False alarm!

I didn't think Kelly was being very fair in his analysis in his post Where there is smoke, there is fire. The following is the thread of our discussion about the post.

Craig: Geeze - you really stepped on a landmine with that post
Craig: Since when did you drift over to such a liberal position on the illegal immigration debate?
Kelly: You just don't like that I dropped Ms. Coulter's name...
Craig: Well, actually, I don't care much about her - but [your post] is pretty politically charged
Kelly: I'm not so much taking a position as expressing observations
Kelly: What's wrong with asking why we don't raise the limits?
Kelly: What's wrong with asking why we're letting the misuse of 'Amnesty' slide?
Kelly: What's wrong with pointing out that deporting millions of workers would be disastrous to the economy?
Kelly: How's that for turning the debate around?
Craig: What's wrong with asking why we don't raise the limits? Good question - I'll give you this one.
Craig: What's wrong with asking why we're letting the misuse of 'Amnesty' slide?
Craig: b/c it's not a misuse
Craig: What's wrong with pointing out that deporting millions of workers would be disastrous to the economy?
Craig: strawman
Kelly: read the Wiki page on that [i.e., Amnesty] word
Craig: I did
Kelly: I disagree about strawman
Craig: One at a time:
Kelly: but I will grant you that I'm thinking of it theoretically
Kelly: go ahead
Craig: Amnesty: what you say is true, but you can't stop there. Changing of [the] law does not rule out that it's amnesty either.
Craig: By the fact that people are given a pardon of their past crimes by the government is what makes it amnesty - in this case, to become citizens in a way that rewards their illegal acts of coming and staying here.
Craig: The change in the law is just the way that pardon is granted
Kelly: I take issue with the characterization that changing the law to allow citizenship is tantamount to a reward.
Kelly: that is false logic
Craig: Well, you can take issue all you want, it doesn't change the fact that it's true
Kelly: Think of it this way, I own a small hotel and need unskilled workers for maintenance and/or maid service. I'd like to hire people who are legal but when peak travel season hits, I'll hire whoever wants to work. If I can't fill those jobs, because of roadblocks from new legislation or tighter enforcement, I have to shutter rooms and possibly go out of business. Think of a small grower who needs cheap labor to harvest crops. What are his options? Hope Americans are willing to work for next to nothing doing manual labor? Maybe they can get workers but at a higher price. There are enough sectors of the economy that use this category of labor that it would cause a nation-wide impact. Prices would rise and inflation would go with it which means higher interest rates. Economic growth would slow to a crawl while inflation would balloon. That sounds too close to 'stagflation' for comfort.
Kelly: Now, on the "reward" logic, let me ask this. If you're speeding down the highway and the police pull you over, you expect to get a ticket and rightfully so. When the officer decides to give you a warning, is he rewarding you for speeding?
Craig: We've been through this before - the presence of the illegal underground workforce depresses wages to levels that Americans cannot afford to work at those wages
Craig: Assuming Americans won't do that work is elitist at best
Kelly: I'm not saying that Americans won't do that work
Craig: Of course prices would rise. But the illegals wouldn't be treated like slave labor either.
Craig: Where is the humanity is the status quo??
Craig: <<>>
Craig: When they let all the speeders go, that is amnesty.
Kelly: but I just realized a logical fallacy in that argument
Craig: What argument?
Kelly: We always talk about how low unemployment is right now, like 6%.
Kelly: But there is an assumption that the unemployed could work at any of the jobs available
Craig: No - reset and reorient the market to pay proper wages that aren't artificially depressed by illegal workers who are outside of the system.
Kelly: but there are industries where working out in the fields between positions would be tantamount to professional suicide
Kelly: but raising wages will cause inflation
Craig: So?
Kelly: unfortunate but true
Craig: Prices are artificially low
Kelly: I'm just saying that it is appropriate to consider realistic economic outcomes in the debate on immigration
Craig: I think people are. At least the conservatives are.
Craig: Inflation is a small price to pay to treat people humanely
Kelly: not the people who want to kick 12 million workers out of the country
Craig: and make sure they are protected
Craig: and not taken advantage of
Kelly: so now you're a democrat?
Craig: No, I'm a Christian
Craig: Nobody thinks this [i.e., deporting 12 million people out of the country] is a realistic option
Kelly: Every time I hear "But your rewarding them for their illegal act"
Craig: But they can be encouraged to go back home if ICE would crack down on Employers illegally hiring
Kelly: I can't help but think that they are advocating the undocumented workers have to leave the country before they can return and work
Craig: That is the principle
Craig: And that is not a bad thing
Kelly: So, what if they stay even when no one will hire them?
Kelly: and their family starves?
Kelly: Are we morally free of guilt because "They should have known they needed to go back home"
Craig: They would go back home - the same thing that drove them here would drive them back home.
Craig: We'd have nothing to do with the guilt or innocence - it's just the way humans are motivated.
Craig: People go where the opportunity is.
Kelly: That position advocates shrinking the economy on the matter of principle
Craig: So did abolishing slavery.
Kelly: the principle of "We can't reward them for wanting to come here and work for a better life"
Kelly: There is much support for the idea that slavery itself being an impediment to the economy
Craig: There is nothing wrong with people wanting to come here and work for a better life -
Craig: but they must do so within the legal framework we have established.
Kelly: So, why can't we raise the cap?
Craig: I have no problems with raising the caps
Craig: That would be a great thing to do
Kelly: Why isn't that an option I've heard in the debates?
Kelly: It's also the simplest solution
Craig: B/c everyone thinks "comprehensive reform" is the only option,
Kelly: Don't change any of the rules, just change the number allowed per year
Craig: and businesses don't want the illegals to come out of the underground b/c they would be forced to pay more.
Craig: That would be just fine with me
Kelly: It's "comprehensive reform" because do-gooders think they can design a better way to hand-pick new citizens
Kelly: that whole point system reminds me of the mess we have with our tax-code
Craig: Our current laws more than serve us, if they would be respected and observed
Craig: We don't need new ones
Craig: I was ecstatic when the immigration "reform" bill was killed in the Senate.
Kelly: I was too.
Kelly: So, back to my question, why has no one been more vocal about a simpler solution?
Kelly: The whole "close the border" rallying cry didn't sit well with me
Craig: As long as there is an underground workforce, Congress won't raise quotas
Kelly: I'm all for the process of law
Kelly: but I think there are too many people who never question the fairness or justice of laws
Kelly: Black/White thinking can be scary in these situations
Kelly: Throw out the baby with the bath water...
Craig: Yes, it can
Kelly: Cut off your nose to spite your face...
Craig: But there is nothing unjust about current immigration law, except that it is not enforced
Kelly: Those cliches sound like they are describing people who cling to black/white logic
Kelly: I'm actually fine with the current law and would support higher caps
Craig: I am too
Craig: and would as well
Kelly: I'm not sure what that does for the 12mil already here though
Kelly: Here is another fictional scenario:
Craig: They would go back home once the current laws are enforced through crackdowns on the Employers and the erection of an Employer Verification System
Craig: that is mandated by the 1986 law
Kelly: You drive up to the entrance to a toll-road that is 120miles long
Kelly: If you drive at the posted limit of 60 mph, you should reach the exit in 2 hours
Kelly: Now, you're in a hurry and have a fast car so you drive 120 mph and arrive in 1 hour
Kelly: If you were caught, you would be ticketed for the serious offense of speeding and you'd deserve whatever punishment the judge would throw at you. (note: tongue in cheek)
Craig: yes
Kelly: In your relief at getting their on time and not getting caught...
Kelly: You turn a corner, forgetting to use your signal, and get pulled over by the police
Kelly: When the officer approaches, he sees the toll receipt on your dash and can tell that you took 1 hour to drive 120 miles
Kelly: Here is the question:
Kelly: Can he ticket you because he knows you broke the law even though he didn't see you do it?
Kelly: Is your mere presence outside the tollway enough evidence to prove your guilt?
Craig: Is this a "What does Craig think it should be" question or "What does the current law say" question?
Kelly: Are you in danger for the rest of your life (statute-of-limitation be damned *sarcasm again*)?
Craig: Just as a preemptive - I know the parallel you're trying to construct - I don't think the analogy holds.
Kelly: Or are you in danger just for the next hour, because if you took 2 hours, you wouldn't have committed any heinous speeding.
Kelly: I want both answers. What does Craig think and what does the current law say.
Craig: You'd do better to draw a hypothetical picture to a thief breaking into a house
Kelly: I'm not interested in "But the law says this and that's all there is to say"
Craig: But I'll answer your questions, for fun.
Kelly: humor me on this one then I'll be interested to hear the house-breaking thief scenario
Craig: OK.... I don't know what the current law says.
Craig: So that leaves us with: What does Craig think?
Craig: I think the cop shouldn't ticket you unless he sees you committing the act
Craig: You're not breaking the law once he sees you
Craig: of speeding that is
Kelly: you mean unless he sees you?
Craig: No. I mean when he sees you, you're not speeding so he shouldn't be able to ticket you for that
Kelly: ah
Craig: That fits with the way I understand the law works, but I could be wrong on that.
Craig: The fact that he doesn't catch you doesn't mean you didn't break the law.
Kelly: I guess I'm in favor of a policy towards immigrants somewhat like the policy towards Cuban refugees.
Craig: what? send them back, like Elian Gonzalez?
Kelly: If you make it here without getting caught, you're fine. You're undocumented which *should* mean you can't get a job.
Kelly: If you get caught in the act, you get sent back
Craig: But the fact that such a soul is here means they are in the act of breaking the law as long as they are here
Craig: which is why your analogy doesn't hold.
Kelly: While I do believe that is possible to construct a law that does that, I no not support such a law.
Craig: a law that does what?
Kelly: I'm also not sure that that is what the current law says.
Craig: you lost me, sorry
Kelly: that your undocumented presence here is enough to prove your guilt
Craig: That is what the current law says
Craig: That is why ICE can detain someone who can't prove their legal residence here
Craig: and haul them before an Immigration judge
Kelly: What if my twin brother loses his birth certificate in a fire at the hospital and county courthouse that store it
Kelly: Now he can't prove he was born here
Kelly: The State can kick him our because he's undocumented
Craig: The State has his birth certificate on file.
Kelly: That's the copy that was destroyed
Craig: It's computerized
Kelly: a fire at the courthouse
Kelly: They have been lost before.
Kelly: My point is that the situation you describe with ICE sounds too much like 'guilty until proven innocent' for my taste
Craig: Of course it does.
Kelly: If the courthouse that stores birth certiticates burn down, then what?
Craig: They aren't stored at courthouses
Kelly: For the sake of argument, the hospital where you were born burns down too
Kelly: Let's say that they were
Craig: They are stored on disk farms that are backed up and archived
Kelly: The point is that since things like that can happen, it is not a good idea to say "Well, you prove that you should be here"
Kelly: and hold you in detention until you could
Craig: I think the 14th Amendment favors your view.
Kelly: There was a flight attendant that was arrested on charges that she committed a crime
Craig: If you are here, you are an American, you are one of us.
Kelly: the problem was she was in the air with 200 witnesses who could say otherwise
Craig: 1. she'd get a lawyer
Kelly: because the criminal stole her name, the State felt justified in arresting the Ms. "Smith" in their records
Craig: 2. the State would know if she is a citizen
Craig: 3. she'd go before a judge on habeas corpus grounds
Kelly: Even with a lawyer it took her weeks
Kelly: she did go before a judge
Kelly: the feds said, we have the right person
Kelly: It was a case of mistaken ID because the criminal stole it
Craig: 4. she should sue the State when she gets out for wrongful imprisonment.
Kelly: the innocent can't say "I'm not Ms. Smith" because she is.
Craig: But she can say I'm not the Ms. Smith you're looking for
Craig: A person's ID is established more than by just a name
Kelly: But the Feds never do anything wrong, it's wrong to accuse them of it or to insinuate that the good federal employees never make mistakes
Kelly: *sarcasm again*
Craig: You Statist!
Kelly: hah!
Kelly: I'm glad to hear about the 14th
Kelly: but Bush has done such a good job making Terrorists such a bogey man that we should ignore our rights
Craig: says who?
Kelly: They create an environment where it becomes difficult to question their actions
Kelly: Think Rumsfeld and his 'voting for a Democrat supports Terrorists'
Craig: So it's up to the People and the courts to push back on that
Kelly: which is why I'm hoping Congress grows a back-bone on the illegal wiretap subpoenas
Craig: Me too
Kelly: From one point of view, the Executive branch is 'The State' while the Legislative is 'The People'
Craig: Interesting analysis.
Craig: And what are the courts?
Craig: God?
Kelly: with the Judicial being a neutral third party
Kelly: that depends on whether you're asking DeLay...
Kelly: So, I know it galls some people that there are illegal immigrants in the country
Kelly: but is it not possible to find forgiveness in our hearts?
Kelly: and welcome them to the most wonderful country on Earth (note: no sarcasm)
Craig: "The hiils are aliive with the sound of muuuusic"
Craig: la la la la
Kelly: While it may be true that their presence has driven down wages
Kelly: It can be said that things would not instantly get better if they all went home
Kelly: Since they are already here, let's share the bounty of opportunity
Craig: Oh, I am certain things would become very hard for a time.
Kelly: We have more than enough to go around
Craig: Tell Parkland that
Kelly: which is proven by the fact that their presence has not make unemployment spike like so many other countries with large immigrant populations
Kelly: Parkland would have that problem regardless. Maybe to a lesser degree
Craig: I doubt it
Kelly: We'll always have resource allocation issues
Craig: At least it wouldn't be exacerbated
Kelly: So, unemployment is low, inflation is low, interest rates are low.
Craig: wages are depressed
Craig: there is an underground workforce
Kelly: Kicking out 12 Million people wouldn't make our 6% unemployment go down significantly
Craig: Yes
Kelly: but I'd bet that inflation and interest rates would skyrocket
Craig: Yes, I am sure you're right
Kelly: So, we like being the melting pot of the world
Kelly: but we only want to share with a small number of immigrants a year
Kelly: and we're willing to put our economic health at risk because we believe that the undocumented don't deserve the opportunity because they 'cheated'?
Craig: You make that sound like it's evil.
Craig: We accept the number of immigrants Congress says. The others should wait their turn
Kelly: Hence the 'cut off your nose to spite your face' comment
Craig: Just because they cheated to get here doesn't make them saints, or obligate the rest of us
Kelly: that sounds good in theory but now let's talk about reality
Kelly: I agree
Craig: You assume that is cutting off your nose
Craig: We've heard all this before, you know
Craig: It's more than just about the 12M here -
Kelly: how does letting them stay and continuing to earn a living a pay taxes obligate the rest of us?
Craig: we tried this amnesty plan before in the 80s
Craig: and it only encouraged more to come
Kelly: You can't blame the 80's amnesty for this.
Craig: Either the immigration laws mean something or we should just open the borders to any and all
Kelly: Blame poor enforcement
Craig: It's [the 80's amnesty bill] directly responsible
Kelly: Poor foresight
Kelly: Why do people resist the idea of raising the cap?
Kelly: The Dem's argument comes straight from organized labor
Kelly: "They'll depress wages!" is their cry
Kelly: I hate to break it to them but the cow's already out of the barn
Kelly: People who cry about amnesty being a reward are doing one of two things
Craig: 1. Concerned about the law
Craig: 2. Fair and humane
Kelly: They're saying that they feel so strongly about the principle of the rule of law that they're willing to sacrifice their economic well-being
Craig: yes - as were the abolitionists
Craig: The slave holders wanted to keep slavery around in the name of economic progress and health
Kelly: Which is all well and good (except the doubts I have about the lurking xenophobes)
Kelly: but what they're also saying is they want others to make that same sacrifice. Those others may not feel quite so strongly about the issue
Kelly: Is it fair for the, sometimes stridently, vocal minority to make that decision for everyone?
Craig: Then those others need to do what it takes to restore humanity to the people being treated as slave labor
Kelly: The abolitionists may be a good example
Craig: Right and there is more than one reason to uphold the law. If it's right and just, yes!
Craig: How about the Civil Rights Movement?
Kelly: but I think that they were willing but their sacrifice was unneeded but they didn't know that.
Craig: They were asking the rest of the country to change its behavior and attitude based on what is right and just
Kelly: The CRM was about humanity
Craig: So is this
Kelly: People crying about amnesty are not putting the principle of humanity at the top of their priority list
Craig: ??
Kelly: Kick'em out, I don't care if they starve in Mexico.
Craig: How do you know that [i.e., their motivation]?
Craig: You can't divine their motives
Craig: Who said that??
Kelly: They don't care what the effects will be.
Kelly: Ok, I'm only putting words in the mouths of the most extreme ones
Craig: You make a lot of accusations that you have no way of backing up with objective facts or quotes
Kelly: (that's more fun anyway)
Kelly: and the politicians in power do otherwise?
Craig: But you're not a politician in power. Ha!
Kelly: Even if you give them a fact, they'll spin it like a top
Kelly: Can we agree that facts and politicians aren't very good neighbors?
Craig: Isn't that what a politician calls "work".
Kelly: heh
Craig: For many that is true
Craig: Not all
Kelly: A politician who is willing to bend that fact is less concerned with accurate facts than they are perception of facts
Kelly: Where do you see the immigration debate being about being humane?
Craig: I see enforcing the current laws as humane to dry up the illegal labor market. Have you seen how undocumented workers are treated by some businesses. Third world and salve labor conditions.
Craig: It all needs to be brought out to the light of day
Kelly: ah, I see where you're coming from now.
Craig: There is nothing humane about the current state of affairs
Kelly: listen to understand...
Craig: yes
Kelly: but that doesn't apply to all undocumented workers
Kelly: There are some that would like to be here legally but we've put so many roadblocks up that they might as well feel like we don't want them here.
Kelly: it's almost snobbery
Craig: You'd have to get to specifics before I could agree or disagree
Craig: As a broad brushed statement, it doesn't stand.
Kelly: I don't care that you work, pay taxes, raise a family, own your home. If you aren't documented, you don't deserve to be here
Craig: yes
Kelly: So we kick everyone out because a portion of them are being treated inhumanely?
Kelly: what of the ones that are being treated fine?
Craig: Why do you keep trying to frame the debate as "kicking everyone out."
Kelly: Are we punishing them because we're trying to be humane to the abused ones?
Kelly: My apologies
Kelly: It's the conservative line that has stuck in my head
Kelly: It's what I hear when 'Amnesty' comes up
Craig: I am not aware of a single conservative that has advocated the position "to kick them out"
Craig: Everyone agrees that that is not doable. It can't be done.
Kelly: When I've heard about various compromises
Kelly: that provide ways for undocumented immigrants to become either legal or even citizens...
Craig: That only means conservatives don't want to validate their illegal activity
Kelly: the opposition characterizes the compromise as "Amnesty" and unacceptable
Kelly: that's why I wonder about the vehement response from those conservatives.
Kelly: I wonder whether they're hiding some other agenda
Craig: They're mads b/c amnesty was done in the 80s and it didn't work
Craig: We're still dealing with the same problem
Kelly: Do they really feel that anything except 'kicking them all out' is just another amnesty?
Craig: yes
Kelly: or are they hiding racial or xenophobic motives?
Craig: I don't think they have racist or xenophobic motives, but what if they did?
Craig: Does it matter?
Craig: The principle of upholding and honoring the law is still front and center.
Kelly: and since they are so vocal, my perception is that they represent those who don't want reform
Craig: That's just an unfair association on your part
Craig: The vocal anti-war crowd is not representative of the majority of people who want to hold the President accountable for the debacle in Iraq.
Kelly: Their motives are important because their intent for support or opposition should be taken into account when deciding the worth of their argument
Kelly: somewhat like, consider the source
Craig: Their argument stands on its own merits
Craig: Not the motivation of the argument's supporters.
Kelly: Right but they refuse to let others speak sometimes. As if disagreeing is the same as being disloyal.
Kelly: "I'm going to keep shouting my position until everyone agrees with me!"
Craig: That's just bad manners....
Kelly: It's like they don't want other positions to be heard
Kelly: are they so afraid of not being in the majority?
Craig: If the abolitionists were motivated by wanting to send all the non-whites to Africa, did it dilute the rightness of their argument to abolish slavery?
Kelly: You're onto something there
Kelly: but it's not the only reason to abolish slavery.

Where there is Smoke, there is Fire

The recent national immigration firestorm may be dying down but I'm left with some questions.

Why is providing a path to legal status or citizenship considered "Amnesty" by some parties in the immigration debate? Consulting Wikipedia tells us that changing a law does not equate to "Amnesty". Is this true concern for the rule of law or is this a smoke-screen used by xenophobes to feed the fire?

Here are some observances:
The sheer size of the group, an estimated 12 million undocumented workers, tells us several things.
- there are plenty of low-wage jobs to go around
- they keep coming, sometimes braving death
- our economy would be seriously hurt if they went home; who seriously thinks that all those jobs would be filled by US citizens were we even capable of deporting the entire group.

The fact that so many are willing to risk so much just for the opportunity means that we have something of extreme value. The fact that so many are here working and raising families means there is an abundance of opportunity in this country.

It's like we're a kid whose father owns a candy store but we insist on keeping our classmates out because we want all of the candy to ourselves despite the fact that we'll never be able to eat it all ourselves.

So, maybe we'll never agree on what to do with the 'illegals' already here. Kick 'em out and trigger a recession or let 'em stay and watch the conservatives have a conniption fit. I can just see Ann Coulter having a seizure and babbling on about ".. but they're illegals!"

We have an embarrassment of riches. We have so much economic growth that we can't fill all the jobs with our own citizens. What options does that leave us?

Problem: Too many jobs
Solution 1: fire the illegals and hope more citizens want to work backbreaking low-wage jobs
Solution 2: let them stay and pay a fine or otherwise become documented; this generates an undeserved whirlwind of "Amnesty"
Solution 3: send all the extra jobs overseas; ok, maybe we've finally found the theoretical limit to offshoring jobs, this is illogical for harvesting crops or landscaping

and the most overlooked?

Solution 4: raise the cap on the number of immigrants allowed into the country per year

If the supply of jobs is so high and the demand for them is even higher, why keep letting so few in? Our current policy is akin to rationing water during a rainstorm but making it illegal to use what is freely falling to our feet.

Of what are we afraid?

The Salve of Time

In his book Constitutional Reform and Effective Government, James L. Sundquist considers constitutional reforms that would enable the branches of the U.S. government to work together more effectively, particularly the political branches - the Senate, the House and the president. His premises are that (1) the constitutional structure of our government encourages conflict and debate and this can be bad, but worse, (2) the cycle of our elections leaves our government open to debilitating crisis. One of his less-radical proposed solutions is to add some form of "safety valve" available to the president and the Congress in the event that they are hopelessly deadlocked on some major issue or the president is so unpopular that keeping him in office is detrimental to the country. After exploring several alternatives, Sundquist settles on giving the president or a constitutional majority (a majority of total membership) of either the House or the Senate the power to call special elections, in which the total membership of both houses of Congress and the presidency would be up for election for full terms. The idea is that this would give one of the three players the option to throw everything to the People so that Washington could be "reset," thereby resolving the issue causing deadlock (either disagreement on an issue or an unpopular or ineffective president) and enabling the government to return to effective collaboration.

Part of me is drawn to this type of proposal. It has a certain resemblance to the safety valve available in parliamentary systems in which the legislature can hold a vote of no-confidence in the Government, in which case the government ministers must resign or the head of state must dissolve the legislature and call for new elections. If a Government has become ineffective or a prime minister unpopular, then there is a mechanism to relieve the pressure and let the People speak through new elections.

This is the type of mechanism that Sundquist is looking to apply to the American context. Neverthless, a larger part of me doubts the wisdom of such a proposal. Time is the safety valve that the Founders built into the American constitutional system. With the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate elected every two years, elections are close enough together to (theoritically) keep our representatives and senators accountable and responsive to the People. If it be a mid-term election, the People can give the president more power if they approve of his job performance by giving him more supporters in Congress, or the People can diminish and cripple the president if they disapprove of his job performance by giving the Opposition the majority in Congress, as happened in the elections last November. A congressional Opposition majority can do a lot to thwart an ambitious president (e.g., derail his domestic priorities or defund his foreign initiatives). The worst that can result is an ineffective government, which I do not think is necessarily a bad thing.

If there be any weakness with the American system, however, it is the possibility of a bad, ineffective, or unpopular president remaining in power for two or three years until the next presidential election. Short of an impeachment (which this country sees as a traumatic, destabilizing, debilitating act) or the provisions of the Twenty-fifth Amendment for removing a disabled president, there is no way to force a president from office for "maladministration" (however that term is defined). This design serves a purpose of allowing the president time to govern without constantly being beset by looming elections. If a president truly needs to be forcibly removed from office, I can't think of a situation that impeachment or the Twenty-fifth Amendment wouldn't cover. As noted above, maladministration can still be countered by giving the Opposition the majority in Congress at the mid-term election or voting the president out of office at the next presidential election.

If it is only deadlock between the president and Congress that needs to be relieved, only three years at a maximum (assuming a president usually gets most of what he wants during his first year in office) would pass until the next election. Many people point to the inability to remove President Bush from office now as "proof" that some sort of mechanism is needed to force his early exit, but the People elected him to a second term in 2004. He also still retains a base of support that enables him to effectively govern and build political coalitions. At some point, the People deserve the Government they elected, and they have to live with it.

It would seem that proposals such as Sundquist's calling of special elections would introduce ineffective government through the constant threat of new elections. It would seem that such a proposal would lead to debilitation if special elections are called more often than Sundquist thinks (i.e., once or twice in a century). Politicians would be constantly campaigning, lea ing little or no time for actual governance. Democracies in Italy and Israel are notoriously unstable because the Government does not have the distance necessary from the People to allow it to do unpopular things that are necessary from time to time when governing is necessary.

If a president needs to be removed, Congress should take the political risk necessary to impeach him. Or the provisions of the Twenty-fifth Amendment should be envoked. Otherwise, allow the salve of time to work its magic.

Legislation is...

Revision 2:
Laws define the borders that society has staked around its principles. If mores were cattle, legislation is the fence that protects them from the untamed wild.

Revision 1:
Laws define the borders that society has staked around its principles. If mores were cattle, legislation is the fence that limits their range.

Original:
Legislation is the embodiment of the borders society has staked around is principles. If moors were cattle, legislation is the fence that defines the limits of their range.
--Kelly French

Proposed Amendment #3: Balanced-Budget Veto Amendment

The Text:

Section 1. For purposes of this article, the budget of the United States for any given fiscal year shall be deemed unbalanced whenever the total amount of the debt of the United States held by the public at the close of such fiscal year is greater than the total amount of the debt of the United States held by the public at the close of the preceding fiscal year.

Section 2. If the budget of the United States is unbalanced for any given fiscal year, the President may separately approve, reduce, or disapprove any monetary amounts in any legislation that appropriates or authorizes the appropriation of any money drawn from the Treasury, other than money for the legislative and judicial branches of the United States Government, and which is presented to the President during the next annual session of Congress.

Section 3. Any legislation that the President approves with changes pursuant to section 2 of this article shall become law as modified. The President shall return with objections those portions of the legislation containing reduced or disapproved monetary amounts to the House where such legislation originated, which may then, in the manner prescribed under section 7 of Article I for bills disapproved by the President, separately reconsider those reduced or disapproved monetary amounts.

Section 4. The Congress shall have the power to implement this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 5. This article shall take effect on the first day of the next annual session of Congress following its ratification.

Section 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by Congress.

The Problem:
After a brief period of budget surpluses in the late 1990's, Congress returned to excessive deficits in this first decade of the twenty-first century. This mostly uninterrupted pattern of budget deficits are fueled by large-scale fear of tax hikes and congressional unwillingness to cut spending and pork, and it has become apparent that this is an institutional problem. The only constitutional check to control congressional-spending binges is the presidential veto, but it has proven too blunt and clumsy of an instrument. The item veto is a solution that has worked with some degree of effectiveness at the State level, but even its potential impact on budget discipline would be minimal without some sort of incentive built in for Congress to impose this needed discipline on its own.


The Explanation:
Rather than attempt to explain the need for this amendment, I'll defer to this excellent analysis offered by the CATO Institute.

Call Me Oedipus

The Virginia Tech shooting that transpired on Monday, April 16th 2007 is as tragic as any the Greek poets left us. A greater tragedy is the response it has evoked across the country. Blaming the availability of guns or the exposure to violence are the whipping boys of the demagogues crying out for quick action. The urge to 'do something' overwhelms society's psyche, and we search for solutions to the ever-present questions events like this one force us to face.

We have a need to make sense of the world. When a senseless thing happens such as a school shooting, we have no rational way to respond, so we respond irrationally.

Society asks rhetorical questions seeking answers to the unknown; "Why me?", "Why did this happen?", and others find their way to our lips. The questions that are the most telling, to me, are "What can we do to prevent this from happening again?" and "What drove this person to commit such a heinous act?" They are not the same question. The former asks us to focus on the symptom while the latter asks us to focus on the cause. Neither is easily answered and when our leaders are judged by the perception of action, they'll gravitate to the the easiest and quickest cure available. (aside- It's as if amputating the offending limb will cure the leprosy patient. It might but how many 'cures' will they withstand?)

We fear that which we can not control and thus we seek to control that which we fear using logic that would make Möbius proud. Real control, like over human-nature, is like unrefined gold ore; it's difficult to find, takes a lot of work to produce, and comes with a large price-tag. The appearance of control is like fools-gold; plentiful, cheap, and available right now.

Politicians become like snake-oil peddlers. They don't know or even care if their product will do what they claim, only that their marks believe it will. When we go looking for gold, maybe the sticker-shock convinces us to compromise, maybe we rationalize, "The nice guy gave me a deal and sold it to me for 10-cents on the dollar!". Whatever the reason, when we keep paying full-price for fools-gold, not only do we deserve what get, we'll never run out of people willing to separate us from our money.

How we respond is a great measure of the change engendered by society in itself.

Congress vs. SCOTUS

...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...
--Preamble of the U.S. Constitution

It is possible that conflicting principles are embedded within the Constitution itself. In any given case, securing the blessings of liberty for both ourselves and future generations might be mutually exclusive. For example, today's economic growth potentially compromises tomorrow's environment. Or fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq sacrifices the freedom and lives of today's soldiers for the chance of a more peaceful world tomorrow.

The following are notes from a brainstorming session that Kelly and I had last week that started with thinking about the proper constitutional roles for Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) and ended with the above observation (which is also the premise of our paper The Governance Imperative).




What of when SCOTUS is wrong? When SCOTUS invalidates a law but is wrong, no harm is done since Congress can repass it.

When SCOTUS uses wording from the Constitution, it's rulings are generally accepted.

When SCOTUS erects its own language and standards and inferred rights, even as "logical" extensions of constitutional principles, conflict ensues.

The Constitution values certain principles, which we have gleaned from the Preamble:

• peace


• welfare


• liberty


• posterity


• justice

The purview of Congress is to make relative value judgments regarding these principles, balancing the importance and weight of each of these in the law-making process.

It is the role of the Supreme Court to oversee this balancing act, ensuring that Congress remains within the bounds of the constitutional application of governmental power (fairness).

When Congress or the Supreme Court allow these principles to get out of whack or outside of constitutional limits, society is plunged into the realm of the inhumane.

Some of the principles that Congress has to consider in this grand juggling act are, in some instances, diametrically opposed:

• safety vs. freedom


• posterity vs. liberty


• transcendence vs. immanence

The logical flaw of signing statements

If the Administration can choose how to interpret a law through issuing signing statements, there's no difference between this and the power to ignore existing laws that were in place before the President came into office. The fact that a law is in the process of being signed when the President declares his intent to ignore it, is irrelevant. If the President has the power to ignore this kind of law, he has the power to ignore laws that were in effect when he took office.

The part the executive branch plays in the constitutional balance of powers is in the need for any Administration to set priorities in the laws that it enforces. Resources are finite and must be rationed. The Clinton Administration put more importance on civil rights laws than the Bush Administration, which puts more emphasis on enforcing child pornography laws. But the constitutional charge of the President is to make sure all laws are faithfully administered; he has no power to ignore or interpret.

Limitations of the law

The other day, I was explaining to Craig why helmet and seatbelt laws rub me the wrong way. In terms of expressions of power, it's pretty minor and as a tool to shape behavior, it seems to work. It is one thing to allow health insurance companies to charge higher rates to those who choose to smoke. With seatbelt/helmet laws we've used the power of the state to enforce a preferred behavior. When asked why the State should care whether I wear a helmet, the response is basically that the State has to clean up the mess if I do something irresponsible. Does that mean that the State will eventually make eating poorly illegal? Think of all the health care costs that come from obesity. Where will it end? Legislating tooth brushing and flossing? That may seem silly, but it is an expression of a principle on the proper use of power.

Using the law to enforce a moral behavior, like wearing a helmet, rather than to prohibit an immoral act, like murder, is where we start to cross the line into the inappropriate use of governmental power.

Proposed Amendment #2: Repeal the 17th Amendment

The Text

Section One. The Seventeenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section Two. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, selected by the legislature of each State. Each Senator shall serve a six-year term and may be re-appointed. Each Senator shall have one vote.

Section Three. Senators are subject to removal by the State Legislature. Removal of a Senator requires a majority of each House of the State Legislature.

Section Four. Congress is precluded from enacting any legislation affecting the senatorial selection process. Each State Legislature shall enact rules and procedures, consistent with this section, related to the selection and removal of Senators.

Section Five. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

The Problem
The Constitution originally provisioned for state legislatures to select each state's two senators. The idea was for the Senate to represent the interests of states as states, not simply as another chamber representing the same constituency as the House of Representatives. The Federalist Papers speak time and again of checking the passions of men and balancing the branches of government by using competing interests and differing power sources to prevent one group from gaining domination. A Senate that was, in essence, composed of ambassadors from the several States provided a balance in the deliberation of federal legislation and foreign policy because the origin and composition of its membership was different from that of the House.

Corruption in the senatorial selection process and deadlocked legislatures led to states going years without representation in the Senate and the perception that the Senate did not represent the interests of the People. Agitation for changing the way Senators were selected grew throughout the 19th century, culminating with the Progressive Movement of the early twentieth century and the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1913. Direct election of U.S. senators was instituted, removing the place of the States in the federal scheme (left only with the chance to lobby, negotiate, or sue) and effectively turning the Senate into an extension of the House of Representatives.

There are several areas impacted by the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment. I will review each of them in turn, but the affected areas as I see them are as follows:

• Nature of the Senate


• federalism


• Campaign finance

Nature of the Senate
Since the Senate derives its base of power and support from the People, the Senate is no longer "a salutary check on the government" (Federalist 62) because senators are not independent of the passions of the times or the direct influence of the public. A senatorial selection process driven by state legislatures in careful deliberation and cool contemplation has a better chance of producing a Senate of the brightest minds and most talented people from all segments of society than do yet another round of direct elections driven by the same old political process. Politics has an important place in our democratic republic, but so does competent thought, careful debate, and independent questioning of the prevailing opinion.

Witness,

• The Senate no longer considers the constitutional appropriateness of legislation, affecting the balance of power between Washington, D.C., and the states and arguably leading to a more active Supreme Court, which finds itself ruling on legislation that probably never should have been passed;


• Rather than the Senate serving as a judicious, independent and legislatively empowered investigative body, independent commissions (e.g., BRAC - the Base Closure and Realignment Commission), study groups (e.g., the Iraq Study Group or 9/11 Commission), and the recently-lapsed independent counsel law are needed when our government needs to transcend politics.

The Senate is effectively a mirror of the House, passing legislation based on its popularity and providing no thought that transcends the petty Talking Points of the day.


Federalism
Since the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment, the growth of the federal government has been exponential and all pretenses of a Congress with specific, enumerated powers as outlined in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution have been thrown out the window. The "necessary and proper" clause is the constitutional limit of Congress's power, and the definition and scope of this clause are expanded with the needs of the country. There is no longer a structural component of the federal system that is in place to push back on the expansion of federal power and to represent and support the place of the States in the federal system.

A healthy federal system facilitates several things:

• local issues and concerns are managed and decided by local jurisdictions, leaving federal energy free to focus on more national concerns and priorities (witness the manner in which abortion has entangled presidential politics and judicial nominations);


• power is diffused and not concentrated;


• proving grounds for future national leaders among state and local governments;


• competition among the States, encouraging innovation and creative problem-solving;

Beyond the implementation of more parchment barriers in the form of Article I, Section 8 or continued reliance on the shifting sands of the Supreme Court, a structural mechanism to help define the shifting horizons of federal and state power would reinstate federalism as an active, primary part of the legislative process and renew appreciation for its importance to the American scheme of governance.

Campaign finance
The direct election of senators arguably removed the problem of bribery (at least from among the ranks of the state legislators), but now that senators campaign among a wider electorate, the costs of running senatorial campaigns have sky-rocketed. Among elected positions in America, Senate campaigns are second in expense only to presidential campaigns (which are beset with their own issues and problems).


The Explanation
Section One. The Seventeenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
This section simply repeals the provisions of the Seventeenth Amendment and returns the senatorial selection process to the original constitutional prescription.

Section Two. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, selected by the legislature of each State. Each Senator shall serve a six-year term and may be re-appointed. Each Senator shall have one vote.
The language of this section echoes that of the original selection provisions in Article 1, Section 3. The only additional clause is a specific grant of power to the state legislatures of reappointment of a senator. This is designed to be coupled with the removal clause of the next section to make clear that a U.S. senator would serve at the pleasure of the state legislature that sent her. A senator's primary job in the U.S. Senate would be to represent the interests of her State, as a State.

Section Three. Senators are subject to removal by the State Legislature. Removal of a Senator requires a majority of each House of the State Legislature.
The provisions of this section are an addition to the language of the original constitutional scheme. Under this section, a state legislature would be able to remove a senator that it was dissatisfied with or just wanted to replace before the end of the senator's six-year term. As long as the majority of each state legislative chamber voted to recall the senator, the senator's removal would be final and not subject to repeal.

Section Four. Congress is precluded from enacting any legislation affecting the senatorial selection process. Each State Legislature shall enact rules and procedures, consistent with this section, related to the selection and removal of Senators.
In 1866 Congress responded to problems of state legislature bribery and deadlock by passing a law regulating the manner in which states selected their senators. The legislation required that each chamber of the state legislature meet separately and select a senator in open vote. If the houses of the legislature did not select the same nominee, the chambers were then to meet in joint session every day until a senator was selected by majority vote.

Ironically, the congressional act exasperated the very problems it was enacted to solve. Perhaps the requirement for a joint session frustrated the constitutional principle of checks and balances. Or perhaps requiring a majority vote rather than a plurality instantiated an impossible standard. Whatever the cause, the cases of deadlocked legislatures, accusations of bribery, and incidents of lost state representation in the Senate increased markedly after 1866. Congressional meddling toppled the system of senatorial selection that worked relatively well before the Civil War.

This section is included in this proposed amendment to avoid the temptation in Congress to fix every problem in American society through the passage of a new law. Even if state legislatures are deadlocked or beset with bribery and corruption, it is one of the things that should be left to the state legislatures to work out themselves. After all, it is the State itself that would suffer from a loss of senatorial representation, and it would be state legislators who broke bribery laws or committed corruption who would face jail time if proven guilty in a court of law. Let the political and judicial processes apply the pressure needed to move past these problems.

Section Five. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
This last section is in place to facilitate transition in the case that this amendment is ratified as part of the Constitution.

Other resources

• Democratizing the Constitution
  
• FindLaw Forum: Should the 17th Amendment be repealed?
  
• Repeal the 17th Amendment blog

Asking the wrong questions. Again.

SCOTUSblog reports on in the case of Medellin v. Texas (06-984) and arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court over whether the president has the power to dictate the outcome of state judicial proceedings based on U.S. treaty obligations. The Fifth Circuit and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the highest state court in Texas for criminal cases) both ruled that the President does not have authority to direct state courts to follow a ruling by the International Court of Justice. Lyle Dennison of SCOTUSblog writes: "In an amicus filing in the case of Medellin v. Texas (06-984), the government called for reversal of a Texas state court ruling that Bush did not have the power to ensure that state courts complied with the international tribunal's [World Court's] decision on the rights of foreign nationals arrested and prosecuted within the U.S. for crimes here."

The Administration is arguing that "the Texas ruling will undermine the President's authority to determine 'how the United States will comply with its treaty obligations.'" Their theory is that the treaty power trumps any federalism concerns.

My concern is that the Administration is, once again, building a strawman argument. Of course treaty obligations trump issues of federalism. But this is not the point that should be argued before the Supreme Court. The true question is whether the executive branch can dictate to the judicial branch. If someone asked if the president could tell the U.S. Supreme Court how to decide one of its cases, the questioner would be laughed out of the room. It sounds absurd because it is.

The judicial branch is an independent branch of government, separate from the executive power. The fact that in this case the judicial branch is that of an independent state only adds to the reasons why the Administration's arguments here are patently ridiculous.

Proposed Amendment #1: War Powers Amendment

The Text
Sect. 1. The President, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, shall not engage in any war without the consent of the Congress, except in cases of rebellion or invasion, and the danger is so imminent as not to admit of a delay till the Congress can be consulted.

Sect. 2. The President shall periodically report to the Congress on the status of troop deployments and hostilities in which United States Armed Forces are involved, as well as on their scope and duration, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.

Sect. 3. Men 18 years of age shall give two years of service to the military branch of their choice or to the peace corps, but acts of conscription beyond this are prohibited unless the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall have been explicitly suspended in accordance with this Constitution.

Sect. 4. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The Problem
The question of going to war is a grave concern, which involves the entire nation and can potentially alter every aspect of society, as did the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and World War II. As they play out and unfold, wars that were once popular can become unpopular and deeply divide the populace, as have the Vietnam War and the Iraq War. For these reasons, the Founding Fathers envisioned Congress occupying a central role in determining questions of war and peace and foreign policy.

While British constitutional practice up to the eighteenth century viewed foreign policy and war-making authority to be the prerogative of the crown, the Founders extended their desire for checks and balances and separation of power to matters of war and sought to keep the United States out of unpopular, divisive and unnecessary wars by giving the people's representatives a role in the decision-making process.

Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution gives the Congress the power:

• To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;


• To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;


• To provide and maintain a Navy;


• To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;


• To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;


• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia,...

In contrast, Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution provides that the President "shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." So the balance between competing interests is set. The President commands the Armed Forces of the United States, but Congress must fund the military for there to be Armed Forces for the President to command. The President has the ability to quickly respond to military crises, but the Congress must approve a state of war because war changes the legal footing upon which the country operates. The President conducts and controls the day-to-day operation of a war, but the Congress makes the law and rules governing the use of military forces.

Checks and balances are not always convenient, however, and Presidents and Congresses, particularly since the mid-20th century, have conspired to alter the constitutional balance of war powers. With rare exceptions, Congress has increasingly been reluctant to take the possible political heat required to fulfill its constitutional war powers. Rather than a partner in making decisions of war, Congress has become a de facto rubber stamp of Administration actions, passing "authorizations for the use of force" or, worse yet, toothless non-binding resolutions. Only two instances in the past sixty years come to mind in which Congress acted to cut funding to influence U.S. policy in a war situation: in the early 1970's to end the Vietnam War and in the 1980's to end U.S. aid to the Contras in Nicaragua.

In addition to Congress's abrogation of constitutional authority, Presidents have worked to increase their own constitutional power by playing semantic games. Rather, than war in Korea, President Truman engaged in "police actions" under the authority of the United Nations Security Council. LBJ fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin Incident to move Congress to pass a resolution, which the Johnson Administration subsequently used as the legal authority it needed to escalate American involvement in Vietnam. In the wake of the Vietnam War, Congress showed a rare moment of backbone and passed the War Powers Act in 1973, which forbids prolonged military operations without a congressional declaration or resolution of war. Nevertheless, Presidents have repeatedly refused to acknowledge the constitutionality of the Act.

As a consequence, Congress and the executive branch have settled into a new "understanding" that has generally held since the early 1980's; the President is free to use the military wherever in the world he sees fit, so long as he obtains a congressional resolution for "long-term operations" (a rather vague term whose meaning can shift with the circumstances), aka, a war. The underlying problems which have led to this new balance of power are easy to see:

1. In this computerized age with ICBM's and atomic warheads, it is foolish not to maintain a standing army, a situation that the Founders thought dangerous to liberty;
2. Congress is filled with career politicians who are too concerned about "political fallout" to stand up to challenge or shut down presidential military ventures and represent the interests of the people;
3. The lines between the executive and legislative functions are blurring, and too many people view the Congress as a "rubber stamp" to Administration policy, much as it would be if we were set up as a parliamentary system of government;
4. Language has evolved over the past two centuries so that the constitutional language that talks about war is no longer comprehensive enough. There are military activities short of war which are simply not covered by the Constitution, and Letters of Marque and Reprisal are anachronisms that are no longer relevant; and
5. While Congress currently has the power to "declare war," some supporters of presidential power argue that this is different from "making war," which they say is reserved to the President as Commander-in-Chief.

The Explanation
The proposed war powers amendment herein presented would not solve all of these problems. For example, a congressional term limits amendment might be worth considering to address Problem 2. However, it is clear that the language of the Constitution should be updated to cover modern-day realities of the interaction between the executive and legislative branches. A section-by-section analysis of the proposed amendment will outline which of these problems can be addressed if the war powers amendment was ratified.

Sect. 1. The President, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, shall not engage in any war without the consent of the Congress, except in cases of rebellion or invasion, and the danger is so imminent as not to admit of a delay till the Congress can be consulted.

This amendment does not alter any of the existing war powers. Congress still funds the military and its operations. This power is in line with the general principle that the legislature controls the purse. The President is still the Commander-in-Chief. In principle, this is an obvious executive action and requires the accountability, energy and efficient decision-making the President has at his disposal. It is simply not possible to conduct a war by committee, least of all by Congress.

However, the brake that the Founders put in place to slow the country's entry into war has worn down to nothing and needs to be reassessed. The language of section 1 is meant to remove any distinction between "make war" and "declare war." Formally declaring war seems to be an old-fashioned idea these days, and sending troops onto the battle field is the act that makes a war - not a congressionally-approved declaration. This section seeks to make clear that however war is "made," the President cannot do it without the express consent of Congress. The last clauses of the section attempt to make provision for emergency situations in which delay and consultation would prove disastrous to the nation, but even this should be reserved for extraordinary situations in which congressional consultation would be sought as soon as humanly possible (facilitated by Section 2).

Sect. 2. The President shall periodically report to the Congress on the status of troop deployments and hostilities in which United States Armed Forces are involved, as well as on their scope and duration, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.

This section implements, in principle, the reporting provisions of the current War Powers Act. The first section focuses on wars of the traditional sense in an effort to retain the President's ability to respond to situationd that require quick, decisive action. This second section, however, requires reporting for any type of military operation whatsoever (arguably excepting training exercises and war games). The idea is that initial and periodic presidential reporting to the Congress will keep the state of the war front-and-center of the American political discussion. It will also work to keep the Administration above-board in the execution of the war, bringing the conduct of the war into the light of day. Corruption and incompetence are too great a temptation if accountability is removed from the equation.

Sect. 3. Men 18 years of age shall give two years of service to the military branch of their choice or to the peace corps, but acts of conscription beyond this are prohibited unless the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall have been explicitly suspended in accordance with this Constitution.

This provision requires every 18-year old male to give two years of military or peace corps service, but beyond this, limits the circumstances in which a draft can be instituted. While this does not directly address war powers imbalances, it would work to change the way Americans look at war. The populace would be more educated in military matters and would have a more direct stake in what our political leaders did with the military - men through direct service and women because they would probably know several people (fathers, brothers, husbands, sons - even other women who voluntarily enlisted) in the military. In addition, limiting the availability of the draft and, by extension, limiting the size of the military, Congress and the President would, in theory, be more cautious about committing the limited resources of the Armed Forces. War would truly be the last resort to commit the precious resources of the military. Of course, this theory is arguable, at best, since this has proved to be a hindrance in committing the overwhelming forces we needed in 2003-2005 to subdue Iraq and defeat the insurgency there. In any case, limiting the draft would still work to protect the people's civil liberties and to limit the power of politicians. Only a situation so dire that would permit the suspension of habeas corpus would be a situation in which the institution of the draft would be constitutionally permissible.

Sect. 4. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

This section is the obligatory clause that gives Congress the explicit power to implement the provisions of this amendment. Without this, future Presidents would undoubtedly continue to rely on confusion and obfuscation to skirt the constitutional distribution of war powers.

Proposed Constitutional Amendments

This site is dedicated to exploring the theory of political science and governing. We have spent a good deal of time expounding the vision of the Founders and the Constitution, lamenting the lack of commitment to and education of fundamental constitutional principles. Nevertheless, the Founders were not divine, and the Constitution is not scripture. Part of this exploration must also entail consideration of parts of the Constitution that either do not work as planned or have grown antiquated.

I would like to explore this vein of constitutional theory through a new series exploring proposed amendments that might be added to the Constitution to address what we see as defects or shortcomings. I will begin with four proposed amendments, and then the series will be on-going as analysis, discussion, and new ideas percolate to the top.

In the first four entries of this series, I'll adopt a specific format to provide a framework for the discussion. I'll explore the problem that each proposed amendment seeks to resolve, and why I think each respective amendment would resolve it. However, the power of the constitutional amendment process is the collaborative effort involved in drafting, considering, debating, and ratifying the amendment, so any constructive comments, criticism, or suggestions are welcome.

The four proposed amendments that will be under consideration are as follows:

• War Powers Amendment


• Repeal of the 17th Amendment


• Balanced-Budget Veto Amendment


• Congressional Power Amendment

The Old Bald'n Cheney

Justice for All

Suspecting that we were talking past one another, Kelly and I sat down over lunch to hash this out. The following is my interpretation of our new consensus. The following is not a radical remaking of our fundamental premise, merely a deeper investigation.

If we set aside the 14th and 15th Amendments for the purpose of this mental exercise, the doctrine of "separate but equal" is a good example of how a redefinition of right vs. fair can play out in American society. The Framers wrote the Constitution to set up a structure in which the American people could decide issues of morality while respecting the rights of the individual. We know from other societies what happens without a sound constitutional framework: dictatorship or war.

Let us map out the different states of a possible issue and the type of legislation represented by each state:

STAGE	FAIR	RIGHT	TYPE OF LEGISLATION
1	Y	Y	Passed by Legislature and upheld by Courts
2	Y	N	Legislature changes the law
3	N	Y	Invalidated by courts
4	N	N	Unjust law

In this, we find a theory of governance.

We can follow the history of the "separate but equal" doctrine to see how understandings and perceptions of society can change regarding an issue, and how society's changing attitudes can impact a Supreme Court operating within the bounds of constitutional jurisprudence. The 14th and 15th Amendments were passed in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, in the midst of Reconstruction. Many southern states approved the two amendments as conditions for readmission into the Union, so there were large swaths of society that were not ready to treat their fellow black Americans as equals. Consequently, many state legislatures in the South passed the infamous Jim Crow laws. Congress felt the Jim Crow laws were not right (Stage 2 laws) and passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875, but the Supreme Court invalidated much of this Act, claiming that the 14th Amendment didn't protect against discrimination perpetrated by private entities. After Reconstruction and the return of southern representatives and senators to Congress, congressional interest turned to other matters. When the constitutionality of the southern states' Jim Crow laws was challenged before the Supreme Court in the mid 1890's, the Court issued its famous Plessy decision, upholding the state laws as constitutional.

We believe the Court acted erroneously in Plessy because the Constitution had been amended, in the form of the 14th and 15th Amendments, to define as unfair any form of racial discrimination. The legislatures of the country should not have been able to define segregation as morally sound because the Constitution had removed it from the competence of the moral arena and turned racial equality into a question of fair application of power. Nevertheless, the Court did rule the way it did, so it becomes an interesting study in the progression of an issue from Stage 1 to Stage 4.

When laws are passed at the state or federal level, courts do not give their assent or approval. So unless a specific case is brought before a court challenging the constitutionality of a law, the law is considered to be valid legislation. The legislative branch has deemed an issue, segregation in this case, to be right, or moral. However, when people who feel wronged by the law, they have the right to bring suit before the state or federal courts to challenge the fairness (i.e., constitutionality) of the law and seek relief from the law. This was the case with the Jim Crow laws of the South, and the issue worked its way through the court system, culminating in the Supreme Courts Plessy decision of 1896. The Court validated the South's Jim Crow laws as a fair application of state power, leaving the matter as a Stage 1 issue. There was an alignment of opinion regarding segregation among the state legislatures, the Supreme Court, and the people (as represented then by the super-majority white population).

Nevertheless, the opinion of much of society changed over the first fifty years of the twentieth century. Experiences in World War I, the Great Depression, World War II, and the Cold War worked on the nation's psyche, exposing a fundamental hypocrisy between the words of the Declaration of Independence ("all men are created equal") and the way in which black Americans were treated. Enough of the population had changed their views of equality by the 1950's that a significant majority of America saw segregation as morally wrong and unfair. While many whites in the South viewed segregation as the natural order of the world, most of America as a whole agitated for change, and a critical mass had been achieved. Society had reached the point to where it viewed segregation as a Stage 4 issue. The Supreme Court acted in 1954 (in Brown v Board of Education of Topeka to declare segregation as unconstitutional, but it was too late.

For a Stage 4 issue, the people demand action. Generally, Congress and the courts are release valves for issues that are in Stage 4, and if one of them acts, the demands of the people will be satisfied and stability is restored. However, if both branches ignore the issue long enough, it will only be a matter of time before something will trigger a reaction among the populace to affect change. For slavery, it was the Civil War; for segregation, it was the Civil Rights Movement.

The Founders understood the governance imperative enough to know that these situations can and would occur and that mechanisms are needed to resolve the tension between the people and the state -- the ying and yang of the governance imperative. While the system of checks and balances is normally associated with the balance of power between branches, the genius of the Founders was that they also instituted mechanisms to help keep the balance between the people and the state. The forces that build up between the people and the state are considered in the structure that the Constitution lays out. Checks and balances treat the system but not the disease, which is the tension between the government and the people. This tension will always be there, but the goal is to balance it out. It's in the nature of man and the nature of governing. To understand the governance imperative is to understand the relationship between the governed and those who govern.

And Justice For All

In The Governance Imperative: Response 1: Rethinking "fair but not right" Craig writes,

Despite the opinion of the Supreme Court of the Plessy era, the presence of the 14th and 15th amendments removed promotion of racial discrimination from the arena of legislative competence. The Constitution was amended to reflect a new standard of fairness, which was not applied by the Supreme Court until the Brown decision 100 years later.

My point would be that to have resolved the issue sooner would have to involve a political process. If you want to blame someone or some group, that is understandable. Several questions come to mind about how Plessy and Brown played out in the courts. Are the Honorable justices solely at fault for a court that, when it came to civil rights for blacks, re-enacted the story of the blind men and the elephant? Why wasn't the President on the hook for nominating justices who would turn a blind eye to the inequities of Plessey? Why did it take Brown to wake up Congress to the need for action? Why did it take until 1964 for Congress decide to embed the new definition of what we considered right, or civil rights, into the legal tapestry of the country? Might we say in this case that at the very least, the Supreme Court was the first of the three branches to finally wake up - after 200 years - from the nightmare of slavery, see the light, and declare that "and justice for all" really means "and justice for ALL"?

Response 1: Rethinking "fair but not right"

Re: Rethinking "fair but not right"

Kelly wrote:

"The assumption is that if the legislative branch passed it, they considered it the right thing to do. When the courts uphold it, they are saying that it is fair application of power according to the Constitution."

This is a superb summarization of the thesis of this blog and the role judicial review is meant to play in the American constitutional scheme. All things being equal, I'd agree that the Plessy decision is a good example of morally repugnant legislation that is a fair, constitutional application of power by the state legislatures; however, all things in this case are not equal. Despite the opinion of the Supreme Court of the Plessy era, the presence of the 14th and 15th amendments removed promotion of racial discrimination from the arena of legislative competence. The Constitution was amended to reflect a new standard of fairness, which was not applied by the Supreme Court until the Brown decision 100 years later.

Washington DOMA

A friend e-mailed this link to me a couple of weeks ago on the Washington Defense of Marriage Initiative. This group is protesting a case decided by the Washington State Supreme Court entitled Andersen v. King County. In the ruling, the Court argues that "DOMA [Defense of Marriage Act] is constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents."

The Washington Defense of Marriage Initiative group (referenced in the link above) seeks to amend Washington State's marriage laws to limit marriage to those "who are capable of having children with one another," to "require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled," to "prohibit divorce or legal separation when there are children," and to "make the act of having a child together the legal equivalent of a marriage ceremony." The group hopes that the absurdity of such proposed language will undermine the Washington Supreme Court's ruling in the minds of the people.

That such language is unthinkingly assumed to be absurd is another indication of how far American society and jurisprudence have swung in favor of individual rights. Perhaps this is good, perhaps it is not. Nevertheless, there was a time in our history when the main reasons for getting married were to have children, to order society, and to ensure the continuation of the community. Historically, marriage has been, first and foremost, a societal concern and a legally binding contract which society - and, by extension, the State - had an interest in promoting and defending.

There are very important questions attached to the current debate over marriage:

• What is the nature of marriage?
• Does the State have any interest in the state of marriage as a whole?
• Does the State have any business regulating the affairs of married people? What about affairs of unmarried people?
• Should the State be able to limit marriage to certain types of couples?
  
• Is marriage that is defined in the light of individual rights still marriage?
• Can society survive without marriage as it has been?

Whatever the answers to these questions, it would be disastrous for the courts to try to answer them for society. Roe v. Wade was damaging enough, but if the courts continue to push into the realm of legislative concern and short-circuit public debate, the reverberations could destroy our constitutional foundations.

As strange as it might seem, politics is our only hope.

Executive Confusion

Talking heads and historians alike have decried the evolution of the "imperial presidency" for at least three decades now. Nixon's abuses of executive power drove Congress to react and pass a series of measures that sought to restore the balance between the legislative and executive branches. Presidential power has, however, continued to grow, and since 9/11 that growth has accelerated.

And now it would appear that the growth of executive power is manifesting itself among the states as well. Texas Governor Rick Perry recently issued an executive order, mandating that all girls receive the HPV vaccine upon entering sixth grade. Let's set aside the fact that the HPV vaccine is relatively new and untested. Let's also ignore the intensive lobbying in which Merck (the producer of the vaccine) has engaged to make the HPV vaccine mandatory. And let us, for now, assume the appropriateness of having the State mandate the receipt of this vaccine at the expense of parental involvement and decision-making. Beyond all of this, Governor Perry has usurped the legislative process, denied the chance to conduct hearings on this matter to gather expert opinion and citizen input, short-circuited public debate, and removed the people's representatives from voting on a decision that has the force of law.

I don't think that the Founding Fathers thought of these kinds of decisions to rest in the realm of the executive power. It seems to me we have a distorted notion of what executive leadership is supposed to be in our constitutional scheme. The executive branch is supposed to "take care that the laws are faithfully executed" (Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution). This is the executive power. This is the charge of the President of the United States pertaining to federal law, and this is the charge of the governors of the 50 states pertaining to state law.

Nevertheless, for some time now, it has been the "responsibility" of the president to submit a budget to Congress. Excuse me? When did he become the Budgeter-in-Chief?

For some time now, it has been the prerogative of the president to decide when the United States would go to war. But what of Article 1, Section 8 that gives this responsibility, the ultimate change in legal status between nations, to Congress?

For some time now, it has been expected of the president to set the legislative agenda by providing specific proposals to the Congress. Now the president certainly has a role to play in the legislative process. He wields the veto pen, and he has every right to submit legislation for consideration and debate. But I think we go too far when we make him some sort of chief legislator. I think we would be better served if the president kept himself above the "politics" of the matter and acted more as a symbol of national unity. If the president kept himself to setting policy direction and left details to the legislative process, I think the temptation to blur the lines between the executive and legislative branches would disappear.

If this line had been maintained from the start, the "imperial presidency" would never have had a chance to materialize.

The Governance Imperative: Rethinking "fair but not right"

The Governance Imperative: Rethinking "fair but not right"
While it is true that Civil Rights and discrimination are still a sore subject for some, I believe that it is a good example illustrating the the conflict that can occur when society starts to contemplate whether a law is no longer considered to be fair and/or right. The assumption is that if the legislative branch passed it, they considered it the right thing to do. When the courts uphold it, they are saying that it is fair application of power according to the Constitution. The variable in all this is that societies view change over time. If a law is considered to be no longer the right thing to do, it is the task of the legislative branch to repeal or amend it. If a law, or the application of it, is considered unfair, it is the task of the judicial branch to declare it as such.

Rethinking "fair but not right"

I was reading through our Governance Imperative article the other day and ran across the following two paragraphs:

The outrage expressed by the different parties over "activist judges" usually involves a case where a judge declared something unconstitutional. While that's not new, there is a set of decisions that have something in common to cause the outrage. What seems to cause the most outcry are issues decided by the courts that seek to resolve debates over public morality. The Constitution simply is not concerned with weighing in on moral questions, and any judicial excursion into questions of rightness is inappropriate. Same-sex marriage, access to pornography, and abortion are morality debates which the courts have recently inserted themselves. Civil rights is one that is a close equivalent, except there is a constitutional basis in the 14th and 15th Amendments (passed after the Civil War to outlaw slavery and guarantee equal protection to black Americans) upon which the courts could base their rulings.

And, tangentially, examining the courts' handling of civil rights issues throughout the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries only supports the contention that the courts' recent foray into matters of morality has set them farther adrift from their original charge to determine issues of fairness. The Jim Crow laws, passed by Southern states in the wake of the Civil War to ensure the subjugation of blacks, were good examples of legislation that might have been fairly applied but were not right. The courts were very slow to rule in these matters and only when there were structural issues (i.e., governance) to consider did they step in. Between Plessy v. Ferguson (establishing the constitutional acceptability of forced segregation in the South) and Brown v. Board of Education (mandating racial integration in the schools), the Supreme Court's opinion on what was fair regarding "separate but equal" shifted. The boundaries of structure and fairness had finally been broken, so the courts had to step in. The courts are about fairly applying the law. This is a good case study on how precedence can change; the assumptions of fairness that previous rulings were based upon may be shown to be no longer hold. Once it was shown that the Jim Crow laws could not be fairly applied, the Court declared the "separate but equal" concept unfair, hence unconstitutional.

While I still agree with the underlying principle we were trying to illustrate in the example regarding "separate but equal," I don't think that the example we used is valid or helpful. It's not valid because of the very existence of the 14th and 15th Amendments, which prohibit the states from abridging "the privileges and immunities of citizens of the Unites States" and guaranteeing every citizen the right to vote, regardless of "race, color, or condition of servitude." Of course, this is exactly what the Jim Crow laws did, and for this very reason the Plessy court should have struck them all down as unconstitutional.

Beyond this concern of validity, our use of Jim Crow laws as an example of government action which might be fair but not right tends to cloud the underlying principle. There is still too much emotion and pain behind the Jim Crow laws to speak of them in this way. The wounds are still to fresh to try to speak about them with a historian's cold demeanor. Our use of the word "fair" in the context of the Governance Imperative is a specific one to communicate issues of governance with which the Constitution and the courts are specifically concerned. Our use of the word "fair" is set within contrasting use of "issues of morality," with which Legislatures are specifically concerned. It was never our intention to argue for the fairness of "separate but equal" in the broader sense of "fair." We agree and affirm that the treatment of blacks by the southern states prior to the Brown decision was patently and tragically unjust and unfair.

While our use of the example of the "separate but equal" doctrine might have been a poor example of courts focusing on issues of governance, the issue remains. The courts are called by the Constitution to ensure that the laws of society are evenly applied in accordance with the constitutional principles of balanced, deliberative government, regardless of the general perception of morality behind the laws in question. If a group (or even society in general) has a problem with the morality of a law, then there is plenty of recourse through the legislative and executive branches to change or rescind the law. The courts are not meant to serve that role.

So I propose we strike the example of Plessy as an example of an issue of governance. This means we need a new example of something that is "fair" (in the governance sense) but not right. Any thoughts?

Everything Old is Agnew Again

Part of the Governance Imperative is the acknowledgment of the corrupting influence of power on those who wield it. To be on guard against the mis-use of power is to understand not only the nature of power but the hold that power can have over human nature. An elected official does not reign with impunity for the length of their term.

Have we uncovered enough information in former vice-presidential chief-of-staff Libby's perjury trial to make a case for impeachment of the VP?

Here are questions I would hope are being asked:

- Has the VP used top-secret national security information, the identity/affiliation of Mrs. Plame, for political purposes?
- Did the VP violate the law by allowing or directing a leak of that sensitive infomation?
- Can the VP assert some sort of executive priviledge which authorizes him to declassify sensitive information without going through the normal procedures / channels?
- Can the VP claim to have been acting at the behest or on behalf of the President. This implies the awareness and consent of the activity on the President's part.
- Are the VP's actions covered by the authority vested to the office of Vice-President by the U.S. Constitution?
- Did the VP abuse the power of his office by condoning or otherwise allowing the dissemination of classified information to the press?
- Do any of these factors, by themselves or in combination, rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors"?
- Should articles of impeachment be brought against Vice President Richard Chaney?

"I'm the decision-maker"

President Bush has effectively told Congress to put up or shut up regarding his plan to increase U.S. troops in Iraq by 21,500 in an attempt to bring some semblance of order to Baghdad. I believe this is the first decision the Bush Administration has made since the Fall of Baghdad and the widespread looting began that responds to the realities on the ground. While I was sympathetic to the President's desire to remove Saddam Hussein, this war has undoubtedly been one of the most ineptly executed wars in history. Now that the President is trying to do something to adapt our strategy, he has not committed nearly enough troops, he is placing too much faith in the al-Maliki Government, and Congress (newly invigorated by a Democratic majority) is balking.

The President asked for a chance for his plan to work during the State of the Union speech earlier this week, and if I were in Congress, I would be inclined to support his plan, if only to give the U.S. one last chance to set things right before we will be forced to leave the Iraqis to their own vices. Nevertheless, I am also sympathetic to the concerns of the vast majority of Representatives and Senators who are finally standing up and letting their voices be heard. Now that they are providing oversight of the war, it is hardly constructive for the President to demand his critics put forward their own plan or remain silent.

The President is indeed the Commander-in-Chief and the decision-maker regarding how best to conduct military operations in a theatre of war, but this fact cuts both ways. He can't expect alternative war plans and strategies from the Congress. That is not the role of Congress. There is one Commander, and that is the President. But Congress holds the purse strings, and the Constitution empowers Congress with oversight of Administration activities and organization of the military. While Congress cannot force the Administration to abandon its current plan to increase troop levels, Congress does have the capabilities of refusing funding for new troop levels or passing restrictive legislation regulating the use of the military, e.g., limits on where the Army can be deployed.

It seems the President can irritate Congress further and risk legislation that would effectively shut down any further U.S. involvement in Iraq, or he can work with Senators and Representatives to address their concerns. Despite Kelly's ruminations to the contrary, this is far from a monarchy and the Presidency is only one of three co-equal branches.

King George

Not only has the administration decided that they don't need the moral high-ground, they have shown that they don't care to even maintain a thin veneer of fairness. All it takes to be denied your rights is for one person, holding supreme power, to label you as an "unlawful enemy combatant", no due process, no appeal, and no reprieve.

Do I want the country to be attacked by terrorists? Absolutely not! But when there is a greater chance of dying in a traffic-accident than a terrorist attack, it seems foolish to spend billions on expensive toys and promises to protect us from the boogie-man when tens of thousands of people die every year in preventable deaths, for the lack of money.

Let's examine our forefathers complaints against the English King. From the Declaration of Independence we have:

"He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good." and "He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers." Signing statements anyone?

"For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:", the Attorney General of the United States has the audacity to argue in front of a Congressional hearing that the 'Habeas Corpus' clause doesn't really apply to the President.

"For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:" extraordinary Renditions were just rumors but have become frighteningly real.

"For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:" Read more about this at Slate.

"He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us." How better to describe our own Congress passing a bill that allows the President to declare a U.S. citizen to be beyond the protection of the Constitution? If you think this is just the ranting of a madman and could never happen here, just ask Jose Pedilla.

"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people." Whenever criticism is raised, the answer is, 'I'm doing it for your own good' or 'Do you want the Terrorists to win?" He has become blind to injustice and deaf to reason. His logic is starkly, to protect America it is necessary to use any means, at any cost. I say to you, at what cost to our credibility? At what cost to our principles?

The Founding Fathers believed so strongly in their cause that they put it in writing, "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

What has our President pledged? Invasion of privacy? Protection of the Constitution on his whim?

It can not be stated any simpler than, would you trade your liberty for safety? Despots can do a great job of keeping you safe. There was no crime under Stalin, Hitler; or more currently Kim Jung Il. What they can not do is make you free. They stoke the patriotic blaze by feeding your fears with tales of untold crime and violence and then assuage those fears with soothing words and pretty baubles. They desire your trust, willingly given in trade for the offer of safety from shadows, the calm complacency that comes from letting others do the dirty work. Secrecy is their watch-word, for theirs is a bargain of illusions, cooks willing to make sausage as long as you don't ask from whence comes the meat.

The Republican party has been duplicitous in setting up an American Monarch, while the Democrats have stood silent as our rights were sent to the gallows. When there is no one left in Congress to defend our rights when the President comes for them, who will defend you when His men come for you?

All hail King George.

The Inhumanity of Politics

Why did the Founding Fathers take the limitation of the power of the State so seriously? The NPR story linked to in the title gives ample evidence that people with a political stake in the status-quo and having the power of the State to wield will often succumb to hubris, deluding themselves that the ends justify the means. Is protecting ourselves from would-be terrorists in the heat of a paranoid witchhunt worth losing the moral high-ground earned over decades of standing by our principles of fair-treatment and human rights?

Is Mr. Pedilla a criminal? Maybe. Is he a terrorist? Maybe he'd like to think he is. Is he dangerous? I doubt he'd crack the top 1,000. Does he deserve to be treated the way he has? Most definitely not.

When it comes to the governments treatment of detainees, the Bush administration would like us to believe that anything that gets the bad-guy to confess is ok. Congress is complicit when they passed a bill that allows procedures that would not be Constitutional if used in our courts.

The question to ask is, would you consider the treatment or procedure in question acceptable if used on your spouse, son/daughter, or brother/sister by some other country? If the answer is no, then why are we allowing our country to do it to anybody for any reason?

Losing our Human Countenance?

Maclin Horton's Light On Dark Water has asked a very important question:

Can we really look around at our society and say it is not in danger (at least) of losing its human countenance?

Maclin's reflections which lead to his question should give pause to all Americans, no matter their political leanings:

Most conservatives have always acknowledged the principle that, in the words of Pope JPII, “there are many human needs which find no place on the market.” But the principle remained an abstraction in the hurly-burly of political life, especially when the opposition was more or less socialist. The predation, the commercialization, the inanities, the saturation marketing of big business were perhaps something to be sighed over—but, after all, prosperity is fundamentally a good thing, and conservatives are rightly prejudiced in favor of liberty, even when we aren’t entirely pleased with its fruits.

The time is past when that response is adequate. With corporations increasingly able and willing to sell—not just to sell, but to market with the utmost cunning and aggression—anything to anybody, and to exert the considerable power of their wealth and propaganda on behalf of “progressive” causes which attack religion, the family and indeed the person at the root, it’s time for some sort of definite resistance. There should be the potential here for alliances with political liberals in limiting corporate power, although I’m not sure how much interest “social issue” liberals have in doing such a thing now that corporations are increasingly on their side.

It seems the old lines of conservative and liberal do not work anymore. They are antiquated labels in a globalized, homogenized world increasingly run by megacorporations. I believe in free-market capitalism, but I also believe in social responsibility and our human obligation to care for the widow and orphan. This is not a responsibility we can shove off to the government and wash our hands of. It is something staring each and every one of us in the face, demanding that we live in the shoes of our humanity.

The principles of American government

Greg Krehbiel at Crowhill makes an insightful observation on the true genius of the Founding Fathers:

I was talking with one of my kids this evening about education and government and separation of powers and whatnot, and to illustrate the most significant insight of the founding fathers I said that the basic principle of American government is to find the guy at the top of the heap, knock him down and paint a silly mustache on his face. For that, the founding fathers deserve our endless respect.

The Constitutional Presidency

The nation has spent the better part of this week mourning the death of Gerald Ford and reflecting on his presidency. I was only two years old when President Ford assumed the presidential office upon the resignation of Richard Nixon in August of 1974, so I do not have the benefit of first-hand experience. In listening to all the reflections and memories of his time in the Oval Office, I was most moved by Ford's first speech to Congress as President (replayed by CSPAN this Wednesday past).

"Our national nightmare is over."

Inheriting a nation torn apart by the Vietnam War and scandalized by the imperial presidency of Nixon, Ford governed with the good of the country foremost on his mind. Pardoning President Nixon and negotiating the withdrawal of U.S. forces out of Southeast Asia were controversial and divisive at the time, but history has proven the wisdom of President Ford's actions in working to bind the wounds of the nation.

If Richard Nixon's was the imperial presidency, Gerald Ford's was the constitutional presidency.

The humility and openness with which President Ford governed in many ways epitomized good governance, as envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. Ford understood the limits of the presidency, respected the co-equal role which the Congress is meant to play in our constitutional scheme, and worked tirelessly to secure the constitutional rights of all Americans.

Presidents are in large measure fashioned by their times. While President Ford made his share of mistakes, he transcended his times to govern in grace and wisdom.

Re: The Emporer's New Clothes

"What the hell happened to Christianity?"

I have an answer to the question asked by the article to which Kelly linked. But I am afraid most people won't like the answer - either because it will offend their secular sensibilities or because it will offend their religious ones.

George Mason, the Senior Pastor of Wilshire Baptist Church in Dallas, has said that the problem with Fundamentalists is that they know too much too soon. They presume to know the mind of God and then act on that presumption to force the rest of the world to comply with that presumption. And while Christianity is not plagued by extremists that blow people up and saw heads off, it is challenged with Fundamentalists who have hijacked the gospel of Christ and twisted it into a message about themselves. American Christianity is more American than it is Christian and more interested in the power of the Establishment than in the powerless who Jesus says will inherit the Earth.

In the end, Christianity has been beset by a crisis of faith.

The Emperor's New Clothes

While the article in question does not mention government per se, it does do a good job of speaking out against a small minority acting as if they are the "Guardians of Truth". The Cold War hawks seem all cute and cuddly as compared to the current set of neo-Cons who have made an art of rushing to war but not to judgment, wouldn't want to be hurried into doing something rash. Ok, enough of that. Mr. Bakker from the article, not the be confused with the ex-Chief of State James Baker, points out that there are a group of people who are using their religion as a weapon. We chide the Islamic world for their treatment of women but look the other way when someone in our own country calls for the bombing of abortion clinics and the murder of the doctors who work there. Is there any other word for this besides hipocrasy?

One man with a vision.

In our discussions of the use of the power of the State vs liberty of the individual, I often make reference to a sordid affair in America's history brought about by one man's pursuit of vice in a vain attempt to control the country's morals. Who is this purveyor of piety? None other than Anthony Comstock. He is as good an example of one person misusing the power of the State as you can find. Right up there with Hoover and McCarthy. Can there be any better cautionary tale for allowing the States authority to be too easily be misappropriated by those with a personal agenda?

Government and the trade deficit

Craig and I once discussed the importance of the trade deficit to the economy. My theory was that we as a country could afford such a substantial trade deficit because we must be creating value, otherwise we'd be sending capital overseas - 'capital flight'. After further thinking on this, I wonder what would happen if all those goods being imported were no longer being desired by the American consumer. Yes, our trade deficit would go away but what would become of our economy? With trillions of dollars available to spend and only the domestic industry to provide goods, I would imagine we'd be in for a serious bout of inflation. Too much money, not enough goods - classic.

Let's not take such a simple view. What if the money had somewhere else to go? What if Americans started saving all that dough? There would be lots of funds available for investment. If there was a shortage of capital, these new funds would not cause a problem but instead would spark business expansion or startups. But what if our lack of business startups was not caused by a lack of capital? What then? When too much money chases too few investments, wouldn't we start to see speculation which leads us down the trail to a 'bubble'.

So, is the trade deficit a symptom of how successful we are are creating value? If we tried to reduce it through less consumption, would cause ourselves more problems through inflation or speculative bubbles?

Maybe the deficit is the least of our worries.