As of yesterday, the U.S. national debt was $10,530,350,651,098.48. That's almost 10.6 trillion dollars, and 10.6 trillion dollars is the limit which Congress has imposed on federal borrowing. The Secretary of the Treasury has urged Congress to increase the debt limit to 11.3 trillion.
How long do you suppose that will last?
Ten trillion is too big a number to be easily understood. How about this number: you and I and every last man woman and child in this great nation is in hock for $34,525.
Liberal economists used to shrug off such numbers by saying, "We owe the national debt to ourselves, so what does it matter?" Not so, anymore. We owe it to the Chinese, the Saudis, the British. We owe it to all the nations of the European Union. No doubt we owe some of it to Osama Ben Laden's family if not to him.
Back in the Eighties, when Ronald Reagan was President, there was a rather vigorous effort to adopt a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Some thirty-two of the required thirty-four state legislatures petitioned the Congress to call a convention for the purpose of proposing a balanced budget amendment.
Many of the states, and President Reagan himself, were not really intent on getting a convention as contemplated by Article V of the Constitution. They just wanted to threaten a convention, in hopes that Congress would propose a balanced budget amendment and send it to the states to be ratified.
I never thought they were wise. Hoping that Congress would propose a constitutional amendment with real teeth in it is like hoping the fox will guard the hen house. The only realistic path to saving the nation from bankkruptcy is to call an Article V convention.
I know. I know. All the pundits and the academics wring their hands at the mention of an Article V convention. They posit all kinds of horror stories, claiming that a convention can rewrite the Bill of rights. And on and on. Crapola folks. Sheer crapola. An Article V convention can't change a word of the constitution. All it can do is propose amendments. Nothing that comes out of a convention gets into the constitution until Congress sends it to the states and three fourths of the states - 38 - have ratified the amendment.
One has only to remember the ineffectual Graham-Rudman Act to realize how Congress would propose a toothless amendment, even if it were bludgeoned into doing something to ward off a convention.
A real, meaningful, effective balanced budget amendment would have to be simple, clear, and automatic. Here is some language I think worthy of consideration:
"The Congress shall not adopt a deficit budget except in time of national emergency. Members of Congress shall receive no compensation for services rendered during a national emergency."
It will take a convention to get those words into our constitution. Either we are a mature people capable of self government or we aren't. It's time for a gut check.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Sunday, October 5, 2008
REAL CHANGE
The candidates for President of the United States this year have both heralded the need for change in Washington. Both have laid claim to being the better agent for change, and both have railed against 'business as usual' in the nation's capital.
Unhappily, neither candidate has addressed the kind of change that is required if our noble experiment in human governance is to survive on this planet.
Ours is a constitutional, federal, republic. At least that is the form of government envisioned by the founding fathers at Philadelphia in 1789. Unhappily, we have evolved into something else. What exactly is the United States of America in 2008?
Certainly not constitutional. The battle between 'strict constructionists' and 'liberal interpreters' has long since been won by those who expect the Supreme Court of the United States to make pragmatic decisions 'for the good of the country.' Whether it's Roe v Wade or Bush v Gore, the rule is the same. Nose count jurisprudence. Five votes own the constitution. The Supreme Law of the Land is now the Supreme Court of the United States. In the minds of average Americans, the Court's decisions are not final because they are right. They are right because they are final.
Is our form of government still federal, as designed by James Madison and his confreres? Not hardly. One has only to listen to the campaign speeches of 2008 to understand that our national government is expected to legislate on every minute detail of our lives. Our investments, our jobs, our health care, our schools, our sex lives, crime in our streets, pollution in our air, even the air in our tires are all subjects to be regulated, controlled, obliterated or encouraged by Uncle Sam.
Are we still a republic? Alexis DeTocqueville's eighteenth century treatise, Democracy in America touches on the eventual decline of our self government. He perceived that the myopic self interest of voters would eventually lead to the establishment of an omnipotent ruling class that the people would retain in office by a rote exercise of reelection. When members of Congress vote themselves lifetime compensation and then 90 or 95 per cent of them are reelected, DeTocqueville begins to look rather prescient.
Article V of the United States Constitution provides that upon petition of two thirds of the state legislatures, the Congress shall call a convention for proposing amendments to the constitution. When proposed by the convention, each amendment needs the ratification of three quarters of the states. Despite the fact that over four hundred such petitions have been addressed to the Congress, and despite the fact that every state in the union has petitoned for a convention, the Congress stoutly refuses even to hold hearings on the subject.
If the people of the fifty states really want change - real change - an Article V Convention is the right way, indeed the only way, to accomplish it.
Unfortunately, the opinion makers in America, both liberal and conservative, are afraid of true democracy, suspicious of each other, and so divided in their loyalties that the notion of a three fourths consensus on even the most axiomatic principles of representative governance is seen as improbable.
I wrote a law review article thirty years ago entitled Return to Philadelphia. it was plea to use Article V as intended by the founders. That article can still be seen on the web site of the Friends of Article V, http://www.foavc.org/. I stand by it.
Unhappily, neither candidate has addressed the kind of change that is required if our noble experiment in human governance is to survive on this planet.
Ours is a constitutional, federal, republic. At least that is the form of government envisioned by the founding fathers at Philadelphia in 1789. Unhappily, we have evolved into something else. What exactly is the United States of America in 2008?
Certainly not constitutional. The battle between 'strict constructionists' and 'liberal interpreters' has long since been won by those who expect the Supreme Court of the United States to make pragmatic decisions 'for the good of the country.' Whether it's Roe v Wade or Bush v Gore, the rule is the same. Nose count jurisprudence. Five votes own the constitution. The Supreme Law of the Land is now the Supreme Court of the United States. In the minds of average Americans, the Court's decisions are not final because they are right. They are right because they are final.
Is our form of government still federal, as designed by James Madison and his confreres? Not hardly. One has only to listen to the campaign speeches of 2008 to understand that our national government is expected to legislate on every minute detail of our lives. Our investments, our jobs, our health care, our schools, our sex lives, crime in our streets, pollution in our air, even the air in our tires are all subjects to be regulated, controlled, obliterated or encouraged by Uncle Sam.
Are we still a republic? Alexis DeTocqueville's eighteenth century treatise, Democracy in America touches on the eventual decline of our self government. He perceived that the myopic self interest of voters would eventually lead to the establishment of an omnipotent ruling class that the people would retain in office by a rote exercise of reelection. When members of Congress vote themselves lifetime compensation and then 90 or 95 per cent of them are reelected, DeTocqueville begins to look rather prescient.
Article V of the United States Constitution provides that upon petition of two thirds of the state legislatures, the Congress shall call a convention for proposing amendments to the constitution. When proposed by the convention, each amendment needs the ratification of three quarters of the states. Despite the fact that over four hundred such petitions have been addressed to the Congress, and despite the fact that every state in the union has petitoned for a convention, the Congress stoutly refuses even to hold hearings on the subject.
If the people of the fifty states really want change - real change - an Article V Convention is the right way, indeed the only way, to accomplish it.
Unfortunately, the opinion makers in America, both liberal and conservative, are afraid of true democracy, suspicious of each other, and so divided in their loyalties that the notion of a three fourths consensus on even the most axiomatic principles of representative governance is seen as improbable.
I wrote a law review article thirty years ago entitled Return to Philadelphia. it was plea to use Article V as intended by the founders. That article can still be seen on the web site of the Friends of Article V, http://www.foavc.org/. I stand by it.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
WHAT SARAH SHOULD SAY
The talking heads on TV are having a field day telling each other what Governor Sarah Palin should say tonight when she debates Senator Joe Biden. None of them have suggested anything near what I would recommend.
For what it's worth, I would advise the Governor to make a statement something like this the first time she gets a chance to talk:
"I am a candidate for Vice President of the United States. The principal duty of that office is to serve as the presiding officer of the United States Senate. Secondarily, the Vice President should support the President and prepare herself for the unlikely, but grave possibility that she may be called upon to assume the office of President.
I am not running for Secretary of State, nor for Secretary of the Treasury, nor for Secretary of the Interior. I do not believe Senator McCain asked me to join his ticket because he thought I was an expert in foreign relations or the economy. I believe he chose me because he felt that I have the temerament, the intellect, the experience, and the heart to be his Vice President.
I was honored, complimented and humbled by his decision. I have the greatest respect for Senator McCain, and while we do not agree on every issue, I believe that I can support his policies with vigor and enthuasiasm.
I believe that I have a strong work ethic. In the few weeks since I was nominated, I have been trying to assimilate a working knowledge of the national issues that are critical in this election, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to debate them with Senator Biden."
If she starts out with that kind of a disclamer, she will win many, many friends and admirers, thousands of votes, and maybe just win the debate as well.
For what it's worth, I would advise the Governor to make a statement something like this the first time she gets a chance to talk:
"I am a candidate for Vice President of the United States. The principal duty of that office is to serve as the presiding officer of the United States Senate. Secondarily, the Vice President should support the President and prepare herself for the unlikely, but grave possibility that she may be called upon to assume the office of President.
I am not running for Secretary of State, nor for Secretary of the Treasury, nor for Secretary of the Interior. I do not believe Senator McCain asked me to join his ticket because he thought I was an expert in foreign relations or the economy. I believe he chose me because he felt that I have the temerament, the intellect, the experience, and the heart to be his Vice President.
I was honored, complimented and humbled by his decision. I have the greatest respect for Senator McCain, and while we do not agree on every issue, I believe that I can support his policies with vigor and enthuasiasm.
I believe that I have a strong work ethic. In the few weeks since I was nominated, I have been trying to assimilate a working knowledge of the national issues that are critical in this election, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to debate them with Senator Biden."
If she starts out with that kind of a disclamer, she will win many, many friends and admirers, thousands of votes, and maybe just win the debate as well.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID
In 1992 Bill Clinton was elected President of the United States. His campaign coined the slogan, "It's The Economy, Stupid," as a way of expressing the basic notion in politics, as in every other facet of life, that people generally make choices and cast votes that they perceive to be in their own economic interest.
That concept is echoed today, as Barack Obama points to the Wall Street meltdown, blaming it on "the failed economic policies" of the Bush administration.
Both Senator Obama and Senator John McCain have talked about what they think needs to be done to shore up the American economy. Both favor the 700 plus billion dollar bailout, designed to bolster and stabilize the stock market and save financial institutions from failure and bankruptcy. Both speak of including regulatory provisions which are designed to protect taxpayers, and assure success of the legislation.
I am not an economist, but I have difficulty reconciling the notion that the federal government has either the power or the mandate to legislate prosperity with what I know of the Constitution of the United States.
Section I, Article 8 of the Constitution provides:
The Congress shall have the power...
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures.
I take those words to mean that the role of the federal government in the nation's economy is essentially to be the referee; to keep a level playing field, to create and sustain a monetary system which is a stable, reliable, and useful medium of exchange.
Enlightened self interest dictates that our nation's purpose should be to serve the common good, and to serve it over the long haul. If the dollar has no fixed value, or relationship with some objective reality, then its usefulness as a medium of exchange is ephemeral and its value a purely subjective matter. Neither inflation nor depression are conditions conducive to prosperity. True prosperity can only be measured in things of real value, and a monetary system which does not provide a means of objective comparison is useless in determining real value.
So, we see economists using "adjusted for inflation" values in order to make comparisons. That's a calculation average people can't do in their heads at the check out counter.
How do you achieve a stable currency? Ron Paul argued for the return of the gold standard. That's a good catalyst for discussion. It took me back to re-reading William Jennings Bryan's famous speech to the Democratic convention, in which he railed against crucifying the American people upon a cross of gold.
Bryan was the hero of the working class in his day. The laborers, the farmers, the tradesmen, small businessmen; these were his constituency. They were not the bankers. They were the people who borrowed from the bankers. They saw free silver as benefiting them.
Debtors will always opt for inflation. Pay back your debts in cheaper dollars than you borrowed. That looks like personal self interest. But is it enlightened self interest? Does it promote the common good?
Today, Americans owe enormous amounts of money. Credit card debt has skyrocketed. Mortgage debt exceeds our ability to repay. There will be great pressure on the next administration in Washington to print money in order to make repayment easier.
As government bails out banks, automobile companies, and insurance companies, the pressure will mount to bail out Joe Mainstreet. More and more money will have to be printed. A trillion dollars was an amount no one ever heard of when I was a boy. Today, there is talk of tens and even hundreds of trillions.
Just because we have computers that can count that high is no reason to think that trillions or quadrilions or cinqillions are real or valuable units of measurement. The same clause in the Constitution which empowers the Congress to coin money empowers it to establish standards of weights and measures. It was no accident that the framers opted for that juxtaposition. Coining money is a matter of setting financial standards.
The Bush administration fell into the trap of trying to jump start the economy by issuing a tax credit. Government hand outs don't work. Certainly that one didn't. If the Congress were to give every man, woman and child in the United States a million dollars, the economy would skid to a screeching halt. Millionaires don't wash dishes or grease cars.
A vibrant economy is only achieved by an industrious, frugal, educated, innovative, motivated population. It cannot be artificially constructed by Wall Street, the Federal Reserve, Congress or the President, whoever he or she may be.
That concept is echoed today, as Barack Obama points to the Wall Street meltdown, blaming it on "the failed economic policies" of the Bush administration.
Both Senator Obama and Senator John McCain have talked about what they think needs to be done to shore up the American economy. Both favor the 700 plus billion dollar bailout, designed to bolster and stabilize the stock market and save financial institutions from failure and bankruptcy. Both speak of including regulatory provisions which are designed to protect taxpayers, and assure success of the legislation.
I am not an economist, but I have difficulty reconciling the notion that the federal government has either the power or the mandate to legislate prosperity with what I know of the Constitution of the United States.
Section I, Article 8 of the Constitution provides:
The Congress shall have the power...
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures.
I take those words to mean that the role of the federal government in the nation's economy is essentially to be the referee; to keep a level playing field, to create and sustain a monetary system which is a stable, reliable, and useful medium of exchange.
Enlightened self interest dictates that our nation's purpose should be to serve the common good, and to serve it over the long haul. If the dollar has no fixed value, or relationship with some objective reality, then its usefulness as a medium of exchange is ephemeral and its value a purely subjective matter. Neither inflation nor depression are conditions conducive to prosperity. True prosperity can only be measured in things of real value, and a monetary system which does not provide a means of objective comparison is useless in determining real value.
So, we see economists using "adjusted for inflation" values in order to make comparisons. That's a calculation average people can't do in their heads at the check out counter.
How do you achieve a stable currency? Ron Paul argued for the return of the gold standard. That's a good catalyst for discussion. It took me back to re-reading William Jennings Bryan's famous speech to the Democratic convention, in which he railed against crucifying the American people upon a cross of gold.
Bryan was the hero of the working class in his day. The laborers, the farmers, the tradesmen, small businessmen; these were his constituency. They were not the bankers. They were the people who borrowed from the bankers. They saw free silver as benefiting them.
Debtors will always opt for inflation. Pay back your debts in cheaper dollars than you borrowed. That looks like personal self interest. But is it enlightened self interest? Does it promote the common good?
Today, Americans owe enormous amounts of money. Credit card debt has skyrocketed. Mortgage debt exceeds our ability to repay. There will be great pressure on the next administration in Washington to print money in order to make repayment easier.
As government bails out banks, automobile companies, and insurance companies, the pressure will mount to bail out Joe Mainstreet. More and more money will have to be printed. A trillion dollars was an amount no one ever heard of when I was a boy. Today, there is talk of tens and even hundreds of trillions.
Just because we have computers that can count that high is no reason to think that trillions or quadrilions or cinqillions are real or valuable units of measurement. The same clause in the Constitution which empowers the Congress to coin money empowers it to establish standards of weights and measures. It was no accident that the framers opted for that juxtaposition. Coining money is a matter of setting financial standards.
The Bush administration fell into the trap of trying to jump start the economy by issuing a tax credit. Government hand outs don't work. Certainly that one didn't. If the Congress were to give every man, woman and child in the United States a million dollars, the economy would skid to a screeching halt. Millionaires don't wash dishes or grease cars.
A vibrant economy is only achieved by an industrious, frugal, educated, innovative, motivated population. It cannot be artificially constructed by Wall Street, the Federal Reserve, Congress or the President, whoever he or she may be.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
HEALTH CARE
Polly and I just returned from Mayo Clinic and our annual medical review. Among other things, I had an MRI on Thursday morning. The results were up on on my doctor's computer screen by the time I met with him at 4:30 in the afternoon.
That experience highlighted the impact of an email I received tonight linking to a You Tube video entitled "A Short Course in Brain Surgery." It's the story of Lindsey McCreith, a retired New Market, Ontario body shop owner who suffered headaches for some time before having a seizure. His family doctor suspected a brain tumor and counseled him to have an MRI of his head.
In Canada, only the government can pay for health care. And only government makes the appointments. Mr. McCreith was told it would be four months before he could get in for the MRI. He couldn't wait, so he crossed the border to Buffalo, New York and got an MRI within days. Armed with proof that he had a brain tumor the size of a golf ball, Mr. McCreith returned to Ontario only to learn that surgery could not be scheduled for four or five months.
Of course, he could petition the Ministry of Health for emergency consideration. And if they turned him down, he could appeal. But a little inquiry proved that the bureaucratic process would take longer than waiting for the surgical appointment.
So he returned to Buffalo, and within a week had the tumor removed. The doctors told him that if he had waited much longer, he would probably not have survived the year.
It's not a strong endorsement for the Canadian health care system in an election year when candidates in the United States are touting their plans for assuring health care for all Americans.
It's easy enough to give rousing speeches about the great number of Americans who don't have health care insurance. About universal health care. About the escalating costs of medical and hospital services. But just endorsing a goal doesn't get the job done. There has to be a plan, a strategy, based on realistic premises and solid research; a plan which is founded in common sense and sound economic principles.
I haven't heard anyone say that one of the primary causes of the phenomenal rise in the cost of health care is the very fact of widespread health insurance. Economics 101 should teach us that if the right to obtain medical services is separated from the duty to pay for them, the demand for medical services will go up. And when demand goes up, price goes up.
Add in the factor of limited supply. The Liaison Committee on Medical Education, which accredits medical schools, has strict regulations limiting the expansion of medical schools. There are only 125 accredited medical schools in the United States. There were 160,00 medical schools in 1907.
US medical schools graduate about 16,000 doctors each year. That number has been constant for over two decades. There are 20,000 first year residencies available each year. Where do the other doctors come from? Overseas. Pakistan. India. The Middle East. The number of students in American medical schools preparing to become primary care physicians is going down.
Thirty five years ago, I founded the Thomas M. Cooley Law School on the principle that every college graduate who wanted to become a lawyer ought to be given the chance to try. Today Cooley is the largest law school in the United States. Maybe it's time for someone to start a medical school with a similar vision.
Enough for now.
That experience highlighted the impact of an email I received tonight linking to a You Tube video entitled "A Short Course in Brain Surgery." It's the story of Lindsey McCreith, a retired New Market, Ontario body shop owner who suffered headaches for some time before having a seizure. His family doctor suspected a brain tumor and counseled him to have an MRI of his head.
In Canada, only the government can pay for health care. And only government makes the appointments. Mr. McCreith was told it would be four months before he could get in for the MRI. He couldn't wait, so he crossed the border to Buffalo, New York and got an MRI within days. Armed with proof that he had a brain tumor the size of a golf ball, Mr. McCreith returned to Ontario only to learn that surgery could not be scheduled for four or five months.
Of course, he could petition the Ministry of Health for emergency consideration. And if they turned him down, he could appeal. But a little inquiry proved that the bureaucratic process would take longer than waiting for the surgical appointment.
So he returned to Buffalo, and within a week had the tumor removed. The doctors told him that if he had waited much longer, he would probably not have survived the year.
It's not a strong endorsement for the Canadian health care system in an election year when candidates in the United States are touting their plans for assuring health care for all Americans.
It's easy enough to give rousing speeches about the great number of Americans who don't have health care insurance. About universal health care. About the escalating costs of medical and hospital services. But just endorsing a goal doesn't get the job done. There has to be a plan, a strategy, based on realistic premises and solid research; a plan which is founded in common sense and sound economic principles.
I haven't heard anyone say that one of the primary causes of the phenomenal rise in the cost of health care is the very fact of widespread health insurance. Economics 101 should teach us that if the right to obtain medical services is separated from the duty to pay for them, the demand for medical services will go up. And when demand goes up, price goes up.
Add in the factor of limited supply. The Liaison Committee on Medical Education, which accredits medical schools, has strict regulations limiting the expansion of medical schools. There are only 125 accredited medical schools in the United States. There were 160,00 medical schools in 1907.
US medical schools graduate about 16,000 doctors each year. That number has been constant for over two decades. There are 20,000 first year residencies available each year. Where do the other doctors come from? Overseas. Pakistan. India. The Middle East. The number of students in American medical schools preparing to become primary care physicians is going down.
Thirty five years ago, I founded the Thomas M. Cooley Law School on the principle that every college graduate who wanted to become a lawyer ought to be given the chance to try. Today Cooley is the largest law school in the United States. Maybe it's time for someone to start a medical school with a similar vision.
Enough for now.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
MURDERING PRESIDENTS
One of my favorite conversation openers around a dinner table is to ask if anyone would vote for a murderer to be president of the United States.
After the first round of vociferous denials, I follow up with this question; would you vote for anyone who is not willing or capable of killing someone?
That query usually gets the folks thinking ... and talking.
I asked that question to a group of golfing buddies on the nineteenth hole one day recently. They were quick, to a man, to answer in the negative. Killing people, at least in the minds of those 60 something white males, is part of the job description of the President of the United States.
I probed. Who should he kill? "Our enemies," they replied. And who are our enemies? "The people who hate us, the people who want to do us harm." And who identifies those people?
That question really got them talking, and perhaps, just maybe, got at least some of them thinking. "Everybody knows. Guys like whats-his-name, down in South America." You mean Hugo Chavez? "Yeah, yeah, Don't you read the papers?" So the media decide who the President should kill?
"No, not the media. The CIA maybe. Or the military. Or the President himself. That's it. The buck stops in the Oval Office. The President has to decide who he should kill."
Including the person running against him for his job? "Well, no, he couldn't do that." Couldn't do it, or shouldn't do it? Somebody else chimes in. "He can't put a contract out on an American citizen can he?" Is that where the line is drawn? You're saying he can only kill foreigners?
The round table discussion breaks down into a talk show style free for all with everyone spouting opinions at once. And once again I shake my head in disbelief at how little the citizens of this great nation know about the law and the Constitution which is their contract with the institutions of government.
Beginning with Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was elected in the depths of the Great Depression on the promise to give Americans a New Deal, the Federal government has been moving inexorably toward domestic sovereignty. More and more, we see ourselves as a single nation governed by a single chief executive. The President is expected to set the national agenda on every issue.
What has evolved over the last three quarters of a century is an imperial presidency. A President who has a hand on the big red button which can launch a nuclear holocost. A President who is assumed to have the power of life and death and who is assumed to use that power for the protection and benefit of the people of the United States of America.
When I tell people that the President's job is faithfully to execute the laws enacted by the Congress; that it is the Congress, not the President, which speaks for the people of the United States, that only the Congress can declare war, identify the enemies of the United States and authorize the President as Commander in Chief to employ military force against them, they look at me with glazed disbelief.
I fear that American pragmatism steers our people toward a President who rules like a Mafia Don, a charismatic monarch, a benign dictator, an all powerful potentate whose only restraint is the popular image that he or she loves the people and works for them.
Madison and Jefferson would weep
Enough for now.
After the first round of vociferous denials, I follow up with this question; would you vote for anyone who is not willing or capable of killing someone?
That query usually gets the folks thinking ... and talking.
I asked that question to a group of golfing buddies on the nineteenth hole one day recently. They were quick, to a man, to answer in the negative. Killing people, at least in the minds of those 60 something white males, is part of the job description of the President of the United States.
I probed. Who should he kill? "Our enemies," they replied. And who are our enemies? "The people who hate us, the people who want to do us harm." And who identifies those people?
That question really got them talking, and perhaps, just maybe, got at least some of them thinking. "Everybody knows. Guys like whats-his-name, down in South America." You mean Hugo Chavez? "Yeah, yeah, Don't you read the papers?" So the media decide who the President should kill?
"No, not the media. The CIA maybe. Or the military. Or the President himself. That's it. The buck stops in the Oval Office. The President has to decide who he should kill."
Including the person running against him for his job? "Well, no, he couldn't do that." Couldn't do it, or shouldn't do it? Somebody else chimes in. "He can't put a contract out on an American citizen can he?" Is that where the line is drawn? You're saying he can only kill foreigners?
The round table discussion breaks down into a talk show style free for all with everyone spouting opinions at once. And once again I shake my head in disbelief at how little the citizens of this great nation know about the law and the Constitution which is their contract with the institutions of government.
Beginning with Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was elected in the depths of the Great Depression on the promise to give Americans a New Deal, the Federal government has been moving inexorably toward domestic sovereignty. More and more, we see ourselves as a single nation governed by a single chief executive. The President is expected to set the national agenda on every issue.
What has evolved over the last three quarters of a century is an imperial presidency. A President who has a hand on the big red button which can launch a nuclear holocost. A President who is assumed to have the power of life and death and who is assumed to use that power for the protection and benefit of the people of the United States of America.
When I tell people that the President's job is faithfully to execute the laws enacted by the Congress; that it is the Congress, not the President, which speaks for the people of the United States, that only the Congress can declare war, identify the enemies of the United States and authorize the President as Commander in Chief to employ military force against them, they look at me with glazed disbelief.
I fear that American pragmatism steers our people toward a President who rules like a Mafia Don, a charismatic monarch, a benign dictator, an all powerful potentate whose only restraint is the popular image that he or she loves the people and works for them.
Madison and Jefferson would weep
Enough for now.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
SUPPORTING OUR TROOPS
The email was passed along to me by my sainted wife of 56 years. It told the story of a veteran who took a treasured photograph of actress Ann Margaret, taken when she was in Viet Nam to entertain the troops, to a bookstore where she was signing copies of her autobiography.
The bookstore announced a firm policy that Ann Margaret would only be signing books, not other memorablia. Still the veteran handed the old photo to the actress, saying he just wanted her to see it. She waved off the bookstore manager, then pulled the vet down and planted a big kiss on him.
It was one of many emails currently circulating around the country which remind all of us of the sacrifices which our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen are so courageously making in Iraq, Afganistan and elsewhere.
The Viet Nam veteran closed his letter by noting that it was the first time anyone had expressed appreciation for his service in Southeast Asia.
Happily, the troops in Iraq are enjoying much more unified and enthusiastic support than their fathers did in 1969 and 1970. Back then, the United States was drafting young men to serve in the military. Many eligible lads left the country. many marched on Washington, staged demonstrations on campuses and elsewhere. Their cry of "Hell no, we won't go" echoed through the land.
Veterans returning from that war found themselves in a nation that did not support the war. Many of them felt that their countrymen blamed them for the war; blamed them for the humiliation of defeat. No ticker tape parades, no hero's welcome, they filtered back into civilian life, many feeling embarrassed and confused. Some were bitter. Some still are, despite a belated Viet Nam War monument in the nation's Capitol.
The big difference between Viet Nam and Iraq was 911. Weapons of mass destruction or no, the great mass of American people saw a connection between the attack on New York and Washington and the assauilt on Saddam Hussein. They perceive our troops as being engaged in a form of national defense, and that makes them heroes deserving of our appreciation and admiration.
Unhappily, the sacrifices of our young people in the military becloud our capacity to dialog about national policy. Their blood shed on foreign soil is given for the benefit of every American, and every American owes our troops a debt of gratitude which cannot be extinguished by the GI Bill or other veterans' benefits. But those who have died and suffered have done so to preserve our freedoms, and one of those is the freedom to disagree with the Administration's foreign policy.
The only candidate for President this year who did not vote to support the Iraq War is Barak Obama. I have not heard, but would be interested to hear, what exactly he would have done if he had been President in 2001. He says that as President, he will engage in talks with leaders of other countries, even those whose rhetoric is speckled with hatred for the United States. Would a President Obama have called Saddam Hussein on September 12, 2001 and asked him to help find the people responsible for yesterday's attacks? Would he have simply submitted the matter to the United Nations and waited for their answer? Or would he somehow have obtained better intelligence than President Bush received, devised a better military strategy, and been better able to prosecute the invasion of Iraq and sell it to the American people?
The next nine months will be a political gestation. I hope it brings forth a new birth of our constitutional republic.
Enough for now.
Thomas E. Brennan
The bookstore announced a firm policy that Ann Margaret would only be signing books, not other memorablia. Still the veteran handed the old photo to the actress, saying he just wanted her to see it. She waved off the bookstore manager, then pulled the vet down and planted a big kiss on him.
It was one of many emails currently circulating around the country which remind all of us of the sacrifices which our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen are so courageously making in Iraq, Afganistan and elsewhere.
The Viet Nam veteran closed his letter by noting that it was the first time anyone had expressed appreciation for his service in Southeast Asia.
Happily, the troops in Iraq are enjoying much more unified and enthusiastic support than their fathers did in 1969 and 1970. Back then, the United States was drafting young men to serve in the military. Many eligible lads left the country. many marched on Washington, staged demonstrations on campuses and elsewhere. Their cry of "Hell no, we won't go" echoed through the land.
Veterans returning from that war found themselves in a nation that did not support the war. Many of them felt that their countrymen blamed them for the war; blamed them for the humiliation of defeat. No ticker tape parades, no hero's welcome, they filtered back into civilian life, many feeling embarrassed and confused. Some were bitter. Some still are, despite a belated Viet Nam War monument in the nation's Capitol.
The big difference between Viet Nam and Iraq was 911. Weapons of mass destruction or no, the great mass of American people saw a connection between the attack on New York and Washington and the assauilt on Saddam Hussein. They perceive our troops as being engaged in a form of national defense, and that makes them heroes deserving of our appreciation and admiration.
Unhappily, the sacrifices of our young people in the military becloud our capacity to dialog about national policy. Their blood shed on foreign soil is given for the benefit of every American, and every American owes our troops a debt of gratitude which cannot be extinguished by the GI Bill or other veterans' benefits. But those who have died and suffered have done so to preserve our freedoms, and one of those is the freedom to disagree with the Administration's foreign policy.
The only candidate for President this year who did not vote to support the Iraq War is Barak Obama. I have not heard, but would be interested to hear, what exactly he would have done if he had been President in 2001. He says that as President, he will engage in talks with leaders of other countries, even those whose rhetoric is speckled with hatred for the United States. Would a President Obama have called Saddam Hussein on September 12, 2001 and asked him to help find the people responsible for yesterday's attacks? Would he have simply submitted the matter to the United Nations and waited for their answer? Or would he somehow have obtained better intelligence than President Bush received, devised a better military strategy, and been better able to prosecute the invasion of Iraq and sell it to the American people?
The next nine months will be a political gestation. I hope it brings forth a new birth of our constitutional republic.
Enough for now.
Thomas E. Brennan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)