Political Shenanigans - "States of Emergency"

Many of the readers of these Dispatches have a history with dealing with urgent matters.  I am proud to call them my brothers and sisters.  They understand that losing your cool means you cannot handle an emergency and that, in the words of John Hess, an old friend, “in an emergency, you will only do what you have been trained to do.”  In other words, emergencies inhibit creativity.

But “states of emergency” have become a meaningless political device.  By declaring a “state of emergency,” unqualified politicos are declaring that they care DEEPLY and are doing something.  It’s only an act.  They don’t know how to handle emergencies unless they have past experiences learning that particular craft.

San Francisco has just declared a “state of emergency” to respond to the coronavirus.  

Let’s be clear:  An epidemic or pandemic is always a possibility.  If you don’t prepare for it prior to it happening, you will be perpetually behind what it requires.  That is why California has detailed earthquake preparations; West Virginia has detailed flash flood preparations; Florida and Louisiana have detailed hurricane preparations; and so forth.  All of those emergency services people have learned HARD lessons from the Loma Prieta Earthquake, the “Killing Waters Flood,” and Hurricane Katrina. 

What San Francisco has done adds nothing to the effort at this point.  It is amateurs pretending to care deeply. 

What a “state of emergency” does primarily is to suspend work rules so that necessary employees can be forced to work overtime.  In unheard of cases of revolution, states of emergency can suspend habeas Corpus and posse comitatus.  That hasn’t happened in a long, long time. 

For a number of years, I worked as a part-time Emergency Services director or deputy in a small county.  We had the codes to activate the Emergency Broadcast System.  (I still remember them – I hope they have changed them I case I get weird and decide to activate the EBS.)  But we have several opportunities where we considered declaring a state of emergency.  And we NEVER did.  It was never necessary.  We could invoke any necessary services, spend emergency budgets, ask for cooperation and make honest and calm public statements without declaring a state of emergency.  (Once, I made a statement along the lines of “Relax, this too shall pass,” and USA Today said something like “that was strange.”  True.  I can live with that.)

So – Relax.  Be prepared.  Plan on the worst and count on the best.  That’s all we can do. 

Mizpah!

The Boy Scout Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

I am particularly sad that the Boy Scouts of American have just filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection. 

I have always said that the question “Who are you?” will reveal a great deal about you.  When people say, I’m a Dad, I’m  Christian, I’m a Scout, I’m a first responder, and so forth, I begin to know you.  I then have some notion of your values. 

I’m am many things.  In the top five answers, I’m a Scout.  I had pleasant recent conversations with Girl Scouts selling their iconic cookies in front of a grocery store.  Together with their mothers, we had a delightful conversation about  how long they have been in Scouting, and the lifetime commitment it can be.   I told them, I’ve been a Scout for nearly 60 years, and we talked about that, as parents, as an elder brother and as a beloved sister.  The whole Scout movement has – and continued to make – a difference in our lives.  And that is how it should be.  Of course it's not for everyone.  There are all kinds of healthy youth activities.  There needs to be a variety, because there are ALL KINDS of unhealthy youth activities which compete.

The “allegations” are that the BSA did not pay sufficient attention to the fact that some adults joined the program at least partially to prey on young people   I resent the fact that law firms are advertising in THEIR interest to get a piece of the restitution-pie, but I cannot stop them.  And the BSA cannot deny that some number of youth were abused.  It happened.  

I honestly cannot say how many these prevalent these maggots were, but I know that they existed.  When I was a council president, one came to my attention.  He was an honored volunteer who worked with children.  He had expressed his personal sexuality against Scouts.  He ended up serving a prison sentence.  Our response:  When we found that the allegations were made, he was separated from Scouting, then he was banned forever, stripped any recognition he received, and we encourage counseling for victims and legal representation.  We acted abruptly when we knew to at least close the barn door to prevent future harm.

The BSA has long required two policies:  A mandatory “2 volunteer” system and intense youth protection training.

The 2 volunteer system simply says that no one-on-one contacts will not occur between youth and adult.  That is a necessary pain-in-the-ass.  The one-on-one leader-scout relationship can be magical.  I’ve had numerous ones as a Scout.  I can point to people with whom I have them – men like Johnny Pitcher, B. I. Wixey, Dr. Charles Whitaker, my brother Willard Elliott, Junior Parks, Amangi-John Saylor, Chris Gore. Steve Gatrell, and a dozen others – as having a profound effect on my life.  None of these guys had anything other than the solid teachings of Scouting on their minds.  Other than “honor women,” I never learned anything gender-related at their knee.

But the 2 person contact system lessened drastically the possibility of “hanky-panky,” by requiring that 2 adults interact with children.  I still teach merit badges – and it’s done in the present of the Scout’s parents or my girlfriend.  We may regret it, but that’s the way it is.  I have prosecuted (happily!) people who have abused children. Yet, the BSA requires that I maintain my thorough child-safety training current.

I cannot say that child sexual abuse within the BSA never happened.  It did.  I can only say that (1) it was RARE, (2) the movement responded quickly and appropriately when we were advised and (3) as the victims were our brothers and sisters, they DO deserve love, acceptance,  and compensation.  That is a part of what it means to be a Scout and a Scouter.

And we Scouts - together will all of us - can get better.

Mizpah!

Smollett

I’ve never seen Jussie Smollett perform, and I have no idea what he does.  Also, I really don't care.  He’s back in the news because he’s been indicted (again) for a false report of a “hate crime.”

The Chicago prosecutor got an indictment last year.  Then, she dismissed the original indictment with prejudice, meaning that the case could not be refiled.  I assume his defense now will file a motion to dismiss, and I don’t know Illinois law for how that will go.

But, but, but – We may not like it, but dismissing the case was a legitimate exercise of prosecutorial discretion.  Supposedly, it was done because Michelle Obama made a call to the prosecutor.  That may be tacky, but it’s not illegal.  I would be illegal to pay the prosecutor or to make a deal for illegal favors, but I’ve not heard any allegation of that.

But the prosecutor’s approach was stupid and disrespectful of the police.  The prosecutor and the police are supposed to be on the same side.  They are supposed to be respectful of each other.  If they have a disagreement, the door needs to be closed and they need to work it out.  That the police found out after the case was dismissed made them feel disrespected – which they were.

Had this occurred in West Virginia, I hope it would have been disposed of quick and easy.  In WV, a false report is a misdemeanor.  (Actually, current assistant prosecutor J. T. Hodges, III, and I wrote the WV statute in 1984, WV Code Section 61-6-20.)   As a prosecutor, I would have offered a guilty plea to the misdemeanor, probation, restitution for the heavy costs of the police investigation (and made it bankruptcy-proof), and consigned the defendant to the dustbin of history.  

You can’t have uneven justice, even if you don’t like the defendant.  The prosecutors have too much important stuff to do.

You don’t want favors called in?  Vote for a different prosecutor.  You don’t mind?  Vote for whatever-the-prosecutor’s-name -is.  Easy.  Only Cook Countians will determine that.

Mizpah!

Amendment, Impeachment, Charities

Ratification of Amendments:

Three state attorneys’ general have filed a lawsuit against the United States Archivist to declare that the Equal Rights Amendment has been ratified. This presents two unique issues which have to be resolved by the Supreme Court. I can’t find any legal authorities which provide guidance, so I suspect the result will either be determined by the majority’s philosophical desired results or just with a flip of the coin.

The Congress set a time limit which has long since expired for states to ratify the ERA. The Constitution either is silent or impliedly really does not give Congress that power. If the time limit applies, ERA is not ratified. If it does not, ERA may be, depending on the answer to the second question.

Before the 38th state ratified the ERA, some states withdrew their ratification. The Constitution is silent on whether a state’s ratification, once given, is irrevocable before an amendment is ratified. If the states can withdraw ratification, ERA fails. If they cannot, it is ratified.

A bunch of people will complain no matter what the Supreme Court does. As I’ve heard, the Supreme Court is not final because it is always right, but it is always right because it is final.

Impeachment:

Now that impeachment is, for the time, not active, there is in an outstanding question when impeachment is proper and whether an impeached official has to commit a crime to be impeached.  (I've noted elsewhere that "contempt of Congress" is not a crime, it's separation of powers at work.  Maybe not well, but it's been our history frequently.)  One commentator has noted that if a president sleeps all the time and does not come to work, impeachment may be a remedy – or may not.

That’s an interesting question. How about Pres. Wilson, who was incapacitated by a stroke before the passage of the 25^th amendment. Should he have been impeached? Pres. Coolidge was reputed to be either depressed or suffering from some sleeping disorder and worked very little. Impeachment or not? Pres. Lyndon Johnson prosecuted a war without a Congressional declaration, only a resolution and continued funding.  (That implies Congressional approval, but only Congress can declare war.)  Impeachment or not? Ditto president Bush I, President Bush II, and other presidents who prosecuted minor wars.

The problem to clarify these would be the agonizing process of new constitutional amendments or – shudder – calling a constitutional convention.

We live in interesting times.

Charities:

The Shriner organization used to have the largest endowment in the world, and used it for good things.  They (we - I do need to pay dues) run numerous free orthopedic hospitals for children and a world-class free burn center.  The lower interest rates have hurt the Shrine's investments, and I'm embarrassed that the Shrine has started running ads for donations.  I understand, the hospitals need money to run, but I do regret it.

There's an ad running called "Kars-4-kids" for people to donate cars.  I'm not going to donate.  They have cute kids doing the ad, but nobody says what they intend to do with the money.  Maybe it's for sick kids, maybe for hungry kids and maybe - although highly unlikely - for a school to teach kids to make a living by playing poker.  It's a tad annoying that the organization expects to make real money by the "4-kids" without any other explanation.

Mizpah!

A slightly more sane approach to nominations of a president

In my lifetime, there have been seven elections where both major parties had serious primary contenders:  1960, 1968, 1980, 1988, 2000, 2008, and 2016.  The other elections in that time have had one party with serious contenders.  Each time, the first primary election has occurred in New Hampshire.  New Hampshire has a statute that “guarantees” that it will have the first primary and whatever economic benefits and bragging rights come with it.

Now, the first contest of any sort is the Iowa caucuses, which gives Iowa some attention, media activity, and bragging rights.

I've never been to New Hampshire.  I may have flown over Iowa, but I I've never set foot on it's soil.  No doubt, most of them - just like most of the rest of us - are fine souls, good people and good Americans.  But they always get to vote first.

What about the rest of America?   One might favor Sen. Klobuchar (D-MN) or Rep. Gabbard (D-HA) who, presumably, will do very well in Minnesota or Hawaii, but are trailing badly in New Hampshire and Iowa.  Had Sen. Harris (D-CA) had a Pacific area primary first, perhaps she would still be in the race. 

This random and traditional balkanization of primary states gives Iowans and New Hampshire-ites a greater power than nonresidents of those states to affect the presidential elections.  Let me say that is constitutional – The Electoral College is another example of inequity in one sort, a constitutionally guaranteed inequity, as the losing party points out each time the election is won by somebody who doesn’t get a majority, the election is close or the Electoral College shows a blow-out when the losing candidate got 48% of the votes nationally.  Was each voter for Goldwater wrong in 1964?   Were 23.000,000 voters flat-assed WRONG in rejecting LBJ?   Where the 43,000,000 LBJ voters right?  Who cares?  Under the standards of that time and this, LBJ won the election.  At that time, those disaffected just lived with it.

The Iowa and New Hampshire assurance of "first in the nation" is a state phenomenon,  But it's isn’t a part of the constitution.  Congress controls federal elections.   The Congress (with Presidential consent, i.e., sign a bill rather than veto it) controls federal elections.  That’s important.  If this is bad, there is no judicial remedy, only a Congressitional one.  Don't expect the Supreme Court to step in on this one.

We don’t need to amend the Constitution to change this. That is a horribly slow process (as we will find out in the litigation over the validity of the recently maybe-ratified ERA) and God forbid that we call a constitutional convention with America divided nearly equally.

We can address it by changing Federal law. Think about this:  United States is already divided into four roughly equal parts along longitudinal lines. They’re called time zones. Most states are completely within one time zone and those that are not clearly are more geographically in one time zone than another.   

The population varies between time zones. In the Pacific time zone, 16% of the American population live; Mountain, 7%; Central, 29%; and Eastern 48%. If we divide primaries by time zones, we still will not be giving two single states the power to largely affect the election.  (I haven’t forgotten about Alaska and Hawaii – I’ve lump them both in with the Pacific.)

Consider a Federal law rotating Federal primary elections by time zones. Flip coins to see who goes first. Then, every fourth election, each in one of us will be the first people voting.

Perfect? No, not a bit. But the “perfect” is the enemy of the “better.”

Mizpah!