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

A Dollar’s Worth? . . . Is it still your Money?

Probably not too many readers will remember the saying, “Good as Gold”!  Yet, there was a time in the past when those three words referred to the value of the US Dollar.  Then, the piece of paper that denominated the value also carried the statement that the paper was redeemable in gold at any bank, the US Treasury or any Federal Reserve office.

At that time, a dollar was a dollar.  A paper certificate could be used in commerce certifying that the paper  was redeemable in the actual metal stated.  The coin represented would  contain a specific amount of actual gold together with other metal necessary to make it  durable enough to withstand repeated handlings.  This was also true for silver coins as noted on the Silver Certificate.  The important point here is that, true to the Constitution, the certificates issued did represent the metal coinage and were redeemable in the metal specified.  This gave confidence to the recipient that the “paper” was real, despite the widespread attitude that “paper money” wasn’t money at all.

When in 1913 the Federal Reserve was created, those in charge were determined to achieve an elastic currency, one the sum total of which could be expanded or contracted at will.  To forestall public concern, the Fed originally issued gold and/or silver certificates, each defining the redeemable feature important to the unsuspecting public.

Ultimately through several steps, the Fed moved from the gold and/or silver certificates to the present paper which says, Federal Reserve Note.  Notes legally are promises to pay, nothing more.  They do not convey an actual monetary value.  Thus, the paper currency subsequently and presently issued by the Federal Reserve is nothing more than a promise.  There is no indication of any gold or silver on deposit in the Treasury to support the value of the note being printed.

When the Federal Reserve was able to remove the gold or silver certificate and replace it with a note which was neither redeemable in precious metal or exchangeable for anything of value, the point long sought by many bankers and financial artists had been achieved.  They had a fully elastic currency without any backing whatsoever.   The only support it had or has is the confidence people exhibit in the government of the United States. 

So what is a dollar worth?  Name whatever figure you want and you can rest assured that it is wrong.  The acceptance of the piece of paper by the merchant or tradesman from whom you want either product or service is the only thing giving it value.  Rather scary when you think about it.  Instead of being, as it once was, “As Good As Gold”, it is now as you may have read, “not worth the paper it’s printed on.”

However, the United States is not the only country running on fiat money.  Most other industrialized nations have succumbed to the same approach.  While many countries have gold and/or silver in their vaults, they do not use it to support their currency since they have cut all ties between their paper and the precious metal previously used to substantiate the value.  They, as we, are running a “confidence game.”

Where it will end is not predictable at this time though there is a lot of speculation.

So what is a dollar worth?  And is it still your money or is it just government paper?  There’s more to the story for another time.  Comments, questions, suggestions welcome.  Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com  © Copyright 2014 Hillard W. Welch  

Freedom of what?

We talk a lot about freedom and often refer to our Bill of Rights, particularly Amendment I.

Yet do we really think about what we mean when we say we have the “freedom to do so and so”?

Freedom of expression?  Freedom of religion?  Freedom of speech?  Freedom of the press?  Freedom of everything?

Realistically, do we have freedom of speech?  If you are a student on a college campus today, the chances are you do not.  Speech codes, while patently unconstitutional, are practiced at any number of schools today.  And, for the most part are upheld by the Supreme Court.  The claims, whether justified or not, are that so called “hate” speech can be destructive, detrimental to the ability to teach and learn and any number of other “reasons”, all calculated to control the student’s speech on campus! 

In the same vein, there are those who would and do try to restrict political speech.

Have we passed the point of fairness and are rapidly becoming incapable of self-government?  While epithets can be painful, there was a time when children responded with “sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me!”  

Freedom of worship?  The amendment says, “no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .”  As you witness municipalities restricting their citizens placement of religious scenes, even on private property, do you believe the government is abiding by the restriction to “keep its hands out of religion?”  It seems that even the Supreme Court wants to accept the idea that there is a wall of separation between church and state.  The document itself states that government cannot dictate the establishment of a religion nor can it restrict (prohibit) your freedom to espouse openly whatever religion you profess.  Consider whether that is the present situation or whether the government is “dictating” what you as a citizen can do with respect to religion.  Government should remain neutral, denying either side a positive response.  Constitutionally, the concern should remain at the state level and not the federal government.

Freedom of the press?  Since when?  From the very beginning, there have been those opposed to the idea that an editor could write whatever he or she wanted and publish whatever he or she considered appropriate or in context with their purpose.  Editors have always had final say over what gets printed.  That is part of their responsibility.   If the efforts please the readers, the publication succeeds.  If they do not, the activity will probably cease to exist.  You may disagree with an editor but that does not deny you the right or opportunity to start your own publication or find one to present your views, whatever they may be.

Freedom to assemble?  Most municipalities have rules and/or regulations on public meetings or assemblies.  But, the decision as to who or what organization is approved now rests almost exclusively with whoever the person is in charge of the area involved.

As for petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances.  Good luck.    Right or wrong, the roadblocks to such action have historically prevented any success.  Most often, the individual or group seeking such a redress is declared by the court hearing the case as not having “standing” and thus is disqualified from being able to plead their case.     

 

It would seem that the only true freedom an individual has today, is freedom of thought.  Just be careful to whom you express it.  That’s my view.  What’s yours?  Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com

©Copyright 2014  Hillard W. Welch

What the Founders Sought . . .

It has become fashionable to talk of a “Living Constitution” and to downgrade the original as being “out of date”.  The idea that it was written over two centuries ago should be sufficient in some people’s minds to warrant a change or rewriting.  For some reason they seem to think that because we live in a different century we should therefore write a document for the times.

What is being forgotten or intentionally overlooked is what the Founders were trying to accomplish.  What were they seeking when they created our Constitution?

One mistake that seems to be popular today is to claim that our Constitution is based on the Bible.  The other side says that is not so.

Our opinion?  Neither side has it right.  They, like most readers, automatically inject their own ideas into the words they read.  They “interpret” the words in order to have them support their prejudices or what they would like them to say or mean.  Such an approach invariably leads to a “mis-interpretation” or “mis-understanding” of what the Founders sought.  It attempts a contemporary explanation rather than an appreciation of the words themselves.

 

Let’s be specific.

The Founders sought to create a civil government managed by self-governing individuals.  Note the emphasis on self-governing.  They didn’t attempt to create a “Kingdom of God”, witness the fact that the word “God” does not appear in the text.  The reference to the date of execution is stated as “in the year of our Lord”.

While the Founders were religious individuals, they had witnessed and knew enough of the problems created by a mandated national religion (the Church of England) and the Catholic Church to want no part of such dictated worship.  Thus, the oft misunderstood “establishment” clause.  The words state quite simply that the federal government cannot establish a national religion.  The Amendment further states that you cannot be “prohibit[ed] the free exercise thereof.”  Any problems understanding that?  You are, by right, able to practice your religion as your conscience dictates, anywhere and at any time, no government interference.

Believing as strongly as they did, they injected for the Senators and Representatives that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

The few words included in the Constitution state quite clearly and conclusively that religion is not to be a consideration of the federal government.

The Founders were creating a civil government.  Thus no mention of “God” or religious involvement.  In their minds there was no need to since they obviously did not want other influences injected in the management of the government they sought to create.  They had witnessed the failings of a weak and poorly structured “alliance” in the Articles of Confederation.  They learned from their earlier mistakes and sought a government that would incorporate the 13 fiercely independent sovereign colonies (states) in a federal union that could face the world on equal terms.  The result was a document simple, yet comprehensive enough to embrace the problems of a rapidly growing nation.

In structuring the federal government, they included only those powers they considered absolutely necessary for the protection of the individual citizens, their property and the integrity of the United States as a nation.  That’s why there are only 17 listed in Art. I, Sec. 8.  The 18^th item concerns Congress and its power to write laws for the implementation of the powers defined.  The reader should review Amendments IX and X to appreciate the fact that it was truly a limited federal government being established.

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

A right to privacy? Part 2 of 2

In Part 1 we analyzed the background and result of the Supreme Court decision in the case, Griswold vs Connecticut. (1965)  The Supreme Court had “interpreted” rather than “applied” the Constitution.  Through legal mumbo-jumbo they concluded that the “right to privacy” was a “protected right”.  This decision migrated into the “right to an abortion” if a woman so desired. Roe vs Wade.(1973)

This case illustrates the distance the Supreme Court Justices have travelled in order to inflict their opinion (interpretation) of the document on the country.  The “rule of law” had been discarded for the “rule of men”.  While Justice Brennan admitted that the word “privacy” does not exist anywhere in the Constitution, he and others “injected” it by virtue of the “penumbra” they found “emanating” from the Bill of Rights and other Constitutional clauses.  Such an approach raises the question of the “sanctity of a contract”.  Surely any homeowner who has signed a contract with a builder or an auto dealer does not expect to find that the contract provisions have been changed without his knowledge or approval.  Yet, that is essentially what the Supreme Court has done to the Constitution in both the Griswold and the Roe cases.

If one can plough through the tortuous logic of the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe vs Wade, one might  conclude that nothing substantive was accomplished.  Certainly there was no further expansion of the concept of a “right to privacy” and even Justice Blackmun had to acknowledge that such words do not appear anywhere in the Constitution itself.  Once again, we have “interpretation” with the concomitant result of personal prejudice being incorporated as a Judicial decision.  This is “legislating from the bench”. 

Two Justices, Byron R. White and William H. Rehnquist wrote dissenting opinions.  Rehnquist stated  that the approvers had to find within the XIV^th Amendment a right apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment!  Thus, a distortion of the “due process clause” was introduced in the approval.  White in his opinion stated that he saw “no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States.”  He further criticized the Court for involving itself in this issue which he would have left “with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs.”  This raises the question as to why the Court did not remand the case to the states where it belonged if you follow the IXth and Xth Amendements.  To this must be asked the question of whether one Amendment (B) can override an earlier one (A) and thereby provide a power that would not be authorized under (A).  We have not been able to find any discussion of this inconsistency.

Returning to our basic topic of this and the preceding essay, “privacy”, we must confess that our interpretation would be that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction.  Two reasons come to mind: 1^st, the word is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution.  2^nd, the case of Roe v Wade does not appear to be in conformity with Art. III, Sec. 2 which defines the cases the Supreme Court may accept for adjudication.  Since it is between a citizen of Texas and the state of Texas, it does not meet any of the named types of cases in which the Supreme Court might be involved.

Our humble opinion is that “privacy” and any right thereto are inherent in the “laws of nature and of Nature’s God”, the US Supreme Court notwithstanding.  Perhaps we should send copies of the Constitution to the Justices as a reminder.  T

 

hat’s my opinion; what’s yours?  Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com  ©Copyright 2014 Hillard W. Welch

A right to privacy?

Part 1 of 2

Since the word “privacy” does not exist anywhere in the Constitution, the question of whether the individual citizen has a “right to privacy” is not within the province of the federal government to decide.

Any attempt on the part of the federal government or any of its branches, departments or agencies to express such a decision is, prima facie, a violation of the limited government as provided by the Constitution.

That having been said, we must still review what the Supreme Court proclaimed in its infinite wisdom as the “law of the land”.

Two cases come to mind as relevant to this discussion:

1.      Griswold vs Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965)

2.      Roe vs Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

In Part 1 we will include only the Griswold vs Connecticut case.  Both of these cases stretch beyond reasonable bounds the provisions of the Constitution.  To be specific, let’s look at the first case.

Justice William O. Douglas wrote the majority decision in Griswold vs Connecticut in which he stated, that the right (to privacy) was to be found in the penumbras and emanations of other constitutional protections. 

Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., commented, “When Justices interpret the Constitution they speak for their community, not for themselves alone. The act of interpretation must be undertaken with full consciousness that it is,  in a very real sense, the community’s interpretation that is sought. . . . But the ultimate question must be, what do the words of the text mean in our time.”  (Georgetown Univ. Oct. 12, 1985)

With respect to the question at hand, “privacy”, he wrote,  "If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972).

In your writer’s opinion, the very thought of “interpret” tells the reader that you are about to receive a personal opinion with all the nuances of prejudice that the individual harbors. You are not going to receive a considered evaluation of the law under discussion as to whether it conforms to the Constitution or violates any of its principles.  Staying with the original words is considered “passé” in the eyes of justices such as Brennan and Douglas.  They believe that the Constitution should be a “living document” that is adapted or adjusted to contemporary times, morals, practices, or whatever their understanding of the moment might be.  They deny the idea that the Constitution presented basic principles and go further in their concept that principles change, or can be changed, due to the times or circumstances. 

It would be interesting to hear their argument in favor of repealing or ignoring the principle of gravity!  So far as this writer is aware, that principle has held true since recorded history or its first discovery by Isaac Newton.  They conveniently ignore the idea of “nature’s laws or laws of nature’s God” as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence.  They may even deny that there are “inalienable rights” which each citizen has upon being borne.

As a consequence, they fall into the trap of “interpreting” the Constitution rather than “applying it” to the case under consideration.  They fail to determine whether the subject is even appropriate for their review. 

In Part 2 we will add discussion of Roe vs Wade with respect to privacy and conclude our essay.

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

Laws, regulations and orders

Art. I, Sec. 1. States, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

No other branch of the government is given such power!

Therefore, anything done subsequent to the proper passing of a law by Congress and its acceptance by the President with his signature, should be in support or execution of the law for its intended purposes.  Nothing is said about “interpreting” or “expanding” such laws by any department or officer of the government.  Nor is there any mention of “creating rules or regulations” that would extend the power of any agency of government beyond those defined in the law.

If we consider what the Founding Fathers tried to provide us, we come face to face with the fact that for the past 100+ years, we have been trying in every conceivable way to avoid abiding by the framework they constructed and by which we were supposed to operate.  Contrast the last century with the preceding one. We immediately recognize a difference that, while starting small, has grown over the years to the point where today, the federal government believes it can (and according to progressives, should) be involved in every aspect of a citizen’s life.  That hardly sounds like the freedom for which our Founders  fought, died and pledged their sacred honor.

While the Founders were not demi-gods, they most assuredly had high principles, strong morals and were dedicated to honesty in their efforts to produce a government of self-governing individuals.  They accepted the idea that man was fallible and as Jefferson wrote, needed to be “bound down with the chains of a constitution”.  Our “free-wheeling” “anything goes” society today is ample evidence of their sagacity.

A basic reading of the Constitution should lead almost anyone to the realization that laws made under the constitution should only be in pursuit of the various powers granted by that document.  Nothing is said about any other function or department of the government having such power.  Yet, we allow departments such as the IRS to issue rules or regulations that take on the force of law!  Technically, the IRS can only issue rules or regulations in furtherance of the power of the law that established the unit.  Yet, the IRS goes blithely on even investigating individuals who disagree with the administration in power.  It is certainly questionable that they actually have such power.  Yet who is to stop them?

From this we ask the question about “executive” orders, something with which the present administration seems enamored.  Can Executive Orders, even by the President, change the law established by Congress?

It would not appear so according to the Constitution since the President is not provided with any “legislative powers”, only a “veto” for those with which he disagrees.  Even for those, he must provide Congress with a reason for disapproval.  At present, Presidential Executive Orders are taking on the force of law.  That, on the face of it, is unconstitutional since he has no such authority.  Technically, he can only issue Executive Orders in furtherance of his responsibility “that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Creating laws are the responsibility of the Congress.

If “we the people” are supposed to play by the rules as established by the Constitution, shouldn’t we require that our elected or appointed representatives do the same?  Otherwise we are being asked to play in a “rigged” game!  I’m opposed.  That’s my view.  What’s yours?  Contact me at constitutionviews@gmail.com  ©Copyright 2014 Hillard W. Welch