Headline: Election Report
Date Line November 3 2010
Option 1
Despite all the efforts of Tea Party group and Talk Radio, the Democrats still hold majorities in the House and Senate. The people were still supporting the Democrat Parties policies of National Health-care and stabilizing the economy. This is seen as a clear mandate for continued action on a comprehensive greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan and amnesty. Senate majority leader Harry Reid, fresh off his victory in Nevada, announced plans to introduce a union reform bill and gun control measures as soon as Congress returns to Washington.
Option 2
The Tea Party and Talk Radio crowd fell disappointingly short of their goal of taking back the Senate last night. While they did manage to take over the House, it was by a slim amount, hardly the mandate they were hoping for. I don’t expect the Republican Party to try to stand in the way of President Obama’s policy agenda. With such a poor showing, they really should just allow Speaker Pelosi to remain in her post, in an effort to work with the Democrats.
Option 3
In a stunning victory in yesterday’s elections, the Republican Party managed to overthrow the leadership of both the House and Senate. With a 65 seat swing in the house it is clear the people have spoken. The Republicans somehow managed to pickup 15 seats in the Senate and sent Majority Leader Harry Reid to the unemployment line.
In other news, Dan Rather is resting comfortably after suffering a heart attack while watching the early returns.
Which option are you hoping for?
Which option are you working for?
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Trouble for Houston in the November vote
Trouble for Houston in the November vote
A suspicious fire destroyed all 10,000 e-slate voting machines early Friday. This follow news on Tuesday that the group called Houston Votes filed thousands of fraudulent voter applications.
Harris County Voter Registrar Leo Vasquez reported “Houston Votes is the voter registration machine of the ‘Texans Together Education Fund.’ Houston Votes and Texans Together have effectively emerged as our area’s new ‘ACORN’ organization.”
The fraudulent applications were brought to light due to the efforts of King Street Patriots, who volunteered to review them for the Voters Registrar’s office. Without their efforts a full investigation could not have been conducted, allowing voters registration cards to be issued.
There were almost 1,600 multiple applications received. This means from two to six applications were received from each applicant. This includes small variation in addresses, birth dates & the spelling of names.
Over 1,000 applications were received that exactly match currently registered votes, but the signatures don’t match the ones on file.
Over 1,100 applications stated they did not have a Texas driver’s license, Texas ID card or a social security number. A small investigation showed this to be false.
325 applications for teenagers too young to register; and, 25 applications were even submitted for applicants who checked they were not U.S. Citizens.
In all over 5,000 applications were reported as fraudulent in one or more category. An additional 3,531 were returned that failed the verification of TDL or SSN matching the State’s records
It’s interesting that only a few days later the election process is thrown into jeopardy with the destruction of all the voting machines. A meeting is planed for Monday to decide what the options might be.
It will be hard to borrow machines from other counties since they will be voting on the same day. With only six weeks before early voting begins, it is doubtful the manufacturer can supply replacements in time. Harris County may have to get permission from the Secretary of State for Texas to use paper ballots.
http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/08/27/houston-election-headquarters-warehouse-d
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news%2Flocal&id=7634029
A suspicious fire destroyed all 10,000 e-slate voting machines early Friday. This follow news on Tuesday that the group called Houston Votes filed thousands of fraudulent voter applications.
Harris County Voter Registrar Leo Vasquez reported “Houston Votes is the voter registration machine of the ‘Texans Together Education Fund.’ Houston Votes and Texans Together have effectively emerged as our area’s new ‘ACORN’ organization.”
The fraudulent applications were brought to light due to the efforts of King Street Patriots, who volunteered to review them for the Voters Registrar’s office. Without their efforts a full investigation could not have been conducted, allowing voters registration cards to be issued.
There were almost 1,600 multiple applications received. This means from two to six applications were received from each applicant. This includes small variation in addresses, birth dates & the spelling of names.
Over 1,000 applications were received that exactly match currently registered votes, but the signatures don’t match the ones on file.
Over 1,100 applications stated they did not have a Texas driver’s license, Texas ID card or a social security number. A small investigation showed this to be false.
325 applications for teenagers too young to register; and, 25 applications were even submitted for applicants who checked they were not U.S. Citizens.
In all over 5,000 applications were reported as fraudulent in one or more category. An additional 3,531 were returned that failed the verification of TDL or SSN matching the State’s records
It’s interesting that only a few days later the election process is thrown into jeopardy with the destruction of all the voting machines. A meeting is planed for Monday to decide what the options might be.
It will be hard to borrow machines from other counties since they will be voting on the same day. With only six weeks before early voting begins, it is doubtful the manufacturer can supply replacements in time. Harris County may have to get permission from the Secretary of State for Texas to use paper ballots.
http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/08/27/houston-election-headquarters-warehouse-d
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news%2Flocal&id=7634029
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Repairing our election system
Repairing our election system.
By Allen Marino
With all the turmoil we have faced since the election of President Obama, I was thinking how different things would have turned out if John McCain would have won.
The big turning point in the race was at the end when the economic bubble burst. I could speculate here on what caused it, but books are already being written about it. The big question is who popped the bubble at just the right time? Who benefited most from the crisis? The crisis showed that Obama was better able to handle economic issues, or so we were told. Who had enough money and clout to push the financial industry off the cliff? I personally believe Soros was behind it.
Timing was very important to the race. They needed something to take the spotlight off of Sarah Palin, and put it back on the issues that would make Obama look good. Even though the Republicans were trying to alert us to the housing bubble brewing at Fannie and Freddie, it was still President Bush who the media blamed for it.
I will admit that I was screaming for Bush to not pass the first stimulus bill. The economy would have been better of in the long run if it was allowed to correct itself. Instead you had the government picking winners and losers, allowing some firms to lose everything because they didn’t have the right connections or had not donated to the right campaigns. The line between a donation and a shake down for protection has been missing for some time now.
One of the first things Obama did when taking over, after calling the Muslims to promise he was on their side, was to close Gitmo. The fact that it is still open should be overlooked. I don’t think McCain would have ordered the base closed, he would have outlawed our use of “extensive interrogation methods”.
I believe Obama’s first big legislative push was Cap-n-trade. We can be thankful they backed off of that one, at least for now.
McCain would have probably pushed for amnesty, and the media would have howled. Even when a Republican is doing what the liberals want, the fact that it comes from the right makes it wrong.
We have been watching the present administration mishandle the BP oil spill for months now. How would the press be reacting if McCain were in charge and doing the same thing? We would be seeing daily reports on how many birds have been killed, how they failed in every thing they try to do, how we should never allow a Republican near the White House again.
How strangely silent they are with Obama the Magnificent in charge.
When looking at how bad our choices were, we have to ask how we can prevent having the good conservative candidates from being eliminated in the primary process. By the time the people of Texas get to vote in a primary, the good people have been eliminated, we can chose between Democrat & Republican.
The game is fixed to give us progressives. If the game is fixed, how do we fix the game? We change the rules.
I’ve been calling for a change in the way primaries are run. Why should Iowa & New Hampshire get to chose between the best candidates?
We should break primaries up into four primaries by time zone. The first primary is the first Tuesday in April which in the case of 2012 would be April 3rd. Either we can change which zone goes first every four years or we set it in stone that the Eastern zone goes first. Six weeks later being in this case May 15th, we have the second regional primary. We continue this way going across the country. Hawaii and Alaska vote with the West. I know some states straddle across two time zones; they can decide which zone they want to be in, probably going with where most of the state is located.
This would leave us with the general race or the last push being 12 weeks, in which to make the final decision. Considering they now start their campaign right after the midterm election, this would cut the price of running down to size.
If any state wants’ to hold something earlier, they can hold a straw poll, but it cannot be funded by the National Parties, and are not binding on the candidates.
I have heard some official not wanting to hold their primaries earlier because its hard for the state and local candidates to get their message out. This system would get the election cycle away from the Christmas holiday season; you don’t have to start campaigning until after the first of the year. This should also save everyone some money.
By Allen Marino
With all the turmoil we have faced since the election of President Obama, I was thinking how different things would have turned out if John McCain would have won.
The big turning point in the race was at the end when the economic bubble burst. I could speculate here on what caused it, but books are already being written about it. The big question is who popped the bubble at just the right time? Who benefited most from the crisis? The crisis showed that Obama was better able to handle economic issues, or so we were told. Who had enough money and clout to push the financial industry off the cliff? I personally believe Soros was behind it.
Timing was very important to the race. They needed something to take the spotlight off of Sarah Palin, and put it back on the issues that would make Obama look good. Even though the Republicans were trying to alert us to the housing bubble brewing at Fannie and Freddie, it was still President Bush who the media blamed for it.
I will admit that I was screaming for Bush to not pass the first stimulus bill. The economy would have been better of in the long run if it was allowed to correct itself. Instead you had the government picking winners and losers, allowing some firms to lose everything because they didn’t have the right connections or had not donated to the right campaigns. The line between a donation and a shake down for protection has been missing for some time now.
One of the first things Obama did when taking over, after calling the Muslims to promise he was on their side, was to close Gitmo. The fact that it is still open should be overlooked. I don’t think McCain would have ordered the base closed, he would have outlawed our use of “extensive interrogation methods”.
I believe Obama’s first big legislative push was Cap-n-trade. We can be thankful they backed off of that one, at least for now.
McCain would have probably pushed for amnesty, and the media would have howled. Even when a Republican is doing what the liberals want, the fact that it comes from the right makes it wrong.
We have been watching the present administration mishandle the BP oil spill for months now. How would the press be reacting if McCain were in charge and doing the same thing? We would be seeing daily reports on how many birds have been killed, how they failed in every thing they try to do, how we should never allow a Republican near the White House again.
How strangely silent they are with Obama the Magnificent in charge.
When looking at how bad our choices were, we have to ask how we can prevent having the good conservative candidates from being eliminated in the primary process. By the time the people of Texas get to vote in a primary, the good people have been eliminated, we can chose between Democrat & Republican.
The game is fixed to give us progressives. If the game is fixed, how do we fix the game? We change the rules.
I’ve been calling for a change in the way primaries are run. Why should Iowa & New Hampshire get to chose between the best candidates?
We should break primaries up into four primaries by time zone. The first primary is the first Tuesday in April which in the case of 2012 would be April 3rd. Either we can change which zone goes first every four years or we set it in stone that the Eastern zone goes first. Six weeks later being in this case May 15th, we have the second regional primary. We continue this way going across the country. Hawaii and Alaska vote with the West. I know some states straddle across two time zones; they can decide which zone they want to be in, probably going with where most of the state is located.
This would leave us with the general race or the last push being 12 weeks, in which to make the final decision. Considering they now start their campaign right after the midterm election, this would cut the price of running down to size.
If any state wants’ to hold something earlier, they can hold a straw poll, but it cannot be funded by the National Parties, and are not binding on the candidates.
I have heard some official not wanting to hold their primaries earlier because its hard for the state and local candidates to get their message out. This system would get the election cycle away from the Christmas holiday season; you don’t have to start campaigning until after the first of the year. This should also save everyone some money.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Constitutional Opinion Blog
There are so many instances in which the Federal Government has usurped power; it’s hard to know where to start. It is not just the current & previous administrations that are to blame; it goes back Wilson & was worst under the New Deal. Unfortunately the plans for a time machine that I bought on the internet didn’t work out so I can’t go back to fix the past, we can only fight the fight going forward.
The most misleading term seems to be promoting the general welfare. The definition, supported by James Madison & Thomas Jefferson, is that the power to tax & spend did not confer upon congress the right to do whatever it thought best for the nation, but only to further the ends specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
An example of the original meaning comes when congress refused to fund the dredging of the Savannah River because it was located entirely in the State of Georgia, therefore only of benefit to the State of Georgia. At the same time it approved the lighthouse at the mouth of Chesapeake Bay & a bridge across the Cumberland Gap, these being interstate project of benefit to commerce. This is the same rational that gave us the Interstate Highway System.
As to the borrowing clause, George Washington stated in his farewell address;
“As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit, One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible; avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.”
The power to borrow is also the responsibility to maintain our good credit. By excessive spending this administration has put our credit rating in jeopardy. The amount of spending being proposed will destroy any chance we have to recover economically.
On the rules for bankruptcy clause, as James Madison Observed in Federalist #42, “The power of establishing uniform laws of bankruptcy is so intimately connected with the regulation of commerce, and will prevent so many frauds where the parties or their property may lie or be removed into different States that the expediency of it seems not likely to be drawn into question.” To allow some banks and financial groups to fail while bailing out others is not “uniform”.
On the ninth & tenth amendments, they should be read together.
The ninth was to prevent the application of statutory rule of interpretation, i.e. by including one thing you exclude all others. It was also to confirm the republican principles of the Federalist & the Anti-Federalist alike, that the people retain their communal right of self-governance. The libertarian point of view on the ninth is that it point to a set of judicially enforceable unenumerated rights (natural rights) that no government can legitimately deny. Unfortunately in 1937, the Supreme Court gave up on trying to enforce this amendment, & in 1965 (Griswold v. Connecticut) the Court twisted it’s meaning to something unrecognizable. This proves why depending on the Court to properly interpret the law is dangerous.
The tenth- reserving to the people of the states the powers not delegated to the US government- was designed to confirm the separate juridical competency of the respective states in relation to the federal governments limited powers.
When the government decides to use tax law to deal with a non- existing problem like global warming, & redistribute our wealth around the world, they have gone too far. Even if they are allowed to regulate these items under the Constitution, they cannot commit a violation while enforcing the rules. This scheme that is being proposed that would create something called "carbon credits". Each business would be told how many credits they are allowed to have by some government board. Extra credits would be given to congressmen & senators to sell to businesses that need extras. If Congress can't sell all of theirs, then the amount allocated to businesses must be too high & would be cut.
As Ronald Reagan said "The tax code should not be used to punish". But seeing as how our current congress members actually told business men that they needed to give back bonuses or the bonus would be taxed away from them, they are too stupid to know that it would be ex post facto law & laughed out of court.
The takeover of our healthcare market has no bases in the Constitution. The healthcare system can be reformed without this massive takeover. We are told the government is the answer, I say the government is the problem.
The most misleading term seems to be promoting the general welfare. The definition, supported by James Madison & Thomas Jefferson, is that the power to tax & spend did not confer upon congress the right to do whatever it thought best for the nation, but only to further the ends specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
An example of the original meaning comes when congress refused to fund the dredging of the Savannah River because it was located entirely in the State of Georgia, therefore only of benefit to the State of Georgia. At the same time it approved the lighthouse at the mouth of Chesapeake Bay & a bridge across the Cumberland Gap, these being interstate project of benefit to commerce. This is the same rational that gave us the Interstate Highway System.
As to the borrowing clause, George Washington stated in his farewell address;
“As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit, One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible; avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.”
The power to borrow is also the responsibility to maintain our good credit. By excessive spending this administration has put our credit rating in jeopardy. The amount of spending being proposed will destroy any chance we have to recover economically.
On the rules for bankruptcy clause, as James Madison Observed in Federalist #42, “The power of establishing uniform laws of bankruptcy is so intimately connected with the regulation of commerce, and will prevent so many frauds where the parties or their property may lie or be removed into different States that the expediency of it seems not likely to be drawn into question.” To allow some banks and financial groups to fail while bailing out others is not “uniform”.
On the ninth & tenth amendments, they should be read together.
The ninth was to prevent the application of statutory rule of interpretation, i.e. by including one thing you exclude all others. It was also to confirm the republican principles of the Federalist & the Anti-Federalist alike, that the people retain their communal right of self-governance. The libertarian point of view on the ninth is that it point to a set of judicially enforceable unenumerated rights (natural rights) that no government can legitimately deny. Unfortunately in 1937, the Supreme Court gave up on trying to enforce this amendment, & in 1965 (Griswold v. Connecticut) the Court twisted it’s meaning to something unrecognizable. This proves why depending on the Court to properly interpret the law is dangerous.
The tenth- reserving to the people of the states the powers not delegated to the US government- was designed to confirm the separate juridical competency of the respective states in relation to the federal governments limited powers.
When the government decides to use tax law to deal with a non- existing problem like global warming, & redistribute our wealth around the world, they have gone too far. Even if they are allowed to regulate these items under the Constitution, they cannot commit a violation while enforcing the rules. This scheme that is being proposed that would create something called "carbon credits". Each business would be told how many credits they are allowed to have by some government board. Extra credits would be given to congressmen & senators to sell to businesses that need extras. If Congress can't sell all of theirs, then the amount allocated to businesses must be too high & would be cut.
As Ronald Reagan said "The tax code should not be used to punish". But seeing as how our current congress members actually told business men that they needed to give back bonuses or the bonus would be taxed away from them, they are too stupid to know that it would be ex post facto law & laughed out of court.
The takeover of our healthcare market has no bases in the Constitution. The healthcare system can be reformed without this massive takeover. We are told the government is the answer, I say the government is the problem.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Who made them boss
Who Made Them Boss
By Allen Marino
For as long as any of us can remember, the Supreme Court has been the final decision on everything. As a minor anarchist, I ask, why?
The power which is given to the Supreme Court is defined in Article 3 of the Constitution. It does not specify how many Supreme Court Justices there should be. It doesn’t say they need to have a big building to meet in. They could meet in Chief Justice Robert’s basement.
Article 3, section 2 states, in part, “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority”.
The problem with the court comes when the court acts in an unconstitutional manner. When they step out of their role as judges and legislate from the bench. When the Supreme Court refuses to decide when the federal government has stepped over the line, they are giving sanction to that action.
The Federal government has used the 14th amendment and the necessary and proper clause to justify the taking over of anything they want. Our own Congress has stated that there are no limits to its powers. The Supreme Court will not stand for the Constitution against the Federal government, since it is part of that government.
When the court found that a local government could take one persons property and give it to another, for the purpose of developing it, thereby raising the amount of taxes collectable on it, they stepped on our rights as property owners.
When a government has the power to tell you what type of toilet you can have, how much water your shower can flow, we have to say get out of my bathroom.
What do we do when the court refuses to uphold the Constitution? The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the federal government to certain areas. The 10th amendment states; 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 options are left to us?
We have examples of Presidents refusing to abide by the decision of the Court.
We find that President Andrew Jackson dealt with the court by ignoring it, at least on one occasion. The case is Worcester v. Georgia. In that case the court decided that the State of Georgia could not force the Cherokee to move since it was the Cherokee Nation. As such, they were a distinct community with self-government within nation of the United States, and only the Federal Government had jurisdiction. In reaction to this President Jackson stated "the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate." In effect he proved that the court had no power to enforce its rulings.
Lincoln even tried to have the Chief Justice Tandy arrested for sedition.
My research also finds that during reconstruction, in 1868, the Federal Government enacted a law forbidding the Supreme Court from holding the laws against the South as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court went along with it.
If we take the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves, we have the option of nullification. At the time, the belief was that the states could decide if something was unconstitutional and refuse to allow that law to take effect. I have to believe that since they were written by Jefferson and Madison, they might have known what they were talking about.
Since some people disagree with the principle of nullification, we are left with the states suing the federal government for overstepping, but that still leaves it up to the court to rule against the fed.
The other option is for congress to pass a law allowing whatever the court has overturned. But if the law in question violates the Constitution, it would mean passing an amendment to the Constitution, which takes quite some time.
This is why it is so important to get good people on the court in the first place. It has long been the habit that conservative justices retire when a Republican is in office, just as liberal justices only retire when a Democrat is in office. This means that the only time there is a shift in the makeup of the court is when a justice dies in office. Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court was supposed to be above politics; unfortunately we put people on the court, not Gods.
By Allen Marino
For as long as any of us can remember, the Supreme Court has been the final decision on everything. As a minor anarchist, I ask, why?
The power which is given to the Supreme Court is defined in Article 3 of the Constitution. It does not specify how many Supreme Court Justices there should be. It doesn’t say they need to have a big building to meet in. They could meet in Chief Justice Robert’s basement.
Article 3, section 2 states, in part, “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority”.
The problem with the court comes when the court acts in an unconstitutional manner. When they step out of their role as judges and legislate from the bench. When the Supreme Court refuses to decide when the federal government has stepped over the line, they are giving sanction to that action.
The Federal government has used the 14th amendment and the necessary and proper clause to justify the taking over of anything they want. Our own Congress has stated that there are no limits to its powers. The Supreme Court will not stand for the Constitution against the Federal government, since it is part of that government.
When the court found that a local government could take one persons property and give it to another, for the purpose of developing it, thereby raising the amount of taxes collectable on it, they stepped on our rights as property owners.
When a government has the power to tell you what type of toilet you can have, how much water your shower can flow, we have to say get out of my bathroom.
What do we do when the court refuses to uphold the Constitution? The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the federal government to certain areas. The 10th amendment states; 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 options are left to us?
We have examples of Presidents refusing to abide by the decision of the Court.
We find that President Andrew Jackson dealt with the court by ignoring it, at least on one occasion. The case is Worcester v. Georgia. In that case the court decided that the State of Georgia could not force the Cherokee to move since it was the Cherokee Nation. As such, they were a distinct community with self-government within nation of the United States, and only the Federal Government had jurisdiction. In reaction to this President Jackson stated "the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate." In effect he proved that the court had no power to enforce its rulings.
Lincoln even tried to have the Chief Justice Tandy arrested for sedition.
My research also finds that during reconstruction, in 1868, the Federal Government enacted a law forbidding the Supreme Court from holding the laws against the South as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court went along with it.
If we take the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves, we have the option of nullification. At the time, the belief was that the states could decide if something was unconstitutional and refuse to allow that law to take effect. I have to believe that since they were written by Jefferson and Madison, they might have known what they were talking about.
Since some people disagree with the principle of nullification, we are left with the states suing the federal government for overstepping, but that still leaves it up to the court to rule against the fed.
The other option is for congress to pass a law allowing whatever the court has overturned. But if the law in question violates the Constitution, it would mean passing an amendment to the Constitution, which takes quite some time.
This is why it is so important to get good people on the court in the first place. It has long been the habit that conservative justices retire when a Republican is in office, just as liberal justices only retire when a Democrat is in office. This means that the only time there is a shift in the makeup of the court is when a justice dies in office. Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court was supposed to be above politics; unfortunately we put people on the court, not Gods.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Light Reading
Light Reading
Political Theory
I was doing a little light reading on pre-civil war political theory, like everyone else I’m sure, when I came across some information that I found interesting. Now on most blogs you would expect a link to the book, but I couldn’t find one to the original 1815 book. I thought you could find everything on the web.
In case you want to run out and get a copy of the book, its Union and Liberty: The Political Philosophy of John C. Calhoun. This book comes shortly after the founding of our government under the Constitution, when they had the kinks worked out but still followed the words of the Constitution, not just their own interpretation. Maybe if Glenn Beck likes the book, they can reprint some of them.
Now some of you may not have heard of this man, given the fact that they don’t teach history in schools anymore. At the time that he wrote this, Mr. Calhoun was a US Representative from South Carolina. In 1817, he would be the Secretary of War under President Monroe. He would go on to be vice-president under both John Quincy Adams & Andrew Jackson.
Mr. Calhoun stated something quite interesting.
The government would gradually pass from the hands of the majority of the party into those of the leaders; as the struggle becomes more intense, and the honors and emoluments of the government the all-absorbing objects. At this stage, principals and policy would lose all influence in the elections; and cunning, falsehood, deception, slander, fraud, and gross appeals to appetites of the lowest and most worthless portions of the community, would take the place of sound reason and wise debate. After these have thoroughly debased and corrupted the community, and all the arts and devises of the party have been exhausted, the government would vibrate between two factions (for such will parties have become) at each successive election. These vibrations would continue until confusion, corruption, disorder, and anarchy, would lead to an appeal to force-to be followed by a revolution in the form of government. Such must be the end of the government of the numerical majority.
I would start with Carter swinging pretty far left. We have him to thank for the Islamic state of Iran, incredibly high interest rate, the oil embargo, & the United States being the laughing stock of the world.
Then Reagan brought us back to the right by repairing the economy, ending the Cold War, & making us proud to be Americans again.
If Bush #1 had learned from Reagan, he might have had a second term. As it is I can’t remember GW as having much of an impact for the country.
This leads us to Bubba Clinton, who returned us to the left. If he could have kept his pants on, we might have stopped Bin Laden before he was strong enough to be a threat.
Now is where I differ from the theory in that I don’t see Bush #2 as being far enough to the right to qualify, although I know people who will disagree with that. He did help us with the High Court. Now we have Obama who makes Clinton look like the middle of the road centrist.
Given how far the pendulum has swung to the left, should we next expect it to swing much further to the right? Or is this going to be the end of this great experiment we call the United States? If we do swing it back farther to the right than Bush, would this simply continue the cycle?
I know the Tea Party is pulling the Republican Party to the right, kicking & screaming for some. This drive cannot stop after 2012. Even if the Republicans take back the White House, we need to ensure the Tea Party is there as well.
I have for some time asked why Obama & Pelosi aren’t worried about reelection. What do they know that we don’t?
If we do survive this, who do we have to run in 2012? If we were to swing to the polar opposite of Obama, we may have someone like Ron Paul. How do we force Rush to take a big pay cut & serve the country?
Political Theory
I was doing a little light reading on pre-civil war political theory, like everyone else I’m sure, when I came across some information that I found interesting. Now on most blogs you would expect a link to the book, but I couldn’t find one to the original 1815 book. I thought you could find everything on the web.
In case you want to run out and get a copy of the book, its Union and Liberty: The Political Philosophy of John C. Calhoun. This book comes shortly after the founding of our government under the Constitution, when they had the kinks worked out but still followed the words of the Constitution, not just their own interpretation. Maybe if Glenn Beck likes the book, they can reprint some of them.
Now some of you may not have heard of this man, given the fact that they don’t teach history in schools anymore. At the time that he wrote this, Mr. Calhoun was a US Representative from South Carolina. In 1817, he would be the Secretary of War under President Monroe. He would go on to be vice-president under both John Quincy Adams & Andrew Jackson.
Mr. Calhoun stated something quite interesting.
The government would gradually pass from the hands of the majority of the party into those of the leaders; as the struggle becomes more intense, and the honors and emoluments of the government the all-absorbing objects. At this stage, principals and policy would lose all influence in the elections; and cunning, falsehood, deception, slander, fraud, and gross appeals to appetites of the lowest and most worthless portions of the community, would take the place of sound reason and wise debate. After these have thoroughly debased and corrupted the community, and all the arts and devises of the party have been exhausted, the government would vibrate between two factions (for such will parties have become) at each successive election. These vibrations would continue until confusion, corruption, disorder, and anarchy, would lead to an appeal to force-to be followed by a revolution in the form of government. Such must be the end of the government of the numerical majority.
I would start with Carter swinging pretty far left. We have him to thank for the Islamic state of Iran, incredibly high interest rate, the oil embargo, & the United States being the laughing stock of the world.
Then Reagan brought us back to the right by repairing the economy, ending the Cold War, & making us proud to be Americans again.
If Bush #1 had learned from Reagan, he might have had a second term. As it is I can’t remember GW as having much of an impact for the country.
This leads us to Bubba Clinton, who returned us to the left. If he could have kept his pants on, we might have stopped Bin Laden before he was strong enough to be a threat.
Now is where I differ from the theory in that I don’t see Bush #2 as being far enough to the right to qualify, although I know people who will disagree with that. He did help us with the High Court. Now we have Obama who makes Clinton look like the middle of the road centrist.
Given how far the pendulum has swung to the left, should we next expect it to swing much further to the right? Or is this going to be the end of this great experiment we call the United States? If we do swing it back farther to the right than Bush, would this simply continue the cycle?
I know the Tea Party is pulling the Republican Party to the right, kicking & screaming for some. This drive cannot stop after 2012. Even if the Republicans take back the White House, we need to ensure the Tea Party is there as well.
I have for some time asked why Obama & Pelosi aren’t worried about reelection. What do they know that we don’t?
If we do survive this, who do we have to run in 2012? If we were to swing to the polar opposite of Obama, we may have someone like Ron Paul. How do we force Rush to take a big pay cut & serve the country?
Sunday, April 4, 2010
A Case for Secession
Thei is part 1 of a series I wrote on the Civil War from the Southern Perspective.
A case for secession
The Articles of Confederation were written need the time of the Declaration of Independance. They were our first Constitution & had their problems.
Under the Articles of Confederation, artitcle 13 states "The Articles of Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the union shall be perpetuated; nor shall any alteration, at any time hereafter, be made in any of them, unless such alteration, be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the Legislatures of every State".
But article 7 of the Constitution states" The ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same"
Since they did not expect some States, i.e. Rhode Island, who boycotted the Convention, or New York who walked out, something needed to be changed. It was necessary to refer it to an authority higher than that of Congress and the state legislatures- that is, to the people of the states, assembled by their representatives in convention. Since State leglislatures operate under restricted power, this made them suborbanate to the people of the states assembled.
In this article (7) provision was made for the secession of a part of the states from a union which, when formed, had been declared perpetual and it's terms and articles to be inviolably observed by every state. Since the Constitution says nothing about being "perpetual", secession from it is less convoluted.
As James Madison states in the Federalist "It is an established doctrine on the subjuct of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach commited by either of the parties absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void. Should it unhappily be necessary to appeal to these delicate truths for a justification for dispensing with the consent of particular States to a dissolution of the Federal pact, will not the complaining parties find it a difficult task to answer the multiplied and important infractions with which they may be confronted?"
Since in a dispute between two sides, one party cannot also be the Judge, it is up to the parties to judge for themselves the merits of their case.
As of the admission of Kentucky in 1799, it was declared that the United States was the result of a compact between the states to which each accended as a state; that it possessed only delegated powers, of which it was not the exclusive or final judge; and that, as in all cases of compact among parties having no common judge, "each party has an equal right to judge for itself as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress." In plain english, the United States cannot be a judge & plaintif. The same standard would still be in effect today.
What this all boils down to is that the founders established a way out of any Constitution. Since the Southern states followed the perscribed path for secession, They were not guilty of insurection. They misjudged the North's unwillingness to let them go.
A case for secession
The Articles of Confederation were written need the time of the Declaration of Independance. They were our first Constitution & had their problems.
Under the Articles of Confederation, artitcle 13 states "The Articles of Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the union shall be perpetuated; nor shall any alteration, at any time hereafter, be made in any of them, unless such alteration, be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the Legislatures of every State".
But article 7 of the Constitution states" The ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same"
Since they did not expect some States, i.e. Rhode Island, who boycotted the Convention, or New York who walked out, something needed to be changed. It was necessary to refer it to an authority higher than that of Congress and the state legislatures- that is, to the people of the states, assembled by their representatives in convention. Since State leglislatures operate under restricted power, this made them suborbanate to the people of the states assembled.
In this article (7) provision was made for the secession of a part of the states from a union which, when formed, had been declared perpetual and it's terms and articles to be inviolably observed by every state. Since the Constitution says nothing about being "perpetual", secession from it is less convoluted.
As James Madison states in the Federalist "It is an established doctrine on the subjuct of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach commited by either of the parties absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void. Should it unhappily be necessary to appeal to these delicate truths for a justification for dispensing with the consent of particular States to a dissolution of the Federal pact, will not the complaining parties find it a difficult task to answer the multiplied and important infractions with which they may be confronted?"
Since in a dispute between two sides, one party cannot also be the Judge, it is up to the parties to judge for themselves the merits of their case.
As of the admission of Kentucky in 1799, it was declared that the United States was the result of a compact between the states to which each accended as a state; that it possessed only delegated powers, of which it was not the exclusive or final judge; and that, as in all cases of compact among parties having no common judge, "each party has an equal right to judge for itself as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress." In plain english, the United States cannot be a judge & plaintif. The same standard would still be in effect today.
What this all boils down to is that the founders established a way out of any Constitution. Since the Southern states followed the perscribed path for secession, They were not guilty of insurection. They misjudged the North's unwillingness to let them go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
