You may not understand freedom

Tags

Affordable Care Act, Bill of Rights, Civil War, First Amendment, Franklin Roosevelt, Freedom, Obamacare, Ronald Reagan, Slavery

We have at least two kinds of freedom, and I think we often misunderstand them.

Take the First Amendment. We think of it as a “freedom to” law: freedom to speak, to assemble, to worship, and so on.

But that’s not what it says.

It says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of relisgion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble . . . .”

That’s not “freedom to.” It’s “freedom from” — in this case, freedom from Congressional interference.

And that makes sense, because “freedom from” comes before “freedom to.” You can’t exercise your freedom to do something until you get freedom from whatever’s blocking you.

Another example: the Civil War. It gave African-Americans some freedom to determine their own destinies. But they couldn’t exercise that freedom until the war freed them from slavery.

Jump to the next century. Ronald Reagan felt that businesses could exercise their freedom to prosper only after they received freedom from over-regulation. Again, “freedom from” came before “freedom to.”

And when Franklin Roosevelt gave his famous speech about “Four Freedoms,” two of them were “freedoms from”: freedom from want and freedom from fear. People have to be free from illness, starvation, and neediness, and from terrifying war and invasion, before they can exercise the freedom to do — well, almost anything.

Which brings us to Obamacare.

Obamacare has helped to free people from awful medical conditions and heavy burdens of medical debt. This “freedom from” has increased their “freedom to”: the freedom to enjoy what America’s founders called the pursuit of happiness.

I’ll admit that Obamacare may have interfered with some freedoms as it expanded others. Creating freedom for one group often reduces freedom for another.
• In the early 1860s, some Southerners considered Abraham Lincoln a tyrant because, in their opinion, his desire to outlaw slavery would steal their freedom to enslave.
• By mandating safe food and medicine, the Pure Food and Drug Act reduced the freedom of businesses to peddle hidden poisons. But it freed Americans from the fear that the next thing that they’d put in their mouths might kill them.
• World War II’s military draft stole freedom from millions of men so that they could win a war to free millions of other people from tyranny.

So I don’t blame people for opposing Obamacare. I just think that it provides more freedom than it removes.

Trump’s power “will not be questioned” — really?

Tags

Donald Trump, Executive orders, Face the Nation, Stephen Miller

“Our opponents, the media and the whole world will soon see as we begin to take further actions, that the powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned.” — Donald Trump advisor Stephen Miller on Face the Nation, February 12.

Reminds me of Fidel Castro’s famous line, “Condemn me. It does not matter. History will absolve me.”

But Miller is wrong: People always question presidential powers. Even if the Supreme Court sides with Donald Trump on his executive orders, people will still question whether the court was right. (For more on this issue, look here.)

Or is Miller predicting that something will forbid people from questioning Mr. Trump? This country has tried suppressing opinion all the way back to the Sedition Act. It never works, at least not for very long, and our history usually looks harshly on the people who advocate it.

Either way, Stephen Miller is talking like a damn fool.

Presidential immigrants

Tags

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Constitutional amendents, Immigrants, Orrin Hatch, Presidency

If you could change the requirements for the presidency, how would you do it?

I’d remove the requirement that the president be native-born. A lot of immigrants have served this country with honor and deserve a shot at the highest office.

“Among those barred from the presidency are Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm, a Canadian-born Democrat; Labor secretary Elaine Chao (Taiwan); Housing and Urban Development secretary Mel Martinez (Cuba); former secretaries of State Henry Kissinger (Germany) and Madeleine Albright (Czechoslovakia); and of course, California governor-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger,” CBS News reported in 2003, when Senator Orrin Hatch proposed eliminating this rule.

By the way, I realize this change would mean a Constitutional amendment. It wouldn’t come easily.

In any case, that’s my idea. What do you think, and what would you propose?

Good guys with machine guns?

Tags

AR-15, assault rifles, good guy with a gun, gun control, machine guns, semi-automatic weapons

One of the arguments against gun control is “good guy with a gun.” And some people have indeed stopped criminals by firing or brandishing guns.

But as far as I can tell, those guns generally weren’t AR-15s or other semi-automatic assault rifles.

As I understand it, it’s illegal for a civilian to own a fully automatic machine gun, since machine guns are weapons of war and aren’t necessary for household or individual security. That definition seems to fit the AR-15, too.

I’ve heard gun supporters say that citizens need such high-powered weapons because criminals have them. It’s a version of “if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.” They sometimes cite Chicago as an example, since Chicago has a high crime rate even though it also has strong gun control laws.

I think that Chicago’s problem isn’t its gun laws but its inability to enforce them. The city is in a financial bind. I don’t think it has the money to hire enough cops to keep guns away from people who shouldn’t have them. If you can’t enforce a law, then the law may as well not exist.

So yes, let’s ban semi-automatics like AR-15s — and give law enforcement the resources to put muscle behind the ban.

Trans troubles / bathroom brouhaha

Tags

Law, Transsexuals

If the law allows only people born as women to use women’s bathrooms, then someone who was born a woman but now looks, dresses and behaves as a man can enter women’s bathrooms.

The law opens a can of piranhas, doesn’t it?

It means that anyone who looks like a man could enter a women’s bathroom, and if the women in the bathroom object, then the “man” could say, “Knock it off, I was born a woman.” (I used to write sketch comedy; I can imagine a pretty ridiculous five minutes from this premise.) Do the women have to let him stay, or does the law force him to produce proof that he was born female?

Who’s more objectionable in a women’s bathroom: someone who looks like a man, or someone who looks like a woman?

And if people worry about transgender people assaulting the cisgendered — isn’t it more common that the cis assault the trans?

The political protest cheat sheet

Tags

Civil disobedience, Protest, Terrorism

I’m going to save everyone a lot of time. Whenever a political or religious group breaks a law, here are the responses that you’ll see from people who sympathize with the group. Now, you won’t have to wade through endless commentary — including your own.

One note before we begin: Any or all of these items may be relevant and true. I’m just categorizing them, not judging how applicable they are. God knows that I’ve said some of them myself.

1.The group didn’t really break the law if you look at it from the proper viewpoint.

2. The group technically broke the law, but the law that they broke is so unjust that it shouldn’t be a law at all.

3. The group broke the law, but the injustice and abuse that motivated the group to break the law is much worse than the crime that the group committed.

4. The media have blown the crime out of proportion while ignoring or downplaying other abuses that are much worse.

5. The authorities’ actions in response to the crime are far more severe than the crime deserved.

6. The group’s crime, while certainly illegal, is understandable if you look at it from the group’s perspective. (Corollary: If you were in their shoes, you would have committed the crime, too.)

7. The real crime is the activities that aren’t against the law but should be.

8. Our founding fathers broke British law, and we revere them, so why are we attacking a group whose intentions are as noble as the founders’?

9. It’s Obama’s fault. (Insert the name of any other politician who annoys you.)

Feel free to add #10, #11, #12 . . .