Mr. Obama, I ask that you consider your oath and what it means. Many on your new team are the authors or the worker bees that have shredded our Constitution and Government… FULL ARTICLE
Stephen M. Osborn [send him email] is a freelance writer living on Camano Island in the Pacific Northwest. He is an "Atomic Vet." (Operation Redwing, Bikini Atoll 1956), who has been very active working and writing for nuclear disarmament and world peace. He is a retired Fire Battalion Chief, lifelong sailor, writer, poet, philosopher, historian and former newspaper columnist.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Good lettr…if you didn’t send this to him…someone should print this off and mail it to him…to remind HIM of what he said he would do…and Michael is right…we have 2 houses full of criminals are in there
Steve – I’m with you on printing this off. But, I don’t expect that giving it to Obama will make any difference. I’d rather spend my time giving it to my friends and family. I think a lot of people are going to be really disappointed in Mr Change – if they’re honest about it!
yes Dave, you are more than likely correct. And i have printed this off…and have sent it to many people i know, as well as my neighbors. While in theory what the president says may sound good. But many mnay people who did vote for him, and are supporters of him …are going to be terribly disappointed as The president can bark and sabre rattle till the cows come home, but if the House and senate say NO…all he will end up doing is beating a dead horse..yet again…have a good week end, i am going to get ready for the post-inaugrual party to finish up and see how many “lobbiest” are still able to function seeing he all but has locked them out of the White House…
Other than rhetoric such as “hope” and “change”, I haven’t heard much from Obama that sounds even remotely constitutional. I applaud him for shutting Guantanamo – and will actually be happy what that really happens. But as far as the economy, war in Afghanistan, the drug war, military presence around the world, I hear nothing worthwhile. Oh, what about FISA, Patriot Act, and spying immunity? How about prosecuting the criminals that just left office?
Isn’t this new president supposed to be some sort of Constitutional scholar or something? All I know is that the constitution doesn’t need a scholar to interpret it. It’s written in plain english. If someone claims to be a scholar of the constitution, that’s just a warning to me that they’re going to use all kinds of legalese in order to violate it.
Good article, Mr. Osborn. However, please refer to the third paragraph from the bottom and complete your sentence. Also, ending your piece with a not-so-veiled threat most certainly has you on the Gestap… uh, I mean the Secret Service’s list of People of Interest. If you begin to notice clean-cut young men wearing sunglasses going through your garbage and the IRS suddenly takes an interest in your last six returns, you’ll know why.
I think it is strange that you start to attack Mr. Obama just a blink of an eye after he is sworn in. Actually, some of the things you complain about were done by the previous administration. Please give him a chance to get something done, before you start critizing him.
Obama was elected by 54% of the vote. That means that he got at least 4 white votes for each black vote. So no need for racial concerns. Watching the inaugeration, the crowd was heavily black. But so is the population of Washington, DC. No surprise.
The alternative to Obama was 4 more years of the same. I do not know how any thinking person could vote for that.
I wish him all of the best in an extremely difficult job. His success is our success.
How is just saying how things are, an “attack”?? Replies like remind me of the kind of feedback we’d get when pointing out things that Bush was doing early on.
Any time you’d say – “Bush – follow the Constitution” – we’d get people emailing, telling us to stop attacking our leader, to understand that he’s far better than what we would’ve had with Gore, that we were in tough times, that he had a long road ahead, and on and on and on.
Seems like it’s either the same people defending the new president against calls to adhere to the Constitution, or there’s just something really wrong in this country – like emperor worship.
Mr. Obama needs to remember that he is president of **all** the people, not only the ones who voted for him and support his programs. Stop looking at the electoral college vote, and remind yourself of the popular vote. Had it not been for the (now openly admitted) bias by the press, you might have lost by the same margin you won by. If the people who did **not** vote for you choose to organize a resistance movement, which many of us have, two years from now your party could lose its majority in both houses. If you are sufficiently derelict in your duty to, as you swore, to preserve, uphold, and defend the Constitution, an impeachment process would not be out of order, especially if you choose to ignore the impeachable activities you promised to bring to justice.
John, he’s not my president. And if his opponent would’ve won, he wouldn’t have been my president either! I’d rather just abolish the entire office. What good is it, other than telling us what to do, destroying our economy, and killing a few million people overseas every decade or so.
Hi, “In the Weeds,” I guess I should have put in a comma rather than a period, but the concern is still there. I want to see a return to a Constitutional government before I take a deep breath of relief.
We have the misnamed PATRIOT Act and its successors, the Military Commissions Act, the canceling of habeas corpus, the various enhanced spying on citizens acts, the canceling of the “posse comitatus” allowing the government (military Northern Command or NorthCom) to prepare to use troops to quell any civil dissent. They have one combat brigade trained or under training as a civil control unit. All of this is illegal, unconstitutional and should be repealed. As long as this illegally stays on the books, we are still in an unconstitutional state as the documents illegally set aside the Constitution. Get copies of them and read them alongside the Constitution. If that does not clarify what has happened, I don’t know what will.
We have Concentration Camps prepared for civil dissidents if decided necessary by the powers that be. I have a copy of the Military Manual for treatment of civilian detainees and their use as laborers.
And as to “thinly veiled threat” if you will look at the sentence I said, “I ask all of you to remember…” If our “change” remains just another dictatorship, I hope the American People will remember the Declaration of Independence and throw the whole damned mess out, to start again, after first finding Diogenes’ lamp so we can search for an honest man to lead us.
Steve, I believe the part of the declaration that’s most important, and refers to what you’re saying here is Jefferson’s call to “duty”:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
The Constitution is and should be the most important historical and living document in the life of each and every citizen of the United States but it has never been treated as such. Test the average citizen on his/her knowledge of the Constitution and the landmark cases that have been decided pursuant to its terms. One can be, and many are, totally ignorant of its contents and the cases that have interpreted it and still cast a vote. The only citizens that have to know something about the subject are naturalized immigrants. We are taught by our peers not to mention politics (the Constitution) and religion. In short, talking about the Constitution and the rights and obligations, privileges and duties, is not the way to make one’s self popular or to get votes.
My concern at present is not with the President but rather with We, the People. If we do not do our best to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, we should not be surprised if our leaders, or rulers, act as though we could care less.
What a great piece Steve! And I too have felt and do feel apprehensive about the slow retreat to “what was”. I voted for Obama because the alternative was unthinkable and with a new fresh promise of change, we had nothing to lose.
I would suggest that an action page be set up and let us all send a copy of the Commentary to every one of our “Leaders” including Obama for sure.
And once again let me raise the specter of Punishment. We would be much more likely to get meaningful change if we punish those who have brought our country to its sorrowful plight. We need to punish the wrongdoers.
Steve and all I have been calling for a punishment of the Republican Party. It is not an indication that the Democrats are better than the Republicans, it is simply a statement that the GOP was the last to have been able to bring change and they refused to do so.
We absolutely can punish that party and we can remind Obama and the Democrats that we can do the same to them if they fail to bring the needed changes.
All we need to do to punish a political party is to shun them at the ballot in the future.
I tire from hearing about how Obama was elected by the majority of Americans. The election is nothing more then a game of smoke and mirrors. Created to make the foolish masses believe that we the people truly choose our leaders. There are only two parties which are really the same party. If you vote for any other party, you throw your vote. If any descent candidate runs for office within the two parties, then they are discredited. Far as I am concerned we have another puppet that was chosen to perform tricks for our amusement.
Hey Williamson, I couldn’t agree with you more. Like I said above, he’s not my president, I don’t even want one. I think this whole voting thing is just a sham, a way to try to placate the masses into thinking that we have some kind of control.
Well Williamson and Ashley I think I presented a way to punish the Party and give warning to all remaining parties. And yes someone from a party other than Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee can be elected. It will get much easier to do if we get rid of one of the parties – starting tonight. Resolve to never again vote for a Republican Candidate. It won’t take long for the moral and ethical Republicans ( yes they do exist and in large numbers) who are seeking office to realize that running in the GOP is a pathway to nowhere.
There are 135 parties. The membership of these parties are greated than the combined Dems and Repubs. Now whay can’t a coalition of the Independents kick the immoral bunch out? The reality is that they can. We just have to want to.
For those that vote, I would definitely say go with Cliff’s method. Even with the all the rules and regulations that do everything possible to keep independents out of debates, and off of ballots, you’re still better giving your vote to someone, anyone, other than republicans or democrats. As long as people keep voting for those, the Constitution is doomed.
John Quincy Adams put it best: “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”
On the other hand, there are plenty who don’t want to participate in the system at all. I count myself as one of them – no one gets my vote unless they truly earn it in a way that would represent my beliefs. In my short lifetime, I’ve found only one person that could, Ron Paul. If there are others, I will likely vote for them.
But, in the meantime, I don’t believe that putting the fate of our liberty in the hands of some future election is the best choice. – for any society whose liberty rests on the goodness or badness of people running for political office is in serious trouble.
Maybe the house of cards that is the us federal government will just collapse, and we can start over in our own communities.
Allen, you are correct. We do have a duty. The sad part is that very few people today are even acquainted with the documents, let alone their contents. They are not taught in school anymore. Many deem them quaint eighteenth century relics, obsolete in the twenty-first.
Remember, We the People have been assaulted by a propaganda machine unlike anything sen before on the planet. People are programmed, hypnotized by faux news, fast food, video games, American Idol and sports until they are too numb to think anymore. I just left a comment on the new White House web site. I wonder if I will get a thoughtful answer, or any answer at all? I never got one from the former resident.
—————————————-
Mr. President, you have indicated a return to Constitutional Government. That must surely mean that such unconstitutional acts as the Patriot act, the MCA, the various spying on citizen acts will be repealed as they illegally set aside the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Posse Comitatus must be replaced so the military can no longer be used against us in the US. Habeas Corpus must be restored. As long as these illegal acts continue to hang over us, we will NOT have a Constitutional Government.
————————————————-
There is so much illegality to overturn, and I think We the People are going to have to be the ones to do it. In many articles, I have stated perhaps my greatest fear; that the reason there has been no impeachment, no restoration of Constitutional values, is that both parties want to inherit this illegal government to use for their own ends, which will no doubt be the same, as they are owned by the same oligarchy.
As the illegalities mount, and they do from Administration to Administration, the task grows. Yes without the ACLU there would be many more, but they were more like a a person standing outside swatting at a horde of locusts expecting to end the locust plague.
Their effort was notable, the result not an eradication of wrongdoing. Yes Progress was made, but what our Government needs is a thorough scrubbing, a bath using lye soap.
The experience won’t be pleasant but it is doable. We must begin to punish the criminal element. They must be taught that breaking the law is a punishable offense. Has anything happened in the last twenty years to instruct them otherwise?
Mr. Osborn,
I am fully aware of the acts you mentioned as well as canceling habeas corpus (Lincoln would be proud) and have no disagreement with you whatever.
I am also aware of Jefferson’s comment in his letter to Wm Smith, but if he had said it directly to the President, it would have been a threat (of course, he didn’t have the Secret Service — spelled “SS” — to deal with, either). In the same letter, he also wrote of “lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.” If writing to “all of you,” I think this is a better (or certainly safer) quote to use.
The problem with learning about the Constitution lies in the ones teaching it (public schools, The History Channel and pretty much any source that receives public funding). Ironically, Jefferson (in the same letter) alluded to that also. He spoke of the British press reporting anarchy in the Americas until virtually everyone in Great Britain believed it. We have the same problem with public funded sources teaching the “living Constitution.”
Robert Castle’s post referred to the Constitution as a “living document.” That sounds good until you realize what Holmes and Brandeis meant by the term. If the Constitution should be interpreted in light of changing public opinion, it becomes a mere license for the whim of any megalomanic who happens to ascend to the US throne.
I don’t like what I have just read. I would like to hope, but alas, I am a pragmatic man.
If what I’m reading turns out to be true, the one thing I can be thankful for is that my family has left the US and may never return.
I was once a flag waving patriot who stood at attention as a small boy and a young adult with tears in my eyes when “Old Glory” was passing by in marches. I volunteered to join the US military in 1962 with the intent to make it a career choice. I was chosen to become a top notch Communications Electronics Technician with a clearance. I used to voluntarily block Radio Peking, only to discover that our America really is a lot of “Imperial Pigs!” I left the military at my first opportunity after being forced to witness far greater atrocities in Vietnam than have ever come to light in the US. Yes! We were “BABY KILLERS!!” I have never since been proud of being an American.
How many Americans realize that the US Militry was in Vietnam stirring trouble since 1954 when we rescued the French? How many people strongly suspect that flight 007 Korean Airliner was purposely off course when it left Alaska? How many people knew that there were no Iraqis on any of the planes that were involved in the Twin Towers incident? How many people are aware that Norad is supposed to be supplyin airborn monitoring
for New York, Washington DC and the Pentagon? Where were they? I know they weren’t there! I know that the invasion of Iraq was intentional from before Bush W. was “selected” to be resident of the White House.
Outgoing President Eisenhower hit the “nail on the head” when he warned in his final address that Americans should fear the growing military industrial complex. Our government has been in decline ever since. By 2002, not only was the Executive branch of the government corrup, the House of Representatives was corrupted, the Senate nearly so, and the Judicial Branch became mostly corrupted.
The Iraq invasion was not to “liberate” the people from the despot the US helped to power. That was a convenient excuse as were the false assertions of Iraq having weapons of mass destructon, and “nucular” preperations. Hog Wash! It was all about getting control of the Oil, water and other resources as well as making a “permanent” military presence in the region.
Why do you think the US backs Isreal’s military actions? Because they are important allies to help fulfill our secreted intentions for that region of the world. Why are so many PERMANENT military bases built in Iraq while the Iraqis still don’t have reliable electric power or clean water, etc.?
Why is Obama Bin Laden still alive? He’s useful. To kill him and eradicate his shadow military would cause the American public to start wondering why we were still there. In order to keep the wars going! I remember being taught in Civics Class in 8th grade that “War is good for the economy!” I would say: “Up to a point.”
The corruption in government has been closely watched by opportunits (CEOs) who have plundered the wealth of our country as a result.
Can it be stopped? Yes, but I fear it may be so bad at this point that nothing short of the complete fall of the United States Empire will bring that about, and perhaps Chinese will become the official national language, or one of our home grown despotic will become Emperor as Bush W dreamed, out loud, of becoming. I’m disgusted and demoralized, and glad I now live halfway around the world from there.
Ilian
Intheweeds, you make an important point – one that I’ve many discussions about lately too. When talking about the proper role of government with people, it’s always a massive uphill battle, because of how virtually all of us have been trained in the government education system. Strictly limited government (and especially the 10th Amendment) is not something the government likes to teach its subjects about. If you havent read it yet, Murray Rothbard does a really good study on education in his book, Education: Free and Compulsory
Right from Hitler’s lips:
“When an opponent declares,
‘I will not come over to your side.’
I calmly say, ‘Your child belongs to us already…
What are you? You will pass on.
Your descendants, however,
now stand in the new camp.
In a short time they will know nothing
else but this new community.’”
Ilian – you’ve made some excellent points here, especially in regards to foreign policy the never-ending military-industrial (congressional) complex.
However, I do not feel the fall the the US Empire – I welcome it with open arms, and do not fear aggression against us without the US federal government’s massive military. On the contrary, as long as it continues to exist and act in the manner that it does today, we’re in far worse danger of retaliation than we ever would be existing and trading peacefully with the world.
Hi Intheweeds,
I’m over seventy, so have seen a lot of changes. I was part of a student body that scared the hell out of our parents by exposing McCarthy, by using parody and stump speeches when he came to Seattle with his garbage. We used the Constitution and Bill of Rights for our arguments.
I am a nuclear veteran, who spent much of his life fighting for an end to nuclear arms and the arms race. I was so happy to see the non-proliferation and mutual arms reduction treaties, as well as the peaceful uses of space treatiy go into effect. I was horrified to see CheneyBush unilaterally discard those treaties, along with the Geneva Conventions, which are the “law of the land” (see the Constitution, Article VI) and restart these horrors, to the enormous profit of the arms and nuclear industries.
I’ve written a hundred or so articles on these and other political subjects (some are here in the Populist)
I am a firm believer in the Constitution, which includes the Bill of Rights and the subsequent amendments.
Henry Clay said “The Constitution of the United States was made not merely for the generation that then existed, but for posterity — unlimited, undefined, endless perpetual posterity.”
Chief Justice John Marshall said, “The subject is the execution of those great powers on which the welfare of a nation essentially depends… This provision is made in a Constitution intended to endure for ages to come and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.”
The Constitution has never been a dead letter. The method for amending it is built into the document itself. (Article V.) There is no mention that the Constitution or any part of it may be changed or set aside by legislative or executive fiat.
President Grover Cleveland wrote, “Public officers are the servants and agents of the people, to execute laws which the people have made and within the limits of a constitution which they have established.”
Jefferson, himself, did not believe that the Constitution was a dead letter. He wrote, “Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the Ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment…. Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind…. We might as well require a man to wear the coat that fitted him as a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regime of these ancestors.”
However, he did not ever advocate change without the due process set up in the Constitution. The Constitution is a statement of ideals, a rejection of tyranny and lawlessness. The Supreme Court is not to look at the Constitution as a frozen document, but is to consider it in the light of its ideals, its philosophy. As times have changed, the Constitution has changed. Many amendments have been proposed, but for the most part, the amendments that restricted freedom were rejected by the people. Those that promoted civil rights and the basic dignity of man were passed and became the “Law of the Land.
Justice Hugo Black stated, “It is my belief that there are absolutes in our Bill of Rights, and that they were put there on purpose by men who knew what words meant and meant their prohibitions to be ‘absolutes.”
Those absolutes were not to be tampered with by little pismires filled with greed and self interest, and they still aren’t!
Ashley,
If you are an American citizen, then you have placed yourself under the “rule of law” of this land – the Constitution and the system of government outlined there. As far as the relative value of the office of the president, the issue is not the individual as much as the relative care and concern for Constitutional law evidenced by the electorate – which you and I are, by definition. I did not vote for Bill Clinton either, but he was the duly constituted chief executive officer of these United States. Although I have a great many issues with Mr. Clinton, Mrs. Clinton, and a smaller number with the elder and the younger George Bush, I have a far greater concern for the dwindling to almost non-existence of any commonality between myself and my “fellow Americans”. I believe in the Constitution, they evidently do not. I believe in the Bill of Rights, they evidently do not. I believe in the core values of the people who forged this nation out of the wilderness – the basically decent, mostly Christian settlers, but who, in their generosity, opened our borders to people from virtually every land, with freedom to pursue their version of the American dream, practice their own religion, (or none at all, if they chose). It is not the system or the office that is at fault, but the badly informed and misguided people who put the wrong people into that office, and then fail to demand accountability.
The Constitution and the holy books have much in common. Most of the people who criticize them have not read them and those that have interpret them to suit their own needs. One has to believe and have faith in them to get positive results. In the case of the Constitution one must “preserve, defend, and protect” it as it is written and has been interpreted by those who have the authority to do so (judges, not presidents). There are legal means for amending the Constitution.
Micheal,
It concerns me greatly that intelligent, literate, assumedly well-informed people could believe that having a strong US military is more of an incentive for attacks against us than not having one. That kind of logic gave us Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, and Hirohito, and the tragedy in terms of loss of human life and disruptions in human societies around the world that took nearly two generations to recover from.
Do you really think, based on Israel’s recent experience with a unilateral cease fire, that we should expect otherwise from Arab terrorists? If you do, on what grounds? Give me something concrete, that can stand the scrutiny of hard, objective analysis. From where I stand and observe, the overwhelming facts of history deny your position absolutely. The worst thing that Barack Obama could hear from this blog is that people here support decimating the only real deterrent to increased hostility toward our nation – a strong military. China and Russia have had to take note of how our military, strapped as it is fighting two wars with an all-volunteer force, continues to make real gains in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
John, thanks for your feedback and your perspective. But to answer your question, all you really need to do is put yourself in other people’s position. Just good ole fashioned empathy.
If the Chinese, for example, set up military bases in the US, Canada and Mexico, had a history of overthrowing governments in your region and in your state, funded groups that committed massive human rights violations in your community, and waged wars that resulted in the deaths of countless friends and family – what would you do?
If you resisted, you’d be considered a “terrorist” by the imperial power, the Chinese in this example. Would you? Or would you sit idly by?
The CIA terms this to be “blowback” – this is “a term used in espionage to describe the unintended consequences of covert operations. From the outside, blowback typically appears random and without cause, because the public is unaware of the secret operations that provoked it.”
I realize that the idea of the US military and US foreign policy causing Americans more harm than good is not something that many in this country are able or even ready to see as a reality. But that reality is there.
If you don’t fee too confronted by the concept, there are many good books out there that talk about this in detail.
You could also read the 9-11 Commission Report – which explains the why – the terrorists attack over here because of years and years of intervention overseas.
“having a strong US military is more of an incentive for attacks against us than not having one.”
I do have to point out that this is not my position. Merely having a strong military and keeping it ready for defensive purposes is one thing. How it is used is another. My quarrel is primarily with the latter.
I agree with you Michael. Having a strong Military is imperative for the United States. We need a strong defense. But we only need one to protect ourselves not to be an oppressor nation.
The last three Administrations have been oppressor Administrations. There is a real danger in this type behavior.
If we’d just stick to the 9th and 10th Amendments, we’d have little to worry about:
9th: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10th: 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.
The problem is that “we” don’t run the government. “They” do.
I’m greatly encouraged to see some folks who still realize that the Constitution isn’t merely a legislative guideline. It’s the law, and those who violate it are, by definition, criminals – doubly so for those who actually take an oath to defend it.
I have no problem with those who dislike the Constitution. As with any law, if a gov’t official doesn’t like it, he can either swallow hard and obey or try to have it amended to his liking. However, under a free Republic, the one thing he cannot do is to ignore it.
A lot of ideas may have merit, but Congress must approach each with two preliminary questions: first, they must address whether they have Constitutional jurisdiction and secondly, whether the proposal is itself Constitutional. If both questions are answered affirmatively, only then should the merits of any proposal even be considered.
Sadly, literacy and other tough skills (such as the ability to find the United States on a map) aren’t requirements for voting. I realize I’m a bit hung-up on this, but firmly believe that as long as people are educated through public schools and slick television and remain too lazy or too naive or too selfish or too indifferent to study for themselves, the nanny state will continue its socialistic slide. After all, TV news is soooo authoritative with its million dollar sets, immaculately coiffured anchors and awards they give one another, they couldn’t possibly be showing us anything less than the true picture, could they?
Signing off. It’s not time for a blood pressure pill, but I think I’ll take one anyway.
Hey intheweeds, so are you saying that the government shouldn’t be involved in education? If so, I’m right with you! I went to a religious school, and was taught that this religion was the best thing on earth (and elsewhere) – not always directly, but it was definitely the underlying message.
Guess what – when people go to a government school, do you think they’re taught that government is anything but glorious?
Goose: Yup, that’s what I’m saying. For example, anyone who thinks they could graduate from, say, a British school with the same opinion of our founding fathers as we have is just “bloody naive, mate.” Everyone has an agenda, whether presented subtly or otherwise; it’s human nature.
Parochial schools are essentially expanded home-schools, reflecting values similar to those of the students’ parents, so if they weren’t required to cowtow to Big Brother, I wouldn’t have a problem with them, despite the religious agenda aspect.
I have to agree 1000% with dave Anderson’s latest responce (#38) when he said, They Run the Government…It seems that after All of the founding father’s died off the dreaded ball of red tape & procedures took over, so we the people slowly but surely had our rights and voices erroded away.
intheweeds, you have a pretty valid point there. If the government didn’t make it virtually illegal or prohibitively regulated and expensive to compete with its schools, we might see an entirely different system of education in this country. And likely, it would be far more effective.
Can anyone point out where, exactly, in the US constitution, that the federal government is specifically authorized to have a department of education? Seems more like a control mechanism – a way to control the opinions of subjects – than something that is constitutional, and/or good.
Goose, intheweeds:
I am the last person in the world to jump on the “implied powers” of the Constitution, but common sense must prevail. The Constitution itself states that its reason for existence includes “providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare”. Is it or is it not in the best interests of these United States to have an educated electorate? If the answer is “Yes”, then what a reasonable person would construe that legislated and executed ways and means to meet the educational needs of the nation would have to be Constitutional.
If you read this article closely, you’ll find that things haven’t changed much. The teacher has been taking it up through the courts, but she is in the wrong at each level and teachers have no rights, according to the courts. Only the school board and above. http://www.populistamerica.com/if_it_was_good_enough_for_hitler
I wrote a followup article after her last trial, but cannot seem to locate it. Again, she was wrong, she had no rights, the school board has absolute discretion as to what shall be taught.
A little further on the above. When I have discussed this subject with some of my more conservative friends, they were shocked that I would consider that a teacher should be able to answer children’s questions and use her own reasoning. “That’s brainwashing! If the teacher doesn’t have an answer that goes along with the school board’s policy, they should tell the child to ask their father or mother!”
I was also told that if teachers were free to give their opinions on politics, they’d soon be giving them on birth control, premarital sex, etc., etc., etc.
I asked how a teacher was to teach the children to think and reason if they didn’t discuss issues in class. “They are not there to teach them to think. They are there to teach them facts. Beyond that is up to their parents.”
One of the big schools, probably Harvard or Yale, used to anually put the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights in the form of petitions and take them around for signitures.
Most people refused to sign them as they thought they were “Communist documents.” There would be a big splash in the papers about the “annual petition drive”
We’ve definitely got some pretty big rocks to push up some pretty steep mountains before we are out of the woods, folks.
John Kocur Jr. –
The ‘general welfare’ (not in the preamble, but in Article 1(8)) and the ‘necessary and proper’ clause are the arguments for most all socialistic federal programs, from the New Deal to Universal Healthcare and everything in between. However, ‘necessary and proper’ only applies when directed to specific enumerated powers; it isn’t a ‘carte blanche’ for the government to legislate whatever they perceive as a good idea at the time. Furthermore, ‘necessary’ doesn’t mean ‘convenient’ or ‘popular’ or ‘expedient.’
The Tenth Amendment was intended to keep Article 1(8) in its proper perspective by underscoring the enumerated powers aspect: “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.”
Under the current thinking of the ‘general welfare’ and ‘necessary and proper’ arguments, the Tenth Amendment has become absolutely meaningless when, ironically, it was specifically designed to refute that kind of thinking and limit federal authority, regardless of how beneficial a particular idea might be. Essentially, the Tenth Amendment is a reminder to all three branches of federal government that the Constitution is a compact among the States to relinquish SOME of their autonomy for the good of all but to retain most of it for themselves or for ‘the people.’
I agree that we need an educated electorate. G_d knows we haven’t had one in a very long time with the federal government controlling education. You mentioned “meet[ing] the educational needs of the nation.” Sorry, but we must disagree that the federal government has authority to determine what you ‘need’ to know and how you must learn it. In fact, there are a lot of things other than education issues that may benefit many Americans, but that fact alone doesn’t legitimize control in the federal government.
Great input on this, intheweeds. Not often that you find people who can correctly explain these positions – especially in relationship to both the preamble and the limits on government in article 1, section 8. If Harry Browne were still around today, I’m sure he’d be proud.
What you’ve explained is basically the position the Populist Party takes in its ten planks – #10 to be exact (which coincides quite well with the principles of the 10th amendment)
Here’s an overview:
“We consider the United States Constitution to be written under the principle of “positive grant.” Under this axiom, the federal government is authorized to exercise only those powers which are specifically given to it by the Constitution, and nothing more. Any requests for power outside this scope must be accompanied by an amendment to the Constitution, authorizing this additional power.”
It’s essential that the power of the federal government is reigned in. Years and years of nearly unchecked power is bringing this country towards ruin. If the house of cards collapses, we need to recognize that unchecked power in government could very well be our greatest threat to liberty.
Steve – I think I’d be even more shocked if some of these conservatives ever wanted to stop controlling other people. The best solution, as you seem to lead towards here, is localized education – where people can choose what best fits their beliefs, their morals, their needs – in their own communities.
One size fits all is only good for tyrants. The Prussians loved it, Hitler loved it, Stalin loved it…anyone sensing a trend?
Hi Michael,
I think we’re on the same plank. My feeling about education is two phased.
1. The student must be exposed to facts, science, math, geography, and history, literature, philosophy; comparative religions is good.
2. The student must be taught to think, reason, make judgments based upon what he learns. You cannot teach a person to think and reason by giving him pat answers, or telling him to ask someone else.
I personally prefer the Socratic method, asking the student questions which will challenge his knowledge base or his prejudices, causing him to reason them out, challenge opinions, research sources and, present his conclusions, for further discussion if necessary. Ideally, the student should come out of the process with a wealth of knowledge and the wisdom to use it well.
If he achieves this, it will stand him in good stead throughout his life and hopefully keep him from making stupid mistakes or following stupid “leaders.”
Mr. Osborn,
Remember my comment about the “veiled threat” early in the comments? Although I still think the comment was a bit reckless, I ran across a clipping you may find interesting:
“I then said, if, after he [Lincoln] was elected, he should violate the constitution of the country, and commit crimes against the laws of the land, I should be for punishing him according to the law. And if the penalty under the Constitution be to hang him, I would hang him higher than Haman. I would have said the same thing of any other man who might abuse the trust reposed in him by the American people. I asserted it as a general principle.”
– Stephen A. Douglas; The Staunton Spectator, March 12, 1861
Stephen Douglas had a really interesting point there, intheweeds. But, correct me if I’m wrong, there’s nothing in the Constitution which spells out punishment for violations of the constitution while in office, right?
Right, sort of. The punishment proscribed is removal from office (if convicted, of course), but nothing in the Constitution reflects the notion that criminals shouldn’t ALSO be punished in a manner similar to that of any other citizen convicted of a similar crime, circumstances considered.
Article I. Sect 3:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside. and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment according to Law.
Article II Sect 2:
[the President] shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Article II Sect 4:
The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. [Note: Many barrels of ink have been expended on the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors, usually to protect some miscreant. I would judge that, since one of the punishments is to no longer be eligible for any position of honor, trust or profit, then breach of the Public Trust should definitely be considered a "high crime and misdemeanor."]
Another interesting point is that, if you read the Bill of Rights (Amendments I through X of the Constitution) you will note that the wording does not giveWe the People those rights. It forbids the government from interfering with or taking away those rights! Those rights are considered inherent rights of the people. They are again reinforced by the IX and X amendments
Amendment IX.
The enumeration in the Constitution of certin rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
What I find sad is that the Constitution which is rather easy to understand, even by an old man like me with no legal training, but a reasonable amount of common sense, seems virtually indecipherable to those who have spent years learning obfuscation and legal theft in the finest Universities in the land. Even Supreme Court Attorneys, when these questions are broached, answer either with double-talk, or just turn and walk away. This includes many of our alleged representatives, both Democrat and Republican.
Mr. Osborn,
You are absolutely correct! Our rights are not gifts by a benevolent government that should elicit gratitude. Speaking of ‘common sense,’ even a cursory reading of the ninth amendment shows that no one can RETAIN rights if they didn’t have them to begin with.
The prohibition against holding future offices of trust is the main reason impeachment is proper even for lame duck office holders. The erroneous thinking usually is, “What’s the point? He’ll be out of office in a few months, anyway.”
intheweeds, Steve, some great input on this issue. While I do agree that the implied punishment is being voted out or impeached, there’s nothing specific to those words. And, even if there were, I’d prefer much stricter penalties, such as was mentioned above…prosecution in the same manner as any other person would be prosecuted for violating someone’s rights.
Steve, great point on the plain wording of the Constitution. It’s pure and simple – those that are looking to distort rely primarily on years and years of legal ruling and the like – to get the meaning out of it that they want. The principle of the 10th Amendment is of the utmost importance in our society – it is what limits the government.
We feel it was important enough that we launched the Tenth Amendment Center a couple years ago.
56 comments ↓
Out with the old constitutional criminal, and in with the new one.
Good lettr…if you didn’t send this to him…someone should print this off and mail it to him…to remind HIM of what he said he would do…and Michael is right…we have 2 houses full of criminals are in there
I can hardly think of anything that Obama talks about doing that actually is constitutional. Plenty of delusional people out there, though.
Steve – I’m with you on printing this off. But, I don’t expect that giving it to Obama will make any difference. I’d rather spend my time giving it to my friends and family. I think a lot of people are going to be really disappointed in Mr Change – if they’re honest about it!
yes Dave, you are more than likely correct. And i have printed this off…and have sent it to many people i know, as well as my neighbors. While in theory what the president says may sound good. But many mnay people who did vote for him, and are supporters of him …are going to be terribly disappointed as The president can bark and sabre rattle till the cows come home, but if the House and senate say NO…all he will end up doing is beating a dead horse..yet again…have a good week end, i am going to get ready for the post-inaugrual party to finish up and see how many “lobbiest” are still able to function seeing he all but has locked them out of the White House…
Other than rhetoric such as “hope” and “change”, I haven’t heard much from Obama that sounds even remotely constitutional. I applaud him for shutting Guantanamo – and will actually be happy what that really happens. But as far as the economy, war in Afghanistan, the drug war, military presence around the world, I hear nothing worthwhile. Oh, what about FISA, Patriot Act, and spying immunity? How about prosecuting the criminals that just left office?
Not going to happen.
Isn’t this new president supposed to be some sort of Constitutional scholar or something? All I know is that the constitution doesn’t need a scholar to interpret it. It’s written in plain english. If someone claims to be a scholar of the constitution, that’s just a warning to me that they’re going to use all kinds of legalese in order to violate it.
Firm, but courteous. Great letter Steve!
Good article, Mr. Osborn. However, please refer to the third paragraph from the bottom and complete your sentence. Also, ending your piece with a not-so-veiled threat most certainly has you on the Gestap… uh, I mean the Secret Service’s list of People of Interest. If you begin to notice clean-cut young men wearing sunglasses going through your garbage and the IRS suddenly takes an interest in your last six returns, you’ll know why.
I think it is strange that you start to attack Mr. Obama just a blink of an eye after he is sworn in. Actually, some of the things you complain about were done by the previous administration. Please give him a chance to get something done, before you start critizing him.
Obama was elected by 54% of the vote. That means that he got at least 4 white votes for each black vote. So no need for racial concerns. Watching the inaugeration, the crowd was heavily black. But so is the population of Washington, DC. No surprise.
The alternative to Obama was 4 more years of the same. I do not know how any thinking person could vote for that.
I wish him all of the best in an extremely difficult job. His success is our success.
How is just saying how things are, an “attack”?? Replies like remind me of the kind of feedback we’d get when pointing out things that Bush was doing early on.
Any time you’d say – “Bush – follow the Constitution” – we’d get people emailing, telling us to stop attacking our leader, to understand that he’s far better than what we would’ve had with Gore, that we were in tough times, that he had a long road ahead, and on and on and on.
Seems like it’s either the same people defending the new president against calls to adhere to the Constitution, or there’s just something really wrong in this country – like emperor worship.
Mr. Obama needs to remember that he is president of **all** the people, not only the ones who voted for him and support his programs. Stop looking at the electoral college vote, and remind yourself of the popular vote. Had it not been for the (now openly admitted) bias by the press, you might have lost by the same margin you won by. If the people who did **not** vote for you choose to organize a resistance movement, which many of us have, two years from now your party could lose its majority in both houses. If you are sufficiently derelict in your duty to, as you swore, to preserve, uphold, and defend the Constitution, an impeachment process would not be out of order, especially if you choose to ignore the impeachable activities you promised to bring to justice.
John, he’s not my president. And if his opponent would’ve won, he wouldn’t have been my president either! I’d rather just abolish the entire office. What good is it, other than telling us what to do, destroying our economy, and killing a few million people overseas every decade or so.
Hi, “In the Weeds,” I guess I should have put in a comma rather than a period, but the concern is still there. I want to see a return to a Constitutional government before I take a deep breath of relief.
We have the misnamed PATRIOT Act and its successors, the Military Commissions Act, the canceling of habeas corpus, the various enhanced spying on citizens acts, the canceling of the “posse comitatus” allowing the government (military Northern Command or NorthCom) to prepare to use troops to quell any civil dissent. They have one combat brigade trained or under training as a civil control unit. All of this is illegal, unconstitutional and should be repealed. As long as this illegally stays on the books, we are still in an unconstitutional state as the documents illegally set aside the Constitution. Get copies of them and read them alongside the Constitution. If that does not clarify what has happened, I don’t know what will.
We have Concentration Camps prepared for civil dissidents if decided necessary by the powers that be. I have a copy of the Military Manual for treatment of civilian detainees and their use as laborers.
And as to “thinly veiled threat” if you will look at the sentence I said, “I ask all of you to remember…” If our “change” remains just another dictatorship, I hope the American People will remember the Declaration of Independence and throw the whole damned mess out, to start again, after first finding Diogenes’ lamp so we can search for an honest man to lead us.
Steve, I believe the part of the declaration that’s most important, and refers to what you’re saying here is Jefferson’s call to “duty”:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
The Constitution is and should be the most important historical and living document in the life of each and every citizen of the United States but it has never been treated as such. Test the average citizen on his/her knowledge of the Constitution and the landmark cases that have been decided pursuant to its terms. One can be, and many are, totally ignorant of its contents and the cases that have interpreted it and still cast a vote. The only citizens that have to know something about the subject are naturalized immigrants. We are taught by our peers not to mention politics (the Constitution) and religion. In short, talking about the Constitution and the rights and obligations, privileges and duties, is not the way to make one’s self popular or to get votes.
My concern at present is not with the President but rather with We, the People. If we do not do our best to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, we should not be surprised if our leaders, or rulers, act as though we could care less.
What a great piece Steve! And I too have felt and do feel apprehensive about the slow retreat to “what was”. I voted for Obama because the alternative was unthinkable and with a new fresh promise of change, we had nothing to lose.
I would suggest that an action page be set up and let us all send a copy of the Commentary to every one of our “Leaders” including Obama for sure.
And once again let me raise the specter of Punishment. We would be much more likely to get meaningful change if we punish those who have brought our country to its sorrowful plight. We need to punish the wrongdoers.
Steve and all I have been calling for a punishment of the Republican Party. It is not an indication that the Democrats are better than the Republicans, it is simply a statement that the GOP was the last to have been able to bring change and they refused to do so.
We absolutely can punish that party and we can remind Obama and the Democrats that we can do the same to them if they fail to bring the needed changes.
All we need to do to punish a political party is to shun them at the ballot in the future.
I tire from hearing about how Obama was elected by the majority of Americans. The election is nothing more then a game of smoke and mirrors. Created to make the foolish masses believe that we the people truly choose our leaders. There are only two parties which are really the same party. If you vote for any other party, you throw your vote. If any descent candidate runs for office within the two parties, then they are discredited. Far as I am concerned we have another puppet that was chosen to perform tricks for our amusement.
Hey Williamson, I couldn’t agree with you more. Like I said above, he’s not my president, I don’t even want one. I think this whole voting thing is just a sham, a way to try to placate the masses into thinking that we have some kind of control.
Well Williamson and Ashley I think I presented a way to punish the Party and give warning to all remaining parties. And yes someone from a party other than Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee can be elected. It will get much easier to do if we get rid of one of the parties – starting tonight. Resolve to never again vote for a Republican Candidate. It won’t take long for the moral and ethical Republicans ( yes they do exist and in large numbers) who are seeking office to realize that running in the GOP is a pathway to nowhere.
There are 135 parties. The membership of these parties are greated than the combined Dems and Repubs. Now whay can’t a coalition of the Independents kick the immoral bunch out? The reality is that they can. We just have to want to.
For those that vote, I would definitely say go with Cliff’s method. Even with the all the rules and regulations that do everything possible to keep independents out of debates, and off of ballots, you’re still better giving your vote to someone, anyone, other than republicans or democrats. As long as people keep voting for those, the Constitution is doomed.
John Quincy Adams put it best:
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”
On the other hand, there are plenty who don’t want to participate in the system at all. I count myself as one of them – no one gets my vote unless they truly earn it in a way that would represent my beliefs. In my short lifetime, I’ve found only one person that could, Ron Paul. If there are others, I will likely vote for them.
But, in the meantime, I don’t believe that putting the fate of our liberty in the hands of some future election is the best choice. – for any society whose liberty rests on the goodness or badness of people running for political office is in serious trouble.
Maybe the house of cards that is the us federal government will just collapse, and we can start over in our own communities.
Allen, you are correct. We do have a duty. The sad part is that very few people today are even acquainted with the documents, let alone their contents. They are not taught in school anymore. Many deem them quaint eighteenth century relics, obsolete in the twenty-first.
Remember, We the People have been assaulted by a propaganda machine unlike anything sen before on the planet. People are programmed, hypnotized by faux news, fast food, video games, American Idol and sports until they are too numb to think anymore. I just left a comment on the new White House web site. I wonder if I will get a thoughtful answer, or any answer at all? I never got one from the former resident.
—————————————-
Mr. President, you have indicated a return to Constitutional Government. That must surely mean that such unconstitutional acts as the Patriot act, the MCA, the various spying on citizen acts will be repealed as they illegally set aside the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Posse Comitatus must be replaced so the military can no longer be used against us in the US. Habeas Corpus must be restored. As long as these illegal acts continue to hang over us, we will NOT have a Constitutional Government.
————————————————-
There is so much illegality to overturn, and I think We the People are going to have to be the ones to do it. In many articles, I have stated perhaps my greatest fear; that the reason there has been no impeachment, no restoration of Constitutional values, is that both parties want to inherit this illegal government to use for their own ends, which will no doubt be the same, as they are owned by the same oligarchy.
Lord, do I hope I’m wrong!
Without the ACLU and organizations like it, our Constitution would be nothing more than a scrap of paper as Bush described it.
As the illegalities mount, and they do from Administration to Administration, the task grows. Yes without the ACLU there would be many more, but they were more like a a person standing outside swatting at a horde of locusts expecting to end the locust plague.
Their effort was notable, the result not an eradication of wrongdoing. Yes Progress was made, but what our Government needs is a thorough scrubbing, a bath using lye soap.
The experience won’t be pleasant but it is doable. We must begin to punish the criminal element. They must be taught that breaking the law is a punishable offense. Has anything happened in the last twenty years to instruct them otherwise?
Thank you again Steve.
Mr. Osborn,
I am fully aware of the acts you mentioned as well as canceling habeas corpus (Lincoln would be proud) and have no disagreement with you whatever.
I am also aware of Jefferson’s comment in his letter to Wm Smith, but if he had said it directly to the President, it would have been a threat (of course, he didn’t have the Secret Service — spelled “SS” — to deal with, either). In the same letter, he also wrote of “lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.” If writing to “all of you,” I think this is a better (or certainly safer) quote to use.
The problem with learning about the Constitution lies in the ones teaching it (public schools, The History Channel and pretty much any source that receives public funding). Ironically, Jefferson (in the same letter) alluded to that also. He spoke of the British press reporting anarchy in the Americas until virtually everyone in Great Britain believed it. We have the same problem with public funded sources teaching the “living Constitution.”
Robert Castle’s post referred to the Constitution as a “living document.” That sounds good until you realize what Holmes and Brandeis meant by the term. If the Constitution should be interpreted in light of changing public opinion, it becomes a mere license for the whim of any megalomanic who happens to ascend to the US throne.
I don’t like what I have just read. I would like to hope, but alas, I am a pragmatic man.
If what I’m reading turns out to be true, the one thing I can be thankful for is that my family has left the US and may never return.
I was once a flag waving patriot who stood at attention as a small boy and a young adult with tears in my eyes when “Old Glory” was passing by in marches. I volunteered to join the US military in 1962 with the intent to make it a career choice. I was chosen to become a top notch Communications Electronics Technician with a clearance. I used to voluntarily block Radio Peking, only to discover that our America really is a lot of “Imperial Pigs!” I left the military at my first opportunity after being forced to witness far greater atrocities in Vietnam than have ever come to light in the US. Yes! We were “BABY KILLERS!!” I have never since been proud of being an American.
How many Americans realize that the US Militry was in Vietnam stirring trouble since 1954 when we rescued the French? How many people strongly suspect that flight 007 Korean Airliner was purposely off course when it left Alaska? How many people knew that there were no Iraqis on any of the planes that were involved in the Twin Towers incident? How many people are aware that Norad is supposed to be supplyin airborn monitoring
for New York, Washington DC and the Pentagon? Where were they? I know they weren’t there! I know that the invasion of Iraq was intentional from before Bush W. was “selected” to be resident of the White House.
Outgoing President Eisenhower hit the “nail on the head” when he warned in his final address that Americans should fear the growing military industrial complex. Our government has been in decline ever since. By 2002, not only was the Executive branch of the government corrup, the House of Representatives was corrupted, the Senate nearly so, and the Judicial Branch became mostly corrupted.
The Iraq invasion was not to “liberate” the people from the despot the US helped to power. That was a convenient excuse as were the false assertions of Iraq having weapons of mass destructon, and “nucular” preperations. Hog Wash! It was all about getting control of the Oil, water and other resources as well as making a “permanent” military presence in the region.
Why do you think the US backs Isreal’s military actions? Because they are important allies to help fulfill our secreted intentions for that region of the world. Why are so many PERMANENT military bases built in Iraq while the Iraqis still don’t have reliable electric power or clean water, etc.?
Why is Obama Bin Laden still alive? He’s useful. To kill him and eradicate his shadow military would cause the American public to start wondering why we were still there. In order to keep the wars going! I remember being taught in Civics Class in 8th grade that “War is good for the economy!” I would say: “Up to a point.”
The corruption in government has been closely watched by opportunits (CEOs) who have plundered the wealth of our country as a result.
Can it be stopped? Yes, but I fear it may be so bad at this point that nothing short of the complete fall of the United States Empire will bring that about, and perhaps Chinese will become the official national language, or one of our home grown despotic will become Emperor as Bush W dreamed, out loud, of becoming. I’m disgusted and demoralized, and glad I now live halfway around the world from there.
Ilian
I should have proof read my message. Mia Culpa!
Ilian
Intheweeds, you make an important point – one that I’ve many discussions about lately too. When talking about the proper role of government with people, it’s always a massive uphill battle, because of how virtually all of us have been trained in the government education system. Strictly limited government (and especially the 10th Amendment) is not something the government likes to teach its subjects about. If you havent read it yet, Murray Rothbard does a really good study on education in his book, Education: Free and Compulsory
Right from Hitler’s lips:
“When an opponent declares,
‘I will not come over to your side.’
I calmly say, ‘Your child belongs to us already…
What are you? You will pass on.
Your descendants, however,
now stand in the new camp.
In a short time they will know nothing
else but this new community.’”
Ilian – you’ve made some excellent points here, especially in regards to foreign policy the never-ending military-industrial (congressional) complex.
However, I do not feel the fall the the US Empire – I welcome it with open arms, and do not fear aggression against us without the US federal government’s massive military. On the contrary, as long as it continues to exist and act in the manner that it does today, we’re in far worse danger of retaliation than we ever would be existing and trading peacefully with the world.
Hi Intheweeds,
I’m over seventy, so have seen a lot of changes. I was part of a student body that scared the hell out of our parents by exposing McCarthy, by using parody and stump speeches when he came to Seattle with his garbage. We used the Constitution and Bill of Rights for our arguments.
I am a nuclear veteran, who spent much of his life fighting for an end to nuclear arms and the arms race. I was so happy to see the non-proliferation and mutual arms reduction treaties, as well as the peaceful uses of space treatiy go into effect. I was horrified to see CheneyBush unilaterally discard those treaties, along with the Geneva Conventions, which are the “law of the land” (see the Constitution, Article VI) and restart these horrors, to the enormous profit of the arms and nuclear industries.
I’ve written a hundred or so articles on these and other political subjects (some are here in the Populist)
I am a firm believer in the Constitution, which includes the Bill of Rights and the subsequent amendments.
Henry Clay said “The Constitution of the United States was made not merely for the generation that then existed, but for posterity — unlimited, undefined, endless perpetual posterity.”
Chief Justice John Marshall said, “The subject is the execution of those great powers on which the welfare of a nation essentially depends… This provision is made in a Constitution intended to endure for ages to come and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.”
The Constitution has never been a dead letter. The method for amending it is built into the document itself. (Article V.) There is no mention that the Constitution or any part of it may be changed or set aside by legislative or executive fiat.
President Grover Cleveland wrote, “Public officers are the servants and agents of the people, to execute laws which the people have made and within the limits of a constitution which they have established.”
Jefferson, himself, did not believe that the Constitution was a dead letter. He wrote, “Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the Ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment…. Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind…. We might as well require a man to wear the coat that fitted him as a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regime of these ancestors.”
However, he did not ever advocate change without the due process set up in the Constitution. The Constitution is a statement of ideals, a rejection of tyranny and lawlessness. The Supreme Court is not to look at the Constitution as a frozen document, but is to consider it in the light of its ideals, its philosophy. As times have changed, the Constitution has changed. Many amendments have been proposed, but for the most part, the amendments that restricted freedom were rejected by the people. Those that promoted civil rights and the basic dignity of man were passed and became the “Law of the Land.
Justice Hugo Black stated, “It is my belief that there are absolutes in our Bill of Rights, and that they were put there on purpose by men who knew what words meant and meant their prohibitions to be ‘absolutes.”
Those absolutes were not to be tampered with by little pismires filled with greed and self interest, and they still aren’t!
Ashley,
If you are an American citizen, then you have placed yourself under the “rule of law” of this land – the Constitution and the system of government outlined there. As far as the relative value of the office of the president, the issue is not the individual as much as the relative care and concern for Constitutional law evidenced by the electorate – which you and I are, by definition. I did not vote for Bill Clinton either, but he was the duly constituted chief executive officer of these United States. Although I have a great many issues with Mr. Clinton, Mrs. Clinton, and a smaller number with the elder and the younger George Bush, I have a far greater concern for the dwindling to almost non-existence of any commonality between myself and my “fellow Americans”. I believe in the Constitution, they evidently do not. I believe in the Bill of Rights, they evidently do not. I believe in the core values of the people who forged this nation out of the wilderness – the basically decent, mostly Christian settlers, but who, in their generosity, opened our borders to people from virtually every land, with freedom to pursue their version of the American dream, practice their own religion, (or none at all, if they chose). It is not the system or the office that is at fault, but the badly informed and misguided people who put the wrong people into that office, and then fail to demand accountability.
The Constitution and the holy books have much in common. Most of the people who criticize them have not read them and those that have interpret them to suit their own needs. One has to believe and have faith in them to get positive results. In the case of the Constitution one must “preserve, defend, and protect” it as it is written and has been interpreted by those who have the authority to do so (judges, not presidents). There are legal means for amending the Constitution.
Micheal,
It concerns me greatly that intelligent, literate, assumedly well-informed people could believe that having a strong US military is more of an incentive for attacks against us than not having one. That kind of logic gave us Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, and Hirohito, and the tragedy in terms of loss of human life and disruptions in human societies around the world that took nearly two generations to recover from.
Do you really think, based on Israel’s recent experience with a unilateral cease fire, that we should expect otherwise from Arab terrorists? If you do, on what grounds? Give me something concrete, that can stand the scrutiny of hard, objective analysis. From where I stand and observe, the overwhelming facts of history deny your position absolutely. The worst thing that Barack Obama could hear from this blog is that people here support decimating the only real deterrent to increased hostility toward our nation – a strong military. China and Russia have had to take note of how our military, strapped as it is fighting two wars with an all-volunteer force, continues to make real gains in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
John, thanks for your feedback and your perspective. But to answer your question, all you really need to do is put yourself in other people’s position. Just good ole fashioned empathy.
If the Chinese, for example, set up military bases in the US, Canada and Mexico, had a history of overthrowing governments in your region and in your state, funded groups that committed massive human rights violations in your community, and waged wars that resulted in the deaths of countless friends and family – what would you do?
If you resisted, you’d be considered a “terrorist” by the imperial power, the Chinese in this example. Would you? Or would you sit idly by?
The CIA terms this to be “blowback” – this is “a term used in espionage to describe the unintended consequences of covert operations. From the outside, blowback typically appears random and without cause, because the public is unaware of the secret operations that provoked it.”
I realize that the idea of the US military and US foreign policy causing Americans more harm than good is not something that many in this country are able or even ready to see as a reality. But that reality is there.
If you don’t fee too confronted by the concept, there are many good books out there that talk about this in detail.
Michael Scheuer – former head of the CIA’s anti-Bin Laden unit – wrote Imperial Hubris, Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, and Through our Enemies Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America
Robert Pape – wrote Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism
Chalmers Johnson – was a leading CIA analyst for Asia during the height of the cold war – wrote Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire
Then there’s Pat Buchanan, who brilliantly explained this in an article during last years’ campaign
You could also read the 9-11 Commission Report – which explains the why – the terrorists attack over here because of years and years of intervention overseas.
That’s a good start.
John, one additional point. You said:
“having a strong US military is more of an incentive for attacks against us than not having one.”
I do have to point out that this is not my position. Merely having a strong military and keeping it ready for defensive purposes is one thing. How it is used is another. My quarrel is primarily with the latter.
I agree with you Michael. Having a strong Military is imperative for the United States. We need a strong defense. But we only need one to protect ourselves not to be an oppressor nation.
The last three Administrations have been oppressor Administrations. There is a real danger in this type behavior.
Hasn’t history shown that?
Ah yes, empathy, the rara avis of today.
http://www.populistamerica.com/whatever_happened_to_empathy
Written a few years ago, reprinted a couple of times, but I still see little of it in our present situations.
If we’d just stick to the 9th and 10th Amendments, we’d have little to worry about:
9th: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10th: 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.
The problem is that “we” don’t run the government. “They” do.
Messrs. Osborn, Bouldin, Castle, et al:
I’m greatly encouraged to see some folks who still realize that the Constitution isn’t merely a legislative guideline. It’s the law, and those who violate it are, by definition, criminals – doubly so for those who actually take an oath to defend it.
I have no problem with those who dislike the Constitution. As with any law, if a gov’t official doesn’t like it, he can either swallow hard and obey or try to have it amended to his liking. However, under a free Republic, the one thing he cannot do is to ignore it.
A lot of ideas may have merit, but Congress must approach each with two preliminary questions: first, they must address whether they have Constitutional jurisdiction and secondly, whether the proposal is itself Constitutional. If both questions are answered affirmatively, only then should the merits of any proposal even be considered.
Sadly, literacy and other tough skills (such as the ability to find the United States on a map) aren’t requirements for voting. I realize I’m a bit hung-up on this, but firmly believe that as long as people are educated through public schools and slick television and remain too lazy or too naive or too selfish or too indifferent to study for themselves, the nanny state will continue its socialistic slide. After all, TV news is soooo authoritative with its million dollar sets, immaculately coiffured anchors and awards they give one another, they couldn’t possibly be showing us anything less than the true picture, could they?
Signing off. It’s not time for a blood pressure pill, but I think I’ll take one anyway.
Hey intheweeds, so are you saying that the government shouldn’t be involved in education? If so, I’m right with you! I went to a religious school, and was taught that this religion was the best thing on earth (and elsewhere) – not always directly, but it was definitely the underlying message.
Guess what – when people go to a government school, do you think they’re taught that government is anything but glorious?
Goose: Yup, that’s what I’m saying. For example, anyone who thinks they could graduate from, say, a British school with the same opinion of our founding fathers as we have is just “bloody naive, mate.” Everyone has an agenda, whether presented subtly or otherwise; it’s human nature.
Parochial schools are essentially expanded home-schools, reflecting values similar to those of the students’ parents, so if they weren’t required to cowtow to Big Brother, I wouldn’t have a problem with them, despite the religious agenda aspect.
I have to agree 1000% with dave Anderson’s latest responce (#38) when he said, They Run the Government…It seems that after All of the founding father’s died off the dreaded ball of red tape & procedures took over, so we the people slowly but surely had our rights and voices erroded away.
intheweeds, you have a pretty valid point there. If the government didn’t make it virtually illegal or prohibitively regulated and expensive to compete with its schools, we might see an entirely different system of education in this country. And likely, it would be far more effective.
Can anyone point out where, exactly, in the US constitution, that the federal government is specifically authorized to have a department of education? Seems more like a control mechanism – a way to control the opinions of subjects – than something that is constitutional, and/or good.
Goose, intheweeds:
I am the last person in the world to jump on the “implied powers” of the Constitution, but common sense must prevail. The Constitution itself states that its reason for existence includes “providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare”. Is it or is it not in the best interests of these United States to have an educated electorate? If the answer is “Yes”, then what a reasonable person would construe that legislated and executed ways and means to meet the educational needs of the nation would have to be Constitutional.
If you read this article closely, you’ll find that things haven’t changed much. The teacher has been taking it up through the courts, but she is in the wrong at each level and teachers have no rights, according to the courts. Only the school board and above.
http://www.populistamerica.com/if_it_was_good_enough_for_hitler
I wrote a followup article after her last trial, but cannot seem to locate it. Again, she was wrong, she had no rights, the school board has absolute discretion as to what shall be taught.
A little further on the above. When I have discussed this subject with some of my more conservative friends, they were shocked that I would consider that a teacher should be able to answer children’s questions and use her own reasoning. “That’s brainwashing! If the teacher doesn’t have an answer that goes along with the school board’s policy, they should tell the child to ask their father or mother!”
I was also told that if teachers were free to give their opinions on politics, they’d soon be giving them on birth control, premarital sex, etc., etc., etc.
I asked how a teacher was to teach the children to think and reason if they didn’t discuss issues in class. “They are not there to teach them to think. They are there to teach them facts. Beyond that is up to their parents.”
One of the big schools, probably Harvard or Yale, used to anually put the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights in the form of petitions and take them around for signitures.
Most people refused to sign them as they thought they were “Communist documents.” There would be a big splash in the papers about the “annual petition drive”
We’ve definitely got some pretty big rocks to push up some pretty steep mountains before we are out of the woods, folks.
John Kocur Jr. –
The ‘general welfare’ (not in the preamble, but in Article 1(8)) and the ‘necessary and proper’ clause are the arguments for most all socialistic federal programs, from the New Deal to Universal Healthcare and everything in between. However, ‘necessary and proper’ only applies when directed to specific enumerated powers; it isn’t a ‘carte blanche’ for the government to legislate whatever they perceive as a good idea at the time. Furthermore, ‘necessary’ doesn’t mean ‘convenient’ or ‘popular’ or ‘expedient.’
The Tenth Amendment was intended to keep Article 1(8) in its proper perspective by underscoring the enumerated powers aspect: “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.”
Under the current thinking of the ‘general welfare’ and ‘necessary and proper’ arguments, the Tenth Amendment has become absolutely meaningless when, ironically, it was specifically designed to refute that kind of thinking and limit federal authority, regardless of how beneficial a particular idea might be. Essentially, the Tenth Amendment is a reminder to all three branches of federal government that the Constitution is a compact among the States to relinquish SOME of their autonomy for the good of all but to retain most of it for themselves or for ‘the people.’
I agree that we need an educated electorate. G_d knows we haven’t had one in a very long time with the federal government controlling education. You mentioned “meet[ing] the educational needs of the nation.” Sorry, but we must disagree that the federal government has authority to determine what you ‘need’ to know and how you must learn it. In fact, there are a lot of things other than education issues that may benefit many Americans, but that fact alone doesn’t legitimize control in the federal government.
Great input on this, intheweeds. Not often that you find people who can correctly explain these positions – especially in relationship to both the preamble and the limits on government in article 1, section 8. If Harry Browne were still around today, I’m sure he’d be proud.
What you’ve explained is basically the position the Populist Party takes in its ten planks – #10 to be exact (which coincides quite well with the principles of the 10th amendment)
Here’s an overview:
“We consider the United States Constitution to be written under the principle of “positive grant.” Under this axiom, the federal government is authorized to exercise only those powers which are specifically given to it by the Constitution, and nothing more. Any requests for power outside this scope must be accompanied by an amendment to the Constitution, authorizing this additional power.”
It’s essential that the power of the federal government is reigned in. Years and years of nearly unchecked power is bringing this country towards ruin. If the house of cards collapses, we need to recognize that unchecked power in government could very well be our greatest threat to liberty.
Steve – I think I’d be even more shocked if some of these conservatives ever wanted to stop controlling other people. The best solution, as you seem to lead towards here, is localized education – where people can choose what best fits their beliefs, their morals, their needs – in their own communities.
One size fits all is only good for tyrants. The Prussians loved it, Hitler loved it, Stalin loved it…anyone sensing a trend?
Hi Michael,
I think we’re on the same plank. My feeling about education is two phased.
1. The student must be exposed to facts, science, math, geography, and history, literature, philosophy; comparative religions is good.
2. The student must be taught to think, reason, make judgments based upon what he learns. You cannot teach a person to think and reason by giving him pat answers, or telling him to ask someone else.
I personally prefer the Socratic method, asking the student questions which will challenge his knowledge base or his prejudices, causing him to reason them out, challenge opinions, research sources and, present his conclusions, for further discussion if necessary. Ideally, the student should come out of the process with a wealth of knowledge and the wisdom to use it well.
If he achieves this, it will stand him in good stead throughout his life and hopefully keep him from making stupid mistakes or following stupid “leaders.”
Mr. Osborn,
Remember my comment about the “veiled threat” early in the comments? Although I still think the comment was a bit reckless, I ran across a clipping you may find interesting:
“I then said, if, after he [Lincoln] was elected, he should violate the constitution of the country, and commit crimes against the laws of the land, I should be for punishing him according to the law. And if the penalty under the Constitution be to hang him, I would hang him higher than Haman. I would have said the same thing of any other man who might abuse the trust reposed in him by the American people. I asserted it as a general principle.”
– Stephen A. Douglas; The Staunton Spectator, March 12, 1861
Stephen Douglas had a really interesting point there, intheweeds. But, correct me if I’m wrong, there’s nothing in the Constitution which spells out punishment for violations of the constitution while in office, right?
Right, sort of. The punishment proscribed is removal from office (if convicted, of course), but nothing in the Constitution reflects the notion that criminals shouldn’t ALSO be punished in a manner similar to that of any other citizen convicted of a similar crime, circumstances considered.
Article I. Sect 3:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside. and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment according to Law.
Article II Sect 2:
[the President] shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Article II Sect 4:
The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. [Note: Many barrels of ink have been expended on the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors, usually to protect some miscreant. I would judge that, since one of the punishments is to no longer be eligible for any position of honor, trust or profit, then breach of the Public Trust should definitely be considered a "high crime and misdemeanor."]
Another interesting point is that, if you read the Bill of Rights (Amendments I through X of the Constitution) you will note that the wording does not give We the People those rights. It forbids the government from interfering with or taking away those rights! Those rights are considered inherent rights of the people. They are again reinforced by the IX and X amendments
Amendment IX.
The enumeration in the Constitution of certin rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
What I find sad is that the Constitution which is rather easy to understand, even by an old man like me with no legal training, but a reasonable amount of common sense, seems virtually indecipherable to those who have spent years learning obfuscation and legal theft in the finest Universities in the land. Even Supreme Court Attorneys, when these questions are broached, answer either with double-talk, or just turn and walk away. This includes many of our alleged representatives, both Democrat and Republican.
Mr. Osborn,
You are absolutely correct! Our rights are not gifts by a benevolent government that should elicit gratitude. Speaking of ‘common sense,’ even a cursory reading of the ninth amendment shows that no one can RETAIN rights if they didn’t have them to begin with.
The prohibition against holding future offices of trust is the main reason impeachment is proper even for lame duck office holders. The erroneous thinking usually is, “What’s the point? He’ll be out of office in a few months, anyway.”
intheweeds, Steve, some great input on this issue. While I do agree that the implied punishment is being voted out or impeached, there’s nothing specific to those words. And, even if there were, I’d prefer much stricter penalties, such as was mentioned above…prosecution in the same manner as any other person would be prosecuted for violating someone’s rights.
Steve, great point on the plain wording of the Constitution. It’s pure and simple – those that are looking to distort rely primarily on years and years of legal ruling and the like – to get the meaning out of it that they want. The principle of the 10th Amendment is of the utmost importance in our society – it is what limits the government.
We feel it was important enough that we launched the Tenth Amendment Center a couple years ago.
Leave a Comment