Littlestuff Weekender-11-12-2011

It appears that Ohio will be sharing the spotlight with Wisconsin as battleground states in the effort by citizens to regain control over their governments and their lives. Just two days following the 2011 elections which featured the sound defeat of Issue 2, the reformation of public sector workers rules, and the overwhelming victory for Issue 3, the rejection of ObamaCare, the language for a proposed “Workplace Freedom Amendment” was submitted along with a number of petitions to Attorney General Mike DeWine. The nascent state constitutional amendment is, in essence, a right to work provision to make Ohio more competitive and attractive for employers. Chris Redfern, Chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party, immediately vowed to fight the newer initiative as vociferously as the party and its union allies did Issue 2. Here you go Buckeye State residents the line is in the sand. Let the sides be chosen and the battle commence. Get moving, get active, get jobs for Ohio… go to www.ohioconstitution.org and read the clear cut language for providing choice for Ohio’s workers and prosperity for our citizens.

Some political operatives and Tea Party leaders are concerned that an all-out effort for right-to-work could further activate unions and distract from the primary task of electing constitutional candidates next year. Others submit that forcing the unions to spend $40 million in Ohio to fight right-to-work could drain resources and focus from them. It’s a toss-up, and the “Workplace Freedom Amendment” language still has to be approved by the Attorney General followed by the collecting of more than 386,000 valid signatures from Ohio voters. As we move further into 2012, perhaps the timing issues will become clearer.

Most of us…deep within …know right from wrong. Those of us who practice an active faith are guided by the precepts and principles of that system of belief when we encounter behaviors or ideas that are clearly outside the boundaries of acceptance. The believer rejects wrong. The courageous believer fights wrong and calls it out when she/he sees it. The tragedy at Penn State is illustrative of what our nation has become today. Many people including those in positions of authority knew that there was a stench of decay in Happy Valley. Yet, they chose to remain silent or actively participate in hiding the awful truth of the loathsome behavior. In many respects the silence is worse than the original debauchery because clearly those who knew about it should have known that it was despicable. Whether they were protecting a university, a football program, a coach’s reputation or an individual doesn’t matter. They observed wrongdoing and remained silent. God has already judged Jerry Sandusky for his exploitation and sin, and He must be dismayed by the spineless display from others who knew.

Our idyllic life here at the Little Pat-Ch of Paradise has been somewhat representative of life in general for the past few weeks. Some people very dear to us are sick….perhaps mortally so. Our water pump from the well stopped last Friday night. Fortunately it needed a new sensor…otherwise we would have needed to pull the jet up from its 100 foot spot in the well casing. A vehicle of unknown origin severed our high-speed internet/cable line at the entry point from the highway onto our property so we were somewhat hamstrung in our abilities to contact and communicate with the outside world. One of our trucks needs a transmission. We must carry on. Fix what we can and pray about everything else. As that little redhead sings….”the sun will come up tomorrow.”

Kudos to John McAvoy and his legions of committed volunteers for their successful petitioning and victorious Election Day outcome for their citizen-generated, citizen-promoted Ohio constitutional Amendment effort on State Issue 3. Y’all done good.   

Our radio schedule this week has been expanded. We will be in our usual Tuesday and Wednesday 1-hour slots plus I’ll be sitting in for Brian Wilson from 3-6pm Friday. More opportunities to “stir the pot,” “shake the bush,’ and “rattle their chains.”

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Tue. & Wed., 6-7:00pm, 1370 WSPD, Toledo www.wspd.com

Friday—3-6:00pm, 1370 WSPD

Consistent Inconsistency

There are two salient items about this column you should know. First, this piece is somewhat of a collaborative effort because I raised the topic during my Wednesday radio show (11/9/2011), and several folks chimed in with their valuable observations. Second, I’m submitting this piece in the middle of my constitutional restoration series because of its timely application for the task we have before us. Today’s column is titled “Consistent Inconsistency,” and examines the recent votes in Ohio on two very important statewide issues. Issue 2 was a measure to repeal SB 5 which radically altered the relationship between public sector workers in Ohio and their various political subdivisions and school districts. It had massive union support---both public and private sector—for repeal….a “No” vote was necessary to NOT IMPLEMENT the original legislation. Issue 3 was a citizen-generated proposed state constitutional amendment forbidding the federal government from requiring an individual mandate for healthcare coverage in Ohio. In essence, it was a re-affirmation of the 10^th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. It had the added benefit of providing some measure of courage and backbone for state legislators who have been historically reluctant to challenge the federal government.

At first blush it would seem that the two issues are similar in many ways. Both appear to be a slap at larger, more costly government, and each would seem to reinstate an element of citizen control over critical aspects of their lives. So why did Issue 2 fail by a 61-39% margin while Issue 3 passed by 66-34%? The state public sector reforms were soundly defeated, and the anti-federal attempt to mandate individual health insurance coverage and premiums was passed overwhelmingly. There are probably some unemployed psychologists who could offer a number of explanations for the supposed schizophrenic behavior of the Ohio voters, but they would probably be too complex, meaningless or downright goofy.

The majority of our callers and I agree that the seemingly disparate votes were amazingly consistent. In both cases the voters rejected big government over-reaching. The federal example is starkly clear. The state legislation had a number of strategic and tactical flaws that led to its resounding clobbering. The comprehensive omnibus nature of SB 5 obviously incurred the wrath of public sector employees, but it also bred an element of distrust among the general electorate. Large overly-broad bills that impact multiple sections of the Ohio Revised Code (ORC) activate the suspicions of voters whose confidence in their governments’ leadership and integrity has been severely eroded. Big thunderous and radical change from either the federal government or the state government especially when consolidated in a single piece of complicated legislation arouses the “wary detectors” in many citizens. There are some aspects of the public employees’ relative positions with their communities that many people might desire to alter, but the massive complexity of the bill stoked the ire of every public employee union, their families and their friends. The firefighters and police should have been omitted from this bill so that the national and state union organizations would not have “public safety” as an issue. Their lying threats in their advertising foreshadowed the actual outcome that will occur as a result of Issue 2’s failure. Local governments will continue to have minimal flexibility in their negotiations with their employees. Binding arbitration requirements and non-invested arbitrators will force unworkable contracts on the communities … forcing them to sever or layoff critical personnel.

Voter ignorance, however, may not have been the primary reason for the failure of Issue 2 while Issue 3 was sailing easily into passage. Two major issues, each with a “let’s regain control” component actually had similar outcomes despite the nearly mirror difference in voter approval. To this observer there appeared to be some voter discernment being exercised on Election Day…..and the nearly endless early-voting period that preceded it. From a practical and strategic point of view I suspect the voters may have selected the wrong option on Issue 2, but I believe that I understand why they did so. The massive expenditure of union millions, the importation of union workers from out of state, and the union emphasis on early voting to minimize the impact of pro-Issue 2 advertising on voters all contributed to the margin of victory. With a mere 350,000 public employees in Ohio and the overall union percentage of the work force lower than 15%, those stratagems cannot account for all of the 61% “No” votes particularly in the context of the massive approval for Issue 3. It seems to have been a somewhat calculated discerned decision. In both issues the people of Ohio rejected big government solutions.

It seems rather frivolous to be discussing political decision-making on a day that is set-aside to honor those who have nobly served our nation. Their commitment and sacrifices have preserved our opportunities for deciding how we shall be governed. May those of you who have worn the uniform of our nation with honor and dedication please note that we thank you and wish for you the greatest of blessings. We salute you.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Tue. & Wed., 6-7:00pm, 1370 WSPD, Toledo.  www.wspd.com

There goes the judge

Prior columns of mine have attempted to lay the groundwork for restoring constitutional government and principles to our United States of America. Obviously we must elect ONLY candidates who agree with our goal, and we must initiate primaries and targeted campaigns against those who do not. With two chambers in Congress and three branches of government, the task may appear to be insurmountable. There is a light at the end of the tunnel, however if constitutionalists (not merely the GOP as the present circumstances illustrate) control the House. Boehner and company are NOT committed to reducing government let alone shrinking it to meet constitutional muster.

The House of Representatives was designed to be the most powerful element of the federal government because it controls the power of the purse. The House could refuse to fund much of the unconstitutional activity of the federal government, or they could pass funding reductions over a short 2-5 year term for “zeroing out” the violating programs. Clearly for this strategy to be successful, the House must have a veto-proof majority of strict constitutionalists. The President if he were opposed to the budget cuts would be hamstrung, and the Senate would be forced into stalemate with the House. When nothing gets done, nothing gets funded….unless the House caves.

What about the judiciary you may ask? They have overturned and undermined many legislative initiatives over the years as well as declaring and creating “new rights” from the bench. Is there any way for them (aside from more discerning appointments) to be restrained from their sometimes bizarre interpretations of the Constitution? Yes, there is. Here is the relevant portion of the Constitution of the United States of America:

Article III - The Judicial Branch Note

Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.     from    www.usconstitution.net

Congress has the responsibility to establish and ordain courts other than the constitutionally-mandated Supreme Court of the United States. With the power to establish comes the authority to restructure or abolish. This is not some wild-eyed theory. It has been done before through the urging of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison who were major proponents of The Judiciary Act of 1802.

The Judiciary Act of 1802: "An Act to amend the Judicial System of the United States"
2 Stat. 156.
April 29, 1802.

Soon after its repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801, the Republican majority in Congress in the spring of 1802 recognized the need to enact its own organization of the federal courts. The resulting statute was a response to the practical needs of a growing judiciary and the continuing partisan conflict over the role of the federal courts. The Judiciary Act of 1802 perpetuated the Federalists’ plan of six regional circuits. Although Supreme Court justices again were required to serve on the circuit courts, the circuits were smaller and travel accordingly less demanding than in the 1790s. Kentucky, Tennessee, and Maine remained outside the circuit system, thus relieving the justices of travel to these distant areas. When the district judge and circuit justice were of divided opinion on a case before a circuit court, the new act gave either party the right to refer the case to the Supreme Court, whereas since 1793 split decisions had required the attendance of a second justice to issue a ruling at the next session of the circuit court.

In the Judiciary Act of 1802, Congress eliminated the Supreme Court’s summer session and provided for one annual session to begin on the first Monday in February. This provision intensified the partisan dispute that began when Congress, in an act of March 8, 1802, revoked the judiciary act of the previous year and restored the structure of the judiciary as it had stood previously, thereby abolishing the sixteen judgeships assigned to the reorganized circuit courts. Jeffersonian Republicans asserted that Congress’s right to establish inferior courts implicitly allowed it to abolish such courts. The incumbent circuit judges and their Federalist supporters insisted that judges appointed for service during good behavior could not be removed by statute. When the act of April 1802 canceled the Supreme Court term scheduled for June of that year, Federalists accused the Republicans of seeking to delay a ruling on the constitutionality of the repeal act until months after the new judicial system was in operation.

Chief Justice John Marshall, who entered office in February 1801, doubted the constitutionality of the repeal act as well as the new act’s requirement that the justices resume their circuit duties. Following an exchange of letters in which a majority of the justices concluded that they were obligated to serve on the circuit courts, Marshall deferred to the act. In March 1803, the Supreme Court in the case of Stuart v. Laird ruled that Congress had authority to transfer a case from a court established by the act of 1801 to one established by the act of 1802, and by implication affirmed the constitutionality of the Judiciary Act of 1802.

From: the Federal Judicial Center….www.fjc.gov

Sixteen federal judgeships were abolished via this legislation, and it was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court. So, after our newly elected Congress refuses to fund unconstitutional federal programs and begins to wean the states and citizens from their dependencies through diminishing block grants, then they should ABOLISH the entire federal court system (having a new plan in hand) and begin anew with constitutionally-committed appointees.

See? Wasn’t that easy? The point of these columns is that the tools to clean up the mess are already present in the Constitution. We merely need citizens and political officeholders who are committed to doing it. This is why ABSOLUTE FIDELITY to the Constitution is so critical a criterion for choosing and supporting candidates. Our leaders, our public servants must be willing to use the entire toolbox to “fix” our Republic.

Comment:  www.cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Tonight (Wed. 11/9) 6-7:00pm, 1370 WSPD, Toledo  www.wspd.com

  

Smaller than what?

“Small” is a relative term. If one is 6 feet tall and plays in the NBA, you would be small. If you are 6 feet tall and in the 6^th grade (11 years old), you would not be small. Small portions of food are variable as you might note whenever you attend a family gathering. Small monthly payments can become quite hefty after a few months as can small tax increases. The term “small” is defined by the standard and the context used for its comparison. Take “small government” for example. Compared to California, Wyoming has a small government. Compared to the state government of 1920, Wyoming’s government might be considered as bloated or huge. You should have a clear enough picture by now to know that advocates of “smaller government” aren’t really saying very much. In fact they probably have their fingers crossed behind their backs when they utter those priceless (or worthless) words.

If I were to magically become king for a day and eliminated the subsidy for the National Endowment for the Arts and nothing else, I would have kept my promise of a “smaller government.” Not much would change, however, for most of us. A few struggling artists and musicians would have to struggle harder, but most of us would not detect a difference in the size, scope or intrusiveness of our government. Even if the promise of a smaller government is carried out, but the costs of operating the remainder are the same as before, we may be somewhat freer, but the concentrated power and lavish expensing for the governmental remnant will still have minimal positive impact for most American citizens. When considering the impact and size of the United States federal government, relative terms are meaningless. One must deal with absolutes….clearly defined limitations, responsibilities, duties and powers. One of the most egregious reasons for our present fiscal condition is that government has consistently used relative definitions for determining eligibility for transfer payments. For example the current income for the “poverty line” for a family of four is more than $20,000.00 per year. As a consequence, despite our nearly 50-year “War on Poverty,” the rate of those below the poverty line hasn’t changed. The line of demarcation is raised to reflect inflation and other cost increases which in turn is inflationary. As the government pumps more money into non-productive or low-producing sectors of the economy, there are more dollars competing for goods and services without having a corresponding impact on productive output.

This one example should be sufficient to illustrate that “smaller” is meaningless. If we agree that we need absolute or concrete parameters for government’s size, then the next step would be to identify the clear-cut limits for our federal government. Obviously the template that we presently have should be our starting point ….and, personally speaking, our end goal. The Constitution of the United States is broad enough to adapt to changing times and specific enough to limit government’s natural inclination to grow more powerful…if we adhere to it. There have been numerous efforts to change the Constitution through formal means or via unconstitutional legislation and rulemaking that goes unchallenged. In 1974 Rexford Tugwell penned The Emerging Constitution wherein he suggested that the U.S. version be more globally oriented and embrace a broader definition for “citizen.” Nearly every alteration that has been suggested or surreptitiously implemented has resulted in greater power for government and loss of freedom for our sovereign states and citizens.

Personal liberty is a gift from God, a Natural Right and an inherent desire of people. The Founders and the Framers recognized that the natural inclination of any government…monarchy, oligarchy, democracy…whatever…is to increase size, power and control. As a result of their insight, they devised a system of checks and balances among three co-equal branches that are (were) subservient to the people and their respective sovereign states. The interaction and oversight among the stakeholders should have insured that individual freedom would not be imperiled. Throughout the history of our nation the states and the three branches of the federal government have jousted and competed for preeminence in the federal power structure. The three federal branches have traded places at the pinnacle of influence and power from time to time, but it’s the states…the 50 sovereign entities who have fallen behind the power 8-ball. Often they did so willingly in exchange for federal revenue sharing….the modern equivalent of beads and baubles for Manhattan. Many state politicians lusted to serve in Washington D.C. so they were reluctant to take a stand against federal encroachment on states’ rights.

In a previous column (“Defining and Weaving” www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com 11/4/2011) I suggested that the Congress is the logical focus for a constitutional restoration effort. The drive to re-establish the Constitution as the sole arbiter of federal action and involvement must include a corresponding devolution of federal power and oversight back to the respective states. This can be accomplished in the form of diminishing block grants over a short period of time. I would suggest 2-5 years. Simultaneously, federal taxes should be reduced in a corresponding manner. Some states will choose to continue the many federal programs that they will inherit. Others will seek to pick and choose which programs are necessary or desirable for their states and will jettison the others. The end result is predictable.

The states that choose to pick up the myriad programs will suffer fiscal, economic and social distress (see California and New York). The states that choose wisely and discriminately will do “OK.” The states that choose to absorb very little of the former federal portfolio will thrive. Their economies will flourish. Their populations will grow,….and their power in the Electoral College will increase. It’s really no big deal. Throughout our history people have moved from state to state seeking opportunity and liberty. As long as we have some states that are committed to liberty and prosperity in lieu of oppressive federal dominance, we can survive and succeed. Let’s do it.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

This Week: Wed. only, 6-7:00pm. 1370 WSPD, Toledo www.wspd.com