Hillary Clinton calls herself a "modern progressive." It's interesting that no one (except for Glenn Beck) has a problem with this statement. Progressives believe that society must "progress" toward an ideal form of government.
Here is the problem with such a philosophy: Progress requires constitutional and government flexibility. If we find that our government is not addressing some issue of national importance, we should have the ability to quickly change the government.
Woodrow Wilson believed that the British constitution was more advanced than the United States constitution because it allowed for "progress" without the slow process of amendment.
The constitution of the founders assumed and required a limited general government. Progressivism is not compatible with our constitution because it assumes government must "progress" to be more proactive, wielding more and more power as time goes by.
As a result, Hillary Clinton is not just a modern Progressive. She is an un-Constitutionalist. How have we regressed to such a state that someone who would subvert our constitutional system is seen as "progressive"?
Showing posts with label congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label congress. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Monday, November 23, 2009
The Constitution's input on military tribunals
The last word on whether KSM should be tried in a military tribunal or in civil court is the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The text follows:
It appears, according to the above text, a military tribunal cannot be utilized to indict and/or try a person who is NOT in "the land or naval forces, or in the Militia...." If we broaden the meaning of the passage to include attacks ON the military, the attacks of September 11, 2001, still do not fit into that broader definition. However, it appears the exclusion of the armed forces was, instead, to ensure that the military controlled disciplinary actions against soldiers, rather than to give the military trial power over civilians.
Many of the "conservative" talk-show hosts tell of their fear of terrorists being released because they were not properly "Mirandized." If that happens, isn't it an indictment of the acts of government officials - not our justice system? Those officials "played fast and loose" with the rules. That does not mean that our justice system is broken. It means that government officials screwed up. So should we use a military tribunal every time officials spit on the constitution?
It will be interesting to see whether KSM pleads guilty in court as he has stated he will. If he does so, our justice system will live on; if he does not, the government may have difficulty getting much of the evidence admitted, and may have a hard time convicting KSM of his crimes....
Either way, if KSM is tried in a civil court, our justice system will live on. What will be remarkable is whether our government learns a lesson on treatment of prisoners in the process.
Sadly, the attorney general seems to be convening a "kangaroo court," since he has stated that the government will not release KSM no matter the verdict.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger....
It appears, according to the above text, a military tribunal cannot be utilized to indict and/or try a person who is NOT in "the land or naval forces, or in the Militia...." If we broaden the meaning of the passage to include attacks ON the military, the attacks of September 11, 2001, still do not fit into that broader definition. However, it appears the exclusion of the armed forces was, instead, to ensure that the military controlled disciplinary actions against soldiers, rather than to give the military trial power over civilians.
Many of the "conservative" talk-show hosts tell of their fear of terrorists being released because they were not properly "Mirandized." If that happens, isn't it an indictment of the acts of government officials - not our justice system? Those officials "played fast and loose" with the rules. That does not mean that our justice system is broken. It means that government officials screwed up. So should we use a military tribunal every time officials spit on the constitution?
It will be interesting to see whether KSM pleads guilty in court as he has stated he will. If he does so, our justice system will live on; if he does not, the government may have difficulty getting much of the evidence admitted, and may have a hard time convicting KSM of his crimes....
Either way, if KSM is tried in a civil court, our justice system will live on. What will be remarkable is whether our government learns a lesson on treatment of prisoners in the process.
Sadly, the attorney general seems to be convening a "kangaroo court," since he has stated that the government will not release KSM no matter the verdict.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
An aside: Government debt
This is my first "Aside." This portion of the blog will be short observations and/or predictions that may not have a large amount of hard evidence, but that I believe will be important in the future.
I just heard a quote from Barack Obama's recent interview with Fox News. (Yes, I said Fox News.) His statement was: If the government keeps going further in debt, people in the US might lose faith in the government, and we might have a double-dip recession.... We haven't lost faith in the government yet? Look at the debt clock! Does it cause you to have more faith in the government? The site is not run or supported by a political organization. Notice how much more quickly the "US Spending Calendar Year to Date" figure is increasing compared to "US Federal Tax Revenue," (resulting in the "US Budget Deficit" number). Have you lost faith yet?!
I just heard a quote from Barack Obama's recent interview with Fox News. (Yes, I said Fox News.) His statement was: If the government keeps going further in debt, people in the US might lose faith in the government, and we might have a double-dip recession.... We haven't lost faith in the government yet? Look at the debt clock! Does it cause you to have more faith in the government? The site is not run or supported by a political organization. Notice how much more quickly the "US Spending Calendar Year to Date" figure is increasing compared to "US Federal Tax Revenue," (resulting in the "US Budget Deficit" number). Have you lost faith yet?!
How do we fix healthcare?
Some Democrats are today attempting to pass legislation providing government-sponsored health care. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and others have even gone as far as saying Americans have a "right" to health care and that the national government has a responsibility to provide health care to those who cannot afford it.
Interestingly, the health care and insurance system has developed into its present condition largely as a result of previous congressional decisions not to consider health care a commercial activity. Those decisions have left states to develop regulations for health care and insurance within their borders.
Today, after more than two centuries of relatively little federal regulation, Democrats say that Congress now has an important responsibility to provide health care for "every American."
Democrats argue that the present condition of the health care system indicates that we cannot trust the system to develop efficiently; therefore Congress must regulate and support it.
The problem with this argument is that it takes two steps at once. The system is currently state-regulated and primarily supported by non-governmental sources. The Speaker of the House would change the system to be Congress-regulated and primarily supported by governmental sources.
Those who desire government-provided health care assume it is commerce and therefore properly regulated by Congress, but they would skip the intermediate step of private support regulated by Congress. Nearly every other commercial activity has thrived under this capitalistic structure. Congress should attempt to regulate one private system before it attempts to take over and coordinate fifty different systems.
Interestingly, the health care and insurance system has developed into its present condition largely as a result of previous congressional decisions not to consider health care a commercial activity. Those decisions have left states to develop regulations for health care and insurance within their borders.
Today, after more than two centuries of relatively little federal regulation, Democrats say that Congress now has an important responsibility to provide health care for "every American."
Democrats argue that the present condition of the health care system indicates that we cannot trust the system to develop efficiently; therefore Congress must regulate and support it.
The problem with this argument is that it takes two steps at once. The system is currently state-regulated and primarily supported by non-governmental sources. The Speaker of the House would change the system to be Congress-regulated and primarily supported by governmental sources.
Those who desire government-provided health care assume it is commerce and therefore properly regulated by Congress, but they would skip the intermediate step of private support regulated by Congress. Nearly every other commercial activity has thrived under this capitalistic structure. Congress should attempt to regulate one private system before it attempts to take over and coordinate fifty different systems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)