an intended or unintended consequence

Many years ago, there was a phrase: Win on Sunday, sell on Monday, a euphonious statement coined in the world of racing. The goal; sell product to the masses! A win-win and intended consequence. But, like all things good, government stepped in, and the world of racing became a sport the antithesis of the original. A reimagining by those in control. Those involved in the sport, either competitor, or spectator, not able to decide by choice, but relegated by government through force, and the halcyon days of “run what ya brung,” faded into the history books of yesteryear. Although, there was an upside, depending on one’s viewpoint. Legislators saw the value in the slogan, and paraphrased: Lie on Sunday, cheat on Monday, win on Tuesday. Their trophy; power. Although, for the average citizen, an unintended consequence of epic proportions from a duping unimagined.

Which brings up the adage: Law of unintended consequences. Unlike Newton’s law of motion which I do believe in, the law of unintended consequences is actually a byproduct of an intentional consequence. To explain, I was born two days after Christmas, the gift no one wanted, at least my three older sisters’ felt. Along with their holiday angst regarding my birth, another later issue presented. That being an unintended consequence of their intended consequence for retribution to me messing up their world, was learning to run before I could walk. Each instance, not law applied, but an action taken.

And, to further elucidate my philosophical viewpoint, back in my plant manager days, I was involved in a work transition to drop the word “accident” (unintended consequence) from all plant floor employee’s vernacular, and in place, use “incident” (a non-deliberate intended consequence). The premise; there’s no such thing as an accident. Not necessarily where one goes and deliberately does something negative, but loses focus, gets distracted, misses a step, overlooks a process, or a multitude of factors, and does something incorrectly, the result, an injury. Like texting while driving, a simple concept to understand, but complex, with potentially deadly results. The reasoning was the connotation of an accident not bearing fault, “it just happened,” where an incident determines and place’s fault, achieving corrective action to prevent things from happening again. The action may not have been intentional, but lack of attention lead to a recordable, or non-recordable injury. An action resulting in a reaction.

Which brings full circle the current state of America, and whether all the discombobulation taking place is either an intentional consequence of intent, or derived outcomes, unintentional consequences of action, as in truth being a concomitant of deceit. Additionally, one must know the difference between them, including how to arrive at the distinction:

Men often oppose a thing, merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike. But if they have been consulted, and have happened to disapprove, opposition then becomes, in their estimation, an indispensable duty of self-love. They seem to think themselves bound in honor, and by all the motives of personal infallibility, to defeat the success of what has been resolved upon contrary to their sentiments. Men of upright, benevolent tempers have too many opportunities of remarking, with horror, to what desperate lengths this disposition is sometimes carried, and how often the great interests of society are sacrificed to the vanity, to the conceit, and to the obstinacy of individuals, who have credit enough to make their passions and their caprices interesting to mankind. Perhaps the question now before the public may, in its consequences, afford melancholy proofs of the effects of this despicable frailty, or rather detestable vice, in the human character. (Federalist 70)

Continuing in the realm of adages, my dad taught me one while purchasing a car. While I was more interested in the glitter of the outside versus the integrity of what lay beneath the hood – his words, “buyer beware,” and I didn’t listen. In the end, it cost more than it was worth, and the memories today are better than the reality then, having learned mechanics the hard way. An unintended consequence due to an intended consequence of believing everything that glitters is gold, instead of listening to his sage advice.

Which brings us to politically motivated deceit through a discombobulation of intended and unintended consequences and the Constitution. The Framer’s were deliberate in its design and execution, so much, wording is expressly included, as well as excluded. So, in order to discern, one needs to understand intent:

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people; a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and Independence. (Federalist 2)

Intent being “one connected country to one united people, speaking the same language, [utilizing] the same principles of government.” Yet, in the Constitution, of words excluded, one being immigration, even though there are more people entering the country illegally than legally today. An epic dilemma portending an absolute national failure at some point, unless the whole point is for an intended consequence:

In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag…We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language…. (Teddy Roosevelt)

And food for thought to an intended consequence of the illegal immigration dilemma facing the nation today; amnesty, a “pathway to citizenship,” for vote buying, albeit unconstitutional - To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization (Article I/Section 8). And following current dogma, no longer do the above words of Teddy Roosevelt have a place in American society, a sad testament of national pride lost. So, while every coin has opposite sides, Democrats and Republicans are similar, each is two-sided, yet should singularly serve a purpose: protect and defend the Constitution:  

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; ... (Constitution: Article II/Section 1)

Although, going back timewise, after the Civil War, the issue of slaves becoming citizens was as tenuous as the war itself. The thirteenth amendment ended slavery, but issues only worsened. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was in response, with an opening paragraph outlining citizenship: That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; …

“Not subject to any foreign power,” except, what happens when an unintended consequence results from an intended consequence to reshape the nation into something it was never designed to be. Today, in the illegal immigration fiasco wreaking havoc across the nation, if one is here illegally and gives birth, that child is deemed “natural born,” able to run for president at age thirty-five, supposedly grounded in the fourteenth amendment, supporting an unintended, based on an intended. And, while politically scheming, imagine one’s purpose of clarity being another’s obfuscation of truth, but the fourteenth’s intent regarding former slaves holding full citizenship:

Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is, by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great issue in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country. (Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan/fourteenth amendment author)

“Subject to their jurisdiction,” against the current immigration trend. An ideal of nefarious intention the Framer’s never desired, including a door opening for an unintended consequence, a non-assimilated, loyalty misplaced president. So, in conclusion, one should always question political pontifications, remembering:

A feeble Executive implies a feeble execution of the government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government. (Federalist 70)