Rights 4 Sale

When the Declaration of Independence was written, the Colonies alleged a number of abusive decisions and actions by England and railed against these actions being taken by King George III and the British Parliament without any representation.

These conditions guided how the Constitution and Bill of Rights were constructed.  Many of the provisions of the Constitution were adopted the preempt or prevent these abuses from reoccurring.

The government was also designed in such a way that it was difficult to alter the Constitution or pass unfair or unpopular laws.  The rules for amending the Constitution are provided within the Constitution.  The division of legislative, administrative and justice functions acts as a check and balance to tyranny.  The bicameral system of House and Senate balances what’s good for the country and what’s good for individuals.

The House is organized according to the population.   House rules are aligned with the idea that the House is there to directly represent the People.  The Senate is the “upper” house and is based on the Roman and British concepts or representative government.  While it only takes a simple majority to pass a bill in the Senate, it takes a 60% super majority to allow it to reach the point of consideration for a vote which keeps fringe issues from squeaking by on narrow, simple majority votes.   The intention is to prevent the tyranny of a 51% majority.

Recent attempts to restructure procedures by changing the requirements to pass a bill put us on a one-way street that permanently forfeits the freedoms built into the Constitution in exchange for short term and questionable benefits.

Maybe we should slow down and take a more prudent path.

 

Background

The Senate was designed to be the “upper” house.  Senators were given staggered, six year terms and members of the House of Representatives were given two years.  The basic reason for doing this was to provide more continuity to the Senate.  While, there was discourse about how to organize the legislative branch, it was hoped that the longer terms and the staggered terms would combine with the limit of two Senators per state (large or small) to create a conservative body that would respond more to the needs of the nation and less to the every-changing popular sentiment of the people.  The House of Representatives was organized to be responsive to the people, so representation and terms were designed around the distribution of population.

Cloture

To further stabilize the Senate and to prevent tyranny of the simple and/or hasty majority, the mechanism of cloture was “borrowed” from the British Parliament.  While it only takes a simple majority (51 of 100 Senators) to pass a bill into law, it takes a vote of three-fifths (60 of 100 Senators) to end debate or discussion and move the bill on to the voting step.   The motive here is to make sure those Senators who are in the minority regarding an issue have a fair chance to voice their opposition.  It prevents a simple majority (51 in this case) from overwhelming the minority (49 in this case).  It also provides some protection to small (as measured by population) states.

History

Cloture was proposed by the Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1917 and originally required a 75% (of the member present) majority.  It was modified by the Democrats in Congress in 1975 to three-fifths (60%) of the number of Senators seated in the Senate (rather than 60% of the Senators physically present).

Recent Change

Rather than calling it cloture, it has been repositioned and redefined as “a fair, up or down, simple majority” vote.  Long standing tradition in the Senate is that a proposed subject or bill is debated until 60% of the Senators agree to take it to the voting step which only requires 51% to pass.  This agrees with the conventional approach that has existed for 200 plus years.  The implication is that cloture is unfair and damaging the American people or cheating them out of something by requiring something more that a simple majority (sounds All-American; sounds fair) vote.  Statements are also leading people to infer that 60% approval is needed to pass the bill. The cloture procedure is being made to look anti-American so that current bills under consideration would pass through every step of the legislative process with a simple majority of 51 out 100.

Conclusion

The Founding Fathers talked about the tyranny of the majority where 51% can hold a hammer over the heads of the other 49%.  The Constitution gave us a structure that prevents outside or fringe ideas from becoming law.  For example, amendments to the Constitution require 75% approval from Congress and the States.  The filibuster rules have the same intention – a protection against imprudent attempts to pass less-than-rational legislation.

The legislative process is set up to accommodate proposals that have broad support by a clear majority.  Bills that are marginally popular have a more difficult time becoming law with protections like the 60% super majority in the Senate in order to get to the voting process.

Efforts to dismantle and change the traditional legislative process with a vested interest in getting specific legislation passed preys on people’s unfamiliarity with history, the Constitution or basic understanding of civics and democracy. 

As someone once said, no new law or benefit is worth giving up our liberty in order to get it.  If it can’t get though the legislature, it does not seem justified to change the traditional process or lower our democratic standards.  Maybe the legislation itself should be changed until it has the approval of the majority.

It is also misleading to dissect the issue and show that people agree to various parts, therefore they (probably) approve of the whole.  It is disingenuous, for example, to say that people want health care reform and then extrapolate that everyone, therefore, likes a particular proposal.

A pile of half-truths still doesn’t add up to one full truth.

 

The function of the United States Constitution is to establish a government that is by the people and for the people, to establish and protect inalienable rights and to provide products and services that are most efficiently and better provide by federal or state governments.  It is written which further solidifies its existence and force.

The Constitution established itself as the law of the land.  It also provides a procedure for changing the Constitution.  The Founding Fathers knew that events would unfold that they had not envisioned and that there would be pressure to change the Constitution according to popular trend.

Were there no provision for changing or amending the Constitution, it could be argued that the Constitution should be treated as a living document.  But, better than leaving it to ambiguous interpretation, the Framers left us an amendment process that requires an exact description of what is to be changed and ensures discourse between proponents and opponents of the change.

To suggest that the Constitution should be changed, based on some individual’s particular interpretation, is ignoring extant procedures as described in Article V of the Constitution.  The Founding Fathers didn’t give it a passing comment; they gave it a whole Article because it was such an important point.

Article V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it’s equal Suffrage in the Senate.

To bring change by working outside of this process is to work outside of the law and to bring about illegal or unconstitutional change.

The Framers made it difficult to amend the Constitution ensuring that future changes were unquestionably supported by the majority and not vulnerable to whimsical  and ethereal thoughts or actions of a people acting as tyrants.

Proponents of a Living Constitution cite “that which is written is insufficient in light of what has transpired since” as their justification.  Another point of view would say “if it is so important, then amend the Constitution to reflect the new circumstance.”

Any branch of the government that operates outside of the law should be impeached immediately and constitutional order restored.

 

The Declaration of Independence is probably among the best known documents of all time including the Bible, the Quran, the Torah, the British Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta.

To better understand why certain issues were addressed in the Declaration and the Constitution, it is helpful to look at the events and activities of Colonial America during that time period.  Before 1776, there was strong loyalty to one’s own state, but there was an undeveloped sense of any national loyalty.  While states existed, like New York, Pennsylvania or Virginia for example, there was no official recognition of the United States (which did not officially exist). 

Concurrently, continued abuses by King George III and the British Parliament covered everything from taxation without representation to lack of due or fair process under the law.

Democratic concepts, never practiced by the majority of countries, were intermittently present throughout history.  Europe was evolving its own attitudes about individual and human rights as a part of the Age of Enlightenment.  The introduction to the Declaration relies heavily on the philosophical and political ideas of the Enlightenment period of 18th century Europe, including the ideas of Thomas Hobbes, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and, most particularly, John Locke.

England had just undergone its Glorious Revolution which saw the introduction of a British Bill of Rights in 1688.  The concept of individual rights was making progress in Europe, but King George III ignored the concept when dealing with the recalcitrant Colonies.

To demonstrate the transgressions against Colonial America, the Declaration list twenty seven complaints or abuses and describes them as:

 

• The King interfered with the colonists’ right to self-government and for a fair judicial system.

 

• The King and Parliament are guilty of outright destruction of American life and property by their refusal to protect the Colonies’ borders.

 

• Acting with Parliament, the King also instituted legislation that affected the Colonies without their consent.

 

• This legislation levied taxes on the colonists. Taxed without representation.

 

• The British required Colonist to quarter British soldiers.

 

• The right to trial by jury was removed.

 

• British Army Located Among Colonies.

 

• Common defense prohibited by British.

 

• States militia were not well armed, not well trained, not strong as a whole.

 

• Accused citizen of the Colonies were sent to England to be tried.

 

• Redress was used against Colonists.

 

• No right to due process justice system.

 

• Citizens of the colonies were impressed into (captured and forced to join) the British Navy.

 

• Colonists were not allowed to have private property.

 

• No privacy was afforded to inhabitants of the Colonies.

 

• The British prevented the Colonist from trading freely. 

 

• The British confiscated American ships at sea

 

• British intended to hire foreign mercenaries to fight against the Colonists.

Based on their experience with the British, those who advocated independence were concerned about and included the following in their demands:

                                               

• Freedom of Speech

 

• Freedom of Religion

 

• Freedom of the Press

 

• Freedom of Assembly

 

• Right to Petition

 

• Due Process Under the Law

 

• Right to Privacy

 

• Right to Property

 

• Right to Bear Arms

 

• Freedom from Quartering Soldiers

 

 

The Declaration of Independence was written by Jefferson with several different objectives in mind. 

The most obvious was to declare independence from England. 

The preamble to the Declaration tried to link theory and practical politics.  It also tried to express the values as fundamental values of the new American government.  This was needed to teach Colonist about their (own) rights and it was needed to justify their actions to other countries.  Approximately 200 originals were printed so that copies could be sent to key countries with the hope of engendering agreement for the Colonies’ actions and support for the Revolution. 

Jefferson also sought to explain the actions of the thirteen colonies in rational terms. Jefferson believed that governments exist to support the rights of men. Governments exist only through the power of the people that they represent. When a government fails to grant rights to the people and removes the involvement of the people, the people have the right to change their government in a way that will allow for their unalienable rights to be protected.

Anticipating that this document would influence rebellions elsewhere, Jefferson clarified that governments should not be overthrown for trivial reasons; it is not typical for people to change a system that they are accustomed to. However, when the people have suffered many abuses under the control of a totalitarian leader, they not only have the right but the duty to overthrow that government.

The Declaration was also written to align sentiment between the states and within the population regarding the need to move for independence.  Not all states and all people agreed with the Declaration.  In fact, many people were still loyal to the British and some states did not see a need to use its own resources to defend other states that were under direct attack.  The national esprit de corps had not fully developed and some states were only concerned about their own survival, not the welfare of the United States.

So, the Declaration of Independence was written with a multiple of objectives in mind:

 

• To establish the concept of Inalienable Rights

 

• To establish the Concept of Power to Govern Coming from Governed.

 

• To establish Concept that Government Exist to Protect Rights of Men.

 

• To establish Colonist about their own Rights

 

• To convince and Unite the States to Fight Together as One.

 

• To justify Actions to other Sovereigns and Solicit their Support.

 

So, the precepts contained in the Declaration were not just academic exercises, but were based on the real issues of the day and were included in the documents for a reason.  Knowing the history explains why the framers thought it was important and knowing the reason for their existence then may give us understanding for their use today.

 

Everything is evaluated by comparing it to something else.  It’s a good apple or a bad apple, but only compared to some known or standardized theoretical apple.  Is this apple better than that one?  It must be a good apple.  If it’s worse, it must be a bad apple.

There is a line in politics that is little talked about.  But, where you stand in reference to that line helps define whether you are conservative or liberal.

 

 

 

 

The line is simply this:  if you think people can do for themselves you are conservative.   If you think people are stupid or unable to take care of themselves (and need the government to provide for them), you are liberal.

This is the common denominator to most issues. As a liberal, you are likely to support stiff regulation of the financial industry.  As a conservative, you would be likely to support more of a free market approach with fewer regulations.   In this example, the liberal believes that individuals can not fend for themselves and the increase in regulation (along with the increase in government) is well justified.  The conservative believes that the individual is capable of operating without the help of extensive government.  It goes without saying that liberals are not advocating totalitarianism and conservatives are not advocating a complete lack of structure.  There is an optimum level of government and regulation.

Politicians, these days, can speak or promise in one direction, but act in another.  The concept above can help you interpret what they really think.

 

Most discussions about the political spectrum follow a popular concept of identifying positions in reference to the left or to the right.

In modern times, a common way of classifying political parties, positions and ideologies is the left-right label.  We say that someone is a liberal or a conservative meaning left or right, respectively.  In addition, some people lean to the left at times and lean to the right other times.  These people are called centrists and they may also call themselves independents.  Some liberals have been promoting the term progressive to distinguish themselves from traditional democrats.  Still, the underlying dichotomy is left and right.

 

To provide more clarification, it has been popular to add a second dimension with Fascism (authoritarian) and Libertarian as the poles of the dichotomy.  So, you could plot someone by identifying them as left or right and then rate them on their beliefs in economic and social freedom further positioning them on the grid between fascism and libertarianism.

Traditionally, the Left includes social liberals, social democrats, socialists, communists and anarchists while the Right includes conservatives, fascists, reactionaries, monarchists and nationalists.  The classification of capitalism as right-wing or left-wing varies from country to country.

Another way to look at the political spectrum is to imagine it in a vertical plane.  This allows us to track the evolution of a government from a natural state of democracy to the point where it ceases to exist.  Here is the lineup:

 

Republic

Democracy

Socialism – Social Democracy

Fascism

Communism

Anarchism

Below that is nonexistence.

A Republic is a form of government wherein we entrust the running of government to a few elected representatives who vote in our behalf.  Trust is the key word.  We trust that our representatives will faithfully represent us.  There is a basic trust among the population that fellow citizens will act ethically and responsibly.  Republics enjoy relatively wide freedom to pursue personal goals and tyranny in any form is not tolerated.  Government tends to be small.  Communication is wide open in a republic and discourse expressing different points of view is two-way.  People who suffer from poverty and unemployment are supported by their church, family and community.  Opportunity is available to anyone who is willing to be responsible and put in the effort.  The economy is free from interference from outside influences.  Laissez-Faire is common and social order is fixed, but open.   Management controls workers in a benevolent manner.  Law is determined by culture.  People are free to practice or not practice the religion of their choice.  Private property is well protected.

Republic

Democracy

Socialism – Social Democracy

Fascism

Communism

Anarchism

Below that is nonexistence.

In a democracy, there is not as much trust in representatives, so people insist on a more direct participation in government.  Everyone participates in the decisions concerning how the country is run.  People are expected to pull their own weight, but there are social safety nets in place for people who have a difficult time.  Help is government-provided and is widely available to the poor or unemployed.   As a country grows, a certain percentage of the population turns out to be criminal or dishonest and laws are needed to keep people in line.  Law is determined by culture and some ideology.  On a business and personal level, as long as one follows the rules, there is no interference from authorities.  Private property is observed, but the government has the right to take it if it decides the common good would be better served.  Religious practice is unrestricted.

In new democracies, participation is usually high.  In fading democracies, participation evaporates as the democracy dies. 

Republic

Democracy

Socialism – Social Democracy

Fascism

Communism

Anarchism

Below that is nonexistence.

Continuing down the scale, there is less trust in the individual and a belief that more government is needed to control the population.  Government gets bigger and bigger.  More and more control is invested in the government and less and less in the individual.  In a social democracy, there are regulations for many aspects of personal and business life.  Communications is relatively restricted and most popular thinking is set by liberal ideology.  There are many social safety nets to ensure that people have all of the basics of existence like food or health care.  In a social democracy, workers (and unions) have a strong influence over management and are instrumental in determining company direction.

Republic

Democracy

Socialism – Social Democracy

Fascism

Communism

Anarchism

Below that is nonexistence.

In a fascistic society, people still own business and personal property, but the government regulates nearly all aspects of business and personal life.  This is the condition where there is a rule or law for nearly everything.  Anyone who needs welfare support gets it.  Most opportunities are fixed by the government and favor the individual over the business owner.  Laws are driven by socialistic ideology and are designed to support the government while it controls or suppresses the property owner and individual.  There is very little freedom when it comes to speech, press or religion.

Republic

Democracy

Socialism – Social Democracy

Fascism

Communism

Anarchism

Below that is nonexistence.

In a communistic society, the government owns everything and sets the plans for everything business and personal.  Central planning decides who will do what and when and it decides on pricing, salary and benefits.  Communication is very restricted and government usually spies on the population to discovery those who are not loyal (obedient).  People guard their thoughts and opinions.  People in this atmosphere are friendly on the surface, but hostile behind people’s back.  People expect the government to provide every citizen with more than equal opportunity; they expect the government to guarantee every citizen with the same outcome.   There are no real freedoms or personal right and the government is 100% tyrannical in that it can do whatever it wants whenever it wants.

Republic

Democracy

Socialism – Social Democracy

Fascism

Communism

Anarchism

Below that is nonexistence

In a true anarchistic state, there is a wide-spread apathy.  People may not describe themselves as apathetic and may offer justification why things are the way they are.  In anarchy, there is no government and no systems of production, distribution or finance.  There is a kind of false freedom, but without property laws and law and order, there are no protections of any kind. Talk to an anarchist.  They will reveal their apathy – “nothing can be done about it” – and their ideas include the idea that everything will succumb.  Their motto seems to be “Why Bother?”

Below that is non-existence.  Anarchy does not usually last very long.  Just before a country or group dies, there is a period of anarchy.  It may last 10 minutes, 10 hours or 10 days.  If not conquered by a new leadership and a new government erected to replace the old one, the anarchy will deteriorate until the country or city-state ceases to exist. 

Without any kind of negative influence, humans tend to organize themselves in a  somewhat democratic manner.  They tend to find ways to work together.

This is a natural evolution and a deterioration of social order. 

Some feel that people should not be trusted and strong controls should be put into place to keep people under control – for their own good.  Others believe that men are mostly honest and don’t need a lot of government to interfere with their liberty and pursuit of happiness. 

This is the basic and natural starting point of liberal and conservative points of view.  Some people want big government and others want small government, but both points of view are based on a fundamental belief about his fellow man. Senior to opinions about the size of the government, one group feels that people are lacking in some capacity and need a big government to control them.  Others feel most people are honest and productive and the only purpose of government is to provide things the individual can’t (for example national defense, protection of basic rights, regulation of commerce, disaster relief or judicial functions), not impose restrictions and barriers to commerce.

As we move from a republic to a democratic to a socialistic society, we give up more and more freedom.  Increased power is given to the government.  The government has to be increased in size to provide more and more control functions as restrictive laws and increased welfare support services are needed.  Freedom is inversely proportional to government control.  Freedom is also inversely proportional to tyranny.

 

 

• Hide expenses behind income.   When the income is $100 and there are $20 in expenses, just net the two together and show $80 in income.  That way, nobody will notice the $20 in expenses.
• Make it complex – there are over 4,000 budget items in the Federal Budget making it nearly impossible for any one person to understand.  With this many items, most of the detail will not be questioned because it is buried in the detail.
• Use on- and off- budget scheme.  Some items are on-budget budgeted expenses and other items are off-budget budgeted expenses.  Then there are unbudgeted receipts or expenses that can be on- or off-budget.
• Use transfers.  Rather than have transactions that are simply receipts or expenses, use transfers to cloud the issue regarding a transaction.  A transfer is not readily recognizable as income or an expense.
• Use Trust Funds.  Parking money in a trust fund or making people think you are parking money in a trust are both equally effective.
•  Divide expenses across multiple areas or fnctions.  For example, some FBI expenses are classifies as national defense expenses.  If you are looking at overall defense numbers, you won’t see the FBI numbers.
• Have “miscellaneous” or “other accounts”.  Just like filing, use miscellaneous or other as a designation to lump expenses into nebulous and obscure groups.
• Make up baffling names like “undistributed offsetting receipts” so that readers will be confused and they won’t know what this means.

• Have a complex system of budgets, approvals, appropriations and carryovers.  An item may be in the Presidents Budget, but it is not approved until Congress approves it by passing an appropriate spending bill.  The money is not disbursed from the Treasury until the proper appropriations authority passes a funding bill.
• Have a labyrinth of laws connected to each department that only a lawyer could understand and follow.  Any citizen who approaches the subject of government spending will be sent reeling by the layers and layers of complex laws surrounding any subject, agency or project. 
• Don’t publish a coherent complete budget with all the detail.  Always publish summaries and selected data that has less than the full compliment of details so that no one ever sees the complete picture.  Make sure that downloadable data can not be easily reconstructed by patching files together to get a complete picture.
• Be inconsistent in showing or not showing a branch of government in the budget.  Some budgets omit the legislative or judicial branches showing a smaller number.  Some comparisons can be slanted one direction or the other by including or excluding the other branches of government.
• Use cash method to hide future obligations.  Most businesses use the accrual method of accounting.  Certain accounting principles are followed which say that you recognize a liability as soon as you know about it and recognize something positive only when it actually happens.  By using the cash method, future liabilities are not recognized and do not show up on the books.  This situation currently exists with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  The future liability for payments under these plans is reported to be $55 trillion. Looked at another way, unless there is a significant change is revenues, tax rates, program or spending, the US will spend an amount for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Interest of the Debt that is equal to total revenue.  This would leave no money for nation defense or any of the other discretionary expenses need to run the rest of government.  Using the cash method hides future liabilities.
• Be inconsistent in showing supplemental items or show some part of an expense in the budget and show the rest as a supplemental.  The war in Iraq was funded as a supplemental bill, meaning it was not part of the budget.  Later it was included as part of the budget when complaints were forwarded by war protesters about hiding the cost of the war. 
• Be inconsistent in showing discretionary items or show some part of an expense as a discretionary expense and show the rest as a mandatory expense.  Some agencies or departments can have expenses in both discretionary and mandatory categories.  Budgets can then be constructed that show less discretionary expenses by not noting that some of the expenses reside in the mandatory section of the budget.

 

• Be inconsistent or vague about using real or inflation adjusted numbers.  Some times you can adjust past of future numbers for inflation, historical of predicted, and bring two numbers closer together.  This can be a useful tool for comparing competing ideas or budgets
• Never include exactly the same items more than once in a comparison.  Since there are so many items in the budget (over 4,000), always use groups of numbers consisting of different items, but never the same group so that a comparison will not reveal what actually happened.
• Use different subtotal points to create confusion.  By moving the point where you insert subtotals, you can make numbers look different, confusing the inquisitive.
• Be less than specific when adding notes or labeling.  Since numbers can be budgeted, approved, funded, on-, off-, inflation adjusted or subtotals, leaving off footnotes and important labels can lead people to infer wrong meanings and conclusions keeping them from discovering the truth about things like pork or frivolous spending of other people’s money.
• When you do a chart and you want the results to show an increase (line going up) but the actual results show a decrease (line going down), render the chart upside down so that people will think it is going up.
• Make sure that an expense is contracted so that the budget is classified as mandatory, but the outlay has obligation limits, so it is calssified as dicretionary making it nearly impossible to match budgeted money with actual money spent.

The United States is both a collection of independent and autonomous states and a single entity.  Almost all other countries have provinces or districts, but the government is formed and operates at the federal level.  Most of these countries have local city-type governments, but the only meaningful government is at the federal level. 

Because of this unique dual coexistence in the US – state and federal – the questions of rights and jurisdiction are complex.

In simple words, the Constitution states that rights not enumerated (explicitly specified) to the federal government are reserved for the states, or the people.  It also states that federal law has precedence over state law whenever there is a conflict between the two.

While this seems simple, there is a mountain of case law regarding states’ rights versus federal rights and a long history of struggles between state and the federal governments.

The Declaration of Independence was adopted on July 4, 1776.  For the next decade, the country operated under the Continental Congress.  When the Constitution was finally proposed in 1887, one of the reasons it was favored was because it was generally thought that the existing Continental Congress was lacking enough strength and authority over the states.  This was important to small states that wanted the federal government to be able to protect them from big states.  It was also important to the Southern states who exported agricultural products who wanted protection from the Northern states who imposed import duties to protect their manufacturing.  The imposition of Import Duties brought retaliation to the products exported by the South. 

The proposed Constitution offered a good solution for these concerns, but brought up the question of individual rights or the lack of protection of individual rights.  The solution to these concerns was the Bill of Rights.  Working together with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights provided a balance of rights and powers to individuals, states and the federal government.

According to the Constitution, The Congress shall have Power To:

• lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises
• pay the Debts
• provide for the common Defense
• provide for the general Welfare of the United States
• ensure that all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
• borrow Money on the credit of the United States
• regulate Commerce with foreign Nations
• regulate Commerce among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes
• establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,
• establish uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States
• coin Money, regulate the Value thereof
• regulate the value of foreign Coin
• fix the Standard of Weights and Measures
• provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States
• establish Post Offices and post Roads
• promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
• constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court
• define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas
• define and punish Offenses against the Law of Nations
• declare War
• grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal,
• make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water
• raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
• provide and maintain a Navy;
• make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
• provide for calling forth the Militia
• execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
• provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively,
• appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
• exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress,
• become the Seat of the Government of the United States
• exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings
• 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 United States or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Other Articles and Sections of the Constitution address individual rights, finances, taxes, treaties, elections and other important subjects.  The above rights are the enumerated rights of the Constitution and everything else is reserved for the states, or to the people.

Amendment X:  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.

In summary, the theory is simple.  The rights of the federal government are enumerated in the Constitution.  Rights not enumerated are reserved for the states, or the people.  In the event of conflicting laws, federal law has precedence over state law (assuming both laws are constitutional as adjudicated by the Supreme Court).

By corollary, the federal government has no jurisdiction in areas not spelled out in the Constitution.  Allowing confusion and legal complexity to obscure the clarification between states’ rights and federal rights weakens our working system.

Various interests have attempted to establish rights for states or the federal government by finding implied meanings in the language and interpretations of the Constitution.  As covered earlier, this is not a problem in most countries because states are only concerned with local issues and have no real rights or powers.  In the US, we have a balance of powers that allows states to have rights while the federal government retains enough rights and powers to provide for things like nation defense or postal system.  The federal system also maintains enough power to keep states on one side of an issue from trampling on the rights of other states.  Case law and legal opinions complicate the subject.

Another simple point of reference is whether a government, issue or project is for a majority of people.  Government actions, political issues and public projects that exclude a majority of people are probably not beneficial to the country.

Programs that benefit small groups or special interest are usually not good for the whole.  Defending basic rights of person and property are not reasons to create new redundant laws to enforce laws that already exist.

The Constitution gives us the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.  Taken together with the right to free speech and assembly, we have the right to express our point of view whether left, center or right.  Suppressing people’s right to express their point of view is non-survival for the whole.

There are a number of ways to suppress a viewpoint.  Mainly these methods can be divided into three categories.  The first is to use logic and reason.  Logic and reason depend on two-way communication and public debate where both sides to and issue get a chance to express their point of view.

The second is to invalidate a person or idea.  If you can diminish the opposing point of view, you can gain ground for your argument or initiative.  There is a factor of domination in this category.  Domination can be in numbers, the use of government mechanisms to dominate or the use of (black) public relations to foment an idea.  Domination is the key.

The third category is destruction of the person.  Destruction can be physical, economic, social or mental.  The concept is simple. If you can destroy the person. then your idea is the only one left standing.

Countries, groups, projects and movements are held together by agreement.  By definition then, making progress by domination or destruction means winning with disagreement remaining on the other side.   Eventually the disagreement will dislodge the progress.

Democracy depends on government by representation.  Representation depends on hearing both sides of an issue.  Progress and sustainability depend on agreement.  Winning by domination and destruction actually sets a project or cause back.  Government has to be for the majority in order to survive.

Complexity.  It can be found in almost everything we do.

In most things, the truth is simple and untruth is complex.  Something starts out simple.  If it has flaws, the more is needed to make up for the weak areas.

A typical childhood experience demonstrates the point.   We tell a lie and then find out that another lie is necessary to support or cover for the first one and it continues.  It continues until it collapses or we are unable to keep track of the lies and the truth is uncovered.

This is true with our income tax system.  What started out to be a simple idea has turned out to be one of the most complex subjects known to man.  Thousands upon thousands of pages of regulations are needed to document the laws that have become our tax system.

Regardless of your viewpoint on flat taxes or a national sales tax, it goes without argument that any simple system would be preferable to a system that can only be navigated by hiring a tax professional.

It’s interesting that a tax problem given to tax accountants returned almost as many different answers as participating accountants.  This means that nearly every tax professional interprets the tax laws a little differently.  Is that any way to run a railroad?

The same is true of the government.  When you consider all of the elements of the US Constitution, all of the departments of each branch of government, governmental corporations and agencies, congressional committees, all this multiplied by federal, state and local, the result is staggering.  The complexity of government has made an unmanageable organization.  They talk about companies that are too big to fail or too big to manage; what about our government?  It’s too big to fail and too big to run!

Banking is another example.  A minimum amount of regulation is necessary.  Like any entity that serves the public, there needs to be some rules or guidelines.  With today’s regulation, a bank can be subject to the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the Office of the Comptoller of Currency on the federal level and more regulatory agencies on the state level.  A multiplicity of regulations and supervising officials.  More laws and regulation than needed.

Unless you are talking about some technical subjects like rocket propulsion or computer chip design, complexity probably means covering up the basic, simple truth with masking complexities or correcting what was wrong with
“fixes” and “patches” rather that correcting what was wrong in the first place.

Unless there are other motives or advantages to someone, the simplification of laws and government would mean less costs and more productivity to all.  That would mean more dollars in your pocket.  Be suspicious of anything that is really complex – it is complex to the degree that it is not telling the truth or that it is a correction for what was fundamentally wrong in the first place.