The one thing that is perhaps missing in the various legal arguments regarding the interpretation of the ‘Establishment Clause’ in the ‘First Amendment’ to the US Constitution is a proper reading of the words. It states: (I) Congress shall make no law respecting (II) [‘pertaining to’] an establishment of religion, OR (III) prohibiting the free exercise thereof; OR [Congress shall make no law ‘abridging’] the freedom of speech, OR [Congress shall make no law ‘abridging’] the freedom of the press, OR [Congress shall make no law ‘abridging’] the right of the people peaceably to assemble, {AND} [Congress shall make no law ‘abridging’ the right of the people] to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
As far as the notion of separation of “Church and State,” all it says here is that Congress or rather the Federal Government will not intervene or legislate in matters of religion and that it will not deprive [‘take away’] or diminish [‘to lessen’] various other rights guaranteed to the people. Also, what is not usually included in this theme finds its fuller expression in the ‘Tenth Amendment’ which states: 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.
The Amendments to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights cover the broad range of privileges and rights of citizenship which endeavor to promote peace, tranquility, and the pursuit of happiness; however, these do not mention every aspect of behavior in a civil and representative Democracy, and accordingly, other matters not expressly addressed in the Constitution are ‘reserved’ to the States, or the People, collectively. One of the concerns that the Founding Fathers of the nation had in the 1780’s was concern over the power of Federal Government exercising its will over the rights of the States.
Now it seems these fears were misplaced somewhat because it is not so much the Federal Legislature but rather the activist and politically-partial Supreme Court that almost seems to be a judicially-empowered legislative body within itself through the process of legal ‘Precedent,’ who have either overturned old laws or enacted new ones; bypassing the exclusively sovereign rights of the States and its citizens to make decisions or pass laws in areas of public, institutional, and in private affairs where there is no violation of or prohibition against such as delineated in the US Constitution.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
April 22, 2009
pbks@hotmail.com
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
The Mother of Slain Children Finally Speaks Out
In what has been the latest installment of tragically violent, family disturbances which have resulted in homicide, Angela Harrison of Graham, WA was informed Saturday that her husband James had murdered their five children before ending his own life; in an apparent suicide. The horrific nature of this crime was so riveting that it was featured on the national news segment of a major broadcast network. Although Ms. Harrison has finally broken her silence over the past few days to address the media, there are still some lingering questions which have gone unanswered.
Despite this very heinous, cowardly, and selfish act by James Harrison to kill his children in cold blood, where was Angela on last Friday night, the last night that her children were last seen alive? According to the Monday edition, April 6, 2009, of the Tacoma News Tribune, Mr. Harrison had sought out his wife and located her at a convenience store in Auburn, WA, where she informed him of her desire to end the marriage and that she was planning to leave him. There is still no credible explanation for her absence from the home; was it because she was working the late shift or is there some other reason? If Angela was afraid that her husband might become physically abusive when she came home, then why didn’t she contact the police?
And what about this anonymous and unnamed ‘friend’ of Angela’s whom she confided in about her marital troubles and was such a source of strength and support to her? This friend seems to have taken a behind-the-scene ‘special’ interest in the teetering-on-the brink-of-collapse situation of a married woman. Angela claims that her male friend showed her she deserves to be treated better than that and he was the one who helped her arrive at this decision to leave her husband, James; not her relatives, co-workers, marriage/family counselor, or girlfriends, but this individual. Usually, when someone mentions a ‘special’ friend who is a member of the opposite sex, it is in many cases a codeword for something more going on between them; especially when one of the parties has to defend the association in public.
There have been rumors and innuendo of Ms. Harrison having an extra-marital affair, to which she has denied. There is however, not such a clear distinction that can be drawn between not having an ‘affair’ or a ‘relationship.’ A person can experience intimate physical contact or voyeurism/erotica [‘looking but not touching’] and yet say that they aren’t having an ‘affair’ because to most people the act has to involve sexual intercourse.
What about someone in a ‘relationship,’ where there is conduct involving: closeness, sharing, communication, trust; that is given to another person in the form of attentiveness, warmth, loyalty, verbal expression and physical contact that is not given to one’s spouse/life partner; what would these acts be considered? Not only that, but could these things be seen by the other domestic partner such that the individual not feel betrayed or hurt? So when one says that they aren’t having an affair in the technical sense but confides in someone else exclusively of the opposite sex because he understands her so well, then one would have to be incredibly naïve not to believe that ‘something’ else isn’t going on; now, what that ‘something’ is, only Angela and her friend know for certain.
While not wanting to play the blame game or further subject Ms. Harrison to a guilt trip because of the incredible pain, grief, and mourning that she must be going through, this is not the time for second-guessing and incriminations because what is done cannot be altered. Whatever might should have been done in the past cannot be relived and in a home where there was once the joyous sound of laughter and the usual, albeit predictable ruckus of children in ages ranging from seven to sixteen, are now replaced with haunting silence, empty spaces, and cherished memories before a shrine of flowers, cards, candles, and stuffed animals.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
April 8, 2009
pbks@hotmail.com
Despite this very heinous, cowardly, and selfish act by James Harrison to kill his children in cold blood, where was Angela on last Friday night, the last night that her children were last seen alive? According to the Monday edition, April 6, 2009, of the Tacoma News Tribune, Mr. Harrison had sought out his wife and located her at a convenience store in Auburn, WA, where she informed him of her desire to end the marriage and that she was planning to leave him. There is still no credible explanation for her absence from the home; was it because she was working the late shift or is there some other reason? If Angela was afraid that her husband might become physically abusive when she came home, then why didn’t she contact the police?
And what about this anonymous and unnamed ‘friend’ of Angela’s whom she confided in about her marital troubles and was such a source of strength and support to her? This friend seems to have taken a behind-the-scene ‘special’ interest in the teetering-on-the brink-of-collapse situation of a married woman. Angela claims that her male friend showed her she deserves to be treated better than that and he was the one who helped her arrive at this decision to leave her husband, James; not her relatives, co-workers, marriage/family counselor, or girlfriends, but this individual. Usually, when someone mentions a ‘special’ friend who is a member of the opposite sex, it is in many cases a codeword for something more going on between them; especially when one of the parties has to defend the association in public.
There have been rumors and innuendo of Ms. Harrison having an extra-marital affair, to which she has denied. There is however, not such a clear distinction that can be drawn between not having an ‘affair’ or a ‘relationship.’ A person can experience intimate physical contact or voyeurism/erotica [‘looking but not touching’] and yet say that they aren’t having an ‘affair’ because to most people the act has to involve sexual intercourse.
What about someone in a ‘relationship,’ where there is conduct involving: closeness, sharing, communication, trust; that is given to another person in the form of attentiveness, warmth, loyalty, verbal expression and physical contact that is not given to one’s spouse/life partner; what would these acts be considered? Not only that, but could these things be seen by the other domestic partner such that the individual not feel betrayed or hurt? So when one says that they aren’t having an affair in the technical sense but confides in someone else exclusively of the opposite sex because he understands her so well, then one would have to be incredibly naïve not to believe that ‘something’ else isn’t going on; now, what that ‘something’ is, only Angela and her friend know for certain.
While not wanting to play the blame game or further subject Ms. Harrison to a guilt trip because of the incredible pain, grief, and mourning that she must be going through, this is not the time for second-guessing and incriminations because what is done cannot be altered. Whatever might should have been done in the past cannot be relived and in a home where there was once the joyous sound of laughter and the usual, albeit predictable ruckus of children in ages ranging from seven to sixteen, are now replaced with haunting silence, empty spaces, and cherished memories before a shrine of flowers, cards, candles, and stuffed animals.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
April 8, 2009
pbks@hotmail.com
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Michelle 'O' is no Jackie "O"
On her first entrance onto the major International stage, First Lady of the United States, Michelle Obama seemed as though she did a Texas Two-Step before the descendant of the House of Tudor than a graceful Fox Trot. Michelle Obama has been compared to former First Lady of Camelot, Jackie 'O' Kennedy, but that might be a wee bit premature. Notwithstanding Michelle Obama's fashion style where she wore a sleeveless ensemble on at least one occasion at this august gathering of dignitaries and their spouses from the most powerful Industrial nations (The G-20) on planet Earth, but she made the almost unthinkable breach in etiquette and tradition when she met Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom [England].
The first thing: she shook the Queen's extended and outstretched hand, instead of taking her hand and respectfully bowing slightly with a curtsey. The second thing was that she was seen later putting her arm around the Queen Mother’s shoulder and patting her on the back, like some other ordinary acquaintance, or wife of the usual political leader. And to top it all off, the gift from the President and First Lady of the United States to the royal-blooded Queen of England was an 'iPod;' an iPod! Talk about being "Ghetto," courtesy of the lower Southside of Chicago (Amen). President Obama was so angry with GM that he wanted the CEO fired, well; he should also fire whoever advised him and Mrs. Obama in particular, on how to be introduced to royalty. Let's just hope when the President and First Lady attend all those lavish dinner parties that they will know how to use the flatware, because it seems that for them, being highly educated and a cultural sophisticate are not necessarily the same thing.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
April 3, 2009
253-382-4092
pbks@hotmail.com
The first thing: she shook the Queen's extended and outstretched hand, instead of taking her hand and respectfully bowing slightly with a curtsey. The second thing was that she was seen later putting her arm around the Queen Mother’s shoulder and patting her on the back, like some other ordinary acquaintance, or wife of the usual political leader. And to top it all off, the gift from the President and First Lady of the United States to the royal-blooded Queen of England was an 'iPod;' an iPod! Talk about being "Ghetto," courtesy of the lower Southside of Chicago (Amen). President Obama was so angry with GM that he wanted the CEO fired, well; he should also fire whoever advised him and Mrs. Obama in particular, on how to be introduced to royalty. Let's just hope when the President and First Lady attend all those lavish dinner parties that they will know how to use the flatware, because it seems that for them, being highly educated and a cultural sophisticate are not necessarily the same thing.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
April 3, 2009
253-382-4092
pbks@hotmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)