Prayer Request:
Another relative is going to be dead before this time next week due to a rare kind of lymphoma which is incurable. I ask therefore that you please keep Jenny Riley in your prayers along with her immediate family.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
On the Fourth Amendment, The Supreme Court, and Warrantless Searches:
(Aka "One From the Mailbag" Dept.)
My interlocuter's words will be in blue font.
I believe your reading of the 4th [Amendment] is incorrect. If you look at the text the first clause, about unreasonable searches, it is an independent clause and can function as a complete sentence. The following part, about warrants, is also an independent clause. This means that searches are grammatically and logically distinct from the issuance of warrants. A search, in other words, can be reasonable and warrantless, but a warrant requires certain standards.
This is certainly a feasible theory you have. I should note that my intention of that posting was not to deal with all facets of what is and is not an acceptable search in conformity with constitutional principles. Essentially, I did not intend to say anything more than if the four provisions in the body of the amendment are met, the argument for a constitutional violation when raiding a building to search and seize cannot be credibly maintained. That is all.{1}
I'm not a lawyer, but if I recall correctly I think there have been a number of cases in which SCOTUS has ruled that some warrantless searches are reasonable.
Well, the Supreme Court has ruled on a lot of issues where one wonders what they are smoking in the judges chambers (to put it mildly). Need I remind you of Kelo{2}??? When the justices can miss the boat that badly on constitutional so-called "interpretation", one should be hesitant if the judgments you talk about were handed down by a Supreme Court with the same justice configuration as the one that muffed that ruling. But I digress.
Notes:
{1} Upon reviewing that text, I see that the phrasing I used lent itself to the interpretation my interlocuter placed on it. For that reason, I have tweaked the text slightly in a few spots to clarify my original intentions and thank the writer for bringing it to my attention.
{2} Miscellaneous Notes and Notifications (circa June 29, 2005)
(Aka "One From the Mailbag" Dept.)
My interlocuter's words will be in blue font.
I believe your reading of the 4th [Amendment] is incorrect. If you look at the text the first clause, about unreasonable searches, it is an independent clause and can function as a complete sentence. The following part, about warrants, is also an independent clause. This means that searches are grammatically and logically distinct from the issuance of warrants. A search, in other words, can be reasonable and warrantless, but a warrant requires certain standards.
This is certainly a feasible theory you have. I should note that my intention of that posting was not to deal with all facets of what is and is not an acceptable search in conformity with constitutional principles. Essentially, I did not intend to say anything more than if the four provisions in the body of the amendment are met, the argument for a constitutional violation when raiding a building to search and seize cannot be credibly maintained. That is all.{1}
I'm not a lawyer, but if I recall correctly I think there have been a number of cases in which SCOTUS has ruled that some warrantless searches are reasonable.
Well, the Supreme Court has ruled on a lot of issues where one wonders what they are smoking in the judges chambers (to put it mildly). Need I remind you of Kelo{2}??? When the justices can miss the boat that badly on constitutional so-called "interpretation", one should be hesitant if the judgments you talk about were handed down by a Supreme Court with the same justice configuration as the one that muffed that ruling. But I digress.
Notes:
{1} Upon reviewing that text, I see that the phrasing I used lent itself to the interpretation my interlocuter placed on it. For that reason, I have tweaked the text slightly in a few spots to clarify my original intentions and thank the writer for bringing it to my attention.
{2} Miscellaneous Notes and Notifications (circa June 29, 2005)
Sunday, May 28, 2006
Saturday, May 27, 2006
On the Latest Bush Administration SNAFU Situation:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Readers of this weblog are aware that I have had a rather ambivalent view of President Bush for years. On some issues, his approach is correct and on others there is little if anything to differentiate him from those who politically oppose him. On the latest situation with the FBI raid of Rep. William Jefferson's offices, at the very least there is the appearance of impropriety in how this was handled. The usual suspects are griping about supposed "Constitutional violations" but in doing this, they only show how the Constitution is appealed to by them when it is expedient and otherwise it is ignored. In this case, the griping is about the fourth amendment and a supposed "infringement" therein. Let us consider now that amendment and what it allows and does not allow:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Okay now, it is made clear in the text that what people are to be secure from is unreasonable searches and seizures. That phrasing implies that there are searches and seizures which are reasonable; otherwise the text would assert a right from all forms of searches and seizures. It is also clear that a search and seizure can be considered "reasonable" if certain guidelines are followed including (i) issuing a warrant to search, (ii) issuing said warrant with probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, (iii) a description of the place to be searched being included in the aforesaid warrant, and (iv) the persons or things to be seized also being described in the warrant issued. If the aforementioned criteria is met, than the assertion of a "constitutional violation" has no merit to it whatsoever.
Let us start with the issuing of a search warrant. Was this done in the Jefferson case??? Yes it was and you can review it HERE if you like. In fact, open that text in a separate window and let us go over it step by step.
We know that a warrant was issued so step one of the procedure for a reasonable search and seizure was met. If you look at the first part of the warrant, you will see a sworn affidavit which meets part of the second part of the criteria for a reasonable search and seizure. Included in that affidavit is a detailed description of the place to be searched which meets the third criteria and a listing of the persons or things to be seized is also listed -albeit in the link above (available for public viewing) they are blacked out for confidentiality purposes.{1} The warrant is ninety-five pages long and contains all the required criteria for a reasonable search including establishing within it the reasons for probable cause justifying the search thus meeting the second part of the second piece of criteria for a reasonable search and seizure.
In the search warrant, the arguments for probable cause include violations by Rep. Jefferson of (i) bribery of a public official, (ii) wire fraud -deprivation of honest services, (iii) wire fraud -scheme to defraud, (iv) bribery of a foreign official, (v) conspiracy to commit the aforementioned offenses. So as the criteria was met as enumerated by the fourth amendment, the search therefore was reasonable and the the cries of "unconstitutionality" on this are nothing more than the babblings of ignorant people. But that is not all.
As Texas Fred noted, the Bush Administration is attempting to get in the way of the FBI doing their job here and that has resulted in the Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the Director of the FBI Robert S. Mueller III threatening to resign. If there is probable cause that an elected representative of the United States (in this case, Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana) broke the law, then the FBI and the Attorney General are acting accordingly here and any attempt to obstruct them in the process is a serious offense. It stretches credibility to claim it is an impeachable offense in and of itself of course; however, that does not mean that the matter is lacking in seriousness.
Now I am aware that even House Republican leaders are claiming that this is a constitutional violation but there is another dynamic involved here that needs to be considered: 2006 is an election year. Because of the latter, there are probably some who want to be on the side of objecting to this because (i) President Bush's popularity figures are at an all-time low and (ii) by opposing the president of their own party, the Republicans who take that position can try to claim some kind of independence from presidential coattails going into the fall elections.
As much as I am hesitant to compare the Bush Administration to the Nixon Administration, on the matter of interfering with an FBI investigation, it certainly appears that there is a viable connection to be made on that point. Likewise, much as I am hesitant to compare the Bush Administration to the Clinton Administration, it bears noting that one of the charges brought against President Clinton and which he was impeached on{2} was obstruction of justice. With that in mind, I cannot fault some people{3} for seeing in the above comparisons a stronger case on obstruction of justice being levied at President Bush than President Clinton considering the seriousness of the charges involved with the obstruction of justice in the Jefferson case. By contrast, Bill Clinton lying under oath to a grand jury about his sexual escapades{4} is more of a bagatelle really. But enough on this matter for now.
[Update: Due to a misunderstanding of my intention in writing this post, the material above has been tweaked a bit in spots. I explain my reasons for doing this HERE. - ISM 6/01/06 5:50pm]
Notes:
{1} This is hardly irregular since (i) evidence in a criminal investigation is supposed to be protected and (ii) the public does not have a right to know the intricacies of this criminal investigation any more than they do any other investigation. It suffices that the requirements for reasonable search and seizure are met which could logically be taken to mean the guidelines noted in the fourth amendment. As was noted above, this has been met in the Jefferson case so no more needs to be said on this point at this time.
{2} The House impeaches and the Senate votes for removal from office; ergo this explains why Clinton could be impeached and yet still serve out the remaining part of his term.
{3} Obviously those who have been spreading lies and libel about George Bush the past six years on a whole host of issues are not to be taken seriously as they are simply like the blind pig who finds an acorn once in a while. (Not hard to do when you rail against everything.) But even many who are much more discerning and who are willing to allow for the normal conventions of politics in their analysis, some of this cannot help but be troubling.
{4} There were far more impeachable high crimes (including treason) committed in the Clinton Administration. Or as I noted when discussing these issues in mid 2003:
Where were these nitwits during Filegate when Clinton and his wife pilfered over 1,000 FBI files on political opponents??? Chuck Colson went to jail for a while in the 1970's for possessing just ONE of these kinds of files. But Clinton??? Nope, he and Moloch Hillary got off scott free because there is a clear and unmistakable double-standard here.
What about Chinagate where the safety of our nuclear secrets were sacrificed for re-election funds??? Anyone who thinks THIS can possibly be less problematical than any war mismanagement by the current president is in need of a SERIOUS reality transplant. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 11, 2003)]
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Readers of this weblog are aware that I have had a rather ambivalent view of President Bush for years. On some issues, his approach is correct and on others there is little if anything to differentiate him from those who politically oppose him. On the latest situation with the FBI raid of Rep. William Jefferson's offices, at the very least there is the appearance of impropriety in how this was handled. The usual suspects are griping about supposed "Constitutional violations" but in doing this, they only show how the Constitution is appealed to by them when it is expedient and otherwise it is ignored. In this case, the griping is about the fourth amendment and a supposed "infringement" therein. Let us consider now that amendment and what it allows and does not allow:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Okay now, it is made clear in the text that what people are to be secure from is unreasonable searches and seizures. That phrasing implies that there are searches and seizures which are reasonable; otherwise the text would assert a right from all forms of searches and seizures. It is also clear that a search and seizure can be considered "reasonable" if certain guidelines are followed including (i) issuing a warrant to search, (ii) issuing said warrant with probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, (iii) a description of the place to be searched being included in the aforesaid warrant, and (iv) the persons or things to be seized also being described in the warrant issued. If the aforementioned criteria is met, than the assertion of a "constitutional violation" has no merit to it whatsoever.
Let us start with the issuing of a search warrant. Was this done in the Jefferson case??? Yes it was and you can review it HERE if you like. In fact, open that text in a separate window and let us go over it step by step.
We know that a warrant was issued so step one of the procedure for a reasonable search and seizure was met. If you look at the first part of the warrant, you will see a sworn affidavit which meets part of the second part of the criteria for a reasonable search and seizure. Included in that affidavit is a detailed description of the place to be searched which meets the third criteria and a listing of the persons or things to be seized is also listed -albeit in the link above (available for public viewing) they are blacked out for confidentiality purposes.{1} The warrant is ninety-five pages long and contains all the required criteria for a reasonable search including establishing within it the reasons for probable cause justifying the search thus meeting the second part of the second piece of criteria for a reasonable search and seizure.
In the search warrant, the arguments for probable cause include violations by Rep. Jefferson of (i) bribery of a public official, (ii) wire fraud -deprivation of honest services, (iii) wire fraud -scheme to defraud, (iv) bribery of a foreign official, (v) conspiracy to commit the aforementioned offenses. So as the criteria was met as enumerated by the fourth amendment, the search therefore was reasonable and the the cries of "unconstitutionality" on this are nothing more than the babblings of ignorant people. But that is not all.
As Texas Fred noted, the Bush Administration is attempting to get in the way of the FBI doing their job here and that has resulted in the Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the Director of the FBI Robert S. Mueller III threatening to resign. If there is probable cause that an elected representative of the United States (in this case, Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana) broke the law, then the FBI and the Attorney General are acting accordingly here and any attempt to obstruct them in the process is a serious offense. It stretches credibility to claim it is an impeachable offense in and of itself of course; however, that does not mean that the matter is lacking in seriousness.
Now I am aware that even House Republican leaders are claiming that this is a constitutional violation but there is another dynamic involved here that needs to be considered: 2006 is an election year. Because of the latter, there are probably some who want to be on the side of objecting to this because (i) President Bush's popularity figures are at an all-time low and (ii) by opposing the president of their own party, the Republicans who take that position can try to claim some kind of independence from presidential coattails going into the fall elections.
As much as I am hesitant to compare the Bush Administration to the Nixon Administration, on the matter of interfering with an FBI investigation, it certainly appears that there is a viable connection to be made on that point. Likewise, much as I am hesitant to compare the Bush Administration to the Clinton Administration, it bears noting that one of the charges brought against President Clinton and which he was impeached on{2} was obstruction of justice. With that in mind, I cannot fault some people{3} for seeing in the above comparisons a stronger case on obstruction of justice being levied at President Bush than President Clinton considering the seriousness of the charges involved with the obstruction of justice in the Jefferson case. By contrast, Bill Clinton lying under oath to a grand jury about his sexual escapades{4} is more of a bagatelle really. But enough on this matter for now.
[Update: Due to a misunderstanding of my intention in writing this post, the material above has been tweaked a bit in spots. I explain my reasons for doing this HERE. - ISM 6/01/06 5:50pm]
Notes:
{1} This is hardly irregular since (i) evidence in a criminal investigation is supposed to be protected and (ii) the public does not have a right to know the intricacies of this criminal investigation any more than they do any other investigation. It suffices that the requirements for reasonable search and seizure are met which could logically be taken to mean the guidelines noted in the fourth amendment. As was noted above, this has been met in the Jefferson case so no more needs to be said on this point at this time.
{2} The House impeaches and the Senate votes for removal from office; ergo this explains why Clinton could be impeached and yet still serve out the remaining part of his term.
{3} Obviously those who have been spreading lies and libel about George Bush the past six years on a whole host of issues are not to be taken seriously as they are simply like the blind pig who finds an acorn once in a while. (Not hard to do when you rail against everything.) But even many who are much more discerning and who are willing to allow for the normal conventions of politics in their analysis, some of this cannot help but be troubling.
{4} There were far more impeachable high crimes (including treason) committed in the Clinton Administration. Or as I noted when discussing these issues in mid 2003:
Where were these nitwits during Filegate when Clinton and his wife pilfered over 1,000 FBI files on political opponents??? Chuck Colson went to jail for a while in the 1970's for possessing just ONE of these kinds of files. But Clinton??? Nope, he and Moloch Hillary got off scott free because there is a clear and unmistakable double-standard here.
What about Chinagate where the safety of our nuclear secrets were sacrificed for re-election funds??? Anyone who thinks THIS can possibly be less problematical than any war mismanagement by the current president is in need of a SERIOUS reality transplant. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 11, 2003)]
Thursday, May 25, 2006
The rarely updated Miscellaneous BLOG has received a new post today inspired by the words of Texas Fred. That entry is accessible HERE for those who are interested in a new word definition for future discussions and (perhaps) posterity.
"Cohiba Ergo Sum" Dept.
(Dan Brown and The DaVinci Code Are "MISTed" The Curmudgeon in a Guest Editorial)
[Prefatory Note: Unlike what I normally do with guest editorials (either posit prefatory and/or concluding commentary or write a separate commentary of my own on them) with this one, it is so short and self-explanatory (I hope) that those conventions can be avoided. Without further ado, here it is. -ISM]
#######
If Dan Brown wrote a novel about the Holocaust it would probably look like this:
Robert Langdon, while on a lecture tour in Germany, is contacted by a reclusive unorthodox World War 2 historian who claims to have a great secret which would rock the Western world to its foundations:
Everything we have been taught for the past 60 years about the Nazis and the Holocaust were lies, Langdon is told. No Jews died at the hands of the Nazis and there were no death camps in Poland and Eastern Europe. In fact, Langdon "discovers," the "real" secret behind the Holocaust is that the Nazis were persecuted by the Jews, not the other way around. Langdon also "discovers" that the "myth of the Holocaust" was created by a Vast Zionist Conspiracy under the control of the Israeli government and international bankers.
Langdon soon "learns" that for thousands of years ruthless Jewish conspirators have been murdering the true heirs of Abraham in order to preserve their false version of Judaism and to hide the “truth” that Abraham really worshiped the Divine Feminine and intended to start a fertility cult.
The "evidence" Langdon uncovers? A set of "ancient" secret documents known as "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." (The "Protocols" were actually fabricated by the Russian secret police and released to a gullible Russian public as a pretext for the Czar's systematic murder of thousands of innocent Jewish peasants. But so what?)
Of course, Dan Brown would say that all this is "just fiction," but that it "poses" some "interesting" questions about history, which we can't really know anything about for sure anyway. After all, Brown would argue, he has done his research:
He has read the "scholarly" papers published by the Institute for Historical Review and "well-researched" books such as "Did Six Million Really Die?" and "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century." (Both books were written by notorious neo-Nazi nutcases, and the IHR was set up by a well-known anti-semitic propagandist. But what the heck; it's great material for a novel, no?)
And so it would go in the confused world of Dan Brown.
#######
(Dan Brown and The DaVinci Code Are "MISTed" The Curmudgeon in a Guest Editorial)
[Prefatory Note: Unlike what I normally do with guest editorials (either posit prefatory and/or concluding commentary or write a separate commentary of my own on them) with this one, it is so short and self-explanatory (I hope) that those conventions can be avoided. Without further ado, here it is. -ISM]
#######
If Dan Brown wrote a novel about the Holocaust it would probably look like this:
Robert Langdon, while on a lecture tour in Germany, is contacted by a reclusive unorthodox World War 2 historian who claims to have a great secret which would rock the Western world to its foundations:
Everything we have been taught for the past 60 years about the Nazis and the Holocaust were lies, Langdon is told. No Jews died at the hands of the Nazis and there were no death camps in Poland and Eastern Europe. In fact, Langdon "discovers," the "real" secret behind the Holocaust is that the Nazis were persecuted by the Jews, not the other way around. Langdon also "discovers" that the "myth of the Holocaust" was created by a Vast Zionist Conspiracy under the control of the Israeli government and international bankers.
Langdon soon "learns" that for thousands of years ruthless Jewish conspirators have been murdering the true heirs of Abraham in order to preserve their false version of Judaism and to hide the “truth” that Abraham really worshiped the Divine Feminine and intended to start a fertility cult.
The "evidence" Langdon uncovers? A set of "ancient" secret documents known as "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." (The "Protocols" were actually fabricated by the Russian secret police and released to a gullible Russian public as a pretext for the Czar's systematic murder of thousands of innocent Jewish peasants. But so what?)
Of course, Dan Brown would say that all this is "just fiction," but that it "poses" some "interesting" questions about history, which we can't really know anything about for sure anyway. After all, Brown would argue, he has done his research:
He has read the "scholarly" papers published by the Institute for Historical Review and "well-researched" books such as "Did Six Million Really Die?" and "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century." (Both books were written by notorious neo-Nazi nutcases, and the IHR was set up by a well-known anti-semitic propagandist. But what the heck; it's great material for a novel, no?)
And so it would go in the confused world of Dan Brown.
#######
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
A Weblog Remembrance:
Considering how much the propagandists in the MSM made a big deal out of the "2000th death in Iraq since the start of military operations" last year, I do not expect them to give equal time to the fact that we have now surpassed 5,000th deaths at the hands of Islamic terrorists since September 11, 2001. Nonetheless, you can view it for yourself in the side margin of this humble weblog and click on the logo to get the code to add to your own website or weblog if you have one and feel inclined to do that. (The logo will also be included in this posting.) If not than at the very least give a minimal of equal time to this milestone in the war on terror if you do not want to be thought of as placing ideology ahead of both principles as well as consistency.
Considering how much the propagandists in the MSM made a big deal out of the "2000th death in Iraq since the start of military operations" last year, I do not expect them to give equal time to the fact that we have now surpassed 5,000th deaths at the hands of Islamic terrorists since September 11, 2001. Nonetheless, you can view it for yourself in the side margin of this humble weblog and click on the logo to get the code to add to your own website or weblog if you have one and feel inclined to do that. (The logo will also be included in this posting.) If not than at the very least give a minimal of equal time to this milestone in the war on terror if you do not want to be thought of as placing ideology ahead of both principles as well as consistency.
Monday, May 22, 2006
"Dog Days of Summer" Dept.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Apparently I am not the only one who has noticed this situation as of late:
Blogger Burnout: it's the end of the beginning ("Neo-NeoCon")
The above post explains to some extent why I have found blogging such a chore as of late -though I do not have a problem "wrapping my mind around" the Iran issue as the writer above claims that they do. But just because I can "wrap my mind around" the issue does not mean that I am either (i) enthusiastic to discuss it or (ii) motivated to put much energy into blogging. I sense that the summer months will be hard ones blogging-wise to maintain reasonable production on this matter both with my business increasing in time demands and the general mental malaise noted by "neo-neocon" in the thread noted above.
There is a reason why they refer to the summer months as the "dog days of summer" and with this being an election year, it is imperative that minds remain focused on the big picture and not get bogged down with side distractions. And as I intend to be razor sharp for the final months before the election; ergo that will necessitate dialing back the intensity a bit for the summer months. Intensity and duration are two sides of the same coin and this is manifested in the laws of nature itself.{1} I am not therefore going to try and fight it as I know it will be futile and I take Santayana's dictum{2} seriously.
Notes:
{1} I remind you of the theories of motion as discovered by Sir Isaac Newton. If an object in motion will remain in motion, then attempts to stop that object will not succeed without a greater or equal force being involved. In light of the manner whereby intensity and duration are inversely proportioned, an intense reaction cannot sustain itself for very long in opposing an object in motion -particularly if that object appeals to the lower levels of our nature from which there is continual struggle against anyway.
What must be attempted is to reverse the direction of the moving object but the approach taken has to be one focused on success over the long term. For that reason, the intensity behind such an approach has to be by logical necessity of lessor import if there is to be a conceivable reversal of trends that will be more than illusory. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum circa August 11, 2004]
{2} It is a lesson that with elections coming up needs to be reiterated time and again lest we repeat history because we do not learn from it (cf. Santayana). [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 17, 2002)]
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Apparently I am not the only one who has noticed this situation as of late:
Blogger Burnout: it's the end of the beginning ("Neo-NeoCon")
The above post explains to some extent why I have found blogging such a chore as of late -though I do not have a problem "wrapping my mind around" the Iran issue as the writer above claims that they do. But just because I can "wrap my mind around" the issue does not mean that I am either (i) enthusiastic to discuss it or (ii) motivated to put much energy into blogging. I sense that the summer months will be hard ones blogging-wise to maintain reasonable production on this matter both with my business increasing in time demands and the general mental malaise noted by "neo-neocon" in the thread noted above.
There is a reason why they refer to the summer months as the "dog days of summer" and with this being an election year, it is imperative that minds remain focused on the big picture and not get bogged down with side distractions. And as I intend to be razor sharp for the final months before the election; ergo that will necessitate dialing back the intensity a bit for the summer months. Intensity and duration are two sides of the same coin and this is manifested in the laws of nature itself.{1} I am not therefore going to try and fight it as I know it will be futile and I take Santayana's dictum{2} seriously.
Notes:
{1} I remind you of the theories of motion as discovered by Sir Isaac Newton. If an object in motion will remain in motion, then attempts to stop that object will not succeed without a greater or equal force being involved. In light of the manner whereby intensity and duration are inversely proportioned, an intense reaction cannot sustain itself for very long in opposing an object in motion -particularly if that object appeals to the lower levels of our nature from which there is continual struggle against anyway.
What must be attempted is to reverse the direction of the moving object but the approach taken has to be one focused on success over the long term. For that reason, the intensity behind such an approach has to be by logical necessity of lessor import if there is to be a conceivable reversal of trends that will be more than illusory. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum circa August 11, 2004]
{2} It is a lesson that with elections coming up needs to be reiterated time and again lest we repeat history because we do not learn from it (cf. Santayana). [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 17, 2002)]
Saturday, May 20, 2006
"Mexicali Blues" Dept.
(For Securing Our Southern Border)
Ahat tip sombrero tip is due to the Texas Cowgirl on this one...
(For Securing Our Southern Border)
A
Friday, May 19, 2006
"Crying 'Wolf'" Dept.
(On The DaVinci Code and Movie Protests in General)
I seem to be one of the few Christians who has not blown a gasket over the whole DaVinci Code situation. Perhaps the reason for this is my operative presupposition lo these many years of watching movies like this bomb at the box office time and again. That may explain part of it but the other is an instinct that the repetitive shrieking by various religious groups about the latest movie "abomination" almost always gives the movie in question publicity that it generally does not need. (The media maxim "there is no such thing as bad publicity" comes to mind here.)
That is not to say that on occasion it is not appropriate for practical or tactical reasons to register a public protest of course. And I would not be telling the truth if I did not admit that I have on occasion done this -particularly in 2003 and 2004 with two movies that were released in 2004.{1} But those were exceptions to the rule for reasons which I made clear in the respective postings dealing with them.{2}
It seems as obvious to me as the sun rising in the east every morning that a protest that has a hope of success needs to be carefully undertaken. That means picking targets with care and not bitching and moaning about every poorly made and religiously/morally objectionable movie that is made. For to do this is to emulate the fable about The Boy Who Cried 'Wolf' and I cannot see how that helps in the culture wars.
But as usual though, Santatyana's dictum is probably going to be ignored by those who act in this fashion until the time a real wolf is at the doorstep...at which time no one will believe these people when they resort to their predictable whining and complaining yet again.
Notes:
{1} Those movies were The Passion of the Christ and Fahrenheit 9/11. My reasons for selecting those movies can be ascertained in the threads listed below pertaining to each movie --not everything which was blogged on these matters at this humble weblog but certainly most of the postings:
The Passion of the Christ
Dialogue on Mel Gibson's Movie--Parts I-II (circa October 4-5, 2003)
On "Traditionalism", "Antisemitism", and Mel Gibson (circa November 18, 2003)
Miscellaneous Morning Musings on The Passion of the Christ (circa February 20, 2004)
More on the Mel Gibson/Hutton Gibson situation (circa February 22, 2004)
Guest Editorial on Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ --By Mark Downey with Commentary by I. Shawn McElhinney (circa February 24, 2004)
Briefly on The Passion of the Christ (circa March 2, 2004)
Fahrenheit 9/11 and The Passion of the Christ
A Tale of Two Movies: Fahrenheit 9/11 vs. The Passion of the Christ (circa July 15, 2004)
Fahrenheit 9/11
Some Links onJoseph Goebbels Reincarnated Michael Moore (circa June 27, 2004)
Fifty-Nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 (circa August 24, 2004)
Miscellaneous Thread For Viewing (circa October 18, 2004)
A Weblog Amendment (circa October 22, 2004)
{2} Or in summary form, with Gibson's movie I did not feel the hubbub about it was warranted since (i) it started before the project was even completed and before the movie hit theatres and (ii) I was disgusted at the double standards employed by almost all of its critics. With the Moore movie it was another reason altogether: it got a ton of publicity and was packed with countless Goebbelsian deceptions intended to sway a voting audience in a crucial election year. For that reason, I allowed the Alexander Hamilton side to my tendencies a bit of free reign to do whatever I could do to undermine that movie having an effect.
(On The DaVinci Code and Movie Protests in General)
I seem to be one of the few Christians who has not blown a gasket over the whole DaVinci Code situation. Perhaps the reason for this is my operative presupposition lo these many years of watching movies like this bomb at the box office time and again. That may explain part of it but the other is an instinct that the repetitive shrieking by various religious groups about the latest movie "abomination" almost always gives the movie in question publicity that it generally does not need. (The media maxim "there is no such thing as bad publicity" comes to mind here.)
That is not to say that on occasion it is not appropriate for practical or tactical reasons to register a public protest of course. And I would not be telling the truth if I did not admit that I have on occasion done this -particularly in 2003 and 2004 with two movies that were released in 2004.{1} But those were exceptions to the rule for reasons which I made clear in the respective postings dealing with them.{2}
It seems as obvious to me as the sun rising in the east every morning that a protest that has a hope of success needs to be carefully undertaken. That means picking targets with care and not bitching and moaning about every poorly made and religiously/morally objectionable movie that is made. For to do this is to emulate the fable about The Boy Who Cried 'Wolf' and I cannot see how that helps in the culture wars.
But as usual though, Santatyana's dictum is probably going to be ignored by those who act in this fashion until the time a real wolf is at the doorstep...at which time no one will believe these people when they resort to their predictable whining and complaining yet again.
Notes:
{1} Those movies were The Passion of the Christ and Fahrenheit 9/11. My reasons for selecting those movies can be ascertained in the threads listed below pertaining to each movie --not everything which was blogged on these matters at this humble weblog but certainly most of the postings:
The Passion of the Christ
Dialogue on Mel Gibson's Movie--Parts I-II (circa October 4-5, 2003)
On "Traditionalism", "Antisemitism", and Mel Gibson (circa November 18, 2003)
Miscellaneous Morning Musings on The Passion of the Christ (circa February 20, 2004)
More on the Mel Gibson/Hutton Gibson situation (circa February 22, 2004)
Guest Editorial on Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ --By Mark Downey with Commentary by I. Shawn McElhinney (circa February 24, 2004)
Briefly on The Passion of the Christ (circa March 2, 2004)
Fahrenheit 9/11 and The Passion of the Christ
A Tale of Two Movies: Fahrenheit 9/11 vs. The Passion of the Christ (circa July 15, 2004)
Fahrenheit 9/11
Some Links on
Fifty-Nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 (circa August 24, 2004)
Miscellaneous Thread For Viewing (circa October 18, 2004)
A Weblog Amendment (circa October 22, 2004)
{2} Or in summary form, with Gibson's movie I did not feel the hubbub about it was warranted since (i) it started before the project was even completed and before the movie hit theatres and (ii) I was disgusted at the double standards employed by almost all of its critics. With the Moore movie it was another reason altogether: it got a ton of publicity and was packed with countless Goebbelsian deceptions intended to sway a voting audience in a crucial election year. For that reason, I allowed the Alexander Hamilton side to my tendencies a bit of free reign to do whatever I could do to undermine that movie having an effect.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Dr. Edward Peters clarifies contribution to Neo-Conned, IHS Press (Christopher Blosser)
To remind readers of the context behind that series (and why Dr. Peters' stance on this matter is admirable), the following two threads will hopefully assist in clarifying the matter for those who are interested:
On IHS Press, Potential Fascist Connections, Antisemitism, Etc.
From the Mailbag (With Chris Blosser)
While more could be noted, that will suffice for now except to once again commend Dr. Peters for placing principle above ideology on this matter.
To remind readers of the context behind that series (and why Dr. Peters' stance on this matter is admirable), the following two threads will hopefully assist in clarifying the matter for those who are interested:
On IHS Press, Potential Fascist Connections, Antisemitism, Etc.
From the Mailbag (With Chris Blosser)
While more could be noted, that will suffice for now except to once again commend Dr. Peters for placing principle above ideology on this matter.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Monday, May 15, 2006
"No 'Golden Sombrero' For Us" Dept.
Those who find offense at the above title really need to lighten up a bit. Having noted that, We at Rerum Novarum would be remiss if for a fourth year in a row{1} a May 15th went by without mentioning that this is the anniversary of an important social encyclical titled Rerum Novarum by one of history's greatest popes (Pope Leo XIII). Those who are interested in seeing a pre-emptory condemnations of marxism a quarter century before the Revolution of 1917 are advised to give that writing at least a cursory reading.
Note:
{1} In Our defense, the subjects in past years which were predominent on those days were a resumption of dialogue with Reformed writer Tim Enloe (2003: the war was heavily in play around that time too), the Iraqi Prison "scandal" and outrage over the beheading of Paul Johnson (2004: election stuff was also the focus at that time), and nothing being posted on this date last year. (Among the subjects in mind at that time was a proposed dialogue with the aforementioned Tim Enloe on foundational presuppositions which thus far has not occurred.)
Those who find offense at the above title really need to lighten up a bit. Having noted that, We at Rerum Novarum would be remiss if for a fourth year in a row{1} a May 15th went by without mentioning that this is the anniversary of an important social encyclical titled Rerum Novarum by one of history's greatest popes (Pope Leo XIII). Those who are interested in seeing a pre-emptory condemnations of marxism a quarter century before the Revolution of 1917 are advised to give that writing at least a cursory reading.
Note:
{1} In Our defense, the subjects in past years which were predominent on those days were a resumption of dialogue with Reformed writer Tim Enloe (2003: the war was heavily in play around that time too), the Iraqi Prison "scandal" and outrage over the beheading of Paul Johnson (2004: election stuff was also the focus at that time), and nothing being posted on this date last year. (Among the subjects in mind at that time was a proposed dialogue with the aforementioned Tim Enloe on foundational presuppositions which thus far has not occurred.)
"NostraShawnus" Dept.
(And additional brief musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
The speech President Bush will give tonight will vindicate yet again a prediction made by your host at Rerum Novarum - in this case one that was made explicitly last year:
And (of course) if President Bush and the Republicans start talking about securing the borders in 2006 --and I predict that they will-- ideological enemies who want to publicly opine as to why this was not a concern for President Bush and many of the Republicans for the last five years will not in doing so find any criticism from this writer, that is for sure. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 31, 2005)]
Though rarely does your host mention correct predictions{1}, this time it seems opportune if for no other reason than this one highlights why so many people are sick of politics and are willing to consider third party options. For the two-party system more than at any time in American history has become a Scylla and Charybdis situation{2} so often that it is to the point of redundency to point it out.{3} While more could be noted than that, what is noted here will have to suffice for the time being.
Notes:
{1} Notice for example that prior to this point, the prediction of who would be elected pope in the conclave of 2005 was not mentioned. (More could be noted but that suffices for now lest We appear to be less-than-properly-humble.)
{2} A Brief Digression on the "Scylla/Charybdis" Conundrum of American Political Parties, Etc. (circa May 24, 2004)
{3} There have been many threads posted to this weblog on the third party concept -some of which are not even a couple of weeks old.(The most recent of which can be viewed HERE.)
(And additional brief musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
The speech President Bush will give tonight will vindicate yet again a prediction made by your host at Rerum Novarum - in this case one that was made explicitly last year:
And (of course) if President Bush and the Republicans start talking about securing the borders in 2006 --and I predict that they will-- ideological enemies who want to publicly opine as to why this was not a concern for President Bush and many of the Republicans for the last five years will not in doing so find any criticism from this writer, that is for sure. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 31, 2005)]
Though rarely does your host mention correct predictions{1}, this time it seems opportune if for no other reason than this one highlights why so many people are sick of politics and are willing to consider third party options. For the two-party system more than at any time in American history has become a Scylla and Charybdis situation{2} so often that it is to the point of redundency to point it out.{3} While more could be noted than that, what is noted here will have to suffice for the time being.
Notes:
{1} Notice for example that prior to this point, the prediction of who would be elected pope in the conclave of 2005 was not mentioned. (More could be noted but that suffices for now lest We appear to be less-than-properly-humble.)
{2} A Brief Digression on the "Scylla/Charybdis" Conundrum of American Political Parties, Etc. (circa May 24, 2004)
{3} There have been many threads posted to this weblog on the third party concept -some of which are not even a couple of weeks old.(The most recent of which can be viewed HERE.)
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Points to Ponder:
(On The Two Party System}
[Prefatory Note: Please read this brief clarifying post before reflecting upon the quote below. - ISM]
The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on artificial lines, boss-ridden and privilege-controlled, each a jumble of incongruous elements, and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly on what should be said on the vital issues of the day. [Theodore Roosevelt]
(On The Two Party System}
[Prefatory Note: Please read this brief clarifying post before reflecting upon the quote below. - ISM]
The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on artificial lines, boss-ridden and privilege-controlled, each a jumble of incongruous elements, and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly on what should be said on the vital issues of the day. [Theodore Roosevelt]
On the Two Political Party System:
(A Pre-emptory Clarification Posting)
With the third party idea permeating the blogosphere and the alternative media with an increasing frequency in the past year, it is possible that my next installment of this long-running series{1} will cause some confusion. To avoid that, I want to make it clear from the outset that I do not intend with the quotation to follow this posting to in any sense repudiate what I have written either very recently or in the past few years about third parties at sundry times and in diverse ways over the years.
The issue boils down to recognizing a need but also realizing pragmatically that it cannot be met at this time. However, as I noted in two of the threads above{1}, there is a way to make a viable third party a reality. However, the general process involved in third parties goes against the very laws of nature{2} and therefore needs to be rethought as I have done in recent years{3} basing it on my years of study of human physiology.{4} And as I do not see how the principle can be implemented effectively at the present time, I am thus in the odd position of wanting a third party, willing to support a third party in principle, but not willing to vote for many third party candidates. And as my reasons having been adequately noted in the two postings from November of 2004 and the two from earlier in this month, that is all I will note on the matter at the present time.
For the quote which this posting was intended to pre-emptively clarify, please go HERE.
Notes:
{1} Which will be the 227th installment since this weblog was founded.
{2} Which I will repost here:
"My Kingdom for a Viable Third Party" Dept. (circa November 6, 2004)
"My Kingdom For a Viable Third Party" Dept. Redux (circa November 11, 2004)
{3} I remind you of the theories of motion as discovered by Sir Isaac Newton. If an object in motion will remain in motion, then attempts to stop that object will not succeed without a greater or equal force being involved. In light of the manner whereby intensity and duration are inversely proportioned, an intense reaction cannot sustain itself for very long in opposing an object in motion -particularly if that object appeals to the lower levels of our nature from which there is continual struggle against anyway.
What must be attempted is to reverse the direction of the moving object but the approach taken has to be one focused on success over the long term. For that reason, the intensity behind such an approach has to be by logical necessity of lessor import if there is to be a conceivable reversal of trends that will be more than illusory. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum circa August 11, 2004]
{4} See footnote one.
{5} This is too long a subject to go into at this time but suffice to say, my understanding of the mathematics of human physiology is (modesty aside for a moment) quite advanced and is something that to a certain extent probably permeates my thinking on virtually all foundational thought issues.
(A Pre-emptory Clarification Posting)
With the third party idea permeating the blogosphere and the alternative media with an increasing frequency in the past year, it is possible that my next installment of this long-running series{1} will cause some confusion. To avoid that, I want to make it clear from the outset that I do not intend with the quotation to follow this posting to in any sense repudiate what I have written either very recently or in the past few years about third parties at sundry times and in diverse ways over the years.
The issue boils down to recognizing a need but also realizing pragmatically that it cannot be met at this time. However, as I noted in two of the threads above{1}, there is a way to make a viable third party a reality. However, the general process involved in third parties goes against the very laws of nature{2} and therefore needs to be rethought as I have done in recent years{3} basing it on my years of study of human physiology.{4} And as I do not see how the principle can be implemented effectively at the present time, I am thus in the odd position of wanting a third party, willing to support a third party in principle, but not willing to vote for many third party candidates. And as my reasons having been adequately noted in the two postings from November of 2004 and the two from earlier in this month, that is all I will note on the matter at the present time.
For the quote which this posting was intended to pre-emptively clarify, please go HERE.
Notes:
{1} Which will be the 227th installment since this weblog was founded.
{2} Which I will repost here:
"My Kingdom for a Viable Third Party" Dept. (circa November 6, 2004)
"My Kingdom For a Viable Third Party" Dept. Redux (circa November 11, 2004)
{3} I remind you of the theories of motion as discovered by Sir Isaac Newton. If an object in motion will remain in motion, then attempts to stop that object will not succeed without a greater or equal force being involved. In light of the manner whereby intensity and duration are inversely proportioned, an intense reaction cannot sustain itself for very long in opposing an object in motion -particularly if that object appeals to the lower levels of our nature from which there is continual struggle against anyway.
What must be attempted is to reverse the direction of the moving object but the approach taken has to be one focused on success over the long term. For that reason, the intensity behind such an approach has to be by logical necessity of lessor import if there is to be a conceivable reversal of trends that will be more than illusory. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum circa August 11, 2004]
{4} See footnote one.
{5} This is too long a subject to go into at this time but suffice to say, my understanding of the mathematics of human physiology is (modesty aside for a moment) quite advanced and is something that to a certain extent probably permeates my thinking on virtually all foundational thought issues.
Monday, May 08, 2006
On Congressional Spending:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
The trigger of sorts for this posting was the following weblog entry:
Out of Control!!!
I particularly enjoyed reading this line from the piece:
I would say that the Senate is spending money like drunken sailors, but that would unfairly disparage sailors, sober or drunk.
Of course what the Texas Cowgirl notes is such a small trickle in the bucket of the budget problem that it is not even funny. I noted over three years ago{1} that the problem is baseline budgeting and explained this in greater detail a few times since then -both privately as well as publicly.{2} There is also the problem of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 which needs to be rescinded to restore some balance to the budgetary issues -something else I have discussed some time ago. Or to quote myself at length circa October of 2003:
[W]ho cares what the President proposes. The role of setting a budget is that of the Congress. The problem is that the role of impounding funds -shared by every president from Nixon back to Washington- was abolished by President Nixon when he signed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Since then, deficits have skyrocketed and an important check on Congressional excesses was cast aside...
The ignorance politicians have of the Constitution -while problematical of course- is nonetheless not as bad as the people who will vote for whomever enriches their interests irrespective of what the Constitution actually says.
To such people as this, I challenge them: find for me the Social Security recipient who would support outlawing Social Security.[...] Find for me the Medicare recipient who would support shutting down Medicare.[...] More could be mentioned but these are the two biggest sacred cows in politics that need to be skewered.
But do not think more could not be pointed out - indeed at least 75% of the budget is unconstitutional expenditures. The question I have for the readers is this: would you vote against your sacred cow to benefit the common good of society??? For some reason, I am not too optimistic that the "yes" votes on that question would be very high. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa October 31, 2003)]
One proposal I have made in recent years is the idea of rider reform. Here is how the proposal jelled in my mind within a half hour{3} of finishing some musings on President Bush's State of the Union Address in January of 2004{4}:
I will avoid discussing the constitutionality of federal disaster relief acts but this serves to show how the rider is used to pass stuff without accountability. Having noted that, here are my proposals for making this process accountable to the voting public.
1) Any proposed rider to a bill must have some reasonably demonstrable congruency with the subject of the main funding bill being voted on. The current practice of attaching unrelated or non-sequitur funding proposals to major funding bills would thereby be eliminated.
2) Any proposed rider should requires a separate congressional "rider attachment vote" so that those who want it and those who do not are on the record.
3) Any proposed rider should require at least two thirds concurrence by each house of Congress insuch that anything less means that the rider initiative fails to attach to the bill.
4) Any proposed rider that succeeds in getting two thirds concurrence by each house of Congress officially attaches with the provision that the president has the right to line-item veto that rider proposal.
5) If the president vetoes such rider proposal but signs the main funding bill to which it was attached, Congress can override and perminently attach said rider to the main funding bill with the concurrence of seventy-five percent of both houses of Congress. If said seventy-five percent concurrence of both houses of Congress cannot be mustered for an override, the override fails and the rider is officially declared dead.
6) And of course the rider proposals -pass or fail- must all be entered into the record for perusal of the people under the 1978 Freedom of Information Act along with (i) the names of the proposers and subsequent sponsors of said rider (ii) their party affiliation and (iii) the state which they represent. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 20, 2004)]
I have also noted on numerous occasions the idea of sunsetting the federal budget in toto.{5} I explained that principle in greater detail in a late 2005 weblog posting in these words:
The one area that the Republicans have long run on is being more fiscally sound than the Democrats but those of Us who have been paying close attention to their performance since President Bush won the 2000 election are not impressed. It is not that difficult to balance the budget -indeed in a 2.6 trillion budget, We could find at least 1.6 trillion in unconstitutional pork spending.
For the sake of being nice, let Us propose a 1 trillion cut in the budget from all unconstitutional spending programs and a bill that would sunset every spending provision in the next five years. Obviously it would not help to sunset them all at once but it should be staggered so that every item is sunsetted within a six year election cycle. That way, even senators (who do not control the purse strings but who do play a role in the budgeting) are not exempt from being held accountable on these matters. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 29, 2005)]
In summary, yes the Congress is continuing to be irresponsible in their spending. However, just because the Senate is putting a few things in that the House is not does not mean the House's omission of those items is laudatory by any stretch. No my friends, the Congress of the United States is a disgrace and has been for a long time. Putting the Democrats back into power will not improve matters in the slightest -if anything they would probably be worse. And since there is no viable third party at the moment to go to, all we can try and do is educate these "public servants" on what the Constitution allows for and what it does not allow for. And with the latter, it is 3/4ths of the annual budget (possibly more) which is patently unconstitutional and this crap needed to stop yesterday.
Notes:
{1} With such manifest illogic is it any wonder we have a nearly six trillion dollar debt??? (The enemy is "base-line budgeting" my friends.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 9, 2002)]
{2} Here are the only public weblog bits on this subject that I can find on short notice:
[T]hose who know their history are aware that President Reagan proposed a combination of across the board tax cuts. However, that was intended merely to spur on the economy in the short term and not as a long-term proposition in and of itself. The long term proposition for handling the deficit was raising taxes and cutting spending simultaneously -indeed President Reagan got Congress to agree to $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in taxes raised in 1982. Of course the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives never followed through with the promised spending cuts. This caused no shortage of problems because when taxes are cut and spending is not reduced at the same time. For even when the dynamic (as opposed to static) effects that tax cuts have on an economy are considered, with evils such as "base line budgeting" in place long-term deficits are an inevitability.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 8, 2005)]
A Congress which cannot put together a budget that balances[...] does not deserve a pay increase. PERIOD. This is not rocket science folks. If the federal government got its nose out of the areas which it does not have Constitutionally delegated authority to intervene in, the budget could easily be balanced. Heck, at the current rate of taxation, the debt itself could be paid off in about seven years or less.[...] But there are too many selfish people out there who prefer their own isolated self-interests to the common good. There is also the issue of baseline budgeting which no one wants to honestly face[...] but that is to open another tangent I do not have the time to delve into at the moment. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 10, 2005)]
{3} And that is not an exaggeration my friends.
{4} Miscellaneous Musings on the State of the Union Address (circa January 20, 2004)
{5} What problems do we have when government views our money as theirs and them returning to us what is ours as some "benevolent gesture"??? We need to educate these people on the truth of the fact that federal government delegated powers are limited and we need to start respecting the Constitution in reality and not just the abstract. I have a few quick proposals for going a significant way towards doing this...
---Enact a law that inserts into every budget proposal and program a sunset provision. The points of sunset can be staggered to some extent so the entire wheel is not reinvented at once. However, in every presidential cycle all budget items or federal programs should have to come up for renewal at least once. My proposed point for this is of course the midterm elections. (That way, turnout will be higher and of course it will keep our officials honest.)
And if the representatives do not do the latter, then we the people need to start the Constitutional Amendment process. In fact, maybe we need to start it from the ground up here. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 20, 2004)]
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
The trigger of sorts for this posting was the following weblog entry:
Out of Control!!!
I particularly enjoyed reading this line from the piece:
I would say that the Senate is spending money like drunken sailors, but that would unfairly disparage sailors, sober or drunk.
Of course what the Texas Cowgirl notes is such a small trickle in the bucket of the budget problem that it is not even funny. I noted over three years ago{1} that the problem is baseline budgeting and explained this in greater detail a few times since then -both privately as well as publicly.{2} There is also the problem of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 which needs to be rescinded to restore some balance to the budgetary issues -something else I have discussed some time ago. Or to quote myself at length circa October of 2003:
[W]ho cares what the President proposes. The role of setting a budget is that of the Congress. The problem is that the role of impounding funds -shared by every president from Nixon back to Washington- was abolished by President Nixon when he signed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Since then, deficits have skyrocketed and an important check on Congressional excesses was cast aside...
The ignorance politicians have of the Constitution -while problematical of course- is nonetheless not as bad as the people who will vote for whomever enriches their interests irrespective of what the Constitution actually says.
To such people as this, I challenge them: find for me the Social Security recipient who would support outlawing Social Security.[...] Find for me the Medicare recipient who would support shutting down Medicare.[...] More could be mentioned but these are the two biggest sacred cows in politics that need to be skewered.
But do not think more could not be pointed out - indeed at least 75% of the budget is unconstitutional expenditures. The question I have for the readers is this: would you vote against your sacred cow to benefit the common good of society??? For some reason, I am not too optimistic that the "yes" votes on that question would be very high. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa October 31, 2003)]
One proposal I have made in recent years is the idea of rider reform. Here is how the proposal jelled in my mind within a half hour{3} of finishing some musings on President Bush's State of the Union Address in January of 2004{4}:
I will avoid discussing the constitutionality of federal disaster relief acts but this serves to show how the rider is used to pass stuff without accountability. Having noted that, here are my proposals for making this process accountable to the voting public.
1) Any proposed rider to a bill must have some reasonably demonstrable congruency with the subject of the main funding bill being voted on. The current practice of attaching unrelated or non-sequitur funding proposals to major funding bills would thereby be eliminated.
2) Any proposed rider should requires a separate congressional "rider attachment vote" so that those who want it and those who do not are on the record.
3) Any proposed rider should require at least two thirds concurrence by each house of Congress insuch that anything less means that the rider initiative fails to attach to the bill.
4) Any proposed rider that succeeds in getting two thirds concurrence by each house of Congress officially attaches with the provision that the president has the right to line-item veto that rider proposal.
5) If the president vetoes such rider proposal but signs the main funding bill to which it was attached, Congress can override and perminently attach said rider to the main funding bill with the concurrence of seventy-five percent of both houses of Congress. If said seventy-five percent concurrence of both houses of Congress cannot be mustered for an override, the override fails and the rider is officially declared dead.
6) And of course the rider proposals -pass or fail- must all be entered into the record for perusal of the people under the 1978 Freedom of Information Act along with (i) the names of the proposers and subsequent sponsors of said rider (ii) their party affiliation and (iii) the state which they represent. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 20, 2004)]
I have also noted on numerous occasions the idea of sunsetting the federal budget in toto.{5} I explained that principle in greater detail in a late 2005 weblog posting in these words:
The one area that the Republicans have long run on is being more fiscally sound than the Democrats but those of Us who have been paying close attention to their performance since President Bush won the 2000 election are not impressed. It is not that difficult to balance the budget -indeed in a 2.6 trillion budget, We could find at least 1.6 trillion in unconstitutional pork spending.
For the sake of being nice, let Us propose a 1 trillion cut in the budget from all unconstitutional spending programs and a bill that would sunset every spending provision in the next five years. Obviously it would not help to sunset them all at once but it should be staggered so that every item is sunsetted within a six year election cycle. That way, even senators (who do not control the purse strings but who do play a role in the budgeting) are not exempt from being held accountable on these matters. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 29, 2005)]
In summary, yes the Congress is continuing to be irresponsible in their spending. However, just because the Senate is putting a few things in that the House is not does not mean the House's omission of those items is laudatory by any stretch. No my friends, the Congress of the United States is a disgrace and has been for a long time. Putting the Democrats back into power will not improve matters in the slightest -if anything they would probably be worse. And since there is no viable third party at the moment to go to, all we can try and do is educate these "public servants" on what the Constitution allows for and what it does not allow for. And with the latter, it is 3/4ths of the annual budget (possibly more) which is patently unconstitutional and this crap needed to stop yesterday.
Notes:
{1} With such manifest illogic is it any wonder we have a nearly six trillion dollar debt??? (The enemy is "base-line budgeting" my friends.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 9, 2002)]
{2} Here are the only public weblog bits on this subject that I can find on short notice:
[T]hose who know their history are aware that President Reagan proposed a combination of across the board tax cuts. However, that was intended merely to spur on the economy in the short term and not as a long-term proposition in and of itself. The long term proposition for handling the deficit was raising taxes and cutting spending simultaneously -indeed President Reagan got Congress to agree to $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in taxes raised in 1982. Of course the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives never followed through with the promised spending cuts. This caused no shortage of problems because when taxes are cut and spending is not reduced at the same time. For even when the dynamic (as opposed to static) effects that tax cuts have on an economy are considered, with evils such as "base line budgeting" in place long-term deficits are an inevitability.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 8, 2005)]
A Congress which cannot put together a budget that balances[...] does not deserve a pay increase. PERIOD. This is not rocket science folks. If the federal government got its nose out of the areas which it does not have Constitutionally delegated authority to intervene in, the budget could easily be balanced. Heck, at the current rate of taxation, the debt itself could be paid off in about seven years or less.[...] But there are too many selfish people out there who prefer their own isolated self-interests to the common good. There is also the issue of baseline budgeting which no one wants to honestly face[...] but that is to open another tangent I do not have the time to delve into at the moment. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 10, 2005)]
{3} And that is not an exaggeration my friends.
{4} Miscellaneous Musings on the State of the Union Address (circa January 20, 2004)
{5} What problems do we have when government views our money as theirs and them returning to us what is ours as some "benevolent gesture"??? We need to educate these people on the truth of the fact that federal government delegated powers are limited and we need to start respecting the Constitution in reality and not just the abstract. I have a few quick proposals for going a significant way towards doing this...
---Enact a law that inserts into every budget proposal and program a sunset provision. The points of sunset can be staggered to some extent so the entire wheel is not reinvented at once. However, in every presidential cycle all budget items or federal programs should have to come up for renewal at least once. My proposed point for this is of course the midterm elections. (That way, turnout will be higher and of course it will keep our officials honest.)
And if the representatives do not do the latter, then we the people need to start the Constitutional Amendment process. In fact, maybe we need to start it from the ground up here. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 20, 2004)]
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)