Manufacturers and merchandisers of gift items have, for some months, been in thoughtful and selective contemplation concerning choices of merchandise soon expected to be in holiday demand by the consuming public. Such considerations are pragmatically vital to seasonal commercial success and are judgmentally dependent upon each industry’s nuanced experience and selective perception,
By contrast, in the rational and pragmatic context of the operation of a democratic republic, however, elective choice of principle is, principally and dynamically antithetical to its societal dynamics and fundamental philosophy. Nevertheless, It would seem that such a functional precept has been, self-interestedly trampled upon by wealthy conservative and influential religious interests, inclusive of judicial, legislative, and citizen offenders, to the chagrin of the mainstream, right-thinking citizen. This species of travesty has resulted in functional and rational derogation of our basic Constitutional principles and persists as an impediment to our traditional representations of America’s fundamental, democracy.
The relevant, malignant flaw exists in the practice of subjective choice of application of certain provisions of the United States Constitution, which, by errant choice, have been tactically misread, misapplied, and shamefully violated, viz., the Second Amendment (regarding the bearing of arms), the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, (Religion) and the foundational Fourteenth Amendment; the second two concerns relevant to due process and the right of women’s privacy.
It would appear that many Conservative members of the judiciary, legislators, and citizens, arbitrarily arrogate to themselves, the arrogant franchise to arbitrarily, “pick and choose,” among the particular provisions of the U.S. Constitution, in an analogously, improper fashion to the above-noted, selective, manufacturers and sellers of holiday merchandise. In our view, doing so effectively would require the donning of horse blinkers to avoid personal charges of arbitrary and self-interested inconsistency.
[THE SECOND AMENDMEN]: The tactical misreading of this Amendment by manufacturers and merchants of armaments items, solely capable of death and grievous injury, can be pragmatically cognizable. The approval and endorsement by the judiciary and the legislature of the manufacture and sale of the same, are indicative of an inappropriate choice, made, purely on a political basis. The gun lobby has been successful in its commercially, profitable, but irresponsible, position, arbitrarily accepted by SCOTUS, to the effect that the Second Amendment was bizarrely intended to grant every American citizen the right to own and use hand-held weapons of human destruction.
As any casual (and objective) reader of American history is aware, this distorted and commercially, irresponsible interpretation is subjective and arbitrary bogus. Recorded history shows an early major contention between those who wished to construe a “Federal,” (i.e., Central) government and the “States” rights,” proponents who demanded separate State sovereignty. As revealed, the hotly contested issue was compromised by the parties’ mutual agreement to a Central Government, with the proviso, that the constituent States (the “People”) were granted the right, to maintain independent standing militias which were authorized to “bear arms.” The selective and commercially inspired misreading of Article 2, transmogrifying the historical reference, “The People” to signify a purported right of all American citizens to be “gunslingers” continues to wreak daily tragedy. It is to be thematically, noted that the “gun people,” strictly adhere to this arbitrary, chosen misreading with an ardent fervor equivalent to religious orthodoxy; perhaps, it may be said, with an analogous history of tragedy.
We note, thematically, such unwavering supporters of the constitution, in their patriotic fervor, like the pre-holiday merchants, tend to “pick and choose” (selected Constitutional provisions) arbitrarily, and subjectively. Their unparalleled zeal for Constitutional adherence, in bright contrast, seems to be notably, less, regarding provisions concerning fundamental personal rights.
[THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE, (First Amendment, freedom of religion) and the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, re: Due process and privacy]:
The Founders, bearing in mind the evils of Europe’s long bloody history of unjust religious authoritarianism, placed special emphasis on the principle that the realm of religious belief in the newly created democratic Republic, would be entirely separate from government participation. The concept of “Separation of Church and State,” was specifically incorporated and permanently, enshrined within the very base of the newly created Nation. Thus, the First Amendment of The United States Constitution contained a clear directive, “The Establishment Clause,” providing that the government may not interfere, with nor affect, in any way, the free exercise of religious belief.
With similar zeal, the Founders intended to form a Nation with citizen rights that would not be limited without appropriate civic reason and a fair process by established law and legal precedent, (“due process of law.”). The provisions of this “Fourteenth Amendment,” notably, among other protections, specifically, are inclusive of the right to privacy.
The societally, inappropriate dynamics involving the errant choice of compliance with selected provisions of the Constitution can be legally and inappropriately, compared with the “pick and choose” determinations of the commercial enterprises referenced at the outset of this essay. Yet, it appears that such unjust and undemocratic practice is, evinced by our judiciary, legislators, and many citizens. The prime example relates to the woman’s right to abortion, a salient feature of the citizens’ right to privacy.
In 1973 the Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, judicially confirmed the right of American women to elect to have an abortion, under the provisions of the 14th Amendment, with special emphasis on the right to privacy. These rights were established and relied upon, as precedent for a full, half-century of American law. Recently, a controlling majority of conservative Justices on SCOTUS, arbitrarily, chose to render homage to certain prominent religious and evangelical groups, by its arbitrary derogation of the 14th Amendment, the “Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment, and fifty years of relied upon legal precedent, and chose to overturn Roe v. Wade’s legal approval of the right to abortion. As stated in the Dissenting Opinion to the decision overturning the half-century of precedent, “Young women will come of age in a World where they have less rights than their mothers and grandmothers.” The observed, universal incidents of heartrending tragedy caused by this arbitrary compliance with influential religious lobbyists have already become patently clear.
The existential functioning of any society requires not only uniform rules but uniformly objective judicial and legislative application and compliance. It is to be brightly contrasted with a dinner menu for the temporal exercise of dining preferences or the situational need regarding a merchant’s choice of goods for an anticipated holiday sale.
-p.
plinyblogdotcom 