Category Archives: The Founders

Repeat: Friday Follies for June 5, 2015

Posted on by

The left is attempting to smear Marco Rubio and his wife. The Drudge headline this morning is this: NYT INVESTIGATES: Rubio and Wife Cited 17 Times for Traffic Infractions... The New York Times couldn’t be bothered by Hillary’s State Department incompetence, nor of the bribes funneled to her and Bill through their shell corporation, but let the Rubios get some traffice tickets? Horrors!

I’ll take the Rubio’s traffic ‘indiscretions’ over Bill’s and Hillary’s criminality any day. At least the Rubios paid their fines instead of attempting to cover them up.

***

Rick Perry announced his candidacy for Prez yesterday. I saw him speak at the NRA Annual Meeting in Nashville a month ago. It was apparent then that he was going to run. (You can see my comments and a link a video of his speech here.) Perry’s opening video of him shooting steel with an AR was a hit with the NRA members—especially his final look to the audience in the video.

Perry lost his bid for Prez in 2012 by screwing up one interview. In that interview, he said he’d close three federal departments. He named two and couldn’t remember the third. I’ve heard him say elsewhere that he had learned his lesson—never give an interview after having major surgery. Perry had surgery on his back during the campaign and was taking pain-killers when he was interviewed.

I like Perry. I like a number of the ‘Pub candidates, Cruz, Walker, Rubio, Jindal, and to as lesser extent, Paul. I told my wife after hearing Perry speak in Nashville, “He is the only one speaking today that actually appears Presidential.”

***

I don’t know how many of you subscribe to Erick Erickson’s daily newsletter. I do. I don’t always agree with him but, on occasion, he says something that strikes a cord within me. Today’s newsletter had such an occasion. I would hope you read it, too. It contains ammunition for you in your next discussion with a liberal who claims our Founders were racist, old white men.

Open Letter to a Liberal Professor

My conservatism doesn’t need to be edited.

By: Diary)  |  June 4th, 2015 at 03:27 PM

(From the diaries…bill s)

The heart of this entry is a letter I wrote in response to one specific liberal professor who made the mistake of attempting to embarrass me for holding conservative views. First let me share a little back-story. It was an online course on American Government, one that made use of a message board for class discussion and student interaction. After introductions our first assignment was to answer a question regarding freedom in America, including how and to whom it should be applied. I happily typed and posted my response, which I share here in part:

“Our Federation was founded on the ideas of Individualism, and the idea that freedom should be available to every citizen in equal measure. It was this idea that the framers of our Constitution embodied and enshrined within our system of governance. They sought to create a document that preserved and protected the idea of individual freedom by enumerating a system that not only protected the citizen but allowed the citizen to participate should he or she choose to do so.”

Being a liberal my professor could not let me, a mere student, praise the work of our nation’s founders, especially in an open forum where other students might be exposed to a positive view of them. Thus she felt it her duty to post a reply and correct my “errant” notions, and responded by stating:

“I will not usually intervene here, but I want to push you all to think about something —

Irish writes: “Our Federation was founded on the ideas of Individualism, and the idea that freedom should be available to every citizen in equal measure.” As I’m sure Irish knows, though, the Founding Fathers explicitly did not believe that freedom should be available to every citizen in equal measure. Quite the opposite. They believed that freedom should be available mostly to the wealthy, land-owning, white men. Our idea of who should be allowed to participate in this project of self-governance has evolved substantially over our history.”

Like so many liberal professors, in a room with a captive audience, this woman had become far too comfortable spouting factual inaccuracies and historically incorrect statements in order to drive forward a corrosive ideology. Like so many conservatives I am sick of this having become a common occurrence, so rather than drop the matter, I chose to respond:

Professor,

In response to your attempt to correct my statement I would prefer to defend my position. I said exactly what I meant, it needs no correction, and furthermore I can defend my position with historical evidence.

At the time of our nation’s founding the understood meaning of the word “citizen”, so far as political involvement was concerned, was indeed that of white, land-owning, males. Thus, to say, as I did, that “Our Federation was founded on the ideas of Individualism, and the idea that freedom should be available to every citizen in equal measure” is accurate in its context. However to state that the founders “explicitly did not believe that freedom should be available to every citizen in equal measure” that they believed “[q]uite the opposite” going so far as to suggest that “They believed that freedom should be available mostly to the wealthy, land-owning, white men” is demonstrably incorrect.

It defies logic to suggest that our Constitution’s Framers intended to reserve citizenship and freedom to white, male, landowners, either generally or exclusively. If that were the case they could have done so, they had the opportunity — they had the votes.

Our Constitution, written by those very framers, does not restrict citizenship or freedom in such a manner. Even issues such as slavery are acknowledged but not enshrined, left instead to the discretion of the states. Nowhere within our founding document can be found anything resembling the Jim Crow laws or the “slave” codes that erupted in the South after the passing of the 13th Amendment. Yet these men you accuse of harboring such vile racist views had ample opportunity to include such legislation. Furthermore, the inclusion of the Article 5 Amendment process indicates that our Constitution’s framers were aware of the fact that times would change, and also aware of the need to provide for those changes. They were conscious of the population growth in the North and expected that it would eventually overrun the influence of the South within Congress. Feeling that this would be the case they allowed the Three-fifths Compromise in an effort to prevent the Southern States from simply importing more slaves as a means to increase their power within the House of Representatives. This act by the Framers suggests they intended to provide a means by which our federation could eventually deal with the issue of slavery while accomplishing the immediate, and necessary, task of creating a union of the existing States.

I would suggest that our Constitution is not a rigid document enshrining bigotry, patriarchy, or voting rights tied to landownership, is evidence of the lack of intent to restrict society in America in such a manner; but it could have been. This is a truth I feel is easily supported. We need look no further than he dissenting opinion in the infamous Dred Scott case. This document contains a great deal of history relating to the treatment of African Americans prior to the Emancipation. In the opinion Justice Benjamin R. Curtis reveals that four Northern states (Delaware, Maryland, New Hampshire and New York) provided voting rights for African American citizens even before our Constitution was drafted. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1072053/posts) Ironically, in light of your assertion, several states when ratifying the Constitution did so with votes from both Whites and African Americans. This, to my mind, seems to fail as evidence of an exclusionary approach by the Framers.

I am however not naïve, I realize that there were those among our founders who felt otherwise but the facts are clear — the majority of our Founding Fathers did not intend to restrict freedom, using a narrow definition of who was a “citizen,” reserving it to a select few, as you have suggested.

On a final note I would point out that where there hasbeen a substantial change to our definition, or understanding, of what constitutes a “citizen” it has been a result of those “white, male, landowners” in the North who voted to abolish the institution of slavery and redefine said citizenship, via the 13th and 14th Amendments, and this was done in the face of great opposition from the southern Democrat Party. (On a side note: This phenomena was repeated in the early 1900’s when again “white men” in the House of Representatives and the Senate voted to extend that definition to include recognized national voting rights for women as citizens of America, and this via another Constitutional Amendment. This decision closed the gap legally between citizenship and voting rights for women.)

The ability for this to happen, both for former slaves and for women, was precisely a result of those “white, male, landowners” who could have enshrined sexism, bigotry and the like within our founding document but did not.

I stand by my original statement, and maintain that I was accurate in my portrayal of the intent of our founders.

I appreciate your time.

I knew even then that I would not change her mindset, or reverse her ideology, but I also knew that I was throwing down a gauntlet she could not afford to pick up. This is why it is important we self-educate. We as conservatives must be able to defend our beliefs with documented and researched opinions. It is amazing to watch a liberal when they are out of their element, falling back on tired and weak hypothetical arguments.

Not surprisingly this professor never again attempted to correct my posts, and for the curious, my grade did not suffer for my response.

Facebook

Notes: News, History, Events

Posted on by

I don’t usually listen to internet radio. All too many programs are hosted by…well, let’s just say their light bulbs aren’t screwed in very tightly. The subject of the programs are spread from one extreme to the other, left and right, liberal and conservative, communist to anarchist.

I happened to listen to one for a few minutes the other day. The premise of the subject was that the United States is inherently racist because when it was first adopted, only white, male, property owners could vote!

Contrary to the popular myth espoused by many, voting requirements were never written into the Constitution, it was left to the individual states to determine requirements for suffrage, the right to vote. Many argued in the years prior to the creation of the Constitution to put limitations on the right to vote. One of the most famous, because it supported the property-owning myth, was from Alexander Hamilton.

Alexander Hamilton – 1775

[Hamilton is quoting Blackstone’s Commentaries, bk. 1, ch. 2:]

“If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”

From Papers of Alexander Hamilton, ed. Harold C. Syrett (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961-79), 1:106. — www.vindicatingthefounders.com

Some states, like New York, imposed voting and qualification limitations similar to that proposed by Hamilton.

…the 1777 New York State Constitution required that a man have considerable wealth to be able to vote for the state Assembly – he had to pay taxes as well as own property worth at least 20 pounds or pay an annual rent of 2 pounds. Ten of the original 13 states had property and/or tax requirements when the U.S. Constitution came into effect. — City University of New York.

Why did these early founders think property ownership was so important to gain suffrage? In the words of today, “it insured that they, the voters, had skin in the game.“

I don’t propose that we return to that standard for suffrage. But…think of the changes in government if we did. For one, I strongly doubt our welfare system would exist. And, the balance of power would shift from cities and urban areas to rural. Property ownership would rise…or would it?  It’s something to think about.

***

ramirez_09172013Why was the Washington Navy Yard, most military bases in fact, undefended? By the order of one man: William Jefferson Clinton.

Military bases used to be guarded by the military. When I was in the Air Force some time ago, USAF Security Police manned guard posts at all entrances. They also policed the base, just like many of the neighboring police departments, and had roving patrols of the perimeter to guard against infiltrators. SAC bases were more stringent in their precautions.

McNamara, when he was Kennedy’s and Johnson’s Secretary of Defense, proposed replacing those guards with civilian employees. The four Chiefs of Staff, the CS of the Army, Air Force, the CNO of the Navy and the Commandant of the Marines, went to Johnson and threatened to resign enmass if McNamara continued with his plan.  Johnson stopped McNamara. I never heard this in the news but it was well known in the services. Unfortunately, it was the last instance, that I know of, of interdepartmental cooperation and unity between the services.

Navy Yard Shooting Another Clinton Gun-Free Zone Fail

Posted 09/17/2013 06:04 PM ET

Security: As the usual suspects call for stricter gun control, the fact remains that a gunman with two prior gun-crime arrests entered a secure military facility with a stolen ID and found no one able to shoot back.

It was Fort Hood all over again. Aaron Alexis, a gunman whose prior behavioral warning signs were ignored, opens fire in an installation belonging to the most powerful military on Earth and those who protect our nation and design our weapons are not allowed to have a weapon to defend themselves.

He was more equipped than the 12 people he killed on the base who were not permitted to carry weapons on the base, thanks to former President Bill Clinton.

In 1993 the president issued orders that barred members of the military and their civilian contractors from carrying personal firearms on base. Even officers were disarmed under the law.

Almost as soon as Clinton assumed office, in March 1993 the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection.

That ban extends to virtually all U.S military bases and related installations.

Under the ruling enacted by the Clinton administration, there must be “a credible and specific threat against personnel” before military personnel “may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection.”

This was the reason that the Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was able to go on a rampage for a full 10 minutes in 2009 without being stopped.

This is why, at Fort Hood, home of the heavily armed and feared 1st Cavalry Division, a civilian policewoman from off base was the one whose marksmanship ended Hasan’s terrorist rampage, to this day obscenely called “workplace violence,” denying survivors and the dead medals and benefits.

The liberal reaction to the Navy Yard massacre mirrors the reaction, after Fort Hood, of Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

He opined, “This latest tragedy, at a heavily fortified army base, ought to convince more Americans to reject the argument that the solution to gun violence is to arm more people with more guns in more places.” What?

On Monday night, anchor John Roberts asked Mandy Foster, the wife of one of the soldiers shot at Fort Hood, how she felt about her husband’s upcoming deployment to Afghanistan. She responded: “At least he’s safe there and he can fire back, right?” Safer than at the Washington Navy Yard or Fort Hood.

The article continues at the website. It’s a good read and places the blame for making our military installations a target of choice for terrorists, the disgruntled, and the insane, squarely where it should—the Executive Branch of the federal government.

Bush isn’t blameless, here. he could have rescinded Clinton’s order. He did not.

Let’s also note that the Navy Yard Shooter, was a liberal and an Obama supporter. He was NOT a Bible thumping, bitter-clinging, gun-loving, white american. He was none of the popular stereotypes so loved by the state media when they blame conservatives for the nation’s ills.

Repost: The Constitution’s "Elastic Clause"

Posted on by
Earlier this week I re-posted a review from Thomas Wood’s book, 33 Questions about American History You’re Not Supposed to Ask.  With the upcoming Supreme Court review of Obamacare, it’s pertinent to review that so-called “Elastic Clause” that Obama uses as the authority to impose Obamacare—the preemption of federal power over the states and the individual.

Let’s take another look at that clause as it was originally intended by the Founders.  And let us also hope that SCOTUS supports that interpretation and reverses Chief Justice John Marshall’s decision.

***

Today’s report covers the chapter titled, “Does the Constitution really contain an “Elastic Clause”?”

From Woods…

In its listing of the powers of Congress, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution includes the power to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the department or officer thereof.” This “necessary and proper” clause has proven to be a particular favorite among people and politicians who would expand the federal government’s powers beyond those delegated to it. The typical high school social studies class presents it as an “elastic clause” that can be pressed into service to authorized just about anything.

To understand this clause, it’s important to understand the context under which it was created and what it was NOT intended to mean. 

At the Constitutional Convention, one participant, Gunning Bedford, proposed a clause that would have added broad, sweeping powers to the federal government—open ended powers to enact laws “in all cases for the general interests of the Union.” It was soundly rejected. 
Instead of that broad statement, a list of limited, enumerated powers was written into the Constitution. That list was followed by the clause that authorized those powers that were “necessary and proper”, i.e., the “necessary and proper” clause authorized the enumerated list of specific powers. Those powers only. What has happened since the creation of the Constitution is the interpretation of the “necessary and proper” clause to enable those broad, wide-sweeping, open-ended powers that the Constitution Convention rejected!

When the Constitution was circulated to the states for ratification, questions concerning this clause arose and the supporters of the Constitution reassured the Anti-Federalist groups, skeptical of centralized power after ridding themselves of the British government, that the clause would not and could not be used to allow the federal government to usurp broad powers not enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution. The answer provided to Virginia’s convention ratifying the Constitution was that the clause “only enables them [Congress] to carry into execution the powers given to them, but gives them no additional power.” James Madison held the same view.

The Myth:
The Constitution includes an “elastic clause” that gives the federal government sweeping power to do what it considers to be useful of convenient.[1]

The Truth:
The Framers explicitly and repeatedly affirmed that the Constitution granted the federal government only the authority to carry out its specifically enumerated powers. The Supreme Court ignored that history to grant the federal government far more expansive powers.

The Supreme Court in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland, a decision written by Chief Justice John Marshall, decided to interpret the “necessary and proper” clause to mean “convenient” or “useful”, the very purpose that Jefferson in the Federalist papers, Madison to the Virginia convention and others had expressly rejected. [2]

[1] Thomas J. Woods, Jr., 33 Questions about American History You’re not Supposed to Ask, 2007, Crown Forum Press.

[2] Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the state of Virginia, ed. David Waldstreicher (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2002) 168-69.

Cartoon of the Week: Michael Ramirez

Posted on by
Michael Ramirez is, in my opinion, the best political cartoonist for our times.  I believe he’ll be remembered long after his time as is Bill Mauldin.

Now for your viewing pleasure, The Founders.

Y’all have a Great Easter!