Constitutionalist, not Constitutional Conservative

In response to:

http://www.tnr.com/article/the-permanent-campaign/91205/michele-bachmann-president-constitution

There is no hidden meaning in the redundant term “Constitutional Conservative”. 

The proper term is actually simply “Constitutionalist”.  Every key Constitutional officer is required by it to ‘preserve, protect, and defend’ it: that is, to conserve it.  Clearly any adherent must needs be Conservative.  A Constitutionalist is someone who believes that the federal government is limited to those authorities and responsibilities specifically enumerated in the Constitution.  It is, after all, the contract written by the Citizens to establish and define the federal government.  Pretty simple, eh?

It is difficult to argue that the Constitution isn’t a radical document because of course it is.  By implication therefore it’s fair to say that anyone who believes in the Constitution is necessarily a radical.

The irony of course is that by Kilgore’s account, one who adheres to our Constitution is better described as ‘a rabid social conservative’; ‘property rights absolutist’; or ‘anti-tax zealot’.  Rationally, it would seem more appropriate to categorize those who reject the founding contract for our form of government as being aberrant rather than those who embrace it.

It’s no surprise that Kilgore likewise mischaracterizes the Tea Party Movement, comprised of 58% of the US population who self-identify with it’s principles; (41% of whom self-identify themselves as Democrat or Independent) as “immoderate right-wingers”.  Is it possible that Kilgore knows their motivations better than they themselves?  Doubtful!  Rationally one must conclude that Kilgore is wrong.

How is it that Kilgore keeps ignoring the requirement of each branch of government that it ‘preserve, protect, and defend the COTUS’?  Does he not comprehend that the COTUS is designed to nullify the tendencies of human nature:  specifically that ‘delegated authority will be abused’.  Human nature is no different today than it was 235 years ago despite what pettifoggers such as he would have us believe.

Mr. Kilgore’s runaway ignorance apparently extends beyond our Constitution.  The Founders most intentionally avoided creating a democracy, which Ben Franklin defined as “…two wolves and a sheep voting for what is for dinner; Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote”.

The preamble to the Declaration of Independence defines the American philosophy of government: why it is created (essentially to protect property and other unalienable rights-without restriction to race or gender by the way); and from whence comes it’s just powers (it’s called American Exceptionalism, BTW).  The Constitution, according to it’s preamble defines the federal government created to fulfill the American philosophy of government.  Any law that contradicts the COTUS deserves no place in America.

The 5^th Amendment denies the federal government any authority to deny any person their life, liberty or property without due process of law.  The 14^th Amendment extends those prohibitions to State and local governments.  Where exactly is the due process of law in Roe v Wade?  Without due process who has the right to take a person’s life?

The 1^st Amendment denies Congress any authority to pass any laws restricting the free exercise of religion; or to include a religious test as a precondition for government office.  The 14^th Amendment extends that restriction to State and local governments.  There is no Constitutional legal or moral restriction preventing citizens exercising their religious beliefs in public.

A fundamental guarantee of our legal system is “equal justice under law”.  How is it possible to have equal justice under law while having separate laws and penalties based solely on race, gender, religion, or lifestyle?

Neither Racism nor bigotry is embedded in our Constitution.  Where it exists under law it has been accomplished only by corruption of our Constitutional principles.  Rightfully any such occurrences need to be purged and Constitutional governance restored.

No society in the history of man has accomplished equivalent inclusion, productivity, inventiveness, justice, charity or equality compared to that created under our COTUS for more than 165 years.  Over the past 70 years great crimes have been perpetrated on the COTUS in the fallacious claim of ‘social justice’ in pursuit of a heinous spoof of equality of outcome that is nowhere to be found in the COTUS, or in life.

To restore America, restore Constitutional governance.

For those opposed to Constitutional governance in America, take heart: there are 200 countries in the world where you can live unencumbered by the COTUS.  The US isn’t one of them.

Capitalism or Corruption?

http://www.thenation.com/article/161267/reimagining-capitalism-bold-ideas-new-economy#comment-877499  

Our economy is faltering.  Is the problem Capitalism or Corruption?

Every government decision is subject to prior sale. 

Half of the problem is that elections cost millions of dollars.  To raise that money, politicians solicit contributions from those who have it; and those who have it expect something in return for giving it away.  In the private sector this is called “kickbacks” and is illegal; in politics it is considered ‘campaign finance’ and is de rigueur.

The other half of the problem is that politicians have discovered that they can buy votes with policies and programs that favor segments of the population at the expense of the taxpayer, without ever being held accountable for the outcome.  Public sector pensions are one example (among millions): politicians provide unsustainable benefits without providing the funding to pay for them, leaving future generations to deal with the consequences long after the offending politicians have prospered and left public office.

The free market is the most efficient economic process existent.  Without manipulation, perceived consumer value determines what products and services succeed and which fail.  Providers are forced to innovate in design, manufacture, and distribution in a never-ending process of value improvement (higher quality, lower cost).  Consumers choose the winners and losers.

Henry Ford created the middle class and the 40 hour work week (not Unions, not government) by focusing on the processes, eliminating wasted time and materials and sharing those savings with employees (wages and benefits); and consumers (higher quality and lower prices).  In the process he directly and indirectly improved the lives of everyone on earth.

Continuous competition however turns out to be never-ending hard work; especially compared to paying a legislator to craft a bill to favor one supplier’s product over others.  The byzantine tax code is the result of generations of purchased favors to suppliers to reduce their need to compete fairly on the merits of their product or services.  With such practices, it becomes government who determines winners and losers independently of consumer preferences.

An objective look at our government reveals performance that could never be tolerated in the private sector.  Has the Dept. of Agriculture created higher quality, lower cost food; or simply patented seed stock, genetically altered foods, higher costs and fewer choices?  Has the Dept of Education created better graduates or have our students been falling further and further behind those of the rest of the world?  Has the Dept of Energy reduced our dependence on foreign energy; or has the Dept of Urban Development created more successful cities?  Has the Dept of Transportation given us better, lower cost transport?  Each of these has become a bloated, non-responsive, counter-productive entity that does not accomplish it’s stated mission:  in other words they waste our resources without providing any comparable value.  911 taught us that we have more than 60 federal agencies responsible for preventing such a catastrophe; none of which are capable of communicating with each other; or capable of sharing information.  10 years later those conditions are little improved.  These departments exist to fund non-competitive, non-value-adding employment.  Every penny consumed in this form of employment makes it 8 times more difficult for real producers to compete in the global market.

Our Founders were prescient beyond modern understanding.  As life-long students of human nature, they crafted a government designed to countermand the tendencies of those to whom powers are delegated.  The House represented the interests of Citizens; the Senate represented the interests of the States (a safeguard undone by the 17^th Amendment).  Congress was denied the power to directly tax Citizens (a safeguard undone by the 16^th Amendment) and funded their activities with the duties on exports.  The Bill of Rights dramatically restricted federal authorities.

Over generations Citizens have ignored events as special interests bought not only our Legislators but also our Judges and our Executives.  We never ask how our Legislators are the most successful private investors on the face of the earth.  We never ask when our politicians produce worthless tomes yet are paid millions of dollars in advance of publishing.  We never question how our ex-Presidents become instant multi-millionaires; frequently due to the generosity of special interest organizations or foreign powers.

The remarkable ‘three-legged stool’ federal government of our Founders was designed as an inherent safeguard against any single branch usurping powers not delegated.  Citizens stood idly-by as activist Judges legislated from the bench; and as Executives claimed authorities never delegated; and as Legislators sold-out Citizens for personal gain.

The Constitution is the contract that creates and defines the rightful duties and responsibilities of the federal government.  It gives us the legal and moral tools necessary to restore our Constitutional Republic.  It doesn’t give Federal Judges lifetime tenure but specifies that they serve only during Good Behavior (which does not include violating their limited authorities).  The Executive is impeachable if he usurps authorities not delegated; or if he fails to “take care that the laws of the US are faithfully executed”.  Legislators are accountable to honor their oath of office.

The COTUS makes no provisions for political parties (that the Founders despised); nor does it provide any authority for elected officials to interpret the COTUS according to their personal philosophies: the authorities and responsibilities defined by the COTUS are constant.  Constitutionally, elections do NOT have consequences beyond the nameplate on the desk.

Capitalism is not the problem: it is the perversion of capitalism by government that is the problem.  Our government rightly exists solely to protect the individual rights endowed each of us by our Creator:  it has no charter to pre-determine outcomes; to re-distribute wealth; or to create multiple judicial systems based on social criteria.  It has no authority to fundamentally transform the US; but it does have the responsibility to fundamentally restore Constitutional governance.

It is noteworthy that the recommended changes involve an uninvested third party dictating to an entrepreneur or business executive how the proceeds from the enterprise are to be redistributed.  It is interesting that such reformers never seem willing to put their proposals to the test by developing competitive ventures using their own efforts and resources.

The fact that resource-consuming, risk-averse academicians make these proposals rather than become resource-creating, risk-taking entrepreneurs should be the first issue to be considered.  We need look no further than the Obama administration to see the disastrous impact of the lack of real world experience among those crafting economic policy.

In reality the starting point for any discussion of change must be the COTUS because it defines our federal government; what it must do and what it can do: as well as what it was denied any authority to do.  If such evaluation leads one in the direction of substantial change in the structure of the COTUS, the most logical option is to investigate which of the existent 200 countries most closely fits the preferred model and relocate to it.  That would leave in America only those who embrace the COTUS and most likely would result in the reversal of America’s fortunes, because everything that is wrong in America can be traced directly to the perversion of Constitutional authorities.