Category Archives: Constitution

The Constitutional Fight That Never Seems To End.

Posted on by

You may think that the current debate between the Tea Party and Democrats over the role of the federal government is relatively new. It’s not. The debate is as old as the nation itself. Following the Constitutional Convention of 1787, there was an intense debate over the same issue.

Anti-Federalists such as Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, George Mason and John Hancock were against the Constitution. They feared that a strong federal government would lead to monarchy. They believed that the bulk of the power should rest with the states and saw no value in abandoning the original Articles of Confederation. They feared an independent judiciary and disliked the separation of Church and State.

On the other hand, Federalists such as George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and Benjamin Franklin believed the Articles of Confederation were too weak, and that a strong central government was necessary to hold the new nation together and raise the revenue needed to fund military pensions, foreign embassies, etc.

The Federalists won, but the fight has never ended.

One could make a strong case that this very issue led to the Civil War.  The South claimed states’ rights in order to maintain slavery.  And, following the war, former Confederate states complained of oppression by the federal government during Reconstruction, vowing that the South would rise again.

The issue resurfaced following World War II with the John Birch Society.  It was, once again, front and center during the civil rights movement of the 1960’s.

Now the Tea Party is leading the fight.

To support their beliefs, the Tea Party faithful, along with the nitwits on Fox News and talk radio, selectively quote the Founding Fathers in order to convince us that they (the Tea Party) are the true patriots; that they are merely doing as the Founders wanted.

What they neglect to mention is that there are at least as many quotes by Founding Fathers extolling the virtues of a strong federal government.  Moreover, the Constitution itself is evidence that the Federalists prevailed, as the Constitution is the very instrument that created the strong federal government in its current form.

The teabaggers can complain all they want about the federal government being too big and  too powerful.  They really can’t change that without abandoning the Constitution or starting another Civil War.  And we all know how the first one turned out.

If you’d like to learn more about this subject, I highly recommend That’s Not What They Meant!  Reclaiming The Founding Fathers From America’s Right Wing by Michael Austin.

The Treason Party.

Posted on by

Following the fallout of the Watergate break-in, we learned that Richard Nixon was a crook. Thanks to a documentary by the BBC and the Rachel Maddow Show, we now know that he was also a traitor.

The Thursday before the 1968 presidential election, President Johnson announced that the allies had reached a peace agreement with North Vietnam. But since Nixon had run on a platform promising to end the war, he couldn’t afford to have Johnson end the war a few days before the election.

So Nixon used an intermediary to convince the South Vietnamese to back out of the peace agreement!

Recordings of Johnson’s phone conversations reveal that he knew about Nixon’s treachery, but since he learned of it as the result of illegal FBI wiretaps of the South Vietnam ambassador’s phone, LBJ couldn’t make the information public.

The treason helped Nixon win a close election over Hubert H. Humphrey.  It also caused the war to rage on for another 5 years, costing 15,000 more American lives!

Of course, Nixon isn’t the last Republican president to play fast and loose with the Constitution. Reagan created a shadow government to covertly arm Iran in exchange for money to finance the Contras of Nicaragua.  George W. Bush led us into war with Iraq on false pretenses.  And his administration violated international treaties by torturing captives.

More recently, Teapublicans have used every parliamentary trick in the book and a record number of filibusters in order to block President Obama’s appointments and his attempts to improve our economy.

Yet they have the audacity to wave flags and call themselves patriots!!!

Drone Controversy Nothing New.

Posted on by

Sen. Rand Paul’s talking filibuster succeeded in calling attention to the issue of government-sanctioned assassinations. But this issue is far from new. The US has been using the threat of assassination for decades. The only thing that has changed is the means of killing.

Following World War II, our CIA and military planned assassination attempts of Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz Guzman, Cuban President Fidel Castro, Congo President Patrice Lumumba, Dominican President Rafael Trujillo and many more. We succeeded in having both Chilean President Salvador Allende and Chilean Armed Forces Chief Rene Schneider killed.

These plots ranged from poisons to snipers to small invasion forces.

When the CIA operations eventually came to light, President Ford issued an order banning the involvement of US government employees in such plots. The ban was renewed by President Carter and President Reagan.

Confronted with Islamic terrorism, President Clinton signed an order creating a list of specific terrorists targeted for capture or assassination. Then, in 2001, Congress gave President Bush the power to use all appropriate and necessary force against those involved with the terrorist attacks of 9/11. We’ve been carrying out assassinations of terrorist targets ever since.

One can make a strong case that the drone strikes are needed to eliminate terrorist leaders in nations that refuse to make arrests. Drone strikes are certainly better than invading those countries with troops! Nevertheless, the US needs to have a transparent policy with regard to drone strikes. We need to have oversight so that this means of assassination is not abused and so that the possibility of collateral damage is minimized.

Without such oversight, drones and other weapons intended for “surgical strikes” are bound to be misused. Imagine if Richard “The Dick” Cheney was able to control such power again. Imagine someone worse!

His Highness Obama?

Posted on by

Right wing nitwits continue to claim that President Obama has usurped the powers of Congress in order to pursue his liberal, socialist agenda. They derisively refer to him as King Obama or Emperor Obama.

Ironically, he very nearly earned such a title.

According to Jon Meacham’s book, Thomas Jefferson – The Art of Power, many of the Founding Fathers were strongly in favor of creating a new monarchy following the end of the Revolutionary War. Some wanted to apply for a sovereign of the house of Hanover. Indeed, Alexander Hamilton was said to favor the establishment of a monarchy with a family compact, placing the crown upon the head of a foreign prince.

Thankfully, Hamilton and the rest of his faction were overruled.

Even when the Constitutional Convention agreed to elect the head of our government, John Adams proposed that the president be called “His Highness the President of the United States and protector of their liberties.”

Imagine the knots in the knickers of Tea Party “Patriots” if they actually had to refer to Barack Obama this way.

Recognizing Tea Party “Patriots” For What They Really Are: Liars And Lunatics.

Posted on by

Tea Party Patriots say they want the US to return to the principles of the Constitution. But the principles they cite tend to be more closely aligned to the Articles of Confederation which the Constitution replaced.

For example, unlike the Articles of Confederation which reserved power for the States, the Constitution gives expansive powers to the three branches of the federal government. Yet teabaggers continue to demand a “limited federal government,” and they support their flawed arguments with quotes attributed to our Founding Fathers.

Following claims that President Obama won re-election only as the result of the president promising free stuff to voters, teabaggers have been circulating a quote which they attribute to Benjamin Franklin: “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” However, this statement was never said or written by Benjamin Franklin. In fact, historians can only guess at the origin of the quote. It is somewhat similar to a statement by Alexis de Toqueville, a French historian, and by Alexander Fraser Tytler, a Scottish lawyer.

Of course, neither of these people had anything to do with the founding of our nation.

Another Tea Party favorite is Thomas Jefferson’s statement taken from a letter to John Adams, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” What the teabaggers fail to acknowledge is that, in the same letter, Jefferson admitted to being hyperbolic in reference to the Shays Rebellion, which resulted from a post Revolutionary War economic depression. “The want of facts worth communicating to you has occasioned me to give a little loose to dissertation. We must be contented to amuse, when we cannot inform.”

The Tea Party tends to think that the Constitution was the result of God’s will. However, it was the result of impassioned debate, argument and compromise. Jefferson, who was representing the US in France at the time of the Constitutional Convention was initially disappointed with the document. He did not like the omission of a declaration of rights that would guarantee “freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trial by jury.”

Unlike the Tea Party, the Founders viewed the Constitution as a start; a document that would continue to evolve. Jefferson told James Madison, “If they [Congress] approve the proposed Convention in all its parts. I shall concur in it cheerfully, in hopes that they will amend it whenever they shall find it work wrong.”

Take that 2nd Amendment absolutists!

In fact, the Founding Fathers and the Tea Party couldn’t be more opposite. While the Founding Fathers relied upon reason and education, the Tea Party relies upon lies, ignorance and fear. While the Fathers demanded separation of church and state, the Tea Party wants to establish a Christian theocracy. While the Fathers believed in compromise, the Tea Party rejects it. 

However, I do believe The Tea Party may yet serve a purpose. Americans may yet see its extreme views as so repulsive that it causes our nation to return to the principles of reason and compromise.

Absolutism And The 2nd Amendment.

Posted on by

The National Rifle Association, right wing conservatives and gun collectors like to consider the rights granted by the 2nd Amendment as absolute. Even during testimony by a parent of one of the children slaughtered in Newtown, a heckler shouted “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Of course, people like this (and, unfortunately, there are many of them) neglect to mention the first clause of the amendment which states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”

They also overlook the fact that none of the constitutional amendments are absolute.

For example, it’s illegal to slander, libel or defame others despite the 1st amendment’s guarantee of free speech. And, as I’ve previously mentioned, it is also illegal to falsely yell “fire” in a crowded theater.

Our nation has also placed some restrictions on our right to free assembly.

Moreover, in recent years, we have created exceptions to the constitutional limits on search and seizure. The Bush administration played fast and loose with the limits on imprisonment. And we’ve modified the Constitution in many ways to abolish slavery, to give women the right to vote, to expand civil rights, to ban poll taxes, and to prohibit then later legalize the sale of alcohol.

It’s clear the Founders never intended the Constitution to be absolute. Supreme Court rulings have acknowledged that fact. So if other constitutional guarantees are not absolute, why should the guarantee of the 2nd amendment be any different?

We can and should place limits on military-style weapons of mass destruction. We should limit the size of magazines. We really should prohibit the sale of all semi-automatic firearms. We most certainly should conduct thorough background checks before the transfer of any firearm. We should place limits on the sale of ammunition. And we should require safety courses for everyone who purchases a gun.

Without changes in our gun laws, we can expect more mass shootings, more murders of children, and more random violence. Isn’t continuing to do the same thing and expecting a different result a definition of insanity?

No Such Thing As Partial Equality.

Posted on by

Although I’m not excited at the prospects of young women being involved in combat (I’m actually not fond of anyone being involved in combat), I applaud the decision. It means that our government is finally addressing inequality.

We have a long way to go. There’s still discrimination with regard to women’s salaries, GLBT rights, economic inequality for racial minorities, even inequality with regard to religion.

Many women are paid less for doing the same job as a man. Our laws still do not recognize gay and lesbian marriage. After centuries of slavery and discrimination, racial minorities often begin their lives with fewer opportunities for a good education, economic advancement and personal security. Religions try to impose their beliefs on our laws and individual behavior. And those who do not participate in organized religion are forced to subsidize those who do through tax exemptions for church property.

It has taken far too long for our nation to achieve true equality. It took nearly a century to end slavery. It took far longer to grant suffrage to women. It took longer still to end Jim Crow laws. And after more than 200 years, it would seem that many Americans do not yet understand the meaning of Democracy; of equality and of freedom with responsibility.

If, one day, all American citizens are to be equal, we must recognize the inequalities that still exist. And we must do everything in our collective power to address inequality whenever and wherever we encounter it. Equality is, after all, absolute. Our citizens are either equal in every regard. Or they’re not. There is no middle ground.

Preparing To Steal Elections.

Posted on by

On Monday, Teapublicans in the Virginia State Senate used the absence of a Democratic senator (who was attending the Presidential Inauguration) to ambush Democrats by calling for a vote on a bill to redraw senate districts. The bill gerrymandered the state to ensure that Teapublicans would enjoy a virtual permanent advantage.

This is but the most recent effort by Teapublicans to prepare for the 2014 elections. It appears that they no longer believe they can win based on ideas. So rather than modify their ideas to make them more attractive to a majority of Americans, they have decided to cheat. They are in the process of gerrymandering wherever possible and passing laws that will make it more difficult for minorities and Democrats to vote.

Even Joe Scarborough, a former Republican Congressman, noted the other day that Republicans wouldn’t have retained control of the US House of Representatives if they hadn’t “cheated” through gerrymandering.

Another Teapublican attack involves remaking the electoral college. Currently, all but two states follow the nation’s original winner-take-all approach to electoral votes. In other words, if a presidential candidate wins the state’s popular vote, all of that state’s electoral votes go to that candidate.

But Teapublicans want to change that. They want the electoral votes to be awarded by district. Therefore, by gerrymandering the districts of the states, they hope to change the outcome of elections. The plan would make it far easier for a candidate to lose the popular vote and still win the election.

These tactics may represent the greatest threat to our nation’s democracy since the British invaded Washington, D.C. in the War of 1812. The only question is, will voters allow these anti-American thugs to get away with it?

Another Teapublican Backfire.

Posted on by

Remember all of the idiotic comments about rape during the past election campaign? You know, the ones about how women’s bodies have a way of preventing pregnancy from “legitimate” rape.

It turns out that those comments prevented a bunch of Teapublicans from being elected.

What’s more, it seems that all of the discussion about women’s reproductive rights has backfired on the old white men who want to control a woman’s womb. According to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, more people support Roe v. Wade than at any time since 1989. The poll shows that 7 in 10 people support a woman’s right to have an abortion in some or all circumstances!

Who knew that the best way to defeat intolerant, narrow-minded politicians is to simply let them talk?

Now let’s hope the stupid Teapublican statements about arming teachers have a similar effect on attitudes about gun safety.

Exposing The Lies Of The Gun Lobby.

Posted on by

Since the 1980s, gun lobbyists such as the National Rifle Association have generated a huge number of lies in order to further sales of gun manufacturers. Here are just a few of the lies:

1 – “The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of all Americans to possess firearms.”

The meaning of 2nd Amendment has been debated for decades.  The exact wording is “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Obviously, it ties the right to keep and bear arms to a Militia.

When the 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791, the US had defeated the British only 8 years earlier. The future of the nation was not assured (the US was nearly defeated and the Capitol occupied in the War of 1812) and the nation’s standing army was small, supplemented by state militias. In order to ensure the nation’s future, it was necessary for the US to enlist help from its citizenry.

It’s difficult to imagine that Congress ever intended the 2nd Amendment as a means to allow the indiscriminate slaughter of our citizens by weapons its representatives could not even imagine.

2 – “The government has no right to limit the number and type of firearms.”

In fact, the federal government has been regulating arms for many decades. The government has banned private ownership of fully-automatic “machine” guns, hand grenades, rocket-propelled grenades, shoulder-fired rockets, surface-to-air missiles, armed military-style aircraft, etc. The 2nd Amendment only mentions “Arms.”

I think we can all agree that it is necessary, for the safety of our citizens, to prevent people from owning nuclear Arms.

3 – “The 2nd Amendment was intended to prevent tyranny by our federal government.”

In a nation with a government of the people, by the people and for the people, this claim seems absurd. However, most of the nation’s founders were opposed to the nation maintaining a standing army. In discussions by the founders leading up to its passage, the focus was on defense of our nation against external foes, i.e. the British.

4 – “Guns are necessary for self-defense.”

I’ve never seen a gun that can stop a bullet.

For all practical purposes, guns are an offensive weapon. Being armed with a handgun does not prevent an armed assailant from robbing or shooting you if the assailant has drawn his gun first. Even if you’re able to draw your weapon, at best, you are likely to be involved in a shootout that will be won by the quickest, most accurate shot. At worst, you’ll endanger innocent bystanders who could be caught in the crossfire.

90 percent of self-defense is having the awareness to avoid dangerous situations before they happen!

5 – “Any form of regulation is the first step in the government taking our guns.”

Nonsense. It won’t and can’t happen without our consent. There are simply too many gun owners for that to happen. And, no, that’s not what happened to Germans when the Nazis took control. Hitler actually relaxed gun control laws passed by the previous government.

6 – “The United Nations is coming to take our guns.”

That has as much credibility as the Mayan Apocalypse! The US helped found the UN. The US is the strongest member of the UN. The US military is more powerful than virtually all of the other member nations’ combined (See #5). And, despite the paranoia being shoveled by the extreme right, the latest UN treaty on arms control does not affect domestic policies. It is intended solely to control illegal arms trade to rogue nations and terrorist groups.

7 – “AR-15s, AK-47s and similar weapons are not assault rifles.”

In reality, the AR-15, AK-47s and many other “tactical” weapons sold to civilians were actually designed for use by the military and law enforcement agencies. The biggest difference between them and military weapons is that they are strictly semi-automatic, which means they fire each time you pull the trigger as compared to fully-automatic weapons which continue to fire as long as you hold the trigger. (In some cases, the fully-automatic feature has simply been disabled and can be restored with an inexpensive kit sold separately.) But there’s not all that much difference in the rate of fire. Even the military discourages fully-automatic fire as it is less accurate and wastes ammunition.

These weapons are not used for hunting. They have only one purpose: killing people.

8 – “Only Democrats and liberals favor gun control.”

I guess that’s true, if you consider Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush to be liberals. Both spoke eloquently in favor of banning the domestic sale of assault rifles. Come to think of it, if these men were running for office today, they would probably be labeled liberals.