Religious Freedom

Recently the Obama administration decided to deny Catholic institutions such as hospitals, clinics, etc. religious exemption from the requirement to provide free contraceptives to all employees, against the teachings of their faith. That was met with an outcry, so the president decided to change the rules to exempt those institutions but still require the insurance companies that they pay to provide health care (mandated by "Obamacare") to offer the contraceptives for free. In other words, it is a shell game, moving from requiring the employer to provide the contraceptives to requiring the employer's insurance company to provide the contraceptives as part of the policies that the employer funds. How is that an exception? The answer is that it is not.

The political conservatives have cried out that this infringes on religious freedoms, while the political liberals have hailed the decision as a victory for women and ridiculed the conservatives as wanting to ban contraceptives in the name of religion.

What is really alarming to me is the way my friends on the political left are framing the debate as an attack on women's rights by the conservatives in the name of religious freedom. Let's look at the U.S. Constitution. The first amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". So, if the president is trying to take a law that Congress passed and interpret it to mean that a religious organization is required to pay for something that contradicts longstanding church teaching on morality, isn't that violating the Constitution's protection of the "free exercise" of religion? There is nowhere in the Constitution that makes an exception to this fundamental right when it comes to healthcare or anything else, regardless of whether it is widely accepted as a good idea. The Constitution's protection of rights is spelled out precisely for those situations when the rights would otherwise be trampled by the tyranny of the government or of the majority.

Now, I'm not Catholic, and I am in favor of accessible birth control, as long as that does not include abortion on demand, but I would gladly die to protect the right of Catholic organizations to exercise their religious convictions by not providing contraceptives of any type to their employees, even indirectly via the insurance policies they provide for their employees. Let's not confuse the issue by focusing on the wrong issue. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, so it trumps any other rule or regulation. If you don't like the results, try pushing an amendment through. That's why there is an amendment process. Just don't ignore the Constitution for convenience if it gets in your way!

Constitutional Amendments

I haven't posted in a long time, but I hope this one is worth the wait.

In the past 222 years there have been thousands of proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution, but thankfully only 27 have passed Congress and been ratified by the states. Six others have passed Congress but failed to be ratified by the states, with four of those still pending due to no deadline existing. I say "thankfully only 27" because the Constitution should not be changed lightly, only changing to address significant needs.

Still, there are valid reasons to amend the foundational document of our republic, and I will list here a few that I would propose. These are my own ideas and not part of any national campaign, but I would love for a national campaign to form around any of these.

In no particular order:

1. Limit taxing and spending authority to only what is needed within enumerated powers.

"The United States shall not raise revenues nor incur debt for any purpose except as needed to exercise the powers explicitly delegated to the United States by the Constitution."

I have proposed this one in an earlier blog entry to address the games Congress has played for years in using money to bribe states to pass laws desired by the federal government.

2. Limit tax rates.

"The income tax rate levied by the federal government shall not exceed 10% of a citizen's or business's income, nor shall the combination of sales tax and tariffs levied by the federal government exceed 10% of the value of a product or service. Property shall only be taxable upon sale when new or not at all, and a subsequent gain in value of an asset shall not be taxed."

Clearly the government has an insatiable appetite for raising taxes, and there should be limits that ensure people can keep most of what they earn both out of fairness and because otherwise the economy can not grow. This amendment would complement the 9-9-9 plan proposed by presidential candidate Herman Cain, allaying fears that adding a federal sales tax would open Pandora's Box.

3. Eliminate the federal income tax.

"The 16th Amendment is hereby repealed."

Income tax is not necessary for a properly limited federal government, and sales taxes (exempting food staples and used goods) is a more fair way to raise revenues, because it is largely voluntary. If this can be done then the previously mentioned amendment to limit rates would probably need to allow for a higher federal sales tax limit, as follows:

"The combination of sales tax and tariffs levied by the federal government shall not exceed 30% of the value of a product or service. Property shall only be taxable upon sale when new or not at all, and a subsequent gain in value of an asset shall not be taxed. Income in any form shall not be taxed."

Without an income tax, a higher consumption tax is necessary, but it should still be limited. Also, even with a repeal of the 16th Amendment, it is good to explicitly prohibit income-related taxes, especially when allowing for a higher sales tax.

4. Limit citizenship by birth to children of legal residents of the United States.

"Persons born in the United States to a mother who is not a citizen or legal resident of the United States shall not be citizens of the United States under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment."

The 14th Amendment says in Section 1, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside...", which has acted as a magnet for illegal immigrants to come to the U.S., largely from Mexico, to have children on U.S. soil, so they can be citizens with all the benefits, including welfare, free education, etc., and making it more difficult to deport the parents besides. This was not the intent of the 14th amendment, which was to ensure citizenship of all the former slaves that had been born in the U.S. or their descendants.

5. The Senate must vote on every appointment requiring confirmation under the Constitution.

"The Senate shall be compelled to exercise its authority of Advice and Consent of appointments under Article II Section 2 by voting on every appointment within 30 days, except if the Senate is scheduled for Recess, in which case the appointment must come to a vote within 30 days of convening. Failure to vote within the prescribed timeframe shall be considered Consent."

Article II Section 2 states, "The President ... shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law...". In the past generation, especially, the Senate has refused to vote on many appointments, either by the majority party refusing to call a vote or by the minority party blocking a vote with a filibuster. This amendment seeks to remove the logjam by ensuring all appointments get an up or down vote witbin a reasonable timeframe.

6. Limit recess appointments to recess vacancies, restoring original intent and eliminating abuse.

"The President may only fill up Vacancies during the Recess of the Senate under Article II Section 2 if the Vacancy began during or less than 30 days prior to the Recess in which the appointment is made. Vacancies that occur at other times must be filled while the Senate is in session."

Article II, Section 2 states, "...The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session." The recess appointment authority has been abused by presidents of both parties to push through appointments that couldn't get through the confirmation process. This amendment aims to address this abuse by clarifying the language to ensure that recess apointments are made only for emergency situations where there is no opportunity to make an appointment while the Senate is in session.

Has A Deficit of $1 Trillion Been Worth It?

Remember when the national debt (total money owed) reached $1 trillion, and everyone was concerned that our economy would collapse? Well, this week, our annual deficit (additional money borrowed just this year) crossed $1 trillion, and we're barely half way through the year. So, has all this spending of money we don't have, with near certainty of skyrocketing interest rates and/or hyper-inflation, managed to save our economy as promised, or is it just sending us toward disaster?

Has anybody noticed unemployment has exceeded the projections that preceded the "stimulus" bill for what would happen if we didn't spend all that money? It certainly didn't save the jobs that were predicted. Funny, that's just what I and many others said would happen. So, why are we still planning to spend the rest of that money? What was spent so far hasn't helped. Neither has the promise of the rest of the spending helped.

Now, if more of the money had been spent on infrastructure like roads and bridges, like originally promised, it might have helped some, and it would have had a lasting impact in lasting improvements. Instead, though, most is earmarked for new programs that don't create jobs but rather commit us to bigger deficits for a long time to come.

We should cancel the rest of the spending in that failed legislation, avoid the economic disaster of the so-called "cap and trade" plan, and avoid the economic disaster of the current health care legislation under consideration, and instead stimulate the economy with tax cuts that have immediate impact on job growth combined with massive government spending cuts to keep the deficit from growing any faster than necessary.

Don't believe claims that health care reform as currently proposed will save our economy by controlling costs. It is already projected by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office to be an addition of over $200 billion to the economic burden rather than lessening it, and remember that Medicare costs proved to be seven times the original projections, so consider that when looking at any cost projections (most of which approach $1.5 trillion in their optimistic view), given that our government still hasn't figured out how to do anything cost-effectively.

Separation of Church and State

Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say there is a Constitutional mandate for the "separation of church and state"? Nowhere.

The first amendment is the only reference to religion in the Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What does this mean?

It means quite simply that the Congress of the United States may not establish a national religion in the manner of the countries of Europe at the time, such as the relationship that the Church of England had to England or the Roman Catholic Church had to the Holy Roman Empire.

It means that the Congress of the United States may not pass laws that restrict free exercise of religion, such as was the case in the countries of Europe at the time, most of which said that you must only worship in the manner of the official state church with only limited exceptions.

It means that the Congress of the United States may pass laws that favor religion, generally, as long as it is not favoring one specific religious institution over all others.

It also means that individual states may pass laws either establishing a state religion or restricting religious freedom, since the first amendment only stipulates what Congress may or may not do, and the tenth amendment elaborates that the states may do anything not specifically given to Congress and not explicitly prohibited to the states.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Yes, that may be a scary thought, that Utah may establish the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as the official religion of the state or that Massachusetts may prohibit the exercise of religion in any form other than Darwinism or secular humanism. However, that's what the Constitution says. Now, don't worry, state constitutions tend to protect religious freedoms and prohibit favoring one religion over all others as "official," but any that don't certainly could.

Personally, I don't want any state to do that, but I recognize the right of a state to do that if its own constitution allows it. If you live in a state that goes to either extreme, either change it through the democratic process or move to another state. That's the great thing about this country.

Return The Constitution To The Founders' Intent

The U.S. Constitution was intentionally designed to ensure a strong enough federal government to overcome the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation and keep the country from dissolving into anarchy while maintaining a government limited in its authority beyond the basic necessities. Yes, we need the federal government to provide for national defense. Yes, we need the federal government to oversee interstate commerce. Yes, we need the federal government to handle treaties with other nations. I could go on, but you can read the Constitution for yourself. However, take close notice at the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So, why does our federal government get involved in things that the Constiution does not delegate to it? The answer is "because it can." How is this done? Well, mostly it is done by collecting massive amounts of taxes and then redistributing that money back to the states with strings attached. For example, the Department of Education and the Congress only have authority over the education system at the state and local level because of the massive amounts of federal subsidies on education. The same is true of transportation (with the exception of interstate transportation). For decades the federal government mandated a 55 mph speed limit nationally by requiring that states pass a law to that effect in exchange for huge amounts of highway construction funds every year.

What is the solution? Well, the courts obviously haven't found a way to tell the federal government to mind its own business (they are apparently too busy making up laws about abortion rights, gay marriage rights, etc. and seem to have no interest in keeping government small and localized where it makes sense). Just as with anything, if people find loopholes to the intent of a law, the right thing to do is to close the loopholes. Therefore, I would propose a Constitional Amendment prohibiting the federal government from collecting revenues to be used for any purpose not explicitly delegated to it by the Constitution and from spending money on any such purpose. It would be the perfect companion to the 10th Amendement. It could read something like the following:

The United States shall not raise revenues nor incur debt for any purpose except as needed to exercise the powers explicitly delegated to the United States by the Constitution.

It just seems to me that it would be better for the states and local governments to raise their own revenues for their own locally-determined purposes and reduce the federal intervention in matters never intended to be nationalized. If the people of this great country then want to cede their rights in any particular area to the federal government, they can do so with the legal process for amending the Constitution. The lawmakers in Congress will still have plenty to do, but the era of pork-barrel spending and one-size-fits-all solutions would be over. Now that is music to my ears.

The problem with Roe v. Wade

Whether you are for or against abortion rights, you should be against Roe v. Wade.

Why? Because Roe v. Wade is a perfect example of the danger that judicial activism poses to the integrity of the U.S. Constitution. It is claiming to find something in the Constitution that just isn't there.

Where in the Constitution is there a protection of personal individual freedom with regards to medical decisions, parental decisions, or even prohibition against murder? Nowhere. These matters are to be decided by elected legislatures, not appointed judges.

If a legislature wants to make it legal for a woman to kill her child during pregnancy because the pregnancy has medical implications for the woman, that is within the powers granted by the Constitution. I don't like it, but I recognize it.

If a legislature wants to make it legal for a woman to kill her child during or after pregnancy because she has special right to determine the fate of her own offspring, that is within the powers granted by the Constitution. I don't like that, either (in fact, it is a downright scary proposition), but I recognize it.

If a legislature wants to make it illegal for a woman to take the life of an innocient human being that is too young to care for itself or possibly even too young to live outside her womb, that is within the powers granted by the Constitution. I happen to like that, because it recognizes the intrinsic value of all human life.

Instead, though, the judicial system in this country has decided that it is not for the legislature to decide whether a woman can or cannot make these decisions. Instead, the courts have decided that regardless of what the people or the legislatures of the various states may think, a woman can kill her child at any stage of development as long as it is still within her womb and not yet "viable" to be able to live outside the womb or even if the child is "viable" as long as the mother's life was at risk (which is easy to rationalize), and they have done so without any language in the U.S. Constitution to support that view.

What part of the Constitution is used to justify this claim? It is the "right of privacy" that is derived from the "due process" references in the 5th and 14th amendments, with the 14th amendment being cited specifically. Here's the text of those amendments:

5th Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

14th Amendment

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may
by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Now, the 5th Amendment is designed to give basic protections in the legal process. Abortion is clearly out of context. The part that is considered relevant by the courts is where it says "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...." So, is the "liberty" of the mother more important than the "life" of the child?

The 14th Amendment was specifically intended to grant basic rights to African Americans after the Civil War that were already available to other Americans. Abortion was not one of those rights, as most states had prohibitions against abortion, and common law prohibitions were recognized almost universally. The part that is considered relevant by the courts is where it says "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ..." So, again, is the "liberty" of the mother considered more important than the "life" of the child?

In both cases, the protection against being deprived of "life, liberty, or property" is in the context of requiring "due process of law." The due process of law referred to in those two amendments are personal rights regarding how the legal process plays out so that a person is treated fairly, humanely, and reasonably during the process. It is not referring to which particular activities a person has the right to engage in. The legislature can pass any law they wish (under the watchful eye of the people that vote), except those specifically prohibited by the U.S. Constitution (and in the case of state and local laws the relevant state constitution). Abortion laws are not specifically prohibited, nor are other laws that invade a person's privacy in ways not specifically outlined in the Constitution.

If you believe the Constitution should protect a person's right to privacy with regard to medical decisions, parenting, or other areas of life not protected by the Constitution, then please start a movement to amend the Constitution under the rules provided therein. Don't just make up a law out of thin air and then try to justify it by weaving intricate webs of rationalization that go well beyond the intent of the original framers of the Constitution or authors of the particular amendments. Our Constitution is the foundation of our democracy and the reason that our country has been historically strong. The more we undermine its authority, the weaker our country becomes.

Economic Crisis 2009

The economic "crisis" of 2009 has been mischaracterized in the press and by the government. For starters, President Obama likes to blame the "failed policies of the past 8 years" and particularly "the Bush tax cuts." That couldn't be farther from the truth. The tax cuts are actually what fueled the economic good times during his administration, and they held off the recession that would have otherwise come much sooner. President Bush certainly has a share of the blame, though, because he signed all those wasteful spending bills full of pork. In fact, he didn't veto anything until the waning days of his administration. Then, he went so far as to push for the massive financial industry "bailout", which was exactly the wrong thing to do. Better to let those banks fail and let the economy start the process of recovery than to keep propping things up and subsidizing companies that can't survive on their own due to bad decisions.

The Republicans sold their souls by spending like crazy while they were in power in Congress, which is really why they lost the majority. If people are going to get wasteful spending, anyway, the Republicans lose their advantage over the Democrats. Unfortunately, the Democrats have only done a worse job, but they keep blaming the Republicans, and people somehow keep believing them. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Ried, and other Democratic leaders in Congress have just made things worse with the legislation they have pushed through.

Now, President Obama hasn't brought "change we can believe in" to the problem, either. No, he has continued to try to spend borrowed money, driving our national debt into the stratosphere (like it wasn't too big already). Individuals, companies, cities, and states all know that going deeper into debt is a recipe for disaster, not a way to get out of financial problems. Why doesn't the federal government understand that? Why don't people recognize the insanity of that approach?

It didn't work for FDR during the Great Depression. Statistics prove that the programs tried in the 30s only lengthened the depression and slowed job creation as compared to the rest of the world at the time. Back then the U.S. was a creditor nation, had a trade surplus, had very little consumer debt, was energy independent, and had a dollar based on a gold standard. Now the U.S. is a debtor nation, has a trade deficit, has massive consumer debt, imports much of its energy, and has a dollar based on nothing but faith in the U.S. government. Our economy can't absorb the massive government spending increases as well as we could in the 30s, yet we're borrowing even more and setting up the house of cards to fall.

On top of it, Obama, Pelosi, and Ried have structured the economic "stimulus" package to not only spend a ton of money that we don't have but to spend it foolishly on things that don't stimulate the economy at all. Instead, they rushed through a package that includes every "liberal" proposal that has been voted down over the past 40 years without even giving lawmakers time to read the bill, and then the president signed it into law, committing us to a radical shift in American policies and spending priorities virtually overnight that will stay with us for at least a generation.

Isn't it interesting how quickly conservative movements like the Reagan Revolution can be swept away, only one generation after taking place, while liberal movements like the New Deal can survive for several generations and then get amplified in a relative blink of an eye?