So there's been a lot of talk in the news about the new TSA rules regarding full body scanners and pat downs in airports. I've been thinking a lot about this and was having trouble with it because it clearly seems wrong to me, but it is a legitimate power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce and air travel definitely falls under that realm. So, if it is obviously wrong, but Congress can regulate interstate commerce, where's the problem?
First of all, the scanners themselves emit low level radiation that should not be harmful in small doses unless you have an artificial hip, bone, whatever or have a pace maker. People with these have no options, they can't use the scanners, so they must submit to the pat downs. That removes the right to choose between two bad options and forces a good number of people onto a single path without choice. Additionally, one medical report has stated that frequent exposure to these machines could greatly increase a person's risk of skin cancer. I haven't heard anything about other health risks, but I always thought there was a reason they covered certain areas when doing an x-ray in the hospital.
Secondly, these scanners are extremely revealing. I've seen images and heard them likened to pornography. In fact, the U.K. has banned the use of these scanners for children under the age of 18 because they stated it was like child pornography. This does not make me feel good and secure as a parent, but quite the opposite in fact. In addition, it has been reported in the news that these body scanners won't even pick up explosive residue like the puffer machines do and they won't pick up anything a person places "inside" their bodies. So really, what is the point of this machine if it can't even do the job they claim it was designed to do?
At any rate, the scanners are one thing, but these new pat down procedures are awful. So, a person is subjected, publicly, to being groped and fondled. If this took place anywhere else other than in an airport security line, the person would be arrested. So, because the government is doing it, it is ok? No, it still isn't okay. The government doing it actually makes it worse. However, how can I make my case when the government's right to regulate interstate commerce is clearly in play.
Well, the government also has constitutional limitations that come in to play in this case. First, the 4th amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Now, these pat downs certainly seem to be unreasonable, at least by the standards of most people, however, one could argue that the government needs to do this to keep us safe. I might buy in to that argument if 1. I thought it was really necessary (I don't) and 2. Congress had actually passed a law requiring this kind of security screening (they haven't). In fact, this screening comes from a regulation put in place by order of the Head of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. There was no act of Congress, just an order from an agency's head. Therefore, I believe it is an unreasonable search. However, this brings us to the second constitutional point.
The 14th amendment states in part: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." We've already established that for people with certain medical devices or implants that they don't have a choice here, so they are being denied equal protection. However, I want to focus on due process. As I pointed out above, Congress has passed no law. This was a decision of the Head of Homeland Security. Since no law has been passed, every single person who has been and is being subjected to this invasive procedure is being denied their right to due process. Basically, the TSA is treating every single person with the assumption that they are a criminal or a terrorist, rather than assuming they are innocent. Again, you can argue that Congress gave TSA the authority to run security in airports and you'd be right, but Congress can't give power to an agency to violate the Constitution, at least not without specifically passing legislation providing them with that power. I don't think that our representatives would agree with TSA that this invasive technology and pat down technique is consistent with the legislation authorizing TSA. In fact, the House of Representatives has already passed a bill that prohibits the use of these full body scanners as a primary security device. That pretty shows the will of Congress, even if the Senate hasn't taken up the bill.
So, for me, this is clearly unconstitutional, not because Congress should be prohibited its right to regulate interstate commerce, but because Congress and the TSA are subject to the Constitution like the rest of us. Here, the right to due process, the right to equal protection, and the right from unreasonable search and seizure are all being violated.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Physics professor resigns over global warming?
I saw this story about a physics professor who resigned his position with the American Physical Society over the issues around climate change. Reproduced below is purported to be his resignation letter.
Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<
5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?
I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.
I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Hal
Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety
Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)
Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<
5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?
I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.
I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Hal
Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety
Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)
Thursday, September 2, 2010
The U.S. Constitution - part 6 (Article 4)
This post continues my examination of what the Constitution actually says. Today, article 4 ... The States!
"Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
This first section requires that the states give each other full faith and credit and that the U.S. Congress can prescribe laws to ensure the states do this. This is one of the most difficult states rights issues. We claim that a state has the right to do what it wants, but that isn't entirely true. The full faith and credit clause requires that one state honor something another state did. So, if you are married in Tennessee, that marriage is legal in California. This goes for having a license to drive and many other areas of our lives. However, there are a lot of areas where this isn't followed. You can't teach in one state and then move to another and teach there without becoming re-certified (this restriction is true for most professional certifications). So, what is the difference in the two and why does one obviously fall under the full faith and credit and the other obviously doesn't? This is actually a simple matter. The full faith and credit clause was designed to unify the states without surrendering their sovereignty. This has traditionally been enforced in regards to legal proceedings, judicial judgments and contracts. A professional certification does not fit under any of the three areas I just mentioned and therefore would not fall under the full faith and credit clause. At least, this is how this has been used for the past 220 years.
"Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
(No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.)"
Again, this is to unify the states while maintaining their sovereignty. The first clause is to guarantee citizenship in all states. This was actually a problem under the Articles of Confederation where border crossings were put up and citizenship of persons was not universally recognized throughout the states. Therefore, this first clause was to solve a problem that developed under the first constitution.
The second clause is really nothing more than a simple extradition treaty that basically states that one state must turn over a fugitive to another. This was largely ignored by northern states before the Civil War, often deciding that slaves could not be turned over under this clause and running away from servitude was indeed a crime in the south, so the north should have followed this clause. Fortunately, they did not.
This last clause has actually been superseded by the 13th amendment. It even more directly requires the states to turn over runaway slaves. So, in effect, this is the clause the northern states were violating when they refused to turn over slaves. The clause was written as a compromise in order to get the southern states to ratify the constitution and it was changed with the 13th amendment following the Civil War. The northern states acted unconstitutionally, but, in my opinion, entirely morally when they refused to turn over runaways. This is to their credit and they based this on state sovereignty and nullification, two concepts very much ignored today.
"Section 3 - New States
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."
This is seemingly a simple clause, but it has seen some interesting events over time. It reads that new states are to be admitted by the Congress, that no state can be formed out of another state without permission and that no state can be formed by two or more states without permission of all and of Congress. This seems pretty straightforward. However, nobody asked Virginia permission to carve West Virginia out of it. Now...that was a time of war and thus may be forgiven (maybe), but nobody has since tried to merge them together again either. Another interesting event happened when (I think it was Hawaii) wanted to receive statehood, but Congress continued to drag their feet over approving it. The elected representatives simply marched up to the capital building in DC and demanded to be seated. They were. This sort of removed the whole "admitted by the Congress" portion since there was never official permission given. One could argue that Congress gave de facto permission simply by seating the delegates.
This second clause is important. I mentioned earlier how Congress could not take territory from an already existing state. This clause is important because it gives the federal government (Congress) the power over all lands of the U.S. Now...this is obviously referring to territory lands or lands that aren't states. This means DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, Midway, etc. Also, any state before it became a state was subject to Congress. Once becoming a state, the government no longer has claim to any land in the state without permission. I think this clause has been corrupted to allow federal land grabs on a regular basis within the states and that needs to stop. Utah is making an effort at this and we'll see where it leads.
"Section 4 - Republican government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
So, we guarantee Republican government to all the states. In other words, each state must use republicanism as the foundation of its governing constitution and the federal government is required to protect each state from invasion or from domestic violence. The clause regarding domestic violence is important though because it can easily be misused. It specifically states that the individual state must request this specific help from the federal government. That the executive (governor) or the legislature of the state must make a formal request. In other words, outside of protecting from invasion, the federal government cannot act in any way within the borders of each state without first being asked. This most recently came into play when President Bush got so much heat for not acting faster in regards to the Katrina disaster in New Orleans. Technically, he followed the Constitution by waiting for a request from the governor of Louisiana. Almost all of the delay in that incident was because the governor of LA felt they didn't need federal help and refused to make the formal request. The tragedies of New Orleans fall on the shoulders of LA, not the President of the U.S. Many argue he should have just gone in anyway. Perhaps so. After all, he would not have been the first President to violate the constitution in a time of crisis. He chose to act constitutionally in that case. That is both commendable and tragic, as it turned out. However, the Constitution exists to protect us from the federal government, so this clause is very important. It also prohibits the federal government from using our own military for operations within our borders without the specific request of the state affected. This is why the national guard exists and is so important.
"Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
This first section requires that the states give each other full faith and credit and that the U.S. Congress can prescribe laws to ensure the states do this. This is one of the most difficult states rights issues. We claim that a state has the right to do what it wants, but that isn't entirely true. The full faith and credit clause requires that one state honor something another state did. So, if you are married in Tennessee, that marriage is legal in California. This goes for having a license to drive and many other areas of our lives. However, there are a lot of areas where this isn't followed. You can't teach in one state and then move to another and teach there without becoming re-certified (this restriction is true for most professional certifications). So, what is the difference in the two and why does one obviously fall under the full faith and credit and the other obviously doesn't? This is actually a simple matter. The full faith and credit clause was designed to unify the states without surrendering their sovereignty. This has traditionally been enforced in regards to legal proceedings, judicial judgments and contracts. A professional certification does not fit under any of the three areas I just mentioned and therefore would not fall under the full faith and credit clause. At least, this is how this has been used for the past 220 years.
"Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
(No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.)"
Again, this is to unify the states while maintaining their sovereignty. The first clause is to guarantee citizenship in all states. This was actually a problem under the Articles of Confederation where border crossings were put up and citizenship of persons was not universally recognized throughout the states. Therefore, this first clause was to solve a problem that developed under the first constitution.
The second clause is really nothing more than a simple extradition treaty that basically states that one state must turn over a fugitive to another. This was largely ignored by northern states before the Civil War, often deciding that slaves could not be turned over under this clause and running away from servitude was indeed a crime in the south, so the north should have followed this clause. Fortunately, they did not.
This last clause has actually been superseded by the 13th amendment. It even more directly requires the states to turn over runaway slaves. So, in effect, this is the clause the northern states were violating when they refused to turn over slaves. The clause was written as a compromise in order to get the southern states to ratify the constitution and it was changed with the 13th amendment following the Civil War. The northern states acted unconstitutionally, but, in my opinion, entirely morally when they refused to turn over runaways. This is to their credit and they based this on state sovereignty and nullification, two concepts very much ignored today.
"Section 3 - New States
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."
This is seemingly a simple clause, but it has seen some interesting events over time. It reads that new states are to be admitted by the Congress, that no state can be formed out of another state without permission and that no state can be formed by two or more states without permission of all and of Congress. This seems pretty straightforward. However, nobody asked Virginia permission to carve West Virginia out of it. Now...that was a time of war and thus may be forgiven (maybe), but nobody has since tried to merge them together again either. Another interesting event happened when (I think it was Hawaii) wanted to receive statehood, but Congress continued to drag their feet over approving it. The elected representatives simply marched up to the capital building in DC and demanded to be seated. They were. This sort of removed the whole "admitted by the Congress" portion since there was never official permission given. One could argue that Congress gave de facto permission simply by seating the delegates.
This second clause is important. I mentioned earlier how Congress could not take territory from an already existing state. This clause is important because it gives the federal government (Congress) the power over all lands of the U.S. Now...this is obviously referring to territory lands or lands that aren't states. This means DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, Midway, etc. Also, any state before it became a state was subject to Congress. Once becoming a state, the government no longer has claim to any land in the state without permission. I think this clause has been corrupted to allow federal land grabs on a regular basis within the states and that needs to stop. Utah is making an effort at this and we'll see where it leads.
"Section 4 - Republican government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
So, we guarantee Republican government to all the states. In other words, each state must use republicanism as the foundation of its governing constitution and the federal government is required to protect each state from invasion or from domestic violence. The clause regarding domestic violence is important though because it can easily be misused. It specifically states that the individual state must request this specific help from the federal government. That the executive (governor) or the legislature of the state must make a formal request. In other words, outside of protecting from invasion, the federal government cannot act in any way within the borders of each state without first being asked. This most recently came into play when President Bush got so much heat for not acting faster in regards to the Katrina disaster in New Orleans. Technically, he followed the Constitution by waiting for a request from the governor of Louisiana. Almost all of the delay in that incident was because the governor of LA felt they didn't need federal help and refused to make the formal request. The tragedies of New Orleans fall on the shoulders of LA, not the President of the U.S. Many argue he should have just gone in anyway. Perhaps so. After all, he would not have been the first President to violate the constitution in a time of crisis. He chose to act constitutionally in that case. That is both commendable and tragic, as it turned out. However, the Constitution exists to protect us from the federal government, so this clause is very important. It also prohibits the federal government from using our own military for operations within our borders without the specific request of the state affected. This is why the national guard exists and is so important.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Rand Paul is wrong!
Recently, Rand Paul, who won the Kentucky Republican primary for Senate, has come under fire for his remarks regarding the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s. He happens to be wrong, but not for the reasons people think and certainly not because he is a racist, as some are claiming. So, I'm going to tell you what he thinks based on his recent appearance on the Rachel Maddow show and then I'll tell you why he's wrong, so you'll have to read to the bottom.
Rand Paul believes that the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to tell restaurant owners who they can and/or cannot serve. This is quite obvious from the exchange with Maddow. This does not make him a racist however, as some have claimed. In fact, he presents a pretty interesting Constitutional argument. First, private property rights are protected by the Constitution and so allows an individual who owns a business great leeway over how they run their business. In fact, the federal government can't be involved in this business at all if it is not interstate commerce, Rand would argue. Secondly, he obviously feels that the constitution protects a person's right to free association. In fact, the Constitution does protect our right to pick and choose with whom we associate, so as a private and free individual, I can choose to hang out with Rand Paul or Rachel Maddow or both, as long as they are willing to hang out with me. Putting these two rights together, Paul ends up with his opinion. That a private business owner's property rights and rights to free association allow that business owner to choose who he will and will not serve. An interesting argument with one major flaw.
What is that flaw you ask? Quite simply, he is ignoring negative rights theory, which is the backbone of our Constitution and of libertarian thought. A negative right is what our Constitution protects. They are the unalienable rights Jefferson refers to in the Declaration of Independence. They encompass a lot more than just the right to life, liberty and property however. In fact, think of each person as an individual. Now, draw a circle around them. Within that circle, each individual can act as they see fit within the bounds of their own conscience and beliefs. This includes the possession of a weapon, the freedom to say what you want, the ability to practice your religion as you see fit, and so on, including the right to free association as described above. It is only when your circle crosses over into the circle of another that rights violations occur. For instance, you have private property rights at your home and can have someone arrested if they choose to violate your property rights by getting up on your porch without your permission and start making a speech. They'll claim their right to free speech and if they are a group, they'll claim a right to peaceably assemble. Both of these are legitimate rights, but they can't interfere with your right to property. So, they are trespassing, not exercising their free rights. If that individual or group stayed in the public street to make their speech, then they are not violating your property rights and therefore have a right to speak and peaceably assemble. Got it? If not, I have a ton of examples, just ask.
The government, under the U.S. Constitution is not allowed to infringe on these rights at all, which is why Rand Paul argues that Congress overreached with a portion of the Civil Rights Act. He believes the government overreached its authority when they legislated at the federal level that a restaurant owner can't choose to not serve a black person. Not because he believes in discrimination, but because he thinks we needed to have had greater "discussion" at the time over the constitutionality of this section of the legislation. Considering how much Congress routinely ignores the Constitution, I'm not surprised there wasn't much more discussion about this, however, I am certain that Paul can be persuaded that this law is within the constitutional bounds for the U.S. Congress with a very logical argument.
You see, the difference between what the federal government can do and what the state governments can do is very important to a libertarian and this, to Paul, is outside what the federal government is allowed because it infringes on the rights of property and freedom of association. However, the federal government is also clearly mandated to protect the rights of the people. In fact, that idea is firmly entrenched in libertarian thought as well. So, while the government can't do anything to or for you, they can protect your rights from being violated by others. After all, your right to something ceases when it crosses over into the sphere of another, as I explained above. This brings us back to Mr. Paul's point. Can a business owner prohibit someone from frequenting their business? According to his statements, property rights and freedom of association would seem to dictate that a business owner can choose to discriminate based on whatever they choose. Scary as that is to think of, it isn't a bad argument, just an incomplete one. You see, we come full circle now back to negative rights theory. In a free society, a person has a right to expect service at a business that is operating anywhere where it serves the public. In other words, if you walk into a clothing store, you expect to be allowed to browse (even if there is nothing there you'd ever buy). If you walk into a shoe store, you'd expect to be serviced by buying shoes. The same is true for a restaurant. So, if a person chooses to operate a business that is publicly accessible to all, then by the very nature of a business, that person has chosen to give up a few of their property rights since a LOT of people are going to show up uninvited. In addition, the same condition applies to their freedom of association because they can't pick and choose who might walk in their doors. So, a business owner who chooses to not serve someone solely based on their race, is violating the rights of the individual who walks through the door of that business. Since the states in the south had set up laws allowing this kind of discrimination, it was incumbent on the federal government, constitutionally, to protect those rights.
Wait though, we aren't done yet. There is something else to consider here. Take this logically and one could argue that the federal government can do whatever it wants. This is actually not true. It has already been determined that the federal government can't legislate smoking in restaurants. They've prohibited it in all federal buildings and on federal property, but not restaurants. Why? Because this is outside the scope of what the federal government can do. This goes back to negative rights theory as well. The government can't do anything to you or for you, it can only protect your rights. By passing such legislation at the federal level, the government would be declaring that you don't have a right to kill yourself through smoking and that a restaurant owner does not have the right to serve you if you do. So, in this case, the federal government would be violating the rights of the patron and the business owner. Therefore, this has to be done at the state and local level. But wait, aren't rights being violated? Perhaps, but it comes back to a very subtle difference. Behavior.
You see, your unalienable rights extend in a circle from your person up to the point where they infringe on another's circle, remember? Therefore, if someone is running a business, they must cater to whomever walks in the front door, at least until that person behaves badly. If that person tries to steal, if they damage something, if they aren't dressed properly, etc., then the business owner can ask them to leave without serving them. This is not a violation of the other person's rights, but rather the other person violating the right of the business owner to run their business. You often see a sign at most business establishments saying no soliciting. This is because a person trying to sell something within a particular business is violating the business owner's rights as well as making an assumed association that may not exist between themselves and the business owner in the minds of his patrons. A person who screams and yells or commits another act of this nature can also be asked to leave because they are disrupting the ability of others to shop, eat, whatever. This is the difference. A person does not have a right to freedom of expression, speech, whatever, when that right violates the rights of others, so behavior issues allow a business owner to discriminate in order to properly do business.
So, Rand Paul is wrong, but not because he is a racist, but because he hasn't followed through with the logic of his position. Rather than calling him a racist for this, we should try to figure out what he believes and why and point out, as I've done above, the error in his thinking. He can then choose to accept it or reject it. Let's stop with the name calling though.
Rand Paul believes that the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to tell restaurant owners who they can and/or cannot serve. This is quite obvious from the exchange with Maddow. This does not make him a racist however, as some have claimed. In fact, he presents a pretty interesting Constitutional argument. First, private property rights are protected by the Constitution and so allows an individual who owns a business great leeway over how they run their business. In fact, the federal government can't be involved in this business at all if it is not interstate commerce, Rand would argue. Secondly, he obviously feels that the constitution protects a person's right to free association. In fact, the Constitution does protect our right to pick and choose with whom we associate, so as a private and free individual, I can choose to hang out with Rand Paul or Rachel Maddow or both, as long as they are willing to hang out with me. Putting these two rights together, Paul ends up with his opinion. That a private business owner's property rights and rights to free association allow that business owner to choose who he will and will not serve. An interesting argument with one major flaw.
What is that flaw you ask? Quite simply, he is ignoring negative rights theory, which is the backbone of our Constitution and of libertarian thought. A negative right is what our Constitution protects. They are the unalienable rights Jefferson refers to in the Declaration of Independence. They encompass a lot more than just the right to life, liberty and property however. In fact, think of each person as an individual. Now, draw a circle around them. Within that circle, each individual can act as they see fit within the bounds of their own conscience and beliefs. This includes the possession of a weapon, the freedom to say what you want, the ability to practice your religion as you see fit, and so on, including the right to free association as described above. It is only when your circle crosses over into the circle of another that rights violations occur. For instance, you have private property rights at your home and can have someone arrested if they choose to violate your property rights by getting up on your porch without your permission and start making a speech. They'll claim their right to free speech and if they are a group, they'll claim a right to peaceably assemble. Both of these are legitimate rights, but they can't interfere with your right to property. So, they are trespassing, not exercising their free rights. If that individual or group stayed in the public street to make their speech, then they are not violating your property rights and therefore have a right to speak and peaceably assemble. Got it? If not, I have a ton of examples, just ask.
The government, under the U.S. Constitution is not allowed to infringe on these rights at all, which is why Rand Paul argues that Congress overreached with a portion of the Civil Rights Act. He believes the government overreached its authority when they legislated at the federal level that a restaurant owner can't choose to not serve a black person. Not because he believes in discrimination, but because he thinks we needed to have had greater "discussion" at the time over the constitutionality of this section of the legislation. Considering how much Congress routinely ignores the Constitution, I'm not surprised there wasn't much more discussion about this, however, I am certain that Paul can be persuaded that this law is within the constitutional bounds for the U.S. Congress with a very logical argument.
You see, the difference between what the federal government can do and what the state governments can do is very important to a libertarian and this, to Paul, is outside what the federal government is allowed because it infringes on the rights of property and freedom of association. However, the federal government is also clearly mandated to protect the rights of the people. In fact, that idea is firmly entrenched in libertarian thought as well. So, while the government can't do anything to or for you, they can protect your rights from being violated by others. After all, your right to something ceases when it crosses over into the sphere of another, as I explained above. This brings us back to Mr. Paul's point. Can a business owner prohibit someone from frequenting their business? According to his statements, property rights and freedom of association would seem to dictate that a business owner can choose to discriminate based on whatever they choose. Scary as that is to think of, it isn't a bad argument, just an incomplete one. You see, we come full circle now back to negative rights theory. In a free society, a person has a right to expect service at a business that is operating anywhere where it serves the public. In other words, if you walk into a clothing store, you expect to be allowed to browse (even if there is nothing there you'd ever buy). If you walk into a shoe store, you'd expect to be serviced by buying shoes. The same is true for a restaurant. So, if a person chooses to operate a business that is publicly accessible to all, then by the very nature of a business, that person has chosen to give up a few of their property rights since a LOT of people are going to show up uninvited. In addition, the same condition applies to their freedom of association because they can't pick and choose who might walk in their doors. So, a business owner who chooses to not serve someone solely based on their race, is violating the rights of the individual who walks through the door of that business. Since the states in the south had set up laws allowing this kind of discrimination, it was incumbent on the federal government, constitutionally, to protect those rights.
Wait though, we aren't done yet. There is something else to consider here. Take this logically and one could argue that the federal government can do whatever it wants. This is actually not true. It has already been determined that the federal government can't legislate smoking in restaurants. They've prohibited it in all federal buildings and on federal property, but not restaurants. Why? Because this is outside the scope of what the federal government can do. This goes back to negative rights theory as well. The government can't do anything to you or for you, it can only protect your rights. By passing such legislation at the federal level, the government would be declaring that you don't have a right to kill yourself through smoking and that a restaurant owner does not have the right to serve you if you do. So, in this case, the federal government would be violating the rights of the patron and the business owner. Therefore, this has to be done at the state and local level. But wait, aren't rights being violated? Perhaps, but it comes back to a very subtle difference. Behavior.
You see, your unalienable rights extend in a circle from your person up to the point where they infringe on another's circle, remember? Therefore, if someone is running a business, they must cater to whomever walks in the front door, at least until that person behaves badly. If that person tries to steal, if they damage something, if they aren't dressed properly, etc., then the business owner can ask them to leave without serving them. This is not a violation of the other person's rights, but rather the other person violating the right of the business owner to run their business. You often see a sign at most business establishments saying no soliciting. This is because a person trying to sell something within a particular business is violating the business owner's rights as well as making an assumed association that may not exist between themselves and the business owner in the minds of his patrons. A person who screams and yells or commits another act of this nature can also be asked to leave because they are disrupting the ability of others to shop, eat, whatever. This is the difference. A person does not have a right to freedom of expression, speech, whatever, when that right violates the rights of others, so behavior issues allow a business owner to discriminate in order to properly do business.
So, Rand Paul is wrong, but not because he is a racist, but because he hasn't followed through with the logic of his position. Rather than calling him a racist for this, we should try to figure out what he believes and why and point out, as I've done above, the error in his thinking. He can then choose to accept it or reject it. Let's stop with the name calling though.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
WE THE PEOPLE are part of the problem!!!
I saw a quote from The Economist that stated a poll found that 62 percent of Americans think the best way to reduce the deficit is by cutting spending. 62 percent! That's a lot of Americans to get to agree on anything. But our Congress and President, current and past ones included, rarely cut anything when it comes to spending but instead, they find new ways to spend it, which requires feeding the federal giant more and more and more and ... you get the idea.
So, if so many Americans are in agreement about what needs to be done, why can't we get it done? Because we don't want OUR spending cut. Yes, we whine about earmarks, but that nice facility down the road paid for by federal dollars, that can't possibly be cut. Oh, and that airport that 10 people use a week? Yeah, those 10 people don't want it cut either. Oh, and those Medicare/Medicaid subsidies, no, can't cut those. How about Social Security, after all, it makes us money, right? Sure it did, until this year anyway, but regardless, there are a ton of better ways to run a retirement program, ask Chile and Australia, both using better, more cost effective models that aren't just Congressionally mandated ponzi schemes. Oh no, can't change how Social Security is done and certainly can't cut it, Americans don't pay attention to saving money and so need all that extra "help". So, WE THE PEOPLE, are part of the problem. We allowed the federal government to turn into the huge dragon that eats its own in "How to Train Your Dragon" and now we are nothing more than the little dragons, relying on the big one for support and defense and security. If you've seen the movie though, you'll know that those things are only provided to the little dragons as long as they keep feeding the monstrous one. Yikes! How do I know we are part of the problem? Because 62 percent of us think we need to cut spending, yet when asked in an Economist/YouGov poll where people think we should cut, not only could a majority not agree on anything, but what they did agree on made no difference. See, here were the results ...
Veteran’s benefits 6%
Social Security 7%
Medicare 7%
Medicaid 11%
Education 12%
Highways 12%
None of the Above 12%
Health research 13%
Aid to the poor 17%
Unemployment benefits 19%
National Defense 22%
Science and Technology 22%
Mass transit 27%
Agriculture 27%
Housing 27%
The Environment 29%
Foreign Aid 71%
Sorry folks, 62 percent of us think we should cut spending, but we couldn't get more than 29 percent to agree on where we should cut except in foreign aid. Well that's just great. Let's cut all foreign aid, I'm all for that, except we'd only cut 1 percent of the federal budget by doing that so it isn't enough. The Environment got high numbers too, as did Housing, Agriculture and Mass transit. Agriculture would actually do something because of all the farm subsidies but still not enough. Even if we cut all these things into non-existence, it still isn't enough. Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid make up 40 percent of the federal budget, yet only 7 percent could agree that this is where we need to cut. Defense is 20 percent and only 22 percent could agree here. So, 2/3 of the budget is off limits? Is that what we are saying here? Astounding. Even worse, 12 percent of the respondents stated that we couldn't cut in ANY of the areas stated. So, yes, the President and the Congress are largely at fault for mishandling and misspending our money, but our own inability to depend on ourselves rather than slowly enslaving ourselves to the federal dragon. Conclusion? WE THE PEOPLE are part of the problem!
So, if so many Americans are in agreement about what needs to be done, why can't we get it done? Because we don't want OUR spending cut. Yes, we whine about earmarks, but that nice facility down the road paid for by federal dollars, that can't possibly be cut. Oh, and that airport that 10 people use a week? Yeah, those 10 people don't want it cut either. Oh, and those Medicare/Medicaid subsidies, no, can't cut those. How about Social Security, after all, it makes us money, right? Sure it did, until this year anyway, but regardless, there are a ton of better ways to run a retirement program, ask Chile and Australia, both using better, more cost effective models that aren't just Congressionally mandated ponzi schemes. Oh no, can't change how Social Security is done and certainly can't cut it, Americans don't pay attention to saving money and so need all that extra "help". So, WE THE PEOPLE, are part of the problem. We allowed the federal government to turn into the huge dragon that eats its own in "How to Train Your Dragon" and now we are nothing more than the little dragons, relying on the big one for support and defense and security. If you've seen the movie though, you'll know that those things are only provided to the little dragons as long as they keep feeding the monstrous one. Yikes! How do I know we are part of the problem? Because 62 percent of us think we need to cut spending, yet when asked in an Economist/YouGov poll where people think we should cut, not only could a majority not agree on anything, but what they did agree on made no difference. See, here were the results ...
Veteran’s benefits 6%
Social Security 7%
Medicare 7%
Medicaid 11%
Education 12%
Highways 12%
None of the Above 12%
Health research 13%
Aid to the poor 17%
Unemployment benefits 19%
National Defense 22%
Science and Technology 22%
Mass transit 27%
Agriculture 27%
Housing 27%
The Environment 29%
Foreign Aid 71%
Sorry folks, 62 percent of us think we should cut spending, but we couldn't get more than 29 percent to agree on where we should cut except in foreign aid. Well that's just great. Let's cut all foreign aid, I'm all for that, except we'd only cut 1 percent of the federal budget by doing that so it isn't enough. The Environment got high numbers too, as did Housing, Agriculture and Mass transit. Agriculture would actually do something because of all the farm subsidies but still not enough. Even if we cut all these things into non-existence, it still isn't enough. Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid make up 40 percent of the federal budget, yet only 7 percent could agree that this is where we need to cut. Defense is 20 percent and only 22 percent could agree here. So, 2/3 of the budget is off limits? Is that what we are saying here? Astounding. Even worse, 12 percent of the respondents stated that we couldn't cut in ANY of the areas stated. So, yes, the President and the Congress are largely at fault for mishandling and misspending our money, but our own inability to depend on ourselves rather than slowly enslaving ourselves to the federal dragon. Conclusion? WE THE PEOPLE are part of the problem!
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
A letter from Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, November 29, 1802
I came across this letter, written by Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, Esq. and found a few of the points very interesting. Read the letter and then my comments are below.
"WASHINGTON, November 29, 1802.
DEAR SIR,
Your favor of October 25th was received in due time, and I thank you for the long extract you took the trouble of making from Mr. Stone 's letter : Certainly the information it communicates as to Alexander kindles a great deal of interest in his existence, and strong spasms of the heart in his favor. Though his means of doing good are great, yet the materials. on which he is to work are refractory. Whether he engages in private correspondences abroad, as the King of Prussia did much, and his grandfather sometimes, I know not; but certainly such a correspondence would be very interesting to those who are sincerely anxious to see mankind raised from their present abject condition. It delights me to find that there are persons who still think that all is not lost in France : that their retrogradation from a limited to an unlimited despotism, is but to give themselves a new impulse. But I see not how or when. The press, the only tocsin of a nation, is completely silenced there, and all means of a general effort taken away. However, I am willing to hope, and as long as anybody will hope with me; and I am entirely persuaded that the agitations of the public mind advance its powers, and that at every vibration between the points of liberty and despotism, something will be gained for the former. As men become better informed, their rulers must respect them the more. I think you will be sensible that our citizens are fast returning, from the panic into which they were artfully thrown, to the dictates of their own reason; and I believe the delusions they have seen themselves hurried into will be useful as a lesson under similar attempts on them in future. The good effects of our late fiscal arrangements will certainly tend to unite them in opinion, and in confidence as to the views of their public functionaries, legislative and executive. The path we have to pursue is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature. A noiseless course, meddling with the affairs of others, unattractive of notice, is a mark that society is going on in happiness. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy. Their finances are now under such a course of application as nothing could derange but war or federalism. The gripe of the latter has shown itself as deadly as the jaws of the former. Our adversaries say we are indebted to their providence for the means of paying the public debt. We never charged them with the want of foresight in providing money, but with the misapplication of it after they had provided it. We say they raised not only enough, but too much ; and that after giving back the surplus we do more with a part than they did with the whole."
There are several important statements to highlight here. First, in referring to France, Jefferson stated "The press, the only tocsin of a nation, is completely silenced there" which clearly indicates that he believed a free press necessary to a free society and a press not beholden to an individual leader. After all, who would have been silencing the press in France, eh? Secondly, he stated this: "The path we have to pursue is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature. A noiseless course, meddling with the affairs of others, unattractive of notice, is a mark that society is going on in happiness." By this he is saying that Congress should not be busy but rather it should be noiseless and not attract any attention, basically, that it should do almost nothing. Sounds good to me. Next, he believed it was NOT the job of the government to take care of us but was in fact a danger that the government would try to do just that. He said, "If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy." This means that a strong, powerful government that wants to "help" you is not the government of a free state but is instead a wasteful government that must be prevented. Dare I say he meant it isn't the job of the government to "take care of us"? How revolutionary. Maybe I am a radical, just like Jefferson. Finally, the last part of the letter states this, "We never charged them with the want of foresight in providing money, but with the misapplication of it after they had provided it. We say they raised not only enough, but too much ; and that after giving back the surplus we do more with a part than they did with the whole." He states that the government can tax us, but they should not overtax us or misuse the money they do tax. In fact, he was saying that he (his party, whatever) was better at properly handling the money they had whereas the other side misused it. Wow, I think Jefferson would find our code of laws and our tax code to be abhorrent.
"WASHINGTON, November 29, 1802.
DEAR SIR,
Your favor of October 25th was received in due time, and I thank you for the long extract you took the trouble of making from Mr. Stone 's letter : Certainly the information it communicates as to Alexander kindles a great deal of interest in his existence, and strong spasms of the heart in his favor. Though his means of doing good are great, yet the materials. on which he is to work are refractory. Whether he engages in private correspondences abroad, as the King of Prussia did much, and his grandfather sometimes, I know not; but certainly such a correspondence would be very interesting to those who are sincerely anxious to see mankind raised from their present abject condition. It delights me to find that there are persons who still think that all is not lost in France : that their retrogradation from a limited to an unlimited despotism, is but to give themselves a new impulse. But I see not how or when. The press, the only tocsin of a nation, is completely silenced there, and all means of a general effort taken away. However, I am willing to hope, and as long as anybody will hope with me; and I am entirely persuaded that the agitations of the public mind advance its powers, and that at every vibration between the points of liberty and despotism, something will be gained for the former. As men become better informed, their rulers must respect them the more. I think you will be sensible that our citizens are fast returning, from the panic into which they were artfully thrown, to the dictates of their own reason; and I believe the delusions they have seen themselves hurried into will be useful as a lesson under similar attempts on them in future. The good effects of our late fiscal arrangements will certainly tend to unite them in opinion, and in confidence as to the views of their public functionaries, legislative and executive. The path we have to pursue is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature. A noiseless course, meddling with the affairs of others, unattractive of notice, is a mark that society is going on in happiness. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy. Their finances are now under such a course of application as nothing could derange but war or federalism. The gripe of the latter has shown itself as deadly as the jaws of the former. Our adversaries say we are indebted to their providence for the means of paying the public debt. We never charged them with the want of foresight in providing money, but with the misapplication of it after they had provided it. We say they raised not only enough, but too much ; and that after giving back the surplus we do more with a part than they did with the whole."
There are several important statements to highlight here. First, in referring to France, Jefferson stated "The press, the only tocsin of a nation, is completely silenced there" which clearly indicates that he believed a free press necessary to a free society and a press not beholden to an individual leader. After all, who would have been silencing the press in France, eh? Secondly, he stated this: "The path we have to pursue is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature. A noiseless course, meddling with the affairs of others, unattractive of notice, is a mark that society is going on in happiness." By this he is saying that Congress should not be busy but rather it should be noiseless and not attract any attention, basically, that it should do almost nothing. Sounds good to me. Next, he believed it was NOT the job of the government to take care of us but was in fact a danger that the government would try to do just that. He said, "If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy." This means that a strong, powerful government that wants to "help" you is not the government of a free state but is instead a wasteful government that must be prevented. Dare I say he meant it isn't the job of the government to "take care of us"? How revolutionary. Maybe I am a radical, just like Jefferson. Finally, the last part of the letter states this, "We never charged them with the want of foresight in providing money, but with the misapplication of it after they had provided it. We say they raised not only enough, but too much ; and that after giving back the surplus we do more with a part than they did with the whole." He states that the government can tax us, but they should not overtax us or misuse the money they do tax. In fact, he was saying that he (his party, whatever) was better at properly handling the money they had whereas the other side misused it. Wow, I think Jefferson would find our code of laws and our tax code to be abhorrent.
Friday, April 2, 2010
States fight back
It seems there are a few states in this great country that have rediscovered the tenth amendment of our Constitution. It states: "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." which basically means that if the power wasn't specifically provided to the federal government, then it lies with the states and the people and the federal government can't do it. Boy how this has been ignored over the years.
Nonetheless, two cases have now arisen that indicate some states have rediscovered the meaning of this most important amendment. The first case comes out of Utah and is about eminent domain. Over time, the federal government has nationalized large swaths, nearly 70 percent, of Utah through the power of eminent domain and Utah wants it back. The Constitution states the power of the federal government in these kinds of cases is that it can take land under eminent domain only if it has the consent of Congress AND of the state legislature. Utah is now pressing for return of that land under eminent domain because of two issues. Eminent domain is supposed to serve some sort of greater purpose, but the federal government has taken the land and done nothing with it, at all. They've simply nationalized it to prevent Utah from exploiting natural resources. Secondly, Utah is claiming that they've never given consent for the taking of the land and therefore the land grabs are unconstitutional. This will be an interesting case to watch.
The second case being brought has now been joined by a total of 12 states. It is declaring that the new health care legislation is unconstitutional because it violates states rights and because the federal government is assuming powers for itself prohibited to it by the tenth amendment. This also will be interesting to watch and is perhaps even more important than the Utah case. The argument is that the federal government doesn't have any constitutional authority to regulate health care and especially does not have the authority to declare that all citizens MUST have insurance as this legislation does. While the states have made such sweeping claims on their own, the tenth amendment clearly says the states have ALL the powers not already given to the federal government, so that is not the constitutional issue but rather whether the federal government has that power. My reading of the constitutional says it does not and, so far, 12 states (Texas, South Carolina, Nebraska, Michigan, Utah, Pennsylvania, Alabama, South Dakota, Louisiana,
Idaho, Washington and Colorado) agree and are bringing suit. What interesting times we live in. As for my opinion on this, go Utah and go tenth amendment and get the fed out of business of meddling in things it has no business being involved with.
Nonetheless, two cases have now arisen that indicate some states have rediscovered the meaning of this most important amendment. The first case comes out of Utah and is about eminent domain. Over time, the federal government has nationalized large swaths, nearly 70 percent, of Utah through the power of eminent domain and Utah wants it back. The Constitution states the power of the federal government in these kinds of cases is that it can take land under eminent domain only if it has the consent of Congress AND of the state legislature. Utah is now pressing for return of that land under eminent domain because of two issues. Eminent domain is supposed to serve some sort of greater purpose, but the federal government has taken the land and done nothing with it, at all. They've simply nationalized it to prevent Utah from exploiting natural resources. Secondly, Utah is claiming that they've never given consent for the taking of the land and therefore the land grabs are unconstitutional. This will be an interesting case to watch.
The second case being brought has now been joined by a total of 12 states. It is declaring that the new health care legislation is unconstitutional because it violates states rights and because the federal government is assuming powers for itself prohibited to it by the tenth amendment. This also will be interesting to watch and is perhaps even more important than the Utah case. The argument is that the federal government doesn't have any constitutional authority to regulate health care and especially does not have the authority to declare that all citizens MUST have insurance as this legislation does. While the states have made such sweeping claims on their own, the tenth amendment clearly says the states have ALL the powers not already given to the federal government, so that is not the constitutional issue but rather whether the federal government has that power. My reading of the constitutional says it does not and, so far, 12 states (Texas, South Carolina, Nebraska, Michigan, Utah, Pennsylvania, Alabama, South Dakota, Louisiana,
Idaho, Washington and Colorado) agree and are bringing suit. What interesting times we live in. As for my opinion on this, go Utah and go tenth amendment and get the fed out of business of meddling in things it has no business being involved with.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Even the most ardent liberal can't defend this
Didn't we all take a civics class in high school that taught us how a bill becomes a law in this country? I know I did, so that brings me back to health care. Regardless of your opinions on health care reform or the health insurance industry, you can't defend what Congress is doing to pass the Democrats bill into law. Don't know what I mean? Well, here's the process they are planning on using. 1. They know they don't have the votes to pass the Senate bill in the House without amendments, which they can't get under a normal legislative process because that would allow the Senate to filibuster it if they didn't like the changes (they would). Since they can't even get the Democrats to agree, they can't pass this bill into law, period. However, using the reconciliation procedure, they can bypass the will of the Senate by passing the bill, then passing the changes they want and sending those to the Senate for consideration which would then only require a 51 vote majority under the rules of reconciliation. The fact that this procedure was developed and intended and almost always only used for budgetary bills in the past notwithstanding, this is the process they need to follow, no matter how onerous we may find it.
However, they've gone a step further. They can't get 216 votes to pass the Senate bill without changes, which they can't do under reconciliation. So, how to get around that? They are going to use the Slaughter rule, which is an uncommon but not unheard of method of moving things forward in the House but which was never intended to be used to avoid voting on legislation. This is how it will work. Pelosi will attach the Senate bill to the reconciliation bill since they can get the votes on the bill to "change" the Senate bill. However, after that bill passes, she will separate the Senate bill from the changes bill and send that to the President for his signature, having deemed that the Senate bill passed the House because the reconciliation bill passed, even though they clearly don't have the votes to pass the Senate bill. This goes beyond onerous, but leaps right on into undemocratic. However, this bill, now having been deemed to have passed even though we all know it wouldn't, now goes to the President along with the Senate bill and he signs it into law, without it ever having received an up or down vote in the House. Then, maybe, the Senate will pass the reconciliation legislation, but don't count on it. Whether the Senate passes reconciliation or not, this country will now have government health care designed, not to help people, but to solidify power for the government and themselves. This means they've now jumped right on past undemocratic and into unconstitutional territory. Article 1, section 7 of the U.S. Constitution states:
"Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill."
The relevant statement here is that "in all such cases, the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be recorded on the journal of each house respectively". This means they actually have to vote on it in the House. Period. If they can't pass the Senate bill, they can't move forward on reconciliation. Period. Any other reading of this doesn't make sense, yet they want us to believe that they can just decide the bill has passed because another related bill did pass. This is the most egregious power grab in this country's great history and if we allow it to stand, we will be guilty of, not stealing from but bankrupting our children's posterity. That is the most politically immoral act this country can do, to destroy our children's future. That is what this bill is about. Period.
However, they've gone a step further. They can't get 216 votes to pass the Senate bill without changes, which they can't do under reconciliation. So, how to get around that? They are going to use the Slaughter rule, which is an uncommon but not unheard of method of moving things forward in the House but which was never intended to be used to avoid voting on legislation. This is how it will work. Pelosi will attach the Senate bill to the reconciliation bill since they can get the votes on the bill to "change" the Senate bill. However, after that bill passes, she will separate the Senate bill from the changes bill and send that to the President for his signature, having deemed that the Senate bill passed the House because the reconciliation bill passed, even though they clearly don't have the votes to pass the Senate bill. This goes beyond onerous, but leaps right on into undemocratic. However, this bill, now having been deemed to have passed even though we all know it wouldn't, now goes to the President along with the Senate bill and he signs it into law, without it ever having received an up or down vote in the House. Then, maybe, the Senate will pass the reconciliation legislation, but don't count on it. Whether the Senate passes reconciliation or not, this country will now have government health care designed, not to help people, but to solidify power for the government and themselves. This means they've now jumped right on past undemocratic and into unconstitutional territory. Article 1, section 7 of the U.S. Constitution states:
"Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill."
The relevant statement here is that "in all such cases, the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be recorded on the journal of each house respectively". This means they actually have to vote on it in the House. Period. If they can't pass the Senate bill, they can't move forward on reconciliation. Period. Any other reading of this doesn't make sense, yet they want us to believe that they can just decide the bill has passed because another related bill did pass. This is the most egregious power grab in this country's great history and if we allow it to stand, we will be guilty of, not stealing from but bankrupting our children's posterity. That is the most politically immoral act this country can do, to destroy our children's future. That is what this bill is about. Period.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Senate nixes earmark ban
Well, surprise surprise! The Senate doesn't want to ban earmarks! I can't really say I'm surprised. I'm not even surprised that 15 Republicans broke ranks and voted no with the Democrats. After all, this is a huge scheme for politicians at the national level to vie for re-election. See, everybody hates earmarks (pork) unless they benefit from them. It is the same mentality about government intrusion and entitlements. Everyone loves to hate those things, right up until they benefit from them. The 1-2 billion dollars a year spent on earmarks, while a waste, aren't really the problem with the budget. After all, 2 billion dollars out of 1.2 trillion isn't even the .2. It is .002 percent, at most, of the federal budget. Medicare and Social Security are 50 percent, give or take. The military is 16 percent and the list goes on. Even NASA, one of the smallest agencies in the budget is still 1 percent, still much more significant than earmarks. So, am I surprised they have chosen not to ban earmarks? No, am I upset they've chosen not to ban earmarks? Not really. It is the "non-discretionary" spending that needs to be addressed along with some of the bloated federal agencies if we are ever going to get a handle on the budget. Earmarks bans, while nice, serve only to appear to be acting in a fiscally responsible manner. It is nothing more than a political stunt, not a real act of responsibility. When they start actually cutting things that need to be cut, then an earmark ban wouldn't even be necessary. In the meantime, they think they can appease us by banning .002 percent of the federal budget. Nothing more than an empty political stunt.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Pro health care rallies -- really?
I was reading an article on FoxNews.com about a pro health care rally today in Washington, D.C. It seems strange that the "media wing of the Republican party" would report on a pro government health care rally taking place in D.C. This, especially seems surprising consider some bloggers don't believe these rallies are getting their proper coverage. I can sympathize with him. After all, the 9/12 rally in DC that had anywhere from tens of thousands to 1 million marchers, depending on who you want to listen to only got brief mentionings in the news media. So, considering this rally in DC and the rally the blogger is concerned about got a thousand or maybe thousands of marchers, I'd say little to no mention is certainly consistent with attempting to minimize the 9/12 march as much as possible. I guess I'm actually surprised that the media hasn't covered these and tried to hype them up but maybe journalists do occasionally do their jobs.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Can you say Big Brother?
A story on cnn.com is reporting on a boy who got spied on in his home by his school. I understand the need for security of rented out laptops, even to the point of taking over the machine if stolen or lost. However, the facts in this case clearly show this machine was not lost or stolen and that the Assistant Principle accessed the machine and took a picture of the boy, in his own bedroom, using the laptops webcam. The constitutional violator obviously didn't think he'd done anything wrong because he presented the boy with a letter and a picture stating he'd been caught in "inappropriate behavior". No, this is completely and utterly wrong. We are guaranteed by the Constitution that nobody can enter our home whether electronically or physically without a warrant. In fact, this assistant principle is probably guilty of a crime of some sort. Not only should this family win their lawsuit, but there is at least one employee who should lose their job and perhaps even be prosecuted.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Beck fan sites on Facebook
Glenn Beck has been described as many things, mostly by people who don't really understand him. Hater, fearmonger, polarizer, conspiracy theorist. I've heard or read all of these. However, unlike most of his detractors, I've actually taken the time to watch or listen to his shows and he really is none of those things. Yeah yeah, I know you won't take my word for it. Nonetheless, several of my friends on Facebook have recently started joining what can only be described as anti-Glenn Beck fan sites. Two such sites: "Can this dung beetle get more fans than Glenn Beck" and "Can this poodle wearing a tinfoil hat get more fans than Glenn Beck" have gotten a few people to join them, 68K and 205K respectively. Beck's fan site (I don't know if it is official or not) has over 665K fans so far. Of course, there are three issues I see here. One, there are competing anti-fan sites which would perform much better if they just worked together but that would be monopolistic so the left wouldn't think of it. Two, not only does one person have way too much time on their hands to create this kind of anti-fan site, but apparently two people, at least, do. Three, they are both going at it the wrong way in trying to get more fans than Beck's fan site. After all, the nielsen ratings show he has 3 million viewers a day many of whom are obviously not on Facebook, so if these anti-fan site administrators really wanted to try and make a statement, they should be going after that many people, not just trying to beat his fan site, which they aren't even able to do. Anyway, I found this entire thing quite funny and just had to share.
Monday, February 15, 2010
A new amendment for our Constitution
I was thinking about how the federal government has basically, over time, destroyed any sense of states rights and powers and was wondering, just what, if anything, could be done about that. My solution is remarkable. A Constitutional amendment. Imagine that. But what amendment could possibly turn back the clock? How about this:
If, a majority of the state's legislatures vote to declare an act of Congress, an order of the President or a decision of the court to be unconstitutional, then it is immediately returned to Congress as a proposed amendment and must follow the amendment process in order to become law.
Yes, state nullification, but with teeth. That is the only real answer I can see to the consistent bludgeoning of federalism this country has seen at the hands of politicians, Presidents and the courts.
If, a majority of the state's legislatures vote to declare an act of Congress, an order of the President or a decision of the court to be unconstitutional, then it is immediately returned to Congress as a proposed amendment and must follow the amendment process in order to become law.
Yes, state nullification, but with teeth. That is the only real answer I can see to the consistent bludgeoning of federalism this country has seen at the hands of politicians, Presidents and the courts.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Abuse of Presidential power - the Executive Order
The Executive Order is an oft used tool by the President to set and establish policy and law for the country while getting around the will of Congress, the courts and the people simply by declaring it. The outcomes are usually fait accompli because Congress must vote to undo an executive order or it remains in effect until a future President rescinds it. This is a very powerful tool as exercised today, but the Constitution doesn't really intend the President to have this kind of power. The executive order constitutionally is meant to allow the President to "issue orders in pursuit of constitutional objectives or, exercising powers that the Constitution assigns to them."1 So, this means a President can use this power to issue pardons or give orders to carry out anything that Congress has passed legislation that gave him the authority to control. I submit with each President, this power becomes more and more a power for the President to set policy regardless of Congress rather than using it to carry out Congressionally mandated activities, as the Constitution intended.
So, lets see, just for fun, if there is a correlation between how often a President uses this power and how far removed we are from the Constitution. While earlier Presidents did issue directives which we'd call executive orders today, the term executive order did not come into use until 1862 under Lincoln.
2George Washington - 8
John Adams - 1
Thomas Jefferson - 4
James Madison - 1
James Monroe - 1
John Quincy Adams - 3
Andrew Jackson - 12
Martin Van Buren - 10
William Henry Harrison - 0
John Tyler - 17
James K. Polk - 18
Zachary Taylor - 5
Millard Filmore - 12
Franklin Pierce - 35
James Buchanan - 16
Abraham Lincoln - 114
Andrew Johnson - 79
Ulysses S. Grant - 217
Rutherford B. Hayes - 92
James A Garfield - 6
Chester A. Arthur - 96
Grover Cleveland - 113 (1st term)
Benjamin Harrison - 143
Grover Cleveland - 140 (2nd term)
William McKinley - 185
Theodore Roosevelt - 1081
William Howard Taft - 724
Woodrow Wilson - 1803
Warren G. Harding - 522
Calvin Coolidge - 1203
Herbert Hoover - 968
Franklin Delano Roosevelt - 3522
Harry S. Truman - 907
Dwight D. Eisenhower - 484
John F. Kennedy - 214
Lyndon B. Johnson - 325
Richard Nixon - 346
Gerald Ford - 169
Jimmy Carter - 320
Ronald Reagan - 381
George Bush - 166
William J. Clinton - 364
George W. Bush - 291
Barack Obama - 109 (through 3 years)
WHAT HAPPENED! It seems that the turn of the century changed the whole thing. Starting with Theodore Roosevelt, the executive order power seems to expand significantly. Before Teddy, only Grant had used it more than 200 times and his was considered one of the most corrupt administrations in history. Teddy used it 1000+ times, Taft, Wilson, Coolidge, Hoover, Roosevelt and Truman all had significant use of the executive order, most of them near or over 1000 times. This happened primarily during the Progressive era and the Great Depression. Progressives would obviously feel held back and limited by the constraints of the Constitution and so it seems may have just ignored it (there are several court case examples of this). FDR actually has the excuse of World War II for the significant use of the executive order, but surely not ALL of the exorbitant use (the only President to issue more than 2000 EO) on his part was due to the war. After all, it was after FDR's death that Congress passed an amendment to the Constitution that limited a President to only two terms. Did Congress perhaps feel their power subverted to some degree by a popular and powerful President?
A strange thing followed the years after Truman. Executive orders calmed down to a more stable area in the 100-300 range. They never did get down to the levels before the 20th century, but they did decrease significantly following FDR and Truman. This coincides with the end of the Progressive era as well and the emergence of the Cold War. Even during Korea and Vietnam, executive orders did not spike back up to the level used by the Progressive era Presidents. Still, there have been examples by almost all 20th century Presidents of using the executive power illegally or simply to expand the power of the President, going way outside the boundaries placed on the executive branch by the Constitution.
1. Woods, Thomas E., Jr. "Who Killed the Constitution" p. 186.
2. The executive order totals for Presidents comes from the American Presidency Project website.
So, lets see, just for fun, if there is a correlation between how often a President uses this power and how far removed we are from the Constitution. While earlier Presidents did issue directives which we'd call executive orders today, the term executive order did not come into use until 1862 under Lincoln.
2George Washington - 8
John Adams - 1
Thomas Jefferson - 4
James Madison - 1
James Monroe - 1
John Quincy Adams - 3
Andrew Jackson - 12
Martin Van Buren - 10
William Henry Harrison - 0
John Tyler - 17
James K. Polk - 18
Zachary Taylor - 5
Millard Filmore - 12
Franklin Pierce - 35
James Buchanan - 16
Abraham Lincoln - 114
Andrew Johnson - 79
Ulysses S. Grant - 217
Rutherford B. Hayes - 92
James A Garfield - 6
Chester A. Arthur - 96
Grover Cleveland - 113 (1st term)
Benjamin Harrison - 143
Grover Cleveland - 140 (2nd term)
William McKinley - 185
Theodore Roosevelt - 1081
William Howard Taft - 724
Woodrow Wilson - 1803
Warren G. Harding - 522
Calvin Coolidge - 1203
Herbert Hoover - 968
Franklin Delano Roosevelt - 3522
Harry S. Truman - 907
Dwight D. Eisenhower - 484
John F. Kennedy - 214
Lyndon B. Johnson - 325
Richard Nixon - 346
Gerald Ford - 169
Jimmy Carter - 320
Ronald Reagan - 381
George Bush - 166
William J. Clinton - 364
George W. Bush - 291
Barack Obama - 109 (through 3 years)
WHAT HAPPENED! It seems that the turn of the century changed the whole thing. Starting with Theodore Roosevelt, the executive order power seems to expand significantly. Before Teddy, only Grant had used it more than 200 times and his was considered one of the most corrupt administrations in history. Teddy used it 1000+ times, Taft, Wilson, Coolidge, Hoover, Roosevelt and Truman all had significant use of the executive order, most of them near or over 1000 times. This happened primarily during the Progressive era and the Great Depression. Progressives would obviously feel held back and limited by the constraints of the Constitution and so it seems may have just ignored it (there are several court case examples of this). FDR actually has the excuse of World War II for the significant use of the executive order, but surely not ALL of the exorbitant use (the only President to issue more than 2000 EO) on his part was due to the war. After all, it was after FDR's death that Congress passed an amendment to the Constitution that limited a President to only two terms. Did Congress perhaps feel their power subverted to some degree by a popular and powerful President?
A strange thing followed the years after Truman. Executive orders calmed down to a more stable area in the 100-300 range. They never did get down to the levels before the 20th century, but they did decrease significantly following FDR and Truman. This coincides with the end of the Progressive era as well and the emergence of the Cold War. Even during Korea and Vietnam, executive orders did not spike back up to the level used by the Progressive era Presidents. Still, there have been examples by almost all 20th century Presidents of using the executive power illegally or simply to expand the power of the President, going way outside the boundaries placed on the executive branch by the Constitution.
1. Woods, Thomas E., Jr. "Who Killed the Constitution" p. 186.
2. The executive order totals for Presidents comes from the American Presidency Project website.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
East coast snow records-- El Nino or Global Warming
I saw a story on MSNBC that was trying to make the case that the snowfall this year in the east is caused by global warming. It was simply a matter of time before somebody tried to make this argument. They argued that a warmer world is a wetter world (this is surprisingly true) and therefore, when it is cold, there will be more moisture and thus more snowfall. Huh, sounds preposterous, but even if we assume there is more moisture, we can't assume the temperatures will be cold enough to turn that moisture into snow. This is especially true in the face of another, much more obvious option. See, I thought it was from El Nino. El Nino has long been known to cause greater amounts of moisture and colder temperatures in the eastern and southeast United States, I guess MSNBC didn't get that memo.
Nonetheless, it doesn't snow like that in DC very often, so what gives? Could it be global warming or is it El Nino. Well, is this an El Nino year or even close to an El Nino year? Yes, in fact, we are in an El Nino year. Sorry MSNBC. However, to prove this out, lets take a closer look at the snowiest years on record for the DC area. The top 7 snow years in DC history are: 2009-10, 54.9 inches; 1898-99, 54.4; 1995-96, 46.0; 1921-22, 42.5; 1891-92, 41.7; 1904-05, 41.0; and 1957-58, 40.4. So, El Nino years should match up or at least come close to the snowy years for my theory to hold up. El Ninos don't last an exact period of time and they cycle in and out about once every 3-7 years, so a big snow year in a known El Nino year would be spot on, but a big snow year within a year of the known El Nino event to me seems possibly related. It is certainly correlative. So, do El Nino events coincide with these big snow seasons? We already know that there was an El Nino starting in 2009-10 so check. In addition, the strongest El Nino ever recorded occurred in 1997-98 and that is certainly within a years time span of the event. Also, the 1957-58 year was an El Nino year, so that coincides nicely. Another check. I don't know about El Ninos in the 19th century because I could only find dates for El Ninos in the 20th. So, that leaves two more. The closest El Nino years to those are 1905-06 and 1923-24. Both of those, like 1997-98, occurred in the year following the big heavy snows in DC. Hmm... it seems that every time DC has a bunch of snow, it can be closely correlated to an El Nino event. In addition, 5 of the 7 greatest snowfalls in DC have happened before any claims of warming could be made. So, if the world is warming and producing more moisture and thus making more snow in winter, you'd expect to see these kinds of events more often, right? Instead, the only 2 events of this nature happen to correlate with El Nino events. So much for global warming being the cause of this.
Nonetheless, it doesn't snow like that in DC very often, so what gives? Could it be global warming or is it El Nino. Well, is this an El Nino year or even close to an El Nino year? Yes, in fact, we are in an El Nino year. Sorry MSNBC. However, to prove this out, lets take a closer look at the snowiest years on record for the DC area. The top 7 snow years in DC history are: 2009-10, 54.9 inches; 1898-99, 54.4; 1995-96, 46.0; 1921-22, 42.5; 1891-92, 41.7; 1904-05, 41.0; and 1957-58, 40.4. So, El Nino years should match up or at least come close to the snowy years for my theory to hold up. El Ninos don't last an exact period of time and they cycle in and out about once every 3-7 years, so a big snow year in a known El Nino year would be spot on, but a big snow year within a year of the known El Nino event to me seems possibly related. It is certainly correlative. So, do El Nino events coincide with these big snow seasons? We already know that there was an El Nino starting in 2009-10 so check. In addition, the strongest El Nino ever recorded occurred in 1997-98 and that is certainly within a years time span of the event. Also, the 1957-58 year was an El Nino year, so that coincides nicely. Another check. I don't know about El Ninos in the 19th century because I could only find dates for El Ninos in the 20th. So, that leaves two more. The closest El Nino years to those are 1905-06 and 1923-24. Both of those, like 1997-98, occurred in the year following the big heavy snows in DC. Hmm... it seems that every time DC has a bunch of snow, it can be closely correlated to an El Nino event. In addition, 5 of the 7 greatest snowfalls in DC have happened before any claims of warming could be made. So, if the world is warming and producing more moisture and thus making more snow in winter, you'd expect to see these kinds of events more often, right? Instead, the only 2 events of this nature happen to correlate with El Nino events. So much for global warming being the cause of this.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Our founders
The signers of the Declaration of Independence knew exactly what they were getting themselves into when they decided to sign that document. In fact, that is where we get this saying: we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. In addition, in response to the statement that "we must all hang together", Benjamin Franklin coyly stated ... "we must all hang together or we will most assuredly all hang separately". So, if they knew what they were in for, why'd they do it? After all:
Of the 56, 52 of them risked their lives and their fortunes during the war with 9 of them giving their lives. They were mostly professional men with 25 of them lawyers, 12 merchants, 9 landowners, 4 physicians, 2 farmers, 2 politicians, 1 printer, 1 clergyman (although 2 had formerly been clergy and 15 percent of them were sons of clergy. They were mostly well educated by the standards of the day, but not necessarily by today's standards. After all, 28 of them graduated college in the colonies: 8 from Harvard, 5 from William and Mary, 4 from Yale, 2 from Princeton (although it was called the College of New Jersey I think at the time) and 1 from the University of Pennsylvania. In addition, 8 studied abroad, 11 were self-educated and 3 were common school educated. That leaves 6 with some schooling. Would anyone follow someone today who was "self-educated"?
What we believe about their status is also a bit off. After all, they were not all rich men. Only 18 were rich men and some of them lost everything. Richard Stockton gave up his fortune and his life. Francis Lewis lost his fortune, land and eventually his wife. She was captured by the British, exchanged, and later died because of the treatment she received during her captivity. William Paca of Maryland lost his fortune outfitting the army. Thomas Nelson, Jr. lost his property during the war and had to give the order to blow up his own house after the British occupied it. William Ellery and Josiah Bartlett's houses were burned while those of George Clymer, Lyman Hall, John Hart, William Floyd, William Hooper, Francis Hopkinson, and Arthur Middleton were destroyed or thoroughly ransacked, in total 17 lost all their property.
A total of 17 of the signers actually served in the military during the war risking their lives on the battlefield.
Out of all of this, 0 lost their "sacred honor". Not a single one of the signers questioned that act or their decision. This is the stock our founders were made of. They did it because an oppressive government was trying to control them. So, I'd follow this kind of person. One who would be willing to sacrifice for their country all that they had; life, fortune, property, family for a greater cause but who would never compromise their sacred honor. Where are they?
Of the 56, 52 of them risked their lives and their fortunes during the war with 9 of them giving their lives. They were mostly professional men with 25 of them lawyers, 12 merchants, 9 landowners, 4 physicians, 2 farmers, 2 politicians, 1 printer, 1 clergyman (although 2 had formerly been clergy and 15 percent of them were sons of clergy. They were mostly well educated by the standards of the day, but not necessarily by today's standards. After all, 28 of them graduated college in the colonies: 8 from Harvard, 5 from William and Mary, 4 from Yale, 2 from Princeton (although it was called the College of New Jersey I think at the time) and 1 from the University of Pennsylvania. In addition, 8 studied abroad, 11 were self-educated and 3 were common school educated. That leaves 6 with some schooling. Would anyone follow someone today who was "self-educated"?
What we believe about their status is also a bit off. After all, they were not all rich men. Only 18 were rich men and some of them lost everything. Richard Stockton gave up his fortune and his life. Francis Lewis lost his fortune, land and eventually his wife. She was captured by the British, exchanged, and later died because of the treatment she received during her captivity. William Paca of Maryland lost his fortune outfitting the army. Thomas Nelson, Jr. lost his property during the war and had to give the order to blow up his own house after the British occupied it. William Ellery and Josiah Bartlett's houses were burned while those of George Clymer, Lyman Hall, John Hart, William Floyd, William Hooper, Francis Hopkinson, and Arthur Middleton were destroyed or thoroughly ransacked, in total 17 lost all their property.
A total of 17 of the signers actually served in the military during the war risking their lives on the battlefield.
Out of all of this, 0 lost their "sacred honor". Not a single one of the signers questioned that act or their decision. This is the stock our founders were made of. They did it because an oppressive government was trying to control them. So, I'd follow this kind of person. One who would be willing to sacrifice for their country all that they had; life, fortune, property, family for a greater cause but who would never compromise their sacred honor. Where are they?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)