In 2014, the world faced the specter of ISIL (or ISIS or IS) as the Islamic State overran vast swaths of territory in Iraq and Syria (the “Levant”) and begun to impose its version of Islamic Law on the local inhabitants who really just wanted to be left alone. When they (the locals) wouldn’t go along with the insane Islamic nut jobs, they (ISIL) began to commit mass murder on an industrial scale.
Reactions ranged from the idea that we – the United States – had a “moral” duty to step in, to the position that we should stay the heck out of yet another war in Asia. was the Islamic state an actual threat to the United States or its “national interests?”
How do we define the “National interests” that guide our foreign policy? Most of all, what does the Constitution have to say about not just the powers involved, but what, if anything, about the process?
Sausage making, as the process has been described, is not really pretty, and generally speaking not at all interesting.
But if you want breakfast, you have to break a few eggs. And grind up some pigs…
Breaking both the timeline and the 4th Wall, the debate of religion and government in the United States has taken on a new and particularly partisan tone in recent days, as the Nation tries to decide what to do about the Syrian Refugee problem. Oddly enough, the debate has taken on religious tone, as some say that “as Christians” we must accept the refugees, while others say that we must not. Scripture is quoted to both support and defy the idea of bringing in the refugees.
But as Dave so often says, people do not change. The do the same things for the same reasons usually with the same results, throughout history. Indeed, as we have already seen, they even have the same arguments.
As the debate over debate the ratification of the Constitution continued, one of the ideals bubbled to the surface – religion, and the lack thereof in the proposed Constitution, came to the front and center. But you might be surprised as to who was on which side of things, and why. And how it shows that all these centuries later, we are still debating the same questions as those who debated the Ratification of the Constitution.
When California passes a law that bans the possession, distribution or sale of Shark fins in the State, a Chinese-American Neighborhood Association sues, claiming that they are being discriminated against by the law. There is a claim of Equal Protection, a claim under the Commerce Clause, and a claim that the United States already has laws dealing with Shark fins, and that those laws should take precedence over California’s law.
Is there any merit to the claims? Is it racist to outlaw Shark fins? Does the law interfere with Interstate Commerce? Most of all, does the Federal law take supremacy over the States law banning shark fins?