Are Child Labor Laws Unconstitutional in The Tea Party World?

Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty(rafflaw), Guest Blogger

 

We have seen and heard on many occasions the Tea Party claim that it desires Congress and the Federal Government to follow the letter of the Constitution instead of reaching beyond the four corners of the document.  With that thought in mind, I was intrigued by a recent article on the Think Progress site that reviewed the You Tube video claims made by U.S. Senator Mike Lee of Utah, that Congress’ passage of laws outlawing and restricting Child Labor, was unconstitutional. http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/14/lee-child-labor/?wpmp_switcher=desktop

Now, I know that the Tea Party has sometimes gotten a bad reputation for making silly claims under the Tenth Amendment.  Those claims actually spurred a new term or title, “Tenther”.  But, I have to admit that Senator Lee has really gone way beyond the Tenther label with this false claim about the constitutionality of the child labor laws within the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.  Here is a link to a brief description of how the FLSA deals with child labor and the act itself: http://www.stopchildlabor.org/USchildlabor/fact1.htm   & http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/statutes/FairLaborStandAct.pdf

Senator Lee discusses his outrageous claim in a YouTube presentation that attempts to use the 1918 Supreme Court case of Hammer v. Dagenhart as his evidence that Congress has gone too far.  Unfortunately for Senator Lee, the Hammer case was specifically overruled in 1941 by a unanimous Supreme Court in 1941 in U.S. v. Darby. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1183543472021488573&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr   I guess Senator Lee didn’t want to let minor details get in the way of “proving” his claim.  The part that I just don’t understand about Senator Lee is why does he want to return to the day when children were forced to work at too early of an age and under horrible conditions?  From what I can tell from his video lectures which are found in the aforementioned Think Progress link, he claims that the State should be making those decisions and not the Federal Government or Judiciary.  Why would he make those claims and not tell the listener that the case he is citing was overruled over 60 years ago?  What other laws would be unconstitutional in his world?

Lawrence Rafferty, (rafflaw) Guest Blogger.

136 thoughts on “Are Child Labor Laws Unconstitutional in The Tea Party World?”

  1. BBB,

    Wow.

    What a load of self rationalizing horseshit!

    ““It’s more of the “Johnny does to too!” defense.”

    Just like propaganda countered with anti-propaganda, right?”

    No. Because I know more than one play. You’ve spent the last several days bitching about how the left has used violent rhetoric too, but you’ve backed your case with severe overreaches (the YouTube example) and outright lies (the bulls-eye when Palin herself called it a bulls-eye).

    ““If it moves and it’s unconstitutional or against the best interests of all citizens?”

    There’s the problem, BIL. You don’t know what’s best for the country. You only know what YOU THINK is the best for this country. As far as constitutional interpretation goes, you are just as fallible as any other. You’re a flawed human being, just like the rest of us are.”

    I never said I was infallible. However, I know what is better for this country far better than you do if you think Citizen’s United is worth the paper it’s printed on. What part of “We the People” don’t you understand, sport? Apparently all of it. Because corporations existed in the time of the Founders. Had they meant this to be a corporate oligarchy? They could and would have chosen the words “We the Corporate” or “We the Legal Fiction”. Corporations are not real people. Their personality is a construct originally meant to allow them to own property and avail themselves of the criminal and civil courts. The corporate form was not a carte blanc invitation to participate in all the rights enjoyed by individual natural citizens. By saying that Citizen’s United is valid you attack the very basis of leftist beliefs found in the concept of egalitarianism. And you can’t have your cake and eat it too. “I don’t agree with the power and influence available to those with money. I don’t care if they’re individuals or corporations. I fully support campaign reform.” Bullshit. By agreeing that Citizen’s United is an appropriate reading of the Constitution – which it isn’t – you are endorsing that which you claim not to endorse. Talk out of both sides of your mouth much, Janus?

    “Unlike you, I don’t have to hate the members in order to recognize undo influence.” That’s a pretty big assumption there, sport. I don’t hate “rich people”. I hate rich people who got that way be criminal or quasi-criminal means: the venal and the sociopathic. I also don’t think it’s just that people who enjoy a disproportionate share of the wealth this country provides the opportunity to make legally to not shoulder a proportionate share of the tax burden commensuration to the benefits they receive.

    “A liberal naturally thinks they were liberal, while a conservative naturally thinks they were conservative. Why don’t you try supporting your position?” The reality is they were syncretic with a liberal bias as demonstrate by the very construction of the Constitution. Separation of Powers? A liberal doctrine based on advancements found in the Magna Carte – same with an empowered legislature. An independent judiciary? A liberal ideal considering that until that time most judiciaries existed to do the bidding of the King. An elected President? A liberal doctrine. Very few of the Founders wanted a non-representative leadership class, most notably Hamilton who wanted to establish an American monarchy. Taxes, specifically property taxes, to be spent for the public good and common defense? A liberal doctrine most eloquently expressed by Thomas Paine. Freedom of speech, freedom of and from religion, the right to bear arms, the right to a jury trial, to confront witnesses and to be free of cruel and unusual punishment? All liberal ideals. Even the language choice of “We the People” is a reflection of liberal ideology further enhanced by directly reserving to the people the powers not delegated to the Federal government or reserved by the States in the 10th Amendment. The one true bow to conservatism in the Constitution is the Electoral College – a bow that has caused more problems than good compared to the option of direct democracy by popular vote. The bottom line is that while some of the Founders may have had some conservative ideas, it was mostly the liberal ideas that made it into the Constitution. And the Declaration of Independence, which informs the Constitution, is one of the most liberal documents ever drafted.

    “You don’t like people who are rich, unless they choose to give it away to causes you support. I understand that. It doesn’t make them criminals.”

    Just goes to show how little you understand about what I like and don’t like. It is the job of government to provide for the “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”. All of which are paid for by taxation. I expect the rich to carry a proportionate share of the load. If the rich don’t want to be taxed and have that money spent on the betterment of all? Fuck ’em. Equity requires it and justice requires equity. The “I stole it fair and square” attitude? That’s the selfish rationalizations of greedy little sociopaths. How many houses does one person or family need? How many yachts? And at what cost to the rest of society? The answer is “as much as I want and to Hell with the rest of the country – the country that provided me with the opportunity to become wealthy in the first place” if you’re a sociopath. Not to mention it’s incredibly ungrateful and narcissistic.

    The Founders were politically syncretic, but they drafted the Constitution based on primarily liberal ideals. Ideals which people like the Koch Bros, teabaggers and Beck attack with their historical revisionism. Lying to rationalize unlimited greed and to escape responsibility for bad acts you have or want to commit in the name of personal profit and neglecting your social duty to the country that provided you opportunity in the first place?

    That is criminal as well as irresponsible, myopic and stupid.

    Kind of like the Koch Bros.

  2. BBB,
    I have been very patient and fair with you, but the gloves are now off. You accuse me in your latest response of libeling Sen. Lee by asking why he wants to return to the days of child labor due to his unfounded claim that child labor laws are unconstitutional. That is a scurillous and untrue comment and you may want to review the definition of libel. You may want to reconsider your statement. We can disagree on what you consider facts and what I consider facts, but when you start spewing false claims of libel, I am through with responding to you. If you apologize in good faith I will resume our discussion, but if not, Good night.

  3. Blouise,

    “true Tea Baggers don’t hang out with Tea Partiers”

    Which one is which? How do you distinguish one from the other?

    “Republican party took over the Tea Baggers, not the other way around”

    Does that come as a surprise? Did you think a grassroots movement was going to survive on its own? Did you think a major political party was not going to take advantage of that group of potential voters?

    “They know what you did to the Christian Right.”

    What I did? What are you talking about?

    I stated “The Tea Party’s basic ideals are much more closely aligned with the Republican Party.”

    Do you disagree with that? If so, why?

  4. Rafflaw,

    “You must have missed my comments about the Dems and the Obama Administration in the Michael Mukasey thread that I wrote last night.”

    I read the article. I thought it was a petty partisan reaction to former members of the Bush Administration advocating for the removal of an organization that is on the terrorist list, and a comparison to a case in which they were asking “are you gonna arrest me?”. Would arresting any of them be possible under the Court’s holding? Yes. Would prosecutorial discretion, properly exercised, avoid it. Probably.

    Just because I don’t comment on a thread, don’t think I don’t read it.

    “I don’t think you want to compare how much corporate money came into the last election from the Chamber of Commerce and corporate sources on behalf of the Republicans and Teapublicans and how much they gave to the Dems.”

    I pointed out how much historical influence the Plaintiff’s Bar had on our government. By the way, how much money did the Chamber of Commerce donate to the last election? How does that compare to the donations by members of the Plaintiff’s Bar to the Pelosi and Reed campaigns? What is really important is the influence by both. (but it’s ok when our side does it)

    “I almost forgot to resond to the Plaintiff bar comment. I would rather that the Plaintiff Bar write legislation than corporate lobbyists who are looking out for the industry that pays them.”

    I would prefer neither, but an industry who makes their living off of having laws being just sufficiently ambiguous enough is not my first choice to write the laws.

    CONTINUING FROM YOUR NEXT COMMENT:

    “I suggested Lee was wrong and backward to think that the Tenth Amendment would have provided the States the ability and desire to end the trauma being caused by the lack of child labor laws, but I did not say he was corrupt.”

    You’re right. You didn’t say that Lee was corrupt. You suggested that whatever Lee does or say becomes the mantra of the Tea Party. You suggested that Lee wants to see children employed and in horrible conditions.

    Here is exactly what you said.

    “The part that I just don’t understand about Senator Lee is why does he want to return to the day when children were forced to work at too early of an age and under horrible conditions?

    That’s an unfounded libelous statement. It is akin to saying that people who want to buy guns want to murder people. The only thing that permits you to arrive at that conclusion is political necessity.

    Suite101 Article:

    Awe. Did the author forget to include your pet peeves too? I’m not surprised that you missed this part.

    “The ailing economy, high unemployment, and perceived favoritism of government toward corporate America only served to inflame the emotions of the Tea Party nation, who already felt that their voices were not being heard in Washington.”
    The problems with the banking industry were the result of repealing Glass-Stegal. That was accomplished by a Republican controlled Congress, and a Democrat President before Bush even took office. That’s why the banks were able “go crazy with wild investments that initiated their near failures”.

    “The author would have also told the reader that Obamacare will actually reduce the deficit over ten years”

    The people are seeing large increases in their insurance premiums. Obamacare spurred that increase, and the premiums continue to climb. Keeping their premiums the same and sending the increased rates to the government would likely reduce the deficit even faster. Both are being paid by the voters.

    “That motive was to claim that the Tea Party was a response to alledgedly illegal and corrupt practices by the Obama administration.”

    Health insurance paid to private insurers exceeds the authority granted by the Constitution. That’s not just my opinion. That’s the opinion of 26 state attorneys general. And that number will continue to increase. But I bet you and BIL will claim that the provision is legal.

    I asked you to answer one simple question. You did not. I’ll repeat it.

    When the government exercises a power reserved to the states; What do we call that?

    The reason I ask is that you see it as justification for the “Feds to step in and make those laws because the States were unwilling to do it”.

    If you could make use of paragraphs it would help a lot.

  5. BBB,

    Knock it off … “What rafflaw and Blouise don’t understand, or don’t want to accept” … I fully understand and accept third party possibilities and am very familiar with the whys as my Presidency of the LWV demanded such understanding.

    What I also know is that the Republican party took over the Tea Baggers, not the other way around, and then decided to change the name as they buried the real Constitutional issues Tea Baggers supported replacing them with the silliness that is the subject of this thread.

    I repeat, true Tea Baggers don’t hang out with Tea Partiers … you need to accept that … they don’t want you or your Republican buddies. They know what you did to the Christian Right.

    Real Tea Baggers spurn the Republican and Democratic Party … always have, always will.

    They do not contribute one cent.

  6. BIL,

    “It’s more of the “Johnny does to too!” defense.”

    Just like propaganda countered with anti-propaganda, right?

    Please tell me; what ideals of the left have I attacked?

    “If it moves and it’s unconstitutional or against the best interests of all citizens?”

    There’s the problem, BIL. You don’t know what’s best for the country. You only know what YOU THINK is the best for this country. As far as constitutional interpretation goes, you are just as fallible as any other. You’re a flawed human being, just like the rest of us are.

    You can’t attack the article, so you attack the source. You only need to look at the source of campaign donations to see that the article is telling the truth.

    You may not like the Court’s opinion in Citizen’s United, but it was a correct interpretation of the law. I agree with the Court’s holding. I don’t agree with the power and influence available to those with money. I don’t care if they’re individuals or corporations. I fully support campaign reform.

    The Plaintiff’s Bar is just as much of a problem as the corporate special interests. Unlike you, I don’t have to hate the members in order to recognize undo influence.

    “people who actually understand that the Founders were liberals spawned by the Age of Enlightenment”

    A liberal naturally thinks they were liberal, while a conservative naturally thinks they were conservative. Why don’t you try supporting your position?

    You don’t like people who are rich, unless they choose to give it away to causes you support. I understand that. It doesn’t make them criminals.

  7. BBB,
    As to your earlier post you claim that I stated that the tea party candidates are corrupt because you tried to make an analogy to Charlie Rangel and union support of Dems. It is too bad that you have to make stuff up now to try to perpetuate your dream that the Tea Party actually stands for something other than money. I suggested Lee was wrong and backward to think that the Tenth Amendment would have provided the States the ability and desire to end the trauma being caused by the lack of child labor laws, but I did not say he was corrupt. He may be, but I never made that claim.
    I am a bit amazed that you link to a Suite101 article which tries to define or explain the so-called Tea Party movement. It would have been nice if the article had actually gotten its facts straight. But I should expect that from a source that is obviously trying to smear the left. The article claims that the Tea Party members, followers, friends??? were upset over Obama’s actions when he got into office. If it had mentioned allowing tortures from the previous admininstration to go free, I would have agreed, but no, they mentioned the Wall street bailouts. Of course, by doing a little homework and being non-partisan and the author, Mr. Hansenn, would have realized that the Wall Street bailouts were actually initiated by the Bush Administration and he would have mentioned that TARP was needed to bail out the banks that the Bush Administration had allowed to go crazy with wild investments that initiated their near failures! The author would have also told the reader that Obamacare will actually reduce the deficit over ten years, if that author did not have an ulterior motive. That motive was to claim that the Tea Party was a response to alledgedly illegal and corrupt practices by the Obama administration. Maybe next time Mr. Hansen will actually use Google to research his “non-partisan” article.
    Buddha,
    Before I forget, well done!

  8. BBB,
    You must have missed my comments about the Dems and the Obama Administration in the Michael Mukasey thread that I wrote last night. I am hurt that you didn’t check that out! When you get a link besides the Rev. Moon’s Washington Times,let me know.
    I don’t think you want to compare how much corporate money came into the last election from the Chamber of Commerce and corporate sources on behalf of the Republicans and Teapublicans and how much they gave to the Dems. It is interesting that your example of the Dems getting more corporate money is 3 years old and Obama was the Democratic candidate for President. Nothing more current I guess??
    I almost forgot to resond to the Plaintiff bar comment. I would rather that the Plaintiff Bar write legislation than corporate lobbyists who are looking out for the industry that pays them. I don’t recall any House Dems passing out checks on the House floor from corporations! I will comment on your last post in my next response.

  9. It wouldn’t look like you were defending the right if you weren’t, BBB. Just like it wouldn’t look like you were attacking the left if you weren’t. See, I know this because – unlike you – I am a non-partisan attacker. If it moves and it’s unconstitutional or against the best interests of all citizens? I don’t give a damn what “party” or “side” is behind it. It gets the Godzilla treatment.

    But as to your tactics?

    Awwww.

    It’s more of the “Johnny does to too!” defense.

    Seriously, BBB. Do you know any other play?

    If the problem is big money behind campaigns?

    Considering the Koch Bros. history, you probably shouldn’t be throwing stone with that glass house the teabaggers live in. Especially if you’re going to quote one of Murdoch’s festering propaganda shitholes disguised as “news” in addition to the Moonies propaganda port that is The Washington Times as your “evidence”. Neither exactly have a reputation for truthfulness or unbiased reporting.

    I also know this from past experience. You’d be hard pressed to find a self-identifying liberal here – or indeed some of the self-identifying traditional conservatives – who is not wholly for campaign finance reform and legislating away the manifestly unconstitutional decision that is Citizen’s United v. FEC to keep any and all corporate money out of the system.

    They understand the problem is where the money comes from for all parties and want to see it stop. Why? Because that would force members of Congress to act as representation for all their constituents again and not just the cash Kochs of any variety. If “special interests” are your problem? There are none more “special” than the Koch’s and those clowns of Dick Armey’s over at FreedomWorks. And there is no one in politics with a more appropriate name than “Dick Armey”.

    As an aside? If plaintiff’s lawyers, you know – people who actually understand that the Founders were liberals spawned by the Age of Enlightenment – are so bad? Next time you need a lawyer? Represent yourself. It’s your right that those nasty liberals deemed so important they wrote it into the Constitution along with all the other rights that people like the Koch Bros. would like to see go away because it keeps them from making unlimited profits without the possibility of going to prison for the crimes they are willing to commit in the name of greed.

    Aye. There are some puppets for special interests alright. It’s just that some of them can’t – or worse – won’t see the strings manipulating them.

    If you reject that kind of political manipulation?

    Then independence is your only option.

    Because the teabaggers are getting played big time.

  10. “The Republicans and Tea Party have a symbiotic relationship? Is that what you call selling out to the Republican financiers and large corporations?”

    Save it for a uninformed bleeding heart.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121996098615981191.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_leftbox

    I’ll be waiting for your guest blogger article calling for a boycot of those large corporations who funded the DNC. I also be witing for you to point out the excessive influence of lawyers and law firms in support of Democrats. I’m sure you won’t be shy when it comes to telling everyone how much influence the Plaintiff’s Bar has over the laws of this country.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/16/why-liberals-are-lawyers-puppets/

  11. rafflaw,

    “With all due respect, suggesting that the Tea Party is just a movement, would be false.”

    Do you often make claims of falsehood without provided evidence to the contrary? According to Wikipedia, the only thing that comes close is the Boston Tea Party which was registered in 2006.

    Did not candidates run under the Tea Party label in various states primaries?”

    I don’t know; did they? Maybe some states permit a candidate to indentify themselves to be a member of any party, even a nonexistent one. Did the run as a member of the Boston Tea Party?

    “Many of those same candidates still claim to be Tea Party people even thought they became Teapublicans.”

    Maybe it’s time for you to present evidence to support your claims before depending on me to refute them.

    “Besides that, if you are claiming that the Tea Party stands for only 4 basic tenets,but you are not a member, where can one go to verify your claims or as you call it propaganda?”

    http://www.suite101.com/content/a-brief-history-of-the-tea-party-movement-in-america-a318411

    “Sen. Lee is inherently suggesting that he is in favor of kids working at an early age and in horrible conditions by wanting to return the decision to correct State’s negligence in allowing corporations to abuse children to the very States that allow the abusive behavior.”

    And when you tell your neighbor that it’s not his job to tell your kids what they can or cannot do to your property, it must mean that you want them to sit on your car. => It couldn’t possibly be that you would just want to address an intrusion into your authority.

    “The public can only take the candidates and politicians who claim to be Tea Party members or backers at their word because the “movement” does not have any central structure to review.”

    Neither do the candidates having union support. Can I now consider unions that supported Charlie Rangel to be corrupt? I think you’re just pissed because the Republicans managed to get support from outside of the Party itself.
    When the government exercises a power reserved to the states; What do we call that? (Please answer this question)

    “The Feds had to step in and make those laws because the States were unwilling to do it.”

    Just like your neighbor had to step in. Your making it obvious that a constitution limiting federal power has no limits whatsoever as long as you support the end result. Be careful; that backdoor you’re holding open may just result in unreasonable search and seizure, because they needed to do it.

    “Finally, the Tea Party didn’t become part of the Republican Party because of the tenets being similar, they were consumed by the Republican Party due to the money backing by the Koch Brothers and Dick Armey and his Freedom Works organization.”

    As long as you can say it, and I can’t prove otherwise, it must be. Maybe that explains the support of the Tea Party from people who consider themselves Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. I’m sure you’ve heard of them. They’re the people who live within their means, and would like to take home more of what they earn. The people who think promoting general welfare doesn’t mean promoting getting on welfare. The people who want less government because everything the government touches become a much greater drain on the economy that the benefit it intends. The people who don’t see the way to fix every problem is to throw money at it.

    Most importantly, the people who recognized are buzzwords that make some feel good, but don’t really mean anything at all.

    Why am I not a liberal? Because I have found liberals to be respectful of all ideas, as long as those ideas conform to their ideas. Why am I not a conservative? Because I don’t believe that God is going to make everything better if I would just pray for it.

    Crap is crap, and both sides spew it all over the place on a daily basis. On this blog, most of it comes from the left. When it’s crap from the left, it will look like I’m defending the right.

  12. Apology. The Statement of Faith was written in 1913, prior to the merger of the Congregational Churches with the Christian Church in the forming of the Congregational Christian Churches. That merger happened long before I was born, and is not within the living memory of my life.

    From the UCC web site, a few words (fair use as I understand) :

    “The Kansas City Statement was the most important affirmation of faith adopted by the Congregational Churches in the 20th century. In 1913, the churches’ National Council met in Kansas City to affirm traditional congregationalist principles in a form that would meet the needs of the new century.”

  13. Raff,

    Off topic:

    Did you see my post re:cannibalism on the discussion of The Host?

  14. Being stupid, every conversation I have is stupid, and this I avow, doing so stupidly.

    As I find significant satire deep within “The Paper Chase,” I similarly find it within “The War of the Worlds.”

    Being stupid, I never, never ever, find words to have plain meanings which are shared among diverse people.

    While I avow also that words have meaning, the meaning of words is always without meaning for me unless a sufficient process of successive approximation convergence has already happened within the specific context wherein meaning and words harmonize.

    My original college communications textbook is stored for lack of shelf space in our house, and, rather than searching through about 15,000 books and such packed in boxes, I just ordered, online, a used copy of B.P. Lathi, “Signals, Systems, and Communications,” Wiley, 1965.

    When scientific nonsense, such as “words have meaning” is included here in the sense that a given word has a given meaning, and this word-meaning relationship is like a mathematical function, such that two people are likely to share a function and reverse-function word with meaning relationship, I shall have ready access to the scientific refutation from authoritative (not authoritarian) sources to mention.

    As I recall has previously been suggested in a comment here, I do not understand the law, which was my position before someone else so wrote. I do not understand the law because, not being able to think in words, I find my being able to understand the law quite perfectly impossible. This being true for me, does not mean that is would ever be true for anyone else, nor untrue, either.

    Which legal maxim shall guide me? Ignorantia juris quod quisque scire tenatur neminem excusat (Ignorance of the law, which everyone is bound to know, excuses no one) OR Impossiblium nulla obligatio est (There is no obligation to perform impossible things)?

    When an attorney or or two or more attorneys actually tell me the law, all the law, and nothing but the law, so I actually have a perfectly complete understanding of the law so that I can apply said understanding infallibly in every unforeseeable future event of my life, I will cease using as my legal maxim mantra, “There is no obligation to perform impossible things,” and will ever after abide with “Ignorance of the law, which everyone is bound to know, excuses no one.”

    Until then I, personally, shall excuse, without exception everyone who is ignorant of any aspect, detail, ramification or implication of the law, and I shall especially excuse any and every professional practitioner of law for their individual and collective incapacity to live the avowed way of their profession.

    After my family moved to Detroit Lakes, Minnesota, my dad found a wood tick climbing his leg after being out in our back yard. Perhaps it was his biology minor in college which inspired him. He put the wood tick in a small bottle somewhat more than half filled with turpentine, thinking that would kill the tick.

    Not so. Months later, the wood tick was as though delighted with its new environment, swimming around as contentedly as I can imagine a wood tick being content.

    Quite a while later, a wood tick asked me to give it attention. I knew turpentine was not useful, so I did my own biology experiment. I put the wood tick between the jaws of a substantial metal vise and tightened the vise as much as I could. A couple days later, I opened the vise, and the wood tick was as though given a nice place for a pleasant nap.

    Stupidly autistic people sometimes just do not know better. I put the tick on an anvil and whacked it with a form of hand-drilling hammer. The tick acted as though slightly bemused.
    Curiosity got the better of me. Wham! Wham! Wham went the hammer against the anvil, the tick seeming to enjoy the experience.

    Then I noticed the end nippers. The very high leverage end nippers. Tick placed on cutting edge of nippers, tick aligned itself, front-to-back evenly along the cutting edge. Nippers closed. Nippers closed as hard as I could close them. Two half wood ticks resulted. Two dead half wood ticks. Cut a wood tick in two lengthwise and get two dead wood tick halves.

    But there are wood ticks and there are flatworms (planaria). Dugesia dorotocephala. Cut one of them lengthwise, and one soon has two complete, but smaller, thriving individuals; cut one into quarters and one soon has four complete, but even smaller, thriving individuals.

    Ticks don’t squish, planaria do. Ticks don’t survive being divided lengthwise, dugesia dorotocephala do.

    When I was about to be discharged from the University of Illinois Hospital 8-East psychiatric unit near the end of my first psychiatric hospitalization, I was given a pass for the first session with the psychiatrist who agreed to continue my treatment as an outpatient.

    He asked me to write short autobiography and bring it to the next session, which I did. Came the next session, and the psychiatrist, having read the autobiography, said, “Your life is like you have been stepped on like a bug a thousand times and more.” Stepped on by others, I am like a wood tick. While being stepped on, I am externally immobilized. Sliced and diced by others, I am like planaria in one way, but differ in another. Diced and sliced I become cut up and separated and the separated parts survive. Unlike planaria, I do not form separate, distinct individuals, the pieces gather together and reassemble in ways that make me better than before.

    I have mentioned earlier here and elsewhere that, when paddled at Marshall School, Eureka, California by the principal, Mrs. Edith Knudsen, I was paddled until I became agitated-catatonic. Perhaps some not-very-well known information may be usefully shared.

    There are two forms of catatonia, the vastly more common is of catatonic stupor, such as waxy flexible catatonia; that form of catatonia is passive, perhaps essentially the limit of being passive. The other form, agitated catatonia, is absolutely about as far from being in a stupor or being passive as I can imagine anyone ever being.

    When the defense mechanism of catatonic stupor is overwhelmed people who have been in a catatonic stupor tend to become the most violently aggressive, destructive people the world has ever known.

    The defense mechanism of agitated catatonia, as I have observed it in my own life and in the lives of a few other people, never fails, it is incapable of being overloaded into any failure of any sort. Because every instance of agitated catatonia I have ever known or heard of is under intensely effective, vividly conscious executive control, I have never heard of anyone who, raised with purely, authoritative-reciprocal parenting, ever acted violently toward anyone else with conscious violent intent.

    I have sometimes wondered whether the signpost for authoritarian parenting is a parent being willing to tell a child, “Because I said so!” My parents never did that with me. Never, never, never. So, I never learned to obey anyone’s “say so” or “said so.” Rather, I obey my conscience because I find it completely free of any corruption by deception or by religious deception.

    Given that words have no plain meaning, which I find to be a scientific fact, I have to find such meaning for each word in its context which gives to me intelligible meaning for a word sequence.

    The Wisconsin Constitution provides for that the worship of almighty God according to the dictates of conscience shall not be abridged. For me, that means my conscience as an individual person, and not some mythic group conscience fantasy. Also, “almighty God” is the same as the whole entirety of existence. And worship means to accept and affirm as existence becomes known to me and understood by me.

    Years before I became of age as a voting citizen of the United States of America, became of age as a voting member of Hope Congregational Church, in Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin, and my membership was and remains as a covenant. This covenant requires of me that I not accept any dogma, doctrine, contract, or covenant which would modify, rescind, revoke or otherwise alter any aspect of the original covenant contrary to the will of my conscience.

    In my words, my part of the covenant can be simply stated, “I will walk in the ways of truthfulness, as truthfulness has been, and is being, made known to me, according to the will of my conscience. The core of this covenant is found within the Kansas City Statement of Faith of the Congregational Christian Churches, which, the last time I checked, was easily located on the United Church of Christ web site.

    Finally, finally, I have a grasp of a comprehension of why the way I live has often utterly infuriated other people; until now this fury has utterly bewildered me.

    I am apparently perfectly immune to all things authoritarian and perfectly embracing of all things authoritative. Yet I am as though asked to live in and accept an authoritarian world which rejects me and the way I live, doing so with pure authoritarianism.

    My understanding of the law was framed by the very first law book I ever read, in my parents’ library, William E. Barton, “The Law of Congregational Usage,” Advent Publishing Co., Chicago, 1915. A basis principle of Congregationalism is that all church members have equal ecclesiastical authority. (see Barton, p. 10)

    One who tells me that said person is not authoritarian, and tells me so in an authoritarian way, I subjectively experience as though I am being talked to by a serpent with a tongue divided against itself.

    There can be no such thing as a non-dichotomous dichotomy in any form of existence I can imagine ever actually existing.

  15. BBB and Gyges,
    Your latest posts crossed while I was writing my response.
    BBB,
    The Republicans and Tea Party have a symbiotic relationship? Is that what you call selling out to the Republican financiers and large corporations?

  16. BBB,
    With all due respect, suggesting that the Tea Party is just a movement, would be false. Did not candidates run under the Tea Party label in various states primaries? Many of those same candidates still claim to be Tea Party people even thought they became Teapublicans. Besides that, if you are claiming that the Tea Party stands for only 4 basic tenets,but you are not a member, where can one go to verify your claims or as you call it propaganda?
    Sen. Lee is inherently suggesting that he is in favor of kids working at an early age and in horrible conditions by wanting to return the decision to correct State’s negligence in allowing corporations to abuse children to the very States that allow the abusive behavior. The Feds had to step in and make those laws because the States were unwilling to do it.
    The public can only take the candidates and politicians who claim to be Tea Party members or backers at their word because the “movement” does not have any central structure to review.
    Finally, the Tea Party didn’t become part of the Republican Party because of the tenets being similar, they were consumed by the Republican Party due to the money backing by the Koch Brothers and Dick Armey and his Freedom Works organization.

  17. BBB,

    By the way, I’m still willing to discuss the historical use of “Tea Bagger.” It’s only the discussion about the Onion that I don’t feel like continuing.

  18. What rafflaw and Blouise don’t understand, or don’t want to accept, is that we live in a country where the powers that be have made it virtally impossible for a third party to stand a chance. This necessitated that the Tea Party, if it wanted to grow, must, at least temporarily, become aligned with one of the two parties. The Tea Party’s basic ideals are much more closely aligned with the Republican Party. It was only natural that they would join forces. They currently have a symbiotic relationship. I doubt that will last for long, but it did permit the Tea Party to survive infancy. Where will the adolescent movement go from here? That will be determined in the coming years.

    New Tea Party slogan: We’re not Bush, and we’re not Obama either. (And we’re not witches) 🙂

  19. rafflaw,

    “There is no normal Party structure that one can go check to see if Sen. Lee’s statements are accepted by the “party”.”

    That’s because they are not a political party. They are a movement. They have about as much political structure as moveon.org. (Since moveon.org is backing Democrats, can I attribute anything said by a candidate that they support to moveon.org? What about anything stated on moveon.org to the Democrats? Would you consider that to be fair?) If you want to look for Sen. Lee’s political party, you should look to the Republican Party.

    “I do know that there have been no statements by any person who claims to be a Tea Party member or spokesperson disavowing Sen. Lee’s statements.”

    Disavowing what? That he thinks the Tenth Amendment should be recognized and respected? Or that he thinks the 1918 Court got it right the 1942 Court got it wrong? It’s only the fringe liberals who concluded that he was in favor of child labor, instead of recognizing that he thinks it should be up to the state to control (under his interpretation of the Constitution).

    If your neighbor jumped your kid’s shit for sitting on top of your car, and you stated that it’s your bailiwick, not his, to tell your children what they can or cannot do; should the neighbor conclude that you think kids should sit on top of the car? Or could it be that it is simply a matter of who has the authority to make the declaration? The simplest of minds would adopt the former.

    “Secondly, I am not spreading propaganda against the Tea Party.”

    That’s crap! In your article you stated “The part that I just don’t understand about Senator Lee is why does he want to return to the day when children were forced to work at too early of an age and under horrible conditions?”

    That claim is unfounded. If it’s not pure propaganda, you’ll be able to show where Sen. Lee said that he wants young children to work, and to do so in horrible conditions. If you cannot, and you still want to conclude that Sen. Lee wants what you claim he wants, the only way to avoid your statement from being viewed as propaganda is to admit it to be the product of a simple mind.

    I’m not associated with the Tea Party. I don’t find them. I don’t attend their rallies. I don’t speak for them. I will defend them when unfounded accusations are made against them. Does that make me a member?

    “your comment that the Tea Party was started due to the outrages of the Bush Administration is just your claim.”

    Without knowing the origins of the Tea Party movement, I can see how it would be difficult for you to see that it was against many of the policies of the Bush Administration. Why did it end up joining forces with the Republican Party? Because the Republican Party is more closely aligned with the tenets of the movement.

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPjTAH8Y_L8&w=480&h=390]

  20. Thanks Blouise. I am not sure that most of the Tea Party members are as cognizant of the Teapublican take over of their movement as your neighbor is.

Comments are closed.