Fighting to Preserve Liberty in America
The Tea Party has some major accomplishments to their credit that will be on display this week. The first is a reading of the Constitution in the House of Representatives to open the 112th Congress, the second is the change to rules that require any bill to state where in the Constitution Congress has the authority to enact that legislation.
Douglas “Wrong Way” Corrigan was an aviator in the 1930s. In 1938 he mistakenly flew from New York to Ireland when he was supposed to fly from New York to California, because he claims he misread his compass. It later turned out that he really intended to fly to Ireland but couldn’t get permission.
What’s Hillary’s excuse? As the Obama Administration has called the removal of Honduran President Manuel Zalaya a coup d’etat, more attention is being focused on what the law in Honduras really says. The Congressional Research Service looked into it and had this to say:
“The Supreme Court of Honduras has constitutional and statutory authority to hear cases against the President of the Republic and many other high officers of the State, to adjudicate and enforce judgments, and to request the assistance of the public forces to enforce its rulings.”
—Congressional Research Service, August 2009
So why is Hillary Clinton now attacking the Honduran Supreme Court by pulling the visas of all fifteen members of the court? The U.S. sided with Hugo Chavez and Costa Rica to reach a “negotiated” settlement that would put Zalaya back in the presidency. Honduras said, sorry, that would violate our constitution. He broke the law, we dealt with it according to our constitution, and that’s that.
Mary Anastasia O’Grady writes in the Wall Street Journal:
The upshot is that the U.S. is trying to force Honduras to violate its own constitution and is also using its international political heft to try to interfere with the country’s independent judiciary.
Hondurans are worried about what this pressure is doing to their country. Mr. Zelaya’s violent supporters are emboldened by the U.S. position. They deface some homes and shops with graffiti and throw stones and home-made bombs into others, and whenever the police try to stop them, they howl about their “human rights.”
When will the apology tour end and we start standing up for liberty and democracy? Is it more important that Hillary have an accomplishment she can brag about than following the rule of law? This administration has so much, so backwards it is hard to keep track of it. They focus all their time and energy doing things they are not constitutionally authorized to do (health care, taking over car companies and banks, funding ACORN), and ignoring their fundamental constitutional duties of foreign policy and national defense. Let’s hope some pressure can be brought to bear on the Obama Administration to back off before Chavez puts a puppet in place.
Congressman Tim Bishop referred to it in his town hall meeting. If you ask a statist where does the Constitution authorize them to get involved in every detail of our lives, the only place they can point to is Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have the Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; {my emphasis}
So what does the general Welfare mean? Statists who claim the Constitution is a living breathing document believe that this clause gives them the right to do whatever they please, and whatever gets them reelected. As conservatives we believe in original intent and therefore we have to go back to what the founders meant when they penned those words. Why is that an important distinction? Because the meaning of words change.
Are You Gay?
If you were asked that question in the eighteenth century, the questioner would have been asking you if you were merry; keenly alive and exuberant; having or inducing high spirits. If asked that question today, the questioner wants to know if you are a homosexual. So if the founders wanted to emphasize that the Constitution was a serious document and wrote, “nothing contained herein should be construed to be gay,” no one at the time would have raised an eyebrow, other than the dopiness of the clause. If read in today’s context, it would create an uproar.
Are You Bad?
The band Huey Lewis and the News have a song called “Bad is Bad” in which the band plays on how the word “bad” now means ”good” in contemporary vernacular, but sometimes it actually means bad, really bad. It shows how words change can change with time. Back when the Founders wrote the Constitution and you said someone was bad, you might find yourself choosing dueling pistols. Today, the response to the statement, “You’re bad,” would probably be, “Thanks, man.”
So if you don’t seek out the original meaning of the Constitution and our laws based on when they were written, everything can become meaningless over time.
What Did the Founders Mean by Provide for the General Welfare?
Alexander Hamilton was a proponent of a broad interpretation of the General Welfare and he supported that position during the Constitutional Convention. However proposals along those lines, such as spending for internal improvements were rejected by the Convention.
“{James} Madison repeatedly argued that the powers to tax and spend did not confer upon Congress the right to do whatever it thought to be in the best interest of the nation, but only to further the ends specifically enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution, a position supported by Jefferson.” — The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, p.93
There was another interpretation that fit in the middle that even Hamilton recognized. That was that the term “general” meant “national” welfare and not for purely local or regional benefit. President James Monroe demonstrated this
“in his 1822 message vetoing a bill to preserve and repair the Cumberland Road. Monroe contended that Congress’s power to spend is restricted ‘to purposes of common defense, and of general, national, not local, or state, benefit.” — The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, p. 93.
Later President James K. Polk vetoed a bill that looked a lot like today’s runaway earmarks.
“It provided $6,000 for projects in the Wisconsin territory — constitutionally permissible because of Congress’s broader power over federal territories — but it included $500,000 for a myriad of projects in the existing states. Polk contended that to interpret the Spending Clause to permit such appropriations would allow ‘combinations of individual and local interests [that would be] strong enough to control legislation, absorb the revenues of the country, and plunge the government into hopeless indebtedness.’” – ibid, p. 95
If you changed some of the numbers you could have written that today rather than in 1847. Where this came off the rails, along with so many other government disasters we are paying for today, was during FDR’s tenure beginning in 1936. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions left the definition of “General Welfare” up to Congress. How ridiculous is that? Justice Sandra Day O’Connor summed it up pretty well in her dissent in South Dakota v. Dole
“If the spending power is to be limited only by Congress’ notion of the general welfare, the reality….is that the Spending Clause gives ‘power to the Congress….to become a parliament of the whole people, subject to no restrictions save such as are self-imposed.’ This….was not the Framer’s plan and it is not the meaning of the Spending Clause.”
Out of Control Spending
The outrage demonstrated at the town halls shows that the American people are fed up with Congress ignoring what they are saying and bankrupting the country. The Supreme Court in the 1930s opened the door to profligate spending by Congress that was kept in check by the Constitution for 140 years prior. To allow Congress to define general welfare as they want and then spend accordingly makes no sense logically or otherwise. If the Supreme Court does not set this right, a Constitutional Amendment may be required, and I am no fan of amending the Constitution at every turn. As an American I take pride our Constitution that we have only felt a need to amend 27 times in over 200 years. But if we allow changes in the definitions of words to drag the Constitution along with them, then we need to take measures to put the Constitution back where it was as a beacon to guide us rather than a quaint artifact of our history.
In a previous post I described how I wrote to my Congressman on a particular topic. He responded with a letter I thought was so flawed with logic that I felt compelled to respond, even as I believed it would have the equivalent effect of arguing with my dog. He would politely listen, cock his head, and then go about his business, but I wrote it anyway. What I got in response surprised me. I got the exact same letter as the first time around with only the date changed.
Fool Me Once…
With all the town halls and people finally beginning to find their voice, I tried to communicate with my Representative again. This time I sent him a short e-mail with two very simple questions:
An honest response would be along the lines of:
But instead a got a long e-mail telling me that health care was complex, that he wrote a letter to Nancy Pelosi requesting a delay in voting, and basically all the statist talking points. My two simple questions were simply ignored.
Town Hall Outrage
The outrage being demonstrated in the town halls is not the result of right-wing organizers. It is the result of being treated by our elected Representatives as children who should be seen but not heard. They schedule a town hall meeting, read an opening statement of their carefully crafted talking points, and then take questions that they answer by rephrasing the question so that a reply can be given from the talking points. At the appointed time, they thank the crowd for their input, which they will ignore, wave to the crowd and hurry away from the unwashed masses to marble halls of Congress, their $169,000 salary, their staffs, etc.
The people will not stand for this anymore. They see these power hungry, career politicians, not representing the people but lecturing them. Americans have had enough, and they’re not going to take it anymore.
Here is Congressman Tim Bishop’s Town Hall experience, in two parts.
The Constitution in the Hands of Activist Judges
President Barack Obama has made his first nomination to the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor. She has a great American personal story, not quite as great as Clarence Thomas, but a great one nonetheless. Here is what Barack Obama said about Clarence Thomas and Justice Scalia.
“I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas,” said the presumptive Democratic nominee. “I don’t think that he…” the crowd interrupted with applause. “I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the constitution. I would not have nominated Justice Scalia though I don’t think there is any doubt about his intellectual brilliance. Because he and I just disagree. — Barack Obama with Rick Warren
Much of the ballyhoo over Judge Sotomayor has been about her background. No one, I repeat, no one has a more compelling story than Clarence Thomas, but when he was up for nomination, the ad hominem attacks were disgraceful. Barack Obama doesn’t think Clarence Thomas is a strong enough jurist? You may disagree with Clarence Thomas’ beliefs but remember the context of the question from Rick Warren. Warren asked who on the Supreme Court Obama would not have nominated and out of the nine justices, he picked Thomas. So Obama thinks Souter has a greater legal mind than Thomas? Or was Obama trying to score a twofer? He can bash a conservative to score points on the left, while showing he is not a knee jerk Affirmative Action type by singling out the black guy, so he can score points with independents. Let’s be clear, Obama rarely makes a public statement that is not calculated for effect.
President Obama is now trying to get his first nominee confirmed and to do so is pointing to the tradition that President’s should generally get who they want, unless there is a serious problem with the nominee. However, while in the Senate, he had a different view as shown during the confirmation of Samual Alito. Obama voted to filibuster that nomination.
“As we all know, there’s been a lot of discussion in the country about how the Senate should approach this confirmation process. There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed.
I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge’s philosophy, ideology, and record.” — Barack Obama speech on why he was voting against Samual Alito.
With the nomination of John Roberts, Senator Obama clearly stakes out a position favoring judicial activism. He said that in 95% of the cases following the Constitution is fine. The other 5% of the time judges should feel free to re-write the constitution.
“The problem I face — a problem that has been voiced by some of my other colleagues, both those who are voting for Mr. Roberts and those who are voting against Mr. Roberts — is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95 percent of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of the cases — what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.” — Barack Obama’s speech on why he was voting against John Roberts
Okay, so show me where Ruth Bader Ginsburg has voted with Antonin Scalia 95% of the time. If you take what Obama says at face value, if they followed the Constitution 95% of the time, Ginsburg and Scalia would vote the same way. Since Scalia plainly says his philosophy follows “original intent”, that is, adhering to the Constitution as written, Obama must be admitting that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a judicial activist since she rarely agrees with Scalia.
“A lot has been made about the Supreme Court and my criteria,” Obama said in a 20-minute speech to 250 of the night’s biggest donors. “I want people who have a common touch, who have a sense of what it’s like to struggle.”
He praised Sotomayor because she knows that “every once in a while, people need a hand up.” — Barack Obama speaking on why Sonia Sotomayor should be nominated to the Supreme Court
In this statement about Sotomayor, he confirms what he really believes that personal prejudices, and by that I mean “pre-judging”, are an essential element for a judge. He believes the Constitution plays a role, but where the outcome is not pleasant, by all means re-write the Constitution to give you the outcome you want. But once again Obama flip-flops:
“There are, of course, some in Washington who are attempting to draw old battle lines and playing the usual political games, pulling a few comments out of context to paint a distorted picture of Judge Sotomayor’s record. But I am confident that these efforts will fail; because Judge Sotomayor’s seventeen-year record on the bench – hundreds of judicial decisions that every American can read for him or herself – speak far louder than any attack; her record makes clear that she is fair, unbiased, and dedicated to the rule of law.” — Barack Obama’s weekly radio address.
First, I want to point to the Obama straw man, “some in Washington,” without naming who those some are. So, here he says she is “fair, unbiased, and dedicated to the rule of law.” Well, which one is it? Biased, to swing those 5% of the cases that need a better outcome, or dedicated to the rule of law.
Teaching Moment
Judge Sotomayor’s nomination will probably be confirmed. What conservatives must do is refrain from the name calling, any ad hominem attacks, and focus on whether or not she is a judicial activist or not. The questioning should be respectful but unwavering. Most Americans are opposed to activist judges. The American people should be clearly informed that Justice Sotomayor is just that. But if the long knives come out to damage her, that message will be lost, as will a valuable issue to use in the next election. When adhering to conservative principles 60% of the American people are with us. When we put up wishy washy candidates to appeal to groups, the Democratic playbook, we get slaughtered every time.
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 — Amendment X, United States Constitution
“I’m Mad as Hell and I’m Not Going To Take It Any More”
That quote from the movie “Network” popped into my head as I read about a legislator in Oklahoma, calling for legislative support for the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. It passed the state assembly unanimously. So what does this mean? The sponsor of the bill, State Senator Randy Brogdan, explains:
The “federal government has been putting the screws on (the states) a little tighter and tighter each year” along with unfunded mandates of varying sorts.
And each time this happens, Brogdon explained, “We lose a little bit of our freedom and liberty.”
The federal government has been growing enormously and taking on more and more things that used to be handled locally, such as education, and welfare. Other programs have not changed as the economy has, for example, as the percentage of the population that farms has decreased dramatically has the Department of Agriculture shrunk accordingly?
You Must Obey!
The way the federal government works around this is by saying, okay, you don’t have to do what we tell you, but you will get no federal funding if you don’t. It seems like a Catch-22, no? Since the 16th Amendment, which authorized the income tax, the federal government can decide how much to tax incomes and there is little that the states can do about it. They take money from your pocket under threat of imprisonment, and will give it back to you only if you comply with their rules.
How Do We Fix This One?
It may require a constitutional amendment to fix as the 16th Amendment says:
The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. — 16th Amendment to the Constitution
I’ll leave the legal mechanics to those better qualified, but I would propose the following. That the federal budget shall include a breakdown of projected revenues derived from income taxes, broken down by source: individual, corporate, etc. A state should then be allowed to refuse mandates and programs from, say, the Department of Education, and withhold from the IRS that proportion of tax dollars destined for the Department of Education from that state.
Certain departments should be deemed mandatory, such as Defense, State, Treasure, to name a few as these departments serve all citizens.
The legislation under consideration in Oklahoma will have little effect if the federal government can suck up as much money as it wants to from the states, via their citizens and then just keep the money if the states refuse to participate in the programs. How do you determine which programs should be subject to the states discretion? No money should flow from a state, to Washington, and then back to the state. That is just plain stupid and wasteful, or a distribution of wealth, none of which is a government function. Paying for roads and infrastructure that does not cross state lines should be funded locally. It is ridiculous that the federal government pays 90% of the cost of a highway that lies entirely within a city. Look at the scandalous “Big Dig” in Boston. Billions of dollars spent and parts of it are falling down. Why should any of this be paid for by the people of Kansas, Oklahoma, Alaska, New York, Florida, et al.?
But the real answer is following the 10th Amendment. It clearly states that the role of the federal government is spelled out in the Constitution. If it’s not in the Constitution then that responsibility is left to the states or the people. Show me where in the Constitution it says that the federal government is responsible for education. It’s not in there and that department should be shut down tomorrow.
It’s Time to Rein the Monster In
The anger in the country is growing. Those who acted responsibly are being told they have to bail out the irresponsible. They are being told by “Buck a Day Biden” that it is their patriotic duty to pay higher taxes to help out. Meanwhile half a dozen Obama appointees haven’t paid the taxes they owe, let alone paying more. I give Biden the “Buck a Day Biden” moniker because that is how much this millionaire gives to charity. He doesn’t want to spend his own money on charity, he wants the government to take your money to fund government programs to do that.
If you don’t think the anger is growing take a look at this. Rick Santelli
