Don't Fall for Class Warfare

The most used tactic of the Left, whether Communists, Socialists, Maoists, Stalinist, Nazis, Fascists...or American Liberals/Progressives, is class warfare. Class warfare is simply a tactic of pitting different groups against each other for the purpose of polarizing or rallying segments of population around a cause or to the side of a group vying for political power.

One of the most extreme examples of class warfare was the Nazis. The Nazis pitted a large majority of the German people against the Jews, blaming all of the country's economic and social problems on them. With their lies and propaganda, the Nazis turned the Jews into sub-human monsters in the minds of their people. Because they were viewed as evil, the Jews could be treated in any way the Nazis saw fit. Anyone who had any dealings or sympathy for the Jews were also demonized. Being branded a "Jew lover" could result in ostracization, loss of your job or business, or freedom...or worse.

The Nazis effectively used the Jews as scape goats for all their problems. More than that, they turned them into Boogie Men who had to be stopped at all costs. This led some to become active Nazi henchmen...and many others to turn a blind eye and become passive contributors to the holocaust.

The sad truth about the Nazis was that none of it had anything to do with the Jews, or the good of the German volk (people). None of the escalating actions against the Jewish people, or the Jewish sympathizers, did anything to improve the plight of the common German...not that this would have justified their atrocities. It was only ever about increasing the power of the Nazi party and their Fuhrer. The Jews were only the Boogie Man the Nazis needed to divert attention from their true totalitarian intentions...despite their populist rhetoric. Their Jewish Boogie Men even gave the Nazis cover for aggression against other countries simply by labeling them as Zionist collaborators.

Well, that was in the past. That could never happen in our modern age, right? While American Leftists have not gone to these violent extremes, they do use the same basic class warfare tactics. The American Left has some different Boogie Men...some of these are Racists, Corporations, Wall Street and Insurance Companies. Instead of offering viable solutions or data to back up their positions or policies, they only need to divert attention...they need only cry, "Look out! Boogie Man!"

From the beginning of the Obama campaign, the racist Boogie Man was evoked for anyone who dared to question his ideas or qualifications. This Boogie Man is also often present at discussions of race relations or illegal immigration. These are topics that we are not allowed to be debated in the public square. You can only agree with the "politically correct" stand of the race-based groups or...look out! Racist...Boogie Man!

Corporations and Wall Street are also often made out to be Boogie Men. Even though most Americans benefit from corporations through jobs or services, the purveyors of class warfare demonize corporate America. They want corporations caged through excessive, and might I add unconstitutional, regulation. They want to bleed companies dry through taxation and corporate fees. If you dare point out that their policies destroy jobs and drive corporations to seek refuge in countries who do not punish them for success...they say that you are just in league with the evil corporate Boogie Men. And as far the Wall Street Boogie Men...how are your investments working out since the Democrats have been in charge? And yes, they were in control of the House and Senate during the administration of Boogie Man Bush.

No one is saying that there is no racism...that corporations, Wall Street or any other target of class warfare are perfect. But the sad fact is that since class warfare has been escalated in this country, things have not gotten better...they have gotten worse. It has only served to feed populist fears and biases and to accrue power to the would-be Boogie Man slayers. But, of course the Boogie Men can never be slain...they are too valuable a source of power for the Leftists.

The goal of class warfare is never to improve things. In fact, when things do improve, as in race relations, the Left changes the rules. Where Martin Luther King Jr's. very worthy goal of racial equality was beginning to become a reality, the goal was changed to "diversity." With diversity, instead of judging a person by their character or abilities, as King promoted, we are now to just make sure we have the correct balance of color, religion and sexual preference. Has "diversity" improved race relations...no, it has caused division. And if you speak out against the tactics, once again the racist Boogie Man serves them well.

Class warfare does not promote debate. It resists the free speech of its enemies. It does not have to show success because it blames it's failures on the Boogie Men. It's policies do not have to be based on sound economic or legal theory because the ends of defeating the Boogie Men justifies their means. And always, we must trust the intentions of the noble Class Warriors.

Class warfare counts on an uninformed and under-educated population. The way to resist class warfare is to know what you believe and why. You must stand on sound principle and historical evidence. You must insist on transparency and open debate. And, you must be aware of the true motives of those who would seek to be your rulers. As you hear the populist rhetoric of politicians and other political groups, ask yourself if it is based on truth. Don't fall for class warfare. Don't fear the Boogie Man.

Of Taxes and Villains

It's all over the media right now...evil Republicans are apparently working with Corporate Villains to send YOUR JOB overseas. According to many of the election ads from Democratic candidates, their Republican opponents have voted for and pledged to protect "tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas." In the current economic downturn, this is certainly dastardly doings...but wait...what's the story behind this election-cycle rhetoric?

Well, as with most anything that comes from politicians, this claim is not what it seems. The first clue should be that the exact phrase, "tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas" is used over and over again in ads, debates and by the usual political hacks. This is a sure sign that the Democrats have issued a talking point...believing that they can count on the ignorance of the voters to believe their populist drivel.

But there must be something to this claim, right? Well, there is a tax break that these claims are based on, but we must understand the background of the issue before we can judge where the villainy lies. According to an article by William Melick, professor of economics at Kenyon College:

Part of the problem is that taxes are just too high: the U.S. has the second-highest corporate tax rate in the developed world.  And soon we will be number one in a race nobody should want to win, as Japan reduces its corporate tax rate. In the past twenty years every single country in the developed world reduced its corporate tax rate.  But not the United States - it actually increased its tax rate.  The effective U.S. corporate tax rate is just below 40 percent, while the average of the other developed countries is now well below 30 percent.

Corporations are formed to create profit for their owners, whether private or public stock holders.  These profits provide incentive for the owners to produce products or provide service. Profit also attracts investors and allows a corporation to reinvest in their business to expand and develop new products.  A very important side-benefit of corporations pursuing profit is the jobs and benefits provided to their employees.

For corporations to be healthy and growing entities, they must attempt to maximize profit while remaining competitive in their markets.  To do this, they must control their production costs.   Taxes are a cost of producing products.  To control this cost, corporations are often willing to spend millions of dollars to move from one State to another.   This is a major reason that States like California, Pennsylvania and other high tax states have lost many businesses to other, low tax states.

In today's global economy, companies must also compete in the world market. As if to add insult to injury, U.S. tax code, unlike all other developed countries in the world, requires corporations to pay taxes on profits made overseas. Melick gives an example:

The high U.S. corporate tax handicaps our firms when they compete.  When Goodyear, based in Akron, sells tires in South Korea, it pays taxes to South Korea at its 20 percent rate and more taxes to the United States.  Every other country has changed its corporate tax laws to encourage domestic companies to compete in foreign markets.  The result: their firms pay only the 20 percent rate to South Korea.

The evil tax break that the Democrats are trying to make so much political hay from is simply a compromise acknowledgment that something has to be done to help U.S. corporations maintain some level of global competitiveness.  Instead of removing the double taxation on foreign profit, like all other countries, Congress at least provided a deferment.  This "break" allows companies to delay paying taxes on foreign profit until they bring that profit back into the U.S.

The deferment has been painted by the Democrats as an incentive for corporations to export jobs...I see it more as an incentive to keep these corporations from relocating their headquarters to countries who treat them better.  If Goodyear moved their headquarters to South Korea, along with the THOUSANDS of jobs that entails, they could still sell tires in the U.S. market...but would only pay taxes once for this "privilege."  As the disparity becomes larger between countries, this will be a more attractive option.

So with this uncompetitive tax structure and the devalued dollar that makes profit in U.S. dollars worth less and less, the Democrats want to squeeze the evil corporations more so they can continue their own unprecedented spending spree.  They also want to place a higher regulatory burden on companies.  The results of their incompetent, totalitarian policies is the unemployment rates, corporate failures and wrecked economy we have today.

So, who are the villains, the ones who have attempted to provide some relief from the burdensome double taxation imposed on U.S. based companies competing overseas, or the power-hungry bureaucrats who never met a tax they didn't like?  Through years of social training, in government run schools and through government-influenced media, many American have come to believe that corporations are evil and it is only your government who truly care for you and look out for your best interest.  We have come so far from our founding principles that people think higher taxes are a good thing...while the founding generation went to war against this very thing.

No, it is not those who are trying to lower taxes to maintain world competitiveness who are the villains.  They have actually not gone nearly far enough.   It is not the corporations, without whom most of us would not have jobs.  The villains are the tax and spend ruling class who wish to control every aspect of our economy through their onerous tax codes.  These, big government oligarchs care only for their own power. It is they who need to be kept in check and guarded against.

So next time you hear one of those ads, just remember who it is that produces wealth in this country, and who it is who tries to steal that wealth away.

Obama: Good for the Country? Maybe.

The election of Barack Obama may have been a good thing for the country...in the long run. No, not because he is forcing an unconstitutional national health care system on us. Not for the bank or auto company bail outs...or the large number of un-approved czars...or the the fact that he has grown the national debt by more than the accumulated debt of every president from Washington to Reagan. But, if we can recover from the damage caused by Obama and the Democratic leadership, it will at least have had the beneficial effect of waking a large number of Americans to the true liberal/progressive tactics and agenda.

It seems everywhere I look these days, people have political bumper stickers, signs, and are talking politics. Political rallies are drawing record numbers. Well, being an election year...and an important mid-term election...this is to be expected. But, this year is different. Now, instead of bumper stickers for a particular candidate...or talk about which party best represents our interests...rallies are being organized by the grass roots, political outsiders...and the stickers are about "Liberty" and the discussions about the Constitution and founding principles.

The People are seeing the results of decade-after-decade of big-government policies that have incrementally attacked our freedom and usurped the power of the sovereign States. State's rights...nullification...the 10th Amendment are all being discussed in the "public square" again. Voters are also seeing that they can no longer be spectators in our system of government. They are standing up and demanding to be heard, and they are realizing that their power cannot be invested in a candidate because of their party affiliation, but must be given only to those who will uphold the letter and spirit of Constitution.

The election of Barack Obama, a black progressive, seemed to give the radical, far-left wing of the Democratic party an injection of hubris. They seemed to believe that they could fully implement their agenda without any serious opposition. Decades of political correctness had been perpetrated on society that would, they believed, allow them to thwart any challengers to their authority with one word..."racist." And, from the beginning, they "liberally" applied the word. If you didn't sign onto the president's nationalization of health care...it was because you are a racist. Against the bank bailouts...you just don't like black people. Didn't like the take-over of GM and Chrysler...RACIST!

But a funny thing happened on the way to a socialist utopia. People began to look at the charges being hurled by the left and say, "No...this has nothing to do with the president's race...it is his policies that we don't like." You see, many who were now being called racists, were the same people who had recently felt good about voting for America's first black president. They knew they weren't racist. Many others, who had not voted for him, knew that their vote had had nothing whatever to do with race, but was based on his politics and qualifications. Large portions of the country began to say, "We know we are not racist...and we don't care what names you call us."

And with that change, the Left's biggest weapon was taken away. You see, liberals cannot defend their stands on an intellectual basis or through their results...in fact, for many of them to win elections, including Obama, they had to hide their true beliefs and act as if they were further to the right than they actually were. No, the only real tactics they had were name calling and character assassination. And now that those tactics were not working on behalf of our first black president, people also began to reject it in other areas too. Because we believe in enforcing immigration laws, we are not racists. Because we don't cave to the gay/lesbian political agenda, we are not homophobes. Questioning the motives of Islamists does not make us intolerant. And, believing in the principles of our Founding Fathers does not make us radicals or anarchists. Your names don't bother us any more.

So, with the election of Barack Obama, the Left felt confident enough to show their true colors. They over-reached and tried to go for the brass ring of socialism. And their tactics were shown for what they were...baseless and ridiculous. This hasn't stopped them from continuing to use them...in fact they seem to have gotten all the more shrill in their attempts...but, now it just seems funny, and more than a little pathetic.

So yes, the election of Barack Obama could have been a good thing, in the long term. But only if we do not forget the lessons we have learned. We must continue to stand for the principles of our founding...and against centralized government power. We must remember that freedom requires vigilance against the tactics of those who would undermine the our Constitution. We must elect representatives who will defend our interests...rather than their power. We must not forget that in this republic, We The People are the ultimate power. And, we must remember what we learned as children...

Sticks and stones may break our bones...but silly, ridiculous labels will not hurt us or make us give up our liberty!

The Federalism Series - A Primer

Conservatives, Libertarians and friends of liberty take heed.  The forces of statism, the concentration of all power in the centralized government, is at work to completely destroy what once was the the beacon of liberty to the world...the American system of Federalism.  This system was codified in the U. S. Constitution and the Constitutions of many of the founding States as well as their ratifying documents.  There is yet hope, but it does not lie in  the national Republican party...or any other party for that matter.  Our hope lies in a return to the principles of Federalism and of limited government that were laid out by the founding fathers.  These principles remain the law of the land to this day, though they are being ignored and misinterpreted by our government representatives.

Our country can only hope to return to our founding principles if The People, from whom all power of government flows, demand it and are vigilant in overseeing its restoration.  But first, we must understand the principles and the advantages of our system of government as it was established.  In a modest effort to provide some background and understanding of our Federal system of government, I have published several posts on the subject.  These are meant to provide high-level overview of the original intent, structure, and advantages of our government as well as suggestions for how to restore it.  I have referenced these posts below for convienience:

Balance of Power:

This post discusses the balance of power designed into our government.  Not simply between the branches of the Federal government, but between the Federal Government and the States.

The Utility of Federalism:
This installment discusses the advantages of Federalism.

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 1:
Part 1of a 4 Part Series: This post covers the definition and structure of Federalism as well as some of the reasons the founders settled on this form of government.

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 2:
Part 2of a 4 Part Series: This installment discusses the negative influences of Alexander Hamilton on our history and government.

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 3:
Part 3 of a 4 Part Series: This installment attempts to broadly cover some of the major steps in our history that lead to the loss of Federalism

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 4:
Part 4 of a 4 Part Series: The final installment discusses the steps required to return our errant government to the founding principles of Federalism.

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 4

A national government is a government of the people of a single state or nation, united as a community by what is termed the “social compact,’ and possessing complete and perfect supremacy over persons and things, so far as they can be made the lawful objects of civil government. A federal government is distinguished from a national government by its being the government of a community of independent and sovereign states, united by compact. ~ Black's Law Dictionary

Renewal:

Our founding fathers provided a framework in our Constitution and founding documents that, if followed, provides the best form of government yet available to man to safeguard personal liberty and provide for a civil society.  This government provides for checks on the power of government and a decentralization of the functions of that power.  But a framework is only that, a skeletal structure on which to build...in this case, a structure of principles on which to operate a nation.  It is The People who provide the muscle and sinew to make the skeleton operate as designed.

When, at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked what form of government they had provided for the people, he replied,  “A Republic, if you can keep it.”  Franklin truly understood the challenges to freedom that comes from government power.  Though more than 200 years have passed, and technology has advanced in ways that were unimaginable at the time, human nature has not changed in any significant way.  People are still vulnerable to the corrupting influences of power.

In all real and important ways, the Federalism of our founding, with its checks and balances against the tyrannies of centralized governmental power, is dead.  Government has become the uncontrollable juggernaut that our founding generation feared...always growing, always drawing power unto itself.  The voice of The People has been largely silenced and the State legislatures neutered.

So, why is this important?  Are things all that bad?  They are indeed bad...and getting worse every day.  The Federal government has grown completely out of control.  Their proclivity to buy votes through pork projects and massive giveaway programs has brought our country to the verge of financial collapse.  Recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) numbers show that the Federal deficit will surpass $1.3 trillion this year (2010).  Heritage Foundation analysis predicts that "the national debt held by the public will pass 100 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2020; by 2020 half of all income tax revenues will go to pay just the interest on our $23 trillion national debt." Unfunded mandates has also contributed to bringing many States to the brink of bankruptcy.  Our Federal legislators and President now feel no restraints on their power, they ignore established law (bankruptcy, immigration and more) and the Constitution.  Where are the checks and balances that safe guard our liberty?  The Supreme court?  This is only a small group of politically appointed lawyers, with tenure for life, who have a history of rubber stamping government expansion. No, the only real hope is to return to America's founding principles, and it is The People who must demand the changes necessary.  But, what are these changes?  How can we resurrect federalism?

Education:

One of the most important changes that is needed is in the area of education.  The public must become knowledgeable of the function and utility of our system of government, as it was designed.  They must know their own history in order to defend it.  There has been decades of effort by "progressive" elements of government, academia, the press and special interest groups to present a revisionist view of our past.  This revisionism is all aimed at promoting a nationalist view of government, and downplaying the virtues of  limited government and individual liberty.  The current government/academic educational regime is too invested in the progressive view of the history of our government and society to be trusted to make the changes necessary.

We must first educates ourselves and our children in the truth of our past so that we are equipped to defend our heritage of freedom.  Then, we must become active on a State and local level to overcome the progressive elements in our educational systems to assure that a true and proper rendering of our founding principles is taught in our public schools.  While this is an important element of change, this is no small task and will take many years.  We cannot wait for the results of this effort.  Its already too late for that.  Our country is faltering and needs a more immediate remedy.

Vote:

Certainly we must take to the ballot boxes and vote out as many big-government, statist candidates as we can from the Federal government.  And this does not just mean Democrats.  The Republican party has only been the lesser of two evils when it comes to big government policy.  They have been the party of "not quite so big and not growing quite as fast" as the other guys...but they have, by and large, not been for limited government.  A Republican sweep of the November mid-term elections would be a step in the right direction, but it would only be a band-aid.  This will last for two or three presidential election cycles at the most, and then we will be right back where we started.

So, who do we vote for?  In the short-term we must vote for the best candidate we can get elected.  This will not always be best person for the job.  In the longer term, we need to pay closer attention to primary races and support candidates with a history of supporting a strong small-government policy.  We need to insist that our candidates begin working to cut spending and eliminating programs that have no Constitutional mandate.


State Sovereignty:

We cannot only count on Federal candidates.  The Federal juggernaut is too large, too corrupt to stop from within.  We must also restore State sovereignty.  State legislatures must reclaim their rightful role as a major check on the power of the general government.   Contrary to the nationalist version of history, the Civil War did not settle the issue of State rights.  Just because the Federal government acted illegally and trampled the Constitution, does not mean that the law has changed or that the founding principles have been made void.  Federalism continues to be the law of the land.

Recent actions by State governments to stand against the health care legislation, and to enforce existing immigration law is encouraging.  These efforts should be supported.  We must vote for candidates for State offices who understand their role in federalism and who will stand against the Federal leviathan.  States must begin again to use nullification as a tool to curb unconstitutional actions by the Federal government.  This will not be easy in the beginning.  The Federal monster will not be tamed easily.  Federal authorities will bring extraordinary pressure against States to continue to bow to their will.  For this reason, State legislatures and governors should band together to provide a more united front.  As the States win more and more of these disputes, the Federal government's power will recede as State sovereignty is restored.  The real power of government will again be closer to The People.  Remember, the Federal government's power comes from the The People, through the States.  It is the States who have ceded their authority in the past, and it is only the States who can recapture that authority.

 There are other instruments that can be used to recapture State sovereignty.  Repealing the 17th Amendment would give the States the direct representation in Congress that they were meant to have.  Senators would then be advocates for their State's best interests and the interests of their citizenry, and less vulnerable to the influences of special interests and nationalist goals.   It can be demonstrably shown that the rapid growth of the Federal government began after the ratification of the 17th Amendment as Todd J. Zywicki noted in a review of the book The Road to Mass Democracy: Original Intent and the Seventeenth Amendment:

"The Senate was also an important part of the bicameral legislature. The ability of factions or special interests to capture control of the federal government was mitigated by requiring bills to receive the approval of the public, speaking through their representatives in the House, and the approval of the state legislatures, speaking through their representatives in the Senate. The transition to direct election made the constituencies represented in the House and Senate more similar, thereby facilitating creation of logrolling agreements across the two houses of the national legislature. Moreover, it made the procurement of special-interest legislation easier by allowing special interests to lobby the Senate directly, rather than having to proceed through the intermediaries of the state legislatures. In an era of increasing interstate commerce, accompanied by the development of groups whose interests crossed state lines, these “economies of scale” in lobbying were critical. Direct election thereby weakened the protections of bicameralism and made special-interest legislation easier to obtain.

In preserving federalism and bicameralism, the Senate did an extraordinary job before 1913. Throughout the nineteenth century, the federal government remained small and special-interest legislation was limited. The activity of the federal government was largely confined to the provision of “public goods” such as defense and international relations (Robert Higgs, Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987, p. 114). Although the federal government grew during national crises such as war, the passing of the crisis brought a return to a small federal government (Roger E. Meiners, “Economic Considerations in History: Theory and the Little Practice,” in Economic Imperialism, edited by G. Radnitzky and P. Bernholz. New York: Paragon House Publishers, 1987, p. 95). The so-called “ratchet effect” of federal intervention persisting after the dissipation of the crisis that spawned it was scarcely evident in American history before World War I (Higgs, p. 30). The role of the Senate in thwarting special-interest activity on the national level and protecting the autonomy of the states was critical in preserving this arrangement."

In conjunction with repealing the 17th Amendment, we must also protect the Electoral College.  Just as progressives and special interests sought to undermine State sovereignty with the passage of the 17th Amendment, there have been ongoing calls for the elimination of the electoral system for choosing a President.  Their arguments usually claim that the system is archaic and unfair.  They falsely claim that the system was used in the 18th century only because it was so difficult to properly communicate the voting results of the whole nation in a timely manner.  Now, they say, with the modern communications networks we have at our disposal, this antiquated system is no longer needed.  They claim that the system is unfair because it is possible that a president could win the "popular vote" and still not be elected.

Both of these arguments distort the original intention of the electoral system. It was not simply an instrument of a relatively primitive bygone age.  It was also purposely designed so that the so-called "unfair"event could take place.  The electoral system was designed to maintain a federal character to the election of the President.  While Representatives were to be voted on directly by The People, and the Senators were to be appointed by the States, the Presidential election was to be a mix of the two.  The People would vote indirectly, as a group of citizens from the various States.  In this way, State representation was maintained.  This also provided a way for the smaller States to be more equally represented.  In a system of popular vote, if the population of a few of the most populace States voted overwhelmingly for one candidate, this candidate would be elected, even if the populations of the majority of the other states voted against that candidate.  The country, then could be run by a handful of States.  The Electoral College, then is not an unfair, archaic system, but rather a vital tool in the maintenance of our federal system.

The Last, Best Hope:

I believe, with all my conviction, that the last, best hope for America is to return to the principles of our founding.  We must restore the checks and balances on government to prevent centralization of power that, as the founding fathers believed, leads to tyranny.

Our part, as individual citizens, is to educate ourselves in our own history and the heritage of liberty we have been bestowed by preceding generations. We must know our principles, stand firm and vote to preserve them.  Sometimes this will mean voting not for the perfect candidate, but for the one with the best hope of moving the country in the right direction.  It will not be an easy or quick remedy, but we must beat back the forces of statism and force the States to stand their ground, band together and restore their rightful sovereignty.  Only in this way can we hope to maintain a legacy of liberty for future generations.

< Part 3

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.