Donald Sterling and the Impact on the Constitution

How We Can Effect Change to the U.S. Constitution Because of the Donald Sterling Controversy

 

The Donald Sterling mess..did America get its justice or did Americans lose another tiny slice of their civil rights? It’s ok to reach for a Utopian society where the scales of equality balance at a zero differential. It is better than ok that we all want a kinder,less polarized, more tolerant world for our children to grow up in. It’s ok that we want to put the dark days of racism in the trash, compact it, put it on a shelf, and demonize anyone that embodies those racist thoughts. BUT, the question is at what cost?

 

One Step forward, two steps back

It seems that we take a step forward and then two steps backwards, like a country dance. We attempt to right a wrong even though the process to collect the evidence was a criminal act. We ignore the process because the moral outrage is worse than the crime. Rarely in life does a private legal transgression of the social contract trump a misdemeanor. Seldom is the court of public opinion dominant to penal law. Illegal wiretap vs. the sanctity of a private conversation and the crime wins.

 

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

In courts throughout the land, judges rule daily on evidence admissibility. Little tolerance is afforded prosecutors and law enforcement if a piece of evidence is tainted in the slightest, collected without proper search warrant or without probable cause. An illegal collection process or a flawed evidence custody chain is basis for disallowing the evidence as it is now “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Should we allow this type of personal intrusion to effect social change and what is the price? And in this case, why did “the world” wait to hang Donald Sterling after his comments when his actions for decades needed addressing many times before regarding his discrimination practices concerning housing and employment.

 

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Abdul-Jabbar, former Hall of Fame NBA superstar and past employee of Donald Sterling, wrote anop-ed for Time magazine where he expressed outrage at Sterling’s remarks, agreed that he has no place in the NBA as an owner but then started the conversation on the issue of the way the evidence was collected and “leaked.” Kareem drew a parallel to what Sterling’s ex-girlfriend did to the actions of the NSA and their eavesdropping policy exposed by Snowden. Abdul-Jabbar wrote, “Shouldn’t we be equally angered by the fact that his private, intimate conversation was taped and then leaked to the media? Didn’t we just call to task the NSA for intruding into American citizen’s privacy in such an un-American way?” . I agree with Kareem and America that Sterling is a vile creature and has no place in any business that affords him a position to wield his prejudice, but there is another issue being conveniently ignored. The rights of Americans to have a private conversation regardless of the topic or personal opinion. It’s rare that we see inside the mind of a racist at his own expense and by his own utterances but we must factor in that he thought it was a private conversation, not one that would be taped illegally and leaked to TMZ Sports.

 

Two wrongs don’t make a right

Donald Sterling is a jealous, easily manipulated man, that in his heart of hearts is a racist. He is banned for life, the NBA commissioner fined him and team ownership will transfer. Now, we have to inspect and interpret the dynamics of the case and look past the outrage and the action of the haters. We have to realize that this scandal has a bigger context in life than an old man’s racist conduct and thoughts. Serious violations of rights is what is at stake here for us all.

 

Constitutional “gray” areas

• The NSA wiretaps.
• The “Stop and Frisk” police policies.
• The proliferation of video cameras
• The Google Glass.
• Law enforcement and government procurement of emails and texts.
• The searching of smart phones without a warrant,
• Facial recognition software.

This is just a small amount of issues that technology has bred. The forefathers could not have envisioned these advances and could not have addressed them in the Bill of Rights. We need to create a long term standing policy on what citizen’s rights are as far as collection and warehousing of personal data and the means of collection. It’s time for a definitive understanding of the impact of these technologies on the rights of the citizens. No longer is an “interpretative” line item policy enough. We don’t have and cannot afford the time it takes for the Supreme court to weigh each and every argument. Technology is just moving too fast for that time luxury. We need to revise the constitution like a building, total renovated from the ground floor up.

 

Time for Major Revision to the U.S. Constitution

Isn’t it time that the collective; our President, our representatives in Congress, the Supreme Court of the United States, and its’ citizens, address these issues in the Amendments of the U.S. Constitution? Isn’t it time to bring this great document into the modern age? Time to stop trying to interpret what our founding fathers would do and start agreeing on what we want America to be. Our forefathers couldn’t possibly have imagined the technology available now and what the future holds as well as the ramifications to people’s basic rights. Technology offers many advantages but also presents many challenges to our basic ideas of freedom and protection from government and media intrusion. We have to revise the U.S. Constitution to make a relevant document to our lives now in the present and for our future.

 

U.S. Constitution…Holy Document?

Our forefathers would have encouraged us to see the Constitution as a guide but not the “end all be all” document it has evolved into. It’s not a Holy document, it was written by brilliant men in a different time with different challenges, but no divine inspiration. To try and take their world and blend it with ours the way we do is fundamentally flawed. Rather than having lawyers present case after case to the Supreme Court arguing about how a particular word in one context changes the entire meaning, let’s empower our leaders to take affirmative action enacting concrete change.

 

Empowered Action

Using the Constitution as a guide, let’s do a major re-write. We have a ton of smart citizens in this country in academia and other professions. Let’s get their insight and wisdom and trailblaze the future now. Let’s be the generation of Americans that re-purpose the Constitution. Let’s rewrite our collective futures letting our forefathers guide us and model their basic principles with more detail and focus upon OUR immediate and future challenges. Let’s stop the interpretation.

 

“When life gives you lemons, make lemonade.”

Do we follow Dale Carnegie’s advice and one day find the upside in this Donald Sterling mess if it effects positive change for society. or will we remember this sad event as another tragic day in many, where we lost another slice of our rights and our privacy. History will not be kind to Donald Sterling, that is a guarantee, his legacy is now of a racist. History will also judge us on how we handle this controversy and if we made lemonade from our lemons.

 

Silver lining

Ben Franklin once said many years prior to the Constitution in a reply to the Pennsylvania Governor in 1755, ” They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Relevant liberties such as open communication, the unabridged freedom of speech and the freedom from search all will be challenges of the Orwellian future and Donald Sterling can be thanked that maybe this will be the scandal that starts that conversation and this dark cloud may have a silver lining.

 

Los Angeles Clippers Owner, Donald Sterling’s, Penalty for Being a Racist?

Lots of questions popped into my head yesterday after listening to Donald Sterling, owner of the NBA’s Los Angeles Clippers basketball team taped conversation that was “leaked” to TMZ Sports that by now has been heard by more people than President Obama’s last State of the Union speech.

 

What is the penalty for racist remarks? Should people who say racist things go to prison? Should they be fined per word, per thought, or per incident? Should punishment escalate according to amount of offenses? Is it a misdemeanor or a felony? Would the three strike rule apply to be considered a habitual offender and demand life in prison without parole? Should they have to attend racism classes for “rebooting,”? Is there a statute of limitations such as in Paula Deen’s case? Should it be legislated by state or federal government? Is it Constitutional to legislate against racist beliefs? It’s going to require the wisdom of Solomon and Abraham Lincoln to negotiate this issue.

 

THE LAW regarding taped Conversations

Some other ethical questions to answer concerning the Donald Sterling remarks. His trophy girlfriend, Ms. V. Stiviano, recorded this conversation without his knowledge. California, being a two party privy state, recording private conversations are illegal without both parties consent as per California Penal code section 630-638 . It is criminally punishable, the penalty imposed could be a $2500 fine and 1 year in jail. Also expect a civil lawsuit as the party recording the conversation can be held liable for any losses occurred by the other party. Would a judge have to strike from the record evidence obtained illegally? Is it ethical for news media to use illegally wiretapped conversations? Could TMZ be liable to Donald Sterling for damages for publishing an inadmissible tape and thus be guilty of libel for circulating something that can’t be substantiated cause the fruit of the evidence is tainted. Suppose the tape was altered? All of this adds up to some interesting speculation and thought as a society how we should address such behavior on this matter and others like it in the future.

 

The Defense?

First let me say, I think what Donald Sterling said was absolutely obscene and without defense. There is no excuse for it and shows his true colors(no pun intended). I’m sure his PR people will try to spin it or make an excuse. They could whip out the Ambien defense like Congressman Patrick Kennedy and Kerry Kennedy (quick side note: I was always amused they both got away with DUI using the same defense, awesome). They could have Donald Sterling admit to being a longtime sufferer of Tourette’s syndrome or Alzheimer’s disease. I’d have to use a Dr. Phil-ism for those excuses, “I’m sorry, but those dogs just won’t hunt.”

 

The Solution?

OK, let’s agree that there are no excuses for this behavior. Let’s also agree that he said everything on the tape with a sound mind, no drugs or alcohol involved and not a legitimate excuse in the world. So, Now what? Can the NBA commissioner Adam Silver force him to sell the team? The Los Angeles Clippers are worth $575 Million according to Forbes magazine article in January 2014. Will he get paid what it’s worth and won’t any qualified prospective buyer know the value of the team and the reason why he needs to sell and try to take advantage of the situation and make a profit on racism indirectly. Pandora’s Box on steroids when you start peeling the layers away from this smelly onion. Can players boycott their games effecting a breach of contract and not be held financially responsible for that breach cause their feelings were hurt? Should we listen to the unreasonable demands of Rev. Al Sharpton to make Donald Sterling give the team back to the NBA and forfeit almost $600 million dollars in equity and future income. Is this an equitable punishment for his “crime”?

Should Mr. Sterling be fined by the NBA for conduct unbecoming and actions detrimental to the league. Bingo, we have a winner. In this case, that is exactly what will be done. Sterling has owned the team since 1981, the NBA is a cronyistic organization and the NBA commissioner is appointed by the owners and serves at their discretion, Commissioner Silver will do as told. That’s the reality. A fine imposed, Mr. Sterling will be publicly shamed, the feature focus of many articles and the target of many media talking heads like Rev. Sharpton and his National Action Network, ESPN2 Keith Olbermann and the rest of the bandwagon jumpers. They will rally around an emotional issue and use that to further their own agenda and themselves “profit” indirectly from racism.

 

You Can’t Fix Stupid

Comedian Ron White coined this expression in his comedy routine. It’s the most accurate and only thing that can be said in Donald Sterling’s defense. We, as a free society, have to respect the right to thought, right or wrong. We have to respect the sanctity of private conversation.

Voltaire, a French philosopher, has been attributed with the saying, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Is there a lesson to be learned from such a quote? Can this be the answer? Is the answer, tolerance of the feeble minded?

Ben Franklin said “If everyone is thinking alike, then no one is thinking.” Words to ponder because he was a staunch advocate of Freedom of Thought.

John F. Kennedy said in Saturday Review, October 29, 1960, “Let us welcome controversial books and controversial authors. For the Bill of Rights is the guardian of our security as well as our liberty.” No clearer words spoken by our beloved ex-president that would argue tolerance of the wickedly stupid.

 

Slippery Slope

You can’t make someone like anyone. You can’t force bigots to like their own prejudices. It only binds the hatred tighter. You can’t force people to associate with each other. The Beatles sung, “All you need is Love” but we also need tolerance of the stupid. Tolerance of the people that hate others. Let us ignore “the haters” and concentrate teaching the new generation to choose acceptance and appreciate what makes us different physically and culturally. You can’t criminalize ideas. You can’t legislate thoughts. The Constitution directly forbids the making of law by Congress abridging the Freedom of Speech. Yes, Hate words are unprotected speech but hate is protected. We are allowed to hate, it is our right. And there is a measure in place to penalize the haters if that hatred escalates to discrimination. It takes true enlightenment to understand the right course of action when dealing with hatred and a great place for guidance is in the Good Book.

Matthew 5-44: ” But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you .”