The Supreme Court is Invalidating the Founder’s Intent

No matter what decision the Supreme Court reaches regarding Obamacare, the SCOTUS is and has been acting unconstitutionally for decades since FDR. The US Constitution is clear on the role of the court as are the Federal Papers and the many correspondences between the founders about its role simply as arbiter not legislator. Legislation and law were intended to be introduced and voted on in the House first and foremost. The Constitution is clear about who holds the law making responsibility. There is no alternative including interpretations of laws by the SCOTUS. They were only meant to validate or invalidate a laws legitimacy based on the founder’s intent.

Let’s start with the intent. The intended purpose of the Constitution was to limit Federal Power. The clearest and easiest evidence to understand and to support that is the Tenth Amendment. Why else would the founders/states have insisted on this addition if the intent was not to limit central power? The US Constitution would not have been ratified without the guarantee of the Bill of Rights which includes the 10^th Amendment. The Bill of Rights in total underlines the distrust the states and the people had for this newly formed central government. Today it is painfully apparent how little the power of the Tenth Amendment has been utilized in the fight to curb centralized programs, but it has seen a renewed commitment to make it relevant again.

The SCOTUS was intended by the founders to simply be the referee to ensure the legislature was only passing laws that met the limits and protections within the constitution. Madison believed the role would be utilized on a very limited basis and in the federal papers he insists the concern about precedence was unwarranted. He suggested that every case that came before the SCOTUS would be looked at from the perspective of the original intent and not subsequent cases. How wrong he was. The precedence of the SCOTUS has been used to rewrite original intent to mean whatever the court wanted it to mean. This has been seen with the Commerce Clause. Its intent was to make trade regular between the states so there was a “uniform” set of laws guiding how the states traded. The coastal states could have easily introduced additional tariffs and taxes to the other states due to their proximity and importance in the delivery of foreign goods. It was not intended to be used as a way for the federal government to force the states to comply with its wishes simply because they participated in commerce. It was more efficient to have one representative dealing with foreign governments and trade agreements so the states would not have 13 different sets of rules that could be used to divide and create mischief by foreign governments especially France and England.

There have been a number of torturous interpretations based on precedent and ideology that have slowly but surely undermined our freedoms and decisions as a people. The suggestion that if we buy something or make something that is considered “commerce” that that becomes a reasonable opportunity for the federal government to regulate it and tax it to pay for the regulation is a warped view of the constitution. There is no requirement of the SCOTUS to consider any previous cases. That is what they need to do in the Obamacare case. They need to read and look at the original intent of our constitution.

That is where the crux of my argument lies. We now have a completely politicized process that does not fundamentally begin with a review of the constitution; it begins from the ideological views of the justices. As a conservative I pray the more conservative judges begin with the constitution in this healthcare case. But no one person can argue that every decision of late that the SCOTUS has ruled on is based in politics. Yes they occasionally reference the constitution but too often reference precedence. Completely opposite of what Madison argued would be the case.

The growth and intrusiveness of the Federal Government is being refereed by a party (SCOTUS) that has a self interest in the growth of that same government. If President Obama gets to choose two or more justices for the Supreme Court does anyone believe it will be a legitimate institution to protect our founding document? We will have reached the point of a nine person dictatorship if the SCOTUS becomes all powerful in the making and determining our future laws and original intent of the Constitution.

The states and the Governors of those states along with the legislatures need to take up the cause of liberty and limited federal power. They can do that by nullifying the laws they disagree with and believe are unconstitutional. Nullification is a legitimate course of action found within the constitution. We can’t rely on the Supreme Court for much longer because it is already politicized but if this president gets a few more picks it will no longer be on the side of the people and the states.

It is time for the states and the people to read, understand, and protect the US Constitution. It is the greatest weapon in the fight for liberty. Much more reliable than any SCOTUS.   

Capitalism Works Every Time…

If you replace the word capitalism with “individual choice” you start to understand the reason we are so prosperous as a nation and people. This election cycle we are seeing a very dangerous tactic by the president and his supporters by demonizing “capitalism.” In the view of too many Americans, Capitalism has become a negative word. As a nation there is no quicker path to the bottom than to bite the system that feeds the prosperity we enjoy.

“Individual choice” to engage in trade with others works best because the individuals involved in the transaction know what is the best outcome of that transaction. The two parties assess the others offer and decide if it is worth the exchange of value to each party. An example would be a person needs food and a farmer needs a barn. The farmer and the carpenter decide what the value is in the transaction. The carpenter may ask for 6 months’ worth of corn in exchange for building a barn. If that trade is acceptable the two parties transact business. If not they either renegotiate or find another person that will find the transaction terms acceptable. The final transaction will be the result of “market” principles in action. Individuals decide for themselves the value of goods in the market.

The introduction of a third party like government into the market to decide what the “price” for goods and services is and the way they are distributed is socialism. A third party decides how much time people need to spend working and what wage they will receive for that time “spent” on the job. This third party is not part of the transaction except for the part of deciding how the transactions will take place and how the terms will be distributed. No matter what the individuals in the transaction think about the terms, the terms remain the same (“equal”). If those terms are not acceptable to the parties the parties remove themselves from the “market’ and the market stalls, and dwindles away. Nothing gets done and things stagnate or more likely a “black market” is created to get around the third party arbiter.

The economy and the world revolves around billions of “individual choice” transactions that all together make up a vibrant economy. The reason the “individual choice” model is so efficient is because people will only do the transactions that make sense to their individual circumstances. They make the best choice for themselves and their families. They control the choices they make and every transaction adjusts based on the needs of “individual choice.”

There are times when “individual choice” is “cruel” to the other party by rejecting what they have to offer. But unlike a system like socialism that attempts to force the transaction to move forward, in the “individual choice” model that rejected party must rethink, retool, reduce the price, (or many other possibilities), make a change that is acceptable to the other party.  It forces changes that can result in failure but can also result in a more efficient offer or product. It forces people to be creative, diligent, hardworking and in a word it is competitive. The strong survive and the weak either change or fail.

So even though socialism touts “fairness” it is not fair at all. It distorts the “individual choice” and replaces it with forced transactions. It never works for a greater length than individuals figure a way to work around it or stop working at all. So the next time you hear someone criticize capitalism ask them if they believe in “individual choice”? Most likely they will and then explain that capitalism is a system of individual choices which produces the best outcomes for all willing to work hard in our society…

Capitalism is Compassionate…

The most compassionate nation in the world is the United States of America. We are not compassionate because we have special DNA or are some special form of human species, we are compassionate because of capitalism. Capitalism has given us the gift of excess goods, services, and resources that we share with the rest of the world.

At the heart of capitalism is the ability of individuals to produce and create wealth for their own personal use and their family. As human beings, we first must take care of ourselves by producing food, clothes, and shelter. It is the nature of survival that is first and foremost in the human condition. In most economies prior to the capitalist system of the United States, goods and services were assumed to be owned by some ruling class. Production was stifled because the people producing wealth for others is much harder to manage than a system that allows for individuals to keep what they produce for themselves.

Capitalism rewards the hard work of individuals and is destroyed by the policies of taxation or confiscation without due compensation. It is a simple premise that is rooted in human nature. As we create our own wealth beyond the basic survival needs, we create additional wealth that allows us to become more compassionate. Whether that is on the personal scale of donating food to the local food pantry or the on the corporate scale of creating foundations that help other nations climb out of poverty, it can only happen when we create excess wealth. Excess wealth only happens in a capitalist economic system.

There are people and companies that abuse the system but on the whole most people and companies in the United States are a great example of how capitalism is the only system that works is a free society. As the government tries to regulate business and the capitalist system they impede freedom, freedom of individuals, and freedom of markets to conduct business. This limits wealth, reduces freedom, and smothers compassion.

So as you listen to all of the political posturing in 2012, remember capitalism is the most compassionate economic system in the world. It produces both winners and losers. The losers often come back into the market to become winners. But that can only happen when the government keeps its hands out of the arena. Any business or business person breaking the law should be punished. But any business or business person that fails in the market must be allowed to fail and not bailed out by the government.

If the government continues to distort the market capitalism is dead. Once capitalism is dead so is wealth and compassion. It’s that simple…

The Cost of Ignorance…

No matter what they say - ignorance is not bliss. In fact it is dangerous and imperils our freedoms. Our founders understood human nature because they were students of history. The founders had a love of learning and believed that education was a personal obligation to becoming a good citizen. Knowing history is like having a crystal ball to the future. By studying the civilizations of the past, our founders created the foundational principles of the Constitution.

Limiting the capacity of government to be able to control individuals was the principle goal of the Constitution. The main argument for a central government was to create the ability to provide a common defense for the states. They didn’t want to have to beg the states to support the defense of the country as they did during the revolution where George Washington had to make due with very limited resources. The Constitution was designed to contain the tendencies of governments to overstep and control the lives of the governed as was the case throughout history. They believed by putting us in charge of us, and limiting what a central government could do, they could improve the lives of everyone that lived within the constitutional republic. The Constitution was the written culmination of lessons learned that would set a foundation for a brand new form of government. One created by the people for the people. No ruling class or group of people would have power without the consent of the governed. It was a revolutionary concept but could only survive with an engaged citizenry. The founders feared if the citizens ignored the government it could quickly deteriorate into dictatorship so they provided as many safeguards in the Constitution as they could. But ultimately they knew it would come down to a willingness of the people to defend the Constitution. Without the people’s attention they knew the past would repeat itself.

They feared many things when designing the new republic including an all-powerful president. They did not want one man to have too much power or any group of people in the government to have too much power so they used the concept of “balance of powers” between the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government. It was the job of each branch to keep the other in check. So no one branch could determine the direction of the federal government without the consent of each branch. It was a design nothing short of a miracle.

As we consider the actions of the Federal Government today and this President, it is apparent that the American education system has failed. The outrageous conduct of the appointments made by this president without the constitutionally mandated consent of the senate yesterday should have received a greater reaction than it did. The limited reaction to these appointments shows how our education system has systematically limited the citizen’s knowledge of their form of government. These radical and unlawful acts should be stirring up a beehive of legal action against this administration. Yet we go on and act as if this is just a game being played by a President intent on creating a rift between him and the congress to be used in his re-election campaign strategy. It is a dangerous and illegal game that deserves the attention of our congressional members and the judiciary.

This President has said he will go around the congress to do the “people’s work” which is exactly what every dictator in history uses as an excuse to implement their own tyranny on the governed. I know most people don’t realize how dangerous this is but they should. No matter what rhetoric is used to justify his actions, in a constitutional republic the law is king not the president. And the law says he can’t appoint people to positions of power within the government without the consent of the Senate. The Senate is officially in session and therefore the excuse of recess appointments is irrelevant.

Following the process of government is like watching paint dry for most citizens but if we expect to live in a country that respects freedom and the rule of law we must pay attention and react when necessary. The congress should threaten impeachment immediately and defund the departments affected by these appointments. This is not business as usual. This is a crime.

The country is worth watching over. It may be boring but it is our responsibility to protect future generations from the ambitions of leaders that would rather dictate than follow the law of the land.

The Constitution and the Founders…

The vision of our founders that was captured in the document we call the constitution is nothing short of a miracle. As we look at the political environment today, it is clear how truly brilliant our founders actually were. The Constitution was created to limit the government from controlling the lives of the governed. For the first time in history the people were put in charge of the government instead of government bureaucrats controlling the people.

You would never know we had a Constitution if you were dropped in this country from another planet. If you were a Founder who had risen from the grave this country’s operations would be an obvious indication the country had somehow been take over by a coup d etat. The obvious questions our Founders would have:

Who allowed the Federal Government to break the law of the constitution? This would have to be answered with We the People. We the people have ignored our duty to hold our politicians accountable to the law of the land. We are also responsible for electing politicians that have failed to abide by the Constitution.

What would compel the people to give up local control for a central bureaucracy? The Founders always suspected the local and state governments would be reluctant to give power to a central government. It was such a contention at our founding that the Bill of Rights had to be added and one of the most contentious amendments was the Tenth. Without the Tenth Amendment the Constitution would not have been passed. As they argued, there were only a few responsibilities the Federal Government would be better at which were very few. The most agreed upon functions were the defense of the country and foreign diplomacy. Now the Federal Government is involved in how much water we flush down the toilets and the light bulbs we can buy.  Think about that.

How did the Supreme Court become a legislative body? The Founders argued that the Supreme Court was simply a judge not a creator of legislation. They believed if the Supreme Court ruled a law to be unconstitutional the Congress would go back and re-write the legislation to comply with the constitutional guidelines. The idea that 9 individuals can dictate laws is exactly that, a dictatorship.

The Founders argued that human nature was known well enough to put safeguards in place to harness the evil instincts and incentivize the good instincts. They also understood natural law that is the foundation of freedom from the enslavement from groups, especially government groups.

We have no one candidate in the race that is even close to understanding the virtue of statesmanship. Statesmanship is the ability to rise above personal objectives and provide leadership based on the common principles that guide our country as outlined in the Constitution. The Constitution is simply a piece of paper without politicians willing to fight and die for it. Our Founders were willing to die for it. The politicians today don’t even read it.

And that is the fault of We the People…

The Problem with Jimmy Carter…

When you say Jimmy Carter to someone in my generation the immediate reaction is “worst president in modern American history.” He is synonymous with failure to us and we turn the channel whenever he finds an audience in the main stream media.

Carter has spent his post presidency trying to change history. But history is a stubborn thing. Kinda like facts, the country was leaderless under his administration which is why Obama is being compared to Carter. The country again feels like there is no leadership from the current president. The presidency is first and foremost the chief morale officer of the country. We believe in ourselves but we always feel better when we know our elected chief executive believes that as well.

Both Carter and Obama blame Americans for the ills of failed government policies. They both have lectured us on how we just need to get over ourselves and do what they say we should do. Nothing angers Americans more than being lectured to by our politicians especially when they barely understand how hard we Americans work, every day.

Any of us that lived under Carter believe that comparisons will definitely undermine this president’s chance for re-election. The problem is that Jimmy Carter’s administration was over 30 years ago. There are a lot of new voters that have never lived under Carter and see him as the X President that builds houses for humanity and seems like someone’s grandfather. These new voters do not immediately think failure when Carter’s name is used.

I am not saying we should stop comparing Obama to Carter. No I think it’s part of an overall strategy. We must reach younger voters by highlighting how conservative and constitutional principles lead to greater opportunities for jobs and a successful future. We need a positive message for young folks who spend little time thinking and too much time feeling. They might feel good that the first Black President was elected during their generation but the Presidency is not to be used as a social experiment. The presidency is about competent leadership from an executive that has earned the experience necessary to make decisions. It is also a position that can only be granted to individuals that believe in our constitution and founding principles.

We need to help our youth understand what has given us the wealth they enjoy today, our constitution, individual ingenuity, freedom and capitalism. It wasn’t Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, or Obama. It was the American people unencumbered by government bureaucracy given the freedom to pursue their dreams and be held accountable for failure, the ability to reap the rewards of their ideas and hard work, and willingness to take risks…  

A Failure to Educate…

What we are seeing with the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd is the result of a failure to educate our citizens properly at the elementary and high school levels. It is embarrassing to listen to these protesters who have little clue about capitalism or the reason they exist in this world.

One of the protesters was asked if you want to change the capitalist system, what would you like to replace it with? The blank stare said it all. The student had no idea what the alternative should be and I would guess didn’t even understand how capitalism actually works.

This country is the greatest economic and moral engine of the world. It is the greatest economic engine because we have a capitalist system. We are a beacon for the world because our moral foundation is based on Judeo Christian values. We have a constitution that limits the federal government from infringing on both of these attributes but the current administration along with previous administrations have ignored these limits therefore giving us the malaise we are currently in.

We spend too much time teaching about recycling, diversity, and political correctness and not enough time on the American history, economics, the constitution, and American values.  We need our kids to be taking a full four years of American history, the constitution, and the capitalist system of economics in High School. Too many schools can’t even teach kids to read by the time they graduate High School. Colleges are now forced to have remedial programs in order to accept certain students.

The United States has been the means of good in the world because we have values and an economic system that enables us the free time to worry about others. Our religious institutions are an engine of compassion. To protest against the foundation of our success is ignorance.

What these Occupy Wall Street people need to realize is the reason they are unemployed is the fact that the capitalist system is being undermined by an out of control government. They should be in Washington DC not Wall Street or Main Street. It is not Wall Street “fat cats” that are the problem. It is politicians and business executives that are stealing tax payer dollars and conducting “crony capitalism” that should be the target of the protest. The problem resides in DC. If these people had the proper education they would be in the Tea Party.

Success begins with education and there are many schools that do an OK job. But the public system needs to be completely overhauled and handed back to communities to control. The federal government has been destroying the family, the economy, and personal accountability for long enough. We need to take back the education system because that is the root of the problem.

Ignorance is not bliss when it comes to the history and future of our country…