It’s The Spending, Stupid!
There is a quote that keeps being repeated on this board which seems to miss the point being made by the voters in the 2010 midterm elections, that as Alan Greenspan has commented, “Spending has become untouchable” [1]. Perhaps to the politicians it has, but to the population as a whole, perhaps not so much. The only question I have is whether or not the public actually realizes how deeply the federal government is involved in the everyday funding of the United States economy. This isn’t something that just came into being during the Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama (hmm, hmm, hmm) (sorry, couldn’t resist the urge), but it has certainly taken a leap forward. It’s no longer a question of whether spending needs to be curbed, it’s a question of how much and how fast. It’s a dilemma decades in the making, and one which would have Solomon awakening in cold sweats! Let me provide a small step toward a solution.
First, we need to have a true understanding of the problem we are facing. In 2000, the Federal deficit stood at almost 5.7 TRILLION dollars, a staggering amount [2]. However, as the link shows, it has increased at a staggering pace over the last decade. I would suggest that the cost of two wars and an extravagant prescription drug entitlement (among other things) during the Bush Presidency had much to do with the increase (and I’m NOT making an excuse for this). Many conservatives have caught Holy Hell for saying that Bush wasn’t a conservative. He WASN’T a conservative; he was cut from the same cloth as his father. As Texas as Bush Junior wished to portray himself, he was more a product of the upper east coast upbringing he received. Bush Sr. despised Reagan for his conservatism, and in many ways gave the left in this country many talking points in their battle with Reagan’s policies. The left in this country weren’t clever enough to come up with the “voodoo” economics phrase, which came from Bush Sr. during the primary, and they rode the wave for 8 years until Bush Sr. became President. It was astounding to watch those in the media that praised Bush for his stance against Reagan, then paint him as a staunch supporter of Reagan’s policies. I’m not even going to bother with the ads - if you’re interested, do some digging! For me, give me more voodoo economics because this “new normal” isn’t cutting it!!!!!
The Office of Management and Budget has a rating system that measures the effectiveness of federal programs [5]. The most recent assessment found that 20% of federal programs are not performing - are either ineffective or cannot produce demonstrable results. The estimated spending associated with these non-performing programs is far in excess of the $100 billion Republicans have suggested they can eliminate during the first year of the new congress. If the OMB can come up with THAT much waste, just imagine what somebody who doesn’t have a dog in the hunt would come up with!
I am of the belief that a majority of the American people know exactly what they expect of their government. The only question that remains is whether the ruling class has the courage to do what is necessary! Change in the behavior of our elected officials will not come about without some political discomfort, and many politicians have ridden the gravy train for a very long time. It is far past time they put the future of the country ahead of their own re-election, and the goals are not mutually exclusive!
There have been a number of suggestions that have come forth concerning federal spending, but the only ones I have seen that don’t re-spend the “saved” money come from the conservative mindset [3][4]! Feel free to criticize the recommendations, but without an alternative, what do we have? The left and right may have similar goals for our country, but the question remains, how do we achieve them? The politicians on BOTH sides have cast their lot for the last 100 or so years, and their collective ignorance has brought us to where we are today.
If anyone thinks you won’t see a replay of Europe here in the States over budget cuts, consider the developing story of a possible intentional union slowdown in dealing with the New York area’s snow problem in recent weeks, at the cost of lives, mind you. If these charges are proven accurate, this should give you pause in any steadfast support of these organizations and any federal support and favors they receive.
[1] http://www.realestatenewsutah.com/news/alan-greenspan-henry-paulson-economy-19496
[2] http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
[3] http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/
[4] http://www.heritage.org/Issues/Budget-and-Spending
[5] http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/rating/notperform.html
Strip Searching the Casual Terrorist
In the news, across dining room tables, and around water coolers from coast to coast–everywhere–is heard the public’s outrage at being strip searched and/or physically groped by government toadies. And for what? Because people opted to purchase a seat on an airplane, in order to travel from Point A to Point B. And each of those seemingly innocuous purchases, in turn, set off loud alarms within the federal government, because, surely everyone who purchased a ticket is the essence of evil in the world, hell bent on rampages of destruction in the air.
The federal toadies have proclaimed loudly that the only way to ensure our national security is to treat each and every American as a potential terrorist, though they don’t phrase it quite so directly. Instead, they exclaim that being strip searched, and possibly groped, is the next step in the evolution of air travel security, and it is necessary if we are to guarantee our national security (which sounds very much like saying “we’re doing it for the children”). And, while it’s true that, since September 11, 2001, we’ve not seen another incident involving aircraft, that success is not due to our having subjected our citizens to potentially humiliating violations of their persons. And the success of the virtual strip searches has not been proved. Indeed, TSA officials reported that in one year, the scanners identified 130 illegal, prohibited or dangerous items that were seized before they could make it on the plane. The officials opted to identify only one of those 130 items–a syringe full of heroin–ironically, the one item least likely to be used in downing a jumbo jet. That should call into question the precise nature of the other items: what were they, and what’s the likelihood that they were potentially implements of terror?
All of this pales in comparison to the question all should be asking. Is the federal government, in subjecting everyone to these searches, in violation of constitutional protections? The answer is almost certainly yes.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The Fourth Amendment came about largely as a result of general warrants issued during the colonial years. Magistrates were compelled to issue them based on nothing more than mere suspicion of the local tax collector, or even an informant. The warrants themselves had no real limits, in that they permitted blanket searches of anything and everyone in an area, and colonists had no recourse against them.
According the the Fourth Amendment (hereafter, “4th”), all American citizens have the natural right to privacy; that is, to be free of unwarranted intrusion of their persons, homes, etc., by the government. That, however, is not the whole of the amendment, as it continues, in the same sentence, stating that no warrant shall be issued without probable cause and it must describe the person of things to be searched and/or seized. Note that the second half of the sentence ties to the first, making evident that before government may invade our privacy it must have cause enough to obtain a warrant (there are exceptions to this, but all are based on the requirement of probable cause).
Even the Supreme Court, that most estimable of bodies which routinely distorts the Constitution, has found that government’s interference with the natural right to privacy is nearly sacrosanct. When a citizen can demonstrate that he has a reasonable expectation of privacy, government’s freedom to infringe that right is subject to the 4th. In Katz v. United States, 389 US 347, the Court wrote that:
What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. … But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.
Surely, a person entering an airport for the purpose of traveling on an airplane seeks to “preserve as private” his naked body, and that constitutes a reasonable expectation of privacy. With that in mind, it seems unreasonable that government can require him to disrobe (either literally or virtually), without probable clause. In support of that, in Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1, the Court ruled that:
An officer who reasonably believes that “criminal activity is afoot” in a public place may stop an individual suspected of wrongdoing and “conduct a carefully limited search of his outer clothing” for weapons that could be used against the officer.
In another case, Bond v. US, 529 US 334, the Court ruled that police cannot feel and squeeze passengers’ luggage in order to try and find illegal drugs. Carrying this ruling to its logical conclusion, it stands to reason that if police cannot squeeze luggage, they most certainly cannot squeeze the passengers themselves, even when looking for non-drug-related contraband, absent probable cause, a warrant, or an outright arrest.
The use of backscatter or millimeter wave scanners, which virtually disrobe passengers–and the more invasive “pat downs” to which we may also be subject–is clearly a violation of the protection afforded citizens by the 4th. Public safety is one of the quintessential functions of government, but when, in doing so, it robs citizens of constitutionally protected natural rights, it has violated the law. There exist other, more efficient and less costly technologies that have been proved to work to better effect, and we should demand their use.
Benjamin Franklin once said, in a 1775 letter to the Pennsylvania governor, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Are we they?
(4 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
The Real American Heroes of 2010
/files/2010/10/american-hero.flvWe present this video to illustrate the problems inherent in American government today. While it pillories the Democrats currently in power, the truth is that, in general, politicians of every stripe have evolved into little more than common criminals at best; more accurate still is that they are today elitists hell bent on acquiring and gathering unprecedented power, power over every aspect of our lives. It is that power that has, in no small part, corrupted the American experiment, turning government of the people, by the people, for the people, into a government of a few elitists who consider themselves virtual royalty.
With comments such as, “You’d think they would be saying thank you!,” to “We’ve got to pass this [health care] bill so you can know what’s in it,” to “But for me, we’d be in worldwide depression,” there can be little doubt that today’s political elite consider themselves far brighter than the rest of us, the unwashed. Particularly over the last six years, they have steamrolled legislation into law over the loud opposition of the majority of the people, not to mention prohibitions in the Constitution itself.
It is widely expected that the Republicans will not only regain power in the House, but they will quite possibly gain a significant majority. But it’s important to consider that, should this come to pass, it is likely not a validation of the Republican party or its policies, which tended toward expanding government in recent years. Instead, it is a reflection of the disgust and anger toward government in general, and of the Democrats’ policies in particular, all of which have resulted in explosive growth of government, massive deficits, crippling public debt, and the net reduction of liberty.
As the video suggests, all Americans, simply by turning out to vote, will demonstrate the heroism that defines us, showing that we have the courage to try and change the course of our government, a government that no longer serves us, but has morphed into a self-serving engine of power for those who walk the “halls of power.” Heroes will take this first step.
But let it not end here, because “When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.” (Quote by Thomas Jefferson)
(5 votes, average: 3.40 out of 5) Loading ...
Catching Wild Pigs
Here is a little parable which has made it’s way around the email circuit but is worth repeating:
There was a chemistry professor in a large college that had some exchange students in the class.
One day while the class was in the lab, the professor noticed one young man, an exchange student, who kept rubbing his back and stretching as if his back hurt. The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country’s government and install a new communist regime. In the midst of his story, he looked at the professor and asked a strange question.
He asked: “Do you know how to catch wild pigs?”
The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line.
The young man said that it was no joke. “You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming.
“When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, which are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat that free corn again. You then slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.
“Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn . They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.”
The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening in America . The government keeps pushing us toward Communism/Socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of “free” programs while we continually lose our freedoms, just a little at a time.
One should always remember two truths: 1) There is no such thing as a free lunch 2) and you can never hire someone to provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.
The corn consumed to date has put us $13 trillion in debt, nearly equivalent to our GDP. The Treasury Department projects the debt to increase to nearly $20 trillion by 2015, five short years from now. Annual interest on the debt alone was nearly $400 billion in fiscal 2009 and will exceed that in fiscal 2010, even at historically low interest levels, making interest the third largest expenditure in the federal budget, only exceeded by Defense and Health and Human Services. That amounts to $1,300 for every man, woman and child in the US, $2,600 for every US tax filer (nearly half of whom pay no income tax) and $5,000 for every US taxpayer. That’s some mighty expensive corn!
At some point all of this debt is going to need to be repaid, to ourselves and to countries such as China and Japan who own it. In addition, there are over $100 trillion in unfunded entitlement obligations which can no longer be ignored. Based upon the last trustee’s actuarial report, Medicare and Social Security expenditures are projected to exceed tax revenues in 2012 and 2016, respectively. Even President Obama admits our current spending and debt levels are unsustainable, while he and Congress proceed to increase both on nearly a daily basis. Few in Washington have demonstrated any serious fiscal restraint – campaign pledges turn into broken promises and outright lies.
The feeding frenzy needs to stop, with real changes such as:
- A real balanced budget amendment……not everything is a national emergency that requires an exemption
- Term limits……the days of career politicians need to end
- Real campaign finance reform……take the power back from lobbyists and special interest groups
- Entitlement reform……phase these programs out over an extended period, as has been proposed by Paul Ryan and others
- Federal tax reform……institute the Fair Tax or a similar, common sense approach that is simpler, not fraught with loopholes and does not unfairly penalize success
- Lower corporate tax rates……our federal corporate tax rate is only exceeded by Japan’s and is a primary contributor to jobs exiting the US for more business-friendly environments
We can argue into the wee wee hours about whether Republicans or Democrats are to blame for our present financial situation, but the simple reality is that We the Pigs are to blame. Many continue to snarf down the free corn while the fence goes up around them. Some have shunned the free corn to date, but are standing outside the fence drooling and might be tempted with the next delivery. And some are determined to stop the deliveries altogether and put those presently feeding on a diet.
For the PIIGS of Europe (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain), their fences are complete and Greece has their gate, with those trapped inside squealing loudly. How much of our fence is complete, and when does our gate arrive? Many would like to think this could never happen in the US. I’m quite sure there are many of these European PIIGS who said the same thing not so long ago.
The 14th Nullity
Since its adoption, the Constitution of the United States has been amended twenty-seven times. Of those amendments, one of the most controversial, despite its original, narrow intent, is Amendment XIV, whose five sections state the following:
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Of the five sections, sections 2 through 5 are predominantly free of insult, although in Section 3 is found language that abridges the right of a free people to select for themselves those who will represent them in government. The presumption that a person who had taken an oath to support the US Constitution had somehow incited insurrection or rebellion by choosing to secede from the union, based on his belief–and that of his constituents–that his state’s interests were no longer served by remaining so affiliated, presumes that secession is itself unconstitutional. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many have attested that since the Constitution only addresses the admission of new states, but does not mention the voluntary departure of a state once so joined, secession must not be legal. The federal courts have ruled secession to be unconstitutional, because the Articles of Confederation–not the Constitution–spoke of a “perpetual union.” However, because Amendment X quite specifically commands that powers not vested in the federal government are reserved to the states, or the people, there can be little doubt that secession is, in fact, within the powers of a state and not, as the protagonists claim, a crime against the Constitution. Moreover, since those who opted to secede did no harm to the Constitution itself, they did not violate their oaths. In that light, Section 3 can only be viewed as a gross intrusion on the liberties of the people. But that pales in comparison to the abuses heaped on the states by Section 1.
Following the ratification of Amendment XIII, which abolished slavery throughout the United States, the citizenship status of the emancipated slaves was left indeterminate: were they citizens or were they not? The primary purpose of Amendment XIV was to codify that black Americans were, in fact, citizens of the United States and that they enjoyed the same rights and privileges, and the same protection of the law, as those enjoyed by every other citizen. Though many people claim its intent and application were more far-reaching, consider that amendments to the Constitution are introduced to remedy problems extant at the time the amendments are introduced. They do not address or correct quandaries that either do not exist, or that cannot at the time be imagined. And yet, the first section of Amendment XIV has been so broadly interpreted that it has spawned a federal juggernaut against which the states are powerless to defend themselves.
Today, Section 1 has been interpreted to mean that any child born within a state or territory of the United States is automatically a citizen. Thus, expectant mothers from south of the border–or anywhere else, for that matter–can step into the United States and deliver their children, knowing with certainty that their children will be considered citizens. This interpretation of Section 1 is deeply flawed, as it ignores the qualifier, that one must be “subject to the jurisdiction of” the United States. If we play semantic games with that phrase, we can twist it into any form we like, but the fact is that at the time the amendment was drafted, the phrase was understood to mean that such children’s parents must “owe allegiance to” the United States for birthright citizenship to apply. Based on that understanding, it is certain that the children of those born to parents here illegally are not citizens.
Section 1 has been further corrupted to permit federal courts the power to incorporate selected portions of the Bill of Rights and apply the protections therein to the states (Incorporation Doctrine), despite the fact that those protections specifically targeted federal encroachment on the rights of the people and the states. As a direct result, we today find that the federal courts have the power to strike down state laws, overturn state courts’ decisions, and, ultimately, to annihilate the very constitutions of the states, thus cementing the states’ current role of administrative districts of the federal government.
At this point, let us take a short detour and examine the debates that led to the proposal of Amendment XIV. The debates are important because they serve to illustrate the fact that the Constitution was already misunderstood and misinterpreted at such an early date. Two remarks, in particular, clearly evidence the flawed understanding already coming to the fore. In the first, Senator James Nye suggested that Congress enjoys the power necessary to enforce the Constitution against the states:
In the enumeration of natural and personal rights to be protected, the framers of the Constitution apparently specified everything they could think of — “life,” “liberty,” “property,” “freedom of speech,” “freedom of the press,” “freedom in the exercise of religion,” “security of person,” &c.; and then, lest something essential in the specifications should have been overlooked, it was provided in the ninth amendment that “the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights should not be construed to deny or disparage other rights not enumerated.” … All these rights are established by the fundamental law.
Will it be contended, sir, at this day, that any State has the power to subvert or impair the natural and personal rights of the citizen?
In the second, Senator William Stewart contended that:
… [T]he federal Constitution is “the vital, sovereign, and controlling part of the fundamental law of every State,” and although the states may repeat parts of it in their own bills of rights, “no State can adopt anything in a State constitution in conflict.”
Clearly, neither these men nor their successors today understand that the Constitution, with very few exceptions, places no restrictions on the states, but instead constrains the federal government alone. Yet with the current understanding of Amendment XIV, the federal government wields enormous power over the states, power the Framers most assuredly never intended or envisioned. That power, however, is unfounded, because Amendment XIV was neither proposed nor ratified in accordance with Article V of the Constitution.
Article V spells out the process by which the Constitution may be amended:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
In proposing Amendment XIV, Congress was in outright violation of Article V. Representatives of ten southern states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia), having been legitimately elected by the people of those states, were forbidden to take their seats in Congress. The Radical Republicans then in control, in an ironic twist, claimed that those states were, in fact, not states and, therefore, not entitled to representation. Yet, as President Johnson pointed out in a message to Congress:
This bill and the acts to which it is supplementary are all founded upon the assumption that these ten communities are not States and that their existing governments are not legal. Throughout the legislation upon this subject they are called “rebel States,” and in this particular bill they are denominated “so-called States,” and the vice of illegality is declared to pervade all of them. The obligations of consistency bind a legislative body as well as the individuals who compose it. It is now too late to say that these ten political communities are not States of the Union. Declarations to the contrary made in these three acts are contradicted again and again by repeated acts of legislation enacted by Congress from the year 1861 to the year 1867.
During that period, while these States were in actual rebellion, and after that rebellion was brought to a close, they have been again and. again recognized as States of the Union. Representation has been apportioned to them as States. They have been divided into judicial districts for the holding of district and circuit courts of the United States, as States of the Union only can be districted. The last act on this subject was passed July 23, 1866, by which every one of these ten States was arranged into districts and circuits.
They have been called upon by Congress to act through their legislatures upon at least two amendments to the Constitution of the United States. As States they have ratified one amendment, which required the vote of twenty-seven States of the thirty-six then composing the Union. When the requisite twenty-seven votes were given in favor of that amendment — seven of which votes were given by seven of these ten States — it was proclaimed to be a part of the Constitution of the United States, and slavery was declared no longer to exist within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction. If these seven States were not legal States of the Union, it follows as an inevitable consequence that in some of the States slavery yet exists. It does not exist in these seven States, for they have abolished it also in their State constitutions; but Kentucky not having done so, it would still remain in that State. But, in truth, if this assumption that these States have no legal State governments be true, then the abolition of slavery by these illegal governments binds no one, for Congress now denies to these States the power to abolish slavery by denying to them the power to elect a legal State legislature, or to frame a constitution for any purpose, even for such a purpose as the abolition of slavery.
So much for continuous legislative recognition. The instances cited, however, fall far short of all that might be enumerated. Executive recognition, as is well known, has been frequent and unwavering. The same may be said as to judicial recognition through the Supreme Court of the United States. That august tribunal, from first to last, in the administration of its duties in banc and upon the circuit, has never failed to recognize these ten communities as legal States of the Union.
But it gets worse. Not content with having excluded the southern states, on March 27, 1866, the Senate then retroactively unseated John P. Stockton–as opposed to expelling him–the duly elected senator from New Jersey, thereby denying New Jersey a portion of its representation. Even more damning is Congress’s consideration of a resolution that would “prohibit the admission of senators and representatives into either house of Congress from the States lately in rebellion until Congress shall have declared such States entitled to representation.” [emphasis added] Such a resolution, on its face, may seem justified. However, in light of President Johnson’s message, and given Article V’s uncontestable declaration that “no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate,” there is no doubt that Congress committed an act of egregious violence against the Constitution.
Having patted themselves on the back for their artful chicanery, the rump Congress (i.e., a Congress not representative of all the states), submitted the amendment to all of the states for ratification. Thirteen states, including Delaware and Maryland, promptly rejected it. Congress responded by enacting the Reconstruction Acts, which illegally dissolved the legally constituted governments of nine southern states, and formed them into military districts subject to the military authority of the United States. The acts went on to require that:
Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That when the people of any one of said rebel States shall have formed a constitution of government in conformity with the Constitution of the United States in all respects, framed by a convention of delegates elected by the male citizens of said State twenty-one years old and upward, of whatever race, color, or previous condition, who have been resident in said State for one year previous to the day of such election, except such as may be disfranchised for participation in the rebellion, or for felony at common law; and when such constitution shall provide that the elective franchise shall be enjoyed by all such persons as have the qualifications herein stated for electors of delegates; and when such constitution shall be ratified by a majority of the persons voting on the question of ratification who are qualified as electors for delegates; and when such constitution shall have been submitted to Congress for examination and approval, and Congress shall have approved the same; and when said State, by a vote of its legislature elected under said constitution, shall have adopted the amendment to the Constitution of the United States proposed by the Thirty-ninth Congress, and known as article fourteen; and when said article shall have become a part of the Constitution of the United States, said State shall be declared entitled to representation in Congress, and senators and representatives shall be admitted therefrom on their taking the oath prescribed by law; and then and thereafter the preceding sections of this act shall be inoperative in said State; Provided, That no person excluded from the privilege of holding office by said proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States shall be eligible to election as a member of the convention to frame a constitution for any of said rebel States, nor shall any such person vote for members of such convention.
Sec. 6. And be it further enacted, That until the people of said rebel States shall be by law admitted to representation in the Congress of the United States, any civil government which may exist therein shall be deemed provisional only, and in all respects subject to the paramount authority of the United States at any time to abolish, modify, control, or supersede the same; and in all elections to any office under such provisional governments all persons shall be entitled to vote, and none others, who are entitled to vote under the fifth section of this act; and no person shall be eligible to any office under any provisional governments who would be disqualified from holding office under the provisions of the third article of said constitutional amendment.
President Johnson vetoed each of the Reconstruction Acts (which ultimately led to his impeachment), correctly noting that they were wholly unconstitutional–and Congress overrode the veto each time
Here again, Congress committed an act of violence on the Constitution. It had no power under the Constitution to dissolve the previously recognized, republican governments of those states. Its sole purpose was to ensure ratification of Amendment XIV, and that ratification was doomed to fail if Congress let stand the southern states’ original votes. And, of course, Congress, through its unconstitutionally installed military governors, managed to get the requisite votes for ratification. Those votes, however, were null and void, since those governments were not representative of the people of the southern states, but of the federal government itself.
On July 9, 1868, with the southern states chained into submission and having changed their votes from “nay” to “yea,” 28 of the 37 states then in the union had, at least in theory, assented to the amendment. But that’s not the end of the story. Both New Jersey and Ohio had withdrawn their assents prior to the actual ratification. New Jersey’s resolution, in particular, is a scathing indictment of a run-away federal government:
The said proposed amendment not having yet received the assent of the three-fourths of the states, which is necessary to make it valid, the natural and constitutional right of this state to withdraw its assent is undeniable….
That it being necessary, by the constitution that every amendment to the same should be proposed by two-thirds of both houses of congress, the authors of said proposition, for the purpose of securing the assent of the requisite majority, determined to, and did, exclude from the said two houses eighty representatives from eleven states of the union, upon the pretence that there were no such states in the Union; but, finding that two-thirds of the remainder of the said houses could not be brought to assent to the said proposition, they deliberately formed and carried out the design of mutilating the integrity of the United States senate, and without any pretext or justification, other than the possession of the power, without the right, and in palpable violation of the constitution, ejected a member of their own body, representing this state, and thus practically denied to New Jersey its equal suffrage in the senate, and thereby nominally secured the vote of two-thirds of the said houses.
The object of dismembering the highest representative assembly in the nation and humiliating a state of the Union, faithful at all times to all its obligations, and the object of said amendment, were one: to place new and unheard of powers in the hands of a faction, that it might absorb to itself all executive, judicial and legislative power, necessary to secure for itself immunity for the unconstitutional acts it had already committed, and those it has since inflicted on a too patient people….
It enlarges the judicial power of the United States so as to bring every law passed by the state, and every principal of the common law, relating to life liberty, or property within the jurisdiction of the federal tribunals, and charges those tribunals with duties, to the due performance of which, they, from their nature and organization, and their distance from the people, are unequal….
But the demand of the supporters of this amendment in this state: that congress should compel the people of New Jersey to adopt what is called “impartial suffrage,” makes it apparent that this section was intended to transfer to congress the whole control of the right of suffrage in the state, and to deprive the state of a free representation by destroying the power of regulating suffrage within its own limits, a power which they have never been willing to surrender to the general government, and which was reserved to the states as the fundamental principle on which the constitution itself was constructed, the principle of self-government.
Neither Congress nor Secretary of State Seward recognized either state’s withdrawal. Indeed, on July 20, 1868, Seward certified that the amendment had been ratified, if the said withdrawals were ineffective. He dismissed out of hand New Jersey’s correct assertion that a state was free to withdraw its assent at any time prior to the actual ratification of the amendment. In doing so, he also overlooked the fact that the southern states, under their military rulers, had withdrawn their rejections. If it is permissible for a state to withdraw its rejection and choose to assent, logic dictates that the reverse must also be true. Furthermore, absent law forbidding such acts, they are entirely legal and constitutional. Nevertheless, on July 21, 1868, Congress issued a joint resolution declaring that the amendment had passed, and directed Seward to promulgate it as such. Congress’s declaration, however, did not magically make constitutional that which had not been so before.
For the amendment to have been ratified in accordance with Article V required that 28 of the then 37 states assented to it. Discounting the votes of the nine states whose legitimate governments had been illegally dissolved, and acknowledging the right of both New Jersey and Ohio to withdraw their assents, by 1870, only 26 states had voted to ratify (70.27 percent), falling short of the 3/4 required. Since then, only four other states have given their assents (Delaware, Maryland, California, and Kentucky). All of those assents occurred after 1900, by which time there were 45 states in the union, which meant that ratification depended on the assents of 34 states. Since 3/4 of the states did not, and still have not, assented to it–and, more importantly, because its proposal was a violation of Article V–Amendment XIV is null and without effect.
Sources:
- Readings in American Constitutional History, 1776-1876
- New Jersey Joint Resoution Rescinding Its Assent to Amendment XIV
- The 14th Amendment–Equal Protection Law or Tool of Usurpation?
- Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment …”
- Reconstruction Acts of 1867
- Footnote on 14th Amendment Ratification
- Senate Journal, March 27, 1866
- Senate Journal, 39th Congress, First Session
(8 votes, average: 4.50 out of 5) Loading ...
The Power to Tax … and Revolt
By Mark Alexander · The Patriot Post (PatriotPost.us)
“An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation.” –John Marshall
On December 16th, 1773, “radicals” from Boston, members of a secret organization of American Patriots called the Sons of Liberty, boarded three East India Company ships and threw into Boston Harbor 342 chests of tea.
This iconic event, in protest of oppressive British taxation and tyrannical rule, became known as the Boston Tea Party.
Resistance to the Crown had been mounting over enforcement of the 1764 Sugar Act, 1765 Stamp Act and 1767 Townshend Act, which led to the Boston Massacre and gave rise to the slogan, “No taxation without representation.”
The 1773 Tea Act and resulting Tea Party protest galvanized the Colonial movement opposing British parliamentary acts, which violated the natural, charter and constitutional rights of the colonists.
In response to the rebellion, the British enacted additional punitive measures, labeled the “Intolerable Acts,” in hopes of suppressing the burgeoning insurrection. Far from accomplishing their desired outcome, however, the Crown’s countermeasures led colonists to convene the First Continental Congress on September 5th, 1774, in Philadelphia. (more…)
Fear Itself
Politics is a contact sport.
The originator of that statement is illusive, but at no time in recent history have we seen it’s truth demonstrated more than today. The year long debate over health care created an epic widening of the political divide in this nation, with our elected officials operating the heavy machinery. From Republican lawmaker Joe Wilson shouting “You Lie!” during a Presidential speech to Congress, to the President of the United States openly criticizing a Supreme Court ruling during his State of the Union Address, the ugly side of American politics is splashed across the media on a daily basis and distributed worldwide within seconds.
One aspect of this divide that is particularly troubling is the willingness of elected officials to launch direct attacks on the very populace they were presumably elected to represent. A portion of this frontal assault is somewhat justified as a result of the excessive public vitriol displayed at speaking engagements and town hall meetings. However, attacks by Democratic leadership on the Tea Party have taken on a tone and a degree of dishonesty that reflect a new and unsavory direction in national politics. One year ago the President claimed to be unaware of the Tax Day Tea Parties. Since then we have Nancy Pelosi calling the Tea Party movement “Astroturf”, unsubstantiated claims of spitting and shouting of racial epithets, and a concerted effort by the Democratic party to discredit and minimize those involved with the movement as a “fringe” element. Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) expressed concern about the Tea Party flag waving and their “hateful tone”, and Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) likens the Tea Party fight against the health care bill to attacks against the 60′s civil rights movement:
“I was involved in the civil rights marches in the ’60s. And I have been badgered, cursed at and spat at by groups in the South and I want you to know and your viewing audience to know that the group that were in Washington fighting against the health bill and fighting against the President, looked just like and sounded just like those groups that attacked the civil rights movement in the South.”
Time to Repeal Davis-Bacon
We are today facing an economic slowdown, I believe we can all agree on that simple fact. While each of us has an opinion as to whether government can effectively create jobs, there is no question that we all wish to have our tax dollars spent wisely. During President Obama’s first term, there has been much debate over the veracity of the jobs created/jobs saved figures. That is not the purpose of this article.
Working as a purchasing agent in the State of California for the last eight years and in the electrical business for the last 15, I have extensive experience with the issues facing owners in the electrical construction business. While working in the wholesale segment I learned the maximum profit I could extract from the contractor, while still retaining their business. As a supplier, I found myself conflicted between attempting to generate a profit for my employer and maximizing customer satisfaction, which included pricing which allowed them to generate a profit as well! It was an incredibly cutthroat business, where the difference between getting an order and not sometimes amounted to as little as $1,000 on a $50,000 order. The way we competed was generally on service level. The customer’s deadline became our deadline! With lead times and other uncontrollable factors impacting our ability to perform, sometimes it was rather difficult to achieve goals that were set. Working well into the evening several nights in a row in order to meet deadlines was not unusual. This caused a great number of “butting heads” moments between myself, management and sales staff. I NEVER missed a deadline. But that isn’t the purpose of this article either.
The purpose of this article is to discuss the labor rate charged for government funded programs throughout this country. In the contractor segment of the electrical business, I have been exposed to what is referred to as the “prevailing wage”. It is not unique to the electrical business, but it is central to the differences between private and public projects in this country. The driving factor is the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931. When passed, it was designed to stop minority non-union labor from being able to “unfairly” compete with higher paid white workers. While today it is hard to comprehend such an Act passing, it was reality in the 1930′s. However, as with so many other regulations, today the Davis-Bacon Act has consequences unintended when passed. It determines wages paid to any worker that participates in a federally funded project. Despite my personal belief that quality should come first and be the primary driver for wages, Davis-Bacon makes quality irrelevant. Davis-Bacon guarantees the “prevailing wage” will be paid on federal construction projects, meaning wages must follow union scale in any area that is at least 50 percent unionized, regardless of the quality of work. A personal example may help to illustrate why Davis-Bacon needs to be repealed.
I live in what is considered the fruit basket of the world, the San Joaquin valley in central California. Pick your crop folks, we grow it! Almonds, tomatoes, artichokes, lettuce, asparagus, walnuts, cherries and yes premium wines and table grapes. The packing sheds out here hire an incredible number of legal (and illegal) immigrants. People line up by the hundreds to secure jobs with these facilities – you would be stunned!
Not long ago, one of the sheds needed to build a cherry line in order to meet increased demand. As it was a privately-owned company that received no public funds, they were not required to pay the prevailing wage on the project. It was a massive undertaking and one of our best electricians was assigned the job. As the “parts guy”, I was involved from the beginning and listened to the electrician lament how it was a private job and that he wouldn’t be paid prevailing wage. We billed $60 per hour and paid the electrician approximately $35; a prevailing wage job would have billed at $85 per hour and paid the electrician $55. He reluctantly agreed that the lower wages were better than not working at all, and I predicted that by the time he finished the job he would be taking pictures and crowing like a proud new father! The job took 6 months of 40+ hour weeks and overtime was paid. Needless to say, by the end of the project he was there with video camera in hand, displaying how the line worked! He had indeed become a “proud poppa” crowing over his newborn child.
The point of this post? I guess that in looking for ways to cut government spending, the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage statute may not be a bad place to start. From my experience, the majority of contractors working in this field started by slinging tools themselves and they know what it’s like to try to eek out a living. There is plenty of work available for all contractors without entrenching the businesses that choose to become union shops. With both state and federal governments trillions of dollars in debt, isn’t it time to reintroduce the free market into our bidding process?
http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-017.html
The 2010 Census: Simple Count or Gross Intrusion?
As we all prepare to be counted as part of the 10-year census cycle authorized in the Constitution (Article I, Section 2), information appearing in news and other media outlets suggests that this year’s census is in violation of the Constitution. Specifically, the Constitution permits the federal government to enumerate, or count, the population of the United States so that it may apportion representation in Congress (since amended, it also originally served to determine each state’s fair share of the tax burden).
This year’s census will apparently ask a number of intrusive questions, none of which pertains to the actual act of counting how many of us there are. (more…)
Is it Time for Congressional Term Limits?
In proposing term limits for members of the Continental Congress, Thomas Jefferson stated that a limit was necessary “to prevent every danger which might arise to American freedom by continuing too long in office the members of the Continental Congress.” The Constitution does not include a provision for Congressional term limits, but prior to the Civil War many members of Congress in fact served only a few terms. However, as the power and importance of the federal government has grown, the incentive to seek a career as a federal politician has also grown.
On November 10, 2009, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) introduced a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution to limit the number of terms that a member of Congress may serve to 3 in the House of Representatives and 2 in the Senate. The resolution, cosponsored by Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and Sam Brownback (R-KS) has been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. As an amendment to the Constitution, passage requires a two-thirds majority approval in the House and Senate and ratification by three-fourths of the states. In introducing the amendment, Senator DeMint said:
“Americans know real change in Washington will never happen until we end the era of permanent politicians. As long as members have the chance to spend their lives in Washington, their interests will always skew toward spending taxpayer dollars to buyoff special interests, covering over corruption in the bureaucracy, fundraising, relationship building among lobbyists, and trading favors for pork – in short, amassing their own power. I have come to realize that if we want to change the policies coming out of Congress, we must change the process itself. Over the last 20 years, Washington politicians have been reelected about 90% of the time because the system is heavily tilted in favor of incumbents. If we really want to put an end to business as usual, we’ve got to have new leaders coming to Washington instead of rearranging the deck chairs as the ship goes down.”
Senator Coburn added:
“The best way to ensure we are truly a government of the people, for the people, and by the people, is to replace the career politicians in Washington with citizen legislators who care more about the next generation than their next election. The power of incumbency has created an almost insurmountable advantage for Washington politicians. Incumbency allows politicians to raise millions of dollars in campaign funds in exchange for earmarks. Incumbency gives Congress the power to raise money for itself – Congress just approved itself an increase of nearly $250 million from the U.S. Treasury that members will spend to promote themselves. Finally, with redistricting incumbents can choose their voters rather than voters choosing their representatives. Term limits is the best way to break this cycle.”
Proponents of term limits seek:
- More competitive elections, bringing new candidates and ideas into the process on a more regular basis and eliminating some of the inequalities that currently benefit incumbents. In addition to generally greater name recognition, political contributions and media access, incumbents enjoy the benefits of franking (free mail to constituents) along with taxpayer-funded staff, offices and travel. Incumbents maintain their comfortable salaries while campaigning, a benefit many challengers do not share. State legislators routinely redraw congressional districts to benefit incumbents, and both the House and Senate maintain lawyers specifically to handle term limits litigation.
- A more transparent government with greater access by the people, and a significant reduction in pork-barrel spending. Freshman politicians, by their nature, are more closely connected with those who elect them, reducing the need to buy ongoing loyalties with spending sprees designed around re-election campaigns.
- Significantly reduced influence by special interest groups. Career politicians build long-standing relationships with lobbyists which are often extremely lucrative. These lobbying “investments” yield much smaller returns when term limits are imposed.
- An end to control of the legislative process by those who are most out of touch with their constituents and the realities outside the beltway, a situation clearly demonstrated by the debate over health care over the past twelve months.
Opponents, on the other hand, argue that:
- Term limits are undemocratic in that they restrict choice. In fact, term limits should expand choice as the significant advantages of incumbents will largely disappear, reducing barriers to challengers.
- The most experienced legislators with the greatest understanding of the legislative process would be eliminated. This argument presumes that freshman legislators would have no previous involvement or knowledge of the process, when in fact most elected officials have previous experience at the state level and/or through staff-level positions. Further, no other profession requires years of on-the-job training in order to be effective in the position. The legislature is no exception. Term limits could attract more talent from more diverse fields as the need for years and years of experience in order to wield significant influence disappears.
- What is needed is campaign finance reform, not term limits. In fact both are needed and one does not preclude the other. Having career politicians presume to write campaign finance reform laws is tantamount to putting the fox in charge of access to the hen house.
- Unelected people – lobbyists, staffers and bureaucrats – would effectively run Congress while freshman legislators learn the ropes. As noted previously, it is far more likely that relationships with lobbyists would be diminished and would not continue as new legislators come into office. Turnover in both staffers and bureaucrats would likely increase, with greater focus directed toward legislation rather than re-election activities. Term limits may actually provide incentive to work for reforms that transfer more power away from bureaucrats and back to Congress.
- Politicians at the end of their terms will see no political advantage to following the will of the people and every advantage to seeking personal gain. Certainly we see little propensity today to follow the will of the people, but this argument also fails in that lobbyists lose their ability to use funds to generate long-term influence. This again argues for campaign finance and lobbyist reform, not against term limits.
It is hardly coincidental that those primarily opposed to Congressional term limits are career politicians and special interest groups who support them. Term limits would eliminate incumbent election advantages, reduce incentives for wasteful spending, reduce influence of special interest groups and eliminate concentrations of power with career politicians out of touch with their constituents. The volume of legislation passed contrary to the wishes of the American people over the last several years should be ample justification to support such an amendment.
http://www.heritage.org/research/governmentreform/bg994.cfm
(12 votes, average: 4.58 out of 5) Loading ...
