Constitutional Amendment 21

Posted on 2009-08-19 by David

Closely tied to the Eighteenth Amendment (because it repeals it) the Twenty-First Amendment serves to validate the value and proper use of the amendment process.

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Because government justly derives its power from the consent of the governed, and because the will of the majority cannot ultimately be held in check by a rule (no matter how good the rule) unless the majority choose to abide by that rule (thus giving their consent), the 18th and 21st amendments demonstrate that the high barrier of creating a Constitutional Amendment can be used to remove rights and grand government new restrictive powers but that leaving that possibility open is reasonable because it can also be used to undo previous poor decisions when the people change their stance on an issue that should never have been addressed in the Constitution.

The amendment process is powerful and should be used carefully, but it has been established precisely so that we have the possibility of making fundamental changes (when so desired by a large majority of the people at any given time) in a way that is essentially peaceful. There is no way to grant a power while guaranteeing that it can never be abused, but the amendment process does of good job of making it difficult to abuse the power while leaving the people ultimately sovereign over their government (if they will insists upon holding their government in line with their Constitution).

Posted in General | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

An Effective Response on Health Care

Posted on 2009-08-18 by David

Those who wish to oppose the current health reform plan wending its way through Congress will not succeed simply by opposing the current bill, nor by offering an equally complex alternative bill. This is a major mistake being made by those in Congress who are not ready to back the overhaul currently being proposed (mostly Republicans). The only hope is to offer a simple bill that can gain wide support and propose to pass it as a first step to real health care (or health insurance) reform.

A simple bill allowing the purchase of health insurance from other states could be just exactly the medicine this health care reform fiasco needs to turn it from the current monstrosity to a real, effective push for sustainable reform. This could not be a full solution to our health care problems but it could be an easily understandable bill that could gain wide support and show clearly that those opposing the bill being thrust upon us now are serious about reform and offering clear alternatives. In fact, such a bill plays directly to the president’s latest soundbite that the important thing to satisfy the President is that there be “choice and competition in the health insurance market.” (See remarks by Robert Gibbs among others.)

Perhaps passing such a bill would be just the thing to get the White House and Congressional leaders to come back to the bargaining table and work with the rest of Congress on this issue to get bipartisan reform (and preferably to approach reform as a series of small, easily understood bills passed in succession) instead of trying to craft their preferred bill (hiding who knows what in a massive reform bill that few people have read and nobody truly understands) and then trying to convince some Republicans to support it so that they can call it bipartisan.

I wrote to my congressional representatives to say as much. I told them:

Republicans in the House and the Senate should be able to put together such a bill (likely only one or two pages) and a coalition of support and be ready to present it in both houses of Congress as soon as the August recess is over. I’d like to see all my representatives sponsoring or cosponsoring such a bill within the first week after the Congressional session resumes.

For anyone who would like to send a similar message to their representatives (anywhere in the nation) they can do so by going to the Make Health Insurance More Affordable campaign from Downsize D.C.

Posted in National | Tagged , , , , | 13 Comments

Nobody Wants the Status Quo

Posted on 2009-08-17 by David
Health Care Reform Plan
photo credit: planspark

Proponents of the current health care proposals charge that those who oppose these proposals only want the status quo. No honest Democrats have stepped forward to admit the truth that opponents of these measures have been offering alternatives and decrying the status quo. The leader among dishonest Democrats today is none other than President Obama (whom I have tried to refrain from specifically criticizing) who not only will not admit the truth about opponents of his preferred reform package but who goes further by holding “town hall meetings” where no opportunity for discussion is even considered (as do many of his followers) – these are not chances to discuss and enlarge public understanding of the issue, they are opportunities to indoctrinate the masses one town hall at a time.

Nothing I have said excuses the behavior of some protesters at many town hall meetings who are equally disinterested in any actual discussion, but any real leader would have to rise above such rabble and be willing to engage and explain rather than pontificate and cajole.

Among those speaking against the current reform proposals there is a common belief that has never been addressed by backers of the proposals – that the current prescription will actually be worse than the status quo (which they agree is not an acceptable situation). Not only are they speaking against the dangerous potential of the current direction but here are a few of the ideas that are not being offered to considered by our current leaders. Continue reading →

Posted in National | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

Constitutional Amendment 20

Posted on 2009-08-14 by David

The 20th Amendment is essentially a technical correction to the Constitution specifying a new ending time for terms of office and also a standard procedure for filling the presidency in case of unforeseen circumstances (such as the death of a president-elect).

Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Section 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

A similar technical amendment was adopted in the state constitution of Utah just last year (which came in handy just this week).

Posted in National, State | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

White House Viral Email

Posted on 2009-08-13 by David

The White House has decided to use a viral email (or at least an email they hope will go viral) to spread their health care reform message. In it they offer:

8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about reform and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now.

It think it is important to get a non-spin version of their 24 points (really only 21). I will assume, as much as possible, that their claims are true and show what those claims really mean to the nation.  As usual it’s not nearly as straightforward as any partisan claims would have you believe. (For example, they only offer 7 unique ways reform provides security, 7 unique myths – including one I had never heard, and 7 reasons for reform now – plus one generic platitude.) Continue reading →

Posted in National, technology | Tagged , , , , , | 10 Comments

Constitutional Amendment 19

Posted on 2009-08-12 by David

Some amendments are so obvious now that they need no comment.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any States on account of sex.

Some states had allowed women to vote long before 1920 and been stopped by the federal government. Now, in a day where I have seen calls to lower the voting age to 16, the only question on this subject that we have to ask ourselves is where to draw the line.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , | 6 Comments

Securing Liberty

Posted on 2009-08-11 by David
Statue of Liberty
photo credit: Brian Wilson Photography

I got a complaint on facebook over a statement I made that later amendments take legal precedence over earlier ones where both conflictingly address the same point of law. Here was the complaint:

I have a problem with the rationalization . . . that a later amendment takes precedence over an earlier one- That takes away all security in the freedoms that our constitution grants.

I don’t know how it is possible to fight common sense. If the city code states that housing density may not exceed 2 houses per acre and then a later city council passes an ordinance stating that housing density may not exceed 5 houses per acre it would be absurd to try stopping a developer who wanted to build a subdivision filled with 1/4 acre lots (at least it would be absurd to do so using the original density code to back up your complaint). The same principle holds true at every level of legal authority – including at the Constitutional level. The guarantees of freedoms in the Constitution are only binding from one time to the next if they are not challenged at that level of law. If the people of succeeding generations challenge and remove the liberties currently in the Constitution through new amendments there is no way today to prevent them from doing so. Continue reading →

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , , | 13 Comments

Constitutional Amendment 18

Posted on 2009-08-07 by David

The Eighteenth Amendment is a great example of constitutional law.

After one year from the ratification of this article, the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

I know that many people will argue that it is a bad amendment (generally citing the fact that it was later repealed as evidence of their claim) but I would like to explain why I argue that it is such a good example.

Congress (and the majority of states at the time) wanted to restrict the use of alcohol for recreational purposes. They had no constitutional authority to do anything like that. The proper fix for this is to pass a Constitutional amendment rather than trying to ignore or get around the Constitution and use some easier means of doing what Congress wants to do. In this case, Congress followed the correct path – perhaps they had too many senators and representatives still in Congress since the 17th amendment was passed who remembered how the government was supposed to be limited according to the Constitution.

The question of whether this was a good law is a separate matter. Should Congress decide whether people should ever be allowed to consume alcohol? No. But at least in making this bad law they followed the proper procedure to give themselves the authority to take the action they wanted to take – and to successfully pass a Constitutional amendment requires a very broad base of support. If the people choose to prohibit consumption of alcohol that’s much better than having Congress prohibit its consumption because of the influence of a vocal lobbying group.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , | 18 Comments

The Trick to Choosing Elected Officials

Posted on 2009-08-06 by David

In a letter to the Salt Lake Tribune Jeff Hammond offered this profound bit of insight:

As some politicians age, they grow into statesmen, like Barry Goldwater; others shrivel into petty party hacks. Sens. Hatch and Bob Bennett aren’t growing.

He’s right about Hatch and Bennett which is why it’s time to replace them. He’s also right about politicians who grow and shrink which is why we have to be very careful about who we replace them with. So far I am not confident that any one of the challengers for Bennett’s seat (Bridgewater, Eagar, Granato, Shurtleff, or Williams so far) will grow into a statesman. Some I have ruled out already as potential senators, others I am still considering. It’s an important decision that we must not make lightly. (I’ll bet that nobody can guess which ones I have ruled out even if I were to include Bennett in the mix and even if I said how many were already out.)

I hope that I will yet discover, either among the current challengers or among some as-yet-unannounced challenger, a real diamond in the making who will live up to the promise of every aspiring politician – to be a true statesman.

Posted in State | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

The American’s Creed

Posted on 2009-08-05 by David

I believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed, a democracy in a republic, a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.

I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies.

I should be able to support The American’s Creed wholeheartedly, but I am finding it difficult on some levels because while this creed supports the ideal vision of what the Constitutional Government of  the United States should look like I fear that the creed needs an asterisk next to it explaining that our current government does not live up to anything like that ideal and must be brought back into line with the ideal through the diligent efforts of those who truly love their country.

Here is a summary of where I think the ideal of the American’s Creed and the Constitution differ from the realities of our government today:

  • This government has become more of a government over the people rather than a government of the people.
  • While the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed, the governed have allowed the government to derive unjust powers from themselves and through judicial rulings, international law, and executive orders.
  • The states of which the nation is comprised are no longer sovereign in any meaningful way. (Often they are not even sovereign from each other.)
  • While the government was established upon principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity it has not been perpetuated upon those same principles – especially in the last few decades.

As a result of these deficiencies my duty is not only to love my country, support its Constitution, and obey its laws, but also to correct its deficiencies in a way that does not violate the very principles upon which the nation was founded.

Unlike the Pledge of Allegiance, I thought it important to say something about the author of the American’s Creed, William Tyler Page. His story of public service is a textbook example of the American’s Creed in action. The day after he died it was said of him that:

He believed that the Constitution of the United States was next to the word of God: the most spiritually illuminated and divinely inspiring political document of modern times. So he sat here, a philosopher, a friend, a Christian gentleman, and we sat at his feet and received from him new strength, new courage, new understanding.

Like Page, I believe that the Constitution is “the most spiritually illuminated and divinely inspiring political document of modern times” and it does stand adjacent to the canon of Holy Scripture in the library of my heart. Unlike scripture I am free with the Constitution to disagree with parts of it (like the 16th and 17th amendments) and to seek to have those parts altered or abolished by following the procedures outlined in the Constitution. There is no such procedure in the scriptures nor do I consider myself an equal to the Author of scripture – unlike the authors of the Constitution. (I consider myself the equal of the founding fathers in that they were men who loved their country and wanted to secure her liberty for their peers and their posterity, as do I.)

Posted in General | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments