Perri Nelson's Website 

The proper use of federal money

As usual, I was listening to the radio on my way in to work today. I happened to catch an interesting discussion on the Michael Medved show regarding the propriety of certain types of federal spending. Points discussed included foreign aid, military spending, and earmarks. Another point made had to do with the fact that just because something may be a good thing to do doesn't make it the federal government's business to do it.

Examples were given. Foreign military aid was considered to be properly the business of the federal government, especially when that aid is channeled through the Department of Defense and the military budget. On the other hand, foreign humanitarian aid was considered to not be properly the business of the federal government, even though it might seem to be a good thing. Humanitarian aid, it was argued is more properly the province of private charities that make it their business to help people.

Another specific example given was the 20 or so billion dollars in humanitarian foreign aid given to help the victims of AIDS in Africa. While this money has gone to a worthwhile cause, and has in fact helped many people it's still questionable whether it was properly the responsibility of the federal government to provide it. Yes, it was a good and humanitarian thing to send the money, and many would argue that not enough money was sent even though it's among the largest amounts ever dedicated to the cause, but it wasn't the federal government's business, and nowhere is it authorized in our Constitution.

The positions of Senator McCain were also brought up during the conversation. It was remarked upon that he chooses three particularly interesting projects when he speaks out against earmarks: The famous "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska; Senator Clinton's million dollar appropriation for a "Woodstock" museum; And a project to study the DNA of grizzly bears. Senator McCain is right. None of these projects deserve federal funding.

Which brings me to my point. What are the proper criteria for determining whether a project deserves federal funding? Thanks to the Patriot Post, I can refer you to Joseph Story's answer

"The true test is, whether the object be of a local character, and local use; or, whether it be of general benefit to the states. If it be purely local, congress cannot constitutionally appropriate money for the object. But, if the benefit be general, it matters not, whether in point of locality it be in one state, or several; whether it be of large, or of small extent."

-- Joseph Story (Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833)

Under this test, the famous "bridge to nowhere" certainly doesn't qualify. Neither does the "Woodstock" museum. But what about the grizzly DNA study? Surely that falls under something of general benefit to the States, considering that it was intended to help to ascertain whether grizzly bears should be qualified for protection under the federal Endangered Species Act?

Or does it? I'm not going to get into the merits of the ESA in this post, but I do want to give a quick look at the idea of federal funding for scientific research of any kind. Does the Constitution actually authorize such funding at all?

I believe that it does, but only in very tightly limited circumstances. It certainly doesn't authorize it in a lot of the ways that our federal government spends research moneys though.

For example, early in the last century the federal government not only funded, but conducted rather expensive research into the development of nuclear energy, primarily because of the military potential of nuclear weapons. We can debate the particulars another time, including whether nuclear weaponry is a good or an evil. Nevertheless, and regardless of your feelings about nuclear weaponry, this was a legitimate application of federal funding for scientific research. It was conducted in the national interest, in support of the federal government's role to protect and defend the States.

On the other hand, much of modern scientific research being funded by the federal government ought not to be funded by the federal government at all. Again I'll take a "hot button" issue for a quick example — federally funded embryonic stem cell research.

Much has been made of the so-called federal "ban" on embryonic stem cell research. I submit to you that there's no such thing. In fact, the federal government, at the recommendation of President Bush (you know the man the left loves to compare to a chimpanzee or to Adolph Hitler) actually funds research into four existing embryonic stem cell lines. Yet my point is, regardless of the attitudes of celebrities like Michael J. Fox and the late Christopher Reeve, the federal government should not be funding this research at all.

Why not? Surely it's a "good thing" of potentially great humanitarian benefit. That is if you discount the other forms of stem cell research that don't require the destruction of a human life (assuming you believe that a human embryo is both human and alive) it's of great humanitarian benefit.

But where in the Constitution is such funding authorized? The powers of Congress are very specifically enumerated in Article II, section 8. None of those powers include the funding of scientific research. The closest we come to it is in the eighth of their enumerated powers…

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Here we see the founders wanted Congress to promote the progress of science. Even so, they didn't authorize the Congress to fund research. Instead they authorized Congress to secure the exclusive rights to writings and discoveries.

Federal funding of research shouldn't be necessary if the research is truly desirable. Being able to patent the results of that research ought to be enough. Competition for the resources needed should ensure that worthwhile research is conducted, rather than politically popular research, or even the research that helps a particular Senator to get reelected for bringing funds into his State — funds that had to be extracted from the citizens of another State.

The federal government isn't authorized to use money that way in the first place. In the second place, political expediency replaces the usefulness of the research in the competition for those funds, turning scientific debates into political debates. Finally, federal funding of scientific research promotes corruption in government officials.

Federal funding of scientific research is not a proper use of federal money.

On the Presidential election

Once again, the Patriot Post picks a winner…

“Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.”

-- James Madison (Federalist No. 39, 1788)

In this year when we are getting ready to select another President via a vast popularity contest, it seems good to remember what the original purpose of our federal government was and why the founders chose the method of electing a President that they did.

Remember, our Founders sought to bind thirteen nations together into a single union for the purposes of mutual defense, and to ensure liberty. It wasn't their purpose to eliminate the States, but to unify and defend them.

They started with a loose confederation of nation-states. When that confederation proved to be inadequate to the mutual defense of the nation-states they created a federal republic bound by a federal Constitution. Each and every State that has joined the United States has ratified that Constitution, which promises…

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

That promise ensures that, barring amendment to the Constitution, which must be ratified by the States, the federal government shall remain a republic. That promise outlines in a brief paragraph what the purpose of the federal government is, and why the States ought to join it.

As James Madison argued, the Constitution was a FEDERAL Constitution, and not a NATIONAL Constitution. This explains a lot about the mechanism the founders chose for selecting the President…

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

It's plain that the selection of the President was not intended to be a nationwide popularity contest like we see today. The President is intended to be the chief executive of a federal, not a national government. The President doesn't stand for the people, he stands for the States.

There have been several amendments to the Constitution that affect the election of the President. None of them have changed the clause just quoted, although they have had a diluting effect upon it, most notably the 14th amendment.

The point is that the States and not the people choose the President as the chief executive of the federal government. This is why it's distressing to me to see the States attempting to throw away that privilege and responsibility in moves toward direct democracy.

In the originally defined process, the Electors would each vote for two persons. Under the simplest scenario outlined in the original Constitution, after these electoral votes were counted, the one having the most electoral votes would be President, and the one having the second most electoral votes would be Vice President. Can you imagine the outcome today if that process hadn't been amended? Almost surely the President and the Vice President would come from opposing political parties.

Look at the choices that the Democratic party and the Republican party have given us this year. Compare their positions with what the founders declared that the president should be and do.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

This is the first and primary duty of the President as laid out in our federal Constitution. Which of the three candidates do you honestly believe is best qualified to fill that role? Some experience is desirable don't you think? Which of the candidates has that experience?

Of course such experience isn't that hard to come by. All three of the candidates have had the opportunity, although arguably one of them would have been excluded from combat until recently. Nevertheless, military experience isn't mandatory…

he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices,

Are any of the candidates on record having called the principal officers of any of the executive departments, particularly the military, liars? Have any of them said that they don't trust the opinions of… say the Secretary of Defense? Have any of them come out and challenged the veracity an officer of the military placed in charge of a high-profile military campaign of national interest while he was giving sworn testimony to Congress?

Whether you agree in principal with the war in Iraq or not, Congress authorized that action. Members of both major political parties called for action. Members of both major political parties voted to authorize the use of military force. Members of both major political parties voted to enact a policy of "regime change" in Iraq, and did so before September 11, 2001.

Which of the candidates, having voted for the authorization to use military force now claims to have been misled? Which of the candidates has made promises to remove the military from the war on terror? Which of the candidates has made promises to invade an ally (albeit a weak one) in the war on terror?

and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Which of the candidates has a questionable record when it comes to the subject of impeachment? Which of the candidates has a questionable record when it comes to pardons? Yes, I know that none of the candidates has been in the position to grant pardons, however one of the candidates has been in a position to influence some very questionable pardons.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Which of the candidates do you trust to appoint judges that will honor the Constitution as the founders intended? Which of the candidates have tried to obstruct the appointment of judges? Which have tried to obstruct the appointment of Ambassadors by supporting filibusters when they were in the minority, or by supporting the filibuster even when they were in the majority? Which of the candidates has made an issue of the firing of inferior officers by the head of one of the departments?

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

With a Senate bent upon obstruction, Presidents have found it necessary to take advantage of this power granted to them by the Constitution. Which of the candidates have made that necessary?

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Which of today's candidates can you think of that have challenged the carefully chosen words in the State of the Union address of a sitting president, calling them a lie when it was demonstrable that they were in fact true? Which of the candidates has the most questionable record with regard to the faithful execution of laws? Have any of the candidates been associated with the suppression of evidence? The harassment of witnesses in a trial? When it comes to integrity, do any of the candidates come to mind?

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

All three of the current candidates have been bound by Oath or Affirmation to support the Constitution. Which of them has respected that oath? Have any? All three of the current candidates are sitting Senators. Which of them has honored the limitations upon the Congress outlined by the Constitution? Which of them has worked to eliminate the earmarks and other appropriations of federal money for local purposes that the Constitution doesn't authorize throughout his or her career? Which of them have not? Which of the candidates (or their campaign staff) has made the religion of one of the other candidates an issue?

These are the issues upon which we ought to make up our mind who is most, or least, qualified among the candidates to be President. Personally, I find all three candidates to be lacking in one or another of these issues.

The answers to these questions have nothing to do with the liberalism or conservatism of the candidates. Frankly, they're all too liberal (using the current meaning of the word, not the classical meaning) for my tastes. But, when I consider the purpose our founders had for the office of the President, and I consider how the current set of candidates fit that purpose, I am left with only one choice.

I'm going to vote for John McCain.

Cross posted at NW Bloggers and Bloggers for Civil Discourse.