Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Tic-Tac-Toe, two travesties in a row

Once again, this week we "celebrate" a couple of the biggest travesties in the history of the US. First, we have Michael King Day, and then we have the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade.

"Michael King Day?" I hear you cry. "What do you mean by that?" Well, you can look it up. Michael King was a plagiarist, adulterer, and possibly a Communist stooge, who was killed in Memphis some years back. Thanks to the imagination of his father, he's better known as "Martin Luther King". But his legal name remained Michael.

It's long been known that his doctoral dissertation was largely plagiarized. According to Boston University, where he "earned" his PhD, revoking the degree that he earned only by violating academic standards in the most basic way
"would serve no purpose".

Great. I'll try to remember that if I ever decide to work on a PhD. Cheat, because if you get caught, revoking the degree would serve no purpose.

Of course, it appears that using other people's work without attribution was the secret to King's success. Hell, it's even possible that his "I have a dream" speech was plagiarized. Along with most of his academic work.

Quite the heroic image, no? An intellectual who showed no real sign of intellect, other than the ability to copy the works of others directly from their sources.

And his womanizing was apparently pretty blatant. There are allegations from fairly reliable sources that he was into orgies, possibly (like his self-proclaimed successor Jesse Jackson) using funds from his religious groups to buy the women. Now we all know that temptation exists, especially for a charismatic, famous man. And yes, I understand that it could be hard to resist, and that one can even claim that he's fighting his own weak character as a sinner. Great. But the point is, he failed miserably. Doesn't speak all that well of him, does it? Especially when you compare his failings to that of other religious leaders. Like the popes of the past couple centuries. They take an oath of celibacy, and live up to it. King took an oath of marriage, and couldn't handle that. Who would you say was a better man?

He also worked with a number of people that had connections to the Communist Party. Now, I'm not gonna sit here and prattle on about Commies, the Red Menace and all that. But it's been pretty well established by now that the Communist Party in the US was taking orders from Moscow, and spying against the US. And King knowingly associated with people that were involved there. It's even possible that some of his marches and actions were completely supported by the Communist Party.

And this man deserves a unique honor, by being granted his own holiday? What a crock!

Next we have another great anniversary for the week. Today, January 22, is the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade. Certainly one of the two worst decisions in the history of the US Supreme Court (the other, for the record, being Dred Scott).

In Roe, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution grants women the right to abortion. Interesting, for two reasons. First off, if you actually read the Constitution, it clearly states (in the 10th amendment) the following: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I'm not a legal scholar, so perhaps I'm missing something here. The way I read it, unless the Constitution specifically grants the US government authority on a topic, it's none of their damn business. And I've read the Constitution several times. Try as I might, I've yet to see the word "abortion" appear in it. I've also never seen any mention of "a woman's right to choose", or any other code words.

So as far as I can tell, abortion is a matter for the States. The Supreme Court didn't even have the legal basis to examine the question- it's not a Federal matter. But they took on the case, and then, Lo and Behold! discovered this previously unknown and unmentioned right was there all along. See, look, there it is in black and white.

Except of course that it isn't there. I never read the Constitution before Roe v Wade, and as mentioned, have yet to find the topic in there since. So clearly I don't possess the necessary tools to discover and decide on such weighty issues.

But I do know what the Constitution says about changing the document, or "amending" it. There's a strict procedure to be followed, and it involves a lot more than 7 guys suddenly noticing something that wasn't there a moment before.

I have mixed feelings about abortion anyway. I personally oppose it, but unless I'm directly involved, I don't see that it's any of my business. There are compelling- to me at least- arguments against it on many levels, but no matter. My biggest complaint is that I don't see why I should be forced to pay for abortions for women, by means of my tax dollars. I also think that, unless there's a Constitutional Amendment, the legality of the procedure should be a matter for each state. If one doesn't agree with how their particular state rules on the matter, then it's perfectly acceptable (and allowable) to move to another. Problem solved.

In my case, I don't think I care that much about it. I'd probably stay where I was, and deal with the issue or not.

So what we have is an issue where the highest court in the US decided to violate the highest law in the US (which they are supposed to be the ultimate authorities on) in order to legislate something which the majority of the people were opposed to, as a means of circumventing Congress (which actually has the role of legislating) and the States, which are also involved in the process of amending the Constitution.

How many errors or violations of Law did the Supreme Court commit, according to my description above? By my count, the correct answer is "more than enough to be impeached for abuse of power".

Yet here we are, 35 years later, still bound by this asinine decision. And not only does one political party make it the centerpiece of their platform, but they actually try to make compliance with this piece of judicial garbage a requirement for someone to become a Supreme Court Justice.

(Of course, I could go on at length about the stupidity of this attitude. After all, isn't a judge supposed to listen to all the facts and then make a decision? Yet here, the Democrats want a nominee to promise they'll cast the proper vote, based on a purely theoretical question. Imagine a potential juror stating that, in a murder trial for which he might be chosen, he would find the defendant guilty, regardless of the circumstances. Even worse, imagine him announcing that he would cast such a vote in a trial 20 years down the road. Absurd, no? But yet, the left insists that there's nothing wrong with this type of demand.)

To sum up then, it's a great week for American history. A week where we honor the patron saint of plagiarism and adultery, and then follow it up with a celebration of (possibly) the most disgusting display of tyranny in the history of the US Constitution. A moment when a group of 7 men decided that the US needed to go in a different direction, and it was up to them to decide how things should be.

In my mind, I imagine Burger, the Chief Justice at the time of Roe nodding to his allies and announcing, in his best Captain Picard voice "Make it so". And thus, out of nothingness, a Constitutional Right was born.

Michael King would be proud.