Category Archives: Politics

Our Continuous Declaration

Today marks the 238th year that we celebrate the formation of the United States of America. We know the stories of triumph and tragedy that followed July 4th, 1776… It was by every measure a Great War which won this country it’s Independence. But this country was not born on a battlefield. It was born from the hearts and minds of people searching for equality.

For reflection, here is the full text of the Declaration of Independence…

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

As the Founders so eloquently illustrate above, our basic needs as people haven’t changed in the centuries since this document was forged. But what has evolved in that time is our understanding of the world, and of ourselves. Since 1776, we have added to the Declaration of Independence with new declarations… Slaves being freed, Women’s Suffrage, the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act were all built on this foundation laid at our country’s birth.  And now in the 21st century, we see these declarations extended further still to the LGBT Civil Rights movement, combatting economic inequality and immigration reform. These struggles may not result in a brand new nation, but they can create a better, stronger future for us all.

So this Independence Day let’s not only celebrate the heroes of the past, but stand up, speak out and be a hero for the future.

SCOTUS Hobby Lobby Decision: A One-Way Ticket to Socialized Medicine?

After lauding the Supreme Court’s decision last week to protect digital privacy rights, it’s quite ironic that today they’ve dealt an insurmountable blow to individual rights while favoring corporate intransigence.  From the Chicago Tribune, here’s the story…

The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that business owners can object on religious grounds to a provision of President Obama’s healthcare law that requires companies to provide health insurance that covers birth control.

The court held on a 5-4 vote on ideological lines that such companies can seek an exemption from the so-called birth control mandate of the healthcare law. The decision means employees of those companies will have to obtain certain forms of birth control from other sources.

In a majority opinion by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, the court said the ruling applies only to the birth control mandate and does not mean companies would necessarily succeed if they made similar claims to other insurance requirements, such as vaccinations and drug transfusions.

In the majority opinion, Alito indicated that employees could still be able to obtain the birth control coverage via an accommodation to the mandate that the Obama administration has already introduced for religious-affiliated nonprofits. The accommodation allows health insurance companies to provide the coverage without the employer being involved in the process.

Under the accommodation, eligible non-profits must provide a “self certification”, described by one lower court judge as a “permission slip” authorizing insurance companies to provide the coverage. The accommodation is itself the subject of a separate legal challenge.

The Chicago Tribune also posted text of the full SCOTUS decision, which is definitely worth a read if you want a thorough understanding of the case.  One of the first things to notice?  This case was decided not just by a 5 to 4 majority, but 5 MEN ruling in favor of corporate rights, while all 3 of the court’s women were in dissent.  The irony is striking… 5 men that will never have to endure a situation seemingly ignore the input of women that have both a legal and personal understanding of the full range of women’s health needs (i.e. the medical FACT that some “birth control pills” are taken for other uses, and not just Contraception).  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writes the dissenting opinion here (it starts on page 60), and at the least, the way she refutes the narrow minds of her male colleagues is truly EPIC.  A dissent that will go down in history for sure.

Directly from Justice Ginsburg’s dissent…

After assuming the existence of compelling government
interests, the Court holds that the contraceptive coverage
requirement fails to satisfy RFRA’s least restrictive means
test. But the Government has shown that there is no less
restrictive, equally effective means that would both (1)
religious objections to providing insurance coverage for certain contraceptives (which they believe cause abortions); and (2) carry out the objective of
the ACA’s contraceptive coverage requirement, to ensure
that women employees receive, at no cost to them, the
preventive care needed to safeguard their health and well
being. A “least restrictive means” cannot require employees to relinquish benefits accorded them by federal law in
order to ensure that their commercial employers can
adhere unreservedly to their religious tenets. See supra,
at 7–8, 27.25

Then let the government pay (rather than the employees
who do not share their employer’s faith), the Court suggests. “The most straightforward [alternative],” the Court
asserts, “would be for the Government to assume the cost
of providing . . . contraceptives . . . to any women who are
unable to obtain them under their health-insurance policies due to their employers’ religious objections.” Ante, at
41.

As quoted from the majority opinion, the precedent set here may broaden “religious freedom” for non-people, but it also potentially broadens the reach of the Affordable Care Act.  The Court essentially endorses government healthcare over that of the private employer, which sows the seeds to eliminate private insurers entirely.  Can any company that suddenly “finds religion” and wants to alter or lessen their health plans just pass the buck on to Uncle Sam?  In any instance where companies decide to provide “separate but unequal” care that violates the ACA, will the government then step in and quietly take on more of the healthcare system?  The opinion of these Conservative justices is so short-sighted, that it leaves any and all of these possibilities on the table.  As shameful as today’s decision is, it may have some very real inroads to waving corporate responsibilities for healthcare entirely, leaving government to then create a public option to get people covered.  Only time will tell.

 

Supreme Court Upholds Right to ‘Digital Privacy’

In a landmark ruling this week, the United States Supreme Court has taken a bold step to protect ‘digital privacy’ rights in the United States.  Here’s the story from the New York Times

In a sweeping victory for privacy rights in the digital age, the Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously ruled that the police need warrants to search the cellphones of people they arrest.

While the decision will offer protection to the 12 million people arrested every year, many for minor crimes, its impact will most likely be much broader. The ruling almost certainly also applies to searches of tablet and laptop computers, and its reasoning may apply to searches of homes and businesses and of information held by third parties like phone companies.

“This is a bold opinion,” said Orin S. Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University. “It is the first computer-search case, and it says we are in a new digital age. You can’t apply the old rules anymore.”

With so much of our lives taking place through these small, electronic devices, it’s not surprising that the Justices issued a unanimous ruling on this.  In the 21st century, we already place far more value on intellectual capital than almost any other pursuit.  But the only way to protect this new economic engine is by strengthening our ‘digital privacy’ rights.  The Supreme Court has succeeded this week in protecting all Americans. Let’s hope for more common-sense conclusions on other issues.

Texoblogosphere: Week of June 23rd

The Texas Progressive Alliance managed to tear itself away from watching the World Cup just long enough to bring you this week’s roundup.

Off the Kuff sets a standard for success for Democrats in the fall elections.

Libby Shaw at Texas Kaos is not in the least bit surprised to learn Texas Republican politicians are playing red meat politics with the Texas/Mexico border crisis. The Texas GOP: Now it’s IMMIGEDDON.

WCNews at Eye on Williamson on the Texas corporate toll road headed for a state bailout, I Hate To Say I Told You So…But.

Bay Area Houston has a picture of the face of the Texas Tea Party.

PDiddie at Brains and Eggs has a roundup of news from the Rio Grande “boarder”.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme knows that the Texas Republicans are anti-immigrant and anti-Hispanic. And, they lie about it.

Neil at All People Have Value speculated about the meaning of a Texas license plate he saw with both the Don’t Tread On Me Flag & the word “Glock” on the plate. All People Have Value is part of NeilAquino.com.

It’s a scenario that is almost unimaginable as a parent. The joyous day comes when your twin babies are born, and after welcoming them into the world, and caring for the young ones every minute, a court invalidates your biological rights to your precious kids. It may sound like a nightmare scenario, but Texas Leftist has discovered one Fort Worth gay couple that is enduring that pain right now.

=======================

And here are some posts of interest from other Texas blogs.

The Texas Election Law Blog criticizes a state law that allows for elections featuring unopposed candidates to be cancelled.

Offcite declares that now is the time to save the ecosystems ringing our city.

TransGriot reviews the next steps in the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance fight.

Denise Romano documents the cost of lies about the Affordable Care Act.

Lone Star Q examines a bizarre pro-diversity campaign by the Metroplex Republicans that nobody else seems to know anything about.

Happy Pride Houston!!  

BIG: Utah Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down in Appeals Court

Some very big news today out of Denver, as the state of Utah is dealt another huge blow to its ban on same-sex marriage in an unusually broad ruling.  Here’s the scoop from LGBTQnation

 A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that states must allow gay couples to marry, finding the Constitution protects same-sex relationships and putting a remarkable legal winning streak across the country one step closer to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The three-judge panel in Denver ruled 2-1 that states cannot deprive people of the fundamental right to marry simply because they want to be wedded to someone of the same sex.

The judges added they don’t want to brand as intolerant those who oppose gay marriage, but they said there is no reasonable objection to the practice.

“It is wholly illogical to believe that state recognition of love and commitment of same-sex couples will alter the most intimate and personal decisions of opposite-sex couples,” the judges wrote, addressing arguments that the ruling could undermine traditional marriage.

The decision by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld a lower court ruling that struck down Utah’s gay marriage ban. It becomes law in the six states covered by the 10th Circuit: Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. But the panel immediately put the ruling on hold pending an appeal.

The Utah attorney general’s office will appeal the decision but is still assessing whether it will go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court or ask the entire 10th Circuit to review the ruling, spokeswoman Missy Larsen said.

So why is this ruling by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals the strongest yet to favor nation-wide marriage equality?  Well for one thing, it affects the court’s entire jurisdiction.  If that temporary hold were to be lifted, same-sex marriages could immediately commence in each state.  The other big thing the 10th Circuit did in their ruling?  They drew battle lines between religious recognition of marriages, and the obligation of states to treat their citizens equally.  Even in the 2013 Supreme Court ruling striking down California’s ban, the Justices still tried desperately to skirt around this particular issue.

The 10th Circuit Court also threw down “the gauntlet”, finally posing marriage and family as a right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.  If as expected, this ruling is then appealed up to the Supreme Court, they will be forced to make a final decision on which is more important… the rights of the state, or the rights of the individual?

With similar cases heading to other Circuit courts, it will be very interesting to see how long the Supreme Court can hold off on the issue.  Make no mistake, marriage equality is winning, and fast.  This ruling, more than any one’s we’ve seen yet since 2013, is sure to have major national implications.

In Cantor’s Wake

After the stunning primary defeat of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor last week, there is definitely some “Fear and Loathing in Wash-Vegas” for the Republican Party.  Many great minds around the United States are trying to figure out one central question…

1) Why did Cantor lose?

Pretty basic stuff here, and it comes up after every election with a surprise result.  But what makes this different is because in Washington, Cantor was one of the top dogs of Congress… essentially next in line to be Speaker of the House.  He was a decision maker for the Party, and someone that commanded the attention of not just those on Capitol Hill, but across the nation.  For him to lose in his home district is a huge upset for the national GOP.

Interestingly enough, the reason for Cantor’s loss isn’t the same one that keeps the Texas GOP in power… i.e. low turnout.  In fact, the turnout for the 7th District’s GOP Primary was at an historic high.  With 65,000 Virginians showing up at the polls, they bested the previous 21st century record by almost 20,000!!  People came to vote on June 10th, and they came to vote against Cantor.   Don’t feel too bad for the Majority Leader though, as this is a House of Cards that he helped to build.

VA-7 was gerrymandered to specifically be a Republican stronghold.  They drew in more White, historically Conservative voters, and drew out voters of broader demographics and perspectives.  It’s the same game that the GOP (and to be fair many Democrats in blue states) have played all over the country… make my district so red/ so blue that I simply cannot lose.  Perhaps Mr. Cantor forgot that sometimes a district can become so red that you cannot win.  As the old saying goes, you get what you pay for.

The gerrymandering was of great advantage to Brat, as it allowed him to harness the most powerful force in the Republican Party… FEAR.  He took advantage of vague indications that Cantor might be willing to work on Comprehensive Immigration Reform, and lambasted the public with ads and fliers saying that he supports amnesty.  As sad as it sounds, “the minority takeover” is what a large part of today’s GOP voters are most afraid of, and that fear will surge voter turnout every time.  Of course don’t feel sorry for the lame-duck Congressman in this… after all it was he who often sowed the seeds of hatred for his own party.  But like any good Frankenstein story, fear and hatred have a tendency to turn on their master after a while.

But these same seeds have been sown across the Republican Party, and it is why every career politician on the Right is in danger now.  Once you charge too far and embrace the fringe-right, you have to do their bidding, or you risk Cantor-style extinction.  This defeat is a huge indication that the GOP as we know it is over.  There is no Party anymore, but only a loose coalition of voters motivated by animus.  If we as a country have any hope of getting the American People’s business done, it does not lie with the GOP. 

So congratulations to you Mr. Cantor.  The garden has grown, the fruits are ripe, and you’ve been served your just deserts.

 

Obama Poised to Sign LGBT Rights Executive Order

For those engaged in the fight for LGBT protections in the workplace, the White House revealed some very big news today.  Here’s the story from the Washington Post

President Obama will sign an executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating against gays, lesbians and others on the basis of their sexual orientation – an election-year move that follows years of pressure by gay rights organizations.

Obama’s decision to proceed with the executive order, announced Monday by the White House, immediately delighted gay rights groups, even as it signaled that Obama doesn’t believe broader action by Congress is likely. Obama is set to address a fundraiser hosted by the Democratic National Committee’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender council Tuesday in New York.

“The President has directed his staff to prepare for his signature an Executive Order that prohibits federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity,” a White House official said in a statement. “The action would build upon existing protections, which generally prohibit federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. This is consistent with the President’s views that all Americans, LGBT or not, should be treated with dignity and respect.”

White House officials didn’t detail the timing of the executive order, which Obama originally promised to pursue in his 2008 campaign. For years since, he has declined to issue the order, citing other administration efforts to advance gay rights and a desire to avoid interfering with efforts in Congress to pass the broader Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would ban discrimination against gays in the workplace. The Senate has passed ENDA, but the House has declined.

This one action from the Obama Administration is estimated to extend protections to approximately 16 million Americans working as Federal employees, or for companies with Federal Contracts.  Equal Rights groups have been working for this Executive Order for a long time, and are simply thrilled at the prospect of the unprecedented move. The Human Rights Campaign had this to say…

“By issuing an executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT people, the President will not only create fairer workplaces across the country, he will demonstrate to Congress that adopting federal employment protections for LGBT people is good policy and good for business. The White House statement today is promising, and we look forward to seeing the details of the executive order,” said HRC President Chad Griffin.

As Houston just learned from our own equal rights battle, the devil is definitely in the details.  But given how little is getting done in Congress this year, the President’s actions on this issue will be a welcome move for American workers, and set a new standard by which all companies will have to compete.  Of course when it comes to LGBT issues, President Obama has been quite good at setting new standards.  Under his administration, Congress was able to repeal the discriminatory Don’t Ask Don’t Tell practice of the US military, and with a little prodding from Vice President Biden, came out in support of marriage equality.  Hopefully this bold move on workplace protections will generate some motion from the House and Senate as well.