Happy Independence Day

Happy Independence Day! July 4 is the 223rd Anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence by Continental Congress. Richard Henry Lee's resolution for independence had been approved two days earlier, but the prominent Fourth of July date on the Declaration caused the latter date to supersede the one that John Adams had recommended by celebrated with parades and fireworks. It is especially important to thank our veterans and soldiers today for the liberty we enjoy. May God Bless America.

On a few other notes, the Minnesota Supreme Court gave U.S. Senate Democratic candidate Al Franken, a victory in the contested senate election over incumbent Republican Norm Coleman, despite the application of inconsistent standards for what constituted a vote. I suppose that had the case been in federal courts, the Bush v. Gore standard would have applied. In that landmark 2000 case about the disputed election for Florida's Electors, the United States Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that Al Gore's attempt to use inconsistent standards for the definition of a vote violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The 5-4 vote was only in regard to the remedy: the Court ruled that the manual recount caused a spoliation issue for the evidence (the more the chads on the paper ballots were handled). George W. Bush was therefore derided by liberal critics as having been "selected, not elected," despite the fact that the Bush-Cheney ticket had won the Florida vote count and recount, and even the partial recounts, which later unofficial recounts confirmed. More importantly, unlike U.S. Senators, Electors need not be elected in the first place, but may be appointed by state legislatures, as has happened numerous times in American history, and as Florida's Republican legislature would have done had the validity of its originally-elected Electors been questionable. Indeed, no president or vice president is popularly elected. They are elected by Electors, on separate ballots, whose votes are ratified by Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court did not elect the president. It settled a constitutional dispute about the election -- which was not even necessary -- of Florida's presidential electors by confirming the original vote and recount. I doubt that the same liberals who questioned Bush's legitimacy will declare Al Franken "selected, not elected," nor make their usual complaints about a denial of equal protection.

Of course, a recent Supreme Court ruling which declared discrimination against whites or Hispanics as a supposed remedy against discrimination against blacks a violation itself of the Equal Protection clause also exposed the liberal inconsistency in applying the principle of equal protection. The Court overturned a decision by President Obama's Supreme Court liberal nominee, Sonia Sotomayor that upheld such discrimination.

Another recent Court decision relevant to equal protection upheld the principle of federalism. Although the Court did not overturn the entire Voting Rights Act of 1964, which was enacted in order to protect the voting privileges of blacks against discrimination by states, it did loosen its burdensome provisions that required polling precincts in certain states to receive permission from the federal government to make even the slightest changes, even absent any history of discrimination in that particular precinct. Several Justices seemed troubled by the inconsistency in applying specific standards (e.g. for voter turnout) to certain states, especially southern ones, that are higher than the outcomes in states not covered by the Voting Rights Act. Some of the Justices even questioned the constitutionality of a law that is applied to some sovereign states and not to others, but it was not necessary for them to decide the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act in order to rule on the issue before them.

Another liberal inconsistency is apparent in foreign policy, where Obama was cautious about "meddling" in Iran's internal affairs, which directly impact the security of the United States, but not cautious about meddling in Honduras's internal affairs, even though the president that was removed from power there was in league with the Castros of Cuba and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who are hostile to American interests. If the Iranian regime is able to crush the nascent democratic opposition, Obama will be second-guessed for having been so cautious toward Iran, especially if it develops nuclear weapons. He should increase support for Voice of America and Radio Farda, among other appropriate moves in support of human rights in Iran. Meanwhile, he is wrong to criticize the coup in Honduras, as I note in my post, A Coup for Democracy in Honduras. Obama is apparently contemplating some sort of punishment for Honduras' new democratic government that does not appear to be hostile to the U.S. Any sort of punishment must be opposed and the new regime must instead be supported as the first example of a democratic rolling back of the creeping return of authoritarianism in Latin America.

Meanwhile, let us remain ever vigilant in safeguarding our liberty as Americans.