Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Its All Still Pork

Republicans and Democrats in Washington both love pork. It is true that they don't like the same cut of the pig. Republicans may the (slightly) leaner cuts of meat, but no matter how you slice up the hog it is all still pork.

Each side are very concerned about balancing the budget when it is out of power. When in power they see no reason to do so.

A pox on both parties.

Coram Deo,
Kenith


Sunday, March 14, 2010

About the Constitution

My good friend Gary sent a quote by Ron Paul to myself and a number of our co-workers. I then did a “reply all” and voiced my approval of Congressman Paul’s statement. My comments lead to a response to “all” from Sky. This then lead to an exchange of emails between me and my co-worker, which our friends were able to keep up with.

I’ve decided to place the whole exchange here, for anyone else that may find it interesting.

Later,

Kenith

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Gary

Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 6:51 AM
To: Kenith
Subject: Constitution

"The Constitution was written for one specific purpose, and that was to restrain government, not to restrain the people.”

Congressman Ron Paul, TX

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Andry, Kenith N.
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 6:51 AM
To: Gary

Subject: RE: Constitution

Ron Paul is correct and the quotes from the Founding Fathers that can be produced to verify his statement are countless.

Here is just one, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights) Of course the state governments were also by their own Constitutions.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Sky
Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 12:37 PM
To: Kenith
Subject: RE: Constitution

I don't doubt that the framers of the constitution intended to restrict or limit the powers of the federal government in deference to the powers of the individual states. But surely Kenny, even you must admit that Mr. Paul's statement is very broad and far reaching. Surely it was not the SOLE intent of the constitution to define the limits of the federal government. There must certainly have been some other reasons. If the intent was solely to restrain the federal government, shouldn't that have been stated in the preamble? Or at the very least wouldn't it have been in one of the main articles instead of in an amendment, and the last of the original amendments at that? I am no student of history but didn't the present constitution replace the Articles of Confederation? And in doing so, replaced the confederation with a federation? Would that not in itself suggest that the main purpose if not the sole purpose of the Constitution was to forge a stronger federal government? Kenny, surely you must agree that if it can be argued that there was even one other purpose for the Constitution being written, then Mr. Paul's statement as quoted has to be false.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Kenith

Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 8:18 PM
To: Sky
Subject: RE: Constitution

Sky,

You are correct the Constitution was written to replace the United States confederation that existed under the Articles of Confederation. The powers of the United States Federal government are broader under the Constitution than they were under the Constitution. So Ron Paul's statement is clearly a hyperbole, which I'm sure made perfect sense in Context.

Sure the Constitution defines the powers of the house, senate, courts, president and it further defines specified powers of the federal government it was creating, etc... The Founding Fathers made clear in their multiple debates in the newspapers of the day and in the ratifying conventions of the states that the Federal government was to be limited to the "expressed powers" written in to the (then) proposed constitution. The new Government would be, as James Madison said, "bound by the chains of the Constitution." Even with the assurance that the federal government could not do more than what was clearly defined in the Constitution; there was still great distrust and opposition to the Constitution.

There was enough distrust that it became clear that the Constitution would not be ratified, UNLESS the Framers agreed to amendments to further define and restrain the Government to be created by the Constitution. It was only after it was agreed that there would be a Bill of Right to further restrain the limits and powers of the federal government was it possible to ratify the Constitution.

During the founding era, the words federation and confederation were used interchangeably. This can be seen in Noah Webster's dictionary. Webster was personally involved in the debate over the Constitution.

Tommy, I will read your link soon. It looks good.

Kenith

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Sky

Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 5:25 PM
To: Kenith
Subject: RE: Constitution

Hey there Kenny, Welcome back to the discussion. :) I had to look up hyperbole. I thought it might be a geometric figure or something. Perhaps in its original context Congressman Paul was trying to make a strong point. Not knowing what that context or point is, however, I am unable to speculate as to his intent. The quote was offered up here in all of its naked splendor as a stand alone statement. (Thanks Gary) Whenever I read something that speaks in absolutes it makes the 'difference of opinion' hairs stand up on the back of my neck.

Thanks for all of the good information Kenny. There is some interesting stuff here. I certainly can't dispute any of the historical info here but there are a few things that don't seem so clear. I am not sure what group of people is being referred to as 'founding fathers'. I don't know how many if any were involved in the drafting and or ratifications of both documents (Articles of Confederation and Constitution). But it seems to me (and this is just my opinion) that somebody either deliberately or by accident was trying not to put too many limits on Federal powers. The Bill of Rights ( as its nickname implies) spells out a lot of rights granted to its citizens by the Constitution. And in a broad sense I can see where one might infer that these in a sense are to keep the Federal Government from usurping these rights, thereby limiting the strangle hold that could be imposed. However, only the last of these amendments spells it out. The second article of the Articles of Confederation appears to make a similar statement defining the sovereignty of the individual states and limiting the powers of the Federal government to those expressly granted to it by that document. My question is, doesn't it seem that it would have been either a gross oversight or a deliberate omission to leave that out of articles of the Constitution? In either case I am finding it hard to understand how the same group of people could do that if their main intent was for the specific purpose of limiting the centralized government. I know the answer is probably buried in James Madison's diary or something but I will have to wait till another time to read it.

You will have to let me know what you think about Jon Roland's essay when you read it. It seems that he makes one of the same points that you do, that over the years the Federal government has exceeded the authority granted to it by the constitution and continues to do so. He also suggests an interesting possible solution to his perceived problem. My question on the point that you both make is do you really think that the Constitution, as it is still as applicable in its original form to our society today as it was 400 years ago? There surely must be quite a few things that the government regulates today that could not possibly have been conceived or foreseen by these folks we are calling the founding fathers.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Kenith
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 1:38 PM
To: Sky
Subject: RE: Constitution

Hey Sky,

The Founding Fathers commonly refer to the men involved in the writing, and ratifying such documents as the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, and to a lesser extent those who fought in the War for American Independence. These common definition means "Founding Fathers" includes a fairly large group of people, but in discussing the Constitution it tends to be limited to those directly involved in writing and ratifying the Constitution.

There were 55 delegates to the Philadelphia convention that gave us the Constitution. George Washington was elected President of the convention, which lasted from May to September (1787). Among the delegates to the convention, Alexander Hamilton (from New York) was the leading proponent of a strong, central, unified government, he played a large part in the debates for a time but when it was clear the proposed constitution would not create such a government he left the convention early.

The United States, under the Articles of Confederation, only had a legislature (no executive or courts) and it had no taxing powers and was completely dependent on the states for income, and the states were not very good at sending money to the united government. By 1787 it had become clear to many of the founders that the Articles of Confederation were insufficient for maintaining the United States as a confederated body of states.

The Constitution was written and adopted to create "a more perfect union" than the one that existed under the Articles. It is very clear from the debates at the convention and the subsequent ratifying conventions (which took place in the states) that a strong central government was greatly feared by the overwhelming majority of the founders (though there are some notable exceptions).

Madison, believe that the Constitution alone, was sufficient to restrain the growth of the new confederated/federal (as mentioned earlier these words were used interchangeably) government. Madison argued that the federal government was a creation of the states and he believed the states would be very jealous to maintain their own sovereignty and authority, therefore the states would check the inevitable attempts by the federal authorities to increase their power, and force the fed to stick to the "expressed powers" laid down by the Constitution. Because of this belief by Madison he initially opposed amending the Constitution with a Bill of Rights, but it quickly became clear to him and others that the Constitution would not be ratified without agreeing to a Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights grants nothing to the people. What it does is further restrain a Federal Government that was already very limited by the Constitution. That fact is expressed in the preamble to the Bill of Rights, which says" THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent starts of its institution."

Now lets look at the Amendments. Notice how they are written. They do not grant rights to the people, whose rights come from God, but are written to negate the possibility of the central government from infringing on the rights of the people. Here are a few examples:

1 "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." This amendment says what congress can not do.

2 "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

4 "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Now lets look at my two favourite amendments.

9 "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

10 "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The men who wrote Constitution understood that it would have to change over time, that is why they put a process into the Constitution that allowed for it's amendment as changes were needed. The Federal Government is NOT supposed to act outside of the "expressed powers" unless it formally amended the Constitution. which is not easy. All that the Federal Government does today that is outside those expressed powers or beyond the amendments that have been added to the Constitution are usurpations.

Later,

Kenith

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Sky
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 3:45 PM
To: Kenith
Subject: RE: Constitution

Thanks Kenny. I hope everyone is learning as much from this little discussion as I. I see your point about the Bill of Rights and I stand corrected. One day when we have a chance, we will have to discuss the second amendment in more detail but I guess it is time to wind this one down.

So do you think it would be safe to summarize by saying that while divided on what was the best course of action for this fledgling Republic, the general consensus was that in order to function and survive the 'centralized' government needed to have more...authority(for lack of a better word)? And that limitations or restrictions needed to be placed on that power in order to insure that some of the shortcomings that they experienced or observed from central powers that they had either lived under or observed, not be repeated. This as opposed to limiting that authority for the sole purpose of retaining a good deal of that power for the individual states. It just seems that these God given rights could as easily be infringed upon by the local governments as the larger one. Could it not be argued that even though not its original intent, the Constitution serves this very important function as well?

Sky

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Sky
Sent:
Saturday, March 13, 2010 11:08 PM
To: Kenith
Subject: RE: Constitution

Hey Sky,

I too have greatly enjoyed our conversation, its a subject that I think more Americans should consider. The Second Amendment is an interesting topic as well and I would be happy to discuss it some time in the future.

I think your summarization is a good start. The Founders, by the time of the writing of the Constitution, had very recently fought a war (the Revolution was very much a civil war) to throw off a central government that was far away and one of their main objections was that the British Crown was ignoring it's own rules that had been laid down at the founding of the colonies (another interesting topic).

Because of this, most Americans had a strong distrust of a central power over the states, and yet they did see the need for union, to protect themselves from powerful European empires (i.e. England, France, Spain). The Founders believed (probably rightly) that if not united they would be conquered, one by one, by those powers.

Madison, Jefferson, and countless others of the fathers were highly educated men. They knew a great deal about history and political theory. They keenly understood that there is a strong tendency for political power to migrate to the center; they also understood that without union they would be unlikely to maintain independence.

Here is the dilemma for the men who drafted and ratified the Constitution, how to create a union that protected the states from European powers and how to give the new federal or confederate (as I mentioned before the two words are used interchangeable by the founders) government enough power to maintain the union, but not so much that it could usurp the power and sovereignty that still resided with the states or with the citizens of the states. (We don't become U.S. citizens until after the Civil War).

Tyranny could just as easily reside with a state as with the Federal Government, but the states' constitutions had bills of rights to limit them and the people were close to the state governments. They believed the people were close enough to the state governments and could check tyranny there more easily than they could with a central power that was far away. Also a usurping federal government would be far larger, more powerful and more difficult to check if it went bad, than would be a much smaller state government if it went bad.

The Constitution is mostly ignored today (in many matters) but it is still a very useful and important document. Those parts that have grown dusty and are now ignored are still there and they can be revived if the time is right. The Constitution is to many Americans a sacred document. It can bring great change if the American people will begin to read and study it anew. I hope this will happen.

My own views were greatly altered and radicalized to some extent, because one day I decided to read and study these things.

Later,

Kenith

Tuesday, March 02, 2010

C.S. Lewis in His Own Voice

Below are two You Tube installments of Lewis' one surviving BBC broadcast of radio talks he gave during World War II.


Part II



What a great thing to have. I love the Works of C.S. Lewis!

Coram Deo,
Kenith