SCOTUS NON-SURPRISE

My intellectual support for the SCOTUS decision rendered this morning stems from the idea of using past data and behavior in a pre-emptive manner for current conditions. That is, past violations of  civil rights automatically must mandate restrictions in the present for certain states. There is, however, a SCOTUS precedent for past deficiencies carrying over to present circumstances: Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes - "Three generations of imbeciles are enough".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell

I currently live in a state that, even today in the face of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (which SCOTUS did not declare unconstitutional in its entirety or even in key sections), strives to impede full access to voting by minorities. My sense, keeping in mind the long arc of justice, is that TX Republicans will not be successful in this endeavor for many more years because the TX Democratic Party will succeed  inmobilizing Hispanic voters. Once accomplished, the TX Republican Party, as presently constituted, will become pragmatically irrelevant in effect even if not intellectually in principle.

The prospect of pragmatic irrelevance makes the current TX Republican Party want a dip of snuff and a bite of raw lemon shoved up its nether regions: The TX Republicans have seen the future and it scares them to death.

Further, how goes TX will in large part determine how the national electoral process goes. At least for the present, two large states - New York and California - appear solidly Democratic and have an outsized effect upon the outcomes of national elections. When TX becomes Democratic, the national Republican Party will be toast, absent major changes in philosophy and operating procedures.

A basic problem in many (almost all states?) stems from the effect of gerrymandering to preserve current positions of elected power. Without gerrymandering, much of problems with implementation/revisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would be moot.

Am I for full voting rights by all citizens? Of course. The strategy and tactics to achieve and preserve that obligatory goal - for the survival of our democratic republic - bedevils us.

In essence, all that the SCOTUS decision has done is make it harder, but not impossible, to challenge voter discrimination through the courts. 

Do I expect Congress to act anytime soon to change the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in order to make all sections Constitutionally consistent? Well, we all know about expectations: Hold both hands in front of you, expect in one hand, expectorate in the other, and determine which hand has something in it.

STANDING FIRM, LETTING GO

The United Methodist Church, in common with other Judeo-Christian denominations, struggles today with a problem that has bedeviled us for millennia in the context of societal changes: Discerning what theological principles we should hold firm versus what principles we should abandon. We've been through this process with slavery, Civil Rights, and full equality for women - to name only a few issues. Today, homosexuality represents a current major controversy that has divided many denominations and will shatter the collegiality of many more.

Ms. Mary Ann Kaiser, a youth director at University Methodist Church in Austin, TX, and an avowed lesbian, has proclaimed her candidacy for ordination in the The Southwest Texas Annual Conference. Her local church and district approved her candidacy. The Annual Conference recently voted to remove Ms. Kaiser from the ordination track. The decision has been appealed to Bishop James Dorff because, arguably, the Annual Conference violated its rules and regulations by prematurely removing Ms. Kaiser without due process.

My letter to Bishop Dorff in support of Ms. Kaiser's candidacy follows:

19 Jun 2013

Bishop James E. Dorff

United Methodist Southwest Texas Conference

16400 Huebner Rd.

San Antonio, TX 78248

Bishop Dorff:

Please do not make a theological and societal mistake with respect to the candidacy of Ms. Mary Ann Kaiser for ordination as a United Methodist minister.

For background: I was born into, and raised within, the Community of Believers at the First Presbyterian Church in LaGrange, GA. I joined the Methodist Church shortly after my wife, Andrea - a life-long Methodist, and I graduated from the Methodist-affiliated LaGrange College in 1960. I have remained a Methodist because I resonate with most of Wesleyan theology and because of our denominational focus on social action based upon important theological principles.  Andrea and I have been married for 53 years in an exclusive heterosexual relationship; we have two adult daughters, both married heterosexuals. That is, I have no homosexual ax to grind other than promoting theological rationality within our denomination.

You must be aware of the scientific evidence demonstrating homosexuality is neither a mental illness nor an aberration of the nature God bestowed upon human beings. I see no reason to delve into these issues in this letter other than to point out that our denominational stance on homosexuality does not conform to reality as revealed by biological science.

St. Paul clearly states God has not abrogated his covenant with Israel; hence, Jews remain God's chosen people. As such, again as St. Paul forcibly proclaimed, Torah (the Law, including the Levitical prohibitions against homosexuality) provides the path to salvation for our Jewish brothers and sisters. In his most profound discourses, St. Paul teaches Jesus Christ is the means by which Gentile Christians come to salvation and, therefore, Gentile Christians are not bound by the strictures of Torah.

I am well aware of St. Paul's statements that are often used as justifications against homosexuality. I presume you are equally informed that homosexual and homosexuals are by no means the best translations of the Greek words St. Paul employed. Accordingly, United Methodist prohibitions against homosexuality based upon putative Pauline imprecations fail the intellectual test of rational application of theology for Gentile Christians.

If, however, you and other members of our United Methodist administration continue to exclude homosexuals, including those in committed exclusive relationships, from ordination, I expect the following immediate pronouncements from you: Revocation of the ordination of all present female clergy, heterosexual and homosexual; injunction against women speaking out in church or teaching classes within the church; and insistence that all women attend worship services with their heads covered. Retention of the prohibitions against homosexuality requires these actions in order to maintain theological and intellectual consistency with the entirety of St. Paul's Epistles. While you're at it, you should also proclaim that we must not vote or act in any other way to change the present government of the United States because God, not humans, institutes earthly rulers. Following this line of false Pauline logic suggests that foundation of the United States and Texas via revolutions violated God's will.

You, other members of the United Methodist hierarchy, and some laypersons may believe that, by holding firm against full inclusion of homosexuals within our fellowship, you will in effect preach the church empty and then preach the church full again. Such a position places our Church against the protean tidal course of theologically legitimate societal changes, as occurred with our regrettable history concerning equality for women and civil rights for our black brothers and sisters. That is, maintaining the present course will lead to the impossibility of preaching the church full again: You will have no one left in the pews within a few years to hear your preaching. The present course inevitably will lead our denomination into irrelevance and we will not be able to perform our duty to implement the Great Commission through the United Methodist Church.

It is high time for someone with theological discernment and courage to lead our denomination fully into the 21st Century along pathways thoroughly consistent with Jesus Christ's Gospel of inclusivity. Accordingly, I urge you to allow the ordination process for Ms. Kaiser to proceed without impediments.

My wife and I are members of Berkeley United Methodist Church in Austin, TX. I have not discussed this letter with our minister and friend, Rev. Jeanne Devine: The thoughts expressed are my own as a committed layperson who has held several positions within our denomination, including Lay Delegate to the North Georgia Annual Conference.

The full blessings, comfort, and especially the discernment of the Holy Spirit be upon you,

Michael F. Frosolono, Ph.D.

DATA MINING: PRIVACY AND/OR SECURITY?

Background Considerations

Benjamin Franklin, one of our primary Founders: Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, often quoted as the Constitutional basis for individual privacy: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

SCOTUS Judge Antonin Scalia in a 20 Jul 2012 interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday:  There is no right to privacy  (i.e., under the Constitution). No generalized right to privacy.

Justice Scalia made the remark in reference to a 1965 SCOTUS ruling (7 to 2) that struck down a Connecticut law restricting access of married couples to birth control. SCOTUS ruled such laws violate the Constitutional right to privacy.

An aside: I wonder if this ruling represents as an example of using bad law, or at least a bad interpretation of law, for a worthy purpose?

SCOTUS has ruled that law enforcement agencies may record, without warrants:  (1) what is written on the outside of a snail mail envelope [e.g., names and addresses]  and  (2) information about the external parameters of a telephone conversation [e.g., names of persons making and receiving calls, and duration of calls]. Warrants are required to examine the contents of snail mail envelopes and telephone calls. Apparently, the Federal government's data mining programs use (1) and (2) by extrapolation to record similar "outside" information for Internet activity by American citizens and E-mails sent to, and/or received by American citizens.

The Federal Government's data mining programs (e.g., PRISM); therefore, arguably appear legal under the Constitution. Legality, of course, is not always equivalent to wise.


We need to keep in mind that the US Constitution applies only to US citizens and, perhaps, legal alien residents. I am unclear if the Constitution applies to American citizens voluntarily living abroad  - in contrast to members of our armed forces.

PROBLEMATIC CONSIDERATIONS

From the beginning of the Internet and E-mail, I've assumed and operated on the presumption that my information (e.g., sites visited, searches conducted, and content of E-mails) cannot remain inviolate with respect to privacy. Early on I became aware of this problem as a result of some of my "unsavory" E-mails becoming public.

Much of the criticism of the data mining seems to focus on the following issues: (1) misunderstandings about how the programs were authorized through our elected representatives and the Federal courts, (2) the broad and deep scope of the programs, (3) lack of clarity concerning privacy rights, (4) questions about the efficacy of the programs in maintaining our national security, [i.e., have the programs prevented attacks and are they likely to prevent future attacks?], (5) lack of trust in Federal law agencies and (6) linkage of targeted assassinations [e.g, through drones) with the data mining programs.

Issue (1) seems straightforward - there should be no misunderstanding about the legality of the data mining programs based upon previous SCOTUS rulings and constitutionally sanctioned legislative/executive actions. Regrettably, many (most?) citizens seem uninformed about the roles the three branches of the Federal government play in the processes of passing and executing constitutionally valid laws. Even more regrettable are the crocodile tears some of our Senators and Representatives shed by claiming they were unaware of the extent of the programs. The entire body of Senators and Representatives appointed a subset of themselves to "monitor" the programs in an attempt to maintain both control and security of the programs. All Senators and Representatives have had the opportunity for briefings by the subset in closed sessions.

Issue (2) relates to the creepiness factor. Only a relatively few  technocrats had any idea about how constantly evolving technology allowed the massive data mining. The scope of the programs, even if legal, seems creepy and make us think of a "Brave New World" situation: Can Big Brother reading our thoughts be next?

Issue (3) comes about because most citizens, and apparently some elected representatives, have incomplete - even erroneous - ideas about privacy that exists within and outside the Constitution. How many citizens know about the constitutionally-sanctioned (as defined by SCOTUS) provisions allowing law enforcement agencies to record external information from snail mail, telephone conversations, Internet searches, and E-mail transmissions?

Issue (4), the efficacy of the data mining programs, remains an open question for many citizens. I don't see how the people who operate the systems can reveal their actual effectiveness to the general population without jeopardizing national security. Yes, the results of the programs presumably will be revealed in some detail this week to a subset of Senators and Representatives in closed session. All citizens will then have the opportunity to obtain generalized information on the efficacy. The problem then morphs to Issue (5).

Issue 5, the level of trust from the American citizenry appears to be at an all time low, from both liberals and conservatives. I believe our Founders had a healthy skepticism concerning trust in governments, a skepticism embedded in the Constitution. Can we think of any Federal entity that the great majority of citizens would trust in today's highly charged and polarized political atmosphere? The abundance of conspiracy theorists seems to shoot down the idea of trust. Thus, we find ourselves in the following situation: Suppose NSA were to reveal the details of the data mining programs, including targets and successes/failures - without somehow jeopardizing perceived national security: How many of us would then believe the truth of the revelations?

Issue 6, the linkage between targeted assassinations and data mining, enormously increases the potential for governmental abuses. In this context, I'm perfectly willing to accept that persons thought to be dangerous to our national security - both actually and presumptively - have been eliminated. Some well-meaning and astute persons, however,  believe this issue represents the primary danger of the NSA programs: We target, and kill, some persons based on presumptive, not actual, threats. Yes, we've killed some individuals who have perpetuated actual hostile actions against us. Osama bin Laden immediately comes to mind.

The extreme discomfort for some citizens arises from the targeting of persons who only represent perceived threats. The discomfort arises because we presumably don't prosecute, much imprison and/or execute, individuals on the basis of potential dangerous actions. But we engage in such activity on a daily basis: We confine individuals who make creditable terrorist threats as well as persons who, because of mental illness, represent threats to themselves and others. Further, try making a creditable threat to kill POTUS Obama and see what happens.

Compounding the situation is the actual killing of American citizens on foreign "battlefields" and the potential for killing American citizens on American soil without the benefit of a trial or other open court actions. Can we argue that such eliminations are tantamount to the lawful killing of an armed individual who poses a threat against another citizen?  Perhaps.

We need to have a full, frank, free, and open discussion in this country, not limited to the above issues but, more importantly, concerning how much civil liberty we are willing to sacrifice for national security? We should keep in mind that national security and individual security are different sides of the same coin.

I suspect we'll have a lot of strum and dang in the near future but very little limitation of the data mining and assassination programs will take place. Nevertheless, we should have the discussion, hopefully without the overheated rhetoric from certain members of Congress and bloviators.

The data mining programs, if left substantially in place, will become even more extensive and effective in identifying potential threats. Even so, I'm not particularly concerned about the civil liberty implications  - if the programs are effectively and efficiently monitored to prevent abuse.

One potential abuse, however, bothers me greatly: Presumably, the internal content of E-mails caught up in the data mining are placed in an electronic "lock box" that can be accessed only upon execution of a valid warrant through the FISA court. Can this lock box be kept safe from hackers? Can we guarantee that no governmental official will resist the temptation to look within the lock box for personal and political reasons? Think POTUS Nixon's enemies list and the IRS over zealous scrutiny of Tea Party-linked applications.