Balancing the Budget

Every so often a politician, lawyer, educator or just a plain ordinary citizen raises the question about having a Balanced Budget Amendment added to the Constitution.  Without any desire to demean their “good intentions”, logically, it doesn’t make sense.

Let’s start with the present facts concerning the operation of our Congress.  It has been called “dysfunctional”, “gridlocked” or even “useless”.  While some or more of such adjectives might apply at various times, they ignore some basic facts.

Congress has not abided by the Constitution for quite a few years.  Had they been paying attention and responding positively to their oath of office, they would have refused to allow the passage of a number of laws over the past century – not just the past decade or two.  To be specific, had they been “awake” in 1913, they never would have passed the Federal Reserve Act.  Nor would they have passed the “income tax law.” (XVI Amendment)  Or, they might have recognized the fundamental change in the structure of our government and discarded the XVII Amendment which turned the Senate into an elite House of Representatives.

All of which is to say that our elected representatives (whether House or Senate) have their own axes to grind and so long as they get re-elected each time, they ignore the wishes of their constituents.  After all, who are the voters but numbers with precious little influence for the most part.  All elected representatives excel in the area of counting – votes that is.  Perhaps Stalin was right when he said, “it matters not who votes.  It’s only important as to who counts the votes!”

Facing the facts, it does not appear that congress really pays much attention to the Constitution or even what they vote on, many acknowledging that they have not read the legislation before voting on it.  Thus, we must ask the question, “why does anyone honestly believe that a Balanced Budget Amendment” will result in a balanced budget?  It will be as easy to ignore such an amendment as it is the other limitations the Constitution imposes on the federal government.  Balancing the budget is something you do for your own family because you cannot live beyond your means for very long. 

That said, the average citizen today, if we are to believe the regularly printed statements considering their financial condition, has already stretched his or her indebtedness beyond recovery.  Individual bankruptcies are on the incline.  Has the citizen fallen under the belief that if government can “live by debt” then why can’t he or she?

Perhaps it is a result of the new math and the educators have found a way to make 2 + 2 equal 5 (when selling – it only equals 3 when buying).  In reality, that is exactly what has been happening as we print more and more fiat money.  With inflation, it deteriorates immediately after issuance and when “repaid” is done so with even cheaper money.

Balancing the budget doesn’t require a Constitutional Amendment.  It does, however, require some basic honesty and integrity on the part of our elected representatives and senators.  All that is required is a faithful adherence to the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution.  For example, let’s start with foreign aid.  Nowhere is it authorized so how can any congressman or woman in good conscience vote for foreign aid knowing that the US has to borrow the money in order to distribute it?  Going into debt in order to “give it away” borders on insanity.  It certainly is indicative of mental depravity.

That’s my view.  What’s yours?  Reach me at constititonviews@gmail.com ©Copyright 2015 Hillard W. Welch.

Legal Tender or Good as Gold?

Few people have paid much attention to the paper money they use every day, or at least used to before the advent of credit and debit cards and the many new payment systems out there.

As a consequence, not many are aware that the wording on U.S. Currency has gone through a number of changes over the last 100 years.  In the beginning, any “paper” currency was essentially a promise that the government treasury held an equivalent amount of gold and/or silver equal to the face value stated on the paper.  The dollar value of gold or silver was fixed by the U.S. Treasury and known to all. 

Not too long after the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913, the wording on a gold or silver certificate was replaced with a “Federal Reserve Note”.  Even then it was technically supposed to represent an amount of solid (metal) currency on deposit in the Treasury of the United States.  The final blow to a valid currency was the imprint, “legal tender for all debts public or private”.  Now as citizens we had finally been had.  The paper we were using to pay bills, etc., had no intrinsic value.  The government declared it to be “legal tender” but with no backing, real or imagined.  There was no indication on the printed paper that it was convertible into “real money.”

Thus, if you wished to “convert” your paper into hard currency, you might be surprised to find out that you could not do so, even if you demanded that you receive metal in an equivalent amount to the face of the paper you wished to surrender.  The coins you would receive are no longer “solid” metal with intrinsic or real value. They are laminated metal coins (called “clad”) stamped by the same mint that used to produce real money.  Instead, because they are now bimetallic, they are worth in the marketplace only the basic value of the metals contained, irrespective of the amount stamped on their face.  By government  diktat they are useable for their face value in payment of debts, public or private!

Here are the facts: “The Congress shall have Power To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures . . .”  (Art. I, Sec, 8) In short, only Congress can decide what your money is worth.  No such power is granted any other body, including the Federal Reserve.

Article I, Sec. 10 states “ . . . No States shall . . . coin money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts . . .”

Not only have we “strayed” from the direction provided by the Founders, we have been subjected to the wisdom of the liberal economist and fiat money banks where today the paper dollar you hold in your hand is worth only 2 cents in hard currency as compared to its value and, more importantly, its purchasing power in 1913.  How has this happened and why didn’t you notice?  The simplest explanation is “planned inflation.”  All governments like inflation: they can “borrow” money at the current day’s interest rate and repay it later with the same number of dollars but which cost them less since they are worth less.  The Federal Reserve has stated repeatedly that they are “shooting” for an inflation rate of 2%.  Doesn’t sound like much, but over the years it has taken its toll and we are now at the level noted above. 

 

Not a sound fiscal policy.  That’s my view.  What’s yours?  Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com

©Copyright 2015 Hillard W.Welch

Defeating Federalism

The Founding Fathers labored over the question of how to organize the new nation.  The Articles of Confederation had proven wholly inadequate. The assembled delegates in Philadelphia that hot summer of 1787 were charged only with “fixing” the Articles.

It quickly became clear, that attempting a “fix” would not work and thus began the process of creating a whole new document to serve the nation.  It was James Madison who led the way with his drafts of the Constitution, drawing heavily on the earlier one penned for Virginia that included many of the points of a limited government, strict accountability, a republican form and independent and sovereign states (colonies) as the ultimate source of power.  Technically, the “federal” government would be subservient to the states, not the other way around.

So, how did the “switcheroo” come about where the federal government now considers itself “master” of all?

One of the steps overlooked in such discussions is the XVII Amendment which made electing senators a “popular” voting procedure not a state determined one.  According to the Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 3, “The Senate . . . shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote . . .”  Terms of 3 separate and equal classes were established with expiration dates to stagger the future election of senators.  When in session the Vice President was to serve as President of the Senate (without any vote unless to break a tie).  The Senate was empowered to try impeachment (2/3^rds of the members present and voting required for the vote) and provide the President with advice and consent (Art. II, Sec. 2) with respect to treaties, appointments of ambassadors, justices of the Supreme Court and other federal officers.

While the Articles worked fine in the beginning, they soon appeared to have many problems including election of delegates, corruption, bribery and pressure from special interest or political groups. With the expansion of voting rights and more voters, the belief became widespread that senators should be popularly elected the same as representatives.  The significance of federalism and the sovereignty of the individual states was never considered!  Thus, the XVII Amendment was ratified (1913) and we had essentially two houses of representatives, one elected for 2 year terms and the other for 6 years. The federal government was now free to override the sovereignty of the individual states at will.  The careful and thoughtful balance the Founders had incorporated in the guiding document allowing each branch to check on the other two was cast aside.  The more “democratic” approach prevailed and decreasing state independence has continued ever since.

The original concept of government was to have three separate but equal (in terms of power relating one to each of the other two) branches: executive, legislative and judicial.  The legislative was to represent both the people (House) and the States (Senate).  Different election processes were devised to achieve this.  The fact that one of them incurred difficulties and succumbed to “the easy way out” rather than determining how to achieve the purpose intended is perhaps more indicative of the progressive attitude of the times.  The loss of sovereignty of the individual states was far more significant than any benefit that might be derived from having “two” Houses.  The consequences are that we no longer have states fighting for their independence through the Senate.  Rather we have both houses at the public trough seeking more and more federal handouts for which they become beholden to the federal behemoth and accepting its dictates.  Is that what the Founding Fathers envisaged?  That’s not my view.  What’s yours?  Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com ©Copyright 2015  Hillard W.Welch

Why limit government?

There are lots of reasons but as we have become more “progressive” since about 1900, it would appear that a large segment of our population would rather have an “unlimited” government that provides for their every wish.  For those who disagree with that thought, you might want to check the expansion of the welfare rolls and the number receiving food stamps on a regular basis.

That’s a far cry from what the country was and what the Founding Fathers intended as they created our Constitution.  They believed very firmly in a limited government.   Having been under the thumb of a monarch with absolute power over every aspect of their lives, they wanted none of it.  But, perhaps most important, they were willing to “stand on their own” and “be responsible for their own well-being”.  Maybe “they had no choice, “living in a wilderness” with “savages” on their outskirts.  None of that deterred them from their desire for freedom and liberty.

So, what do we mean when we say a “limited government”?

The constitution was in the nature of a contract.  It was a contract between the new federal government and the individual, independent and sovereign, states (or colonies if you prefer).  It stated that the federal government had certain powers and the states retained everything else (Amendments IX and X).  Both parties were expected to live up to their part of the “bargain”.

The Founders were concerned that a federal government might become too powerful if not constrained by specific obligations and responsibilities as detailed in a constitution. They chose their words carefully, considering all possibilities as they worked to define a document that would withstand the tests of time and the onslaught of individuals (they were not called politicians back then).  While they foresaw the potential for distortions and misinterpretations, they could not possibly conceive of the “penumbra” and “emanations” from their words that would allow or justify the creation of departments and agencies totally unrelated to the clauses of the constitution.  Areas that were not defined such as education, energy, environment, the Federal Reserve, etc. have all come about through subtle interpretations of designated powers.  Many have never been challenged or reviewed by the Supreme Court for their constitutionality. 

What we have witnessed is a “normal” growth of an “organ”.  In this case a government which, by its nature and environment in which it operates, will always seek to grow in ways not known or imagined at the time of creation.  Logically, it might be argued that if a population grows, so should the government responsible for managing its “national” affairs.  Keeping a government “small” and forcing it to remain within described bounds is no mean feat. It cannot be done without leaders of integrity and strong character dedicated to the principles underlying its founding.

That we have not had enough such leaders since about 1900 may be contested by today’s “progressives” and “liberals” but there can be no denying that the present situation is a result of their policies and actions during the past century.  Today, our nation has an unsustainable debt load, an educational system that continues to graduate students of lower academic achievement than their foreign contemporaries, a spreading bureaucracy that issues rules and regulations with little Congressional approval or oversight, and a government that is spreading like an octopus into every corner of individual life and livelihood.

That’s why a limited government was our Founder’s choice and gift!  Have we squandered our inheritance?  That’s my view.  What’s yours?  Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com ©Copyright, 2015 Hillard W. Welch

Presidential Executive Orders

“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America . . . [he] shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy . . . [he] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur . . . and he shall nominate, ad by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States . . . have the Power to fill up Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate . . .he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . . . ” Art. II, Secs. 1-4.

Please reread that paragraph. It defines the duties and responsibilities of the President. If you can find anywhere in there the words, “executive order(s)” you may be suffering from a penumbra or emanation.

From the very beginning, Presidents have issued Executive Orders. That may be reasonable and logical given the responsibility to see that the “Laws be faithfully executed.” The words would seem to direct the President to restrict his orders to implementing the laws passed by Congress and ascertain that they are being faithfully executed! There isn’t anything said about “legislation” or “legislating” since that would mean the President is beyond his authority and encroaching on the exclusive Congressional responsibility that “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States . . .” (Art. I, Sec. 1).

For a few examples of Presidents having by-passed their Constitutional responsibilities and commitments, let's start with Abraham Lincoln. Unilaterally, he set aside a basic, guaranteed right, by denying the “writ of habeas corpus” (Art. I, Sec. 9) to those accused of crimes against the government (Union forces essentially). Accepted and approved at the time, it became obvious in subsequent examination that it was unconstitutional. It should have been rejected on those grounds at the time pronounced.

A second and equal egregious example would be in the Roosevelt's (FDR) order 39066 which served to incarcerate 150,000 Japanese Americans at the beginning of WW II simply because they were of Japanese ancestry or descendants thereof. While the Supreme Court and later Presidents and Congress addressed this abomination, it did not remove the blight on our record of ignoring the “rule of law” vs the rule of men!

And finally, we come to today and the most recent Executive Order that supposedly has the force of law to entitle illegal immigrants to share in the benefits of lawful citizens. This situation is still open at the time of this writing. Nevertheless, if one is a student of the Constitution and its provisions, one has to ask whereby does the President believe he has the authority or power to establish such a ruling? Nowhere in the Constitution does it authorize the President to “legislate”! That, as noted earlier, is the sole prerogative of Congress. It would appear to behoove Congress therefore to step into such situations and deny the individual, department or division of the government an attempt to usurp power they were never granted.

 

Beyond the examples given, even a cursory examination of the many rulings of the EPA demonstrates that this department is regularly issuing orders that restrict the activities of citizens and their businesses yet take on the force of law. This also appears to violate the limited government concept embodied in the Constitution. Those are my views. What are yours? Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com               © Copyright 2015 Hillard W. Welch

 

Man Made???

History should have taught us one thing, if nothing else, about governments.  They are all man-made!

So whence cometh the idea that they should be all powerful or be able to dictate to you, a citizen, what you can do, what you will be paid, where you shall work, for whom, how long, your health care etc., etc.? Here again, history has taught us, or should have, that it is power that begets authority and it is power that seeks control and becomes corrupt.

The Founding Fathers who created the Constitution must have understood all of that plus a great deal more about human nature and man’s lust for power.  Otherwise, why would they have worked so hard to establish a government with defined limits of authority and power?  The importance of freedom was never very far from their thinking.  Understanding that despite how hard they might try, they would never be able to create a document that would prevent the usurpation of power by those individuals who, whether intentionally or unintentionally, desire to control others and bend or distort the agreed-upon limitations to their own desires or benefit.

Instead of understanding and agreeing to abide by the rules of the game as detailed in the Constitution, we have seen even, in our nation’s short history, an unbelievable twisting, interpolation of ideas or outright violation of the restraints stipulated.  Businesses have sought government intervention to protect them from competitors or to achieve a preferential position to receive contracts or regulations targeted toward their interests.

We’ve seen the growth of lobbying to the point where it has become a billion dollar profession of its own.   What are the benefits for the average citizen?  It would be difficult if not impossible to define.  Yet, those who practice the profession exert great influence on the direction of the country as well as the regulation of commerce and industry.

The most distinguishing feature of the American founding was that it recognized a “higher authority” than man!  In the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson penned the words, “ . . . to assume . . . equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them . . .” Those few words established for what followed that the Founders would be responsible for their acts and commitments to more than just other human beings.

It is doubtful that man could create a universe, let alone one that functions in equilibrium.  The riddle of the universe remains unsolved and perhaps never will be.  What is important, however, is that we recognize that man is imperfect and that the governments he/she creates will suffer from the same inability to achieve perfection.  The Founders knew this as Ben Franklin expressed when commenting on the Constitution,  “Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best.”

We have over 200 years of operation under the Constitution.  While we adhered to its dictums, for the most part, during our 1^st 100 years, there is no question but what from 1900 on we have been trending away from our foundation.  Government has become unbridled, a riderless horse.  Anything goes and we have lost our understanding of why the Founders thought there was a higher authority than their man-made constitution.  That’s my view.  What’s yours?  Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com  © Copyright 2015  Hillard W. Welch

Learning to read

As children we were probably taught first to recognize symbols or pictographs followed by giving them a name.  The next step was memorizing the connection between the picture and its name.  We undoubtedly mimicked what our mother told us and tried to duplicate the sounds provided.

We then progressed to phonics, recognizing sounds which when connected resulted in our learning actual words.

Wonderful!  What an achievement.  Too bad we have lost it all as we became adults or at least elected officials.

Our elected officials have either forgotten what they were taught or have decided to ignore it completely.  Example: how many elected officials abide by their “oath of office” or can relate to that part of the constitution under which they supposedly sponsored or voted for a particular act?

Don’t hold your breath.

Which brings us to the point of this article.  Perhaps we should require remedial reading for all elected officials to be sure they understand the significance of the job on which they are about to enter.  Not only do they appear not to recognize the words as written, but more importantly, to ignore them as if they never existed.

The Founding Fathers didn’t write them down to be ignored – but understood and followed!

The entire Constitution contains only 4400 words.  Yet in simple readily understandable language for even an 8^th grader, it established a limited government to serve and protect the rights of the individual citizens.  Contrast that with the present legislative approach when almost every Act contains more than 13,000 words and encroaches on the freedoms of the average citizen.

It is more than a case of not being able to read.  It is willful misunderstanding, misapplication or outright distortion.  We have developed a culture of “corruption” in which the common mantra is “if you can get away with it, it’s OK!”  The Constitution uses the word “regulate” and yet when viewed in the original context, it means “referee” -  requiring that all participants play by the rules!  It has been reduced to meaning only “control”.

Words do have meaning and the Founders chose theirs carefully.  The Constitution has been considered a “negative” document because it “limits” the powers of the federal government while reserving to the states or the people (Amendments IX and X) any unenumerated powers or rights.  In fact, a cursory review of the documents reveals the use of “No” or “Not” a total of 86 times.  That’s more than any other word.

Wouldn’t you think that even the least educated of our elected officials could understand the word, “NO”?

The obvious avoidance or outright disregard for the provisions of the Constitution must tell you something about the character and integrity of the individuals who seek public office.  Is it personal greed or a desire for power?  Neither of these appear to have been present among the Founders who created the Constitution.  Their governing philosophy appears to have been that of the Golden Rule.  Consider if you will the concept that if the Founders wrote a document that would treat all individuals fairly and justly, how could they themselves loose?  No way since the document applied to all.

Their firmness in a limited government speaks volumes with respect to their understanding of human nature and the frailness of human stature.   They knew the meaning of each word.  Why can’t our modern elected officials strive for the same?  Reading the document is critical.  Reading the actual words is paramount to understanding!

That’s my view.  What’s yours?  Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com.  ©Copyright 2014 Hillard W. Welch