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.

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.)

When Daw initially introduced the bill, at Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff’s request, it contained language authorizing the use of these subpoenas in the cases of any suspected felony, but when this bill died a substitute was brought forward that not only narrowed its scope—adding stalking and child kidnapping to the list of permitted uses—but also included a blanket immunity clause letting complying service providers off the hook for divulging the requested private information.

This immunity calls into question the legality of the underlying transaction. In a conversation about his bill on Facebook, Rep. Daw asserted to me that the information possessed by such service providers is under their full control, and thus the property of the suspect was not even so much as thought about. If this is the case, however, then what standing would there even be for the suspect to sue, and why the need to offer immunity as a preventive action?

Further, Daw argued that the Fourth Amendment (which also exists in the Utah Constitution as Article I Section 14) has no relevance to the use of administrative subpoenas. It is an easy argument to make, however, that the private and personal information I have entrusted to another company (e.g. my internet browsing behavior, bank account information, etc., being known by my internet service provider) is my information, and thus I have a compelling privacy interest regardless of what third party happens to have access to said information. By contracting with a service provider, I have not consented to their full ownership of this information, and in no way have I authorized them to divulge it on my behalf. At best, they are stewards of this information with consent only to use it in the furtherance of our private business contract.

Any other access to this information should, as the Fourth Amendment makes clear, be obtained through a warrant, and on probable cause. An administrative subpoena meets neither criteria, since the Attorney General or his agent would simply write his own writ, authorizing himself on the spot to obtain the desired information. No burden of proof is required, no judicial oversight is provided, and those checks and balances everybody loves to praise are blown to the wind—all in the name of catching a few bad guys.

Few guys indeed: since the original bill was passed last year, these subpoenas have been used roughly 200 times. However, we are not privy to the more important information, such as how many were used in cases that led to successful conviction and prosecution; whether or not there has been any abuse of the power; how many different individuals have used the subpoenas; and whether there have been any valid complaints by service providers in response to the subpoenas.

Instead, I was told by Daw that: “The bill passed last year has been incredibly effective at stopping child pornography and in some cases saving children from having their lives ruined.” I’m all for going after the bad guys, but I’m far more concerned with restraining government power such that innocent individuals are protected and in no way made the target of such broad and unrestrained powers. I responded to Daw’s citation of last year’s law as follows:

I hope this isn’t your only measure of whether this is a good law or not. It would also be effective to outlaw cameras, require people obtain licenses to have internet access, or allow law enforcement to do anything and everything they thought necessary to catch offenders. But what is “effective” must, of course, be balanced against the right of each individual to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”. I’m sure last year’s law has helped stop some crime, but that doesn’t tell me that it’s a good law.

Indeed, not only is it not a good law, it’s on principle a very bad one. Administrative subpoenas are a close cousin to the widely abused National Security Letters whose scope was much more broadly authorized by the aforementioned PATRIOT Act. An enlightening 2005 report (PDF) on the subject from the Congressional Research Service raised the following points as arguments to be made against the use of these two tools of executive inquiry:

…administrative subpoenas including national security letters:

• are more likely to lead to unjustified intrusions of privacy;
• seem to replicate and expand existing national security letter authority, without an explanation as to why additional authority is needed;
• lack the judicial safeguards that accompany the issuance of a search warrant, probable cause and issuance by a neutral magistrate, among other things;
• generally lack the safeguards that accompany the issuance of a grand jury subpoena in that they are ordinarily are not subject to a motion to quash or to the necessary participation of an Assistant United States Attorney;
• are distinguishable from grand jury subpoenas by the simple fact that the extensive powers available to the grand jury are justified in part by the fact that the grand jury is not the government but a buffer against the abuse of governmental authority;
• can be extremely expensive and disruptive for the person or entity to whom they are addressed long before the thresholds of overbreadth or oppression (the point at which a subpoena will not be enforced) are reached;
• are subject to easy abuse when they are issued against third parties who may have little interest in contesting legitimacy;
• are subject to easy abuse when they are issued against third parties who are granted immunity from civil liability for the disclosures;
• are subject to easy abuse when they are issued against third parties who are subject to permanent gag orders precluding disclosure to targets who might otherwise contest the abuse; and
• are sought for their speed, an environment in which mistakes often breed.

The bulk of the report discusses the case law surrounding the use of such subpoenas, effectively muddying the waters in what is otherwise a crystal-clear issue: an executive officer of the government should not, without a judicially-approved warrant, be able to access private information about an individual merely by suspecting him/her of a crime. HB150 retains the language passed last year that requires that the service provider furnish, upon being given an administrative subpoena, the suspect’s name, address, phone records, browsing history, service history, and bank account and/or credit card information. It also retains a gag order imposed on the service provider, barring them from notifying the individual whose information was surrendered. (This law could not be any more modeled after the PATRIOT Act if it tried.)

Perhaps this issue is a litmus test for so-called conservatives who rail against federal encroachments of liberty and sovereignty, but seem all too willing to enlarge the state’s executive authority (even going so far as to rely upon the federal laws for support) simply because a few individuals are committing heinous crimes. (“Think of the children!”) Those who in many cases are suspicious of federal power find themselves in other cases copying and pasting from federal law to implement a similar expansion of executive power at a state level.

Whereas Daw justified his bill to me based on the fact that last year’s version passed both houses of the legislature unanimously (sad, isn’t it?), Shurtleff justifies it based on the fact that the federal government is already doing it, saying “The federal government does it right now. The FBI does this right now.” One wonders in what other legal situations Shurtleff would be so eager to apply the same logic. He additionally remarked that HB150 is “clearly not unconstitutional”—but then again, what would you expect the man to say when he is the one who requested the expanded powers?

There will always be wicked men doing evil deeds that merit investigation and punishment; effective law enforcement requires great restraint in first respecting and protecting the privacy and freedom of innocent individuals, and then, insofar as is possible, narrowly pursuing specific suspects. Unrestrained authority often (always?) leads to abuse and tyranny, even when the power is entrusted to alleged do-gooders.

Though it passed unanimously, last year’s bill was a “camel’s nose” which has tempted the Attorney General to continue to push for greater authority. This is evidenced by this year’s original bill that would grant such sweeping powers in the investigation of any alleged felony; though the substitute bill further narrows this scope, the power lust will result in Shurtleff and his successors continually looking to further expand their authority to more types of crime and access to more information.

HB150 and its predecessor codify a conflation of governmental power, suppressing the role of the judicial branch and augmenting the role of the executive. This warrantless method of obtaining information is indeed unwarranted, since whether the subpoena is being served to the suspect, or a company he or she has contracted with, the Fourth Amendment (and common sense) makes clear that all individuals are to be left alone unless a higher burden of proof has been met. The Attorney General and Utah legislature’s casual and blatant disregard of this fundamental right to privacy—for both the suspects and the stewards of their private information—speaks poorly of their understanding of and respect for the U.S. Constitution and the principle of liberty.

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.

Mitt Romney, unsurprisingly, is wrong. He’s not the only one spouting this hollow rhetoric, however. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said just last week during his CPAC speech that we should “never, ever, ever” apologize for America. Former Governor Sarah Palin said last fall that we “should never apologize for our country”. George H.W. Bush said, as President, that “I’ll never apologize for the United States. Ever. I don’t care what the facts are.”

These shallow and ignorant statements are an affront to any sense of justice, morality, and civic virtue. If, as Romney suggests, America has “made some mistakes”, it might just follow that, depending on their severity and damage, we should apologize and/or make reparations. To see where this might apply, and in stark contrast to the superficiality of Romney and his like-minded cohorts, let’s dig a bit deeper and consider a few examples, in no particular order:

Iran Air Flight 655

President Bush’s offensive statement above was no isolated incident. After a Navy missile destroyed an Iranian civilian airplane in 1988, killing all 290 passengers (including 66 children), Bush, who was Vice President and campaigning to become President, said in response to the event: “I will never apologize for the United States — I don’t care what the facts are… I’m not an apologize-for-America kind of guy.” You can only imagine how the family, friends, and Iranian population at large felt about these remarks by the soon-to-be leader of the so-called free world.

Vietnam war

America’s role in Vietnam was not isolated only to the intense and protracted military engagement. As Martin Luther King, Jr., pointed out in a 1967 speech, our entanglements were both historical and highly damaging. Though this article’s brevity require I exclude all but a portion, the reader is very much encouraged to read it in its entirety.

They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1945 after a combined French and Japanese occupation, and before the Communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its reconquest of her former colony.

Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not “ready” for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long. With that tragic decision we rejected a revolutionary government seeking self-determination, and a government that had been established not by China (for whom the Vietnamese have no great love) but by clearly indigenous forces that included some Communists. For the peasants this new government meant real land reform, one of the most important needs in their lives.

For nine years following 1945 we denied the people of Vietnam the right of independence. For nine years we vigorously supported the French in their abortive effort to recolonize Vietnam.

Before the end of the war we were meeting eighty percent of the French war costs. Even before the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, they began to despair of the reckless action, but we did not. We encouraged them with our huge financial and military supplies to continue the war even after they had lost the will. Soon we would be paying almost the full costs of this tragic attempt at recolonization.
…
What do the peasants think as we ally ourselves with the landlords and as we refuse to put any action into our many words concerning land reform? What do they think as we test our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe? Where are the roots of the independent Vietnam we claim to be building? Is it among these voiceless ones?

We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed their land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing of the nation’s only non-Communist revolutionary political force — the unified Buddhist church. We have supported the enemies of the peasants of Saigon. We have corrupted their women and children and killed their men. What liberators?

Now there is little left to build on — save bitterness. Soon the only solid physical foundations remaining will be found at our military bases and in the concrete of the concentration camps we call fortified hamlets. The peasants may well wonder if we plan to build our new Vietnam on such grounds as these? Could we blame them for such thoughts? We must speak for them and raise the questions they cannot raise. These too are our brothers.

Fast forward to the event that began America’s commitment of soldiers to war in a distant land. The false-flag Gulf of Tonkin incident served as political fodder for Robert McNamara and others to further involve America in the “cold war” worldwide battle to “contain” communism. The alleged goal was to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam; after over a decade of American involvement, and the groundswell of public opposition, our government removed its military support from the unsuccessful campaign. One Vietnamese in every ten had become a casualty of war (1.5 million killed, 3 million wounded), and the Vietnamese had been embroiled in resistance to foreign intervention or occupation for 116 years. Almost 60,000 Americans were killed, over 300,000 wounded, and all for an unncessary military campaign desired by a few politicians.

1953 Iranian coup d’état

The CIA helped overthrow the democratically-elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq, install the authoritarian monarch Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (the “Shah”) in his place (so much for “spreading democracy”, right?), and train his secret police force.

Eisenhower consider this project (“Operation Ajax”) a “successful secret war” though the event is now widely recognized as being a massive failure since the resulting “blowback” heavily contributed to the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which overthrew the Shah and replaced his pro-Western monarchy with the Islamic Republic of Iran, certainly no friend of the West.

In 2000, globalist and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stated “The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. … But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran’s political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs. (emphasis added)” While not an apology, this recognition is at least a petty needle in a voluminous haystack of long-standing imperial arrogance.

1973 Chilean coup d’état

On October 16, 1970, the CIA sent a message to its branch in Chile which read:

It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup. It would be much preferable to have this transpire prior to October 24 [1970] but efforts in this regard will continue vigorously beyond this date. We are to continue to generate maximum pressure toward this end, utilizing every appropriate resource. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG and American hand be well hidden…

Just shy of three years later, and in the alleged name of rooting out Communism, the CIA was successful in helping to overthrow the government of democratically-elected President Salvador Allende through a military coup. The military junta that consolidated control of the government was backed by the U.S. government, composed of the leaders of Chile’s various military branches, and headed by General Augusto Pinochet.

Around three months of riots and public resistance to the coup followed, leading to the arrest of tens of thousands of people who were held in the National Stadium. The Rettig Report determined that 2,279 individuals were killed by the military dictatorship for political reasons or as a result of political violence. The Valech Report stated that 31,947 individuals were tortured, and 1,312 were exiled. Two-thirds of these instances of brutal oppression occurred within one year of the U.S.-assisted coup.

Banana Wars

The military interventions into Central America and Caribbean countries in the early 1900s received this nickname because of their primary purpose, which was to preserve American commercial interests in the region (banana production chief among them). The list of countries whose governments the U.S. overthrew and occupied shows the magnitude of military force being used to clear the way for the American corporate prostitution of these countries’ natural resources.

Smedley Butler, who at the time of his death was the most decorated Marine in U.S. history, was highly involved in these wars and later stunned an audience recounting his participation in and assessment of these wars:

I spent 33 years…being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism….

I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1916. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City [Bank] boys to collect revenue in. I helped in the rape of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street….

In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested….I had…a swell racket. I was rewarded with honors, medals, promotions….I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate a racket in three cities. The Marines operated on three continents…

Iraq

From 1990 to 2003, and initiated at the U.S. government’s behest, the U.N. imposed sanctions on Iraq after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. After the Iraqis were forced out, the sanctions began with the U.N. mandating that the country comply with Security Council Resolution 687 which demanded that Iraq eliminate its weapons of mass destruction and that it recognize the nation-state of Kuwait.

Rolf Ekeus, the U.N. representative responsible for identifying and destroying Iraq’s weaponry, had already certified that 817 out of Iraq’s 819 long-range missiles had been destroyed. This report was a political liability for President Bill Clinton, who had his new Secretary of State Madeleine Albright declare that sanctions would continue until Saddam was removed from office.—a much different purpose than their original one. This led to Saddam refusing to work with the weapons inspectors any longer, leaving only the hopes of Clinton’s administration that heavy suffering imposed on the Iraqi citizens would somehow bring down the despot.

Half a million children are estimated to have died as a result of the sanctions—a number which Albright once declared in an interview as being “worth it”. In 2000, Christian Aid observed that:

The immediate consequence of eight years of sanctions has been a dramatic fall in living standards, the collapse of the infrastructure, and a serious decline in the availability of public services. The longer-term damage to the fabric of society has yet to be assessed but economic disruption has already led to heightened levels of crime, corruption and violence. Competition for increasingly scarce resources has allowed the Iraqi state to use clan and sectarian rivalries to maintain its control, further fragmenting Iraqi society.

During the dozens years of sanctions, bombs were being dropped on Iraq almost daily, while the sanctions continued a long campaign of human rights violations. The U.N.’s humanitarian aid chief, Dennis Halliday, resigned in protest, as did his successor, Hans von Sponeck. Together, they wrote that:

The death of some 5–6,000 children a month is mostly due to contaminated water, lack of medicines and malnutrition. The US and UK governments’ delayed clearance of equipment and materials is responsible for this tragedy, not Baghdad.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki

One cannot think of an action committed by this country’s government that necessitates an apology without having the bombing of these two Japanese cities come to mind. President Harry S. Truman ordered the bombing of these two cities, filled with hundreds of thousands of civilians, in supposed retaliation for the attack on Pearl Harbor, a military installation. The lives of some 200,000 civilian men, women, and children were immediately snuffed out, or slowly and miserably drained through the effects of radiation poisoning, in one of the greatest war crimes this nation has ever committed.

Consider two variants on the action. Would so many Americans cheer the retaliation if instead of sending the bombs, our military had rounded up each individual in the two cities and murdered them in gas chambers? Or, if Germany had dropped atomic bombs on cities instead of our government, would those responsible not have been charged as war criminals and sentenced to death at Nuremberg?

Guantanamo

Guantanamo Bay is the military detention facility where the U.S. government imprisons alleged terrorists, beginning in 1991 when George H.W. Bush used it to round up HIV-positive Haitian immigrants who were forcefully separated from other refugees after the 1991 Haitian coup. The first captives in George Bush’s “war on terror” arrived from Kandahar, some 8,000 miles away, on January 11, 2002, and locked up in wire cages. In order to sidestep the rights guaranteed to prisoners of war by the Geneva Conventions, they were labeled “unlawful (and later ‘enemy’) combatants”.

Out of 775 total detainees sent to Guantanamo, only 245 currently remain. 420 have been released without being charged for any crime—sent packing with nary an apology or compensation for the years of their lives lost. And thus far only three (three!) individuals have been charged with a crime:

• David Hicks was found guilty under retrospective legislation introduced in 2006 of providing material support to terrorists in 2001.
• Salim Hamdan took a job as chauffeur driving Osama bin Laden.
• Ali al-Bahlul made a video celebrating the attack on the USS Cole (DDG-67).

Thus, the fruits of this imperial institution are the successful prosecution of a man who donated some money or supplies, a car driver, and a videographer. The lives of hundreds of individuals have been forcefully altered through the decision of the U.S. government to imprison them without being charged of a crime, all in the name of allegedly providing security for Iraq/Afghanistan and our “homeland”. According to some sources, the government now plans to hold 47 of these individuals in infinite detention, neither giving them an opportunity to contest the (likely erroneous) allegations made against them, nor releasing them for lack of evidence.

Conclusion

The list, unfortunately, could continue. The examples cited above are a mere handful in an otherwise lengthy chronicle of circumstances in which the U.S. government has been directly responsible for denying other individuals the right to their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Should America offer no apology for any of the aforementioned atrocities? Should our government be able to wash its hands so easily of these actions by merely declaring them necessary for “protecting America’s interests”, “spreading democracy”, or some similarly pathetic response? And should the ignorance and/or arrogance of current politicians be tolerated when they declare that “we should not apologize for America”?

History makes at least one thing absolutely clear: regardless of the stated purposes and proffered justifications, the United States of America has been the cause and source of untold death, destruction, and damage. To say that we should not apologize for these stains on our nation’s standard of liberty is not only a reflection of the individual’s inadequate level of morality, but an indication that he or she might one day participate in similar atrocities.

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.

Global Warming is “Very Likely”

I recently asked a couple of my Facebook friends–Cliff Lyon and Rocky Anderson–if they could give me incontrovertible evidence whether man was causing global warming.  They both turned to the newly-in-vogue mantra that it was “very likely” that man was doing so, and if I understood science I would understand that that’s the best it can get.  Fine.  But let’s compare that with some other “very likely” scenarios.

Scenario 1: Without any other forces acting on him, a boy jumps off a high tree branch. Is it “very likely” that he will fall to the ground?

Scenario 2: I turn up the stove element until it is red hot. I put my bare hand on the stove element. Is it “very likely” that my hand will get burned?

Scenario 3: A measuring station measures in increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Is it “very likely” that carbon dioxide has increased?

Scenario 4: Man uses fossil fuels that demonstrably add to CO2 content of the atmosphere. The earth shows a period of warming. Is it “very likely” that man caused the warming?

I think you see that–whether or not science is only able to show that something is “very likely”–scenarios 1, 2, and 3 are about as close to incontrovertible as we can get, while scenario 4 is just as much “very unlikely” as it is “very likely”. The answer to the question in scenario 4 is “we don’t yet know”. There is no shame in admitting this. But it takes a shameful leap of immense faith to dare to proclaim as “very likely” that man is causing very much global warming at all, not to mention the mis-allocation of resources that would occur if people were to allow their governments to take such claims seriously.

When it comes to global warming, there IS some evidence that is incontrovertible. One of the most important of these facts is that man IS adding to the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. The other is that the earth DOES have cycles of warming. It’s ironic that most man-made global warming advocates don’t want you to know that most so-called “global warming skeptics” actually believe these two incontrovertible facts. So they make up all kinds of false stories about what we so-called “deniers” believe.

By the way, another “very likely” scenario posed to me by Rocky Anderson was this: if someone told you that it was “very likely” that your child was going to be run over by a car, what would you do? Answer: I guess I’d first try to find out if my child was playing in the middle of the street.

Global Warming is Nearing A Tipping Point

In the year 2000, Malcolm Gladwell wrote a book called The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. I’m not sure if this is where man-made global warming alarmists got their idea from, but it seems to me recently that they have begun to raise the spectre of a carbon dioxide “tipping point”. Despite seeming to be an act of desperation akin to the last gasps of an unpopular snake-oil salesman, the fear mongering of the alarmists seems to me very akin to the “ticking time bomb” scenario made so infamous by the thug Jack Bauer on the TV series “24″.

The fact of the matter is that Carbon Dioxide makes up only about 380 of every million molecules in the atmosphere. Since 1959, the Mauna Loa observatory has measured that CO2 is increasing at the rate of just over 1 part per million per year. At that rate, in about another 250 years, carbon dioxide will have doubled in the atmosphere since 1959.

If CO2 were to double in the atmosphere, and if nothing else changed, it would raise the temperature by 1 degree Fahrenheit. CO2 has risen by 1/5 in the last 50 years. That does not sound to me like we’re anywhere near any sort of tipping point. That sounds like we have at least a couple of decades to sensibly pursue alternative forms of energy.

Come to think of it though, global warming may indeed be very likely to hit a tipping point soon. That tipping point, however, will probably be a preponderance of Americans seeing past the religious faith that is required of man-made global warming alarmists in order for them to make their unproven and outlandish claims.

This article was originally published at SimpleUtahMormonPolitics.com.

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.”

That may seem obvious to many of my readers, but an entrenched system of incumbency has made it near impossible for the foggy-minded masses to separate the person from the position. Another manifestation of this unfortunate reality occurs every time an incumbent decides not to run for re-election. Witness the title of your average news story reporting on Senator Dodd’s recent decision: “Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd won’t seek reelection, will retire at end of term”. Of course, one of the more literal interpretations of the word ‘retire’ simply means to withdraw, retreat, or leave. However, the context in which this word is used in reference to multiple-term incumbents refers almost always to the more common definition: choosing to leave one’s job.

Evident here is the arrogance with which these modern-day aristocrats consider their circumstances. These news reports are only public examples of what numerous statements, policies, and actions on the part of the politicians themselves demonstrate—that is, an underlying belief, conscious or otherwise, that it is their seat. They revel in their power, they are comfortable in their position, and they correspondingly consider themselves entitled.

There are, of course, a select few who withstand this false sense of nobility and put in sober context the power with which they have been entrusted. These are the statesmen—a small minority among swarms of power-seeking and power-wielding politicians eager to do what such individuals do best: increase their power.

Power has only one end: to expand. Even a maintenance of the status quo is unacceptable since the enemy might be progressing, and so power naturally seeks to augment itself in whatever fashion to always remain in power. Along the way, the maneuvering politicians become further entrenched and ever more authoritarian. Who wouldn’t, when you can shape the lives of hundreds of millions of people through your legislation, back-room deals, and political favors?

The aristocracy must be torn down; its existence has only occurred through the indifference and apathy of average Americans who look the other way while their elected representatives side-step the restraints found in the Constitution, promote policies and programs for which the federal government has no moral authority, and accumulate a sizable war chest and a supporting network of like-minded aristocrats. The people must rise up against this abuse of authority and tear down the arrogance and power that have grown like weeds in the once-fertile soil of our Constitutional Republic.

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.”

Other retiring Democrats such as Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), Rep. Bart Gordon (TN), Rep. Marion Berry (AR), and Rep. Dennis Moore (KA) have also complained about Washington partisanship in their retirement announcements.

Berry even blasted the President’s reaction to the possibility of a 1994 Republican revolution redux this fall. He told his local newspaper:

The president himself, when that was brought up in one group, said, ‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’ We’re going to see how much difference that makes now.

Bayh is the fifth Democratic Senator to announce that he will not seek reelection this year. His retirement is sending the Democrats scrambling to look for a replacement. The filing deadline for the Indiana state Democrat primary election was today.

As time passes it looks increasingly possible for Republicans to gain majority status in both the House and the Senate this fall.

My biggest concern is: are they ready?

Republicans blew it before because they were more concerned about hanging onto their power than they were about governing as Republicans should. In other words, they got the other strain of Potomac Fever and began acting like Democrats — growing the federal government and spending money like drunken, well, congressmen.

Let’s hope the Republicans have learned from their mistakes, and work hard to replace those who have not.

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.

While true in part, relying only upon this method of input is arrogant, if not flat out wrong. Elected officials who make an oath upon assuming office to support and defend the Constitution owe their allegiance to this document, first and foremost. If one’s “conscience” dictates a desire to implement an individual health care insurance mandate at the federal level, for example, then that (un-constitutional) desire must be subjected to the Constitution before pursuing any related legislation.

If and when one’s desired policy or program passes constitutional muster, then it is proper for a legislator to consider his or her own conscience. After all, it is a representative system, and if that person was voted into office, it is because a majority of the voting constituents liked his/her platform and entrusted him/her with that office. As such, it is unnecessary (if not improper) for a legislator to constantly focus upon or worry about the feelings of his/her constituents in regard to an issue. This is not a democracy, and the constituents are not supposed to be deciding upon each issue. Conducting or paying attention to polls shows a concern more for re-election than for principled action.

That being said, there are times in which a legislator is indifferent or ignorant about an issue, or perhaps has an incorrect stance that can be corrected through feedback from informed and engaged constituents. At times, then, it becomes necessary to seek counsel from key advisors, or better yet, one’s constituency, in order to determine how a certain vote should be cast. Of course, only the more vocal and active constituents will likely make their voices heard when a request is made, opening up an imbalance in the response being observed by the legislator. Whatever the response is, a true representative will seek at all times to represent his/her constituents, and if circumstances drastically change public opinion on an issue, the legislator can either ignore the constituency and vote his/her conscience (or lack thereof), or subject him/herself to removal in the next election cycle. Either way, the constituents will ultimately determine who their representative will be.

The widespread dissatisfaction that the majority of Americans have with their elected officials can be largely attributed to the imbalance of these factors. Their proper prioritization—most importantly, placing the Constitution before one’s own political desires—would solve a large number of problems in Congress and restore a decent amount of respect in the way our representatives conduct their business.

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.

I don’t know how many distinct axis may usefully divide the political landscape to understand the many varied perspectives that play into our national political debate but I have identified at least one more axis besides the personal and economic freedom axis – there is the power axis that deserves to be considered. How much political power a person has seems to have a distinct influence on their political outlook. Unlike the personal and economic outlook axis, which are virtually independent of each other, the power axis tends to insert some biases into people. The more political power a person attains the more likely they are to gravitate towards some degree of Big Government statism. I’m not sure which is the cause and which is the effect (I suspect they are simply intertwined) but there definitely seems to be a correlation between rising power and rising acceptance of statism. (I wish I could come up with a visual representation for this.)

While it is important for us to recognize that third dimension, perhaps another important insight can be gained from simply accepting the existence of any new axis – our perspective can be deceptive as to the view of others. From whatever your vantage point in the political universe your understanding of other viewpoints will be greatly enhanced anytime you are able to acquire a description of the other viewpoint from a vantage point that is not substantially the same as your own. Without that different perspective your view is reduced to two dimensions or less and you may fail to discern where others differ in their perspectives, or you may fail to recognize the significance when two people (perhaps as different as Ms. Hamsher and myself) agree on a particular point.

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?

This question betrays a deep misunderstanding not only of the position of supporting a constitutional amendment, but of the Constitution itself. Included within this revered (but long since discarded) document is the ability and authority to change it—something that has been already done 27 times. To support the Constitution, then, implies different things to different people. Does a constitutional supporter advocate only for the version free of any amendments, or the one that includes the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments), or the one as it stands today, or some other iteration of the document?

Many advocates of the Constitution will, like myself, have qualifiers for amendments—both those already passed and those proposed. Some amendments have augmented the principles enshrined in the Constitution, such as giving women the power to vote, outlawing slavery, and each and every one of the amendments included in the Bill of Rights. On the other hand, some amendments have run wholly contrary to these principles, including and especially the 16th amendment (which provided for a direct income tax) and the 17th amendment (which destroyed federalism).

Taken in this way, one’s principled support for the Constitution is just that: support for principles. Thus, in addition to advocating for some amendments which would strengthen the Constitution according to the principles of liberty, limited government, and state sovereignty it was founded upon, a constitutional supporter might also propose repealing some of its alterations that have forced it to stray from that standard.

It is not hypocritical to express support for the Constitution while suggesting ways it can be modified to be better. The framers of this important document recognized the need for it to adapt where desired, and thus provided for this possibility in Article V which details the process by which it may be amended. Ironically, then, it is those who want to improve the document while adhering to its restraints that show the most respect and support for the Constitution.

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.

I’m not sure where many historians got the idea that Herbert Hoover was a laissez faire president. He was nothing of the sort. Just because many fawning historians say something doesn’t make it any more true than many fawning economists saying that Wall Street needed a bailout in 2008 made that a wise decision.

Of Herbert Hoover, Franklin D. Roosevelt himself once said, “He is certainly a wonder, and I wish we could make him President of the United States.” Paul Johnson, one of the few who historians who did not worship FDR, correctly observed that Hoover, as part of Woodrow Wilson’s administration

absorbed its philosophy of forceful government direction and planning… [He] achieved a worldwide reputation for efficient, interventionist benevolence. There was no aspect of public policy in which Hoover was not intensely active

A History of the American People, page 737

Sounds like I’m describing FDR, doesn’t it? I’m not. What is the agenda of a media that perpetuates this lie about Hoover? It’s not hard to guess. Thomas Woods writes

For decades, American schoolchildren were–and many still are–taught that President Herbert Hoover, who is described as a strict proponent of laissez faire, sat back and did nothing as the Great Depression devastated the country. [In reality] Hoover expressly said that the laissez-faire approach to the economy was a thing of the past. No peacetime president in American history intervened in the economy to the extent that Hoover did.

Meltdown: A Free Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed…, page 98-100

Unsurprising to students of actual American history, as Woods tells us,

Much of what constituted FDR’s New Deal programs was just a series of extrapolations from what Hoover had already been doing. In short, the Hoover-Roosevelt program…prop[ped] up unsound business decisions.

One can really claim that Franklin D. Roosevelt was a good president only if they can convince you that he was different than Herbert Hoover.  He wasn’t.

When you develop a correct understanding of what really happened, you realize that most historians didn’t lie to you by telling you that Herbert Hoover was a terrible president.  But then you also realize that Franklin D. Roosevelt was essentially the same kind of president Hoover was.  And that would make him and his economic policies rather terrible as well.

This article was originally published at SimpleUtahMormonPolitics.com.