A conservative now seems to be anyone who calls anyone who disagrees with him or her a “liberal”.
How to tell who is a “liberal”? I don’t know. There are so ,many varieties.
In the current political climate. Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower would be considered “liberals”. Probably even Mr. Republican, Robert Taft!!
It also seems that the “conservatives” are being very “liberal” with their interpretation of the Constitution: corporations are people and the Second Amendment means the people have no right to regulate a militia of one person. I would imagine that the conservatives that wrote these documents would be appalled at these interpretations.
Showing posts with label Founders. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Founders. Show all posts
Friday, March 29, 2019
Saturday, October 04, 2014
Constitution á la carte
“Á la carte” is French for “from the menu”. It means that one chooses various items from the menu rather than being offered a complete meal chosen by the chef. It seems to me that the writers of the U.S. Constitution provided us a complete meal for governance, but we all seem to pick and choose what we want from the Constitution and ignore much of the rest, even going so far as to go against the intent of the writers.
Let’s start at the beginning: “We the people…” Just who are “the people”? The word “people” is used just twice in the original constitution: in the opening and in Article I, Section 2. In the latter “the People of the several States” choose the Representatives. The “electors”, presumably of the people, are defined by state law. Interesting, the Constitution doesn’t prohibit women from voting. But considering that states had laws allowing only men to vote, then the Constitution indirectly prohibits women from voting.
Another prominent noun is “person”, again without gender stipulation. All of the uses assume a single human individual, free or otherwise. For census purposes the qualification “free” is added. So, although the States didn’t allow women the vote, did they allow free Blacks and Indians taxed to vote? The Constitution is mute on this.
The sticking point nowadays is the use of “people” and “persons” in the Bill of Rights. The “people” can peaceably assemble, bear arms, “be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects”, retain rights not enumerated, and have powers not in the Constitution or “prohibited by the States.”
We seem to have a real “á la carte” on these amendments.
Some think peaceably assemble means they can have marches or demonstrations that block entire streets. Others think that a small group of people, especially Blacks, is not a peaceable assembly. The Twin Cities has a case that assumes one person sitting on a publicly-accessible chair is not peaceable assembly.
Bearing arms has been a contentious issue for ages, but most Supreme Court cases until at least 1939 interpreted it as militia-related and not personal. After all, it is a right of the people, not of persons. Now there are persons who insist that they have a right to have a gun wherever they feel like. Interesting, that there were lots of sheriffs and marshals who made gun toters check in their guns while in town.
Many Southern States conveniently overlooked and resisted the Federal authority to override state laws regarding “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Election for … Representatives.” See Article I, Section 4.
Many complain about federal regulation, but Article I, Section 8, leaves two questions wide open. “The Congress have have the power to lay and collect Taxes…and provide for the … general Welfare of the United States.” Are a highway system, an air traffic control system, and clean air and water “general Welfare”? There seem to be many who think clean air and water are over-regulation. Some of these same people want to have an extensive highway network to move themselves or goods, but they don’t want Congress to “lay and collect Taxes” for them.
One of the current ironies is that the Postmaster General is trying to overturn Congress’ responsibility “to Establish Post Offices”. Is getting a Netflix DVD the next day a Constitutional right? It is ironic that the Postmaster General’s actions are an attempt to promote corporate interests over public interest but that one large competitor to the Postal Service depends on USPS for the “last mile”. UPS sends many small packages for the “last mile” via USPS. Can you imagine UPS stopping every two blocks or so to distribute a package that fits in the mail box?
Some corporate interests are working overtime to redefine “limited time” for “exclusive Right to “Writings and Discoveries” They hope to retain film and book rights forever long, long after the creators have died. I can see a family retaining the rights but not for generation after generation. I remember that some decades ago the Verdi family lost the rights to royalties for Verdi’s operas and other works.
Has Congress abandoned the spirit of no appropriation for Armies should be for longer than two years? This was written because the writers of the Constitution disliked standing armies. Not only do we have a standing army but a globe-straddling army. I am glad that all the signers of the Constitution are not buried in the same place; the spinning in graves would be deafening.
Their backup plan was the state Militias which “may be employed in the Service of the United States.” Many may complain about the multiple deployments of the National Guards, but they are Constitutional.
On the other hand, Congress was “To provide and maintain a Navy”. It apparently doesn’t have the appropriation limitations that the Armies have. After all, the Navy has to support Congress’ power to “punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas”. Does this also apply above the high seas?
All of the above is mostly my opinion and interpretation of the Constitution. I tried to frame most of it as questions rather than fixed-in-stone assertions. Unfortunately, there are those who believe they can deduce the Founder’s intent by reading the Constitution. Sorry, but consider all the words written in the Federalist Papers to “sell” the Constitution. Also consider how few Supreme Court cases are decided by unanimous opinions. These are judges who have spent life-times studying the Constitution.
Mel has long been fascinated by rules and regulations, and like many others, tries to interpret them to his advantage.
Also posted to the Reader Weekly, 2014-10-02.
See also
"Foreign policy foreign to founders"
"Constitution, Rights, and secretive Congress"
"Quote of the day: Stealing the Constitution"
"The right to bear Canons"
Let’s start at the beginning: “We the people…” Just who are “the people”? The word “people” is used just twice in the original constitution: in the opening and in Article I, Section 2. In the latter “the People of the several States” choose the Representatives. The “electors”, presumably of the people, are defined by state law. Interesting, the Constitution doesn’t prohibit women from voting. But considering that states had laws allowing only men to vote, then the Constitution indirectly prohibits women from voting.
Another prominent noun is “person”, again without gender stipulation. All of the uses assume a single human individual, free or otherwise. For census purposes the qualification “free” is added. So, although the States didn’t allow women the vote, did they allow free Blacks and Indians taxed to vote? The Constitution is mute on this.
The sticking point nowadays is the use of “people” and “persons” in the Bill of Rights. The “people” can peaceably assemble, bear arms, “be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects”, retain rights not enumerated, and have powers not in the Constitution or “prohibited by the States.”
We seem to have a real “á la carte” on these amendments.
Some think peaceably assemble means they can have marches or demonstrations that block entire streets. Others think that a small group of people, especially Blacks, is not a peaceable assembly. The Twin Cities has a case that assumes one person sitting on a publicly-accessible chair is not peaceable assembly.
Bearing arms has been a contentious issue for ages, but most Supreme Court cases until at least 1939 interpreted it as militia-related and not personal. After all, it is a right of the people, not of persons. Now there are persons who insist that they have a right to have a gun wherever they feel like. Interesting, that there were lots of sheriffs and marshals who made gun toters check in their guns while in town.
Many Southern States conveniently overlooked and resisted the Federal authority to override state laws regarding “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Election for … Representatives.” See Article I, Section 4.
Many complain about federal regulation, but Article I, Section 8, leaves two questions wide open. “The Congress have have the power to lay and collect Taxes…and provide for the … general Welfare of the United States.” Are a highway system, an air traffic control system, and clean air and water “general Welfare”? There seem to be many who think clean air and water are over-regulation. Some of these same people want to have an extensive highway network to move themselves or goods, but they don’t want Congress to “lay and collect Taxes” for them.
One of the current ironies is that the Postmaster General is trying to overturn Congress’ responsibility “to Establish Post Offices”. Is getting a Netflix DVD the next day a Constitutional right? It is ironic that the Postmaster General’s actions are an attempt to promote corporate interests over public interest but that one large competitor to the Postal Service depends on USPS for the “last mile”. UPS sends many small packages for the “last mile” via USPS. Can you imagine UPS stopping every two blocks or so to distribute a package that fits in the mail box?
Some corporate interests are working overtime to redefine “limited time” for “exclusive Right to “Writings and Discoveries” They hope to retain film and book rights forever long, long after the creators have died. I can see a family retaining the rights but not for generation after generation. I remember that some decades ago the Verdi family lost the rights to royalties for Verdi’s operas and other works.
Has Congress abandoned the spirit of no appropriation for Armies should be for longer than two years? This was written because the writers of the Constitution disliked standing armies. Not only do we have a standing army but a globe-straddling army. I am glad that all the signers of the Constitution are not buried in the same place; the spinning in graves would be deafening.
Their backup plan was the state Militias which “may be employed in the Service of the United States.” Many may complain about the multiple deployments of the National Guards, but they are Constitutional.
On the other hand, Congress was “To provide and maintain a Navy”. It apparently doesn’t have the appropriation limitations that the Armies have. After all, the Navy has to support Congress’ power to “punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas”. Does this also apply above the high seas?
All of the above is mostly my opinion and interpretation of the Constitution. I tried to frame most of it as questions rather than fixed-in-stone assertions. Unfortunately, there are those who believe they can deduce the Founder’s intent by reading the Constitution. Sorry, but consider all the words written in the Federalist Papers to “sell” the Constitution. Also consider how few Supreme Court cases are decided by unanimous opinions. These are judges who have spent life-times studying the Constitution.
Mel has long been fascinated by rules and regulations, and like many others, tries to interpret them to his advantage.
Also posted to the Reader Weekly, 2014-10-02.
See also
"Foreign policy foreign to founders"
"Constitution, Rights, and secretive Congress"
"Quote of the day: Stealing the Constitution"
"The right to bear Canons"
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Foreign policy foreign to Founders
What would George Washington think of the foreign relations of our Presidents for the last 100 years? Or even two hundred years?
Consider what George Washington wrote in his “Farewell Address”:
“Hence likewise they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.”
Poor George probably spun in his grave when Madeleine Albright said, “What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?”
“…the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party … opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”
How often does the influence of Israel hamper U.S. policy in the Middle East? Sometimes the Democrats and Republicans both work overtime to show how great their support of Israel is.
“Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.”
Japan and Vietnam have forgiven the U.S. for the damage done to them. I wonder when the U.S. will get around to forgiving Cuba and Iran for the minor damage done to it.
“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.”
I wonder if George Washington would appreciate being called “the leader of the free world”?
“Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?”
George Washington really would really disapprove of the hundreds of U.S. bases around the world.
“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world—so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it, for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements (I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy)—I repeat it therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them. Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectably defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.”
Would George Washington approve of the U.S. staying in NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union?
“But if I may even flatter myself that [these counsels] may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good, that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism—this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare by which they have been dictated.”
Unfortunately, faction arose strongly shortly after Washington left office – Jefferson and Adams became strong political opponents. Fortunately, they did become friends later in life.
Both Jefferson and Madison waged war on the Barbary Pirates who demanded tribute to not attack U.S. ships in the Mediterranean and ransom for captured sailors. These were wars with limited objectives that ended with treaties favorable to the United States.
On the other hand Madison’s war with Great Britain was called just that by those opposed to it – “Mr. Madison’s War”. The opposition was particularly strong in New England where many merchants continued to trade with Britain.
One of the first major expansions of U.S. influence was the Monroe Doctrine to curb any influence by European powers over the newly independent countries of Latin America.
“The occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.”
How often did the U.S. interfere with “the free and independent condition” of these countries? George Washington’s “foreign intrigue” certainly was practiced in Latin America by many of his successors.
The very faction that Washington warned against, one section of the country against another, led to the Civil War.
And on and on it went, war after war. Some required U.S. involvement; many didn’t. Some of the latter were called “wars of choice” by critics.
Those who signed the Constitution and promoted it knew that circumstances and the Constitution would change, but would they approve of all the changes?
Consider what George Washington wrote in his “Farewell Address”:
“Hence likewise they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.”
Poor George probably spun in his grave when Madeleine Albright said, “What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?”
“…the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party … opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”
How often does the influence of Israel hamper U.S. policy in the Middle East? Sometimes the Democrats and Republicans both work overtime to show how great their support of Israel is.
“Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.”
Japan and Vietnam have forgiven the U.S. for the damage done to them. I wonder when the U.S. will get around to forgiving Cuba and Iran for the minor damage done to it.
“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.”
I wonder if George Washington would appreciate being called “the leader of the free world”?
“Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?”
George Washington really would really disapprove of the hundreds of U.S. bases around the world.
“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world—so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it, for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements (I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy)—I repeat it therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them. Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectably defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.”
Would George Washington approve of the U.S. staying in NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union?
“But if I may even flatter myself that [these counsels] may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good, that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism—this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare by which they have been dictated.”
Unfortunately, faction arose strongly shortly after Washington left office – Jefferson and Adams became strong political opponents. Fortunately, they did become friends later in life.
Both Jefferson and Madison waged war on the Barbary Pirates who demanded tribute to not attack U.S. ships in the Mediterranean and ransom for captured sailors. These were wars with limited objectives that ended with treaties favorable to the United States.
On the other hand Madison’s war with Great Britain was called just that by those opposed to it – “Mr. Madison’s War”. The opposition was particularly strong in New England where many merchants continued to trade with Britain.
One of the first major expansions of U.S. influence was the Monroe Doctrine to curb any influence by European powers over the newly independent countries of Latin America.
“The occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.”
How often did the U.S. interfere with “the free and independent condition” of these countries? George Washington’s “foreign intrigue” certainly was practiced in Latin America by many of his successors.
The very faction that Washington warned against, one section of the country against another, led to the Civil War.
And on and on it went, war after war. Some required U.S. involvement; many didn’t. Some of the latter were called “wars of choice” by critics.
Those who signed the Constitution and promoted it knew that circumstances and the Constitution would change, but would they approve of all the changes?
Saturday, August 07, 2010
Taxes might have saved the rich from the guillotine
In 18th Century France, the church and the nobility were not taxed. The burden of taxation was on the bourgeoisie, the laborers, and the small farmers. As the court became more extravagant and the government more costly, the taxpayers became more dissatisfied. Eventually the anger grew to the point of revolution, a revolution that often was mob rule*. Mob rule led to false accusations, and heads rolled.
Even the Tea Partiers of the day, like Robespierre, were not immune to the anger of the mob and to infighting among those who assumed control of the government.
We may see a parallel in the flood-ravaged parts of Pakistan. The government is not very effective in bringing relief, partly because of so much posturing for power and partly because there is not enough money to do much of what needs to be done. Oh yes, many of the rich in Pakistan pay little or no taxes.
This situation is providing a huge opening to the Taliban, which is providing relief in some areas. How much this will increase the overall power of the Taliban remains to be seen. Remember though, many revolutions were started by small bands, Mao Tse Tung or Fidel Castro.
* Mob rule was one of the things that Founders of the United States feared greatly. Their distaste for mob rule led them to distrust French innovations, such as the metric system.
Even the Tea Partiers of the day, like Robespierre, were not immune to the anger of the mob and to infighting among those who assumed control of the government.
We may see a parallel in the flood-ravaged parts of Pakistan. The government is not very effective in bringing relief, partly because of so much posturing for power and partly because there is not enough money to do much of what needs to be done. Oh yes, many of the rich in Pakistan pay little or no taxes.
This situation is providing a huge opening to the Taliban, which is providing relief in some areas. How much this will increase the overall power of the Taliban remains to be seen. Remember though, many revolutions were started by small bands, Mao Tse Tung or Fidel Castro.
* Mob rule was one of the things that Founders of the United States feared greatly. Their distaste for mob rule led them to distrust French innovations, such as the metric system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)