Epistolary II: From Both Sides of the Aisle

The great thing about conversation is that you never know where it’s going to take you. Again the subject here is ostensibly baseball, but that gets its due in time. The real topic goes back to the Federalist Papers and the way we live today – how democracy as preached differs ever so slightly from the way the Clown College of Washington, D.C. actually works. Commentary welcome.

Marty: Mon, 9 May 2011 20:37:10 -0700

Tonight was truly awful!
DMS: Wed, 5/11/11
Sometimes the pitchers have to do the hitting. At any rate, the visit to Colorado is an even series now, so I'm okay with that.

I was out of circulation the last couple of days, but I did think a little about your idea of strict constructionism as it relates to the Constitution. The point is clear, but unfortunately, your reading doesn't stack up to years of practical experience with this kind of democratic experiment. Government power has expanded over time, true, but not only and always because people are whining babies who can't stand to live with the consequences of their actions. If there hadn't been room for interpretation, we wouldn't have a workable system of interstate commerce, highways, railroads and the rest of it.

And when it comes to strict readings of old documents, take a look at the 3/5 clause and the stuff the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were designed to rectify. I think we'd all agree those are situations where re-writing the Founders intentions was not only right, but necessary.

The term limit idea is a good one and I would support it, mainly because it would refresh the tree of liberty with new fertilizer more frequently. I guess the manure metaphor isn't such a good one, but it'll serve for a lot of the talk we hear out of Washington. Debt limits, budget cuts, you guys wanna kill old folks on one side, you guys have no fiscal discipline on the other ... on and on it goes.

Marty: Wed, 11 May 2011 09:00:35 -0700

The Constitution does allow for changing with the times. Those changes are called Amendments. However, until an Amendment is added, the rules of the game weren't meant to be interpreted.

What if the Constitution of baseball, "The Rule Book," were open to interpretation? Could players not have to touch 3rd base on their way home, depending on circumstance? Could a fly ball caught on a bounce still be called an out, depending on the situation? See how baseball would collapse without strict interpretation of the rules? No room for agendas, is there?

The 14th Amendment is a favorite argument for me. It was written right after the Civil War and it rightly gave the children of slaves born in American natural citizenship. Compare its purpose in 1867 and what an agenda is morphing it into.

In 1867, the Congress agreed that slaves didn't come here on their own free will, so their kids shouldn't have to bear another wrong...not being citizens where they're born. Today, whether illegals climb a fence with a machinegun, hide in a truck, or whatever, they are NOT coming here against their free will. They want to come here to work, sell drugs, or 100 reasons in between, but the point is...they come here on their own. Thus, the status of illegal immigrant children TODAY has NOTHING to do with the status of the children of slaves. Why is the 14th Amendment even a talking point with the children of illegal immigrants?

Ask yourself...did the Congress in 1867 write the 14th Amendment to make kids of illegals eligible for Social Security, Medicare, and the right to vote? No...they wrote it to right a wrong done against slaves so their kids wouldn't be stigmatized as foreigners. Period!

Consider the Founders didn't want women to vote. Was it because they were Chauvinistic bastards, or did they foresee something...namely Prohibition?

In 1920, women were given the right to vote. They hated their husbands drinking, so in 1929 (only 9 years after the right was granted), Congress passed Prohibition because the politicians had to now play to an entirely new base. But, only a few years later, people realized what a stupid Amendment it was and it was repealed. Was the Constitution meant to be a document in need of white-out? THAT's where agendas lead us.

Leave the Constitution alone...it's not perfect, but neither are the people who try to change it.

So there!

Let's hope for .500 soon, just to say we're .500!

DMS: Wednesday, May 11, 2011, 1:31 PM
Marty --
In the grand old game, even the rules have changed. Not the fundies you speak of, but in the era of instant replay (which may soon expand) there's a few rules that aren't as hard and fast. How we interpret some rules and the use of unwritten rules affects the way it's played at the major league level and in some small ways, all the way down. To continue the analogy a bit, the basic rulebook is the same, but ground rules are always there to create a bit of uniqueness, a bit of local flavor. Kind of like how an amendment works. If thoughtful and passed by 2/3 of the states, we can finally start getting stuff done. Like a Balanced Budget Amendment, maybe.

Okay, so equal protection shouldn't apply to illegals, as you term them. How about creating a path to citizenship? If we're not going to stop relying on cheap immigrant labor and we can't build a fence to the stars, why not admit we're licked and start honestly allowing all those yearning to breathe free a better shot at it. Yes, back of the line, prove you're not a psycho, etc., but don't continue on this path.

Your interpretation of the Volstead Act is novel, but I'm a little loathe to buy into that one all the way. In that kind of world, women are rolling-pin swinging maniacs out to destroy all vestiges of fun, not people who deserve to exercise the franchise as fully as you and me. Just a thought.

Marty: Wed, 11 May 2011 12:31:13 -0700
Dave --

Baseball hasn't changed, save the DH. There are still nine players, three outs, three strikes, etc....instant replay didn't change baseball. It helps it to enforce the rules with a correct call.

A national balanced budget amendment? Hmm...Paul Ryan looked to shave $400 Billion off the deficit (leaving us a Trillion in the hole every year) and it caused a riot (figuratively). How in the world do you ever foresee a balanced budget? Hasn't Obamacare alone made sure we never have one?

Something nobody is considering, Dave...to wit:

Yes, those greedy businessmen love hiring "undocumenteds" (since you dislike the term, "illegals") and that's why there are now so many of them. But, what if they become citizens...earning equal pay, equal benefits, and all that jazz? Would businessmen still hire them, or simply hire Americans at the same going rate? In other words, if businessmen no longer have a cost-effective reason to hire undocumenteds/new citizens, why would they continue to hire any? And then what?

I also have difficulty with the DREAM Act. The Act states if an undocumented fella joins the service for two years, he can then attend college as a citizen. Sounds good, but what if that fella has crummy grades and no college will accept him? Does he then have to turn in his Dream Act citizenship?

Dave, the whole "path to citizenship" is nothing more than a ruse to get Hispanics to the polls. Obama had two years with a Dem Congress to pass anything (even if it required a bribe or two from Harry), and nothing about citizenship made it to the floor. Only after the Tea Party win in November did we get a pointless vote on the Dream Act ... why, you might ask? Simply put:

As long as this remains an issue, it will get Hispanics to the polls. It's the "We're the nice guy Dems vs. the evil, hateful GOP" game, and the Hispanics are being used as pawns. Keep promising something and the people being promised will continue to vote in hopes of receiving that promise. Face it...the Dems NEED the Hispanic vote, and that's why Obama was in Texas yesterday talking to them.

Once "undocumented" Hispanics do get to vote, they'll probably get just as disgusted as the rest of us and not turn out strongly. That's the DNC's biggest nightmare...so as long as they dangle the carrot, they can count on a strong turnout from those eligible to vote.

The Volstead Act was just the tip of the iceberg. When the Founders said "No way, Josephine," to voting, they knew politicians would stick only to issues important to the betterment of states/the nation. What's happened since?

Politicians get $400 haircuts... politicians play the sax... politicians care about how many donuts we eat... politicians wear designer clothes... is this what the Founders wanted when it came to campaigning? NOOO! It appeals to women, and it wins their votes. If guys like George Washington had to win over women voters, would he have worn that stupid powder wig and costume, or would he have learned to play the drums, hummed stanzas from music of the day, and all those things attractive to women back then?

Cynicism is an aphrodisiac to me, Dave. In case you didn't figure that out by now.

DMS: Wednesday, May 11, 2011, 3:56 PM
Marty –

If cynicism turns you on, you must remain sitting and walk hunched over a lot.
Anyway, the basics of baseball are the same, but I think you see what I mean about how ground rules create all these different little "states of play" that are all governed by one set of rules.

The DREAM Act is a political ploy. Absolutely. But it is also a political ploy that happens to speak to the same impulse the disenfranchised have always expressed when it comes to becoming an American. Example: the Tuskegee Airmen joined up to prove their worth, and were willing to jump through such hoops because of the promise (albeit implied) of fuller citizenship after serving. If an immigrant somehow didn't qualify for college or had lousy grades, then maybe the naturalization should be delayed, but not that dream deferred, again. That's in the worst traditions of xenophobia and nativism, and I think you know that.

To dismiss Mr. Obama's current try at immigration reform as just politics begs the question; it's at least a comprehensive approach that begins to look at the problem honestly, and remains within our tradition of welcome, not a barred door.

Also, your whole point about whether "Americans" would get hired under a new paradigm or not places an artificial barrier between us & them. If the path to citizenship was more fair, more open and in line with the needs and cultural norms of the states admitting the immigrant, the whole question would be settled by the invisible hand of the market. That's an idea you can believe in, hmmm?

I'm not even gonna touch the appeal to women voters thing; that's as radioactive as Japanese spinach.

On baseball: .500 is .500, but we gotta get there first.