Republicans Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham have stated that they will block Ambassador Rice's nomination as Secretary of State if President Obama should choose to nominate her because she misled the the American people on the events in Benghazi on Sept 11. They certainly have a right to voice their opinions. In the days following the attack, the Republicans called for a thorough investigation into exactly what went wrong that led to the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens, diplomat Sean Smith and former Navy Seals Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. There should be an investigation so that this does not happen again.
Where was the Republican outrage when Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and the Bush administration misled and lied to the American people, and to the world, about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and connection to the attacks on September 11, 2001 to justify attacking that country? Were were the calls by Republicans to investigate any of the seven attacks on U.S. Embassies and Consulates?
Where was the Republican outrage when the Bush administration labeled anyone who spoke out against the Iraq war as unpatriotic? Where was the Republican outrage when the Bush administration made the decision to stop news agencies from showing pictures of caskets of American soldiers killed in the Iraq war? The Bush administration claimed they were respecting the privacy of the dead soldiers and their families. But the reality is that they were worried that if Americans saw too many caskets, they would stop supporting a war that was unjust.
Republican outrage would have more credibility if it were not dripping with hypocrisy.
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Thursday, November 8, 2012
What is 'traditional America'?
The day after the election, Bill O'Reilly mourned the loss of what he calls "a traditional America". But what is "traditional America"? When the Constitution was written and ratified and the first elections were held for the President, Vice president and Congress only white males who owned property could vote. Protestants did not want Catholics to be allowed to vote. Africans, whether brought here against their will or born here, were enslaved in many States. Women could not vote, could not run for office and could not own property. Native Americans could not vote and were not considered citizens. Is this the "traditional America" you and your followers want back?
Thankfully, that "traditional America" ended. When the property requirement was removed so that all white men could vote, there were white men who mourned the loss of "traditional America". When slavery ended and former male slaves were given the right to vote, there were white men who mourned the loss of "traditional America" because they did everything they could to prevent the freedmen from voting. When women finally won the right to vote, there were white men who mourned the loss of "traditional America". When Native Americans were given citizenship and the right to vote, there were white men who mourned the loss of "traditional America".
When the first African American was elected to Congress, undoubtedly there were white men who mourned the loss of "traditional America". When the first woman was elected to Congress, certainly there were white men who mourned the loss of "traditional America". When John F. Kennedy, the first and only Roman Catholic was elected President, surely there were white men who mourned the loss of "traditional America". When Barrack Obama was elected the first African American President, there were white men who mourned the loss of "traditional America".
You are not alone in your mourning, Mr. O'Reilly. But you and your followers are mourning an America, a United States, that never was. Our country has always been in transition and always moving forward, always striving to reach the ideals Thomas Jefferson described in the Declaration of Independence. That is what Abraham Lincoln and so many others died to preserve. That is America's, that is the United States', tradition.
Thankfully, that "traditional America" ended. When the property requirement was removed so that all white men could vote, there were white men who mourned the loss of "traditional America". When slavery ended and former male slaves were given the right to vote, there were white men who mourned the loss of "traditional America" because they did everything they could to prevent the freedmen from voting. When women finally won the right to vote, there were white men who mourned the loss of "traditional America". When Native Americans were given citizenship and the right to vote, there were white men who mourned the loss of "traditional America".
When the first African American was elected to Congress, undoubtedly there were white men who mourned the loss of "traditional America". When the first woman was elected to Congress, certainly there were white men who mourned the loss of "traditional America". When John F. Kennedy, the first and only Roman Catholic was elected President, surely there were white men who mourned the loss of "traditional America". When Barrack Obama was elected the first African American President, there were white men who mourned the loss of "traditional America".
You are not alone in your mourning, Mr. O'Reilly. But you and your followers are mourning an America, a United States, that never was. Our country has always been in transition and always moving forward, always striving to reach the ideals Thomas Jefferson described in the Declaration of Independence. That is what Abraham Lincoln and so many others died to preserve. That is America's, that is the United States', tradition.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Why women can decide this election, but won't
When women fought for the vote, some men and politicians argued that women would simply vote as their husbands did which would be giving two votes to one person. The more important concern was that women, who would be the majority of voters, could all vote together and actually decide any election. That has never happened and will likely never happen. Just as men do not agree on everything, neither do women. Just ask John McCain who chose Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential running mate. McCain thought choosing a woman would help him appeal to women voters. Perhaps if he had chosen a different women, he might have had a better change.
Women are being given two clearly different futures this election. Some, based on their religious convictions, will vote Romney/Ryan. That is their choice and they most likely believe that women should be obedient and submissive to their husbands. Others, based on their pro-birth and anti-gay beliefs, will vote Romney/Ryan. But what about the less conservative, more moderate women? Who will they vote for and why?
The Romney/Ryan campaign is trying to connect with women on the economic issues which affect their daily lives. So they remind women over and over about how jobs were lost and prices rose and people struggled the past four years. Women understand trying to stretch the paychecks to buy food and pay bills. But what these women do not seem to understand is that the Romney/Ryan plan is not designed or intended to help them.
Women care about the economy. Women care about children. Women care about the elderly. Women care about women's health issues. But what the women who support Romney/Ryan do not seem to understand is that they will be voting against the very issues that matter to them. They will be voting against their future and the future of their children.
Too many women are getting their information from Fox News, The Romney/Ryan campaign and the various conservative groups flooding Facebook with misinformation. Sadly, those women believe without questioning. Sadly, those women will not choose the best future for themselves and women of future generations.
Women are being given two clearly different futures this election. Some, based on their religious convictions, will vote Romney/Ryan. That is their choice and they most likely believe that women should be obedient and submissive to their husbands. Others, based on their pro-birth and anti-gay beliefs, will vote Romney/Ryan. But what about the less conservative, more moderate women? Who will they vote for and why?
The Romney/Ryan campaign is trying to connect with women on the economic issues which affect their daily lives. So they remind women over and over about how jobs were lost and prices rose and people struggled the past four years. Women understand trying to stretch the paychecks to buy food and pay bills. But what these women do not seem to understand is that the Romney/Ryan plan is not designed or intended to help them.
Women care about the economy. Women care about children. Women care about the elderly. Women care about women's health issues. But what the women who support Romney/Ryan do not seem to understand is that they will be voting against the very issues that matter to them. They will be voting against their future and the future of their children.
Too many women are getting their information from Fox News, The Romney/Ryan campaign and the various conservative groups flooding Facebook with misinformation. Sadly, those women believe without questioning. Sadly, those women will not choose the best future for themselves and women of future generations.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
The 2012 Election Address (Inspired by Lincoln's Gettysburg Address)
Eleven score and seventeen years ago, our founders declared their independence from England and created a new country. In 1787, a group of men met in Philadelphia Pennsylvania and created a new government, revolutionary for its time. The framers created a government which would work best when members of Congress put aside their differences and partisan politics to find that common ground and enact legislation which would be in the best interests of the citizens of these United States.
Now we are less than two weeks away from the most important election in our lifetime. The decision before us is clear. The choice is ours to make. Will we, like the men of 1775 and 1787, choose to continue to think anew and move forward? Or will we choose to turn back the hands of time to a way of thinking which was not better and helped to create the present problems we now face?
What is written here will not matter in the end. What will matter is whether we will choose to protect the poor, the elderly and the families who struggle to survive or whether we will allow the rich to continue to benefit from tax cuts they do not need and this country cannot afford.
This election will determine whether "government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich" will become our way of life or whether we will honor those who created our Constitution and those who died to preserve our Union by ensuring "that government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from this earth."
Now we are less than two weeks away from the most important election in our lifetime. The decision before us is clear. The choice is ours to make. Will we, like the men of 1775 and 1787, choose to continue to think anew and move forward? Or will we choose to turn back the hands of time to a way of thinking which was not better and helped to create the present problems we now face?
What is written here will not matter in the end. What will matter is whether we will choose to protect the poor, the elderly and the families who struggle to survive or whether we will allow the rich to continue to benefit from tax cuts they do not need and this country cannot afford.
This election will determine whether "government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich" will become our way of life or whether we will honor those who created our Constitution and those who died to preserve our Union by ensuring "that government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from this earth."
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
What is patriotism?
Miriam Webster's online dictionary defines patriotism as love for or devotion to one's country. Perhaps the images most associated with patriotism are of someone waving the American flag or displaying the American flag or wearing an American flag pin. I doubt we have forgotten the criticism President Obama received during the previous presidential campaign for not wearing an American flag pin.
The tea party members and the right wing militia groups believe themselves to be not only patriotic, but following in the footsteps of the men and women who fought in the Revolutionary War. Their brand of patriotism consists of waving, not just the American flag, but the Gadsden "Don't Tread On Me" flag. The militia groups choose names like "Sons of Liberty" and profess a deep love for the country and a deep desire to see the country return to what it once was as does the Tea Party. That kind of fanatical patriotism is frightening at times and is hardly real patriotism.
So what then is "real patriotism"? The definition of patriotism is love for or devotion to one's country. To love or be devoted to someone or something usually means to want what is best for that someone or something, to be willing to make the effort, do what must be done to protect that something or someone. Conservatives seem to want the opposite. They seem to want to destroy the very thing they claim to love.
Real patriotism is neither "my country right or wrong" nor "my government right or wrong". Real patriotism understands that the country and its constitution are good even when those in power are not making the best or right decisions. Real patriotism understands that moving backward is never an answer, but seeking ways to move forward is. Real patriotism understand that the system of government created by the Constitution does work, and works best when we all find that common ground between the extremes which enables us to move forward.
Real patriotism is not about waving, displaying or wearing the American flag. It is about being touched somewhere deep within by the American flag, the National Anthem, the Statue of Liberty, The Lincoln Memorial and other symbols because those symbols represent the best in our country. Real patriotism understands that we still have far to go until we realize the ideals set forth in both our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution and believes that those ideals are worth reaching for always even if we never quite achieve them perfectly.
Friday, October 19, 2012
Why moderates are needed in Congress
Moderates are a vanishing breed on the edge of extinction in Congress. Moderates face electoral challenges not only from the opposing party but from within their own party as well. What have they done to incur the wrath of those inside their parties? They made the choice to cross party lines from time to time and vote for or against legislation because they believed it was in the best interests, not of their party but of the people of this country. Democratic moderates find themselves at odds with the more progressive left wing of their party. Republican moderates are targeted by the more conservative right wing of their party. Both the progressive and conservative groups believe their parties will be best served if the moderates are gone. They are wrong. The government created by the Constitution depends on moderates to function properly.
During the debates over ratification of the Constitution, the Anti-Federalists were deeply concerned about the possibility of groups and/or factions gaining control of he government and forcing their ideas and agenda on the citizens of the United States. Both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison addressed these concerns.
Hamilton, in Federalist Number 9, uses the words of the philosopher Montesquieu to demonstrate that larger governing bodies can be an effective force against factions gaining control because the other members of the governing body would act to stop that from happening. Hamilton chose to quote Montesquieu directly because the Anti-Federalists used Montesquieu's writings to oppose a central government. Montesquieu believed in very small republics.
Madison, in Federalist 10, acknowledged that factions and parties will form. He defined a faction as: "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."
Madison believed that "if a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote." The faction could "clog the administration". However, the implication is that if the more moderate members broke with their party and voted with the administration, the government would function properly and work for the best interests of the people.
Madison knew that factions could gain a majority and believed that "the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens." Once again, the implication is that the more moderate members of the faction would break with their party and look for that common ground, that middle position, which would best serve the interests of the people.
President Bill Clinton understood this concept. During his administration, he moved from the left to a position closer to the center and was criticized by the more liberal members of his party. The present Congress has very low approval ratings because both Democrats and Republicans are determined to stick to their party's agendas and punish those who dare to seek some common ground. As a result, not much has been done in Congress the past two years.
The government created by the Constitution can only work when the President and members of Congress work together and find that middle ground on which they all can agree. This can only happen when moderates are in Congress.
During the debates over ratification of the Constitution, the Anti-Federalists were deeply concerned about the possibility of groups and/or factions gaining control of he government and forcing their ideas and agenda on the citizens of the United States. Both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison addressed these concerns.
Hamilton, in Federalist Number 9, uses the words of the philosopher Montesquieu to demonstrate that larger governing bodies can be an effective force against factions gaining control because the other members of the governing body would act to stop that from happening. Hamilton chose to quote Montesquieu directly because the Anti-Federalists used Montesquieu's writings to oppose a central government. Montesquieu believed in very small republics.
Madison, in Federalist 10, acknowledged that factions and parties will form. He defined a faction as: "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."
Madison believed that "if a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote." The faction could "clog the administration". However, the implication is that if the more moderate members broke with their party and voted with the administration, the government would function properly and work for the best interests of the people.
Madison knew that factions could gain a majority and believed that "the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens." Once again, the implication is that the more moderate members of the faction would break with their party and look for that common ground, that middle position, which would best serve the interests of the people.
President Bill Clinton understood this concept. During his administration, he moved from the left to a position closer to the center and was criticized by the more liberal members of his party. The present Congress has very low approval ratings because both Democrats and Republicans are determined to stick to their party's agendas and punish those who dare to seek some common ground. As a result, not much has been done in Congress the past two years.
The government created by the Constitution can only work when the President and members of Congress work together and find that middle ground on which they all can agree. This can only happen when moderates are in Congress.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
The First Amendment: freedom of religion and freedom from religion
The first part of the First Amendment to the Constitution deals with religion:
With these sixteen words, the framers of the Constitution ensured that the new government of the United States would not and could not create a national church or religion as Henry VIII had done in England. These words also ensure what many refer to as "freedom of religion" or "religious liberty". Equally as important is that these sixteen words also guarantee freedom from religion. The new government could not require or force any citizens to belong to and financially support any religion. Freedom from religion was to the citizens creating a new government, and is to us, just as important as freedom of religion.
Forced religion was a problem in the Colonies prior to gaining independence from England. In Massachusetts Bay Colony, in particularly, the Puritan religious leaders exercised a great deal of control in the cities and towns. They had no tolerance for dissenters. Both Connecticut and Rhode Island were established by men who who did not agree with Puritan leaders.
Maryland was created as a safe haven for Catholics who were looked upon with disdain by the Anglicans, Pilgrims and Puritans in the Colonies. Pennsylvania was also established as a colony which offered religious toleration to those who did not follow the Anglican tradition or the Puritan beliefs. The southern Colonies remained faithful to the Anglican religion which meant that the citizens in those colonies were required to financially support their local churches.
The Framers of the Constitution, regardless of their own individual beliefs, chose to leave religion out of that document and include an amendment which prohibited the creation of a national religion. Unfortunately, even the first sixteen words of the First Amendment has not stopped various religious groups from attempting to influence voting and legislation based not on the law, but on their own religious beliefs. In sermons and homilies and television broadcasts from Churches throughout the country, priests, pastors and televangelists use their pulpits to command their parishioners to vote conservatively and oppose legislation which is, in the opinion of religious leaders, contrary to their interpretations of the Bible.
If the Framers had wanted Congress, the President and the Judiciary to enact, pass and review legislation based on religious views and the Bible, they would have put it in the Constitution. Instead they deliberately kept religion out of the government and so must we.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Forced religion was a problem in the Colonies prior to gaining independence from England. In Massachusetts Bay Colony, in particularly, the Puritan religious leaders exercised a great deal of control in the cities and towns. They had no tolerance for dissenters. Both Connecticut and Rhode Island were established by men who who did not agree with Puritan leaders.
Maryland was created as a safe haven for Catholics who were looked upon with disdain by the Anglicans, Pilgrims and Puritans in the Colonies. Pennsylvania was also established as a colony which offered religious toleration to those who did not follow the Anglican tradition or the Puritan beliefs. The southern Colonies remained faithful to the Anglican religion which meant that the citizens in those colonies were required to financially support their local churches.
The Framers of the Constitution, regardless of their own individual beliefs, chose to leave religion out of that document and include an amendment which prohibited the creation of a national religion. Unfortunately, even the first sixteen words of the First Amendment has not stopped various religious groups from attempting to influence voting and legislation based not on the law, but on their own religious beliefs. In sermons and homilies and television broadcasts from Churches throughout the country, priests, pastors and televangelists use their pulpits to command their parishioners to vote conservatively and oppose legislation which is, in the opinion of religious leaders, contrary to their interpretations of the Bible.
If the Framers had wanted Congress, the President and the Judiciary to enact, pass and review legislation based on religious views and the Bible, they would have put it in the Constitution. Instead they deliberately kept religion out of the government and so must we.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Jack N. Rakove's Original Meanings POLITICS AND IDEAS IN THE MAKING OF THE CONSTITUTION
Justice Scalia said some Supreme Court decisions were very easy for him to make because he uses the original intent of the framers of the Constitution as his guide. Perhaps he should read Jack N. Rakove's Original Meanings POLITICS AND IDEAS IN THE MAKING OF THE CONSTITUTION. Actually this book should be mandatory reading in Early American History classes.
A quick glance at the title of Jack N. Rakove's book might give the reader the impression that he or she is about to embark on a journey that will lead to the discovery of the oft sought after original intent of the framers of the Constitution. However, the reader need only look at the back cover of the book, which contains the "praise for" comments to find out that this assumption is incorrect. Stanley N. Katz, of the American Council of Learned Societies, states that Rakove's "answers will probably disappoint both the originalists and the advocates of a living Constitution."
Rakove writes in the Preface that his book has a dual purpose. The first is "to explore how Americans created a national polity during the Revolutionary era" by examining "the politics of constitution-making and the major problems of constitutional theory and institutional design that Americans had to consider" when creating "a true national government." The second is to answer the questions as to "what authority should its 'original meaning (or 'original intention' or 'understanding') enjoy in its ongoing interpretation (xii)." The author points out that addressing the first issue provides the foundation for exploring the second issue. In doing so, he disputes the belief that the "original intent" of the framers ought to be the final authority in the interpreting the meaning of the Constitution.
By his own admission, Rakove places a great deal of emphasis on James Madison particularly because of the role the fourth President played in the whole process which led to the creation and ratification of the new Constitution. Without understanding Madison, the author believes that "we simply cannot understand how or why the Constitution took the form it did (xvi)." For this reason, Rakove not only devotes an entire chapter to what he calls "The Madisonian Moment", but repeatedly refers to Madison throughout book.
Along with Madison, Rakove's other sources include various writings from the members of the Philadelphia convention. Although he "tried to give the Anti-Federalists their due" by using "their most trenchant objections to the Constitution" as a basis for the responses from the Federalists, he was "surprised to discover how much emphasis I have given to The Federalist." He does acknowledge inherent problems in such a reliance on one body of writings because he believes that the "private concerns of the two principle authors (xv)", James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, must be taken into consideration when looking at the context of their writings.
Rakove's concern about the need to consider the relationship between the personal views held by Madison and Hamilton and their defense of the Constitution in The Federalist Papers, which he briefly mentions in the Preface, are also referred to again in the sixth chapter of the book, "Debating the Constitution." His reason for drawing attention to this subject provides a note of caution to the modern day advocates of "original intent" with regard to the problems inherent in their reliance on the writing of these two men in particular, as well as other Federalists.
The debates which took place in the press, in speeches and in broadsides between the Anti-Federalist and Federalists gave the latter the opportunity to offer their interpretation of the meaning of the document. However, as Rakove points out, "their writings and statements" included "their individual assessments." In the case of Madison and Hamilton, "the two authors repeatedly infused . . . their own distinctive ideas about the fundamental issues of republicanism and federalism (155)." Those ideas did not necessarily represent the common beliefs or "intent' of all the framers. Therefore, while the essays of these two men can be seen as a starting point in attempting to discern the "original intent" of the Framers, one cannot overlook the inherent biases in their works.
Rakove raises another important issue with regard to relying too heavily on the concept of "original intent." The specific nature of the ratification process as set forth by delegates in Philadelphia was intended to demonstrate that the Constitution received its legitimacy and authority from the people. As a result, "the intentions of the framers were legally irrelevant to its interpretation" because those men were merely the authors of the document, not the source of either its acceptance, enactment, or power. "But the understandings of the ratifiers could provide a legitimate basis for attempting to fix the original meaning of the Constitution (18)." Determining exactly what those "understandings" were is difficult, if not nearly impossible.
The Federalists believed that the wording of the Constitution was clear. The Anti-Federalists, however, found some clauses to be dangerously vague. The danger being that the ambiguity would lead to the usurpation of power by the new government and the loss of individual rights. If these two groups could read the same document and reach completely opposite understandings of its meaning, how could a large group of people possibly agree on one specific interpretation?
One of the reasons for the quest to uncover the "original intent" of the framers is to affix a specific and rigid meaning to the words of the Constitution. Once that meaning is discovered, all are bound by it; there would be no leeway in interpreting the Constitution. In response to this, Rakove states that "the original interpretations of 1878-88 could yield nothing more than reasonable explanations and predictions of what the Constitution would mean." Furthermore, James Madison acknowledged that interpretations of the Constitution would ultimately depend on the circumstances and events which would unfold in the future.
The setting in which Rakove presents his findings on the validity of using "original intent" is the events of the drafting, debate and ratification of the Constitution. Readers will find this information both informative and useful in understanding the history of the document. The discussion of all the compromises which took place during those months in Philadelphia sheds some light on the question of why the Constitution included slavery in essence, but not in word. Rakove also includes brief synopses of the ratification process in the various state legislatures.
I agree with the assessment by Stanley N. Katz that the book "will probably disappoint . . . originalists." Rakove succeeds in making a compelling argument against relying on "original intent" to interpret the Constitution. However, I do not agree that Rakove also disappoints "advocates of a living Constitution." While the author does discuss James Madison's use or "original intent" in arguing against a broad or loose interpretation of the Constitution, he does provide proof that Madison's actions were also politically motivated. As a believer in the concept of "a living Constitution", I was not disappointed by Rakove's book.
A quick glance at the title of Jack N. Rakove's book might give the reader the impression that he or she is about to embark on a journey that will lead to the discovery of the oft sought after original intent of the framers of the Constitution. However, the reader need only look at the back cover of the book, which contains the "praise for" comments to find out that this assumption is incorrect. Stanley N. Katz, of the American Council of Learned Societies, states that Rakove's "answers will probably disappoint both the originalists and the advocates of a living Constitution."
Rakove writes in the Preface that his book has a dual purpose. The first is "to explore how Americans created a national polity during the Revolutionary era" by examining "the politics of constitution-making and the major problems of constitutional theory and institutional design that Americans had to consider" when creating "a true national government." The second is to answer the questions as to "what authority should its 'original meaning (or 'original intention' or 'understanding') enjoy in its ongoing interpretation (xii)." The author points out that addressing the first issue provides the foundation for exploring the second issue. In doing so, he disputes the belief that the "original intent" of the framers ought to be the final authority in the interpreting the meaning of the Constitution.
By his own admission, Rakove places a great deal of emphasis on James Madison particularly because of the role the fourth President played in the whole process which led to the creation and ratification of the new Constitution. Without understanding Madison, the author believes that "we simply cannot understand how or why the Constitution took the form it did (xvi)." For this reason, Rakove not only devotes an entire chapter to what he calls "The Madisonian Moment", but repeatedly refers to Madison throughout book.
Along with Madison, Rakove's other sources include various writings from the members of the Philadelphia convention. Although he "tried to give the Anti-Federalists their due" by using "their most trenchant objections to the Constitution" as a basis for the responses from the Federalists, he was "surprised to discover how much emphasis I have given to The Federalist." He does acknowledge inherent problems in such a reliance on one body of writings because he believes that the "private concerns of the two principle authors (xv)", James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, must be taken into consideration when looking at the context of their writings.
Rakove's concern about the need to consider the relationship between the personal views held by Madison and Hamilton and their defense of the Constitution in The Federalist Papers, which he briefly mentions in the Preface, are also referred to again in the sixth chapter of the book, "Debating the Constitution." His reason for drawing attention to this subject provides a note of caution to the modern day advocates of "original intent" with regard to the problems inherent in their reliance on the writing of these two men in particular, as well as other Federalists.
The debates which took place in the press, in speeches and in broadsides between the Anti-Federalist and Federalists gave the latter the opportunity to offer their interpretation of the meaning of the document. However, as Rakove points out, "their writings and statements" included "their individual assessments." In the case of Madison and Hamilton, "the two authors repeatedly infused . . . their own distinctive ideas about the fundamental issues of republicanism and federalism (155)." Those ideas did not necessarily represent the common beliefs or "intent' of all the framers. Therefore, while the essays of these two men can be seen as a starting point in attempting to discern the "original intent" of the Framers, one cannot overlook the inherent biases in their works.
Rakove raises another important issue with regard to relying too heavily on the concept of "original intent." The specific nature of the ratification process as set forth by delegates in Philadelphia was intended to demonstrate that the Constitution received its legitimacy and authority from the people. As a result, "the intentions of the framers were legally irrelevant to its interpretation" because those men were merely the authors of the document, not the source of either its acceptance, enactment, or power. "But the understandings of the ratifiers could provide a legitimate basis for attempting to fix the original meaning of the Constitution (18)." Determining exactly what those "understandings" were is difficult, if not nearly impossible.
The Federalists believed that the wording of the Constitution was clear. The Anti-Federalists, however, found some clauses to be dangerously vague. The danger being that the ambiguity would lead to the usurpation of power by the new government and the loss of individual rights. If these two groups could read the same document and reach completely opposite understandings of its meaning, how could a large group of people possibly agree on one specific interpretation?
One of the reasons for the quest to uncover the "original intent" of the framers is to affix a specific and rigid meaning to the words of the Constitution. Once that meaning is discovered, all are bound by it; there would be no leeway in interpreting the Constitution. In response to this, Rakove states that "the original interpretations of 1878-88 could yield nothing more than reasonable explanations and predictions of what the Constitution would mean." Furthermore, James Madison acknowledged that interpretations of the Constitution would ultimately depend on the circumstances and events which would unfold in the future.
The setting in which Rakove presents his findings on the validity of using "original intent" is the events of the drafting, debate and ratification of the Constitution. Readers will find this information both informative and useful in understanding the history of the document. The discussion of all the compromises which took place during those months in Philadelphia sheds some light on the question of why the Constitution included slavery in essence, but not in word. Rakove also includes brief synopses of the ratification process in the various state legislatures.
I agree with the assessment by Stanley N. Katz that the book "will probably disappoint . . . originalists." Rakove succeeds in making a compelling argument against relying on "original intent" to interpret the Constitution. However, I do not agree that Rakove also disappoints "advocates of a living Constitution." While the author does discuss James Madison's use or "original intent" in arguing against a broad or loose interpretation of the Constitution, he does provide proof that Madison's actions were also politically motivated. As a believer in the concept of "a living Constitution", I was not disappointed by Rakove's book.
Friday, October 5, 2012
George W. Bush, tax cuts and rebates
President George W. Bush and the Republicans cuts taxes during his administration and people were happy. The Bush administration also gave people "rebate" checks and once again, people were happy. The problem with the tax cuts and "rebates' is that they occurred at the same time the Bush administration increased defense spending. Fighting a war in Iraq and a war in Afghanistan cost money and increased government's expenses. However, tax cuts and rebates decreased the government's income. While people were enjoying their tax cuts and rebates, they never thought about who was going to pay for them. Perhaps they simply didn't realize that the tax cuts and rebates would have an impact on the deficit. But one thing is certain: no one who benefited from tax cuts and rebates should be complaining about the deficit now. The time to have complained was when Bush was ensuring the deficit would continue to rise by cutting taxes and giving away money. But, of course, no one was going to complain when they were receiving money, were they?
Alexis de Tocqueville said "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
Conservatives have been sharing this quote on Facebook to describe President Obama and the Democrats suggesting that the Democrats bribe Americans through handouts from the government. However, the quote more accurately describes the Republican insistence on tax cuts as the solution for everything. While President Bush was giving away money, he and his administration were "bribing" Americans into accepting a growing deficit, a declining economy and a war in Iraq that was unnecessary.
Alexis de Tocqueville said "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
Conservatives have been sharing this quote on Facebook to describe President Obama and the Democrats suggesting that the Democrats bribe Americans through handouts from the government. However, the quote more accurately describes the Republican insistence on tax cuts as the solution for everything. While President Bush was giving away money, he and his administration were "bribing" Americans into accepting a growing deficit, a declining economy and a war in Iraq that was unnecessary.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Why Big Bird matters....
Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney said, during his debate with President Obama, that he likes Big Bird but will cut government funding to PBS which, of course, airs Sesame Street. That might not seem like such a big deal and might seem to be a trivial matter to some people. But cutting funding for PBS and educational shows such as Sesame Street do matter and not just because Sesame Street has proven time and time again to help children learn. The idea of cutting educational television programs funded by the government is just one step away from cutting all education programs funded by the government.
What would happen if public education, which is 100% government funded, ceased to exist? Should all education only be available to those who can pay for it? Should public schools become private and charge tuition? Perhaps that seems a bit far-fetched, but it's not. A political party that opposes government spending on anything other than defense and seeks ways to cut whatever they believe can be cut will eventually determine that education ought not to be free. Republican governors have cut funding for public education in their States. Teachers, aides and students are paying the price and any price that hurts schools, teachers and students is much too high a price to pay.
Big Bird, the Muppets and Sesame Street provide valuable learning tools for children. Let's not do any harm to one of the most valuable and priceless gifts we can give children: the opportunity to learn and be educated.
A partly platform worth reading...
Given the current disparity between those who "have" and those who "have not" and the Conservative elements of the Republican party's refusal to support any type of assistance to the working class, I thought these excerpts from a party platform might be of interest.
That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Federal Constitution, "That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," is essential to the preservation of our...institutions; and that the Federal Constitution, the Rights of the States, and the Union of the States, must and shall be preserved....
...we hold in abhorrence all schemes for Disunion, come from whatever source they may...and we denounce those threats of Disunion, in case of a popular overthrow of their ascendency, as denying the vital principles of a free government, and as an avowal of contemplated treason, which it is the imperative duty of an indignant People sternly to rebuke and forever silence.
...we commend that policy of national exchanges which secures... liberal wages, to agriculture renumerative prices, to mechanics and manufactures an adequate reward for their skill, labor, and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence.
...The party is opposed to any change in our Naturalization Laws or any State legislation by which the rights of citizenship hitherto accorded to immigrants from foreign lands shall be abridged or impaired; and in favor of giving a full and efficient protection to the rights of all classes of citizens, whether native or naturalized, both at home and abroad.
... Finally, having thus set forth our distinctive principles and views, we invite the coöperation of all citizens, however differing on other questions, who substantially agree with us in their affirmance and support.
These excerpts are from the 1860 Republican Party Platform. This is a platform which supports the working class and refuses to give in to anti-immigration voices. This certainly does not reflect the positions of the current Republican Party platform.
Friday, September 28, 2012
The Tea Party then and The Tea Party now
As most Americans know, a group of colonists, dressed as Native Americans, boarded ships and threw crates of tea into the Boston Harbor. This became known as the Boston Tea Party. The protesters objected to being forced to purchase tea from the East India Tea Company for two reasons: 1) they could not buy tea from any other source and 2) they had to pay tax added to the price of the tea. The colonists opposed the tax because they did not believe Parliament had the right to levy taxes against them since they were not represented in Parliament: "No taxation without representation." Parliament, of course, insisted that all British colonies were represented in Parliament. The colonists did not object to paying any taxes at all. Nor did the colonists believe that Parliament did not have the power to tax or that the taxes were too high. The men who took part in the Tea Party that night believed that they must have a voice in Parliament. That their rights as British citizens must not be denied.
The present day Tea Party objects to paying taxes they believe are too high. They believe government spends too much and uses taxes to regulate too much. Ironically, the colonists in 1773 believed that levying taxes to regulate was appropriate and acceptable. The present day Tea Party uses quotes from the past to justify their positions. They also state that they are not a political party. However, they have clearly allied themselves with the Republican party to the extent that candidates seek their support in order to get elected. They have also targeted Republican office holders who hold moderate political views. Additionally they have contributed to attempts to suppress the rights of voters by sending lists of thousands of names to supervisors of elections stating that those names might be fraudulent. Their concern for voter fraud would be admirable if not for the fact that the lists they submit are composed of voters who tend to vote for Democratic candidates.
The very idea of attempting to deny citizens the right to vote is a betrayal to the colonists who gave their lives to gain our independence. Perhaps the Tea Party needs to rethink their ideology or, at the very least, change their name.
Read more about it:
The Boston Tea Party, 1773
Tea Party Platform
Voter Harassment, Circa 2012
The present day Tea Party objects to paying taxes they believe are too high. They believe government spends too much and uses taxes to regulate too much. Ironically, the colonists in 1773 believed that levying taxes to regulate was appropriate and acceptable. The present day Tea Party uses quotes from the past to justify their positions. They also state that they are not a political party. However, they have clearly allied themselves with the Republican party to the extent that candidates seek their support in order to get elected. They have also targeted Republican office holders who hold moderate political views. Additionally they have contributed to attempts to suppress the rights of voters by sending lists of thousands of names to supervisors of elections stating that those names might be fraudulent. Their concern for voter fraud would be admirable if not for the fact that the lists they submit are composed of voters who tend to vote for Democratic candidates.
The very idea of attempting to deny citizens the right to vote is a betrayal to the colonists who gave their lives to gain our independence. Perhaps the Tea Party needs to rethink their ideology or, at the very least, change their name.
Read more about it:
The Boston Tea Party, 1773
Tea Party Platform
Voter Harassment, Circa 2012
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Paul Ryan and changing Washington
Rep. Paul Ryan said, "If President Obama can't change Washington, we need to change presidents." This statement either demonstrates Rep. Ryan's ignorance or irresponsibility. If Rep. Ryan honestly believes that any President has the power to "change Washington" and somehow make the members of Congress cooperate with one another so that legislation is passed, then Rep. Ryan does not really understand what a President can and cannot do. The President can hope for and work toward creating an atmosphere of cooperation, but can never force it.
Rep. Ryan, does not believe a President can "change Washington" and that makes his statement irresponsible and misleading. Rep. Ryan knows that the reason Congress is not functioning properly is because his party has made defeating President Obama in 2012 their primary objective. He also knows that blaming President Obama, while implying that Mitt Romney can "change Washington" makes for a good sound bite. His statement is the kind of rhetoric the Republican base seem to like and are willing to believe without question regardless of how untrue the statement may be.
Rep. Ryan, does not believe a President can "change Washington" and that makes his statement irresponsible and misleading. Rep. Ryan knows that the reason Congress is not functioning properly is because his party has made defeating President Obama in 2012 their primary objective. He also knows that blaming President Obama, while implying that Mitt Romney can "change Washington" makes for a good sound bite. His statement is the kind of rhetoric the Republican base seem to like and are willing to believe without question regardless of how untrue the statement may be.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Words of wisdom
"I would like to speak briefly and simply about a serious national condition. It is a national feeling of fear and frustration that could result in national suicide and the end of everything that we Americans hold dear....
I speak as briefly as possible because too much harm has already been done with irresponsible words of bitterness and selfish political opportunism. I speak as simply as possible because the issue is too great to be obscured by eloquence. I speak simply and briefly in the hope that my words will be taken to heart.
To displace [the current Democratic administration] with a Republican regime embracing a philosophy that lacks political integrity or intellectual honesty would prove equally disastrous to this nation... I don't want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the Four Horsemen of Calumny -- Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry and Smear.
I doubt if the Republican Party could -- simply because I don't believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest. Surely we Republicans aren't that desperate for victory....
As members of the Minority Party, we do not have the primary authority to formulate the policy of our Government. But we do have the responsibility of rendering constructive criticism, of clarifying issues, of allaying fears by acting as responsible citizens.
I don't like the way the Senate has been made a rendezvous for vilification, for selfish political gain at the sacrifice of individual reputations and national unity....
... As an American, I want to see our nation recapture the strength and unity it once had when we fought the enemy instead of ourselves.
It is with these thoughts I have drafted what I call a 'Declaration of Conscience'..."
Statement of Senator Margaret Chase Smith
June 1, 1950
Maine Senator Margaret Chase Smith was the first one to stand up against the very powerful Senator from Wisconsin, Joseph McCarthy. Senator McCarthy destroyed people's lives by accusing them of being communists. He also said he had proof that communists had infiltrated President Harry Truman's administration as well as the State Department.
Senator Margaret Chase Smith's words are as relevant today as they were sixty-two years ago. Unfortunately, no one in the Republican Party has the courage to speak them and the conservative Republicans who control their Party are intent on using the same tactics of fear and bigotry that Senator McCarthy used.
Read more about it:
A Declaration of Conscience
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Greetings!
Greetings and welcome to my blog. I have a Bachelor's Degree in History with a concentration in Early American political and Constitutional History and Abraham Lincoln. I majored in History because of my passion for and love of American History. I am a moderate democrat and a flag waving American who understands that the leaders of this country do not always make the best choices. I believe in the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence, the government created by the Constitution and the country Abraham Lincoln and so many others died to preserve.
photo credit: ladybugbkt via photo pin cc
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)