Nov. 27, 1978: As I left the job site and pulled onto State Highway 32 at Soda Springs northeast of Chico Calif., the shaken voice of San Francisco supervisor Dianne Feinstein came over the radio announcing the assassination of fellow supervisor Harvey Milk and City Mayor George Moscone by the hand of disgruntled ex-supervisor Dan White. Whether the assassination was merely coincidental in California’s radical (sudden) slide to the political left can only be speculated but they seemed to have happened near simultaneously; White, famous for his innovative “twinkie defense” spent a measly five years behind bars for such an atrocious act and committed suicide two years after his release from prison, was a conservative politician, while Supervisor Harvey Milk was a member of San Francisco’s politically influential gay community.
I’ve always liked Feinstein; since first she gained public notice as a San Francisco supervisor, the now U.S. senator, seemed well grounded in American values and common sense. There is the fact that as a regional politician, any liberal eccentricities she may have had didn’t project beyond her local representations and didn’t much affect a conservative Democrat living in an outlying conservative district. Feinstein transitioned to mayor after the assassination of Moscone and was later elected to the U.S. Senate where as an influential member of the U.S. government her progressive politics reaches far inland from the ‘progressive’ shores of the Great Pacific and impacts everyone, everywhere in some manner or fashion.
The Moscone, Milk, assassination may have been the catalyst for Feinstein’s support of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country. In California, restrictions and red tape in purchasing, trading or loaning guns and ammunition under penalty of law is designed to discourage firearm ownership of any kind for any type of personal use. Senator Feinstein not only advocates for stringent firearm control within the breadth and scope of her own constituency, but as a U.S. Senator, advocates those same political eccentricities from the hallowed halls of congress.
What to do? California politics is in the vice-like grip of its large population centers which are miniscule in territory compared to the states size, leaving the less populous but more conservative and traditional outlying areas out voted and under represented down at Sacramento, the state Capitol.
California will likely never see another Republican governor, the state inviting in enough of Mexico (California’s Mexican population indebted to the Democrats because of a charitable immigration policy, will soon overwhelm the State in both ethnicity and politics) that it portends Democratic dominance in perpetuity. That is why, with several California cities at odds with the Trump administration over sanctuary status, Gov. Jerry Brown is able to display such chocking arrogance and spite by threatening to name the entire state a refuge (sanctuary) for illegal (undocumented) aliens. In turn, that threat has prompted a movement by the more disenchanted (charitably) to advocate California withdraw from the union altogether. Of course, one might imagine that if all the state can offer in contribution to U.S. governance is Rep’s Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi, have at it. One might imagine. No, Senator Feinstein who sometimes exhibits sympathetic tendencies will not be added to the zanies list.
The far left zealots are not the first to advocate a restructuring of the Great Golden State. In fact other causes and purposes that have gained notice are far more sympathetic, but more unlikely to succeed.
Because of the imbalance of state representation in favor of the heavily populated South, comes a petition from several rural counties to the north, to secede and form an independent political association called ‘State of Jefferson.’ The battle over water rights, land usage and cultural traditions fuels the discontent. For years a local broadcaster from Chico turned politician, Stan Statham, was the lead crusader for the rights of the North State and rural communities both in the capacity of a television personality and California State Assemblyman; but escape from a closed political society isn’t easy and the north states dream of gaining equal and fair treatment in some fashion or other gets little sympathy down at Sacramento, the state Capitol. Still, in recent times, as unequal levies and impositions continue to be assessed on or against a collection of rural counties, petitions again circulate within the various townships and outlying districts. Secession will not be allowed of course, but the advocacy does reflect a resurgence of discontentment among large sections of the population with a state that has abandoned its ages old loyalties and ‘done gone south.’
Since we live in a society of laws that cater to the interests of the individual, (Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness) where self determination drives the wagon and any political party, association or ideology is given free rein to solicit votes for whatever cause, where people are free to choose whichever political or ideological direction suits their fancy, there are no laws denying Ms. Feinstein and her coastalcrat representee’s the marketing of any political theory they choose. Those ‘rules of the game’ are embedded within our constitution. Of course it is the aim of Feinstein’s political/progressive Party to marry the constitution to whichever developing social trend they choose, not by legislation but by the appointment of liberal judges who take it upon them selves to decide whatever it is they feel proper for the overall interests of the common society, whether that society approves or otherwise.
But that route to political dominance by one party or ideology devalues your vote and mine because a citizen’s right to freely choose are taken from the hand of many and given to the authority of few. Abrupt or radical changes to the culture suggested by ideological interpretation of a states core philosophy is bound to stoke the fires of political animosity and discontent across the land as featured in California’s 9th, famously liberal district court, which upheld the decision of a single federal judge in denying President Trump a temporary ban on immigrants from countries even his Predecessor red-lined as cradles of terrorism. The excuse, as there always seems to be, is that the ban was based upon hostility against the Muslim religion, the actual difference being that the “aggrieved” has not been able to accept defeat of their liberal philosophies at the polls, and from the moment Green Party candidate, Jill Stein filed for a vote recount in three States, have sought ways to hinder, delegitimize and in effect, overthrow a duly elected U.S. president.
Despite America’s traditional values and founding principle’s that have prospered the nation for nigh onto 250 years, the U.S. has a giant political umbrella, the spectrum inclusive of everything from Democracy to fascism to communism. Leftist effort’s to socialize America has been ongoing for an hundred years. Thus far, we have resisted as other great socialist experiments in Europe fail to achieve their great utopian promises. But make no mistake the effort persists and the odds of success, based upon the political trends of the last 50 years are that the effort will eventually be successful.
The major objection Sen. Feinstein had with Neil Gorsuch, President Trump’s candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court, was that Gorsuch is a strict “constitutionalist” (an adherent or advocate of operating within the parameters of an existing constitution.) This doctrine is anathema to Feinstein’s concept of the constitution as a ‘living document,’ one that is pliable enough be edited, upgraded, and expanded as needed and serve a different purpose for different time’s.
This might work fine if done through congressional legislation, but even then, continuity is a reflection of stability: when it comes to tinkering with social values, tradition and heritage, legislation is and should be a long drawn out time consuming process of conversations and debate inquiring of the public interest, not by the decree of one single Federal judge cherry picked by special interests. The changes to society brought about by legislating from the bench over the last eight years, whether their worth, has driven sharp social divisions across the country yet they stand, and should the Democratic philosophy of the constitution as a living document become embedded in the Supreme Court through liberal appointments, trends indicate that the U.S. constitution, warped by time and special interests, will little resemble its founding values a hundred years from now.
Why do ages old cultures and religions manage to survive the times and tides of human history? Because of a dogged faith in the precepts upon which they were established and a persistent loyalty to the doctrine. No “living document” that allows them to turn them aside from the values that birthed their society rather a determination to survive the social and political wrappings and trappings of the communities which compass them about.
The U.S. is less than 250 years old and today the precepts upon which it was founded are already being undercut by special interests employing like-minded judges undermining the worth of your vote and mine.
Observing the past eight-year trend where increasingly a single federal judge determines laws that affect every single citizen, and a determined political philosophy that the U.S. constitution is a living document which values are subject to change by the whim of migrating social trends, one suspects that it is not at all likely the values of the U.S. constitution will ever reach ancient status.
Point: California, the state Sen. Feinstein represents has the strictest gun laws in the country, little more than an assault on second amendment rights were they instituted nation wide. With anti-gun sentiments like Feinstein pushing the doctrine of the constitution as a living document, dominating both the U.S. Congress and Supreme Court, the second amendment could easily be overturned or made so onerous that owning a gun would be too inconvenient and impracticable for the average citizen to own one.
Today the Democrats are calling for the impeachment of President Trump for whichever reason, (pick yer pizen) but the real constitutional crisis is Democrats trying to establish a gateway to social change whereby the ballot box is by-passed and constitutional law may be manipulated and changed to suit their own view of what society and its governance should be. Where does it end?
I’m reminded of biblical Joshua and his challenge to the Israelites when their religious loyalties were vacillating between their own traditions and those of a foreign culture: Joshua said to his fellow Jews, “Choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites in whose lands you dwell, but as for me and my house we will serve the Lord.”
In a society whose trends are to laws established by arbitrary judges making arbitrary decisions, where the tenets of the constitution are warped to fit political eccentricities of the moment, the choice may no longer be ours to make: If the Feinstein political philosophy of the Constitution as a living document is successful we no longer will be offered the choice of where to place our tent. Our future, traditions and culture will be in the land of the Amorites.