Why America's Love Affair with Rule-Breaking Leaders Provided an Open Door for Trump

by Nomad

A recent poll revealed an interesting and somewhat disturbing trend in politics. When it comes to leadership, nearly half of the country would be happy with a president that breaks rules. And guess whose supporters overwhelming uphold that idea that rules and laws are for losers? 

Breaking Rules for the Greater Good

Yesterday, I stumbled across some interesting bit of information from one of the thousand of polls. 

According to a survey by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, nearly half of Americans (45%) think that because things in the US have gone so far off the rails, the nation needs a leader who's willing to break some rules to put things in order. Slightly more than half of the respondents (51%) disagreed.  

If you think about it, it's really a frightening idea.

But what does it mean "to break the rules"? Does this mean voters think a leader must break laws too? Since laws are rules, that is the implication. And because the Constitution is the foundation of legal powers of the government, does it mean that half of the country would elect a leader that would violate the Constitution? 

And since the Supreme Court is the official final arbitrator of how the Constitution is applied, does this mean that 45% of the nation believes a president should listen to the high court decisions only when he agrees with it? Suddenly the entire question of the rule of law is called into question. All of our international treaties and nation-to-nation relationships are left to the whims of a leader who likes to shake things up and be "unpredictable." 

Theodore Roosevelt on the Lawless Capitalist

by Nomad

New Mexico House Bill 206: When Abortion after Rape or Incest is Tampering with Evidence

by Nomad

Looks like one legislator in New Mexico got caught trying to pull a fast one on voters when it comes to abortion. 
Draft legislation in the New Mexico State Congress would  have made the bodies of every woman pregnant from rape or incest a crime scene. According to House Bill 206, any woman attempting to terminate the pregnancy would be charged with the third-degree felony of “tampering with evidence.”

The bill would have made a crime of “procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime.” 

When news of the bill made headlines, the embarrassed sponsor of the bill found herself in the middle of a political storm.

Furious Backpedaling in Santa Fe
When details of the bill were made public, Republican Rep. Cathrynn N. Brown of Carlsbad, the sponsor of the bill, told reporters that:

“House Bill 206 was never intended to punish or criminalize rape victims. Its intent is solely to deter rape and cases of incest. The rapist — not the victim — would be charged with tampering of evidence.”

(Brown fails to mention that the original version of her draft did not include any provision that victims could not be charged. That addition and revision apparently came after the public outcry. To see the original version, click here: )

In the face of a public backlash, Brown was forced to add important clarifications ( From “ Whoever commits tampering with evidence shall be punished as follows:...” suddenly became “In no circumstance shall the mother of the fetus be charged.”)
But, since the bill doesn't define "procuring or facilitating"or "compelling or coercing" a 
careful re-reading also shows that anybody who encourages a woman to get an abortion after these crimes could be charged. Perpetrators of rape and incest are not exclusively specified.