Dreams From My Founding Fathers: Plugging Loopholes In The Constitution

In his new book, which I highly recommend, Principled Action: Lessons from the Origins of the American Republic, James D. Best writes that the "Founders wanted to bequeath to posterity a straightforward government that inhibited the abuse of power." This seems a simple and easy observation.

The authors of our Constitution, men like Gouverneur Morris and James Madison, were by and large truly noble and honest individuals, grounded in the principles of property, freedom and peace. They suffered the consequences of the grave abuse of power first hand. They were well acquainted with the problem of regal tyranny. They had found in the philosophy of the Enlightenment their answer to it. Clearly, their purpose was to fashion a written Constitution designed to safeguard the rights of individuals and to prevent, as far as is humanly possible, the centralized American authority from being corrupted by tyrannical power.

Unfortunately, there were other Founders, men like Alexander Hamilton, who were less concerned about the dangers of centralized power. Like many today who strive to create the strongest federal government possible, Hamilton came from New York, a large, populous, northern, coastal state. As is the case today, the debate between those who advocated and those who disavowed a strong federal authority was furious, lengthy and bitter. 

The Federalists believed in supplanting the Articles of Confederation with a new Constitution that created a strong, central government with many checks and balances. The Anti-Federalists argued against the adoption of this new Constitution. They feared that the strong central authority created by the new Constitution would soon begin to abuse its powers. They advocated for continued and vigorous states' rights.

One of my favorite Anti-Federalist writers was "Brutus," the pen name used, presumably, by Robert Yates, a politician and judge who, ironically, also hailed from New York. Brutus argued that the new Constitution's language would in time lose its original force and intent, and open the door to unlimited, federal power and authority. He saw the Constitution as an enabler of tyranny in the future. Indeed, he pointed out that, while certain of his fellow Founders did not advocate tyranny, they openly argued for the kind of unlimited federal power and authority that was certain to be abused. 

In Anti-Federalist Number 33 Brutus takes a rhetorical shot at Hamilton:

This same writer [Hamilton] insinuates, that the opponents to the plan promulgated by the convention, manifests a want of candor, in objecting to the extent of the powers proposed to be vested in this government; because he asserts, with an air of confidence, that the powers ought to be unlimited as to the object to which they extend; and that this position, if not self-evident, is at least clearly demonstrated by the foregoing mode of reasoning. But with submission to this author's better judgment, I humbly conceive his reasoning will appear, upon examination, more specious than solid. The means, says the gentleman, ought to be proportioned to the end. Admit the proposition to be true, it is then necessary to inquire, what is the end of the government of the United States, in order to draw any just conclusions from it. Is this end simply to preserve the general government, and to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the union only? Certainly not. For beside this, the state governments are to be supported, and provision made for the managing such of their internal concerns as are allotted to them. It is admitted "that the circumstances of our country are such as to demand a compound instead of a simple, a confederate instead of a sole, government," that the objects of each ought to be pointed out, and that each ought to possess ample authority to execute the powers committed to them. [emphasis mine]

Brutus is not inferring or exaggerating Hamilton's position. In Federalist Number 23 Hamilton writes:

Whether there ought to be a federal government intrusted with the care of the common defense, is a question in the first instance, open for discussion; but the moment it is decided in the affirmative, it will follow, that that government ought to be clothed with all the powers requisite to complete execution of its trust. And unless it can be shown that the circumstances which may affect the public safety are reducible within certain determinate limits; unless the contrary of this position can be fairly and rationally disputed, it must be admitted, as a necessary consequence, that there can be no limitation of that authority which is to provide for the defense and protection of the community, in any matter essential to its efficacy that is, in any matter essential to the formation, direction, or support of the NATIONAL FORCES.  [bold type mine]

Ostensibly, Hamilton is arguing that in matters of the military defense of the nation the powers of the federal government should be unlimited. However, Brutus worried that such unlimited powers created a slippery slope, and unchecked power would soon flow into other areas of the federal authority. Brutus argued that the slippery slope was created by three particularly vague clauses in the proposed Constitution. James D. Best writes about these very same clauses from the perspective of the 21st century:

Their [the Founders] written words remain clear. Certain politicians and judges have skewed their meaning to  do what they want, but most of the harm can be attributed to three clauses:

1. The necessary and proper clause,
2  The commerce clause,
3. And the general welfare clause.

It is nonsensical to assert that the Founders meant for any of these clauses to license general national authority.

No one can dispute that Brutus' fears have materialized in modern America. The clauses in question have been used by the central, federal government to expand its power, a power that it now inserts into virtually every corner of the lives of individual Americans. Brutus feared that the federal government would expand and keep its near absolute power over the people by abusing its authority to tax. These fears too are today realized.

In Anti-federalist Number 32 Brutus excoriates the open-ended "power to lay and collect taxes" given to the federal government by the proposed Constitution:

To detail the particulars comprehended in the general terms, taxes, duties, imposts and excises, would require a volume, instead of a single piece in a newspaper. Indeed it would be a task far beyond my ability, and to which no one can be competent, unless possessed of a mind capable of comprehending every possible source of revenue; for they extend to every possible way of raising money, whether by direct or indirect taxation. Under this clause may be imposed a poll tax, a land tax, a tax on houses and buildings, on windows and fireplaces, on cattle and on all kinds of personal property. It extends to duties on all kinds of goods to any amount, to tonnage and poundage on vessels, to duties on written instruments, newspapers, almanacks, and books. It comprehends an excise on all kinds of liquors, spirits, wines, cider, beer, etc., and indeed takes in duty or excise on every necessary or conveniency of life, whether of foreign or home growth or manufactory. In short, we can have no conception of any way in which a government can raise money from the people, but what is included in one or other of these general terms. We may say then that this clause commits to the hands of the general legislature every conceivable source of revenue within the United States, Not only are these terms very comprehensive, and extend to a vast number of objects, but the power to lay and collect has great latitude; it will lead to the passing a vast number of laws, which may affect the personal rights of the citizens of the states, expose their property to fines and confiscation, and put their lives in jeopardy. It opens a door to the appointment of a swarm of revenue and excise collectors to prey upon the honest and industrious part of the community, [and] eat up their substance. . . . [emphasis mine]

According to one historian, the "Federalist writers never responded" to Brutus. How could they? His logic was impeccable; his prescience, undeniable.

The question now is: What can be done today, if anything, to plug these loopholes in our most important, founding document, the fundamental law of the land?

Like Brutus, I believe the crux of the problem in our Constitutional republic today is the federal government's abusive "power to lay and collect taxes" in order to "provide for the...general Welfare of the United States." A tyrannical central authority in Washington is further enabled by the odious "necessary and proper" clause in Article One, Section 8 of the US Constitution. Therefore, an amendment might be drafted which modifies the language of the Constitution to eliminate the phrases "general Welfare" and "necessary and proper." But such an effort would fail miserably and I do not recommend it.

The edifice of modern Progressivism, which is simply a pseudonym for tyranny because it makes a shambles of the principles of private property and individual liberty, is built upon the foundation of the vague clauses in question. Progressives would undoubtedly resist any effort to eliminate them from the Constitution with all their collective fervor and might, not to mention mendacity. Who today can craft a persuasive argument that the Congress of the United States should not be able to make all laws "necessary and proper" in order to provide for the "general welfare" of the United States? In the context of the progressive and collectivist social philosophy which has overwhelmed today's American population, such an argument would bepolitically dead on arrival. The debate for such an amendment would be short-lived and almost immediately laughed off.

I propose a new Amendment to the Constitution that would not modify the ends of our Constitution, but would amend the allowable means by which the ends can be attained. I will not attempt to frame my proposed Amendment in the proper legal language. The legal eagles can take care of that chore. However, the simple gist of my Amendment is as follows.

Currently, by my best estimate, about half of all federal spending is in transfer payments. Essentially, this is federally facilitated redistribution of income, i.e., the government takes via taxes from some individuals and gives via stipends, subsidies and other payments to other individuals, businesses and the like. In short, some Americans send the checks to the US Treasury and other Americans, in turn, get checks from the US Treasury. My Amendment proposes to eliminate the middleman, i.e., the US Treasury.

The way it would work according to my Amendment is that every individual American who is authorized by Congress to receive a transfer payment check would be given the name, address and phone number of a specific individual American taxpayer or taxpayers. It would then be the responsibility of the transfer payment recipient to personally collect their payment directly from their designated tax provider.

The beauty of this system is that it undercuts any progressive argument against it. My amendment doesn't prohibit the central federal authority from providing for the "general welfare." It merely specifies the means by which such "general welfare" must be provided. What argument, then, can the progressives make against it?

Will they argue that it is immoral to take from each according to his ability and give to each according to his need? This is exactly what they advocate now and what is happening now in this nation.

Will they argue that the means my Amendment specifies are too harsh, too in-your-face for polite society? Will they argue my Amendment is sure to create social unrest and conflict? But why would this be the case if the people genuinely approve of and believe in the principle of income redistribution?

I don't expect my Amendment to be officially proposed or ratified. However, I do expect the debate over my amendment to be very, very enlightening for a lot of Americans.

The "Free Market" R Us!

Yesterday Bird Dog over at Maggie's Farm posted a link to JR Nyquist's cogent article, "Saving the Free Market," which references Ludwig von Mises' book: "The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality." I've discussed this brilliant book here on several occasions.

Mises spent a lifetime studying, explaining, defending and advocating something called the "free market." I often wonder if the man on the street really understands the concept.

Bird Dog's post pulls the following quote out of Nyquist's article:

According to Mises, “The profit system [of the free market] makes those men prosper who have succeeded in filling the wants of the people in the best possible and cheapest way.” The free market is a daily plebiscite, he explained, in which “every penny gives a right to vote … who should own and run the plants, shops and farms.” Rather than giving everyone an equal share in running the economy, the free market places in charge those best able to provide for the many. In this arrangement, everyone must produce. Everyone buys and sells. “This is what the modern concept of freedom means,” noted Mises. “Every adult is free to fashion his life according to his own plans.

This quote, of course, accurately describes the workings of the free market, but it really doesn't say what the free market is. Some would read the paragraph above and be filled with cynicism and horror. They might argue:

"The profit system" is rigged in favor of the 1%, the big, wealthy corporations that create our consumer society. The rich and powerful corporations fill the airwaves with advertisements that make people want to buy stuff they don't need. Then they exploit our cheap labor to build the stuff. Then they sell it back to us in big, corporate, box stores at exorbitant prices we can't afford.

We might be able to vote with our "every penny" on who runs things, but the fat cats are voting with dollars not pennies. They always win. A rich man may be able to "fashion his life according to his own plans," but the poor man is trapped. Markets may be "free," but they are definitely unfair.

To understand what the free market really is we must cast aside the rhetoric and the economic jargon. Forget words like profit, loss, supply and demand. Forget the big concepts like the economy and the market place. Ask yourself some basic questions instead, like:

Is the money I earn mine?

Most Americans would answer, of course, it is mine. Whose else would it be? Well, it might be the landlord's. He takes a huge chunk of it every month. Or the grocer's. Or the shoe store owner's. Or Uncle Sam's. He takes his share before you ever see your paycheck.

Upon reflection, it should be easy to see that some of these individuals don't really take your money. You voluntarily give it to them in exchange for things you need and want. If you don't like the things they give you in exchange for your money, you can change trading partners, i.e., rent from a different landlord, buy from a different grocer or patronize another shoe store. However, your relationship with Uncle Sam is a bit different.

Uncle Sam confiscates his share of your paycheck without asking and gives you in return...well, what does Uncle Sam give you in return? Roads? Police services? Fire services? Schools? Not really. These things are given to you in return for your taxes by local cities and towns. What do you get in return for the tax money you send Uncle Sam in Washington, DC?

While you're thinking about that, ask yourself what your options are if you're dissatisfied with the things you're getting back from Uncle Sam. You can't buy military protection from another Uncle. You can't mail your first class letters from another Post Office. You can't patronize another Medicare store or Social Security office.

The truth is where Uncle Sam is concerned you have no choice in the matter. You're stuck with the stuff your parasitic Uncle wants to give you in return for money he takes without asking.

So I ask again: Is the money you earn really yours?

It should be obvious that the answer is no, at least not the part confiscated and used by Uncle Sam.

The next question to consider is: Which do you prefer? Owning and controlling your own money? Or having it confiscated by someone else who may or may not give you something you want or need in return?

Most people are most satisfied owning and controlling their own money. They are most comfortable making their own decisions about what to buy and from whom to buy it.

Of course it's not an either-or proposition. Obviously, the United States swings both ways. On the one hand, you send a big chunk of money to anonymous bureaucrats in Washington DC who do with it as they please. On the other hand, you get to own and control what's left.

But, then again, it's not really that simple. Because the more powerful these anonymous bureaucrats become the more rules and regulations they pass, rules and regulations that tell you under penalty of the law how you can or cannot spend the portion of your money you got to keep for yourself.

If the portion of your money you own and control is actually controlled by Washington rules and regulations, who really owns your money? The answer should be obvious. You don't. Uncle Sam does.

So what is a free market? It's not Uncle Sam and his faceless minions doing what they want with money they've confiscated from you. It's YOU, doing what YOU want with money YOU earned -- with absolutely no interference from Uncle Sam. 

Now I've got another question for you: How large is the free market in the United States? That is, how large (or small) is that portion of the money you earned that Uncle Sam let's you keep and that you get to spend exactly as you want to spend it without interference from Uncle Sam?

50%? 40%? 20%? I can't tell you. You have to tell me. Maybe a quick check of your federal, state and local income and property tax returns will help you decide. If you're a numbers person, maybe the graph below will help. Of course the graph only shows the growth in the portion of your money Uncle Sam controls. It doesn't show the portion of your money your state, county, and local politicians control. But you get the point.

As the graph shows, the size of the free market in the United States has been dwindling drastically over the years. At the turn of the century individuals in America got to own and control over 90% of the wealth they produced. They got to spend that wealth on themselves and their families exactly how they wanted and with whom they wanted. Uncle Sam owned and controlled less than 10% of the wealth they produced.

Today Uncle Sam owns 40% of the wealth individual Americans produce, and he controls considerably more. After the new Affordable Health Care for America Act (ObamaCare) fully kicks in, and local, county and state controlled wealth is added, Uncle Sam and company will control well over half of all the wealth produced by individuals in these United States. The free market -- in other words, YOU -- will own and control what's left, maybe 40%! The trend is clear. The free market in this country is going, going, gone.

The very saddest part of this story is the ending. Many, many individuals in this country are pleased to see the free market disappear. They do not want to be part of a free market. They want Uncle Sam in all his reincarnations to spend their hard-earned money for them. These naive and trusting souls apparently believe that politicians are more responsible, more honest, more hard working, more productive and more caring than they themselves are providing for themselves in a free market.
  
I don't believe it for an instant. Do you?

Gary Johnson Candidacy Will Help Elect Mitt Romney!

An interesting take on Gary Johnson's third party run: Gary Johnson: finally a Libertarian who will actually help a Republican candidate.

The "Coach" writes:

Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson’s presence in this year’s race has the potential to be a real plus in the battle to unseat Barack Obama.

Some Democrat voters might not like Obama but would have real problems voting for a Republican.  Johnson solves their problem. 

His positions make him attractive to Democrats but repulsive to all but the most ardent Mitt Romney haters – most of whom would likely stay home rather than vote for Johnson whom they will see as “Romney-lite.”

"Romney-lite?" I don't quite understand that. As I see it, the bottom line for the "Coach" is: if you're a pissed off Republican, hold your nose and vote for Romney. If you're a pissed off Democrat, vote Johnson. If you're a libertarian, you've never voted Republican anyway, so Romney won't miss your vote.

Make sense? 

I Wasn't Too Far Off...

...When I wrote a couple of hours ago:

As you will recall Maximum Leader Bush wore a flight suit and gloated in front of a bill board-sized "mission accomplished" banner on an aircraft carrier. I wonder if tonight on TV Maximum Leader Obama will don camo fatigues and face paint with his halo superimposed on a blimp flashing the message: "Huh rah!"

What a pathetic, pandering, posturing, parasitic, psychotic, walking Narcissistic Personality Disorder!!

Venting Some Pent Up Frustrations!!!!!!

REGARDING HIS TWO-TERM PRESIDENCY, Bill Clinton tells David Feherty: "I loved it. I loved every day of it. It’s a good thing we had a two-term limit — I’d have made them vote me out or take me out in a pine box." This is the difference between a modern progressive and a patriot and founding father of yesteryear. George Washington did have the opportunity to serve as President for life, but he intentionally stepped down after two terms. Washington wanted to drive home the point that ours is not a regal Presidency. Washington was a farmer and businessman. In short, he had a life!! He understood the importance of keeping his day job. He knew professional politicians would become arrogant and full of themselves. Bill Clinton, FDR and Maximum Leader Obama are everything George Washington was not. They think they know what's best for individual Americans. Washington knew this country was founded so individual Americans could decide for themselves what's in their own best interests. (via Weasel Zippers)


MAXIMUM LEADER OBAMA LIES ONCE AGAIN when he tells America at a news conference:

I’d just recommend that everybody take a look at people’s previous statements in terms of whether they thought it was appropriate to go into Pakistan and take out bin Laden. I assume that people meant what they said when they said it — that’s been at least my practice.

That's rich, Maxie. You want us to believe that you meant everything you said when you were running for President in 2008? That your Presidency won't be business as usual? That the health care debate will be on C-Span? That you'll keep lobbyists out of your administration? That you'll balance the budget by 2012? That kind of stuff? What a batch of vainglorious BS! God, I sure to hope Mitt Romney's ad people are paying attention. (via Weasel Zippers) 


SPEAKING OF LIARS, NANCY PELOSI WAS CAUGHT RED-TONGUED by "former CIA counterterrorism chief Jose Rodriguez." Pelosi vehemently insisted a while ago that she was never briefed by the Bush administration about its policy of waterboarding inmates at Gitmo. Then, later, she doubled down saying that she was told waterboarding was not being used. The Washington Post reports that Rodriguez proves Pelosi is a bald-faced liar in his new book, "Hard Measures:"

...Rodriguez reveals that he led a CIA briefing of Pelosi, where the techniques being used in the interrogation of senior al-Qaeda facilitator Abu Zubaida were described in detail. Her claim that she was not told about waterboarding at that briefing, he writes, “is untrue.”

“We explained that as a result of the techniques, Abu Zubaydah was compliant and providing good intelligence. We made crystal clear that authorized techniques, including waterboarding, had by then been used on Zubaydah.” Rodriguez writes that he told Pelosi everything, adding, “We held back nothing.”

I heard Rodriguez interviewed on the radio today by Sean Hannity and Rodriguez repeated his allegations about Pelosi, adding that he has written records to prove he is telling the truth. (via Weasel Zippers)


LOOK SHARP! MAXIMUM LEADER IS GOING TO ADDRESS THE NATION TONIGHT and, apparently, tell us again just how wonderfully decisive and gutsy he was in ordering the Navy Seals to off Bin Laden and bury him at sea! If you want the real story about how Bin Laden went down, read "Manhunt," by Peter Bergen. He appeared on Laura Ingraham's radio show today and basically said Obama's role was small. The operation was conducted by a couple of generals, one in the situation room and another in Southwest Asia. As you will recall Maximum Leader Bush wore a flight suit and gloated in front of a bill board-sized "mission accomplished" banner on an aircraft carrier. I wonder if tonight on TV Maximum Leader Obama will don camo fatigues and face paint with his halo superimposed on a blimp flashing the message: "Huh rah!" (via Weasel Zippers)

SPEAKING OF MAXIMUM LEADERS OBAMA AND BUSH, they seem to have a mighty close relationship since Obama is constantly giving Bush credit for everything that's gone wrong during the Barack Obama four-year tour in parasite D.C. Any bets Obama doesn't give Bush any credit tonight on TV for all the information gathered and all the counter-terrorism military mechanisms set up by the Bush administration? Hell, he probably won't even mention the Navy Seals. The Seals have been on his case lately, saying that the President's decision to nail Osama was a "no brainer." Obama certainly won't give any credit to Jose Rodriguez who told Hannity Monday that Obama wouldn't have been able to pull off the Osama killing if it weren't for waterboarding that Obama disapproves of.

I WATCHED A PROGRAM LAST NIGHT ON THE HISTORY CHANNEL that described the July 20, 1944 attempt by German officers to assassinate Adolph Hitler. Code named "Valkyrie," the plot failed. The program outlined the bloodbath that followed, as Hitler massacred hundreds of plotters. What I found more relevant to our day and age was the Nazi treatment of the Jews. For several years the Nazi propaganda machine slammed the Jews day and night, alleging that they were the reason for Germany's hard times. As we all known, making the Jews the scapegoat for all of Germany's economic and foreign policy problems worked too well. The propaganda was orchestrated by the top German Maximum Leader and his trusted Mini-Leaders, like Goebbels. The propaganda and scapegoating reminded me of what the left and Maximum Leader Obama are doing to America's most successful citizens, the 1%. I'm just saying...

LASTLY, TO ALL THE MAY 1ST OCCUPY WALL STREETERS who are clogging up America's streets, creating mayhem, setting fires, breaking store windows and calling for revolution. All I can say is: "Bring it on, morons!"

No Laughing Matter

The other night Maximum Leader played stand-up comedian at the White House Correspondents' dinner. All good fun, right?

Wrong!

Actually this kind of thing turns my stomach. These black tie affairs in which celebrities mingle with the parasite-in-chief always remind me of the gap between the American royalty in Washington and everyday Americans slaving away in flyover country.

At the dinner Maxie said:

Anyway, it’s great to be here this evening in the vast, magnificent Hilton ballroom — or what Mitt Romney would call a little fixer-upper. (Laughter and applause.) I mean, look at this party. We’ve got men in tuxes, women in gowns, fine wine, first-class entertainment. I was just relieved to learn this was not a GSA conference. (Laughter.) Unbelievable. Not even the mind reader knew what they were thinking. (Laughter.) [emphasis mine]

For the uninformed, the infamous "GSA conference" took place in Las Vegas in 2010. Fox Business describes it as follows:

The government agency, which oversees federal real estate, is now under fire for wasting more than $822,000 in taxpayer money on a lavish conference in 2010 at a luxury resort in Las Vegas for 300 federal workers that included penthouse suites, a mind reader, a clown, a bicycle training exercise, and expensive catering -- spending that was mocked by the GSA’s own workers in videos.

I don't mind the President of the United States making a fool out of himself in front of a bunch of star-struck correspondents. I DO mind Maximum Leader making a fool out of me and all the rest of us American taxpayers.

I took that joke personally, Mr. Maxie!

What the GSA did in Las Vegas was a travesty, a slap in the face to every taxpaying American. The Washington parasites keep sucking the life out of hardworking Americans by demanding more and more tribute. They say they need the extra tax money for urgent and important needs to serve the common good. They say there is no room for responsible spending cuts. And then the employees they are charged to supervise party away the money they are charged to protect and care for...And Maximum Leader thinks the whole thing is funny enough to mock with a bad joke!

My mother used to tell me that some things are no laughing matter. Well, the joke's on you, Mr. Maximum Leader. As I pull the lever in November for your opponent I will think about your line at the correspondents' dinner and I'll enjoy the last laugh!

I hope a huge majority of American voters do the same!

This Is Not A Joke -- Still Time To Enter

The Democratic People's Republic Of Korea Amateur Golf Open, North Korea, that is. This year's tourney will be the "second" annual event.

How did the first annual Open turn out? According to the official Open Website:

The 2011 DPRK Amateur Golf Open took place on the 29th April 2011. Journalists from Associated Press and Japanese/Korean media were on hand to cover the event, which was played by 17 competitors, from 8 different countries. The nationalities included UK, South Africa, Finland, France, Germany, Australia, Luxembourg and DPRK.

The tournament was played in Callaway format and top place with a joint score of 72 were 25 year old Olli Lehtonen (hcp 1.1) and 31 year old Johannes Raitio (hcp 9.4), both from Finland. With the top gross score of 84, Olli was crowned the overall winner.

 I have it on good authority that this year's event will top the 20-competitor mark. Of course, the winner will not be a North Korean native. The Pyongyang Golf course -- the only golf course in the country -- is open only to the nation's ruling elite and invited foreign nationals.

Even though Kim Jong Il is now deceased no North Korean party functionary would dare risk besting the score of the late golf "genius." Admittedly, this would be a near impossible task, since the former "Dear Leader" is reputed to have "opened the course in 1987" with a "world record 38 under par on his first ever round of golf (including 11 hole in ones) [sic]!"