Of Saints and Martyrs - Kim Davis

noun

1. a person who is killed because of their religious or other beliefs.

"saints, martyrs, and witnesses to the faith"

verb

1. kill (someone) because of their beliefs.

"she was martyred for her faith"

An alternate usage is one of a person who displays or exaggerates their discomfort or distress in order to obtain sympathy or admiration, as in "she wanted to play the martyr".

The illustration above is of St. Valentine in prison before being beaten, stoned and beheaded for marrying people. I thought it was an appropriate choice for this post.

There seems to be some confusion about the meaning of the words Martyrs and Saints these days. Kim Davis, the new hero of the Religious Right; who are always right; is currently being hailed as a martyr, in spite of her not having given her life for her beliefs. No one has said Saint as of yet; but give them time.

Ms. Davis was able to endure just 5 days of confinement before her faith caved in. Kind of like those first 3 “Holy Unions” she was in before she got married for the 4^th time in a "lifetime commitment" to her current husband.

Ms. Davis has not been asked to die for her beliefs and currently still receives her $80,000 per year salary of tax payer money to perform no work. Oh the horror!

And, as far as Sainthood goes, Ms. Davis has quite a long walk to make before she even comes close to the mark. Here’s a link to the 8 well known Saints and the ways in which they were executed for their beliefs;

http://www.ranker.com/list/the-8-most-brutal-deaths-of-saints/ivana-wynn?format=SLIDESHOW&page=7

The 14th Amendment

On February 8, 1861 the seven Southern States announced their secession from the Union they had pledged to join under the Constitution which included Article 1 Section 2; and a 3/5 of a person rule as far as slaves were concerned. This gave the more rural Southern states representation based on a population that included many slaves; whose votes went to their owners under the 3/5 provision. This was of course changed by the 14^th Amendment in 1869.

The South violated the Constitution in seceding from the Union by claiming a Right under the 10^th Amendment; which gives the States rights over certain issues; or powers; not relegated to the Federal Government. It sounds nice; but seceding violated Article 1 Section 4 which prohibits states from leaving the Union.

The 14^th Amendment was, however, enacted under strange circumstances as the South was just getting back on its feet and re-establishing their state legislatures. North Carolina and South Carolina were the last 2 states to ratify the 14^th Amendment, and only did so under duress. The 39^th Congress made it mandatory for the states to ratify the Amendment as a condition of rejoining the Union. There are parts of the South where Amendment 14 is openly despised, and there has even been talk of trying to abolish it by Amendment, in much the same way as Prohibition; the 18^th Amendment; was later repealed by the 21^st Amendment.

This may sound far-fetched, but it’s really not. The crux of the argument for repeal would be that the states have a right under Article 1, Section 4; which gives the states the right to proscribe the time, place and manner in which to hold elections. That argument would hold that the state legislatures of the South; particularly North Carolina and South Carolina; were mandated to approve the 14th Amendment as a condition to re-join the Union. But a closer inspection of the text reveals that though they have that right, Congress may change or alter that law except for the choosing of Senators. Still, it would be a messy battle with much at stake.

As time went on the 14^th Amendment became the “go to place” to fit in every perceived “right” which Americans wanted to include. Although I am in agreement with the issues at hand, I also think the 14^th Amendment has become so overburdened that should it ever be repealed or amended it would affect many areas of our society. The 14^th Amendment has become the easy path for expanding rights in all sorts of instances.

This sort of overburdening was not begun until after Women’s Suffrage; the 19^th Amendment; which could have been added to the 15^th Amendment giving the right to Vote to all men of any race. The problem with that would have been the ensuing call for universal suffrage at a time when black men were still routinely barred from voting in the Southern states. The implication of the 19^th Amendment was that it had nothing to do with the precedent set up by the 15h Amendment. In other words; blacks were still not going to be able to vote. This is one of the instances in which bundling like-minded legislation would have resulted in a positive change.

Civil Rights and the Voting Rights Act both have their underpinnings in the 14^th Amendment, and these protections should have been tacked onto that Amendment; making it stronger.

But the 14th Amendment now holds the Miranda Decision; which should have been founded under the 5th Amendment; the right to have due process; which would include an attorney and the right to remain silent.

Abortion and Same Sex Marriage are both rights which should have been held to exist under the 9^th Amendment; “the enumeration of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

This may all seem to be unimportant; and perhaps it is just a “parlor game” which I like to play when I have nothing better to do. But think of it this way; you’re mailing all of your valuables to a new home. Do you put them all in one envelope, or do you break it up into several packages so that you don’t lose it all in one shot? To put it more simply; you just don’t put all your eggs in one basket. This is especially true when there are other baskets lying around, waiting to be used.

Apples and Oranges

CNN's Jake Tapper asked Republican Presidential nominee hopeful Mike Huckabee a question on Sunday July 5^th which has created a bit of controversy.

Q. “Which do you think threatens to undermine the institution of marriage in this country more,” the CNN host asked, “same-sex marriage or the rampant ranks of infidelity and the high divorce rates in this country among straight couples?”

Mr. Huckabee wasn’t quick enough on his feet to answer the clumsily stated question properly.

The question itself was a popular method of equating an apple with an orange in order to make someone appear small minded or ignorant. The question should've been more along the lines of-

“What is it concerning Same Sex Marriage which straight couples feel undermines their marriages?" 

Or- Mr. Huckabee could’ve answered with a question of his own about the lesbian couple who are getting divorced after their wedding last July in New York. Dese Rae Stage and Katie Marks; both 29; are getting divorced after Marks met a new woman on the Internet.

So, Mr. Huckabee could’ve asked something like, “Will all Same Sex marriages be going the way of the Stage-Marks union in New York? Once the novelty wears off will we be seeing a massive amount of divorce arising from such hastily conceived unions? Do you think that the high rates of infidelity which were historically a part of the Gay lifestyle before the advent of AIDS, might make a return?”

Hey, I've got an idea! How about a real question which compares an apple to an apple?

Q. “Do you think 2 people in love- gay or straight- are; or should be; a threat to one another?”

Or even something less complex, like;

“Do you think that there will be any difference between true love in either a Same Sex Marriage or a Straight Marriage?”

It would be nice if the reporters would ask real questions. Who knows, we might even get real answers.

The 27th Amendment and Women's Rights - A Connection

The Constitution of the United States of America is a wonderful document. The principles upon which it is founded are the cornerstone of our very souls. The document is emblematic of that uniqueness of the American Spirit which gave it birth. It has but one flaw. Almost immediately after the opening phrase “We the People”, we the people get left behind. The document is so hard for the average American to understand that it sometimes appears to be saying the opposite of what it means.

We all know that it is not without flaw; no document ever is; even my own. But you have to marvel at some of the stuff the founding fathers; and their successors; have come up with over the centuries. My favorite is, of course, the 27^th Amendment. This Amendment was passed within our lifetimes. I’m assuming that you were born before 1992. I was born in 1954. And, as with all previous Amendments passed since I was born, I paid close attention to it.

The 23^rd Amendment was the first in my lifetime. It dealt with giving the citizens in the District of Columbia the right to vote. This was a big deal. Imagine, before this law was passed, white folks were actually equal with African-Americans south of the Mason-Dixon Line. They couldn't vote either. I was 7 years old and I understood this Amendment.

The 24^th Amendment was passed in 1964 and abolished the poll tax, ensuring that all citizens had a right to vote. It is sometimes mistakenly referred to as the Voting Rights Act. I was 10 years old and understood it.

The 25^th Amendment was less interesting, as it dealt with succession of the office of the Presidency. But since we had lost a President when Kennedy was assassinated only 4 years earlier, I did pay attention. I was 13 and I understood it.

The 26^th Amendment was an easy one. It was passed in 1971 when I was almost 17 years old. With a Presidential Election coming in November of 1972, it meant that I could vote, along with anyone else who was 18 years old. I was 17 years old at the time, so I really understood this one.

Now, here’s my favorite; the 27^th Amendment. Before I even take umbrage with it, I will print it here for you. You can go and check it elsewhere if you wish. I assure you it is to the letter.

“No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.”

Now, the Amendment was added as an addition to Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which states;

“The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.”

The original intent of the article was that the elected members of Congress not decide for themselves how much they were worth. The Amendment to it not only muddles this point but ends up in calling for an election of the representatives; which was never an issue in the first place. After all, Congress does make the laws.

But; moreover; in practice this was tied to a Court Case in 1989 which gave the Congressmen and Congresswomen a Cost of Living increase annually. The rest of the country has never had a cost of living increase. The court declared that a cost of living increase for the Senate and Congress was not a raise. This of course also applies to Federal Employees.

So, basically the Congress waited until the cost of living was already in place before ratifying the amendment giving themselves the power to grant themselves a raise. And they get a cost of living increase along with it. And every other year they get to vote against accepting this cost of living increase, giving themselves a great opportunity to pretend to be turning down a raise. At about $180,000 per year plus perks and expenses I guess they can afford to wait a year or so.

And let’s not forget that if they vote against it for 3 years in a row; or any number of years for that matter; they later on get the cumulative increase for the years in which they voted to not get a cost of living increase. It’s a shell game. It took them 202 years to ratify this 24 word amendment. Ask someone what it means. I’m 59 and still don’t understand it.

Now you have to ask yourself why this was allowed to stand after so long a time had passed. After all, the passage of time is exactly what they say keeps the Equal Rights Amendment for Women from being ratified. And that's only 41 years old. It only lacks 3 states. By contrast the 27^th Amendment was only ratified after Michigan certified it on May 7, 1992. This made 38 states, enough for the Amendment to be certified by the Chief Archivist of the United States Don W. Wilson. On May 19, 1992, he had it printed in the Federal Register, together with the certificate of ratification.

The only 2 legislators to speak out against the unusual length of time for ratification were Tom Foley and Robert Byrd. They called for a challenge to the Ratification. But,technically speaking, certifying an amendment falls under Title 1, section 106 b of the United States Code, which states:

“Whenever official notice is received at the National Archives and Records Administration that any amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United States has been adopted, according to the provisions of the Constitution, the Archivist of the United States shall forthwith cause the amendment to be published, with his certificate, specifying the States by which the same may have been adopted, and that the same has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the United States.”

Notice the statute does not contain a time clause. Now you have to ask yourself why the Equal Rights Amendment for Women was not afforded the same privilege. The reason often given is that too long a time period has passed. That flies in the face of the 27th Amendment and how it had no trouble being ratified.

Basically this is about duplicity concerning the Ratification of the ERA. The real reason for the law has been lying dormant is in the wording.  It is written to grant Equal Rights to all genders. That would now include the LGBT community and Same Sex Marriage, which are both Civil Rights Issues to begin with. That legislation reads as follows;

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Our Constitution is a wonderful piece of legislation. It is; as I said earlier; the backbone of our society, and I wouldn't change it for the world. But there are parts of it that need to be made clearer for the average citizen. 

This Should Scare You.

This should scare you. Conservative radio talk shows have been airing this rant from the Reverend Farrakhan all week long; and the scary part is that they are in AGREEMENT with him on almost every talking point.

No doubt, the good Reverend is the most effective speaker since Adolph Hitler, and therein lies the concern you should have when it comes to the axis of these two theologically different groups. There must be a common purpose at work here. But figuring out just what it is will take more than one viewing of this tirade. And that’s what it is; a tirade.
 

So, as you watch this video, be careful; there may be portions of it with which you think you agree; but tread carefully. There are so many nuances which are really at the core of what he is saying, yet he leads you to the many different doors without ever opening one of them for a closer examination. But, then again, that is just what he does. And he’s been doing it for almost 50 years now.