Sir Thomas More and the Constitution Posted by MotorMouse

Posted 05/26/10 Last updated 05/31/10

Sir Thomas More and the Constitution

(Excerpt from 'A Man for All Seasons'. A 1966 film starring Paul Scofield.)

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

  I've encountered a tendency to perceive steadfast defenders of the Constitution as backward and simple.
Uneducated people who use the constitution merely as a rallying point for blind patriotism.
A document with little more relevance today than an "America, love it or leave it" bumper sticker.

  The  Constitution is considered to be archaic. A relic from a different time. Out of step with an America that has undergone so many changes in 250 years. Anyone who does not understand this, must be unenlightened.
It is now a living document. One that needs to evolve. It needs to progress if it is to serve a progressive society.
True, our country is not the same as it once was. Changes in technology, lifestyle, communication etc...  continue to shrink our world and accelerate time, but human nature is timeless. As is the Constitution.

  The founding fathers were historians and philosophers. A product of the Age of Enlightenment. They examined previous societies with sober reflection, in order to form a more perfect union. The heart and soul of that union is the Constitution. It was carefully written to avoid the pitfalls that plagued previous generations. The same problems, that reappeared over and over throughout the course of 5000 years of human civilization. Times may change but human nature remains the same, and it always will.

  Today we find, much to the chagrin of Sir Thomas, the rule of law being swept away in the service of short term political expediency, with reckless abandon. 'The end justifies the means', is our new motto, for both liberal and conservative. We have no problem trimming a little fat off the Constitution, if the cause is just.

  Yet when it serves our needs, we expect the Constitution to be sacrosanct, inviolable, sacred. But now we find these arguments fall on deaf ears. The Supreme Court has changed it's meaning, at our own behest. And now the law that once protected us, no-longer exists when we need it. The Devil wins.

Dan Kircher

<!-- -->

18th Century Definitions: "General Welfare" Posted by Michael Boldin

Posted 10/09/09

While looking through a copy of Samuel Johnson's "A Dictionary of the English Language" (published in 1755), one can find a number of interesting definitions that have broad-reaching effects on public policy. Here's two that are quite relevant these days:

General:

1. Comprehending many species or individuals; not special.
3. Not restrained by narrow or distinctive limitations
5. Public; comprising the whole

Welfare:

1. Happiness; success; prosperity

Clearly, these definitions, Constitutionally-speaking, are far different than what the politicians and pundits tell us. The "general Welfare" clause, as stated in the Tenth Amendment Center's 10-4 Pledge for the Constitution, was actually meant as a limit on power - not an excuse to expand it:

The phrase, "general Welfare," in Article I, Section 8 does not authorize Congress to enact any laws it claims are in the "general Welfare" of the United States. The phrase sets forth the requirement that all laws passed by Congress in Pursuance of the enumerated powers of the Constitution shall also be in the general Welfare of the United States. This was affirmed by James Madison when he wrote: "With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

A Lesson on the General Welfare Clause Posted by Michael Boldin

Posted 11/19/09

I just posted a new podcast episode over at TenthAmendmentCenter.com - had the honor of chatting with Rob Natelson, professor of law and recognized national expert on the framing and adoption of the US Constitution.

In the show, he discusses the original meaning of the words "general welfare" themselves, the meaning of general welfare in the preamble, the original meaning and understanding of the clause, the taxing clause, the Hamiltonian vs the Madisonian view, anti-federalist concerns, modern interpretations, court cases which have turned its meaning upside down, practical reasons for a limiting view of the clause and the Constitution as a whole, and more.

I think it's extremely informative. You can listen to it at the following link:
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/11/19/rob-natelson-a-lesson-on-the-general-welfare-clause/

Who are the greedy? Posted by taotree

Posted 08/24/09 Last updated 08/24/09

It's funny in a sad sort of way to hear so many people state that greed caused this or that problem. Then, these same people call for more government regulation. And what is government regulation? It is the prioritization of self interest. It is granting one group higher privilege than another. It is granting greed.

So, before you call out for more government programs, consider very carefully who the greedy one really is. There are those who believe in a free market where everyone is free to pursue their own self-interest equally.  There are those who want more and more government so that they get their self-interest served instead of others.

So... who are the greedy ones?

6 Simple Ways to Dramatically Cut Costs of Medical Care - at Zero Expense to Taxpayers Posted by Terry Spady

Posted 07/31/09

"6 Simple Ways to Dramatically Cut Costs of Medical Care - at Zero Expense to Taxpayers" by Michael Cloud

Imagine that the federal and state governments imposed laws, regulations, restrictions, and mandates on medical care that drastically increased the cost - without improving medical care.

What if it were possible to cut your medical care costs by 20% or 30% or even 50% now - while keeping current levels of quality and service - by repealing and removing these government-created burdens and barriers?

If this were possible, would you want it?

Would you want the U.S. Congress to repeal and remove these laws, regulations, restrictions, and mandates?

Would you want your state legislature to do the same?

Yes? Well, these government-imposed burdens and barriers DO exist - and your federal and state legislators CAN repeal and remove them.

Would you like to see a small sample?

1. Allow price advertising. Let pharmacies, doctors, hospitals, and laboratories to publish their prices for goods and services. Eliminate all laws, regulations, and government provisions that hinder or prevent medical providers from posting their prices.

Charges for the same medical procedure can vary 30% to 300% within a 100-mile radius. But without price information, patients can't shop for the best value.

In the 1970's, U.C.L.A. Economist Sam Peltzman compared the costs of eyeglasses in states that allowed price advertising and states that outlawed it. Results? Much lower prices in states that allowed price advertising.

2. Let all Americans buy prescription drugs outside the United States. Do NOT force them to travel abroad. Allow them to have the prescription drugs shipped to their homes.

I've seen the 30% to 60% savings in prices of prescription drugs purchased in Mexico.

International competition for prescription drugs will drive down domestic prescription prices.

3. Let all people buy medical insurance across state lines. In New Jersey, a single man would pay $4,000 for medical insurance. If he lived in Pennsylvania, he'd pay $1,500. If the New Jersey man could buy medical insurance from a Pennsylvania provider, he'd save $2,500 a year.

Imagine this all across America.

This would cut medical insurance costs for millions who already have needlessly overpriced premiums.

AND, if the American Enterprise Institute study is correct, this would make medical insurance affordable for 12 million uninsured Americans.

4. Let doctors and patients negotiate discounts for paying cash. If a patient saves a doctor the time, trouble, delay and cost of dealing with insurance companies, Medicare, or Medicaid - let the doctor and patient share the savings.

5. Let patients, doctors, and hospitals enter into into legally binding, limited-liability contracts. This would reduce the cost of medical treatment by reducing the cost of malpractice insurance.

Just as Prenuptial Agreements limit marital risk, limited-liability contracts will limit medical risk.

6. End all government mandates that require businesses or individuals to buy medical insurance. End all government mandates that punish and tax those who do NOT buy medical insurance. Make insurance companies earn our business with lower prices and better quality - rather than lobby government to compel us to buy medical insurance by force of law. (See Carla Howell's excellent essay below.)

This is just a sketch of small government proposals to UN-do the government-caused high prices of medical care.

Definitions and Philosophy Posted by taotree

Posted 07/18/09 Last updated 04/22/10

There are some key things in our struggle for freedom that need to be better understood by all of us and articulated appropriately. So much of even our movement is hacking at the leaves and that's all the media does. I have yet to see anyone talk about the real underlying philosophies that are at work.

The real question is the definition of justice and rights (which potentially are dependent on each other so if you define one, you've defined the other, maybe)  What definition should we all agree to use? Rights to equality of opportunity or rights to equality of outcomes?

Unfortunately, the two sides just talk past each other using the same words but different definitions. For example, we could say: "Government should do nothing but protect rights!"  But the socialists who want single payer health care could say exactly the same thing! Because they consider health care a right. Because they consider rights/justice in the light of equality of outcomes. To them, 100% socialism is the ultimate protection of everyone's rights of equality of outcomes and thus an ideal all "good government" loving people should strive for!

It's important for us to understand and explain it at that level. To do that, we need a concise explanation of why striving for forced equality of outcomes is absurd, irrational, and quite undesirable.

[I edited this and added the word "forced" in the last sentence. I did this because I actually generally agree with the idea of sharing with everyone voluntarily so everyone has what they need. But that is worlds different from what the government is doing.]

Who will help the poor? We will Posted by taotree

Posted 07/10/09 Last updated 07/10/09

The fight against government run health care is the fight against forced redistribution of wealth. The socialists all cry about "who will take care of these poor suffering people" if the government doesn't. They use sob stories, and statistics about poor flailing people with no insurance and anecdotes, etc. They're very good at appealing to emotions. It's rather interesting to consider: socialism appeals to emotion whilc typically capitalism and good government appeals to intelligence. Unfortunately, among the masses, emotion typically wins out over intelligence which is why we're in the current mess.

I wonder if one effective way to oppose socialism then, is to answer the question with a resounding: "we will". Meaning, we the people will. We can use the same tactics. We can show that we don't need government to redistribute wealth because we believe in doing it directly, which is far more efficient. We can use success stories, happy people blessed by charity and love. We can increase the sense of local community (that the federal government has been trying to erode for so long). We can appeal to the great positive emotions that freedom enables instead of the negative emotions that socialism has to use (hmmm... that ought to tell you something right there).

It probably goes against some of us to be the pharisee on the road proclaiming his righteousness. I think we can do it in such a way as that will not be the case.

For example, what if the anti-socialized health care rallys included a fundraiser for a specific person in the local community in need of health care that they cannot afford? Could we get some PR that way? Saying: we oppose health care socialism because "we the people" are better at taking care of people than the government is.

Also, making points about: government just took X thousands of dollars from each of us due to bailout/etc.--how many of our neighbors could we have helped directly with that money? The bailouts alone could have paid health insurance premiums for every person in america for a couple years. And if the government hadn't spent it, we would have it to help out in a local, charitable, very efficient, community focused and responsible fashion.

I know there are philosophical issues deeper than this that are also very important to address, but it occurred to me that this approach might be effective at helping to sway general public opinion (how much of the public is going to read Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions"?) to understand that charity is an individual privilege and CANNOT be socialized.

Letter to Parade Magazine on whether Grassroots Activists are Real? Posted by judyinwash

Posted 07/14/09

I recently read an article in Parade Magazine by Sharon Male -  

Are 'Grassroots Activists' For Real?

While drafting major legislation on energy policy, health care, and the economy this term, members of Congress have been bombarded with phone calls, letters, e-mails, and petitions from constituents. So-called grassroots campaigns are often effective because they're thought to represent the will of the people. But what politicians-and many ordinary Americans-may not know is that some "grassroots" movements are actually sophisticated marketing campaigns financed by businesses and special-interest groups.

For example, Patients United Now (PUN), a group focused on health care, claims to be composed of "patients just like you" who are shocked at decisions being made in Washington by "big companies, lobbyists, and politicians." In fact, PUN is a project of the Americans For Prosperity Foundation, launched by David Koch-a wealthy industrialist who opposes efforts to expand government-mandated health benefits. Another group, American Rights at Work, advocates making it easier for workers to unionize. It is funded in part by the AFL-CIO. 

Craig Holman of Public Citizen, a consumer-advocacy organization, calls such campaigns " astroturf," not grassroots, and says they "typically adopt populist-sounding names that belie the fact that they are bankrolled by large corporations, trade associations, or ultra-wealthy individuals who have little in common with regular Americans." At present, grassroots movements are unregulated and not required to disclose the interests behind them. Some politicians, like Sen. Bob Bennett (R., Utah), think that's a good thing. "The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech," he says. "People should be able to speak out without having to register with the very government they are seeking to change."

- Sharon Male

Here was my response to her article: 

Dear Sharon, 

I read your article in Parade Magazine on July 12^th about whether the Grassroots activists are for real.  I am one among many who say we are. 

Although you quoted Americans for Prosperity being owned by David Koch, who is a billionaire and has given millions of dollars to foundations such as the Public Broadcasting Service and the New York theater at the Lincoln Center, this is just one organization out of so many organizations and coalitions that are trying to fight the corruption in our government and the stupid bills they pass without reading, as long as they get THEIR funding issue in the bill.  This seems to have become standard procedure, so it is up to people like me to write, fax, call, and e-mail our congressmen until we can vote them out of office.

I did not become an activist until about two years ago when a friend started showing me information that the paid, corporate dictate media doesn't tell you.  I began researching everything I heard or read to make sure it was valid and truthful.  Maybe there are some organizations which have ulterior motives, but I hope that our goals are still the same. 

I joined various organizations such as Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty and WeThePeople Congress, and American Grand Jury as well as many others and started watching LINK-TV and Free Speech TV learning even more, which still wasn't being shown on the networks or on radio stations, except independent radio and maybe some news/talk stations scattered around the country.  I bought and read more history books than I ever read in school.  Once I found out 80% of the media is owned by five corporations, and that in itself told me a lot since I'm in the advertising business. 

I never thought I would be doing this at my age but I find that since I have learned so much about what the media isn't telling you, I can't just sit back and watch our country go toward communism.  Although the corporate media is talking socialism, it's looking to be much worse than that.  They've taken God out of the picture and left little hope for the people, except for the bankers which are reaping all the benefits. 

I would hope that the next time you start talking about grassroots activists in your upcoming issues that you would actually want to talk with a few of us to get our perspectives so that your viewpoint won't be so biased.  Every journalist is supposed to investigate and I'm sorry, but I don't think you did your homework.

A concerned activist for our Constitutional rights,

Judy Anderson 

judy anderson
media supervisor

I collected 120 signatures on the 4th of July! Posted by Kenny Smith

Posted 07/08/09 Last updated 07/08/09

On July 4th I collected 120 signatures for HR 1207 and S 604 at the Longview event and the Farmer's Market in Vancouver.  I just walked around talking to picnicking families.  I had a couple clipboards and would just walk up and ask if they were interested in signing my petitions to Audit the Federal Reserve and they would either say "no" (30%) or they would ask for more info.  The cool thing about families picnicking was that I could give one presentation to a whole group and get lots of signatures and great conversation.

This time I spent as much time talking with people as they wanted rather than race off to the next group.  It was a lot of fun and the reception is so good.  I honestly wish I could do it full time.

My sixth email to Congressman Brian Baird CD3- WA regarding HR 1207 Posted by Terry Spady

Posted 04/30/09

Mr Baird -

This will be round 6 in my attempt to contact you via email regarding HR 1207, which will audit the Federal Reserve Bank.

Each time I email you, i check the "receive a written response" box but still have yet to get a reply, let alone hear of a public statement on the matter. This is quite frustrating as one of your constituents, because I feel as though you aren't giving this matter the due diligence I believe it requires.

With that said, are you aware that this bill now has 108 co-sponsors? In Washington state alone, two of your fellow democrats have co-sponsored this bill. They are:
Rep Smith, Adam [WA-9] - 4/22/2009
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 4/29/2009

I have created a custom Google map pinpointing EXACTLY who has signed on, with the hopes that this may put into perspective for you the bipartisan support this bill has achieved.

You can find it here:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&gl=us&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=112239857613927913696.000468c78065903277032

I must admit to you sir, that your silence in this matter is very disconcerting to me. For you to not support transparency in government (and their esoteric partners) goes against what our own president has promised the people. TRANSPARENCY and ACCOUNTABILITY.

Please consider the doing the right thing. This is an historic time, and we should all really behind each other for the common good of the people, not the common volume of the banksters pockets.

I anxiously await either your expedient reply.

Your friend in liberty,

Terry J. Spady
Vancouver, WA