Is There Originalism in the Tea Party?

Now that fiscal conservative Paul Ryan has been chosen as Mitt Romney's choice for VP, I think this is a good time to republish this article from last year. There seem to be many who think that because Ryan says he is a fan of Ayn Rand, that it means he is automatically some sort of laissez-faire radical. The fact is that in a recent FOX interview with Britt Hume, Ryan stated Rand had inspired him, but that that he is 'opposed' to her 'atheistic philosophy'. That is certainly not a rejection of her philosophy, but only of her atheism, because her atheism did not propel her economics or her support of individual sovereignty. But Paul Ryan is no Objectivist, any more than Alan Greenspan, who walked away from his Objectivist roots before he took the job of Chair of the Federal Reserve.
A good reference about this subject is at The Objective Standard, a publication that does not appear to be associated with any other Rand-oriented institutions. 

I am not ready to say whether or not anyone in the Tea Party has Originalist interpretations which they have or have not stated. I just don't know, yet. I questioned the office of Ron Paul, and the office of a locally-elected member of Congress, but as yet have gotten no response from either office. [And I never did.]

In March of 2010 the New York Times published an article about the lack of social issues in the Tea Party agenda. "The motto of the Tea Party Patriots, a large coalition of groups, is 'fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.'....But the focus is also strategic: leaders think they can attract independent voters if they stay away from divisive issues."

In December of 2010 Suite 101 published this: "The Tea Party is a grass-roots movement in favor of smaller government, fiscal conservation, and an originalist interpretation of the Constitution."

The Atlantic said Tea Party members are "by and large, social conservatives, not social libertarians," and "In fact, it seems that the main intellectual solution offered, and problem posed, by the Tea Party movement is the connection between government spending and personal liberty."

That, for me, is the rub, especially if it is true--that the Tea Party sees their freedom only (or mostly) in fiscal conservatism, rather than in uprooting the anti-Constitutional legislation of coercion that has been allowed to survive not only debate, but to survive through various courts including the Supreme Court.

Why is it OK for members of the Tea Party to authorize or approve the spending of money on the dole if it is simply less money, enough less to make them happy to spend any at all? In other words, why is it OK to spend $5 trillion on Medicaid if it isn't OK to spend $15 trillion? Why is it OK to spend $500 million on a State's food stamp program, when they don't think its OK to spend $900 million? Where (and why) does the subjective line exist?

It is a subjective line, because there should be no line. Charity exists where charity is felt, not by local or State officials who have no right to redistribute what Peter has to feed Paul. It exists where concerned individuals and charitable institutions exist to feed, clothe, house, and give medical care to 'Paul'. That would be an Originalist interpretation, not necessarily on all government charity, but on such programs as social security, which is enforced on both employees and employers, yet which pays so little after retirement that anyone living only from that finds themselves in the poor column when compared to their wage-earning or pension-earning neighbors.

It wouldn't make it 'more Constitutional' if they were not in the poor column of government recipients. If our society was geared toward finding the solution to retirement income that is neither forced upon employees nor employers, a solution that does not redistribute wealth nor force anyone to set aside money but rather sets high standards of inducement for saving toward retirement, then the Constitutionality of such inducements would be the question.
   
But it is a Constitutional issue when only the cost/benefit ratio, or even simply the cost itself, is at issue rather than the law which makes the matter an issue to begin with.

The Tea Party needs its Originalists to step forward, take at least some of the reins, and steer the party, slowly-but-surely if slowly is necessary, toward the Founding ideas, rather than just in the direction of subjective and very temporal ideas, ideas that change as the political pendulum swings. The 'grass roots' represented by the Tea Party should be more substantive than to be simply fiscally conservative.

'Like' Curtisedwardclark.com on Facebook
© Curtis Edward Clark 2012

Why I (Partly) Suport the Tea Party

While I do not support the morally offensive religious views of most of the members of the Tea Party, the fact that they are the libertarian bulwark against conservative and liberal economic policies means that I do support them on the libertarian issues they address.

They represent the best hope for their claim to support

• Fiscal Responsibility 
• Constitutionally Limited Government and
• Free Markets

For that reason I am allowing their fundraising efforts to have a place in my blog today.
https://www.teapartypatriots.org/donations/?ref=HF89

I wrote last week on Tuesday that "It doesn't matter how large government becomes, when it's doing only what is proper to its powers according to the Constitution." Those three bullets above, properly administered, will still yield a larger government than the Founders could imagine, and larger than even Teddy R., FDR, or JFK could imagine. (I do see LBJ imagining how large his Great Society could get out of control.)

And so long as the Tea Party can successfully demonstrate they can accomplish what they set out to do, I will support them in any way I can.

'Like' Curtisedwardclark.com on Facebook
© Curtis Edward Clark 2012

Chick fil A Day Wasn't About Free Speech

Yesterday at Chick-fil-A, part of the nation showed up to support either
1) free speech, or
2) the politics of anti-gay-marriage.

But when the mayor of three prominent cities say Chick-fil-A is not welcome in their cities, is it because the mayors have a deep seated belief in social equality, meaning they don't like the politics of a biased company against a large part of their constituency;

or is it really because they don't support free speech?

The Tea Party on Facebook reported, "The National Organization for Marriage, which opposes gay unions, urged a boycott when General Mills and Starbucks came out in favor of same-sex marriage."

So this doesn't seem like a free-speech debate to me. It seems totally politically-centered. Yet I know there must be some who went to a Chick-fil-A to support free speech.

Yet, who was actually saying it was a free speech issue? CNN reported that "now a population already sharply divided over same-sex marriage is collectively less informed about the First Amendment," adding that the Amendment "does not protect you from private individuals' negative reaction to your speech." Exactly. How do you separate the "free speech" from the message contained in it?

The Houston Chronicle said people were showing up to support the anti-gay-marriage view. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee dubbed it 'Chick Fil A Appreciation Day'. Do you think it was over the issue of free speech? This former Baptist minister-turned-mushy-conservative former Governor, US News.com said, "wrote that he was 'incensed at the vitriolic assaults' made on Chick-fil-A as a result of their stance against gay marriage." Those 'assaults' were not made because someone protested the right to free speech. USA Today.com said he wanted people to "get behind Chick-fil-A as the company takes a stand against same-sex marriage."

The Daily News of Los Angeles said the company's free speech wasn't at issue. Instead, it said, "If it's OK to choose between McDonalds and Jack in the Box based on which clown mascot you like better, it should be OK to choose between Chick-fil-A and its competitors based on the images their logos conjure up."

Well, speaking as a gay man, every person and every company has a right to free speech. And a call for a boycott is never a boycott against their right to say what they want; it's always about the substance of the speech. I will not eat anywhere that is against my natural law right to association-through-government-sanction. The wall of separation between church and state ought to extend also to marriage.

Individual sovereignty means freedom from government interference, and when we are not allowed to legally do what straight people do outside of a church, that is, get a civil marriage rather than a religious one, then there is no separation of church and state for anyone who is not heterosexual.

'Like' Curtisedwardclark.com on Facebook © Curtis Edward Clark 2012

Health Care and the Supremacy Clause

    "State governments are pushing back reasserting federalism as the Founders intended them to do," said the Attorney General of Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli."Virginia was the first state to argue in federal court that the new health car law is unconstitutional.....[A] legal expert said our case relied on a 'controversial reading of the Constitution.' Apparently it is controversial to apply the Constitution as it was written." [1] 

    The Constitutional Accountability Center [CAC], which believes in a 'Progressive Constitution', said in its blog that this push-back whereby States' "claims that federal health care reform violates the Constitution’s 10th Amendment and 'states’ rights' rely on an inaccurate view of the federal government as a weak, sharply limited central government."[2]
 
    To view the federal government as anything but a "sharply limited central government" may not stand up against court precedent. But precedent is not what is paramount here, because precedent is nothing but interpretations by judges who may discount original expected application, and who obviously were not there to comprehend from a first-person memory what the application was supposed to be. At the start of the current Congress, Justice Antonin Scalia reminded the House Republicans to read and understand the Federalist Papers.

    Original "meaning" refers in most recent writings to the meaning of the words as they were used when the Constitution was written; but meanings of words change. Where we say "judge", people in the 18th century often said "jurist", but to us in this century a "jurist" is taken to be someone who sits in the jury box. It isn't the meaning of the words as we understand them that is important; but that is what progressive readers of the Constitution use--their own understanding of the words as they wish them to be used today.

    "Evidence of how people used words at a certain point in time is evidence of their original public meaning, but it is not conclusive evidence, because original public use conflates both the content of a concept and its expected application."[3]

    As I wrote on April 29, Tibor Machan, referring to another author, said this is "stating conventional wisdom in the 'post-New Deal era'" of constitutional jurisprudence.  "The way this is made palatable," he wrote, "is to associate the pre-New Deal constitutional jurisprudence--substantive due process and such--with rulings that failed to overturn segregation, etc."[4]

    But there is also more going on here. "[I]n circumstances in which a national approach is necessary or preferable," the CAC continues, "the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause gives the federal government the authority to enforce these lines of authority, preempting state law when necessary to achieve a national goal."

    Who determines when a "national approach" is "preferable" if it is not the States? It is circular thinking to say that, when the federal government was created by the States to serve them, that that servant should then decide when it may preempt the very States' laws they use under the powers of the Constitution as each State sees fit. Who determines a "national goal" if not the nation made of sovereign States who protect sovereign individuals?

    This arrogance in 'preempting state law when necessary' is created by "the 'illusion' [that] the heart of Jeffersonian government is just American individualism!....Individual sovereignty was not a peculiar conceit of Thomas Jefferson: It was the common assumption of the day...."[5]

    Indeed. Much of the Tea Party is founded or supported by libertarians and independents, who were inspired by the ideas of Ayn Rand, who echoed the Founders:

    "Individualism regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights—and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members."[6]


    The Supremacy Clause says, in part that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof....shall be the supreme Law of the Land...." But it says nothing about laws made in pursuance of the Constitution being lawful just because a particular group of individuals who have gained supremacy says every law they deign to write is "necessary to achieve a national goal."

    It is only necessary to achieve their goals that they have their sights set on a 'progressive Constitution' that allows for the use of modern definitions of 18th century words, rather than 21st century interpretations of original expected application.

    But it is my opinion that the Tea Party often does little better, or none at all, or perhaps worse at time--when it decides to stand up for a perceived principle that is no principle at all. A perfect example is the call for 'smaller government' through limited budgets, rather than limited budgets through original Constitutional intent. Fiscal conservatism is not necessarily Constitutionalism.

    I have always said that the government must as large as it must be, and only as large as is Constitutional. The Framers didn't want a standing army; but those were there original "meanings"; their expected application was never to allow our nation to be exposed to the kinds of world-wide threats the kinds of which they had no conception.

    Health care, on the other hand, ought to be handled by anyone with the authority to do so, and the Supremacy Clause does not allow for the federal government to do so.

[1] April 21, 2011 lecture sponsored by Hillsdale College's Kirby Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C. Imprimis; April 2011 Volume 40, Number 4
[2] CAC July 27, 2010 
[3] Jack Balkin; Balkinization
[4] Tibor Machan
[5] Kelly R. Ross
[6] The Ayn Rand Lexicon; The Virtue of Selfishness

© Curtis Edward Clark 2011

Visit the Atheist-AA Google Group

http://groups.google.com/group/atheist-aa

Ron Paul and Originalism

    In recent posts I have taken the time to address the subject of Originalism within the Tea Party. Those posts have been clear, that I do not think Originalism exists in the Tea Party movement, to any degree that is catching the attention of journalists with more time and experience in the field, than I do. In Monday's post I was questioning whether Congressman Ron Paul is an Originalist.

    

    Using the various search engines to be found on the internet, I have discovered no connection yet to Paul and Originalism. Paul does, however, have some interesting ideas that harken the lamp of Originalism; it is simply that I can find no link between the philosophy and the man. Using the search engine on RonPaul.com presents you with "Apologies, but no results were found," both for 'Originalism' and 'Originalist'.

    

    The Congressman has been heard many times calling for a review of the philosophy of government. Using 'philosophy' in his fan site's search engine does bring up many instances related to his own philosophy, "with his trademark message of downsizing the federal government, bringing our troops home, balancing the budget and ending the Federal Reserve."[1] But they fall short of saying he is an Originalist. His own site has no search engine.

    There is some hope that he 'leans' toward an Originalist reading.[2] On the website maintained by his own staff, he refers to the 'war on drugs' as "that disastrous and unconstitutional war." But then instead of addressing the reasons for its un-Constitutionality, Paul begins to sound like an apologist, saying "the federal drug war creates many additional dangers, while failing to reduce the problems associated with drug abuse." The question then becomes, as I have pointed out in previous posts on various subjects: If the war on drugs did NOT fail to reduce the problems associated with abuse; in other words, if the war on drugs DID reduce such problems as are associated with abuse, would Paul still consider the law to be un-Constitutional? Is there not a right for adults to use (or even abuse) so long as their use/abuse was private, or consensually used with other adults?[3]

    Under the tab 'Who is Ron Paul?" we read that he is "the leading spokesman in Washington for limited constitutional government," and "Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."

    But in his criticism of the 'war on drugs' he rose on the floor of the House of Representatives "in reluctant support for S. 1789, the Fair Sentencing Act. My support is reluctant because S. 1789 is an uncomfortable mix of some provisions that reduce the harms of the federal war on drugs and other provisions that increase the harms of that disastrous and unconstitutional war. I am supporting this legislation because I am optimistic the legislation's overall effect will be positive."

    So it is incorrect to say that Paul 'never' votes for un-Constitutional legislation. In this case he voted to change it, not eliminate it.

    But Ron Paul is the front-runner in the House on the issue of freedom and liberty, according to the Constitution as he sees it.

    The question still remains, lacking any discoverable evidence, whether Paul is an Originalist. This is important, because the Tea Party needs a leader who uses Original Intent, and does not simply pay it lip service.[4] The Tea Party is showing a propensity for getting sharply defined cuts in budged spending; but if money is continued to be spent on un-Constitutional laws (or eliminated from some) without attacking the root cause--the existence of the law itself--then that law, or others like it, are free to be hoisted back into Congress by the next liberal/progressive government.

  

[1] Ron Paul’s Speech at CPAC 2011: The Brushfires of Freedom Are Burning!

Disclaimer: RonPaul.com is maintained by independent grassroots supporters of Ron Paul. Neither this website nor the articles, posts, videos or photos appearing on it are paid for, approved, endorsed or reviewed by Ron Paul. For Ron Paul's official website go to House.gov/Paul 

[2] See Randy E. Barnett's Original Means vs. Intent

[3] See Speeches and Statements then The Statement on the Fair Sentencing Act (see)

[4] I sent an advance copy to the Congressman's Office, but I do not expect a reply before this is published.I will however share any answers in this blog, after an answer is received.

© Curtis Edward Clark 2011

Visit the Atheist-AA Google Group

http://groups.google.com/group/atheist-aa

Tea Party language calls for 'smaller government'. Smaller government means nothing, because theoretically it could still include Medicare, Social Security, income taxes, death taxes, and other forms of government power over the individual that was never 'originally intended.'

    In my recent posts, I have stuck-like-glue to the comment in made in the very first entry of this blog:

Tea Party language calls for 'smaller government'. Smaller government means nothing, because theoretically it could still include Medicare, Social Security, income taxes, death taxes, and other forms of government power over the individual that was never 'originally intended.'

   As I've been saying, it is the issues that are being ignored, except occasionally by Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), and Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), sponsors of the Energy Tax Prevention Act. Other instances are in cases of state-rights:

   The following states are challenging the constitutionality of the health care law in federal court: Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Washington, Idaho, South Dakota, Indiana, North Dakota, Mississippi, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, Alaska, Ohio, Wisconsin, Maine, Iowa, Wyoming, Kansas and Virginia. On January 18, 2011, six additional states–Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Ohio, Wisconsin and Wyoming–petitioned in federal court to join Florida’s law suit.

    That list was copied from the website American Conservative Values, which promotes itself as 'limited government' and 'Constitutional rights', but not specifically laws which strictly adhere to Constitutionality. It could be argued that 'Constitutional rights' are those guaranteed in the first nine Amendments.

    The Tenth applies to the relationship of the States to the Federal government, but just as much as that, in its original meaning was the intention that the Federal government was extremely limited in its contact with the People of the Several States. "The reservation to the States respectively," says the Supreme Court,[1] "can only mean the reservation of the Sovereignty which they respectively possessed before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States and which they had not parted from by that instrument."

    That sovereignty of which they had not parted was the sovereignty of the State government over the citizens; whereas the Federal government, having been created by and for the purpose of the States, was responsible for dealing with the States--but not directly except where expressly provided for in the Constitution--for dealing with the Citizens of the several States. 

[1] My thanks to Barefoot Bob for his invaluable work installing the HTML version on the web (especially the links to the references, as in 'says the Supreme Court', above), of my own favorite reference to the Constitution, about which he said:

"Published before the beginning of the 'Socializing of America' in 1933, it is the best and most edifying rendition of our Foundation Document that I have found to clarify the intent of the Founders and the understanding of 'We the People', the Sovereign Citizens of the United States of America." 

I have owned my own copy since the 1980s, and I'm surprised the pages are not falling out of it. BB's link makes my own use of the book more valuable--to all of us.

© Curtis Edward Clark 2011
Visit the Atheist-AA Google Group
http://groups.google.com/group/atheist-aa

Legislative Arguments vs Red Herrings

     The blurb under the title of this blog reads: "The Original Intent of the Framers was neither Conservative nor Republican. Rather, it was about Individual Sovereignty."
     "Individual sovereignty was not a peculiar conceit of Thomas Jefferson: It was the common assumption of the day..."[1]
     But it doesn't seem to be individual sovereignty the Tea Party is calling for with its well-intentioned desire for large spending cuts. While larger cuts rather than smaller ones are better, with the eventual intent of once again balancing the budget, the specific cuts that are made are what are important. I have heard few specific suggestions or desires in this regard, with the exception of Obama-care.
    House Tea Party members renewed their support for cuts of $60 billion, in a press conference by Eric Cantor. The Democrats and Republicans seem to be meeting somewhere near $33 billion in cuts. Tea Partiers are calling for heads to roll in 2012 if the larger number isn't met.
    But it is a number that seems to have been pulled from thin air. Why $60 billion and not $600 billion? Perhaps it is only because the smaller number seems do-able. But it does nothing to help restore individual sovereignty.
    The fight ought to be about ending Federal programs that are not within the limitations of the Constitution, not about 'over spending'. If we actually had enough money and could balance the budget without cutting spending, would the Tea Party movement have two legs to stand on?
    What about stopping funding for things like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)? As I write this, "a congressional panel will hold a hearing on legislation — the “Energy Tax Prevention Act” – to stop.....the constitutional crisis created by EPA’s attempt to dictate climate policy to the nation. EPA can neither make climate policy nor amend the CAA without flouting the separation of powers."[2]
    How much money was spent to create these 18,000 pages of legislation? By the EPA's own estimates, the direct costs of implementation alone will be $65 billion--but how much did it cost to research, then author, this massive take-over of the American economy? The EPA acknowledges that its climate policy leads to “absurd results” that are contrary to congressional intent, with operating permits required of millions of non-industrial facilities such as office buildings, stores, restaurants, etc.
     Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), and Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) are sponsoring the Act. On a newscast I saw, after Upton was interviewed speaking about how the EPA has no Constitutional authority to do what it now proposes, a citizen opponent of the Act was blaming Upton for causing massive damage in the future, to the environment--by stopping the un-Constitutional actions of the EPA, if they are indeed found to be illegal.
     Did this citizen have a desire to allow the EPA to act un-Constitutionally? If she did not, the network pieced together their news with arguments that had nothing to do with each other; or her argument was a red-herring.
    We can ask why opponents use red-herring arguments; but a better question would be to ask why the networks pit such wrongful arguments against each other? Could the network in question not find someone who didn't have a red-herring to throw, someone who could speak to the question of Constitutionality?
     Congressmen and Senators do the same kind of arguing. "The basic idea is to 'win' an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic."[3] Was it the intent of the network to lead the attention away from Upton's concern; or is it the general thinking of the opposition not to address the Congressmen's concerns, to lead the attention away from the fundamental questions on their own?
     Red-herring arguments seem to be typical of the Tea Party, as much as they are typical of most of Congress, and of State's legislatures. 'Spending cuts' that don't address the issue of why a particular budget item is wrong from the perspective of an American's individual sovereignty, is not going to win many converts. Sure, we can all support the cuts. But can we all support the particular reasons for the particular cuts?
    It would be to the benefit of the Tea Party advocates who actually understand what individual sovereignty is about, to advocate particular cuts based on the illegality of what is being funded.

[1] Kelly L. Ross in a review of 'American Sphinx, The Character of Thomas Jefferson', by Joseph J. Ellis
[2] Andrew Brietbart Presents Big Government
[3] The Nizkor Project   

© Curtis Edward Clark 2011

Visit the Atheist-AA Google Group
http://groups.google.com/group/atheist-aa

What is Allegiance to the "United States"

     Allegiance to the government of the United States is not the same as allegiance to the State of which one is a legal resident. Article XIV, adopted in 1868, states that everyone who is born a citizen or is naturalized and who is subject to the jurisdiction of United States "are citizens of the United States."

     "The citizen was not, under the theory of States' rights, in contact with the National Government. He owed allegiance to his State, and the State dealt with the Nation. That theory was definitely set aside by [the Fourteenth] Amendment." *

     Americans now owed allegiance to both authorities. Congressman John Bingham was the principal author of Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment, the part with the words "citizen of the United States". "The phrase 'citizen of the United States' had been used for nearly 8 decades before the Civil War, but always to speak of persons within federal territories." Original Intent.org 

"It is federal, because it is the government of States united in a political union, in contradistinction to a government of individuals, that is, by what is usually called, a social compact. To express it more concisely, it is federal and not national because it is the government of a community of States, and not the government of a single State or Nation." John C. Calhoun

     We unintentionally created what would become a behemoth national government, and it was entirely within the purview of the original Constitution because we had amended the original Constitution. But did creating 'national powers' within the 'federal' government automatically give it the broad powers it has today, with hundreds of federal agencies allowed to make law, and the President allowed to make legally binding executive orders, when the first sentence in the Constitution states: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives"?
     Federal powers began to expand, says Doug Fiedor, in 1825 (Wayman v. Southard) when Congress unconstitutionally delegated the power to the federal court to establish its own rules of practice." In that case, Chief Justice Marshall therefore denied that the delegation [of those powers] was impermissible," and "In 1940, that power was even written into law."
     In future blogs, I will continue to explain how federal expansionism became unlawfully practiced.
     For now it is enough to say that when I pledge allegiance to the United States, it is not the nation that James Madison and the other signers of the Constitution conceived, nor the same federal government that Calhoun described. It is a nation in which both parties conceive of positive rights as an extension of their Fourteenth Amendment duty to protect (and further define) the 'citizen of the United States'. 
     The defining of such a citizen' should have been severely limited, by by then it was too late to stop the national train.

* All asterisks in this post refer to my favorite pre-WWII reference on the Constitution: Constitution of the United States; Its Sources and Application; Thomas J. Norton, copyright 1943

The Unenumerated Rights in the Ninth Amendment

    After writing last week on the Big Government and the Ninth Amendment I was looking at other blogs and articles on the Ninth, and discovered this article:
    "Unfortunately, the 9th Amendment is hated by many conservatives as well as progressives. While being grilled by the Senate, Robert Bork said that the 9th Amendment had no more legal significance than an inkblot on the Constitution. There are two kinds of conservatives, those who want to return to Constitutional principles of a limited government that protects individual rights and those that want to establish an American Empire."
   I also found this, from my good email friend Tibor Machan (whom I met only once in 1979):
   "Many politicians are afraid of the Ninth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Many of their intellectual cheerleaders in the academy and media show equal disdain for this portion of that legal document. Why?" He goes on:

   "Why should the Constitution make this point anyway? Because, actually, people have innumerable rights, and to list them all is impossible -- whereas, listing the powers of government, which in the American system are taken to be limited and restricted, can be listed without having to produce a mammoth document."

   The progressive nature of modern American politics infects both sides of the isles in Congress, as Bork's statement makes clear in the ugliest of terms. It is in the nature of 'listing the powers of government' that limits it, and it's the nature of the Ninth Amendment to prevent limits on the behavior of Americans.
   But when Progressives are stupid enough to state aloud that "the difficulty of getting the Constitution amended" is reason enough for not only ignoring such provisions as the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, but for tromping on them with judicial activism and with legislation so complicated that former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said with a smile, and without a hint of irony, that "We must pass this legislation so that you can see what is in it," it is clear that the Tea Party is far from getting the message that Originalism isn't about "smaller government"; it is about Constitutional government.
   But what Tea Partier have you ever heard speak of the Ninth Amendment? One of the "innumerable rights" preserved by the Ninth is the right to be free of mandates such as the requirement to purchase something from the market place--or be fined.
   This mandate of Obama-care takes "demand-based economics" to a new level. Fortunately, if this situation is handled correctly, it can be used to unravel the demand economics being forced on us by a "green" government, such as the unwanted production of bio-gas and the eventual "phasing out" (by government fiat) of incandescent light bulbs.
   Unfortunately, if the Ninth Amendment is nothing but an inkblot to the Tea Party, the party will only mire itself deeper into the meaningless conversation about which of the lesser-of-two-evils of progressive argument to accept when those arguments are presented to them. (They apparently don't see that there is no "unprogressive" argument being made.) And that is what will happen if the party doesn't begin to understand this ideological war isn't about "smaller" government, but about Constitutional government.




© Curtis Edward Clark 2011 Visit the Atheist-AA Google Group http://groups.google.com/group/atheist-aa

Big Government and the Ninth Amendment

   The Tea Party lacks for a lot of things. Number 1 is the intellectual basis for arguing why government should be smaller. "Government should be smaller!" the T-Partiers chant, but their argument is that we can not afford it any longer, as if to say, "If we had all the money in the world, we'd be ok with 'big' government".
   Big government ought to be big, if the big problems of the big world call for it. There is nothing wrong with big government so long as it is Constitutionally doing what it ought to be doing, not doing what it ought not be doing, and that what it does that it 'ought to' can be paid for.
   Therein lies the problem. More than 100 years of Progressivism have given rise to the idea of "positive liberty", e.g., entitlements. These are not simply things like food stamps and health care, but also government mandates on hair dryers--which save about 12 lives a year at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars; the mandated demise of the incandescent light bulb so that America doesn't have to build any new nuclear reactors--which are very safe and extremely cheap when the they are allowed to be pebble bed modular reactors; but nooooo, those are not allowed, even while the start-up of such companies as could build them would instantly put tens of thousands of people to work.
   Government mandates are costing the people of this nation hundreds of billions of dollars a year in subsidies, including those for bio-fuels, which as we all know by now are pushing up the cost of fuels, the cost of our food, and are not popular, not to mention that the price of biogas must be something like 24¢ less than regular before it actually becomes more fuel-efficient, because you get fewer miles-per-gallon with it.

   Negative liberty, on the other hand, is the absence of political obstacles and constraints against individual sovereignty, which the Founders sought to guarantee with the Ninth Amendment.

   The Ninth Amendment says that just because the Founders failed to name and to number all the specific rights you have, doesn't mean you don't still have them. The right to a hairdryer that won't kill you if you are stupid enough to use it near water isn't one of them.
   The Tea Party has turned out to be a very vocal group of fiscal and ethical conservatives, which could be good for America's wallets and America's disdain for corrupt politicians, who until now have mostly gotten away with their indiscretions.
   But the Tea Partiers are no more Originalist readers of the Declaration than are their Republican or Democratic counterparts, and therein lies the problem: we need Constitutional Originalists to separate the unConstitutional government from the Constitutional government, not the "big" from the "small" government, because in the end those who call for smaller, or for less, government still fail to remember the reason that a government that governs less governs best: isn't because it's fiscally smaller, it because it is further toward being unable to destroy what is so callously forgotten about the Ninth Amendment.

The Mount Vernon Statement

On February 17, 2010, a number of well-known and influential people met at President Washington's home, Mount Vernon, to sign The Mount Vernon Statement, billed as Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century.

Liberal groups, said the Vancouver Sun, dismissed the Mount Vernon Statement as a rehash of right-wing ideas better suited to the 18th century than the 21st.

"The Mount Vernon Statement," reported the Sun, "appears to be yet another recitation of the same tired dogma we've seen for decades," said Michael Keegan, president of People For the American Way.

No explanation was given for why the U.S. Constitution is "better suited to the 18th century than the 21st". But it appears clear that the signers have comitted themselves to one error. Throughout the Statement they refer to the Constitution as a "conservative" document.

"At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution," reads the Statement. "The conservatism of the Constitution limits government’s powers...A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives...It reminds economic conservatives [and] social conservatives [and] national security conservatives [that] Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda."

The error is in the attempt to label and to categorize the U.S. Constitution as a conservative document. It was not a conservative document in 1787. It was not debated nor established in a conservative atmosphere.
A "radical act occurred when 55 representatives of the 13 colonies gathered to improve on the Articles of Confederation and instead locked the doors, posted sentries, and proceeded to discuss, debate, and develop the most unprecedented document ever created as a blueprint for governing a nation.

"This radical document we know today as The Constitution for the United States of America. Never before in the history of mankind had such an approach been suggested, and then ratified....This was truly revolutionary, radical, bold in vision, and bolder in application." Gary Wood

So, "why does the New York Times label Ron Paul as the most radical congressman in America for calling for a return back to our constitutionalist ideals?" Through the Magnifying Glass

Because the American people have no idea what freedoms they would once again own as individual, sovereign entities under Federalist principles governed by the ideal of a republic. To roll back the clock to such a moment when men were again "Citizens of their several States" instead of "citizens of the United States" under the 14th Amendment; to go back to a time when the Interstate Commerce Clause did not give the Federal government the power to control nearly every aspect of industry and commerce, would be radical in and of itself. It would require legislators in every State and in Congress who understood Originalism. It might require a Constitutional Convention, because to right some wrongs would require Amendments. We cannot simply "go back" without unintended consequences. Laws that put legitimate criminals in prisons are sometimes not legitimately "laws" according to Originalist interpretations of the Constitution, and yet we cannot let dangerous people out of prison.

President GeorgeW. Bush was not the first to declare certain captured enemy soldiers by the title of "enemy combatants"; Lincoln did so during the Civil War, and there are those who would perhaps be correct to say that both Presidents were wrong to do so. Yet there are men detained at Gitmo who would kill another 3000 Americans (or Spaniards or Malays or French or British or Germans) if they were released.

The Constitution is not the "conservative" document the Republicans would like us to believe. It is more important than that, more primary, more principled, more limited than most Conservatives would want to see.

We got into this messy situation of ignoring and going around the Constitution because Republicans as much as Democrats and Progressives wanted the power to control the forces of law.

We don't need "conservatives", Tea Party or otherwise, controlling our nation. We need the radicals who will state without equivocation, "I swear to abide by the Constitution as it was given to us, not as I would have it through subversion."

© FAMN LLC (MI)

Tea Parties vs. Originalism

Tea Party language calls for "smaller government". Smaller government means nothing, because theoretically it could still include Medicare, Social Security, income taxes, death taxes, and other forms of government power over the individual that was never "originally intended."

Indeed, if the Founders had known then what they could not have known without omniscience, they would have crafted a Constitution that would not allow for the idea of a "living document."

Taken as a "living document" progressives and liberals have been allowed to abrogate the provisions of the Constitution that otherwise would cause the necessity for Amendments. A "living document" needs no Amendments. It can be twisted to meet the needs of whatever political party has power.

"Originalism is the view that the Constitution has a fixed and knowable meaning established at the time of its enactment." U. of San Diego School of Law The Tenth Amendment tells us that the powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited to the States themselves are either reserved to the States, or to the people. In theory this means each individual ought to have the freedom to do whatever he or she pleases so long as it does not abrogate the sovereignty of any other individual within the definition of such sovereignty. 

Unfortunately, there is little in the Ten Amendments to guarantee such sovereignty.

"Individual sovereignty was not a peculiar conceit of Thomas Jefferson: It was the common assumption of the day..." wrote Joseph J. Ellis.

The separation of church and state came to be part of our law, not by being written in the Constitution, but by being a part of the national debate during the writing of the Constitution, by being accepted as a "common assumption of the day."

This is Originalism and that is how it operates; the Jurist behind the bench reaches back into the history of our Founding, discovers what the Founders wanted even if they failed as men to include it in the Constitution, and then he incorporates that Original thinking into his decision.

We cannot blame the Founders for their lack of omniscience. We must look to what their intentions were and accept them as the guiding principle behind the document being judged.

If the decision of the Jurist does not match the needs of the people or of society as it exists today, it is then up to our Legislative branches to write the laws that will meet our needs--but those laws must also meet the Original Intent of the Founders, or we must create an Amendment to meet the current need. 

© FAMN LLC (MI)