Posts Tagged ‘Barack’

The Huxtables … err The Obamas as First Family

Thursday, January 22nd, 2009

We have finally arrived.

Heathcliff and Clair Huxtable have changed their address to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Virtually. A generation of American youth, either in the first-runs or in re-runs, have become familiar and comfortable with The Huxtables. Americans grew to accept and appreciate the young, educated, professional, sharp, witty, smart, sassy, eloquent, thoughtful and persistently classy black couple who owned a home in Brooklyn filled with black children who were on their way to being much like their parents in class and character.

While there were many factors leading to the day that Barack and Michelle Obama entered the White House, Cliff and Clair certainly paved the way for mainstream America (white folk) to accept and appreciate a young, educated, professional, sharp, witty, smart, sassy, eloquent, thoughtful and persistently classy black couple to run main street for at least 4 years. The only real difference is that instead of a physician and a lawyer, they are both lawyers. Well, Barack and Michelle are also not virtual — they are real.

It is at this time, in particular, that I reflect on the days following September 11, 2001. For the terrorist attacks that were horrific and unthinkable to America on September 10, became a shared reality for the rest of the world soon afterward. The landscape had literally and figuratively changed. Something astonishing for me was to see that other nations that had no particular reason to share in our grief, did so openly. It was deeply moving to see other nations fly the American flag over their proud capitols and to blast our national anthem over the crowds on their streets and public squares. The citizens of many nations sang a song with words that they couldn’t understand. Whatever animosity, jealousy or disdain may have existed for America on September 10, all was forgiven and nearly erased on September 12. I often thought, would America fly the flag of another nation or blast another nation’s national anthem to show empathy and brotherhood with our fellow mankind? While we could (and have) shown all manner of support to another nation in distress, certain actions are off limits. They are unthinkable. We are the parent nation of the world, or at least we think we are. Parents command respect, but do they always deserve it?

Unfortunately, instead of capitalizing on the goodwill of the world and expanding it, the President of the day engaged in a series of hideous mistakes that not only erased all the goodwill that had been given in just one day, but spent, in advance, much of the goodwill that could be earned for many years to come. Some disjointed version of The Bunkers had taken up residence in the white-washed building across from Lafayette Square. The worst of the neo-cons were in parentage of the world. Respect was replaced with disdain, hate and fear.

So, here we are today replacing The Bunkers with The Huxtables. One virtual family that served as a lightning rod of American culture and counter-culture superseded by another family that has among the best of qualities deemed appropriate and appreciable by any respectable family in America. The virtual black family that once lived next to Archie has moved on up farther than the East Side — a real black family is moving into a house that once was operated by slaves.

On that late Tuesday evening in November, many nations around the world passed a collective sigh of relief that another newly minted neo-con lost to Cliff Huxtable. More importantly, some measure of respect and admiration was restored to America, if not for choosing a different political path but for also choosing a different social path. By some measure, the outpouring of grief and empathy of seven years ago was renewed and morphed into amazement and joy that a black man could be running the most important office in the world. Citizens of other nations, who would otherwise care not one wit about who is President, cheered in the final verdict given to their eager anticipation. In one sense, America redeemed itself.

John Blake on CNN.com state, this changes everything. But, does it really change everything? Will The Obamas live life much as any other First Family would? Inspriring oratory, glitzy gowns, vague promises … we’ve seen and heard it before. Is it really different this time? Perhaps for one segment of society it is. We are entering a period of nostalgia when Heathcliff and Clair will appear on our televisions every evening, though less likely to make us laugh and more likely to make us admire them. Of all the talk of reparation for blacks following slavery, I think we have made a rather large down payment on the future of Black America, or Hispanic America, or Asia America or even Arab America.

Today is not a day of protest. Today is a day for careful consideration that a man was not measured by the color of his skin but by the content of his character. As the black messiah, Barack Obama has some big shoes to fill and carries the weight of the world on his shoulders. While Michelle can be elegant and demure like Jackie Kennedy (as demure as it gets for a black woman in this age), can Barack can be smart and stately like President Kennedy? Will he expand upon the goodwill afforded America by other nations? Can he rise above the political din to achieve what is rational and reasonable for Americans? Time will tell, but I think he can.

Today is a new day.

Oath, Shmoath. Obama was President at Noon

Wednesday, January 21st, 2009

Yes, so some idiots are asserting that Obama is not President until he swears the correct oath. (And some not so idiots are still asserting that Chief Justice Roberts had no authority to modify the language of the oath with “so help me God,” and that could invalidate at least the oath, although there’s no prohibition against Obama adding his own bit at the end). Indeed, the Constitution states rather clearly in Article II, Clause 8:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:— ‘‘I do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’’

That’s either modified or made obsolete by Section 1 of the 20th Amendment, which states:

The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Some experts and historians claim that as of noon, power automatically switches from outgoing to incoming presidents. To me, that makes the most sense. Better to have a president in office than have a hiatus where the question arises regarding whether the Vice President is temporarily the President, whether during the hiatus, the outgoing President is president, or whether there is no president.

I think, though, that this issue has already been considered and fairly determined by the Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution: Annotations of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States: Supplements to the 2002 Edition, found on the GPO Access website.

The annotations for the Oath:

What is the time relationship between a President’s assumption of office and his taking the oath? Apparently, the former comes first, this answer appearing to be the assumption of the language of the clause. The Second Congress assumed that President Washington took office on March 4, 1789, (107) although he did not take the oath until the following April 30.

That the oath the President is required to take might be considered to add anything to the powers of the President, because of his obligation to ‘‘preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,’’ might appear to be rather a fanciful idea. But in President Jackson’s message announcing his veto of the act renewing the Bank of the United States there is language which suggests that the President has the right to refuse to enforce both statutes and judicial decisions based on his own independent decision that they were unwarranted by the Constitution. (108) The idea next turned up in a message by President Lincoln justifying his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus without obtaining congressional authorization. (109) And counsel to President Johnson during his impeachment trial adverted to the theory, but only in passing. (110) Beyond these isolated instances, it does not appear to be seriously contended that the oath adds anything to the President’s powers.

107: Act of March 1, 1792, 1 Stat. 239, § 12.
108: 2 J. Richardson, supra at 576. Chief Justice Taney, who as a member of
Jackson’s Cabinet had drafted the message, later repudiated this possible reading
of the message. 2 C. WARREN, THE SUPREME COURT IN UNITED STATES HISTORY 223-
224 (1926).
109: 6 J. Richardson, supra at 25.
110: 2 TRIAL OF ANDREW JOHNSON 200, 293, 296 (1868).

If that’s not clear enough, I think we would need a very strong reason not to assume Obama is and was President of the United States the moment the clock struck noon. Something stronger than a slip of the tongue.

Of course, if I were he, I’d probably recite it again for good measure. Can’t be too careful.

UPDATE: Obama retook the oath. With NO BIBLE! Doesn’t that invalidate it in the eyes of all Christians? An abundance of caution, indeed.

UPDATE: MSNBC interviews Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law School professor who indicates that the do-over was unnecessary, and that under the 20th Amendment, the successors take over immediately at noon. He also reminds us that Taft took an incorrect oath, and never retook it. Again, the reference to an “abundance of caution.” Professor Tribe humorously recalls that Chief Justice Roberts was a student of his, and shouldn’t be prone to making such a mistake. (Obama was also a student of his.)

President Barack Obama

To Sue or Not to Sue… The President

Monday, December 29th, 2008

Camps are forming among the irreligious, based on Michael Newdow’s most recent attempt to break up the government-religious relationship — he’s suing President-elect Obama. Well, not directly, but effectively, through his lawsuit against the use of the term “So help me God” and inaugural prayer. Newdow and others claim that Obama and related officials should leave behind all semblance of religion when ascending the platform that will officially designate Obama as the next President of the United States.

Friendly Atheist is one prominent member of the camp that supports such a notion. He states:

There’s no reason Barack Obama should be swearing an oath to God when he takes office. (If he chooses to do so personally, that’s his decision, but it shouldn’t be part of the official ceremony.) There’s also no reason we should have prayers — in this case, Christian ones — at the inauguration.

Although Friendly Atheist believes that the lawsuit stands about the same chance as Newdow’s failed 2004 lawsuit of the same calibre, he thinks that the upside to such litigiousness is that it brings attention to the secular versus religious issue with regard to government.

On the other side of the aisle is Atheist Ethicist, arguing that because this is an issue of freedom of speech, it should not be fought with violence, but, instead, with speech. Violence, he says, because the court enforces its decisions with the force of the government (i.e., police), in the form of intimidation and sometimes actual force. The proper way to act in retaliation of the decision to meld the pulpit and the presidency is to condemn and criticize, but not prohibit the speech of others, particularly the president’s. Essentially, if we act through the courts to stifle the president’s ability to say a prayer or swear to God, then we make a mockery of our own arguments to protect our own right to not pray or swear to God.

Both arguments have valid points. It’s a good idea to bring to America’s attention that we haven’t always been a “Christian” nation, and that, as Friendly Atheist notes, our allusions to the biblical God were all fabricated and implemented fairly late in U.S. history. And it’s also proper for us to enforce the notion that government is supposed to be separate from religion, at least with regard to endorsement. On the other hand, it’s potentially risky to establish a precedent that we wouldn’t want applied to ourselves or to others, regardless of their belief.

I’ll add something to this. Obama won’t be passing any laws during the inauguration. The First Amendment protects us from Congress passing law respecting an establishment of religion. It’s got nothing to say about the president being sworn in by the Chief Justice, or about an invocation, or if the president-elect wants to wear a turban or a cross or a clown suit.

So, which argument is stronger? The one supporting the lawsuit or the one opposing it? Is there a limit to which rational people should go in pursuit of separation of church and state, and is this the limit?

-Procrustes

State of Protest

Bush Administration Makes Last Ditch Effort to Diminish Women’s Rights

Thursday, November 20th, 2008

Apparently the Bush administration just wasn’t satisfied with all the other steps they have taken to bring the government into our bedrooms and our doctors’ offices: blocking over-the-counter access to the morning-after pill, granting fetuses a higher legal status than women, likening abortion to terrorism, promoting ineffective abstinence-only education, and fighting congressional efforts to give aid to overseas groups that provide contraceptives.1  It wasn’t enough.  They had to make one last ditch effort to further diminish women’s reproductive rights.

Opposition is growing quickly to a Bush administration proposal which seeks to grant sweeping protections to health care providers who oppose medical procedures, such as abortion, based on their religious beliefs.  The proposed rule2 would prohibit entities that receive federal funding from discriminating against health care workers who refuse to assist in performing abortions or other procedures because of their religious beliefs.  It would also prevent hospitals, clinics, doctors’ offices and pharmacies from requiring any employee to “assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity” financed by the Department of Health and Human Services, if that employee refuses because of religious or moral objections.3

Under the current laws, employers must make reasonable accommodations for employees’ religious practices, so long as those practices do not cause “undue hardship” on the business.  Under this new proposed rule, family planning providers could be forced “to hire employees who may refuse to do their jobs,” according to the Ohio Health Department.  Pharmacies have said this rule would make it legal for their employees to refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives and could “lead to Medicaid patients being turned away.”  The rule could also overturn state laws which require insurance companies to cover contraceptives and which require hospitals to offer rape victims emergency contraception, according to state officials.4

Among those in opposition to the proposed rule are the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, a vast number of doctors, pharmacists, and hospitals, the attorneys general of 13 states, 28 senators, more than 110 representatives, and many other political leaders, including President-elect Barack Obama.  Among those supporting the proposal are the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Health Association.5

Three officials from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, including its Bush-appointed legal counsel, Reed Russell, as well as members Stuart Ishimaru and Christine Griffin, are opposing the rule and have stated, along with other senior members of the commission staff, that their agency was not consulted at all before the proposal was issued.  The proposal was received by the White House Office of Management and Budget on August 21 and was approved the same day.  These officials have said the rule is unnecessary for the protection of employees and could potentially cause confusion for employers.  Mr. Russell pointed to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,6 which already prohibits religious discrimination in hiring practices.   Mr. Ishimaru and Ms. Griffin issued a letter stating that 40 years of court decisions have “carefully balanced employees’ rights to religious freedom and employers’ business needs,” and that this proposed rule would “throw that entire body of law into question.”7

A line needs to be drawn.  If your child needed a blood transfusion in order to survive, and your doctor happened to be a Jehovah’s Witness who believed that blood transfusions were forbidden by her God,8 would it be acceptable to you if she refused to treat your child?  Of course it wouldn’t.  You are welcome to believe whatever you want to believe.  You can believe that tiny, invisible faeries live underground and whisper your morals to you during the night.  Whatever floats your boat.  But as soon as you try to enforce those beliefs on me, I have a problem with that.  And the next time I go to the pharmacy to receive my doctor-prescribed medicines, be they contraceptives or otherwise, I expect those medicines to be provided to me, regardless of what my pharmacist believes about them.  

Download Procrustes’ Crappy Podcast of this Otherwise Excellent Article!

-Laura

  1. http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/roe30/record.html [<]
  2. http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2008pres/08/20080821reg.pdf [<]
  3. http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/11/18/bush-abortion-proposal-raises-ire-of-health-groups-eeoc/ [<]
  4. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/washington/18abort.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink [<]
  5. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/washington/18abort.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink [<]
  6. http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html [<]
  7. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/washington/18abort.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink [<]
  8. http://www.religioustolerance.org/witness5.htm [<]

Our Thoughts Go Out to Obama and Family

Monday, November 3rd, 2008

Our heartfelt thoughts go out to Barack Obama and his family, as we have received news that his grandmother has died after years of struggling with cancer.1

Although we don’t necessarily believe in an afterlife (or, more succinctly, the afterlife in which many on this planet believe), we do believe in the value of life, and we share in the recognition of the emotion that accompanies the loss of life of a loved one. We hope that despite his loss, Barack Obama will carry forth and represent this nation with honor, distinction, and strength.

-Procrustes

  1. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/03/obama.grandma/ [<]