Candidates attacking each other.

I am probably preaching to the choir, but I am sick of the political attacks.  If candidates speak truthfully and explain their differences with their opponents that is one thing, but now the candidates in the Republican debate seem to be eating their own.  They are openly calling each other liars, cheats and are just dragging each other through the mud.  This however does not do the Republicans any good with respect to showing that they are above the influence of party politics and mudslinging.  Carson and Kasich seem to be the only ones who seem to be above it all, but they are generally not attacked because they are not front runners at the moment.  Carson however is the only one with the right to criticize anyone with respect to the Cruz campaign claiming he was out of the race back in Iowa.  You see, while history shows that these attacks are not uncommon in elections, we have seemed to devolve back into the almost vicious nature of them with candidates calling each other liars and cheats.  As such, they feed the people's perception that politicians are nothing, but conniving and dishonest men and women who solely want power.  This perception is not entirely wrong, but it is not entirely right either.  Truth is, many politicians seek power to do the right thing, but either get stuck in the quagmire of political power struggles or are pushed out.  We the voters however seem to fail to see the good from the bad as we seem to be losing our ability to judge people of character.  What we need is a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington type, along with an Eliot Ness Untouchable.  This means an actually honest politician who stands for what is right and a person who can receive donations and aid from anyone, but will never take a bribe.  But our Republicans, and to an almost equal extent the democrats fail on both counts. 

Final Thought:  Attacks on each other and on opposing members of the political party are symptoms of the problem, not the problem itself.  We need people like Carson, and Sanders who refuse to run attack ads so that one part of the symptoms of corruption is held back long enough to push back the tide of electioneering, and party segregation that occurs in Washington D.C.  We need term limits, we need a truly fair tax system that does not enslave the citizens, and to have a nation of people with character and are not ideologically separated.  In the same way atheists claim that religions start conflicts, so too does ideologies like liberal and conservative, republican and democrat.  As such I personally call for a nation that rejects ideology, but returns to the principles of the rule of law.  What the Constitution says goes as it is the law, but if there's a problem, change it.  It is that simple.  After following the rule of law, it all becomes about freedom.  And freedom is what all people should seek.

Jeb Bush is out! It's a Three man race!

So Nevada and South Carolina happened just this weekend.  For the Democrats, Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders with MSNBC attributing the victory to the Black American vote in Nevada.  Interestingly though, Clinton was campaigning in Nevada with an eye toward the minority vote in general and a portrayal that Bernie did not represent minority groups, but was the "old white man representing white values" in the democratic party.  That analysis comes from a Fox News contributor.  Basically if Hillary had lost she could portray Bernie as a guy who represents just the white members of American society.  

As to the republicans.  Carson, Kasich and Jeb were the overall losers.  With a poor showing there, Jeb left the race which means the top three contenders will benefit with respect to the next set of Primaries and Caucuses.  Those top three are Trump, who actually lost some of his lead in South Carolina (it was reduced by half), Rubio who is the only establishment candidate left that matters, and Cruz who is tied with Rubio and is the only other non-establishment candidate in a lead position.   Kasich and Carson both are waiting to see the results of Super Tuesday (when the largest number of Primaries and Caucuses occur at the same time) to decide if they are going to leave the race.  

I feel bad for Carson because he is a good man who at this point, based on what I heard him say, wants to change how elections are done.  He wants to prove that a clean campaign without attacks and built on real debate can win and thus eliminate the status quo of lies, cheats and attacks done in elections.

Final Thought: I hope Carson pulls through enough to show that you can do well without the need for attacks and lies, but unfortunately it is a three man race.  With each establishment candidate leaving one by one, both Trump, Cruz and Carson benefit, but if the Republican leadership has its way, the candidate would be Rubio and not Trump, because in case you have not noticed, Trump is practically uncontrollable.  I think Trump has matured though and has gotten better as a candidate overall, but I am still fearful of the possible consequences if he should win the White House (that and the democrats have attack ads and documentaries waiting to crush him).  So now we wait till this weekend with another debate (yea another one) and the next primary occur.

Justice Scalia and Privacy rights.

I felt one more issue on Scalia was warranted due to his opinion on privacy rights.  In this case he said the fourth Amendment did not protect one's right to privacy.  Interestingly though, he ruled in favor of people's rights to privacy on many occasions including the cases of police using thermal imagers to see into people's homes, DNA swabs and placing tracking devices on people's cars.  He also ruled against the police with respect to them searching a car after a traffic infraction in the search for evidence of another crime and against the use of drug sniffing dogs without a warrant.  In all these cases Scalia noted that while it is noble for police to want to try to solve crimes, exceeding the limits of a warrant or an infraction violates the people's right to be secure in their "persons, houses, papers and effects."  However, he was not opposed to wiretapping.  The reason being that conversations are not protected by the Constitution as they are considered public.  As such, he deemed that phone calls were public conversations in the same way a conversation may be carried out in public at a restaurant or park.  However, emails in my opinion, including text messages count as papers for they are not spoken allowed and act like letters in the mail thus legally protected if we apply his textualist views.  Likewise, espionage and eavesdropping laws would not be protected if you apply Scalia's view of the United States Constitution and shared his disagreement with the 1965 Griswold case which decided that we have a right to privacy. 

Final Thought:  I find myself agreeing with Scalia here with respect to anything verbally spoken not being protected. As a matter of fact it brings to question if anything transmitted through the internet to another is considered private as the internet can be considered part of the public square.  As such, Facebook, Twitter, and anything publically posted is absolutely without protections. But our bodies and the things on us, our homes and what goes on in it, and our other property like our cars and the items in them are protected due to the 4th amendment and its specifically listing these as protected from search and seizure without a warrant.  So if Scalia and his legacy is used as a springboard for a more textualist view of the Constitution, it may bring forth an entirely new approach to rulings in the Supreme Court and the rule of law.  In fact it may create a link between liberal and conservative judges like it did between Scalia and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  If used as such, the liberal conservative divide can be shrunk!  I look forward to seeing the results of Scalia's legacy in politics and law.

Justice Scalia and Guns.

After Scalia passed away I looked into some of his more interesting ideas on what the Constitution says.  In the case of Guns, he said that they had to be hand carried.  Scalia based this in the second amendment saying that we have the right to keep and bear arms.  In other words they must be man portable and able to fit in one's home.  As such he rejected the idea that Americans can own something like a cannon due to it not being able to be hand carried (though this is changing with future technology).   However, he said things like rocket propelled grenades and other recoilless weapons that could potentially take out an airplane or even a tank where not known to be protected or not under the second amendment.  He said he looked forward to such a discussion.  However, the fact that our weapons rights are limited to hand carried weapons in Scalia's opinion shows something of Scalia's conservatism and jurisprudence.  It was that he was a textualist.  Therefore if the Constitution did not specify something more substantial than a rifle or that cannot be hand carried, then it was not a part of the people's right to keep and bear arms.  I personally believe that he potentially would have ruled that RPG's and similar weapons were legal, but with restrictions.  With respect to guns as a whole, I personally think there are no true restrictions on what weapons can be owned so long as you use them to defend your family and your country, but that's just my two cents.   

Final Thought:  Scalia was an interesting man, and for people who love political science and enjoy politics, whether you agree with him or not, he was someone to be listened to and even admired.  Thank you justice Scalia for your service, I hope your successor is as excellent as you.

Antonin Scalia

Justice Antonin Scalia was a conservative force in the Supreme Court.  He upheld conservative principles and was known for fiery dissents when his side on the court lost. This lion of the court even sponsored a school of thought amongst constitutional lawyers that seeks to uphold the original intent of the United States Constitution by ruling based on the powers and abilities given.  That school of thought having been lost back in the late 1800's into the modern era by the progressive movement.  Scalia said that there was no right to privacy in the United States Constitution, that Abortion is not protected and more and he did it all in his dissents.  However, his death in an election year brings about turmoil.  While his work on the Supreme Court is legendary, his passing means that the battle for the Presidency has even greater stakes than before.  While alive he was one of four conservatives on the court that balanced the four liberals, with Chief Justice Roberts being the moderate.  Now the court is off balance.  Republicans and Conservatives are calling for the appointment to be delayed by President Obama who said he will in time nominate a successor, but Obama's appointment is sure to be liberal and thus not respect conservative values derived from the Constitution.  Republicans have thus sworn in the Senate that they will block any appointment by the President (As they have the final say on the choice of Supreme Court Justice) so that the next President, whom they hope will be Republican, will be the one to choose Justice Scalia's replacement.  Not to mention that other Supreme Court Justices are likely to leave next year as well leaving more vacancies which the Republicans hope to fill with more Conservative members of the legal community.  So now the Republican Candidates will be questioned more on their constitutional standings to see if they have the "right stuff" and the political will to nominate a Supreme Court Justice who can properly replace Justice Scalia and thus once more balance the court.

Final thought:  We as citizens can look forward to a proverbial shooting gallery over the next few months till the election is over.  The Senate will block Obama's court nomination (mind you the supreme court was never given a size limit so appointing one is not crucial) which will be a big fight and thus party politics will surely rear its ugly head.  The court will still see cases as well, with the big ones being issues on abortion, and affirmative action.  Presidential candidates will have their work cut out for them as appointing a judge in our system of governance takes a lot of political capital and thus may make whatever promises they made during the election unattainable, assuming that the Senate succeeds in blocking Obama's Supreme Court appointment.  

My reaction to the Debate reaction.

So I did not actually watch the debate this time.  Instead I went to see "Dead pool" because, well even I needed a break from the debates and Dead pool is one of my favorite superheroes.  As such, once I got home I read and watched the post-debate reactions by critics and analysts (mostly from Fox News and some from the Huffington Post).  To my horror, all I heard about was the candidates attacking each other.  That was all the analysis was about.  It was the Republican Candidates lashing out.  Trump against Jeb Bush over President Bush Jr. and the Iraq war. Cruz and Rubio arguing about speaking Spanish?!  Kasich tried to keep the peace, but obviously failed.  Carson was completely ignored in the post-debate analysis save for Huff Po saying he tried to keep the peace once.  Basically though, according to Huffington Post Trump and Jeb Bush were the winners of the debate, with Cruz and Rubio having mixed results and Carson the loser.  They seemed to have ignored Kasich in their article besides the mention of him trying to call for peace.  Kasich though according to Fox benefited from the debate and his New Hampshire successes because some polls put him in second. Now I will say there is nothing wrong with Kasich and he would make a fine President due to his experience as Congressmen and then Governor.  However, Kasich, Rubio and Jeb are all establishment Republicans while Cruz is a rebel, and Trump and Carson being complete outsiders.  And that was the entire breakdown of the debate that I got the night of when I got home.

Final Thought:  The only actual substantive thing I heard about the debate was on the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.  It was the Republicans asking for the vacancy in the court to be kept till the New President is elected.  The purpose being that Scalia was a Conservative and balanced the court with respect to liberal and conservative views.  After that there was nothing of use to show how worthy any of these potential presidents are of the office.  I am glad I skipped this one.

Women and the Draft

During the Republican debate in New Hampshire the draft and having women register for it came up.  Many people on the Republican side thought they should register.  However I have a different opinion.  My opinion is that the draft is a relic of the past that forces young men into battle.  It is basically a form of slavery if men and women would be forced to fight against their will.  Yes, I know the argument well that they protect our nation, but placing people in a military who do not want to be there increases desertions, decreases moral, and jeopardizes every single member of the military with respect to safety and their mental state which is already strained due to the stresses of battle.  A soldier does not need to be think that his buddy is going to abandon him in the middle of a fire fight.  So I say end the draft completely.  Our military is much stronger with those who join because they want to and not because they have to.

Final thought:  I believe in freedom and if the draft is kept, then let women register, but not with the force of law demanding they do so against their will and threatening fines and jail if they do not (yes jail and monetary penalties are there as a threat for those men who do not sign up).  However, like I said, I believe in freedom and I respect our soldiers.  As such the draft should be removed as nations as advanced as ours have to look, act and be above such a ridiculous and outmoded tool for making a military.  In fact, our military is living proof that an all volunteer force can and is superior to any conscript army.  So I say end the draft, it is not needed anymore.