Advice From Jethro

With increasing evidence, our politicians and the systems under which they serve are becoming more and more corrupt. The new Obama administration, having gained popularity and power ostensibly by promising a high standard of ethics, has been a big disappointment. The previous Bush administration can hardly claim to have been any better. The similarities to a “banana republic” grow more evident every week.

Since the November 2008 election, we have seen: a governor impeached for attempting to sell a Senate seat, a Senate appointee get caught up in lying about campaign contributions involving that same governor, and a multitude of pending government appointees who forgot to pay their taxes. Any regular American found guilty of this last offense would certainly have to pay a fine and may even be subject to jail time. Not so the lofty political appointee, who must temporarily endure some negative press, but then is allowed to take the new government position after paying the back-taxes (with no interest penalty). One of those officials was then placed in charge of the Internal Revenue Service – irony, but not of the delicious sort.

When I read these news stories and ponder my increasing distrust of our government, my first thought is that we should sweep all of our current elected officials out of office. Then, start anew with a fresh crop, and allow them to serve one, and only one, term – call it six years. The temptations and waste associated with re-election machinations would be reduced, and we might entreat a group of properly-motivated individuals to govern.

This is a tempting idea, but I’m reminded of some sound advice about governing officials from the Old Testament. In Exodus 18, we see Moses fulfilling the role of political leader for the nation of Israel. His every waking moment is spent as judge and decision-maker, because he indicates that he is the only one to hear cases and make decisions for that entire nation of people. When his father-in-law, Jethro, hears of this (perhaps you were thinking of a different Jethro when you read the title?), he offers some sage advice. He counsels Moses to divide up the duties of governing among a few men, leaving only the more weighty cases for Moses to preside over. Specifically, in verse 21, Jethro names the qualifications of these men – “choose men who fear God and hate bribes”.

Wow – those are words dripping with wisdom. Imagine for a moment a government populated by men and women who not only have agreed ethically to avoid bribes, but who actually hate the practice of lobbying and influence-peddling. This would motivate them to look for truth and wisdom in places other than those which deliver financial gain or power to themselves – a far cry from most of our politicians on Capitol Hill today.

And this source would be the other half of Jethro’s advice – direction and wisdom should come from the fear of the Lord (Proverbs 1:7). Without this, our nation would be left to the ever-changing whim of man - sound familiar? But God is unchanging and wise beyond our wildest imagination. What better source could we ask for?

Perhaps a change is coming. It has before, in this very country. Less than 250 years ago, the founding fathers of America split from a tyrannical king who had clearly renounced God’s ways. We could do it again. Now is the time to proudly advocate for godly government - much like Jethro did - and ready our children to take on the mantle of God-fearing, bribe-hating leadership. I will gladly follow them.

Communion Meditation – A Tale of Two Traitors

Grace is often a difficult concept to grasp. God’s grace requires that we simply accept the fact that we are lost without Jesus’ sacrifice, and that we accept his gift of redemption. It is not conditional, nor does it require me to live a perfect life before it takes effect. But we cannot forget that it requires our acceptance. Without that, we are indeed lost.

In the single day leading up to Jesus’ crucifixion, two people betrayed him. The one we often think about when we use the word betrayal is, of course, Judas Iscariot. Judas sold his Lord for thirty pieces of silver, kissed him on the cheek, and gave him up to the authorities to die a cruel death. But after Jesus’ trial, Matthew 27: 3-4 says, “When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. ‘I have sinned’, he said, ‘for I have betrayed innocent blood.’”

Judas’ reaction was one of despair. Clearly, the weight of the act he had committed was torture to his soul – so much, that he immediately went out and hung himself. How tragic an end! Even after his betrayal of Jesus, I believe he could have been forgiven, but he simply saw himself as too far from God’s grace. In an effort to get away from the pain, he chose to quickly leave this life – certainly to be greeted by an eternity of something much, much worse.

We rarely use the term “traitor” when we talk of Peter. Yet, he denied knowing Jesus three different times in a very short time frame. In fact, it would seem that he did this within sight of Jesus’ trial, because Mark 22:61 tells us that just after Peter’s third denial, “the Lord turned and looked straight at Peter.” He remembered Jesus’ prediction of his denial, which he had adamantly argued against, and his heart was broken. Scripture tells us that “he went outside and wept bitterly.”

Was Peter tempted to do the same as Judas and end his life right there? Perhaps. But Peter did not kill himself, though he must have agonized for the three days that Jesus was in the tomb. The Bible does not tell us what happens to him during this time.

When Jesus’ disappearance from the tomb is reported to the disciples by Mary Magdalene, Peter is the first one to enter the tomb. He goes away confused. What was he feeling at this point? Was he worried that Jesus might be alive, and ready to take revenge on those who had betrayed him three days earlier? Peter’s understanding of Jesus’ ministry and purpose was certainly imperfect at this point. So what does he do? Probably the same thing that a lot of us do when things get stressful. He went fishing.

After recognizing Jesus at the shore, the disciples return, led by an anxious Simon Peter. And it is at this beach scene that Jesus does something beautiful. He asks Peter specifically, “Do you truly love me?” – not once, not twice, but three times. The significance of this should not be lost on us. Jesus knew that Peter needed to make this confession three times to atone for his three previous denials. Peter did not understand this at the time, but I’m certain that he did when reflecting on it in future years. His own betrayal of the Lord was wiped clean, and he was ready to start anew in serving the Lord. And this he did.

The choice was there for both of these men, and they each took different paths. The results for each man were radically different. The parallel of this story to our own is not accidental. After our denial, God gives each of us a choice – to remove ourselves from His presence, or to accept His grace. Which will you choose?

The Next Social Revolution Appears To Be Godless

There is a revolution brewing.

More than any other period in my lifetime, there seems to be an urgency in the air to fight dishonesty in government. In the last two months, we have seen gun sales reach unprecedented highs, consumer confidence is at new lows, the stock market has pulled back dramatically, and anti-government “tea parties” are being held in every major city. Will it all lead to some meaningful change?

I’ve seen mention of a great number of “revolutionary” books lately. We are reminded of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged or Robert Heinlein’s The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress. Both are excellent reads, and inspire some creative thought regarding libertarianism and social anarchy.

The idea of social anarchy, especially the push for individual freedoms over government-imposed regulations, can be fun to toy with. In both Rand’s and Heinlein’s books, we see a likable group of characters overthrowing their tyrannical and oppressive government in favor of a culture where rules are largely removed and where individuals start making well-informed decisions that seem to benefit all those around them. The chief character in Rand’s book – John Galt –is compared to Atlas, who is best known for holding the world on his shoulders. But instead of taking on the world’s troubles, Galt simply chooses to walk away, leaving the world behind.

Both books share the same fundamental problem – they create a society which does not recognize the sovereignty of God. And that is a big miss.

More than ever, I have grown to distrust almost all of our highly-placed government officials. I believe it is nearly impossible to reach such a lofty and powerful position without some act of bribery or unethical compromise. Our government taxes our income, and then taxes any gains we may make on the leftover money. They tax nearly every purchase that we make, assess standing yearly taxes on our property and then, as if all that wasn’t insult enough, they invoke a “death tax” to steal money from the inheritance that we try to leave to our children. And what do they do with a lot of this money? In addition to lining their own pockets with re-election funds, they spend it on reprehensible practices such as abortion and “free love”-style sex education. Until we choose to throw them out, or we make our own Mayflower-type departure from this land, we seem to have little choice.

The ideas of civil disobedience or creating a society without government intrusion are gaining popularity. I expect to see more of this in the coming months. But a system devoid of government regulations and one which refuses to acknowledge or honor God’s supremacy is a society which is ruled only by the whims of man’s desire. Jeremiah 17:9 tells us of the problem with such a system – “for the heart is deceitful above all things, and beyond cure”. Replacing one tyrannical system of government with another anarchical system governed only by man’s evil motivations can only lead to deceit, and then failure. As we ponder tea parties and government reform, let’s remember that God has an eternal plan already designed. He has left us with the blueprints contained within His Holy Word. He gives us His Spirit to help us through difficult times. And He gave us the sacrifice of His Son, Jesus Christ, to take away the curse of sin that exists today, and which will continue to exist in any human-derived system of government. Without God, we simply exchange one lie for another.

“The Day Before Last” Blues

My wife and I recently returned from an eight-day cruise of the Caribbean, in celebration of twenty years of marriage. The ship was amazing. The waitstaff and crew were extremely helpful and pleasant. And we made friendships in the dining room that we hope will last.

If you’ve ever been on a week-long vacation to a tropical island or another desirable destination, you know that in the first hours (for us, as the cruise ship left Ft. Lauderdale), the whole week stretches out before you, ready to be seized – but not too quickly. You begin to plan your time, making sure that you do everything that you want to, but spacing it out so as to make the week last. In fact, as we prayed over our meals, my wife and I asked God to make the time go by slowly on our vacation.

As the week progresses, you are conscious of the passage of days. At some point, you realize that you have reached the halfway point. For this recent cruise, I remember that moment, but I remember still thinking that we had plenty of time left to do the things that we hadn’t yet done. The halfway point is still filled with optimism.

For me, the real emotional turning point is the day before last. That was day seven of our eight-day cruise. Even though we still had almost two full days to go, that day was filled with melancholy as we began our “litany of lasts” – last walk around the deck, last dinner with our new shipboard friends, last free cookie and hot tea in the promenade café before bedtime. Instead of being able to fully enjoy these last few hours, each event was tempered with a little sorrow as the finality of our time approached. Maybe you have had this feeling on a vacation, or when leaving a job, city, school, or friend in your past.

There is a purpose to this observation. My oldest daughter Molly is now fifteen years old, and we have only three years to go before college potentially takes her away. The timing is equivalent to “the day before last” in terms of our time with her. I’m beginning to become aware that I have very little time left to teach and influence her on a daily basis. The reality that I may not get to experience all of the things that I have mentally planned to do with her is suddenly apparent to me.

Will we ever get to vacation as a full family in Hawaii again? Have we painted her room for the last time? Does she have clothes in her closet right now that she might pack with her on her honeymoon? Is this feeling the one that every parent experiences when they suddenly come to grips with the idea that their children won’t be at home forever?

This feeling is strong for me right now. As sad as I was to complete our fantastic cruise-ship vacation, I will be far more distraught when our family dinner table is reduced from five chairs to four. And then from four to three. Even with as much love as my wife and I have for each other, there will be an indescribable sense of melancholy when that number is finally reduced to two.

I am determined to use these last days well. From our entire child-rearing perspective, we are somewhere in the middle of day five, out of an eight day journey. The “day before last” is quickly upon us. Dear Lord, please multiply our time, give it purpose and meaning, and let my children (as well as me and my wife) be ready when it comes time to part ways and enter the next step in the voyage.

Discovering An Addiction

I’ve just returned from eight glorious days at sea with my lovely wife of twenty years. After much deliberation, we finally decided to spend this landmark anniversary on a cruise of the Caribbean. It was inspiring!

As we were packing and planning the week before the trip, my wife asked about the possibility of leaving our laptops at home and trying to spend the entire trip sans computer. Much to her surprise, I readily agreed. It might have been a bit of a surprise to me to consider such a thing.

Armed only with my Blackberry (so we could stay in daily touch with the kids), we headed out the door. It’s really amazing how light you can travel without the burden of the laptop bag, and it makes the security check at the airport just a little easier.

In our society, we are surrounded every day by addiction temptations. Internet addiction may not seem as grievous as some temptations, but I now have a much deeper understanding of how much time it steals. Had I brought my computer along on the trip and made a simple promise to only check it twice a day (something I considered), I would have likely been unable to resist and would have spent a great deal of time “checking the news” or “watching the stock market”. Instead, I made a conscious effort simply to talk with my wife over a meal, or find fun things in which to share our time together and make this week truly memorable. Eight days in a row of being Internet-free has a sobering effect.

Let me tell you what brought it all even more to light for me. We had a balcony room on the ship and we tried to use it often. But it was hard to do so, because our next-door neighbors insisted on smoking on their balcony at least twenty times a day. We rarely sat on our balcony for more than a few minutes without having to endure the noxious fumes. I felt sadness for them instead of anger, though, because this couple spent the majority of their time together inhaling cigarette smoke, without a word between them. As I write these words (with paper and pencil, mind you), they came out on the balcony yet again. And the analogy came to me.

How much time do I spend apart from my wife, my kids, my church, my friends, and people in need just because I want to keep up with the latest happenings in the world? The answer is – too much. Like my neighbors on the boat, who missed every shore excursion and every fun-filled meal in the boat’s excellent dining room (where we laughed and developed a friendship with Don and Ann, Gary and Tara, Derek and Nadine), I can miss what’s really important in this life. All too soon, these opportunities will be gone. I will have missed out on the chance to deepen my relationship with people, in exchange for knowing more about a world I neither admire nor wish to imitate. Stated that way, is there any doubt what change I should make when I get home? Honestly, is there a drawback to becoming addicted to people instead of news, sports and money?

My Best Friend

Today is a special day for me, so I hope you regular readers will allow me to issue this post on a more personal level.

I have never been one to have a host of close friends - indeed, sometimes, I feel like I am fine without them. Perhaps that is a character flaw, I don't know, but it is simply the way it is for now. But twenty years ago TODAY, I had the distinct joy to proclaim my vows and marry my best friend before two-hundred people in Fort Collins, CO. Maybe God knew that what I really needed was one faithful friend by my side for the rest of my life.

Wendy has been my wife for a fifth of a century now (!), and there has never been a single day in that time that I have regretted our marriage. And while I am far from being the perfect spouse, she makes it easy for me because she approaches that ideal much more than I ever will.

She has been my helper every day these last twenty years, and has helped me raise three wonderful children. They are growing up far too fast for my liking, but they are thankfully growing up to know the Lord. Her dutiful attention to them, our decision to homeschool them five years ago, and (I hope) our example of marriage serve as a model to them. I pray for their future spouses and that they each find the same joy that I have found in marriage.

I love you, Wendy, and look forward to growing ever more mature in our love for each other and for Christ.

Getting a Constitutional Education – The Birth of Judicial Activism (Part 9)

It’s important that we educate our children on the topics of politics, government, and the Constitution which governs our nation. This nine-part series attempts to remind us of some basic principles, lest they be forgotten by the next generation.

Late in the year 1800, John Adams was narrowly defeated in the presidential election by Thomas Jefferson. In an effort to “pack the courts” with Federalist judges of his own thinking, Adams made dozens of judicial appointments just before he left office (these were called “midnight appointments”). To complete the appointment, a nominee had to be both approved by Congress and have their commission signed by the Secretary of State.

Due to a curious oversight, a few of the appointees never had their commission signed under the outgoing administration, and were left waiting for the signature of the new Secretary, James Madison. One of these pending appointees was William Marbury. So began the famous Marbury vs. Madison court case.

Madison refused to sign the commission, and Marbury sued, immediately taking his case to the Supreme Court. He contended that under the Judiciary Act of 1789, Madison should be forced to sign his commission – that a writ of mandamus should be written by the court requiring him to do so. Ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed that Marbury should be appointed, but that the Judiciary Act law that he was citing was really unconstitutional, and that he should take his case back to a lower court.

Marbury lost the case, but the real story here was that the Supreme Court, for the first time, had single-handedly declared an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional. In essence, the Court asserted authority over Congress in an unprecedented manner, essentially giving itself the supreme right to interpret the Constitution. To us today, that may not seem like big news, but the fact is that the Constitution does not anywhere give the Supreme Court this power! Article 3 of the Constitution details the jurisdiction and duties of the Supreme Court, and indeed, Section 2 seems to imply that Marbury may have been in the wrong court. But the brazenness of Chief Justice John Marshall to unilaterally strike down an Act of Congress was unheard of before this event (and curiously, John Marshall was the Secretary of State in the Adams administration who had accidentally forgotten to sign Marbury’s commission before being appointed Chief Justice!)

Thomas Jefferson was incensed at the judicial ruling, and wrote, “Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches.” For Jefferson, the founders intended for the three branches of government to be in equal balance, with no single branch having supreme authority to interpret the Constitution.

With a precedent such as Marbury vs. Madison on the record, that precept has been lost. Today, we live in a time where it is generally accepted that the United States Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution, with the authority to rescind or make demands on both the Congress and the President. But a simple reading of the Constitution shows that no such power was meant. This was the beginning of judicial activism.

Judicial activists submit that the Constitution is a “living document” and that powers and nuances not mentioned explicitly in the text may be “implied”. The opposite of this position is judicial restraint, which argues for a very conservative approach to rulings. A judge exercising judicial restraint will overturn a law only if it is obviously unconstitutional. In the case of Marbury, judicial restraint would likely have found a judge simply sending the case back with no ruling, rather than explicitly declaring the law unconstitutional. An advocate of judicial restraint, Ronald Reagan said “I intend to go right on appointing highly qualified individuals of the highest personal integrity to the bench, individuals who understand the danger of short-circuiting the electoral process and disenfranchising the people through judicial activism."

Judicial activism has grown beyond just the assertion of supreme constitutional authority. Today, we see many judges making rulings based on their own opinion, and not citing a legal precedence. Roe vs. Wade is probably the most far-reaching example of judicial activism. In this case, the Supreme Court cited the “right to privacy” to allow a woman to terminate her own pregnancy, but admitted in their own written ruling that “The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy." If judges are allowed to make laws with no Constitutional backing or precedent, then what happens to justice? Rather than relying on the written Constitution to govern our land, it becomes a matter of individual opinion, and the court system becomes nothing more than a game of “packing the courts” with judges who are sympathetic to an individual cause. This makes a mockery of justice, and undermines the real intent of the founders when they penned that most important document – the Constitution of the United States of America.

**********************

Next in the series
-or-
Back to the main index article.
...

Getting a Constitutional Education – (Mis)interpreting the General Welfare Clause (Part 8)

It’s important that we educate our children on the topics of politics, government, and the Constitution which governs our nation. This nine-part series attempts to remind us of some basic principles, lest they be forgotten by the next generation.

In this series, we have presented various viewpoints about how the government derives its power and abilities. The truth is that there is much debate over the extent of what the federal government should be involved in. Our nation continues to give up increasing power and authority to the federal government – at the expense of states’ right and individual liberties (see Part 2 and Part 5).

We’ve also seen how the founding fathers had some disagreement over the extent of defined federal powers in the Constitution (Part 6). On the conservative side of the issue, both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison opposed the expenditure of federal tax dollars for road-building projects – simply because they could find no authority to explicitly do so in the Constitution. They chose to leave this to the states and to private enterprise.

So where did the idea start that the federal government could get a foothold into almost anything? It all began with four little words in the Preamble of the Constitution – in the very first sentence:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

“Promote the general Welfare” – these are words that Thomas Jefferson almost certainly wished that he had left out when writing the document. It is these words upon which most of our governmental leaders base their ability to spend tax money. Read the above preamble once again – but leave out these four words – and you will see an entirely different and far more limited view of government than we have today.

The general welfare clause appears again in the Constitution in Article 1, Section 8, which lists the powers given to the Congress. And the Congress has used (and sometimes abused) this clause to the fullest – they build roads, fund overseas abortion clinics, impose exhorbitant income taxes, and even tax death through inheritance tax laws. Alexander Hamilton, one of the very first proponents of a liberal definition of “general welfare” said, “[T]he power to raise money is plenary and indefinite [in the Constitution]. The terms general welfare were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed.” Trillions of tax dollars would agree with him.

The sad fact is that promotion of “general welfare” is such an ill-defined and nebulous phrase that there will be no end to the debate over its meaning. Indeed, instead of debating the legality of whether the federal government should fund medical research for cancer, nearly all of our lawmakers will just argue about the amount to spend or which lab in their state will get the money. It seems a foregone conclusion among members of Congress that they have the right to spend our money wherever they wish. And they have taken it even farther – by spending our children’s and grandchildren’s money today, through deficit spending. Any government deficit today must be paid by taxes tomorrow. The amount of debt that our leaders are incurring today necessitates the taxing of money that our offspring have not yet earned. And when you look at it that way, does that really fit with the Constitutional preamble, when it says we should “secure the blessings of Liberty to…our Posterity”? Our posterity is the future generations of Americans that will follow us. Shouldn’t their welfare be taken into account, as well?

Next article: What brought about the birth of “judicial activism”? Was this interpretation intended by the founding fathers? Back to the main index article.

Getting a Constitutional Education – Banking and The Federal Reserve Act (Part 7)

It’s important that we educate our children on the topics of politics, government, and the Constitution which governs our nation. This nine-part series attempts to remind us of some basic principles, lest they be forgotten by the next generation.

At one time, many United States coins contained precious metal – either gold or silver. Ask anyone over the age of forty, and it is likely that they have some old silver coins tucked away in a drawer or shoebox somewhere. Coinage had real value at one time. The metal in a silver 1964 quarter might have really been worth twenty-five cents. Today, inflation and the price of precious metal make the melt value of that same quarter equivalent to $2.61. Contrast that with a newly-minted quarter, which contains both copper and nickel – but no precious metal – and has a melt value of just over two cents.

Until 1957, the government also used to print paper money which said “Silver Certificate” on it (they looked much like our currency does today – see above). You could actually go to the treasury and exchange it for the face value in real silver (look carefully at the picture above and you will see that it says, “Five Dollars in silver payable to the bearer on demand”). In later times, you could trade the certificate in for an equal value in silver dollars. But when the price of silver began to rise, and people began hoarding silver certificates, the government declared an end to this exchange practice in 1964. In fact, the United States has gone through a curious progression of backing its money against various metal standards – starting first with a dual gold and silver standard set by Alexander Hamilton. In 1873, the Coinage Act placed the US strictly on the gold standard (much to the silver miner’s dismay). But after the Great Depression started, the US reverted to the silver standard in 1933. Today’s paper currency is stamped with the words “Federal Reserve Note” and a dollar bill is worth a dollar only because the government says so (the same applies to our coins). It now has no connection to precious metal in any way.

An important event happened in 1913, which forever changed the way that money supply would be handled in our country. Some years before this date, there had been a series of minor financial panics (1873, 1893, 1907) and there was concern that a bank run (when a large portion of bank customers wish to withdraw all their money in cash) would leave people without the ability to get their hands on their money. One proposed way to prevent bank runs is to have a regulated money supply which “expands” when the situation demands it. In essence, more money is printed to give to people when they require it. So, the nation turned to the federal government in 1913 to create the Federal Reserve – a federal agency which is now responsible for monitoring and manipulating the money supply, regardless of the presence of gold or silver backing.

The reason for the creation of the Federal Reserve was simply to prevent the recurrence of financial panic and to manipulate the money supply in order to preserve stability. Yet, a mere sixteen years later, the stock market crashed again and the United States entered the worst depression in its history – the Great Depression of 1929.

An analysis of the price of goods over the history of our country shows that from 1789 to 1913, the prices of various goods remained virtually the same (with ups and downs along the way). But since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, prices have risen an average of 20X. It’s true that wages have increased over that time, too. The reason for the increase in both is simply stated as inflation – which is defined as an increase in the overall supply of money. When the federal government stopped backing each coin or bill with precious metal, they essentially gave themselves the power to print money at will. But, as is evident, printing more money merely devalues the worth of each dollar. Wages rise, and prices rise – but is the government’s legalized manipulation of the money supply really creating stability? One could argue that it has had the opposite effect.

Here’s a simple comparison. The financial rules for the federal government are really no different than those of a typical American family. If you don’t have enough money for something, you probably should not buy it. If you must borrow the money, you should make sure that you have the means to pay it back in a reasonable amount of time. The government, even though it is very large and often difficult to understand, is not exempt from these basic principles. Imagine what would happen if each family simply printed the money that they need for everything, in the comfort of their living room – even if it were legal to do so! Common sense tells us that this system would not last long. Likewise, we should be warning our government officials of the problems that we all will encounter if they continue to spend, borrow and manipulate the money supply to their own ends.

Next article: What is the “General Welfare Clause” and should I like it? Back to the main index article.

Getting a Constitutional Education – Enumerated Powers vs. Implied Powers (Part 6)

It’s important that we educate our children on the topics of politics, government, and the Constitution which governs our nation. This nine-part series attempts to remind us of some basic principles, lest they be forgotten by the next generation.

Where does the government derive its powers? What allows the government to legally take actions such as declaring war, taxing an inheritance, or building a highway? The answer is that it must come from the Constitution, or one of its modifiers such as the Bill of Rights or a Constitutional Amendment. Without an authority to refer to, the government could very well be acting in an illegal manner!

The limit of this authority is a topic which was hotly debated by the founding fathers. Having escaped from the tyranny of King George III in Britain and his frequently oppressive rule, the founders were conscious that they should avoid the formation of a government which could impose subjective and capricious rules on its people. In their eyes, the government was in place to support the people’s will – not crush their liberties. And so they were very specific about defining the role and powers given to the government.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution details the powers that Congress may employ. This section lists exactly eighteen different “powers”, and includes items such as the ability to collect taxes to pay for defense and general welfare, to borrow money, to coin money, to establish Post Offices, to declare war, and to maintain a navy. Obviously, the list has to have limits, as it cannot go on forever. There are some debatable items in the list regarding the extent to which they may be taken (such as the General Welfare clause, which we will take up in Part 8), but viewed in perspective, the list is relatively short. Remember, the founders intended for specifics to be delegated by the states – not by the federal government. To add even more weight to this argument, consider the short but powerful words of the Tenth Amendment.

In 1791, President George Washington was considering the idea of a national bank. In order to better understand the constitutionality of this enterprise, he asked two others to provide him with arguments for and against the idea. These two men were Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Knowing that these two men were at the opposite ends of the spectrum on the interpretation of the Constitution, he undoubtedly expected to get both sides of the argument. He was not disappointed.

As expected, Thomas Jefferson, a strict and conservative interpreter of the Constitution, found no basis for the legality of establishing a national bank. His belief was that the Constitution listed the express powers of the government – and that there were no other powers to be inferred. In short, if it wasn’t explicitly listed in the Constitution as a federal power, then the government could not legally engage in the act. Thus, the idea of Jeffersonian democracy, which believes that the national government is a dangerous necessity to be instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, and that it should be watched closely.

Alexander Hamilton used this opportunity to formulate a new approach to the Constitution – the idea of implied powers. In his response to Washington, he stated that “there are implied, as well as express powers [in the Constitution], and that the former are as effectually delegated as the latter.” He added that, “Implied powers are to be considered as delegated [to the federal government] equally with express ones”. In just two sentences, Hamilton advocated for unlimited and unchecked power by the federal government. One could make the argument that he would be happy with the state of our government today.

The problem with implied powers is that there is no clearly defined point at which to restrict the government’s power over the people. Where does the “power grab” end? If we trust that our leaders will understand when they overstep their boundaries and will agree to pull back, then we will be very disappointed, for that is not in their nature. Nevertheless, the founders had to know that they could not think of every possible situation where government involvement might be needed. And indeed, they did know this. Article 5 of the Constitution provides for the ability to propose and ratify amendments to the Constitution whenever Congress “shall deem it necessary”. The process to adopt an amendment is not an easy one. The amendment must be proposed by two-thirds of the Congress, or two-thirds of the state legislatures. To be adopted, it must be ratified by no less than three-quarters of the state legislatures. Imagine the difficulty in getting 75% of the states to agree on anything! Surely the founders knew this.

And this provides the reasoned argument as to why the concept of implied powers could not have been in the thinking of the writers of the Constitution. Within the words of the Constitution are the instructions for creating and passing changes to the document. If powers were meant to be inferred and added to the government’s list of duties, why make the amendment process so specific and difficult? Clearly, the founders wanted Constitutional change to be an event that was rare and carefully considered. In his farewell address in 1796, Washington said, “If in the opinion of the People, the distribution of modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation…”

There are still a few leaders today who understand this principle. Each year, Congressman John Shadegg of Arizona poses a bill to the United States Congress called the “Enumerated Powers Act”. Adoption of the bill would require that bills proposed to the Congress specifically list the constitutional authority on which the proposal is based. As might be expected, our leaders have not chosen to enact the law.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1823, “On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” While we witness the ever-increasing federal power grab over our individual liberties, these would be good words to heed.

Next article: What happened to my money when the Federal Reserve Act became law in 1913? Back to the main index article.

Getting a Constitutional Education – Secession and Nullification (Part 5)

It’s important that we educate our children on the topics of politics, government, and the Constitution which governs our nation. This nine-part series attempts to remind us of some basic principles, lest they be forgotten by the next generation.

The word “secession” has taken on a negative connotation today. The idea of at state refusing to abide by the rules imposed by the federal government and deciding to govern itself entirely – the very definition of the word “secession” – is problematic for most people. After all, we are the United States of America, and we should stay that way regardless of the consequences, right?

Nullification is similar to secession in that it is the refusal of a state to accept a law handed down by a federal authority. It is like secession, but without the final step of complete separation from the overall entity. We hear little about the concept of secession, and most students today would reject the possibility of a state even considering the refusal to obey a federal statute.

You may be surprised, then, to learn that secession and nullification were accepted practices in the days of the founding fathers. Indeed, the decision by the thirteen states to declare independence from the English monarchy has been referred to as being more like a secession than an actual revolution. These states decided to forego the rules and oversight of the king of England and live by their own standards and government. On the topic of secession, Thomas Jefferson (the author of the Declaration of Independence) said in his first inaugural address of 1801, “If there be any among us who wish to dissolve the Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed, as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.” Both Jefferson and James Madison wrote on the topic of nullification, saying, “where powers were assumed by the national government which had not been granted by the states, nullification is the rightful remedy," and that every state has a right to "nullify of its own authority all assumptions of power by others. . ." Strong words!

Even Abraham Lincoln said in an 1848 speech that, “Any people whatsoever have the right to abolish the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right.” And yet, in his inaugural address in 1861, Lincoln implied that the sovereignty of the Union outweighed that of the individual states and that, in this matter, the Constitution actually abridged the founders’ intent! And on this platform, he denied the rights of the Southern states who had seceded from the Union, and invaded them with the Northern army. At one point, eleven States officially seceded, in this order – South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee.

Horace Greeley, the preeminent newspaperman, chronicled this period in history. In 1861, he wrote that "nine out of ten people of the North were opposed to forcing South Carolina to remain in the Union" for "the great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration . . . is that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed." If the southern states wanted to secede, Greeley maintained that most people agreed "they have a clear right to do so."

In a world today which prizes unity, even in situations where it does not fit, the idea of secession appears to be backwards and immature. Yet, the founders supported the idea for one certain reason – the power of individual states should always outweigh that of the central government. Unlike the behavior of today’s government, our forefathers saw the “power pyramid” as being upside-down from how we would perceive it. To them, it was individuals at the top, states next, and the federal government at the bottom of the heap. The very threat of secession was often enough to keep the federal government in check, and the balance of power well-distributed. Many may preach that unity is paramount, but the idea of secession also serves as a deterrent to unlimited federal power. Frank Chodorov wrote in 1952: "If for no other reason, personal pride should prompt every governor and state legislator to take a secessionist attitude; they were not elected to be lackeys of the federal bureaucracy." Which would you rather have – a loose conglomeration of independent states trying to preserve individual freedoms, or a dictating federal monarchy that reduces all of the states to the lowest common denominator?

Curiously, a 2008 Zogby International poll showed that 22% of Americans believe that “any state or region has the right to peaceably secede and become an independent republic.”

Search the Constitution and you will not find the words “secession” or “nullification”. But it is clear from the many writings of the founders that they would support the idea. Indeed, they acted it out when they signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776. “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…”

Next article: What are “enumerated powers” versus “implied powers” in the Constitution? Back to the main index article.

Getting a Constitutional Education – Origin and Curse of the Federal Income Tax (Part 4)

It’s important that we educate our children on the topics of politics, government, and the Constitution which governs our nation. This nine-part series attempts to remind us of some basic principles, lest they be forgotten by the next generation.

For anyone who has ever received a paycheck, it may seem hard to imagine a time when there was no such thing as a federal income tax. One-hundred short years ago, there was no federal income tax in place. Today, we take it for granted that a large part – a very large part – of our paycheck will never be deposited in our bank account. We live in a time where the federal government continues to grow bigger and more bloated than ever before. The number of programs funded by our government is vast. Is this practice constitutional?

The original Constitution did not provide for broad powers of taxation at the federal level. Taxes were outlined in Article 1, Section 8, which says, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”. Disregarding for the moment the “general welfare” clause (which we’ll cover in Part 8), this does not give Congress a lot of things on which to spend money. I certainly don’t see Social Security, payments to illegal immigrants, or the funding of non-US, overseas abortion clinics in those words. In fact, the Articles of Confederation, which preceded the US Constitution and which give us insight into the mind of the founders, gave the federal government no ability to tax whatsoever. The founding fathers’ ideas on federal taxation may best be summed up in the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said, “…a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government”.

In principle, the very purpose of government was simply to protect the freedom of the individual and their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – nothing more. Our government is well beyond that today, in large part due to the Sixteenth Amendment. This amendment was proposed by the administration of Woodrow Wilson in 1913, and was ratified by the states in 1916. It is one of the briefest amendments, and simply says, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” Before this Amendment, the federal government had a shaky claim to taxing any of our income. Now, your Congressmen and President have free reign.

The very first round of federal income taxes actually occurred before this date. Under the Abraham Lincoln administration, in 1862, a federal income tax was collected, to help pay for the Civil War. At that time, anyone earning less than $10,000 per year was taxed at a 3% rate; anyone earning more than $10,000 per year was taxed at a rate of 5%. Compare that to what you pay in federal tax today! However, people couldn’t long accept this burden, and the federal income tax was abolished in 1872. It didn’t come back until the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1916.

We spoke of state’s rights in Part 2 of this series. Does the adoption of the federal income tax affect the power of states in any way? Yes, it does. Consider the fact that a great deal of federally-collected money is returned to the states each year. This money is not required to be given back in proportion to the size of the state or the number of its population. So, each state fights for its’ share of the federal money, giving much more power to the elected officials at the national level. State legislatures scrap for every last dollar, whether the cause is noble or even necessary, because someone else will get the money if they don’t. States are often coerced to “toe the line” with regards to federal government wishes, because the feds can threaten to withhold money from the state if the state doesn’t comply with what they want in Washington. An example is the virtual blackmail that occurs whenever a state decides they want to raise the interstate speed limit above the federal recommendation. If they threaten to raise it, the federal government returns the threat by withholding certain funds originally slated for road improvements. Doesn’t it make more sense for the state to both set their speed limit and fix their own roads? Imagine the differences that would ensue! No two states would be alike, and we could glory in their uniqueness! Alas, this is one area where "diversity" is discouraged by the federal government.

Frank Chodorov said it best, in his 1954 paper The Income Tax: Root of All Evil:

“For the Sixteenth Amendment corroded the American concept of natural rights; ultimately reduced the American citizen to a status of subject, so much so that he is not aware of it; enhanced Executive power to the point of reducing Congress to innocuity; and enabled the central government to bribe the states, once independent units, into subservience. No kingship in the history of the world ever exercised more power than our Presidency, or had more of the people’s wealth at its disposal.”

It should be clear that the federal income tax, while both legal and constitutional, exceeds the boundaries envisioned by the founders, in part because of the corruption it creates and the undesirable consolidation of federal power to which it leads. Do you want to fight it? Good luck, because the federal government will use your own tax money to fight you in court and build your prison cell if you refuse to pay…

Next article: What are the concepts of secession and nullification about? And was Abraham Lincoln really a good president? Back to the main index article.

Getting a Constitutional Education – Government Debt (Part 3)

It’s important that we educate our children on the topics of politics, government, and the Constitution which governs our nation. This nine-part series attempts to remind us of some basic principles, lest they be forgotten by the next generation.

Imagine if you could simply go out and buy whatever you dream about having, right now, without worry about how you were going to pay for it. For me, that would be a mid-1960’s Chevrolet Corvette, preferably a 1963 or a 1967 with a few special features that I won’t burden you with here. I’ve always wanted one, and there are ways to have one in my garage right now. One of those ways is to simply tell the auto dealer that my kids will pay for it, plus whatever interest accrues between now and then. They can worry about how to pay for it – I want the car now! Most people would think such an approach to be irresponsible and selfish – and they would be right. But this story is an exact allegory to what happens when our government borrows money to pay for a program that they cannot afford today.

Article 6 of the US Constitution allowed the government to assume pre-existing debt before its ratification. One can infer that debt, while perhaps unwise, is certainly not prohibited by the Constitution. Debt is mentioned in one or two other places so, by implication, it would seem that government debt is allowed.

At one time, if the federal government wanted to enact a new program, they would pose the idea, discuss it, and if it passed the Congress in a vote, it would be financed by a new tax or a re-direction of existing money. But we live in a time when Congress behaves with far more impatience. Rather than wait to ensure that the money exists, Congress simply borrows the money, assumes a debt, and promises to repay it at a later date. As you might imagine, it is much easier to get funding by borrowing than it is to gain permission from the people through a new tax. Let’s face it, we don’t get an itemized tax bill from the government telling us exactly where our money is going. If we did, I have a feeling that we would be surprised…and not a little upset.

Government programs can grow unchecked because their cost is deferred to the future. Like the Corvette example, our politicians are comfortable allowing our children and grandchildren to pay for the things that they want to have now. The average individual does not “feel” this occurrence because their tax bill does not grow dramatically in the current year. But it should be understood that the government has already spent your tax money (and that of your children) for many years into the future, and they will continue to add to the amount between now and then. Simply put, an increasing national debt and a government which is unwilling to stop spending means that our future tax rates (and those of our children) must be driven higher than they are today.

Thomas Jefferson suggested a unique approach to this problem. Jefferson believed strongly that any new government debt should be paid off by current taxpayers, so as not to burden the next generation. He favored limiting any government debt terms to nineteen years – precisely to keep the repayment in the generation which enjoyed the benefits. What a brilliant idea! If only we had adhered to that concept after Jefferson proposed it!

To get an idea of the history of our national debt, consider these milestones:

· Late 1700’s – the national debt was $83 million, primarily due to funding of the Revolutionary War
· 1801 – Jefferson elected President, vowed to reduce the debt
· At the end of Jefferson’s terms, the debt was reduced to $57 million
· The War of 1812 – debt rose to $127 million
· Andrew Jackson campaigned on a platform of eliminating the debt, elected President in 1829
· Jackson paid off the national debt in 1835 – the government ran a surplus of $440,000 that year
· Small financial panics and wars drove the debt back up to $63 million by 1848
· Under President Abraham Lincoln, due to the financing of the Civil War, the debt rose to an astounding $2.8 billion
· Today, the national debt exceeds $10.6 trillion (visit the national debt clock to watch it grow)

Unlike private individuals who have an obligation to repay their debts, politicians have no personal responsibility to do so. They spend other people’s money and go into debt with the obligation resting on other people’s children. And not just politicians – those private individuals who today beg their congressmen to deliver a rescue plan at the detriment of future generations are just as complicit. We are quickly becoming a nation who would mortgage the future of our own children for the comfort and pleasure of whatever we can have today. Most people would say that a parent behaving this way is a poor provider. It is no different with the government. If you think that there are some special protections or safeties in allowing our nation’s leaders to follow this path, while knowing that any private individual would be headed for disaster under the same rules - think again.

Next article: What is the Sixteenth Amendment about? How did it forever change the issue of states’ rights? What would the founding fathers have thought? Back to the main index article.

Getting a Constitutional Education – States’ Rights (Part 2)

It’s important that we educate our children on the topics of politics, government, and the Constitution which governs our nation. This nine-part series attempts to remind us of some basic principles, lest they be forgotten by the next generation.

In a recent news article, we see the state of California making clear its desire to self-impose tougher auto emissions standards than are called for by the federal government. The current president is mulling this over (the former president rejected it), while several other states are joining California in suing the federal government for not allowing the state to implement this law.

If you know anything about the Constitution and the original vision of the founders, you will see the incongruity of these stories with the ideals of our forefathers. The truth is that the original states were clearly separate from each other and largely independent of any federal restrictions. In fact, the founders’ vision was that power rested first with the individual, second with the state, and last at the federal level. Each state legislature wielded a great deal of power and independent decision-making ability. If this seems strange, consider this. Before 1913, United States senators were not elected. Instead, they were appointed by each state legislature (see the original Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution), with the intent that they would vote along lines set by each legislature. U.S. senators were not given a very long leash to vote as they wished, because they ran the risk of being removed by the state. Their power derived from the state, which was itself made up of individuals who were fiercely loyal (and uniquely devoted) to their own state. This system of states’ rights, curiously, is called federalism. The attitude behind federalism is still in evidence in many states, many of which still take pride in claiming to be the “Show Me” state or were “First in Flight”. If you live in one of these states, you probably know who you are.

This changed in 1913 when the 17th Amendment was ratified by Connecticut, the last vote necessary to meet the Amendment criteria of thirty-six ratifying states. Specifically, the 17th Amendment allows for the direct election of U.S. senators every six years, rather than being appointed by the state legislatures. If the distinction between the two systems is lost on you, consider this: a U.S. senator now has no direct responsibility to act or vote along the lines directed by his people back in the state. Instead, he or she is now inundated with federal programs that must be managed across many states, and is constantly competing for federal money which may come back to his or her state, so that jobs are “created”, the people are somewhat satisfied, and the senator can gain re-election. This serves to vastly increase the role of the federal government in our everyday lives, while reducing the power and independence of the states. And this is evidenced in today’s headlines when the President is deciding whether or not to allow a state to enact more stringent guidelines than the federal government requires.

Just to state my point of view for a moment, I believe the states should be allowed to make all such decisions, on their own, without interference from the federal government. Montana should be free to set their highway speed limit wherever they like without the threat of the federal government refusing highway improvement money. In fact, they should take all of that federal tax money slated for highway improvements and give it back to the individual who paid it originally. If the state wants to enact a highway improvement, then let them do so through their own legislature, and the votes of the people. Why does the federal government take money from the taxpayer, only to distribute it back to the states? Such a system is inefficient and extremely subject to corruption.

As an example of the way things used to work before the 17th Amendment, consider the case of John Quincy Adams in 1809. His state legislature of Massachusetts made their mind known to him regarding a piece of trade embargo legislation, and instructed him to vote against the motion. He was not of this opinion, and so resigned his seat, rather than oppose his state lawmakers. Similarly, when President Andrew Jackson was censured in 1834 for posturing against the federal bank, seven U.S. senators resigned their post, rather than vote to remove the censure as their legislatures recommended. Can you imagine a senator doing this today? No, today our senators openly rally for campaign funds in other states and foreign countries, making them more open to corruption than ever.

James Madison had it right in Federalist #45 when he said, “each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence”, and in Federalist #46 that the federal government will “be disinclined to invade the rights of the individual States, or the prerogatives of their governments.” Indeed, the Constitution itself was not ratified as a kind of “national” effort. It was studied, weighed and voted upon by individual states – each of which had differing overall opinions and discussions.

It’s important to understand how our government differs today from how the founders envisioned it. Perhaps it’s time to consider a repeal of an amendment or two. Frank Chodorov, author of The Income Tax: Root of All Evil, perhaps said it best when he stated, “The freedoms won by Americans in 1776 were lost in the revolution of 1913.”

Next article: Is it okay for the government to go into debt? Is it constitutional? Back to the main index article.

Getting a Constitutional Education – Presidential Power (Part 1)

It’s important that we educate our children on the topics of politics, government, and the Constitution which governs our nation. This nine-part series attempts to remind us of some basic principles, lest they be forgotten by the next generation.

As a nation, we pay an incredible amount of attention to the election of our presidents. If you’re not sufficiently tired of the election cycle that ended only a couple of months ago, fear not – it will all start again in about two-and-a-half years. It seems to be the ultimate reality show, made for television.

Already, the newspapers and other media outlets are looking to our new President to single-handedly solve the perceived problems in our nation. If you were an alien just landing on earth and you happened to drop in front of a television, you would think that the President has the power to do anything, fix anything, and change anything. He seems to be larger-than-life and is credited with far more wisdom than any other person in our land.

Similarly, whenever there is a question of right and wrong that is not adequately resolved between men or institutions, we are content to run to the Supreme Court as the final arbiter for any issue. Again, to an outsider it would seem that the nine justices of the Court possess such vast wisdom that no problem is too hard to tackle. And we let them get away with wielding this power. But between the President and the Supreme Court, are we correct in assigning them this amount of authority?

Article II of the Constitution contains four distinct sections which describe the duties and limits of the President. The specific authority given to the President includes: Commander in Chief of the military, authority over other members of the Executive branch, the power to grant reprieves and pardons, the ability to make treaties (with congressional approval), the power to nominate ambassadors and Supreme Court justices, and the authority to appoint Senate vacancies during recess periods. His duties include: making a State of the Union address, he may convene or adjourn both Houses as necessary, receive ambassadors, commission officers, and “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. That’s all – there is nothing more in the Constitution to define the power or duties of the office of President.

The power and duties of Supreme Court justices are vague indeed – see Article III. They have authority to hear cases deemed to be of a federal nature, and they have the ability to exercise “appellate jurisdiction”, meaning they can review state-level cases that are deemed necessary to review. Beyond that, little is said about their role.

To properly interpret the relationship between the three different branches of government, one should look to the words of the founding fathers, who clearly meant for checks and balances to exist. Their greatest fear was the rebirth of a monarchy like the one they had fled in England. They did not want their President to be a king, nor did they intend for nine judges (originally six), appointed for life, to singlehandedly interpret the Constitution and wield it over the people. Rather, the founders issued countless letters ensuring that power stayed with the people, in their respective states.

To give an example, consider the presidency of Andrew Jackson. During his term, he was committed to the dissolution of the United States Bank, and argued vehemently for its demise. He sparred with Justice John Marshall during this time, and their argument included the topic of constitutional authority. Marshall declared that the Supreme Court was the ultimate decider on what is constitutional and what is not. Jackson found this outrageous, and said,

“To this conclusion I cannot assent…Congress and the President as well as the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented…The opinion of the [Supreme Court] judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both” (see http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/writings/bank/jackson.htm for further details).

These are tremendously important words, and very different from the behavior we witness today. Jackson understood that no single branch of government had overarching constitutional authority. There are many examples in early America of states ignoring the laws handed down by federal officials (including the President) because, simply put, it was understood that state’s rights were sovereign. That little fact was the original construct of our government….and it’s been forgotten.

Next article: States’ rights versus central government rights, and the curse of the Seventeenth Amendment. Back to the main index article.