understand them and their needs? Can you bear to read articles or listen to news that doesn't exactly support your views?
Are the fruits of the Spirit a part of your life? Even on Halloween.
However, first here on General Conference weekend, I want to confess something. In April I got mad in almost every session. There are two things I specifically still remember. One was the guy who kept emphasizing that Halloween wasn't his favorite holiday, implying we shouldn't like it either without coming right out and saying it. The other was one who mentioned entitlement, assuming that the issue is people receiving aid without working, when if you look into how the system works at all you know that many food aid and housing aid recipients are working and being underpaid, so maybe the real entitlement issue are the job "creators" who will do anything to avoid paying a fair share of taxes or living wages when it would cut into their share.
If you are concerned now that I am apostate or a heathen (or finally have confirmation of what you knew all along), back it up a scooch. I still go to church, pray, read scriptures, fulfill my callings, and all of those things. It does concern me that I am not as enthusiastic for conference as I have been, but I can live with it. I have been thinking about it.
While the one brother did not come right out and say Halloween was evil, it felt like he wanted to. I believe the reason he didn't is because the church celebrates it all the time. As a group we don't believe it's evil. There are other churches that do, and there may have been an increase in that as part of a greater conservative backlash against acceptance of others and liberals (and minorities) holding office. That can affect other people. I think he got the idea from others.
(And I take it personally because I love Halloween, which I have always been very clear about.)
In the same way, it has been very common for conservatives to talk about entitlement as a problem with "other" people, and it sounds good because hard work is a good value, but it pushes a false understanding of how the system currently works, who is receiving aid and what their lives are like, and it reinforces a harsh and not Christ-like attitude. It is reinforced by politicians and pundits and if you didn't look around you could easily believe that the world is full of lazy people looking for handouts and that's the only problem with it. That's not reality, and Christ did not put any caveats on his commandments to help the poor.
When I hear these things in conference, I am not terribly surprised. God uses imperfect people to do His work, which is necessary or I wouldn't be any help, and certainly the members have had a real tendency toward conservatism (and being judgmental).
However, I also see that we have members infected by the world. It's not by the partying, feel-good drugs and sex part of the world. We get scared of that, but it doesn't really have that much appeal for a lot of us. Instead, it's the Pharisaical part of the world and - make no mistake - that is still worldly. And it's even more insidious because it comes with so many trappings of righteousness.
I'm not really saying this as something to keep in mind while watching conference; it's more for the rest of your life. Do you feel love toward others? Can you understand them and their needs? Can you bear to read articles or listen to news that doesn't exactly support your views?
Are the fruits of the Spirit a part of your life? Even on Halloween.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)