SCOTUS - Right and Wrong on Gay Marriage

The Supreme Court has done it again. They got it right; but for the wrong reason; in the decision this morning to protect Gay Marriage. That they used the 14^th Amendment to do so, rather than striking at the root of the problem, is troubling to me, if no one else. Let me attempt to clearly state why.

The whole shebang centered on the ill-conceived DOMA act which was first introduced by Bill Clinton in 1996. It was a midterm election effort to retain those voters who were as yet uncomfortable with Gay Marriage. But in crafting the thing they put a major chip in the Constitution.

Article IV, Section 1: (1789)

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

This Article makes it possible to be married in one state and move to another without getting married again. It covers everything from car registrations to interstate commerce. It’s what keeps the local sheriff from knocking on a motel door demanding to see a local wedding license. It’s the very essence of the interaction between the states on so many levels that I have always wondered why they essentially broke it with the 2^nd section of DOMA; the third section of which was later declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. But Section 2 was left intact, and as far as I can tell, in spite of today’s ruling, remains so.

Here is the entire act with the troublesome 2^nd Section in bold italics.

DOMA (1996)

Section 1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the "Defense of Marriage Act".

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states. No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Section 3. Definition of marriage. In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

It is hard for me to understand just why the Court simply did not address the 2^nd Section when striking down DOMA. That would have prevented the individual states from going through the unnecessary judicial proceedings of the last decade, with each state fighting for or against Gay Marriage on the basis of States Rights; which is clearly allowed by Section 2 of DOMA. In striking down DOMA’s 3^rd Section only and leaving Section 2 intact they created the whole problem they resolved this morning by using the 14^th Amendment to reach their decision.

But, still troubling is the fact that the 2^nd Section of DOMA is left intact; giving rise to the question just why it has not been struck down by the Court; even with today’s new ruling. Leaving it intact only creates a precedent in law which still undermines Article 4 Section 1 of the Constitution.

If I am probably the only one troubled by this, I can only recall the time when I was working on an appeal for some charge against me while in the Navy aboard the USS Neosho. The Captain found me poring over the Ship’s Organization and Regulation Manual and refused to let me continue with my research. He would not allow me to use the book. I asked him if it would not be more convenient for the Navy to take only sailors who couldn’t read. He never answered but there are times when it does seem like a curse to be able to do so. 

"The Judge" with Robert Downey, Jr. and Robert Duvall (2014)

In this film Robert Downey Jr.  plays attorney Hank Palmer, who is going through a rough time in his marriage. His wife is screwing around on him and he is on the verge of a divorce, even as he handles the high profile cases he is known for. Hank is a true shark; he can spot the jugular on anyone and knows just how to go for it. He had a lot of practice in learning the art of intellectual defense; his father is Judge Joseph Palmer, and the two have never gotten along well.

His two brothers; Glen, played by Vincent D'Onofrio ; and younger brother Dale; seem to have an easier time accepting their fathers semi abusive manner. Glen has a profession, while Dale is somewhat slow and has a learning disability which prompts him to film everything with an old 8 mm movie camera. He is; at least in his own mind; working on a film.

When Judge Palmer’s wife passes away Hank returns home to the small town in Indiana where he was raised and his father still presides as Judge. Old wounds quickly open up again when Hank returns and Judge Palmer may be drinking again.

The stage is set for a final show down between the Judge and his most combative son when the father is arrested on suspicion of murdering a man who had appeared before the Judge previously. With the Judge depressed over his wife’s death, and struggling with cancer himself, Hank is afraid his father doesn’t really want to fight for his own freedom. He seems to want to be punished for the sins of his past. To complicate that, Hank believes his father to be guilty of both the murder and drinking again.

 

In the fight of his life; and with a court battle that has the Judge on trial for his freedom; if not his life; Hank must use every skill he has ever learned to overcome his own emotions and free his father; while at the same time uncovering the truth behind the murder. In the end Hank finds that he has more in common with his father than he ever thought.

Riveting performances by all make this screenplay by Nick Schenk and  Bill Dubuque; from the story by David Dobkin; shine. Billy Bob Thornton is also credible as the suit and tie Prosecutor Dwight Dickham.

  

James Holmes and the Insanity Plea - Inconsistent Reasoning

James Holmes; the celebrated movie theater killer of 2 years ago; is set to go on trial after much delay. His delays and tests; along with the quest to have the trial moved elsewhere, have a ll failed and he is now on trial for his life. Let me be clear on this point; I am for the death penalty. But I am aghast at the way this case is being manipulated to prove that Mr. Holmes is sane enough to go on trial for his life.

Examine the facts; in addition to what he did in that theater, which is clearly beyond sane as he had no real motive; he is now tethered to the floor of the courtroom where he is being tried as sane. Does this make any sense?

I refer to a post on this which I did about 2 years ago at the time of Mr. Holmes arraignment. In short, I am for killing Mr. Holmes, but I am against the charade which would have us believe that this man is sane. I just want to call a spade a spade. Here is that post;

Much has been written of late concerning the use of the Insanity Plea as a defense in general and, in particular, in the case of James Holmes.  Holmes is the young man accused of multiple homicides in the shooting at a midnight showing of 'The Dark Knight Rises' in Colorado, which resulted in 12 people being killed and another 59 wounded. Police say the suspect acted alone and had no prior criminal record or ties to terrorism. He had, though, been under the care of a Mental Health professional at the time, and his case was reviewed, at the direction of his doctor, by a crisis management team just days before the killings took place.

Now the deed is done, and the Monday morning “Quarterbacking” has begun in earnest. The talking heads on my TV all say that the Insanity Plea is a dead end, as Mr. Holmes clearly planned this attack beforehand. This line of thinking, in determining whether Mr. Holmes is sane or not, is like comparing an orange to a watermelon. It makes no sense.

If, for example, I were to plan a murder for profit; and then say I was crazy; that would be a ridiculous plea, which would carry no merit. I would, in that case, be “crazy as a fox.” Obviously my crime would have had a criminal purpose; I was driven by greed. But what about the Holmes case? Let’s take a look at it.

Here’s a young man; with known mental difficulties; whose own doctor even questioned whether or not he was a danger to himself and others. He has planned, in meticulous detail, a crime too heinous to imagine. And then he actually carries it out, resulting in the deaths and injuries mentioned above. He hopes to gain no profit from his act. He doesn’t even have a sense of reality about the whole event; he even asked a deputy, after the shooting, how the film ended.

When considering an Insanity Plea, the question is not whether we believe that the subject was capable of premeditation in the crime for which they stand accused; the real question is how sane was the plan to begin with. What possible gain was there for Mr. Holmes to attain, even if he had gotten away with the crime? The answer is patently obvious. There was no gain, no real motive other than to commit the crime. That’s insane. Just like the guy who contemplates whether or not he can fly by jumping off the roof, he’s clearly insane.

Is this a plea to spare Mr. Holmes life? Not a chance. I believe in the death penalty. I just believe in being honest with ourselves about why we execute people when we do. The law says we do not execute people who are insane. So, in order to execute Mr. Holmes, he must be found to be sane.

No matter how much we kid ourselves to the contrary, Mr. Holmes is damaged, and likely will never be “fixed”. I mourn for the families of those who lost loved ones by his actions. If he is found guilty, I support the application of the death penalty for his crimes. Just don’t expect me to believe that he is sane.

Lt. Carlin Murl Conner - Unsung Hero

This story broke last Wednesday, but I wanted to chronicle it here, where my grand-kids might see it someday. It’s a story of sacrifice and heroism unheralded for decades. And even now, when the long overdue honors have begun to emerge, there is still one last roadblock between full recognition for this man. And it appears that this roadblock is permanent; being the decision of the Armed Forces, who are the final arbiters in cases such as this.

Lt. Garlin Murl Conner, from Kentucky was the 2^nd most decorated soldier of the Second World War. He earned 4 Silver Stars, 4 Bronze Stars, 7 Purple Hearts and the Distinguished Service Cross while engaged in combat for 28 months. It was during the last part of his service that he won the DSC. 

The actual wording of the citation explains that on January 24, 1945 near Houssen, France, he left his comfortable berth at the military hospital where he had been convalescing from a hip wound in order to rejoin his comrades. Had he not taken this action he would have been returned home to Kentucky.

When he arrived back at the front he unrolled a coil of telephone wire and took up a position in a ditch. From that vantage point he began to relay the coordinates for artillery fire on the German positions. He did this for 3 straight hours, even as the German troops came within 5 yards of his “nest.” 5 yards, 15 feet. That’s about as long as your average living room.

The original application for the upgrade from the DSC to the Medal of Honor was initiated by Mr. Conner’s widow, Pauline Conner, in the late 1990’s. The application was rejected at that time on the grounds that no new evidence had surfaced to support the claim. This was upheld on appeal in 2000.

By 2006 Pauline Conner had found 3 eyewitness accounts which met the criteria for the upgrade, which is very rare. Only 178 recipients of the DSC have had their awards upgraded to the Medal of Honor since 1917. When the evidence was finally presented to the court in 2008 it was rejected on the grounds that the statute of Limitations had expired on the case in 2006.

This is a sad example of how the government doesn’t really take care of its’ veterans. They never did. Just take a quick look back at the Bonus Army March during the early 1930’s. These men were asking that the bonus promised them for their service in the First World War be paid 10 years early due to the pressing economic conditions of the Depression.

They were so destitute that they camped out in Washington, vowing not to leave until the Bonus legislation was passed. They were gassed, beaten and even shot by some of the very officers whom they had served under during the war. Officers like Eisenhower, Patton and MacArthur were all on hand to kick the men when they were down. Amid tear gas and gunshots, the once proud veterans were run out of the seat of the very government which they had once fought to preserve.

And now, even as the press is filled daily with stories about the shortcomings of veteran’s services in the wake of the last 2 wars; in Iraq and Afghanistan; we see the same attitude in the case of Mr. Conner and his long overdue decoration.

In spite of the backing from members of Congress, the Senate, and fellow veterans, the request by his widow; who has been waging this fight on behalf of her now deceased husband for over 17 years; a federal judge in Kentucky now seems to be getting the final word. Mr. Conner will not now; or ever; receive the award which he so clearly deserved.  

The message is loud and clear; “Uncle Sam Needs You”. He just doesn’t care about you when he’s done.

"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.

The Declaration of Independence - Under Siege

                                               

Today is my wedding anniversary. I usually post a loving tribute to my wife, Sue, and our ability to make it through the minefield which all marriages are at some point or another. It was 27 years ago today when Sue and I took the vows, and though it hasn't always been easy, we are still together, relying on one another more and more with each passing year.

So, it was with great regret that I asked her if it would be okay for me to skip doing a post about our anniversary in order to  address a more pressing issue; our rights as citizens in our own land. Those rights include the freedom to speak our minds; assemble peacefully without penalty; and to enjoy the freedom from unwarranted intrusion into our personal lives. It is with sorrow that I have to state these things are all under assault at the present time.

I was a bit uncomfortable with the NSA news; that they have been reading our e-mails and listening to our phone calls; but since I have nothing really important to hide, I was almost willing to chalk it up to “national security”; trusting that our government “by the people and for the people” would be capable of making the distinction between terrorists and ordinary individuals.

I was also comfortable with the “leaks” generated by Messrs.’ Assange and Snowden; it gave me the feeling that this kind of information should be available for the public. Just as the government tells us that if we “have nothing to hide, then we have nothing to fear”, I make the same claim against them.

What are they afraid of? “Leaking” the truth? If I had “leaked” the truth to my Dad, rather than answer his questions on the first shot, I got punished. It was a great lesson to me, and one that reverberates this July 4^th, on the heels of the latest revelation about Obama’s 2 year old “secret” (until this week) program dubbed the “Insider Threat Program.” 

The IRS scandal, along with the NSA nonsense, still don’t worry me as much as this latest infringement of the rights which we all seem to take for granted, even as they are being slowly whittled away by both political parties.

This “Insider Threat Program” is the most disturbing to me because it goes against the very grain of the Whistle Blower Protection program. Just the very name says it all; “Insider Threat Program.” Think of what the term really means. It’s not a program designed to stop national security “leaks” and keep us safe from foreign enemies; it’s a program specifically designed for government employees to identify; and punish; the people who work in government agencies and may see something wrong going on.

All this brings us to the vaunted document displayed above; the Declaration of Independence. It was 237 years ago today when the last of the signers affixed their signatures to the document which gave birth to a nation founded upon the principles later codified in the United States Constitution. I wonder how many of our politicians have read; or even understand; the document. In light of all recent events, I would venture that, even if they have read it, they think of it in terms of antiquity; almost as if it were no longer relative. For those who share that view I am printing the text of the Declaration below, in the hopes that you will read it.

When you do, substitute all of the recent scandals for the things which the Declaration accuses King George the Third of. You may be surprised to discover that we have as much to complain about now, as we did 237 years ago.

So, here is the text, and after that a bit of music, which; although calling for change; does not require anyone to kill anyone else in the endeavor. Happy 4^th, and don’t forget to make those phone calls to your Representatives and Senators in Washington when the holiday is over. Let them know how angry you are at their attempt to rob of your birthright. 

And, whatever you do, wave that flag proudly today – it belongs to us, the people. And that’s something we can never afford to let them forget.

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 British 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.

Happy Anniversary Sue. 

I love you more than ever - as if that were even possible...

"The Reader" with Kate Winslet and Ralph Fiennes

With powerful and moving performances by both Ms. Winslet and Mr. Fiennes, this movie tackles some very tough, and sensitive questions.

After the Second World War, there were all sorts of trials in Germany, ranging from Nuremberg to the smaller "truth" type commissions. Germany, as a nation, was re-inventing herself, under the dubious guise that "nobody knew anything" about what was going on.

Caught in this post war web of political re-structure are Hanna Schmitz, a streetcar conductress, played incredibly by Kate Winslet, and a young boy of 16, Michael, who becomes Hanna's lover. He is in high school. But there is something about Hanna that he cannot penetrate, and as a result of this, and their disparity in ages, they drift apart. He becomes a law student.

When, 8 years later, in 1966, his class is involved in one of the "commission" trials, Michael learns that Hanna was a guard at Auschwitz, selecting, along with 6 other guards, who was to die each month, as more women arrived and there was no room.

This is an intense movie that calls to question where the line is drawn between individual responsibilty, and the madness of the society around that individual. The age old question of just who is responsible for not only giving the orders, but at what point we, as individuals, are willing to pay the price for standing upon our principles is explored.

When the grown Michael, Ralph Fiennes, becomes a Prosecutor, years later, in 1988, Hanna becomes eligible for release after 22 years in prison. Her only link to the outside world, and her freedom, is Michael. He, at first, refuses her letters, setting off an emotional crisis within himself, calling upon him to answer some very difficult questions, about his own motivations. By this time he is married and has a daughter of his own.

This is a difficult film to watch on certain levels, but an important one. In order to understand the future, we must all face our pasts. In the final analysis, we are all our own judges, and in many cases, our own juries as well, as we attempt to escape from our pasts. Sometimes, we are even our own executioners, unwilling, or unable to pardon the things that we have done. And although others can see us as human, there are times when we cannot see ourselves fully.

Excellent direction, staging and acting make this a film worth watching.

The Citizen's Constitution- An Annotated Guide by Seth Lipsky

This book is a must for followers of the Court. Carefully put together by Mr. Lipsky the book is laid out Article by Article and Amendment by Amendment with the history and thinking behind each one.

I took this book out because I have always been confused by the thinking that went into Roe v. Wade. It has always been my opinion that a woman's right to privacy, hence the choice to have an abortion, was well founded under the Third and Ninth Amendments of the Constitution. The Court found that right in Article 14, one of the so called Reconstruction Amendments.

And of course, my all time favorite Amendment is the 27th, which was proposed in 1789 and not ratified until 1992. It's about 30 words long and delienates the Compensation for Senators and Members of Congress. I don't do politics here, but this is some Amendment!

In short, for a guy like me, who has copies of the Constitution in the car, on my scan stick, and even by my reading chair in the TV room, this book is an indispensable tool for deciphering the intent of some of our most basic and controversial laws. Coupled with "The Oxford Companion to The Supreme Court" this book will see you through the 6 o'clock news and beyond.