Showing posts with label individual. Show all posts
Showing posts with label individual. Show all posts
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Intension and Extension, Part 2
The 'intension' of any idea consists in the qualities or properties that are the substance[1] of the idea. See the first part in this series. For example, the Constitution, Article. I.Section. 1. states that "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." Taken in its entirety, the 'substance' of the Section is legislative powers, and what they shall be vested in.
Any 'extension' of an idea is dependent on the 'intension' for its substance. Section 2. states, "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States," and in the substance of that there is no 'extension' of any idea that those elected cannot be women or blacks--nor, for that matter, Catholics or Muslims or "Hindoos", as Thomas Jefferson spelled it.
So for all practical purposes, 'intension' is the same as someone's 'intentions'; it merely has a semantic difference in the way philosophers of law use the word. The intension is necessarily in the words and syntax, if you are a textualist (also called a constructionist, from the 'construction' of the clauses and sentences.)
If you are an originalist, the intension is more likely to be in the meaning of those words and that syntax as they were meant when the text was written. That is called original expected application. If on the other hand you are of the belief that the intension should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have said was the meaning, that is called original public meaning. The problem between these forms of originalism is that the writers of the Constitution, and those who took part in the debates, wrote extensively both before and after it was written. If you read what they wrote and you abide by what they wrote, you might be adopting original application, or you might be following the original public meaning. Reasonable persons living at the time were very well versed in what their intellectuals had to say. And many of those intellectuals said the intension was in the text, so that textualism and both forms of originalism melt into one when we try to interpret the Constitution.
"Originalism tends to favor a narrower definition of civil liberties than modernism does, so it generally permits more authoritarian laws," states a popular website. Obviously this is wrong, because the entire purpose of the Constitution was the promotion of the 'general Welfare' without infringing upon what all 'reasonable persons at the time' believed was the individual sovereignty of the individual. But it may be a common belief because since the time of at least the New Deal, Americans have been taught by their leaders that our Constitution was meant to guarantee 'positive' rights, that is grants, the creation of what does not exist under natural law; in other words, entitlements, not just of money, but of 'social justice'.
The belief in individual sovereignty was not a 'peculiar conceit' of Thomas Jefferson; rather, it was "the common assumption of the day." Jefferson himself has often been described as a strict constructionist, yet his thoughts on the proposed and real extensions of his time are used by originalists of both types, and by textualists.
It is true that individual sovereignty was commonly acknowledged. Sam Adams wrote that he feared misinterpretation of the Constitution would grow the power of the Federal government at the expense of the States and "sink both in despotism." "Those Virginians, such as Patrick Henry and George Mason," wrote Dr. Roger M. Firestone, "who argued most strongly for the Bill of Rights, knew that the individual would require defenses against the authority of the state."
Positive rights are extensions of the Constitution if you interpret it as a 'living document', meant to be read in the context of a modern world. Even then, you must ignore what those who lived during that period knew was the intent of the Framers--because the Framers told them their intent.
The only 'modern' part of the extensions since the New Deal (and some before that) is the loss of individualism in favor of authoritarianism, not the reverse as the quote above states.
[1] that by virtue of which a thing has its determinate nature source
© Curtis Edward Clark 2012
'Like' Curtisedwardclark.com on Facebook
Any 'extension' of an idea is dependent on the 'intension' for its substance. Section 2. states, "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States," and in the substance of that there is no 'extension' of any idea that those elected cannot be women or blacks--nor, for that matter, Catholics or Muslims or "Hindoos", as Thomas Jefferson spelled it.
So for all practical purposes, 'intension' is the same as someone's 'intentions'; it merely has a semantic difference in the way philosophers of law use the word. The intension is necessarily in the words and syntax, if you are a textualist (also called a constructionist, from the 'construction' of the clauses and sentences.)
If you are an originalist, the intension is more likely to be in the meaning of those words and that syntax as they were meant when the text was written. That is called original expected application. If on the other hand you are of the belief that the intension should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have said was the meaning, that is called original public meaning. The problem between these forms of originalism is that the writers of the Constitution, and those who took part in the debates, wrote extensively both before and after it was written. If you read what they wrote and you abide by what they wrote, you might be adopting original application, or you might be following the original public meaning. Reasonable persons living at the time were very well versed in what their intellectuals had to say. And many of those intellectuals said the intension was in the text, so that textualism and both forms of originalism melt into one when we try to interpret the Constitution.
"Originalism tends to favor a narrower definition of civil liberties than modernism does, so it generally permits more authoritarian laws," states a popular website. Obviously this is wrong, because the entire purpose of the Constitution was the promotion of the 'general Welfare' without infringing upon what all 'reasonable persons at the time' believed was the individual sovereignty of the individual. But it may be a common belief because since the time of at least the New Deal, Americans have been taught by their leaders that our Constitution was meant to guarantee 'positive' rights, that is grants, the creation of what does not exist under natural law; in other words, entitlements, not just of money, but of 'social justice'.
The belief in individual sovereignty was not a 'peculiar conceit' of Thomas Jefferson; rather, it was "the common assumption of the day." Jefferson himself has often been described as a strict constructionist, yet his thoughts on the proposed and real extensions of his time are used by originalists of both types, and by textualists.
It is true that individual sovereignty was commonly acknowledged. Sam Adams wrote that he feared misinterpretation of the Constitution would grow the power of the Federal government at the expense of the States and "sink both in despotism." "Those Virginians, such as Patrick Henry and George Mason," wrote Dr. Roger M. Firestone, "who argued most strongly for the Bill of Rights, knew that the individual would require defenses against the authority of the state."
Positive rights are extensions of the Constitution if you interpret it as a 'living document', meant to be read in the context of a modern world. Even then, you must ignore what those who lived during that period knew was the intent of the Framers--because the Framers told them their intent.
The only 'modern' part of the extensions since the New Deal (and some before that) is the loss of individualism in favor of authoritarianism, not the reverse as the quote above states.
[1] that by virtue of which a thing has its determinate nature source
© Curtis Edward Clark 2012
'Like' Curtisedwardclark.com on Facebook
Monday, April 4, 2011
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
"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
Monday, March 21, 2011
The Ninth Amendment, Liberals, and Conservatives
On March 11, I wrote, "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."
Robert Bork is the apparent creator of that "inkblot" reference, but Tibor Machan* also said conservatives hate the Ninth Amendment, because, "actually, people have innumerable rights, and to list them all is impossible."
That is where liberals have things in perspective, comparatively, so far as personal rights are concerned; it is why they support gay marriages and gay adoptions, personal drug use, abortion, and other things that conservatives despise and try to eliminate through legislation. But liberals deny such freedom when it comes to "windfall" profits or oil leases or the right to use incandescent light bulbs.
Perhaps Bork meant "inkblot" in the sense that the Ninth Amendment has rarely been utilized in the courts to set precedents; it has actually been almost forgotten, to the delight of the Right.
"The Ninth Amendment," wrote Daniel Farber, "is key to understanding how the Founding Fathers [ ] did not believe that they were creating these liberties in the Bill of Rights. Instead, they were merely acknowledging some of the rights that no government could properly deny."
In the 1972 case of Baker v. Nelson, two gay students who wanted to get married cited the Ninth's protection of their right to marry as "unenumerated right to privacy". In the famous abortion case of Roe v. Wade, Chief Justice Harry Blackmun, rejected the lower court's Ninth Amendment justification, saying instead the right to privacy existed whether it came from the Ninth or the Fourteenth. Justice William O. Douglas Douglas "in his concurring opinion in the companion case Doe v. Bolton, stated more emphatically that, 'The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights.'"
OMG! Of course it creates nothing--except the mandatory defense of it where necessary by the Courts, and the lack of offending legislation by any law-making body in the United States. There are very few other cases regarding the Ninth, but they do exist here and there.
If anything, the Ninth Amendment is the most important one regarding personal rights, taking precedence over the First regarding free speech, peaceable assembly, and the right to practice one's religion; the Second which provides us with our means of self-protection. These rights, and others, could have been considered under the Ninth Amendment if the First and Second (and others) had not been created, though the specifics of the others may not have withstood some arguments had they not been written.
But the fact is, all the arguments made by conservatives against personal liberties, arguments that fly in the face of the Ninth, are based on fallacious arguments, such as that marriage has always been for the lawful protection of children; the National Organization for Marriage calls it "fundamentally redefin[ing] what marriage is."
What is marriage if not "the legal union of two people"? Who says it must be one male and one female, except God and his spokespeople? Citizen Link uses good statistics to show kids in married families, especially those with both biological parents, are better off growing up and do better as adults; but that doesn't say all of them are better off, nor that no children raised by gay or lesbian parents are not as well off. (I'll cite my own two sons as prime examples--they are now in their mid thirties; one is married with children, and one was in the military.)
Instead, Link says, "If we are to concern ourselves with the welfare of children, we have to be concerned with the health of marriage in our culture."
Why should marriage be limited to one man and one woman?
Why do people who deny the Ninth Amendment in today's liberal world think marriage should be between only heterosexuals? "First and foremost," says MInTheGap, "the reason that marriage has been, by definition, and institution between a man and a woman has roots in what the Creator of the World has proclaimed—way back in the book of Genesis."
That reason, while it may be dogmatically religious, is also the reason it abuses the First Amendment prohibition against laws "respecting an establishment of religion."
The Ninth is a protection of almost every action that is physically non-aggressive toward or against another person, which is the idea "that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions." [John Locke, The Second Treatise of Civil Government, §6]"
And that is all that the Ninth Amendment states; and it should read more like this:
© Curtis Edward Clark 2011
Visit the Atheist-AA Google Group
http://groups.google.com/group/atheist-aa
Robert Bork is the apparent creator of that "inkblot" reference, but Tibor Machan* also said conservatives hate the Ninth Amendment, because, "actually, people have innumerable rights, and to list them all is impossible."
That is where liberals have things in perspective, comparatively, so far as personal rights are concerned; it is why they support gay marriages and gay adoptions, personal drug use, abortion, and other things that conservatives despise and try to eliminate through legislation. But liberals deny such freedom when it comes to "windfall" profits or oil leases or the right to use incandescent light bulbs.
Perhaps Bork meant "inkblot" in the sense that the Ninth Amendment has rarely been utilized in the courts to set precedents; it has actually been almost forgotten, to the delight of the Right.
"The Ninth Amendment," wrote Daniel Farber, "is key to understanding how the Founding Fathers [ ] did not believe that they were creating these liberties in the Bill of Rights. Instead, they were merely acknowledging some of the rights that no government could properly deny."
In the 1972 case of Baker v. Nelson, two gay students who wanted to get married cited the Ninth's protection of their right to marry as "unenumerated right to privacy". In the famous abortion case of Roe v. Wade, Chief Justice Harry Blackmun, rejected the lower court's Ninth Amendment justification, saying instead the right to privacy existed whether it came from the Ninth or the Fourteenth. Justice William O. Douglas Douglas "in his concurring opinion in the companion case Doe v. Bolton, stated more emphatically that, 'The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights.'"
OMG! Of course it creates nothing--except the mandatory defense of it where necessary by the Courts, and the lack of offending legislation by any law-making body in the United States. There are very few other cases regarding the Ninth, but they do exist here and there.
If anything, the Ninth Amendment is the most important one regarding personal rights, taking precedence over the First regarding free speech, peaceable assembly, and the right to practice one's religion; the Second which provides us with our means of self-protection. These rights, and others, could have been considered under the Ninth Amendment if the First and Second (and others) had not been created, though the specifics of the others may not have withstood some arguments had they not been written.
But the fact is, all the arguments made by conservatives against personal liberties, arguments that fly in the face of the Ninth, are based on fallacious arguments, such as that marriage has always been for the lawful protection of children; the National Organization for Marriage calls it "fundamentally redefin[ing] what marriage is."
What is marriage if not "the legal union of two people"? Who says it must be one male and one female, except God and his spokespeople? Citizen Link uses good statistics to show kids in married families, especially those with both biological parents, are better off growing up and do better as adults; but that doesn't say all of them are better off, nor that no children raised by gay or lesbian parents are not as well off. (I'll cite my own two sons as prime examples--they are now in their mid thirties; one is married with children, and one was in the military.)
Instead, Link says, "If we are to concern ourselves with the welfare of children, we have to be concerned with the health of marriage in our culture."
Why should marriage be limited to one man and one woman?
Why do people who deny the Ninth Amendment in today's liberal world think marriage should be between only heterosexuals? "First and foremost," says MInTheGap, "the reason that marriage has been, by definition, and institution between a man and a woman has roots in what the Creator of the World has proclaimed—way back in the book of Genesis."
That reason, while it may be dogmatically religious, is also the reason it abuses the First Amendment prohibition against laws "respecting an establishment of religion."
The Ninth is a protection of almost every action that is physically non-aggressive toward or against another person, which is the idea "that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions." [John Locke, The Second Treatise of Civil Government, §6]"
And that is all that the Ninth Amendment states; and it should read more like this:
"Whosoever shall act in accordance with the principle that no one may initiate aggression against another, shall not be found guilty of illegal acts."*1 2 3 4
© Curtis Edward Clark 2011
Visit the Atheist-AA Google Group
http://groups.google.com/group/atheist-aa
Monday, March 14, 2011
Obama Economics is Artificially Hobbesian
We are not flawed by nature, as Hobbes believed; yet we are not the way nature intended, either. 'Natural law', on which even the UN Charter is partly based, doesn't allow for such things as jihad, no matter what Hobbes may have thought about man being in a constant state of war.
It was Locke whose ideas were on the money, and from which were derived the Bill of Rights, in which the Ninth Amendment states that we still retain those natural rights which are not enumerated in the other Amendments. http://teapartyoriginalism.blogspot.com/…
If you believe in Hobbes, you can accept the idea, if not the form, of jihad. If you believe in Jefferson's version of natural law, jihad is an abomination. When we literally had our gun sights on Osama bin Laden and our men were told to stand down and not take him out, that was an abomination; by the same logic that was used, we would not have killed Hitler in 1939, when he invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland.
The 'command economics' of the Obama Administration and some similar actions in previous administrations are an abomination against the Ninth Amendment. They put Americans in a state of war against other Americans--as all command economics have done. The most famous of them, of course, are Social Security and Medicare; but the Tea Party, nor other conservatives, are calling for their abolition. They merely want to make them smaller, or in the case of S.S., to privatize it. That doesn't remove it from the field of command economics.
No, we are are not acting in the way nature intended, so we are not the way nature intended us to be. We are fulfilling in many ways the wrongful description of being a species always at war with itself, because we are not listening to John Locke who told us "...that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions."
"...command economies are unable to efficiently allocate goods because of the knowledge problem - the central planner's inability to discern how much of a good should be produced. Shortages and surpluses are a common consequence of command economies." Investopedia
Yet, our government under President Obama is now telling us how much coal, versus how much oil, versus how much nuclear, versus how much "green" electricity we are to produce. It has (as of this writing) approved only one permit for oil drilling in the Gulf since the BP spill. Obama hates coal and says there is no such thing as 'clean' burning of it; nuclear reactors are off the table; and yet this Administration has given hundreds of millions to certain cities to build "recharching" stations for the coming of the electric car--which the government is "commanding" be built.
This administration is even mandating the demise of the incandescent light bulb so that America doesn't have to produce any new electricity--even when they are pebble bed modular reactors, very safe and extremely cheap.
The idea is to maintain the current levels of electric usage, even while consumers know of much less expensive ways to run an economy:
1>produce more electricity, thereby putting more people to work and lowering the cost of power;
2>quit telling us how to use our capital, which only creates an artificial but untrue proof of Hobbe's war among men. Or perhaps it isn't true that men such as Obama, Harding, FDR, and Hillary Clinton (Clinton-care) are not true Hobbesians. Maybe they think Hobbes was correct and simply "work" his system as if no systems with built-in justice existed:
"Locke's state of nature, however, does contain right and wrong, and so natural rights. Thus, 'to secure these Rights, governments are instituted among men.'". Joseph J. Ellis
Governments ought not be 'secured' in order to institute intellectual and economic wars among men, but to prevent them with open markets of ideas and goods. If we continue on the Obama Road to ruin, our great-grandchildren will be burning candles and wondering why the word "I" has been banned.
© Curtis Edward Clark 2011
Visit the Atheist-AA Google Group
http://groups.google.com/group/atheist-aa
It was Locke whose ideas were on the money, and from which were derived the Bill of Rights, in which the Ninth Amendment states that we still retain those natural rights which are not enumerated in the other Amendments. http://teapartyoriginalism.blogspot.com/…
If you believe in Hobbes, you can accept the idea, if not the form, of jihad. If you believe in Jefferson's version of natural law, jihad is an abomination. When we literally had our gun sights on Osama bin Laden and our men were told to stand down and not take him out, that was an abomination; by the same logic that was used, we would not have killed Hitler in 1939, when he invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland.
The 'command economics' of the Obama Administration and some similar actions in previous administrations are an abomination against the Ninth Amendment. They put Americans in a state of war against other Americans--as all command economics have done. The most famous of them, of course, are Social Security and Medicare; but the Tea Party, nor other conservatives, are calling for their abolition. They merely want to make them smaller, or in the case of S.S., to privatize it. That doesn't remove it from the field of command economics.
No, we are are not acting in the way nature intended, so we are not the way nature intended us to be. We are fulfilling in many ways the wrongful description of being a species always at war with itself, because we are not listening to John Locke who told us "...that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions."
"...command economies are unable to efficiently allocate goods because of the knowledge problem - the central planner's inability to discern how much of a good should be produced. Shortages and surpluses are a common consequence of command economies." Investopedia
Yet, our government under President Obama is now telling us how much coal, versus how much oil, versus how much nuclear, versus how much "green" electricity we are to produce. It has (as of this writing) approved only one permit for oil drilling in the Gulf since the BP spill. Obama hates coal and says there is no such thing as 'clean' burning of it; nuclear reactors are off the table; and yet this Administration has given hundreds of millions to certain cities to build "recharching" stations for the coming of the electric car--which the government is "commanding" be built.
This administration is even mandating the demise of the incandescent light bulb so that America doesn't have to produce any new electricity--even when they are pebble bed modular reactors, very safe and extremely cheap.
The idea is to maintain the current levels of electric usage, even while consumers know of much less expensive ways to run an economy:
1>produce more electricity, thereby putting more people to work and lowering the cost of power;
2>quit telling us how to use our capital, which only creates an artificial but untrue proof of Hobbe's war among men. Or perhaps it isn't true that men such as Obama, Harding, FDR, and Hillary Clinton (Clinton-care) are not true Hobbesians. Maybe they think Hobbes was correct and simply "work" his system as if no systems with built-in justice existed:
"Locke's state of nature, however, does contain right and wrong, and so natural rights. Thus, 'to secure these Rights, governments are instituted among men.'". Joseph J. Ellis
Governments ought not be 'secured' in order to institute intellectual and economic wars among men, but to prevent them with open markets of ideas and goods. If we continue on the Obama Road to ruin, our great-grandchildren will be burning candles and wondering why the word "I" has been banned.
© Curtis Edward Clark 2011
Visit the Atheist-AA Google Group
http://groups.google.com/group/atheist-aa
Friday, March 11, 2011
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:
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
"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
Monday, March 7, 2011
Congress and Absolutes
I answer questions in philosophy and in history in Yahoo's Q&A forum called Yahoo! Answers. Recently, someone asked how "the good" should be defined in terms of "context". Here is my answer:
Yet, Rand was a vocal, ardent, and radical advocate for the sanctity of human life. "Individualism," she wrote, echoing Locke and Jefferson and Madison and others, "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." But, to keep this situation of "what is the good" in context, she also wrote this:
If individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law, then it was moral to kill the soldier who couldn't make a soldierly decision, in order to save the hero who wanted the evil government to be subordinate to moral law--which they were not.
Now, that is a long example. But it is one that is rarely understood about that novel. And since it was written by an advocate of absolute human rights, it puts "absolute rights" into context--save the hero, or let the villains have their way.
This concept of "absolutism" is something the Tea Party as a whole doesn't comprehend any better than a Progressive, whether a Republican, or a Democrat. There are no absolutists in Congress, save a few who are absolute only on one or two specific issues, but not broadly and fully, and in context of what "absolute Originalist reading of the Constitution" means.
While there is room for debate even in an Originalist reading, there is no debate that it is a document of negative liberty, not of positive liberty. If there is any member of Congress who you can envision as a hero in an Ayn Rand novel, he or she may be one of those who holds to an absolute idea here and there--but I'll bet s/he couldn't explain why s/he believes it to be an 'absolute'.
© Curtis Edward Clark 2011 Visit the Atheist-AA Google Group http://groups.google.com/group/atheist-aa
A good example is in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged, in which a hero point-blank shoots to death a military soldier--because he can't make the decision to let her have the prisoner (even though the soldier knows she is trusted by the government)--or adhere to the orders he was given to keep the prisoner, who he, the soldier, knows absolutely is being tortured in secret.The man being tortured is also one of the heroes and is being rescued. The soldier doesn't even say "Yes" or "No"; he is confused, unfocused, hoping for, you might say, a sign from the heavens about what to do--and the hero had a gun pointed right at him, but he can't make up his mind. So she shoots him dead.
Yet, Rand was a vocal, ardent, and radical advocate for the sanctity of human life. "Individualism," she wrote, echoing Locke and Jefferson and Madison and others, "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." But, to keep this situation of "what is the good" in context, she also wrote this:
"Rights” are a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context—the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics.The soldier could not decide which action to take, and while the gun was obviously a coercion, so was his gun, which if he had time he would have pointed at the hero. The soldier was violating the first paragraph, about individual sovereignty, by keeping the prisoner who was being tortured. You might ask, why was he being tortured? Because he was the good guy, and the bad guys (the government in this novel) wanted the tortured hero to work for them. The soldier had to have known this.
If individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law, then it was moral to kill the soldier who couldn't make a soldierly decision, in order to save the hero who wanted the evil government to be subordinate to moral law--which they were not.
Now, that is a long example. But it is one that is rarely understood about that novel. And since it was written by an advocate of absolute human rights, it puts "absolute rights" into context--save the hero, or let the villains have their way.
This concept of "absolutism" is something the Tea Party as a whole doesn't comprehend any better than a Progressive, whether a Republican, or a Democrat. There are no absolutists in Congress, save a few who are absolute only on one or two specific issues, but not broadly and fully, and in context of what "absolute Originalist reading of the Constitution" means.
While there is room for debate even in an Originalist reading, there is no debate that it is a document of negative liberty, not of positive liberty. If there is any member of Congress who you can envision as a hero in an Ayn Rand novel, he or she may be one of those who holds to an absolute idea here and there--but I'll bet s/he couldn't explain why s/he believes it to be an 'absolute'.
© Curtis Edward Clark 2011 Visit the Atheist-AA Google Group http://groups.google.com/group/atheist-aa
Saturday, March 5, 2011
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Originalism vs. Cultural Relativity
Cultural relativism is the view that all beliefs, customs, and ethics are relative to the individual within his own social context. In other words, “right” and “wrong” are culture-specific; what is considered moral in one society may be considered immoral in another, and, since no universal standard of morality exists, no one has the right to judge another society’s customs. http://www.gotquestions.org/cultural-rel…
This has led to the Progressive idea of the Constitution as a "living document" that can be "interpreted" to include the current morally relativist positions of our political leaders and/or those who's political action committees support the campaigns of our leaders.
As a denial of "universal" human rights as protected specifically by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and by the Constitutional provision that Amendments must be enacted to change what is concretized in the Constitution, it is a denial that men have "unalienable" rights. Those unalienable rights are defined in natural law, and they vary somewhat between philosophers, but essentially they are a refutation of relativism.
President Obama's ideal of six years of national service to the United States government in return for school loans, which were made forbidden by lending institutions specifically so that this six year committment could be instituted, is one such case of relativism.
The first known case of relativism was the statement by Protagoras: "Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not".
But if you believe that governments are constituted by the consent of the people, rather than coming from the blunt force of powerful people or from one faction or tribe being bigger and more terrifying than another, than you must believe relativism is wrong.
Consent of the governed is terminology of "popular sovereignty" as defined by Locke and Rousseau, whereby each individual gives up a bit of his freedom to a common government. Jefferson deduced that before any individual could give up such freedom to the "common sovereignty" that he himself must have "individual sovereignty". One cannot give up what one does not have to give.
"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." http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/indivi…
That statement is the direct denial of cultural relativism. So is the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights.
Cultural relativism taken to an extreme means a tribe still has the right to throw virgins into volcanoes, or to eat other men who happen to be in the way when the tribe is hunting for food, or to rape virgins in order to prevent getting HIV/AIDS when screwing other women who already have it. (This is a true scenario in some parts of Africa.)
"Do not make the mistake of the ignorant who think that an individualist is a man who says: “I’ll do as I please at everybody else’s expense.” An individualist is a man who recognizes the inalienable individual rights of man—his own and those of others.
"An individualist is a man who says: “I will not run anyone’s life—nor let anyone run mine. I will not rule nor be ruled. I will not be a master nor a slave. I will not sacrifice myself to anyone—nor sacrifice anyone to myself.” http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/indivi…
Do not make the mistake of believing that I’ll do as I please at everybody else’s expense, as a statement of moral relativism by a person, tribe, city, or nation, is superior to objective standards of ethics.
© 2010 FAMN LLC (MI)
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Individual Sovereignty and Ayn Rand
America's Founding Fathers challenged the institution of the state as the ruler of the individual. Man’s right to exist for his own sake, wrote philosopher/novelist Ayn Rand, was their guiding principle, and they were "determined to establish on earth the conditions required for man’s proper existence, by the 'unaided' power of their intellect."
Those Founders, she wrote, knew man as "an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life." From the Lockean concept of "popular sovereignty," differing from both Hobbes and Rousseau, where he laid the premise that the legislature was only empowered to legislate for the general welfare, the Founders discovered a political axiom.
Whether Locke meant to imply that sovereign power was only in the legislature or in the people, Jefferson and others concluded it was in the individual, the only political entity capable of thought, and the one ultimately responsible for his own welfare, and each must be the one in whom the primary authority rests. Without his consent, there can be no legislative body.
Black's Law Dictionary says sovereignty is "The state of condition of being free from dependence, subjection, or control." But under the U.S. Constitution, the people create a deliberate dependence on their governments to protect the rights they also claim to be able to recover when and if they should so decided to change their form of government. This implies directly that they freely submit some of their sovereignty to their government. That which is freely submitted is the power Locke called "popular sovereignty".
References from the Ayn Rand Lexicon:
Those Founders, she wrote, knew man as "an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life." From the Lockean concept of "popular sovereignty," differing from both Hobbes and Rousseau, where he laid the premise that the legislature was only empowered to legislate for the general welfare, the Founders discovered a political axiom.
Whether Locke meant to imply that sovereign power was only in the legislature or in the people, Jefferson and others concluded it was in the individual, the only political entity capable of thought, and the one ultimately responsible for his own welfare, and each must be the one in whom the primary authority rests. Without his consent, there can be no legislative body.
Black's Law Dictionary says sovereignty is "The state of condition of being free from dependence, subjection, or control." But under the U.S. Constitution, the people create a deliberate dependence on their governments to protect the rights they also claim to be able to recover when and if they should so decided to change their form of government. This implies directly that they freely submit some of their sovereignty to their government. That which is freely submitted is the power Locke called "popular sovereignty".
References from the Ayn Rand Lexicon:
- For the New Intellectual
- The Virtue of Selfishness
© 2010 FAMN LLC (MI)
Monday, February 22, 2010
What is "Individual Sovereignty"?
A couple of times I have been verbally assaulted in emails by people who claimed that only nations had "sovereignty". Apparently they have never heard of "popular sovereignty", a concept dating back to the middle of the 17th century, formulated as part of social contracts. "Popular" sovereignty is no more of a nation than "individual" sovereignty is.
John Locke, as Hobbes before him, claimed that social contracts were unbreakable. He stipulated however that if the legislatures did not work for the good of the citizens, they could replace the legislature.
"Popular sovereignty," therefore, becomes "the notion that no law or rule is legitimate unless it rests directly or indirectly on the consent of the individuals concerned."
http://www.basiclaw.net/Principles/Popular%20sovereignty.htm
Thomas Jefferson and others wondered how individuals could consent to give to a social contract powers they themselves did not have to begin with. We cannot give bread to a food bank if we don't have bread; how can we give consent to others to make rules for us if we don't have the original power to make rules for ourselves? They therefore concluded that individuals did, indeed, have such natural rights that only individual sovereignty could morally defend.
""Natural rights [are] the objects for the protection of which society is formed and municipal laws established." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Monroe, 1791
But, "Individual sovereignty was not a peculiar conceit of Thomas Jefferson: It was the common assumption of the day..." Joseph J. Ellis
"And thus, [ascertained to him by natural and eternal equity,] every man is sole lord and arbiter of his own private actions and property--a character of which no man living can divest him but by usurpation, or his own consent. -John Trenchard, January 20,1721 The Freeman
"The relationships between federalist political structure and the sovereignty of the individual must be carefully examined..." James M. Buchanan
In contrast to the Articles of Confederation, in which the sovereignty of the States, not all of which followed the rule of "natural rights", formed the United States, it was the sovereign people who created the United States under the Constitution. And the people were sovereign in their individual, not collective, capacities. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments saw to that.
"Legislation for communities, as contradistinguished from individuals," Hamilton wrote with Madison in Federalist No. 20, "is subversive of the order and ends of civil polity."
It even comes to us from the Czeck Republic's first President, Václav Havel: ""The sovereignty of the community, the region, the nation, the state--any higher sovereignty, in fact--makes sense only if it is derived from the one genuine sovereignty, that is, from human sovereignty, which finds its political expression in civic sovereignty." Cato Journal
Elizabeth Price Foley, wrote that the U.S. was created on two “foundational principles”, limited government and individual sovereignty.
No individual can willingly give to the "common sovereignty" what he himself does not already possess. This brings many questions to mind concerning taxation, the use of military and police force, etc. But those belong in another debate, and they can be rectified where they are wrong, to respect common or popular sovereignty, and often individual sovereignty.
http://www.basiclaw.net/Principles/Popular%20sovereignty.htm
Thomas Jefferson and others wondered how individuals could consent to give to a social contract powers they themselves did not have to begin with. We cannot give bread to a food bank if we don't have bread; how can we give consent to others to make rules for us if we don't have the original power to make rules for ourselves? They therefore concluded that individuals did, indeed, have such natural rights that only individual sovereignty could morally defend.
""Natural rights [are] the objects for the protection of which society is formed and municipal laws established." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Monroe, 1791
But, "Individual sovereignty was not a peculiar conceit of Thomas Jefferson: It was the common assumption of the day..." Joseph J. Ellis
"And thus, [ascertained to him by natural and eternal equity,] every man is sole lord and arbiter of his own private actions and property--a character of which no man living can divest him but by usurpation, or his own consent. -John Trenchard, January 20,1721 The Freeman
"The relationships between federalist political structure and the sovereignty of the individual must be carefully examined..." James M. Buchanan
In contrast to the Articles of Confederation, in which the sovereignty of the States, not all of which followed the rule of "natural rights", formed the United States, it was the sovereign people who created the United States under the Constitution. And the people were sovereign in their individual, not collective, capacities. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments saw to that.
"Legislation for communities, as contradistinguished from individuals," Hamilton wrote with Madison in Federalist No. 20, "is subversive of the order and ends of civil polity."
It even comes to us from the Czeck Republic's first President, Václav Havel: ""The sovereignty of the community, the region, the nation, the state--any higher sovereignty, in fact--makes sense only if it is derived from the one genuine sovereignty, that is, from human sovereignty, which finds its political expression in civic sovereignty." Cato Journal
Elizabeth Price Foley, wrote that the U.S. was created on two “foundational principles”, limited government and individual sovereignty.
No individual can willingly give to the "common sovereignty" what he himself does not already possess. This brings many questions to mind concerning taxation, the use of military and police force, etc. But those belong in another debate, and they can be rectified where they are wrong, to respect common or popular sovereignty, and often individual sovereignty.
© FAMN LLC (MI)
Thursday, February 18, 2010
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."
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)
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
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.
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)