Citizen Tom

Perhaps I am wrong. I am no prophet, and I am certainly not able to pierce the veil that hides the future with psychic vision. Yet I am not alone in seeing our nation on the march towards serfdom and slavery. I have two reasons for my concern.

The first is the more fundamental. We have this thing we call the Constitution. With it we authorized the men and women we elect to lead us. The Constitution sets out the powers of our leaders, and our leaders take an oath to abide by this document. When our leaders abide by their oath, we have the assurance of being a nation ruled by laws. When our leaders ignore the Constitution — and we let them get away with it — we risk becoming a nation ruled by those without  scruples. 

The second is too much in the news. We are rapidly becoming a socialist state. Much of the nation’s lending industry is now controlled by the Federal Government. Our health care industry is heavily funded by the Federal Government, and the Democratic Party strives now for ever greater dominance in the health care industry. Most recently, our government became the majority owner of GM. For all practical purposes, GM is now Government Motors. Thus the trend is unmistakeably towards government ownership of the economy.

Nothing in our Constitution authorizes our government to run the lending industry (a power our leaders have used to wreck havoc on the economy), the health industry or the automotive industry. That is because the people who wrote the Constitution understood that without the right to own property a man must of necessity become the slave of those who could control property. Without the right to own property, we do not control the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the house that shelters us, or the fruit of our labor. Without the right to own property, we cannot own our bodies. Someone else must let us use their food, clothing, and shelter.

In America, government exist to protect our rights, but government has become the greatest threat to our right to own property. When government begins to gain exclusive control of what we need for our livelihood, instead of us controlling our government, it can control us. And when the people who run our government do not honor their oath of office, we cannot control them. We can only hope to replace such people.

So what should we do? According to the latest news, many think it would be a good idea to boycott Government Motors.

Twenty-six percent (26%) of American adults believe it was a good idea for the federal government to take ownership of General Motors as the auto giant was on the verge of collapse. Nearly as many–17%–say that Americans should protest the bailout by boycotting GM and refusing to buy its cars. Most Americans are somewhere in between. (continued here)

17% does not sound like much, but consider this portion of the poll results.

However, 51% of adults are more likely to buy a car from Ford because it did not any take bailout funding. Just 12% are less likely to buy from Ford.

With some consumers prepared to boycott GM products and others more likely to buy from Ford first, GM will face an interesting marketing challenge as it emerges from bankruptcy.

That may be one reason that most believe that the federal government will pass laws and regulations giving their newest acquisition an unfair advantages over Ford and other automakers.

Ford is viewed favorably by 64% of Americans. Ratings for GM and Chrysler are much lower. (from here)

Because we have received such a lousy education (from the servants of politicians), many of us have a very poor understanding have how our government works. Nonetheless, most of us have enough sense to be suspicious of the bailouts and government ownership of what should be private concerns. What should concern us now the probability that the government will give Government Motors an unfair advantage in the market place. If our government is not forced to divest itself of GM, what is the future of the automobile industry in the United States? What is the future of private industry in the United States? Will you be able to buy what you want or only what Barack Obama tells you that you buy?

Other Views

Thus far From On High seems to be the only Virginia blog (aside from this one) talking about a boycott (here).

The word “system” gets a lot of use these days.  That includes the way we use the word “system” to talk about our “system” of government.  That being the case I thought it might be interesting to do a little Internet search.  To see what web pages contain all three  words, I googled the words system, government, and broke.  I got over 16,000,000 hits.   From looking briefly at these web pages, I learned that the following are either broken or can be improved.

• The government’s hiring system.
• The health care system.
• The nation’s food system.
• Our economic system.
• Our government’s procurement system.
• Our air traffic control system.
• Our welfare system.
• Republican Party-run government (breaks the system).
• The political system.
• The tax system.
• The financing system.
• The judicial system.
• The system of laws defining intellectual property.
• The system for protecting nuclear materials.
• And so forth.

There are relatively few web pages (in the top fifty, at least) which take it farther.  Few argue that either the whole government is broken or that our entire society is broken.  In my brief search, I only found one such web page,  Our Broken Government.

Given the numerous things people think are broken, it is a wonder that people don’t think the American system of government broken.  Considering it is a matter faith amongst Christians that original sin fractured our relationship with God, that is actually rather odd.  Are not we ourselves broken?

Look at what the Founders did.  When they wrote the Constitution, they created an extensive system of checks and balances.   As the result of their work, what Constitution mostly describes is the structure of government — and how the various institutions within it counterbalance each other.

The Founders were not political novices.  They clearly understood the treachery and the extremes of which people are capable.  Instead of with one man or a small group, they wanted power decentralized amongst many.  Understanding the temptations of power and the abuses of which rulers are capable, they first limited the powers and the responsibilities of Federal Government to that which they saw as necessary.   Then to further check human treachery and the extremes of human behavior, they sacrificed government efficiency for a well-defined system of checks and balances.

From the perspective of too many, however, the Founders created a broken government.  So ever since the Constitution became Law, some have tried to fix or improve it.  The more responsible have formally amended the Constititution.  The more sneaky have broadly interpreted the document  — as what they call a living document — to mean what they want it to mean.   Thus over time the Federal Government has become more powerful, and the powers of our leaders less restrained by the system of checks and balances the Founders created.

Evidence of the chicanery of the people who now lead us is, unfortunately, readily available.  Consider today’s news (see here).  Our government will now have a 60 percent share in GM.

Where does the Constitution empower the Federal Government to buy and run automobile companies?  And how does Obama get away with giving corporations to his labor union supporters?

This is the second post in a series.  The purpose of this series is to discuss some of the reasons why we have begun “interpreting” the Constitution with so much latitude that the document is slowly becoming meaningless and therefore useless.   In addition to the introductory post, What Happened to Our Constitution?  — Part 1, the series consists of the following:

• Part 2 – The Direct Election of Senators
• Part 3 – Income Tax
• Part 4 – Public Education
• Part 5 – American Isolation

The Direct Election of Senators

Can you imagine anything like the passage below being written today?

The State government will have the advantage of the Federal government, whether we compare them in respect to the immediate dependence of the one on the other; to the weight of personal influence which each side will possess; to the powers respectively vested in them; to the predilection and probable support of the people; to the disposition and faculty of resisting and frustrating the measures of each other. The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former. Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures. Even the House of Representatives, though drawn immediately from the people, will be chosen very much under the influence of that class of men, whose influence over the people obtains for themselves an election into the State legislatures. Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them. (from FEDERALIST No. 45 by Madison)

In 1913, our nation ratified the 17th Amendment to the Constitution.  As Wikipedia explains:

The amendment supersedes Article I, § 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, transferring Senator selection from each state’s legislature to popular election by the people of each state. It also provides a contingency provision enabling a state’s governor, if so authorized by his state’s legislature, to appoint a Senator in the event of a Senate vacancy until either a special or regular election to elect a new Senator is held.  (here)

Direct election does not always produce the best results.   Hamilton had certain expectations for the Senate.  He expected the Senate to:

be composed with peculiar care and judgment; that these circumstances promise greater knowledge and more extensive information in the national councils, and that they will be less apt to be tainted by the spirit of faction, and more out of the reach of those occasional ill-humors, or temporary prejudices and propensities.” (from FEDERALIST No. 27)

The direct election of Senators, however, has resulted in a unbounded partisanship and lessened the ability of state legislatures to check the powers of the Federal Government, particularly unfunded Federal mandates.

Note also that although Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution provides for State legislatures to choose presidential electors in the manner they deem appropriate, for all practical purposes we now elect the President and Vice President.    That also has allowed for the aggregation of Federal power.

President Franklin Roosevelt in particular managed to take advantage of the situation.  With each successive election, four in all, he gathered greater and greater power to himself.   After Roosevelt’s death, the People had second thoughts about the wisdom of allowing the president to serve so long in office.  Those second thoughts resulted in the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution.  With that amendment, we term limited the office of the presidency in 1951 (see here).  Perhaps one day we will also be wise enough to term limit both the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives as well.

Some people dream direct democracy solves all problems; they hold elections sacred.  The Framers of the Constitution had carefully studied history.  They held no such illusions.  So they constructed a republic that incorporated a system of checks and balances.  One of the checks on the Federal Government consisted of the powers of the State governments.  That specifically included the election of Senators by State legislatures.  The 17th Amendment to the Constitution weakened this check with predicable results; the relative power of the Federal Government grew.

The Cartoons

Have you notice how much the deliberative nature of the Senate has slowed Congress?

American Civilization has been running a series of posts that asks readers to test the Constitutionality of certain ideas.  These posts include:

• Another U.S. Constitutional Question
• Let’s Test Constitutionality
• The Missing “U” Word on B. Hussein Obama

As the comment below indicates, James Atticus Bowden has grown mildly impatient with some of the comments on the Constitutionality of religious worship.

Thanks fellas. I’m short on time. Forgive my brevity.

The Constitution is explicitly and exquisitely clear on powers. All the powers you DON’T see listed belong to the states.

So, states can require government required religious oaths for office holders – as they did. And they could write government prayers if they like – unless the legislatures wisely stopped them.

It’s not that complicated. The problem is that Congress has passed laws giving it powers by fiat and judges go along or write new ones on the bench – because no one makes them amend the Constitution – no one will stop them. (from here)

Why has something which JAB says is uncomplicated grown so complex?  While I do not claim to be a Constitutional scholar (which perhaps is an aid to objectivity), over the years I have considered the issue.  So I will post some ideas for your consideration.

• Part 2 – The Direct Election of Senators
• Part 3 – Income Tax
• Part 4 – Public Education
• Part 5 – American Isolation

The Cartoons

The way journalists see themselves.

A little over a year ago I posted a question:  IS IT A CHRISTIAN OR SECULAR CONSTITUTION? Since that time, The Daily Whackjob is no more.  So the links to it no longer work.

The post started a couple of debates.  As the debate unfolded, I decided it might be worthwhile to pose a challenge (See the end of this comment.), but I was slow in getting around to it.  Here is the challenge.

Name an important law that does not have religious significance.