We are all very familiar with the following phrases and sentiments:
All men are endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights of life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness.
“Give me LIBERTY, or give me death.”
“To secure the blessings of LIBERTY to ourselves and our posterity.”
“One nation, under God, indivisible, with LIBERTY and justice for all.”
We have a LIBERTY Bell and a Statue of LIBERTY. Pull out any coin in your pocket, and there in big letters is the word LIBERTY. Why? Why not a Statue of Freedom, or “Give me Independence, or give me death?” Why did our Founders and their successors favor the word LIBERTY? Why not other perfectly fine words like INDEPENDENCE or FREEDOM? The answer is clear by just looking at the definition of the words. FREEDOM connotes more of a lack of physical bondage or restraint, while LIBERTY suggests the emancipation of free will. According to dictionary.com Liberty is “the power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.” That is the message our Founders wished to accentuate and perpetuate.
I truly believe that 2012 is the “Year of the Libertarian.” This is a Libertarian country, founded as a Libertarian country, by Libertarians, and Americans today are a Libertarian people. I see my candidacy as not just a campaign for a seat on the State Board of Education. I approach it as a small crusade to re-awaken in voters the “blessings of Liberty” that our Founders accepted as indisputable truths but which have, over time, become viewed by some as antiquated ideas, inconsistent with a modern “progressive” society. I’m optimistic. I have faith in the American people. I believe the default setting programmed into the hard-wiring of human nature is for liberty. When people become aware of the benefits inherent in a libertarian society and are exposed to the dangers of the incremental usurping of individual sovereignty by an ever-expanding government, people embrace liberty and reject statism.
Our challenge, as Libertarians, is to scrape away the “candy coating” that envelopes statist thought in the form of arguments for the “greater good,” “social justice,” or “national security.” The assertion goes like this, “Just give up some of your individual rights. Forfeit a bit of your free will. Sacrifice just a tad of your self-reliance. And, in return we, the government, will keep you safe, healthy, and free from want.” The catch, of course, is that statists minimalize the first part of the argument where you are compelled to submit, but they campaign aggressively on the supposed benefits of government control. They are masters at, as the old song says, “accentuating the positive and eliminating the negative.” Over time, few recognize the negative aspect of the statist covenant even as more of their rights are incrementally abridged; and, although the alleged “positive” benefits may lose some of their luster, people resign themselves to the false belief that it has always been this way, it can be no other way, and so this must be as good as it gets.
Libertarians must remind people that this is NOT how it has always been, there IS another way, and this is NOT as good as it gets. Free markets, choice, competition, and the freedom to innovate, experiment, and explore unhindered by government intervention has improved our standard of living beyond anything our grandparents or great-grandparents could have ever conceived. This enrichment of the human condition has not been confined within the borders of our blessed country. The rewards of free-market principles have alleviated human suffering and have ameliorated the circumstances of millions around the world. Not surprisingly, it is in countries with the greatest government control and the least individual liberty where poverty and deprivation is most endemic.
My goal is to expose the fallacy that only government can educate our children, and to demonstrate how the same free-market principles that have advanced civilization so dramatically over the past two centuries can be used to advance education for the next two centuries.
My campaign will focus on 6 objectives, to:
• Apply Proven Free-Market Principles to Our Education System;
• Promote School Choice;
• Encourage and Support Home Schooling;
• Reduce Government Interference in Our Children’s Education;
• Restore Independence to Local School Districts; and
• Return the Authority to Determine a Child’s Education Where it Rightfully Belongs – With Parents!
It is an honor and a privilege to be the Libertarian nominee for the Texas State Board of Education from District Six.
Stop the spending, end the "wars," lower taxes, and leave us alone!
Think Libertarian.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Are You Pro Food Choice?
"It is a thousand times better to have common sense without education than to have education without common sense." Robert Green Ingersoll
Imagine that, by some quirk of societal evolution, food preparation and distribution has become an accepted responsibility of the government. Try to conceive of a society, take the United States, which, for the past hundred years or so, has controlled food preparation in the form of a governmental monopoly on restaurants. Privately owned farms and companies still grow and process the food, but they sell their products almost exclusively to the government. All eating establishments are government owned and operated and funded through property and other taxes. Most have historically been controlled and regulated at the state and local level. Citizens pay their taxes and are able to go to the restaurants “free of charge” with the caveat that they must eat only at the restaurants in their home district. You pay the same taxes whether you are a single diner or a family of four.
These government-run restaurants do not need to compete for customers, so there is little incentive to provide a decent product. Without competition, predictably, the food is not very good, but we eat it because it is all we have ever known. The chefs, cooks, and wait-staff are mostly unionized. Their union bosses have negotiated highly favorable contracts with the government that not only raise labor costs without a corresponding increase in quality, but also make it nearly impossible for restaurant staff to be fired. State and local governments go into massive debt to pay the unfunded pension obligations of the unionized food workers. Some people complain about the poor quality of food and service at government-run restaurants. The government’s solution is to raise taxes in order to give more money to the failing public restaurants. The federal government steps in and establishes the Department of Eating. The DOE uses tax dollars collected from the citizens of the various states, skims off its cut, and then sends money back to the states to spend on public restaurants. Interestingly, studies show that even with an increase in government spending on public eating, food quality continues to either decline or remain flat. Meals in the United States consistently rank among the lowest compared with meals in most industrialized nations. It is universally acknowledged that we have a “crisis in our restaurants.” A well-meaning Congress and President pass and sign into law the “No Diner Left Behind Act” which imposes more mandates, regulations, and accountability on public restaurants.
Like all monopolies, the governmental monopoly on restaurants and its unionized workers fear competition. The result is legislation and bureaucratic regulations that inhibit the growth of “private” restaurants. Some states even crack down on those who choose to “home dine” by insisting that home-diners be licensed certified chefs. Critics of “restaurant choice” and the privatization of the eating system scoff at any proposal that threatens the strength of the government and the unions to make decisions over what people eat. They claim that it has always been government’s role to feed the people and that there is no place for “profit” in the nutrition system of the United States. People are skeptical, too, even as they continue to attend failing government-run restaurants. They have always gone to public restaurants and are apprehensive of change that has been deemed “radical” by opponents. It is difficult for some people to conceive of a system of privately run restaurants. Who will pay for the meals? How will we know that the food is safe or nutritious? What will we do with the existing public restaurants? Will greedy restaurant owners put profit above the well-being of diners?
Now, imagine that, by some quirk of societal evolution, K-12 education has become an accepted responsibility of parents and families. Try to conceive of a society, take the United States, where, for the past hundred years or so, parents have been free to choose where and how their children are educated within a privately operated, free-market educational system . Property and other taxes stay dramatically low or are non-existent. Parents use the extra money saved by paying lower taxes to invest in their own children’s education, choosing from a multitude of schooling options. Educational institutions compete to provide the best quality at the most reasonable price. Some schools specialize in certain subject areas. Parents can choose to send their child to a school that puts a higher emphasis on languages, fine arts, sciences, or a particular trade skill. With the proliferation of online curriculum and home-schooling support, many parents choose to educate their children at home.
Yes, profit is part of the system, and that is a good thing. Mismanaged or inferior performing schools are unable to compete with schools of a higher quality and go out of business. Better schools attract more students, which increases profits, which allows schools to expand, which offers more opportunities for even more students. Low-interest education loans are available. Students from low-income families receive scholarships from private schools, religious and community organizations, and other charities. Businesses and individuals are encouraged, through tax deductions, to provide scholarships.
Parents have a greater direct investment in their children’s education and are therefore more actively involved in the process. Standardized test scores are high, and American students consistently rank near the top when compared with students from other industrialized countries.
If you are pro food choice when it comes to dining out, why would you not be pro school choice when it comes to educating your children?
From the Libertarian Party Platform:
2.8 Education
Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.
"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein
Stop the spending, end the “wars,” cut taxes, and leave us alone!
Sunday, July 24, 2011
What’s Wrong With Being Rich?
“What we have said is as part of a broader package we should have revenues, and the best place to get those revenues are from folks like me who have been extraordinarily fortunate, and that millionaires and billionaires can afford to pay a little bit more. . . And I do not want, and I will not accept, a deal in which I am asked to do nothing, in fact, I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need . . .”
- Pres. Barak Obama, press conference of July 11, 2011, attempting to sell a debt limit plan that includes tax increases on the “rich.”
“A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species.”
- James Madison, Essay on Property, March 29, 1792
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
- Thomas Jefferson
(I must preface the following by stating that I am not rich, I have never been rich, and chances are I will never be rich. So, I am not writing this with thoughts of my own self-interest.)
During this summer’s heated, and intolerably prolonged, debt ceiling debate, President Obama has seldom missed an opportunity to engage in class warfare. Every speech and press conference is saturated with tried and true leftist gems like “shared sacrifices,” “millionaires and billionaires,” “corporate jet owners,” “everyone must do their part,” and “pay their fair share.” This should hardly be surprising. With the exception of the race card, class envy and resentment is the most devastating weapon in the liberal/progressive arsenal. What is most unsettling - actually it’s terrifying – is the underlying belief system revealed by statements such as the quote above from the President’s press conference. Please, take a moment to go back and read his quote again. I’ll wait.
What he is basically saying is that he wants to raise taxes, and the best place to go to increase revenues is the wealthy. As Willie Sutton famously replied when asked why he robbed banks, that’s where the money is. This may seem reasonable, but Obama continues by whining that it is not fair that people like him (i.e., multi-millionaires) should be “able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that [they] don’t need.” That’s the scary part. Whose life does he think it is anyway? Do we all own our own lives and the fruits of our labor, or are our lives and our earnings possessions of the United States government? Do we work for ourselves, or do we work for a federal government that tells us how much of our own hard-earned money we are “able to keep?” If Obama’s quote is any indication, clearly in response to both questions he seems inclined to agree with the latter supposition. Secondly, what does he mean by “additional income?” It seems to imply a certain predetermined upper threshold of personal income, above which any money is considered “additional.” Who exactly determines what constitutes “additional” income is unclear, however, presumably the President already has a pretty good idea. Finally, who is Obama to say what amount of income people need or don’t need? This is the classic statist mentality; the State will decide how much money each person “needs,” the State will judge how much income is too much, or “additional,” the State will determine if a private company has made excessive profits, and the State will select how confiscated income will be redistributed. I told you this was scary stuff.
Almost as disturbing is Obama saying he will not accept a deal in which he, as a multi-millionaire, is “asked to do nothing.” As a good Liberal, a proponent of the merits of Big Government solutions, and a champion of those less fortunate, must you be asked to pay your “fair share” or make a “shared sacrifice,” Mr. President? Have you no free will? If you have all that additional income that you don’t need, why don’t you just write out a check for a couple million dollars and send it to the Treasury Department? It’s right next door to the White House; you could run it over and save the postage. I am sure the Treasury will accept your check. Better yet, Mr. President, why don’t you give half your income to charity? The Obamas made over $1.7 million in 2010 and paid about $450,000 in federal taxes. That still nets them about $1.25 million. How much do they really “need”? Surely a family of four living in public housing and taking public transportation can live on $250,000 a year. He doesn’t need that “additional” $1 million. Give it to charity. No, in the Liberal mind, it is the government’s role to take from those who they deem to have too much money and give it to those in need. Oh, and by the way, in 2009 the Obamas made over $5.5 million. I have searched in vain for the news story reporting how they gave all that un-needed, additional income to the Treasury.
Why are Liberals so eager to demonize the rich? What exactly is wrong with being rich? I love rich people. I wish there were more rich people. I admire people who strive to become rich. Contrary to popular Liberal belief, rich people create more rich people, not more poor people. Wealthy venture capitalists risk money on individuals or fledgling companies with creative ideas, innovative products, or unique services. These entrepreneurs, if successful, create jobs, wealth, and a better standard of living. Microsoft and Apple did not just make Bill Gates and Steve Jobs billionaires; they made thousands of early investors into millionaires, created hundreds of thousands of middle-class jobs, and improved the standard of living for millions of people around the world.
The reason Liberals/Progressives demonize the rich and engage in class warfare is obvious. It is the same reason they continually employ divisive racial tactics. Liberalism views society as a collection of groups rather than individuals. Liberal policies are always touted as benefiting a particular subset of society such as the elderly, the poor, minorities, or labor unions, all for the "common good." In order to win elections and maintain power, Liberals must pit what may be considered their favored groups against the perceived groups of their opponents. They must play on fears, resentments, and prejudices in order to solidify support and motivate their voters. Libertarians, on the contrary, view the world as one group of individuals, as the preamble to the Libertarian Party Platform states so eloquently:
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.
We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.
Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.
“If we can but prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy."
- Thomas Jefferson
Stop the spending, end the “wars,” cut taxes, and leave us alone!
Think Libertarian.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
How’s That Whole Republican/Democrat Thing Working Out For You?
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
- Albert Einstein
With the exception of the odd Independent, Socialist, or other third-party representative, mayor, or councilman, power at the federal, state, and local levels of this country for the past hundred-plus years has been in the hands of two political parties. Republicans have shown themselves time and again to be the party of Big government, and Democrats the party of BIGGER government.
Democrats view Americans as children whom they must nurture from cradle to grave. Republicans view the American people as children whom they must protect from dangers, real or imagined.
Republicans espouse an almost limitless expansion of America’s military presence around the world, and have never met a conflict they didn’t like and couldn’t justify under the banner of “national interest.” Democrats champion government regulation of almost every aspect of our lives in the name of the “common good,” and have never met a government entitlement program they didn’t hold sacrosanct.
Today, we find ourselves with high unemployment, rising inflation, sinking home prices, record home foreclosures, anemic GDP growth, at least three armed conflicts around the world, failing schools, a futile drug “war,” over-crowded prisons, and a $14.3 trillion debt. These are the consequences of de facto one-party rule for more than a century and a half.
Yet, Americans continue to vote for the same Big Government candidates, whether Republican or Democrat, over and over again expecting different results. Even the criminally insane eventually recognize the futility of banging their heads against the wall and stop. Sadly, we have not yet learned that lesson. But, there is a true choice.
The Libertarian Party is the party of less government and more personal freedom. Libertarians view individuals as adults who have been given free will by their Creator to make their own choices, take care of themselves and their families, and use their property any way they see fit as long as they do not interfere with other individuals making their own free choices. From the Libertarian Party platform:
1.0 Personal Liberty
Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.
2.0 Economic Liberty
Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.
3.0 Securing Liberty
The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.
Stop the spending, end the “wars,” cut taxes, and leave us alone!
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
- James Madison
Think Libertarian.
- Albert Einstein
With the exception of the odd Independent, Socialist, or other third-party representative, mayor, or councilman, power at the federal, state, and local levels of this country for the past hundred-plus years has been in the hands of two political parties. Republicans have shown themselves time and again to be the party of Big government, and Democrats the party of BIGGER government.
Democrats view Americans as children whom they must nurture from cradle to grave. Republicans view the American people as children whom they must protect from dangers, real or imagined.
Republicans espouse an almost limitless expansion of America’s military presence around the world, and have never met a conflict they didn’t like and couldn’t justify under the banner of “national interest.” Democrats champion government regulation of almost every aspect of our lives in the name of the “common good,” and have never met a government entitlement program they didn’t hold sacrosanct.
Today, we find ourselves with high unemployment, rising inflation, sinking home prices, record home foreclosures, anemic GDP growth, at least three armed conflicts around the world, failing schools, a futile drug “war,” over-crowded prisons, and a $14.3 trillion debt. These are the consequences of de facto one-party rule for more than a century and a half.
Yet, Americans continue to vote for the same Big Government candidates, whether Republican or Democrat, over and over again expecting different results. Even the criminally insane eventually recognize the futility of banging their heads against the wall and stop. Sadly, we have not yet learned that lesson. But, there is a true choice.
The Libertarian Party is the party of less government and more personal freedom. Libertarians view individuals as adults who have been given free will by their Creator to make their own choices, take care of themselves and their families, and use their property any way they see fit as long as they do not interfere with other individuals making their own free choices. From the Libertarian Party platform:
1.0 Personal Liberty
Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.
2.0 Economic Liberty
Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.
3.0 Securing Liberty
The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.
Stop the spending, end the “wars,” cut taxes, and leave us alone!
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
- James Madison
Think Libertarian.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
The Shame of "Racial Politics"
This past Sunday, Democrat Florida congresswoman and chair of the DNC Debra Wasserman-Schultz accused Republicans of wanting to “drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws” when arguing against GOP proposed voter identification laws. You know, I already had my blog posting written for this week and was just going to let this ridiculous statement slide, but it got me thinking about the liberal (pun completely intended) use of the “race card” in politics today. Although not an exclusive tool of Liberals (see Willie Horton ad, 1988), in recent years the Left has mastered the art of divisive racial politics.
When politicians play the “race card” it usually ends up demonstrating more of a concern for their own political self-interests than any genuine concern for the particular race involved, and reveals a glaring lack of confidence in their own policy and ideological argument’s ability to stand on its own merits. I will not presume to know the congresswoman’s true intent, but reading her entire quote gives us a clue. "You have the Republicans, who want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws and literally-and very transparently-block access to the polls to voters who are more likely to vote for Democratic candidates than Republican candidates." So, is she more concerned about possible black voter disenfranchisement or the potential for fewer black votes being cast for her party? Would she be just as vociferous, and shamefully demagogic, if blacks voted predominantly for Republicans? If Ms. Wasserman-Schultz had had confidence in the strength of her argument, surely she would not have had to resort to inflaming the racial passions of her listeners and potential voters. However, rather than being the fall-back position of a losing argument, the “race card” has increasingly become the default setting of far-left ideologues. If you oppose the President’s policies or the direction he is taking the country, you are a racist who resents the fact that a black man is in the White House. If you propose Medicaid, food stamp, or other welfare reforms you are anti-minority.
Libertarians feel no need to divide people, and likewise voters, by race, and then pit one group against the other for political advantage. The concepts of liberty, individual freedom, self-reliance, independence, and personal responsibility are universal and transcend race, gender, sexual preference, religion, or nationality. All people should beware of politicians, from whichever political party, who must tear others down and inflame passions and prejudices in order to win an argument or obtain some political advantage. The Libertarian Party “Statement of Principles” says in part:
We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.
Now, just a very brief history lesson for Congresswoman Wasserman-Schultz and anyone else who might be interested. Jim Crow laws were implemented in order to keep blacks and whites separated in public places. They were, just what their name says, LAWS. Laws passed by Democrat controlled state legislatures in the South. Laws signed by Democrat governors. Laws enforced by Democrat sheriffs. They were the very definition of state sponsored racism. Many laws are put in place to discourage people from acting in a certain way or to encourge them to behave in a particular manner. If people are naturally inclined to behave or not behave in the manner desired by those in authority, then there is no need for the law. If all motorist naturally drove at a “reasonable” speed, there would be no need for speed limit laws. Likewise, if people naturally separated themselves by race in public places there would be no need for laws mandating that they do so. Jim Crow laws were born out of a fear that if blacks and whites were left to their own (natural) inclinations they would commingle. They were laws mandated and enforced by an elected government to compel people to act in a certain way, which were later replaced by laws (Civil Rights Act of 1964) mandated and enforced by an elected government to compel people to act in an opposite manner. If government had not interfered in the first place, we likely would have achieved racial desegregation, if not earlier, at least much more peacefully.
Jim Crow laws are an extreme example of the State imposing laws inhibiting the individual’s natural right to free association, and a perfect demonstration of the consequences of an overly intrusive government – two things that would not happen with a Libertarian government.
Stop the spending, end the “wars,” cut taxes, and leave us alone!
Think Libertarian.
<==== Please, vote in the "Freedom?" poll if you have not already.
When politicians play the “race card” it usually ends up demonstrating more of a concern for their own political self-interests than any genuine concern for the particular race involved, and reveals a glaring lack of confidence in their own policy and ideological argument’s ability to stand on its own merits. I will not presume to know the congresswoman’s true intent, but reading her entire quote gives us a clue. "You have the Republicans, who want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws and literally-and very transparently-block access to the polls to voters who are more likely to vote for Democratic candidates than Republican candidates." So, is she more concerned about possible black voter disenfranchisement or the potential for fewer black votes being cast for her party? Would she be just as vociferous, and shamefully demagogic, if blacks voted predominantly for Republicans? If Ms. Wasserman-Schultz had had confidence in the strength of her argument, surely she would not have had to resort to inflaming the racial passions of her listeners and potential voters. However, rather than being the fall-back position of a losing argument, the “race card” has increasingly become the default setting of far-left ideologues. If you oppose the President’s policies or the direction he is taking the country, you are a racist who resents the fact that a black man is in the White House. If you propose Medicaid, food stamp, or other welfare reforms you are anti-minority.
Libertarians feel no need to divide people, and likewise voters, by race, and then pit one group against the other for political advantage. The concepts of liberty, individual freedom, self-reliance, independence, and personal responsibility are universal and transcend race, gender, sexual preference, religion, or nationality. All people should beware of politicians, from whichever political party, who must tear others down and inflame passions and prejudices in order to win an argument or obtain some political advantage. The Libertarian Party “Statement of Principles” says in part:
We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.
Now, just a very brief history lesson for Congresswoman Wasserman-Schultz and anyone else who might be interested. Jim Crow laws were implemented in order to keep blacks and whites separated in public places. They were, just what their name says, LAWS. Laws passed by Democrat controlled state legislatures in the South. Laws signed by Democrat governors. Laws enforced by Democrat sheriffs. They were the very definition of state sponsored racism. Many laws are put in place to discourage people from acting in a certain way or to encourge them to behave in a particular manner. If people are naturally inclined to behave or not behave in the manner desired by those in authority, then there is no need for the law. If all motorist naturally drove at a “reasonable” speed, there would be no need for speed limit laws. Likewise, if people naturally separated themselves by race in public places there would be no need for laws mandating that they do so. Jim Crow laws were born out of a fear that if blacks and whites were left to their own (natural) inclinations they would commingle. They were laws mandated and enforced by an elected government to compel people to act in a certain way, which were later replaced by laws (Civil Rights Act of 1964) mandated and enforced by an elected government to compel people to act in an opposite manner. If government had not interfered in the first place, we likely would have achieved racial desegregation, if not earlier, at least much more peacefully.
Jim Crow laws are an extreme example of the State imposing laws inhibiting the individual’s natural right to free association, and a perfect demonstration of the consequences of an overly intrusive government – two things that would not happen with a Libertarian government.
Stop the spending, end the “wars,” cut taxes, and leave us alone!
Think Libertarian.
<==== Please, vote in the "Freedom?" poll if you have not already.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Freedom?
“If society fits you comfortably enough, you call it freedom.”
- Robert Frost
Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously observed about pornography, “I know it when I see it.” The same might be said about freedom. There may not be a universally agreed upon definition of freedom, but most of us know it when we see it, or at least think we do. Each individual’s perception of their own freedom, or lack thereof, is highly subjective. Two people living in the same country, at the same time, at the same socio-economic level, of the same ethnicity, and of similar age may hold vastly disparate views as to their own, and their nation’s, freedom.
During our War for Independence, a majority of colonists were indifferent to dissolving America’s bonds with the motherland; in fact many were opposed to the move altogether. Surely, these “loyalists” thought, “What’s the big deal? Why ruin a good thing? We are free enough.” Only a small fraction of Chinese stared down the tanks in Tiananmen Square in 1989. Granted, these brave souls were most certainly morally supported by a great number of Chinese (those that were even aware of the event). Many more, I believe, thought, “Why are these kids making trouble? Things could be much worse.”
So, possibly, individual freedom is not only in the eye of the beholder, but is also a matter of degree. The American loyalists were indeed “free enough”; maybe not as free as their British cousins or the Dutch, but free nonetheless. A majority of Chinese in 1989 could, with some legitimacy, look back over their lifetimes and conclude that they enjoyed considerable freedom, compared to during the Cultural Revolution or the “Great Leap Forward.”
In many ways, Americans are freer than they have been in the past. Homosexuality and interracial marriage have become more accepted. African-Americans have experienced an unprecedented expansion of personal freedom over the past 60 years or so. Discussion of drug legalization has crept out of the fringes and into the mainstream, and marijuana decriminalization ballot initiatives have sprung up across the country. In many states, gun laws over the past 20 years have become increasingly less restrictive, and unlike 40 years ago, there is no longer an active military draft.
Unfortunately, in other areas we are considerably less free. Government regulations have made it more difficult for entrepreneurs to start new businesses. A perverted judicial interpretation of eminent domain has eroded property rights, allowing governments to confiscate land from one private owner and transfer it to another. Our natural right to travel, as well as the constitutionally guaranteed “right of the people to be secure in their persons,” have been abridged by an irrational and overzealous Department of Homeland Security and TSA. There are calls from both the Left and the Right for some form of national identification system. Will we soon, in the name of national security, be randomly asked to show our “papers,” as citizens of former Soviet bloc countries were once required?
Please, take a moment to contemplate your own personal freedom and how free you feel America has become. Then vote in the poll in the left-hand column. Thank you.
“There is no such thing as part freedom.”
- Nelson Mandela
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Remembering America’s Future Fallen Heroes
“I think that people want peace so much that one of these days government had better get out of their way and let them have it.”
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Before it became a holiday of car races, hotdogs, beer, and white sales, Memorial Day was designated as a day to commemorate U.S. citizens who had died in military service. It was a day set aside to reflect on, and honor the sacrifices made by servicemen and women to protect our freedom. Is it still that day? Cynics might say no, optimists yes, but I think deep in the hearts and minds of most Americans - whether they spend the day watching a race, grilling brats, chugging some beers, or shopping for sheets - lies a germ of a recollection of the true meaning of the holiday.
On this Memorial Day, if or when you reflect on those throughout history who have paid the ultimate price to secure liberty, I would ask that you also take a moment to think of those unknown and possibly yet unborn heroes who will someday fall on some distant battlefield in the name of freedom, democracy, humanitarianism, or regime change. Picture the eager young faces of future warriors as they loyally perform the duties and carry out the commands they are given by some future president who commits them to battle. A president who, if the recent past is any indication, will make this commitment without a congressional declaration of war as is mandated by the Constitution, or as in the case of our current engagement in Libya, without even abiding by the provisions of the War Powers Act (which, by the way, might itself be unconstitutional).
Sometime during the festive holiday, I hope you will contemplate how many of these future fallen heroes might be saved if presidents and congresses actually governed within the constraints outlined in the Constitution in which they have sworn to “preserve, protect, and defend.” The Constitution gives Congress, and only Congress, the power to declare war, raise and support an army and navy, and “provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repeal Invasions.” The only thing the Constitution says about the President regarding military action is, “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” In short, Congress declares war, and the President commands the troops once they are called into “actual service.” Nowhere does the Constitution explicitly or implicitly grant the President the power to unilaterally commit armed forces for the purpose of spreading democracy, initiating regime change, preventing some perceived threat to national interests, or establishing a “no-fly zone” to preempt a possible humanitarian calamity (or oust the leader of another sovereign country).
The Libertarian Party platform states:
3.1 National Defense
We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression.The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act aspoliceman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service..
3.3 International Affairs
American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy shouldemphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoidingforeign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention,including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny anddefend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use ofterrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.
This Memorial Day, remember America’s fallen heroes, past, present, and future.
Next Election Day, protect America’s future military men and women.
Vote Libertarian.
“It has too often been too easy for rulers and governments to incite man to war.”
- Lester B. Pearson
“I think that people want peace so much that one of these days government had better get out of their way and let them have it.”
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Before it became a holiday of car races, hotdogs, beer, and white sales, Memorial Day was designated as a day to commemorate U.S. citizens who had died in military service. It was a day set aside to reflect on, and honor the sacrifices made by servicemen and women to protect our freedom. Is it still that day? Cynics might say no, optimists yes, but I think deep in the hearts and minds of most Americans - whether they spend the day watching a race, grilling brats, chugging some beers, or shopping for sheets - lies a germ of a recollection of the true meaning of the holiday.
On this Memorial Day, if or when you reflect on those throughout history who have paid the ultimate price to secure liberty, I would ask that you also take a moment to think of those unknown and possibly yet unborn heroes who will someday fall on some distant battlefield in the name of freedom, democracy, humanitarianism, or regime change. Picture the eager young faces of future warriors as they loyally perform the duties and carry out the commands they are given by some future president who commits them to battle. A president who, if the recent past is any indication, will make this commitment without a congressional declaration of war as is mandated by the Constitution, or as in the case of our current engagement in Libya, without even abiding by the provisions of the War Powers Act (which, by the way, might itself be unconstitutional).
Sometime during the festive holiday, I hope you will contemplate how many of these future fallen heroes might be saved if presidents and congresses actually governed within the constraints outlined in the Constitution in which they have sworn to “preserve, protect, and defend.” The Constitution gives Congress, and only Congress, the power to declare war, raise and support an army and navy, and “provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repeal Invasions.” The only thing the Constitution says about the President regarding military action is, “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” In short, Congress declares war, and the President commands the troops once they are called into “actual service.” Nowhere does the Constitution explicitly or implicitly grant the President the power to unilaterally commit armed forces for the purpose of spreading democracy, initiating regime change, preventing some perceived threat to national interests, or establishing a “no-fly zone” to preempt a possible humanitarian calamity (or oust the leader of another sovereign country).
The Libertarian Party platform states:
3.1 National Defense
We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression.The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act aspoliceman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service..
3.3 International Affairs
American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy shouldemphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoidingforeign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention,including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny anddefend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use ofterrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.
This Memorial Day, remember America’s fallen heroes, past, present, and future.
Next Election Day, protect America’s future military men and women.
Vote Libertarian.
“It has too often been too easy for rulers and governments to incite man to war.”
- Lester B. Pearson
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
You’re Gonna Have to Face It, You’re Addicted to Oil
(My apologies to the late Robert Palmer)
I was recently watching a political policy analysis program on the topic of rising fuel prices. One particularly astute “analyst” stated with such insightful authority that America is “addicted to oil.” She expressed whole-hearted agreement with President Obama’s proposal to eliminate federal subsidies to oil companies and redirect them to renewable energy research. This is just wrong on many levels.
The “addicted to oil” mantra springs up from the left every time oil rises above $100 per barrel as predictably as “radical,” “mean-spirited,” and “extreme” appear when serious entitlement reform is proposed. According to the American Heritage Science Dictionary © 2002, addiction is, “a physical or psychological need for a habit-forming substance, such as a drug or alcohol.” For the past hundred years, and for the foreseeable future, America’s and the World’s economy has been, and will be, dependent on fossil fuels, oil in particular. In its current form, the World’s economy cannot survive without these fuels. My apologies to the ultra-environmental left, but that is just an “inconvenient truth.” To say that Americans are addicted to oil is like saying we are addicted to oxygen. In our current physiological form we are as dependent on oxygen to survive as our economy, in its current form, is dependent on oil.
Therefore, can oil really be called a “habit-forming” substance? That would imply that the substance (oil) formed the habit (driving, manufacturing). Did the early pioneers of modern transportation and industry say, “Hey, what can we make that can run on all this oil we’ve got?” Of course not, they invented, developed, and improved upon devices and processes that could use a new, readily available and relatively inexpensive energy source. Clearly, the substance did not form the habit.
The habitual behavior associated with an addiction is generally viewed as negative, hence the desire to intervene on behalf of sufferers. Addicts become increasingly consumed with a desire to obtain ever greater amounts of the drug to the detriment of their health, relationships, jobs, and lives in general. Is our current “addiction” to the “habit-forming substance” of oil really negative? Many people might reflexively answer with a resounding yes. However, measuring the nation’s expanding productivity and higher standard of living enjoyed over the past hundred years clearly shows that the country and the people are far better off thanks to fossil fuels.
Granted, just as our economy transitioned from being fueled by wood and whale oil to coal, oil and nuclear, it may someday transition to alternative, renewable energy sources. Will we then be accused of being addicted to wind, solar, and bio-fuels? This transition, just as the transition from whale oil to fossil fuels, should be left to the free market not government intervention. I agree with the esteemed “analyst” in one respect, President Obama should eliminate the subsidies to oil companies (and all other subsidies, for that matter), but he should not then transfer those subsidies to “green” energy. While he’s at it, the President should also reduce regulations and other impediments to oil, natural gas, and nuclear development. Alternative energy sources should compete with fossil fuels and nuclear in a free and open market. When they become reliable, plentiful, and cost effective they will replace fossil fuels as naturally as coal replaced wood and oil replaced whale oil.
I was recently watching a political policy analysis program on the topic of rising fuel prices. One particularly astute “analyst” stated with such insightful authority that America is “addicted to oil.” She expressed whole-hearted agreement with President Obama’s proposal to eliminate federal subsidies to oil companies and redirect them to renewable energy research. This is just wrong on many levels.
The “addicted to oil” mantra springs up from the left every time oil rises above $100 per barrel as predictably as “radical,” “mean-spirited,” and “extreme” appear when serious entitlement reform is proposed. According to the American Heritage Science Dictionary © 2002, addiction is, “a physical or psychological need for a habit-forming substance, such as a drug or alcohol.” For the past hundred years, and for the foreseeable future, America’s and the World’s economy has been, and will be, dependent on fossil fuels, oil in particular. In its current form, the World’s economy cannot survive without these fuels. My apologies to the ultra-environmental left, but that is just an “inconvenient truth.” To say that Americans are addicted to oil is like saying we are addicted to oxygen. In our current physiological form we are as dependent on oxygen to survive as our economy, in its current form, is dependent on oil.
Therefore, can oil really be called a “habit-forming” substance? That would imply that the substance (oil) formed the habit (driving, manufacturing). Did the early pioneers of modern transportation and industry say, “Hey, what can we make that can run on all this oil we’ve got?” Of course not, they invented, developed, and improved upon devices and processes that could use a new, readily available and relatively inexpensive energy source. Clearly, the substance did not form the habit.
The habitual behavior associated with an addiction is generally viewed as negative, hence the desire to intervene on behalf of sufferers. Addicts become increasingly consumed with a desire to obtain ever greater amounts of the drug to the detriment of their health, relationships, jobs, and lives in general. Is our current “addiction” to the “habit-forming substance” of oil really negative? Many people might reflexively answer with a resounding yes. However, measuring the nation’s expanding productivity and higher standard of living enjoyed over the past hundred years clearly shows that the country and the people are far better off thanks to fossil fuels.
Granted, just as our economy transitioned from being fueled by wood and whale oil to coal, oil and nuclear, it may someday transition to alternative, renewable energy sources. Will we then be accused of being addicted to wind, solar, and bio-fuels? This transition, just as the transition from whale oil to fossil fuels, should be left to the free market not government intervention. I agree with the esteemed “analyst” in one respect, President Obama should eliminate the subsidies to oil companies (and all other subsidies, for that matter), but he should not then transfer those subsidies to “green” energy. While he’s at it, the President should also reduce regulations and other impediments to oil, natural gas, and nuclear development. Alternative energy sources should compete with fossil fuels and nuclear in a free and open market. When they become reliable, plentiful, and cost effective they will replace fossil fuels as naturally as coal replaced wood and oil replaced whale oil.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
The Literal Literary Horror of Big Government
Constitutional Moment of the Day
If you don’t like what is in the Constitution, or want to grant more or fewer powers to any branch of the government or privileges to the citizenry, then this is what you have to do.
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
The Framers deliberately made the process difficult. They wanted the Constitution to be a rock for the ages not to be chipped away or re-sculpted based on the whims and fancies of the moment. But, that is exactly what has slowly happened over the years through the decisions of activist judges, executive orders, and unchallenged Congressional legislation.
Quote of the Day
"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates, but let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
- George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
- George Orwell, “Animal Farm”
The Literal Literary Horror of Big Government
The recent release of the motion picture adaptation of Ayn Rand’s masterpiece, “Atlas Shrugged” started me thinking about other literary depictions of the horrors of Big Government.
Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World”, “Anthem” by Ayn Rand, “1984” and “Animal Farm” by George Orwell, “Fahrenheit 451” by Ray Bradbury are all dystopian novels describing oppressive central governments that exert their will on the people, stifle the natural rights of citizens, and smother free will, independent thought, and individuality. In short, each is a warning against relinquishing too much control to the government. These are but a small sampling. I could list hundreds of novels, novellas, and short stories with similar themes.
Liberals - I’m sorry they like to be called Progressives now (it’s a bad sign when you have to change your name in order to sell your ideas) - for years have championed more government involvement in our lives through new entitlement programs, increased regulations in almost every area of human existence, and censorship under the guise of political correctness. Conservatives have sought to impose their morals on society by fiat, abridge constitutionally protected civil liberties in the name of national security, and entangle the nation in unconstitutional and seemingly limitless military adventures around the world. Libertarians believe in the supremacy of natural rights, strict adherence to the Constitution, limited government, low taxation, minimal regulations, free market principles, personal responsibility, and the power of the individual.
So, my question is this. If big intrusive government (espoused by Liberals/Progressives and Conservatives) is so great, why have scores of writers throughout history penned horrific tales prophesizing the inescapable outcome of such governments? Where are all the nightmarish stories and prophetic warnings of the evil things to come when limited, unobtrusive governments (advocated by Libertarians) run amuck? The message is clear; an ever expanding central government ultimately leads to deprivation, oppression, and despair. Small, limited government fosters prosperity, personal freedom, and self-fulfillment.
“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficial. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greater dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”
- Justice Louis Brandeis
“Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” - James Madison
To combat these “gradual and silent encroachments,” be vigilant, stay informed, ask questions, and never fear speaking your mind.
If you don’t like what is in the Constitution, or want to grant more or fewer powers to any branch of the government or privileges to the citizenry, then this is what you have to do.
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
The Framers deliberately made the process difficult. They wanted the Constitution to be a rock for the ages not to be chipped away or re-sculpted based on the whims and fancies of the moment. But, that is exactly what has slowly happened over the years through the decisions of activist judges, executive orders, and unchallenged Congressional legislation.
Quote of the Day
"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates, but let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
- George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
- George Orwell, “Animal Farm”
The Literal Literary Horror of Big Government
The recent release of the motion picture adaptation of Ayn Rand’s masterpiece, “Atlas Shrugged” started me thinking about other literary depictions of the horrors of Big Government.
Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World”, “Anthem” by Ayn Rand, “1984” and “Animal Farm” by George Orwell, “Fahrenheit 451” by Ray Bradbury are all dystopian novels describing oppressive central governments that exert their will on the people, stifle the natural rights of citizens, and smother free will, independent thought, and individuality. In short, each is a warning against relinquishing too much control to the government. These are but a small sampling. I could list hundreds of novels, novellas, and short stories with similar themes.
Liberals - I’m sorry they like to be called Progressives now (it’s a bad sign when you have to change your name in order to sell your ideas) - for years have championed more government involvement in our lives through new entitlement programs, increased regulations in almost every area of human existence, and censorship under the guise of political correctness. Conservatives have sought to impose their morals on society by fiat, abridge constitutionally protected civil liberties in the name of national security, and entangle the nation in unconstitutional and seemingly limitless military adventures around the world. Libertarians believe in the supremacy of natural rights, strict adherence to the Constitution, limited government, low taxation, minimal regulations, free market principles, personal responsibility, and the power of the individual.
So, my question is this. If big intrusive government (espoused by Liberals/Progressives and Conservatives) is so great, why have scores of writers throughout history penned horrific tales prophesizing the inescapable outcome of such governments? Where are all the nightmarish stories and prophetic warnings of the evil things to come when limited, unobtrusive governments (advocated by Libertarians) run amuck? The message is clear; an ever expanding central government ultimately leads to deprivation, oppression, and despair. Small, limited government fosters prosperity, personal freedom, and self-fulfillment.
“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficial. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greater dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”
- Justice Louis Brandeis
“Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” - James Madison
To combat these “gradual and silent encroachments,” be vigilant, stay informed, ask questions, and never fear speaking your mind.
Friday, April 23, 2010
A Long Train of Abuses
Constitutional Moment of the Day
Please, allow me the liberty, so to speak, to replace the usual “Constitutional” moment with an “Independence” moment of the day. The following is so beautiful and lucid it requires no further commentary beyond: enjoy and appreciate the full meaning of the words.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Quote of the Day
“Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.”
- John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776
It is in our hands.
A Long Train of Abuses and Usurpations
Obama recently signed a health care bill into law against the will of a majority of Americans. The law includes the hiring of over 16,000 new IRS agents, the collecting of a multitude of new taxes and fines, the training of physicians with the military, the forcing of Americans to buy insurance under penalty of fines and prosecution, the placing of bureaucrats in the decision making process of doctors.
Obama has appointed more "czars" (most of which did not require confirmation by the Senate) than any other administration. By my count (and the counts vary) there have been 25 czars appointed by President Obama or his department secretaries that never went through the rigor of a Senate confirmation (8 others were confirmed by the Senate and two are holdovers from the Bush Administration). Among these unelected, unconfirmed czars are: border czar (How’s that working out?), compensation/pay czar, climate czar, auto czar, auto recovery czar, autoworkers czar (How many auto czars can you fit in a VW?), Afghanistan/Pakistan czar (How’s that one working out?), domestic violence czar, Great Lakes czar (I’m not making this stuff up.), health czar (of course), Iran czar (How’s that working out?), urban affairs czar, and, I’m not kidding, a big-picture economic czar. In fairness, President Bush appointed 23 unconfirmed czars, but he was not a Conservative. In comparison, President Clinton appointed six czars (Did you ever think you would look at the Clinton Years as the “Good Old Days?”) and President Ronald Reagan (Don’t you just miss him.) appointed over his eight years in office a grand total of one czar.
At this moment, hundreds of thousands of census workers are spreading out across the country forcing Americans to provide personal information, again under penalty of fines and prosecution. Apparently, arrested suspects have the right to remain silent, but everyday, law-abiding citizens in their own homes do not have that same luxury. So, if you refuse to answer the questions, then you continue to refuse to pay the fines, when they come to arrest you, you can remain silent and not answer their questions.
Obama has taken over private financial institutions, and is attempting to dictate how they run their businesses and pay their executives (see compensation/pay czar above), private auto manufacturers, and the previously private student loan business.
Obama has signed an executive order allowing the EPA to regulate a gas (carbon dioxide) which is so "dangerous" that it is an essential element in the process (photosynthesis) in which plants make their food and produce oxygen. It is so “harmful” that most living creatures expel it from their bodies during normal respiration. These EPA regulations will affect almost every industry in America, as well as all Americans, without any debate or legislation passed by Congress.
Now, in 1776, Thomas Jefferson enumerated in the Declaration of Independence what he called "a long train of abuses and usurpations" committed by the King of Great Britain. Among them was:
"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance."
Sound familiar??? Isn't it time for a new Declaration of Independence??
It’s not too late.
Next time . . . the literal horror of big government.
Please, allow me the liberty, so to speak, to replace the usual “Constitutional” moment with an “Independence” moment of the day. The following is so beautiful and lucid it requires no further commentary beyond: enjoy and appreciate the full meaning of the words.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Quote of the Day
“Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.”
- John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776
It is in our hands.
A Long Train of Abuses and Usurpations
Obama recently signed a health care bill into law against the will of a majority of Americans. The law includes the hiring of over 16,000 new IRS agents, the collecting of a multitude of new taxes and fines, the training of physicians with the military, the forcing of Americans to buy insurance under penalty of fines and prosecution, the placing of bureaucrats in the decision making process of doctors.
Obama has appointed more "czars" (most of which did not require confirmation by the Senate) than any other administration. By my count (and the counts vary) there have been 25 czars appointed by President Obama or his department secretaries that never went through the rigor of a Senate confirmation (8 others were confirmed by the Senate and two are holdovers from the Bush Administration). Among these unelected, unconfirmed czars are: border czar (How’s that working out?), compensation/pay czar, climate czar, auto czar, auto recovery czar, autoworkers czar (How many auto czars can you fit in a VW?), Afghanistan/Pakistan czar (How’s that one working out?), domestic violence czar, Great Lakes czar (I’m not making this stuff up.), health czar (of course), Iran czar (How’s that working out?), urban affairs czar, and, I’m not kidding, a big-picture economic czar. In fairness, President Bush appointed 23 unconfirmed czars, but he was not a Conservative. In comparison, President Clinton appointed six czars (Did you ever think you would look at the Clinton Years as the “Good Old Days?”) and President Ronald Reagan (Don’t you just miss him.) appointed over his eight years in office a grand total of one czar.
At this moment, hundreds of thousands of census workers are spreading out across the country forcing Americans to provide personal information, again under penalty of fines and prosecution. Apparently, arrested suspects have the right to remain silent, but everyday, law-abiding citizens in their own homes do not have that same luxury. So, if you refuse to answer the questions, then you continue to refuse to pay the fines, when they come to arrest you, you can remain silent and not answer their questions.
Obama has taken over private financial institutions, and is attempting to dictate how they run their businesses and pay their executives (see compensation/pay czar above), private auto manufacturers, and the previously private student loan business.
Obama has signed an executive order allowing the EPA to regulate a gas (carbon dioxide) which is so "dangerous" that it is an essential element in the process (photosynthesis) in which plants make their food and produce oxygen. It is so “harmful” that most living creatures expel it from their bodies during normal respiration. These EPA regulations will affect almost every industry in America, as well as all Americans, without any debate or legislation passed by Congress.
Now, in 1776, Thomas Jefferson enumerated in the Declaration of Independence what he called "a long train of abuses and usurpations" committed by the King of Great Britain. Among them was:
"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance."
Sound familiar??? Isn't it time for a new Declaration of Independence??
It’s not too late.
Next time . . . the literal horror of big government.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Happy Tax Day!
Constitutional Moment of the Day
In honor of “Tax Day,” I present for your consideration . . .
Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Just 30 words that have done more to transfer power away from the people and states and to the federal government than any other arrangement of a similar number of words anywhere else in the Constitution. More on this later.
Quote of the Day
“An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation.”
- John Marshall, McCullough v. Maryland, 1819
The Horrors of 1913
Although today has popularly been proclaimed “Tax Day,” in reality, every day is “Tax Day.” Every day, hour, minute that you work taxes are being withheld from your hard earned income. Every time you go shopping taxes are added to the cost of your purchase. You pay taxes when you pay your utility and phone bill. Property is taxed, capital gains are taxed, dividends are taxed, inheritance is taxed, even “sin” is taxed.
What does this have to do with the year 1913? As you might have guessed the above-mentioned amendment to the Constitution was adopted in 1913. The Sixteenth Amendment expanded Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” and nullified its expressed limitation that “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” Congress was now able to tax income “from whatever source derived” and was not required to assign those taxes among the several states based on population. This is an almost unrestrained power to tax. Do you really think that is what the Framers had in mind? Wasn’t the Revolutionary War fought, in large part, against excessive and unfair taxation by the British Crown?
The federal income tax allowed by the 16th Amendment tapped a vein of almost unlimited revenue that directly fueled the astronomical expansion, and intrusion, of the federal government over the rest of the century and which continues to this day; like some parasitic creature that attaches itself to an unwilling or unsuspecting host and eventually consumes it. It is no accident that the federal government remained relatively small for the 126 years prior to the Sixteenth Amendment and has subsequently exploded in the 97 years that have followed. The truly horrific aspect of all this is that the revenue supplied by the national income tax is not enough to satisfy the voracious appetite of a bloated federal government, and it must assuage that hunger by borrowing money from the Chinese and Japanese. Now even this is not enough. Last week the Obama administration proposed a national sales tax called the Value Added Tax. It is yet another vein to be opened and lapped with vigor by the uncontrollable beast.
But, the Sixteenth Amendment was only the first atrocity committed against the American people that fateful year. For the first time since the adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1791, two amendments to the Constitution were ratified in the same calendar year. Which brings us to . . .
Another Constitutional Moment of the Day
Amendment XVII
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. (bold added)
The horror of this change to the Constitution may not be immediately apparent. For over 120 years prior to this amendment, Senators were chosen by the legislature of a state and not elected directly by the voters. How, you might ask, is it a bad thing, let alone horrific, to expand democracy by allowing the citizens of a state to popularly elect their own senators?
The beauty, some might rightfully say, the brilliance, of the U. S. Constitution is the system of checks and balances erected by the Framers. These were men who had recently fought a long and costly war against an overpowering central government (Great Britain), and had experienced the failings of a week national government under the Articles of Confederation. They strived to maintain a delicate balance not only between the states and the federal government, but also between the three branches of the central government. They understood all too well the dangers of too much power in the hands of one branch of government, or in the federal government as a whole, at the expense of the states. James Madison and his brethren did not decide on a whim that Senators should serve for 6 years (a third of all senators being elected every two years), House Representatives for two years, the president for four, and the Supreme Court Justices for life. This was designed as a check against the entire government being replaced during one election cycle by a mercurial electorate. House members, it was thought, should be directly elected by the people in hopes that congressmen would truly represent the wishes of their constituents. Likewise, Senators chosen by state legislatures would, by design, be beholden to the state governments that selected them rather than the federal government. If the legislators of a state felt that a senator was not appropriately protecting the interests of the state, they could replace him after six years. Simply put, congressmen were meant to represent the people, senators to represent the states. Senators were put there as the states’ watchdogs against federal encroachment in their affairs. With the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment, a critically important barrier restraining the federal government fell, and, like the amendment that preceded it, helped pave the way for the unprecedented federal expansion seen in the last century.
It’s not too late.
Next time . . . “a long train of abuses.”
In honor of “Tax Day,” I present for your consideration . . .
Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Just 30 words that have done more to transfer power away from the people and states and to the federal government than any other arrangement of a similar number of words anywhere else in the Constitution. More on this later.
Quote of the Day
“An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation.”
- John Marshall, McCullough v. Maryland, 1819
The Horrors of 1913
Although today has popularly been proclaimed “Tax Day,” in reality, every day is “Tax Day.” Every day, hour, minute that you work taxes are being withheld from your hard earned income. Every time you go shopping taxes are added to the cost of your purchase. You pay taxes when you pay your utility and phone bill. Property is taxed, capital gains are taxed, dividends are taxed, inheritance is taxed, even “sin” is taxed.
What does this have to do with the year 1913? As you might have guessed the above-mentioned amendment to the Constitution was adopted in 1913. The Sixteenth Amendment expanded Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” and nullified its expressed limitation that “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” Congress was now able to tax income “from whatever source derived” and was not required to assign those taxes among the several states based on population. This is an almost unrestrained power to tax. Do you really think that is what the Framers had in mind? Wasn’t the Revolutionary War fought, in large part, against excessive and unfair taxation by the British Crown?
The federal income tax allowed by the 16th Amendment tapped a vein of almost unlimited revenue that directly fueled the astronomical expansion, and intrusion, of the federal government over the rest of the century and which continues to this day; like some parasitic creature that attaches itself to an unwilling or unsuspecting host and eventually consumes it. It is no accident that the federal government remained relatively small for the 126 years prior to the Sixteenth Amendment and has subsequently exploded in the 97 years that have followed. The truly horrific aspect of all this is that the revenue supplied by the national income tax is not enough to satisfy the voracious appetite of a bloated federal government, and it must assuage that hunger by borrowing money from the Chinese and Japanese. Now even this is not enough. Last week the Obama administration proposed a national sales tax called the Value Added Tax. It is yet another vein to be opened and lapped with vigor by the uncontrollable beast.
But, the Sixteenth Amendment was only the first atrocity committed against the American people that fateful year. For the first time since the adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1791, two amendments to the Constitution were ratified in the same calendar year. Which brings us to . . .
Another Constitutional Moment of the Day
Amendment XVII
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. (bold added)
The horror of this change to the Constitution may not be immediately apparent. For over 120 years prior to this amendment, Senators were chosen by the legislature of a state and not elected directly by the voters. How, you might ask, is it a bad thing, let alone horrific, to expand democracy by allowing the citizens of a state to popularly elect their own senators?
The beauty, some might rightfully say, the brilliance, of the U. S. Constitution is the system of checks and balances erected by the Framers. These were men who had recently fought a long and costly war against an overpowering central government (Great Britain), and had experienced the failings of a week national government under the Articles of Confederation. They strived to maintain a delicate balance not only between the states and the federal government, but also between the three branches of the central government. They understood all too well the dangers of too much power in the hands of one branch of government, or in the federal government as a whole, at the expense of the states. James Madison and his brethren did not decide on a whim that Senators should serve for 6 years (a third of all senators being elected every two years), House Representatives for two years, the president for four, and the Supreme Court Justices for life. This was designed as a check against the entire government being replaced during one election cycle by a mercurial electorate. House members, it was thought, should be directly elected by the people in hopes that congressmen would truly represent the wishes of their constituents. Likewise, Senators chosen by state legislatures would, by design, be beholden to the state governments that selected them rather than the federal government. If the legislators of a state felt that a senator was not appropriately protecting the interests of the state, they could replace him after six years. Simply put, congressmen were meant to represent the people, senators to represent the states. Senators were put there as the states’ watchdogs against federal encroachment in their affairs. With the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment, a critically important barrier restraining the federal government fell, and, like the amendment that preceded it, helped pave the way for the unprecedented federal expansion seen in the last century.
It’s not too late.
Next time . . . “a long train of abuses.”
Monday, April 12, 2010
What have the courts said?
Constitutional Moment of the Day
Of the three branches of the federal government (legislative, executive, judicial), the judicial branch is probably the least understood. The entire article concerning judicial powers (Article III) consists of only 377 words. Here are some of those words.
Article III, Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish . . .
Article III, Section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
The Eleventh Amendment supersedes the bolded judicial power.
Quote of the Day
“The constitution of the United States is to receive a reasonable interpretation of its language, and its powers, keeping in view the objects and purposes, for which those powers were conferred. By a reasonable interpretation, we mean, that in case the words are susceptible of two different senses, the one strict, the other more enlarged, that should be adopted, which is most consonant with the apparent objects and intent of the Constitution.”
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833
Unfortunately, the historical landscape of the Supreme Court is littered with rulings that are not “consonant with the apparent objects and intents of the Constitution.”
A Reasoned and Unemotional Case Against the Constitutionality of the Health Care Reform Law
In previous installments on the constitutionality of the health care reform law, I discussed my reasoning based on the Constitution and the words of the Framers of that historic guardian of liberty. The constitutionality of the law under discussion, however, will ultimately be decided in the Supreme Court. So, let’s look to previous cases to gain some insight as to the law’s constitutionality.
What the courts have said:
Proponents of the current health care reform law defend its constitutionality by pointing to the commerce clause of the Constitution. The third clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states, “The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” The questions then are, Is health care/insurance commerce, and Can it be regulated by the federal government? There have been hundreds of Supreme Court cases involving the commerce clause. Although most do not deal directly with the issue of health care, relevant dicta (comments by a judge in a decision or ruling which are not required to reach the decision, but may state a related legal principle) can be found in several historic rulings.
One of the first cases involving the commerce clause was Gibbons v. Ogden (1824). In delivering the opinion of the court, Chief Justice John Marshall actually broadened the definition of commerce giving more regulatory power to the federal government. However, in his decision he specifically defined the areas of regulatory legislation which should remain totally under the authority of a state. When discussing state inspection laws he said:
They form a portion of that immense mass of legislation, which embraces everything within the territory of a state, not surrendered to a general government; all of which can be most advantageously exercised by the states themselves. Inspection laws, can be most advantageously exercised by, quarantine laws, health laws of every description (bold added), as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, etc., are component parts of this mass.
No direct general power over these objects is granted to congress, and, consequently remain subject to state legislation.
And, this was from a man who was a vocal proponent of a strong federal (general) government.
Four years later in Willson v. Blackbird Creek Marsh Co. Chief Justice Marshall again addressed the issue of community health, this time siding with a state’s (Delaware) right to regulate navigation (and thus commerce) of a stream by building a dam.
The value of the property on its banks must be enhanced by excluding the water from the marsh, and the health of the inhabitants probably improved. Measures calculated to produce these objects, provided they do not come into collision with the powers of the general government, are undoubtedly within those which are reserved to the states.(bold added)
Once again the high court stressed that health concerns fall within the realm of the states.
But, what about insurance, can it be regulated by the federal government, or is it also under the purview of the states? The waters here are murkier.
In Paul v. State of Virginia (1868), a unanimous decision of the court said of insurance policies:
The policies are simple contracts of indemnity against loss by fire, entered into between the corporations and the assured, for a consideration paid by the latter. These contracts are not articles of commerce in any proper meaning of the word (bold added). They are not subjects of trade and barter offered in the market as something having an existence and value independent of the parties to them. They are not commodities to be shipped or forwarded from one State to another, and then put up for sale.
The precedent, that insurance is not commerce, was upheld and even broadened for over 75 years until it was overturned by United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association (1944). Justice Black concluded that even though the contracts (policies) may be local in nature, premiums collected from policyholders flow from many states to a company’s financial center, while claim payments flow back to the policyholders, crossing state lines, thus making insurance interstate commerce and therefore open to Congressional regulations.
But, are health services considered “commerce” and thus able to be regulated by Congress? Yes, according to a Supreme Court ruling in American Medical Association v. United States (1943). The Court affirmed a ruling by the Court of Appeals that “the restraint of trade prohibited by the statute (Sherman Antitrust Act) may extend both to medical practice and to the operations of Group Health (a nonprofit medical care provider),” even though Group Health served only its own members (parentheses added).
However, in 1952, the Supreme Court refused to overrule a District Court decision that found, "The sale of medical services, by Doctor Sponsored Organizations, as conducted within the State of Oregon, is not trade or commerce within the meaning of Section 1 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law, nor is it commerce within the meaning of the constitutional grant of power to Congress `To regulate Commerce . . . among the several States.'" (United States v. Oregon Medical Society) In delivering the opinion of the Court, Justice Jackson tries to clarify the above-cited 1943 decision, “American Medical Assn. v. United States, does not stand for the proposition that furnishing of prepaid medical care on a local plane is interstate commerce. (bold added)” That seems definitive. If you go to your local doctor, hospital, or clinic and pay with a prepaid insurance policy you are not engaging in interstate commerce, and therefore the transaction cannot be regulated by Congress.
I told you the waters are murky. Throughout the long history of the Supreme Court, rulings concerning the applicability of the commerce clause have bounced back and forth like a ping-pong ball batted about by alternating majorities of nine black-robed men and women.
However, it seems that the farther removed we become from the historical context in which the Constitution was written, the more the original intent of the Framers becomes corrupted, and we are unable to immediately recognize the unconstitutionality of a law. I believe this is exactly what has happened with the current health care reform law. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, has passed down a warning for all those who are willing to listen.
“Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.” – James Madison
Are you listening?
It’s not too late.
Next time . . . Happy Tax Day!!
Of the three branches of the federal government (legislative, executive, judicial), the judicial branch is probably the least understood. The entire article concerning judicial powers (Article III) consists of only 377 words. Here are some of those words.
Article III, Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish . . .
Article III, Section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
The Eleventh Amendment supersedes the bolded judicial power.
Quote of the Day
“The constitution of the United States is to receive a reasonable interpretation of its language, and its powers, keeping in view the objects and purposes, for which those powers were conferred. By a reasonable interpretation, we mean, that in case the words are susceptible of two different senses, the one strict, the other more enlarged, that should be adopted, which is most consonant with the apparent objects and intent of the Constitution.”
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833
Unfortunately, the historical landscape of the Supreme Court is littered with rulings that are not “consonant with the apparent objects and intents of the Constitution.”
A Reasoned and Unemotional Case Against the Constitutionality of the Health Care Reform Law
In previous installments on the constitutionality of the health care reform law, I discussed my reasoning based on the Constitution and the words of the Framers of that historic guardian of liberty. The constitutionality of the law under discussion, however, will ultimately be decided in the Supreme Court. So, let’s look to previous cases to gain some insight as to the law’s constitutionality.
What the courts have said:
Proponents of the current health care reform law defend its constitutionality by pointing to the commerce clause of the Constitution. The third clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states, “The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” The questions then are, Is health care/insurance commerce, and Can it be regulated by the federal government? There have been hundreds of Supreme Court cases involving the commerce clause. Although most do not deal directly with the issue of health care, relevant dicta (comments by a judge in a decision or ruling which are not required to reach the decision, but may state a related legal principle) can be found in several historic rulings.
One of the first cases involving the commerce clause was Gibbons v. Ogden (1824). In delivering the opinion of the court, Chief Justice John Marshall actually broadened the definition of commerce giving more regulatory power to the federal government. However, in his decision he specifically defined the areas of regulatory legislation which should remain totally under the authority of a state. When discussing state inspection laws he said:
They form a portion of that immense mass of legislation, which embraces everything within the territory of a state, not surrendered to a general government; all of which can be most advantageously exercised by the states themselves. Inspection laws, can be most advantageously exercised by, quarantine laws, health laws of every description (bold added), as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, etc., are component parts of this mass.
No direct general power over these objects is granted to congress, and, consequently remain subject to state legislation.
And, this was from a man who was a vocal proponent of a strong federal (general) government.
Four years later in Willson v. Blackbird Creek Marsh Co. Chief Justice Marshall again addressed the issue of community health, this time siding with a state’s (Delaware) right to regulate navigation (and thus commerce) of a stream by building a dam.
The value of the property on its banks must be enhanced by excluding the water from the marsh, and the health of the inhabitants probably improved. Measures calculated to produce these objects, provided they do not come into collision with the powers of the general government, are undoubtedly within those which are reserved to the states.(bold added)
Once again the high court stressed that health concerns fall within the realm of the states.
But, what about insurance, can it be regulated by the federal government, or is it also under the purview of the states? The waters here are murkier.
In Paul v. State of Virginia (1868), a unanimous decision of the court said of insurance policies:
The policies are simple contracts of indemnity against loss by fire, entered into between the corporations and the assured, for a consideration paid by the latter. These contracts are not articles of commerce in any proper meaning of the word (bold added). They are not subjects of trade and barter offered in the market as something having an existence and value independent of the parties to them. They are not commodities to be shipped or forwarded from one State to another, and then put up for sale.
The precedent, that insurance is not commerce, was upheld and even broadened for over 75 years until it was overturned by United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association (1944). Justice Black concluded that even though the contracts (policies) may be local in nature, premiums collected from policyholders flow from many states to a company’s financial center, while claim payments flow back to the policyholders, crossing state lines, thus making insurance interstate commerce and therefore open to Congressional regulations.
But, are health services considered “commerce” and thus able to be regulated by Congress? Yes, according to a Supreme Court ruling in American Medical Association v. United States (1943). The Court affirmed a ruling by the Court of Appeals that “the restraint of trade prohibited by the statute (Sherman Antitrust Act) may extend both to medical practice and to the operations of Group Health (a nonprofit medical care provider),” even though Group Health served only its own members (parentheses added).
However, in 1952, the Supreme Court refused to overrule a District Court decision that found, "The sale of medical services, by Doctor Sponsored Organizations, as conducted within the State of Oregon, is not trade or commerce within the meaning of Section 1 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law, nor is it commerce within the meaning of the constitutional grant of power to Congress `To regulate Commerce . . . among the several States.'" (United States v. Oregon Medical Society) In delivering the opinion of the Court, Justice Jackson tries to clarify the above-cited 1943 decision, “American Medical Assn. v. United States, does not stand for the proposition that furnishing of prepaid medical care on a local plane is interstate commerce. (bold added)” That seems definitive. If you go to your local doctor, hospital, or clinic and pay with a prepaid insurance policy you are not engaging in interstate commerce, and therefore the transaction cannot be regulated by Congress.
I told you the waters are murky. Throughout the long history of the Supreme Court, rulings concerning the applicability of the commerce clause have bounced back and forth like a ping-pong ball batted about by alternating majorities of nine black-robed men and women.
However, it seems that the farther removed we become from the historical context in which the Constitution was written, the more the original intent of the Framers becomes corrupted, and we are unable to immediately recognize the unconstitutionality of a law. I believe this is exactly what has happened with the current health care reform law. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, has passed down a warning for all those who are willing to listen.
“Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.” – James Madison
Are you listening?
It’s not too late.
Next time . . . Happy Tax Day!!
Saturday, April 10, 2010
What did the Framers say?
Constitutional Moment of the Day
Article VII
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
G°. Washington Presidt and deputy from Virginia
Delaware Geo: ReadGunning Bedford jun John Dickinson Richard Bassett Jaco: Broom
Maryland James McHenry Dan of St Thos. Jenifer Danl. Carroll
Virginia John Blair James Madison Jr.
North Carolina Wm. Blount Richd. Dobbs Spaight Hu Williamson
South Carolina J. Rutledge Charles Cotesworth Pinckney Charles Pinckney Pierce Butler
Georgia William Few Abr Baldwin
New Hampshire John Langdon Nicholas Gilman
Massachusetts Nathaniel Gorham Rufus King
Connecticut Wm. Saml. Johnson Roger Sherman
New York Alexander Hamilton
New Jersey Wil: Livingston David Brearley Wm. Paterson Jona: Dayton
Pennsylvania B Franklin Thomas Mifflin Robt. Morris Geo. Clymer Thos. FitzSimons Jared Ingersoll James Wilson Gouv Morris
These are some of the most important and least remembered names in American history. There are probably but a handful that you recognize. Most have been swallowed up by the passing years. In all, 70 men were appointed from every state, except Rhode Island, as delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. Of the 70 men appointed, 55 actually attended the Convention (Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Samuel Adams, John Hancock, and Patrick Henry were unable to attend) but only 39 signed the document. Almost all had taken part in the Revolution, 29 of them fighting in the Continental Army. Eight signed the Declaration of Independence eleven years earlier, and two (Roger Sherman and Robert Morris) affixed their names to the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution. They were lawyers and businessmen, farmers and ministers, scientists and physicians. Some, like Franklin, were self-taught and received very little formal education, while others graduated from college and a few held advanced degrees.
Take a moment to read their names. They deserve it. These are the Framers of the Constitution. These are among your Founding Fathers.
Quote of the Day
“The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.”
- James Wilson, Of the Study of Law in the United States, Circa 1790
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Justice William Johnson, June 12, 1823
A Reasoned and Unemotional Case Against the Constitutionality of the Health Care Reform Law
Last time, I outlined why I feel that the health care reform law recently passed by Congress and signed by President Obama is unconstitutional based on, oddly enough, what the Constitution actually says and doesn’t say. But, what was the original intent of the authors of the Constitution?
What the Framers said:
Maybe I have misinterpreted the Framers’ intent. Maybe after months of intensive debate during that long hot summer of 1787 over every word and sometimes even punctuation mark of this historic document, the Founders did not make it clear that they intended the federal government to take care of people from cradle to grave. Maybe they actually envisioned a large, domineering beast of a central government with its tentacles in almost every area of the people’s lives. Well, then, let’s look at what they said at the time.
“Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
- James Madison, "The Father of the Constitution"
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."
- Thomas Jefferson
“Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.”
- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 19, 1787
“I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.”
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Ludlow, September 6, 1824
“Repeal that [welfare] law, and you will soon see a change in their manners . . . industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.”
- Benjamin Franklin, letter to Collinson, May 9, 1753
“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
-Benjamin Franklin, November 1766
“I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, not longer susceptible of any definition.”
- Thomas Jefferson, February 15, 1791
“A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species.”
- James Madison, Essay on Property, March 29, 1792
Clearly, the Framers’ intention was for responsibility of promoting the general welfare of the people to fall squarely with the people and/or the States. They designed into the Constitution specific boundaries on the powers of Congress and the Executive branch that were not to be crossed.
It’s not too late.
Next time . . . What the courts have said.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Constitutional Moment of the Day
I choose to inaugurate this blog with an amendment without which I might not be able to inaugurate this blog.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amen.
Quote of the Day
“The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.”
- Thomas Jefferson
I choose to inaugurate this blog with an amendment without which I might not be able to inaugurate this blog.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amen.
Quote of the Day
“The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.”
- Thomas Jefferson
Remember Jefferson’s words and the First Amendment the next time you see someone like Karl Rove being shouted down during a book signing, or Ann Coulter being heckled so badly on a college campus that she cannot continue her speech, or a Tea Partier dominating a town hall meeting. With a few exceptions defined by the courts, everyone’s speech is protected whether you agree with them or not. Trampling on someone else’s right to free speech will not win your argument. Reasoned, thoughtful, unemotional civil discourse is the best way to get your point across.
And, on that note, here is . . .
A Reasoned and Unemotional Case Against the Constitutionality of the Health Care Reform Law
I have not read the health care reform law. I just wanted to get that out of the way first. The following arguments against it do not require that I read it. I will demonstrate that it is unconstitutional on its face. Many pundits and legal scholars are currently focusing on individual aspects of the law that may be deemed unconstitutional, such as the provision mandating that individuals buy health insurance. I hope to prove that the entire law is unconstitutional and should therefore be repealed in its entirety. With all the heated emotion on both sides of the issue, I want to provide a thoughtful, reasoned, unemotional argument against the law based on fact and historical judicial precedent. I am not a lawyer or legal scholar. I am just a guy who can read and think critically.
What the Constitution says:
Many proponents of the health care law point to the “General Welfare” clause of the Constitution as rationalization for not only the current law but also all entitlement programs. As I read Article I, Sec. 8, "general Welfare" is included in the expressed power “to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” To me, this is only a power to raise revenue. The clauses that follow in that same article and section give Congress expressed powers on how to use those funds to "raise and support Armies" and "provide and maintain a Navy," but it never states that congress shall have the power to provide for the needs of the people of the United States. If the Founders felt it necessary to clarify in later clauses how Congress shall use the revenues raised in order to provide for the common defense, shouldn't they have also clarified how those revenues should be used to provide for the general welfare?
Throughout the Constitution, the Founders use the terms "United States," "Government," “States,” and "People" to express specificity. In Art. I, Sec. 8 it says to "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" not the "People of the United States." Seeing that common defense and general welfare are included not only in the same sentence but are not even separated by a comma, isn't it possible that the Framers were referring to the defense and welfare of the country as a political and/or geographical entity rather than the individual citizens of the country? And, that being the case, they were not referring to providing for the needs of the individual "people" of the United States. As I have said above, if they had intended to give Congress the specific power to provide for the general welfare of the individual people of the United States, wouldn't they have expressly stated that power? Of the eighteen powers given to Congress by Art. I, Sec. 8, six of them specify how Congress shall provide for the common defense, but not one specifies how Congress shall provide for the general welfare.
“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” – James Madison
Some may point to the Preamble to the Constitution as proof that general welfare was intended to meet the needs of individual Americans. “We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” (Italics added) This seems to establish general welfare as referring to individual needs not the welfare of the United States as a political or geographical entity. However, the Preamble is just an introduction. It does not enumerate expressed powers, privileges, or restrictions to any specific branch of government. It merely states desired outcomes hoped for with the enactment of the Constitution. In fact it is unclear, by reading the Preamble alone, upon which of the three branches of the federal government, states, or individuals the responsibility of promoting the general welfare falls. An argument can certainly be made that the best way to promote the general welfare is to reduce taxes and government spending in order to allow “ourselves and our Posterity” to keep more of our wealth and expend it in ways that we see fit.
So, if the Preamble and Article I, Section 8 (or any other article or section) of the Constitution do not specify who is responsible for promoting the general welfare of the people of the United States, then who is responsible, and why did the Framers bother to include it in the Constitution? This brings us to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. (bold added)
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (bold added)
Need I say more?
It’s not too late.
Next time . . . What the Founders said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)