 Aloha and welcome to On The Go with yours truly, Ian Davidson, the show where you get whatever we're going to give you. Today we're going to be talking about the constitution and things that we are interested in when it comes to that. I have Stan Osterman, host of many shows here at Think Tech. He wants to talk about it and I do too and we think that you guys will enjoy it. Stan, how are you doing? Good, thanks for having me on. Thank you for being on. Kind of weird being on this side of the table. Yeah. I'm getting in front of the camera for me to be quite honest. We are going to talk about the constitution and I'll be quite honest right from the get-go. I've looked at it. I don't want to say that I'm an expert at it and you find people talking about it a lot and people saying things that they believe are true to them because it's what they've even learned or what they've inferred from people talking, all that kind of stuff. What kind of things in the constitution do you feel people miss the mark on? Actually, as we were talking a little bit earlier, I think that a lot of people call themselves Muslims or Christians or Jews or whatever and they never read the source documents. They never read the Bible or the Torah or the Koran and yet they talk like they're experts in their religion and they think they really know what those religions stand for. Likewise, the constitution. Like you said, I think other than what you get in school, depending on whether there's a big surf that day or not, you may or may not have gotten anything out of that class because you had your mind on girls are surfing or something else. If that's the only time you got any education on the constitution, which is actually the case for me, you probably don't recall a whole lot or don't really know what's in there. For me, I decided to go in the military at the ripe old age of 25 and when I did that, I went in with the objective of becoming a pilot and flying for the airlines. I didn't think about getting killed in combat. I didn't think about the oath I was taking. I mean, I did them and I swore in and everything and then I know that oath by heart now because I had to give it so many times, but you swear an oath to the Constitution of the United States and you say you'll obey the orders of the president and you swear you're going to do that when you're in the military and do that with your life. So probably about, I don't know, halfway into my lower end of my flying career, I decided, you know, I probably ought to really read what I stood up and took the oath for. So I got a copy of the Constitution and this one was published by the government and given to the military probably in 1990 or thereabouts, it actually has a government printing office number and I've carried it in my briefcase ever since and I read it from time to time. I make out points like this Constitution actually defines the entire army and navy of the United States in 42 words and yet it describes the militia, the National Guard, in 70 words and you can tell this is a very concise document. I wish the tax code was this big, but this is a very elegant document. It establishes the entire government or our country in something this small and this isn't just the Constitution. This has got a couple pages of introductions and even some references at the end, significant dates and all the amendments that were made to the Constitution up to probably 1990, which is all but one, it has all the amendments of the Constitution. So the first 10 with Bill of Rights, so they're actually adopted right after the Constitution, so in the last 250-ish years, 17 amendments to the Constitution? Not a whole lot. It's a pretty unique, I'd call it an elegant document and it sets up our whole country. It tells the President what his role is, it tells the Congress what their role is, it tells the the judicial branch what their role is and how they check and balance each other and it even, like I said, as a guard guy and a military guy, I focused in on Article 1 Section 8 which was part where we talk about the militia and what the role of the militia is because it rolls right into Second Amendment too, as we talked about a little bit earlier, the keeping and bearing of arms in that we've never had a teacher's union take over a government. We've never had a plumber's union take over a government or a bunch of radical kindergarteners take over government, but you do have militaries take over governments. So in this country another check and balance that's not taught in school is the fact that every governor owns a piece of the United States federal military. Like Governor E. Gay doesn't own F-22s, but he owns all the people that fly and maintain those F-22s. He doesn't own, you know, a brigade of army guardsmen, but he has a couple thousand army guardsmen under his command that if he sincerely doesn't want the President to go to war, he'll tell the President, I'm not letting you take my guys. Will there be a fight? Yeah, there'll be a fight, there'll be a legal fight, but some of these things have never been challenged in a court of law, never been challenged. In fact, you know, when you ask about you know my feelings, I'd say that probably two-thirds of the laws in our country have never been challenged at the Supreme Court level, more probably way more than that even. And we have laws in the books that probably should be wiped off because they're A obsolete or B totally unconstitutional, but they're there and we just kind of go with them until somebody contests them. And so I think it's really important that more people read the Constitution. I agree. I think that I, to be honest, I should, I should, but I fear that like most people, it seems very, you know, like you said, it's like this is how it is, it's really simple, it should be easy to understand, but when you go out there and you hear people that will read something and say, this is what it means, and then you have another person say it, a complete different thing. It's very hard for people to, you have to pick a side, which you know what I mean? What really ends up happening is people have to pick a way to understand it. You know, it's like with religions there's, you know, we brought up Islam and the people that are in that follow that religion, they are the ones that read it or don't understand it in their head to mean this. And then there's the other side and exactly the same thing happens with the Constitution. And it's interesting that is that, was that, do you think that that's how the Constitution was written? So that it can be interpreted in so many different ways that it makes it sort of not stringent on people? No, I wouldn't say that it can be interpreted in so many ways. In fact, it's it's pretty fundamentally structured, but what it does allow is the freedom of dialogue and civil discourse. It lets you talk about differences peacefully. It lets you change government, including a fairly radical change in policy government, peacefully. In fact, one of the, this copy that we got issued when I was a young officer, I'd like to read, this is by Chief Justice Warren Berger who was the commission, the guy who in charge of the committee that put this whole project together. It was really to commemorate the Constitution. It says in the last quarter of the 18th century, no nation in the world was governed with the separated and divided powers providing checks and balances on the exercise of authority by those who governed. Nobody in the whole world, the first time in the world, anybody came up with something like this Constitution. A first step towards such a result was taken with the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and followed by the Constitution which is drafted in Philadelphia in 1787. In 1791, the Bill of Rights was added and each of the antecedents back to the English Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta and beyond were included in this, in this compiling to make the Constitution and what it is today. The work of 55 men in Philadelphia in 1787 was another blow to the concept of divine right of kings. So it really was a pushback on the monarchy in England but the freedoms flowing from the Constitution created a land of opportunities and ever since, ever since then, the discourage, the oppressed people from every part of the world have made their way to our shores. There were others too, educated, affluent, seeking a new life and new freedoms in a new land. This is the meaning of our Constitution. The principal goal of the Bicentennial Commission was to stimulate and appreciate and understand our national heritage. A history of a civics lesson for all of us. The lesson cannot be learned without first reading and grasping the meaning of this remarkable document. The first of its kind in human history, in human history. That's what makes, I think, what makes the U.S. different. A lot of people say well the U.S. is different because we're so rich. We're so powerful. We have a huge powerful military. We do. But that's not when we're rich. We're rich because of this. We're rich because for the first time we had people that were making the government and limiting the government to what the people said they wanted instead of having kings dictate. Because there's a lot of people who love monarchies and say there's nothing better than a benevolent dictator. And it's true. I mean, it's great. Well, at last. But then the successor may not be so great. Yeah, Chopinot. He's got all the power. Yeah. He's hanging people on Chopinot heads because you don't like what they say. That's not good. So the Constitution sets down the framework with everything that should be put into government to give the power to the people being governed versus the power being held by a few people at the top and directing what everybody should do. And I think that's really the beauty of the Constitution. What do you say? I agree. I think that that is, I mean, without that there is no America. It's what it's like the seed kind of for America. What do you say? You know, I agree. I think that people we have the ability it's right there to say, whoa, checks and balances. You see it on TV. You see it happening, I guess, in politics here and in our government and the three branches of government. And you will hear people say, I can do it. I can just do it. And then when somebody says, no, you can't. Wait. Check. Check. It's right here. Then you hear people say, whoa, you can't do that. Are those people do those people just not know that that's how it works? I mean, you know, like the president, let's just president or we don't have to even point him out. We'll point, let's just say, ahead of the highest Democrat. Tries to do something. Someone's going to say, whoa, you can't do that. And if Democrats go, whoa, yes, you can. Well, let's look at the president. Let's take the case of the president. And it strikes right home here in Hawaii. The president put out an executive order that said, we're going to temporarily limit the people coming into our country from certain other countries until we can vet them properly. And first the state of Washington followed up a few months or so later by the state of Hawaii. Filed a court motion to stop that executive order. Did President Trump go screw you guys? I'm doing it anyway? No. No, he didn't. He respected the rule of the court and he'll take it through the judicial process as opposed to you've got people who, in Berkeley, for example, who don't want somebody speaking in an engagement and instead of just saying, hey, this is, this person has a bad message and you should boycott that speech, they go out and destroy windows and private property and public property and the law enforcement doesn't seem to do anything to stop them. There's a big problem there. There's a part of the probable cultural that's missing lately and it seems to be civility. It seems to be just good manners. Maybe we're not teaching good manners in school anymore or respect for other people. But the Constitution makes it really clear that everybody's equal. And so you have a right to say what you want to say and so do I. And you don't have a right to sit there and gag me or tie me up and throw me in the corner and say shut up I don't like what you're saying and I don't have the right to do it to you either. We can disagree all we want but we can agree to disagree at the end of the day. Agreed. What I'm interested in though, in this, in that exact sort of scenario, is what we saw was the president do something, then the checks come in and then the president can't do nothing now. He's got to wait. He's got to let the checks and balances, what the Constitution set up. There were our people that believe that that right there, the Boycott Hawaii thing, we're going to Boycott Hawaii. It's the same thing. Those people clearly believe that what that judge has done was wrong and it shouldn't be happening. Whereas when I look at it, I just see the process happening. It's just happening. A lot of people get really hot about it because they're invested in it. I'm not part of any party. I try to play the innocent bystander as much as I can because I think that Constitution says I am me and how I feel is how it is and I have to play within the rules. I don't really join parties and stuff like that or try to grow up. But I see the process and I hear people winging out about the process and my question is, is that just that ignorance of not knowing? Well, I think what it really is going to take and what I think is really the beauty of the process is the president has respected the process and he's respected the court although other people pretty much badmouth the court for their decisions and say well it's all being politically driven and that's someone's opinion. The people who want to Boycott Hawaii, that's their opinion too and they can do it. What would really benefit us is if we could get this thing resolved in the courts quickly and then we would understand because the job of the courts is to decide whether the law is constitutional or not. To decide whether that judge was actually within the bounds of the legal process, the legal system, the legal guidance to do what he did and we need to resolve that quickly If you look at what's going on, because if it ends up being unconstitutional we move on and we just don't have it. Exactly, exactly, done, we press forward. And so I think that one thing that the Constitution tries to do at least in criminal cases is gives you the right to a speedy trial in a criminal case. Okay, but it doesn't necessarily give you that right in a civil case or in in these larger cases, especially if it's going to go all the way to the Supreme Court. There's nobody that says it's got to be done in two weeks. And most of the lawyers will try and drag it out even longer because they want to do more homework and more research and things like that. I agree. I think that that checks and balance process is in place for a good, for the reason, for a really good reason. It just needs to be figured out how to do it. I need to go to a break if you need anything. Stan Osserman, super excited to have him on the show. We're talking about the Constitution or what little I might know and we're learning stuff if you are right on. If you're listening on the podcast, thanks a lot. I have to go to a break in about a minute. We'll be right back. Thanks for tuning in. Aloha. My name is John Waihei and I used to be a part of all the things that you might be angry at. I served in government here and may have made decisions that affects you. So I want to invite you in. I want to invite you in to talk story with me and some very special guests every other Monday here at Talk Story with John Waihei. Come on in, join us, express your opinion, learn more about your state and then do something about it. Aloha. Aloha and happy new year. It's 2017. Please keep up with me on Power Up Hawaii where Hawaii comes together to talk about a clean and just energy future. Please join me on Tuesdays at one o'clock. Mahalo. Right on. Welcome back. This is on to go. I'm Ian Davidson. We're here with Stan Osserman. We're chatting about the Constitution. We were just talking about how people do things, the checks and balances, some of the things that could work better a bit. We're going to talk about some more stuff. What do we want to talk about? We want to talk about, let's talk about liberalism and conservatism. What are your thoughts? Yeah, this is actually really kind of the crux of what I think has kind of come to a point over the last 10 or 15 years. Because being a military person, by nature I tend to be conservative in a real classic definition of I swore to defend the Constitution, which is about as conservative as an American as you can get when you say, I'm going to give my life to protect the document that founds our country. I kind of align with conservative principles. What I find really actually fascinating is that when you look at definitions of liberal and conservative over years and decades and centuries and millennia, it's different. If you look at the definition of liberal and democratic, you're looking at the definition that's in the Constitution, right of the people, rule of law. All those things that are outlined in the Constitution are all democratic principles and at the time they were liberal principles because the conservative view was monarchies. So our entire Constitution is looked at from the foundation as being liberal. But now, 200 and something years later, conservative means I backed the old liberal Constitution. It's like the roles have become very muddied and when people say they're conservative or liberal, a lot of times it's not so clear. In fact, I've had somebody tell me that if you really took the population of Hawaii, which is predominantly Democrat, and I mean we don't even have a Republican in the state senate anymore, but you looked at their actual values and where they line up on a whole bunch of issues, you'd find that they actually probably line up more conservative by definition than liberal. There's some things here that are really strong. Unions are strong. That's pretty contemporary liberals union. Taking care of everyone. Everyone in every way is a liberal viewpoint in today's books. Whereas conservatives say, you know, we want everybody to have a chance, but if we're going to be paying for everybody's everything, then at some point, you know, you're going to run out of people doing the work because you're going to have too many people just on the dole. And the conservatives kind of see that extreme. So it's a really weird time to be to be engaged in politics right now because the definitions have just changed so much over time. But one of the things that I think really gets back to our constitutional part is that we've also come to a point where compromise is not so easy anymore. Because like I say, you have you've gotten to the point where on the on the liberal side or more progressive side, they've pushed the limits on things like abortion and things like that to where it's coming smack head on against religious values on the conservative side, where people who really do read the Bible, fundamental Bibleists born again Christians, you know, they read the Bible and they know what's in there. And whether it's abortion or gay rights or whatever, we're starting to have conflicts where you just can't compromise anymore without compromising your core values. And once you get down to compromising core values, you're not conflict. And I think we're really close to that point. That's why a lot of people when they look at politics nowadays, they see a danger because they see people being anarchistic to get their points across and literally trying to shut you up with violence, just to get their point across. And then people on the other side who just won't move, because I'm sorry, you're backing my my me against a religious wall, and I won't compromise anymore. And we're hitting the stalemate points. And it is kind of dangerous. It's kind of scary. So I think it's it's really time for kind of a reassessment of what's American and look at what's American and redefine ourselves together as what's American. I hear that. And what you know what I I'm totally on board on that leads me to think of the Constitution again. The Constitution is pretty solid rock solid. You said that it one of my sort of things with it is that I happen to believe that it's kind of fluid. It has changed over time. It is not the same thing it was on day one. I know that it's been a very long time since there's been change. And that might be because the way to make changes to it, it might be connected to that sort of hardening of the lines as they spread out over time that to come to the compromise, which would be potentially a change to that to make that sort of example. I don't know. I just feel like that for for the for like the religious aspect of it freedom of legend in there. That's because this is just the basic knowledge high school barely made it through. Is that you can have your religion here in in America and the government cannot tell you you can't right. And that's basically because it's even less than that. It's one sentence in the first amendment in the bill. That's agreed. Let's hear it. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. So here we are. They can have it. You can have whatever religion and if your religion now is the one soul thing that blocks you from compromise and you just say well it's my religion. You can't break that right. You can't tell me it's wrong. You can't tell me you can't say it. I mean just started the Churchill what's happening now last week. Right. Exactly. And I'm right up against the Constitution. How do we get to that without sort of bending it? And then we can sort of tie that travel ban into it because the proponents of it think that it's it's that right there. You can't sort of say religion is the reason why we are now saying you can't do this. And right or wrong. That's up to the courts to check that. And that's why I see that we have a good social discussion on it. And we might even have referendums. I mean we don't generally do big referendums. Some states do them. But we may have to actually get to that point where we have referendums because you're going to get to these points where you really have to have a solid discussion on. I mean even real controversial things like abortion. I mean on the liberal side it's women's reproductive rights. It's a choice of a woman and doctor to make the decision what's best for the woman. On the conservative side it's well then who's speaking for the unborn child. Right. That unborn child is potentially an American citizen and is viable in a fairly young age with today's modern medicine. Who's speaking for that voice that doesn't have a voice. Who's defending their rights because under our Constitution they have rights too. It's just a matter of defining when you're considered a human being or you're not. This is why. And those are where we start to run up against these tough blocks where you're going to have to have a little bit more dialogue and there probably is going to have to be some compromise right to some very fine lines. Right where someone ends up being a loser in that and so both you know like in a compromise if you're going to be a real general compromise both sides lose both sides win. That's the happy medium. That's not going to be the case with something like that like if for that to happen it seems as if almost the decision has to be made and in America where do we stamp that decisions of really importance that matter across the land. I think that's where I say we've gotten to a point where we may have to start doing referendums where we put things on a ballot and say okay America here's your choices. It's this this this or this you know maybe have four or five choices pick one or pick two and that's the most you can pick and sit down and really going to get a good temperature of what's going on in everybody's mind and then get to that point. So I would say if you're going to do another amendment come to the Constitution it may be something like that where you say certain things when they get to basically a logger heads in Congress and then in the political process we offer those things up to be more put on the agenda on the on the voting agenda let the citizens decide individually or let the states decide individually. I mean one of the things that was written into the Constitution specifically was like for the presidential elections the Electoral College and and there's a lot of controversy around that particularly right now because Hillary Clinton won a popular vote Donald Trump won the Electoral College in our law he's the president whether he voted for him or didn't like him whether he liked him whether he were a Republican that didn't like him you know he's the president but people go well but it should be popular vote well no it shouldn't be because the Constitution says it shouldn't be specifically and it it shouldn't be changed I don't think because that means that if you want a campaign in just California Texas and New York you can always win elections and the more money you spend nowadays on elections it's all marketing it's not quality a candidate it's all marketing you never hear a political pundit say well this is the best candidate because they've they've got two PhDs and they've got 15 years of experience in business and they've they've flown a spaceship before and you know they've got all these qualifications they should be president no it's so-and-so raised 20 million dollars in this campaign someone say raise 300 million dollars to they're going to win because they got the best marketing campaign is that the way you want to pick politicians that's the way we pick them today I was gonna say that's kind of that's not a good sign yeah we need to get away from this what I heard the most common term I heard talking about that was called retail politics we need to get away from real to retail politics and get back to hey really what do you stand for right and vote for people based on that definitely I think we could talk for more and I just got the thing in the air telling me that we're coming up and I wanted to talk a lot a lot of about a lot of other stuff and I think we could probably spin this into a longer conversation second amendment we're on totally I want to talk about that for sure the second amendment especially here in Hawaii because of the sort of I don't I don't I have like I said I have a hard time saying difficulty to get weapons here I understand the logic behind it and all the it is it's harder to get one here than say in New Mexico or another state and just in America that just seems wrong like it should just be like it's like this everywhere and you know you hear all the sort of the madness on this side the madness on this side and it there's got to be a happy medium and I think again it just comes down to somebody deciding this is how it is and that's going to be a while we'll talk about that later for sure this has been on the go if you're listening on the podcast I really appreciate it if you just watch this on YouTube click on some link or subscribe or whatever you want to do or tell a friend that's really cool tweet us all that kind of good stuff at think tech Hawaii think tech Hawaii dot com Stan thanks very much for being on it with is this for me you know this really quickly before we go Ben Carson check him out he's giving him away thank you very much Stan we'll talk about this again all right everybody aloha