September 1, 2012
This essay could be seen as being
about a controversial issue called "Pacific View" in the small wealthy
southern California city of Encinitas where I happen to live. This is
the name of the 1950s era rusting elementary school on a three acre plot
near the sea shore, that after a ten year battle over arcane laws on
the rights of a city to purchase unused schools property, is now under
contract to be purchased at the current market value of ten million
dollars.
This article is really a vehicle to look at
meta-issues, those going beyond specific examples to show larger issues,
such as how "Pacific View" ultimately was reduced to the "sound bites/
buzz words" that have come to define all political speech. Expanding
on this, I will explore how several local policies have become
impossible to address by the political (electoral system.) Among these
are one about our "Mayor," who under a new law will have less actual
authority than the other members of the city council, yet this reality
is impossible to convey to an electorate who filters out all but their
visceral understanding of simplistic concepts, IE: Mayor is the chief,
Politicians are bad, Control by the voters is good. These set of
simplistic truisms prevailed in this initiative in another California city over a reasoned argument among 80% of the voters.
Understanding the dynamics of the new elected mayor law
requires the voter first suspending the investment he has in such "buzz
word/sound bites" in organizing his world, to explore the actual law
being proposed along with the interpersonal dynamics within the city
council, something that deprives the average voter of a personal
cognitive structure that leaves him vulnerable.
"Majority
rules" is the simplest explanation of democracy, which because it is
our system we rarely subject to incisive critical analysis. I couldn't
ignore this since my participation in a new city commission that was
given oversight over major life and death issues placed me in a position
where I had to at least try to address these functions of government.
This lead to my considering running for this odd position of mayor as a
sounding board for discussions such as this essay; but I eventually
realized that electoral politics at every level in this country has
become a highly regimented activity often controlled by handlers who are
masters of these operating rules. The major challenge is following
standards that resonate with the increasing "sound bite/buzzword"
voters, so it's not what you say that gets you elected, but what you
don't get caught saying that will lose the election. The covert
recording of Mitt Romney's "47% are takers" presentation illustrates
this, as he suspended the above rules and committed the ultimate
mistake, being candid about his views." Having a political system that
requires its elected officials to obfuscate and dissemble creates a
whole host of problems, that for now I'll just take as a given without
further exploration.
Purchase of Pacific View was
achieved by a single vote majority of the city council after an
email-based campaign that mobilized about two percent of the voters of
the city. The melodrama created by the sponsor was that of "saving this
land from developers" which was energized, given more legitimacy, by
it's ultimate use being to enhance "the Arts." This concept was
accepted as an all encompassing "good" to such a degree that details of
the center became superfluous, implying that any activity under this
rubric was worth taxpayer support.
The historic
juxtaposition of hundreds of children only miles away being turned away
from an immigration center, barred from escaping a high risk of death,
did not cause the city authorities to consider how this land could be
used to provide sanctuary for these desperate children. "The Arts" had
become something so internalized as to be exalted, an identifier of
cultural sensitivity that transcended providing succor to these unwashed
masses.
My two extensive presentation to the city
council first on the impossibility of building a performance space on
this land, and the other of the liabilities of city ownership, were
mentioned, although mis-characterized by the "Save Pacific Beach"
sponsor. The actual two videos, in one case was never was sent to his
mailing list and the other it was to a link that was inactive. All of
the arguments made during public sessions, other than mine, were against
the purchase because the cost wast too high, with no others made
against the principle of municipal ownership of this property. My
attempt to use the deeply flawed "communications/ propaganda" product
Open City Hall to get wider feedback was squelched by the dominating
city manager, even when the request came from the "mayor."
Political
life in this city, more importantly, in this country, has been reduced
to this. The term political correctness is a part of this dynamic, but
that phrase has taken on a triviality that negates the damage that is
done whenever the unfettered addressing of difficult issues is
stigmatized. To understand the effect of our restriction of acceptable
language, it's useful to look at the other side, how not only is
language stripped of precision by condemning, often to the point of
criminalization, language relating to harsh realities of existence,
there is a promotion of what is defined as "a positive outlook" such as
promotion of the "the arts." Mandated happy-talk is probably a more
pernicious type of social control than censorship.
What is not discussed is "the arts" has an element that can be understood as a vehicle of conspicuous consumption Thorstein
Veblen's sociological concept that certainly applies to those whose
accumulation of billions of dollars worth of paintings enhance their
status among the world's elite. To some degree I would suggest that
part of the enthusiasm of those who were so passionate about the arts
can be explained by this dynamic. While they will never own a Manet,
they can be part of the group that admire those that do.
This
is strong enough, and so unconscious, that those who never entertained
any doubts about the city prioritizing this Pacific View purchase over
helping desperate refugees, never thought about how these funds could
have been used to upgrade dangerous city intersections. This enthusiasm
for this purchase of an arts center allows them to feel a part of the
culture that values, that validates a system where the very wealthiest
purchase the rarest, the finest, the most valued of objet d'art. This
grassroots support was so strong that those who opposed it were accused
by the then mayor of attempting to sabotage this movement, it being so
sublime that those who opposed it deserved to be treated as an alien
force.
Another major issue that was addressed during my
period of activity in city affairs was the adoption and implementation
of a product sold by Peak Democracy company. I fought it with every
resource at my command, that once again was thwarted by a single vote on
the city council. This article, Peak Democracy Company, a fatal virus for democracy, goes into the details.
Among
voters under forty, only a small fraction has ever even taken a high
school level civics course, and for this generation Veblen's
conceptualization, or other theories of government and human dynamics
are simply courses to get over with as soon as possible to get back to
the comfort of a less challenging world. No politician (defined by one
who needs to win a majority of votes) would dare to attempt to transcend
this by insulting his voters by suggesting they need to revise their
way of thinking to judge the merits of policy. Rabid
liberal-conservative politics does allow the illusion of such dialogue,
but that's all it is. On a national level the enemy will always be the
other party, more concentrated if the President is a member. The focus
can be on other objects of condemnation, like developers, or "takers"
or any out-group susceptible of being despised. All it takes is a
critical mass of like minded people to agree on whom to vilify.
It
looks like the city will purchase Pacific View, which comes complete
with a concept of an arts center even if the restrictions of the
location will prohibit an actual one. It will provide a group
identification so rewarding that no argument against it shall be allowed
to be promulgated to those taxpayers who will be footing the bill. We
will have an election in a few months that will include a choice for
Mayor, who will be seen by the voters as the most powerful person in
city government; and they will feel good that it is the voter who gets
to decide rather than other "politicians." The refugee children who
passed so close to us will probably be sent back home, many to die or to
be forced into tragic lives.
If you have finished
this article, you should know you are among the very few who have. It
was long, convoluted and took a bit of concentration. Since you've gone
this far, why not leave your comment so we and the other few can start a
conversation.
-----------
Addenda
From this interview with a conceptual artist in the New York Times
Art is not only physical pollution, it’s intellectual pollution.
Spiritual pollution. I belong to the down-the-drain generation. We were
promised salvation by art. I was a passionate believer, until I realized
it was one of those allegiances, like spiritualism or theosophy. All of
this kind of semi-religious teaching, like Mary Baker Eddy or Madame
Blavatsky.
---------------------------------
Refusal to stand for the Pledge of Allegience
Constitutionality of Encinitas CA Agenda Item
September 7, 2014
"The Law" has a characteristic of being a gift from a higher power, as perhaps it must to control that part of humanity rooted in our primate brutal heritage. This perception extends from the ten commandments given by God, Sharia Law, also from God-called-Allah as conveyed by his Prophet; to the fundamental law of this country, created by those now revered founders who created a Constitution that allowed a compact of independent states to form a nation.. It is this constitution that both empowers, but also places limits on a government by the people. The compact was meant, like the ten commandments, to be eternal -- a bit less so since a super-majority can decide to change it.
Therefore this Constitution, as defined by the Judiciary system, can give an individual on the lowest ladder of our society the ability to negate the authority of the most powerful governmental and police agencies when "constitutional law is on his side." It also allows a single citizen to attempt, ideally by appealing to the law based body, but ultimately by the judiciary of the country to negate activity that is unconstitutional. A Constitutional principle can easily become lost among the deluge of mass media and partisan politics, becoming all but forgotten by lawmakers and citizens, yet such principles and the court decisions that define them have no expiration date, and are good until overruled.
This has happened with the Pledge of Allegiance, as the insertion of the words, "under God" in 1954 has changed the focus of the claims to unconstitutionality from one part of the first amendment, prohibition of abridging the freedom of speech, to another, prohibition of any law respecting an establishment of religion. The prior focus, however, still stands.
The Supreme Court Decision known as the Barnette case, was decided in 1943 during a time that has similarities to what is happening at this moment, when America was at war with a power very much like that of ISIL or the Islamic Caliphate. Both this current growing caliphate of the Islamic world and the Nazi movement shared a genocidal hatred of those were not of their religio-racial ideology. While this could have resulted in a resurgence of patriotism in America, one particular Supreme Court Justice, Robert Jackson, wrote the majority decision that conveyed why American patriotism is, and must, be different than those of our enemies. This decision which defines the unique quality of American patriotism is found in his decision ruling that the very idea of an official Pledge of Allegiance is an ultimate affront to our constitution. This is something that I am convinced applies more urgently today, and certainly is worth any personal inconvenience to make this point at a public venue.
Robert Jackson's brilliant final paragraphs, parenthetically by a Justice none other than whom Antonin Scalia stated here is his most admired, deserves quoting at this time and for posterity:
Last week in the small Florida city of Winter Garden, a man, Joseph Richardson, who refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance was ejected by the local police, as described and shown on video here, most likely under authority such as that of ordinances of the city of Encinitas that is shown in the addenda below. His remaining seated was an expression of his rejection of reciting of the The Pledge of Allegiance.
Under Encinitas local ordinance such expression of rejection of this pledge would allow a mayor to continue the chain of actions that ended with the exiting of the Florida dissenter, leading to arrest and criminal prosecution for a misdemeanor. This threat based on this city's law, even in the absence of implementation, constitutes compelling of speech, legally any expressive action including silence, that the Barnette decision explicitly invalidates as being unconstitutional.
It is at this time, when the systematic mass slaughter of innocents in Iraq and Syria has the potential of involving the United State of America in a major war, that the principles articulated in this 1943 decision, must be given new life. The difference between American patriotism and that of the two genocidal regimes, one burgeoning today, the other defeated seven decades ago, must be brought back to our nation's consciousness.
The words of Justice Robert Jackson, supported by five of his fellow Justices, were never more important than now. It is an obligation for those so convinced to seek out examples of their abrogation, even when only in principle, and confront them for the world to see how central this is to this country. If the United States of America is exceptional, it is not because of our wealth or prowess, and certainly not for the effectiveness of our political system; but rather for this rare core principle of individual freedom that fosters a functional government based on a unique patriotism, that because of its fragility must still be protected in this day as it was in his.
The single dissenting opinion of Barnette, longer than the decision and concurrences, is by another of the great justices, Felix Frankfurter. His dissent is often a footnote attributed to his opening words reflecting being a Jew when America was fighting a war against an enemy specifically of his co-religionists. "One who belongs to the most vilified and persecuted minority in history is not likely to be insensible to the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. Were my purely personal attitude relevant, I should wholeheartedly associate myself with the general libertarian views in the Court's opinion, representing, as they do, the thought and action of a lifetime"
It is worth exploring how this dissent cogently expresses the ethos of Judicial restraint now most espoused by Justice Antonin Scalia, ironically in opposing the decision written by the Justice most respected by this current "conservative." Frankfurter's dissent reflects the conflict between expanded interpretation of constitutional principles in contrast to his preferred deference to legislatures,, the more direct representation of the popular majority. The following are quotes from this dissent:
The following quote of Frankfurter is directly on point, and raises the possibility that in the instant challenge I am making, even he may reconsider his opposition to the majority decision of Barnette:
We have in the instant case in Florida the action an official threatening arrest of a citizen who was exercising the very freedom of the symbolic speech of remaining seated described above. Based on the ordinance of the city of Encinitas, where the Pledge is an official agenda item, such expression of rejection could be construed as being out of order, and provide a mayor the authority to initiate a chain of demands resulting in arrest. It is for this reason, that is responsive to Frankfurter's dissent, that I make this current challenge.
The following annotated segment version is also from Frankfurters dissent, the last few sentences are unchanged and the first part has references to specific cases removed. It is from this paragraph close to the end that begins "That is the safe two-fold rule; nor is......" I feature it because it conveys the intellectual zeitgeist of his era, when the deluge of messages, sensations, emotional laden simplistic sound bites of our internet age was a minute fraction of what we all now experience.
The most profound point that I personally can offer, is that what Justice Frankfurter describes in italics is a relic of his era, and no longer exists outside of a few seminars in legal history at the most select law schools. Gone are discussions in the public arena -- "rousing into activity, the enlargement of ideas, and growth of political experience." These intellectual activities have been debased into focus group defined de-intellectualized sound bites that will determine our choice of representatives in the halls of political power.
Jackson's decision was predicated on a realistic, if pessimistic, view of reality. The previous Gobitas decision only two years earlier that required Jehovah's witnesses to recite the pledge, unleashed violence described in this obituary just this week of the defendant, as:
Frankfurter's promise of prompting of independent thoughtful analysis (as idealized in italics above,) in compelled recitation of the Pledge seems out of touch, to say the least. Robert Jackson, who ironically was the least formally educated of any Supreme Court Justice in our history, understood the reality rather than the imagined idealized public, now ever so much further from this ideal-- of Frankfurter, who lived his life at the academic heights.
Jackson knew, from his farmer parents and his unschooled friends, how fragile was independent thought, how inaccessible it was to those without access to the seminars of Harvard. He knew how easily squashed were idea that seemed to be opposed to a patriotic jingoism that could be more oppressive than any brown shirted military force. He also understood how such simple decent people could be led astray, as the world was about to face the horrible consequences of Frankfurter's misplaced optimism.
Ironically only two years after his Barnette decision Robert Jackson was to prosecute the leaders of Nazi Germany over the bar of Nuremberg. Each of those Nazi leaders imposed litmus tests on all of their people with dissent having dire consequences. The result was a universality of common thought, easily directed towards a frenzied thirst for indulging in "the patriotic gore" that must be isolated from the contamination of independent thought.
Frankfurters dissent, and its assumptions, is as important as Jackson's decision in understanding our country, human nature, and the challenges of the rule law over the ages. My wish is that my meager efforts can help to advance the ideals of both men, and that we transcend the debasement of political discourse of our day in addressing this issue of official recitation of the pledge.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addenda:
Municipal Code City of Encinitas
2.20.060 Orderly Conduct
A: Any person who fails to comply with a direction given by the presiding officer for the purpose of maintaining order at a City Council Meeting shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
B: All persons shall comply with the meeting procedures announced by resolution of the City Council and no person shall interfere with or interrupt a City Council Meeting.
C: The presiding officer may designate a member of the County Sheriff's Department as Sergeant at Arms who shall carry out the directions of the presiding officer.
----------
Report and Video of individual who was ejected from an official local government meeting in Wiinter Garden FL for refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
----------
A week later the city of Winter Garden revised their regulations on prayer, which will be a moment of silence, and The Pledge of Allegiance, described in this article. It is now clearly optional by ordinance, which as of this writing is not the case in the city of Encinitas.
----------
As this story was breaking in Florida, and this article being written, the women who fomented the precursor to the 1943 Barnette case, the Jehovah's Witness child with the last name of her case, "Gobitas" who was in 1941 was ordered to say the pledge or be expelled, passed away. Her obituary here describes the violence against those who continued to refuse to say the pledge.
----------
A personal description of the outcome of the joint meeting of the Encinitas City Council and the Traffic and Public Safety Commission, with video, described above is available in this essay
----------
Background material
This insightful 1994 law review article looks at how reputations of Supreme Court justices are formed. Robert Jackson's serving as U.S. Prosecutor of the Nuremberg Trials for a year was seen as detracting his legal reputation, while Felix Frankfurter being a Harvard Law professor and member of FDR's administration enhanced his aura.
September 7, 2014
"The Law" has a characteristic of being a gift from a higher power, as perhaps it must to control that part of humanity rooted in our primate brutal heritage. This perception extends from the ten commandments given by God, Sharia Law, also from God-called-Allah as conveyed by his Prophet; to the fundamental law of this country, created by those now revered founders who created a Constitution that allowed a compact of independent states to form a nation.. It is this constitution that both empowers, but also places limits on a government by the people. The compact was meant, like the ten commandments, to be eternal -- a bit less so since a super-majority can decide to change it.
Therefore this Constitution, as defined by the Judiciary system, can give an individual on the lowest ladder of our society the ability to negate the authority of the most powerful governmental and police agencies when "constitutional law is on his side." It also allows a single citizen to attempt, ideally by appealing to the law based body, but ultimately by the judiciary of the country to negate activity that is unconstitutional. A Constitutional principle can easily become lost among the deluge of mass media and partisan politics, becoming all but forgotten by lawmakers and citizens, yet such principles and the court decisions that define them have no expiration date, and are good until overruled.
This has happened with the Pledge of Allegiance, as the insertion of the words, "under God" in 1954 has changed the focus of the claims to unconstitutionality from one part of the first amendment, prohibition of abridging the freedom of speech, to another, prohibition of any law respecting an establishment of religion. The prior focus, however, still stands.
The Supreme Court Decision known as the Barnette case, was decided in 1943 during a time that has similarities to what is happening at this moment, when America was at war with a power very much like that of ISIL or the Islamic Caliphate. Both this current growing caliphate of the Islamic world and the Nazi movement shared a genocidal hatred of those were not of their religio-racial ideology. While this could have resulted in a resurgence of patriotism in America, one particular Supreme Court Justice, Robert Jackson, wrote the majority decision that conveyed why American patriotism is, and must, be different than those of our enemies. This decision which defines the unique quality of American patriotism is found in his decision ruling that the very idea of an official Pledge of Allegiance is an ultimate affront to our constitution. This is something that I am convinced applies more urgently today, and certainly is worth any personal inconvenience to make this point at a public venue.
Robert Jackson's brilliant final paragraphs, parenthetically by a Justice none other than whom Antonin Scalia stated here is his most admired, deserves quoting at this time and for posterity:
The case is made difficult not because the principles of its decision are obscure, but because the flag involved is our own. Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous, instead of a compulsory routine, is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds. We can have intellectual individualism and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us
Last week in the small Florida city of Winter Garden, a man, Joseph Richardson, who refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance was ejected by the local police, as described and shown on video here, most likely under authority such as that of ordinances of the city of Encinitas that is shown in the addenda below. His remaining seated was an expression of his rejection of reciting of the The Pledge of Allegiance.
Under Encinitas local ordinance such expression of rejection of this pledge would allow a mayor to continue the chain of actions that ended with the exiting of the Florida dissenter, leading to arrest and criminal prosecution for a misdemeanor. This threat based on this city's law, even in the absence of implementation, constitutes compelling of speech, legally any expressive action including silence, that the Barnette decision explicitly invalidates as being unconstitutional.
It is at this time, when the systematic mass slaughter of innocents in Iraq and Syria has the potential of involving the United State of America in a major war, that the principles articulated in this 1943 decision, must be given new life. The difference between American patriotism and that of the two genocidal regimes, one burgeoning today, the other defeated seven decades ago, must be brought back to our nation's consciousness.
The words of Justice Robert Jackson, supported by five of his fellow Justices, were never more important than now. It is an obligation for those so convinced to seek out examples of their abrogation, even when only in principle, and confront them for the world to see how central this is to this country. If the United States of America is exceptional, it is not because of our wealth or prowess, and certainly not for the effectiveness of our political system; but rather for this rare core principle of individual freedom that fosters a functional government based on a unique patriotism, that because of its fragility must still be protected in this day as it was in his.
The single dissenting opinion of Barnette, longer than the decision and concurrences, is by another of the great justices, Felix Frankfurter. His dissent is often a footnote attributed to his opening words reflecting being a Jew when America was fighting a war against an enemy specifically of his co-religionists. "One who belongs to the most vilified and persecuted minority in history is not likely to be insensible to the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. Were my purely personal attitude relevant, I should wholeheartedly associate myself with the general libertarian views in the Court's opinion, representing, as they do, the thought and action of a lifetime"
It is worth exploring how this dissent cogently expresses the ethos of Judicial restraint now most espoused by Justice Antonin Scalia, ironically in opposing the decision written by the Justice most respected by this current "conservative." Frankfurter's dissent reflects the conflict between expanded interpretation of constitutional principles in contrast to his preferred deference to legislatures,, the more direct representation of the popular majority. The following are quotes from this dissent:
And surely only flippancy could be responsible for the suggestion that constitutional validity of a requirement to salute our flag implies equal validity of a requirement to salute a dictator. The significance of a symbol lies in what it represents. To reject the swastika does not imply rejection of the Cross. And so it bears repetition to say that it mocks reason and denies our whole history to find in the allowance of a requirement to salute our flag on fitting occasions the seeds of sanction for obeisance to a leader. To deny the power to employ educational symbols is to say that the state's educational system may not stimulate the imagination because this may lead to unwise stimulation.
The following quote of Frankfurter is directly on point, and raises the possibility that in the instant challenge I am making, even he may reconsider his opposition to the majority decision of Barnette:
...... It is not even remotely suggested that the requirement for saluting the flag involves the slightest restriction against the fullest opportunity on the part both of the children and of their parents to disavow, as publicly as they choose to do so, the meaning that others attach to the gesture of salute. All channels of affirmative free expression are open to both children and parents. Had we before us any act of the state putting the slightest curbs upon such free expression, I should not lag behind any member of this Court in striking down such an invasion of the right to freedom of thought and freedom of speech protected by the Constitution.-----------
We have in the instant case in Florida the action an official threatening arrest of a citizen who was exercising the very freedom of the symbolic speech of remaining seated described above. Based on the ordinance of the city of Encinitas, where the Pledge is an official agenda item, such expression of rejection could be construed as being out of order, and provide a mayor the authority to initiate a chain of demands resulting in arrest. It is for this reason, that is responsive to Frankfurter's dissent, that I make this current challenge.
The following annotated segment version is also from Frankfurters dissent, the last few sentences are unchanged and the first part has references to specific cases removed. It is from this paragraph close to the end that begins "That is the safe two-fold rule; nor is......" I feature it because it conveys the intellectual zeitgeist of his era, when the deluge of messages, sensations, emotional laden simplistic sound bites of our internet age was a minute fraction of what we all now experience.
..... the correction of legislative "mistakes" (IE voiding W.V law requiring children to recite the pledge, or overruling Obamacare) comes from the outside, and the people thus lose the political experience, and the moral education and stimulus that come from fighting the question out in the ordinary way, and correcting their own errors. If the decisions ( lists several cases where the court did not overrule arguably harmful legislation ), had been different, and the legislation there in question, thought by many to be unconstitutional and by many more to be ill-advised, had been set aside, we should have been saved some trouble and some harm.
But I venture to think that the good which came to the country and its people from the vigorous thinking that had to be done in the political debates that followed, from the infiltration through every part of the population of sound ideas and sentiments, from the rousing into activity of opposite elements, the enlargement of ideas, the strengthening of moral fibre, and the growth of political experience that came out of it all -- that all this (productive public discourse) far more than outweighed any evil which ever flowed from the refusal of the court to interfere with the work of the legislature.
The most profound point that I personally can offer, is that what Justice Frankfurter describes in italics is a relic of his era, and no longer exists outside of a few seminars in legal history at the most select law schools. Gone are discussions in the public arena -- "rousing into activity, the enlargement of ideas, and growth of political experience." These intellectual activities have been debased into focus group defined de-intellectualized sound bites that will determine our choice of representatives in the halls of political power.
Jackson's decision was predicated on a realistic, if pessimistic, view of reality. The previous Gobitas decision only two years earlier that required Jehovah's witnesses to recite the pledge, unleashed violence described in this obituary just this week of the defendant, as:
The ruling sparked attacks on 1,488 Witnesses in 44 states, the American Civil Liberties Union reported. In West Virginia, Witnesses were forced to swallow large amounts of castor oil. In Wyoming, they were tarred and feathered; in Nebraska, they were castrated. In Maine, a mob of 2,500 burned down a local Witness place of worship, known as a Kingdom Hall.
Frankfurter's promise of prompting of independent thoughtful analysis (as idealized in italics above,) in compelled recitation of the Pledge seems out of touch, to say the least. Robert Jackson, who ironically was the least formally educated of any Supreme Court Justice in our history, understood the reality rather than the imagined idealized public, now ever so much further from this ideal-- of Frankfurter, who lived his life at the academic heights.
Jackson knew, from his farmer parents and his unschooled friends, how fragile was independent thought, how inaccessible it was to those without access to the seminars of Harvard. He knew how easily squashed were idea that seemed to be opposed to a patriotic jingoism that could be more oppressive than any brown shirted military force. He also understood how such simple decent people could be led astray, as the world was about to face the horrible consequences of Frankfurter's misplaced optimism.
Ironically only two years after his Barnette decision Robert Jackson was to prosecute the leaders of Nazi Germany over the bar of Nuremberg. Each of those Nazi leaders imposed litmus tests on all of their people with dissent having dire consequences. The result was a universality of common thought, easily directed towards a frenzied thirst for indulging in "the patriotic gore" that must be isolated from the contamination of independent thought.
Frankfurters dissent, and its assumptions, is as important as Jackson's decision in understanding our country, human nature, and the challenges of the rule law over the ages. My wish is that my meager efforts can help to advance the ideals of both men, and that we transcend the debasement of political discourse of our day in addressing this issue of official recitation of the pledge.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addenda:
Municipal Code City of Encinitas
2.20.060 Orderly Conduct
A: Any person who fails to comply with a direction given by the presiding officer for the purpose of maintaining order at a City Council Meeting shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
B: All persons shall comply with the meeting procedures announced by resolution of the City Council and no person shall interfere with or interrupt a City Council Meeting.
C: The presiding officer may designate a member of the County Sheriff's Department as Sergeant at Arms who shall carry out the directions of the presiding officer.
----------
Report and Video of individual who was ejected from an official local government meeting in Wiinter Garden FL for refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
----------
A week later the city of Winter Garden revised their regulations on prayer, which will be a moment of silence, and The Pledge of Allegiance, described in this article. It is now clearly optional by ordinance, which as of this writing is not the case in the city of Encinitas.
----------
As this story was breaking in Florida, and this article being written, the women who fomented the precursor to the 1943 Barnette case, the Jehovah's Witness child with the last name of her case, "Gobitas" who was in 1941 was ordered to say the pledge or be expelled, passed away. Her obituary here describes the violence against those who continued to refuse to say the pledge.
----------
A personal description of the outcome of the joint meeting of the Encinitas City Council and the Traffic and Public Safety Commission, with video, described above is available in this essay
----------
Background material
This insightful 1994 law review article looks at how reputations of Supreme Court justices are formed. Robert Jackson's serving as U.S. Prosecutor of the Nuremberg Trials for a year was seen as detracting his legal reputation, while Felix Frankfurter being a Harvard Law professor and member of FDR's administration enhanced his aura.
Traffic and Public Safety Commission joint meeting agenda item
Elected officials, Staff and members of the Traffic and Public Safety Commission
Ballour Senior Center, 9/8/2014 6PM
Here
is my proposed agenda, (along with my own views) that I believe would
provide a functional top down structure with this being the threshold
item:
Discuss and select a definition of the role of T&PSC - this would ultimately be a decision of the City Council Members
This
is a binary decision, meaning considering whether it will continue as
an advisory committee, which gets few applicants; or it will become
something much more. If it remains as is, very little has to be changed
in the ordinance and agenda items such as just submitted by Mr. Blough
and Chair Kohl would be appropriate.
There are only a few residents who desire to be on such a commission
with existing authority that will be sufficient to continue to fill
vacancies.
If
it is to be more, its output would have to be presumptive rather than
advisory, which is how our Planning Commission now operates. This would
then require a majority of the council to negate rather than to affirm
the work of this commission. This would make it similar to a legislative
sub-committees which either have oversight responsibilities of agencies
or formulate new laws. If this is the choice, the city will have
created a completely different entity from the previous commission
which will require more resources, along with time expenditure with
personal concomitant satisfactions to Commissioners. The resources
would require access to legal expertise, along with the sessions being
videoed, and even possibly the authority of the chairperson to take
sworn testimony of witnesses. The chair of this Commission would then
be one having personal authority, something like the city's current
planning commission, and as such he/she should be nominated by the Mayor
and confirmed by the city council. Appropriateness of financial
remuneration for chair and members is an open question.
As one of two individuals who joined after the Traffic Commission was expanded I've proposed several projects that I will link below as examples of the type of projects I envision can be addressed by a presumptive Traffic and Public Safety Commission.
-----------
This was a proposal for the last meeting that was suspended pending this joint meeting, it combines traffic and public safety issues.
http://archive.ci.encinitas.ca.us/weblink8/0/doc/718354/Page1.aspx
------------
This article for the July Meeting gave the rationale and legality of local ordinances being formulated even when being addressed by laws at higher levels.
http://focusonencinitas.blogspot.com/2014/06/reach-being-larger-than-grasp-when-and.html
------------
This essay, after discussing my failed attempt to define a broader interpretation of this Commission includes the stucture of a similar commission of Castle Rock CO, where I had a long discussion with an official on how they dealt with combining the Fire and EMS services.
http://focusonencinitas.blogspot.com/2014/06/a-third-of-year-evaluation-of-public.html
------------
Revised current ordinance:
2.40.040 Duties of the Traffic and Public Safety Commission.
A. It is the duty of this commission to serve as a liaison between the public and the City Council, and to conduct analyses and provide recommendations to the Council on matters related to the circulation of motorized vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles, and on matters related to public safety.
The scope of the commission’s role with respect to public safety includes but is not limited to traffic safety, emergency response for fire, medical and other crises, as well as the City’s efforts to control and reduce criminal activities of all types. The commission may conduct informational and educational meetings, prepare reports and analyses, and work with fire, marine safety,ambulance, and sheriff personnel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)