LABOR DAY

Does it strike you, as it does me, that this day named for Labor must be nothing but a profound irritation to some folks? Perhaps you know some of those who wish it would go away. Possibly you even know some of those who are working to make it so innocuous and anachronistic that it will go away. A swarm of Right-wing politicians come to mind. The Republican Governors of several states come to mind. And then, there are those industrialists who oppose the Union movement with all the animosity of a war. One writer on YAHOO.com shares his view of what this Day has become through comments he made a few days ago:
LABOR DAY -- YOU REMEMBER 'LABOR,' DON'T YOU? By Richard Reeves August 28, 2014 4:30 PM

WASHINGTON –“I woke up last Thursday morning to learn that my FedEx man does not work for FedEx. Voices on National Public Radio's "Morning Edition" informed me that although FedEx controls just about every minute of its drivers' days, the corporation regards them as "independent contractors." Thus, no benefits -- they even have to pay for their own uniforms -- and the workers can be kicked out anytime FedEx feels like it.

Management (has) begun to understand how to squeeze workers and their unions. By 2013, fewer than 10 per cent of private sector employees belonged to unions, compared with 20 percent in 1983 and more than 50 percent in the 1950s. Result: Wages have stagnated, spouses have gone to work, and strikes have been broken. Now more than half the unionized workers in the country are public service employees, who have better and more complicated work rule regimes than corporate employees.

So, I would argue, Labor Day is a farce. Even public employees -- read Wisconsin! -- are losing what security America offers. At the minimum, the first Monday in September should be called "Reagan Day," or the date should be changed to Aug. 3 and the holiday called "PATCO Day." That was the day in 1981 that President Reagan stated that if members of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization -- the only union that endorsed him in the 1980 presidential election -- did not return to work, they would be fired. They did not return and they were fired. Corporate America got the message, and private-sector unions were marked for death.

Now, is (that) what we celebrate on Labor Day: the rise of management and the death of organized labor (?)”
This is, indeed, a strange time to be celebrating Labor Day, when Labor in general seems to be losing ground in many ways:

= wages are, and have been, stagnant
= wages are themselves an issue in determining where companies with large labor forces will locate; management wants to keep wages as low as they possibly can
= a raise in the minimum wage can’t even get to a vote in the Congress
= neither can an extension of unemployment compensation or a Jobs bill
= women can’t get equal pay for equal work
= unemployment up slightly in July because of more long-term unemployed and new workers entering or re-entering job market (job-searching again)
= average number of hours Americans are working each week unimproved; remained steady at 34.2 in August;
= use of part-time and temp workers may be a strategy used by corporations to keep personnel expenses down
= Right-to-work states are now at all-time high of 22
=unrestricted right to fire someone, even without cause, is on the rise

From a very general point of view, this Labor Day is not a celebratory day. Moreover, looking at Labor more narrowly – in terms of the Labor Movement or Labor Unions – one would have to admit that the outlook is not that great there either. Take a look at some of the reasons:
= the number of Union Members in the United States is 14.5 million out of a Civilian workforce of about 155 million
= the percentage of Workers Who Belong to Unions in the U.S. is at 11.3% compared to 20.1% and 17.7 million union workers in 1983 when such stats were first available
= the highest percentage of union members are in the government sector – 35.3% -- 5 times higher than in the private sector – 6.7%
= high unemployment among African-Americans, teenagers and those with less than a high school diploma goes largely unaddressed or minimally addressed by all sectors, including Labor Unions; their percentages of union membership aren’t very impressive: Blacks – 13.6%; Women – 10.5%
= unions are being legislatively attacked by Right-wing State administrations and legislatures – 22 are now Right-to-Work states; more have laws restricting collective bargaining; benefits are restricted or gone altogether: pension plans, medical insurance, bonuses, etc.
=rights to collective bargaining are under attack from corporations and some state governors and legislatures
=the political clout of unions has declined over the last decade; although many unions are still quite active in supporting issues and candidates, they can no longer afford high-powered lobbyists and lawyers to help fight their battles
= out of about $9 billion total income, total lobbying by unions was about $46.9 million in 2013 down from $50.6 million in 2011; the total is projected to be down again by the end of 2014
= even strike actions are on the decline; strikes, heavy dues and internal politics are not considered advantages even by many union members, let-alone outside parties

According to PEOPLE magazine, ”Labor Day is a day set aside to pay tribute to working men and women. It has been celebrated as a national holiday in the United States and Canada since 1894. Labor unions themselves celebrated the first labor days in the United States, although there's some speculation as to exactly who came up with the idea. The first Labor Day parade occurred Sept. 5, 1882, in New York City. The workers' unions chose the first Monday in September because it was halfway between Independence Day and Thanksgiving. The idea spread across the country, and some states designated Labor Day as a holiday before the federal holiday was created. President Grover Cleveland signed a law designating the first Monday in September as Labor Day nationwide (even though) Cleveland was not a labor union supporter. In fact, he was trying to repair some political damage that he suffered earlier that year when he sent federal troops to put down a strike by the American Railway Union at the Pullman Co. in Chicago, IL…that resulted in the deaths of 34 workers.

Membership in labor unions in the United States reached an all-time high in the 1950s when about 40 percent of the work force belonged to unions. Today, union membership is about 12 per cent of the working population. Labor Day now carries less significance as a celebration of working people and more as the end of summer.”  As realistic and legitimate as these statistics and opinions appear to be, there is more to unionization than this viewpoint encompasses.

Wikipedia reminds us: “Although much smaller compared to their peak membership in the 1950s, American unions remain a political factor, both through mobilization of their own memberships and through coalitions with like-minded activist organizations around issues such as immigrant rights, trade policy, health care, and living wage campaigns. Of special concern are efforts by cities and states to reduce the pension obligations owed to unionized workers who retire in the future. Republicans elected with Tea Party support in 2010 have launched major efforts against public sector unions due in part to state government pension obligations along with the allegation that the unions are too powerful.”

Even more important, perhaps, is the situation that is growing within the private sector. Not only has union membership in that sector shrunk inexorably, but non-union employees are finding, much to their dismay, that they are vulnerable to layoffs, jobs & factories or services being moved elsewhere, dismissal without cause, or cut backs in hours and benefits. And, there is no one available to help out those who are victims of these circumstances, unless one pays an expensive lawyer. That is the essence of unionism: protection of the rights of employees and of the just compensation of every employee.
Consider, for the moment, this list of important benefits that union members find invaluable:
  = representatives in the workplace of our own choosing,
= an active, collective voice to bargain over working conditions, and due process on the job
= collective bargaining is the best way to promote basic, democratic principles of fairness and dignity at work; being in a union confers significant economic benefits as well
= Unions have historically been the most effective institutions in our society at making sure the economic gains that workers help to create are shared widely rather than being channeled solely to the executive suite.

Is there a case to be made for such claims about union membership? Well, the many attacks on unions and their rights would be the first clue to union effectiveness. But here are some figures that tend to make it clear that union membership has actually made a difference in workers' lives (taken from these sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Union Members - 2013, and AFL-CIO "The Union Difference" Updated 3/12/2014 by IAM&AW Strategic Resources Department)
Some of the most important benefits that workers get from Union membership are impossible to assign a price tag value. The data below illustrates “The Union Difference” and shows why people continue joining unions today. Union Difference - Annually 2013

Status     Median Wkly. Earngs      Any Retiremt     Benefits: Pension     Medical

Union              $950                             89%                          79%                     85%
Non-Union     $750                             48%                          17%                     54%
In addition, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that union members' salaries exceed the salaries of their non-union counterparts by as much as 68% in certain job classifications. Unionized service employees realized the greatest salary difference--68% higher than non-union workers in the same profession.

Ehow.com provides us with a brief but comprehensive summary of union services and benefits:

Collective Bargaining

• One of the services that a union provides its members is representation. Before unions, an employer could force workers to work overtime without pay and without breaks. The union is responsible for changes in the way workers are treated by employers. One of the ways it accomplishes this is through collective bargaining. The union will assign a representative to sit down with the employer and reach an agreement on fair and equitable treatment for union members. The collective bargaining session can be for wages, benefits, hours and conditions of employment. Once agreements are reached, there is usually a time period of one to three years, at which time the agreement is reviewed and amended if necessary.

Arbitration

• Union members who feel they have been treated unfairly on the job have the option of having disputes with their employers settled through arbitration. The results of arbitration are binding upon both parties (the employee and employer). It is similar to a court hearing in which both parties are able to present their reasons for the disagreement before an impartial third party (the arbitrator), who... renders a decision for resolution.

Grievances

• A grievance is filed when the terms of a collective bargaining agreement have been misapplied. Grievance procedures are similar to arbitration since an arbitrator reviews the facts and makes the determination as to whether or not the collective bargaining terms and conditions were properly applied.

Benefits

The union provides its members with benefits that can last a lifetime. Members of the AFL-CIO, along with their family members and retirees, are automatically eligible for some union-sponsored benefits. These benefits are available to union members because the union represents millions of buyers. Some of the benefits that union members and their families are able to take advantage of include: Auto---car purchase service; tire purchase discounts and discounts on car rentals. Educational Resources---Union Plus scholarships; National Labor College Scholarships; Union Leaders of the Future Scholarships and student discounts. Member assistant programs---Financial hardship assistance; mortgage assistant and worker debt help.

Samuel Gompers, founder and longtime president of the American Federation of Labor, saw Labor Day in a different light:
"Labor Day differs in every essential way from the other holidays of the year in any country. All other holidays are in a more or less degree connected with conflicts and battles of man's prowess over man, of strife and discord for greed and power, of glories achieved by one nation over another. Labor Day...is devoted to no man, living or dead, to no sect, race, or nation."

The history of the Labor Movement in this country is a story of attention to the rights and protection of workers who must give their labor for the good and the success of a company or enterprise. We do not, by that statement, mean to lessen the untoward problems and unsatisfactory moments of history that have involved Labor Unions. However, let us balance that rough and corrupt history with the white collar crime and the unseemly acts of corporations and their executives and directors toward exploitation, unsafe products, child labor, and violations of decent ethical standards toward employees and consumers. There is enough unethical, illegal and fraudulent behavior to place on both sides of the Business-Labor equation.

What matters, I think, on Labor Day especially, is that we recognize and honor the good intentions and actions of working men and women in their labor of love for the dignity of working conditions and treatment, as well as for fair and equitable pay and benefits. The fight for those rights and privileges is not over. The battle of survival against a tide of Right-wing venom and dirty-tricks is all too prevalent. Child labor, poverty-level wages, destruction of pensions and benefits such as collective bargaining, plus the on-going threat to adequate health benefits-- all these are not going away by themselves.

Moreover, lack of attention to raising the minimum wage and providing adequate unemployment compensation, along with equal pay for women, plus the actions by increasing numbers of corporations to avoid paying, not only adequate wages, but their fair share of taxes and indeed, paying any at all -- all of this unapologetic greed on the part of corporations and their officers is reason enough to hope that the Labor Movement regains its strength and its mission. Without the protective interventions of unions, we are left with a chaos that will not be to anyone's benefit, including those industrialists who wish to destroy all unions!
To all of those (too many of whom I know personally) who have recently lost jobs for no good cause or reason but the whim of a CEO or manager, I send my heart-felt condolences and best wishes. You are not defeated! Use your new beginnings to become an activist and a reformer. Labor, and other progressive groups, need you on the front lines!

I leave with all of you today the words of a much wiser writer (and community organizer of some renown) with the hope that his message will penetrate the lives and actions of all who think that political in-action is of some value, and not a sign of surrender.
"We are desperately concerned with the vast mass of our people who, thwarted through lack of interest or opportunity, or both, do not participate in the endless responsibilities of citizenship and are resigned to lives determined by others. To 'lose' your 'identity' as a citizen of democracy is but a step from losing your identity as a person.

"The separation of the people from the routine daily functions of citizenship is heartbreak in a democracy. It is a grave situation when people resign their citizenship... sink further into apathy, anonymity and depersonalization...(and) come to depend on (some other) authority. From time to time, there have been external enemies at our gates; (but) there has always been the enemy within, the hidden and malignant inertia that foreshadows more certain destruction to our life and future than any nuclear warhead . There can be no more devastating tragedy than the death of man's faith in himself and in his power to direct his future.

"Over one hundred and fifty-five years ago, Alexis de Tocqueville gravely warned that unless individual citizens were regularly involved in the action of governing themselves, self-government would pass from the scene. Citizen participation is the animating spirit and force in a society predicated on voluntarism" because it breathes life into our democratic process, and into all of our institutions.

Labor Day is not just for remembrance of rights won and lost, it is a Day for rejuvenation and re-dedication to making operational the ideals of equality, justice, peace, cooperation, equal and full opportunities for education, full and useful employment, good health, and the creation of those circumstances under which all can have the chance to prosper and be successful in the virtues and values that give meaning to life.

• 　

From "Bobbies" to Militants; "Peelers" to Warriors

We’ve certainly come a long way in terms of police work.  Question is: as a democratic nation, can we say we have advanced or regressed?  I venture to say the answer may be somewhat disturbing.  We may have left behind many of the very principles that should guide community policing in a democracy.
What we all just witnessed for several nights in Ferguson, Missouri, may aptly illustrate the nadir of militarization and the apex of principled policing. In the midst of all the controversy that now surrounds the demonstrations themselves and the tactics of the local police, it is well to  remember what occurred to set off the demonstrations (as told by Charles Chamberlain of Democracy for America using sources such as the NY Daily News, MSNBC, St. Louis Post-Dispatch and “BuzzFeed”).

On the night of August 9, 2014, a Ferguson, Missouri police officer fatally shot an unarmed, 18-year-old Black man, Michael Brown, as he walked to his grandmother’s residence with a friend, Dorian Johnson, who experienced the entire incident from just a few feet away.  Johnson spoke out immediately and detailed the entire police attack.  He described the police officer’s malice from start to finish, citing the officer’s first words to the teens: “get the f__k on the sidewalk.”  After the first shots were fired by the officer, the teens ran in fear.  Then as Michael stood in the street with hands in the air, the officer fired the fatal bullets into his body.  Michael’s last words were: “I don’t have a gun, stop shooting.”  Here’s how a Daily Kos writer described what happened next:

Officer who kills the teenager requests assistance but does not inform his commanders of what happened. Instead, they learn it on the news like everyone else.

• The scene is left in the hands of the officer’s own colleagues who allow the officer to leave the scene of the crime. His vehicle is also allowed to leave the scene – presumably breaking the integrity of the chain of evidence.
•  Victim is left lying in the road for four hours – inflaming the community and presumably destroying evidence.
• Witnesses say that the killing officer never bothered to check for a pulse once his victim went down. None of the other officers arriving on the scene checked for a pulse. Bystanders in the medical field were not allowed to attempt CPR.
• Rumor has it that the cellphones of possible witnesses were confiscated.
• The response to a community protesting police brutality is the imposition of ‘martial law’ complete with authoritarianism, tear gas, rubber bullets, flash grenades and sound grenades.

Since the killing, the local police kept the officer’s name a secret until Friday, August 16th when it was announced at a press conference.  There have been no arrests or unpaid suspensions, and no charges have been filed.  The police have even refused to interview the primary eye witness to the killing, and have not shared the incident reports that must be completed by the police involved.  Instead, an effort has been mounted to protect the officer involved, not only by keeping his identity secret, but by a concerted effort to concoct a narrative of the incident which will make it harder for some people to empathize with Michael Brown.  In a video that was released, Brown is shown allegedly robbing a store of some cigars and shown intimidating a much smaller clerk when the clerk attempted to stop him at the front door.  Like countless incidents in other places, the blaming of the victim follows closely on a scenario in which dehumanizing racial stereotypes become unwarranted profiling that then leads to death or injury.  What is being played-out does not bode well for a just outcome for Michael’s family or for the Black community of Ferguson  It is instead quite representative of systemic police abuse and harassment of young Black men that occurs in too many communities throughout this country.  At that press conference on Friday, the Chief of Police praised his officers for showing incredible restraint.  After days of shocking behavior that caught the attention of the world, police finally released the name of the shooter - while concurrently launching a smear campaign against his victim. The Chief makes a statement PRAISING the Shooter Cop while concurrently smearing the dead teenaged victim.   Chief of Police specifically says that he is not interested in talking to the community he has been victimizing.  Chief of Police made it clear that the officer who shot Brown did NOT know Brown was a suspect in that cigar theft.  Following the conference, this was modified to say that the officer may have seen the cigars in his hand and surmised that he was a suspect.  And so it goes… 

In light of the actual incident, let’s “take stock” of what we have seen that passed for police “protection” and as “riot control:”

• Local police dressed in camouflage and battle gear (pictures side by side of a local police officer and a combat veteran from Afghanistan illustrated the heavy gear that the local police favored)
• Battle equipment that wasn’t relevant or appropriate for the situation, like huge tank type vehicles, semi-automatic guns and guns that could shoot someone at 80 yards away. 
• The helmets and gas masks and riot gear like the gas canisters and rubber bullets.
• Reporters were kept from covering the event with some illegally arrested just for doing their jobs
• Peaceful protestors were arrested; others were harmed; others harassed
• Even a St. Louis alderman was unlawfully arrested
• Police were caught on international TV screaming “Bring it! Bring it you f__king animals!”
• Protestors were told to leave in violation of their rights
• Negotiation had no place; only orders, riot control tactics and militant actions such as the release of tear gas on the entire crowd

 All together, the garb, gear, equipment, actions and attitudes make one wonder: with whom are the local police at WAR?

Whatever happened to the idea that local police were established to protect and defend the rights and lives of all citizens, not with heavy hand but with restraint and good will?  Then on Thursday, Governor Nixon of Missouri named the State Police as the lead agency to replace the local and county police at the protest site.  The man placed in charge, a Captain Ron Johnson, emerged as the epitome of another style of law enforcement.  It also helped that he had grown up in Ferguson and that he happened to be an African-American.  He hugged and greeted people in the crowd.  He told the marchers who he was, why he was there, and what he expected from them.  He marched with them and he wore a uniform that did not overwhelm anyone.  He talked with marchers; he brought an under-stated but real authority and dignity to the situation and the march for two nights has been peaceful.  Hopefully, his approach and demeanor have not been undercut by the curfew ordered by his boss, Governor Nixon.

The emergence of Captain Johnson, with solid values taught by family and community, propels us back in history to the establishment of the first professional police force in England.  The story, in brief (from lacp.org) is that Sir Robert Peel was a social reformist, born in Bury Lancashire in 1788, who served as Prime Minister, Home Secretary, and in other offices during his lifetime. During his time as Prime Minister, Peel passed modern legislation addressing working class issues. He introduced The Mine Act of 1842, prohibiting women and children from working underground in mines and The Factory Act of 1844 limiting the number of hours worked by women and children employed in factories.

Serving as Home Secretary, Sir Robert Peel introduced a number of important reforms to British criminal law. His changes to the penal code system resulted in fewer crimes carrying a death penalty sentence and education for inmates.  Remembered today as “The Founder of Modern Policing,” Peel created the “Metropolitan Police” based on nine principles that he developed for law enforcement (some say others had a large hand in this).  These nine basic principles are often referred to as “The Peelian Principles.” Upon close examination of each of the Peelian principles, not only are direct connections to policing in today's world apparent, but often the nine principles are cited as the basic foundation for current law enforcement organizations and community policing throughout the world.  There are some law enforcement agencies that currently quote the Peelian Principles on their community websites as their own principles.  Following the disastrous imposition of a curfew by Governor Nixon, a few comments are inserted by me.

Principle 1 - “The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.”  To protect and serve is the modern equivalent.  The question then becomes: who is being protected in Ferguson – certainly not the law-abiding protestors.  The second question to arise is whose interest is being served?  Too often in these instances, it is the vested interests of officials, businesses, and police authorities that are served first and foremost.  That is exactly what happened when a curfew was imposed.  The interests and the good will of the protestors was cast aside or ignored.     

Principle 2 - “The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.”  There was a moment in this crisis when that might have happened, following upon the good actions of some protestors who stood against looters, and when certain men in black tried to assist with bringing some order to the protest. Had the officials involved seized upon that moment and involved a representative group in deep discussions of what steps were needed to bring peace and justice to the forefront, I wager that the outcome would now be different.

Principle 3 - “Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.”  You can’t secure cooperation and voluntary observance by issuing ultimatums and curfews and orders.  It takes negotiation, respect for both sides, and involvement of the very people who are protesting or who have grievances.  The failure of most community policing is the reluctance to trust the people of a community, no matter what its make-up, to come up with viable solutions and workable outcomes.  If officials had more input to legislation from the people affected by that legislation, there would be more effective legislation and more voluntary compliance with the law.

Principle 4 - “The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.”  Nothing could be clearer or more profound than this recognition that violence begets violence and resistance.  Physical force is less a deterrent than it is a provocation.  The harassment of young black men in our communities results in resentment, silence, no help, and outbreaks of vitriol and revenge (looting is one form) when the occasion presents itself. The stupid curfew in Ferguson is one form of violence, added on to tear gas and rubber bullets and guns.

Principle 5 - “Police seek and preserve public favor not by catering to the public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.”  Isn’t it strange that we need to be reminded that good deeds are superior to rhetoric and empty words?  But it isn’t just the need for good deeds, it’s the need for impartial law enforcement and service to all persons regardless of their status or standing, their race or religion or ethnicity or whatever.  That equality before the law is so central to our nation’s health that it is frightening how willing we are in many quarters to deny its truth.  Every time this principle is in jeopardy, I like to ask myself: what if roles were reversed; what would be the probable outcome?  Apply it here: what if a black officer shot and killed an 18 year-old white kid who had just shop-lifted some cigars from a store, but who stood in a street without a weapon, with hands in the air begging that officer not to shoot but that officer shot him and the local police prevented by-standers from going to the young man’s aid?  I think I know the answer and it doesn’t involve any niceties.  In fact, the outcomes might be so severe I hesitate to even mention some of them.

Principle 6 - “Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.”  Once again, we have some profoundly reasonable guidance.  Persuasion, advice and warning may be reasonable steps for securing observance of the law, but there is a more modern method missing here, and that is the idea that the police and community members should be finding ways to work together in respect and with dignity that allows a community to offer its people, its ideas, it opinions, its good will before incidents happen which set off a round of confrontation and violence.  Have we got the will to train our police forces in community development and enhancement, instead of in military tactics?  I think not at this moment.  We are off on a course of militarization that conforms too closely to a right-wing view that certain groups of people are not deserving of rights and protection.  That view makes enemies of too many vagaries and pushes our police to prepare for war-like responses to their demands for respect, justice and equal opportunity.  The use of violent means of control and security as a first resort is an admission of failure to seek peace and justice by more acceptable and positive means.

Principle 7 - “Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.”  This is the most oft-quoted Peelian principle, and no wonder.  It reminds the police of their roots and of the loyalty that must be given back to people of good will.  It also reminds the people that separating the police into a category of non-humans or robotic terminators is not our prerogative.  The statement gives dignity to the idea that community policing is a responsibility that falls to all of us.  Too bad we can’t all grow that principle into an operating principle that builds our communities and police forces into arenas of peace and justice rather than allowing them to deteriorate into camps of ill-will.  We are all responsible for Ferguson and incidents like it.  Let us resolve to change the prevailing militarism into a common endeavor of principled protection and service.

Principle 8 - “Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.”  Simply put:  police cannot be judge and jury.  Guilt must be proven in a court of law.  Until that happens police must direct their actions strictly toward their functions.  But let us not forget that harsh judgments about others, including the police, do not ultimately rest with protestors either.  Protestors should also stick strictly to their issues, making them abundantly clear, while steering clear of personalized attacks upon officials and others.  Sure the police chief of Ferguson and the Missouri Governor have made stupid mistakes and comments, but using that harsh judgment against them does not resolve the issue of the unwarranted killing of an innocent black teenager.  In some sense, Dr. King’ words come to mind: keep your eye on the prize! 

Principle 9 - “The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.”  Oh my goodness, the wisdom of the past is sometimes devastating!  Is it possible that too many police forces are confusing the two?  It seems that police action is sometimes what they think matters, but the person on the street is more apt to praise and appreciate the absence of criminal acts that might affect him or her.  And here’s my thought: police cannot be efficient without the approval and cooperation of the public.  Come out of the patrol cars, get rid of the heavy equipment, put aside the heavy riot gear, send semi-automatic guns back to the military, and institute training that changes attitudes toward community policing.  It is time to get back to being of the people, not against the people. 

Though they are not officially declared a code of ethics, these Principles are based on needed ethical behavior on the part of law enforcement and the public. Accountability is a key element for their success. Modern technology and the media have increased the need for law enforcement and the community to adhere to them.  I am sure that it would take a Herculean effort to convince minority communities (especially Black communities) that law enforcement in general is striving to adhere to these principles.  Unlike the posting of the Hippocratic Oath in many doctor’s offices, the Peelian Principles seem to be absent from most police stations, whether as postings, placards, notes or in training, in attitudes or in actual practice.

Instead of touting the values and methods of a Ron Johnson, there is a compelling argument that we have gone toward militarization of police forces; that they are no longer “peace keepers”, but warriors against forces that represent destruction and evil to them.  Among these, of course, are drug lords, junkies, welfare cheats, racial and religious minorities, home-grown and foreign terrorists, and the ever-present thieves and murderers.  The attitude toward this amorphous group of non-law-abiding creeps is that one must be at WAR against them because they threaten the very existence of our society. In contrast, Ron Johnson sees his community as hard-working families attempting to build a good life for themselves and others.  Perception makes a great deal of difference in how one behaves. 

From a review of a relevant book on Amazon.com we draw some conclusions:

“Today’s armored-up policemen are a far cry from the constables of early America.  The past decade also has seen an alarming degree of mission creep for U.S. SWAT teams.  For sheer absurdity, it is hard to beat the 2006 story about the Tibetan monks who had overstayed their visas while visiting America on a peace mission. In Iowa, the hapless holy men were apprehended by a SWAT team in full gear!

“The last days of colonialism taught America’s revolutionaries that soldiers in the streets bring conflict and tyranny. As a result, our country has generally worked to keep the military out of law enforcement. But according to investigative reporter Radley Balko, over the last several decades, America’s cops have increasingly come to resemble ground troops. The consequences have been dire: the home is no longer a place of sanctuary, the Fourth Amendment has been gutted, and police today have been conditioned to see the citizens they serve as an other—an enemy.”

In “Rise of the Warrior Cop,” Balko shows how politicians’ ill-considered policies and relentless declarations of war against vague enemies like crime, drugs, and terror have blurred the distinction between cop and soldier. His fascinating, frightening narrative shows how over a generation, a creeping battlefield mentality has isolated and alienated American police officers and put them on a collision course with the values of a free society.”

Ferguson, MO has illustrated the sad truth ready to burst forth in many communities of this country.  It is a wake-up call that is being attended to around the world.  Being awake is a first step but not the answer.  The clarion call to all of us is to reject the politicians and their supporters who promote superiority of militarism and the isolation of certain ethnic, racial and religious groups by means that are all too familiar: inadequate schools, lack of good job opportunities, the elimination of programs and services that provide opportunity to advance.  We must reject the fascist idea that there are some people who are unworthy of being treated with dignity, respect and grace. We cannot as a democratic society abide those who want to restrict and restrain and prevent the exercise of the right to vote, or the right to protest or the right to adequate health care.  We must not allow those who denigrate government itself to have control of government for they will not use it well, certainly not to benefit all the People without regard to status. 

Ferguson is not an isolated incident; it is the result of decades of abandonment of important and crucial principles of a progressive democracy.  We must face this reality and reject the forces of Right-wing demagogues whose Cause is not simply to win seats but to control police forces, government and the lives of our citizens in order to mold the rest of the institutions of this Republic into their image of Power and Control.  It is time to defend and rejuvenate our values and principles as reflected in Peel’s principles by voting these militant radicals from office. 

Dysfunction, "Standing" and Counter-Demonstration

 Apparently, Republicans in Congress can’t get anything right! First, they asked the President to delay the mandate pending on big business to comply with the healthcare coverage for employees as mandated by the ACA. The President complied with their request, and now the Congress is suing the President for this very action saying that he over-stepped his authority. Then on July 30th, Congress asked the President to use his Executive authority to address the crisis at our southern border. They actually want him again to take an executive action that they can then use as a charge of over-stepping his authority. Whoa! They want him to use his executive authority precisely because they could not bring the supplemental Border funding bill now pending to address the border crisis. Instead, they have gone on a month’s vacation , having done nothing to deal with this (and other problems - transportation for instance), except to produce legislation on the border crisis that is so far to the Right that it is off whatever radical charts the GOP is following!. The Speaker couldn’t get his own Party to bring the bill forward for a vote, but proceeded to castigate the President for not taking enough action on his own to address the border problem!

This is essentially the epitome of dysfunction. The House leadership cow-tows to the Ted Cruz-ites and can’t even bring its own bill to the floor. The House sues the President for what they asked him to do. Congress can’t get anything done, so it decides to go home for a month! Apparently, the bill couldn’t pass muster because it wasn’t bad enough! If you want more of this, just plan to vote Republican in November!

This is certainly bad enough, but I venture to say there is something being ignored that may be worse; and that may be the potential unconstitutionality (and non-existence) of the law that allows the Congress to sue a President. I find it abhorrent that a Congress can be allowed to get away with this maneuver. Let’s take a look.

The legislation, known as the “Enforce the Law Act” (H.R. 4138) allows the Senate or the House, jointly or separately, upon the adoption of a resolution, to bring a civil action against the president if the president, the head of any department or agency, or any other officers or employees of the United States has established or implemented a formal or informal policy to refrain from enforcing or administering any law, regulation, or statute in violation of Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States. An action filed under the provisions of this legislation would be filed in a Federal district court and considered by a three-judge panel. The panel’s decision would then be on an expedited track, able to be appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

Republicans in Congress have been agitating for months about what they view as President Obama's selective enforcement of federal laws. Among other actions, they cite his decisions to delay certain requirements of the Affordable Care Act, to exempt some young illegal immigrants from deportation proceedings, and to end mandatory minimum prison sentences for some non-violent drug offenders.

U.S. Rep Tom Graves said recently in a press release that “the hallmark of the Obama presidency has become his re-writing and selective enforcement of the law, from unilaterally changing Obamacare to preventing the deportation of select illegal immigrants,” said Rep. Graves. “The president’s behavior suggests he views Congress as an inconvenience rather than a co-equal branch of government. This imperial mindset threatens the stability of our government and erodes the confidence Americans have in our democracy. Under the bill that passed today, Congress could have meaningful debate and decide to sue any president who may not be faithfully executing the law as the Constitution requires. If that course were chosen, the public would benefit from hearing the Executive Branch explain its action in court.”

The primary sponsor of the bill, GOP Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, commented, "The Constitution says the president has a duty to faithfully execute the law, so for the health of the republic, it would be nice to debate what that phrase means," he said. Gowdy concluded, "This bill is necessary; it will give Congress the authority to defend this branch of government as the Framers and our fellow citizens would expect."

Democrats dismiss the tactic as a partisan charade that the Senate will simply ignore, but Gowdy said it's important to debate the balance of power in Washington and said Democrats should support the proposal in anticipation of the next time a Republican occupies the White House (an ominous thought!).

Democrats in Congress answered back, as did the White House:
House Democrats say all presidents, whatever their party, have significant discretion in how laws are enforced, and Obama is not the first to use it. Former President George W. Bush deferred immigration enforcement action for about 5,500 foreign students affected by Hurricane Katrina, for example, and some deadlines for implementing the Medicare Part D drug benefit were extended.

"Allowing flexibility in the implementation of a new program, even where the statute mandates a specific deadline, is neither unusual nor a constitutional violation," said Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. "Rather, it is the reality of administering sometimes complex programs and is part and parcel of the president's duty to take care that he faithfully execute laws."

In a statement issued by House Democrats, they made it plain what they thought of the ENFORCEMENT bill:

"The bill threatens to turn Congress into a super enforcement agency with the ability to bring civil actions whenever it disagrees with an exercise of enforcement discretion not only by the President, but by potentially thousands of federal officers and employees."

The White House indicated that the President would veto any such law that would allow Congress to sue him in federal courts because "it violates the separation of powers by encroaching on presidential authority." The White House statement added, "The power the bill purports to assign to Congress to sue the President over whether he has properly discharged his constitutional obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed exceeds constitutional limitations. Congress may not assign such power to itself, nor may it assign to the courts the task of resolving such generalized political disputes."

Such was the lead-up to this bill. What happened to it? It passed the House of Representatives March 12, 2014, was then referred to the Senate where it was Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary on 3/13/2014. No Further action has been reported, which means, of course, that the ENFORCE the Law Act has NOT been signed into Law. Therefore, the House has decided to sue the President of the United States without this legal basis for its actions – talk about dysfunction! It is, of course, more complicated than that.

1) Suing the President is nothing but political Theater. 
a. It is the same as the many ‘scandal’ hearings
b. It is the same as lies about Obamacare
c. It is the same as government shut-down
d. It is the same as the blocking of the appointments, the budgets and the legislative proposals of the President
e. It is the same as the budget ceiling debacle
It all comes down to Republican hatred for this particular President because of his skin color, and to their disposition to weaken, even destroy, the federal government.

2) Suing the President has no “standing” before the courts unless conservative judges decide to set another unconstitutional precedent.
Elizabeth Price Foley, Law Professor at Florida International University, comments on this issue of standing: “courts have limited ability to check a president’s failure to execute. The primary obstacle is “standing,” a doctrine that requires a plaintiff to have a concrete, personal injury in order to sue. Citizens can’t file generic lawsuits to enforce the Constitution; they must prove that the government has harmed them in a personal, palpable way.
“If a President delays, or exempts people from a law — so-called benevolent suspensions- who has standing to sue him? Generally, no one. Benevolent suspensions of law don’t, by definition, create a sufficiently concrete injury for standing. That’s why, when President Obama delayed various provisions of Obamacare — the employer mandate, the annual out-of-pocket caps, the prohibition on the sale of “substandard” policies — his actions cannot be challenged in court.
“Similarly, when the president decided not to deport certain young people, not to prosecute most marijuana users, and rewrote the work requirement of welfare reform, courts cannot rule on these acts’ constitutionality because no individual has suffered the personal harm required for standing. But the Supreme Court has made clear such generalized societal harms won’t suffice. “The Supreme Court has severely restricted so-called ‘congressional standing,’ creating a presumption against allowing members of Congress to sue the president merely because he fails to faithfully execute its laws.
“If courts can’t be counted on to check the president, couldn’t Congress just enact another law reversing him, or even impeach him? In today’s hyper-partisan climate, the answer appears to be no.
Even if the House passed a bill undoing presidential action — for example, a bill that declared, “We don’t want individuals brought into this country illegally to be exempt from deportation, and we really, really mean it this time” — the Democrat-controlled Senate wouldn’t likely allow a vote on the measure. House Republicans passed a spending measure this fall to keep the government operating. But because the bill included a one-year delay in Obamacare — something the president threatened to veto — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to even bring the bill to the floor.”
So the radical Republicans in the House have decided to use the unsigned law they passed to sue the President, but they appear to have little chance of being recognized as having the legal “standing” that requires. One writer for the Washington Examiner felt the law was a necessary one, but he chastised the GOP as the law was introduced initially for its theatrical “end run” while also criticizing the law itself: 

“In my opinion, if Congress is seriously contemplating such a law then it proves that they ought to impeach the President. This attempt to make a new law that allows another way to take the President to court strikes me as an evasion of their responsibility. The Framers gave Congress the authority by giving them the means of impeachment.”

And so, we come to the crux of the matter:

3) Either impeach the President or take impeachment off the table and stop the expensive theatrics!

Another writer, Lyle Denniston, the National Constitution Center’s adviser on constitutional literacy, has some thoughts on the whole matter that deserve a hearing:

“The Constitution has nothing to say about ways to cure the kind of gridlock that now exists in the national government in Washington. Neither side seems willing to yield and the Constitution – based as it is on the benign assumption that those in national leadership will always find ways to govern, more or less successfully – has no specific provision to force compromise.

“It is perhaps tempting to think that this is a problem that ought to be handed over to the courts: get them involved to enforce the lines of demarcation between what Congress does and what presidents are allowed to do. However, there is, and has long been, a constitutional barrier to the courts acting as an arbiter of inter-branch disputes between Congress and the White House. Its origin is in the Constitution’s Article III, and its meaning comes from the way the courts have interpreted the limitation spelled out there. “The judicial power,” it says, “shall extend to all cases…and controversies.” A “case or controversy” means, in this context, a live lawsuit, with those on each side having something genuinely in dispute, and that something is capable of being decided by the use of rules of law.

"The courts, in short, will not decide mere abstract legal controversies, and they will not hand out advisory opinions on how the laws or the Constitution are to be interpreted. Courts have a number of ways of showing respect for ...restrictions on their power, and one of them is to refuse to decide what is called a 'political question.' In this sense, 'political' means an issue the courts find has to be decided...only by the 'political ' branches: Congress and the Executive Branch.

"Time after time, when members of Congress have sued in the courts, because the Executive Branch did something that they believe frustrated the will of Congress, they have been met at the door of the courthouse with a polite refusal to let them in. Frustration does not make a real lawsuit, according to this notion.

"The resistance to resolving political disputes is quite deeply set. One might suggest that it would take an inter-branch controversy of monumental proportions to cause them to give up that reluctance. Is the feud over President Obama's use of his White House powers of that dimension? That may well be debatable."

Not willing to address this debatable issue, nor to pass a responsible supplemental budget bill to deal with the crisis on our southern border, Congress has gone home for their August vacation. In my humble opinion, Congressional Republicans ought to extend that vacation into a permanent one. However, that chore will be left to the American voter in November. Hopefully, this latest debacle over the crisis with the children at our border, and the resulting dysfunction displayed by congressional Republicans, especially their leadership, will help to decide the issue for many. But it will not, because there are still millions of voters who do not understand the negative outcomes of non-voting. Those who stay away from the polls, and those who vote for dysfunctional, do-nothing, government-destroying Republicans, will have only themselves to blame for the negative outcomes.

Unfortunately, the Democrats are simply using these outrageous Republican tactics and theatrics as a means of raising campaign money. Too bad, as there are, it seems to me, other alternatives.

Since it takes some sort of individual harm to have standing for a lawsuit of this kind, why not encourage the DNC as well as Democratic Representatives and Senators to search out the stories of children (and families) who have actually been harmed as a result of Republican actions or inactions regarding key legislation and budget lines for children. After all, one in five children in this country is feeling the effects of poverty. There must be thousands, maybe millions, of them who have met with personal harm or pain as a result of Republican maneuvers and tactics. Why not comb every congressional district for such victims and bring them to Washington DC where they could appear at rallies, committee hearings, legislative chambers and offices, as well as at press conferences to tell their stories. Then let Democrats make this point:

It is not the President who is abusing authority, it is the congressional Republicans who have left injured and abused children in their wake. Let Democrats point out that such specific examples of harm caused by Republican actions and inactions could be grounds for a counter-lawsuit or even for impeachment charges against the Speaker and his leadership Team. 

Raising money for politicians is one thing; raising hell on behalf of children is another!