The "System" & the 536

In the aftermath of the public folly that was the ‘super-committee’ it was perhaps milliseconds after that committee publicly announced their failure that the politicians entrusted with the fiscal health of the nation and their accompanying media flacks began their partisan assaults on the reasons for the collapse of the process.

There was little if any talk relative to the fact that the entire concept of the ‘super-committee’ was unconstitutional and thus had it indeed processed any viable options, the next game would be to assault it within the judicial arm of the government.

There was little discussion that the men and women elected to the highest offices in the land, a sum total of 536 elected representatives of the people – (435 members of the house, 100 members of the senate and the president) – could not apply themselves to solving the problem, but rather engage in partisan sniping whose sole effect seemed to reassure their position within their elective base.

Dismissing all this nonsensical ranting amidst political cowardice and ineptitude bordering on the truly stupid, what should alarm the American people is what was represented as the underlying problem at hand by the aforementioned politicians and media:

Their claim was that ‘the system’ – or in other words American democratic self-rule- was ‘broken’, and ‘no longer was working’.

Forgoing the absolute ignorance and insult of that claim, the American people should be fearful when the 536 most powerful people in our government begin making this type of obtuse case in order to hide their massive level of incompetence.

The aforementioned ‘system’ is governed by a single document; the United States Constitution. The question thus begs to be asked and answered:

Is it their stance that the Constitution has failed to provide the structure of successful government, and are they then proposing to amend, alter or outright discard that august document in order to make the act of governing less about making the hard choices within a strict set of guidelines and more about their personal beatification amongst a narrow swath of the electorate?

Democratic self rule is all about making the hard choices; there is more than sufficient blame to pass around as to make blame an irrelevant point at this juncture.

It is inconceivable that 536 people believe the American populace unable to withstand the results of fair and honest choices made for the well being of the nation as a whole.

The American people havewithstood the stresses of a Civil War, a war that pitted brother against brother. This nation made the monumental personal sacrifices needed in order to defeat the evil that was at the heart of World War II.

These battles were fought and won within the rigid structure and guidance of the United States Constitution. During those tough times there was never a populist movement decrying that the Constitution, the ‘system’ was broken, flawed or otherwise unequal to the tasks at hand.

The fault and the flaws are with this crop of elected officials.

The American electorate can and must fix this.

They only need to research the issues and vote accordingly.

Such acts will show the 536 that the system is working just fine; they, however, are not and have just been replaced, according to the workings of the system

Let freedom ring.

H.R. 822

The axiom at hand states that the first requirement for tyranny to infect a nation is an apathetic populace, followed by an electorate that acquiesces to unquestioned policies purported to be enacted for the greater good.

The founders and framers believed deeply that the protections afforded a free press under the first Amendment to the United States Constitution would be the first, strongest and best bulwark in keeping tyranny at bay.

The current mass media conduits should be ashamed.

A little noticed piece of congressional legislation went almost uncommented on by most media outlets, and almost completely unnoticed by the electorate at large, sadly at their own peril.

Once again, the framework of the Constitution is under assault under the guise of protecting the public, when the reality is that freedom and liberty are being subjugated by the ignorance of our elected officials.

To wit:

H.R. 822: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 intends to “amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State”.  In other words, there would be an accepted national law regarding weapons possession superseding individual state legislation.

This bill passed Nov 16, 2011 in the House of Representatives by roll call vote. The totals were 272 Ayes, 154 Nays, 7 Present.

Putting aside the almost comical outrage that seven elected officials could somehow vote ‘present’, in other words take no stand on the issue, and ignoring the second amendment concerns relative to such legislation, the critical issue herein is that it appears few members of Congress are familiar with the tenth amendment.

The tenth amendment to the Constitution reads, in total, as follows:

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.

That is short, to the point, and wholly unambiguous. The framers put this language into their guiding document for a reason. Read it again and understand that it goes to the heart of this matter, and shows how the aforementioned legislation is indicative of the slow but steady assault upon the Constitution.

Consider:

New York State has strict restrictions on firearm possession. It is amongst the most stringent in the country. The right to bear arms is not prohibited in New York; it IS tightly regulated, as are the laws governing firearm possession in California.

The laws in Florida are considered amongst the most lax in the nation. This is not an issue of right or wrong, better or worse. The fact is that it is easier to possess a weapon in Florida than in New York. The citizens of each respective state have made these choices by electing those to office who hold these views.

There are states that require formalized training before permits are issued, other have age requirements. Some states have mere age and felony conviction restrictions.

These are laws unique to each state. Some states do have reciprocal laws with other states, but again, such decisions are made by each individual state, according to the demands of their specific electorate.

The federal government can have national restrictions and regulations for weapons possession for the areas of their specific responsibilities, but this assault upon the American electorate is dangerous.

This is not about the second amendment, or even a states rights issue. This is about the permeating effects of a federal government run amok, being guided by politicians without a cogent and cohesive understanding of why the Constitution was framed and written the way it was.

The federal government has no constitutional jurisdiction on state weapons possession and thus should have no voice in such matters.

It is lazy and complacent to structure this as an issue of public safety; it is not. This legislation merely makes it easier for the federal government to involve itself in matters for which it has not been granted constitutional authority.

If the American electorate wishes to have stricter or more relaxed regulations for their state, it should be handled at the ballot box, not instituted by national fiat.

The tenth amendment exists to safeguard America and should be respected as such. To ignore it ‘for the public good’ is nothing more than the recipe for tyranny.

Unforseen Consequences?

The United States Constitution is flawed. There is little, if any, debate on that point. The framers and the founders knew their new nations guiding document would need to be revised and refined as time went by, and they put in place mechanisms to do just that.

The greatest aspect of that august document however is that it set in place a detailed, well reasoned and well thought out series of processes for the act of self governance that have successfully guided this nation for over two hundred and twenty years.

Those acts of intelligent foresight are under assault and with it the foundations of American democracy.

The rhetoric of shrill shrieking nonsense that now encapsulates the discourse of the body politic shows that the fundamental intellectual principles of the Constitution are being blatantly ignored at the cost of the freedoms we were given by our founding fathers. While imperfect, the reasoning for constructing the Constitution as it is shows that the principle of unforeseen circumstances has always been at the forefront of addressing its imperfections. Save Prohibition, there have been no hasty, capricious changes during the aforementioned two hundred and twenrty years.

Three events this week have shown just how ignorant and sadly outright stupid our elected officials have been in ignoring the rule of unforeseen consequences in forming particular policies that perhaps seemed correct at the time but with a minimal amount of thought would never have been accepted and implemented.

To wit:

Under the guise of cleaning money out of the electoral process, the theory of public financing of the process has become somewhat in vogue, but consider this stark reality:

The Republican and Democratic parties have each received nearly $18 million in taxpayer money for next year's political conventions and could receive another infusion of cash by early next year. 

The sums were reported this week by the Federal Election Commission and show how public financing for presidential elections has grown over the years -- though the political parties also raise copious private money for the conventions.  A basic understanding of the corrupting influence of cash in politics could have, and should now avoid this nonsense.

The Secret Service is entrusted with protecting our leaders, amongst its other duties and responsibilities. There is no realisitc argument to be made for denying these leaders such safeguards and security oprotections, but consider this by product of that thought process:

Vice President Joseph R. Biden, acting now as the landlord, can count on at least 12 more months of rental income from the agency that protects his life.

Federal spending records show the U.S. Secret Service approved a purchase order on Nov. 2 to pay Mr. Biden $26,400 for agents to stay at a cottage on lakefront property he owns in Delaware.

Edwin M. Donovan, special agent in charge at the Secret Service's Office of Public Affairs in Washington, said Mr. Biden isn’t receiving all that money at once. Instead, he said, the purchase order shows plans by the Secret Service to pay Mr. Biden $2,200 per month for another year. Was this considered in the framing of protecting our leadership, and who can condone this practice?

The right of free assembly and the right to protest government policies is in many way a uniquely American concept. No argument can be made to quell that right, and none should ever be offered. The “Occupy Wall Street’ protests taking place across the nation are an example of the citizenry looking for a redress of their grievances, but sadly our elected officials are choosing impotence to enforce the rules and regulations for such protests for fear of political backlash. But consider this example, symbolic of hundreds of similar situations occurring concurrently to the protests, which amongst their issues is the rising unemployment rate:

A New York City cafe cut its staff by nearly 25 percent last week because of lost business due to the ongoing

Occupy Wall Street

protests.

Marc Epstein, owner of the Milk Street Cafe at 40 Wall Street in lower Manhattan, said he had to cut 21 of the 97 members of his staff on Thursday and Friday after seeing sales plummet by 30 percent in the six weeks since the protests began. He's also been forced to slash the restaurant operating hours, moving up his closing time from 9 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Mondays through Thursdays.

While these are only examples, the underlyinmg fact is inescapable; either we take the time to follow the processes laid out within the text of the Constitution and properly deliberate governmental policies, no matter the scope or scale, and regardless of the level of government, or these examples will become the norm.

That eventuality would signal the Visigoths coming over the hills of Rome, thus ending America as the founders intended.

Two Days in November

It is perhaps by unique coincidence or American design that two essential events happen within ten days of each other in early November, each and every year.

Those two events are Election Day and Veterans Day and given the state of governments on most every level and the national discourse in the body politic, this particular convergent happenstance should be cause for reflection.

A brief history of what was originally called Armistice Day – the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, signaling the end to the ‘war to end all wars’ – perhaps is in order.

In November 1919, President Wilson proclaimed November 11 as the first commemoration of Armistice Day with the following words: "To us in America, the reflections of Armistice Day will be filled with solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country’s service and with gratitude for the victory, both because of the thing from which it has freed us and because of the opportunity it has given America to show her sympathy with peace and justice in the councils of the nations…"

Acknowledging the service of all Americans who wore the uniform of their nation subsequently apparently became a minor inconvenience to some elected officials and thus a circuitous route was taken for the holiday subsequently named ‘Veterans Day’.

To wit:

The Uniform Holiday Bill (Public Law 90-363 (82 Stat. 250)) was signed on June 28, 1968, and was intended to ensure three-day weekends for Federal employees by celebrating four national holidays on Mondays: Washington's Birthday, Memorial Day, Veterans Day, and Columbus Day. It was thought that these extended weekends would encourage travel, recreational and cultural activities and stimulate greater industrial and commercial production. Many states did not agree with this decision and continued to celebrate the holidays on their original dates.

The first Veterans Day under the new law was observed with much confusion on October 25, 1971. It was quite apparent that the commemoration of this day was a matter of historic and patriotic significance to a great number of our citizens, and so on September 20th, 1975, President Gerald R. Ford signed Public Law 94-97 (89 Stat. 479), which returned the annual observance of Veterans Day to its original date of November 11, beginning in 1978.

Regulated by the United States Constitution and thus immune from the meddling hands of bureaucrats, Election Day in the United States of America is the Tuesday following the first Monday in November.

The fortuitous nature of these two days falling so close together on the calendar should give us pause to remember when standing in the isolation of the voting booth that the right to vote, to have a say in our future, is ours solely because of the Americans who have, are, and will fight to protect and defend the greatest democracy the world has ever known.

The Madison Conservative does not promote any candidate or political faction; it asks only that come Tuesday you exercise your right and responsibility as a United States Citizen to take an hour out of your day to have your voice heard.

Those who have worn the uniform of your country and taken up arms in her defense deserve no less.