"Sovereign Citizens" (and other not-quite-so-extreme conservatives)

There recently was a segment on the TV Program "60 Minutes" (which I viewed online, as you can as well) about a group or movement called "sovereign citizens."* These individuals are somewhat like some of the extreme right-wing militia groups we've got in the US. Based on erroneous ideas about the philosophies that prevailed in the late eighteenth century, they question the legitimacy of the US government as it currently exists. They refuse to acknowledge the authority of the government, or the police, over them. They won't carry driver's licenses. They draw up documents declaring they are "sovereign," so in effect each of these sovereign citizens is his own country. They believe--and this is downright silly--that if they draft these documents in a certain way—for example, putting the text diagonally across the page, or writing with orange crayon or signing with a fingerprint in blood--that this makes their sovereignty documents valid and they can't be challenged.

These people are scary, especially when you combine their extremist ideas with the wide availability of guns—and even assault weapons—in America. One sovereign citizen who was profiled on the program was stopped, along with his son, by police for a traffic violation. The man and his son opened fire with assault weapons—getting off something like 22 shots. A police officer was killed and I think both the sovereign citizen and his son were killed.

People who consider themselves sovereign citizens are estimated to number as many as 300,000. This is scary but of course it's only one American in 1,000. So hopefully most Americans would see these people as extremists and wack jobs. Still, they're only one or two steps farther to the right than some people I have known and talked to.

Some of the latter have told me they don't feel they should have to pay taxes. Such people need to simply read our Constitution, where Article 8 clearly gives Congress the power to impose taxes.

A "no taxes at all" view is extreme, still; but some would simply say they are loath to see their taxes ultimately benefit (or, in their minds, be paid to) any less fortunate individual. I could understand the conservative "no tax money of mine to help the less fortunate" position if their argument went something like, "Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs didn't work. Rather than throw money at social problems like urban poverty, let's wait until they're better understood, and/or we know what sort of measures work." But their argument is simply, "It's their [the people needing assistance] fault that they are in the situation they're in." I guess if I objected, "What about victims of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods. . . ?" they'd reply, "Well, it's their fault for living in the wrong place."
______________

*If you go to youtube.com and search for "sovereign citizens," about 128 listings will appear, many of them from the viewpoint of the sovereign citizens themselves, who feel they are persecuted when the government lists them as terrorists. Paranoia is one element of the whole phenomenon of the sovereign citizens.

Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein

I Have to Speak Out on Guns Again Because the Problem Is So Dramatic

Yet another of those tragic, shocking shootings. When, when, WHEN will there be a loud outcry from the public saying that this has to stop?

As I have said before, the problem as I perceive it is that there are too many guns around, and guns are too easily obtainable, to the extent that mentally unstable people can (and do, very sadly) get their hands on guns.

It's terribly tragic that a recent US Supreme Court decision has undermined attempts of government jurisdictions to have gun control laws (this reverses years of jurisprudence that had held that some degree of regulation of firearm ownership was permissible).

Aside from this unfortunate Supreme Court ruling, most of the remainder of the problem is the NRA, the National Rifle Association, which, despite its name, seems just as concerned that there be completely unrestricted access to handguns and even assault weapons as it is with rifles.

The NRA is a very powerful, well financed, and vocal special-interest lobby in the U.S. Congress. According to a 2009 article, "The group's political action committee spent $15.6 million on campaign donations during the past two years, according to disclosures filed with the Federal Election Commission." (Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/30/nra-lobbyists-hold-strong-influence-policy-agenda#ixzz1AeRrW2FG) Read more of this article for information on just one instance of the influence of the NRA, which ended up killing voting rights in Congress for the District of Columbia because the NRA wanted the abolition of DC's gun control laws to be a part of that measure.

To tie in with another posting of mine on this blog, if the U.S. did not incorporate the South, we would not have as much influence by the NRA. This is because support for the NRA comes largely from rural areas and from the South.

Those who want to see some restraint on gun ownership have not only the NRA in the way—a not insignificant obstacle—but also the Second Amendment to the Constitution. As I said above, a recent Supreme Court decision lends greater influence to that amendment, or at least a certain interpretation of it. The Amendment itself is quite concise, but (despite what some people think), the interpretation of law (or of anything else written) is never simple and self-evident. I won't go into issues of interpreting the Second Amendment here; I'm not a law professor or a Constitutional scholar. However, I'd even go so far as to say that if gun ownership cannot be curbed because of the Second Amendment, the Amendment should be repealed. But I'm pretty sure that can't happen in today's America.

Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein

Strict Interpretation - When It Suits 'Em

Republicans and religious conservatives may advocate a strict interpretation--of the Constitution in the one case, and of the Bible in the other.

But they seem to me to be hypocritical because they can be shown to favor strict construction only when it is in their interests; and otherwise, they just ignore whatever they prefer to ignore.

Former US President George W. Bush effected "substantial military actions" in Afghanistan and Iraq "that under any traditional reading of the Constitution [would have] required a declaration of war" (Robert Dallek, "Power and the Presidency," Smithsonian, January 2011); but, as is implied, these actions were done without a declaration of war. But I don't recall Bush's conservative supporters crying foul, complaining about his possibly unconstitutional actions--even though they are always saying that they favor strict interpretation of the Constitution.

And I think it's somewhat analogous when religious conservatives point to the Bible as justification for their condemnation of homosexuality and gay people. They need to remember that the Bible was used to justify slavery in the decades preceding the Civil War.

Also, they point to a passage in the Old Testament book of Leviticus that calls homosexuality an "abomination." Leaving aside the fact that abomination may not have meant, when the Old Testament was written, what they would have us believe it means, Leviticus also calls the eating of shellfish and pork an abomination. It also forbids wearing clothing made of mixed fibers, and prescribes particular sacrifices for many types of sins and crimes.

Not only do these people not make the sacrifices that Leviticus says we need to perform, I'd wager they also eat pork and shellfish, and don't give any thought to whether their clothing is a mixture of fibers.

So it looks like the Constitution, and the Bible, must be strictly adhered to only when to do so happens to harmonize with the aims of Conservatives.

Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein