Tag: change congress

George Washington’s Farewell Address

Post author By David
Post date June 16, 2009
4 Comments on George Washington’s Farewell Address

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

I have always had great respect for George Washington, but in the cannon of political doctrine his Farewell Address should be considered equal to the doctrine of the book of Isaiah in the Old Testament and the prophecy in the book of Revelation in the New Testament. Washington himself boils down the topics of his address as follows:

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, . . . I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; (emphasis added)

This was Washington’s final effort to publicly influence the future direction of his beloved country before he could finally retire as he had privately wanted to do for years. He starts by reminding the nation – then and now – of the nature of its birth:

I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it. (emphasis added)

Notice that he does not recommend or propose that we should establish similar constitutions for others, but that we should preserve our own constitution so that others would desire to adopt such a constitution for themselves.

Tags change congress, documents, Elevated, foreign policy, history, parties

State

Why Bob Bennett?

I went to the organizing convention for the Utah Republican Party on Saturday. While I was there in the nidst of hundreds of people campaigning for candidates and causes among the state delegates I made a point to talk to a variety of people sporting Bob Bennett t-shirts. With four primary challengers at present it is easy to see that the discontent with our incumbent is widespread. I believe that the reasons for supporting a challenger are not substantially different between those supporting Mark Shurtleff, James Williams, Cherilyn Eagar, or Tim Bridgewater (in the order they will have officially announced) – I understand some of those generic reasons for seeking a change. What I wanted to understand was what motivated those who were actively supporting an embattled incumbent. I tried to present the question in a way that would get them to try to sell the candidate to me rather than leaving them feeling as if they (or their candidate) were being attacked.

I have to say that I was not very surprised by the answers that I received. I talked to more than two people and I always talked to them one-on-one so that one person would not influence the answers of another but they offered only two distinct reasons between them. The first reason was the same one I heard from Senator Bennett back in February at a town hall breakfast meeting – seniority. (Some said experience but it amounts to the same argument.) The other answer I heard – and this would likely be even more disconcerting to many conservatives than seniority – was Bennett’s ability to work with Democrats. Personally I would rather support someone who would drown while trying to swim against the current than support someone who would stay afload by swimming with the current that was swiftly running away from the desired destination. Thankfully I think that we have candidates already in the race who can stay afloat while swimming upstream.

For those who are convinced that seniority is everything we can look to the freshman representative in Utah’s 3rd congressional district. Rep. Chaffetz has done quite a job of defending his positions and even getting bills passed without an ounce of seniority – and he’s earning quite a reputation for standing firm in his convictions which probably helps him to do more than if he were more prone to going along with the crowd. Some would argue that seniority is more important in the Senate than in the House – for those I would point to the example of a freshman senator from New York who was probably more influential in the Republican controlled senate of 2000 than our own two term Republican senator in that same senate. Seniority is not everything – it’s simply useful if you are headed in the right direction.

Tags 2010, Bob Bennett, change congress, Cherilyn Eagar, Clinton, Jason Chaffetz, Mark Shurtleff, senate, Tim Bridgewater, Utah

culture National

Our Broken Debate

The big question in the debate over torture right now is “who knew what and when did they know it?” That question is being used by Republicans right now to implicate Speaker Nancy Pelosi as having done nothing with what she knew and thus being complicit in any torture committed under the previous administration. The question and implications are very important questions that are worthy of debate in this country. The reason that I consider the debate to be broken is that the debate is avoiding the real substantive issue and just taking political potshots at the opposing party.

The fact is that speaker Pelosi is not in any way the only hypocrite in this debate – she is not the only one who knew and did nothing until it was politically advantageous. Democratic officeholders have been muttering under their breath (or less) about what the Bush administration was doing until Obama was elected and released the torture memos. In response the CIA is trying to defend themselves from these vocal attacks by revealing that Pelosi knew about this activity years ago.

If the Democrats were more interested in standing against torture in principle than they were in scoring political points and retaining personal power they would have been much more vocal about this issue. Speaker Pelosi would have been saying things like, “based on briefings I have had I am completely uncomfortable with what the administration is doing and willing to do to detainees through the CIA.” (Note that while that statement would open the door for discussion nothing in there would raise any national security concerns.) She would not have been alone either – other Democrats who had been briefed would also have stood up and echoed that sentiment if they had any backbone and cared about the issue. Senator Diane Feinstein would have been one of those who had also been briefed. I don’t know who else had been briefed, but all of them are guilty of doing nothing if they were uncomfortable with what they heard.

On the other hand, if the Republicans were interested in anything other than scoring points against their political opponents they would be naming the Republicans who had been briefed who were equally complicit with Speaker Pelosi. Republican officeholders have proven that they are perfectly content to have spineless and complicit representatives in office so long as they support the party line. They show that as a body they have no problem with institutionalized secrecy rather than open representation for their constituents and the other voters of the United States.

The voters need to demand that their representatives, whether of their own party or another party, quit playing politics in Washington and stick to the very serious business of leading our nation on to increased greatness – we should again be a shining city on a hill that the world can look to as an example of goodness. That can only happen if we quite trying to score political points and start having real debates about what is right and what constitutes greatness.

Tags Bush, change congress, discourse, Elevated, house, ideals, media, Obama, parties, senate

National

Constitutional Amendment I

Post author By David
Post date May 11, 2009
2 Comments on Constitutional Amendment I

The beauty of the amendments in the Bill of Rights is that they are all short enough that I will be comfortable quoting each amendment in its entirety as I write about it. That may not hold as I get to the later amendments. Here is Amendment I:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I have heard people who are keen to remind their fellow citizens that the phrase “separation of church and state” does not exist anywhere in our legal foundation. That’s very true, but I would take that a step further and point out the implications of what is said.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

State governments are perfectly free to make laws respecting an establishment of religion – whether that be favoring one specific sect, or prohibiting a sect or a specific religious practice. The key is that the federal legislative branch cannot enshrine a position related to religion. Please keep this in mind (the distinction between the state and federal governments) as it will be a theme of many of my posts on the amendments.

For those who might fear that Utah might use that as an excuse to establish Mormonism as the religion of the state (officially) if they thought they could get away with it I would simply point out that doing so would run counter to the expressed tenets of the LDS church. (I should also point out that this prevents the use of the first amendment as an argument against the legality of the extermination order against Mormons given by Governor Boggs of Missouri in 1838.) The point here is that each state was meant to be free to determine the course that they felt would be the most conducive to the welfare of their residents.

Like the protection of religion, it is Congress, and not the states, which is prohibited from abridging the freedom of the press or of speech and Congress which cannot interfere with the right of the people to peaceably assemble or petition the government. The assumption was that although the states retain the rights to regulate any of those things they would be wise enough not to abuse that ability and that if they did begin to abuse those powers they would feel the negative consequences as other states would reap the benefits of the dissatisfaction generated by abusive states.

Sadly, it is now the states and municipalities which feel the burden of the restrictions in the first amendment (and others) much more than Congress. Congress does not abridge our freedom of religion, but it does abridge the freedom of our once-sovereign states (and communities).

Tags Bill of Rights, change congress, documents, history, liberty, religion

General National

Constitution of the United States

Post author By David
Post date May 8, 2009
2 Comments on Constitution of the United States

Having completed a review of each of the 85 Federalist Papers I am excited to finally write about the Constitution of the United States that they were written to promote. My goal is to reduce the Constitution to a very simple outline showing the form of government that we were meant to have. I will ignore any parts of the Constitution which have been subsequently changed through the amendment process. I hope that by doing so it will be easy to see where we have strayed from the formula. Also, I just want to say in advance that I will not address any of the amendments here – each will be treated separately in future posts.

Article I
- All legislative authority resides in Congress (in other words the president cannot make any laws).
- Members of the House of Representatives must be at least 25 years old and live in the state they represent. The number of representatives for each state is based on their population but there may not be more than 1 representative for every thirty-thousand people. Note that there is no stipulation limiting the size of the House of representatives while our population has more than tripled in the last century (from 92 Million in 1910 to over 300 Million now). Representatives are elected to two year terms. The House of Representatives holds the power of impeachment.
- Members of the Senate must be at least 30 years old and live in the state he is elected to represent. The Vice President is to serve as the president of the Senate, but cannot cast a vote unless the voting is tied. Senators are elected to six year terms. The Senate is to hold a trial when someone is impeached to determine if they should be removed from office. Interestingly, Senators must take an oath when sitting for an impeachment trial.
- Each state has the power to choose when they will hold elections.
- Each house of Congress determines the qualifications for their members (think back to the issue of replacing Obama after he was elected President) and each sets their own rules and keeps their own record. During the congressional session, neither house can adjourn for more than three days or to a new location without the consent of the other house.
- Members of both houses are to be paid for their service, but they cannot hold any office that was created or received a pay increase while they were in Congress. Also, they are immune from arrest during the session of Congress except for treason, felonies, or breach of the peace.
- All bills for raising revenue must originate in the House of Representatives. The House and the Senate must pass a bill before it is presented to the President. If the President vetoes the bill it may becomes law if each house of Congress reconsiders it and passes it by a 2/3 majority. When voting on a veto override the name and vote of each member of Congress must be recorded. If the president does not return a bill within 10 days (signed or vetoed) while Congress is in session the bill becomes law. If Congress ends their session before the ten days and the president chooses not to sign then the bill does not become law.
- Section 8 lists the powers that Congress expressly holds in lawmaking (like establishing weights and measures, regulating commerce, coining money, and establishing post offices).
- Section 9 lists laws that Congress is forbidden to pass (like ex post facto laws and granting titles of nobility).
- Section 10 lists powers that are forbidden to the states. The list includes items granted to Congress (coining money, entering treaties with foreign nations) and also items that had also been forbidden to Congress (ex post facto laws and titles of nobility).
Article II
- The president is the chief executive of the nation. He must be at least 35 years old and is elected to four year terms. He is to be paid for his service, but his pay cannot be raised or lowered during a term. The exact words of the presidents oathof office are supplied in the Constitution – he is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
- The president is the leader of the army and navy and has to power to pardon any offense except in cases of impeachment. He can make treaties if two thirds of the senate approves the treaty and the senate must confirm those whom he nominates for government positions (such as Supreme Court justices). If the Senate is nto in session he can make temporary appointments that alst until the end of the next session of Congress.
- If impeached and conviceted of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" the president and any other officers of government are to be removed from office.
Article III
- The Supreme Court and any lower courts formed by Congress are the judicial authority of the nation.
- Section 2 lists the jurisdiction of federal courts (such as when a foreign nation is involved, or in disputes between states).
- Section 3 defines what constitutes treason.
Article IV
- States are to honor the actions of other states.
- States are to treat citizens of other states as they treat their own citizens.
- Section 3 lists how new states may be created or admitted to the nation.
- Each state is required to have a republican form of government.
Article V
- If two thirds of each house of Congress vote in favor, Congress can propose amendments to the Constitution which must be ratified by three fourths of the state legislatures. If two thirds of the state legilatures request it, Congress shall call a convention for proposing amendments – which must be ratified by three fourths of the state legislatures in order to become law. In either case, no amendment may deny a state of equal representation in the senate unless that state shall consent to the amendment.
Artivle VI
- The new government assumes all debts incurred under the Articles of Confederation
Article VII
- If nine of the states choose to ratify the Constitution in convention it shall be considered binding upon each of the states that ratifies it.

I find it interesting that half of the Constitution is centered on Congress and yet we focus the bulk of our interest in the executive branch. Perhaps that is why we have become so ineffective at electing people who will adhere to the supreme law of the land – we are misinterpreting it in our political focus.

Tags change congress, Constitution, documents, history, laws

National

Federalist No. 85

In the last of the Federalist papers, Federalist No. 85, Hamilton concludes by arguing that the preceding papers should demonstrate that the proposed constitution is fundamentally sound, and that it should be ratified regardless of any few faults or reservations that people might have because revision prior to ratification would be more difficult than amendment after ratification.

In making his argument Hamilton made reference to Article V. In light of a recent discussion where Connor argued the potential dangers of a modern constitutional convention I read through Article V again. While there is always the possibility of people organizing their efforts to remake the government the dangers that Conner discusses are in excess of the provisions of Article V. If such a convention were called it under Article V it could do no more than propose amendments to the existing Constitution. Once such a proposal (or proposals) is made the ratification process is the same as for amendments proposed in Congress – they would need to be ratified by ¾ of the state legislatures. Such amendments are also limited in that they cannot propose to deprive any state of equal suffrage or representation in the senate without the consent of that state.

Based on the words of Article V as well as my resolute faith in the principle of agency I no longer have any shred of discomfort with the idea of a modern constitutional convention. The outcome of such a gathering would either be illegal or have limited impact. The risks posed by a legal Article V convention are no greater than the risks we face from Congress every day. As for the risks posed by an unrestrained (illegal) convention – we face those risks from Congress every day as well.

Tags change congress, connections, Constitution, documents, federalist, history, unconstitutional

General

Federalist No. 84

In his penultimate federalist paper, Federalist No. 84, Hamilton ties up a few loose ends and once again shows his prescience. As I was reading this thought on the need (or lack thereof) for a Bill of Rights:

a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns.

I thought about how our present government had become the kind to "regulation of every species of personal and private concerns"and began to wonder if the Bill of Rights opened the door to a larger, more intrusive government than was intended. Then I got to this:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. (emphasis added)

The argument that I had in my head before reading that was probably substantially the same but I would have said that without the explicit Bill of Rights which was later added the voters might feel more urgency to check their representatives and replace them when they began to make incursions upon the rights that the voters felt were important.

Later in the paper I found yet another argument against the now static size of our House of Representatives:

It is evident that . . . a continuance of the present number {in Congress} would, in a more advanced stage of population, be a very inadequate representation of the people.

Tags Bill of Rights, change congress, civic participation, documents, federalist, history

General National

Federalist Nos. 64 – 65

In discussing the powers of the senate related to the making of treaties John Jay outlines a truth that undercuts one of the major arguments against term limits. In Federalist No. 64 he states:

providing for the frequent elections of senators in such a way as to obviate the inconvenience of periodically transferring those great affairs entirely to new men; for by leaving a considerable residue of the old ones in place, uniformity and order, as well as a constant succession of official information will be preserved.

The argument that term limits would place institutional knowledge quarely in the hands of lobbyists is a strong one until we consider that the very form of senate elections was to preserve institutional knowledge across elections. Even if we were to go to the extreme of enforcing a single term limit on every elected member of the federal government each state would always have at least one member of their congressional delegation that had at least two years worth of experience in Washington. Overall, each new election would leave at least 66 out of 536 elected officials returning to Washington to pass on their institutional experience. Considering how poorly 90 – 95% transfer of institutional experience has served this country recently I don’t see that we could be much worse off by having a 13% transfer of institutional experience.

I cannot imagine suggesting such an extreme term limit policy, and I don’t pretend that this answers all the critiques of the idea of term limits, but I will never give any weight to the argument that essential institutional experience would be left to unelected bureaucrats and lobbyists in the future.

In Federalist No. 65 Hamilton discusses the responsibility of the Senate to try cases of impeachment. Despite, or possibly because of, the cases and threats of impeachment within my own lifetime which have been driven more by political considerations than by rational thought my respect is fixed for the method of impeachment and trials of impeachment designed by our founders and unaltered over two centuries.

Tags change congress, documents, federalist, history, senate

National

Con-Gress

Post author By David
Post date March 25, 2009
2 Comments on Con-Gress

As much as it may be fashionable to blame congress for many of our problems I think it is fair to take an unbiased look at how congress functions. As I began to do so I realized that no matter how numerous my complaints about the legislation we hear about and the legislative process itself I am pleased to realize that Congress is working as designed by the founders.

I’m reminded of an old joke:

If "pro" is the opposite of "con" then Congress must be the opposite of progress.

It turns out that the major thing that Congress does as designed is to slow down the process of law-making. Obviously we have seen recent exceptions such as the ever-popular bailouts and the patriot act where Congress acted faster than it was meant to act, but the fact that such legislation is so shoddy is proof of why the House and Senate are intended to be deliberative bodies.

What I was very happy to realize was that while I may complain when Congress takes a decent proposal from the executive branch and strips it down (or gums it up) to a barely palatable law, it also takes poor proposals from the executive branch and dilutes them up until they are marginally less toxic. So while we may complain that nothing can come through Congress clean, we should also recognize the flip-side of that truth – that bad legislation is never as potent as it would be without congressional intervention.

I know that the founders envisioned a Congress that would, through their deliberation, pass good proposals with little alteration while preventing or significantly improving poor proposals. That is the ideal for which we should continuie to strive, but at least we can approciate the fact that even a poor congress has some beneficial value to the people.

Tags change congress, legislation

life National

Federalist Nos. 59 – 61

Federalist Papers 59, 60, and 61 discuss the power of Congress to regulate the elections of members of Congress. This power is meant to be exercised by the individual states while allowing the federal government to make some blanket provisions to ensure some uniformity within the union. Some people worried that Congress might be able to make some rules which would favor some people over others with respect to the ability to be elected as a member of Congress. I found it very interesting that Hamilton stated:

the circumstance which will be likely to have the greatest influence in the matter, will be the dissimilar modes of constituting the several component parts of the government. The House of Representatives being to be elected immediately by the people, the Senate by the State legislatures, the President by electors chosen for that purpose by the people

Since then we have changed so that Senators are elected immediately by the people and there are growing numbers of people calling for a direct election for the president. As I have always argued on that topic, the establishment of an electoral college was made for reasons very different from an inability to counts the votes of all the people of the nation.

This subject also serves as an additional evidence of the value of having the states serve as laboratories of government. Often the various Federalist Papers discuss the virtues of the Constitution by comparing it favorably to the various state constitutions.

One final observation by Hamilton led me to an interesting if totally impractical idea:

I am inclined to think that treble the duration in office, with the condition of a total dissolution of the body at the same time, might be less formidable to liberty than one third of that duration subject to gradual and successive alterations.

Rather than advocating term limits of the form that no member may serve in office more than 12 years perhaps we would be better served to say that every 8 or 12 years all sitting members of the house may not stand for re-election – that would impede if not destroy the infusion of any improper spirit that may prevail in congress "into the new members, as they come forward in succession."

Tags change congress, documents, federalist, history