Archive for January, 2008

Another Money Bomb

February 1 is the date for the next Ron Paul Money Bomb event. Send the message that there are still a few freedom lovers out there.

Federalist Number 23

The Necessity of a Government as Energetic as the One Proposed to the Preservation of the Union
From the New York Packet.
Tuesday, December 18, 1787.

Alexander Hamilton

To the People of the State of New York:

THE necessity of a Constitution, at least equally energetic with the one proposed, to the preservation of the Union, is the point at the examination of which we are now arrived.

This inquiry will naturally divide itself into three branches the objects to be provided for by the federal government, the quantity of power necessary to the accomplishment of those objects, the persons upon whom that power ought to operate. Its distribution and organization will more properly claim our attention under the succeeding head.

The principal purposes to be answered by union are these the common defense of the members; the preservation of the public peace as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; the regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States; the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries.

The authorities essential to the common defense are these: to raise armies; to build and equip fleets; to prescribe rules for the government of both; to direct their operations; to provide for their support. These powers ought to exist without limitation, BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FORESEE OR DEFINE THE EXTENT AND VARIETY OF NATIONAL EXIGENCIES, OR THE CORRESPONDENT EXTENT AND VARIETY OF THE MEANS WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY TO SATISFY THEM. The circumstances that endanger the safety of nations are infinite, and for this reason no constitutional shackles can wisely be imposed on the power to which the care of it is committed. This power ought to be coextensive with all the possible combinations of such circumstances; and ought to be under the direction of the same councils which are appointed to preside over the common defense.

This is one of those truths which, to a correct and unprejudiced mind, carries its own evidence along with it; and may be obscured, but cannot be made plainer by argument or reasoning. It rests upon axioms as simple as they are universal; the MEANS ought to be proportioned to the END; the persons, from whose agency the attainment of any END is expected, ought to possess the MEANS by which it is to be attained.

Whether there ought to be a federal government intrusted with the care of the common defense, is a question in the first instance, open for discussion; but the moment it is decided in the affirmative, it will follow, that that government ought to be clothed with all the powers requisite to complete execution of its trust. And unless it can be shown that the circumstances which may affect the public safety are reducible within certain determinate limits; unless the contrary of this position can be fairly and rationally disputed, it must be admitted, as a necessary consequence, that there can be no limitation of that authority which is to provide for the defense and protection of the community, in any matter essential to its efficacy that is, in any matter essential to the FORMATION, DIRECTION, or SUPPORT of the NATIONAL FORCES.

Defective as the present Confederation has been proved to be, this principle appears to have been fully recognized by the framers of it; though they have not made proper or adequate provision for its exercise. Congress have an unlimited discretion to make requisitions of men and money; to govern the army and navy; to direct their operations. As their requisitions are made constitutionally binding upon the States, who are in fact under the most solemn obligations to furnish the supplies required of them, the intention evidently was that the United States should command whatever resources were by them judged requisite to the “common defense and general welfare.” It was presumed that a sense of their true interests, and a regard to the dictates of good faith, would be found sufficient pledges for the punctual performance of the duty of the members to the federal head.

The experiment has, however, demonstrated that this expectation was ill-founded and illusory; and the observations, made under the last head, will, I imagine, have sufficed to convince the impartial and discerning, that there is an absolute necessity for an entire change in the first principles of the system; that if we are in earnest about giving the Union energy and duration, we must abandon the vain project of legislating upon the States in their collective capacities; we must extend the laws of the federal government to the individual citizens of America; we must discard the fallacious scheme of quotas and requisitions, as equally impracticable and unjust. The result from all this is that the Union ought to be invested with full power to levy troops; to build and equip fleets; and to raise the revenues which will be required for the formation and support of an army and navy, in the customary and ordinary modes practiced in other governments.

If the circumstances of our country are such as to demand a compound instead of a simple, a confederate instead of a sole, government, the essential point which will remain to be adjusted will be to discriminate the OBJECTS, as far as it can be done, which shall appertain to the different provinces or departments of power; allowing to each the most ample authority for fulfilling the objects committed to its charge. Shall the Union be constituted the guardian of the common safety? Are fleets and armies and revenues necessary to this purpose? The government of the Union must be empowered to pass all laws, and to make all regulations which have relation to them. The same must be the case in respect to commerce, and to every other matter to which its jurisdiction is permitted to extend. Is the administration of justice between the citizens of the same State the proper department of the local governments? These must possess all the authorities which are connected with this object, and with every other that may be allotted to their particular cognizance and direction. Not to confer in each case a degree of power commensurate to the end, would be to violate the most obvious rules of prudence and propriety, and improvidently to trust the great interests of the nation to hands which are disabled from managing them with vigor and success.

Who is likely to make suitable provisions for the public defense, as that body to which the guardianship of the public safety is confided; which, as the centre of information, will best understand the extent and urgency of the dangers that threaten; as the representative of the WHOLE, will feel itself most deeply interested in the preservation of every part; which, from the responsibility implied in the duty assigned to it, will be most sensibly impressed with the necessity of proper exertions; and which, by the extension of its authority throughout the States, can alone establish uniformity and concert in the plans and measures by which the common safety is to be secured? Is there not a manifest inconsistency in devolving upon the federal government the care of the general defense, and leaving in the State governments the EFFECTIVE powers by which it is to be provided for? Is not a want of co-operation the infallible consequence of such a system? And will not weakness, disorder, an undue distribution of the burdens and calamities of war, an unnecessary and intolerable increase of expense, be its natural and inevitable concomitants? Have we not had unequivocal experience of its effects in the course of the revolution which we have just accomplished?

Every view we may take of the subject, as candid inquirers after truth, will serve to convince us, that it is both unwise and dangerous to deny the federal government an unconfined authority, as to all those objects which are intrusted to its management. It will indeed deserve the most vigilant and careful attention of the people, to see that it be modeled in such a manner as to admit of its being safely vested with the requisite powers. If any plan which has been, or may be, offered to our consideration, should not, upon a dispassionate inspection, be found to answer this description, it ought to be rejected. A government, the constitution of which renders it unfit to be trusted with all the powers which a free people OUGHT TO DELEGATE TO ANY GOVERNMENT, would be an unsafe and improper depositary of the NATIONAL INTERESTS. Wherever THESE can with propriety be confided, the coincident powers may safely accompany them. This is the true result of all just reasoning upon the subject. And the adversaries of the plan promulgated by the convention ought to have confined themselves to showing, that the internal structure of the proposed government was such as to render it unworthy of the confidence of the people. They ought not to have wandered into inflammatory declamations and unmeaning cavils about the extent of the powers. The POWERS are not too extensive for the OBJECTS of federal administration, or, in other words, for the management of our NATIONAL INTERESTS; nor can any satisfactory argument be framed to show that they are chargeable with such an excess. If it be true, as has been insinuated by some of the writers on the other side, that the difficulty arises from the nature of the thing, and that the extent of the country will not permit us to form a government in which such ample powers can safely be reposed, it would prove that we ought to contract our views, and resort to the expedient of separate confederacies, which will move within more practicable spheres. For the absurdity must continually stare us in the face of confiding to a government the direction of the most essential national interests, without daring to trust it to the authorities which are indispensible to their proper and efficient management. Let us not attempt to reconcile contradictions, but firmly embrace a rational alternative.

I trust, however, that the impracticability of one general system cannot be shown. I am greatly mistaken, if any thing of weight has yet been advanced of this tendency; and I flatter myself, that the observations which have been made in the course of these papers have served to place the reverse of that position in as clear a light as any matter still in the womb of time and experience can be susceptible of. This, at all events, must be evident, that the very difficulty itself, drawn from the extent of the country, is the strongest argument in favor of an energetic government; for any other can certainly never preserve the Union of so large an empire. If we embrace the tenets of those who oppose the adoption of the proposed Constitution, as the standard of our political creed, we cannot fail to verify the gloomy doctrines which predict the impracticability of a national system pervading entire limits of the present Confederacy.

PUBLIUS.

◄ Previous The Federalist Papers Next ►

Now Do You Believe Me?

George Bush is no conservative (and never has been). Not only has he grown the Federal budget faster than any president since FDR, he argues that the 2nd Amendment gives the government the right to take your guns away.

Since “unrestricted’ private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions, according to the Bush administration.

The argument was delivered by U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement in a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the ongoing arguments over the legality of a District of Columbia ban on handguns in homes, according to a report from the Los Angeles Times.

Clement suggested that gun rights are limited and subject to “reasonable regulation” and said all federal limits on guns should be upheld.

What’s reasonable to George Bush is quite unreasonable to me. The Constitution says what it says, and arguing otherwise makes Bush no different than Al Gore, who ran in 2000 with the mindset that the Constitution is a “living document”, meaning it says what Al Gore wants it to say.

Federalist Update

Just an update on the Federalist Paper posts, I haven’t forgotten, I am just trying to keep up with myself. I have posted up to #22, but have only read up to #18. Once I get some time to catch up, I’ll resume posting them.

Do you like having them posted? I won’t stop if you say “no”, but I will definitely work harder to keep posting them if you say “Yes”. Also, I’m interested in “No” answers so I can see if I’m only doing it for myself or if others are interested in it too. (Thanks!)

Go Ron!

I’m in the middle of watching Ron Paul’s townhall meeting from Sunday night. Fox excluded him from the “debates” so he just went and did his own thing. I think it was much better anyway, as he answered real questions from real people, not the ones that Fox News decided to ask him.

Random Thoughts on the New Year

First things first, I don’t do resolutions. The last time I made one was 1994, and it was to never make another resolution. So far I’ve kept it perfectly. That doesn’t mean I don’t ever make changes, I just don’t tie them to the changing of the calendar.

It’s an election year again. I’m not too excited. What little excitement I do have is directly linked to Ron Paul’s nearly $20 Million in fund raising in the fourth quarter of 2007. He’s the first Republican to come along that I can really feel good about supporting since I’ve been old enough to vote (I supported the re-election of Ronald Reagan, but I was 7 at the time, so I couldn’t make that support mean anything – too bad too since my parents voted for Mondale). I’m leaning heavily towards not voting at all on November 4th (unless of course Paul pulls off a miracle and gets the nomination). I dread the coming political discourse. The election will be between a pro-abortion Liberal and a pro-life Liberal, both promising to spend more money than any of their predecessors, and both looking for every reason they can find to curb freedom and empower government. All-the-while countless Republican sheeple will be screaming that I have to vote for the pro-life Liberal because if I don’t the pro-abortion Liberal will win and kill us all!!! I’m not looking forward to the thoughtless regurgitation of the line “It’s the most important election of our time.” No thanks, I’d rather sit this one out.

My son is now nine months old. I don’t know how that happened, I thought we just brought him home from the hospital last week. I look forward to the coming year and seeing him grow. He should start taking his first steps in a few months, and his first real words should follow (he says “Dada”, but it is clear he doesn’t know what it really means yet.) By this time next year, hopefully he’ll start showing interest in the potty, though about the time he’s trained to use it, he’ll probably have a little sibling either here or on the way. We may not see the end of diapers until well into the next decade.

Global warming seems to have eluded the Upper Midwest. It’s been the coldest winter of recent memory. I don’t remember it being this cold since my freshman year of college – the 1996-97 school year. On top of being cold, it has been the snowiest year we’ve had since I graduated from college in 2001. I am convinced it is because I sold my snowmobile last February (and used the money to buy the Mac Mini that I am writing this post on). Fortunately, I knew anticipated that would happen. I figured the only way to really go snowmobiling would be to sell the snowmobile so that we would actually get snow and then use my father-in-law’s snowmobile. His is much newer and nicer than mine was, and he has the land to use it on, so it was actually a strategically sound move.

I look forward to the possibility of doing some more writing this coming year. I am not certain it will happen, but I hope it does. Not only do I have the blog, which has been difficult to keep up with (thanks for sticking around by the way if you are reading this), but a friend and the associate (or is it assistant? I can never keep it straight) pastor at church has started a new website/ministry called Signet Ring. I have been on board to help out with the website, and invited to write for it. Hopefully I can find a topic that is appropriate and can measure up to the quality of writing already involved there. Do check it out, it is off to a slow but impressive start. The writing is superb and theologically & academically challenging (in a very good way). I am hoping to get some time soon to redesign the site for them, and move it to a better host (the one they are using now is a bit “cookie-cutter”.)

By the middle of the year, I should begin taking my Architectural Registration Exams (ARE’s). There are currently nine of them, but the test is changing beginning in July and there will only be seven then. I haven’t yet completed the Architectural Intern Development Program (IDP), which is required before taking the exams, but I am close and am not too concerned with it. Several states have instituted “concurrent testing”, which allows candidates to begin the tests while still working through IDP. While Minnesota is not one of those states, I am free to pursue registration in any state that meets the requirements for certification by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB). Once certified by NCARB, licensure in any state is very easy; in most you need only have your certification transmitted to the state board and pay a fee. If Minnesota doesn’t change to concurrent testing by July 1, I will likely go through Florida. By the end of the year, I hope to be just a few tests (maybe 3?) away from being a licensed Architect, with the hope of being finished by the middle of 2009. The process has been long and tedious so far, counting college, I have been at it for over 11 years. Couldn’t I have been a brain surgeon in that time?

I plan to get back to work on a MAME (arcade game) cabinet in the next few weeks. I built the control panel and got the computer going last summer. I just need to build the rest of the cabinet. Once I do, I may post pictures, and maybe my plans, if there is interest. It will be a little atypical. It is a four-place system (4 player), with a 19 inch flat-panel monitor instead of a larger CRT television as most purists demand. It is also a computer that runs many other things. It is an Ubuntu system with a web server, a MythTV server/client (homebrew Tivo), an Asterisk phone server (very cool, if you don’t know what Asterisk is, watch this.) In other words, gaming is just a small aspect of the machine.

That’s all I’ve got for now. 2008 should be a fun and exciting year. I hope yours is too!

On Religious Tests

With the current election cycle now in full swing, and two leading candidates on the Republican side subscribing to different faiths – Mormonism and the Baptist Church – there is talk in Conservative circles of the Constitutional prohibition on “Religious Tests.” I have even heard criticism of potential voters who have decided they don’t like one or the other based on his profession of faith. More often, it is the Mitt Romney critics that are lambasted for not liking him because of his Mormonism.

One commentator in particular, a local guy here in Minneapolis, doesn’t like Romney for policy reasons, but loves to lay into Evangelicals that choose not to support a Mormon (cultist). He loves to run to the Constitutional prohibition of Religious Tests for office as the heart of his criticism for those Evangelicals. What he fails to grasp is that that Constitutional prohibition doesn’t apply to voters, nor should it. It prohibits Congress from passing laws requiring adherence to a particular Religious denomination or sect in order to qualify for political office.

The First Amendment’s protection of the Freedom of Association permits voters to reject candidates for any reason, including religious. As we have seen throughout Bush’s administration, especially earlier on in his first term in office, criticism of a politician on religious grounds is considered fair game. Bush being a self-professed Evangelical Christian (he never convinced me, but that’s beside the point) has drawn him criticism from the Left on everything he has done, even when what he has done has been exactly what they wanted.

I dislike Mitt Romney for a whole host of reasons, at least as a politician (I don’t know him personally). Among them is his Mormonism. However, if he had a political record I was comfortable with and was running on a political platform I could support, I would give serious consideration to voting for him. In fact, as a Ron Paul supporter, if I learned that my favorite candidate were a member of a religious group I considered a cult (such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons), I would likely not be swayed in my support for him.

I just wish these commentators would be consistent. So often they rightly recognize that the Constitution was constructed to limit the power and scope of government, but when they can misapply Constitutional principles to attack those with whom they have differences they show themselves to be much more shallow than they first appear.

Mitt Romney, a Mormon, has every right to run for office, including that of the President; but I and every other voter have just as much right to vote against him, even if the reasoning is as shallow as not liking his religious affiliation.