PARADOXICAL LEGAL TERMS

I am not a lawyer, and I believe that you don’t need to be one to understand what is written in any document if you have a minimum of intelligence and you are not contaminated either by ideology, politics or lack of common sense. I think that you need lawyers because they understand many legal implications that are difficult to understand by the ordinary lay man mainly because so many interpretations of the law made in the past and the political weight in the decisions that now form the precedents for the new decisions to be made. However, if I don’t take in account these factors, I can say my opinions that although may be wrong or not shared by others, still may be logical and be good enough to challenge those given by justices in different level of the courts. At the end the fact that many times the decision for instance in the Supreme Court are not unanimous means that some of the Justices thought differently than the others and very likely the difference was due either because of ideology, politics, agendas, or like in my case they expressed simply the way they think. 

I am going to transcribe two of the amendments of the Constitution of the United States and I would like you to read them and think about them and the freedom that they give to us as citizens of the Country:

Amendment 4.

Unreasonable searches and seizures.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment 10.

Powers reserved to states or people.

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 have said many times that the beauty of the Constitution of the United States is its length and simplicity. You can read it in no time and I believe any person can understand it, although I agree that maybe because of the reasons outlined above anybody can interpret it as they want, and because of this is the need to have lawyers to interfere with the citizens thoughts.

At the present time (Spring 2012) there are two laws under the scrutinization by the Supreme Court about their constitutionality or lack of it. In other words do these laws conform to the Constitution or not; if they are, we are going to be subjected to them and if not they are going to be void and null.

The way these two laws are known are, the Obamacare and the Arizona immigration law. With many reasons for that, these two laws are controversial, and the two opposing fields in the political arena are in a fight that made necessary for the Supreme Court to intervene to decide their future.  The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was signed unto law by president Obama on March 23, 2010. Together with the health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 made the health care reform known as Obamacare. A majority of the States, and a number of organizations and individuals have filed actions in Federal Court challenging the Constitutionality for some or all of its elements.  The Supreme Court after hearing oral arguments is expected to rule by the end of June 2012.

The Arizona immigration law was adopted by Arizona on April 2010. The law also known as SB 1070 (Senate Bill 1070) was intended to discourage illegal immigrants from enter or remaining in the State. It expanded the powers of State police officers to ask about the immigration status of anyone they stop, and to hold those suspected of being illegal immigrants.  They can do this with “reasonable suspect” and without authorization by any court. It makes also a crime –a misdemeanor- to not carry immigration papers. Legal challenges over its constitutionality and compliance with civil rights law were filed including one by the United States Dept of Justice. It has reached the Supreme Court.

Why the title of my writing?  Why are there “paradoxical legal terms” related to these two laws? For me a paradoxical is something that is seemingly absurd or self-contradictory. Let’s exam the opposite fields in these controversial laws. We know that on one side like in any other issue are the Democrats, liberals and leftists, and in the other side are the Republicans, conservatives and rightists. The paradox is that they are using the very same arguments to oppose one law and to support the other one.

I am not going to discuss every aspect of the laws because just to read the Obmacare will take almost my entire life; that’s the reason nobody read it in Congress before they approved it. With both laws I am going to use only the two amendments of the Constitution I wrote above, the 4^th and the 10^th.

Reading the 10^th amendment it is very clear to me that if something in the Constitution is not given to the United States it remains in the States or in the people. I read the whole Constitution several times and I found out that Immigration is specifically given to the United States, while the health care is not. This should be the end of it. However, the Democrats are pushing for Obamacare and the Republicans are pushing for the Arizona immigration law. This is paradoxical.

On the other hand, the fourth amendment, very clearly says that we the people have the right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. And again the Democrats support the Obamacare and the Republicans support the Arizona law. This is not only paradoxical but it goes against everybody in this country. By the Arizona law ANYBODY can be stopped by the State police and the police can ask for proof of legal immigration status without PROBABLE CAUSE. The Obamacare is going to impose on us the obligation to buy insurance (among other things). These things are very paradoxical AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

 

GOD, GOVERNMENT AND ROGER WILLIAMS

The following are my comments on an article on January 2012 of Smithsonian magazine, related to Roger Williams and Religious Freedom.

I am in complete accord with Roger William’s thinking. For me the best is the least interference of the government on the people’s lives, mainly in all those aspect related to our way of thinking. I cannot stand those persons that try to impose on others their way of life or thinking. I even will defend them on things I oppose, and I will bring out all the possible arguments but never will try to impose my way by force on anybody.

I just came back from a Cruise through the Mexican Pacific Ocean and I had an encounter with a man and we were engaged in a discussion. My wife mentioned that living in different countries allowed us to make comparisons that led us to conclude that in the world the best country  to live is the USA. He asked her the reasons for her thinking and she mentioned several good points among others the most important was FREEDOM. It doesn’t matter how many people in the world discuss this, there is no other country in the world with the freedom we enjoy here. This is the reason why this country is unique. This was the end that Roger Williams was looking for and found and practiced, and his way of thinking set out the foundation of the most precious principles in the USA Constitution that came through John Locke first and after him through Jefferson, Madison and of course John Adams. My comments on the article follow.

I know what Williams was thinking when they described him as somebody who never back in his way of thinking when he was convinced he was right. That’s happens to me, when I am convinced of something I defend my ideas with all my heart and I will put all the arguments to defend my way of thinking (when I think I am right, I am right). He left England to be free of the existing corruption of the Church brought by the State, when the State established the Church as the official one; therefore he knew what he did not want. Those who came almost at the same time, and settled the Colony in Massachusetts began to do the same thing here: the Church-State, and Williams had to leave when his ideas were not accepted; he did not want the same thing they had in England. Those in Massachusetts wanted to have the kingdom of God; they wanted to dedicate the land to God. Although Williams’ thinking about God was the same than the others, all were worshiping the God of Calvin, but they wanted the State to prevent the error in the Church. This for Williams was something impossible since God was not in charge because God among them was a particular interpretation and therefore there were different concepts of God among them and of course for those in the future. So, men were in charge not God, and because of this sooner than later some people were going to be outsiders when their thinking would differ from the majority and soon they would have to leave as they did from England. Williams saw this very clearly and many were going to be forced to a worship they maybe would not like. Also for me as was for Williams this is unacceptable because one of the fundamental characteristics of my religion (my principles, my deepest beliefs) is the free agency of man. Without free agency there is no God. God cannot take away from me my freedom to choose, because in doing so, invalidates His own laws. Nothing can be forced on me in what I believe or not. To force to accept a religion (anyone) makes that religion mute. The State is power, and those with power may force those without it to do things they do not want and therefore the power has to be regulated to avoid this monstrosity. It is therefore, imperative “to define the proper relation between government and what man has made of God… and between a FREE individual and government authority”. William referred to this when he said that the colony in Massachusetts with their principles of the State regulating the Church would bring the corruption “not of the State but of the Church.” The Colony forced him to leave in the middle of the winter and he survived! Thanks to God! Later in Narragansett he bought land from the Indians and “having, a sense of God’s merciful providence unto me in my distress” he called it PROVIDENCE, to serve as a refuge for those who were persecuted because of their thinking. Rhode Island was born and Williams saw the need of a form of government (State) and he drafted a political compact for Providence; in that he did not include the Church, or for that matter God. He did not propose a model of the Kingdom of God or to advance the God’s will as the Massachusetts Colony did. I would like to point out that one thing is God and another very different is the Religion. Williams could advance the word God there, meaning his God, without imposing his conception to others. To avoid any problems he simply did not mention anything related to spiritual aspects, and thus this government was going to be “purely mundane” and his followers agreed that “We, whose names are hereunder… do promise to subject ourselves in active and passive obedience to all such orders or agreements as shall be made for public good… only in civil things.” Here I want to transcribe the Article of Faith # 12 of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints: “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”

The survival of Rhode Island needed for Roger Williams to go to England where he obtained the Charter for Rhode Island helped by his contacts like Oliver Cromwell. This Charter authorized a democracy where they had power and authority to govern themselves, leaving the decisions related to religion in the majority knowing that that majority would maintain the State out of the Church. This led Williams to separate the material world from the spiritual world and to formulate the democratic theory of the state. This was not only extraordinary but very advanced and it is important to emphasize a fact that apparently the atheists, agnostics and modern “liberals” have the tendency to forget: This freedom is so important that it cannot be accepted that the secular world try to abolish God from the life of all those people under the government. Here now I transcribe the Article of Faith # 11 from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints: “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according with the dictates of our conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them to worship how, where, or what they may.”

Since the purpose of Williams was precisely to allow to all men irrespective of their beliefs or non-beliefs to worship what they may want, avoiding with that the corruption of the Church by the State, and since he did it using arguments taken from the sacred Scriptures where tolerance is taught, it cannot be accepted by anyone to be intolerant to RELIGION, as many liberals are trying in our modern world.
It is absurd to think that the State authority is received from God because there are many States and ones are contradicted by others, therefore Williams made the following statement: “I infer that the sovereign, original, and foundation of civil power lies in the people, and the governments that they establish, have no more power nor for no longer time than the civil power or people consenting and agreeing shall be trust them with.”

Those who did not recognize the achievements of Williams, look very much alike as the “modern liberals” since they argue that his justifications for the religious freedom derive too much from Scriptures and are the weaker for it. This is so stupid and only the fanaticism of those people allows them to express such stupidity: “the argument is good, but it would be better if it would not come from the Bible!!! These are the INTOLERANTS. And they go even further when they state that Jefferson defended the religious freedom due to political and social motives, while Williams, “the child of a theological age, the motive was wholly religious.”  SO  WHAT???

As you can see I am completely for the separation of the State and Church, because this goes for the liberty of man. The first amendment of the Constitution is beautiful and very clear, here it is for those who never have read it: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, 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, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” There is no way that anybody insist in establishing a religion over any other or to try to denigrate Christianity to favor Atheism (another religion) or Islamism to be politically correct; or in the same way to insist that Christianity is the only religion of the USA. No, no religion is the official one, none can be. This is what we call LIBERTY, and liberty is the foundation of this Country.

I finish insisting on the need to have freedom to choose, to think, to act. Any religion that allows this, that gives man freedom, that is respectful of man’s freedom, that respects the right of anybody to worship how, where or whatever he may want, is welcome in this Country of ours, this Country of LIBERTY. We cannot accept  those who want to take away this liberty from us. Without freedom this nation based in Liberty cannot exist. To show again my beliefs in this respect, I end this writing with the Article of Faith # 13 of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints: “We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul- We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endure many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.”  

WHAT IS ART?

WHAT IS ART?

With the death of Thomas Kinkade, the American painter, I read that many people do not consider his painting as art and many (by far more than the others) do like it very much and say he was a great artist. So what is art? I do not think that the dictionary can give us a good definition but let’s start there:

Art: “The power of performing certain actions especially as acquired by experience, study or observation; skill, dexterity. Application of skill and taste to production according to aesthetic principles; the conscious use of skill, taste and creative imagination in the practical definition or production of beauty.”

But in the Merriam Webster dictionary there is a full page of definitions for art, therefore there is an art in defining art. No wonder ordinary people like me cannot know for sure what art is.

I need here another definition in order to continue with my discussion: snob: “One rightly or especially wrongly convinced of his superior knowledge of taste within a field or the intrinsic superiority of his field of interest or hobby.”  I needed this definition of snob, because this kind of people is always associated with art. This means that many snob people are always there to tell you that their art is art while any other “art” cannot be considered as such. Sometimes maybe you encountered some people who really have a great knowledge of art mingled with snob people and you cannot separate one from the other. According with the definition of snob you should be able to distinguish one from the other, because a snob is just a follower of the fashion while the art expert who is really knowledgeable follows nothing but the art itself. But there are many snobbish ones so sophisticated that for the ordinary people are simply impossible to separate from the good ones when you see them only once or twice.

At the end it does not matter, and you not even need to know what art is, but simply enjoy what you like or not enjoy it if you don’t like it. If a painting makes you feel good and you want to stay there admiring it, that’s all what counts, at least for me.

Unfortunately for the ordinary people like me, there are many places in the art world, that you go and visit and bring to your soul not very good feelings and if you say so, you are branded as ignorant, stupid or something else, that maybe be a correct epithet, and again it doesn’t matter and that’s the reason I am going to describe some of those art places.

I lived in Barcelona for six years, and because of that I was exposed to the Catalonian art, and the Catalonian snob and knowledgeable art people as well as to the nationalistic sentiment of Catalunya with Dalí, Gaudí, Miró and others.

Barcelona is full of Gaudi architecture with the Sacred Family Church and La Pedrera as some of his art to be admired. At the same time you are shocked to see the “art’ of an individual named Tapies who with a building with its roof “adorned” with barbed wire made me feel as I said before an ignorant in ‘art”. This same Tapies had in the Reina Sofia Museum of Modern Art in Madrid a “work of art” made of a frame full of hay maintained in place by two cinches (girths); its name: HAY. This Museum with the George Pompidou Center in Paris made me think of the “art” as a subject not suitable for people with usable brains. If not just an example, once in the Pompidou Center, I observed a group of people following a “guide” who was “explaining” to them another “work of art” consisting in a canvas painted completely in black; for 20 minutes I was there listening and when the “guide” finished, turn around to another one painted completely in white and took another half an hour to “explain” them this other “art”.

Back in Barcelona and Catalonia I went to another of this kind of museums, the Miró Museum where I “admired” hundreds of “works of art” from him and other modern “art creators” like the one named “Hands in the space” (Manos en el espacio) that the first thing I thought when I saw it, was that the guy next door (who painted my house) spilled yellow paint on the floor, put his hand on it and then several times on a black canvas, and that was the “work of art”. Miró was so creative than in a Barcelona newspaper (La Vanguardia) came an article about him using a mop full of paint and rubbing it on a window in the process of “creating another work of art”.  Let me tell you the words of another art “critic”. Once in 1992 we were in the World Fair in Sevilla and there was a pavilion there entitled “Spain Treasures”, where we admired works from Velazquez, Murillo, Goya, El Greco, Picasso, Dalí, etc. At the end there was a painting by Miró. My 10 years old son was with me admiring everything and when he saw the Miró he said, “I can do that”.

On the other hand, Dalí’s museum in his hometown in northern Catalonia has many beautiful painting and other wonderful works of art from this man who really knew what he was doing when he painted that piece of bread that caught my attention for long time admiring it. Dalí and Picasso were I believe true artists who went laughing to the bank when they gave to the “art critics” what they wanted and profit from this kind of snobbism, but at the same time both of them knew perfectly what they wanted to do, while Miró painted the only things he was able to paint. I don’t like cubism and many of the works from Picasso, but in the Gothic Neighborhood in Barcelona there are beautiful works from early Picasso that were beautiful to my eyes and soul. 

As you can see, I don’t know what art is, I simply like something and don’t like other things. I respect other’s taste and sensibility, and all those who like the Kinkade paintings but all those “works of art” exhibited in the George Pompidou Center, the Reina Sofia Museum and the Miro Museum I simply cannot understand and I leave it there, and finish with the sentence of that wise man who said it perfectly right: “Entre tu arte y mi arte, major mi…arte.”