Between Unconstitutionality and Unworkability:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[Prefatory Note: This text was largely drafted and refined between April 10, 2007 and December 30, 2007 with a few finishing bits (including a couple of footnotes and some minor tweaking) being done in the past month and a half and a final retouching this morning. -ISM]

"A conservatism that cannot find room in its folds for the actualities is a conservatism that is not a political force, or even a twitch: it has become a literary whimsy." [William F. Buckley Jr. (circa 1967)]

In writing on the 2008 Presidential race and various and sundry subjects connected therein{1}, it seemed opportune to address a major problem I have previously mentioned. Many who consider themselves "conservatives" have a problem presenting a coherent, workable, and historically sound model for effective governance. I will include some mention of those conservatives' ideological foes and I will assess both groups using the criteria in which all matters political, social, economic and moral must be viewed by Americans who recognize the role of law in a just society.{2}

Unfortunately, part of the reason for the political division we see in America today is a skewed conception of these matters that has come about for a variety of reasons both historical as well as circumstantial. The purpose of this posting is to explain these as well as note what is lacking in modern politics to counteract the extremes. But to best understand this, I want to address the nation's founding and assess the original political and ideological divisions to better understand what has subsequently happened.

Political parties did not exist in the United States before July 4, 1776 or thereafter. The reason was because the nation was at war with the mightiest empire of its time and trying to do what no nation had ever succeeded in doing before: to throw off the shackles of colonial rule for reasons based on principles of human dignity and the rights pertaining thereof rather than mean self interests. Although these principles were not always followed with crystal consistency (as the whole issue of slavery exemplifies{3}), they must be examined even in passing when it comes to the heart of any governmental arrangement.

The political climate as we have seen it in recent decades has worsened to the point to where amicable discourse is seemingly not possible anymore.{4} This in and of itself is not a problem per se because even in the earliest days of the republic, people disagreed passionately on issues. The difference is the party system to some extent. Most people do not realize that political parties were not anticipated by the framers of the Constitution; back then, even political enemies among the Founders generally assumed that those in positions of leadership (whatever their views) were acting in good will and in accordance with what they believed to be the best interests of the United States. Parties originally did not exist. This explains why the first President of the United States (one General George Washington) was elected unanimously for two terms.

But even when the party system developed over time, a conscious attempt to focus and achieve the interests of the common good dominated most of the age of this nation's history. However, the Democratic Party has gotten away from this understanding in recent decades, as have many in the Republican Party. Concern for the common good gave way to putting selfish personal interests first and that is what the problem we see today is in spades: opposing personal interest groups more interested in their selfish whims than in what is good for the nation as a whole. And with many of these people, they do not care if something is allowed under the Constitution or not, they simply try and take it and do not give a damn while blaming others for doing the same thing. This is the problem of "unconstitutionality" which I refer to in the title of this post.

A reaction of sorts to this prevailing attitude has become fashionable by some who call themselves "conservatives" who at the very least appeal to the Constitution on sundry and divers matters. However, history shows that their approach does not work. I will provide a few examples to illustrate this principle lest readers think I am merely asserting it without being able to supply any proofs.

At the dawn of the republic, rival factions developed different ways to view the Constitution. Its defenders explained the Constitution to the public through The Federalist Papers, and it is to that understanding that we must turn. But there must be some standard. Or as we noted back in 2007 when extending anew our previous offer to "evolving constitution" sorts to play a game of "evolving rules Texas Hold'Em" for money (an offer which in four years no one has yet taken us up on):

Rationally, if you do not take a fixed approach to a law, precept, or principle, then they are subject to change. Noting that, it should also be considered that there would be a weird notion in place if such persons were to ascribe some fixed schedule for such evolutions when they do not recognize the concept of fixity to laws, precepts, or principles to begin with. So in the game of "evolving rules Texas Hold'Em", the values of the hands would change often -perhaps even hand to hand at times or intermittently during hands.

After all, no matter what I had in my hand, I could go all in and "win" because the "interpretation" of what hand was higher would change constantly to reflect what I was holding in my own hand.{6} As absurd as this premise may sound, stop and think for a moment what absurdity my proposed game plan is intended to illustrate.

It is impossible for there to be a stable society where the law is so manipulated as these sorts favouring an "evolving Constitution" would like to see. However, at the same time it is important to have some degree of room for revision of the laws of the land if we are to avoid being in the position of advocating that the law is made for man rather than the converse.{7} That is why the Founders put the amendment procedure into the mix at the very beginning: to insure that any adjustments to the Constitution would require effort to undertake and would require a super majority of states to ratify. This was to affirm the important understanding that law was not a minor trifle but instead was to some extent a requirement for societal stability by codifying the natural right of all to defend themselves and their natural God-given rights. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 11, 2007)]

Here are the footnotes from the above posting:

{6} With the way the latter game is played, it is possible for an ace high to beat three of a kind, two pair to beat a flush, or three of a kind to beat a full house, etc...if the lower hands were held in that round by your weblog host of course :) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 25, 2005)]

{7} Those who wonder why true conservatives worthy of the name[...] have an abhorrence of the federal government intervening everywhere and anywhere this is the reason in a nutshell even if those conservatives have never stopped to crystallize their instinct into a coherent principle before. The reason is an instinctive understanding that law is made for man not man for law: the understanding that law's purpose is to protect legitimate rights not to grant them and not to revoke them. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 1, 2007)]

The bottom line is that the Constitution needs to be a fixed point of reference for law . Early struggles were over how this was interpreted. Alexander Hamilton was the great Defender of the Constitution both in his actions to secure ratification as well as his authoring of approximately 60% or more of The Federalist Papers. James Madison has often been called "the Father of the Constitution" due to his role in the drafting of the Constitution as well as his singular authorship of the later Bill of Rights and a third of the texts from The Federalist.{5} Both of them wrote on the importance of implied powers as a requirement for the government to function. Hamilton's stance on this was firm and never wavered while the same cannot be said for Madison who in 1788 explained the principle of implied powers thusly in Federalist #44 -a paper generally attributed{6} to him:

No axiom is more clearly established in law, or in reason, than that wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power necessary for doing it is included. [James Madison: The Federalist #44 (circa 1788).]

Not long after Madison penned those words, he came to oppose Alexander Hamilton's proposed Bank of the United States. Hamilton defended the charter of the first Bank of the United States on the above principle while Madison opposed it as lacking explicit Constitutional grant. And it is at that point that we need to consider the branch of Constitutional interpretation which is promoted by many who call themselves "conservatives" today -particularly those of a libertarian stripe.

Hamilton and Madison appealed to President George Washington who requested from both of them arguments for their positions. Washington while an intelligent man was not the intellectual that Hamilton and Madison were and he did not hesitate to seek counsel to help him make a decision. Washington also asked each man to explain their position in a fashion which he could use should he decide in their favour. Madison's stance was to the point; namely that there was no explicit wording in the Constitution to support the idea of a national bank. Hamilton took the approach that the federal government had the authority as a sovereign power to employ whatever means were necessary to exercise the enumerated powers as long as the means utilized were neither (i) expressly prohibited by the Constitution itself, (ii) immoral, or (iii) contrary to other constitutional principles. Readers will notice a similarity in Hamilton's arguments to Washington with those of Madison in The Federalist. And ultimately, Washington sided with Hamilton and signed the charter of the first Bank of the United States into law with a twenty year sunset date.

Madison and Thomas Jefferson opposed the bank charter on a fundamentalist reading of the Constitution of the very sort that more "conservative" sorts today often appeal to. But history showed them that this was not workable. Jefferson as president was approached by Napoleon in 1803 to buy the Louisiana territory from him but could not square this offer with the very interpretation of the Constitution that he and Madison had taken in opposition to Hamilton and Washington twelve years earlier. Ultimately after conferring with Madison, Jefferson went ahead with the purchase anyway and proved that when the rubber meets the road, his strict interpretation of the Constitution was not tenable.

In Madison's case, his about-face from the Federalist principle he so astutely penned in 1788 was even more costly. Succeeding Jefferson in the presidency in 1809, Madison knew that the charter of the first Bank of the United States he bitterly opposed in 1791 was due to expire in 1811 and he fought every attempt to recharter it. After the bank charter expired, Madison found himself in a war with England which had been years in the making essentially{7} and in what would be a constant refrain due to the sad unwillingness to learn from history{8}, the military was drastically downsized after a major war only to be ill-equipped when it was necessary to resort to arms again.

As a result, President Madison had an ill-equipped military in disarray, the magnificent navy started under President Washington and expanded under President Adams was decimated under the tenure of President Jefferson. Madison thus had virtually no army or navy, no source to fund a war with the demise of the bank charter, a Congress that had declared war against the most powerful empire in the world, and that empire about to try and reconquer America. Fortunately, the United States won that war.{9} Afterward, Madison fought to recharter the Bank of the United States and this was achieved in 1817. He had realized through experience and numerous embarrassments that the strict fundamentalist reading of the Constitution was not tenable. Let us now transpose these models into modern parlance so that readers can see the current political picture with greater clarity.

There are at bottom three approaches to take on the matter of the government intervention. There is the unconstitutional such as Democrats and those who want federal intervention everywhere and anywhere to fit their pet subjects without concern for the Constitution or any attempt to square their view with what the law of the land actually is. Then there is the unworkable such as Ron Paul sorts whose approach to the constitution has historically not worked and (if adhered to) would have first lost the United States the greatest land acquisition in its history followed by a loss to England in the War of 1812 if Madison had (among other things) ignored the enforcement of a provision he and Jefferson fought against during the Undeclared War of 1798.{10} But in both cases, the strict approach to the Constitution proved that it did not work with Madison learning through experience that his stance as enunciated in Federalist #44 was correct not only abstractly but also in reality.

The path between the unconstitutional weltanchauung of the liberal so-called "progressives" and the unworkable approach advocated by the Ron Pauls and Tom Tancredos of the world is one which recognizes both explicit grants of authority in the Constitution but also implicit ones which are logically required for the explicit ones to be actually carried out provided that they conform to the three points noted above. The key here is what is "required." In the examples already given, Hamilton pushed for the central bank arguing that the Constitution gave the government power over coining money and regulating exchange but did not say how this was to be done. Hamilton reasoned that the bank therefore was needed to carry out the explicit mandate of the Constitution on coining money and regulating exchange. This is one example of recognizing a necessary implied power.

The example with President Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase was that the president had the authority with the advice and consent of the Senate to make treaties with foreign powers. In order to execute a treaty with Napoleon for Louisiana, President Jefferson needed to have the authority to buy the land. Jefferson went to the Congress, which authorized the purchase to enable Jefferson to carry out the treaty making power he was vested with in the Constitution. This is another example of a required implied power to carry out explicit Constitutionally delegated powers.{11} And of course the myriad of times the president has used the armed forces without an explicit declaration of war going back to President Washington{12} is another example of legitimate implied powers{13} being utilized.

It has long been my position that we need a third way in politics -this is something that I knew intuitively even when I had not explicitly worked out all the details of how it would be done. I have even supported variations of a third party in the past with the idea that the third party would have to take time to be built up to be a competing force politically and be well organized on Constitutional principles first lest it go the way of all third parties historically. But ultimately, if the sort of third way I outline above could be achieved in one of the major parties, then I would have no problem giving that party the sort of political loyalty I would like to give a political party. Until that happens, I cannot and will not be affiliated with any political party until support for the Constitution is shown to be a reality and not merely a bunch of rhetoric thrown about during election seasons with nothing tangible in reality being done in the halls of government about it.{14}

For there is a serious lacuna in general goodwill between people of various viewpoints coupled with an inability to amicably discuss principles without viewing those who do not agree with them as either sinister, evil, or some other caricature. I believe this is inevitable in a society where reason and logic are not properly valued and (sadly enough) that has been the case for a long time now. The latter, though, ranges beyond the scope of this post to adequately deal with but it deserves at least a brief mention in passing.

[Dedicated to the memory of Ronald Wilson Reagan]

Notes:

{1} Unlike a lot of commentators, your host did not expect to do much in this area before the proximity of the 2007 elections (read: until after Labour Day) and indeed that proved to be the case.

{2} Though longtime readers of this humble weblog may expect an explicit reference to the theory of Claude Frederic Bastiat at some point, I refer only implicitly to that but explicitly in this context to the founding documents The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States respectively.

{3} The problem was that slavery as an institution or system was well entrenched in America. I explain the context of this factor as it pertained to the Founding Fathers and the diversity of their views on the matter here for those who are interested:

On Slavery and the Founding Fathers of America (circa April 17, 2007)

{4} We live in a divisive 24/7 media culture and the perception has been created that one cannot have principled disagreements with someone else on issues without one side being somehow degraded. Obviously I have a passion for many issues but I am nonetheless aware that there are people who disagree with me on some/many/most/all things. I do not lose sleep over this because of a belief I have that ultimately what is true will have lasting efficacy and what is false will not. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 17, 2007)]

{5} They authored between them 94% of The Federalist Papers with the rest coming from the pen of the eventual first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (John Jay).

{6} I say "generally attributed" because the authorship of twelve of the essays is disputed with Hamilton writing at least 51 and Madison as many as 29. The Federalist #44 is most likely James Madison's work because Madison and Hamilton both credited it to him. Hamilton did this most notably during the fight for the charter of the Bank of the United States where he quoted the words of Madison against Madison's position: a strange tactic to take if those words were from Hamilton himself rather than Hamilton seeking to use the words of his positional adversary (then Rep. James Madison) against the writer of the words himself.

{7} President Jefferson tried to deal with England's encroachments on American sovereignty in a most feeble fashion with an embargo of English goods (the Embargo Act of 1807) which seriously impaired American commerce (practically in New England) while not putting a hurt on England at all. It was not repealed until early 1809 on the day when Jefferson was about to leave office.

{8} Those who wonder why I have always so resolutely taken many of the stands I have -even on matters that may appear more than a bit controversial- it is because I take history and learning from it so seriously and expect those I dispute with to have a similar concern themselves if we are to avoid repeating history as sadly so many generations since the dawn of time have done.

{9} Those who wonder why I have always so resolutely taken many of the stands I have -even on matters that may appear more than a bit controversial- it is because I take history and learning from it so seriously and expect those I dispute with to have a similar concern themselves if we are to avoid repeating history as sadly so many generations since the dawn of time have done.

{10} I refer here to the Alien Enemies Act which was one of four acts passed by Congress and signed into law by President John Adams in 1798. Two of them had sunset clauses in them and the third was repealed by President Jefferson. The fourth act (the aforementioned Alien Enemies Act) is still in force today, was used by President James Madison during the War of 1812, and also by President George W. Bush in what has been (imprudently in my view) called the "War on Terror."

{11} On the Constitutional Standing of Wars Undertaken Without a Formal "Declaration of War" (circa December 26, 2007)

{12} Congress has the power to declare war but without the president explicitly requesting it from congress, such is hardly ever (if ever) forthcoming.

{13} I could also if not for the sake of time and not wanting to get too far offtrack point out that the arguments against non-gold backed currency made by some conservatives have a similar problem jiving with a healthy third view approach to the Constitution as enunciated above. (And also note another perilous historical example or two of how their prescriptions would have been detrimental to the survival of the Republic they would profess a love for.)

{14} Since those words were written, the election of Michael Steele as I noted a few days ago has made me strongly considering after over twelve years in political exile a reaffiliation with the Republican Party -something that was nowhere near my radar screen when those words were originally written.

Daschle out as HHS Secretary

When we consider that so far President Barack Obama's cabinet appointments have gone to various lobbyists or other political insiders, it is the considered view of your host that the bloom has left the Obama rose faster than any presidency in recent memory. The withdrawal of someone we have long been disgusted by{1} is only the latest as we now have a Treasury Secretary in Tim Geithner who like former Senator Daschle did not pay his taxes but an Attorney General in Eric Holder who is probably the worst apple of the bunch since he favours the kind of stupid gun control policies that have never worked and never will work in reducing crime.{2} I do not care what race, religion, etc. anyone has in government as long as their policies are the ones that will be truer to the core of this country's founding -one of which is a healthy respect for the individual right to self defense.

So with the Republicans in the House stood tall and did not cast a single vote for the Screwjob "Stimulus Bill" and the election as Republican National Committee chair of one Michael Steele, the withdrawal of former Senator Thomas Daschle is a good sign for those of us who are not interested in the sort of "change" that President Barack Obama has claimed he wants to bring to this nation -even if the Senate remains to stand tall and hopefully filibuster this plan long enough to at least lower its popularity in case it does eventually pass whereby to pin the inevitable economic boondoggle{3} on the Democrats and President Obama if not defeat it altogether.

Notes:

{1} For one such example from the archives, consider this posting from late 2004.

{2} Points to Ponder on Gun Control (circa December 9, 2008)

{3} The principles where I approach this proposed "bailout" by President Obama are the same as those whereby I opposed the one implemented under President George W. Bush at the tail end of his term. And to illustrate this point, here are the most germane of threads directly applicable to the subject from the archives of this weblog in order from oldest to newest

Briefly on the Proposed "Bailout" (circa October 1, 2008)

More Brief Bits on the Proposed "Bailout" (circa October 3, 2008)

More Brief Bits on the "Bailout" (circa October 5, 2008)

Michael Steele Gives His First Interview as RNC Chairman

My comments made offhand in various forums on this matter will clarify my own view on this event so I post them here for your consideration from an interactive chat thread with various friends:

[I]n light of the election of Steele to RNC chair [I am] going to strongly consider reaffiliating with the Republicans after years in political exile...[circa January 30, 2009 @ 3:30pm]

I said consider it JJJ...after twelve years of exile I am finally optimistic that things are as they were after Goldwater's defeat where the base is rising again. (We have not had that for over twenty years.) [circa January 30, 2009 @ 3:37pm]

I hope so CCCCC...I saw the mess that the GOP is in now coming over a decade ago and wanted nothing to do with it. I felt about the Republicans like Reagan did the Democrats: he did not leave them they left him. At least he had a party to move to and I did not so it is what it is now and not in the same sense of "is" President Clinton used ;-) It is at least on the table now and has not been for ages. As far as gun toting goes, as long as we do not go hunting with Cheney consider that a rain check if I am out in that area... [circa January 30, 2009 @ 3:46pm]

There are sadly those who think that anyone who does not agree with them either 100% or at least 100% on their pet issues is somehow not a "real conservative." Those people despite having good intentions nonetheless end up doing nearly as much damage as the RINOS do. [circa January 31, 2009 @ 10:32am]

Without the election of a conservative to party chair, I would not be feeling this optimistic Aaaaaa. But I am now sensing that 2008 could be 1964 all over again except the sacrificial lamb for the cause was not Goldwater but Palin. (Johnny Mac went down too but he was not the one who in a classic Goldwater-like way fired up the base.) [circa January 31, 2009 @ 10:36am]

I have been tired of the old boys for nearly twenty years Ccccc so believe me, I know. But Steele has me seriously thinking about re-upping again...if they are actually gonna fight for a change I would be glad to help them. But I will not carry water for RINOS -my view is the same as Reagan's in that if there is 80% agreement then join common cause. The remaining differences can always be hashed out later on but this "political perfection" crap that so many idealists seek never translates into victory in the political arena. [circa January 31, 2009 @ 10:42am]

I agree Ttttt but for the first time in eons I am actually optimistic that the GOP may be starting to get it again. [circa January 31, 2009 @ 6:56am]

With that in mind, I have decided that the often-mentioned and long-completed thread on the necessary third way in politics{1} will be posted on February 6, 2009.

So that is where I am at now folks, strongly considering something I have not given even a second's thought to for over twelve years after the results of a few days ago.

Note:

{1} To my knowledge (and I may be mistaken), this was the last time I mentioned the piece on this humble weblog:

But that point aside, the originally planned posting will be done soon -though I may lead off tomorrow's new blogging cycle with the oft-mentioned posting on the needed third way in politics.

I am not sure right now how I plan to do that and will basically decide on a whim tomorrow depending on if I am motivated to finish the aforementioned material into a bloggable piece or not at that time or thereabouts. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 21, 2008)]

Points to Ponder:

Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. [Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, May 7, 1998 more than ten years before he was caught cheating on his own taxes who now wants the clemency he would have denied to others]

In response to an email inquiry for my opinion on the following article:

Justice, Mercy, and Capital Punishment (Archbishop Charles Chaput OFM)

My answer as sent out yesterday with a few tweaks here and there is presented below:

With all due respect, Archbishop Chaput is full of it when he claims that there is no evidence that the death penalty deters behaviour. I went over the studies that show otherwise about a year and a half ago. Whatever benefit of the doubt that we might give the late Pope John Paul II on this matter there is no doubt now and Chaput needs to get with the program. The blending of capital punishment and abortion is pathetic of course but Chaput's claim that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent is blatantly false.

More could be noted but that is my first impression -the article is poorly written as it appeals to emotion rather than reason and I give lower grades to those who do this particularly when they would on other issue discourage people from arguing in the same fashion.

Biden the Putz Part MCMLXXXIV or thereabout but Quayle was an idiot merely for misspelling potato

yet so clear
my loving dear
have no fear
I am here

in me you can confide
from the noise outside
that you wish to hide
I will protect you
[Written on October 6, 2008]

What's So Bad About Socialism Anyway?

This bit from the article summarizes it quite well:

If you believe in the freedom of the press, the right to belong to a political party of your choice, the due process of law, and/or private property, then Che Guevara was a monster, plain and simple.

Readers can observe what is happening with the whole President Barack Obama vs. Rush Limbaugh controversy{1} that the idea of freedom of the media is somewhat at stake here. Or as I noted earlier this morning in another media format:

Well remember XXXXXX, the real threat to the nation is a guy on the radio not a whackjob president of a country which is trying to get nuclear weapons to wipe other countries off the map with to advance "the religion of peace" and who furthermore denies the Holocaust and gets his views about Jews from the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Someone should tell President Hussein that the phrase about keeping friends close and enemies closer is a figure of speech and not to be taken literally.

Carter II is early on looking somewhat like Carter I with the pandering to extremists in the middle east. I wonder if we will have another hostage situation at this rate -whatever one says about GWB these sorts would never have tried that sort of thing on his watch. With BHO though who the hell knows.

And that is where we are at now folks, with socialism in the form of federal bailouts being the new chic along with presidents who have more respect for sponsors of state terrorism than for opinionated radio personalities.{2} it does not portend for good things politically in the short term.

Notes:

{1} Whatever one thinks of Rush Limbaugh, he has and has maintained the largest audience in talk radio history for two decades now. He has the right to be heard even if his opinion goes against the current political zeitgeist. of lockstep socialism which as Claude Frederic Bastiat so astutely noted nearly 160 years ago is merely the communist tree in an early stage of growth.

{2} See footnote one.

With President Barack Obama repealing by executive order last Friday the Mexico City policy of President Ronald Reagan{1} allowing for foreign organizations that performed abortions to receive federal aid, it seems appropriate to restate without ambiguity the position of this writer on the subject of abortion; ergo we remind readers of what we wrote two years ago on the matter as being our most detailed exposition thus far on the fundamental rights of man, common law principles, and how abortion relates to them. Here is the link from the archives for those who are interested:


On Fundamental Rights, Common Law Principles, and Abortion (circa February 1, 2007)

And here are a few tidbits to provide a taste to whet the reader's appetite a bit on the approach taken to the subject in that posting:

In the usual round of calls for "celebration" of a legal case that directly violates one of the three fundamental rights of man, the predictable "stare decisis" canard was brought out in some circles to justify the decision of the Supreme Court in 1992's Planned Parenthood vs. Casey decision upholding Roe vs. Wade. This is in essence an indirect appeal to common law to justify this stance as that is where stare decisis has its legal foundation. A problem with this premise is that it ignores certain key factors which went into proper common law interpretation...

[I]f stare decisis is a core principle of the common law, than one has to look to how that principle was understood in common law and not merely say it applies without providing any evidences...

[C]onsider the theory[...] of fundamental rights which I have reiterated at this weblog not to mention developed further[...] in light of contemporary realities and applied to a whole plethora of issues in years past. The premise is that there is a gift from God given to us which encompasses the physical (life), intellectual (faculties), and moral (production) spheres of existence. This gift precedes all human laws and was the basis on which all human laws were constructed to begin with -whether those who constructed them realized it or not. From there a need to know what law actually is comes into play since to argue anything on the basis of stare decisis requires knowing what the function of law is...

If we take seriously (i) Claude Frederic Bastiat's theory on the fundamental rights of man as well as (ii) the words of the Declaration of Independence on which the American Republic was founded on, not to mention (iii) the proper understanding of common law as a check against encroaching upon other persons or their property, then the idea of applying stare decisis to the Roe vs. Wade court interpolation of a presumed "right" to abortion is too ludicrous to be taken seriously...

There is plenty more in the above link but these samplings provide a small glimpse into my mind on this matter and why I would find President Obama's executive order repealing the Mexico City Policy so unspeakably a perversion of law not to mention a violation of the fundamental rights of man as well as (for those reasons) unambiguously evil. And that is the bottom line really.

Note:

{1} President Reagan instituted the policy which was repealed by President Clinton and reinstituted by the second President Bush.

Revealed: the letter Obama team hope will heal Iran rift

This just goes to show that the old mantra about educating leftists but not being able to teach them how to think is still operative. I cannot imagine what President Obama and his associates think will come out of this except to embolden someone who has been a state sponsor of terrorism against our troops and others, has said he wants to wipe Israel off the map, and who has denied the Holocaust on not a few occasions.

We are truly in the hands of geopolitically naive (at best) people and lets just say I am not thinking for the best on this right now (to put it nicely).

Hollow victory: Republicans deliver slap in the face to Barack Obama (UK Telegraph)

Unlike the Democrats who egregiously abused this option in the Senate during the tenure of President George W. Bush{1}, the Republicans in the Senate would be well within the right to use the filibuster for what it was intended for: to stop legislation from getting to the floor for a vote. And I for one hope they do it because this boondoggle will do nothing to help the economy -only line the pockets of political prostitutes and attempt to enslave more people to the Democratic party welfare voting block. Show some spine Senate Republicans and that goes for you also Senator John McCain.

Note:

{1} Or to reference one of the times in the past where I spoke on the issue of judicial filibustering:

[T]here is no provision in proper Constitutional thought for judicial filibustering... [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 8, 2005)]

No more needs to be noted on this than that; ergo that is all I will say for now.

Points to Ponder:
(For Preserving the Historical Record on Iraq)

I don't normally include action items in posts, but in this case I'm going to. Here's the thing--the persistent lie that Bush lied about Iraq's WMDs in order to get the American people to support the war has reached the status of Established Truth. It is, however, a lie. And there is a simple and effective way to counter it.

So, in order to counter it, I'm going to ask you to do two things, neither of which will take up much time. The first assignment is to bring up a Google search window and type in three words: Clinton Iraq 1998. Once you run that search, you will find a treasure trove of quotes from the ancien regime regarding Iraq and the reasons Saddam should be pushed off a cliff.

Poke around in the stories you will find, and you will find yourself illuminated on the subject of Iraq's WMD programs like never before. You will read Madeline Albright arguing that the United States should attack Iraq, and you will read Sandy Berger and William Cohen--Clinton administration figures all--agreeing with her.

You will read a tantalizing quote from Berger arguing that pre-emption is a proper doctrine in a world in which stateless terrorism has become the number one national security threat.

I want you to remember that search string--Clinton Iraq 1998. For good measure, you can add Ohio State to it and you'll zero in on an episode you've probably forgotten. [Bryan Preston as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa June 17, 2004)]

I originally intended to post this in late 2007 but for a variety of reasons it was overlooked. As the subject matter (if not the article itself) is still apropo, I have decided to tend to the matter at this time so without further ado...

Middle-Class Dream Eludes African American Families Many Blacks Worse off Than Their Parents, Study Says (Michael A. Fletcher)

Those who wonder why I have more respect for prostitutes than I do for much of the mainstream media need only consider the above article and the survey it intends to cover.

Nearly half of African Americans born to middle-income parents in the late 1960s plunged into poverty or near-poverty as adults, according to a new study -- a perplexing finding that analysts say highlights the fragile nature of middle-class life for many African Americans.

"There is a lot of downward mobility among African Americans," Mincy said. "We don't have an explanation."

Well, how about the problems of black culture overall being one such reason??? That is certainly the message of concerned parties such as Bill Cosby and MC Hammer to name two of many that could be mentioned.

Revisiting Three Archive Posts Dealing With Fundamentals of Logic and Making a Good Argument:

In years past it was the misfortune of your host to have a parting of ways with old friends over matters that should not have been. However, he at the time was not aware except in some vague fashion that certain good friends had serious problems when it came to dialogue on subjects outside of their comfort zone. Now we all have issues like this so it helps at times to remember that there are valid and invalid ways to approach such subjects. And while the incidents I refer to above unfortunately did not resolve themselves in a manner that would have been preferable to me, one of them nonetheless provided material for the composition of three posts which go over fundamental factors for dialogue. I will link to each one and explain very briefly what they are about:

On the Difference Between Objective Meaning and Subjective Intention (circa February 27, 2007)

The bottom line of any non-normative{1} (read: objective) handling of a subject matter is to separate what is said from what is intended. A person can intend something that they do not well deal with in explaining themselves. However, too often people confuse their normative{2} (read: subjective) intention is what they actually manifest in their writings or public statements. The above posting explains the difference between the two and why the distinction is such an important one to make.

On the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Fallacious Appeals Thereof (circa March 8, 2007)

Essentially there are valid and invalid ways to appeal to an authority and the above posting explains now to differentiate between the two.

On Ad Hominem, Revisiting Argumentum Ad Vericundiam, and Considering the Core Principle That Is Behind Any Argumentation/Logical Fallacy (circa June 1, 2007)

Contrary to what most people may think, there are valid{3} and invalid ways to utilize the argument to the man (Lat. argumentum ad vericunduam) and the above posting explains how to differentiate the valid from the invalid usage of that approach to argument.

Anyway, from time to time it helps to revisit these sorts of fundamental elements of dialogue and constructing valid arguments and as this writer sensed the value of doing so at this time; ergo that is what this post you are reading has sought to do.

Notes:

{1} Non-Normative: Deals with what is verifiable by the examination of facts which are capable of resolving the issue and therefore is properly viewed as objective in nature. [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG (circa August 21, 2006)]

{2} Normative: Deals with what is "better" or "worse" and therefore involves a value judgment which is properly viewed as subjective in nature. [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG (circa August 21, 2006)]

{3} The prudence of attempting this approach or lack thereof aside for a moment.

Points to Ponder:

If this was 1908 it would be the buggy whip industry claiming they were "too big to fail" likewise when the light bulb was the next big thing the Kerosene industry begging for funds cause they were "too bit to fail." Or in the 1970's when computers begin becoming better and better and on the verge of being in homes if the slide rule industry had applied for aid cause of the "too big to fail" rationale and now we have the auto dealers saying it. At what size exactly does one qualify as being "too big to fail"??? What happened to letting actions and responsibility go hand in hand??? [Musings circa January 10, 2009]

Veteran Psychiatrist Calls Liberals Mentally Ill

If not for a lack of time, I could peruse the archives of this weblog and point to many examples of my saying the same thing.

An interesting assessment of some of the strengths and weaknesses of the outgoing president and his administration.

Points to Ponder:

Government is the only enterprise in the world which expands in size when its failures increase. [Judge Janice Rogers Brown]

Miscellaneous Threads Worth Noting:

Two quick ones while we are in the mood...

Illinois House Votes to Impeach Blagovich

You read that right:

In a dramatic display of anger and solidarity over a political scandal that has made Illinois a national laughingstock, lawmakers on Friday voted 114-1 to impeach disgraced Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

It's the first time in the state's history that the Illinois House has voted to impeach its governor.

How much longer before this comes back to bite if not soon-to-be President Barack Obama or others in his soon-to-be administration{1} remains to be seen. Next up we have the disillusioned left which are not making things easy on the soon-to-be President either:

Obama Pressed Hard From the Left

Here is just a taste to whet the appetite a bit:

This is not about losing a vote. It’s about losing a weapon. The stimulus package is Obama’s first big legislative push, the one he absolutely cannot afford not to win, on his terms. Winning in style (think 75 or 80 Senate votes) enhances his power when the hard stuff begins.

That is in snapshot form a good analysis because a president who cannot start off solidly on getting his agenda items through will struggle to do so later on. President Obama won under what could very well prove to be impossible for him in that many who voted for him did not know where he stood on issues or did so only because they were dissatisfied with the incumbent.

Essentially, many who worry about an Obama and Democratic congress steamrolling things through do not often consider that what gives the Democrats the majority in congress are some seats held by conservative Reagan "Blue Dog" Democrats. The coalition in other words is not as all-powerful as many present it to be and Republicans would do well to remember this as well as a lot of what we noted in our election analysis should be how conservatives should proceed on these matters beginning on January 20, 2009.

Note:

{1} My money is on Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel by the way.

Dems will save the day
Reid, Pelosi, Obama
Hittin' the kool aid?
[Written on 10/16/08]

Sandro Magister on the Vatican, Israel, and Hamas

The bottom line really folks is that the Holy See does not understand what geopolitical dialogue is{1} if if thinks you can dialogue with someone whose stated mission is to wipe you out of existence. What is there to talk about, "please do not kill me but if I let you take a kidney and amputate my left foot can we be friends?"

There are some things that are non-negotiable in dialogue apriori and one is that you recognize the right of existence of the other party. Hamas cannot even take it that far; ergo they cannot be dialogued with. Period. It is time the Holy See woke itself up and faced reality on this issue.

Note:

{1} I have written a fair amount on dialogue over the years but it is pointless to go over any of it now if the basic principle above is not recognized first.

I wipe the sleep from my eyes
Remembering all the lies
Like dung covered with flies
Is this election year

Thank God I'm an independent
With the M's nowhere near a pennant
The neighbour's a delinquent tenant
I should count my blessings
[Written on October 6, 2008]

Points to Ponder:

Learning how to think straight, as opposed to what values and opinions to hold, is the crucial part of education. [Dr. Walter E. Williams]

Teaching Economics

Dr. Walter Williams' article covers some basics for rational thought and analysis of economics issues and I highly recommend it.

Should old acquaintance be forgot,
and never brought to mind ?
Should old acquaintance be forgot,
and auld lang syne ?

For auld lang syne, my dear,
for auld lang syne,
we'll take a cup o’ kindness yet,
for auld lang syne.

And surely you’ll buy your pint cup !
And surely I’ll buy mine !
And we'll take a cup o’ kindness yet,
for auld lang syne.

For auld lang syne, my dear,
for auld lang syne,
we'll take a cup o’ kindness yet,
for auld lang syne.

We two have run about the slopes,
and picked the daisies fine ;
But we’ve wandered many a weary foot,
since auld lang syne.

For auld lang syne, my dear,
for auld lang syne,
we'll take a cup o’ kindness yet,
for auld lang syne.

We two have paddled in the stream,
from morning sun till dine† ;
But seas between us broad have roared
since auld lang syne.

For auld lang syne, my dear,
for auld lang syne,
we'll take a cup o’ kindness yet,
for auld lang syne.

And there’s a hand my trusty friend !
And give us a hand o’ thine !
And we’ll take a right good-will draught,
for auld lang syne.

For an understanding of the lyrics to this song verse by verse and the reason why we traditionally post it at the start of every year, see the thread connected to this thread for details.

May your year be blessed and prosperous!!!

I do not have much to say right now except to post a reminder for those who have forgotten about what we wrote in expository form last year on the subject of auld lang syne and its meaning. I will sing those words again at midnight tonight as the year passes into memory and the new one unfolds. It seems fitting therefore to remind readers of what interpretation I put on those words and how I view the significance of the event that will unfold at that time.

In the meantime, I will program this blog to post the customary annual lyric posting of auld lang syne at midnight tonight and wish to all who read this post and there loved ones a happy new year and many blessings in the year about to unfold before us.

RNC draft rips Bush's bailouts

Just a taste before we comment...

Republican Party officials say they will try next month to pass a resolution accusing President Bush and congressional Republican leaders of embracing "socialism," underscoring deep dissension within the party at the end of Mr. Bush's administration...

"We can't be a party of small government, free markets and low taxes while supporting bailouts and nationalizing industries, which lead to big government, socialism and high taxes at the expense of individual liberty and freedoms," said Solomon Yue, an Oregon member and co-sponsor of a resolution that criticizes the U.S. government bailouts of the financial and auto industries.

But you can be a small party government by running up the largest deficits in US history under a Republican president and congress??? Sorry guys but I am not convinced since you talk this way when not in power and then act like the Democrats with no concern for Constitutional principles when you are in power with a Republican president. As long as the president is a Democrat you do decently{1} but put a Republican in there and it is disgraceful. Tell me why you can be trusted this time to do things right if you get power back other than because Obama will be president. What happens if he fails to win re-election, then what??? Tell me and others what we can go on to trust you to do the right thing with Republican control of the government when you have no recent history of even decent performance in this area.

Talk is cheap.

Note:

{1} Not great but at least decently: that is my verdict on the 1/1995-1/2001 congresses under President Clinton. The congresses under President Bush from 1/2001-1/2007 were absolutely disgraceful and it makes all this talk about being the party of "small government" as hard to swallow as five star Chinese hot sauce.

Heaven help us! PM panic over country's defences (in 1978)

Of course Britain got Margaret Thatcher as PM not long after that. Let us hope that we will not be saying something similar after four years of the incoming Obama administration.

On the Palestinians and Israel: 

One nice thing about gmail is it has email and chat archives which (like the archives of this weblog) are very helpful in reminding your host of arguments made, positions taken, or predictions prognosticated upon in years past.{1} With the current response by Israel to Palestinian rocket attacks from Gaza, it seemed appropriate to revisit some{2} of our past statements on these matters many of which were not put on this weblog but which will nonetheless help in supplying additional colour to how your host views these matters. 

Oh and though the content of the quotes is the same, I did clean up the spelling and grammar glitches common to the more informal chat forum ones -particularly the really horrendous spelling and grammar in the first quoted source. To differentiate matters a bit, the chat and email sources will be in blue font and the weblog stuff in dark blue. Without further ado... 

[W]e agreed basically that whatever the motivations of the Israeli government was in turning over Gaza (and we know why they did that) that strategically, it was good for one key reason wait a minute...am mixing the story lines..with the Palestinian situation we agreed that whatever the motivations were for turning over Gaza (and it was US pressure as we know) that in the end it will help them have the arguments not to surrender the West Bank or Golan Heights...

[B]asically, they gave over an area with settlements and development with an economic base to some utter cretins who have demolished it thus the Palestinians cannot be trusted to govern themselves as they cannot even run a friccin 711 (except in this country of course lol). [Excerpt from an Email Chat (circa July 20, 2006)] 

And this next one which requires a small clarification; nonetheless... 

Israel gave over Gaza and the Palestinians proved they cannot self-govern hell, the only Palestinians who can run a simple 711 are American immigrants the rest are as useless as forward gears on a French tank. [Excerpt from an Email Chat (circa July 28, 2006)] 

It should be noted for the sake of context that those words were written before the election of Nicolas Sarkozy and a paradigm shift in our approach to France.{3} 

When writing on the Nobel Peace Prize being given to Sen. Al Gore in 2007 and some of the history of the award, criticism of some past recipients, etc, it occasioned these words among others from my keyboard: 

It stands to reason that any noble intention that the late Alfred Nobel had with this award would not always be realized when there is some secret committee doing the awarding. And whatever problems there are with some of the past recipients of the award, they are to some extent explainable. I will now note my problems with some of the recipients in the 107 year history of this award being given out... 

 --Yasser Arafat (1994) 

 Yasser Arafat was a terrorist who never did one substantial thing in his whole miserable existence to advance the cause of the Palestinian people or seek real peace. This made the 1994 awarding a laugher. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 16, 2007)] 

The basic principle animating this was outlined earlier this year after one of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "Israel will soon disappear" comments; ergo I revisit it at this time: 

I do take a very simple approach to the subject of Israel: they would be foolish to play nice with people who wish to see them destroyed. That does not mean progress cannot be made but enemies who vow your death should renounce such views and demonstrate that they take those renunciations seriously or else to hell with them. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 3, 2008)] 

And of course the principles enunciated in the above excerpts admit of a variety of applications: 

[There's] nothing I love more than running across this kind of crap from "Internet Mecha" 

[The offspring of the European terrorists who originally stole our ancestral lands are guilty of receiving this stolen property. Receiving stolen property is no less a crime than stealing it.] 

[W]hatever one wants to say about the Mexican American war, the bottom line is, they lost. Besides, the McElhinney Gaza Scholastic Postulate applies here namely: if they cannot run Mexico without screwing it up royally, what makes them think they can handle greater land responsibility? (The postulate formed after Israel gave Gaza to the Palestinians who have fooked it up royally yet still want more territory to run.) [Excerpt from an Email Chat (circa August 21, 2008)] 

I trust by revisiting those comments my view of the recent actions taken by Israel against Gaza is adequately manifested; ergo that is all I will say on the matter for the present time. 

Notes: 

{1} Email and chat archive stuff while valuable as a resource is nonetheless not viewed by us in the same way as weblog archives because we usually only blog on matters when we have arrived at solidity of view on the matter whereas with email and chat correspondence there can be a degree of freewheeling in positions taken, analysis, or (and especially) predictions that we would not take in blogging on a subject matter. 

{2} There are a few others but they have been omitted from inclusion in this posting due to lack of time and the desire to not tangent out too far. 

{3} [P]olitics is the art of the achievable not the art of the perfect and I am satisfied for the time being to cease and desist any derogatory comments about either Sweden or France while I watch to see if things actually improve there as a result of this significant political paradigm shift. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 30, 2007)]

2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved

Of course this writer wrote on the fallacy of so-called "global warming" prior to 2008{1} but it does not hurt to remind readers from time to time particularly considering how much the fraud was embraced by not only incoming President Barack Obama but also Senator John McCain{2} in the last presidential election.

Notes:

{1} On the Fraud of "Global Warming" With Greg Mockeridge and Kevin Tierney (circa April 13, 2006)

[I]ndeed readers of this weblog know that we pronounced on the global warming matter some time ago[...] but it does not hurt to remind readers of this considering the magnitude of the confidence trick many are attempting to pull with the so-called "global warming" schtick. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 29, 2007)]

{2} On the subject of the environment, McCain gets a B. If not for his stance on global warming which is (at best) an unproven hypothesis, he would get an A. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 26, 2008)]

Jibjab's 2008 Year In Review

I was rather cynical when this poem was written; nonetheless...

'its just the beginning of the message we send
a political season winding down to its end
I will not raise your taxes my friend
just those who make more than you

autumn's arrived coloured leaves on the trees
the Seahawks keep losing we need a reprieve
sitting with santa in pictures say "cheese"
with vertically challenged elves
[Written on 10/14/08]

Miscellaneous Musings on Threads of Interest:

This post was mostly drafted back on December 12th and deals with the subject of sports -one that has been such a downer this year that I have said next to nothing on it at all on this humble weblog. Nonetheless...

Jack Zduriencik's first trade is a good one (Steve Kelley)

I waited to see something substantive from this new general manager before saying anything. It is based on basically five frustrating years of watching a team make one disaster of a mistake after another. But Steve Kelley -a columnist whom I disagree with about as often as I agree- really summarizes my view of this trade well and I am not just referring to the Abbot and Costello analogy at the beginning of the column.{1}

New Mariners GM Jack Zduriencik comes out dealing at winter meetings (Larry Stone)

Ken Griffey Jr. was one of the most naturally talented players in baseball history in his prime. Injuries have robbed him of much of the past eight years{2} but at 39 he still has plenty in the tank. He is not gonna hit 50 homers anymore but at Safeco he might do 35-40. The field was literally built for his swing after all. Bring him to town, pay him reasonably, keep him off the field{3} as designated hitter (DH), and it can only help this team which has a serious need for a left handed power bat.

Gary Payton trying to get NBA team in Seattle

May you be as intense and relentless on this project as you were on the court back in the day Gary. Seriously.

Hawks send coach out a winner in his final game

It was nice to see the Hawks put together a battling game this season after the rash of injuries to key players and the lowered morale of losing so many close games. Mike Holmgren is the best coach the Hawks ever had and he made this team respectable as well as annual contenders. I look forward to their return to respectability next season but will always be thankful for what Holmgren did for not only the Hawks but for pro football in Seattle. Now if only someone can do something about the Washington Huskies but I digress.

Notes:

{1} Though that does not hurt of course :)

{2} Here is his stat chart. As readers can seem except for 2000, 2005, and 2007 Griffey had decent numbers -though the latter saw Griffey hit a mere 35 and 30 home runs respectively due to injuries but at least he was able to do something. (In 2000 his hitting 40 was seen as a down year based on his past track record but he has not duplicated that feat since.)

One reason he has not done so is playing him in the outfield where the injury bug has simply been too pervasive a problem for him. (The National League where the Cincinnati Reds play having no DH.) At DH Griffey could probably play five more years and at 32 homers a year on average (if he stays healthy) he could break the "record" set by that steroid bloater unethical cheater Barry Bonds and restore respect to a tarnished record.

{3} He is not the defensive dynamo he once was and though still good with the glove, there is too much risk of injury at this point to put him in any position except DH.

allowing me to be me
who else could I hope to be
as Ronnie Van Zant's "Freebird" was free
that's my goal in life to some extent

woke up radio on to my favourite band
dreamed that I was lucky but woke up cold in hand
cracked open a Guinness, steak that is canned
obla dee, obla dah, life goes on
[Written on 10/15/08]

Points to Ponder:
(On Gun Control)

If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying — that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 — establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime. [The Ninety-Seventh Congress: Report on the Senate Subcommittee of the Constitution (circa February 1982)]

Paul M. Weyrich died today

This was brought to my attention by Feddie over at Southern Appeal. Weyrich was the first to lead the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation. In remembering him, these words were used by the current Heritage President Ed Feulne:

Moral courage was a defining trait of Paul himself. On any policy issue that turned on a core principle, he never failed to take a public stand–regardless of how that stand might affect his professional or personal relationships. A political animal of the highest order, he always chose principle over any temporary “strategic” abandonment of principle designed to win some transitory political victory.

Having for my part taken public stands on core principles that have affected my professional and personal friendships over the years, I can recognize and appreciate others who manifested this core ethical principle whether I agreed with them positionally or not. May Mr. Weyrich rest in peace, may his labours receive a just reward, and may his example be one which gains greater currency in this age of growing incivility.

Points to Ponder:

A human group transforms itself into a crowd when it suddenly responds to a suggestion rather than to reasoning, to an image rather than to an idea, to an affirmation rather than to proof, to the repetition of a phrase rather than to arguments, to prestige rather than to competence. [Jean-Francois Revel]

"Rider Reform Revisited" Dept.

I noted in the immediate aftermath of the election{1} that I was thinking of revisiting two initiative ideas I had gone over to varying degrees of depth over the years. However, I wanted to make sure I finished and published my musings on the election which were completed about a week ago{2} before addressing the initiative ideas I mentioned in passing back on November 5th of this year.{3}

As far as the aforementioned initiatives go, the second one I want to mull over a bit more before putting a sketch to but the first was sketched out in some detail almost five years ago. Here is what I wrote off the cuff in the aftermath of President Bush's 2004 State of the Union Address when I remember bristling over the lack of concern for budgetary matters that said speech contained. Without further ado...

[H]ere are my proposals for making [the rider] 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 permanently 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.

These practices would insure that riders were proposed far less often and rarely enacted if they were because it would put our representatives on the hook and accountable for every proposal they voted on. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 20, 2004)]

Well obviously to the reader who knows their civics I made a small glitch in the above formulation -something that can happen when ideas are thrown together in rough draft form as that one was. The glitch was presenting it in a federal context with the idea of a presidential line item veto. So a constitutional amendment would be needed to secure that first. But in the meantime, everything noted above could apply to state legislatures and states where governors have line item veto capabilities. So that is what I hope to present to someone at the state level where I live to fashion it into the language that would withstand a court challenge should it make the ballot and pass.

I am sick and tired of seeing nothing done with growing budgets no matter which party is in power. It is evident to me that the leviathans of state and federal levels need to be starved to death of funds if they are to be shrunk in size but no political party has the balls to do anything about it. Ergo, this proposal for rider reform and the idea to follow this one which would take an even stronger weapon to government bureaucracy and which to my knowledge would work at both federal and state levels without any additional preparation being needed at the federal level as in the case of the proposal so outlined above.

Notes:

{1} I may however in that interim and as time allows for it sketch out a rough draft of the second of two initiative ideas I want to get on the ballot for Washington State in the 2010 election. (The first idea was sketched out nearly five years ago on this humble weblog and may be revisited again in the interim prior to the election as well.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 5, 2008)]

{2} On How To Approach the Presidential Election Results of 2008 and Analyzing the Political Trends for 2008 and Beyond (circa December 9, 2008)

{3} Ultrabriefly on the Election Results (circa November 5, 2008)

On the Passing of Cardinal Avery Dulles SJ:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

I was nearly finished with a posting yesterday on other subject matters when I received the word. Upon hearing this news, I felt compelled to set that material aside and focus on the subject to be covered in this posting. That other posting will be put up in the coming week when I feel inclined to do so but this matter in my mind takes precedence for reasons that hopefully will be come clear.

To start with, someone who has gone though as many deaths of family, close friends, and major influences in my life as I have in the past eight years{1} gets to the point to where they can become rather unaffected by such things. But in the case of Avery Dulles, this one is different for a variety of reasons. And as Cardinal Dulles' passing happens to tie into a general principle long propounded at this weblog and in other places, it seems appropriate to touch on both the principle as well as the man himself.

Not even two months ago, I noted in blogging a commemoration of an important yet often not known papal encyclical letter dealing with the subjects of faith and reason how close so many of my views were with those of the now-late Avery Dulles. Indeed it is no exaggeration to say that if someone wanted to know with ninety percent certainty or more how I would view any given theological issue, all one would have to do to read Dulles' work -something I noted back in October when touching on the aforementioned encyclical commemoration in a footnote.{2}

I realized quite some time ago that after I had studied a theological issue and taken a reasoned position that Dulles and I were so frequently in agreement that it was literally uncanny.{3} I did not study much of his work directly in my more formative period on these matters so it is not because of direct input the lions share of the time. But at the same time, there has to be more to this than a mere coincidence. I believe it shows that when you place importance on reason and logic as natural God-given lights and do not denigrate them, that they are tools that can serve you well in coming to a grasp of knowledge and how to use it to one's profit.

Of course, once I realized how common this occurrence was, I started reading Dulles' writings on subjects where I had already come to my own conclusions after study and reflection: something I did not consciously do for areas where I was still uncertain. The reason for this was to avoid the tendency that so many people can have of intellectual laziness -a malady to which no one can claim immunity from at least potentially. I have never been one to let others do my thinking for me{4} and this is a trait I noticed that Dulles also shared.

Avery Dulles was one who would go wherever the evidence led essentially and did this within the context of a very profound faith. But having noted similarities in the rational approach on various matters, I want to take a moment and distance myself from the late cardinal in the realm of faith. I am not going to claim that my faith is anywhere near as profound as his was before he shed this mortal coil and the distance is probably greater than I currently realize. But hand in hand with faith in some form or another should go concern for ethics and principles and His Eminence was imbued with a concern for both of these things much as your host is.

Now many who have already or who will eulogize him in the coming weeks have themselves evinced no concern for these matters whatsoever{5} but your host will not be among them. Instead, I will endeavour to remember Avery Dulles in the future as I do in the present conscious of what I have obtained from him in the refining of my intellectual outlook on matters theological{6}, of his focus on being a public thinker who challenged conventional views regardless of the source{7}, and in other areas which may be mentioned another time if I am so inclined to do so.

Actually, there is one other area I am going to mention right now because in light of the current age of incivility, this characteristic of His Eminence is one that bears noting: showing patience as well as due respect for opposing viewpoints. Avery Dulles the theologian made many impressions on me but Avery Dulles the Christian imprinted upon me the importance of this important factor when in years past I had not always been as careful as I have tried in subsequent years to be in this area.{8}

Much more could be said but I am at a loss to organize my thoughts on this anymore than I already have so I will take leave of this subject for now after noting two more things. First, I will pray for him to the extent that my pathetic efforts will be either efficacious or even needed and ask him for his prayers for those of us in much greater need than he likely is. I also have created a tag for all Dulles related posts to this weblog both previously blogged as well as for this one and for use in perpetuity. But as he has passed on now, it seems appropriate to recall some of the final public words this tremendous thinker put forth when he released his farewell lecture at Fordham University where he had held a teaching chair for twenty years. Without further ado:

Suffering and diminishment are not the greatest of evils but are normal ingredients in life, especially in old age. They are to be expected as elements of a full human existence. Well into my 90th year I have been able to work productively. As I become increasingly paralyzed and unable to speak, I can identify with the many paralytics and mute persons in the Gospels, grateful for the loving and skillful care I receive and for the hope of everlasting life in Christ. If the Lord now calls me to a period of weakness, I know well that his power can be made perfect in infirmity. “Blessed be the name of the Lord!”

And with that I take leave of this subject for now making my own one for the late Cardinal Avery Dulles a prayer from the Roman Missal.

Lord please remember Avery Dulles. In baptism he died with Christ: may he also share his resurrection, when Christ will raise our mortal bodies and make them like his own in glory. [Roman Missal: Eucharistic Prayer III From Masses for the Dead]

Notes:

{1} I do not want to say anymore on the subject at this time than that.

{2} See footnote two of that note for details from the archives of this blog if interested.

{3} This pattern is one I first noticed about seven to eight years ago.

{4} Well, almost never anyway. (It has been years since I accepted anything uncritically.)

{5} To say nothing of their contempt for such things as reason and logic in reality as opposed to their paying lip service to the concepts through mindless parroting of church texts from one era or another speaking of these matters being of significance.

{6} Particularly in the area of church models -one of the few where there was not only influence from Avery Dulles but of a direct nature in my understanding and approach to this very intricate ecclesiplogical subject matter. Here are threads posted to this weblog in years past in order of oldest to newest where this subject was treated in some detail:

An Outline of Various Church Models Throughout History --Parts I-V (circa November 23-24, 2003)

More on Church Models (circa July 9, 2005)

{7} Including from the Vatican: something today's purveyors of an obsessive uncritical cult of the pope mentality towards every Vatican utterance either currently or from the past would do well to consider.

{8} Nor do I harbour any illusions that I am completely free from need of additional work in this area lest anyone wonder.

Camille Paglia on various issues (Salon Magazine)

Though she and I often disagree, I have often found Camille Paglia to be an interesting and provocative read. On the above thread, she covers:

--The subject of President Obama's pledge of federal money for infrastructure repairs which she applauds as well as the approach to using computers in classrooms.{1}

--The comportment of President Obama{2} thus far with his appointments -something she is pleased with.{3}

--Her question with regards to the appointment of Sen. Hillary Clinton to the position of Secretary of State.{4}

--Her views on the massacre in Mumbai and on (by implication) national security issues.{5}

--Her assessment of Gov. Sarah Palin's preparation of sorts for 2012{6} and she really lets Dick Cavett have it not to mention the ivory tower elitist mentality that permeates how so many of the msm sorts act.{7}

--Her assessment of the antics of the gay lobby on the subject of homosexual so-called "marriage"{8}

--Some musings on Christmas carols which are...interesting to say the least.{9}

What are the views of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum on these issues??? Check the footnotes of this posting for details on that and be sure to give Camille's thread above a review.

Notes:

{1} I am not sure I agree with her on this unless it involves contracting the work out to private companies to do. I cannot stand the idea of the federal government running anything of a business nature because they will inexorably screw it up as always. But if she favours the use of private contractors for this infrastructure work to be done, then we could be simpatico with her on this one. Certainly improvements on this score are needed, the question is more of the how they are to be done sort than the do they need to be done ones because that they are needed is in my mind pretty self-evident.

On the computers issue, we are in agreement most definitely and I speak as someone who went through the whole public school system and got the lions share of my knowledge through my own outside the classroom efforts.

{2} Yes he is the President-elect but barring extraordinary circumstances occurring, he will be president next month so we at Rerum Novarum will refer to him as such now.

{3} She is right that so far President Obama has conducted himself well.

{4} I was wondering much the same thing myself.

{5} Of which I completely concur.

{6} On this she and I are in agreement. I should note in the interest of disclosure that Paglia was one of the few feminists who stood up for Gov. Palin during the election and gave her a lot more credit than the msm as a rule was willing to do. This is to her credit and it illustrates why even in disagreeing with her at times (sometimes diametrically so) that I read her work with interest.

{7} I am one hundred percent in agreement with her on her disdain for this mentality of which we saw in spades during this election in how Gov. Palin was treated (whatever one thinks of Gov. Palin or her politics this treatment was disgusting).

{8} For those readers who wonder why I refer to "so-called 'marriage'", I remind them of a principle I have always adhered to which was outlined again recently:

Revisiting the Subject of the Underlying Weltanschauung of "Language Control" (circa November 25, 2008)

Suffice to say, on this issue Paglia and I have some differences of view and I will leave it at that.

{9} On this subject let it suffice to say that when it comes to an atheist's musings on Christmas carols I am somewhat agnostic but intrigued ;-)

Illinois Gov. Blagojevich, chief of staff arrested

Via Drudge we get this story:

Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his chief of staff, John Harris, were arrested by FBI agents on federal corruption charges Tuesday morning.

Blagojevich and Harris were arrested simultaneously at their homes at about 6:15 a.m., according to Frank Bochte of the FBI. Both were transported to FBI headquarters in Chicago.

In one charge related to the appointment of a senator to replace Barack Obama, prosecutors allege that Blagojevich sought appointment for himself as secretary of Health and Human Services in the new Obama administration, or a lucrative job with a union, in exchange for appointing a union-preferred candidate.

Another charge alleges Blagojevich and Harris conspired to demand the firing of Chicago Tribune editorial board members responsible for editorials critical of him in exchange for state help with the sale of Wrigley Field, the Chicago Cubs baseball stadium owned by Tribune Co.

This has to be the biggest news story of the day because it is not often a chief of staff or a governor of a state get arrested while in office -to say nothing about happening on the same day!!! I do not know what to say about this except to let this thing run its natural course and if these guys are convicted, throw the book at them. But as was noted in part of the commentary posted this morning, this is an area which is fair game as long as those who delve into this area do not attempt to use it to run counter to the will of the voters. Or to quote from earlier this morning:

Chronicling specific examples of voter fraud is fine, outlining various connections of unsavoury persons and circumstances with the Obama campaign is also fine. Going over how absolutely disgracefully the msm conducted themselves is also fine as well as problems with fundraising that the Obama campaign had with various donations of a controversial nature. But using any of this as a pre-text for rejecting the verdict of the voters is unacceptable.

But however this turns out, it is not something that can help incoming President Barack Obama. He will be president soon so I will wait to see how he responds to this both at the moment as well as when he is president. He has done nothing of a near-official capacity{1} thus far to give me reason to not give the benefit of the doubt. Whether that changes or not in the future only time will tell.


Note:

{1} Many things were noted during the campaign that gave reason for pause of course but campaiging is different than governing or getting ready to govern; ergo they should be treated differently.

On How To Approach the Presidential Election Results of 2008 and Analyzing the Political Trends for 2008 and Beyond:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

We announced in a previous posting, certain exceptions notwithstanding and at our discretion{1}, that this was the only posting we intend to make on election related issues prior to inauguration day. And while we were planning on a shorter yet comprehensive coverage of this subject in the following posting, frankly we are simply not in the mood to do it. So we have decided to touch briefly on a variety of points which we believe point towards general trends of the electorate. From there we will restate in a very brief fashion{2} our own philosophy on these matters, and also point out some steps we believe need to be undertaken if genuine progress is to be made without the sacrificing of core principles as we move into the next administration of government this coming January 20th. It seems appropriate to touch on these in the order listed so without further ado, let us get to it.

To start with the same sex pseudo "marriage"{3} initiatives failed in every state that ran them including those states which went heavily for the soon-to-be President Barack H. Obama. Similarly in states where affirmative action was on the ballot it was voted down. The Republicans despite this being the worst election season to be a Republican since the 1974 midterm election{4} held down some pretty important seats which many of the talking punditry were proclaiming would be likely lost causes. This factor points towards not some sort of "mandate" for the incoming president{5} and congress but more of a referendum on the present administration.

As far as a supposed "landslide" goes, this was no landslide by objective criteria folks. A "landslide" requires a much larger electoral vote margin than the one that Senator Obama got.{6} And those who denied presidential mandates were in order for Presidents Reagan and Bush Sr. (whose electoral college majorities were much larger than that of the soon-to-be-President Obama) cannot be allowed to engage in double standards on this matter. No, they must be held to ethical consistency even if it means dragging them there kicking and screaming in the process. Having noted those matters at the outset, how should conservatives handle this upcoming paradigm shift of sorts??? In our mind there are a variety of ways that this needs to be approached and we will go over the more pertinent ones right now underlining them for easier text differentiation.

Any attempts to pretend that President Brack H. Obama is not "our president" need to be avoided.

It was both stupid as well as embarrassing to see the deranged antics of the moonbat fringe who played this game with President George W. Bush because they did not like how the election of 2000 turned out. Many of these same sorts will make "holy pilgrimages" to pray at Mecca worship at the next inaugural. Meanwhile, conservatives who are bitter over how the msm handled the election coverage{7} or how badly in spots Senator John McCain ran his campaign or other factors{8} need to set all that aside now. More on this in a moment.

Opposition if it is made at all must be differentiated between that of the president and the country

Far too often we witnessed since 2000 a tactic taken by those who were opposed to the president that resulted in a blurring of distinctions. Meaning, they took opposition to the president so far and to such an extreme that it inexorably became opposition to the country. This is something conservatives need to avoid at all costs. They must oppose President Obama personally where warranted, support him where warranted, and never in any fashion come across as opposing their country in the process.

Avoid taking a "chickenhawk" approach

One thing that really bothered us was the attitudes of those who despised our last two presidents whereby they took issue with the principle of their utilizing the military as opposed to having issues with the use of the military in a particular situation based on how the presidents themselves never served in the military. Conservatives criticized this with President Clinton before he was elected which was of course just fine much as they raised the superior military credentials of President Bush Sr. in 1992 they did the same with Senator Dole in 1996. In an election season this is one thing but arguing this way on the basis of any president using the military is out of line. Your host never took the latter approach when Clinton was president then{9} and he will not with Obama as president now.

Questioning the verdict of the election

There is voter fraud in all elections including both this last one and the one preceding it -though you would not know that to hear the silence from the msm on the last two elections because they got "their guys" in as opposed to the three elections previous to 2006.

Chronicling specific examples of voter fraud is fine, outlining various connections of unsavoury persons and circumstances with the Obama campaign is also fine. Going over how absolutely disgracefully the msm conducted themselves is also fine as well as problems with fundraising that the Obama campaign had with various donations of a controversial nature. But using any of this as a pre-text for rejecting the verdict of the voters is unacceptable.

Part of being not only a good soldier but also a mature human being is knowing not only which battles have been lost but also which battles are worth fighting. I will not go into the physiological realities behind the inverse natures of intensity and duration at this time but battles will need to be fought with the coming administration but ones based on principles. And acting like the spoiled child who throws a temper tantrum after losing a game -as many of the most rabid supporters of the incoming president did for the past eight years- will not help in any fashion.{10}

Blaming the voters

Your host has at times voiced an opinion of the electorate prior to an election that was by no means flattering. But he has never in recent memory{11} blamed the voters afterward. It serves no constructive purpose as what is done is done. There are reasons for this and the GOP needs to do some serious soul searching first and foremost because they gave the public reasons for doing what they did. That is where they can focus and should they do that, they can expect support from independent voters such as your host. If not...well...lets move onto the next subject.

Refocus for the next election

Building on what was just covered, the focus needs to be the next election and we are not talking about 2012 here. No, we are talking about the 2010 midterms which are less than two years away now. We at Rerum Novarum certainly are going to do our part to assist on these matters at various levels of government as we noted recently in our ultra-brief post election comments.{12} We advise all who are not pleased with how this election went to do likewise.

Strategery, Strategery, Strategery

With an incoming Democratic president and a Democratic majority in both houses of the Congress, a lot of issues are going to be pushed -many of them ones that we who did not vote for President Obama and the Democrats do not agree with. The problem is, if we run all over the map and oppose simply to be opposing, that will achieve nothing constructive. And furthermore, it is naive to think that everything they attempt to do we will be able to stop so that also needs to be taken into account.

Basically, we need to decide in how we go about this first of all, what we will fight tooth and nail for: what are the issues which we absolutely must stand up and hold the line on without an iota of compromise. From there, the rest can be categorized into basically (i) things we want to try and force the Democrats on record supporting so we can make election issues on them in 2010, (ii) things of a less significant nature we actually think can be accomplished despite the Democrats having control of the government, (iii) things we need to put out there for the future which we know will not succeed in the soon-to-be present but nonetheless are points of reference for the future of a positive nature.

In other words, we need to strategerize here and not play the same bullshit of those who opposed the outgoing Bush administration on everything and anything simply because they hated President Bush, thought he was Hitler, or whatever.

It is a tall order and those who are presuming that the incoming president is some kind of messianic figure are going to be profoundly disappointed before long. Keep that in mind and do not let their smugness get to you. And remember, politics is the art of the possible not of the perfect. As far as that goes, it is just about time for a final grade on the Bush presidency and as we do with every administration, President Barack Obama will start off with an A grade by us on the day of his inauguration. What he does after that is up to him.

Notes:

{1} I do not intend prior to the publishing of that commentary to say anything about the election unless it is a response to reader email.[...] Furthermore, even after that commentary is published through at least the final months of President Bush's term that is how I intend to approach this matter. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 5, 2008)]

{2} It is probably a certainty that our view as touched on in this posting will be misunderstood with the brevity to be undertaken -and we would gladly after the inauguration clarify the position as the need is perceived to do so of course. But our intention here is to give a general overview for the reader so they have some points of reference in navigating this and other statements we have made over the years on these matters.

{3} We say "pseudo 'marriage'" because your host refuses to concede to the proponents of such absurdity any pretext of legitimacy for their position. We have explained the extremely important principle being used here in years gone by and felt prior to the posting of this commentary that the subject needed to be revisited in a more complete fashion than could be done in this posting; ergo it was pre-emptively done with the results viewable here:

Revisiting the Subject of the Underlying Weltanschauung of "Language Control" (circa November 25, 2008)

{4} The elections held in the immediate aftermath of the resignation in disgrace of President Richard M. Nxon.

{5} Setting aside the issue of 2000 for a moment here, if there was no "mandate" for President George W. Bush with his 52% popular vote gain in 2004 than there is no "mandate" for President Barack H. Obama who only got 53% of the vote in this election. Those who affirmed the former must out of consistency affirm the latter if they want anyone with a normal intact functioning brain to take them seriously.

{6} We define a "landslide" as far more than a major majority vote but instead an election where the winner received 70% or more of the electoral vote. Here are some examples of presidential electoral landslides to illustrate our point -more than one set of numbers indicates an election with three or more candidates getting electoral votes:

1789: Washington won 69-0 - 1792: Washington won 132-0 - 1804; Jefferson won 163-14 - 1816: Monroe won 116-34 - 1820: Monroe won 231-1 - 1832: Jackson won 219-49 - 1840: Harrison won 234-60 - 1852: Pierce won 254-42 - 1864: Lincoln won 212-21 - 1868: Grant won 214-80 - 1872: Grant won 286-42-18-3-2 - 1904: T. Roosevelt won 336-140 - 1920: Harding won 404-120 - 1924: Coolidge won 382-136-13 - 1928: Hoover won 444-87 - 1932: F. Roosevelt won 472-59 - 1936: FDR won 523-8 - 1940: FDR won 449-82 - 1944: FDR won 432-99 - 1952: Eisenhower won 442-89 - 1956: Eisenhower won 457-83 - 1964: Johnson won 486-52 - 1972: Nixon won 520-17 - 1980: Reagan won 489-49 - 1984: Reagan won 525-13 - 1988: Bush Sr. won 426-111

There has not been a "landslide" since 1988 going by the manner in which we have defined the term and the last time a Democrat won by a landside was LBJ over Senator Goldwater in 1964.

{7} And yes, it was so biased to be ridiculous and has perhaps destroyed if not forever than at least for a long time any remaining credibility the msm had left after the past six years of ever-increasing journalistic ethical malpractice. This was touched on a bit in a dialogue with freelance writer Joseph D'Hippolito which can be read here for those who are interested in the context of a dialogue on the state of journalism in general. (Mr. D'Hippolito was responding to a commentary your host did on journalism back in June of 2005 and while it had been in the can for a while, the increasing irresponsibility of the msm in covering this election is what prompted its posting in the final weeks before the election.)

{8} Including the whole question of who the best Republican candidate would have been, whether Bush was better than McCain would have been as president, and all the other kinds of questions that were thrashed about before the election was concluded.

{9} We opposed President Clinton on many things but never on either the manner in which he was elected or the principle that he as commander in chief of the armed forces was not eligible to utilize them on the basis of who he was personally.

{10} Your host is aware of the court challenges to the legitimacy of President Obama to even run constitutionally due to questions of the circumstances and place of birth, etc. But even if such challenges are in various courts at the present time, prior to any ruling on these matters, the reality of Obama as president needs to be recognized even by those who are filing such cases. We cannot say we have put much thought into this particular approach though we will say this: if those filing the lawsuits do not win, they should show themselves to be of a higher species of humanity than those who spent eight years inaccurately regurgitating what happened in 2000 as their excuse to act like spoiled children who refused to grow up.

{11} Well, not since 1992 anyway: a year we voted for H. Ross Perot incidentally enough.

{12} I may however in that interim [prior to the inauguration] and as time allows for it sketch out a rough draft of the second of two initiative ideas I want to get on the ballot for Washington State in the 2010 election. (The first idea of which was sketched out nearly five years ago on this humble weblog and may be revisited again in the interim prior to the election as well.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 5, 2008)]