Carlos and Franco, Hashish and Me.

One of the great advantages I have had in life is being in places when extraordinary changes were taking place. Beirut in 1981; Turkey in the late 1970’s during a coup, and then again in the early 1980’s when Democracy was restored; are 2 places and times which come readily to mind as examples. But until the news came over about Juan Carlos stepping down after almost 40 years as head of his country, I had forgotten about one of my favorite events. And that was in Spain the night that Juan Carlos decriminalized possession of hashish and marijuana. I suppose a bit of history is in order here.

Spain’s 1936 alliance with Hitler and Germany; which actually helped keep Spain neutral in the coming Second World War; set off the Spanish Civil War, which many people point to as the first real battle of the Second World War. It pitted Generalissimo Franco’s Nationalists (read as Fascists) against an International Brigade of volunteers (read as Communists) from countries as diverse as the Soviet Union and the United States. Ernest Hemingway even went there; a visit which would give rise to his novel “For Whom the Bell Tolls.” Franco won and became Spain’s dictator for the next 4 decades. In the late 1970’s he relinquished his power to Juan Carlos, who became King.

The rule of Juan Carlos was filled with all the usual troubles of running a kingdom; or any country for that matter. He had his own terrorists to contend with way before we did. They were separatists from the North, and were still active as recently as the Madrid train bombing early in this century. Economically Spain has had its ups and downs; just like the rest of the world. And now his son will be taking the helm of leadership in a mostly symbolic position; much as the Queen rules England. All indications are that he will be well received by about 70% of the population, and we wish him luck. End of history.

And now, the night Juan Carlos decriminalized hashish. If memory serves me correctly it was March 1^st, 1984. I was in Alicante, a port on the Cost de Sol to catch the USNS Sirius, a ship which had been home to me several times in the past few years. This was a small port by comparison to the ones we usually hit. I was also just fresh from stateside, having landed in Madrid that morning direct from New Jersey by way of Baltimore. I had just gotten my 3^rd Mates License, but was shipping as an Able Bodied Seaman instead of as Third Mate. There were no slots open at the time and my money was running low.

There was something festive in the air, like the sharpness you can almost feel before it snows. There were Federal troops, complete in 3 cornered hats, at every intersection. The sight of automatic weapons in the hands of someone with a 17^th century headpiece was incongruous, but the lethality of the modern weapons was not lost on me. So, I went to the nearest bar to get the lowdown on what was happening.

Walking in I was surprised to see so many people openly smoking hashish. Hashish was very common; after all there is only a 7 mile strait between Spain and Morocco at Gibraltar. But it was always on the quiet lest you be arrested. It was a bit unsettling to see everyone smoking with all the troops just outside. I started asking questions in my broken Spanish; and getting answers in broken English. So I was only getting small pieces of the story at a time.

Turns out that this was the night when hashish became decriminalized in Spain and I was lucky enough to be there. The troops were there for everyone’s protection, and also as a warning not to let things get too out of hand. The wine flowed, the hash burned and everyone had a great time. And that is what came to mind when I saw that Juan Carlos was stepping down this week. Now here’s the fun part. I am going to google this and see how accurate my memory is for date and event. Be right back.

Well, I couldn't find what I was looking for; namely a date; but here is the status of the law in Spain, where possession is a misdemeanor; sale is illegal; but growing it is not. This is from Wikipedia;

“Selling cannabis is a criminal offence punishable by law at any quantity. Buying anywhere, possession and consumption at a public place constitutes a misdemeanor and is penalized with a fine and confiscation. Growing the plant on private property for personal use, and consumption by adults in a private space is legal.[121]”

Here is the link to the whole article, which lists all the countries alphabetically;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_country

And finally, thanks Juan, for a night I will always remember.

"Constitutional Myths" by Ray Raphael (2013)

The Conservatives would have you believe that our Constitution is flawed, and that the Federalist Papers represent the framer’s original intent. Indeed, conservative radio talk show jock Jason Lewis once called for the removal of the Bill of Rights from the Constitution on his afternoon talk radio show in Charlotte, where he was working at WBT-AM, calling them unnecessary. 

The fact that he said this at the same time as he was signing off for the day, over his bumper music; allowing no time for rebuttals; infuriated me to the point that I phoned the radio station and finally the news director at their television station demanding that Mr. Lewis phone me ASAP. Much to their credit, his bosses made that happen, and I was able to remind Mr. Lewis that even God had found it necessary to write the corollary to the Bill of Rights with a finger of fire on a tablet of stone.

This book also takes the same tact as Mr. Lewis, claiming that the Federalist Papers are the real basis for the Constitution, which was written after the debate over the Federalist Papers, making them irrelevant after the Constitution became the law of the land. That Conservatives; who decry “big government”; would try to re-establish our country based upon the Federalist Papers; which, after all were merely opinion pieces exploring the type of government we should have;  shines a light on their true agenda. They want to roll back your Constitution.

Smaller Federal Government means larger local control with less oversight. Guess what? That makes people victims of local tyrannies. Imagine a country without a Bill of Rights to go along with the Responsibilities outlined in the Constitution, and then question the true purpose of placing the Federalist Papers before the Constitution as law. And, in a time when even Chief Justice Roberts states that “he looks to the Federalist Paper’s” when deciding Constitutional law in order to ascertain the framers “original intent”, you have legitimate cause for concern. Looking outside of the Constitution is decried when the Liberal Justices look to European Law, or even the biblical law; upon which Conservatives themselves claim we are founded; so why should I allow them now to look to something other than the Constitution themselves when deciding cases?

The author sites President Reagan as a proponent of "originalism" and quotes him on what were remarks made concerning the original intent of the Constitution itself, not the preceding Federalist Papers. He then goes on to use the case of United States v. Lopez as an example of justices looking only to the Constitution, rather than outside of it, when deciding a case. He quotes Justice Thomas' own agreement with the Court's decision, all the while issuing a separate opinion on the meaning of "Commerce", citing dictionaries from the 1790's as an example of what the founding fathers meant; or he thinks they meant.

The book is filled with facts, and first drafts of the “original” Constitution; all of which were later rejected in favor of the Constitution we have lived with for more than 200 years. Our Constitution allows the document to be amended from time to time, and this seems to be a source of irritation to the author, and most Neo-Conservatives in general.

When reading the Federalist Papers you have to realize that they were the first draft of what would become the Constitution. The kinks needed to be ironed out for our fledgling nation. And, due to the efforts of men like Hancock, Jefferson, Madison et al; they were. The result was the Constitution of the United States of America, which allows the document to be Amended as society deems necessary to meet the needs of a changing nation, and time in general. The doctrine espoused in this book calls for what has become known as “originalism”. This doctrine would have the nation eviscerate the Constitution, throwing us back to the days before we were even united by one. Remember, in the original drafts, only land holders had the right to vote, and servants were worth a fraction of a vote, only to be exercised by the servant's owner. I think they called it slavery; I mean state's rights.

The author states what the founding fathers thought and meant, but I take the attitude that what they thought and meant was written down in the Constitution. And that includes the Bill of Rights, which were the first of the planned Amendments and are the rock on which we, as a nation, stand.

Using one of my Constitutional Rights; which the author seems to wish to deprive me of; I have to tell you that, in my opinion, this is one of the most misleading books of non-fiction I have ever read. 

Ironically; that makes it an important book to read. Just be sure to have a copy of the actual Constitution handy, as the author has seen fit to write a 300 book about a document he doesn't want you to see in it's entirety. Although he does include the Articles of the Constitution, he does not ever show the Bill of Rights as a part of the Constitution, instead electing to show the reader Madison's draft of an additional twelve; and, in some cases altered, proposed amendments. It is a first draft version of what would become the Bill of Rights; which are the first ten Amendments to this sacred document.

The author then cleverly moves on to show the later Amendments; numbers XI through XXVII; all of which I presume he disagrees with. You need look no further than this "arrangement" to see that this book represents his own “original intent”, and as such, this author has an agenda.