Month: December 2008

Bill of Rights Day

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

Today is Bill of Rights Day, the day when the Bill of Rights was ratified 217 years ago. This holiday, along with Independence Day and Constitution Day, represents the real celebration of the great country we should be striving to maintain. Interestingly, while Independence Day is the most celebrated of the three our independence did nothing to guarantee any future liberties in this country. Our Constitution was supposed to help preserve our liberties by setting up a government structure that would be capable of securing our liberties from both internal and external forces which would seek to infringe upon them. The structure that was devised could not, in itself, guarantee that the government itself would not be an abuser of liberty – that is where the Bill of Rights comes in. The Bill of Rights spelled out the rights of citizens where the federal government would not be allowed to infringe (in theory). This is where the rubber meets the road. A monarchy with such a bill of rights – where those rights are truly upheld – would be as good a government as the three pronged government that the founders defined in the constitution. The real difference being that a monarchy would more easily overrun the individual rights without the checks in place of an independent judiciary etc.

The original Bill of Rights had 12 amendments adopted by Congress. Numbers 3 – 12 were ratified in 1791. Number 2 was ratified as the 27th amendment in 1992. The first amendment proposed has not yet been ratified.

On this Bill of Rights Day I look with trepidation at a government and society where the first question of government is "What responsibilities can be assigned to the government?" The question should be "How can the government more fully ensure liberty among her people?" The first question brings an intrusive government which attempts to do the impossible. The last question would bring a government which is content to enforce liberty, thus setting the conditions where the society could accomplish greater things than ever before.

Tim Lynch of the CATO Institute has a great rundown of how our Bill of Rights is faring in modern government. Jim Babka has some ideas about how we can get our government to protect those rights that they are so prone to trample.

Tags amendments, Bill of Rights, Constitution, documents, government, history, holidays

General

Federalist No. 37

I really enjoyed Federalist No. 37, it was very interesting to have a paper which began to examine the process of creating the proposed Constitution as opposed to simply looking at the provisions of the Constitution itself. As it specifically recommends moderation and deliberation in our political/civic dialog I think that everyone ought to read this paper.

The other thing that I found interesting was a more pronounced and direct reference to assistance by "the Almighty hand than I have ever noticed before:

The real wonder is that so many difficulties should have been surmounted, and surmounted with a unanimity almost as unprecedented as it must have been unexpected. It is impossible for any man of candor to reflect on this circumstance without partaking of the astonishment. It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution. (emphasis added)

I found the closing paragraph to be a helpful reminder as well about the process of politics:

. . . we are necessarily led to two important conclusions. The first is, that the convention must have enjoyed, in a very singular degree, an exemption from the pestilential influence of party animosities the disease most incident to deliberative bodies, and most apt to contaminate their proceedings. The second conclusion is that all the deputations composing the convention were satisfactorily accommodated by the final act, or were induced to accede to it by a deep conviction of the necessity of sacrificing private opinions and partial interests to the public good, and by a despair of seeing this necessity diminished by delays or by new experiments.

Party animosities are a natural companion to the discussions of deliberative bodies. We must ever be seeking to rise above such natural animosities and yet we are nto truly rising above them if we fall to the abandonment of our honest principles. In keeping true to those honest principles we will need to recognize the proper instances when we must accept a compromise.

Tags compromise, Constitution, documents, federalist, government, history, republic

General life Local National pictures

Federalist Nos. 30 – 36

Federalist 30

Money is, with propriety, considered as the vital principle of the body politic; as that which sustains its life and motion, and enables it to perform its most essential functions. A complete power, therefore, to procure a regular and adequate supply of it, as far as the resources of the community will permit, may be regarded as an indispensable ingredient in every constitution.

We do not seem to recognize the corollary today that excess money, like excess food, leads to gluttany and an unhealthy government.

Federalist 31

I love the direct logic in the opening here. The assumptions are laid out and unless you can dispute the assumptions it is difficult to dispute the conclusion.

IN DISQUISITIONS of every kind, there are certain primary truths, or first principles, upon which all subsequent reasonings [sic] must depend. These contain an internal evidence which, antecedent to all reflection or combination, commands the assent of the mind. . . Of this nature are the maxims in geometry, that "the whole is greater than its part; things equal to the same are equal to one another; two straight lines cannot enclose a space; and all right angles are equal to each other." Of the same nature are these other maxims in ethics and politics, that there cannot be an effect without a cause; that the means ought to be proportioned to the end; that every power ought to be commensurate with its object; that there ought to be no limitation of a power destined to effect a purpose which is itself incapable of limitation. (emphasis added)

I also think it is interesting to note that the idea of the federal government seeking handouts from the states seemed repugnant, but today we see the repugnance of states which are almost entirely financially dependent on the federal government as was warned by the opposing argument that "an indefinite power of taxation in the {federal government} might, and probably would in time, deprive the {state governments} of the means of providing for their own necessities; and would subject them entirely to the mercy of the national legislature."

Federalist 32

It is interesting to see that even where he is wrong (believing that this danger was not real), Hamilton illustrates the very dangers that we face today as the states have almost entirely melted into the background in the face of the federal government.

Federalist 33

I found this to be an insightful and succinct delineation of the difference between laws and treaties:

If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact . . . must necessarily be supreme over those societies . . . It would otherwise be a mere treaty, dependent on the good faith of the parties, and not a goverment.

Unfortunately today most of our laws are apparently nothing more than treaties that are being ignored – including the Constitution as a whole (only the form – three branches including a bicameral legislature – remains).

Federalist 34

When Hamilton explains that 93% of the expenses of the British government are dedicated to paying for war, war preparation, and war debts it should open our eyes to the foolishness of our perpetual expansion of our domestic expenses as if we could add increased military expenses when the need arises.

Federalist 35

I was interested in the recognition that representatives would not be elected from different professions in proportion to how those professions were represented in society. There is an inherent degree of inequality dues to the differing demands of different professions. Hamilton argues that those who understand money and financial realities are the best able to produce good government.

Federalist 36

Hamilton makes a passing remark that makes me think twice about the merits of expanding Congress as suggested by Thirty-Thousand.org – a larger body eventually reaches a size where they are unlikely to have any wisdom beyond the general populous – the only real question is what size is that?

Tags documents, economics, federalist, government, history, taxes

National

Our Tranquil Times

I’m glad that our country has so few problems that, in order to feel useful, we have a Representative proposing a bill to end the BCS system. I’d hate to think what kind of legislation we would be getting out of such a Congress if we were living in turbulent times with a depressed economy, poor foreign relations, and/or large social issues that fuel the passions of voters (like altering the definition of marriage).

Oh, wait – I guess we get the worst of both worlds right now.

Tags government, issues

Local State

Blogging Legislator

I’m excited to announce today that Becky Edwards has started a blog to keep in contact with her constituents in House District 20. The issue of open communication is one that I talked to Becky and Kyle Roberts about before the election. I’m happy that we now have a representative for our district who is able to communicate with us and have a record of that communication available.

Anyone who is interested in transparency among elected officials should encourage this kind of interaction with their own legislators and with other legislators who are making themselves available online. I want to invite everyone – especialliy residents of district 20 – to participate with Becky as she shares issues with her constituents.

Tags Davis County, House 20, Utah

General

Federalist No. 29

Federalist No. 29 is really a continuation of Nos. 26 – 28. My favorite line from this one is:

To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.

This expresses a truth that applies to any “necessary evil” as a standing army is treated to be in many of these papers.

I also have come to appreciate how great and vibrant the debate regarding our form of government was during this period of creating and ratifying the constitution. It makes me all the more respectful of the government that resulted from this document (and all the more desirous to adhere to the original document as much as is reasonable).

Tags documents, federalist, history

General

Federalist Nos. 26 – 28

These papers encapsulate the central issue being tackled win the constitution – namely the balance of powers between branches of government. Of course these are concerned specifically with the authority to raise a standing army, but the central point is important even today. An insightful question from Federalist No. 26 illustrates how times have changed from then until now.

Is it probable that {collusion between the legislative and executive branches} would be persevered in, and transmitted along through all the successive variations in a representative body, which biennial elections would naturally produce in both houses?

At the time the answer would have been no, but today, with little variation coming from one election to the next the answer is that there is a much higher probability of that happening.

Federalist No. 27 and Federalist No. 28 continue to show that the dangers of centralized control of a standing army are hardly greater than the dangers of individual state control of militias.

Tags documents, federalist, history

culture State

Get Your Hands Dirty

As I have been making contacts and working to get more actively involved in party politics I have started to gain a new appreciation for what government by the people really is. When I learned about our government in school I was left with the understanding that government by the people meant that we have the opportunity to elect representatives as well as the opportunity to replace them in subsequent elections. All of that is technically true but I am concluding that government py the people is really government by those who choose to involve themselves in the process. Being an informed voter is important, as I have stressed for a long time, but your vote at the ballot box is too crude a tool to expect to fix problems if you see things in the political system that you would change.

Our freedom of speech is also important, but exposing problems and speeking up is not enough. If you really care about this country and you see things that need to be fixed there is only one way to go about it. You have to roll up your shirtsleeves and dig in to the political dirt if you want to clean something up.

I have been verbose about my desire to see a good mix of the two parties here in Utah and yet when I chose what party to participate in I chose the dominant party. The reason for that choice is that I realized that more important than balance is accountability. I can’t make the Republican party accountable to the people if I am working in the Democratic party. Since all the attractive ideals of the Democratic party (meaning those that are attractive to me) are compatible with the positions of the Republican party I chose to work within the Republican party to ensure (as much as I am able) that the Republican party is being held accountable for the ideals that they espouse.

if there are things you want to see change – get your hands dirty, that’s the real meaning of government by the people.

Tags civic participation, Davis County, parties, Utah

State

All Hail President Hatch

Presidential Pardons are the responsibility of the President (which is apparently Orrin Hatch in his own mind). Nowhere could I find anything even remotely related to pardons in the official job description of the Senate. I enjoyed a lengthy and well written summary of the situation from Lizzen and so my list of grievances with Senator Hatch is now longer than it was before. I have long argued that the Senior Senator from Utah is not much of a Utah citizen and not much of a conservative representative from our conservative state. Now I have concluded that he is not much of a senator since he seems to think that 32 years of living near 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. qualifies him to tell the President who should be getting a Presidential Pardon.

I wish my fellow Utahns would help him to no longer be a Senator for Utah – I’m sure if we did he would be relieved of the burden of pretending to be conservative and I’d bet that he would also quit pretending to be from Utah if he were no longer "representing" the state in his adopted hometown.

Tags connections, Orrin Hatch, Salt Lake Tribune

National

Oath of Ignorance

I thought the following idea was laughable in light of something I heard recently:

[Charles Tiefer, whom Congress appointed earlier this year to the new Commission on Wartime Contracting, which oversees Pentagon contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan] says, federal employees take an oath to [support and defend] the Constitution, while private contractors are just motivated by their own economic interest. It’s a lovely vision, and apparently some people actually believe it.

Of course David Boaz is rightfully skeptical of that fairytale view of federal employees. I have a friend who used to work for a federal government agency. He told me last week that he recently read the Constitution for the first time – long after he quit working for the government. He did take the oath mentioned above, but did so without ever reading the Constitution despite high school and college educations here in the United States. I am not blaming my friend – he’s hardly unusual in what he did except that now he has read the Constitution.

The idea that federal employees deserve some special trust for taking an oath of office is laughable. Most of those employees (like so many elected officials above them) have never read the Constitution they have sworn to protect in that oath. How can we expect them to fulfill their oath and defend the Constitution when they are ignorant of what it says?

Personally, I view federal employees (as a group) just like private employees – they’re just earning a living and doing a job. I don’t think that they have a clearer vision of what they are doing or why they are doing it than anyone else.

Tags Cato, connections, government, media, Oath of Office