Archive for category Constitution
“One nation, under God” Upheld by the 9th Circuit
Posted by Tom in Constitution, Law, Morality & Religion in the Public Square on March 11, 2010
I just got an email from George Caras a member of our Reno Hayek Symposium who took justified pride in letting me know that his old Stanford teammate and friend, Judge Carlos Bea wrote the 2-1 majority opinion in Newdow v. Rio Linda Unified School District, upholding the use of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Michael Newdow, a doctor and attorney who founded the “First Atheist Church of True Science” (Now there’s an oxymoron if there ever was one!) challenged the practice on First Amendment grounds. He said he would request a rehearing and then a Supreme Court appeal. (See the AP report here.)
In a separate 3-0 ruling the same court upheld the use of “In God We Trust” on our coins and currency saying that “it has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion.”
Judge Bea is also a teammate and fraternity brother of my friend Ron Tomsic. Both he and George are lucky to know this competent jurist. But as I said to George, I’ll bet Bea doesn’t get to write too many majority opinions in our 9th Circuit!
Tom Motherway
the Spending Limitations Amendment would eventually put us on a sustainable path
Posted by Tom in Centrally Managed Economy, Congress, Constitution, Deficit, Financial Crisis, Financial Policy, Monetary Policy, National Debt, Nationalized Health Care, Statism on March 6, 2010
Even without any more stimulus, bailouts, Obamacare, or cap and trade the US is on a course to bankruptcy. Consider:
- In the past five years federal spending has increased 42% to nearly 25% of the economy, the highest level since World War II.
- The deficit has exploded from $318 Billion in 2005 to $1.4 Trillion, a 400+% increase, equal to the entire accumulation of debt from George Washington to Bill Clinton.
As James Antle points out in his American Spectator article, Amending the Spending, “this will be remembered as a golden era of fiscal responsibility compared to what is to come.” Again I emphasize, this is even without Obamacare, added stimulus, bailouts, etc. With demographic certitude, as baby boomers retire, social security, medicare, and medicaid as we know them will be bankrupt. THE PUBLIC DEBT WILL EXCEED 110% OF THE ECONOMY IN 2026 AND CLIMB PAST 200% BY 2040! Again, this is without Obamacare, added stimulus, bailouts, etc.!
Three congressmen, Mike Pence (R-Ind.), Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) and John Campbell (R-Calif.) have proposed a constitutional amendment to cap federal spending at 20% of the U.S. economy. The limit would be waived only when an official declaration of war is in effect or by two-thirds majorities of both houses of Congress. 20% is the historic average share of the economy consumed by the federal government.
The backers admit that Republicans are just as spendthrift as Democrats. They are not naive about getting it passed, 5000 amendments have been offered and only 27 enacted! But the mood of the country seems to be shifting to a serious concern for the current fiscal insanity.
If they’re correct, and the amendment has some legs, the country can get off the current unsustainable course and onto a path that’s fiscally sustainable.
Tom Motherway
Inherent Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Posted by Tom in Constitution, Legal on March 3, 2010
Yesterday’s Supreme Court hearing of McDonald v. City of Chicago gave clues as to whether the court will apply the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms to the states. The 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller held the right to be an individual right but that applied only to federal law and did not decide whether the states could restrict that right.
By most news accounts the tenor of the justices questions indicated that they will decide that the right indeed is guaranteed to the citizens through the Fourteenth Amendment privileges and immunities clause. One attorney argued beyond the constitution, the right is fundamental and would exist even if not enshrined in the Bill of Rights. (See for example, the Fox News article.)
A 2008 Ted Nugent interview picks up on this theme particularly as it relates to self defense.
I agree.
Tom Motherway
Government Sponsored Radio Wants to Hear From You About Fox News
Posted by Tom in Constitution, Press on March 1, 2010
National Public Radio (NPR) a creature of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 signed into law by Lyndon Johnson produces and distributes news and cultural programming. It’s a non-profit funded by deductible member contributions and government underwriting. This, in contrast to commercial radio and TV which is funded by advertisers.
It is one of these commercial media stations, Fox News, that NPR wants your opinion on. In White House Vs Fox News War Of Words, Who Gets Your Vote? Mark Memmott tells of the White House targeting Fox and asks for your opinion. A cartoon portrayal of the battle looks like this:
Anyway, for those who are interested is seeing the results of the voting, click on this link and cast your vote!
Tom Motherway
Leftist Shades of FDR–If you’re not worrying yet, then start!
Posted by Tom in Constitution, Judiciary, Statism on February 28, 2010
The past is indeed prologue. I cringed at the leftist thought process when reading Stan Isaacs article today in The Philadelphia Inquirer, Obama should expand the court. In other words, pack the court. Shame on me, I should not have cringed at all. We are governed by the radical leftist, the Constitution doesn’t matter, Obama appoints unconfirmed “tzars,” he rules, he dictates, checks and balances are meant to be evaded. “Reconciliation” is the latest example!
Comrade Isaacs correctly points out that the Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court. The number of justices is set by Congress and has shifted between five and ten, but hasn’t budged from nine since 1869.
Some of us are too young to recall Roosevelt’s attempt to “pack the court” in the ’30s when the “nine old men” declared some of his New Deal legislation unconstitutional. In short FDR failed in his scheme. Isaacs suggest that Obama could “quarterback” a change loading the court with puppets doing his bidding. He further suggests that this is “change we could believe in!”
These people are dangerous, to the core. Pray for the sake of our country and our grandchildren that the Senate changes hands in November. The life appointments to the court, requiring Senate confirmation, are what ultimately guard our Constitutional values.
Tom Motherway
Freedom of Speech-An “Essential Mechanism” of Democracy
Posted by Tom in Constitution, Individual Freedom, Politics, Press on January 23, 2010
As the January 22nd WSJ pointed out editorially, “freedom has had its best week in many years.” The article refers to Scott Brown’s election as a check on the runaway Congress and more recently the Supreme Court 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission which overturned that part of McCain-Feingold which banned corporations and unions from “electioneering communications” within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election. Justice Kennedy for the majority wrote that the ban on corporate expenditures had a “substantial, nationwide chilling effect” on political speech; in other words, it was censorship.
Predictably the Democratic liberals and socialists howled! Corporations are not people! A major victory for big oil, Wall Street, insurance companies and other special interests, Obama cried. Senators called for hearings. Leftist groups called for a constitutional amendment!
Funny Obama in his rant did not mention his union employers, specifically the public employee unions, the membership of which now outnumbers that of private sector unions! And while members of his leftist coterie argued that corporations were not people, they neglected to mention that Obama’s coddling, fawning main stream liberal press are also corporations! Yes, its OK for leftist journalists to have freedom of speech, NBC, CNN, NYT WaPo and the like, who are all exempted under McCain-Feingold’d “electioneering communications” proscriptions. However, it unfair if other corporations and unions have freedom of speech.
So duplicitous Obama is showing his true position: freedom of speech is OK as long as the speech is in his favor. This gets uncomfortably close to the control of communications fostered in the USSR. The Supreme Court upheld this essential mechanism of Democracy. Bravo!
Tom Motherway
Another Shot Heard ‘Round the World
Posted by Tom in Constitution, Nationalized Health Care, Obama Budget & State of the Nation, Politics on January 19, 2010
Obama’s emergency stump for Coakley on Sunday was as effective as his trip to Copenhagen for Chicago’s Olympic bid. Perhaps with the Nebraska bribe and union Obamacare back-room, tax-pass deal, he contributed to the defeat of a candidate who had a 20-point poll advantage a month ago.
But the real story tonight is the significant victory of an “independent” Republican in a solidly Democratic state. This has not happened since 1972, 38 years ago. Keep in mind that Paul Revere’s ride in 1775 started the revolution which led to the founding of this great nation.
At the risk of being overly dramatic, Scott Brown, Senator Scott Brown, is the real thing. I have never heard a better national victory speech. I predict Scott Brown will someday lead a national ticket.
He was forceful, humble, a man of the people who gave the people credit. He covered the issues of concern on the national scene, emphasizing the Obamacare debacle and the expanse of and intrusion of big government into our lives. Yet he was magnanimous in recognizing his opponent and in acknowledging the interim senator. Later in the speech he did gratefully acknowledge his conversation with Obama saying he was ready for a two-on-two game of hoop with a pick of the president’s choice against Scott with his daughter! (She played round-ball at Boston College!) He did say that he would drive his truck to D.C. so the president could have a look.
He let his military record be known and his strong support for national defense. He strongly opposed giving constitutional rights to foreign terrorists. Spend our taxes on national defense not attorneys for foreign terrorists. This a strong “in your face” to Obama Hussein’s dangerous minion, Eric Holder.
He let it be known that he was ready to go to Washington and start now. I predict the Democrats will seat him without delay. No games, they are already in trouble without compounding their problems.
But the real nuance of the speech was his connection to the Kennedy heritage. He called Ted’s widow. He said that he was proud to hold the seat once held by John Quincy Adams and John F. Kennedy. In other words he connected with history and with the Kennedy mystique. Quite a masterful politician.
Toward the end of the speech after the heartfelt thank-yous, Scott Brown assumed a national mantel without losing his Massachusetts mandate. He said what started tonight early in 2010 would reverberate throughout the country in 2010 and the people across the country should take heart.
We did indeed witness this evening another “shot heard ’round the world.” And, it was delivered without a teleprompter!
Tom Motherway
The Moral High Ground-It’s Not All About Money!
Posted by Tom in Constitution, Foreign Policy, Individual Freedom, National Character on January 14, 2010
I count 7 separate articles in the first section of today’s (1-14-10) WSJ on Google’s stand for individual freedom in China. Quick summary:
- U.S. Holds Fire in Google-China Feud.
- A Heated Debate at the Top.
- Web Is New Front Among Cold War Foes.
- Levi’s Left, Too-And Came Back.
- Pullout Threat Jolts Chinese Users.
- Clash on the Great Firewall.
- Google Gets on the Right Side of History.
The last of these is rather frightening linking what is going on in China to what was going on in East Germany with the rat-on-your-neighbor system set up by the Stasi, only recently discovered with the release of Stasi files.
We all realize that freedom will one day come to China, just as modernity will one day come to Islam. The question in each case is what it takes to get there. How much pain, how much protest, how much bloodshed, and how much money sacrificed.
We see with Google that principle overcomes profit. It recognizes that our First Amendment rights, freedom of speech, press, and religion are the basic rights of a democracy. Google stands up. The United States government sits by.
A follow-up in Bloomberg this evening reports that Google tried to enlist other companies to help draw attention to the cyber attacks from China without success. Since that failure of support three U.S. companies have stepped up and said they were the subject of cyber attacks, Adobe Systems, Inc., Juniper Networks Inc., and Rackspace Hosting Inc.
We should be justifiably proud that Google leads and other American companies follow to exercise their voice for individual freedom in the face of loss. The Founding Fathers’ spirit lives, thank God!
It’s not all about money!
Tom Motherway
Cloward-Piven Strategy: Is It Obama’s?
Posted by Tom in Centrally Managed Economy, Constitution, Deficit, Government Regulation, Politics, Statism on January 12, 2010
My friend Ron Tomsic emailed an interesting take on what’s behind our Democratic rulers rush to control every element of our lives. Hint: “Never let a crisis go to waste.”…Rahm Emmanuel.
Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, lifelong members of the Democratic Socialists of America who taught sociology at Columbia University in New York, published an article in May of 1966 in The Nation entitled “The Weight of the Poor.” That outlined their plan for using grassroots organizations to stress the system making excessive demands on government to correct the lack of welfare distribution and indeed the redistribution of wealth.”They argued that full enrollment of those eligible for welfare “would produce bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and fiscal disruption in local and state governments” that would “deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: the remaining white middle class, the white working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor. To avoid a further weakening of that historic coalition, a national Democratic administration would be constrained to advance a federal solution to poverty that would override local welfare failures, local class and racial conflicts and local revenue dilemmas.”[2] They wrote “the ultimate objective of this strategy (is) to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income… (via) the outright redistribution of income.” (Source: Wikipedia) In other words, where no crisis exists, create one, cause disruption, get redistribution–AND VOTES, AND THEREFORE CONTROL, IN THE PROCESS!
They were the genesis or organizations like ACORN. You know “community organizations” staffed by “community organizers.” (Anything sound familiar?) They are the local groups, funded by your tax dollars and duped-umbrella charities, that you can go to for advice on tax fraud, human trafficking for prostitution, or voter fraud.
The goal is not “health care” or “environmental protection” or “stimulus” or “financial reform” it is CONTROL. Control means power and power means money. They are not concerned with Constitutional limits. They have “czars” who will establish rules and regulations. (Sound a bit Russian or maybe Communist?)
The American Thinker published an article by Nancy Copock, Cloward/Pliven Strategy of Economic Recovery in February of 2009 which gives a take on Obama’s philosophical upbringing and associations. This follows up on the James Simpson article in American Thinker of September 2008, Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis, which notes that many of the politicians who caused, or help cause, the crisis, will do so again. Barney Frank, Maxine Waters and Chris Dodd fit this bill exactly with their “rolling the dice” for more subprime loans from Fannie and Freddie. History indeed repeats itself!
Beware of the ruling classes, who seek only to rule!
Tom Motherway
YES, YES, YES !!!!
Posted by Tom in Congress, Constitution, Financial Policy, Politics on January 8, 2010
Perhaps you’ve seen the email recently circulating. No, that’s not an exclamation from a porn movie, but the excitement I would imagine is about the same. It is subtitled, “HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS,” in an effort to promote a “Congressional Reform Act of 2009.” After discounting ye of little faith who say this would be impossible, and merely tilting at windmills, the email sets out the salient features:
- Term Limits: 12 years, both House and Senate.
- No Pensions: Pay while in office but no retirement plan.
- Social Security Only: Congress’ retirement fund moved to Social Security.
- Prohibits Congress voting pay increases which are set at lower of CPI or 3%.
- Congress gets no special health care system, but only what all citizens get.
Reading this brought to mind the 1994 Contract with America. This Republican effort by Newt Gingrich and some young Congressional reformers had similar popular appeal:
- require laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress;
- select an independent accounting firm to audit Congress for waste, fraud, and abuse;
- cut the number of House committees, cut staff by one-third;
- limit the terms of committee chairs;
- ban casting proxy votes in committee and require that meetings be public;
- require a three-fifths majority vote to pas a tax increase;
- and implement zero-based budgeting for the Federal Budget.
As history shows while most of these points got past the House they died in the Senate. And that points up the difficulty with YES, YES, YES. Congressional action requires passage by both chambers and the signature of the president. Even then, such action can be amended or repealed by the next Congress. So, to be effective significant changes in the way the government operates must be accomplished by constitutional amendment.
The amendment process is cumbersome, as it should be. There two routes for proposal: constitutional convention of the states which was never used, or proposal by Congress with a 2/3 majority in both chambers. Then the proposed amendment requires ratification by 3/4 of the states, either by state convention (used once) or by the state legislatures (used all other times).
So, what we need is a new contract with America but one that commits to propose select constitutional amendments. It would be well to limit the number of these to say, term limits and equal applicability of the laws to Congress and citizens.
As to the House and Senate rules of operation, committees, seniority and the like, these can by custom be changed by the respective chamber only. Some would argue that custom has the force of common law.
There’s no question that reform in Congress and the government in general is needed. It’s worth the tilting at windmills efforts required. And, there is never a better time than now when the voters have been exposed to the ugly processes being foisted on us by the Democratically controlled Congress.
Tom Motherway