|
Observations on Constitutional Corruption
Just trying to make folks do some deep thinking |
The Love of My Life!
| Observations on Constitutional Corruption |
| 06.29.04 (7:40 pm) [edit] |
|
I'm still involved in my constitutional review and boring as this is to most people it will continue to be the topic of today's post. Exciting or boring as the Constitution may or may not be, it is supposed to be the foremost law of the land; responsible citizenry and leadership should understand it to the best of their ability and should uphold it, or press to have it changed to reflect current needs of the nation. Also, law should be in compliance with this document (that is to say not go counter to it) and all legitimate federal initiative should derive its purpose in direct support of the constitution. It is a very big stretch to justify many of the things the USA does today based on constitutional legitimacy; that is not to says that some of the things being done are not worth doing, but if they are truly merited it is worth taking the effort to legitimize them. The beauty of a limited federal government, one that favors a strong state's rights and responsibility, is that it enables the nation's citizenry to vote with there feet. If you don't like the way something is done in one state, one can always settle in another one. If the federal government becomes too big, if becomes too invasive in state's issue and usurps a state's authority, then conditions become ripe for the existence of a government that is capable of regulating the daily life activity of each citizen to the point that they have no place to go in order to exercise a freedom of choice. I submit that the government of the USA is dangerously close to being at this point already. Excessive federal interventions that are not grounded in constitutional legitimacy are incrementally subduing the citizenry of the USA. My ugly view of this issue is that people are being subdued by the same means as used by a drug dealer. Massive social entitlement programs become a personal dependency. Such entitlements cross the spectrum from social security to farm subsidies. Illegitimate wealth redistribution programs result in a dependency of the nation's citizenry to the powers of the government. Most taxes are so well hidden that few people have a true concept as to the magnitude of this wealth redistribution, its hidden costs and their resulting dependency. The current federal bureaucracy is so big and so convoluted, it is virtually impossible to know what really happens to the tax money, but estimates by accredited authorities indicate that for each federal dollar collected one dime makes to the original cause; the rest of the money is siphoned off in administrative cost, misappropriations, etcetera. It is like cutting drugs, each time the dollar gets moved; it gets stepped on and becomes diluted in its potency. Let me use schools as an example of illustration here, because this is one of my favorite pet peeves. No where in the constitution is there a legitimate reason for the federal government to be involved in the business of schooling with the exception of the establishment of military academies. The Ohio Act seems to be the first bit of federal legislation that mentions schools; this legislation doesn't dictate how schools are to be run, it just assures an initial means of funding them as the territories and subsequent states develop; thus this legislation is still in compliance with the constitution. A federal court ruling requiring bussing was the crack in the damn for federal intervention into schools. While I've got no beef with the principle of this ruling the method and outcome do greatly bother me. When busing was mandated the effected counties and states claimed that they were not prepared to immediately sustain the financial burden to implement this ruling; then in jumps the federal government to provide a grant as a solution, but of course the grants are conditional; do it my way or no money. Texas is an example of a state strong-armed by the federal government that I'm very familiar with. Texas in the 60's was booming and it ran so far into the black that its legislation had to go into overtime sessions each year to dispose of excess revenues, as require by the state's constitution. When it came to busing the state chose its own path to comply with the equal access ruling and refused federal money; this went on for years, but to the consternation of many political forces that promote federalization. The chink in the state's amour eventually turned out to be federal interstate money; this was the exception where the state did use federal subsistence; the federal ploy amounted to do it all our way or get nothing in return and pay up what we have invested. This was a burden the state was not ready to absorb on the spur of the moment. This ploy forced Texas to play the school busing game exactly to the dictates of the federal government. Eventually all of the other items followed... free lunch, frees breakfast and other so called freedoms that come at a price of a state's right in do things in their own way. The real point in all this is not to condemn or condone any of the school initiatives, but they are state and not federal issues. The federal role is to point out where a state's practices violate the constitution and it then should become the state's responsibility to resolve the issue. It is one thing for the federal government to advise a solution, but it is another thing to say there are no other options. Cut out the federal government, leave tax collections and redistribution to local or state governments, because the same objective can be accomplished but at a lower cost. There is a hand in hand outcome that is possible when the federal bureaucracy is eliminated; there is a lower overhead cost, which leaves more money to do the job from the same amount of money the federal government would have collected in the first place and there is the possibility of fulfilling the requirement of a task at a savings. This concept applies to almost any subsidy or redistribution program. I've got several friends and relatives who are farmers. It is interesting to hear their perspectives shift on subsidies. In one conversation it is, I can not afford to take that field out of the land bank, it pays so well doing noting and it is a sure thing." Then the same people will say in another conversation, "farmers couldn't make a living if we were not for subsidizes;" maybe this is true, but I doubt it. People will always be consuming food; it is just a case of what it costs, where it will be grown, by whom it will be grown and how many people will be growing the product. Long term a subsidy kills initiative, creates a dependency and seldom is it grounded in constitutional legitimacy when done by the federal government. Subsidies ultimately are a means to buy votes. What subsidies do accomplish is to develop a dependency that feeds the power base of career politicians; this enhances their ability to further their own position by increasing public dependency while eliminating free will and open options to the citizenry. Originally my intent for today's post was to point out more specific state reactions to constitutional amendments as I did yesterday; however, that task will be held off for another post, perhaps tomorrow. To conclude this constitutional discussion let me leave you with two last things. I have repeatedly heard Al Gore say that the U.S. Constitution is but a guideline and not the law of the land; this notion sends chills down my spine when I hear it from any person, especially a politician of his stature. I'm also drawn to a statement Tom Ridge made when he was first appointed by President Bush to head the homeland security effort. Mister Ridge clearly stated in his acceptance speech that people derive their legitimacy and rights from the government; this too sends chills down my spine. The USA and its constitution were formed on the notion that this is "... a government of the people, for the people and by the people;" Mister Ridge seems to think otherwise. Give this a thought, this concept is part of the Declaration of Independence and not the constitution; therefore it is not law. Now you have two examples where a prominent member from each of the two leading political parties is willing to promote or operate on a false notion. One repudiates the core source of our law and the other is willing to promote a notion that the law no longer serves the premise upon which it is founded. Their notions will take effect too, unless the citizenry take up the time to personally understand the history and concept of the constitution's formation and insist that its authority be exercised legitimately and in accordance to its structure. |
This free script provided by
JavaScript
Kit
Look Around You
