Holding the Handle

These columns and others by astute observers have summarized many problems that our nation is facing. At times it seems as if the difficulties are so numerous that we can’t resolve them all. We can’t seem “to get a handle” on our current situation because it’s too difficult to grasp. Fiscal, social, economic and political problems are overwhelming us. Although each issue may appear to stand alone, they are all inter-related and interconnected. The linkage is rather clear if one lifts the hood and peeks underneath it. Just as health issues in one part of the human body can impact other vital functions, the national sickness is similar.

Clearly if we focus on the issues and problems, we will have to duct tape our heads to stop them from exploding. You can easily observe how broad the scope is for difficulties we face by monitoring your email threads. Every day seems to include a new outrage by the government wherein some typical citizen is abused by either government power or official indifference. I have discovered the secret handle that allows me to deal with all these diverse problems. I have been blessed to “get a handle on the issues.” Strengthen your grip because here we go.

Faith is vital for coping with the numerous wheels that seem to be flying off our nation and our society. The opposite of faith is despair which leads to inertia and passivity. Faith in God, faith in the future, and faith in your fellow patriots are all reservoirs of strength as you confront the chaos. Progressives (socialists, communists, statists) gleefully demean people of faith while at the same time failing to understand that their baseless hope in the power and beneficence of government is also faith-based. Sometimes it appears that their faith exceeds ours because they never quit despite numerous examples of the failure of their faith in government.

Freedom is the cornerstone of the handle….the glue that holds it together. While faith is necessary for life, freedom is critical for living. One must have the maneuverability to react to circumstances, and flexibility is nearly impossible when one’s freedom to think, to act and to organize has been severely curtailed by the state or social convention. We have witnessed that freedom is fleeting and becomes more endangered every day. So, we must positively capitalize on our remaining freedom to sound the alarms for our communities and our loved ones. Some of us have a tendency to under-estimate our freedom and resist “making waves,” but we’ll never get the envelope to the intended recipient if we are too timid to push it. Movements are started and expanded as more people choose to exercise their freedom.

Fidelity is a derivative of faith, but in the context of a crumbling nation, it references trust and loyalty. It is important that we not get caught-up in the movement and superficially support positions that we may not hold dear. During the past few years of my efforts for liberty, I have encountered legions of people who give lip service to freedom and constitutional government yet…at crunch time they are unwilling to let go of certain programs or big-government policies. Their faltering attitudes undermine the movement and diminish the impact because the numbers of supporters are not real. They are imaginary.

Before committing your “lives, fortunes and sacred honor” to a movement be absolutely certain that you have thought through the positions and will stand for its principles….despite fierce opposition.

Force is a fundamental aspect of societies and nations. Force is the primary tool of government to assure compliance with the various rules and laws of the community, state or nation. Our Framers understood that government embodied force as the basic component for implementing its policies and programs. Invariably the force of the government conflicts with the liberty of the individual which is why our wise designers sought to limit the size and reach of government. When governments exceed their legitimate purposes and become oppressive, the people may have to resort to force to reinstitute their basic liberties. Force should always be the last resort because by its very nature, it is destructive. When the power of the state grows too large, legitimate measures for correction are often ineffective. The state will either co-opt the dissenting movement with false promises or forcibly crush it. Force is part of the “handle” because the restorers should understand its importance to the government and the potential necessity for using it to recapture the Founding dream. Force should be avoided whenever possible, but astute patriots will always be aware of its presence and be prepared to utilize it when necessary. They key word is “prepared.” Force should not be the product of mob frenzy, but should only be judiciously employed as a last resort.

Faith, freedom, fidelity and force can be valuable tools for coping with the surrounding chaos if we work for the best and are prepared for the worst. It is absolutely critical that each of us look inward and precisely define our limits and our visions. Failure to do so will lead to tragedy.

cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.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

  

Defining and Weaving

The previous three columns have examined the foundational tools that are necessary for restoring our nation to its constitutional government, but more importantly to its constitutional roots. We have witnessed for the past century or more our political leaders’ failure to honor and defend our constitutional principles. We have no reason to believe that they will have a series of epiphanies and move to the light from their locations on the dark side. Many have claimed to be in favor of “smaller” government, but I suspect that if they were grilled under harsh lights with their hands restrained and blindfolds in place, they would admit that they believe the basic Constitution of the United States is too severe and extreme for 21^st Century citizens. So, the education of America must include many allies in the political class as well as the mass of uninformed and ignorant citizens.

For the past two or so years many groups have assumed the task of educating their members and communities about the Constitution, the Declaration and other founding documents. The educational cornerstone going forward must be the “relevance” of those documents for our present time. Relevance as point of view should never be allowed to undermine the purity and the intent of our national heritage, rather relevance should be defined to indicate how the enduring wisdom of the Founders and Framers developed a structure that can withstand the various trends and feel-good schemes of every generation. The keystone of the educational movement must be the absolute principles included, enclosed and embedded in the documents, debates and decisions of the activists during the Founding and the leaders of the Framing.

Although many changes have occurred in our nation (e.g. more states, larger population) since the adoption and ratification of the Constitution, some things have not changed thus underscoring the legitimacy of the document. Some people thirst for power and seek to use it to bend others to their wills. Others are constantly on the prowl to discover opportunities for tapping the resources of others. Some seek to perpetually hold office by distributing the wealth of workers into the hands of non-productive voters. These types of behaviors and attitudes have existed since before our founding, but the proponents of them have become more brazen as time has drifted further away from the passion of our beginning. Human behavior and human desires are relatively constant from era to era. The additions of laptops, cell phones, HDTV, jet travel, air conditioning and robotics haven’t changed human nature or political calculations.

The Founders and Framers were not strangers to human foibles. Indeed, nearly every flaw in human development could be found among them. Their collective genius sprung from the realization that imperfect people would be tempted to pervert the most liberty-friendly government design in human history. As a result, they forged a template for governing that limited the federal government’s impact on the freedoms and daily lives of the governed. The underlying advantage of such a structure is that it could possibly tamper the desires of people to seize the levers of governance because of the relative powerless nature of the federal entity. Nevertheless for the past two and a quarter centuries and especially for the past 100 years, power-hungry politicians and their do-gooder cohorts have corrupted and distorted our finely balanced government. Now instead of sovereign states that join together to provide for a common defense and other national necessities, the federal government has assumed preeminence and dictates to the states as it continues to grow and assume more power over states and citizens. All three branches of the carefully crafted design have assumed power and oversight far beyond what the Framers envisioned. The delicate balance of power between the branches has become a consuming race for power over the lives of the people as each branch seems to consistently find new ways for abusing and exploiting the people. Many citizens are wondering what happened to their inalienable rights, and the states have become mere identifiers for mailing and zip code directories. 

Defining objectives and steps are vital for starting the process of recapturing the government, the nation designed by the Framers. Federal government power (and state power too) must be severely curtailed and constrained. All three branches must undergo radical dismemberment and reductions. One branch should be chosen as the beta, and that would be Congress. No candidate should be promoted or supported unless she or he pledges absolute fidelity to the Constitution and her or his oath of office. During the vetting process candidates should demonstrate that they have a full understanding and familiarity with the Constitution, the Declaration and the underlying principles. Candidates must be unwaveringly committed to individual liberty, federalism (the sovereignty of states) and reducing national government to its constitutional role as literally defined by the Constitution of the United States. Any candidate who falters on any portion of the knowledge and commitment requirements should receive either an “unfavorable,” a “not supported,” or an “actively oppose” resolution from the vetting group. The results should be published with justifications for the designation. Another reason for choosing Congress as the first line of education and recapture is that with the two-year cycle in the House, the turnover process can be implemented more quickly than it can in other branches or chambers. Vetting organizations must have the courage to reject incumbents who are “generally OK.” Our nation is in economic, fiscal and political peril. There is no more time available for “close enough” candidates who are NOT committed to plan laid out by the Founders and the Framers. It’s time to stop pussyfooting. The time has come to either commit to saving the nation or to surrender it to socialist statism.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Next week: Wed. 6-7:00pm, 1370 WSPD, Toledo  www.wspd.com