One way we can improve the U.S. system of government is to change the nature of U.S. Supreme Court appointments. Anyone watching the appointment process realizes that there is a bitter partisan rivalry in which the money funding Democratic and Republican interests is highly involved, resulting in judges more serving oligopolic and ideological interests than serving the general society and Constitutional principles, with legal skills as top Constitutional scholars.
Another problem with the Supreme Court, in retrospect, is that it generally serves the consolidation of federal power, having little desire to see the states as a check on federal power. This is, in part, because it is part of the federal government, appointed by federal elites, and the power and prestige of the federal government reflects on the Court. Continue reading
The U.S. Constitution was to Restrain Government and Consolidation of Power
In a December 30 editorial in the New York Times, Georgetown professor of constitutional law talks Louis Michael Seidman wrote about ideas in his book On Constitutional Disobedience, arguing that the failure of the U.S. government lies in archaic and evil provisions of the U.S. Constitution. I would argue that we should not treat the constitution as an inerrant eternal document that judges prooftext like theologians do sacred scripture, but much of our current dysfunction stems from ignoring the vision and principles behind it and the legal changes made in the two hundred years following its creation. In addition, I agree with him that the Founders could not anticipate many of the changes in technology and society. However, he is offering little hope that he would apply founding principles to these developments like large corporations and a global economy.
In his first example, Seidman argues that we should not care whether the tax plan originate in the Senate or the House. In some respects he is right because the 17th Amendment gutted the original Constitution of the very important reason to have two houses in the first place–the concept of checks and balances on power, with the States appointing Senators, and the populace electing their representatives. In that case it was important that the people paying the taxes–not elites–determine how their own money would get spent. Otherwise there is theft and dysfunction, which we know have in spades. With the passage of the 17th Amendment, the people elected representatives in both houses, so the concept of a Senator became gutted of its meaning except the “representatives” in the Senate serve longer terms. However, they represented the same group, so an important check and balance that helped to keep the system functional was made dysfunctional. In the present case, with no checks and balances, it would be more efficient to have a unicameral legislature. Continue reading
Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution forbids the existence of any federal agency like the BATF, FBI, TSA, or Homeland Security which trains military or policing activity at the federal level. It clearly says that the individual states should have militias that the Federal Government can call up, but it does not provide the federal government with the power to create militias or police forces. To grant such power would be a clear violation of necessary checks and balances between the states and the federal government.
The Federal government was to have military forces, but they were not to be deployed domestically. They were to defend the nation against an invasion, protect our embassies, and protect national property, but nowhere were they given authority to police citizens. In the language and philosophy of the U.S. Constitution, “national police” would be an oxymoron. Continue reading
Government Debt Is a Form of Involuntary Slavery and A Violation of Fundamental Human Rights
Most Governments are Guilty of Slavery
One of the most serious social problems in the world today is government debt. Most of this debt is legally owed by individuals who never agreed to take on this debt obligation, but it was imposed on them by their governments. Such government debt ought to be viewed as a fundamental violation of human rights. Most countries that are members of the United Nations engage in this form of slavery that is more subtle, but no less pernicious and abhorrent than the physical slavery so publicly decried.
Article 4 of the UN International Declaration of Human Rights states:
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
The bankruptcy of San Bernardino analyzed by a Reuter’s article yesterday is a study in the growing dysfunctionality of governments in which public unions and politicians are creating total chaos by spending obligations that defy the laws of math and morality. Fifty years ago San Bernardino was a prosperous middle class city. Today over 1/3 of the population lives below the poverty line while a police lieutenant can retire with a one-time payout of $230,000 and a guaranteed pension of $128,000 per year after that. Nearly 75% of the city’s entire budget goes to the police and fire departments and its largest creditor, Calpers (the California State public employee fund), is owed $143 million. But Calpers says San Bernardino would have to pay $320 to leave its system, because it has banked on a mystical 8 percent projected return on its investment in San Bernardino. The second largest city debt is a list of private creditors that hold $46 million in pension bonds. They are threatening to sue.
Calpers and many other large public funds rely on Wall Street returns. In fact, many of them have entrusted hundreds of billions of dollars to Wall Street fund managers who are paid the huge Wall Street fees regardless of fund performance, and take up to a 20% commission if funds perform. As government pension funding projects further shortfalls (actuaries estimate public pension funds are now only funded with 41% of their obligations) they invest in higher risk stock and hedge funds–treating funds held in trust for government employees with much less respect than the employee would treat his own money. Some public employee pension funds appear no safer than Bernie Madoff’s schemes–they just play by looser rules (GASB vs. FASB) and expect taxpayer bailouts or future generations will pay for money they take from public treasuries. Continue reading