states' rights

     States' rights is the political doctrine that the federal government should not have the power or authority to tell any individual state, or group of states, what to do.  The idea of states' rights has most recently been important in the 1950's and 60's, when the states of the former Confederacy refused to implement federal Civil Rights legislation.
      States' rights is also frequently cited as a major cause of the ( American ) Civil War.  It has become popular to insist that the war wasn't about slavery, but about states' rights. This becomes a bit silly when carried too far, since the states' right the South wanted to preserve was the right to own slaves. It wasn't actually a states' rights issue before the Civil War because the North did not have the political wherewithal to abolish slavery, only to attempt to check its spread. There was no anti-slavery legislation to defy. Slavery was not abolished until during the war--with the Southern representatives and Senators absent, the North had a clear majority for its policies.
     The states that did defy national legislation before the Civil war were Northern--the Northern states, more or less, refused to enforce the federal Fugitive Slave Act, which demanded the return of any slave who escaped to freedom in the North.  Southerners have actually cited this as a cause of their defiance, 100 years later, of federally ordered desegregation--states' rights for states' rights.
    

I'll set the law on you

    Most people have probably heard, at least on TV, someone threatening to prosecute someone, or to have someone prosecuted--the law of the fishwife.  Hmm. The law is something we make together, as a society, an agreed upon set of standards--one you could have gotten from your grandmother ( or mine, anyway), as in "how would you like it if someone did that to you?', or "what if everyone behaved that way?"  As we make the law together, we administer it as a society, together, through court employees and judges, elected by us, or appointed by our elected representatives. The law doesn't, or shouldn't, belong to one person or group to use as a weapon--when it does, it really isn't the law anymore, it's just someone using the courts for a personal agenda. We'd be better off with an impersonally administered set of rules, with no room for decision-making by administrators, than with a criminal justice system that can be used by the self-styled clever to their own purposes, no matter how high or righteous-seeming. "Would you like to prosecute?" should be removed from our courts, along with "I want him prosecuted."  It's an ancient custom that just doesn't work in a modern world. Our laws are statutory--written--and we, as a society, caused them to be written, and chose what they should be. That's why they work, when they work. No individual citizen should have the capacity to overturn that, by deciding who is and who is not prosecuted.

learning begins at birth

     Learning begins at birth, if there's anything to psychology. According to the science of psychology, there is such a thing as a normal human mind, and normal human emotions. Any mental processes or emotional states that deviate form the normal range are thought to be the product of childhood trauma, neglect, or abuse, either physical or emotional--in other words, learned behavior.

herd immunity

     I've had people tell me that they don't need to be vaccinated for contagious diseases because they have "herd immunity". By this they mean that since other people are vaccinated, they won't get sick, even without the vaccination. Probably not so, and quite risky. If most people are vaccinated, a disease might be checked before it gets anywhere in a population--but then again, it might not. Herd immunity belongs to a herd. If most people are vaccinated for a deadly disease, most people will survive an outbreak of it, since only the unvaccinated will become ill and die. The herd will remain, undamaged for the lack of the few people who weren't vaccinated. Individuals don't have herd immunity. Herds do.

trial in absentia

A trial in absentia means conducting a trial while the accused is absent--not in the courtroom. In the United States, this is unconstitutional, and any verdict rendered by a trial in absentia would be overturned by a higher court, or a court of appeals. Every defendant in the United States has the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him", which cannot happen if he or she is not present. A defendant also has the right to "be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation", for which he or she would need to be present. If you think someone is being tried in absentia, contact your local civil liberties organization or bar association--these rights are yours, too.

crimes against the state

     "Crimes against the state" is a sinister-sounding phrase to most American ears. It sounds like something we've seen in a B movie about the Cold War--one with political prisoners in it. But, in America, all crimes are crimes against the state. Commit burglary in Pennsylvania, and you will be tried by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The same with any other crime, in any other state. Of course, our states, like our nation, are made of "we the people". In some states, a criminal charge is read "the people of the state of" . Which is as it should be. Commit a crime against one person, you've committed a crime against all of us. It's called society, one of the natural functions of being human. So, the next time an American convict or ex-convict tells you that he or she was really a political prisoner ( a common bit of jailhouse philosophy ), tell him or her that you know-- that you approved it with your vote, and supported it with your tax dollars. And the next time you read something about "crimes against the state" in a foreign country, make sure you're not just reading about everyday, ordinary crime.

legal emancipation

     Legal emancipation means the emancipation of a minor ( someone under the age of 18, or 21 in some states ) from parental control. The minor will no longer be the parents' responsibility. The parents will not be responsible for the minor's debts, or for the care of the minor. This status is usually reserved for minors who marry, for which they need their parents' permission. A married minor can sign a contract and own property without the involvement of his or her parents. Joining the military at 17 may also emancipate a minor. A 16 or 17-year old who has a job and gets an apartment might be recognized as emancipated by a law court. A teen who gets in trouble with the law might be considered as emancipated for the purpose of living in a group home, or a facility supervised by the state. For the few minors who have a substantial income, legal emancipation may be an important issue, since it gives the minor the legal right to keep any money earned.