Letter to the Editor:
Our courts have established the woman as a dictator type
leadership over her sovereign territory which is clearly
defined by the borders of her skin. The current laws
seem to establish this irrevocable leadership position
as though it is a birthright - not replaceable by elections,
impeachment, revolution, invasion, or any other means.
However, our courts have simply touched on this issue
by merely establishing the leader, but failed to develop
laws of that sovereignty. It has left a leadership of
unaccountability and has created a society of non-citizens
who are highly susceptible to human rights violations.
As a nation, would we dream of invading Iraq, overthrowing
Sadam Hussein, and establishing leadership without setting
up the laws of that sovereignty? If not, then with all
fairness why are we not consistent in setting up the
Rights of Sovereign Leadership in all cases? We have
established fundamental freedoms to the leader and failed
to address the inhabitant/s of the sovereign territory.
We have created a void by failing to establish formal
legal rules of this leadership position. This failure
is discriminatory in nature granting preferential treatment
to a single exclusive category of leaders.
We have seen leaders like Attila the Hun, Ivan "the
Impaler", King Herod, Adolph Hitler, and Sadam Hussein
all kill inhabitants of their sovereignty, or that of
another's, for whatever reasons. In all cases, these
actions are not socially acceptable. But worse yet, in
the case of a woman, we see a leader taking a conscience
action to bring an inhabitant into her sovereign territory
only to have her selectively terminate their existence.
This leadership practice is, by far, worst than any socially
unacceptable behavior from human history's most gruesome
leaders. We should not make allowances for this gross
misrepresentation and the injustices of female practices.
In the case of a woman, we establish, empower, and assist
this leader without ever questioning the character of
that leader. This failure, also, is discriminatory in
nature granting favoritism to an exclusive category of
leaders. As a nation, corporation, organization, club,
or family we would never dream of doing so in the case
of its individual leaders. How have we come to legalize
and accept such prejudice as that of the woman over her
sovereignty?
Because this nation did not fully trust people's judgment,
checks and balances exist mainly for preventing people
from abusing their power, except in the case of the woman.
We have set up a leader and allow her to behave with
tyrannizing practices that would never be tolerated in
any other sovereignty. We've set up the leader, but failed
to set up a means of providing direction and acceptable
rules of order to her particular administration.
Democracy should yield democracy. Does a Democracy have
the right to establish Dictatorships? Does a society
of elected leadership have the right to establish a Monarch?
Have we overstepped our authority by establishing this
uncontested irrevocable leader? Have we discriminated
by protecting the leader only? I would say that we have
created something that we have little understanding of.
Our Constitution is for every generation - past, present,
and future. However, our courts seem to have created
a void only for the generation in the "pipe line" caught
between the present and future by de-humanizing the inhabitant/s
of a woman's sovereign territory. Have the courts ruled
that our imminent generation does not exist in impregnated
women? How have we convinced ourselves to selectively
discriminate excluding our imminent generation from all
other generations? Because they are still in the pipe
line, we establish leaders who can exclude them from
free speech, civil liberties, and justice for all. If
the government can't destroy these unalienable rights,
how can it in-turn establish a leader who can, while
still remaining a constitutional government? How can
it empower someone else with a power that it itself does
not have?
Carolyn A. Dorroh
Ramona, CA |
