Laws are not established for the good people in a society. Laws are for those who cannot control themselves and therefore must be controlled. More and more in recent times laws have jumped out of their proper frame to come after the good people of society. The American Revolution occurred, in part, because laws were beyond their proper place and came after the common man (Stamp Act). The Constitution of the United States of America established the best system yet devised on earth for men to be free to act for themselves while maintaining some control on those in society who cannot control themselves.
There are many ways to get past the Constitution to gain more control over all people in society. Let’s look at a few, shall we?
First we have the “living document” crowd. This group declares that the Constitution was meant to evolve and change with the times. Just to keep it straight, there is a built in mechanism to adapt the Constitution to new challenges in the amendment process. The amendment process has been used before as a way to warp the Constitution and grab way too much power for the federal government. (ie. 16th, 17th and 18th amendments) Progressive and statist policies that are much related and similar to the aforementioned amendments have been easier to implement outside of amendments through things like case law and executive orders. Each of these help to detract from the original intent of the document.
Another way to be able to get past the Constitution is to pretend that it is some complicated document that is too difficult for the average person to understand. These people act as though it might as well be written in Sanskrit or hieroglyphics. For those who can read and don’t have extra motives it is plain that they are wrong.
The most obvious and, let’s just say it, the most fun people are those who just ignore it straight up. Here is a great collection of many people who are in power that have a deep love for the Constitution:
“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
Where do I begin on this one? Let’s start with the most famous proposed mosque in the world. A group of innocent, well-meaning Muslims bought a plot of land that used to house a failed Burlington Coat Factory and decided this place two blocks from ground zero would be perfect for what they are calling the Cordoba Initiative. This is to be a big mosque and community center. Let’s take a minute to unwind some facts about this project and set some things straight.
1. They are not building a missile silo.
2. It is not an Al Qaeda training camp.
3. They own the land and have the right to do what they want with it.
A. Cordoba Spain is the site of a mosque built over an old Christian church when the Moors came in and conquered.
B. The Imam behind the project has questionable ties to fun people and has been known to make statements that aren’t filled with love for America.
C. Funding for the mosque is uncertain at the moment and will most likely come from foreign bodies that hate America.
All of the above mixes together for one fun-filled, good time. To sum it up simply, the Cordoba people should understand the feelings of those who are offended and not use questionable foreign money to fund this horribly-named project and they should love America more. The people who are freaking out about the mosque should be ready to accept the fact that there will be a poorly named mosque near ground zero. They should accept the fact that they own the property and can do with it as they please. The freak out crowd is very much in the wrong when they are looking to the government to find a way to get rid of the mosque. Unless there is actual illegal activity coming out of the mosque, there should be nothing done by the government. Offensive as it is to many, it should not be stopped as long as there is nothing illegal going on.
Now from one stupidly offensive act to another. This super-genius leader of the small church that wants to burn the Quran on Sept. 11 this year is a real cerebral type. Of course he is only following his “What Would Jesus Do” bracelet. The Savior definitely wants to really stick it to those who disagree with him. He is all for book burnings and attacks at other groups of people. Nothing works better to spread the gospel than hating and offending those who do not follow it. (I really hope that the sarcastic tone comes through my text.) Then of course, on the other side of this shiny coin, we have those who don’t care about a right to free speech and a level up from them we will most certainly have those looking to kill these people who are burning the Quran.
It really is exhausting isn’t it? So many idiots doing so many fun things to each other. I say, “A pox on both your houses” in a great many situations and these are no different. The real lesson I take from all of this is that we should all shop at Burlington Coat Factory more.
The Boy Scouts of America is a fine organization that has been teaching youngsters to do many good things throughout the years. They recently had their 100th jamboree in Virginia and there was much controversy over President Obama not showing up to the celebration but instead appearing on The View (and probably golfing too). Then there was this:
After watching this I felt that these Scouts had missed a great opportunity to demonstrate what they stand for and what they represent as Scouts. Let me remind everyone that:
A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent.
Those were just rattled off from my memory so I may have missed the part about the times when a scout is not one of the above. I can honestly say that if this preachy eagle scout was present, I would not have booed (I have never booed anything). I can understand the youngsters feeling spurned by our fearless leader’s desire to go hang out with some hags over them, but again I must go to the principles and point out that they represented the scouts and what they stand for while they were there in uniform.
Although I understand their point of view I am disappointed in the missed opportunity and hope that they each come to realize the missed opportunity too. It would not have made any headlines but it would have demonstrated the principles that the Boy Scouts stand for very well if these young men had not behaved the way they did.
Many people seek to “level the playing field” or “spread the wealth around” so as to be kind to others and have a utopia of sorts. I believe the claimed cause to be very noble and right, but the methods sought after by such individuals expose the motives of those who claim to believe this way.
The government of the United States of America has been the most important magnifying glass to examine redistributionists. In America people are free to do with their property as they please. They can horde money and food or they can give every last penny away. With this freedom Americans have done well generally, as America is the most generous nation ever seen on planet earth. Many people have the view that there should be no poor among us and that everyone should share of their good fortune with others and not have more than everyone else. I am one of those people.
Where the vast and overwhelming majority (considering I have never met anyone who has expressed thoughts like mine on the topic) of such people go wrong is in their looking to government to force others to redistribute. Being in America, people are free to come together and pool their resources in a community effort to have all things equal. It can be done and I believe should. It is my contention that if people were to do this, it would lead to greater prosperity of, not just poor individuals but, everyone. Doing this would lead to the next jump ahead, or you could say another 5000 year leap. If even 50% of Americans would choose to pool their resources to share with everyone else imagine the problems we could solve. By having government force people to do such, imagine the problems we create.
Where I part ways with the socialists and communists is in free will (and quite a few other things really, but this one is most relevant). Government should not force anyone to give up property. This is despotism and exposes the motives of powerful people who claim to want this equality. Under every redistributionist government there has been a powerful and rich few ruling over the equally poor masses. The only reason that I can think of for an already powerful person to promote government imposition is that like Tim “the Toolman” Taylor they want more power. History is filled with villainous tyrants oppressing people and seeking more and more power. The problem with many Americans is that we do not think it can happen to us in today’s world; that somehow our day is different. Well guess what, it can happen and has been happening for a while in a very Fabian way.
Eliminating poverty and making sure everyone has plenty is a good cause and one that should be promoted more widely for people to choose. But sadly, many look to government imposition. Doing this would only put Americans under the rule of that all too common rich and powerful few. Since redistribution can be done freely in our society there is no need for government to force us into it. People can and should just do it and encourage others to do it. There has been an entanglement between two causes in the United States. The government that was set up to protect the rights of individuals has mixed itself up in social and moral issues in which it has no place. Instead of focusing on the former task we have people in government looking to provide for people by “spread[ing] the wealth around”.
The Constitution established a perfect place to exercise one’s free will and choose to give to others. That should be the message promoted by those who truly believe in giving freely to others, in a free country such as the United States. Instead we have a few already powerful people looking to be the ruling class hiding behind what appears to be a noble cause. If they truly believed in the cause they would encourage people to use their freedom to live in such a way. Instead they seek power, coercion and oppression of others. Charity requires no legislation, no middle man and no enforcer. All that is required is knowledge, desire and choice.
In high school and college I was taught that along the political spectrum we have communists on the left and fascists on the right. I have heard many others outside of a school setting use this view many, many times as well. I must say that I have always absolutely despised this view of things. Come with me now and learn why.
First off, if I have Stalin on the left and Hitler on the right where can a fella go to not be bossed around or killed for beliefs or ethnicity? On the left we have crap and on the right we have crap, how can this “spectrum” suddenly become more pleasant when it gets halfway between the two views? Most people don’t know that this view of right “wing” and left “wing” refers to seating arrangements in French parliament during the 1700’s. The people on the left were the commoners and the people on the right were the fat cats. The left side extended to views such as socialism and communism because such views claim to work for the little guy and the right side extended to crony capitalism and government being in bed with business for obvious reasons. The “wings” view sucks as it leaves me without a place to sit. But that is not the only reason that it sucks. Both ends of this spectrum begin with a premise that I reject outright and that is; that government should have a certain level of power that is beyond what I will allow. The right side in this view wants business to grow in size and power along with the government and the left side wants government to grow in size and power as it controls what people have. Both options sound horrible. Much of the beauty of the American Way is that bad guys are supposed to fail and not be bailed out and that little guys can get ahead and become big guys without then having what they have earned taken from them in equalization efforts.
There are many versions and views of the political spectrum, many of which have obvious flaws. One of the most popular and one that I have the least issues with is the Nolan Chart. This chart has four Superman symbol shapes (Truth, Justice and the American Way, aaaahhhhyeah!!) around a centrist square. This view shifts from right-left to North, South, East and West where communism and fascism would be more correctly near each other on the bottom. Here is my result:
One flaw in this is, of course, a flaw in every political name assignment game. It ignores other situations and takes only my approach to federal government and could give the appearance that that is how I am in all situations. I had a star right at the north of the libertarian shape. If the survey had been about interaction with others of my own free will I would have been deep in the liberal section. If it had been about how I personally conduct my life it would have been deep conservative. I do not see a situation in which I would ever venture to the statist or centrist regions. Another problem is that it, as do most other views, has liberal being opposite of conservative. Liberal the way it was classically meant focused on allowing freedom for individuals. Conservatism is focused on preserving traditional things that are viewed as positive. These are not opposite from each other. Conservatism is the opposite of progressivism. Progressivism and statism are also opposite liberalism. When I say that I am liberal in relation to interaction with others I do not mean the popular meaning of today where I want to force people to pay for my health care or to wipe with one square to save the environment. I mean that I want to allow others to do as they will, as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. When I say that I am conservative in my personal living I do not mean, as many have a view of today, that I want to bailout corporations and start up a PATRIOT act. The definitions have been skewed from their original meaning. Most people have taken these changed definitions and made them a big part of their worldview.
Another way of looking at things which I like, which makes things much more clear as to why the most popular spectrum is dumb, is the Law spectrum.
This helps to explain my uneasiness with a view that has total government on both ends. This view sums up what the American founders were thinking very well. They did not want another tyrant and they didn’t want to just have anarchy. The system they set up allowed bad guys to fail and little guys to grow. Under this system groups of people could come together of their own volition and disperse their incomes amongst each other if they wanted without government involvement at all. It also allows people the freedom to be greedy jerks or to do other things that are not “nice” but are not infringing on the rights of other people.
If I were someone seeking power and control I would definitely want the popular “wing” political view to prevail and be taught as it would make people feel as though they must have some form of imposing government and they should pick their favorite of the sides.
If you follow the Nolan link and take the survey let me know your results below.
You may have seen or heard recently any of a number of politicians justifying actions taken by government by citing the general welfare clause of the Constitution. It may surprise many to find out that there is no such clause in the Constitution.
“Whaaaaaa????”, you may say. “B-b-but I memorized the preamble and it is most definitely in there” Sorry but you are wrong. Let’s get down to it and learn here and now that the preamble is not legally binding as it is merely an introduction to the finest political document ever penned. If one goes by the preamble, which may be the only part of the Constitution they ever read in school, then they could be led to believe that any of the three branches of government in the United States could be responsible for any of the things written in the preamble. Such a situation would clearly be incredibly confusing and contradictory to the system of checks and balances that was actually established. Using anything in the preamble as justification for government action is clearly not the way our government was established. Although with executive orders, signing statements and Courts using case law and outright activism, the original checks and balances are currently very useless. Regardless of that, the original situation was definitely not one in which a branch of government could pick their favorite part of the preamble and force anything they want on the people willy nilly.
Now for those who can read and have made it to Article 1 Section 8, you may think, “Aha, it has the words ‘general welfare’ in there”. Indeed it does. But it is NOT saying that the government can force citizens to pay for goods and services for other people. It is NOT establishing a system for government to give money away to the citizens of the nation. “Well that is your opinion”, I hear a non-critically thinking voice cry out. The line that has the phrase “general welfare” in it is the line that gives congress the power to tax. If you understand the Constitution then you know that it was established to limit government power and split it up among many different people to keep others in check. The powers of these branches of government were enumerated and given some specific limitations. To further clarify things, at the end of the Bill of Rights we have, of course, the tenth amendment; which says that if a power was not given to the federal government then it is left up to states or individuals. With this limiting purpose in mind let us return to Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
This line is not a “general welfare clause” but rather is a taxation clause. Let’s put on our thinking caps here and really dive in. “Lay and collect taxes, duties imposts and excises” OK I got that part, Congress can tax me. But why? Oh I see, to pay debts (listed second in section 8), have an army/navy or provide for the common defense (listed 12th and 13th in section 8), and general welfare of the United States. With your thinking cap on tight, go for it. You know the answer. No, OK, first of all, it says “of the United States” not “of the citizens of the United States” or “the people”. This is made more clear when someone goes where they have never gone before and reads the rest of the Constitution and they find that there are more references to “the United States” clearly distinguished from “the States” or “the people”. These taxes are not supposed to be collected and used for the general welfare of “the people” but for the general welfare of the “United States” which is a nation. Of course the people will benefit from having national debts paid and having defense but that is not the focus of the enumerated power here in section 8. The end product of having that line written is to say that congress can raise funds through taxes which they will use to take care of their enumerated powers. If you do not agree with that, go read the “Federalist Papers” and find some of the writings of James Madison the Father of the Constitution. Reading such with your thinking cap on should clear that up for you nicely.
Another item to note is that if “general welfare” can be stretched over anything that can be construed as good for our nation, then this one line about taxes inadvertently grants congress all powers of government, thus destroying any checks or balances that may have ever existed. If it is good for the country then congress has power over it. Such “general” terms as “good” and “welfare” (which meant “well-being” in 1789) are relative terms and can be viewed differently in the eyes of different people. This wide-open language gives politicians and the power hungry, plenty of room to work in whatever they want regardless of its relation to the intent of the Constitution. This goes against the whole point of the Constitutional system of limited government with checks and balances. To view the words “general welfare” as granting additional powers besides the power actually being enumerated is to destroy the Constitution.
“Oh now there he is again hating on people. Some people just don’t have insurance and are dying because they don’t have it and you want them to die”, I hear that silly voice crying out again. Wow, for those who still do not get it, wow. First off, no one has ever died because they did not have insurance, ever, in the history of humans. “Oh sweet Aetna come save me, I don’t have any premiums.” People die from disease, bodily malfunctions, accidents, violence or old age. Those are your only options. Not having insurance does not kill you. If you are unlucky enough to have such things happen to you and you require the goods and services provided in the health care industry then insurance might have been a good purchase, but there are ways around not having it. Personally, I was struck ill a few years back and thought I was dying. I was uninsured as I was a college student and didn’t qualify for the oh-so-helpful government programs and I was rejected by private insurance a few months earlier because I get “white-coat hypertension”. I went to the emergency room and incurred thousands of dollars in bills which I, of course, could not pay. The hospital had a charitable donation program that they qualified me for after reviewing some information. For the rest of my life now, I am going to donate to hospital charity programs. Oh what’s that I hear, the non-critically thinking, silly voice doesn’t give much to others? Well if we all chipped in and took care of each other we would do a much better job than anyone in Washington D.C. could do. Last year I had a friend who had been fighting cancer for a while. In fact, I never knew him at a point when he was cancer free. I and several other people donated time, talents and other material possessions to try to lighten the burden on our friend and his wife. He died exactly a year ago today. Our giving and receiving of contributions made us all better people. And people coming together to help one another is the real system that will make our country and even our health care industry better. It is not just pie in the sky either, try it out.
In addition to charity amongst the citizens of our nation there are other ways that are allowed under our Constitution. Take for example the state of Massachusetts. They have a big expensive and deficit bloating health care program all their own. Well guess what, it is perfectly Constitutional. Oh my, who would have ever imagined that a government run health care program could be Constitutional? If it is run by a state or local government, it fits perfectly well with the Constitution and the tenth amendment. The central federal government will not be the solution to any of our problems. In fact, to quote the great Reagan:
“In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?”
If we can just learn and apply good principles then we will govern ourselves. So many in our society now look to someone else to help others and those who seek power and control (maybe not even for bad reasons) are perfectly willing to be given more power to be in charge of something we should be doing ourselves. It is when we disregard what we know we should be doing for those around us that we have need of masters and there are plenty who will use any reason to be your master.
To sum it up, there is no “general welfare clause” but rather a tax clause with the word “welfare” in it. To apply the term “general welfare” to government health care and retirement plans is to stretch that one line to points of being completely absurd and so all-encompassing as to grant all government power to one branch. There are ways that small groups of people or even larger groups of people such as cities or states can work out such problems without destroying the Constitution and I might add, such things should be tried out as long as they do not put said groups under the bondage of debt. Lastly, just give. Seriously, give. Find people who need your help and give it to them. They are all around you and sometimes find you, but most times don’t. If the government hadn’t taken as much money as they did you might be able to give more, but for now give your time or anything else you can give. Just don’t give more power to control our lives to someone else. If we keep moving the line in the sand, then what is the point of the line?
UPDATE:
I must post this video here as it was my inspiration for this.
Wow, chairman of the judiciary committee. We are in huge trouble.
“You don’t have the right”, it’s a commonly heard phrase containing a commonly heard word. The word ‘right’ gets thrown around in such a haphazard and inconsistent way that it has almost lost all meaning.
Concern for the rights of people has only been on the plate for societies for a very small amount of time throughout history. Most of history has been dominated by rulers giving commands and decrees without regard for it’s effect on others and their rights. What makes the USA so special is that its system was created with inalienable rights. Why are they inalienable? Because they are given by “nature and nature’s God”. The fact that there are God given rights makes it impossible for government or anyone else to remove them. If rights are granted by government or a majority of people then these granted rights can be taken away. Rights coming from God also makes it impossible to add to the list of God given rights.
What has been happening for a long time to the USA is that many people have attributed the status of rights to things that are not God given rights. You are lucky because you have me to help you clarify what is a right and what is not. It is very easy and, with the exception of one case that I know of, the great principle of rights is universally applicable and clear. Here it is: A right is something that you can claim without forcing anyone else to do anything.
Let’s try it out:
Bearing arms – Do you force anyone to do anything by owning a weapon?
No, thus that is a right that you have.
Education – Do you force anyone to do anything by laying claim on a formal education system?
Yes, thus it is not a right. You force people around you to pay for the education, you force the requirement for a teacher in the school to teach you.
Information – Do you force anyone to do anything by finding available information and possibly even publishing it to others? No, thus you have that right.
Life – Do you force anyone to do anything by just living your life? No, (with one huge caveat) Thus you have the right to live and exist. The caveat is that when you are an infant you do require others to be subservient to you. The reason that this works as a right is because of another right that we all have. We have the right to make contracts or agreements with others. When two people come together and act in unity they have the right to put themselves under bondage to the terms of an agreement. Two people creating a child are performing a contract action that will bind them to the consequences of that action.
Abortion – Does killing your unborn baby force anyone to do anything? Yes, it forces the child to die. Thus you do not have that right.
Food – Does a guarantee of having food force anyone to do anything? Yes, it must be grown and distributed by someone. Thus it is not a right.
Marriage – Does marriage force anyone else to do anything? Yes, it takes two to get married and it is a contract action that must be agreed to by both parties. Thus there is no right to get married.
Health care – It should be pretty obvious that no one has a right to health care. Claiming such forces someone to be your doctor and forces someone to pay for the service. Health care is a good and a service, not a right.
Slothfulness – Do you force anyone to do anything by laying at home and wasting away? No, you can sit on your couch til you die. You have that right.
I am very much a person that enjoys freedom and not being forced to do anything. If I am to provide a good or service for others I will do it by contract action. Government granting rights is not something that should happen and it is only made worse by government becoming the provider and facilitator of those rights. The principle of free agency in the realm of rights works every time. Give it a try when someone in the media or government claims something as a right for people.
Leave your comments (seriously come on, leave some comments). What do you think? Do you disagree? Or are you an intelligent person?
Someone put up a billboard with a picture of George W. Bush on it with the words “Miss Me Yet?” on it. If only there was another billboard right next to it, then I would put a picture of Obama on it striking the exact same pose with one of the following phrases on it:
“No”
“It’s like you never left”
“Why should we?”
Or something similar to those.
Some people seem to forget or were never aware of what Bush did that was awful. Many of the things that defined the Bush presidency are the same things going on in the Obama presidency. Bush expanded medical entitlement programs. Obama wants to. Bush got government further into education. Obama will probably want to, although if he doesn’t, school children sing enough songs about him that we can count that. Bush abandoned free market principles to save the free market. Obama has continued the same non-free market policies. Bush seemed subservient to the Saudis at times. Obama has bowed to everyone and their dog. Bush wanted some form of amnesty for illegal immigrants. Obama will go for the same thing. Bush nominated an idiot for the Supreme Court and so has Obama. If you were looking for change in Iraq, Guantanamo or Afghanistan, you should be disappointed as well. The differences are few; more apologies, higher taxes and more speeches. Indeed it is as if he never left.
I am very tired of hearing that FDR and the New Deal helped America get out of the Great depression after Hoover put us in it. In history classes I remember being taught that the depression was Hoover’s fault and that Franklin Delano Roosevelt bravely pulled the plane out of its collision course with his New Deal. FDR and Hoover have always been set at odds with each other in my mind, but something has never seemed right with this set up.
As I started to take more of an interest in history, I learned about the period of time that saw the largest dive in U.S. price level that it had ever seen. A 24% drop in GNP was a definite sign of the painful times that were ahead. The president at the time decided that he should dismantle some government bureaucracies that had been established during WW1. This leader of the nation also had deep concern over the $25 billion in debt that had been run up on the tab and the whole time his mantra was, “less government in business”. This president was quoted as saying, “We need vastly more freedom than we do regulation.” This period of time brought about a lot of charity and soup kitchen work for those looking to help fellow citizens who had fallen on hard times. The unemployment rate reached 11.9%. As the problem seemed to worsen, the president pulled back and removed many government pieces from the puzzle. Congress wanted to come to the rescue but the president told them to hold back. Even the president’s own secretary of commerce pleaded and argued with him to get involved to rescue the economy, but he wasn’t having it. The big reveal that you may have built up in your minds is that the president was Herbert Hoover and his policies made the Great Depression happen. This is part of what has never quite felt right about the story that I have been told in history classes. I was indeed told that Hoover did not want government intervention. But I was then given a lesson about the Smoot-Hawley Tariff which made things in the Depression worse after the crash in 1929. I have also read about wage freezes that were ordered during this time, which again, did not help. Those seem like government intervention to me. Now is the moment when I bring out the actual big reveal that the president I spoke about earlier was Warren G. Harding and the year was 1921. All the products in the country dropped half of their value in 1921 and Warren G. just cut taxes and waited it out. His secretary of commerce that was so antsy to intervene (prepare for another big reveal) was Herbert Hoover. The U.S. pulled out of this disaster quickly, with unemployment pulling back to 6.7% by 1922 and by 1923 the roaring twenties were well underway. When they crashed down Herbert Hoover was in charge and free to intervene all he wanted.
At this point the history classes have told us that Hoover did so much damage that it took at least 3 terms of FDR to fix it with the right kind of intervention. This is where I say bullcrap. With the 20/20 vision of hindsight Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian of UCLA looked over Great Depression policies and found that Roosevelt actually hurt more than he helped. In addition to prolonging the Great Depression FDR also trampled all over the Constitution of the United States. He was called on it a few times with the reversal of some policies. A huge unconstitutional dream of his was to have a second bill of rights (which I guess would have been constitutional if it had been amended in). The principles behind this second bill of rights are enough to make anyone who doesn’t like being forced to do anything sick to their stomachs. Included in his wishlist were the right to food, the right to a house, the right the a job, the right to medical care. As I will further demonstrate in an impending post none of these things can be claimed as rights by anyone. Claiming those as rights for people and forcing citizens to provide such things for others goes against the purpose of our established government and is a violation of any official’s oath of office.
In case you missed it I would have been very frustrated with people who kept voting for FDR as he was holding them down. To drive that point home a bit more I will leave it to the great Thomas Sowell:
To me FDR and Hoover are not at odds with each other, but rather had only slight disagreements about which ways government should overstep its bounds and make things worse. Protect rights and enforce laws. And do it in that order, that is all government should do.
I have had the misfortune of listening to ill informed and irrational people that are upset about the Supreme Court of the United States decision in favor of corporations being able to spread messages about candidates near election time. Many such individuals complain that the court has given corporations freedom of speech. I must ask if people who work at corporations are not ‘people’? Are they not included in ‘We the People’? Using logic anyone can see that they should be allowed to voice their opinions in politics. This court decision is one of the few ways the constitution has been upheld.
Corporations are people. They are collections of people. Just as our country is a collection of people. Last time I checked, corporations were not run by animals or furniture. As people they have all the same rights as any of the other citizens in the country. Even the right to assemble together and make a political ad that voices their opinion on any subject.
Such groups are obviously not an individual person, which is where many foolish individuals go awry. Many seem to think that people in corporations don’t have rights. Corporations are groups of people. Simply because there are more individuals does not mean that their rights are then removed. In fact, individuals have the right to assemble. When assembled do these individuals lose their rights? As a group they still have the ability and right to speak freely.
Some people act as if having more messages out there regarding choices in elections is going to force them to vote for someone they don’t want to.
Foreign entities cannot give money to candidates. Many people who misunderstand seem to think that more voicing of opinion equals more corruption and foreign money influencing our country. The Court’s decision did not change laws about foreign money in our elections or candidates and corporations getting together and plotting victories.
Some are concerned that corporations are too powerful and will get away with corrupt behavior when given their freedom. If they do something wrong, find the law they broke, gather evidence and charge them with the crime. If you can’t find anyone in government who will do their only job (enforce laws and protect rights) then you have a bigger problem than just evil corporations. (Which problem, I contend, we do have.)
All anyone ever does is push legislation that they want or like. Again I must question why people think that seeing a commercial put out by a corporation is going to force someone to vote a particular way.
