When the framers of the United States Constitution completed their work in 1787, they acknowledged that the success and future of the republic as established by that document was dependent on the honor and integrity of its leaders and citizens. As John Adams wrote: "Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Today, the Obama administration, the majority of the members of Congress, much of the Judiciary, academia, and the media represent the culmination of the degradation of ethics and character, which has put the United States in the nearly inevitable position of joining the annals of the rise and fall of great nations.
Showing posts with label U.S. constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.S. constitution. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Thomas Sowell: "American democracy is being dismantled..."
In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it.
The president's poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies.
Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.
And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is simply whether BP's oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be compensated.
But our government is supposed to be "a government of laws and not of men."
If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion — or $50 billion or $100 billion — then so be it.
But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without "due process of law."
Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference.
With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution.
If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don't believe in constitutional government.
And, without constitutional government, freedom cannot endure. There will always be a "crisis" — which, as the president's chief of staff has said, cannot be allowed to "go to waste" as an opportunity to expand the government's power.
The president's poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies.
Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.
And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is simply whether BP's oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be compensated.
But our government is supposed to be "a government of laws and not of men."
If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion — or $50 billion or $100 billion — then so be it.
But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without "due process of law."
Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference.
With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution.
If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don't believe in constitutional government.
And, without constitutional government, freedom cannot endure. There will always be a "crisis" — which, as the president's chief of staff has said, cannot be allowed to "go to waste" as an opportunity to expand the government's power.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
The U.S. Constitution is hot, which Obama is not
Demand for copies of the U.S. Constitution is skyrocketing.
The increased interest comes amid the rise of the Tea Party movement and as both parties cite the Constitution to advance their agendas.
The pocket edition of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence ranked 10th on the Government Printing Office’s (GPO) best-seller list in March.
Since September 2009, the GPO has sold more than 8,700 copies of the pocket Constitution to the public, according to GPO spokesman Gary Somerset. That is a higher sell rate than in recent years.
Those sales are in addition to the thousands of copies given to members of Congress each year. Congress authorized a resolution in 2009 to print 441,000 copies for the use of the House (1,000 for each member) and 100,000 copies for the Senate (1,000 for each senator).
The Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute, which keep statistics on the Constitution, also say that requests for the historical document are on the rise.
GPO sells copies for $2.75, but constituents can request a free one from their lawmaker.
Congressional offices are burning through theirs stacks of pocket Constitutions.
The increased interest comes amid the rise of the Tea Party movement and as both parties cite the Constitution to advance their agendas.
The pocket edition of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence ranked 10th on the Government Printing Office’s (GPO) best-seller list in March.
Since September 2009, the GPO has sold more than 8,700 copies of the pocket Constitution to the public, according to GPO spokesman Gary Somerset. That is a higher sell rate than in recent years.
Those sales are in addition to the thousands of copies given to members of Congress each year. Congress authorized a resolution in 2009 to print 441,000 copies for the use of the House (1,000 for each member) and 100,000 copies for the Senate (1,000 for each senator).
The Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute, which keep statistics on the Constitution, also say that requests for the historical document are on the rise.
GPO sells copies for $2.75, but constituents can request a free one from their lawmaker.
Congressional offices are burning through theirs stacks of pocket Constitutions.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Obama failed to mention the one essential quality of a judge - adherence to the Constitution
One detail was missing from President Obama's list of qualifications for his nominee to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court: Any mention of the Constitution.
He just doesn't get it.
At a time when Americans are furious over Obama's headlong plunge into socialism, when his Democrat party is losing elections and hemorrhaging incumbents because voters reject their big-government "remaking America" agenda, the chameleon forgot to adapt.
The master wordsmith -- who knows how to say what people want to hear -- blew it.
He didn't state the main qualification for any person who serves in government, the absence of which has lit a brushfire of discontent, fidelity to the Constitution.
He and his allies haven't taken that first step to recovery -- acknowledging their problem. It's their utter disregard for the Constitution that is causing this big mess. The concept of a limited government, restrained in what it can and should do, is foreign to them, while for most Americans it's in our DNA. This is what puts Obama at odds with so many Americans.
President Obama said his Supreme Court nominee will be someone who knows "that in a democracy, powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens."
Newsflash for the president! The most "powerful interest" in America today that is drowning out citizens' voices is…. the government!
He just doesn't get it.
At a time when Americans are furious over Obama's headlong plunge into socialism, when his Democrat party is losing elections and hemorrhaging incumbents because voters reject their big-government "remaking America" agenda, the chameleon forgot to adapt.
The master wordsmith -- who knows how to say what people want to hear -- blew it.
He didn't state the main qualification for any person who serves in government, the absence of which has lit a brushfire of discontent, fidelity to the Constitution.
He and his allies haven't taken that first step to recovery -- acknowledging their problem. It's their utter disregard for the Constitution that is causing this big mess. The concept of a limited government, restrained in what it can and should do, is foreign to them, while for most Americans it's in our DNA. This is what puts Obama at odds with so many Americans.
President Obama said his Supreme Court nominee will be someone who knows "that in a democracy, powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens."
Newsflash for the president! The most "powerful interest" in America today that is drowning out citizens' voices is…. the government!
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Guided by his fantasies, Obama may see the Constitution as already a historical relic
President Obama said his Supreme Court nominee will be someone who knows "that in a democracy, powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens."
Newsflash for the president! The most "powerful interest" in America today that is drowning out citizens' voices is…. the government!
Newsflash for the president! The most "powerful interest" in America today that is drowning out citizens' voices is…. the government!
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Obama often disdains free markets, but he has yet to win over U.S. voters or the Chinese government
Reprint of a post dated Monday, September 29, 2008
Do we want a command economy?
The most persuasive evidence that Barack Obama is unfit for the presidency is the frequency with which he deploys one phrase, "I will invest." The implication is inescapable. He plans to install a command economy. He will decide which path to the future is the right one.
This is not what the framers had in mind, nor is it the formula the United States has followed in building the world's mightiest economy.
The president did not tell the Wright brothers to build an airplane.
The president did not tell Thomas Edison to design a light bulb.
The president did not tell Henry Ford to build a car.
The president did not tell Jonas Salk to find a remedy for polio.
The president did not tell Babe Ruth to hit 60 home runs in a season.
Each of these pioneers saw a potential market and tried to accommodate it, confident that rewards would follow.
There have been many other pioneers, some driven by benevolent impulses, others by a desire to get rich. Some got lucky and stumbled across useful products while working on something else.
It is comonplace now, especially among leftists, to disparage wealth-seeking, but without it we wouldn't be where we are.
Paradoxically, it seems to be acceptable among leftists to stuff one's pockets if one is doing so in a government office. Executives of Fannie Mae hauled in tens of millions of dollars each in a few years, at times by cooking the books to inflate profits.
Where are the howls of outrage about this form of wealth-seeking?
In writing the constitution, the framers were influenced by the initial publication of Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" in 1776. The book highlighted the role of free markets and laid the foundation for modern capitalism. Its principles are woven into the law of the land.
The book remains relevant today, as was pointed out by Robert Reich, secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, who wrote this in an introduction: "Smith's mind ranged over issues as fresh and topical today as they were in the late 18th Century - jobs, wages, politics, government, trade, education, business and ethics."
Elections are, of course, free market principles applied to politics.
It is not hard to find examples of a command economy. Cuba is one. Zimbabwe is another. Russia was a superb example until its empire collapsed and it had to adapt to the modern competitive world.
As the empire teetered, Time sent correspondents to Russia to take the pulse of the people.
When asked to describe the Russian system, a blue-collar worker said, "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us."
Posted by TheRightFieldLine at 9:10 AM
Labels: Adam Smith, economics, Obama, politics, U.S. constitution,
Update:
Eight months into his presidency, Obama has made good on my worst fears. Through legislation and executive actions he has demonstrated across-the-board contempt for free markets.
He seized control of General Motors and Chrysler, ram-rodded a $787 billion "stimulus" that is largely a gigantic pile of earmarks targeted for Democrat interest groups and has refused to even consider markets as an antidote to rising medical costs.
Through legislation, Obama could restore competition to the medical insurance industry by allowing companies to market their products across state lines. Instead, he has brushed the idea aside in favor of more government controls on medicine and medical insurance. One of his objectives is a new government insurance option, which could forego profits, operate at lower costs, and eventually drive private insurers out of business.
Even in authoritarian countries, such as China, however, free markets have important fans, and China now is likely to deprive Obama of one of his most prized objectives.
Taking advantage of low production costs, China has become a trading giant and is regularly adding new coal-fired power plants to its industrial base. China rejects any suggestion that it damage its competetive advantage by assessing a tax on carbon emissions.
In Washington, a cap and trade scheme that would impose such a carbon tax has been passed by the House and is pending before the Senate. If Obama continues to push the cap and trade bill, and the Senate goes along, the U.S. government will have handed the Chinese a significant price advantage in international markets, and U.S. companies will take another hit.
My bet: markets will prevail. Obama will be deprived of at least one of his two must-pass bills. The other must pass bill, an overhaul of health care, remains on life support. The voter market does not like the seemingly inevitable rationing of health care under the reform proposal.
Do we want a command economy?
The most persuasive evidence that Barack Obama is unfit for the presidency is the frequency with which he deploys one phrase, "I will invest." The implication is inescapable. He plans to install a command economy. He will decide which path to the future is the right one.
This is not what the framers had in mind, nor is it the formula the United States has followed in building the world's mightiest economy.
The president did not tell the Wright brothers to build an airplane.
The president did not tell Thomas Edison to design a light bulb.
The president did not tell Henry Ford to build a car.
The president did not tell Jonas Salk to find a remedy for polio.
The president did not tell Babe Ruth to hit 60 home runs in a season.
Each of these pioneers saw a potential market and tried to accommodate it, confident that rewards would follow.
There have been many other pioneers, some driven by benevolent impulses, others by a desire to get rich. Some got lucky and stumbled across useful products while working on something else.
It is comonplace now, especially among leftists, to disparage wealth-seeking, but without it we wouldn't be where we are.
Paradoxically, it seems to be acceptable among leftists to stuff one's pockets if one is doing so in a government office. Executives of Fannie Mae hauled in tens of millions of dollars each in a few years, at times by cooking the books to inflate profits.
Where are the howls of outrage about this form of wealth-seeking?
In writing the constitution, the framers were influenced by the initial publication of Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" in 1776. The book highlighted the role of free markets and laid the foundation for modern capitalism. Its principles are woven into the law of the land.
The book remains relevant today, as was pointed out by Robert Reich, secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, who wrote this in an introduction: "Smith's mind ranged over issues as fresh and topical today as they were in the late 18th Century - jobs, wages, politics, government, trade, education, business and ethics."
Elections are, of course, free market principles applied to politics.
It is not hard to find examples of a command economy. Cuba is one. Zimbabwe is another. Russia was a superb example until its empire collapsed and it had to adapt to the modern competitive world.
As the empire teetered, Time sent correspondents to Russia to take the pulse of the people.
When asked to describe the Russian system, a blue-collar worker said, "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us."
Posted by TheRightFieldLine at 9:10 AM
Labels: Adam Smith, economics, Obama, politics, U.S. constitution,
Update:
Eight months into his presidency, Obama has made good on my worst fears. Through legislation and executive actions he has demonstrated across-the-board contempt for free markets.
He seized control of General Motors and Chrysler, ram-rodded a $787 billion "stimulus" that is largely a gigantic pile of earmarks targeted for Democrat interest groups and has refused to even consider markets as an antidote to rising medical costs.
Through legislation, Obama could restore competition to the medical insurance industry by allowing companies to market their products across state lines. Instead, he has brushed the idea aside in favor of more government controls on medicine and medical insurance. One of his objectives is a new government insurance option, which could forego profits, operate at lower costs, and eventually drive private insurers out of business.
Even in authoritarian countries, such as China, however, free markets have important fans, and China now is likely to deprive Obama of one of his most prized objectives.
Taking advantage of low production costs, China has become a trading giant and is regularly adding new coal-fired power plants to its industrial base. China rejects any suggestion that it damage its competetive advantage by assessing a tax on carbon emissions.
In Washington, a cap and trade scheme that would impose such a carbon tax has been passed by the House and is pending before the Senate. If Obama continues to push the cap and trade bill, and the Senate goes along, the U.S. government will have handed the Chinese a significant price advantage in international markets, and U.S. companies will take another hit.
My bet: markets will prevail. Obama will be deprived of at least one of his two must-pass bills. The other must pass bill, an overhaul of health care, remains on life support. The voter market does not like the seemingly inevitable rationing of health care under the reform proposal.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Do we want a command economy?
The most persuasive evidence that Barack Obama is unfit for the presidency is the frequency with which he deploys one phrase, "I will invest..."
The implication is inescapable. He plans to install a command economy. He will decide which path to the future is the right one.
This is not what the framers had in mind, nor is it the formula the United States has followed in building the world's mightiest economy.
The president did not tell the Wright brothers to build an airplane.
The president did not tell Thomas Edison to design a light bulb.
The president did not tell Henry Ford to build a car.
The president did not tell Jonas Salk to find a remedy for polio.
The president did not tell Babe Ruth to hit 60 home runs in a season.
Each of these pioneers saw a potential market and tried to accommodate it, confident that rewards would follow.
There have been many other pioneers, some driven by benevolent impulses, others by a desire to get rich. Some got lucky and stumbled across useful products while working on something else.
It is comonplace now, especially among leftists, to disparage wealth-seeking, but without it we wouldn't be where we are.
Paradoxically, it seems to be acceptable among leftists to stuff one's pockets if one is doing so in a government office. Executives of Fannie Mae hauled in tens of millions of dollars each in a few years, at times by cooking the books to inflate profits.
Where are the howls of outrage about this form of wealth-seeking?
In writing the constitution, the framers were influenced by the initial publication of Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" in 1776. The book highlighted the role of free markets and laid the foundation for modern capitalism. Its principles are woven into the law of the land.
The book remains relevant today, as was pointed out by Robert Reich, secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, who wrote this in an introduction: "Smith's mind ranged over issues as fresh and topical today as they were in the late 18th Century - jobs, wages, politics, government, trade, education, business and ethics."
Elections are, of course, free market principles applied to politics.
It is not hard to find examples of a command economy. Cuba is one. Zimbabwe is another. Russia was a superb example until its empire collapsed and it had to adapt to the modern competitive world.
As the empire teetered, Time sent correspondents to Russia to take the pulse of the people.
When asked to describe the Russian system, a blue-collar worker said, "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us."
The implication is inescapable. He plans to install a command economy. He will decide which path to the future is the right one.
This is not what the framers had in mind, nor is it the formula the United States has followed in building the world's mightiest economy.
The president did not tell the Wright brothers to build an airplane.
The president did not tell Thomas Edison to design a light bulb.
The president did not tell Henry Ford to build a car.
The president did not tell Jonas Salk to find a remedy for polio.
The president did not tell Babe Ruth to hit 60 home runs in a season.
Each of these pioneers saw a potential market and tried to accommodate it, confident that rewards would follow.
There have been many other pioneers, some driven by benevolent impulses, others by a desire to get rich. Some got lucky and stumbled across useful products while working on something else.
It is comonplace now, especially among leftists, to disparage wealth-seeking, but without it we wouldn't be where we are.
Paradoxically, it seems to be acceptable among leftists to stuff one's pockets if one is doing so in a government office. Executives of Fannie Mae hauled in tens of millions of dollars each in a few years, at times by cooking the books to inflate profits.
Where are the howls of outrage about this form of wealth-seeking?
In writing the constitution, the framers were influenced by the initial publication of Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" in 1776. The book highlighted the role of free markets and laid the foundation for modern capitalism. Its principles are woven into the law of the land.
The book remains relevant today, as was pointed out by Robert Reich, secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, who wrote this in an introduction: "Smith's mind ranged over issues as fresh and topical today as they were in the late 18th Century - jobs, wages, politics, government, trade, education, business and ethics."
Elections are, of course, free market principles applied to politics.
It is not hard to find examples of a command economy. Cuba is one. Zimbabwe is another. Russia was a superb example until its empire collapsed and it had to adapt to the modern competitive world.
As the empire teetered, Time sent correspondents to Russia to take the pulse of the people.
When asked to describe the Russian system, a blue-collar worker said, "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
