Scalia's Symphony

            Antonin Scalia rose to the position of Supreme Court Justice in 1986. In twenty-seven years as a member of the only American court to have both original and appellate jurisdiction, Justice Scalia has consistently argued for his method of determination he calls “textualism”. Scalia’s major essay and responses were published in his 1998 book A Matter of Interpretation[1], this book also features objections from Gordon S. Wood (Professor, Brown), Laurence H. Tribe (Professor, Harvard) Mary Ann Glendon (Professor, Harvard) and Ronald Dworkin; who passed away on Valentine’s Day 2013, after a long battle with Leukemia at the age of 81. Textualism can be defined as a process of defining language and deducing the meaning based on “text and tradition” not “intellectual, moral, and personal perceptions”, which according to Justice Scalia would constitute a government of laws not men.

          Scalia opens his essay commenting on how when one begins to study general law it initiates a mental shift manifest in the methodology of analysis of information, and gives full sense to the cliché of “thinking like a lawyer”. Scalia marvels at some of the interesting ways common law can be contorted and combined with other statutes till the desired outcome is achieved. However, Justice Scalia’s job on the Supreme Court is not to judge common law but provide statutory interpretation.

            This is the first key distinction Scalia makes at the beginning of the essay; and it is the difference between common law, used more in smaller courts and most criminal trials; and statutory/regulatory interpretation which Scalia states is the primary job of the Supreme Court. This distinction plays a key role because textualism attempts to objectify, as much as possible, the text within the context to draw a conclusion that is logically consistent, even if circumstantially difficult. Justice Scalia provides the example of the case of Maryland vs. Craig[2]. The case had reached the Supreme Court level because of the appeal to the Sixth Amendment; the case was against an alleged child sex offender and the child was said to be so traumatized that they could not face the accused in court and thus set up a one-way television set for the testimony. That special accommodation directly conflicts with the clear language of the Sixth Amendment “...to be confronted with witnesses against him...”

           Scalia dissented in this case because it seemed so clear that text of the Sixth Amendment had been contradicted. The inherent nature of this case namely, child abuse, exponentially magnifies the emotional public response; however the prosecution did not want to put the child on trial, thus could not sufficiently satisfy the Sixth Amendment rights of the accused. Implied within his dissent is a harsh truth of constitutional and statutory interpretation, that Justices should not allow personal feeling of a case factor in the decision, to the point where the defendant is assumed guilty.

Supreme Court Justices are not moral arbiters but interpreters of legal language, same as a musician in a symphony interprets prewritten musical language. Within this analogy the Legislator and Constitution (Supreme Law) would be composers of the music being played by the symphony. It is true that the piece of music may have a solo; implying an individual’s interpretation, but a good musician will solo in key with the song so that the two remain fundamentally connected. Likewise judges read legal language and Justice Scalia believes they should stick to the script as much as possible; without the metaphorical solos. The intrinsic purpose of the Supreme Court however, is to be the highest court of the Republic. So it comes as no surprise that the cases they generally receive are not cut and dry decision, and even if we agree with the accommodation that was made in this case it is beyond any doubt a violation of the Sixth Amendment.        

            Justice Scalia goes on to warn about cases of this nature because they can seem innocent and even morally exemplary; but any case has the potential to grow insidiously and be spread into common law and throughout the legal system, to the point where false victims can make allegations without ever facing the accused. The preservation of liberty requires diligence and to contradict the language is in effect creating new statutes, this decision expands the influence of unelected judge’s decisions into a legislative role. Scalia fiercely rejects any type of legislative judiciary view and believes that his job is to officiate and know the rule book, not continually change the game as it goes. Without the core essence of textual intent the document is rendered completely useless, we might as well draft a new constitution every generation if we believe the application of the text to be dynamic.   

            Critics of textualism often say that strict interpretation of the Constitution slows down societal progress, instead of leading for social justice and other democratic ideals. This of course is hardly a coherent objection if one understands the purpose of the language in the Constitution to form a Republic, with certain individual rights guarded from popular legislation; acting as a stabilizing mechanism and underpinning the core values of the Republic.  Innovation of technology through creativity leads the trajectory of a society; the court’s job is to interpret the Constitution along the same lines as was textual and contextually implied. For example, the First Amendment has no mention of the internet or telephones among many others; yet when Congress attempted to pass the SOPA bill[3] the people killed the bill before it could even get to the Supreme Court. Again, Scalia seems to be pointing out the very nature of the role as Supreme Court Justice because if the people believe a bill violates their rights it generally will not make it the whole way to the Supreme Court. That is why the cases they do receive concerning Constitutional or statutory law must stay in tune with the Constitutional language and precedent.

            Throughout the essay Scalia makes the point that because the Supreme Court has such an odd relationship in respect to the notion of democracy, the Supreme Court has the potential to grow further away from the Judicial Review paradigm (which was not bestowed upon the Supreme Court at the conception of the constitution, and many framers were against the court having the power of Judicial Review). Reliance on Legislative History or Legislative Intent in Justice Scalia’s view is insufficient means to take a stance on a vote, and will inevitably lead to an even messier maze of cognitive dissonance and moral ambiguity.

            Justice Antonin Scalia has a very polarizing effect, recently I watched Rachel Maddow go on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and accuse Scalia of “trolling” and just saying outrageous things for the publicity or shock value. One thing that must be acknowledged is his consistency in his methodology of a decision; which is the greatest quality one can look for in a person whose job it is to make interpretive decision, such as a referee. All that can be truly asked for is that a foul in the first quarter is called the same in the second quarter; likewise for judges a violation of a statute is a violation of a statute regardless of circumstance.

                            

Bibliography

"Maryland v. Craig." Supreme Court Ruling, Washington D.C., 1990. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/89-478.ZD.html

House of Representatives. "Stop Online Piracy Act." House Resolution 3261, Washington D.C., 2011.

                http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3261

Scalia, Antonin. A Matter of Interpretation. New York: Princeton University Press, 1998.

---

[1] A Matter of Interpretation. Written by Antonin Scalia. 1998. New York City, NY. Princeton University Press

[2] Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990).

[3] Stop Online Privacy Act. H.R. 3261. Introduced October 26^th, 2011 in the House.

Education or Indoctrination?

1.)     What is your vision of a great public school? What are key characteristics of a great school?

Answer: My idea of a great school is somewhere where freedom of expression is encouraged and celebrated. One of the great points made during the movie was the fact that children are weeded out to find those who are most suggestible and submissive to the official story of events and the overall ideas pushed on us as students.  Overwhelmingly, the school system is as such. We are given left-brain information, told to hold onto it, and then regurgitate that information verbatim onto an exam paper. School's train children the opposite of what happens in real life; where they are given a test then learn a lesson...in school we are given the lesson the expected to pass the test. My senior year of High School I took an Art class at Tomball High School, I failed that Art class because the only types of things she wanted us to draw were Vincent Van Gogh landscape drawings. Throughout the semester my teacher used scare-tactics telling me that I would fail her class and wouldn’t graduate. I remember looking her in the eyes one day and asked “This is an Art class, right?”; “yes”; “Art is supposed to be creative…”; “yes”;  “what is creative about me drawing the exact same thing as everyone else?” This was supposed to be art, a right-brain activity, and here she is using fear-tactic (left-brained) and trying to make everyone conform to the same hierarchy (left-brain). Isn’t it interesting to see those schools cutting back on their budget, the first place they cut are music programs, art classes, theatre programs etc.; right-brain stimulation. Then generally, people who are engaged in these programs, specifically band are labeled as nerds and geeks.  My idea for reform of schools is to find balance between left-brain and right-brain stimulation. Especially in government, economics, history really anything other than math and science like chemistry, and physics which are largely objective.  Imagine Government classes where we are regularly encouraging kids to debate current issues other than abortion and immigration. Have them debate relevant issues that even mainstream media doesn’t touch. Point out and discuss the rampant voting fraud going on during the election; the differences, or lack thereof, between the “Republican” and “Democratic” nominees for President. We could do this for economics as well, I remember talking on and on in economics class my senior year about the Federal Reserve, yet it wasn’t till after that class I learned that it was a privately owned for-profit business enterprise, unregulated by any system of government. As Albert Einstein once said “It is amazing that curiosity survives a formal education.” The Orwellian term used, the “education system”, when we really dive into it the true motives of this system becomes plainly obvious, it is an “indoctrination system”; and will continue to be as such so long as we reward mediocre teachers with tenure, feed our children fast-food quality lunches, stifle independent thought while rewarding robotic regurgitation, and cut back on artistic (right-brained) programs even more. Another great point made during the movie was that for the price of incarcerating a person 4 years, we could send them to a private school for 13 years. But wait, believe it or not these Federal Prisons are also privately owned for-profit. Now what once seemed a mystifying misplacement of funds now comes into full conscious awareness. “Education” isn’t designed to create large groups of open-minded, critically thinking, emotionally balanced adults. It has been used as a means to further separate rich from the poor, to the point now where having just a high school diploma won’t get you a decent job.  Now we look at skyrocketing prices for Colleges and the overall price of living it’s no wonder the chasm between the rich and poor is growing on an exponential curve while the middle-class is dying. Then we look at those who do make it through this whole system have been in the system from age 5 to 22 and that’s just a bachelor’s degree which now is minimal. Doctor’s, PH.Ds, Masters, and most teachers will have been into the system till they’re almost 30, with close to a million dollars in debt, and relatively devoid of any independent thought. In the end my idea for a good school system is best described again by Albert Einstein “The aim of education must be the training of independently acting and thinking individuals who, however, can see in the service to the community their highest life achievement.” 

    

2.) Who is responsible for creating and sustaining great public schools? What is your role, and what needs to happen in your community to create more public ownership of your local public school?

Answer: I believe it is the responsibility of the county district to create schools and the states responsibility to provide funds for the schools. But at the core level, it is incumbent upon the parents to cultivate their child’s mind. Unfortunately, what we see on a growing scale is children entering schools and daycares at younger and younger ages. Also contributing to this, is the skyrocketing price of living; forcing both parents to work with no time to raise the children which allows for the state to get ahold of their child’s young mind and mold it to the official version of “education”. The challenge for parents isn’t necessarily to control the school system, but to make it a personal mission to push their children’s education as a continuous process not just while at school. This isn’t to be done in the same manner that the schools “educate”, giving children more worksheets, more deadlines, and stress would be the last thing children need to truly educate. We need to encourage kids to pursue right-brain activities like learning an instrument or drawing and coloring. Get them to turn off the TV and go outside and run around with their friends. Children get more than enough left-brain information during a school day, what we need is to break this cycle of 24-hours of left-brain information from Schools and TV.       

Fast & Furious: Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Edition

Through 2012 into the summer there has been an onslaught of big news stories; after an adventurous Primary Election season, and as our country goes through a Presidential Campaign cycle again, there’s an increasing sense of civil unrest. In last few months there was the Trayvon Martin mainstream media circus and so-called “Batman Massacre” and even more recently the Sikh massacre have filled-up countless hours on cable News channels. But, when whistle-blowers within the ATF start speaking out about the “Fast & Furious” gun-running operation the silence from all major media outlets becomes deafening.

In 2009, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) supervised by the Justice Department began this “Fast & Furious” operation of funneling fully-automatic assault rifles and other extremely dangerous weapons to leaders of Mexican Drug Cartels [1]. According to the “official” narrative, “Fast & Furious” was intended to build cases against leaders of these Cartels by selling weapons to their middle men or “straw buyers”. These “straw buyers” were given approval for an outlandish and illegal amount of firearms in Arizona and other border states, a portion of which ended up in the hands of these criminal enterprises.

Of course, on March 23^rd, 2011 when reporter Jorge Ramos questioned President Obama about this scandal the President immediately and vehemently denied having any personal prior knowledge, and also denied any implications that Attorney General Eric Holder had any knowledge or gave any approval of the operation. But after a nervous minute of superlative-laced clichés and dancing around the question Obama finally did admit “There may be a situation here which a serious mistake was made and if that's the case then we'll find out and we’ll hold somebody accountable [2].” As investigations have begun to uncover this scandal the Justice Department has incrementally released documents to the House Oversight Committee; with many of these documents and wiretaps it has become apparent that the President lied to Mr. Ramos on that day. And Attorney General Eric Holder would follow suit and lie as well on May 3^rd, 2012 again claiming he didn’t approve of the operation and even going as far to say he “probably only heard about Fast & Furious for the first time over the last few weeks [3].”

Many of the supporters of the Obama administration in Washington have called this investigation a “witch-hunt” and claim the Committee is playing partisan politics and “lacks evidence.” Stealing a page from the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four; The President exercised “Executive Privilege” to lock up certain crucial e-mails and documents then accuses the investigators of lacking evidence. Which is the best example of George Orwell’s “Doublethink” since President Obama received a Nobel “Peace” Prize after expanding and starting new wars.             

This issue is more than just partisan politics; President George W. Bush ran similar programs to “Fast & Furious” called “Operation Wide Receiver” which by most counts is just as morally objectionable as “Fast & Furious”, but also did not cause mass deaths and was done with Mexico’s full knowledge and co-operation unlike “Fast & Furious. [4]” This needs to be addressed as a gross overextension of the power of Federal Agencies, treason, and a massive threat to National Security. Especially living in a border state like Texas, there’s enough gun-crime and murder in Houston as it is…but hey, let’s give a couple hundred fully automatic weapons to drug lords, great idea!

To date there have been at least hundreds if not thousands killed by these weapons and as more of these illegal weapons are found so too are more lifeless bodies. Yet, the majority of mainstream media outlets have been quiet about this unfolding situation; then the “Batman massacre” happens and the circus is out in full force and the overwhelming sentiment is “blame the 2^nd Amendment [5].”  Conveniently, Hillary Clinton had been working diligently with the U.N. to pass the “Small Arm Trade Treaty” [6] which would crack down hard on 2^nd Amendment rights, most notably semi-automatic weapons. James Holmes reportedly used a semi-automatic Assault Rifle in the horrific mass murder of twelve innocent people, coincidence [7]? Then the Sikh massacre murders another seven people just a few weeks later and the only consistent theme among all the conflicting reports in both stories was the use of semi-automatic weapons by the accused perpetrators [8].         

Now to put these situations into perspective, between the “Batman massacre” and Sikh shooting nine-teen people died. At least hundreds of people both in Mexico and America have died because of this gun-running operation and many of the weapons are still at large, meaning more deaths to come. 

These media circuses associated to these publicized massacres gave Barack Obama the platform to show a glimpse of his supreme audacity and “address the Nation” to comment on how we may never know what would drive an individual to commit such horrendous acts. Eric Holder even had the unconscionable arrogance to attend the funeral service at the Sikh Temple making sure to smile and look nice for the cameras, yet will never acknowledge the horrendous acts he took in contributing to the death of border patrol agents like Brian A. Terry on December 14^th, 2010 [9]; among hundreds of other innocent people their operation murdered.

Mr. Holder’s hubris may very well be the Obama Administrations down-fall though; Holder now holds the dubious honor of being the first acting Attorney General to be held in contempt by a Congressional Panel. After the Panel voted 23-17 in favor of contempt for withholding crucial documents; Holder spouted off calling the move a “divisive action” that “does nothing to make any of our law enforcement agencies safer.” Adding that “It’s an election-year tactic intended to distract attention -- and, as a result --has deflected critical resources from fulfilling what remains my top priority at the Department of Justice: Protecting the American people [10].” All with straight-face; Holder then slinked off to advise the “Commander-in-Chief” to exercise the so-called “Executive Privilege” to cover the extent of their involvement from being exposed.        

These men are politicians after all and not to spoil the worst-kept secret ever or anything, but they will say and do whatever is immediately beneficial to themselves and their careers. So it really comes as no surprise they jumped on these events to further their own agenda. Eric Holder and Barack Obama throughout their careers have been strong proponents of gun-control towards the general population. In 1995 Eric Holder was addressing C-SPAN2 about gun awareness and control and would go as far as to say there needed to be daily “Anit-gun”/“Anti-Violence” messages “and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way [11].”

Now, the purpose of this paper was not to rant against “Obama trying to take our guns!!!” Personally I am not a big gun enthusiast, but I am a freedom enthusiast and most importantly a Constitutionalist.  Great thinkers like Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin thought it important enough to make it the 2^nd Amendment behind freedom of speech, assembly, and religion for good reason.  Which is where my fundamental disagreement with the Obama administration begins, his administration has clearly showed complete contempt for the Constitution through a wide number of their policies and Executive Orders and show no signs of slowing down. They seem to believe in growing government and forcing their ideals upon the society and stifling dissent through scare tactics. As Benjamin Franklin said though “He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither”; that is the precipice the American people stand on. We can continue to believe the scare tactics and brainwashing as our civil liberties are slowly eroded into glorified slavery as they continually murder innocent people, or we can demand that we see some justice be served to these criminals and all their string-pullers lurking in the shadows to avoid another family losing their loved one like Brian Terry, because of their criminal deeds.      

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/21/fast-and-furious-investigation-started-with-agents-death/ [1]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20046151-10391695.html  [2]

http://www.infowars.com/issa-confirms-fast-furious-wiretaps/ [3]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/the-5-biggest-differences-between-operation-fast-and-furious-and-operation-wide-receiver/ [4]

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4695848&page=1 [5]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/obama-notably-silent-on-gun-control-after-mass-shootings/ [6]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/us/aurora-gunmans-lethal-arsenal.html (7)

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/06/authorities-search-for-motive-in-deadly-shooting-at-wisconsin-sikh-temple/ [8]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/15/arizona.border.agent.killed/index.html (9)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fast-and-furious-eric-holder-held-in-contempt/2012/06/20/gJQAaEUArV_story.html [10]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa49iocFTSE [11]

Ronald Reagan’s Inaugural Address, 1981

Ronald Reagan came in at the perfect time in American society. The fact that he was a B-list actor before ever getting into politics truly speaks volumes both about him and what a puppet position the President of the United States has become over the 236 years of the United States. Of course, he had George H. Bush pulling all his strings as “Vice-President” much like Dick Cheney would later do to George W. Bush in the same “Vice-President” role. What made Ronald Reagan more fondly remembered was his solid ability to talk in front of a camera; compared to George W. Bush he was much more charismatic which really does not say too much. Reagan ran as a libertarian republican but ended up adopting all the typical policies of the United States Presidency, so far as to come up with the term “Reaganomics” which benefits all the big business interests so they can, by the grace of their hearts, start the “trickle down” effect that exactly reflects the doctrines of Andrew Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth.   

                 

George H. W. Bush before his first “Vice” Presidency term was the head of the CIA where his notorious reign included oversight of mass amount of drug smuggling during the “Just Say NO!” years, and arming foreign entities like the Mujahdeen which would later become the Taliban and Al-Queda. George Senior was also was a high ranking CIA member and was in Dallas the day John F. Kennedy was assassinated. In the last 20 years there have been numerous books written about George H. W. Bush ranging from his career laundering money through his Carlyle group and the money his father Prescott Bush made off funding Hitler’s Nazi war machine to massive pedophile rings running through the White House.

                

 In the late 80s through the early 90s a story begins to break in Boys Town, Nebraska. A man by the name of Lawrence E. King, who sang the nation anthem at the Republican National Convention, became a general manager within the system. But when over $40 million went missing under his watch, the story ultimately led to Boy’s Town, Nebraska children being used in a pedophile sex ring during the 80s [1]. Outlets like The Washington Times reported on this scandal and Discovery Channel had an entire hour long expose they were going to run on May 3^rd 1994, until high power Senators and other politicians had it pulled before it was going to air [2].

               

Author Nick Bryant wrote a book titled The Franklin Scandal which does an excellent job of actual journalism. The book details all of the circumstances involving Lawrence E. King and his laundering through Franklin Credit Union as does the documentary cited above; this is just a small taste of the 20 years of American Presidency suspended within a heartbeat of being a guy named George Bush.

http://www.franklincase.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11&Itemid=9    [1]

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-franklin-cover-up/  [2]

George W. Bush's 2005, Inaugural Address: Have We Learned Yet?

This speech given by George W. Bush is yet another shining example of how much of a joke our Presidential Elections have become. Decision 2004 came down to George W. Bush and John Kerry; both men attended Yale University and were members of the Skull & Bones Society. Both intended to continue imperialism throughout the World, most notably places like Iraq and Afghanistan where the “Bush Administration” spearheaded by Dick Cheney and his corporate goons committed unspeakable crimes against humanity. The could-have-been “Kerry Administration” would have done precisely the same. This situation worked out in the end of course for the Democratic Party because if George W. Bush wouldn’t have resided as President through 2008 then what would have set the stage for Mr. “Hope” and “Change” Barack Obama.

                

Decision 2008 the American people are led to believe that their “choice” is between John McCain and Barack Obama. It was obvious from the point Barack won the primary that he would roll over McCain quite easily. In the modern age of TV image is everything and there’s no way in hell America was going to “choose” an old-white “Republican” over the younger multi-cultural Jesus-man “Democrat” making all his ridiculous promises, the political pendulum must swing both to hypnotize the masses into believing the bullshit “Democrat-Republican” left-right paradigm. Just in case America was going to “choose” the old-white guy the primaries ensured that another loyalist to Zionist imperialism would hold the puppet position. (NOTE: My use of the term Zionist does NOT mean Judaism by any means, Israel is an apartheid state and many Jews condemn many of their fascist policies including their treatment of the Palestinians. Google search Jews against Zionism; “You don’t have to be Jewish to be a Zionist”---Joe Biden.)

In 2000 John McCain’s campaign for Presidency had a man name Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was "Democrat" Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy advisor. Brzezinski has a long rap sheet of arming “rebel forces” all around the world then bombing the country the “rebel forces” inhabit to bring them “liberty and freedom.” Brzezinski is an extremely powerful man far exceeding John McCain and Barack Obama’s political clout put together, when Zbigniew says “jump” they ask “how high” he tells them to open their mouth and they ask “how wide?” plain and simple. Brzezinski has long been writing about his ideal of a one-world government in his books dating back to the 1970s. One of Brzezinski’s more famous quotes pertains to his plans for global government but also is a comment one the growing consciousness among the “politically awakening masses” for true freedom and openness “To put it pungently, in earlier times it was easier to control a million people than it was to kill a million people…Today it is infinitely easier to physically kill a million people than it is to control a million people.”

Eight years later John McCain actually secures the “Republican” nomination and runs against “Democrat” nominee Barack Obama. This campaign Zbigniew’s son Ian Brzezinski was named foreign policy advisor to Senator McCain, and who is Mr. “Change’s” foreign policy advisor you may ask?...Mark Brzezinski, Zbigniew’s other son. Obama also “appointed” his other string-pullers like Rahm Emmanuel whose father was an Israeli terrorist, and David Axelrod another Zionist who undoubtedly ran all sorts of shady businesses in one of the political cesspits of the world called Chicago.  

Flash-forward again to 2012 and the Nominees this time are…Barack Obama, and Mitt Romney. Have we learned anything yet? Both have big-banking interests at heart Mitt Romney said himself that he would have signed the National Defense Authorization Act which allows the President to detain any US citizens in “war” or “peace” with total suspension of habeas corpus and any other basic rights. So-called “ObamaCare” is based off Romney’s unconstitutional health-care reform he passed during his time as Governor in Massachusetts. Romney has even stated he would be harsher against the Iranians, have yourself a good laugh sometime and watch the greatest Romney flip-flop compilation on Youtube, really says everything you need to know about the man. Romney is a classic “stop me when you hear something you like” candidate and stands for nothing except business as usual just like Obama. Wake up, America your elections are a joke and you’re subjected to its’ fallout.