The Continuing Attacks on Electoral College

On December 15, the Electoral College will meet and cast their votes for President and Vice-President in accordance with Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.  An effort has been underway for years to do away with the Electoral College and substitute in its place the popular vote as the means for electing the President and Vice-President.

The following is a reprint from our Illinois Conservative Blog of April 9, 2008.  The original is no longer available due to a computer crash that wiped out our database.

Illinois Nixes Electoral College

On Monday (4/8/08) Illinois became the third state to attempt to dump the Electoral College by state law rather than by Constitutional amendment.  The elimination of the Electoral College has long been a goal of progressives, socialists and the Democratic Party.  Attempts to get it abolished in the past by amending the Constitution has failed.

As a Congressman in 2000, Rep. Rod Blagojevich co-sponsored a proposed constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College.  Today, as Governor of Illinois, he signed into law a measure designed to bypass the Constitution and elect the President by popular vote.

The new law is largely the result of efforts by the California-based advocacy group National Popular Vote Inc.  Similar laws have been passed in Maryland and New Jersey.  The idea is to bind by law, each state’s electors to vote for the candidate who gets the most popular votes in the national election. Once enough states have passed similar laws to equal the 270 electoral votes necessary to elect a President the Constitution would be effectively rendered impotent without the need for a Constitutional amendment.

Such an attempt illustrates the contempt many politicians have for the Constitution they are sworn to uphold.  It also illustrates a colossal lack of understanding concerning our form of government.  The founders certainly were not unfamiliar with the meaning of democracy and probably understood the meaning of “popular vote“. If they wished the President to be elected by the popular vote of all the people throughout the United States they certainly had the knowledge and means to have written it into the Constitution. — Although they probably could not have gotten it ratified by the states.

Article Two of the Constitution which sets forth the manner of choosing a President was not written in a day and not without considerable discussion among the convention delegates.  The first debate record I found on this question was on July 24, 1787.  It was still under debate on September 4, six weeks later.

There were a number of proposals put forth by the delegates for selecting a President.  One of the first being the popular vote of the people.  Another was to elect the President by vote of the Legislature. Another by the state legislatures.  Still another was to elevate a member of the Legislature to the office of President by a vote of the Senate.  All were rejected for what seems to be good and valid reasons, having to do mostly with corruption and partisanship.

Aside from the founders’ distrust of pure democracy from fear of “tyranny of the majority”, they wanted the President to be able to make independent decisions not unduly influenced by others.  They believed that if elected by popular vote he would be influenced too much by the popular whims of the people at any given time.  Not much different from the attempt to “govern by polls” we see so often today.

By the same token, they believed that a choice by either the national or the state legislative bodies would place the office at too much risk of coercion by those bodies or subject the President to undue temptation to bribery or other unsavory influences by special interest groups.  The method they finally adopted was the Electoral College.

Article II, Section 1: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed;…

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”

Advocates for the National Popular Vote (NPV) claim their proposal is constitutional because the Constitution grants to the states the power to “appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct…electors”.  NPV not only violates the text of the Constitution, it also violates the spirit.  This is evident from the careful way in which the language was constructed and also in considering the overall nature of the Constitution and the government it establishes.

The U.S. government is a constitutional republic not a pure democracy.  Furthermore the same form of government is guaranteed to each state by the same Constitution.

Article IV, Section 4: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government…”

Exactly what is meant by “a republican form of government”, although well understood by the founders, is not well understood today.  The definition agreed on universally is that it means the rule of law as opposed to rule by a monarchy, oligarchy or dictatorship, with the same law applying to government officials as to the people.  Under our form of government, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and trumps all others.

Another feature of our form of republican government is that the people do not, by popular vote, make decisions of law or policy.  Instead, we elect representatives who make those decisions for us. If we do not like the decisions they make we do not re-elect them.  This is evident from considering two hundred plus years of history and also viewing the Constitution in its entirety. From the Village Board, to the City Council, to the Federal government this principle applies.  The modern practice in some states of referendums is a fairly new device introduced by the progressive movement.

Getting back to the Constitution, Article II, Section 1:  Notice that the authority of the State Legislature is limited to determining the manner in which electors are to be appointed and nothing else.  Also notice, “No Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector“.  Only by understanding that the framers did not intend for any member of the state legislature or other official of the state to influence the outcome of the electoral vote, does this restriction make any sense at all.

Furthermore the fact that the electors were to meet once, at a time and place prescribed by federal law and cast their votes “by ballot”, the tally of which was to be sealed and delivered to the Senate of the United States along with certification as to their authenticity.  It is evident from these facts that the vote of the electors was to be based on their own judgment, independent of the influence of those who appointed them, whether elected by the people or appointed by the legislature.  The current practice of many states to cast all their electoral votes for the candidate receiving the most votes statewide, notwithstanding.

The main reason why the founders rejected the election of a President by popular vote was because such an arrangement would disenfranchise the smaller states and give undue weight to the votes of the more populous states where the vote is more easily controlled by political machines in major cities like Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, etc.  That still seems like the most valid reason to me.

Can’t We Just Jail Them All?

If Hank Paulson, Ben Bernanke, Nancy Pelosi, George Bush and the other principals in the government’s attempted bailouts of our struggling economy were employed in the private sector they would be in danger of criminal indictment. The charges would be conspiracy to commit fraud and embezzlement.

Perhaps the most culpable of these would be Fed Chairman, Bernanke and Secretary of Treasury, Paulson.  It is alleged that the Fed has pumped some two trillion dollars into the efforts to reverse the current recession.  In opposition to Congress and in violation of the Constitution they have refused to reveal where the money went and who were the recipients.

Moreover, when they went to Capital Hill to lobby for the $700 billion bailout they agreed to use the funds to purchase toxic assets from banks and other mortgage holders.  After being granted authorization to use the funds, Paulson announced the funds would not be used for that purpose but rather to buy equity in financial institutions.  The acquisition of money through deceptive means is fraud, and the misuse of funds entrusted to someone for their own ends is embezzlement.

Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution requires that all money withdrawn from the treasury must be appropriated by law and an accounting of its expenditure must be published.  Members of Congress who voted for the bailout in order to curry favor with their constituents engaged in a misuse of treasury funds for purposes not authorized by the Constitution.

Appropriating public funds for the use of private businesses is not one of the enumerated powers.  Neither is it supported in this case by the doctrine of implied powers or the “necessary and proper” clause found in Constitution 1.8.19. To argue that the authority is given in Congress’s power to “regulate commerce” represents a  misunderstanding of the meaning of the phrase as used by the framers and understood by the citizens of the states who ratified the constitution.

“Commerce” referred to trade—the buying and selling of goods—not to the production or financing of those goods. It may be argued that finance is an ancillary part of commerce, or that it substantially affects the ability of commerce to occur.  Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion in 1995 in the case of “The United States vs. Lopez” in which he discussed this perversion of constitutional doctrine.

“… We [the court] have said that Congress may regulate not only “Commerce . . . among the several states,” U.S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3, but also anything that has a “substantial effect” on such commerce. This test, if taken to its logical extreme, would give Congress a “police power” over all aspects of American life….”

“….Indeed, if a “substantial effects” test can be appended to the Commerce Clause, why not to every other power of the Federal Government? There is no reason for singling out the Commerce Clause for special treatment. Accordingly, Congress could regulate all matters that “substantially affect” the Army and Navy, bankruptcies, tax collection, expenditures, and so on. In that case, the clauses of §8 all mutually overlap, something we can assume the Founding Fathers never intended…”

The original intent of the bailout was to shore up the housing market, stabilizing it so that it would not adversely affect the rest of the economy.  Home ownership may have been a goal of the “New Deal” or the “Great Society” but it is clearly not a matter sanctioned by the Constitution for the federal government, and is not remotely related to the commerce clause.

The Commerce Clause gives Congress the Power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” While the buying and selling of a home might be commerce it is certainly not “interstate commerce” since it cannot be transported from one state to another.  Neither would the fact that a purchaser might be a resident of one state and purchase a home located in another make it an interstate commerce transaction in constitutional terms.

The fact that the precedent of case law over the past hundred or two hundred years might support such a position does not alter the constraints on government established by the Constitution.  I am reminded of the old theological question, “how long does a heresy have to be repeated before it becomes truth?”

Memo to President Bush

Please go over and wake up Henry Paulson.

Pinch him!

Slap him!

Do whatever you must, BUT WAKE HIM UP!

When you have his attention, please remind him that his name is Henry, not Hugo.

He is in America, not Venezuela.

We have a Constitution, although those of you in Washington seem to have momentarily forgotten this fact.

Article I, Section 9 of that Constitution says, in easy to understand language:

“ NO MONEY SHALL BE DRAWN FROM THE TREASURY, BUT IN CONSEQUENCE OF APPROPRIATIONS MADE BY LAW; AND A REGULAR STATEMENT AND ACCOUNT OF THE RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES OF ALL PUBLIC MONEY SHALL BE PUBLISHED FROM TIME TO TIME.”

I frankly do not understand what is so difficult to understand about this.  I was surprised to hear on the news Sunday afternoon that Henry had decided to give the big three automakers $25 billion in exchange for equity in their companies.  Just a few days ago I heard Nancy Pelosi declare no funds would be given the automakers until they produced a business plan suitable to Congress.  Did I miss something?  Did Congress have a rare weekend session?

Even if they did, I cannot find anything in my copy of the Constitution authorizing Congress to use Treasury funds to purchase private enterprises or to shore up failing ones.

Article I, Section 8 makes it clear what tax money is allowed to be used for.  PURCHASING EQUITY POSITIONS IN PRIVATE COMPANIES, INCLUDING BANKS AND CAR COMPANIES, IS NOT ONE OF THEM.

Is everyone on Capital Hill off their meds? Or, am I losing my mind.  At this point I am not sure which.  Please find a copy of the Constitution and you and Henry retire to a quiet corner where you can read it together.  You might also invite Nancy and Harry to join you.  We would all benefit from your doing so.

Supreme Court vs. Constitution

By default, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution.  Its edicts become the law of the land until they are reversed by a later court or overturned by a constitutional amendment.  They must be obeyed, or else we cease to be a nation of laws and become one of anarchy.

We should bear in mind however, that the opinions of the court are just that—opinions.  In cases of special importance to the welfare of the nation, Justices are often in strong disagreement.  In modern times the court is often split 5-4 on major decisions and in a democracy, the will of the majority always prevails, even when it is wrong.

History has shown that not all majority opinions are in the best interest of the country.  Justices are subject to the same frailties as their fellow citizens.  No matter how hard they may try, influences from their social, political, or moral orientation often creep into their understanding of the Constitution and its application to the facts.  Donning the black robes of office does not automatically bestow on them super-human wisdom.

While the decisions of the Supreme Court become the law of the land, they are not the “supreme” law of the land.  The Constitution reserves that honor for itself.  However, the Constitution has no way of defending itself against those bent on undermining its authority.  Congresses and Presidents have always attempted to “stack” the court with Justices who share their worldview.  This is extremely difficult to do, however, because of the infrequency of retirement or death.

Roosevelt attempted to influence the Court against opposing his “New Deal” legislation by threatening to appoint additional Justices more in sync with his policies.  His proposal was to add an extra Justice for every sitting Justice over the age of seventy.  At the time that would have brought the number of Justices to sixteen.  It is doubtful if Congress would have gone along with his plan, nevertheless, afterwards the court that had previously ruled most of his New Deal legislation unconstitutional, suddenly changed direction and began to see them as constitutional.

While every public official at the local, state and national levels of government takes an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, in practice few of them do.  The task of defending the Constitution, in the final analysis, falls to the people.  This is difficult to do since federal judges are appointed for life terms “during good behavior”.  (Article III.1.2)

One of the two remedies in the Constitution for errant Judges who violate it is impeachment.  That is one of the reasons why the power of impeachment was given Congress rather than the Court.  Hamilton made this clear in Federalist 81.

“….the inference is greatly fortified by the consideration of the important constitutional check which the power of instituting impeachments in one part of the legislative body, and of determining upon them in the other, would give to that body upon the members of the judicial department. …There can never be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body entrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption by degrading them from their stations….it affords, at the same time, a cogent argument for constituting the Senate a court for the trail of impeachments.”

This particular passage is referring to the possibility of the Supreme Court encroaching upon the authority of Congress.  When the Court nullifies a law passed by Congress and signed by the President that is within the bounds of the Constitution they are clearly encroaching on legislative powers.  When the Court “finds” a hidden meaning in the language of the Constitution to justify the creation of new law (legislating from the bench) they are both violating the Constitution and encroaching on the power of the legislature as well as the power of the people.

The prospect of Congress using the power of impeachment, however, is practically non-existent, especially when so many in Congress display contempt for the Constitution on a daily basis.  Aside from a massive number of citizens lobbying Congress for impeachment in particularly egregious cases—which isn’t likely to happen either—the only other constitutional remedy is an amendment to the Constitution.

The best place for the public to defend the Constitution is at the legislative level.  It is up to us to monitor proposed legislation and petition our representatives to get unconstitutional laws killed before they are passed. Those who still insist on passing such laws should be voted out of office at the earliest opportunity.  There is also some hope for the effectiveness of public outcry on the Court.  The liberal Justices most likely to disregard the Constitution have, in the past, shown a definite awareness of public opinion and a desire to appease it.

The only two weapons the public possesses for the defending of the Constitution are the power of the vote and the power of petition.  These are most effective when arrayed against the Legislative and the Executive Branches.

Common Myths About Constitution

At some time in our education experience, we were all required to read the Constitution, and probably tested on our understanding of it as well.  As time passed and our memories faded into history, we forgot much of what we had learned; to be replaced with myths and beliefs about the Constitution that have crept into our political mythology over the years.  Three of these myths in particular, have proven to be destructive to the republican principles on which our nation was founded.

Myth Number 1:  The Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitution.

This is one of the oldest myths concerning the Constitution and the Courts, going all the way back to the administration of George Washington.  It is the “default” position made necessary by the fact that our human nature has a tendency to look for a different meaning in laws that interfere with what we want to do.

Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the courts judicial power over “all cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution”.  Exercising judicial power does not involve an interpretation of he law but rather its application.  Any interpretation is to be applied to the facts of the case, not the law.  Or, to put it another way, it is the duty of the court determine the facts of a case and then apply the law to those facts, not the other way around.  It is the facts that often require interpretation, not the law.

In applying the law, the courts are supposed to consider the accepted meaning of the words used in the historical context of the time in which they were written, not in the context of the times in which the facts under consideration are being judged.

Article VI of the Constitution says, “This Constitution…shall be the supreme law of the land.”  The Constitution is its own interpreter.  It says what it says in words easily understood by anyone with an average degree of literacy.  It was written in the literary style of 1787 and was intended to be read and understood by average citizens who were to be the ultimate determiners of its acceptance or rejection.

The Constitution “trumps” the opinions of the judiciary.  Any citizen of the United States has the ability and the duty to read the Constitution and make his or her own determination as to its meaning.  The problem is power.  The courts have all the power of the U.S. Justice Department and all law enforcement agencies in the country to enforce their decisions.  However, citizens have the ultimate power—the power of the vote.

In a free republic, all citizens have the responsibility to obey the law.  They also have an equal responsibility to work to change bad laws, especially those that are unconstitutional.  While federal judges enjoy lifetime appointment, they are also subject to impeachment by Congress.  As citizens, we can require our representatives to hold judges accountable for ignoring or attempting to change our Constitution, and we can vote out of office those who refuse to do so.  We also have the amendment process which allows Congress and the people together, to override the decisions of the court by amending the Constitution to clarify its meaning.

Myth Number 2.  The Constitution grants “rights” to citizens

The body of the Constitution contains the word “right” only once.  That is in Article I, Section 8 giving the Congress power to grant exclusive “rights” to authors and inventors to their writings and inventions.  Two other rights are “given” in the amendments, voting rights and rights in criminal proceedings.  All other references to rights prohibit Congress from making laws effecting them, or from “infringing”, “abridging”, or “violating” rights already possessed by the people.

The Declaration of Independence speaks of certain unalienable rights “granted by their creator”.  These are known as “natural rights” common to all by nature of their personhood.  Included in these are the right of thought and expression, the right to live in liberty and seek prosperity in our own way, and the right to self-defense, to name a few.  The “right” to operate a motor vehicle on public roads, and the right to the benefits of a civil marriage, for example, are privileges granted by the state and not constitutionally protected rights.

The test of a legitimate natural right protected by the Constitution is: Would it still exist if there were no government? Can it be exercised without the aid of government or other people?  Attempts to make the word “privilege” synonymous with the word “right” has always been, and is still a source of conflict and confusion concerning what is or is not a constitutional right.

Myth Number 3:  The Constitution is “open ended” to allow for progress and change

This is perhaps one of the most pernicious and most common myths involving the Constitution.  It is shared by all those who espouse a “living Constitution”, including our current President-Elect.  As we pointed out in our previous post, “Interpreting the Constitution, nothing could be further from the truth.

The Constitution is a completed document.  To insure its completeness and prevent the federal government from extending its powers beyond those granted to it, while at the same time, allowing for progress and change, the founders included Article V and Amendment X. This fact is probably summed up best by Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in 1791,

“I consider the foundation of the Constitution as lain on this ground, that “all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.” (Amendment 10)  To take a single step beyond the boundaries specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” (emphasis added)
~Thomas Jefferson

How Not to Succeed in Business

There may not be a Ford in your future, but there is definitely a bankruptcy in Ford’s future.  Detroit Automakers have been on Capital Hill this week making their case for another $25 billion loan from the government to tide them over during the current downturn in the economy.  The danger for the industry is that they may get it.  If they do they will not be allowed to make the adjustments necessary in order to survive.

For now, the proposed loan is on hold.  The CEOs did not help their case when they showed up on Capital Hill after having arrived in their private jets at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars each, asking for a handout from the taxpayers.  To register Congresses’ displeasure, Speaker Pelosi postponed any vote on the bailout until the second week in December.  The Automakers have been told to return on December 2 — presumably without their jets — with a business plan showing how the loan would insure their viability and exactly how they plan to spend the money.

They would be well advised to heed the caution “be careful what you ask for, you may get it“.  A loan from Washington to the Detroit automakers at this point would ensure their ultimate failure for a number of reasons.  The first $25 billion already given to the industry require them to use the money to retool their manufacturing facilities in order to produce more environmentally friendly cars.  The additional loan would have even more strings attached.  Congress would get an equity interest in the companies and an agreement allowing for more government oversight of the industry.

If we learned nothing else from the financial collapse, we should have learned the ineptitude of Congress when it comes to managing business affairs.  Unfortunately, the goal of too many in Congress is not a healthy auto industry, but rather a manufacturing industry controlled by a socialist/democrat Congress.

Most Americans are not aware that there are two different auto industries in the United States.  There are the domestic brands headquartered in Detroit and the foreign brands manufactured in other parts of the country, mostly in the south.  While the foreign brands have been forced to cut back production due to lack of demand they are in no way near collapse.  The disparity between the two is in production cost.

The Big Three automakers are saddled with billions of dollars in overhead that the foreign owned companies do not have.  Much of this overhead is made up of “legacy costs” consisting of pensions, health care cost for retirees, and pay for non-producing employees negotiated by the United Auto Workers over the past several decades.  This additional labor cost makes the Detroit automakers non-competitive in the auto markets in which Congress wants to force them to compete.

The bigger luxury cars and sport utility vehicles made by the Big Three and popular with the driving public have a high profit margin allowing them to compete successfully with their foreign competitors.  Companies are successful only when they sell a product that meets the consumers perceived needs at a price they are willing to pay.  There may be a need for small fuel-efficient cars as far as Washington is concerned, but there is little evidence that enough of the American people feel that need to produce the profits Detroit automakers need to survive.  Until they do, there is no way Washington can force them to buy them.

If the government is successful in forcing Detroit to produce small cars the public does not want, and in addition, they are forced to operate under the direction of the federal government they will only continue to lose market share and worsen their financial position.  The only solution is for them to restructure the companies under the protection of bankruptcy court and shed some of the unsustainable overhead they now carry.

Even then, unless they are allowed to produce products the public needs and is willing to buy it is only a matter of time until they are back in the same place they are now.  It is just plain stupid to believe the same Congressional incompetents that managed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into insolvency will somehow cure the ills of the auto industry.

A Guide For Conservatives

There seems to be a widespread belief that the conservative movement in America is passé, that traditional conservatives are no longer relevant.  We are told that in order to have any influence within our political system we must moderate our views and become more liberal in our thinking.  Times have changed and conservatives must change or be left behind, we are advised.

History tells us otherwise.  Conservatism has always been one of the two driving forces in our political life, as has liberalism.  It is the checks and balances created by these two forces that has made our nation great.  In the four-hundred years since the first permanent settlement was planted on our shores, both liberals and conservatives have made great contributions to our progress.  In the revolutionary era, it was the liberals who led the revolution and penned the Constitution.

For those of you who did not click to another site immediately after reading that last sentence, let me explain.  Conservatives have always had a cautious reverence for tradition and history while liberals have sought change, often just for the sake of change itself.  In the political climate of 1787, the anti-federalists were the repositories of conservative thought and the federalists of liberal thought.  The bitter and sometimes acrimonious debate between the anti-federalists and the federalists is what ultimately led to the creation of the most enduring and near perfect political document in history, the U.S. Constitution.

The Anti-federalists feared the establishment of a strong federal government such as the one proposed by Hamilton, Adams, Jay and others, because they foresaw the eventual usurpation of the power of state governments and the dilution of the power of the people leading to tyranny.  It was anti-federalists like Patrick Henry and George Clinton who insisted on limiting the power of government and including a “Bill of Rights” as an addendum to the Constitution.

The federalist, on the other hand, believed there was no need to include a Bill of Rights in the final version of the Constitution since the Constitution did not give the federal government the powers necessary to infringe on the rights of the people.  Fortunately, for us, the anti-federalist won the debate and history has proven them right.

That debate over the Constitution, to a great extent, defined the roles of conservatives and liberals in the ages to follow.  The primary role of the conservative movement has been to check the excesses of liberalism in the progress of our country.  That role is more important today than ever before.

The traditional, patriotic liberalism of the founders has died away to be replaced by a radical socialism that threatens to revolutionize our culture, abolish our liberties, and appropriate the fruits of our labors.  One of the reasons for the death of liberalism and the rise of socialism is a disdain for the Constitution.  In my opinion, the American people are among the best and brightest people on earth, but they are undermined by an almost universal ignorance of our history and the principles set forth in our founding documents.

If conservatives are to be successful in their historical role of defending liberty and freedom, it is imperative that they understand the importance of our founding documents.  The Constitution is the only obstacle that stands between us and tyranny, yet few of us take the time to understand its importance or the demands it places on us and our leaders. We have less than two years to revitalize the conservative movement and begin to counter the advances of socialism.  If we are to preserve the effectiveness of the movement, we must devote some of our resources to promoting a knowledge and appreciation of the Constitution.

To help in this effort we are changing the focus of our website. Our new focus will be to provide an easy to use and understand resource for learning about the Constitution.  We have just posted the first sixty pages in a new section on our website.  I encourage you to check it out and recommend it to others. It contains searchable copies of the Constitution in three different formats, the Bill of Rights plus the additional sixteen amendments, and the Declaration of Independence.

We will be adding notes and comments on important passages and phrases as we go along.  New postings to the section will be announced on the home page of the website and on our two blogs, the Illinois Conservative Beacon and the Constitution Sentinel. My goal is to keep the new section as free of subjective opinion as possible, using historical facts and documents to put together notes, comments and other references.  I will still however, post opinions on current events on our two blogs.

Please check it out and provide me with your comments and suggestions. Click here to check it out, or you can find it by going to our home page and clicking on Conservative Manifesto in the navigation bar.

A Litmus Test For Conservative Leadership

For almost two years, conservatives have been torn between their principles and the pragmatic desire to elect a Republican President for the good of the country.  Now that the election is over and the Democratic Party has won, the political urgency for conservatives is no longer as intense.  We have a little time to rethink just what the conservative movement’s role is in American politics, including our relationship with the Republican Party.

This election in particular, makes it obvious that the Republican leadership does not look favorably on the conservative influence within the Party.   The problem for the party is that it cannot win elections without conservative support.  The problem for conservatives is that they cannot support most Republican candidates without compromising one or more of their principles.

Many conservatives are motivated by single issues like abortion or taxes.  There is also a tendency to group various types of conservatives as fiscal, social, defense, big government, or limited government conservatives.  There seems to be no basic principle around which the conservative movement can unite and present a consistent message to the electorate.

The conservative movement occupies the same position in the Republican Party that the socialist movement occupies in the Democratic Party.  Both make up the primary voting blocks of their respective parties.  The difference is, the Democrats have been successful in mobilizing their base to win elections while in many cases, the Republicans have not.

There are a number of reasons why all the voting blocks of the Democratic Party come together on Election Day to support party candidates.  They have been successful in applying the socialist doctrines of “class warfare”, and “the end justifies the means”, however, the primary reason for the “solidarity” of the Democratic Party is that it is united around a single set of unifying principles.

Whether we look at the environmentalists, feminists, unionists, gay rights advocates, or any of the other groups that make up the Democratic coalition, they are all united in supporting the socialist/democratic agenda.   Not only do they support the agenda, they shun anyone within the party who does not support it.

That does not mean that every Democrat is a socialist.  However, if you look at the leadership of the various groups who make up the Democratic coalition, or at the group’s collective membership, it is difficult to overlook the fact that they all support the fundamental principles of the socialist movement: “big brother government,” opposition to free market capitalism, redistribution of income and the other elements in the Marxist version of “social justice”.

The Republican Party, on the other hand, does not seem to have an agenda that everyone can unite behind. There are many single-issue conservatives who stay home if a candidate does not emphasize the particular issue in which they are interested.   On the other hand, a number of conservatives will vote for a candidate who supports one or two conservative principles although they may outright reject others.  The 2008 Presidential campaigns provide excellent examples of this fact.

There is one principle that should be a “natural” for all Republicans and certainly for all conservatives.  That is the principle of constitutional government.  You may be saying, “that’s silly, all Americans support a constitutional government otherwise they would not be Americans”.  To which I reply, “Where is the evidence?”  How can anyone claim to believe in a constitutional government and then consistently vote for candidates who either ignore or consciously violate the Constitution for the sake of expediency?

Again referring to the news of the day, the economic bailouts over the past month were supported by a majority of Republicans in Congress, our President and our Presidential candidate.  There is nothing in the Constitution that gives to Congress the power to use money extracted from the labor of citizens to prop up private businesses, that for whatever reasons find themselves in financial difficulties.

The government excuse for intervening is that “something must be done”.  In a capitalist society, companies prosper under good management in a free society.  However, there are business cycles that must be weathered from time to time.  Companies that do not have the fiscal discipline to prepare for those cycles or the management skills to manage their companies profitably and consequently are unable to survive the down cycles go out of business.

Alternatively, if the products or services are of value to society, companies can file for bankruptcy protection and be restructured on a sounder basis.  The rationale for the new proposals to provide another twenty-five billion to the carmakers is that if the Automobile industry fails millions of jobs will be lost.  This is nothing more than “fear tactics” used to manipulate the American people.  The truth is that if they were allowed to go into bankruptcy and restructure, they would be better equipped to compete and prosper in our global economy.  Some may temporarily lose their jobs but in the end, the industry would be strengthened.

On what basis are decisions of this type made by government and supported by Republicans and conservatives?  Obviously, they are made for political or economic expediency, not on principle.  We need elected leaders who make decisions based on principles.  If the principles are right, the decision will also prove to be right in the end.  No principles of government, in the history of the world, have proven to be more successful than those underlying our Constitution.

History has shown that American voters support politicians who run on these principles even if they do not fully understand the connection.  If we are to rebuild the conservative movement it has to be structured around the Constitution, otherwise we have no core on which to build that differentiates us from the socialist/democrats on the other side.  That will involve reeducating the American people, especially the politicians, on the content and meaning of our founding documents.

The Democrats use the litmus test of abortion as the basis for choosing their leaders.  We should use the litmus test of the support and defense of the Constitution as the basis for choosing our leaders.  Most Americans support the Constitution.  The problem is, few have any knowledge of what it contains and the limitations it places on the power of the federal government.  That is a situation that must be changed if we are to reestablish the conservative movement as a force in government.

P. T. Barnum Would Be Proud

In retrospect, one of the most amazing revelations of the election season was the admiration of the press and the politicos for the candidate who was able to fool the most people.  Consider the advice they offered to the candidates, “move to the right”, “move to the left”, “move to the center”, all based on the assumption that a candidate’s revelation of his or her true positions could cost them the election.

Further evidence of the value of deception in politics is shown by the analysis of speeches and interviews.   Invariably words and phrases are evaluated on how effective they are in misleading various segments of the voting public.  In order for the public to form an accurate picture of the candidate’s true position we are forced to parse words and phrases, read between the lines, interpret refusals to answer questions, and piece together bits and pieces of information from alternative sources.

Few Americans have the time or knowledge to sift through all the misinformation coming at them from their television, newspaper, and radio.  Consequently, we are forced to make decisions on snippets and sound bites that provided little in-depth information about candidates’ real positions on issues.   Voters get no help from the popular media who should have the responsibility of informing the public in an evenhanded way.  Instead, the media has made it their mission to cover up, hide or spin any revelations that could prove detrimental to their candidate, Barack Obama.

It is sobering to realize that we choose leaders who will have a profound affect on our lives, based on their political skills rather than their governing skills.  No sooner were the elections over than the press began to weave two new themes that are sure to leave the people disappointed.  One is that Obama will govern from the center.  The other is that we will see bipartisan action on the important issues facing the country.

Obama cannot govern from the center because he is a true believer, as are Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid.  They believe in the fundamental principles of socialism and they will follow the blueprint of historical socialism to bring about the destruction of capitalism if they are able.  These are the conditions the socialist movement in America has been working toward for the past hundred years and they will not let it pass without doing every thing they can to bring their plans to fruition.

We make a mistake when we assume that the socialist/democrats actually want to right the economy.  Socialist literature is replete with the belief that progress can only come out of chaos.  In their worldview, social and economic equality can only be realized through the struggle between the classes until both the upper and lower classes have been homogenized into a society where everyone is existing only slightly above the subsistence level.  This idea is central to the writings of Karl Marx, Freidrich Engels, and Saul Alinsky whose techniques provide the model for Obama’s style of government.  As Hillary Clinton explained in her college thesis on the Alinsky model, “It’s All About the Struggle”.

As to the idea of bipartisan cooperation in remaking American society, this too is an impossibility for a number of reasons.  If we learned nothing else from the cold war, we should have learned there is no compromise with socialism.  If we did not learn from the cold war, we should have learned from the last two years of socialist/democratic control of Congress.  When socialist talk of compromise they are really talking about acquiescence to their point of view.  America still has tens of millions of patriots who are willing to defend the Constitution and who will never allow the American dream to be reduced to whatever style of living the state determines to be “our fair share”.  The next few years are going to be anything but peaceful in the political arena.

I hope I am wrong, but history, human nature and the relentless expansion of trends tells me I am not.

Obama and the Oath of Office

In just 74 days Barack Obama will raise his right hand and take the following oath, “I do solemnly swear to faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”  With that oath he will become our forty-fourth President, and the most socialistic President in U.S. history.  Only two others have even come close, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Baines Johnson. Roosevelt and Johnson implemented many of the socialist policies we are living with today but they were not necessarily advocates of the socialist agenda.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, has spent his entire adult life promoting the agenda of the socialist movement in America.  His voting record in the Senate is even to the left of Senator Bernie Sanders (Ind-VT), the only openly socialist member of Congress.

Many “mainstream” Americans bristle at the use of the word “socialist”, an attitude held over from the McCarthy era when Joseph McCarthy attempted to expose communists who had infiltrated academia, entertainment and the government.  For his efforts McCarthy was destroyed politically and personally, establishing the template used by socialist, even today, to suppress opposition to their agenda.

I do not use the word in a pejorative sense but in a descriptive one.  There are two principles that distinguish the socialist philosophy from all other political and economic theories.  They are redistribution of income and government control of the economy.  Any policies that result in these two outcomes are socialist policies and should be identified as such.  This is true whether they are implemented by Democrats or Republicans.  The number and magnitude of these policies determines the degree of socialism involved.

Socialism is incompatible with capitalism.  Invariably, whenever there is an attempt to mix the two, socialism eventually crowds out capitalism.  Socialism is also incompatible with the U.S. Constitution.  The Constitution must be ignored in order to implement socialist policies at the federal level.  It’s not that the Constitution prohibits socialism; it doesn’t.  Individual states like California, Vermont, Massachusetts, etc. can have all the socialism their taxpayers want and can support, just not at the federal level.

The reason socialist policies cannot be implemented at the federal level is that they cannot be put into practice without violating the limited, enumerated powers doctrine as established by Article One of the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment.  Aside from wrecking the economy and undermining capitalism, the very act of implementing socialist policies dilutes the Constitution until it becomes a meaningless document with no capacity for curbing the natural inclination toward tyranny common to all governments.

Republicans just took a thrashing in the ‘08 elections.  In my opinion, one of the main reasons for the Republican defeat is the party’s effort to rid itself of its conservative base.  If conservatism is to regain its former place in American politics it is going to have to deal with, not only the socialists in the Democratic Party, but the moderates and elitists in the Republican Party as well.

Americans are conditioned by over two hundred years of history and tradition to respect the Constitution and oppose socialism, when it is pointed out to them.  These two themes must be the foundation of the conservative message for the next few years if we are to make any meaningful progress in restoring the country to the constitutional republic it was intended to be.

There has been an attempt over the past few years to redefine “patriotism” as loving your country and expressing opposition to its policies.  In addition, we often hear attempts to define the essence of America.  In fact, mention almost any subject dealing with politics or culture and someone is likely to inform you that “that’s what it means to be American.” To me, the essence of America is found in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  It is the Constitution that differentiates us from all the other nations of the world.

One of the accusations against conservatives who criticize Obama’s socialist agenda is that we are questioning his patriotism.  The accusation is usually followed by the declaration that he loves his country as much as anyone.  The dictionary defines patriotism as loving and defending ones country.  If the Constitution defines the essence of the meaning of “America” then one cannot be a patriot and in opposition to the Constitution at the same time.  I have no doubt that President-elect Obama loves his country but that does not make him a patriot.  The America he loves does not exist today except in his mind’s eye and he certainly does not love or defend the Constitution.  On more than one occasion he has expressed the belief that the Constitution is outdated and should only serve as a starting point for making America into the country he believes it should be.

For that reason his taking the oath of office on January 20, is little more than a travesty.  I have seen no evidence he is willing to defend the Constitution.  I have seen and heard plenty of evidence that he intends to either ignore it or change its meaning in order to bring it more in line with what he believes the founders should have written.

Perhaps the same thing could be said for most politicians today from either side of the aisle.  When was the last time you heard a politician defend the Constitution with any specificity?  I have to confess I cannot remember the last time I heard one.  In fact, the Constitution is rarely mentioned except to bolster an argument that something they propose is necessitated by the Constitution or that something they oppose is unconstitutional.  In these vague references they never explain exactly why something is either constitutional or unconstitutional.

If we, as conservatives, are not willing to defend the Constitution against assaults from whatever source and if we value political correctness more than we value an accurate identification of its enemies then we have no right to expect any meaningful participation in directing our nation‘s future.
Cross-posted at Constitutional Sentinel