A Lot about a Little - Dean T. Hartwell's Site
  • Home
  • Planes without Passengers
  • WTC7
  • Jury Duty
  • MOTION DISMISSED!
  • Essays
  • Testimonials
  • Contact

From Garfield to Aurora: History's Lessons about Firearms

8/19/2012

1 Comment

 
Picture
Source: http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-image-gun-image10578021
James A. Garfield was the last United States president to take the job without first seeking it.  He may not have wanted the job, but the public certainly wanted him.

As a man who rose from poverty, the poor liked him.

As a man who achieved wealth on his own, the wealthy liked him.

As a man who welcomed the former Confederate States back, the South liked him.

As a man who had taken in and hidden a runaway slave, the former slaves liked him.

So why did someone shoot him?

The year was 1881.  Before the automobile.  Before the Secret Service protected the president.  Before medical care included antiseptic practices.  Before job seekers went through civil service to get a job with the federal government.  Before public mental institutions.

The president walked unguarded in public.  He took the train to go out of town just like any other citizen.  The bullet-proof limousine came much later.

On the day of the assassination, July 2, 1881, President Garfield walked with a few aides, including the Secretary of State, but none had the responsibility of guarding against would-be assassins.  There was a Secret Service then.  They protected the public against counterfeiters.  They did not protect the president until after the NEXT presidential assassination twenty years later.

The gunman shot Garfield twice in the back.  One went through him and one lodged in him.  Neither struck a vital organ.  The president would have been much better off NOT receiving the medical treatment that he did.  The physician who treated him on site did not use gloves nor any anti-septic procedures which were known at the time but not widely practiced.  Garfield really died of infection from medical care.

Assassin Charles Guiteau (Gee-To) sought a job in foreign service.  He stood in line like many other office seekers.  He came back to the White House several times to make his case, mostly with the president’s personal secretary.  A simple civil service test would have screened out the man, who had no qualifications for the job he wanted.

Guiteau also harassed the Vice President Chester Arthur and other presidential advisors by stalking them and walking up to them in public.  His rude behavior in a church even caught the attention of the president.  His family knew he had a mental illness, but could not afford to place him in a private institution.  Public institutions were not then common.

History was not of much help to warn the public.  While it is true that the assassination of President Lincoln sixteen years prior was still fresh in the public mind, most people believed that the murder was an act of war rather than an assassination.

We still experience the tragedy of violence today.  But we are no better off in stopping the recent horror of the movie theater shootings in Aurora, Colorado if we accept the status quo without question.  The parallels between Guiteau and the accused shooter in Aurora are startling:

  • Both obtained the weapons they used legally and without question.
  • Both exhibited signs of anti-social activity before the events for which they are associated.
  • Cries for their executions sprang up immediately.
  • Few people in either case wanted to discuss the underlying factors, such as gun availability.

So I have some questions about violence, especially gun-related, in our society in 2012:

Does the Second Amendment to the Constitution permit ANYONE to buy a firearm?

(If your answer is yes, you would appear to be in agreement with the strict wording of this Amendment.  That would mean children, convicted criminals and the mentally ill may purchase firearms without question).

(If your answer is no, where do we draw the line so as not to contradict the Constitution?)

We need a rational discussion about the use of weapons and who may purchase them.  It is not the result of this discussion that matters so much, but the open-mindedness of those who participate.  Who wants to talk?

Take the poll on Hartwell Perspective here

Background Source: Destiny of the Republic: A Tale of Madness, Medicine and the Murder of a President (Anchor: 2011) by Candice Millard

1 Comment

Would You Want Someone to Break Your Contract?

7/11/2012

1 Comment

 
Recently, the City of San Bernardino declared bankruptcy.  Already news analysts are speculating that there will be cuts in pensions to some of the city employees as a way of bringing the city out of its fiscal crisis.  Other cities voted to curb pension benefits in recent elections.

Why is the possibility of cutting pensions for public employees an issue?

First of all, PERS is a contract between the state of California and many of public employees in the state.

The key constitutional issues of the state changing the terms of the PERS contract are the Contracts Clause and the Takings Clause (5th and 14th Amendments of the Federal Constitution):

Contracts Clause - “No state shall…pass any law impairing the Obligation of Contracts”

Takings Clause – if the state interferes with property rights (such as wages or pension), it may be required to provide “just compensation.”

The first question in a court case of this type is whether the contract was whether the breaking of the contract caused participants to the contract trouble in preparing for retirement, difficulty in paying bills, etc.

If the court concludes that contract was broken to that extent, the court next considers whether the impairment served an important government purpose, such as the protection of its citizens from harm.

A court considers whether the law was foreseeable or even plausible at the time the contract was made.  It can also take into consideration that when the state is faced with a budgetary deficit, the legislature has many alternatives available to it, such as reducing state services not governed by contract and raising taxes.

If the impairment to the contract is not really necessary to protect the citizens, the court will rule in favor of those who brought suit on the impairment of contract (i.e. the employees).

Bottom line:  To win on the questions the court asks, employees will need to show that they have relied upon the pension system promised them when they became members of PERS.  They will need to show that the state of California has alternatives to cutting our pensions.  And, they will need to show that the idea of cutting pensions drastically was not foreseeable at the time they joined PERS.  There is no sure way to tell how the courts will rule, but by emphasizing these themes will force the courts to recognize the value of the contract the government makes with public employees and the consequences of breaking the contract.

1 Comment

The Tea Party Can't Save Us until It Saves Itself First

10/18/2010

0 Comments

 

The Tea Party Can't Save Us until It Saves Itself First

To believe that the Tea Party will face the most important issues of our time and systematically find solutions to them is to believe in fairy tales. And that assumes that we could somehow agree as to what the most important issues of our times are!

I first became introduced to the Tea Party on April 15, 2009 when a group identifying themselves as "Taxed Enough Already" held a demonstration at my City Hall. I could not help but note that they were upset about President Obama's tax policies even though (1) Obama had been in office less than three months and (2) about 95% of taxpayers would pay less than or the same amount of taxes than before Obama.

That summer, I went to a meeting composed mostly of those with people aligned with the Tea Party and listened to their thoughts. They deplored Obama for raising the debt and the deficit and judged his use of "czars" in his administration as unconstitutional along with other policies. Though President Bush, Obama's predecessor, also raised the debt and the deficit and used czars himself, I started to sense some of the Tea Party policies and what they wanted.

They appear to want fiscal responsibility, a "return" to following the Constitution and a desire to take "their" nation back.

Will these ideas "save" or improve our nation? No. While they may get Tea Party politicians elected, they are not enough to help our nation. The reason is simple: the ideas are vague enough to appeal to the electorate, but not specific enough to help our leaders make decisions that need to be made.

First of all, no one disagrees with fiscal responsibility. So, even those with whom the Tea Party members say they disagree with, like Obama, share the same vague idea of taxing and spending in a reasonable manner. And I do say tax and spend, for all governments have the responsibility of taxing their people and using the funds to spend on the people's behalf. When there is no disagreement, there is no debate.

The Tea Party should tell us how they are really different than Obama, the Democrats and the traditional Republican Party. As they have already expressed general disdain for taxes, they should explain what part of the budget they would cut, as Bill Maher implored a Tea Party member to do recently on "Real Time." If they want to cut entitlements, then who specifically will get Social Security, Medicare, etc. and who will be removed from these programs? They won't tell us the answers to these questions because they can count the votes they would lose as well as anyone.

Second, the idea of a "return" to the Constitution suggests that there is only one way to interpret it. But if that is true, why have there been so many 5-4 decisions on the United States Supreme Court? And why have old decisions, like Plessy v. Ferguson, been overturned by more recent decisions that have affirmed rights that had been rejected?

If the Tea Party means a "strict" view of the Constitution, they may have some explaining to do. This school of thought says that courts should not go beyond the words of the Constitution to make decisions. But this way of thinking runs into trouble when one considers that the "Exclusionary Rule" (which forbids illegally seized evidence from being introduced in criminal court against a defendant) does not appear in the Constitution at all. Neither does "filibuster" or the "Miranda Rule."

The Tea Party should tell us how they believe specific parts of the Constitution should be understood instead of implying that they have a monopoly on its interpretation. Of course, if they don't like the Miranda warning being given to criminal suspects, they lose voters who can recite the warning much more easily than they can recite the Pledge of Allegiance!

And lastly, talk of taking a nation back simply begs the question of whose nation we live in. Are any of us better than anyone else?

If the insinuation is that the United States is a "Christian nation," the Tea Party had better re-think its message about following the Constitution, which forbids religion as a test for public office and which forbids the establishment of any religion!

The Tea Party should talk about goals common to all of us and invite debate as to the best ways to reach these goals. They should show the courage of convictions by saying specifically what they want. And they should risk losing votes in the process.

In doing so, they may not save this nation, but they could find a way to get people from other voting groups to take them seriously, which would strengthen the debate for better policy.
0 Comments

    Author

    Dean Hartwell keeps pursuing the truth about those who govern us.

    Categories

    All
    9/11
    9/11
    9/11 Flights
    9/11 Flights
    9/11 Flights
    9/11 Lies
    9/11 Lies
    9/11 Myth
    9/11 Passengers
    9/11 Passengers
    9/11 Passengers
    9/11 Passengers
    9/11 Phone
    9/11 Planes
    9/11 Planes
    9/11 Planes
    9/11 Plot
    9/11 Relatives
    9/11 Truth
    9/11 Truth
    9/11 Truth
    Acars
    Addiction
    Adventist
    Adversity
    A Fans Folklore5e0914a21d
    Afp
    Agent
    Agents
    Allies
    Amazon
    American 11
    American 77
    American 77
    American Free Press
    Amnesty
    Argument
    Armed Forces
    Assassination
    Associated Press
    Atheism
    Author
    Authority
    Authors
    Barbara Olson
    Barnes And Noble
    Baseball
    Battle
    Belief
    Bible
    Bill Giltner
    Bin Laden
    Bin Laden Framed
    Bipolar
    Bipolar Disorder
    Birthers
    Blogtalkradio
    Bob Fox
    Book
    Book Review
    Books
    Broncos
    Budget
    Bullies
    Bully
    Bureaucracy
    Burley
    Bush Administration
    Calpers
    Campaign
    Campaign 2016
    Candor
    Cell Phone Calls
    Change
    Charles Giuliani
    Cheating
    Cheney
    Choice
    Christianity
    Chuck Ochelli
    Cia
    Cimino
    Circle
    City Of San Bernardino
    Cleveland
    Colin Powell
    Comments
    Communication
    Conflict
    Conformity
    Conspiracy
    Constitution
    Constructiveness
    Contract
    Conversation
    Corporations
    Country
    Court
    Critical Acclaim
    Critical Thinking
    D
    Danne Burleyb5f49f8b7f
    Danne Burley Show3cf92a4960
    David Cay Johnston
    Dead Men Talking
    Dean Hartwell
    Debate
    Decisions
    Deficit
    Democrats
    Deportation
    Depression
    Detectors
    Dialogue
    Dick Cheney
    Discussion
    Dishonesty
    Disnformation
    Distortion
    Dont Ask Dont Tell
    Drugs
    Economy
    Election 2000
    Empowerment
    Enemies
    Error
    Euphemism
    Evidence
    Facts
    Facts Talk
    Fair Elections
    Faith
    Fakery
    Fantasy Football
    Fate
    Fear
    Fetzer
    Flight 11
    Flight 175
    Flight 77
    Flight 93
    Flights
    Football
    Footnotes
    Foreign Policy
    Free Agency
    Freedom
    Free Will
    Fuqua
    Future
    Game
    Gatekeepers
    Gay Rights
    Gays
    Gingrich
    God
    Gop
    Government
    Government Lies
    Government Responsiveness
    Grand Chessboard
    Guardian
    Gumshoe News
    Gun Control
    Gun Rights
    Happiness
    Hartwell
    Hijackers
    History
    Hoax
    Homophobia
    Hope
    Hypocrisy
    Identity
    Idolotry
    Illegal Immigration
    Immaculate Reception
    Immigration
    Infiltration
    Inlaws4243aba70b
    Innocence
    Integrity
    Intel Hub
    Intelligence
    Internet
    Interview
    Interviews
    Intuition
    Irancontra8ce74f07fb
    Isolation
    Issues
    Jack Tatum
    Jesus
    Jfk
    Jfk Assassination
    Jim Fetzer
    Jim Mason
    Jim Viken
    Joe Paterno
    John Anderson
    John B Anderson4f095ea31b
    John Madden
    July 15
    Juror
    Jury
    Jury Duty
    Justice
    Kennedy
    Kennedys
    Ken Stabler
    Killtown
    Kindle
    Kohan V Nbc
    Law
    Lawsuit
    Leaders
    Leadership
    Lee Harvey Oswald
    Lee Oswald
    Lessons
    Liaison
    Lies
    Life
    Lisa Jefferson
    Logic
    Loyalty
    Lying
    Malaysian Flight
    Manipulators
    Mary W Maxwell
    Mayor White
    Mcgreal
    Media
    Memoirs
    Mental Illness
    Mh370
    Military
    Mirsch
    Mistakes
    Modern Life
    Morality
    Movie
    Myth
    Mythology
    Nation
    Nationalism
    Nbc
    Needs
    New Media
    Newt Gingrich
    Nfl
    Nixon
    No Hijackers
    No Hijackings
    No Holding Back
    No Plane
    No Planers
    No Planes
    Oakland Raiders
    Obama
    Observations
    Occupy Wall Street
    Ochelli
    October Surprise
    Official Theories
    Olson
    Oped News
    Osama
    Osama Bin Laden
    Oswald
    Parole
    Passengers
    Paterno
    Patriotism
    Peace
    Penn State
    Pension
    Pentagon
    People
    Permanent War
    Perpetual War
    Pers
    Personal
    Persuasion
    Petition
    Philosophy
    Pictures
    Pilots For 911 Truth5753843a5f
    Planers
    Planes
    Planes Without Passengers
    Planes-without-passengers
    Planted Evidence
    Pledge Of Allegiance
    Podcast
    Policy
    Politicians
    Politics
    Power
    Praise
    Presidents
    Public
    Public Policy
    Question
    Questions
    Radio
    Raiders
    Ramona Rees
    Reagan
    Real Deal
    Reason
    Recommend
    Records
    Relatives
    Religion
    Republican Party
    Republicans
    Researchers
    Responsibility
    Resurrection
    Review
    Reviews
    Revolution
    Rfk
    Righteousness
    Rights
    Risk
    Robert Kennedy
    Romney
    Ronald Reagan
    Rules
    Rumors Fly
    Samesex Marriage05ed85f18c
    San Bernardino
    Satire
    Scams
    Scapegoats
    Script
    Secrecy
    Secret
    Self Help
    Selfhelp1a7d6cf1cb
    Selfhelp930f0ee660
    Shanksville
    Shepard
    Show
    Sirhan
    Sites
    Solutions
    Stabler
    Story
    St Peter64b59c8f07
    St Peters Choicef4a5414f38
    Strategy
    Summers
    Super Bowl
    Super Bowl Xiv
    Swan
    Taxes
    Team Sports
    Tea Party
    Technology
    Ted Olson
    Terrorism
    The Detectors
    The Detectors Featuring Dean Hartwell
    The Ochelli Effect
    Theories
    Thurman Munson
    Time Management
    Todd Beamer
    Tolerance
    Trump
    Trust
    Truth
    Type I
    Type Ii
    United
    United 175
    United-175
    United 93
    United-93
    Values
    Vancouver Hearings
    Video Fakery
    Voice
    Voters
    Wants
    War
    War On Terror
    War Party
    Was 9/11 A Movie?
    Watergate
    Will And Grace Case
    World Series
    Wrong
    Youtube
    You Tube

    Archives

    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    December 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    April 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    April 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.