Laws, Damn Laws, and Statistics

I make small joke. The original quote from Mark Twain was, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."

I think I understand your paintings now, which is more than I can say about most art. Let's let that "meaning" thing rest for awhile, I'm sure it will come up again.

The constitution lays out the basic framework of our government. It tells the three branches of government what they can and cannot do. Laws, also called "acts", are passed by congress and ratified by the president. If the president vetoes a law, congress can over ride his veto if it can muster a two thirds majority. If not, the law is not passed. Over the years, congress has delegated much of its authority to agencies, like the IRS, the FCC, the ICC, and the Federal Reserve Board. These agencies cannot pass laws, but they can issue regulations under the authority that congress has given them. Regulations function something like laws in that, if you violate one, you can be prosecuted. I'm not sure what the difference is, other than that regulations are issued by unelected bureaucrats instead of elected congresspersons. The courts interpret the laws and may declare one of them to be unconstitutional. If the courts nullify a law like that, congress can pass another similar, but not identical, law, and the process starts all over again. Constitutional amendments are proposed by congress and need to be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures before they can go into effect. Another way amendments can be proposed is by calling a constitutional convention, but that's never been done. A constitutional amendment changes the constitution, so the courts can't declare an  amendment to be unconstitutional, but I suppose they could interpret the shit out of it so that the original intent is lost, like they have done with the rest of the constitution. ( sarcasm here)

State governments are similar, except they have a governor instead of a president and their state legislatures are not called "congresses". When there is a conflict between a state law and a federal law, the federal law is supreme. States rights issues arise when there is a disagreement about exactly what powers have been delegated to the federal government and what powers reside with the state. The constitution says anything that has not been delegated to the feds resides with the states, but the courts can, and have, interpreted the shit out of that one too.

I don't think it's exactly legal for that government to decide which laws to enforce and which laws not to enforce, but they do it all the time. Part of the reason is that laws are seldom repealed when they have outlived their usefulness. A law can lie dormant on the books forever, unless somebody decides to enforce it again. Then there will be a big uproar about it, and the law will either be repealed or another law will be layered on top of it to mitigate its effect.

It's been awhile since I've talked with any Mormons, but I seem to remember that it goes something like this: The supreme Mormon leader, which I think is called a president, is the only one who can issue prophecy. Prophesies are not carved in stone, a new prophesy can over ride a previous prophesy, which is why the mainstream Mormons no longer practice polygamy. Presumably, this guy meets with God on occasion, and God tells him about any new prophesies that He wants the guy to publish. Before you argue with me, be advised that there is more than one Mormon Church. There is the Church of the Latter Day Saints of Jesus Christ, then there is the Reorganized Church of the Latter Day Saints of Jesus Christ, then there is the Church of the Latter Day Saints of Jesus Christ Restored, then there's the Mormon Fundamentalists, which are the ones that still practice polygamy. There may be more, but that's the only ones I remember.

I read the ad for that book on Amazon, and I was confused by it. It says that the civil rights movement failed to integrate schools and housing in Chicago. Does that mean that Chicago has been operating in defiance of the law all these years? Then it says that the civil rights movement fell apart due to White backlash and the Black Power people. I thought it was the White backlash that fell apart, and that the Black Power people and the civil rights people were the same people. I suppose I could order the book, but maybe you can explain it to me. I should probably get the book anyway, just to see if it's the same Alan B. Anderson. I thought he might be a candidate for the Beaglesonian Institute, assuming that he's still alive and in possession of his faculties. I calculate that he should be around 80 by now, but lots of people are still functional at that age. I sure hope that we are!