Which form of government do you prefer?
The federal government has metastasized well beyond the limits established by the Constitution, plainly expanding to an extent the Constitution just as plainly has not, and whatever arguments might be made for this, if the United States is to be a legitimate constitutional democracy then either the Constitution needs to get bigger or the government needs to get smaller, or some combination of the two. This stands to be a formidable undertaking.
An example of our departure from constitutional principles is the substitution of regulations for law, replacing the burden of legislation with the ease and convenience of typing. On the fiscal side, the unchecked downward flow of dollars has blurred the distinction between levels of government, increasingly rendering local governments effective shell corporations of their larger parent. Indeed, such foundational principles as constitutional delineation of authority, clear levels of government jurisdiction, and the separation of powers within a given level of government have so far passed from the national consciousness as to be all but absent from public debate. We need to bring these ideas back.
Washington's thoughts on the Constitution-
"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates, but let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield." -George Washington
here's a favorite quote on the Constitution-
"If America ever approached (for however brief a time) that lofty pinnacle of glory to which the fancy of its inhabitants is wont to point, it was at the solemn moment at which the power of the nation abdicated, as it were, the empire of the land. All ages have furnished the spectacle of a people struggling with energy to win its independence; and the efforts of the Americans in throwing off the English yoke have been considerably exaggerated. Separated from their enemies by three thousand miles of ocean, and backed by a powerful ally, the success of the United States may be more justly attributed to their geographical position than to the valor of their armies or the patriotism of their citizens. It would be ridiculous to compare the American war to the wars of the French Revolution, or the efforts of the Americans to those of the French when they were attacked by the whole of Europe, without credit and without allies, yet capable of opposing a twentieth part of their population to the world, and of bearing the torch of revolution beyond their frontiers whilst they stifled its devouring flame within the bosom of their country. But it is a novelty in the history of society to see a great people turn a calm and scrutinizing eye upon itself, when apprised by the legislature that the wheels of government are stopped; to see it carefully examine the extent of the evil, and patiently wait for two whole years until a remedy was discovered, which it voluntarily adopted without having wrung a tear or a drop of blood from mankind."
and here's a thought from Bill Montague-
"....the modern bureaucracy (and I would include the modern megacorporation in that category) functions more like a machine, or perhaps a colony of one-celled organisms like a coral or a sponge. It’s essentially mindless, driven by a set of basic imperatives, of which the most relentless is the urge to grow, to expand both in size and power. To paraphrase Edward Abbey: It has the ideology of a cancer cell." -Bill Montague, billmon.org
addendum:
(10/5/06)- Here's what I really think about the Constitution. I sent this yesterday to the PAC "Americans for the Arts", which sent me a questionnaire-
Question: Do you support a significant funding increase for the National Endowment for the Arts, so that arts organizations in your district can present more high quality arts programs for all its citizens?
I checked "Disagree" and wrote:
"At the risk of sounding like a crazed right wing reactionary, I'm pro Constitution and the Constitution doesn't give the federal government the authority to spend taxpayer money on art. Maybe it should, and you should frame an amendment specifying what authority you think the government should have in this area. Definitely leave off anything like what the Nazis did with all their state supported Germanic culture stuff. And I would be more likely to vote for it if you left off industrial art. But I think until you put the question in the proper Constitutional framework it's not really appropriate for me as a ... well, a politician to approach the question simply from the standpoint of my personal tastes or inclination."
.... haven't heard back from them yet.
For anybody who wants to read the whole filled out questionnaire, here's the original in Word.
addendum2:
(10/7/06)- Don't know why it took me so long to think of this, but if you want to know how seriously I take the Constitution, since 1994 I've been reviewing the federal budget every year and estimating what percentage is expended on activities conducted outside the Constitution, and then deducting that percentage from my federal income tax payment. This has, predictably enough, made me less than popular with the IRS. It's also cost me some tens of thousands of dollars. But when I say I'm pro Constitution, it's not just talk. Let me just go find the last cover letter I sent them and paste it in-
April 17, 2006
To: Internal Revenue Service
Atlanta, GA 39901-0102
From: Gregory T. Christian
Dear Sirs:
Pursuant to the policy established with my income tax payment for 1994,
I am again deleting payment, as described herein, for federal activities
during the tax year which in my belief were either not authorized by
or which were not conducted in accordance with the Constitution.
As stated in the letter attached to my federal income tax payment for
1994: “The central function of the Constitution is to clearly
delineate the authority and thereby limit the power of the federal government.
However, various mechanisms which it was hoped would maintain the integrity
of the Constitution against the usual historical trend toward the centralization
of power - checks and balances, judicial oversight, electoral pressure,
oaths of office, etc.- have proven inadequate, and as a consequence
the activities of the federal government are no longer as a matter of
course limited in scope by nor conducted in accordance with the Constitution.
History shows that if centralized government power is not held in check
by peaceful means, the resulting inevitable concentration of power leads
in an equally inevitable fashion to its violent or otherwise chaotic
dispersal ....... In light of the foregoing, I can no longer continue
to willingly provide financial support for the unauthorized and hence
illegal activities of the federal government. Indeed, the Constitution
being the Supreme Law of the Land, knowingly providing funds for government
activities conducted in violation thereof would itself be an illegal
act, and I have therefore, insofar as my capacity to judge such matters
permits, deleted funds for such activities from my income tax payment
as described herein.”
Well, Jose Padilla is now officially out of military custody and in
an actual prison with an actual charge that may actually need to be
substantiated in an actual court. So that may be encouraging. On the
downside, FISA now stands for the Formal Indifference to Statute Act,
and torture persists in the literal Presidential margins. Our Cuban
concentration camp continues as a Constitution free zone. And I think
we can reasonably speculate that a premeditated attack on Iran, possibly
nuclear, if and when it comes will manage to fit squarely inside the
President’s Commander in Chief hat, without all the bother and
fuss and open debate of a Congressional declaration of war. If the President
does attack Iran with nuclear weapons I may have to cut you off entirely,
unless of course the attack precipitates a global thermonuclear exchange,
in which case I’ll probably just hand write you one last letter
and tape it to the rubble.
G. T. Christian
Now that I've got going, I just looked it up and here's what the above "......." said back in 1994, I took it out in subsequent years in part to make room for the additional annual closing paragraph and partly I think to minimize excuses for having a stun grenade fired through my window-
(the resulting inevitable concentration of power leads in an equally inevitable fashion to its violent or otherwise chaotic dispersal,) "as evidenced by the recent increase in armed clashes between civilians and federal forces, attacks on federal installations, and the growing strength of non federal militias, all of which bode ill for the future political, social, and economic stability of the country."
And here are the other closing paragraphs from previous years-
1999:
The above having been said as usual, it seems that last year the nation may have actually moved more toward than away from representative constitutional democracy. The Supreme Court struck down the presidential line item veto as unconstitutional, the total budget for the CIA was for the first time made public, and the President was impeached for violating the law. Still, the line item veto was struck down by a less than reassuring majority, details of the current CIA budget remain a mystery, and the President is still allowed to usurp the power of Congress by ordering acts of war as he sees fit or as suit his purposes, even though an individual with the President’s character and past wouldn’t ordinarily even be granted a security clearance. So we still have a ways to go.
2000:
Well, last year saw American bombs and missiles kill some thousands of Yugoslav citizens in a blunt violation of not only the Constitution but the UN charter and NATO treaty as well, and despite a lawsuit filed by members of Congress in an effort to stop the President’s war. Perhaps a coup attempt would have been more fitting. Also in 1999 the House of Representatives actually voted by the requisite two thirds majority to amend the Constitution to prohibit damaging a piece of cloth bearing the image of the American flag, in the apparent belief that a symbol of freedom is of greater consequence than the fact, though at least it seems the Constitution still retains sufficient symbolic significance to be worth amending over a matter of symbolism. And finally last year our nation for the first time took the historic step of outlawing a cartoon camel, an act presumably provided for in whatever part of the Constitution deals with fictional animals. Maybe the federal government will go after unicorns next.
2001:
Well it seems our new President lost no time in asserting his dictatorial power to have his air force bomb whomever his discretion dictates be bombed, our version of a game the nazis played called follow the leader. Let’s hope our President doesn’t fall off the wagon and while he’s hitting the sauce happen to hit the button. And the Senate voted earlier this month to ban political speech deemed in some fashion or another unacceptable, presumably by DoJ political censors, a clear violation of the Constitutional proscription against Congress making a law abridging the freedom of speech. All I can say is xxxxx xxxxx, x xxxx xxxxx xxx xxxxxxx!
2002:
In light of the attacks upon our nation last September I would point out that I have for some years now been deleting from my annual income tax payment an amount proportionate to our government’s unconstitutional support of various foreign governments, perhaps the most egregious example of which is our government’s ongoing material support of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a monarchy substantially more despotic than that from which our nation won its independence. To quote Osama Bin Laden, “Muslim scholars have issued a fatwa against any American who pays taxes to his government. He is our target, because he is helping the American war machine against the Muslim nation." It thus seems more than speculative that had our government in this instance simply refrained from actively attempting to in some measure determine the nature of the government of others, a role for which our Constitution does not provide, then the Pentagon would today be undamaged, the World Trade Center Towers would still be standing, and 3300 Americans and some thousands of Afghanis would still be alive, to say nothing of the substantial economic and political consequences the nation has suffered and what further consequences may yet result.
2003:
Well, the nation certainly moved further away from the Constitution last year, in a violence fueled trend which seems to hold no current promise of abating. We have now officially, if thus far only on a small scale, effectively decapitated the Bill of Rights by recognizing in both principle and practice the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without charge. This seems incredible. As such, I continue my defense of the Constitution with a somewhat increased trepidation which I can only hope proves unfounded. Our government now also, as a matter of openly stated policy, kills individuals on the judgment of unnamed, utterly unaccountable government employees. This too seems incredible. In a somewhat lighter vein, library borrowings are recorded, peeks sneaked, telephones no doubt frequently tapped, emails scrutinized as desired, and all in all the right of individual privacy guaranteed by the Constitution seems increasingly anachronistic. Just call me old fashioned.
2004:
Having some months ago fallen victim to a shameful, shabby IRS depredation, and with dwindling confidence of recovery by way of your fellow employees in the judiciary, common sense would I suppose suggest a more fiscally prudent attitude on my part this tax filing. But, clearly, mine is not a course of action pursued the ten years past out of an excess of common sense. I am I trust merely pessimistic in my concern next year’s filing may see me destitute, or perhaps writing from a cage, unarguably guilty of a quick and easy change of classification, patiently, if perhaps not quite stoically, awaiting a charge. Well .... at least I won’t seem so paranoid.
2005:
Well, another year past and the Constitution is still on its feeding tube at least, while the Geneva Convention may still have a detectable pulse. The paint continues to peel on our semi-declared wars. And in what may for all I know be an encouraging trend, initiatives such as school choice and social security reform (as they are called) could almost be interpreted as Republican end runs in the general direction of the Constitution, though this seems coincidental. Still, whatever the motivation I suppose reeling toward is better than slipping away. I suppose.
