Politics Elevated

For the last couple of weeks I have been teaching a Citizenship in the Nation merit badge to the Boy Scouts in my LDS Stake.  Here are some of the fundamentals that we have talked about regarding the United States Constitution.

Nearly every boy in the three classes I taught raised his hand when I asked if his school teacher requires that he read so many pages per month on his own. “Why then,” I ask, “don’t you read the 39 pages of this little booklet containing the Constitution and Declaration of Independence as part of that assignment?”  Every boy in each class admitted to having read at least one book in his life that was longer than 39 pages.  The 39 pages of the booklet containing these two founding documents could well be 39 of the most important pages that they–or you–will ever read.

The Constitution is divided up into Articles and Sections.  These divisions can be roughly compared to the chapters and verses in the Bible or other scriptures. The Articles are identified by Roman numerals (i.e. I, II, III, IV), while the Sections are identified by the Arabic numerals that we use regularly today (i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4).

The Preamble is a short paragraph (actually one long sentence) at the beginning of the Constitution, and it serves as the introduction and reasoning for why the Constitution is needed.

The first three articles of the Constitution deal with (I) the Legislature, or the Congress, (II) the Executive, or the President, and (III) the Judiciary, or the Supreme Court and other courts.  Article I clearly states that only the Legislature can make law.  When the President attempts to make law with an Executive Order, or when a Supreme Court decision attempts to make new law, these other two branches are clearly stepping beyond their Constitutional authority.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution lists approximately 18 things that the Legislative Branch (Congress) can make laws about.  Use the mnemonic I + 8 = 18 to remember these approximately 18 areas of authority. In essay number 45 of the Federalist Papers, James Madison wrote that

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

Amendments 9 and 10 in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights (which comprises the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution) agree with James Madison’s statement that the Federal Government should remain small because (a) since rights come from God as stated in the Declaration of Independence, government cannot take them away, and (b) any of the short list of authorities not granted to the federal government is left to the states or the people to decide.

To Amend something is to change it or to fix it.  The Constitution was inspired by God, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it is perfect.  The very first 10 Amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, were immediately required by some of the states before they would agree to ratify the Constitution. (The Bill of Rights was presented in Congress by James Madison at about the time the Constitution took effect and was separately ratified by the States about two years later.)

Whenever the government or the people feel that government should have a power that is not granted in the Constitution, the only way to bestow that power is by Amendment, as described in Article V.  The Amendment process is purposefully difficult.  As a result, in the last few decades, Congresses, Presidents, and the people have gotten lazy, thinking that Congress or even the president can make laws or policy–without Amendments–that clearly disagree with what the Constitution says.

The velocity of unconstitutional lawmaking seems to have taken off since 1913, when, ironically, two Amendments were ratified by the States:

• Amendment XVI made it Constitutional for the federal government to levy an income tax
• Amendment XVII removed the authority of appointing Senators from the State legislatures and instead required that they be elected in the same manner as members of the House of Representatives–by the peoople

I explained to the boys that in the Constitution the “Three-Fifths” clause essentially made it so that slaves only counted as 3/5 of a person.  “That sounds kind of racist doesn’t it?” I asked.  “Uh-huh!!!”  They all agreed.  I explained, though, that, contrary to first impressions, the Three Fifths Clause was the opposite of racist.  It was a compromise that accelerated the demise of slavery as an American institution.  We talked about how the Census is used every ten years to count the numbers of people in each State in order to determine how many representatives each State gets in Congress. It was interesting to watch the light bulbs turn on in the boys’ minds as they realized that if the slave states would have been able to count all of their slaves (who, by the way, were prohibited by their masters from voting), the slave states would have been much more likely able to perpetuate that most embarrassing blight on American history by having more representation in Congress.  That, along with the prohibition of importing any more slaves into the United States after 1808, helped gradually get rid of slavery in America.

This article was originally published at SimpleUtahMormonPolitics.com.

photo credit: OperationKids

A piece of legislation currently working its way through the Utah legislature seeks to expand the authority for Utah law enforcement agencies to use so-called “administrative subpoenas” to obtain information from internet and other telecom service providers about individuals who are allegedly suspected of certain types of crime. Sponsored by Representative Brad Daw (R-Orem), HB150 amends the statute created last year that authorized the use of these subpoenas in cases of suspected sexual abuse of children.

An administrative subpoena is a writ issued by a government agency that has the sanctioned authority to compel testimony by a witness or the production of desired evidence. HB150 focuses on the latter, and for support leans on two statutes in the United States Code, namely 18 U.S.C. 2703 (“Required disclosure of customer communications or records”) and 18 U.S.C. 2702 (“Voluntary disclosure of customer communications or records”)—both substantially modified by the horrible USA PATRIOT Act—to justify the use of such subpoenas. (Keep in mind that the federally-legalized subpoenas were originally meant for terrorists, not child sex offenders and others. But I digress.)

[Read the rest of this entry...]

photo credit: kevindooley

In an interview this week about his forthcoming book, No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, Mitt Romney was asked what he meant when saying that America need not apologize. He responded as follows:

While we’ve made some mistakes, we have a record of promoting freedom, peace, and prosperity throughout the world. There is a view in Washington that America will be eclipsed by other nations. I think that would have grave consequences for freedom and world peace.

True to form, he did not actually answer the question. He first made a highly superficial concession that we’ve made some mistakes. (Which? How often? How damaging?) He then goes on to blabber about a “view” that other nations might “eclipse” America, something he feels would have “grave consequences”. How this is in any way connected to the original question is anyone’s best guess.

[Read the rest of this entry...]

Photo Courtesy of Nature.com

Some terms I seem to hear more often from man-made global warming alarmists these days are that man is “very likely” causing global warming, and that it may be at a “tipping point”.  Both phrases indicate a sense of desperation.  Maybe the whole idea of man-made global warming itself is very likely at a tipping point.
[Read the rest of this entry...]

photo credit: The Library of Congress

The theory of congressional stagnation refers to the high rate of retention for Congresscritters seeking re-election. In the 2008 election, for example, 94% of members of the House were re-elected, and 83% of incumbent Senators retained their seat.

The prevalence of this pattern has created an environment in which it has become customary to consider the position as belonging to that individual. This is not entirely unexpected, since an individual in the same position for one, two, or three decades is hard to separate from the position he holds. Most recently, then-candidate Scott Brown had to correct moderator (and notoriously statist) David Gergen for referring to the open Senate seat as belonging to Ted Kennedy. Applause ensued when Brown remarked, quite correctly, that it is “the people’s seat.”

[Read the rest of this entry...]

There’s a new strain of Potomac Fever spreading through Washington. Democrats seem to be most susceptible to the disease. Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) is the latest victim to succumb in a string of illnesses.

Potomac Fever is usually associated with the love of Washington; the love of power and politics. This new strain of the bug, however, has had quite the opposite effect. As Josh Kraushaar from Politico puts it, “even the politicians are sick of Washington.”

In his speech yesterday, Bayh said:

I love working for the people of Indiana, I love helping our citizens make the most of their lives, but I do not love Congress.”

[Read the rest of this entry...]

photo credit: Keven

Elected leaders in our republican representative system face a quandary when considering how they will vote on an issue. Many of them are unfortunately unaware of (or intentionally ignore) the standard by which their votes are to be cast, and thus proceed in blatant disregard for the proper process of deciding upon an issue. This process entails three influencing factors whose order is important: the Constitution, one’s own conscience, and the constituency being represented by the office held.

Most politicians disregard the first and the last, voting only according to their conscience (or lack thereof). This type of person might, if they’re savvy enough to use the argument, justify their actions by pointing to the representative system itself—the voters placed this person in office because of his/her stance on the issues, and thus that stance can confidently be implemented once the office is obtained.

[Read the rest of this entry...]

photo credit: mkandlez

Jane Hamsher wrote about the 11 Dimensional Chess approach to health care legislation that the Obama administration tried. That sent me back to some earlier thoughts I had shared about how we visualize the political spectrum. The simplest way to view things is one dimensional. Like the opening image here it breaks down into a right/left, red/blue, conservative/liberal, Republican/Democrat, or another single-axis spectrum. Many people recognize how inadequate such a simplified view is and various people (including myself) have sought to devise two-dimensional representations of the political landscape.

Of the many maps out there I think the easiest to comprehend is this from the Worlds Smallest Political Quiz:

With an axis measuring personal freedom issues and an axis measuring economic freedom issues it is not difficult to grasp the lay of the land according to this graph. Unfortunately this two dimensional representation, like all other two-dimensional representations, falls short of accurately describing reality.

[Read the rest of this entry...]

photo credit: lamsonlibrary

Given the resurgent popularity of the Constitution in many conservative political circles as of late, ideological opponents have taken to looking for weaknesses in position and policy that are susceptible to attack. One of the more tiresome and ignorant retorts deals with the desire by some proponents of the Constitution to amend it.

The argument goes something like this: how can a person who claims that the Constitution is inspired and so important simultaneously advocate that it be changed without appearing hypocritical?

[Read the rest of this entry...]

One of the grossest distortions in American history is the claim that Herbert Hoover was a much different kind of president than Franklin D Roosevelt. He wasn’t. In reality, FDR picked up his interventionist government policies right where Hoover left off–with the same sorry results.

[Read the rest of this entry...]