Archive for the ‘U. S. Constitution’ Category

« Older Entries

Practical Aspects of Gun Control, Part 4

by Edward Posted: Thursday, 3/7/2013

PracticalGunControlPart4  <==  PDF version

Having reviewed the cultural and historical aspects of gun control, we turn now in this edition to the moral aspect.

3          The Moral Aspect

In considering the moral aspect of citizen disarmament, commonly called “gun control”, it is helpful to return once again to English jurist William Blackstone [1]:

In these several articles consist the rights, or, as they are frequently termed, the liberties of Englishmen: liberties, more generally talked of than thoroughly understood; and yet highly necessary to be perfectly known and considered by every man of rank or property, lest his ignorance of the points whereon they are founded should hurry him into faction and licentiousness on the one hand, or a pusillanimous indifference and criminal submission on the other.  And we have seen that these rights consist, primarily, in the free enjoyment of personal security, of personal liberty, and of private property.  So long as these remain inviolate, the subject is perfectly free; for every species of compulsive tyranny and oppression must act in opposition to one or the other of these rights, having no other object upon which it can possibly be employed.  To preserve them from violation, it is necessary that the constitution of parliament be supported in its full vigor; and limits, certainly known, be set to the royal prerogative.  And, lastly, to vindicate these rights when actually violated or attacked, the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place, to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law; next, to the right of petitioning the king and parliament for redress of grievances; and lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense.  And all these rights and liberties it is our birthright to enjoy entire; unless where the laws of our country have laid them under necessary restraints.  Restraints in themselves so gentle and moderate, as will appear upon further inquiry, that no man of sense of probity would wish to see them slackened.  For all of us have in our choice to do every good thing that a good man would desire to do; and are restrained from nothing, but what would be pernicious either to ourselves or to our fellow-citizens.

So it is that every citizen is to be aware of his rights to life, liberty, and property, and at the risk of being both a coward and traitor to freedom and posterity, be prepared with arms to defend those freedoms should the government fail to perform its duties to preserve them.  But what about those “necessary restraints” that Mr. Blackstone refers to — doesn’t “gun control” fall under the category of “gentle and moderate” restrictions conducive to the happiness of the people?  No.  Gun control is quite the opposite: it is the means by which you, the citizen, are turned into a helpless dependent subject because it removes the ultimate restraint upon the power of governments and criminals alike. It is the means by which you, the citizen, are convinced that your life, liberty, and property are not worth fighting for; and you should leave that to the professionals, since you might get hurt and not be able to pay taxes.  It is the means by which your moral compass is forced to always point toward the government, begging them to save you; or maybe worse, subordinate yourself to the whims of some gang of professional criminals.

Is it moral to leave people in situations where the police are not available or cannot be of use, such as Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Sandy, the LA riots after the O. J. Simpson verdict, or the many riots that took place in the 1960′s, including most major cities?  The police have not signed up to protect you from everything.  The police generally do a fine job, but their task is to investigate crimes after they have occurred, make arrests in accordance with the evidence, and thus bring the suspect into the justice system.  The judicial system may limit the future actions of criminals, but have no effect on the crime that is about to happen.  You, as a moral agent, are responsible for your own safety.  In fact, the police are not legally obligated to protect you from anything, or even to show up when they are called, especially in those unusual times when the number of calls greatly exceeds the capacity of the system to respond.  Is it moral on your part to demand that the police risk their lives to defend yours?  The police do not sign up for responding to large-scale civil breakdown.  Many of the police in New Orleans fled to Baton Rouge during Katrina; many LAPD members fled to San Bernardino during the LA riots.  Rightfully so — they have families to look out for, which supersedes your needs and demands.  What if 9/11 had been a larger, more general attack in which the normal governance had broken down?  The criminals would have gone berserk, as they are always looking for an excuse.  History shows that you will be on your own. The National Guard troops were in their barracks by sundown during the LA riots; during Katrina they actually disarmed the citizens, leaving them easy prey for the gangs.

Politicians are always protected by bodyguards with high-capacity weapons — this is more than hypocrisy; it is immorality of the highest order: no moral government would permit its employees to arrogate an exemption for themselves while requiring the common people to go about unarmed.  Recall that all legislative authority is vested in the Congress; consider now the words of James Madison in The Federalist Papers #57:

I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as the great mass of society.  This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and people together.  It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny.  If it be asked what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society?  I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws, and the manly spirit which actuates the people of America– a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.

The same principle applies at the state and local government levels.  How can a just government exempt itself from its own laws?  But yet it is evident that “We the People” have failed to enforce this dictum upon our politicians; we see at every turn numerous exemptions to the laws created for the benefit of politicians, bureaucrats and their associates.  It is especially evident in the gun laws: our (allegedly) morally-superior government employees parade the streets with taxpayer-paid (supposedly) morally-superior bodyguards, while the people are forced by law to remain defenseless at all times and in all places.

Vice President Joe Biden took the time recently to look down his nose and lecture us lowlifes that we only need a double-barrel shotgun for self-defense, even at home.  I wonder what type of weapons, containing how many rounds, and of what type, his Secret Service detail carries with them when protecting him, even in his home.

Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) recently released a video claiming “that no one is going to take my guns away”.  He’s right — no one is going to take his guns away because he is a member of the (allegedly) morally-superior ruling elite.  He will have access to all the guns and ammunition he wants for the rest of his life, and so will all his friends and family for all of their lives.  It will be interesting to see what Senator Manchin thinks of you and your rights in the upcoming disarmament votes in Congress.

When the government is armed and the people are not, one has tyranny; when the people are armed and the government is not, one has anarchy; in America, both are armed, wary of each other, and each side is able to suppress the worst instincts of the other.  But our modern politicians do not like the idea of any challenges to their quest for arbitrary power.

Criminals know two things: a) they will always be able to get a gun, no matter what the law is; and b) they are likely to get shot by their intended victims if those intended victims have guns.  It is evident that criminals always favor gun control for the same reasons the politicians do: it has no effect upon their livelihood and makes their job easier.  Conversely, armed people don’t have to take any crap from criminals or from governments.  It is immoral to be afraid of criminals, but yet that is what our government demands.  The reason they demand it is simple: the government needs the existence of large criminal networks to justify part of its existence, and it also helps keep the people in fear.

We commonly hear arguments that “one doesn’t need a semi-automatic rifle” since the Second Amendment was written during a time when only muzzle-loading muskets were available.  But exactly the same argument could be made about radio, TV talk shows, and internet sites, since only newspapers existed when the First Amendment was written.  I would be curious to know, given their self-appointed superior moral righteousness, what part of the First Amendment is the mainstream media willing to give up in order to reduce the incidence of libel, defamation of character, and slander?

“We the People” would do well to recall the words of Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist #78:

There is no position which depends on clearer principles that that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void.  No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution can be valid.  To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

The U. S. Constitution clearly states that the right the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and every state and local officer swears an oath to also uphold the federal Constitution.  Under what pretended morality do they claim power to do what is prohibited by their oath?  Or carve out exemptions to the laws for themselves?  Or tell us that we are not morally suitable to possess the tools necessary to take care of ourselves should the need arise?

[1]        William Blackstone, Commentary on the Laws of England, 1765, Book 1, Chap. 1, pp. 144, 145

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Alexander Hamilton, Bill of Rights, Federalist Papers, gun control, James Madison, Second Amendment, U. S. Constitution | No Comments »

The Supreme Court Ruling on “Obamacare”

by Edward Posted: Sunday, 7/1/2012

TheSupremeCourtRulingOnObamaCare   <=== PDF version

On 28 Jun 2012, the U. S. Supreme Court issued its ruling regarding the constitutionality of the individual mandate under The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) of 2010, a.k.a. “Obamacare”. The court’s majority (5-4) opinion, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, found that the individual mandate, requiring every citizen to prove they have health insurance, is constitutional because the penalty for failure to do so is regarded as a tax.  Therefore, they said, the mandate conforms to the Constitution because of Congress’ unlimited power to tax.  It rejected the authority to impose the mandate under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

I had published a paper [1] three weeks prior to this ruling in which I speculated that the Court may in fact uphold Obamacare on the grounds that it would be regarded as a non-voluntary tax.  I had claimed then that the Court might use the mandatory Social Security tax as a precedent.  Although the Obamacare ruling did not in fact justify it in that manner, I am content with being more than half-right on the speculation that a tax argument would be used to uphold it.

Some critics claim the Justice Roberts “re-wrote” the law to give it the illusion of conforming to the Constitution, since the President and Congress all claimed that the individual mandate penalty was not a tax.  I do not see what they are alarmed about.  If Roberts “re-wrote” the law, it means that he must have “read” it, which is more than the members of Congress did before they voted for it.  No member of Congress who voted for it should be offended by having the Court explain it to them, so long as it was upheld.  The mandate penalty being cast as a tax should also not offend any member of Congress.  Remember, all the members of Congress, their families, their staff, and their families are all exempt from Obamacare.  At least they had enough common sense to protect themselves from this law, but what about you?

The net result of this ruling is that the Court found a way to justify an expansion of the arbitrary powers claimed by the federal government.  If the individual mandate is a permitted tax, then the funding is secure; the funding is the means of establishing and consolidating the new power. Without the “tax” or “penalty”, or more accurately, the coercive economic method, the new power over the entire health care system would necessarily become inoperative.

The Republicans are now claiming that this ruling will energize the people to elect Governor Mitt Romney to the Presidency on the grounds that he has promised to “repeal” it.  He is either using the wrong word or Mr. Romney hasn’t read the Constitution either, since a President does not have the power to “repeal” Congressional legislation.  The most he could do in this case is issue an Executive Order exempting all the states.  If that is what he means, he should say so.  But it will be a difficult argument for Romney, since he is the godfather of the individual mandate established while he was Governor of Massachusetts (“he was for it before he was against it”, as Senator John Kerry ofMassachusettsonce said).

Even if the Republicans take control of the Senate, retain control of the House, and Mr. Romney becomes President, I do not think Obamacare will be repealed.  There are a lot of tactical reasons involving the proportional allocation of “federal money” to the states, but I think the main reason it will never be repealed is because the Republicans like the expansion of government power just as much as the Democrats do.  Maybe they will prove me wrong, but it is better to prepare for the full onslaught of Obamacare rather than count on politicians to keep their promises.

[1]        Edward D. Duvall, “Why The Supreme Court May Validate Obamacare”, 4 Jun 2012, http://edduvall.com

Posted in government powers, U. S. Constitution | No Comments »

Why the Supreme Court May Validate “Obamacare”

by Edward Posted: Monday, 6/4/2012

WhyTheSupremeCourtMayValidateObamacare   <== PDF version

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) of 2010, known by its slang term “Obamacare”, has been taken under advisement by the Supreme Court as to the constitutionality of one of its provisions.  The law sought to do several things: a) increases coverage of pre-existing conditions; b) permits persons under the age of 26 to remain on their parent’s health plan; c) increases overall federal spending on health care; d) reduces Medicare spending at the federal level; e) expands Medicaid eligibility by increasing the income threshold for qualification; f) establishes “healthcare exchanges” at the state level such that consumer could compare insurance products; g) prohibits annual and lifetime limits on health care insurance coverage; h) raises various taxes on insurers, businesses, medical equipment makers, and individuals; and i) imposes an “individual mandate” requiring everyone to obtain health insurance, or to pay a penalty if they do not.  This last provision is known as the “shared responsibility requirement”.  There are a few other minor provisions as well.

It is clear to all but the most casual thinkers that the first eight provisions cited above will increase the number of people in the health care system, each at a higher cost than before, without a corresponding increase in the number of practitioners.  It will increase costs through increased taxation and regulation such that, although most health insurance will remain privately run in the short term, health care will drift to a single-payer federal system in the long run.  Imagine your medical future determined by your friendly neighborhood Motor Vehicle Bureau.

The one provision that was objected to, and for which many state Attorneys General filed suit, is the question as to whether the federal government can compel a citizen to purchase a health care insurance product.  Their claim is that the “individual mandate” is unconstitutional because it does not fall within a legitimate taxation power granted to Congress, nor does it meet the test of limited government, even with the expanded interpretation of the Commerce Clause.  It is clearly a very bad omen for the people: if this is upheld, there will be no end of demands made on the people to buy things at the government’s dictate.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that the Supreme Court may find a way to justify it within the Constitution, using Social Security as a precedent.  Let us review briefly the original claims of Social Security.  It was set up in 1935 as a way to ensure that the elderly (then defined as age 65) did not fall into deep poverty.  It was partly motivated by the Great Depression and the government’s disastrous response to it.  If you look at your Social Security card, it says that a “Social Security Account has been established for” [your name], followed by the 9-digit number, and a disclaimer that it to be used “for Social Security and Tax Purposes — Not for Identification”.  The Franklin D. Roosevelt administration claimed that the payroll tax “contributions” constituted premiums for “old age insurance”, and would pay out a fixed sum per month upon retirement to keep people out of poverty.  The proceeds of the “contributions” in excess of current-year payouts would be retained in a “Trust Fund” to ensure that there would always be money available for you when your time came to retire.

Now let us tell the truth about it, ignoring the increases in the payroll tax rate, the increases in income liable for the tax, the increase in life expectancy, the growth of payouts, and the decline in the number of people supporting those who are currently retired.  If we restrict ourselves only to the basic provisions, we find the following:

1.  The Social Security Number has become the de facto national ID card for all Americans.

2.  Your Social Security “account” number is not connected in any way with an “old age insurance” policy in the usual sense of an insurance contract.  You are not paying premiums for a policy to insure yourself against poverty.

3.  Your “contributions” are not voluntary like every other contribution: they are mandatory.  You do not get to choose if you want to participate in Social Security or not; it is a “shared obligation”.

4.  There is no “trust fund” with your name or account number on it; your “contributions” are not invested for you to be paid when you are eligible. Your taxes are used to pay those currently retired (pay-as-you-go).   There is no sense of the traditional reward for work and saving as a normal trust fund would operate.  There is nothing held for you in your name, as a usual trust fund would operate.  There is nothing paid to your estate if you die before collecting any benefits, as a normal trust fund would operate.  The excess “contributions” are neither saved nor invested; they are spent on other items the federal government refuses to fund in other ways.

Here is my concern.  If the federal government can force you to pay a mandatory tax (and call it a “contribution”) to fund non-existent “premiums” on a non-existent “old-age insurance” policy with the surplus stored in a non-existent “trust fund” while claiming that the ubiquitous mandatory tracking number was to be used only for Social Security and tax purposes, it seems to me the Supreme Court can find a way to force you to pay a “contribution” in the interest of “shared responsibility” for an actual health insurance product.  They might even try to distort the meaning of Alexander Hamilton’s words from The Federalist Papers, No. 16:

 “…if it be possible at any rate to construct a federal government capable of regulating the common concerns and preserving the general tranquility … it must carry its agency to the persons of the citizens”.

Hamilton was of course, arguing against one of the pernicious effects of the Articles of Confederation, in which the raising of men and equipment to fight the Revolution depended on the caprice of the states to fulfill their obligations per the Congressional requisitions (which they often failed to do).  It had nothing to do with regulating the private affairs of private persons.

The entire health care law, especially the individual mandate, is a very bad idea, and nothing useful will result from it, but that is not the point.  The point, just as with Social Security, is to get more people dependent on the government.  It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court acts.

Posted in government powers, U. S. Constitution | No Comments »

A Free Reprint of The Federalist Papers

by Edward Posted: Thursday, 11/24/2011

FederalistPapersReprint   <== FREE PDF reprint of The Federalist Papers

24 Nov 2011

Dear Readers:

The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 essays by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay published from the fall of 1787 to the spring of 1788.  Their purpose was to explain and defend the newly-crafted U. S. Constitution (intended to supercede the Articles of Confederation)  during the ratification debate in New York.  In the course of these essays, these three founding fathers discuss the philosophy of limited government with necessary powers, the separation of powers between the states and the federal government, and how these were implemented in the Constitution.

It is important for those who believe in limited government to read and understand the Federalist Papers.  They are as relevant today as they ever were.  Page 2 of the reprint (available in pdf only due to its length) contains a  commercial for a book that will help you understand it better; I hope you will consider that too.

The Federalist is in the public domain, and there is nothing copyrighted in this reprint.  Please distribute it as you see fit.

Thanks for reading,

Ed Duvall

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Alexander Hamilton, Articles of Confederation, Early American history, Federalist Papers, James Madison, John Jay, U. S. Constitution | No Comments »
« Older Entries