The Road Back to Federalism - Part 3

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

~ Lord Acton

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

~ Abraham Lincoln

In this installment I will broadly cover some of the major steps in our history that lead to the loss of Federalism. I have struggled to find the proper balance for this installment.  The transition from Federalism to Statism in the United States has not been abrupt, as in revolution or coup, but it has been more incremental...with a few big bumps in the road.  Through out our history, the federal government's power and control has grown...slower at times and faster at other times...but always growing, regardless of the party in power.  There is a lot of detail and in-depth study required to truly appreciate this transformation.  There is more detail than can possibly be covered in this format, but I will try to hit the high...or low points.

LOST:

From the founding of our republic there have been those who warned of the dangers of too much centralized power...and those who sought to wield such a power.  Power can be a corrupting force, affecting even those who start out with the most noble of intentions.  Power seeks to enlarge itself, like a snow ball rolling down hill.  It must be tended with great care and always kept in check, if liberty is to survive.


In ratification documents for the Constitution, in subsequent resolutions and court rulings, the States had continuously asserted their sovereignty in the early decades of our country.  It was commonly understood that it was the States who formed the Federal government and that the States gave to that body a very "few and defined" set of powers.  All other powers were reserved to themselves, and to the people.  It was also understood that the States stood as an important check on the power of the Federal body.

"Whenever our national legislature is led to overleap the prescribed bounds of their constitutional powers, on the State Legislatures, in great emergencies, devolves the arduous task - it is their right - it becomes their duty to interpose their protecting shield between the right and liberty of the people, and the assumed power of the General Government." ~ Governor Johnathan Trumbull of Connecticut (1809).

The States demanded that the Federal government stay within it's defined limits of power and saw it as their duty to judge when those limits were exceeded.  The accepted remedies available to the States were to "interpose" between the Federal government and the people of the State, in effect nullifying the unconstitutional laws, and, as a last resort, to secede from the Union.  Nullification, the act of a State government judging a federal law unconstitutional and deeming it void and unenforceable within their borders, was used from the beginning of the Union until the Civil War.  This practice was widely considered the right and duty of State legislatures to provide a check against the power of the centralized, general (federal) government.

  One of the best known early examples of nullification was the reaction against the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.  The Sedition Act was of particular concern.  This act provided for fines and incarceration of any person who "shall write, print, utter, or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered, or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering, or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either House of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with the intent to defame the said government..."  This was a blatant violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution, but congressional Federalist party supporters appealed to the "general welfare" and "necessary and proper" clauses of the Constitution.  In response, Thomas Jefferson, who was at the time Vice President, and James Madison helped to draft the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.  The principles laid out in these resolutions were used for many years after to justify nullification of unconstitutional laws and acts of the Federal government.  These principles along with other supporting documents and resolutions came to be collectively referred to as the "Spirit of '98."

"[T]his Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the Federal Government, as resulting from the compact, to which the States are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the States who are parties thereto, have the right, and are duty bound, to interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them."  ~ The Virginia Resolution of 1798

Nullification was used by Northern and Southern States at various times.  It was used by Federalists and Republicans.  It was even used against Thomas Jefferson's  embargo of American ships traveling to foreign ports during the Napoleonic Wars.  Jefferson meant this embargo to be a punishment against the French and British who captured American ships and goods during their war to keep them from getting to their opposition.  It had no effect on the two antagonists, but devastated New England's maritime economy.  Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island all produced  resolutions condemning the embargo as unconstitutional and unenforceable, thus nullifying  it.  Even Jefferson, the greatest champion of limited government, was not totally immune to the lure of power. 

In 1832 South Carolina voted to nullify the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 as unconstitutional.  President Andrew Jackson condemned the nullification and eventually sought and received a Force Bill from Congress that authorized the use of Federal troops against South Carolina if they did not comply with the tariffs.  This would have been an unprecedented violation of South Carolina's sovereignty, had it played out.  This became known as "the Nullification Crisis."

The popular myth is that at the threat of force, South Carolina backed down and recognized the authority of the Federal government.  The truth is, as Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr. writes in his book Nullification, "An ultimate collision was averted when a compromise was reached whereby the tariff would gradually be lowered over the next ten years.  For good measure, South Carolina nullified the Force Bill" (emphasis added).  Even though South Carolina did not acquiesce to the federal threats, a critical change in historical precedent took place when Congress passed the Force Bill, authorizing the president to use the military to force the Federal will upon one of the States. 


Then, in what is generally seen as the final death of States' rights and sovereignty, President Lincoln declared war against the States of the southern confederacy.  Most people believe the war was all about slavery, but there is ample evidence that the slavery issue came into the picture late, and only as a political maneuver.  But regardless of the real causes, it is widely held, by supporters and detractors alike, that Abraham Lincoln was a dictator who trampled the Constitution under his feet.  Supporters just believe that he was a "good dictator" and use various "the ends justify the means" arguments to support his actions.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."  ~ Abraham Lincoln

The "Union" had never been seen as indissoluble.  In fact, many of the Founding Fathers and early statesmen came to the defense of the right of secession.  Everyone saw it as highly undesirable and as a remedy of last resort, but our country had, after all, come into being through secession from Great Britain.  States had threatened secession in the past, but never had the Federal government consider marching troops against them to force their continued membership in the Union.  President Lincoln, however, felt none of the restraints of the past.  Thomas J. DiLorenzo summarizes the extent of Lincoln's constitutional transgressions in his book, The Real Lincoln.

"Even though the large majority of Americans, North and South, believed in the right of secession as of 1861, upon taking office Lincoln implemented a series of unconstitutional acts, including launching an invasion of the South without consulting Congress, as required by the Constitution; declaring martial law; blockading the Southern ports; suspending the writ of habeas corpus for the duration of his administration; imprisoning without trial thousands of Northern citizens; arresting and imprisoning newspaper publishers who were critical of him; censoring all telegraph communications; nationalizing the railroads; creating several new states without the consent of the citizens of those states; ordering federal troops to interfere with elections in the North by intimidating Democratic voters; deporting a member of Congress, Clement L Vallandingham of Ohio, for criticizing the administration's income tax proposal at the Democratic Party rally; confiscating private property; confiscating firearms in violation of the Second Amendment; and effectively gutting the Ninth and Tenth amendments to the Constitution, among other things."

Nationalist history looks kindly, even in awe at Abraham Lincoln.  But ask yourself, if the names were changed and the circumstances brought up to date a little, would anyone, Right or Left, approve of such blatant disregard of the Constitution and usurpation of power in a modern president?   Lincoln had acted unconstitutionally, killing approximately 300,000 of his countrymen, to beat the once sovereign States of the South into submission.  Federal supremacy was now firmly established.


The next major step in the death of Federalism came in 1913.  It was in this year that three major political and legislative events took place.  Foremost among them was the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment of the Constitution.  With this one short Amendment, the States lost their direct representation in Congress.  This year the Federal income tax was also enacted, under very questionable circumstances, giving the Federal government unprecedented power to tax individuals and led to the massive coercive tax code and abusive enforcement agency, the Internal Revenue Service.  And last, but not least, the formation of the Federal Reserve which allowed the government to control and manipulate the money supply in ways they had never dared to dream of before.  These actions in 1913 snuffed all but the faintest remains of life from the Federalist system.

 These are just a few of the major steps in the process in which the major principles of our founding have been undermined and and nearly completely lost.  There are endless causes and examples of the Federal government's overreaching it's bounds...The emergence of the Progressive Party...Woodrow Wilson's propaganda, censorship, goon squad enforcers and incarceration of dissidents...FDR's New Deal take over of the economy...L.B.J's redistribution Great Society programs and more.  All geared toward the same thing, the centralization and consolidation of power in the hands of a few, ruling-class politicians.

Over the years the States have, through threats, force and bribery,  relinquished their duties and ceded their power to the Federal government, becoming mere administrative appendages of the central power.  And today we have a Congress and President who are so drunk on power, so convinced of their own superiority that they no longer even attempt to provide justifications for their illegal usurpations.  They simply laugh at, arrogantly dismiss or impugn the character of anyone who dares to question their actions.  They do not care that a large majority of citizens are opposed to their laws, they force them through Congress before anyone even has a chance to read them.  Representative government has become an anachronism...a forgotten relic of our past.

What can be done?  Is there any hope?  That will be the subject of the next and final installment in this series.

< Part 2  | Part 4 >

The Passing of an Era...I Hope

 
Over the weekend, U.S. Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) passed away at the age of 92.  He was the longest serving Senator in the history of our country. 

In reading articles about Senator Byrd, I am reminded of the recent passing of U.S. Representative John Murtha (D-PA).  In discussions about each of these men, there was a theme that jumped out at me...pork.  Both their supporters and their detractors speak of the Federal dollars they brought home to their constituent districts.  It is exactly this ability to bring home the bacon that is often cited as the reason these men continued to be reelected for so many terms.

Both of these men were products of their times.  Unfortunately, the Congress of the United States of America has, over the past 200 years or so, become a body which is largely about who gets the most federal money, pork, for their regions, rather than doing what is best for the country.  This is how legislators have been judged...how many "projects" did they get funded...how many bridges did they get built...how many parks, roads, etc. did they cut the ribbon on...all using Federal funds.  And Byrd and Murtha were some of the best.  According to an article by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review concerning Byrd, "Groups like Citizens Against Government Waste dubbed him the King of Pork. Byrd delighted in it." 

It is exactly this type of looting of the Federal coffers that has brought our country to the brink of fiscal collapse.  It is also pork that was used to bribe the States into ceding their power and becoming subservient to the Federal government. 

In the long view, though, it is really The People who are to blame for this development in the operation of our government.  Voters have become accustomed to voting benefits to themselves from the largess of of the Federal treasury.  Now we are really beginning to see the costs of this philosophy of government held by voters.  As the Federal representatives have become more and more prolific in doling out the dollars to keep their jobs and maintain their power...as the States have succumbed more and more to the addictive properties of Federal money, many voters are beginning to see that this system is unsustainable.  We need to cut government spending and intrusion into our lives.  But this message needs to spread far and wide...it must be taught to the voting public as well as our children so that when the current crisis is over, we do not fall back to sleep at the voting lever.  We must have a paradigm shift...we must, ask not what pork our vote can get from our country, but what benefit to liberty we can vote for our country. 

I feel for the loss felt by the family and friends of Senator Byrd.  But I hope that as the old lions of Congress pass on through death or by the vote that we can see the end of an era...the end of the Era of Pork.

The Loss of Shame

The Random House Dictionary defines shame as "the painful feeling arising from the consciousness of something dishonorable, improper, ridiculous, etc., done by oneself or another." There was a time when people in our society felt shame, but it is hardly to be found any more.  Years of "if it feels good do it" and the self-esteem movement have all but killed shame...and that's a pure shame.


Shame in a family or society can actually have a positive utility.  It can keep someone from doing dishonorable or improper acts.  It is actually an element that can help to bring order to society.  But today, too many people feel no shame.  They do not feel that anything is out-of-bounds.  In fact, people seem to push further and further into realms once thought totally shameful...just to get reactions from others.  The less shame people feel, the less society is shocked by once shameful acts. 


Apart from totally outrageous acts, we have lost our shame of everyday circumstances that used to cause people to feel ashamed.  There is no shame in being poor.  I grew up poor.  We qualified for free school lunches when I was in high school (I did not participate).  But, my parents always found a way to provide.  There is no shame in being poor...but there is shame in being lazy and unwilling to do what it takes to make it on your own.  

We now seem to have a whole generation who is growing up to feel entitled. They believe someone owes them a good education, a good job and therefore, they don't feel they have to work hard to get what they want.  People believe that  they need to have things (Cars, homes, travel, etc.) from the beginning of their careers that took a lifetime to accumulate a generation ago.  Because of this, they are willing to enter into debt at levels that would have been unthinkable in my grandparent's generation.  And, if they lose their job or have some other change where they can't pay their bills...oh well, they just go into bankruptcy...no shame.  But, even in bankruptcy, they think it unfair that they would lose their home or car...that would be a shame...but it is "shame on the banks."


It is no shame to have a baby, but it is a shame that our society has such a high rate of illegitimacy.  Once, families felt shame that their unwed daughters became pregnant.  They even expected the father of her child to do the right thing and marry her.  Now, we have teen aged girls who make pacts to get pregnant together.  We have parents, teachers and other so-called responsible adults throwing these teen mothers baby showers and telling them how wonderful it is to be bringing a new life into the world.  This makes other teen girls think that getting pregnant is a good thing.


When I was young, divorce was still viewed to be a shame by many...at least a failure by most. Today, divorce is just something that happens. This leads people to resort to divorce much more easily than in the past...not that it isn't emotionally painful, but there is no shame to push couples to stay together...to work out their issues.  According to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology in Springfield, Missouri, 50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce.

These are just a few examples of our loss of shame.  Certainly society can have too much shame.  In feudal Japan, shame, or loss of honor, could lead to ritual suicide.  Shame can also be imposed by others in a way that can ruin a life.  This is also unhealthy for society.  But as we have moved into the age of self-esteem, where we are supposed to feel good about ourselves no matter what we do, we have lost balance between healthy self-esteem and justified shame.  This, in my opinion, has not lead to a better, or happier society, but a more self indulgent and courser one...and that is a shame.

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 2

The Hamiltonian Era

"The rights of government are as essential to be defended as the rights of individuals.  The security of the one is inseparable from that of the other." - Alexander Hamilton

After America's war for independence from a tyrannical English monarchy, the founding generation set about to build a government that was decentralized and limited in power.  The Founding Fathers believed "that government is best which governs least" (normally attributed to Thomas Jefferson but source is in question).  The end result was a Federal form of a representative republic.  This government, codified in the Constitution of the United States of America, was an ingenious blend of checks and balances between the powers of the sovereign States and the Federal government as well as between branches of the Federal government itself.

From the beginning, though, there were those who urged that the country should have a National form of government rather than a Federal one.  Unlike a Federal government, which maintains the sovereignty of the States, a National government gives all power to the central government and subordinates the States.  One of the chief proponents of a strong National government was one of the founders, Alexander Hamilton.

During the early years the country was in great disarray.  With ongoing military action against the British a necessity, the individual States did not provide adequate support to the effort, either financially or with the supply of soldiers in the field.  The Federal government was tasked with prosecuting the war, but were given no power to raise money or an army under the Articles of Confederation that preceded the Constitution. Commander-in-Chief George Washington was left to constantly petition Congress, with hat in hand, for proper support of the war effort.  It was eventually agreed that The Articles were insufficient, as they stood, for the operation and defense of the federation of States.  The Federal government had to be given more power to raise resources, without the direct assent of the States, to carry out its appointed duties.  For this reason a Constitutional Convention was called to strengthen the Articles of Confederation   Eventually, though, the Articles were scrapped for a whole new document, The Constitution. 

Throughout the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton lobbied aggressively for a central government with "more energy" (or power).  While Hamilton was, in the beginning, allied with James Madison in support of stronger Federal Constitution, his desire for a strong and supreme central government eventually made Madison a rival.  Hamilton proposed a permanent President with the power to veto State legislation...in effect, an American king.  Additionally, he wanted a permanent senate and the ability of the National government to appoint the State governors.  In effect, he wanted a centralized government that would rule over the new country rather than serve it.  As historian Clinton Rossiter put it, "Hamilton's overriding purpose was to build the foundations of a new empire."  When he was unsuccessful in getting a National form of government from the Convention, he bitterly denounced the Constitution as "a frail and worthless fabric."

Hamilton did not see his failure at the convention as the end of the subject...far from it.  He set about to make the country after his own image, in spite of the apparent set back.  He now saw the Constitution as an item to be manipulated and circumvented through lawyerly cunning.  It was Alexander Hamilton who invented, seemingly from thin air, the concept of implied powers in the Constitution.  Hamilton wrote that in the Constitution "there are implied, as well as expressed powers, and the former are as effectually delegated as the later."  Hamilton believed himself capable of  properly interpreting which powers were implied and accrued to the Federal government.  Rossiter said that with this new doctrine of implied powers Hamilton "converted the ...powers enumerated in Article I , Section 8 into firm foundations for whatever prodigious feats of legislation any future Congress might contemplate."  This stands in stark opposition to the original intent of the Constitution as emphasized with the addition of the 10th Amendment which reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

As Treasury Secretary, Hamilton believed that the Federal government had unlimited power to lay taxes and tariffs to raise money for the government.  For this he used, or rather abused, the General Welfare clause.  And yes, again Hamilton was the arbiter of what was in the general welfare of the country.  For as he said, "The terms general Welfare were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed."  And that is why the Federalists had the term inserted into the Constitution in the first place. The Commerce Clause was also used as a tool of his nationalist ambitions stating, "What regulation of commerce does not extend to the internal commerce of every state?"

With this unlimited ability to tax and lay tariffs, Hamilton sought to control and manipulate citizens to act as he believed they should.  It was he who decided that whiskey was a luxury and should have a special tax applied to it.  Distillers on the western side of the Appalachians, however, used whiskey, being easier to transport than grain, as an item of barter for goods from the east.  And, yes, I'm sure the frontiersmen also liked to drink it themselves.  But the issue became one of equity.  The inhabitants of the south had no such special tax laid upon their products, cotton and tobacco.  Hamilton admitted that the tax raised the price of the whiskey to the consumers, but as Richard Brookhiser states, "His solutions to the problem were that frontiersmen should drink less, and that government should crack down on scofflaw distillers."

When a local militia in western Pennsylvania laid siege to the home of the federal excise inspector, Hamilton urged immediate action against the whiskey rebels and lobbied President Washington to move against them, as author William Hogeland wrote "with an overwhelming force of at least twelve thousand men, bigger than any American army to date, more than had beaten the British at Yorktown."  Hamilton meant, as Hogeland describes it, "to frighten the states with the threat of a military takeover" if they did not acquiesce to the Federal governments power to tax with, as Thomas J. DiLorenzo called it "a standing army of tax collectors."  James Madison too saw in Hamilton's fervor over the so-called Whiskey Rebellion a hidden agenda to expand "the glories of a United States woven together by a system of tax collectors." 


Much more could be said about Hamilton's push for nationalism, with his belief in highly centralized power, using national debt to justify higher taxes, and his endorsement of judicial activism.  All of this stood in stark, heated contrast to Jefferson's view of a  limited, decentralized Federal government.  Hamilton often complained of "an excessive concern for liberty in public men."  Hamilton and Jefferson became bitter political rivals.  They and their followers aligned into two camps, the improperly named Federalists (Hamiltonians) and the Republicans (Jeffersonians).  The election of Thomas Jefferson as President in the election of 1879 was widely viewed at the time as a final repudiation of the Federalist's programs and goals.  However, even this setback was only temporary.  Even after Hamilton was killed in his famous duel with Aaron Burr in 1804, his disciples pushed on.  As Dilorenzo says, "Hamiltonian hegemony would not be established in America until the second half of the nineteenth century, and the capstone on the Hamiltonian revolution would not come until the early twentieth century." We will look into some of the major steps along this path in the next segment.

< Part 1 | Part 3 >

The Question of Obama's Citizenship

The Arizona legislature is working on a bill that would require any candidate for the office of President of the United States to document their eligibility for the office.  Whether you believe President Obama is eligible or not, I think it is a good idea to define the eligibility requirements, particularly citizenship, more definitively to avoid future debate on the subject.

The Constitution defines eligibility for the office of president in the following way:

"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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

The question of Obama's citizenship centers on whether he meets the requirements set forth in the Constitution.  The meaning of the term "natural born" has become a bit fuzzy through the years.  Some believe that since Obama's mother was a citizen and he was reportedly born in Hawaii, he is natural born.  I have read some rather in-depth commentaries on the actual meaning of natural born and it ranges in interpretation.  Some of the interpretations I have seen are along these lines:

• Must be born in the United States or to a citizen of United States serving in military or foreign service.
• Both parents must have been citizens at the time of birth.
• Both parents must have been citizens, themselves born in the United States.
• I saw some explanation that had a time frame by which the parent had to have been a citizen before birth of the child.

With all of the varying understandings of this term, I believe that this issue should be qualified and quantified in no uncertain terms for future elections.  I also believe that since President is the only office to have a natural born requirement, that any candidate should have to provide definitive documentation to prove their qualification before their name can be placed on the ballot.  This would avoid all this mess in the future. 

Take back our country...from Whom?

In a recent Facebook posting, a friend asked, in effect, who exactly is it  that the Tea Party wants to take "their" country back from...and who says its only "their" country to begin with?  The following was my response with some additional thoughts at the end:

Response:

Not take it back from you...but from the big-government, statist ruling class we now have in Washington. The ones who have almost completely usurped the power of the states and who look to cede sovereignty to the UN...that's who they, and I, want to take it back from.

We live in a republic...that means The People have the ultimate power...but The People became lazy and content and fell asleep...they relinquished their power, not paying close attention to what their supposed representatives were doing in their name...they lost their healthy suspicion of centralized power. The people are now starting to wake up and realize things have gone afoul...that a small minority of ultra-left wing "progressives" who seek more and more power...who believe that government control...central planning...is the answer to every question have taken control. The People have begun to see what they have lost along the road and where this road is going...and they don't like it.

“It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance.” - John Philpot Curran, 1790

We have awoken and seek to take our country back from those who actively prey on our rights.

Additional Thoughts:

This is not a Republican, Democrat thing.  Plenty of Republicans have pushed or gone along  with big government power grabs.  George W. Bush spent our money like a drunken Democrat.  The Republican party, in my mind, has in the past been only the lesser of two evils.  This is about a belief that our founding principles are based in truth and represent the best of government so far known on all the earth.  It is taking a stand that  freedom is not a license to steal from your fellow citizen by force of government might, but rather requires personal responsibility and individual initiative.  It is saying to our political opponents, we are through with your political correctness that is designed to silence and control us.  We are not racists! We are not hate mongers! We know who we are and we don't care about your name-calling any longer.  It is we who stand with the Founding Fathers in the belief that centralized, consolidated government power leads inextricably to tyranny.


There is room in our great country for those of differing political, cultural and religious beliefs.  But we are a nation of laws.  And, the bedrock to our law is the Constitution of the United States of America.  It is not a living document in the sense that it can be changed or ignored at the whims of the court or government leaders.  It can, however be amended as The People, through their State and Federal representatives, see fit.  It is a long and arduous process to amend the Constitution, as it should be.  It is meant to be done in a very thoughtful and well reasoned manner to avoid unintended consequences.  As Thomas Jefferson said, "Delay is preferable to error."

As I pointed out in a previous post, people polled “by a 2-to-1 margin, say their political views in recent years have become more conservative rather than more liberal.”  According to Gallup, those who say they are "conservative" make up the single largest block of citizens in the U.S. at about 40%..."moderate" at about 35% and "liberal" at only about 21%.  But it is the "liberals" who have taken control of the country.  Conservatives and many moderates want that control back.  That is how our political system works.  Liberals have taken to the streets for years with their signs, chants and mottoes...I guess they just don't like the competition.

War on Terror or War on Islam?

The video shown below is of retired Colonel Allen West speaking at the Freedom Defense Initiative on February 19, 2010 about the "War on Terror."  He makes many great points.  Among them the idea that saying that we are at war against terror is like saying that during WWII we were at war against the Blitzkrieg or the Kamikaze.  These are just tactics.  We go to war against ideologies...Nazism, Communism, Imperialism...and Islam.  He speaks about Islams history from its founding until today as one of intolerance and violence and says that we are just in the latest chapter of a very long book.  He is careful, though to point out that we are not at was against Muslims.  Just as all Germans were not Nazis, all Muslims are not terrorists or radical Islamists.

One of the great quotes from this speech is:

"When tolerance becomes a one way street, it is cultural suicide.  When I am able to fly to Saudi Arabia with my bible in hand, with my cross around my neck, to go to Mecca, to go to a church, then guess what...we're good to go.  But until that point, we have to understand the objectives and goals that Islam has set forward."

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 1

While I am certainly not qualified to give an exhaustive historical thesis on this, or any other subject, I have been studying this subject for a while now and would like to attempt to to share my understanding of this very important concept in a simple and concise way.  I am not a historian but lean heavily on those who are.  I hope this modest attempt will enlighten some, make others question, and provide inspiration to my fellow citizens to see a return to our Founding Principles. 

Found:

"What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body..."  - Thomas Jefferson

The first step to restoring the federalism that has been lost to The United States of America is to understand what it is, how it came to be and why it is such an important concept.  A citizen will not be moved to protect that which he does not understand or value.

Many believe that the United States of America is a "democracy."  This, in fact, is not true.  America was founded as a  federalist representative republic.  This is not a trivial distinction.  The Founding Fathers were learned men who studied history and the classic writers on the subjects of governance, rights and liberty.  They understood that a pure democracy could not guarantee basic liberties while providing the protections and guidelines necessary to a civil society.  A democracy, in its purest form, is a one person, one vote system that makes all decisions a matter of the "majority rules" ethic.  Because public sentiment can be easily swayed and manipulated, especially in times of danger or stress, pure democracy can lead to mob rule, and result in the tyranny of the majority. 

The founders, having heeded the lessons and teachings of history, chose to eschew a purely democratic form of government and instead embraced a representative form that adhered to republican principles.  A representative government, unlike a democracy, is administered through delegates who are chosen to represent the will of their constituent groups.  Republican principles convey the idea that government should rule by the consent the of the governed...the people.  So, the representative delegates in our republic are chosen, either directly or indirectly, by the people to administer and enforce their will.  At the time of the founding, representative republics were already operating in America and the principles codified in the tenants and constitutions of the 13 sovereign States.

Beyond providing for republican representatives, who can also be swayed and manipulated, the founders also sought to create a series of "checks and balances" on the power of government.  They had, after all, recently fought a war of independence against a powerful and tyrannical government.  They were justifiably suspicious of centralized power.  They sought to decentralize and compartmentalize government to avoid the accumulation of too much power in any one body.  As James Madison states in Federalist 47, “The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

The founders realized, however, that while the States were sovereign, they needed a body that would represent them as a consolidated entity to the world and regulate and mediate interactions between the States to their mutual benefit.  For this reason, they formed a Federal government that represented the federation of sovereign States.  This government was given a very few and finite powers...among them power to represent the federation in treaties and tariffs with other countries, to provide for the common defense against foreign powers, to regulate immigration,  to coin a common currency and to assure fairness of trade between the States.  As Madison stated in Federalist 45, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”  To emphasize this point, the 10th Amendment was included in the original "Bill of Rights" which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

The "checks and balances" instituted were not just between the branches of the Federal government, but first and foremost between the roles of the State and Federal governments.  This was a fine balancing act that was hotly debated and refined throughout the Constitutional Convention.  Much debate was centered around the question of whether we would have a government that was "national" in form or "federal."  The result was a ingenious mixture of the two with "the people" as the ultimate power.  Again, Madison sums up the result in Federalist 39, “The proposed Constitution therefore is in strictness neither a national nor a federal constitution; but a composition of both. In its foundation, it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of Government are drawn, it is partially federal, and partly national: In the extent of them again, it is federal, not national: And finally, the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal, nor wholly national.”

But while there are some national characteristics to the Constitution, do not mistake this for the sovereign States giving up their rights to the central government.  The States created the Federal government and all powers it may have were given it by the States.  Robert Yates, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention from New York kept an extensive journal of the proceedings which were kept secret until after his death.  In 1823, Senator John Taylor (VA) drew heavily from Yates' journal in his book New Views of the Constitution of the United States. Taylor commented, "[I]t was proposed and seconded to erase the word national, and substitute the words United States [in the plural] in the fourth resolution, which passed in the affirmative.  Thus we see an opinion expressed at the convention that the phrase 'United States' did not mean a consolidated American People or nation, and all inferences in favour of a national government...are overthrown."  The deliberate use of the term "United States" in the Constitution emphasized that what was being formed was a federation of sovereign States, and not a centralized, monolithic nation. 

As to the details of its workings, the Federal Government was to operate within the limits of those few, enumerated powers given it by the States.  The House of Representatives was to represent the direct will of the people in the matters of the federation.  The Senate, whose delegates being appointed directly by the legislatures of the States (the 17th Amendment changed this...more about this in later segments), represented the indirect will of the people as members of the sovereign States.  The President was to be voted on by the people, but the votes, through the electoral college, are considered in groups from the States...a mix of direct and indirect.  The Federal judiciary was to be appointed by the President, an effort to remove politics from the court to allow them to remain unbiased (the success of this is highly questionable).  With this mix of selection methods and with differing responsibilities, the branches of the Federal government too were to have checks and balances on power.

Our federal form of government has some very important benefits (see my earlier post The Utility of Federalism for more detail), chief of which is the decentralization of power. The Founding Fathers knew what Lord Acton so succinctly stated many years later, "...where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that. All power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

With the proper checks and balances of government power, it is possible to live in a society free to seek life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  The principles enshrined in our Constitution were not new, but the method with which they were blended in one society was truly unique and magnificent.  This form of government resulted in the most productive, most generous, and most free people in the history of the planet.  All individuals are considered to have equal rights and are equally valuable.  The United States of America has raised the standard of living and brought liberty to more people than any other country, kingdom or tribe in the world at any time in history.  Our form of federalism has caused us to be the envy of the world, and is viewed as Paradise Found by many who have made it to our shores.

...But, from the very beginning and to this present day, the principles of this great republic have been under attack by those who wish to change it and control it.  This will be the subject of my next installment in the series.

Part 2 >

Fixing Urban Decay

I ran across an interesting and excellent web series on reason.tv entitled REASON SAVES CLEVELAND WITH DREW CAREY.  The sub title is "How to Fix 'The Mistake On The Lake' and Other Once-Great American Cities."  As anyone who knows anything about Drew Carey knows, he's from Cleveland.  This series looks at the problems of a city that was once the sixth largest city in the country and considered one of the best places to live to a blighted, failing "mistake on the lake."  They also look at best practices of other cities that could be used to help revitalize Cleveland.  The video below introduces the series.






Cleveland officials seem to have succumbed to the same malady common to so many government bureaucrats- insanity...continuing to do the same things over and over and expecting different results.  I think it was Rush Limbaugh that said, "Liberals never think they do anything wrong...they just think they haven't been able to do enough of it yet."  This certainly seems to be true of the people running Cleveland.

This series points out problems that exist in many declining urban centers such as Cleveland...like Pittsburgh, Detroit and others...and common sense ways to revitalize these areas.  The failures of their past policies are on display in their current failures.  Many of these policies are the same kinds of central planning initiatives that the Federal government has adopted over the years...and they too are failing.  Cities are a microcosm of economics and government.  A lot can be learned from their successes and failures.  Enjoy.

Drive more...Save the Planet

Looking at a document from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) entitled National Air Quality Status and Trends Through 2007, I came across the data represented by the chart above.  After listening to the environmental doomsayers all these years, I was shocked at what the data revealed.  It is, in fact exactly opposite from what we have been told.

From 1990 to 2007 the Aggregate Emissions of six common pollutants tracked by the EPA (Particulate Matter, Sulfur Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Oxides of Nitrogen and Volatile Organic Compounds) were reduced by 41%.  This happened while the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the country grew by 63%.  Population grew by 21%. Energy Consumption was up by 20% and Vehicle Miles Traveled was increased by 45%.

How can this be?  All of those things are bad for the environment...right?  I mean aren't we evil capitalist/consumer pigs who are polluting the world more and more through our thoughtless use of "fossil fuels" and technology?  That's what they tell us...but it seems that air quality in this country has actually gotten better.  So...therefore...let me think now...if we drive MORE...the air should get even cleaner, right?  If we really care about clean air, like we say we do, we need to produce more, have more babies, use more energy and...DRIVE MORE.  Yeah...that must be it.  Because, the more we drove and did all of these other things, the cleaner the air got.

I also found out that according to a 1999 report of the US Public Interest Research Group that "From 1992 to 1997, the number of SUVs and other light trucks on the road grew from 54 million to 68 million. Today there is one light truck for every 3.9 Americans. If current growth continues, there will be an estimated 133 million light trucks on the road by the year 2020. Given population growth projections, this would be one light truck for every 2.4 people."  So this must mean that SUVs are also good for the air quality...not bad.

This is very upsetting.  Everything I thought I was supposed to know is now in question.  If you can't believe liberal, tree hugging environmentalists...who can you trust?

What's that?  You say you aren't too sure of my logic?  There are other factors at play here, you say.  Driving more miles can't really improve air quality, you contend.

Well, I don't know.  It's the same kind of logic used by the proponents of so-called "Man Made Global Warming."  The global temperatures are rising...human industrial activity is increasing...so, therefore, we are going to burn up the planet.  But wait, we say...it has been warmer on earth in the past...even before the industrial age.  And, there's the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) of the oceans that causes global climate to warm and cool in cycles.  There is the fact that one decent sized volcanic eruption emits more "greenhouse gasses" than the whole industrialized world does in a year.  And, what about the fact that the global temperatures on Mars were increasing at the same time as they were on Earth...due, we believe, to solar activity.  There's no industry, or SUVs, on Mars.  Those are just a few of the many factors that we are told to ignore.  "The planet has a fever," and it's our fault, we are told.

Well, if the Climategate crowd can ignore other factors, so can I.  And until you can convince me that their factors are different than mine...I'm going to drive my SUV more.