Perri Nelson's Website

For those we lost, We will not forget 09/11/2001

“I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds.”
— Barack Obama, July 27, 2008 (emphasis added)

“Barack Obama is an arrogant, racist, Marxist ass!”
— Perri Nelson, July 30, 2008

On the structure of our government - part 1

Published Wed, Apr 4 2007 7:11 PM

We live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy. I think that a lot of people have been short-changed by the educational system and are often disappointed in how our government works, largely because they don't understand how it was meant to work.

This post, and related posts to follow represent my simplistic understanding of how the founders intended our government to work. Amendments to the constitution have changed some of what the founders intended, and I don't think that some of those changes were for the better.

The constitution of the United States of America was the second attempt at the creation of a government that would unify the 13 states (formerly colonies) into a single nation. It is designed to weld the states into a single nation, granting a central power the ability to defend the nation and to deal with other nations. It was also designed to strictly limit the power of the federal government, leaving the responsibility for governing the people to the states.

The first attempt, the Articles of Confederation didn't give the central government enough authority over the states to make it possible to deal with other nations in a unified way. The nation was quickly devolving into 13 separate nation-states with no unity whatsoever.

The House of Representatives represents the people

The first organ of government created by the constitution is the House of Representatives. This body is intended, under the original structure of the constitution, to represent the people. The number of representatives from each state is meant to be proportional to the population of that state. The representatives are elected to office directly by the people, and should, in theory, be accountable to the people that elected them.

The Senate represents the states

The second organ of government created by the constitution is the Senate. This body was originally intended to represent the states and not the people. This is why each state has the same number of Senators.

Up until 1914 Senators were elected by the legislatures of the states they represented, not by the people. This was changed by the 17th amendment to the constitution. Now Senators are elected by the people of each state. This change had the effect of weakening the power of the States, and increasing the power of the people.

This change means that Senators are no longer representatives of the states. Instead they are now simply another kind of representative of the people. The states no longer have their own representatives to stand up for states rights. I think that this change was a bad one. I'll get to why I believe that near the end of this post.

I find it interesting that the first power granted by the constitution is given to the Senate. This is the power to try impeachments. An office holder may be impeached, but they can only be convicted by the Senate. This originally meant that the representatives of the states were the judges over impeachments, now though, it's the representatives of the people, although it's a disproportionate representation.

The Senate is also given the power to advise and consent to the appointment of cabinet officers and judges. The Senate is also given the power to approve or reject treaties with other nations.

These powers over the federal government were granted to the states's representatives and not to the people's representatives. This isn't as meaningful after the 17th amendment, but I believe it shows the hierarchical nature of the government envisioned by the founders. The federal government was intended to govern and defend the states. The state governments were intended to govern the people.

Only the people's representatives can originate taxes

It's also interesting to note that the second power granted by the constitution is given to the House of Representatives. That's the power to initiate bills for raising revenue. Only the people's representatives can originate bills that raise taxes.

This power is somewhat tempered by the ability of the Senate to amend those bills. Still, the principle seems to be that if the government wants to take money from the people, the people's representatives have to start the process, not the state's representatives.

Sadly these days, in the debate over taxes, that seems to be forgotten. These days, the left seems to believe that all money is given to the people by the federal government.

Sure, the government coins the money. But the people earn it. It only makes sense that the people's representatives originate the bills that raise taxes.

I seem to recall that this was one of the most basic arguments that led to the revolution. It's flat wrong to have anyone other than the people's representatives taxing the people.

Checks and balances

The congress' power to enact laws is checked by the President's veto power. If the President doesn't agree with a law passed by the congress he (or she) can veto it. This is meant to prevent the passage of a law that isn't in the nation's interest as a whole. This is meant to prevent the states from overreaching and to prevent the people from overreaching.

Presidents aren't infallible though and the congress can override the veto by re-enacting the law, providing that two thirds of the sitting representatives in both houses vote to do so. This is a high hurdle to overcome, intentionally. It means that the people's representatives and the states representatives both have to overwhelmingly agree that the law is a good one.

Ultimately, this should mean that the legislature is more powerful than the executive branch, providing that it acts with unity.

Specific powers are granted to the legislature

Section 8 of article 1 of the constitution then gives the congress very specific powers. It's interesting to note that no other powers are granted to the legislature by the constitution except those already mentioned (impeachment and taxation). Most of these powers have to do with money, communications, defense, and the management of the government. These are the powers of nations.

There are only two real restrictions on these powers. They have to be applied uniformly, and defense appropriations can only last for two years, equivalent to the term of the people's representatives.

Other powers are denied to the legislature

Section 9 of article 1 of the constitution then enumerates several things that congress cannot do. Basically, this enforces uniformity of the application of the laws and prevents the congress from trampling the rights of the states and of the people.

The states' international and interstate powers are restricted

Section 10 of article 1 then lays out certain specific restrictions on the states. Basically states cannot act as independent nations. They can't make treaties with foreign powers. They can't usurp the federal government's power to coin money. They can't raise tariffs. They can't make laws that take away the people's rights that the congress is also prohibited from taking away. They also can't raise armies or navies. That privilege is left to the federal congress.

In other words, they give up the right to act as independent nations.

As you should be able to see, the constitution is intended to establish a balance between the federal government, the several states, and the people. So far, we've only covered article 1.

Article 2, which I'll cover in another post, defines the executive branch.

I do want to bring up another point here before coming back to the powers of the legislature. There has been a growing movement to abolish the electoral college, and the entire electoral vote process by which the President and Vice President are chosen.

Several states are considering making changes to how they apportion their electoral votes. While the constitution grants the state legislatures the power to choose presidential electors, and to determine the manner of their choosing, I think that the changes being considered are a bad idea. They run completely counter to what the founders intended.

Basically, a move is afoot to do an end-run around the electoral process by apportioning the electors according to the national popular vote. There have been suggestions that the electoral college should be abolished before, but they've never gone anywhere because they require a constitutional amendment, and that's a difficult thing to carry off.

Since the 2000 election though, when President Bush was elected by a majority of electoral votes even though he lost the popular vote, several "blue" states have been considering changing how they apportion their electoral votes. The suggested change is to apportion them according to the national popular vote rather than according to how the people in their state vote.

I think the founders would be turning over in their graves over that. The process of electing the President was not intended to be a national popularity contest. In fact, the President was not originally elected by the people (he still isn't, but people think of it that way). If you read the first half of section 1 of article 2 of the constitution you will see that the President is actually elected by the states' representatives, in this case the electors chosen by each state.

This time, rather than giving each state an equal share in the vote though, the states are given votes proportional to their population and to their own representation. This still doesn't mean that the intent was for the people to vote for the president.

In practice, the people vote for the electors, because that's the way the various state legislatures have arranged it. The constitution still allows the states to change this if they choose, but the President is still elected by the electors chosen by the states.

Back to the legislature... Can you find anywhere in the constitution, or in its amendments where congress is given the power to establish a social security program? Can you find anywhere in the constitution, or in its amendments where congress is given the power to establish a national healthcare system? Can you find anywhere in the constitution, or in its amendments where congress is given the power to establish national standards for education or to provide funding for education?

I can't. The powers required by these pet causes of the socialist left in our country today are not granted to the congress. [Update: Well, I suppose I've found a place that might be claimed to provide authorization for these social programs. Personally I think it's a bit of a stretch when you consider the structure the framers intended for our government, but Article I section 8 begins (emphasis added):

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I seriously doubt that "general Welfare of the United States" was meant to mean social welfare, but a very liberal interpretation could give that impression.

The argument still could be made on economic grounds that these programs (with the exception of education) don't really provide for the general Welfare of the Unites States, since they require massive confiscatory taxation that could potentially bankrupt our economy to fully fund them.]

As for what we call pork-barrel spending, nowhere that I can find in the constitution or in its amendments is congress given the power to tax the people and then redistribute the revenue generated back to the states for projects within the states.

These are all examples of congress overreaching and enacting laws that it is not granted the power to do. These are all things (well most of them anyway) that should be reserved to the states.

If Alaska needs a bridge built, or if Washington (state) needs a highway repaired, it's not the federal government's responsibility to see to it that the funding is provided. In fact, it's not even within the constitutional authority of the congress to do it.

Well, maybe this isn't that great an example. A case could be made that the power to regulate interstate commerce [Update: and establish post Roads] applies to Washington's highway, but I doubt that it covers the Alaskan bridge. Perhaps a better example might be the establishment of a state park at federal expense. Even the power to regulate interstate commerce doesn't cover that.

The left has championed "pork-barrel" spending, because it increases the power of government. The left has looked to government to change the social fabric of our nation, and to turn it from the constitutional republic that it was meant to be into a socialist utopia, with the government in control of our lives.

This is why I believe that the 17th amendment was a bad idea. By changing who elects Senators from the state legislatures to the people of the states, this amendment changed who Senators are answerable to. Now that Senators are answerable to the people, rather than to the states, they have more incentive to overreach and to "bring home the bacon".

While the people's representatives can initiate legislation that leads to taxes, now there's no incentive for the states' representatives to curb the excesses of the people's representatives.

When Senators were answerable to the states, they were more likely to resist pork-barrel spending. They were more likely to resist concurring with legislation that increased the federal government's power at the expense of the states' power.

Now though, since Senators are ultimately accountable to the people, the growth of a more socialist form of government is almost inevitable. This is why I think it's a bad idea to try to turn our nation into a "pure" democracy. Doing so will erode what freedoms we have left.

Unless my understanding of the constitution is totally out of whack, we shouldn't allow this. That's not what the founders intended.

Trackposted to Pirate's Cove, Faultline USA, High Desert Wanderer, stikNstein... has no mercy, basil's blog, The World According to Carl, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Comments (1) | Trackbacks (0)

America is NOT a Democracy

Published Wed, Apr 4 2007 9:08 AM
Technorati Tags: Computers and Internet, Wikipedia, Media

spree at Wake up America asks the question today Is America a Democracy? There's even a quick little poll on the site. My immediate answer was NO, it's a constitutional republic.

She goes on to answer the question herself. America is a constitutional republic. I think that's an important distiction, and apparently many of the leftists responsible for editing much of Wikipedia do too. (Not all of the editors at Wikipedia are leftists, but the ones that do the most damage to the site's content seem to be.)

Since I started writing this blog I've seen the Wikipedia article on constitutional republic change drastically. Currently the article is a fairly decent representation of what a constitutional republic actually is. Go back through the history of the article, and you'll find that it's been deprecated at times, and even redirected to other articles that basically took away it's meaning.

This is why I don't trust Wikipedia. The anarchic editing style of their site where anyone can make edits to pages simply can't be trusted. People with a political agenda can simply go in and modify the meaning of terms to fit their ideology.

After all, if you don't like the concept of constitutional limitations on the power of government, why not change the reference material so that it doesn't exist in the discussion of our own form of government?

You can't have a meaningful debate with people that refuse to accept facts. It's also pretty important to agree on the meaning of words and phrases. When one side edits the popular references to deliberately twist words to mean the opposite of what they mean to everyone else, debate isn't possible.

Comments (6) | Trackbacks (1)

Wake up America-Surrender is NOT an Option trackbacked with "Is America a Democracy?"

Won't this drive the left into a tizzy

Published Wed, Apr 4 2007 8:24 AM
Technorati Tags: News and Politics, Liberals

One of the left's favorite icons is criticizing the United States again. Normally this would be cause for rejoicing on the left. After all, the man who epitomizes their favorite form of government, communist dictatorship, is speaking out against the United States.

This time though, Fidel Castro is speaking out against one of the left's pet causes: biofuels.

Cuban leader Fidel Castro has written a second newspaper article within a week, again criticising US biofuels policy.

Writing in the Granma newspaper, Mr Castro said a US drive to back crop use for fuels would raise prices and cause more hunger in developing countries.

Mr Castro handed power to his brother Raul in July after undergoing surgery, and has not appeared in public since.

Correspondents say his articles in the Communist Party's official paper may be a sign of a return to active politics.

The Cuban president's failure to appear in public - and the silence from the Cuban authorities - had fuelled regular speculation about the seriousness of his condition.

Officials have said they expect Mr Castro to resume activities in government soon.

So how will the left deal with this? Their darling dictator is criticizing one of their pet projects. Maybe they'll ignore that and simply rejoice at his apparent return to politics.

Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

Iran Blinks

Published Wed, Apr 4 2007 8:09 AM
Technorati Tags: War on Terror

I just heard on the radio that Iran has released the 15 British captives "as a gift". It appears to be confirmed too. The BBC is reporting that they have been released.

The Iranian leader said no concessions had been made by the British government to secure the releases, but that Britain had pledged "that the incident would not be repeated".

So this leaves me with one question. Did Iran blink, or did Britain blink?

I guess you could interpret the British pledge in a few ways. Does this mean that Britain will pull it's troops and ships out of the gulf entirely so a similar incident can't be repeated? Or could it mean that next time Britain will find the resolve to do what they should have done in the first place?

I'd like to think it's the latter, but I fear it's the former.

Update: Rush is speculating that this is all a ploy by Ahmadinejad to disarm critics of his terrorist regime, and of him personally, against future rhetorical attacks. After all, how can the American public believe the administration when they call this "patient, peaceful" man a terrorist dictator?

How could anyone believe that he's threatened to wipe Israel off the map? How could anyone believe that he's sworn enmity against the West? After all, he magnanimously forgave those British sailors.

Don't be fooled.

Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

Wednesday Hero - Maj. William D. Chesarek, Jr.

Published Wed, Apr 4 2007 7:34 AM

Maj. William D. Chesarek, Jr. Royal Air Force's 847th Naval Air Squadron, Commando Helicopter Force

Maj. William D. Chesarek, Jr. has done something no other U.S. service member has done since WWII. On March 21 of this year, Maj. Chesarek was awarded the British Distinguished Flying Cross, by Queen Elizabeth, for saving lives and in recognition for his bravery during combat operations in Iraq. Maj. Chesark was assigned as an exchange officer with the Royal Air Force's 847th Naval Air Squadron, Commando Helicopter Force in 2005 and was the pilot of the RAF’s Lynx Mk7 helicopter.

On the evening of June 10, 2006, Chesarek was providing radio communication relay for British ground troops conducting a company-sized search operation near Amarah, Iraq. Listening to radio transmissions, he overheard that a vehicle involved in the operation had became disabled and a crowd of insurgents was firing small arms and rocket-propelled grenades at the company.

According to his award citation, "Chesarek elected to fly low over the area in an attempt to distract the crowd and if possible, to engage the insurgents." Because the crowd was so close to the ground troops, instead of engaging his machine gun, he "opted instead to provide bold, harassing, very low level flight over the area in an attempt to disperse the crowd."

You can read Maj. Chesarek's story in it's entirety here.

These brave men and women sacrifice so much in their lives so that others may enjoy the freedoms we get to enjoy everyday. For that, I am proud to call them Hero. We Should Not Only Mourn These Men And Women Who Died, We Should Also Thank God That Such People Lived

This post is part of the Wednesday Hero Blogroll. If you would like to participate in honoring the brave men and women who serve this great country, you can find out how by going here.

Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)