GOD’S RULE, IS IT YOUR BUSINESS OR YOUR TEACHER’S BUSINESS?

By Edwin Cooney

Exactly fifty years ago today the United States Supreme Court decided, by a vote of eight to one, Abington School Board vs. Edward Schempp. Ah! You’ve never heard of Mr. Schempp?  Okay, but perhaps you’ve heard of the other plaintiff in the case decided on that historic occasion, Madalyn Murray O’Hare.

On Wednesday, February 27^th and Thursday, February 28^th, 1963, the high court heard the arguments consolidated from two cases, School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania, et al. v. Edward Schempp, et al. and Murray, et al. v. Curlett, et al., Constituting the Board of School Commissioners of Baltimore City.  Both cases challenged the constitutionality of Bible reading in the public schools.

Edward Schempp, a member of the Unitarian Universalist church, objected to his son’s exposure to Biblical doctrines his faith didn’t endorse, such as the divinity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity.  A 1949 Pennsylvania State law, more than allowing Bible reading, actually required ten verses of Bible reading along with recitation of The Lord’s Prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance at the daily opening of all public schools.  Although the state, during the adjudication of Schempp’s lawsuit, amended the law to allow exemptions from participation in the Bible reading and recitation of prayer, Mr. Schempp objected to the social ostracism he viewed as inevitable when religious minority or non-religious students would seek such exemptions.

Most mainline Protestant and non-orthodox Jewish religious institutions accepted the court’s decision.  However, evangelical Protestants, the Catholic Church and orthodox Jews (and of course Billy Graham) saw the court’s decision as exchanging faith in God for a new and promiscuous secular faith.

Even more outrageous and thus more repulsive to millions of Americans was the outspokenness of Ms. Madalyn Murray, founder and president of American Atheists.  At the time of and subsequent to Abington School District vs. Schempp. Ms. Murray, who married Richard O’Hare in 1965, was a frequent guest on American talk shows and an aggressive opponent of Christianity.  Her attacks on religion in general, and on Christianity in particular, were strident and thus offensive to many, gratifying as they were to others.  Far more than Edward Schempp, Ms. O’Hare became synonymous with anti-religious pro-secular forces here in the United States and thus more permanently linked in the public mind with the high court’s banning of Bible reading and prayer in America’s public schools.  A 1964 Life Magazine article declared that Madalyn O’Hare (who was born Monday, April 13^th, 1919 and would be murdered by Richard Rowland Waters Friday, September 29^th, 1995) was the most hated woman in America. (Note: Waters didn’t murder O’Hare, her son John, and granddaughter Robin out of religious revenge; he was merely a very disturbed individual.)

Far more significant than either Ms. O’Hare or Edward Schempp (who died peacefully in a Hayward, California nursing home at the age of 95 on Saturday, November 8^th, 2003) is the legacy of Schempp vs. Abington School District.  Millions of Americans have come to see the decision as an attack by a secular-minded liberal Supreme Court on a God-fearing public.  The decision, which was eight to one, was handed down by seven white Anglo-Saxon Protestants and one Jew.  The dissenter was Mr. Justice Potter Stewart who objected to the conclusion that the establishment clause of the First Amendment applies to the states as it applies to the federal government.  In other words, the federal government may not establish a religion or prohibit “...the free exercise thereof,” but the states may encourage religious activities within their borders.  Thus, if the State of New York sought to establish a prayer to be said in its public schools or if the State of Pennsylvania proscribed that ten Bible verses be read before the daily opening of public schools, that was okay with Justice Stewart.

Many Americans would assert that 50 years ago today God was driven from America’s classrooms.  Others, however, will assert that God, being omnipotent, can’t be driven from anywhere and is most powerful not in the classroom but from within you and me.  As true as this might be, conservative commentators and office seekers have gotten a lot of mileage out of the idea that God can be and was victimized by a secular minded Supreme Court sympathetic to the advancement of socialist and materialistic doctrines foreign in nature to the “American way.”  Yet, most of the eight justices who joined in the majority decision in Abington vs. Schempp were affiliated with Christianity or Judaism.

For religious minorities and secularists today, June 17^th, 2013 marks 50 years of freedom without explanation or apology to be themselves.  If there’s anything more American than that, this observer can’t imagine what it is!

I don’t see how any reasonable observer can avoid asking the following two questions.  If God reigned in the American classroom until driven out by secularist Supreme Court Justices in 1963, how is it that such official policies as Native American genocide, chattel slavery and racial segregation lingered in our law as long as they did? Second, whether God prevails is more our individual business than that of either federal or state government’s business, is it not?

Then, there’s the final observation of John F. Kennedy’s 1961 Inaugural that works for me:

“Here on earth, God’s work must truly be our own.”

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

JUSTICE AND TRUTH –- HALLELUJAH, THEY STILL LIVE!

By Edwin Cooney

It’s my guess that millions of Americans are breathing sighs of relief this week since the ruling by five Supreme Court Justices:

Anthony M. Kennedy, Stephen G. Breyer, Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Samuel A. Alito, Jr., legitimized an invaluable tool used by law enforcement to identify and control those who would violate your well-being and mine.  By allowing DNA testing of chronic criminal suspects, it may be possible (and I emphasize “may be possible”) to take a giant step toward safeguarding all of our lives.  To that I say hallelujah.

The immediate reaction to the high court’s decision in Maryland vs. King was the public analysis of the strange alliances of liberal and conservative justices reflected in both the majority and minority decisions.  To find Stephen Breyer siding with Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts and Alito was something of a surprise, but the shocker was to find Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined by Justice Antonin G. Scalia.  (Keep in mind that Bader Ginsburg was appointed by Bill Clinton and Sotomayor and Kagan were appointed by President Barack Obama. Scalia was appointed by none other than Ronald Reagan.)

The question lingering in most minds, however, is whether DNA testing of criminal suspects to connect them to a crime for which they are not under suspicion, not to prove guilt for the crime for which they’re being held, is a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  In his minority opinion, Justice Scalia made it clear that he does believe the decision was in violation of the Constitution.

Plainly, Justices Scalia, Sotomayor, Bader Ginsburg, and Kagan insist that it’s more important that you and I be protected from wrongful governmental investigations than that the government be empowered to tie suspected criminals to other crimes of which they may be guilty.

What’s fascinating about this debate is who these justices appear to be most interested in protecting.  It would seem on the surface that Justices Scalia, Sotomayor, Bader Ginsburg and Kagan are more concerned with the rights of the individual than they are with the lives and security of society as a whole.  On the other hand, it appears that Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Breyer are more interested in justice and truth than they are in constitutional principles.  Traditionally, ideological conservatives tend to be more interested in whether laws are consistent with the original intent of our “Founding Fathers” rather than whether a law will protect you or me from harm by a vindictive criminal or by a careless corporation.

Liberals traditionally concern themselves with wide sweeping issues such as the socio/economic well-being of the most vulnerable in society.  Therefore, it is strange to find Antonin G. Scalia ideologically cuddling with the three Supreme Court liberal darlings!  As for me -- I love it!

Regardless of our motives, you and I -- along with all nine Supreme Court justices -- insist always that justice and truth are two of our best friends.  Hence some of us wonder how Justices Bader Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan cannot recognize a glaring truth: that allowing criminal suspects to be painlessly swabbed to test their DNA ensures justice and liberty far more effectively than the intentions of “the Founding Fathers” as put forth in the Fourth Amendment.  In the case of Mr. Justice Scalia, the problem is simple.  Justice Scalia hates government.  It appears that government is never a solution insofar as he is concerned. To the good 77-year-old justice, solving problems isn’t and never should be the responsibility of government.  Government’s only function is to provide the noble principles that should always guide John and Suzie Q. Citizen in the conduct of their private affairs.

As for Justices Bader Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, their insistence on the rights of minorities appears to blind them to the reality that, like a busted clock twice a day, the forces responsible for administering justice are occasionally right.

The late Republican Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen of Illinois used to observe that now and then we must all rise above principle.

Of course, Justice Scalia obviously never will rise above his principles. Like ideologues of the left, he has figured out how society should always be run under all circumstances despite the compelling cries of "truth and justice."

Just to demonstrate my own magnanimity, I’ll rise above principle long enough to make a concession I haven’t made since Justice Thomas’s 52 to 48 confirmation by the U.S. Senate on October, 15^th, 1991: Mr. Justice Thomas, sir, you voted right this time!

Now it’s your turn to say "hallelujah!!!”

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

THAT’S RIGHT -- FOLLOW THE LADIES, FELLOWS!

By Edwin Cooney

Recent news that sixty-one percent of the delegates attending the Boy Scouts of America annual meeting in Grapevine, Texas voted to allow gays the opportunity to join their ranks is most encouraging. 

Back in 2000, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that the Boy Scouts had the right to set lifestyle standards for its members.  So, that’s exactly what they did!  Thus, until the annual meeting held May 22nd through May 24th, that decision was in force.

Now the ban on the admission of gay youngsters has been lifted, although the ban on allowing adult leaders who are gay remains in place.  Reaction by some but not all conservatives, angry and determined, against this decision has already begun and American scouting may be in for a severe schism.  What I was unaware of, however, until I read a New York Times editorial praising this recent piece of news is that the Girl Scouts of America have for years allowed girls and women who are gay to become scouts and even leaders in the Girl Scout movement.  Good for them!

So, what has kept the Boy Scouts of America from being just as American as the Girl Scouts have been?  Might it be because…

Girl Scouts are more patriotic than Boy Scouts? Girls and women control themselves better than men and boys do? Girl Scouts are morally superior to Boy Scouts? Or is it that women really and truly do possess more good sense than men?!

Of course, young people have a reputation for being less controlled than adults when it comes to sexual behavior, but, as I see it, that’s all the more reason for bringing them together in a positive and responsibly supervised environment like scouting.

Recently, a thoughtful friend of mine brought the news of the Boy Scouts’ recent action to my attention and issued forth the following set of concerns:

His first concern was whether the admission of gays to the Boy Scouts might (and he was not at all certain of this likelihood) be creating an environment that could affect the sexual orientation of otherwise “straight” impressionable teenage boys.

His second concern was even more thought compelling.  If it is perfectly safe to mix gay and “straight” hormone-driven teenagers, wouldn’t it be just as safe to mix Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts in the same environment?  We’d then have the United Scouts of America!

His third concern was more an observation that not everyone needs to join every organization open to the public.

My friend’s first concern about environment being a factor in a teenager’s choice of sexual orientation makes sense, since we’re all affected by environmental factors, but it’s my guess that heterosexual mores having been drummed into their awareness invariably have a far greater influence than homosexual proximity.

My friend’s second question is really compelling except that it leaves out the most important factor.  Appropriate behavior is understood to be a vital function in the life of every organization.  Scouting is not about sexual activity.  Engagement in any sexual activity whatsoever can and should be grounds for immediate separation from scouting just as discovery of theft or personal harassment would be.

As for my friend’s third point, of course not everyone has the need to belong to every organization, but the question at issue isn’t one of individual need, as I see it, it’s a freedom of choice issue.

Of course, there are sexual prudes and perverts in every organization conceived by humankind, but their activities are more uncommon than most realize.  To be heterosexual isn’t a guarantor of appropriate behavior any more than being gay is a sign of bad behavior.  Homosexuals and heterosexuals alike:

Love their parents, teachers, and friends; revere their country; are often brave when they’re scared; enjoy good food and good beer; have more nonsexual friends and associates than they do sexual partners; and are both fickle and loyal to their partners.  Finally, and perhaps shockingly to some, gays can be very politically conservative.

As for our reluctance to mix the pure with the impure or the sinner with the sinless, several things need to be said:

If you are someone fearful of being tainted by someone else’s sin, fear not, for you can be quite sure that in some way or another you are just as sinful as your gay or lesbian neighbor. Nowhere in the Ten Commandments is homosexuality mentioned as a “shalt not” while the heterosexual practice of adultery is specifically addressed.

Remember that Jesus hung out with more sinners than He did saints.

And keep in mind that Jesus expects you to love your neighbor as you do yourself and that can’t be practiced by disassociation.

The Girl Scouts have been right for at least a decade.  It’s time for the Boy Scouts to catch up.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

MEMORIAL DAY -- WHEN SHOULD IT BE AND WHAT SHOULD IT DO?

By Edwin Cooney

Memorial Day is, of course, like every other day in that it ultimately is what you and I make of it.  It was officially proclaimed by General John A. Logan, Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Army of the Republic, with General Order No.11 on Tuesday, May 5, 1868.  The order stated in part:

It is the purpose of the Commander-in-Chief to inaugurate this observance with the hope it will be kept up from year to year, while a survivor of the war remains to honor the memory of his departed comrades. He earnestly desires the public press to call attention to this Order, and lend its friendly aid in bringing it to the notice of comrades in all parts of the country in time for simultaneous compliance therewith.

(Note: several factors are present here: it is Logan, a Brigadier General, who is “the Commander-In-Chief of the Grand Army of the Republic,” not the President of the United States.  Second, he refers to the South as having been in “rebellion” with all its implications.  May 1868 was indeed historic.  As General Logan was giving his order, Senator John A. Logan of Illinois was also managing the Republican Party’s impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson in the U.S. Senate. One can’t help but wonder what that would look like in 2013!)

Meanwhile, it isn’t the least bit surprising that women led the way in remembrance of those who made the “supreme sacrifice” in service during that war.  However, the irony is that Confederate belles appear to have taken the lead over Union sweeties in decorating the graves of the fallen.  As early as 1862, Confederate graves were decorated with flowers and flags by the mothers, sweethearts, and wives of Confederate soldiers in Savannah, Georgia.  In 1867,

according to Duke University’s History of Sheet Music 1850-1920, “Kneel Where Our Loves Are Sleeping,” a poem by Nella L. Sweet, became a hymn to honor the fallen of the CSA (the Confederate States of America).

Upon proclaiming Memorial Day a Federal holiday in May 1966, President Lyndon B. Johnson declared Waterloo, a small town in Western New York, as the birthplace of Memorial Day.  However, the citizens of Boalsburg, Pennsylvania who claim to have been celebrating Memorial Day since 1864 surely took exception to LBJ’s proclamation.  Perhaps Memorial Day’s greatest glory is that spontaneity was its real parent.  New York was the first state to officially celebrate Memorial Day in 1873.  By 1890, practically every northern state celebrated Memorial or “Decoration Day.”  However, in the South, a number of states have celebrated a Confederate Memorial Day on different days:

Texas celebrates Memorial Day on January 19^th;

Alabama, Georgia, Florida and Mississippi celebrate it on April 26^th. (How about this irony, April 26^th is one day short of Ulysses S. Grant’s birthday—-what a near embarrassment is that!)

South Carolina celebrates it on May 10^th;

Louisiana and Tennessee celebrate Memorial Day on June 3^rd, the birthday of Confederate President Jefferson Davis.

Many people today confuse Memorial Day with Veterans Day which was proclaimed after World War I to honor veterans, living and dead, for their wartime service.  Memorial Day became a national rather than merely a local day of both remembrance and unity due in part to another southern belle, Moina Michael of Good Hope, Georgia.  In response to Canadian John McCrae’s overwhelmingly popular 1915 poem “In Flanders Fields,” she responded with her own poem which read in part:

We cherish, too, the poppy red

That grows on fields where valor led;
It seems to signal to the skies
That blood of heroes never dies.

With our entry into the war, Ms. Michael took a temporary leave from her professorship at the University of Georgia to volunteer in New York City to train YWCA workers for overseas service.  Upon her return to The University of Georgia, she taught a class of disabled veterans and undertook to make and sell silk poppies in cooperation with the Veterans of Foreign Wars for the benefit of disabled veterans.  In 1948, four years after her death, she would be honored for her work on behalf of disabled veterans by the U.S. postal service which issued a red 3 cent stamp baring Michael’s likeness.

Since passage of the 1971 Federal Holidays Act that made holidays celebrated on certain dates into three day holiday weekends, Memorial Day seems to have suffered from a greater degree of obscurity than Columbus Day, Labor Day or Independence Day.  Since 1989, there has been a movement in Congress (originally headed by the late Senator Daniel Inouye, Democrat of Hawaii) to restore Memorial Day to May 30^th.

For most Americans today, Memorial Day is the beginning of the summer season just as Labor Day is its close.  Many communities hold off parades until the Fourth of July celebration.  For many years, Memorial Day was marked by baseball doubleheaders, the Indianapolis 500 mile race, and the inevitable family picnic.

For millions of Americans, any lessening awareness that too many young men and women have given their health and their lives in our service is akin to a loss of patriotism.  For many others, this observer in particular, intense celebration of the deeds and losses on the battlefield invariably aggravates our national sorrow and thus tends to glorify war.  Thus, time both obscures and heals.  For me, that which heals best honors best those who gave their very all and their very best.

If the meaning of Memorial Day is growing increasingly obscure, John Alexander Logan, its official founder, barely missed a special obscurity.  As second man on the Republican national ticket in 1884 with Senator James G. Blaine of the State of Maine, he was nearly elected America’s 21^st Vice President!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 

EDWIN COONEY

NOW YOU’VE GOT WHAT I’VE GOT!

By Edwin Cooney

Like you, I am often sent articles or blogs or whatever by friends, I’m supposing, because they believe these cyber messages will in some small way enhance my intellect, my spiritual life or my overall knowledge and perspective on matters great and small.  Occasionally, however, I suspect they enjoy simply confusing me.  Hence, this week I thought I’d pass some of my more pleasurable befuddlement on to you!

Here’s a lexicographer’s set of delights which was sent me some years ago by one of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second’s erudite subjects.  These are my five favorites:

I wondered why the baseball was getting bigger. Then it hit me.

Police were called to a day care where a 3 yr-old was resisting a rest.

The roundest knight at King Arthur's roundtable was Sir Cumference.

When the smog lifts in Los Angeles, U.C.L.A.

A grenade fell onto a kitchen floor in France, resulting in linoleum blown apart.

This next is from one of my spiritual advisors, a lady born in Pennsylvania who has moved to the “show me” state of Missouri:

THREE PROOFS THAT JESUS WAS JEWISH
He went into his father's business
He lived at home until he was 33
He was sure his Mother was a virgin,
and his Mother was sure he was God

THREE PROOFS THAT JESUS WAS IRISH
He never got married
He was always telling stories
He loved green pastures

THREE PROOFS THAT JESUS WAS PUERTO RICAN
His first name was Jesus
He was bilingual
He was always being harassed by the authorities

THREE PROOFS THAT JESUS WAS ITALIAN
He talked with his hands
He had wine with every meal
He worked in the building trades

THREE PROOFS THAT JESUS WAS BLACK
He called everybody "brother"
He liked Gospel
He couldn't get a fair trial

THREE PROOFS THAT JESUS WAS A CALIFORNIAN
He never cut his hair
He walked around barefoot
He started a new religion

THREE PROOFS THAT JESUS WAS A WOMAN
He had to feed a crowd, at a moment’s notice, when there was no food.
He kept trying to get the message across to a bunch of men who just didn't get it.
Even dead, he had to get up because there was more work for him

This one’s my favorite.  It was sent me some years ago via a lady of the solstice:

A SIMPLE EXPLANATION OF BASEBALL

This is a game played by two teams, one out the other in. The one that's in sends players out one at a time, to see if they can get in before they get out. If they get out before they get in, they come in, but it doesn't count. If they get in before they get out it does count.

When the ones out get three outs from the ones in before they get in without being out, the team that's out comes in and the team in goes out to get those going in out before they get in without being out.

When both teams have been in and out nine times the game is over. The team with the most in without being out before coming in wins unless the ones in are equal. In which case, the last ones in go out to get the ones in out before they get in without being out.

The game will end when each team has the same number of ins out but one team has more in without being out before coming in.

This final one is also from my friend the solstice lady.  She likes to ponder!  Here are my favorite five:

How important does a person have to be before they are considered assassinated instead of just murdered?

How is it that we put man on the moon before we figured out it would be a good idea to put wheels on luggage?

Why are you IN a movie, but you're ON TV?

If corn oil is made from corn, and vegetable oil is made from vegetables, what is baby oil made from?

If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?

Perhaps wisely, my solstice lady friend closes by wondering if you’re wondering why you gave her your e-mail in the first place.  As for me, I’m simply wondering if my friends seem as wonderful to you as they do to me!

Next week it’ll be all me!  You may come to realize how much you miss my friends!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

THE EMAIL THAT NEARLY SCARED ME TO DEATH!

By Edwin Cooney

Okay, here’s the email:

            I think this is a marvelous idea. What say you?

Governors of 35 states have filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) states to convene a Constitutional Convention.

This will take less than thirty seconds to read. If you agree, please pass it on.

This is an idea that we should address.

For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform that passed ... in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop.

If each person that receives this will forward it on to 15 people, in three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one proposal that really should be passed around.

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ..."

Exactly what the privileges of congressmen and senators have to do with overburdened states is a little beyond me.  Furthermore, this email is loaded with misinformation.  First, congressman and senators don’t retire with full pay after one term in office.  Second, Congress has not exempted itself from “Obamacare.”  Third, State Attorneys General, not governors, sue the federal government.  Fourth, legislatures, not governors, call for a Constitutional Convention. Only a handful of state legislatures are controlled by Republicans and thus chronically opposed to the philosophy of the national administration.  Fifth, the U.S. Constitution provides in Article I, Section 6:

            The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be

  

            ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases,     

            except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their  

            Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the 

            same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any 

            other Place..            

The above was written into the 1787 Constitution to protect the legislature from ever being harassed by an angry executive as was the case at the time of the American Revolution.  Congress couldn’t possibly be investigating the incident that took place in Benghazi last September without that constitutional provision.   Additionally, the last time I checked, sexual harassment is both a felony and a clear violation of the peace.

As for the proposed 28^th Amendment outlawing congressional self-service, it’s hard to be against it on its face until one wonders how effective a constitutional amendment against drinking might be.  Hmmm! I wonder if we’ve ever tried that before!

My first reaction to the above email, sent me by at least two readers, was incredulity over the misinformation within and the idea of a new constitutional convention.  I regard this email as downright unpatriotic.  It’s loaded with lies. (I insist on labeling them lies because the author surely knows better!  I wouldn’t dare to write a column like this without doing at least some basic research on civil or constitutional law!) I insist that it’s unpatriotic because it is inflammatory in both tone and factual design thus disturbing the confidence of the public in their elected officials.  It’s paramount to crying fire in a crowded theater.

Before getting to my final concern, I invite you to consider the following: The proceedings of the 1787 Constitutional Convention were held in the strictest secrecy. Despite the intense heat of the Philadelphia summer, George Washington, President of the Convention, ordered all windows and doors sealed during the meetings against a curious press.  Additionally, all notes were collected at the close of each session.

That convention, which established the most creative and ingenious civil document up to that time, was seriously flawed insofar as human rights were concerned. The Constitution of the United States is as valuable and ingenious as it is because it provides a structure for laws that can be changed to fit the times in which each generation lives. It has stewardship over our national body politic.  Thus, a constitution is most effective at the start of a nation’s journey rather than as a repair mechanism.

Finally, just imagine for a moment what a constitutional convention called at this quarrelsome time in our history could mean to your legitimate individual civil rights!  Would you dare to bet on the survival of your pension, your mortgage, your job, or your social security?  How about the sanctity of your privacy?

For me, the scariest line of this email wasn’t provided by the mean-spirited author but rather by the well-intentioned, neighborly, ill-informed citizen/reader who made the comment: I think this is a marvelous idea. What say you?

I say I think it’s time for me to go fishing!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

ANOTHER CROSSROADS?

By Edwin Cooney

Let’s see now, as Americans ponder what the Obama administration should do about Syria, it marks the fifth time in the last 22 years that the American people have been faced with the prospect of going to war.  That includes:

1990-91 -- the first Gulf War in response to Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait;

1999 -- when the United States joined NATO to stop Slobodan Milosevic’s ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Herzegovina;

2003 -- the second Gulf War, due to Saddam Hussein’s possession of “weapons of mass destruction”; and

2009 -- when President Obama decided to send 30,000 American troops to clean up al-Qaida and aggressive Taliban forces in Afghanistan.

Of course, Congress has never declared any of these “wars,” but it has funded all of them (although some will insist that Japan and Saudi Arabia largely funded the first Gulf War).  So the question is: what has been the determining factor in our decision to go to war in the past?  How many wars has the United States engaged in since its founding in 1776?  I count 13 foreign wars and 4 domestic ones. The domestic wars were the Seminole Wars of 1817-18, 1835-42 and 1855-58, and our Civil War which the North never declared, but the South most proudly declared against the United States on May 6^th, 1861.

These foreign wars include the following: the first war with the Barbary Pirates of Tripoli in 1801 (a defensive war undeclared but fully funded by Congress that lasted off and on until 1805).

Next came 1812 when a divided Congress declared war against Great Britain largely due to its policy of economic strangulation. Also, it remained the Royal Navy’s policy to impress American merchant seaman into its service on the high seas.

With the War of 1812 over, there came the second Barbary Pirate War beginning in 1815. It ended with a treaty forever banning the payment of “tribute” for the right of commerce on the Mediterranean.

In 1846,we went to war with Mexico not to protect our sovereignty, but over a border dispute that gained us California, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah and Colorado.

In 1898, we went to war against Spain due to Spanish aggression against our navy battleship “The USS Maine,” but we were glad to accept additional booty such as Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines.

Traditionally, historians say we went to war in 1917 due to Germany’s policy of unrestricted submarine warfare. However, a note to Mexico was intercepted by British intelligence promising Mexico the return of California and the territories we gained after the Mexican War if Mexico would attack the United States.

World War II which many believe was a mere continuance of World War I ("the war to end all wars”) is generally regarded as perhaps the most necessary war in history conducted as it was mainly against a clearly crazed Adolf Hitler.

Finally, there were the Korea and Vietnam wars, both undeclared, which were fought to stop the imminent advance of “world communism."  Add the four wars we’ve engaged in since 1990-91 to these nine and you get a total of 13 foreign wars.

Since the “police action” in Korea was taken by the United States (as the most powerful state under the authority of the newly created United Nations), war critics have been lavish in their criticism that Congress hasn’t carried out its responsibilities of declaring war under the constitution.  However, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II all constitute only five of the thirteen foreign wars in which we have taken part.  These conflicts don’t include our 1954 bombing in Nicaragua, our 1983 invasion of Granada or our 1989 incursion into Panama to take its sovereign leader into captivity for international drug trafficking.

In all 13 or 17 of these incidents (take your pick) our patience has been clearly tried and in some instances our economic prosperity or dominance has been threatened.  However, only in World War II has our actual sovereignty been an issue unless one takes seriously the possible 1917 Germany-inspired attack by Mexico!  Hence, it’s hard to conclude otherwise than that we go to war not so much because we must, but when we think we can.  For instance, we’ve easily survived the debacle in Vietnam but proponents of that war insist that we could and should have won it.  Thus, in their eyes our participation in that war wasn’t so much a matter of survival as it was a matter of will.

Now we’re at another crossroads!  Should we send men and women to die in Syria because we can or only if we ought?  What determines the difference between can and ought?  Have America’s friends and allies always been morally superior to the al-Assad family?  If so, is it our obligation to rid the world of the bad -- starting with Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, North Korea’s Kim Jong-un and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?  If so, where does that obligation stop?  Finally, wasn’t it only 22 years ago when, in the wake of the end of Soviet Communism, we declared ourselves victors in the “Cold War” and clear masters of our international fate?  How well, in your estimation, have we done since then in securing that fate?

So, we may well be at another life and death crossroads!  To paraphrase old Harry Truman, any fool can go out and start a war at any time.  Thus, to fight when we can may be both tempting and easy, but I insist that we should only fight if we must!

Okay, Mr. President, I guess it's your call!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY