The constitutional republic known as the United States of America
July 4, 1776 to November 6, 2012
********
UPDATE
********
My response to the recent comments of Mr. Champ-Doran require a more lengthy response than permitted in the comment section. I am therefore placing it here in the original article
Mr. Champ-Doran,
Allow me to correct your errors on the Constitution and constitutional law.
First, under Article IV, section 4, the United States guarantees a republican form of government. Thus, any attempt to take one clause of the Constitution out of context to justify a socialist form of government is in direct violation of said article.
The power of Congress to lay and collect taxes and provide for the "general welfare" does not give constitutional authority to fundamentally change our basic form of government.
By its very nature, the federal government is a limited government. In fact, this point was so strong in the minds of the founding fathers that they drafted the 10th Amendment making it crystal clear that any power not expressly given to the federal government is expressly reserved to the States or the people.
Second, where do you see the power to redistribute wealth in the Constitution? By definition, redistribution of wealth is taking from the wealthy so as to redistribute it to whomever you wish, usually the poor.
Under the very same section you site, it is stated that all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform.
Additionally, the power to levy an income tax is not in the original Constitution. That power comes from Amendment XVI which was ratified on 2/3/1913.
Third, there is no reference to a "social contract" in the Constitution. The Constitution was the joining of the States into a limited federal government. Not one single member of the men who debated and wrote this Constitution ever envisioned the federal government running private industry or becoming cradle to grave financial security.
Now, let's discuss your non-constitutional points. First, class warfare. You argue against my point of class warfare with a blatant class warfare argument.
Nevertheless, looking at your discussion of a wealthy man (you say white man, though race and gender are not relevant because there are wealthy men and women of all races in this country), you fail to mention something important. The man in question EARNED his money. Income taxes were paid on his money at the top level long before he invested said money into various companies. Now, his money was taxed for the second time as capital gains.
That is not enough. Now, you want that money taxed a third time at the maximum income tax level even though it was already taxed.
I take further note that you seem to express contempt for someone who inherited money from their father or parent. What is wrong with that?
A man works his entire life, pays taxes, and succeeds. He then passes his legacy to his children. The children have to pay inheritance taxes on that money even though it was already subject to income taxes. Your comment regarding Mr. Trump suggests that somehow his inheritance is not justified. I see nothing wrong with a man or woman passing on their financial legacy to his or her sons or daughters.
The big part of class warfare is this irrational hatred of successful people and the idea that somehow that they do not deserve to be wealthy despite their personal or familial success. Success is to be encouraged not mocked.
Then, to justify this irrational hatred, the wealthy are attacked for resenting those who live off the public dole even when they have the ability to work.
The various public assistance programs exist to help those who cannot help themselves. Unfortunately, these well intended programs have been inundated with claims from people fully capable of working but who would rather live off the dole than go out and earn a living.
This is unfair to those who actually require the assistance and unfair to those who are working and have to continually pay higher taxes to support those truly undeserving of public support.
Finally, your comment that feeding the poor and educating people should not be our responsibility is pure straw man.
Of course we have a moral obligation to care for the poor and down trodden. However, if you read the Constitution carefully, it is not the federal government that bears that burden. It is the burden of each of the States or the people per the Tenth Amendment.
The bottom line is that you are taking clauses of the Constitution out of context to justify socialism as some form of contractual or moral obligation.
Is it not ironic that people such as myself who are pro-life are told we cannot force our morality upon people? Yet, you seem to be arguing that your sense of morality is actually written in the federal Constitution albeit in invisible ink.
*****
SECOND UPDATE
*****
Mr. Champ-Doran,
While I disagree with your constitutional points, I am enjoying our debate. I am going to extend an invitation to some people I know through Facebook who are knowledgeable on the Constitution and ask them to join by posting comments. To be clear, the people I speak have varying interpretations. Some are conservative, some liberal, and some are libertarian. Libertarians' interpretation of the Constitution are often the subject of fascinating debate. (I mean that in a positive way). I am not seeking to stack the deck, but rather extend this thoughtful and respectful debate.
To your comments ...
I admit that my initial article is hyperbole to a point. The country is not dead, though I believe we are heading full speed toward being a socialist democracy. One of the methods being used to further this unworthy goal is redistribution of wealth.
The basic definition of "redistribution of wealth" is the transfer of money, wealth, or property from one of means to one of limited or no means in order to right a perceived social wrong. In theory, there can be the reverse which is sometimes referred to as "regressive redistribution". I suppose one might actually refer to my definition above as "progressive redistribution".
You argue that redistribution is constitutional because it can be accomplished via taxes or social welfare programs that the Supreme Court has upheld. I respectfully submit that the means may be constitutional, but the ultimate goal is contrary to the United States Constitution.
We can both agree that the term "redistribution of wealth" does not appear in the Constitution; however, I think it apparent that the intent of the framers of the Constitution makes clear that redistribution was never intended or desired. Allow me to provide some examples. I know Thomas Jefferson was not part of the constitutional convention, but he is largely regarded as a "founding father". I have therefore included some of his quotes and writings.
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that is the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin
“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of
his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or
whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to
violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to
everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by
it.” -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816
“A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one
another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits
of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor
the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” -- Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” --Thomas Jefferson
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded
them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take
them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the
Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not
contemplated by its creators.” -- James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, in a letter to James Robertson
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money,
and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a
limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject
to particular exceptions.” -- James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792
On another point, you stated that you selected Donald Trump because he has suggested a revolution. I can understand your concern over his use of the word revolution. However, I close by quoting James Madison from his speech to the ratifying convention of Virginia on June 16, 1788. He said, "There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people
by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent
and sudden usurpations.”
I believe the last four years and the re-election of Barack Obama, as well as the push for redistribution of wealth, constitutes "gradual and silent encroachments" of the freedom of the people of the United States of America.
I await your reply, sir.
17 comments:
Mr. Cahill,
I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying that the constitution was trashed by having a Presidential Election, or are you just dissatisfied with the election's outcome?
Every Presidential election in my voting life (Since 1978) has ended with a whole bunch of people declaring that the country is in deep dooky, and a whole bunch of people (often the same) declare that they are moving to Canada. To my knowledge, though, the United States of America has survived as a constitutional republic, with very little emigration to Canada, or anywhere else.
This is still a great country. I can tell, because it's still legal for a couple of descendants of Irish immigrants, like you and me, to publicly point out what we don't like about it, and we are still given a chance to fix what's wrong. And you an officer of the court, no less.
Andrew Champ-Doran
Mr. Champ-Doran,
First, my being an officer of the court has no bearing on expressing my personal opinion.
Second, can you not see? President Obama is changing the country from a constitutional republic into a socialist democracy. It is plain and obvious.
He is redistributing wealth and using the government to pick winners and losers in support of the welfare state.
He has ordered that the laws of the United States not be enforced if he happens to personally disagree with them.
He engages in massive class warfare pitting rich versus poor, black versus white, and men versus women.
He is now looking to enter into a treaty with the United Nations mandating full gun control despite the Second Amendment of the Constitution.
He governs using Executive Orders even though the Constitution requires Congressional action.
During the campaign, the President said he had "a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared". Not earned. Shared. We take from those who earn it and give it to those he wants to have it. That is socialism by definition.
Now, I have watched as millions of people sat on their butts while a man with a clear socialist agenda has been reelected.
It was clear and obvious to anyone listening and watching that Obama was running on a pure socialist agenda. Yet, he still won. I fear that socialism is now the majority. I fear that the majority no longer asks not what the country can do for them, but instead asks, "What is the government going to give me next?"
The constitutional republic known as the United States may well have died on November 6, 2012.
Mr. Cahill,
I apologize. I meant no insult. I simply meant that it is a wonderful thing that a government agent, or any citizen, has the right to criticize the government. The First Amendment protections for you and I to do so are alive and well.
The Constitution itself provides for what you call "redistributing wealth", and to pick winners and losers".
I'll quote Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1. "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."
Because we disagree on what constitutes "general Welfare of the United States", does not change the fact of its constitutionality.
I fail to see the difference between when President Obama does it, and when President Reagan or President Bush does it. This country has been levying taxes under the authority of the Constitution since 1789, and even had the right to do so under the Articles of Confederation in 1781. The 16th Amendment allowed for Federal Income Taxes when it was ratified in 1913. I have not heard even the most radical of national elected officials seriously call for the abolition of taxes altogether.
I can see your point about ordering that laws not be enforced, but that's been happening for over two hundred years here in this constitutional republic.
Upon taking office in 1801, Thomas Jefferson pardoned a few of his friends lawfully jailed under the Alien and Sedition Acts, yet selectively prosecuted a few of his enemies under the same laws. Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus, and wrote and delivered the Emancipation Proclamation by executive order. George W. Bush, ignoring the 4th Amendment, secretly wiretapped Americans within the US, all the while proclaiming that it was illegal to do so. Even Mitt Romney continually promised to "repeal ObamaCare on day one.", though he never had the legal authority to do so.
Class warfare seems to be a matter of point of view. A White man making $27 million a year in capital gains, speaking to a room full of rich White men and women, calling 47% of the people in the country dependents, victims, and irresponsible takers...well, those seem like pretty insulting fighting words. They are especially troubling when you can see some of those "47%" in the tape, working hard, trying to support themselves, while serving those same rich White people. It seems that Romney doesn't even see them there, or he doesn't care that they can hear him.
Donald Trump is another rich White man that got a big head start from his rich father. Election night tweets for "a revolution in this country!", calling the electoral college a "disaster", and false claims of Romney winning the popular vote also suggest that he's another official Romney representative engaging in class warfare.
(more)
(continued from previous response)
Here are two dictionary definitions:
1) constitutional democracy noun
a system of government based on popular sovereignty in which the structures, powers,and limits of government are set forth in a constitution
2) so•cial•ism noun
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
I know that many think that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are pure Socialism, that feeding our poor and housing our homeless are something that we should not be doing. Some would say that educating the poor beyond high school is not our problem, or that helping struggling people should be the sole responsibility of families and churches. I disagree. This is not Socialism. It is societal obligation.
We are a Constitutional Republic. The Preamble to the Constitution is one sentence. “We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
When we ratified the Constitution, we committed to the laws, but we also became signatories to a social contract. I think the disagreement is more about the terms and limitations of that contract than whether we have breached it. The discussion needs to be engaged and continued, not abandoned in despair.
-Andrew Champ-Doran
My response to your 9:49 comment is placed within the original article. It is too long to be placed into comments.
Mr. Cahill,
I’d like to do a little housekeeping first, and clear up any misconceptions you or your readers may have.
To the point of class warfare, I express no contempt or animosity toward the making of money, or of inheriting money. I simply point out that wealthy people, attacking people who do not earn enough to pay federal taxes, is class warfare. The irony of the people with the class advantages of money, power, and access accusing the poor and powerless of class warfare is not lost on me, either.
You bring wealth, race, and sex into the discussion with your first reply when you claim of President Obama, “He engages in massive class warfare pitting rich versus poor, black versus white, and men versus women.”, and I respond using your words. I bring Trump into the discussion because he is the one calling for “revolution”. Those are his words. I hold no ill will for anyone making any amount of money by any legal and ethical means.
As you say, an investor earns his investment income. But, dividends are income that was never taxed in the first place. It is new income, and as such, should be taxed as ordinary income. Not on the whole amount, mind you, but on the earnings above principal. I do not, as you say, think it should be taxed three times. Just like the money I expect to earn from from my Social Security or my 403b, it should all be taxed as ordinary income as I draw on the funds. The real differences here are that I don’t get to write off losses from those investments over the years, I don’t get to declare earnings above principal as capital gains, and that I will pay taxes on all of it at my top overall income rate.
You say, “the wealthy are attacked for resenting those who live off the public dole even when they have the ability to work.” Most of Romney’s 47% not paying federal taxes are working, and not “living on the public dole”. American combat soldiers, including our own Congressman Chris Gibson, earned it. My retired parents, living on Social Security and a small pension, have earned it. Ayn Rand with personal wealth of over $500,000 when she died, earned her Medicare and Medicaid. When the Poughkeepsie Journal moved their press operations, my friend lost his job. He used Unemployment Compensation and Education benefits he had earned to bridge to a new job. It was a long and arduous struggle, but his young family is now back on its feet. When his father died, Paul Ryan admittedly did not need Social Security Dependent Benefits to live. Instead, he cashed in the benefits his father earned, saved it, and used some of it to pay for college. Sometimes, you do all you can do, and you still have a hard time. Who among these do you label dependents, victims, or irresponsible takers? If you doubt that is what he meant to say, I refer you to Romney’s comments last week about Obama winning the election because of gifts to African-American, Hispanic, and young voters; gifts like insurance, and college loans, and free birth control are what Romney claims won the election. I say it was gifts in the form of comments like Romney’s that helped Obama win.
(MORE)
(CONTINUED)
The vast majority of people who have been, and continue to be, on public assistance, are not taking the money and living the high life. I do not see people on Section 8 benefits living in mansions, but I am acquainted with a few living in very difficult conditions. Make a visit inside of Washington Manor, Elizabeth Manor, or any one of a number of houses on Franklin, Furnace, Henry, or St. James Streets. I have.
I am sure there are some people defrauding the system, but if you have specific information regarding this crime, is it not your duty and responsibility to report them to the Department of Social Services? While a number of people were cashing in Food Stamps for disallowed purposes, the real beneficiaries of the scam on Broadway last year were the owners of the business making it possible. The real numbers are bound to be a small fraction of the 47% Romney claims. And usually, those people don’t vote. A more thoughtful person, not interested in fomenting class warfare, might have said, “47% of Americans will not vote for me under any circumstances, 47% will not vote for my opponent under any circumstances, but I need your help to reach the middle 6%, and get my 47% out to the polls. Regardless of how they vote, my job as President Romney will be to work for all 310 million Americans.”
In any case, people who pay no Federal Income Taxes still pay plenty of taxes, most of it at the same flat rate as the other 53%. Every time you buy gas or cigarettes, you pay federal and state taxes. Pay for electric, phone, or cable, and you are paying those taxes. Tour a national park, say the Roosevelt Estate, Vanderbilt Estate, or the Statue of Liberty, and you pay a federal tax. Buy most goods and services in Ulster County, and you pay taxes. Register your car or your dog, and you pay a tax. Bridge fares, Thruway tolls, and Lottery tickets are all taxes. No matter how much you make, nobody rides for free.
Allow me to correct one more assumption, and I will move on to your constitutional arguments. I do not, and would not try to force my morality on you, or anyone else. You have every right to remain against abortions, and to work against laws and decisions that allow them. I have rarely indicated to anyone how I feel about that subject, but I do not presume to force my views upon you. Likewise, my views on the responsibilities of decent societies are not to be taken as being forced on anyone. These are strictly my opinions, and points for discussion. I put them forth for the reader’s consideration, no more.
(MORE)
(CONTINUED)
No, I do not think my sense of morality is written into the Constitution. However, the Taxing and Spending Clause allows Congress to levy taxes uniformly throughout the United States. The Constitution says congress can levy income taxes. The Constitution charges congress with making a budget, and allows for congress to spend the money as they agree to do so. They make the budget and spending into a bill. The Constitution requires the President then sign the bill into law, veto the bill, or take no action. Until suit is brought and the Supreme Court rules otherwise, the law is constitutional. This is not my morality. This is written in the constitution, clearly and plainly.
Let’s agree on this; to define a Republican form of government as: a type of government in which the citizens of a country have an active role in the affairs of the government, and the government is not headed by a hereditary ruler such as a king. Or, if you prefer, James Madison says in the Federalist Papers a republic “is a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people; and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior.” By acting under the Constitution to levy taxes (Article I, Section 8.1 and Amendment XVI ) and pass budget bills (Article I, Section 7.1, .2, and .3), our elected representatives only affirm that form of government. If you reread, you will find I previously pointed out the 16th Amendment was not ratified until 1913. Are you implying the 16th Amendment is somehow less valid or not as constitutional because it was not in the original convention? Whatever they could or could not imagine, the framers of the Constitution provided for changes in Article V. Those amendments were intentionally difficult to achieve, but still possible. As long as those changes are made according to Article V, they are constitutional.
Let me be clear. None of what I have said is an argument for Socialism. You have no right to take my car and have the Central Committee define a driving schedule in it for me and my neighbors. I have no rights to yours. I never advocated for Socialism, and I never will. I defined Socialism in an a comment above. Socialism and redistribution of wealth are specifically defined, and should in no way be confused with lawful taxation and budgetary spending as approved by our duly elected representatives.
I am fully committed to our Constitution, as I assume you are. The whole of Article IV, Section 4 says the following: ”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 the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence.”
My original point stands as before. Our Constitution is alive and well, and is the foundation of our republic. We periodically face tests of the constitution, and still it survives. That has not changed with the reelection of one President. Your first post, repeated by many people every four years, is hyperbole. Our country may need work, but the founders knew that. They knew they weren’t perfect, and they allowed for change and improvement. As long as enough of us are willing to do the job, we will remain the place that all of us want to live.
-Andrew Champ-Doran
I am in awe that we the people now look at our successful people with such disdain.
The problem I see is a so called leader telling me and everyone else that thier station is life is a result of a successful person.
Why cant this president and his followers understand that not everyone is ENTITLED to the american dream, its earned?
Why cant he explain to people that its not the governments job to hold thier hand and walk with them through life?
Lets use this example:
A man makes $100 million a year, he pays 10% taxes. Thats $10 mil per year and he uses no services other than the same as his neighbor who makes $50k a year and pays 10% or $5 k per year.
Isnt that fair and why should one man be punished for his success, because Obama and 47% of the people havent gotten ahead?
Remeber Caddy Shack, "The world needs ditch diggers too"...
We have lost sight of this, and the president wants everyone to be even, and thats not how the world works.
When we eleceted someone who has proomised to level the palying field, its scoialism not matter what you try to say differently.
From where I come from if I make more money and pay what is owed, my president shouldnt be telling me that I owe more because there are people who arent on my level. His job is to handle the operation of the govt, not play robin hood or make me the bad guy because I have worked 24hrs a day for 25 years.
If I choose to help my fellow man, that comes from the charity in my heart, not some person in the white house who wants to be loved for being passionate. Thats not what we elect a president to do!
Which is why I believe we have fundementaly changed as a country, and I am anxious to see how this play out when the wealthy start to pack up and leave...who is going to pay for everyone to sit home then?
I have posted my reply in the text of the article under second update.
I am enjoying this debate and urge others to join it.
Keep it respectful and intelligent please.
Food for thought, Andrew.
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.”
Thomas Jefferson knew back then, that a bloated government and abuse of social service programs were not in the best interests of a productive and healthy United States.
Mr Cahill,
I, too, find this discussion fascinating and fun. What began as a shared experiment has opened into a more sustained exposition of thinking than this format usually allows. I welcome opinions from anybody willing to join in. This affirms the basic premise of KingstonBarn; that we can have a thoughtful exchange that finds points of agreement. It's only from there that we can find solutions.
On your points regarding redistribution of wealth, I agree to some of them. True, the phrase is not found in the constitution, but then, neither is your definition. I will concede to the first part, “transfer of money, wealth, or property from one of means to one of limited or no means…” At root, that is the true definition of redistribution of wealth, and the rest, about righting social wrong, is slanted modifier. I am not too sure of “limited or no means”, either, as you will see. Under this definition, all taxation is redistribution of wealth.
We tax, and we redistribute to make roads, buildings, bridges, monuments, ships, planes, and ammunition. We tax, and we redistribute to industries, corporations, universities, parks, small businesses, hospitals, prisons, states, counties, and municipalities. We tax, and we redistribute to contractors, soldiers, police, teachers, employees, vendors, farmers, consultants, politicians, artists, scientists, lawyers, and managers. And yes, we tax, and we redistribute to the unemployed, the underemployed, the survivors, the retired, the disabled, the veterans, the homeless, and the elderly.
Last Summer, my beautiful bride and I took the kids down to Gallo Park, just to sit and watch Sunday afternoon go by. We were sitting on the bench, marking the boats as they returned to their docks for the day. Not too much time passed before we had seen boats of every description motor in, from big yachts to small 14’ Sunfish two-handers. Here is how I know we are not anywhere near Socialism. There were many boats, all of them unique, tied up next to each other. Not once in all of that day, did a government official walk up and give me my boat.
The warnings of sliding down the slippery slope to Socialism have been coming for a lot longer than I can remember. I expect they will keep coming. That may be a good thing, because it’s possible that a small part of what keeps us from Socialism is that there are those that keep warning us about Socialism. Whether the cries come from Chicken Little or a coal mine canary is left for all of us to examine. I would bet, though, that the real reason is much closer to most people just plain would not tolerate it. Sure, the Socialist Party shows up on the presidential ballot every four years, but so does the Libertarian Party. If you are worried about how popular either philosophy really is, just count their votes.
(MORE)
(continued from previous response)
The quotes you cite are certainly pertinent to this conversation, but I will say that they carry less import than the actions of the men who spoke them. Thomas Jefferson was categorically against big government until he was in charge of one. While he agreed the US Constitution made no provision for acquiring new territories (not unlimited powers… but only those specifically enumerated), Jefferson went ahead with the Louisiana Purchase and doubled the size of our country. He claimed that the Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional, but he prosecuted several of his enemies under those very same laws.
On a family trip to Monticello this past June, we were shown writings of Thomas Jefferson, and told he called slavery a “crime against humanity,” and “an abomination”. That was not long before we were invited to the slave shops and quarters, and we found out that he freed a grand total of two of his six hundred fifty slaves in his lifetime. The man who wrote, “…all men are created equal,” took action quite different from his writings and explanations.
Madison may have written explanations of “general welfare” in letters after the fact, but the phrase was, in the US Constitution, intentionally left for Congress and the Supreme Court to interpret and apply.
Your final quote is quite easy to agree with, and I will repeat it here. “There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” But, none of what you claim is dragging us down the road to Socialism has been done in silence, and all of it has been vetted by the protections afforded in the US Constitution.
I know it’s been said before, but, I will say it again. The genius of the framers of the Constitution is not that they wrote the document and managed ratification. Their real brilliance was that they were aware they did not know everything, including the future. They allowed for change and interpretation according to the will of the governed.
I will repeat that I do not think government should give us everything, or control all aspects of our lives. In this discussion, I am not advocating for those programs ( though, of course I would, if asked). I am simply saying, here, that they are legal.
I again affirm your argument. The Constitution guarantees a Constitutional Republic form of government. I will also reaffirm that our social programs do not meet the bar of the definition of Socialism. Our Supreme Court has interpreted what Congress and the President have done, over the past 220 years, as constitutional or not. President Obama has done no more or less to change that than Presidents Reagan, Roosevelt, Lincoln, or Jefferson.
Greater minds than ours have disagreed on the powers and limits afforded by the Constitution. The fact that there are few, if any, unanimous decisions handed down by the Supreme Court is the simple, elegant proof to that statement.
-Andrew Champ-Doran
(continued from previous response)
The quotes you cite are certainly pertinent to this conversation, but I will say that they carry less import than the actions of the men who spoke them. Thomas Jefferson was categorically against big government until he was in charge of one. While he agreed the US Constitution made no provision for acquiring new territories (not unlimited powers… but only those specifically enumerated), Jefferson went ahead with the Louisiana Purchase and doubled the size of our country. He claimed that the Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional, but he prosecuted several of his enemies under those very same laws.
On a family trip to Monticello this past June, we were shown writings of Thomas Jefferson, and told he called slavery a “crime against humanity,” and “an abomination”. That was not long before we were invited to the slave shops and quarters, and we found out that he freed a grand total of two of his six hundred fifty slaves in his lifetime. The man who wrote, “…all men are created equal,” took action quite different from his writings and explanations.
Madison may have written explanations of “general welfare” in letters after the fact, but the phrase was, in the US Constitution, intentionally left for Congress and the Supreme Court to interpret and apply.
Your final quote is quite easy to agree with, and I will repeat it here. “There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” But, none of what you claim is dragging us down the road to Socialism has been done in silence, and all of it has been vetted by the protections afforded in the US Constitution.
I know it’s been said before, but, I will say it again. The genius of the framers of the Constitution is not that they wrote the document and managed ratification. Their real brilliance was that they were aware they did not know everything, including the future. They allowed for change and interpretation according to the will of the governed.
I will repeat that I do not think government should give us everything, or control all aspects of our lives. In this discussion, I am not advocating for those programs ( though, of course I would, if asked). I am simply saying, here, that they are legal.
I again affirm your argument. The Constitution guarantees a Constitutional Republic form of government. I will also reaffirm that our social programs do not meet the bar of the definition of Socialism. Our Supreme Court has interpreted what Congress and the President have done, over the past 220 years, as constitutional or not. President Obama has done no more or less to change that than Presidents Reagan, Roosevelt, Lincoln, or Jefferson.
Greater minds than ours have disagreed on the powers and limits afforded by the Constitution. The fact that there are few, if any, unanimous decisions handed down by the Supreme Court is the simple, elegant proof to that statement.
-Andrew Champ-Doran
Mr. Champ-Doran,
You attack Jefferson and Madison based on mistakes they made in their lifetime, but rely upon the wisdom of the Supreme Court to bolster your opinion.
The Supreme Court has offered many "interpretations" over the years that run contrary to the actual constitution.
For example, they issued an opinion in the Dred Scott case that African-Americans were property and not human beings.
They have also created rights out of whole cloth that have no basis in the Constitution and should have been issues for the States under the 10th Amendment.
The Supreme Court was designed to define the limitations of the Constitution. Unfortunately, the Court has allowed itself to become a second legislature and a policy decider. It is supposed to enforce the Constitution but instead bends it and twists it to the point of breaking.
I always find it interesting when someone argues that the Constitution is great because it can be bent to serve the current intent of the day.
In actuality, the government is supposed to serve the people under the restrictions of the Constitution.
However, just as government now seemingly demands that the people serve it, government now demands that the Constitution serve the government as well.
A big part of the so-called justification for creeping (or perhaps now full gallloping) Socialism is the claim that the Constitution is a "living document" that molds itself to our will. Such talk is nonsense. The Constitution was designed to keep the federal government limited and under control.
Sadly, as with any document or rule of law, when people (such as Jefferson in the example you note) disregard same for personal or alleged societal gain, we abandon the founding principles. I doubt whether the founding fathers would even recognize the United States of 2012.
Mr. Cahill,
Success! The point of this blog, and this conversation, is to find points of agreement, and we have.
I concur with much of what you’ve written above. I will get to our common views presently, but first…
I take some slight umbrage with the characterization of pointing out the differences between what Madison and Jefferson said and did as an “attack”. As you raise their words in support of your points, I point to their actions regarding the Constitution in support of mine.
Madison and Jefferson were great and complicated men, shaping their country and their world in difficult times. They did more than most to create the United States of America. They wrought the documents that are the foundation of this country. Of course they made mistakes along the way, as will all men in any office, but my point remains. What they wrote in letters or articles about the Constitution does not change what they did in the Constitution, or what they did for or against it as it stood.
(MORE)
(continued from previous post)
I will agree with you that the Supreme Court has been making decisions that run contrary to the Constitution, as you remark, “over the years”. Your example of the Dred Scott Decision (1857) was considered one of the worst in American history. It ran over States Rights and held an Act of Congress unconstitutional. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) upheld Jim Crow laws, nearly 30 years after the 14th Amendment passed. Schenck v. United States (1919) trampled over the defendant’s 1st Amendment rights to freedom of speech.
In 1886, The Supreme Court declared corporations are people and have all of the constitutional rights of people, even though the Constitution explicitly guarantees rights for people and grants none to corporations. That was Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, and the Citizens United decision of 2010 upheld that and affirmed that money equals speech. I will give a tax-free dollar to the first who can show me those two provisions anywhere in the Constitution.
Your contention that these bad decisions have been going on for years, though, only supports mine as it relates to your original post. You say we killed the Constitutional Republic on Election Day this year. The President, Congress, and the Supreme Court have been taking actions “that run contrary to the actual constitution” for well over 200 years. Here are the choices: Either, the constitutional republic known as the United States of America was killed within ten years of its birth and has been buried a thousand times over, or it is alive and well and will survive this President, this Court, and this Congress, as it has in times of Reagan, Nixon, Roosevelt, Hoover, Lincoln, Jefferson, and Adams.
The Constitution’s Amending Clause (Article V, Section I) does not make it easy to change, nor does it make change impossible. I would not say that makes it flexible enough to bend to the intent of the day. What I did say was, “They allowed for change and interpretation according to the will of the governed.”
If Frank Luntz wants to call taxing and spending, which has been legal and allowed by the Constitution since its ratification, “redistribution of wealth”, he may. If Roger Ailes wants to define government spending as ”Socialism”, I suppose he can do that, too. Rick Warren can call Supreme Court Judges “activist” because he does not like their decisions. He can even convene an arena revival to get others to chant and cheer his words. But them saying it, and getting others to repeat it, does not make it so.
Your first-response complaint, that “millions of people sat on their butts while a man with a clear socialist agenda has been reelected,” does not change the definition of a republican form of government. The lazy abdication of civic duty does not buy any citizen a pass on responsibility.
By any definition you choose, we have a republican form of government. We directly elect our representatives, as described in the Constitution. We send our Electors to elect the President, as described in the Constitution. The President nominates and the Congress confirms our Supreme Court Justices, as described in the Constitution. Laws are passed in Congress, signed by the President, and interpreted by the Courts, all as described in the Constitution. The Constitution also provides for removal of all of these officers, should circumstances warrant. According to the Constitution, our first stop in controlling our government is at our polling place.
In the beginning or in the end, our most important agreement is, and must be, that our duty does not end with the ballot box. Without our action, our civil rights are only so much fading ink on yellowing pieces of paper.
-Andrew Champ-Doran
Post a Comment