Monday, November 1, 2010
From The Patriot Post
"Most people whom we elect to Congress are either ignorant of, have contempt for or are just plain stupid about the United States Constitution. ... Here, in part, is the oath of office that each congressman takes: 'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same....' Here's my question to you: If one takes an oath to uphold and defend, and bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution, at the minimum, shouldn't he know what he's supposed to uphold, defend and be faithful to? If congressmen, judges, the president and other government officials were merely ignorant of our Constitution, there'd be hope -- ignorance is curable through education. .....Read More here http://patriotpost.us/edition/2010/11/01/brief/
Saturday, October 30, 2010
In the nature of a contract!
By definition, a contract is “an agreement, especially one legally enforceable, between two or more persons [parties] to do or forbear something”. (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, Second Ed. 1954)
Certainly, the Constitution must be considered an “agreement” between the federal government and the states. In the original wording, it was not “We the people of the United States . . .”, but the complete listing of all 13 colonies (states). Considered too cumbersome, the final version is as we now have it. The intent remained, i.e. it was the states that were participants to the “agreement”, not the individual citizens. Each individual states’ legislature was to determine how the ratification process would be completed. The actual document contains the signatures of the representative(s) of the state for which they signed.
The original Constitution was criticized at the outset for not guaranteeing certain “natural” rights. Thus, the insistence that lead to the first ten amendments commonly recognized as the “Bill of Rights”. Some 20 odd amendments were proposed before the final 12 were submitted to the states for ratification and of which only 10 were incorporated in the original document.
A true “contract” cannot be changed without the agreement of all, or a specified majority, of the parties thereto. Unilateral changes are not permissible! Art. V provided the method for changes to the basic document and the specific procedure. At least three fourths of the states must ratify any amendment before it may become part of the operating agreement. Note again that the word is “states” and not people (of the states or the nation). Further, in a contract, whatever the words finally approved are it. No distortions, inserted amplifications or other content modifications are permissible.
The advantages of a contract are that it is specific, defining the responsibilities of the participants. Each party thus knows exactly what is expected and acceptable. The greatness of the Constitution is that it can be readily understood by anyone with an 8th grade education. While a legal document, it avoided legal terminology. It is specific and clear. Considering that there were many lawyers among the Founding Fathers, it is an amazing achievement.
The uniqueness of the “contract” as finally presented for ratification was the result of a willingness on the part of the Founding Fathers to “try something new”. They respected the individual and sought to achieve maximum freedom and liberty. They decided against a king, a monarch or a dictator, believing in the “wisdom of the common man”. They expected that free and independent citizens collectively would make the decisions most beneficial to the whole. This was predicated on a moral, informed electorate, one educated in the Constitution and history of the country for which it was to serve.
The Founding Fathers recognized that this was an “experiment”. They also understood the necessity for making the adjustments (amendments) to the “contract”, knowing that they could not anticipate future events. Thus, changes were possible but only after due deliberation and thoughtful consideration.
While mistakes might be made (Amendment XVIII prohibiting the sale of liquor) they could be corrected (Amendment XXI repealed it). No consideration was given to the possibility of an “underworld” far worse than the approved sale of liquor might engender. With repeal, the crime syndicates based on illegal liquor distribution disappeared.
The “contract”, undoubtedly the most successful yet devised by man, stands as a firm foundation. The fact that it has been ignored, distorted and abused does not negate either its value or relevance. More on this another time.
Certainly, the Constitution must be considered an “agreement” between the federal government and the states. In the original wording, it was not “We the people of the United States . . .”, but the complete listing of all 13 colonies (states). Considered too cumbersome, the final version is as we now have it. The intent remained, i.e. it was the states that were participants to the “agreement”, not the individual citizens. Each individual states’ legislature was to determine how the ratification process would be completed. The actual document contains the signatures of the representative(s) of the state for which they signed.
The original Constitution was criticized at the outset for not guaranteeing certain “natural” rights. Thus, the insistence that lead to the first ten amendments commonly recognized as the “Bill of Rights”. Some 20 odd amendments were proposed before the final 12 were submitted to the states for ratification and of which only 10 were incorporated in the original document.
A true “contract” cannot be changed without the agreement of all, or a specified majority, of the parties thereto. Unilateral changes are not permissible! Art. V provided the method for changes to the basic document and the specific procedure. At least three fourths of the states must ratify any amendment before it may become part of the operating agreement. Note again that the word is “states” and not people (of the states or the nation). Further, in a contract, whatever the words finally approved are it. No distortions, inserted amplifications or other content modifications are permissible.
The advantages of a contract are that it is specific, defining the responsibilities of the participants. Each party thus knows exactly what is expected and acceptable. The greatness of the Constitution is that it can be readily understood by anyone with an 8th grade education. While a legal document, it avoided legal terminology. It is specific and clear. Considering that there were many lawyers among the Founding Fathers, it is an amazing achievement.
The uniqueness of the “contract” as finally presented for ratification was the result of a willingness on the part of the Founding Fathers to “try something new”. They respected the individual and sought to achieve maximum freedom and liberty. They decided against a king, a monarch or a dictator, believing in the “wisdom of the common man”. They expected that free and independent citizens collectively would make the decisions most beneficial to the whole. This was predicated on a moral, informed electorate, one educated in the Constitution and history of the country for which it was to serve.
The Founding Fathers recognized that this was an “experiment”. They also understood the necessity for making the adjustments (amendments) to the “contract”, knowing that they could not anticipate future events. Thus, changes were possible but only after due deliberation and thoughtful consideration.
While mistakes might be made (Amendment XVIII prohibiting the sale of liquor) they could be corrected (Amendment XXI repealed it). No consideration was given to the possibility of an “underworld” far worse than the approved sale of liquor might engender. With repeal, the crime syndicates based on illegal liquor distribution disappeared.
The “contract”, undoubtedly the most successful yet devised by man, stands as a firm foundation. The fact that it has been ignored, distorted and abused does not negate either its value or relevance. More on this another time.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Required reading?
The Constitution...a citizen’s view
As we witness what has been happening in the United States, perhaps it has become time to have a required reading course for all elected and appointed officials. Such a course would be built on and around the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.
Why is such a course necessary? Simply because it is becoming more and more evident that many of our Congressmen and women as well as our judges have either never read the document or, if they have, they have forgotten what it says. They have no appreciation or understanding of its meaning and significance. Yet both documents are the foundation of our government. That is what makes them so important to all – every citizen as well as elected officials.
Let’s cite some examples of egregious ignorance.
Most recently a federal judge took it upon herself to determine whether a state’s law was legal. In rendering her decision, she saw fit to excise certain passages which she considered “unjust” or detrimental to the illegal aliens at whom the statue was targeted. Had the judge read the Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 2, states, “ . . . in all Cases . . . in which a State shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.”
Had this judge followed her oath of office, she would have denied the hearing, pointing out that she did not have jurisdiction to decide such a case since it could only be heard by the Supreme Court.
Another similar situation existed in the case of the federal judge who ordered the removal from the Alabama court house of the Ten Commandments. Again, the judge apparently either had no knowledge of the Constitution or chose to ignore it. Whichever it was, it showed a profound ignorance or total disrespect for the very document that gave him any power at all. For him to decide what was right or wrong in Alabama was a transgression without precedent and an injection of the federal government into what was obviously a state situation without national impact.
For an additional example, think about the unbelievable interpretation of the “eminent domain” clause of Amendement V, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation,” as applied by New London, CT against a private citizen (Kelo) and her property. The pseudojustification put forth was that it would improve the area and bring the city more tax revenue! How distorted an interpretation of “public use” can you get? To make matters even worse, the proposed development never took place and the area is now empty! Perhaps that is justice, yet the result is of no benefit to any of the parties! Again, perhaps we should have a course on how to read? To which should be added, “and understand”!
As a concluding thought, review Art. I, Secs. 8 & 9 in conjunction with Amendments IX and X. The former strictly limits the federal government to 18 positive powers delegated to it and 8 powers that are forbidden for it to exercise. The latter two amendments specify that whatever has not been clearly stated as being in the province of the federal government, remain the property and responsibility of the states. While there have been many arguments about the IX and X Amendments, they have never been repealed and thus still stand as a foundation that emphasizes the separation of powers and the sovereignty of the individual states who formed the union.
Yes, a course in reading and understanding the Constitution should be a requirement for all elected officials.
As we witness what has been happening in the United States, perhaps it has become time to have a required reading course for all elected and appointed officials. Such a course would be built on and around the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.
Why is such a course necessary? Simply because it is becoming more and more evident that many of our Congressmen and women as well as our judges have either never read the document or, if they have, they have forgotten what it says. They have no appreciation or understanding of its meaning and significance. Yet both documents are the foundation of our government. That is what makes them so important to all – every citizen as well as elected officials.
Let’s cite some examples of egregious ignorance.
Most recently a federal judge took it upon herself to determine whether a state’s law was legal. In rendering her decision, she saw fit to excise certain passages which she considered “unjust” or detrimental to the illegal aliens at whom the statue was targeted. Had the judge read the Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 2, states, “ . . . in all Cases . . . in which a State shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.”
Had this judge followed her oath of office, she would have denied the hearing, pointing out that she did not have jurisdiction to decide such a case since it could only be heard by the Supreme Court.
Another similar situation existed in the case of the federal judge who ordered the removal from the Alabama court house of the Ten Commandments. Again, the judge apparently either had no knowledge of the Constitution or chose to ignore it. Whichever it was, it showed a profound ignorance or total disrespect for the very document that gave him any power at all. For him to decide what was right or wrong in Alabama was a transgression without precedent and an injection of the federal government into what was obviously a state situation without national impact.
For an additional example, think about the unbelievable interpretation of the “eminent domain” clause of Amendement V, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation,” as applied by New London, CT against a private citizen (Kelo) and her property. The pseudojustification put forth was that it would improve the area and bring the city more tax revenue! How distorted an interpretation of “public use” can you get? To make matters even worse, the proposed development never took place and the area is now empty! Perhaps that is justice, yet the result is of no benefit to any of the parties! Again, perhaps we should have a course on how to read? To which should be added, “and understand”!
As a concluding thought, review Art. I, Secs. 8 & 9 in conjunction with Amendments IX and X. The former strictly limits the federal government to 18 positive powers delegated to it and 8 powers that are forbidden for it to exercise. The latter two amendments specify that whatever has not been clearly stated as being in the province of the federal government, remain the property and responsibility of the states. While there have been many arguments about the IX and X Amendments, they have never been repealed and thus still stand as a foundation that emphasizes the separation of powers and the sovereignty of the individual states who formed the union.
Yes, a course in reading and understanding the Constitution should be a requirement for all elected officials.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
“We have nothing to fear but . . .”
The Constitution
a citizen’s view
“We have nothing to fear but . . .”
Words made famous in an earlier era of economic disaster. Then, as now, the Constitution was being avoided, trampled on and generally set aside while drastic measures were instituted, purportedly to correct the condition in which the country found itself.
Of note is the fact that none of the enactments of that earlier era actually worked. According to most present day economists and historians, it was World War II which ended the debacle of Keynesian economics and “put the country back to work”. Unfortunately, the overriding of the Constitution has continued right up to the present day.
Which makes us ask the question: had the Constitution been followed would the tragedy of 1932 occurred? To that must be noted the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913 which effectively removed market forces from determining the value of the nation’s currency. It also usurped a power only authorized for Congress, namely the coining of money and establishing its value.
Is it “fear of government”? Or is it “fear of the politicians” who have been and are inhabiting government?
A reading of the Constitution should allay most “fears” since it is quite explicit in limiting the powers of the federal government and emphasizing that those “powers not granted to the federal government” are reserved to the states or to the people. (Art. I , Sec. 8 and Amendments IX and X)
So the concern has to be how did we drift or how did our leaders take us so far off course? What were, or who were the proponents of, those laws, regulations and bureaucratic encumbrances that have brought us to our present state of disaffection with government?
Is the U.S. citizen overtaxed for the services rendered?
Is the U.S. respected throughout the civilized world?
Is the U.S. on the solid financial footing that existed for much of its history?
Is the U.S. a thriving, productive nation with a sound economy?
Is the U.S. a nation of savers or consumers?
Is the U.S. more socialist than a constitutional republic (its foundation)?
Is the U.S. the same “melting pot” of many nationalities with which it began or has it become a multi-
cultural, unintegrated, ethnic oriented society?
Is the U.S. a republic or a plutocracy?
Long forgotten is the fact that the early settlers of this continent tried socialistic approaches in both Massachusetts and Virginia. They proved unworkable and the people did not have sufficient food or other requirements for decent living. It was only when both areas decided to establish property rights and recognize that an individual should be entitled to the fruits of his/her labor that conditions improved and the country was off in the right direction for growth, expansion and economic well being.
In most situations, fear comes from the unknown. Fears are allayed when creditable information with true facts are presented. This was part of what underlay the change from the Articles of Confederation to the present Constitution. The country had found the Articles inadequate resulting in conflicting interpretations and lacking in sufficient detail to allow the citizens to know what to expect or would happen next. Such uncertainty works against economic progress and stifles entrepreneurship as well as innovation. People lose heart and become unwilling to try to improve their lot. From the socialist standpoint, this is exactly what is desired since it ultimately puts more people under the control of the government. Socialism always talks a good fight for the betterment of mankind, but historically has never produced it.
What we have to fear is the unknown. This happens when we stray from the Constitution which provides a solid foundation that limits the federal government to those activities wherein it can protect the rights of the citizens as stated in the Declaration of Independence.
a citizen’s view
“We have nothing to fear but . . .”
Words made famous in an earlier era of economic disaster. Then, as now, the Constitution was being avoided, trampled on and generally set aside while drastic measures were instituted, purportedly to correct the condition in which the country found itself.
Of note is the fact that none of the enactments of that earlier era actually worked. According to most present day economists and historians, it was World War II which ended the debacle of Keynesian economics and “put the country back to work”. Unfortunately, the overriding of the Constitution has continued right up to the present day.
Which makes us ask the question: had the Constitution been followed would the tragedy of 1932 occurred? To that must be noted the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913 which effectively removed market forces from determining the value of the nation’s currency. It also usurped a power only authorized for Congress, namely the coining of money and establishing its value.
Is it “fear of government”? Or is it “fear of the politicians” who have been and are inhabiting government?
A reading of the Constitution should allay most “fears” since it is quite explicit in limiting the powers of the federal government and emphasizing that those “powers not granted to the federal government” are reserved to the states or to the people. (Art. I , Sec. 8 and Amendments IX and X)
So the concern has to be how did we drift or how did our leaders take us so far off course? What were, or who were the proponents of, those laws, regulations and bureaucratic encumbrances that have brought us to our present state of disaffection with government?
Is the U.S. citizen overtaxed for the services rendered?
Is the U.S. respected throughout the civilized world?
Is the U.S. on the solid financial footing that existed for much of its history?
Is the U.S. a thriving, productive nation with a sound economy?
Is the U.S. a nation of savers or consumers?
Is the U.S. more socialist than a constitutional republic (its foundation)?
Is the U.S. the same “melting pot” of many nationalities with which it began or has it become a multi-
cultural, unintegrated, ethnic oriented society?
Is the U.S. a republic or a plutocracy?
Long forgotten is the fact that the early settlers of this continent tried socialistic approaches in both Massachusetts and Virginia. They proved unworkable and the people did not have sufficient food or other requirements for decent living. It was only when both areas decided to establish property rights and recognize that an individual should be entitled to the fruits of his/her labor that conditions improved and the country was off in the right direction for growth, expansion and economic well being.
In most situations, fear comes from the unknown. Fears are allayed when creditable information with true facts are presented. This was part of what underlay the change from the Articles of Confederation to the present Constitution. The country had found the Articles inadequate resulting in conflicting interpretations and lacking in sufficient detail to allow the citizens to know what to expect or would happen next. Such uncertainty works against economic progress and stifles entrepreneurship as well as innovation. People lose heart and become unwilling to try to improve their lot. From the socialist standpoint, this is exactly what is desired since it ultimately puts more people under the control of the government. Socialism always talks a good fight for the betterment of mankind, but historically has never produced it.
What we have to fear is the unknown. This happens when we stray from the Constitution which provides a solid foundation that limits the federal government to those activities wherein it can protect the rights of the citizens as stated in the Declaration of Independence.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Playing by the rules . . .
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.
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.
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)