Stormin' Norman Oliver, a well respected man from Wilmington hosts as 9PM Sunday cable access TV show called "Community Crossfire". He has had Governor's, Mayor's, Senator's and some of Delaware's most influential people on his show which is heavily watched especially in the city of Wilmington. His shows are often controversial and always entertaining. Last night's program was no different and if you missed it, you missed A LOT.
Oliver is not one to shy away from confrontation which is what made him a great Councilman for more than 10 years. His callers are not afraid to mix it up either. I joined Lee Tirado, a fellow member of Founders Values, on the show which was already recieiving plenty of attention. In addition to blog posts asking people to "ask some wingnut related questions", Mr. Oliver recieved a number of emails and phone calls questioning him having on members of the "racist" TEA Party. Needless to say, we understood what we were up against. Lee and I were steeled in the fact that most of the people calling us "wingnuts" and "racists" had never met us, knew nothing about us and relied on a heavily biased media for their information. This is the same media that has constantly and consistently demonized the TEA Party without substantive proof. And yes, the issues of the "spitting" incident during the healthcare debate passage when Democrats mocked Dr. Martin Luther King's march by nearly skipping through the protestors with glee, which not one media outlet can produce proof of, was brought up.
Mr. Olivers phone began ringing before the phone number came up on the screen and we knew that we were in for quite a ride. There were so many calls in fact, to the live pick up show (there's no call screener) that it was difficult to expound on points being made. We were able to dicuss who the TEA Party is, what it stands for and what it does. While we were asked to define the number of African-Americans and militia members in our group, there was also thoughtful commentary on education, job creation and limiting the size of government. Mr. Oliver was fair and in conversation before and after the show there was much common ground between us. While both Lee and I wish we had a little more time to get our points across, I think that people realized we had a difficult task to overcome months of mainstream media angst.
In the end we made our case for a voucher system that allows parents to control where their kids go to school and that includes vocational, private and public schools. We talked about how to create jobs in the city and turn the economy around and we made our case for limited government. We plugged our website, our meeting and our candidates for school board. We also asked that people try coming to a meeting before they make a decision. Response after the fact has been positive by and large and we're looking forward to going back on the show in the near future. Also, a little bit of interesting information, Mr. Oliver is fair and and he has invited the NAACP on his show as well, to give their side. They have so far declined or not taken his calls. Lee and I thought it was interesting that the TEA Party went on a show that broadcasts to a large segment of the African-American community to discuss the media attacks against them and the outrageous claims of racism but the NAACP wouldn't appear. That alone should prove that these allegations are completely baseless.
We discussed the reality that faith plays an important part in fixing much of what is wrong with our state and our nation. I am proud to be part of this enlightenment that I see happening around the country and I hope that more, across the spectrum, will come to realize that we can disagree on some things, but that there are certain basic truths and basic ideals, like freedom, liberty and opportunity that we all hold dear. We're thankful for the opportunity to be on Mr. Oliver's show and we recommend that more of us watch Community Crossfire every Sunday night at 9PM to gain perspective.
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Monday, March 28, 2011
Friday, January 14, 2011
Only 49% of Elected Officials can name the 3 branches of government
For all of you who wonder why the Republicans wanted to read the Constitution on the floor, consider this:
No cheating, take this test first:
1) What are the three branches of government? A. executive, legislative, judicial
B. executive, legislative, military
C. bureaucratic, military, industry
D. federal, state, local
2) What part of the government has the power to declare war?
A. Congress
B. the president
C. the Supreme Court
D. the Joint Chiefs of Staff
3) In the area of United States foreign policy, Congress shares power with the:
A. president
B. Supreme Court
C. state governments
D. United Nations
4) The United States Electoral College:
A. trains those aspiring for higher political office
B. was established to supervise the first televised presidential debates
C. is otherwise known as the U.S. Congress
D. is a constitutionally mandated assembly that elects the president
E. was ruled undemocratic by the Supreme Court
5) What impact did the Anti-Federalists have on the United States Constitution?
A. their arguments helped lead to the adoption of the Bill of Rights
B. their arguments helped lead to the abolition of the slave trade
C. their influence ensured that the federal government would maintain a standing army
D. their influence ensured that the federal government would have the power to tax
6) The phrase that in America there should be a "wall of separation" between church and state appears in:
A. George Washington's Farewell Address
B. the Mayflower Compact
C. the Constitution
D. the Declaration of Independence
E. Thomas Jefferson's letters
7) The Bill of Rights explicitly prohibits:
A. prayer in public school
B. discrimination based on race, sex, or religion
C. the ownership of guns by private individuals
D. establishing an official religion for the United States
E. the president from vetoing a line item in a spending bill
8) Identify one right or freedom below guaranteed by the first amendment.
A. Right to bear arms
B. Due process
C. Religion
D. Right to counsel
9) Under our Constitution, some powers belong to the federal government. What is one power of the federal government listed below?
A. Make treaties
B. Make zoning laws
C. Maintain prisons
D. Establish standards for doctors and lawyers
10) Who is the commander in chief of the U.S. military?
A. Secretary of the army
B. Secretary of state
C. President
D. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
Answer key:
1) A; 2) A; 3) A; 4) D; 5) A; 6) E; 7) D; 8) C; 9) A; 10) C
Now consider this:
AOL news found out that...
No cheating, take this test first:
1) What are the three branches of government? A. executive, legislative, judicial
B. executive, legislative, military
C. bureaucratic, military, industry
D. federal, state, local
2) What part of the government has the power to declare war?
A. Congress
B. the president
C. the Supreme Court
D. the Joint Chiefs of Staff
3) In the area of United States foreign policy, Congress shares power with the:
A. president
B. Supreme Court
C. state governments
D. United Nations
4) The United States Electoral College:
A. trains those aspiring for higher political office
B. was established to supervise the first televised presidential debates
C. is otherwise known as the U.S. Congress
D. is a constitutionally mandated assembly that elects the president
E. was ruled undemocratic by the Supreme Court
5) What impact did the Anti-Federalists have on the United States Constitution?
A. their arguments helped lead to the adoption of the Bill of Rights
B. their arguments helped lead to the abolition of the slave trade
C. their influence ensured that the federal government would maintain a standing army
D. their influence ensured that the federal government would have the power to tax
6) The phrase that in America there should be a "wall of separation" between church and state appears in:
A. George Washington's Farewell Address
B. the Mayflower Compact
C. the Constitution
D. the Declaration of Independence
E. Thomas Jefferson's letters
7) The Bill of Rights explicitly prohibits:
A. prayer in public school
B. discrimination based on race, sex, or religion
C. the ownership of guns by private individuals
D. establishing an official religion for the United States
E. the president from vetoing a line item in a spending bill
8) Identify one right or freedom below guaranteed by the first amendment.
A. Right to bear arms
B. Due process
C. Religion
D. Right to counsel
9) Under our Constitution, some powers belong to the federal government. What is one power of the federal government listed below?
A. Make treaties
B. Make zoning laws
C. Maintain prisons
D. Establish standards for doctors and lawyers
10) Who is the commander in chief of the U.S. military?
A. Secretary of the army
B. Secretary of state
C. President
D. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
Answer key:
1) A; 2) A; 3) A; 4) D; 5) A; 6) E; 7) D; 8) C; 9) A; 10) C
Now consider this:
AOL news found out that...
Elected officials at many levels of government, not just the federal government, swear an oath to "uphold and protect" the U.S. Constitution.
But those elected officials who took the test scored an average 5 percentage points lower than the national average (49 percent vs. 54 percent), with ordinary citizens outscoring these elected officials on each constitutional question. Examples:
- Only 49 percent of elected officials could name all three branches of government, compared with 50 percent of the general public.
- Only 46 percent knew that Congress, not the president, has the power to declare war -- 54 percent of the general public knows that.
- Just 15 percent answered correctly that the phrase "wall of separation" appears in Thomas Jefferson's letters -- not in the U.S. Constitution -- compared with 19 percent of the general public.
- And only 57 percent of those who've held elective office know what the Electoral College does, while 66 percent of the public got that answer right. (Of elected officials, 20 percent thought the Electoral College was a school for "training those aspiring for higher political office.")
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Holder says reading Constitution is "retarded"
At 4:10 PM on the Sean Hannity show today, lawyer Tamara Holder from Chicago was a guest opposite Jay Sekulow from the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) in a discussion about the U.S. House of Representatives kicking off the new cycle by reading the Constitution. During the discussion Miss. Holder was dismissive of the reading of the document and stated that all of the reps already knew what they needed to know about the Constitution. Mr. Sekulow pointed out that they indeed do not understand the Constitution as many of them cannot point to a particular clause that allows them to execute the laws that they seek to pass. Sekulow also rightly pointed out that the Congress SHOULD be citing the clause they are using to justify their legislation before they submit it to record. Over the years the progressives have succeeded at simply passing any piece of legislation they felt like passing and allowing the courts to rule on them later. This was not the intent of the founders government.
During a heated portion of the debate, Holder said, "reading the Constitution is retarded". Her statement was missed by Mr. Hannity and Mr. Sekulow had been in the middle of explaining why Congress should be familiar with the Constitution and did not call Ms. Holder on her ignorance. The 112th Congress has made history today. They became the first Congress in the history of America to read the Constitution to start the session. After years of feeling like our government was the furthest away from the founders, I'm suddenly feeling like our founders are getting closer and closer. I don't want to jump the gun but, in honor of the current Congress, allow me to present quotes from our founders that might explain to Ms. Holder, why they read the Constitution today:
George Washington
"The Constitution is the guide which I shall never abandon.”
"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield."
"This Government… adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support."
Thomas Jefferson
"The Constitution... is unquestionably the wisest ever yet presented to men."
"In questions of power let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution."
"Tho' written constitutions may be violated in moments of passion or delusion, yet they furnish a text to which those who are watchful may again rally and recall the people: they fix too for the people the principles for their political creed."
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
"On every question of construction [let us] carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Thomas Paine
"A constitution defines and limits the powers of the government it creates. It therefore follows, as a natural and also a logical result, that the governmental exercise of any power not authorized by the constitution is an assumed power, and therefore illegal."
James Madison
"I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation... If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense. And that the language of our Constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown to its founders, will I believe appear to all unbiased Enquirers into the history of its origin and adoption." - In a letter to Henry Lee, June 25, 1824
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
Alexander Hamilton
"The present Constitution is the standard to which we are to cling. Under its banners, bona fide must we combat our political foes - rejecting all changes but through the channel itself provides for amendments."
"There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid."
"The Constitution ought to be the standard of construction for the laws, and that wherever there is an evident opposition, the laws ought to give place to the Constitution."
"While the Constitution continues to be read, and its principles known, the states, must, by every rational man, be considered as essential component parts of the union; and therefore the idea of sacrificing the former to the latter is totally inadmissible."
Still not ready to forgive Ms. Holder? Me either... Please, give her a call:
Send her a letter:
The Law Firm of Tamara N. Holder, LLC
And make sure you drop by her website and leave her a comment or two:
http://www.theholderposition.com/
During a heated portion of the debate, Holder said, "reading the Constitution is retarded". Her statement was missed by Mr. Hannity and Mr. Sekulow had been in the middle of explaining why Congress should be familiar with the Constitution and did not call Ms. Holder on her ignorance. The 112th Congress has made history today. They became the first Congress in the history of America to read the Constitution to start the session. After years of feeling like our government was the furthest away from the founders, I'm suddenly feeling like our founders are getting closer and closer. I don't want to jump the gun but, in honor of the current Congress, allow me to present quotes from our founders that might explain to Ms. Holder, why they read the Constitution today:
George Washington
"The Constitution is the guide which I shall never abandon.”
"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield."
"This Government… adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support."
Thomas Jefferson
"The Constitution... is unquestionably the wisest ever yet presented to men."
"In questions of power let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution."
"Tho' written constitutions may be violated in moments of passion or delusion, yet they furnish a text to which those who are watchful may again rally and recall the people: they fix too for the people the principles for their political creed."
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
"On every question of construction [let us] carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Thomas Paine
"A constitution defines and limits the powers of the government it creates. It therefore follows, as a natural and also a logical result, that the governmental exercise of any power not authorized by the constitution is an assumed power, and therefore illegal."
James Madison
"I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation... If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense. And that the language of our Constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown to its founders, will I believe appear to all unbiased Enquirers into the history of its origin and adoption." - In a letter to Henry Lee, June 25, 1824
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
Alexander Hamilton
"The present Constitution is the standard to which we are to cling. Under its banners, bona fide must we combat our political foes - rejecting all changes but through the channel itself provides for amendments."
"There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid."
"The Constitution ought to be the standard of construction for the laws, and that wherever there is an evident opposition, the laws ought to give place to the Constitution."
"While the Constitution continues to be read, and its principles known, the states, must, by every rational man, be considered as essential component parts of the union; and therefore the idea of sacrificing the former to the latter is totally inadmissible."
Still not ready to forgive Ms. Holder? Me either... Please, give her a call:
| toll free: 1.877.XPUNGED phone: 312-981-1414 fax: 312-332-4629 |
Send her a letter:
The Law Firm of Tamara N. Holder, LLC
| 19 South La Salle St. Suite 1500 Chicago, Illinois 60603 |
And make sure you drop by her website and leave her a comment or two:
http://www.theholderposition.com/
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Donald Trump to run for President in 2012
Trumps largest concerns are jobs and the economy, America's standing in the world, our weakening defense and China holding our debt. Trump has some interesting ways to tackle these concerns as well, including an interesting plan to tax China and using those revenues to pay down our debt with China which would lock the nation into a cycle of debt reduction. Basically the idea is that China will HAVE to pay the tax if it wants to recoup it's investment in American debt. Could China call the debt and eat the losses? Perhaps, but Trump obviously thinks it's unlikely and given that Donald Trump has grown and grown and grown as a businessman, I'm inclined to believe him. He's also recently inserted himself into the NYC Mosque controversy and offered to put up a portion of the money needed to move the mosque to a location more conducive to building bridges and providing access to Muslims.
Weighing Trump down is a 14 yr old case involving a New Jersey widow whose home Trump tried to have the government condemn so he could expand his casino. This suit was CLEARLY in violation of the right to property and was not a proper use of eminent domain. Has "The Don" changed his tune? Is this worse than 30 years of attendence at Reverend Wright's church? Is it more harmful than being a radical socialist for ones entire life? Only time will tell but Newsmax has a poll that shows Obama up 53-47 over Trump right now. If the economy worsens, as Trump lays out his plan, he is likely to close that gap. If nothing else, this will be an interesting primary and general election cycle.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Castle joins other Progressives in creating “No Labels”
Congressman Mike Castle has once again displayed the reason he was soundly rejected by the Delaware GOP electorate in his primary bid for U.S. Senate this past September. He has joined New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Evan Bayh from Indiana, former Florida Governor (and Republican turned Independent) Senate candidate Charlie Crist and New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand in helping to form the new activist group “No Labels”. The group is said to be “a counter to the T.E.A. Party movement” and the motto is “Not left. Not right. Forward”. The idea of the motto is to portray the group as a mixture of many different ideological perspectives all seeking the common goal of “doing what’s right for the people”. The group seeks to fill a perceived void between MoveOn.org on the left and the T.E.A. Party groups on the right. Sadly, the fact is that the group is built on the idea that THEY know what is best for “the people” and that THEY in turn need to make the decisions. It’s entire concept of a perceived void speaks to its roots in Progressivism and not a real need for Centrist movement.
The group is a concept hatched by political strategists Nancy Jacobson (Hillary Clinton campaign veteran) and Mark MicKinnon (John McCain/George Bush) and touted by MSNBC hosts. In fact, the launch event was moderated by Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, Dylan Ratigan, and Michael Smerconish. Politicians like Crist and Castle jumped on the chance to get behind this new reincarnation of the Soros “Mainstreet Republicans”. Looking through the leadership of the group, it’s easy to spot the real purpose behind the facade. It’s a group intended to promote Progressive policies by using whatever direction the wind blows. Their idea of bipartisanship is little more than moving the country further to the left incrementally instead of all at one time.
Their cause sounds noble. Seeking to make government more efficient and more fluid sounds great but we have to stop and look at what our founders gave us. Is our government meant to be efficient and solve all of our problems? Well, let’s look at the quotes our founders gave us to find that answer:
It’s quite clear from these quotes that the founders intended a limited government based on rights possessed by the people and lent to government. It is a government rooted in individual liberty and natural law. What does that mean? Natural law is a law of nature that every person is entitled to from birth such as the right to self defence, the right to pursue happiness and the right to live. Ask yourself this question next time you read about a law the government wants to pass: “Do I have the natural right to do that?” If you don’t have the natural right to do it, government cannot do it either. Yes, that means that a great many of the laws government has created extend beyond the intended reach of government at many levels. Let’s look at an example:
So the Founders intended government to be restrained by the Constitution. There is little doubt of that. But what about the political class we have today? The founders intended the people to be involved in the process and in fact to control government. The founders themselves were not aristocrats; they were farmers, merchants, lawyers (not nearly the lucrative profession it is today), doctors and writers. George Washington is an example of the idea of the founders for government, he was elected President unanimously and could easily have been King for life but he chose to leave office after only 2 terms. The founders even built wording into America’s first laws “Government derives its power from the just consent of the governed.” (Declaration of Independence) and Thomas Jefferson was quite clear when he said, “Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories." The American government is meant to be small, limited to a few powers defined in our founding document and controlled by the people.
Lastly, let’s talk about the founders intentions for efficiency of government. Washington called government “force” and said “Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” This is a common feeling throughout the origins of our nation. The founders distrusted a powerful government that was able to give the citizens everything they wanted. Ben Franklin said as much, when he intimated that a government large enough to give us all that we desire is large enough to take everything we have. A cursory look over the Constitution itself shows you that the document is meant to be a series of checks and balances. No branch of the federal government has complete control or can even accomplish anything without the others. The President may set the agenda but Congress must pass it and the Supreme Court can overturn it. Congress may control the writing of the budget but the President must sign it and the Supreme Court may strike portions that are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court may determine the constitutionality of a law but they are restricted from writing it or setting policy. Finally we have the issue of the people and the states. They are the final arbiters of federal law. The states were intended to retain more powers than the federal government and the people were left with the bulk of the power. The states, in conjunction with Congress, even have the ability to alter the Constitution which is a power that even Congress cannot do alone. The President has no role in this process at all. The two ways the Constitution can be amended are:
As you can see, the process to change the Constitution and even to write and pass a law is intended to be an arduous process that is not undertaken lightly. We haven’t even touched the partisan divide and lest ye think the founders weren’t a partisan group, remember that from the very beginning there were debates and opinions. The party process has actually streamlined the legal process by uniting individual lawmakers around common party causes and even undercut the states by dividing the Senate along party lines. During the time of the founders, the factions included Federalists, Anti-Federalists and Loyalists. Imagine the gridlock that met the first Congress as the individual states, which had just fought a war against the most powerful army and government in the world, vied for their own piece of the federal pie! Gridlock in government is built into the Constitution and built into the federal government design from the founders.
Now back to our friends over at “No Labels” who claim that the TEA Party is an extremist movement that they stand to be a counter to. We’ve already discovered that their opinion that government should be efficient and solve all of our problems is not in keeping with the ideals of the founders. So let’s examine what the “No Labels” crowd has said in their own words, that they stand to counter. The Tea Party stands for:
So it begs the question, does “No Labels” stand against these things? The media and the political establishment have consistently fought to portray the TEA Party movement as a radical right wing group but I ask each of you who read this, do you see anything extreme in the points above? Do you disagree with the idea that taxes should be kept as low as possible? Do you disagree that individuals should be able to pursue the career of their choice in a market that is not controlled by the government(meaning we aren’t told what to do for a living, what to buy, how to make it and what to sell)? Do you disagree that the government should abide by the Constitution? Finally, does anyone disagree that our government should be ultimately accountable to the people? If you can’t disagree with these things, seek out a TEA Party group near you.
The “No Labels” folks are little more than the Progressive political establishment who see the TEA Party movement as a threat to their current monopoly on power OVER the people. They see that it is educating more and more people and that the movement reaches across party lines while the common sense it preaches is refocusing the debate on the issues on their merits and taking nothing for granted. They’re frightened because people like Mike Castle, who long ago stopped listening to his constituents were badly beaten in primaries and general elections across the country. Charlie Crist is another example of a Progressive who was rejected by the people and who has joined “No Labels” in an effort to stick it to the citizens who had simply had enough of the failed Progressive policies. In the coming weeks and months we will look into each of the leaders of “No Labels” in an effort to find the true purpose behind the group. All appearances at this time point to a group of Progressives, largely political pundits, strategists and politicians who are turning on the people of America after being rejected by their constituents and the American public at large.
The group is a concept hatched by political strategists Nancy Jacobson (Hillary Clinton campaign veteran) and Mark MicKinnon (John McCain/George Bush) and touted by MSNBC hosts. In fact, the launch event was moderated by Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, Dylan Ratigan, and Michael Smerconish. Politicians like Crist and Castle jumped on the chance to get behind this new reincarnation of the Soros “Mainstreet Republicans”. Looking through the leadership of the group, it’s easy to spot the real purpose behind the facade. It’s a group intended to promote Progressive policies by using whatever direction the wind blows. Their idea of bipartisanship is little more than moving the country further to the left incrementally instead of all at one time.
Their cause sounds noble. Seeking to make government more efficient and more fluid sounds great but we have to stop and look at what our founders gave us. Is our government meant to be efficient and solve all of our problems? Well, let’s look at the quotes our founders gave us to find that answer:
“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” – George Washington
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” – Patrick Henry
“Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” – Declaration of Independence
"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories." - Thomas Jefferson
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may a point teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare." - James Madison
It’s quite clear from these quotes that the founders intended a limited government based on rights possessed by the people and lent to government. It is a government rooted in individual liberty and natural law. What does that mean? Natural law is a law of nature that every person is entitled to from birth such as the right to self defence, the right to pursue happiness and the right to live. Ask yourself this question next time you read about a law the government wants to pass: “Do I have the natural right to do that?” If you don’t have the natural right to do it, government cannot do it either. Yes, that means that a great many of the laws government has created extend beyond the intended reach of government at many levels. Let’s look at an example:
If your friend Tom does not buy health insurance, do you have the power to force him to buy it? Of course not! Neither does the government.
So the Founders intended government to be restrained by the Constitution. There is little doubt of that. But what about the political class we have today? The founders intended the people to be involved in the process and in fact to control government. The founders themselves were not aristocrats; they were farmers, merchants, lawyers (not nearly the lucrative profession it is today), doctors and writers. George Washington is an example of the idea of the founders for government, he was elected President unanimously and could easily have been King for life but he chose to leave office after only 2 terms. The founders even built wording into America’s first laws “Government derives its power from the just consent of the governed.” (Declaration of Independence) and Thomas Jefferson was quite clear when he said, “Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories." The American government is meant to be small, limited to a few powers defined in our founding document and controlled by the people.
Lastly, let’s talk about the founders intentions for efficiency of government. Washington called government “force” and said “Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” This is a common feeling throughout the origins of our nation. The founders distrusted a powerful government that was able to give the citizens everything they wanted. Ben Franklin said as much, when he intimated that a government large enough to give us all that we desire is large enough to take everything we have. A cursory look over the Constitution itself shows you that the document is meant to be a series of checks and balances. No branch of the federal government has complete control or can even accomplish anything without the others. The President may set the agenda but Congress must pass it and the Supreme Court can overturn it. Congress may control the writing of the budget but the President must sign it and the Supreme Court may strike portions that are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court may determine the constitutionality of a law but they are restricted from writing it or setting policy. Finally we have the issue of the people and the states. They are the final arbiters of federal law. The states were intended to retain more powers than the federal government and the people were left with the bulk of the power. The states, in conjunction with Congress, even have the ability to alter the Constitution which is a power that even Congress cannot do alone. The President has no role in this process at all. The two ways the Constitution can be amended are:
1.) Constitutional Convention (this method has never been used) called by 2/3rds of the state legislatures
2.) A proposal by Congress which is done so by obtaining 2/3rds majorities in both the House and Senate and then ratification by 3/4ths of the state legislatures.
As you can see, the process to change the Constitution and even to write and pass a law is intended to be an arduous process that is not undertaken lightly. We haven’t even touched the partisan divide and lest ye think the founders weren’t a partisan group, remember that from the very beginning there were debates and opinions. The party process has actually streamlined the legal process by uniting individual lawmakers around common party causes and even undercut the states by dividing the Senate along party lines. During the time of the founders, the factions included Federalists, Anti-Federalists and Loyalists. Imagine the gridlock that met the first Congress as the individual states, which had just fought a war against the most powerful army and government in the world, vied for their own piece of the federal pie! Gridlock in government is built into the Constitution and built into the federal government design from the founders.
Now back to our friends over at “No Labels” who claim that the TEA Party is an extremist movement that they stand to be a counter to. We’ve already discovered that their opinion that government should be efficient and solve all of our problems is not in keeping with the ideals of the founders. So let’s examine what the “No Labels” crowd has said in their own words, that they stand to counter. The Tea Party stands for:
So it begs the question, does “No Labels” stand against these things? The media and the political establishment have consistently fought to portray the TEA Party movement as a radical right wing group but I ask each of you who read this, do you see anything extreme in the points above? Do you disagree with the idea that taxes should be kept as low as possible? Do you disagree that individuals should be able to pursue the career of their choice in a market that is not controlled by the government(meaning we aren’t told what to do for a living, what to buy, how to make it and what to sell)? Do you disagree that the government should abide by the Constitution? Finally, does anyone disagree that our government should be ultimately accountable to the people? If you can’t disagree with these things, seek out a TEA Party group near you.
1.) Constitutionally Limited Government
2.) Low Taxes
3.) Free Markets
4.) Government Accountable to the people
The “No Labels” folks are little more than the Progressive political establishment who see the TEA Party movement as a threat to their current monopoly on power OVER the people. They see that it is educating more and more people and that the movement reaches across party lines while the common sense it preaches is refocusing the debate on the issues on their merits and taking nothing for granted. They’re frightened because people like Mike Castle, who long ago stopped listening to his constituents were badly beaten in primaries and general elections across the country. Charlie Crist is another example of a Progressive who was rejected by the people and who has joined “No Labels” in an effort to stick it to the citizens who had simply had enough of the failed Progressive policies. In the coming weeks and months we will look into each of the leaders of “No Labels” in an effort to find the true purpose behind the group. All appearances at this time point to a group of Progressives, largely political pundits, strategists and politicians who are turning on the people of America after being rejected by their constituents and the American public at large.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
December 7th is unique in Delaware
People all over the country know December 7th as "A day that will live in infamy" but for Delaware, today is a day that is both bitter and sweet. 154 years before Japan launched a surprise attack against the Hawaiian Naval base at Pearl Harbor which brought America fully into WWII, Delaware became the first state to ratify a revolutionary new concept of Federalism and create the first true representative republic in more than a thousand years. Delaware got it's nickname on this day and "The First State" was born on December 7th, 1787.
Delaware was quite prominent in colonial times despite it's small size and the youth of the colony. Delaware had been part of Pennsylvania up until only a few years before Americans declared their independence from Britain. Delaware had been known as "The Lower Counties" since 1682 when the Duke of York passed his ownership to William Penn in an effort to ensure that Maryland did not gain the territory. By 1704 the colony of Pennsylvania had grown so large that "The Lower Counties" were impeding political decisions. At that time the "Lower Counties" and Pennsylvania decided to meet separately and while Penn retained control of the Governor of the territory (which was also the Pennsylvania Governor, FYI: John Dickinson was a native of Kent County Delaware) the legislature was free to make its own decisions. A dispute over colonial boundaries and the desire of the "Lower Counties" to govern themselves was settled by the people of Delaware on June 15th, 1776 when the General Assembly was convinced by Thomas McKean and Caesar Rodney to vote for independence from Britain and Pennsylvania at the same time! The rest of the colonies would follow Delaware's lead 2 weeks later when they voted in Philadelphia on July 2nd to adopt the "Declaration of Independence".
Delaware would later contribute one of the premier regiments in the Continental Army. They were called the "Delaware Blues" and nicknamed the "Blue Hen Chickens" because their tenacity matched that of the gamecocks that the soldiers used in off duty cock fights. The regiment survived nearly the entire Revolution and fought in almost every battle. Also, the Battle of Cooch's Bridge (the only Revolutionary War battle fought in Delaware) is believed to be the first time that the Stars and Stripes was flown in battle.
After the Revolutionary War, John Dickinson served as Delaware's first President and signed the Articles of Confederation as a representative from Delaware. Later, Dickinson was pressed into service by Delaware once again to join Gunning Bedford, Jr., Richard Bassett, George Read, and Jacob Broom in Annapolis at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Dickinson fought to ensure that every state, regardless of size, had a equal vote in the new government. The Great Compromise (also known as the Connecticuit Compromise) assured Dickinson's desire and the ratification of the Constitution by the Delaware legislature. Dickinson then supported a strong central government and he even wrote a series of 9 essays under the pen name Fabius supporting the new government.
Thus Delaware was born. 154 years later, the Japanese would strike a deep blow at Pearl Harbor and Dec. 7th would become Pearl Harbor Day in remembrance of the thousands of sailors, airmen and Marines who lost their lives on that day. Still, in Delaware the date is remembered as "Delaware Day" or "Ratification Day" which makes Delaware able to celebrate the formation of of the United States of America on the same day that they commemorate the deaths of those who defended the nation.
Delaware was quite prominent in colonial times despite it's small size and the youth of the colony. Delaware had been part of Pennsylvania up until only a few years before Americans declared their independence from Britain. Delaware had been known as "The Lower Counties" since 1682 when the Duke of York passed his ownership to William Penn in an effort to ensure that Maryland did not gain the territory. By 1704 the colony of Pennsylvania had grown so large that "The Lower Counties" were impeding political decisions. At that time the "Lower Counties" and Pennsylvania decided to meet separately and while Penn retained control of the Governor of the territory (which was also the Pennsylvania Governor, FYI: John Dickinson was a native of Kent County Delaware) the legislature was free to make its own decisions. A dispute over colonial boundaries and the desire of the "Lower Counties" to govern themselves was settled by the people of Delaware on June 15th, 1776 when the General Assembly was convinced by Thomas McKean and Caesar Rodney to vote for independence from Britain and Pennsylvania at the same time! The rest of the colonies would follow Delaware's lead 2 weeks later when they voted in Philadelphia on July 2nd to adopt the "Declaration of Independence".
Delaware would later contribute one of the premier regiments in the Continental Army. They were called the "Delaware Blues" and nicknamed the "Blue Hen Chickens" because their tenacity matched that of the gamecocks that the soldiers used in off duty cock fights. The regiment survived nearly the entire Revolution and fought in almost every battle. Also, the Battle of Cooch's Bridge (the only Revolutionary War battle fought in Delaware) is believed to be the first time that the Stars and Stripes was flown in battle.
After the Revolutionary War, John Dickinson served as Delaware's first President and signed the Articles of Confederation as a representative from Delaware. Later, Dickinson was pressed into service by Delaware once again to join Gunning Bedford, Jr., Richard Bassett, George Read, and Jacob Broom in Annapolis at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Dickinson fought to ensure that every state, regardless of size, had a equal vote in the new government. The Great Compromise (also known as the Connecticuit Compromise) assured Dickinson's desire and the ratification of the Constitution by the Delaware legislature. Dickinson then supported a strong central government and he even wrote a series of 9 essays under the pen name Fabius supporting the new government.
Thus Delaware was born. 154 years later, the Japanese would strike a deep blow at Pearl Harbor and Dec. 7th would become Pearl Harbor Day in remembrance of the thousands of sailors, airmen and Marines who lost their lives on that day. Still, in Delaware the date is remembered as "Delaware Day" or "Ratification Day" which makes Delaware able to celebrate the formation of of the United States of America on the same day that they commemorate the deaths of those who defended the nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)