Government is not a game but the same concepts and rules of conduct should apply.
Consider, if you will, that the Constitution established a “limited government”. That is a government of limited powers and activities. That set forth the “rules” by which the government was to operate and the people would participate.
It was expected that all citizens would be taught the rules; that they would learn them in school and understand their responsibilities and “how the game was to be played.” It became their responsibility as an adult to see that they “lived by the rules” and elected only those individuals to public office who also understood and agreed to abide by the rules.
In any sport, if you fail to comply with the rules of the game, you are either expelled, penalized or otherwise restricted in your participation. Being sure that all participants conform to the rules of the game is generally the responsibility of the “referee” overseeing the game or sport. Such referees do not “regulate” the game, or establish the rules. They simply enforce the rules to which all participants have agreed.
The commerce clause of the Constitution was not incorporated to be a “catch all” for any activity Congress wanted to apply. Rather, it was to be sure that each state played fair and equitably with every other state. Prior to the Constitution, each state had created its own tariffs, trade regulations and duties which they applied to the activities of the other states with whom they interacted. Thus there was a maze of conflicting and somewhat arbitrary procedures that made commerce between and among the several states not only difficult, but in some cases prohibitive. With the ratification of the Constitution, this problem was resolved since the new, federal government was granted the power and responsibility to “regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes.”
(Art. I, Sec. 8 [3])
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said his job was “to see that the game is played according to the rules whether I like them or not.” If we do not like the rules that are in place, then we should petition our legislators to change them or introduce new or more acceptable ones. Or, at the next election, vote for those individuals who will perform to your satisfaction. Neither approach requires abandoning the basic requirement of “playing by the rules”. At no point does it grant either the Executive or the Judicial Branch of government the power or authority to enact a “rule of the game.” Only Congress is granted such power, and even that is limited if we live by the rules of the game as embodied in the Constitution, Art I, Sec. 8.
Is Congress playing by the rules?
That’s certainly a legitimate question that also can be applied to the other two branches of government.
Is granting themselves (Congress) unique and exclusive health care and pension plans unavailable to the general population playing by the rules? Art. I, Sec. 9 [8] states, “No Title of Nobility shall be granted . . . [or nor person] accept any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State”. Today, there seems to be a feeling that once elected, they are above it all and can do “as they please”, regardless of the rules to which they agreed upon taking office.
What would happen if we again “played by the rules?” Perhaps we would avoid the disastrous situations we now face.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Congressional Responsibility?
Congressional Responsibility?
Before taking a seat in the Congress of the United States, all elected officials are required to take an “oath of office” either swearing or affirming that they will faithfully “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution of the United States of America. This is true for both Representatives and Senators, the latter being appointed originally by their respective state legislatures (Art. I, Sec. 3). More on this point a bit later.
Recognizing that in the beginning this oath or affirmation had some substance and meaning, it now raises a very important set of questions.
1. What are the legitimate responsibilities of those elected to Congress? Do they represent only themselves and all the perks they can accrue?
2. Are they supposed to “bring home the bacon” to their state’s voters or treasury? There is no apparent clause in the Constitution that would authorize this. If not, is the taking of money from the public treasury for one state’s desires (or to enhance an elected official’s chances of re-election) legal? Is it Constitutional? Or is it a form of “legalized theft” which isn’t challenged? Every state has had its share of politicians who use such approaches to claim “how much they have done for their local constituents.” Is that what it is all about? He who gets the mostest wins the next election?
3. Were the states considered “sovereign” entities in their own right before they ratified the Constitution? History says, “yes”! Did they surrender that sovereignty completely when they ratified the Constitution? History would say, “no”, because the Constitution very carefully spelled out the limitations of the powers and authority being surrendered or granted to a federal (not national) government. While modern politicians tend to claim otherwise, they are on very shaky ground for there is nothing in the Constitution to support their position.
4. Who represents the states and their particular concerns as a consequence of the 17th Amendment which authorized the “popular” election of senators from the individual states? Representation of the states as sovereign entities was a critical element in the debates at the Constitutional Convention. It was only when Roger Sherman of Connecticut proposed the compromise of two houses, one representing the people (The House) and the other representing the states (The Senate) did an agreement result.
5. Did the IXth and Xth Amendments reinforce this concept? Reread those two amendments and decide for yourself if their purpose was to insure the independence and sovereignty of both the individual states and the people respectively. Of note is the fact that they underscore the “limited powers” granted to the federal government.
6. Does Amendment XIV justify imposing numerous federal mandates on the individual states? Only a distorted reading of the amendment can lead to that interpretation. The Amendment was passed following the Civil War and it is important to recognize that its sole purpose was to assure that all those who were newly considered “citizens of the United States” received equal justice before the law, regardless of the state wherein they resided. It was clearly the intent of the founders and those who followed to acknowledge the idea of state sovereignty. The joining together in a “federation” was to allow better management of the growing nation, both internationally and domestically.
In retrospect, it appears that Congress has abdicated its responsibilities. It has succumbed to the heady taste of power with its attendant abuses. As Lord Acton wrote in 1887, “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Would anyone care to argue the point that today much of our political cadre is corrupt? How many can you count who stand by their oath of office and vote within Constitutional bounds?
Before taking a seat in the Congress of the United States, all elected officials are required to take an “oath of office” either swearing or affirming that they will faithfully “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution of the United States of America. This is true for both Representatives and Senators, the latter being appointed originally by their respective state legislatures (Art. I, Sec. 3). More on this point a bit later.
Recognizing that in the beginning this oath or affirmation had some substance and meaning, it now raises a very important set of questions.
1. What are the legitimate responsibilities of those elected to Congress? Do they represent only themselves and all the perks they can accrue?
2. Are they supposed to “bring home the bacon” to their state’s voters or treasury? There is no apparent clause in the Constitution that would authorize this. If not, is the taking of money from the public treasury for one state’s desires (or to enhance an elected official’s chances of re-election) legal? Is it Constitutional? Or is it a form of “legalized theft” which isn’t challenged? Every state has had its share of politicians who use such approaches to claim “how much they have done for their local constituents.” Is that what it is all about? He who gets the mostest wins the next election?
3. Were the states considered “sovereign” entities in their own right before they ratified the Constitution? History says, “yes”! Did they surrender that sovereignty completely when they ratified the Constitution? History would say, “no”, because the Constitution very carefully spelled out the limitations of the powers and authority being surrendered or granted to a federal (not national) government. While modern politicians tend to claim otherwise, they are on very shaky ground for there is nothing in the Constitution to support their position.
4. Who represents the states and their particular concerns as a consequence of the 17th Amendment which authorized the “popular” election of senators from the individual states? Representation of the states as sovereign entities was a critical element in the debates at the Constitutional Convention. It was only when Roger Sherman of Connecticut proposed the compromise of two houses, one representing the people (The House) and the other representing the states (The Senate) did an agreement result.
5. Did the IXth and Xth Amendments reinforce this concept? Reread those two amendments and decide for yourself if their purpose was to insure the independence and sovereignty of both the individual states and the people respectively. Of note is the fact that they underscore the “limited powers” granted to the federal government.
6. Does Amendment XIV justify imposing numerous federal mandates on the individual states? Only a distorted reading of the amendment can lead to that interpretation. The Amendment was passed following the Civil War and it is important to recognize that its sole purpose was to assure that all those who were newly considered “citizens of the United States” received equal justice before the law, regardless of the state wherein they resided. It was clearly the intent of the founders and those who followed to acknowledge the idea of state sovereignty. The joining together in a “federation” was to allow better management of the growing nation, both internationally and domestically.
In retrospect, it appears that Congress has abdicated its responsibilities. It has succumbed to the heady taste of power with its attendant abuses. As Lord Acton wrote in 1887, “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Would anyone care to argue the point that today much of our political cadre is corrupt? How many can you count who stand by their oath of office and vote within Constitutional bounds?
God vs. the US Government
The Constitution
a citizen’s view
God vs. the US Government
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ” (Amendment I.)
“The Senators and Representatives . . . and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution, but no religious test shall ever be required . . . ” (Art. VI) [emphasis added].
God is mentioned in Art. VII, “. . . in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven . . . ”
The Founding Fathers chose their words carefully. They wanted a clear and specific document readily understood by the average citizen.
Thus, we have a very confusing conflict today as opposing views vociferously proclaim their position. One says there can be no mention of God or religion in any federally funded establishment, including the federal government. The other contends that there is no prohibition against doing so in the Constitution.
So, let’s look at some history.
Benjamin Franklin said, during the Continental Congress deliberating the Declaration of Independence, “Sir, I have lived a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing Proofs I see of this Truth — That God governs in the Affairs of Men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his Notice, is it probable that an Empire can rise without his Aid?” [Emphasis added.]
George Washington is reputed to have added at the end of his first installation as President of the United States, “So Help Me God!” While many may dispute the utterance, it is not out of character for those who have read Washington’s writings: “Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports.”
John Adams noted, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798
Thomas Jefferson included in the Declaration of Independence, “ . . . the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them . . . ” and “ . . . they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . . ”
None of the Founding Fathers supported the concept of a government established or enforced religion. All professed an acceptance of a superior being beyond their reach yet influential in their affairs and those of the government they were seeking to create. While the Bible was well read by many, there was never a quotation from it to serve as a foundation. They avoided potential conflicts while repudiating their English forbears, designing a government not dependent on, nor responsible to any religion. Their concept, “ let your conscience be your guide,” was to be applied to any and all individuals calling themselves American. Thus, thinking individuals were capable of “self-government”.
It is illogical to remove a belief in God (whoever the individual in question decides to select) by replacing it with an atheistic position, itself a form of religion. There is no such thing as a vacuum even in philosophical discussions. Something automatically fills it. In this case, atheism.
Of equal importance in this discussion is the fact that “muzzling” anyone who might utter the word, “God” in a public place or federally funded establishment would be a violation of the 1st Amendment’s freedom of speech guarantee! No restrictions noted.
The Founding Fathers did not want GOD out of Government. Rather they asked that God assist them in creating a unique (severely limited) government, protecting it from corruption and self-destruction in the future.
a citizen’s view
God vs. the US Government
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ” (Amendment I.)
“The Senators and Representatives . . . and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution, but no religious test shall ever be required . . . ” (Art. VI) [emphasis added].
God is mentioned in Art. VII, “. . . in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven . . . ”
The Founding Fathers chose their words carefully. They wanted a clear and specific document readily understood by the average citizen.
Thus, we have a very confusing conflict today as opposing views vociferously proclaim their position. One says there can be no mention of God or religion in any federally funded establishment, including the federal government. The other contends that there is no prohibition against doing so in the Constitution.
So, let’s look at some history.
Benjamin Franklin said, during the Continental Congress deliberating the Declaration of Independence, “Sir, I have lived a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing Proofs I see of this Truth — That God governs in the Affairs of Men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his Notice, is it probable that an Empire can rise without his Aid?” [Emphasis added.]
George Washington is reputed to have added at the end of his first installation as President of the United States, “So Help Me God!” While many may dispute the utterance, it is not out of character for those who have read Washington’s writings: “Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports.”
John Adams noted, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798
Thomas Jefferson included in the Declaration of Independence, “ . . . the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them . . . ” and “ . . . they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . . ”
None of the Founding Fathers supported the concept of a government established or enforced religion. All professed an acceptance of a superior being beyond their reach yet influential in their affairs and those of the government they were seeking to create. While the Bible was well read by many, there was never a quotation from it to serve as a foundation. They avoided potential conflicts while repudiating their English forbears, designing a government not dependent on, nor responsible to any religion. Their concept, “ let your conscience be your guide,” was to be applied to any and all individuals calling themselves American. Thus, thinking individuals were capable of “self-government”.
It is illogical to remove a belief in God (whoever the individual in question decides to select) by replacing it with an atheistic position, itself a form of religion. There is no such thing as a vacuum even in philosophical discussions. Something automatically fills it. In this case, atheism.
Of equal importance in this discussion is the fact that “muzzling” anyone who might utter the word, “God” in a public place or federally funded establishment would be a violation of the 1st Amendment’s freedom of speech guarantee! No restrictions noted.
The Founding Fathers did not want GOD out of Government. Rather they asked that God assist them in creating a unique (severely limited) government, protecting it from corruption and self-destruction in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)