Thursday, May 31, 2012

Our Imbecilic University Elite

In today's New York Times ("all the fits are news to print"), mouthpiece of the Far Left Wing Extremists and Bible  to the anti-American Wing of the secular humanist movement (I have no beef with secular humanists - as long as they leave alone my "free exercise thereof"), Sanford Levinson, Professor of Law and Government and, no doubt Major Embarrassment to Real Texans everywhere has published an opinion piece entitled,"Our Imbecilic Constitution".  Ibecilic is correct, but only as regards Levinson.

I am not a government or legal scholar by any means, but I'm a reasonably smart guy who can "smell what you're steppin' in".  This is piled high and deep.

The author wishes us to ignore for the sake of arguement, the clauses that allowed slavery to exist until ended by the Civil War.  What he fails to understand is that the Civil War was not fought over slavery.  Ending slavery was a convenient rallying cry and little more.  The Civil War was fought over the ability of states to choose their own economic path.  Once states began to secede, it was "War".  To maintain the Union, it was necessary to fight.

But those clauses were part of a Great Compromise.  In historical context, to proclaim slaves as 3/5 of a citizen was a gigantic win for the founders.  They has been precisely zero before that.  This was a watershed.

Our professor also wants to remind us that the Electoral College hasn't been very popular for quite some time.  That is only because people do not understand that the federal government was "constituted" from the individual states.  The Electoral College ensures the sovereign states each have equal say in the selection of the President. But the esteemed lecturer wants to ignore that little tidbit.  Eliminating the Electoral College ensures all US politics is dominated by California, New York, Texas, Florida and Illinois.

He claims the "separation of powers" is nearly meaningless, disregarding that these checks and balances have worked for nearly 250 years.  He goes back to the 1912 Presidential campaign and debate about the Constitution between two Progressives (Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson), both claiming the Constitution is outdated.  he further takes a shot at Mitt Romney regarding Mormon Theology and the Constitution.  But had Levinson actually understood the founders intent, he would know that we are endowed by The Creator with certain unalienable rights.  The Bill of Rights protects those with which we are endowed.

Levinson believes that enhanced Presidential power or an ability to prevent gridlock are good "radical reforms" to the Constitution.  I cannot disagree more.  Gridlock is not a bug.  It's a feature.  The Founders knew from their own experience that government only mucks things up.  Bigger government, less Liberty, less innovation, less ability to control one's own outcome.  These are good things, not bad.

Levinson is a believer in Direct Democracy.  Direct Democracy is "mob rule".  It also does violence to the sovereignty of  the individual state.  Levinson is not just wrong here, he is dangerously wrong.  The Constitution of the United States has worked spectacularly for nearly 250 years.  Amend it, don't dump it.

Sunday, December 11, 2011

Obamacare and SCOTUS

H/T:  Bob Utecht

This is a good read.  Unintended consequences abound.  If SCOTUS overturns this part of Obamacare, it may be the wedge that rolls back the power of the Federal Government...if the states will use it.

Friday, July 22, 2011

Here is a horrible idea.  At least if you believe in the sovereignty of the States.  The author has the right conclusion, but for the wrong reasons.  States elect the President, not voters, per se.  This was intentional.  Direct election of the President eliminates another vestige of sovereignty from the individual States and strengthens a large central government.  It makes the more populous states more important in the election process and reduces the influence of smaller states.  Right now, Wisconsin (population of about 5 million) is seen as a more important state in the presidential election than, say New York (population of nearly 20 million).  New York is a pretty reliable Democrat win, but Wisconsin is needed to win the election.  Under the national Popular Vote (NPV) plan, Wisconsin becomes irrelevant while New York, California, Texas, Florida become the major prizes.

If the States are sovereign and equal, NPV is a horrible idea.

Saturday, June 18, 2011

Sunday, May 29, 2011

Money in Politics

Removing the money from the political election process has always been a worthy, if not necessarily realistic goal.  It takes money to run a campaign.  Money for ads, staff, flyers, office space.....  Two offices require more money than all others (maybe combined): President of the United States and United States Senator.  The money required makes the politician beholden to certain special interests and it happens on both sides of the aisle.

The Constitution originally had senators appointed by state legislatures.

 Section. 3.The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

But the "good government"-types wanted to be more "egalitarian" about it and drove the 17th Amendment which says:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

With that popular election comes the need for the money for those items stated above.  Senators are no longer the people who look out for their states' best interest.  They are either the uber-rich elites like the late Ted Kennedy or completely beholden to special interests.  Neither makes for "good government".

Repealing the 17th Amendment will solve this problem.  Now, it brings up a host of other problems like "cronyism", but I see that as a smaller problem than the current.

Saturday, April 9, 2011

The New Civil War?


Jesse is really good at this stuff.  "State's Rights?  Or a more perfect union?"  And of course, the Jackwagon on MSNBC doesn't challenge that comparison.  I believe we will be a "a more perfect union" when government is smaller on all levels and when government adheres to the original intent of the Constitution.

Jesse wants more jobs.  I think we all want more jobs, but the Obama administration has done nothing that has been historically shown to create new jobs.  We remain mired in a sluggish economy at the whim of those who supply our needs when we should be developing our own resources and exports.  But don't confuse Jesse with the facts.

I understand the Tenth Amendment is de facto repealed since the Civil War, but in reality it still exists in the Constitution.  If Lefties like Jesse want to repeal it, they can go through the amendment process.  The states still retain the rights not afforded the federal government and they are choosing to exercise those rights.  It will not result in a return to Jim Crow.  It will not result in segregation, a loss of (real, not "made up) women's rights.  What it might result in are better schools, more people working, fewer people enslaved to the dole and less opportunity for  the Federal Government to enter into ill-advised war.

Sunday, April 3, 2011

Larry Tribe - Constitutional....Something

Apparently, Larry believes in the "living, breathing Constitution" not The Constitution of the United States.

Look, I'm just a guy.  But I believe I can think critically and come to a logical conclusion.  Larry Tribe is wring here.  If Congress can "compel action due to public necessity", then what are the limits on Congress?  Tribes contempt for original intent is clear here.  That, or he received his sheepskins from boxes of Crackerjack.

According to Thomas E. Woods in Nullification, Madison was very clear in his view of Article I, Section 8.  If the general welfare clause granted the Federal government a general power to do anything that might advance the general welfare, why did the Constitution bother to list specific powers government could exercise?  That is, under the general welfare clause comes 17 specific powers granted to the Federal Government.  Were these suggestions by the framers?  "Hey.  When y'all get this thing goin', you can pretty much do whatever, but here are 17 things you might want to get right after."

Tribe also invokes the Commerce Clause.  Again, according to Woods, "Commerce" only meant trade or exchange, not all gainful activity.  There are no historical references from the Constitutional Convention or writings of Federalists that indicate otherwise.

Tribe is dead wrong here.  If he is not, there is no need for the Constitution as there are no limits to Federal Power.  If the Constitution is to be interpreted in a manner other than literally, there is no need for amendments.  No, the Constitution says what it means and means what it says.  Even a guy like me can figure that out.