About Us
Mission Statement
Rules of Conduct
 
Name:
Pswd:
Remember Me
Register
 

Musings on the Constitution
Author: TriSec    Date: 02/23/2008 13:13:20

Morning folks. Instead of the usual Libertarian Saturday, I've got some disjointed thoughts to share about something we all hold dear to our hearts.

I've been reading "The Patriot's Handbook", a terrific collection of important American documents from the Mayflower Compact all the way up to some George Bush speeches given after 9/11. It's not Liberal, or Conservative, or Red, or Blue...but American. It's a fascinating read, and some of the documents of the Founding Fathers have been truly eye-opening. I heartily recommend it.

Among the things I've read recently is the United States Constitution. Sure, we all aver that we know and love it, and will fight to the death to defend it...but what's in it that's so important? Have we all really read it? I was really struck by the juxtaposition of the Presidential Oath of Office and all those things that the President is supposed to "Preserve, Protect, and defend." I'm not going to lecture everyone on it, but I'll skim along and add some things that I think are relevant, and some of my comments.



Article I, Section 2, sets the size of the House of Representatives as follows: "(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three."

So...with the population of these United States at a hair over 300 million persons, the House of Reps, as specified by the constitution, should consist of 10,000 representatives...give or take. But wouldn't that be a little unwieldly? In any case, I didn't see an ammendment changing the distribution of representatives, so why don't we have more?

Article 1, Section 8 enumerates the powers of the Congress...and I found this particular point rather interesting. "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;". Of course, a letter of marque and reprisal authorizes Privateers (re: legal pirates), and has never been repealed. So how do we go about requesting said letter? I think it would be useful in this day and age, with all the enemies we have in the world. Let's start raiding them!

Of course, Section 9 limits the powers of congress...chief among them is this: "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.". Of course, this has never been modified or ammended in any way...so how does the President get off suspending habeus corpus by fiat?

Moving to the executive, Article 2 is rather small, and the powers of the President seem rather limited, perhaps by design. But I did see one thing of interest in Section 3: "He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States." Up until Calvin Coolidge, I believe...the State of the Union was an annual report presented to Congress. Only in the modern times has it become a posturing speech...But I also note that it states the President can dismiss both houses if there's a disagreement over a law as he sees fit...which kinda scares me.

Of course, we're all familiar with Article 2, Section 4, right? :-)

Article 3, concerning the judiciary, has an interesting point in Section 3..."Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." It's not so much about the vagueness of the definition of Treason, but the specification that only two witnesses are needed to convict. Witness 1: Valerie Plame. Witness 2: Joe Wilson. So when's the trial?

Moving on to the States...why isn't Gay Marriage the law of the land? It's legal in this Commonwealth, and according to the constitution in both Section 1 and 2 of Article 4: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." and "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.". Like many things I've already seen...it's never been modified or ammended.

And there's long been talk of Upper Michigan or Northern California splitting off and forming new states. Well...they can't. It says so right here in Section 3: "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress." So I guess that means armed rebellion and secession are the only real hope for change. You'll also note that despite others arguing to the contrary, secession is not expressly forbidden.

Much has been made recently about the religion and beliefs of the President, and the Candidates, and the power of the so-called "Religious Right". Well...Article 6 basically tells all of them to shut the hell up. "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."



There's a few points raised in the first ten ammendmends that I find interesting. We all know that the TSA is pretty much illegal, right? "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The Patriot Act wasn't an ammendment to the Constitution...so tell me why what the TSA does isn't unconstitutional?

Of course, waterboarding is Unconstitutional, too: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.", but then again, the rule of law doesn't apply to our military prisoners, right?

And then there's my favorite two ammendments, number 9 and 10: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.". Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but my read of this is that anything listed in the Constitution does not supersede any other rights not listed...and anything not specifically listed by the constitution belongs to the states, or local government. (the people). Prohibition is a great example...we tried to make it the law of the land, and it didn't work. So now the states, or in my state, the individual cities and towns, can decide if they want to sell alcohol or not. Since things like abortion, gay marriage, marijuana, and probably millions of other things aren't listed...why can't your local governent decide what is and isn't legal in your community?



Moving on, we'll take a look at George Washington's Farewell Address. It's a remarkable piece of rhetoric, and a worthy farewell from our first president.

Two paragraphs really struck a chord with me...the first is about us as Americans. We're all in this together, maybe we shouldn't be pointing the guns in...

"The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of american, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the Independence and Liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes."



But I'll leave you today with something truly stunning. President Washington didn't believe in political parties, and in his last official act in the service of the United States, he warned the people, and indeed, all future generations about the dangers inherent in such a system. Does this sound like anyone we know?

"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."


So...we should all remain ever-vigilant against those things our first President warned us about...and he must surely be spinning in his grave over what has transpired over the last ten years or so.





 

12 comments (Latest Comment: 02/24/2008 04:36:42 by Mondobubba)
   Perma Link

Share This!

Furl it!
Spurl
NewsVine
Reddit
Technorati