<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><?xml-stylesheet href="http://www.chronwatch-america.com/templates/ChronWatch/RssDisplay.xslt" type="text/xsl"?>
				<rss version="2.0">
				  <channel>
						<title><![CDATA[ChronWatch - Blogs]]></title>
						<link>http://www.chronwatch-america.com</link>
						<description />
						<language>en-us</language>
						<copyright><![CDATA[http://www.chronwatch-america.com]]></copyright>
						<generator>N/A</generator>
						<webMaster>webmaster@chronwatch.com</webMaster>
						<lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 02:10:25 EDT</lastBuildDate>
						<ttl>20</ttl>

					<item>
					  <title><![CDATA[The Owner&#39;s Manual (Part 7)--Article III: The Courts in Practice]]></title>
					  <link>http://www.chronwatch-america.com/blogs/1011/The-Owners-Manual-Part-7--Article-III-The-Courts-in-Practice.html</link>
					  <description><![CDATA[
American Government:The Owner's Manual
Article III, the Courts in Practice
by John Armor
(Seventh in a series of ten. For&#160;other articles in this series, click on View all articles by John Armor--and &#34;Blogs by this author.&#34;)
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;There has been a radical shift in how justices conduct themselves on the Supreme Court, beginning in the 1930s. &#160;Not coincidentally, 1925 was the first year that anyone who was nominated for the Supreme Court appeared in person before the Senate Judiciary Committee. &#160;Not until 1955 did the committee hold public hearings on all nominees before making a recommendation to the whole Senate.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Before those changes, nominees were considered based on their probity of character and knowledge in the law. &#160;Candidates who were acceptable on both of these points were routinely accepted by majority vote of the Senate, and they went onto the court. &#160;Before the 1930s, the Senate usually voted on a nominee within a week.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The process of questioning prospective justices about their political leanings came later.&#160; It reached its nadir when the personal background of a candidate was both examined with a microscope and discussed with gross dishonesty, when the candidacy of a former Yale Law School professor, and judge on the D.C. Court of Appeals, was rejected in 1987. 
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Based on his background, Judge Robert Bork would have been approved with little or no dissent, most&#160;times in&#160;the Supreme Court&#8217;s history.&#160;&#160;But his hearing was such a break with the past that his name became a verb.&#160; To be &#34;borked&#34; means to be rejected for a high position in government based on irrelevant (and sometimes dishonest) personal details.&#160; That new verb applies regardless of which side of the aisle is making the attacks in the Senate.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;In theory, and also as a matter of their oaths of office, justices of the Supreme Court are expected to accept the facts as given, and then follow the law and especially the Constitution, wherever it leads.&#160; They are not supposed to substitute their personal opinions for the decisions made by elected legislators in the states or in Congress.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The most recent case in which a majority of the court substituted&#160;its own opinions for the decisions of the legislature is Boumediene v. Bush (2008). &#160;After using a prior decision to invite Congress to pass a law concerning &#34;illegal combatants,&#34; in this case the court struck down the law which Congress had written. This caused one of the dissents in this case to accuse the majority of &#34;bait and switch.&#34;
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Congress had written its law under a constitutional authority to &#34;suspend the writ of habeas corpus.&#34; 
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Unfortunately, in considering modern decisions of the court, people need to ask the questions backwards.&#160; Readers need to ask whether certain&#160;justices of&#160;the court have reached a political judgment first about the case presented?&#160; If so, are those justices then ignoring some of the facts and twisting the words of the Constitution in order to reach the intended result?
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Another recent case is Kelo v. City of New London.&#160; Here, the court, again by a 5-4 margin, held that the city could take the home of a longtime resident and turn it over to a private developer, who would then make a &#34;higher and better&#34; use of the property and &#34;pay more taxes.&#34; &#160;The court held that this constituted a taking &#34;for public purposes&#34; under the Constitution.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Promptly after this decision, a majority of the states rejected this power the court had just handed them, passing laws which forbade takings of private property to be turned over to other private owners. 
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;US v. Lopez (1995) stands in contrast to those other cases.&#160; Here, Congress passed a law forbidding the possession of guns within any school zone.&#160; Congress said this was a matter of &#34;interstate commerce.&#34; The court decided that while it might be a &#34;good idea&#34; to bar guns in such areas, it was not within the constitutional powers of Congress to pass such a law, and struck it down. &#160;Although&#160;this conclusion seems&#160;obvious, still this was a 5-4 decision, with four justices voting to uphold the law.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Press reports on Supreme Court decisions tend to cover them like a horse race, i.e., who won, and how close was the victory? &#160;It is a difficult task for citizens to read between the lines.&#160; You need to see where the Constitution led in a particular case to determine&#160;which justices respected the Constitution, and which did not.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;It is important for you as voters to attempt that understanding, because only then will campaign references to Supreme Court appointments by presidential candidates, make sense. &#160;Only then will the various efforts by Congress to reign in certain actions by the court, be understandable.
[Next week: Other Articles, including Amendment Power.]]]></description>
					  <author>John Armor</author>
					  <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate>
					  <subject />
					</item>

				

					<item>
					  <title><![CDATA[The Owner&#39;s Manual (Part 6), Article III, the Courts]]></title>
					  <link>http://www.chronwatch-america.com/blogs/1010/The-Owners-Manual-Part-6-Article-III-the-Courts.html</link>
					  <description><![CDATA[&#160; 

American Government: The Owner's Manual
Article III, the Courts
John Armor
(Sixth in a series of ten.&#160;&#160; For&#160;other articles in this series, click on View all articles by John Armor--and &#34;Blogs by this author.&#34;))
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Most of the framers of the Constitution assumed that the federal courts would be the weakest of the three branches of government.&#160; As the ''Federalist'' said, the courts would have neither the power of the purse (Congress), nor the power of the sword (the President).
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The framers were mindful of the history of England and other nations which had court systems that were supposed to be fair, impartial, and independent of the crown.&#160; Yet kings and queens and potentates would at best remove judges when their decisions were unsatisfactory.&#160; At worst, they would jail or execute them, a fate which has befallen judges in some nations even today.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;So the framers gave the federal courts independence from the elected, political powers in two ways. Judges were appointed for life during good behavior, and their salaries were guaranteed for life.&#160; The intent was to allow judges to decide the case before them without fear of retaliation, even if the parties in the case or the judge&#8217;s decision were highly unpopular.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;What the Constitution did not do, however, was to create a general court system with general jurisdiction. &#160;This was not an oversight, but was deliberate. &#160;The jurisdiction of the courts, like the powers of Congress, was limited, because general powers and general jurisdictions remained with the states.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The Constitution created only the Supreme Court, and did not specify how many justices it would contain. &#160;So, over the years, the membership of the Supreme Court has varied from a low of five, to a high of ten. &#160;The current number nine is merely a tradition,&#160;set by&#160;Congress in law.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is&#160;created by the Constitution in Article III: &#34;The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls....&#34; The power is further defined in specific matters such as &#34;states suing states.&#34;
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The second clause of Section 2 of Article III is especially important, but often ignored.&#160; &#34;In all cases affecting ambassadors... and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. &#160;In all the other cases..., the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, ... with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.&#34;
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The Original Jurisdiction cases in the Supreme Court amount to about one per year.&#160; They are filed directly in that court, have case numbers starting with O for Original, and many involve either litigation between states over Howard Hughes&#8217; will or water use from the Colorado River. &#160;These cases are half a percent of the court&#8217;s decided cases, and about one in 2,000 of the cases presented to the court each year.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;No lower courts are required by the Constitution itself. &#160;The federal district courts and circuit courts of appeal, and specialized courts such as tax appeals and foreign security matters, are all creatures of Congress, both to their existence and the extent of their jurisdiction. &#160;As Section 1 says, they are &#34;as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.&#34;
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Since Congress controls the entire existence of the lower federal courts, and all but a small fraction of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, one would think that the Supreme Court would be unable to act consistently and on major issues, contrary to the will of the people as expressed by the&#160;members of&#160;Congress.&#160; Thomas Jefferson, who was not a framer because he was ambassador to France when the Constitution was written, reviewed the finished document and foresaw a darker possibility in the federal courts as established.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;He referred to them as &#34;the most dangerous branch.&#34; &#160;He wrote to his friend, John Eppes in 1807, &#34;The original error [was in] establishing a judiciary independent of the nation, and which, from the citadel of the law, can turn its guns on those they were meant to defend, and control and fashion their proceedings to its own will.&#34;
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;In the ''Federalist, Number 78,'' Alexander Hamilton argued the opposite, that the federal courts were the &#34;least dangerous branch,&#34; because they &#34;may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment....&#34;&#160; In short, the courts had no ability to do more than decide the case before them, on the existing law.&#160; Whether experience has proved Jefferson or Hamilton to be right, is the next subject.
[Next week: Article III, The Courts in Practice.]]]></description>
					  <author>John Armor</author>
					  <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate>
					  <subject />
					</item>

				

					<item>
					  <title><![CDATA[The Rules for Democrats and Republicans]]></title>
					  <link>http://www.chronwatch-america.com/blogs/1009/The-Rules-for-Democrats-and-Republicans.html</link>
					  <description><![CDATA[&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160; &#160;During his days doing stand-up in the 1960s, Bill Cosby recorded a track for one of his comedy albums about the American Revolution. &#160;As only Cosby could tell it, he spun a hilarious version of &#8220;the rules&#8221; for how the war for American independence was to be fought.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160; The British, Cosby said, had to wear red and march in slow, straight lines, making them targets for the colonists, who were allowed to wear drab clothing that blended into the landscape and who could hide behind hills, trees, and rocks as they took aim. &#160;It is a bit like this year&#8217;s presidential race, with Republicans playing by the British rules and Democrats in the role of the colonists.
&#160;
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160; &#160;&#160;&#160;Like the hapless British soldiers in their bright red uniforms, today&#8217;s Republican candidates for office are marching toward their doom with &#8220;shoot me&#8221; written all over them. &#160;Consider the following rules for the two parties and see if they don&#8217;t sound like what is happening this year:
&#160;
The Rules for Democrats
&#160;
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Democrats (and liberals in general) are allowed to say, write and publish anything they want, regardless of how offensive it is or how much it degrades our political discourse. &#160;They can lie, cheat, steal, plagiarize, and berate conservatives whenever they like.&#160; This is allowed because, of course, liberalism is correct and conservatives are not just wrong, and they are evil.
&#160;
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Barack Obama is allowed to take both sides of any issue. &#160;As a new type of candidate for president of the United States, he is allowed to talk movingly about &#8220;change&#8221; and &#8220;hope&#8221; while offering no specifics of any kind. &#160;He can send his wife, Michelle, out onto the campaign trail to spew foul, negative diatribes against America. &#160;He can disavow friends, family members, pastors, mentors, and other supporters should any of them become an embarrassment to his campaign. &#160;And he can use his family as cute campaign props on national television whenever he likes. 
&#160;
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Obama is allowed to make outrageous claims about the racist tendencies and tactics of his opponent and his opponent&#8217;s surrogates.&#160; Because he is half black, he does not have to justify these comments in any way.
&#160;
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Finally, and perhaps most importantly, all members of the U.S. press corps are required to serve as surrogate press secretaries for the Obama campaign.&#160; This will necessitate that when the candidate travels within or out of the country, the media--including the &#8220;big three&#8221; television anchors--are required to accompany him, reporting positively on his every utterance.
&#160;
The Rules for Republicans
&#160;
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, his wife, Cindy, the Republican National Committee, any and all of the fifty state Republican Party organizations, and all other McCain surrogates are strictly forbidden to mention Obama, his wife, his blasphemous, his anti-American former pastor, his radical supporters, his Muslim father, his Muslim step-father, his education in a Muslim school, or his middle name on the campaign trail. 
&#160;
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Conservative talk radio hosts will be threatened by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., with a return to the days of the &#8220;Fairness Doctrine&#8221; whenever they mention Barack Obama, his wife, his blasphemous, anti-American former pastor, his radical supporters, his Muslim father, his Muslim step-father, his education in a Muslim school, or his middle name. 
&#160;
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Any criticism--in fact any negative mention--of Obama, his wife, his blasphemous, anti-American former pastor, his radical supporters, his Muslim father, his Muslim step-father, his education in a Muslim school, or his middle name, will be considered racist. 
&#160;
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Members of the mainstream media are forbidden to cover stories that are negative to Barack Obama or which present him as inexperienced, unprepared, or out-of-the-mainstream of American political thought. Any negative coverage of Obama&#8217;s health care plan, plan for withdrawal from Iraq, or any other position taken by the Democrat presidential candidate is strictly prohibited.
&#160;
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;And finally, presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain is expected to help monitor and enforce these rules as he has always done in the past.&#160; ]]></description>
					  <author>Doug Patton</author>
					  <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate>
					  <subject />
					</item>

				

					<item>
					  <title><![CDATA[The Owner&#39;s Manual (Part 5)--Article II, The Presidency in Practice]]></title>
					  <link>http://www.chronwatch-america.com/blogs/1008/The-Owners-Manual-Part-5--Article-II-The-Presidency-in-Practice.html</link>
					  <description><![CDATA[&#160; 

American Government: The Owner's Manual
Article II, the Presidency in Practice
John Armor
(Fifth in a series of ten.&#160; For&#160;other articles in this series, click on View all articles by John Armor--and &#34;Blogs by this author.&#34;)
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The powers of the president were designed to be sufficient to lead the nation, and insufficient to dominate the nation. &#160;In the hands of a self-restrained leader such as the first president, George Washington, the extent of powers of the chief executive were not a potential problem.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;In the 20th century, both books and articles have decried the &#34;imperial presidency.&#34; &#160;The thesis is that recent presidents have successfully claimed more power than the Constitution permits. &#160;Part of the increase is natural. &#160;The federal government has radically grown especially since the Great Depression.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Since all major officials are appointed by the president, subject to consent by the Senate, every growth in the size of the federal government is also, necessarily, an increase in presidential power. &#160;But the other two areas of growth of presidential power--foreign relations and executive orders--are seemingly within the control of the president himself. &#160;Things are not always what they seem.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The Constitution deliberately gives only to Congress the power to declare war. &#160;In recent decades, presidents have committed acts of war against various nations without any declaration of war by Congress. Most presidents have, in taking such steps, referred to the War Powers Act, passed in 1973.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Under that act, a president can send troops into battle, or into situations where hostilities are imminent, only for 60 days, absent a declaration of war or a specific mandate from Congress. &#160;The president has a possibility of one, 30-day extension. &#160;When passed, shortly after the Vietnam War, the act was hailed as a &#34;restraint&#34; on the powers of the president to move troops anywhere in the world on his own initiative, as commander in chief.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;But in fact, the War Powers Act allows the president of the United States&#160;to commit the nation&#8217;s military to acts of war against other nations without any specific authority from Congress.&#160; And once war is begun, chauvinism can cause the people to commit to continue the war. &#160;This was exactly the evil that the framers sought to prevent in the War Clause of the Constitution, an executive decision to begin a war without any advance control by the people&#8217;s elected representatives.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;No one has ever caused any court to rule on the constitutionality of the War Powers Act in its 35 years of existence.&#160; Yet any fair analysis leads to the conclusion that the power to begin a war cannot be delegated from Congress to the president because of a specific prohibition against that.&#160; This is a growth of presidential power that Congress turned over voluntarily. &#160;It was not taken by force by the president.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Executive orders are another matter.&#160; Such orders were known by, and used by, presidents going back to George Washington, but they have grown in subjects and intricacy in the 20th century.&#160; Two very important Supreme Court cases arose from examination of specific executive orders.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The first is Korematsu, during World War&#160;II.&#160; President Roosevelt issued an EO requiring that all residents of the United States&#160;west of the Mississippi who had at least one Japanese grandparent, would be rounded up and put in detention camps.&#160; To its gross discredit, the Supreme Court approved that order, over a sharp dissent. &#160;Forty years later, Mr. Korematsu obtained a federal court order throwing out his conviction as unconstitutionally obtained.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The second EO case was Youngstown Sheet and Tube, during the Korean War.&#160; The steel workers went on strike.&#160; President Truman issued an EO seizing the steel mills.&#160; The Supreme Court struck down the order as beyond the president&#8217;s war powers.&#160; (Congress promptly passed a law, doing what Truman had attempted.)
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The use of EOs to create legal requirements without congressional approval is a serious temptation for all presidents. &#160;Paul Begala, advisor to President Clinton, put the temptation in clearest possible language: &#34;Stroke of a pen. &#160;Law of the land. &#160;Kinda cool.&#34;
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The power to write laws necessarily involves the danger of losing the next election in one&#8217;s home district.&#160; Only legislators at the state level, and members of Congress at the federal level, are given that power.&#160; Presidents (and governors) are violating the separation of powers when they seize that power. 
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Lastly, there is a cure for such usurpation. &#160;Government can do nothing absent congressional authority to spend money on that action. &#160;EOs, like acts of war, can be defunded, unless Congress is unable or unwilling to muster the courage to act.&#160; Yes, presidents have seized powers that they should not possess. But congresses have allowed them to do that. 
[Next week: Article III, The Courts.]&#160;&#160; ]]></description>
					  <author>John Armor</author>
					  <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate>
					  <subject />
					</item>

				

					<item>
					  <title><![CDATA[The Owner&#39;s Manual (Part 4)--Article II, The Presidency]]></title>
					  <link>http://www.chronwatch-america.com/blogs/1007/The-Owners-Manual-Part-4--Article-II-The-Presidency.html</link>
					  <description><![CDATA[American Government: The Owner's Manual 

Article II, the Presidency
(Fourth in a series of ten.&#160;&#160;For&#160;other articles in this series, click on View all articles by John Armor--and &#34;Blogs by this author.&#34;)&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160; Most Americans don&#8217;t know there was another U.S. government before the Constitution was drafted. Simplified books and courses leave out the Articles of Confederation, the government of the United States&#160;for its first eleven years. &#160;There were several fatal defects in the Articles of Confederation, and one was its presidency.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Concerned with the dangerous powers of the king of England and monarchies generally, the first dramers created a presidency which was too weak.&#160; The &#34;President of the United States in Congress Assembled&#34; was elected for a one-year term by Congress itself. &#160;That &#34;President&#34; had almost no powers.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;When John Hancock was elected to that post, he was too ill to travel from Boston to the capitol in New York during his entire year. &#160;The government functioned as well, or as poorly if you prefer, without him. One of the major defects the framers sought to solve in writing the Constitution was creation of a &#34;vigorous executive.&#34;
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;They made the president the commander in chief of the military. &#160;They gave him the power to appoint all judges and major officials of the new government, subject to the Senate power to &#34;advise and consent.&#34; Most important, they gave him power to veto legislation.&#160; It was not the absolute veto possessed by the royal governors of the American colonies (and by the governor of one subsequent state). &#160;Instead, Congress retained the right to override the veto by a vote of two-thirds of each House.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The task that most bedeviled the framers was the term and manner of election of the chief executive. Proposals varied from a single term of seven years, to a limit of two, four-year terms. &#160;Because George Washington, the well-respected president of the Constitutional Convention, opposed that limitation, the framers settled on no term limitation.&#160; Then, George Washington as the first president set an example of retiring after two terms. &#160;Respect alone held that practice in place until the 20th century.&#160; Once President Franklin D. Roosevelt&#160;violated that tradition, it was written into the Constitution as an amendment.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The manner of electing the president was an even greater problem. &#160;The framers had serious doubts about direct democracy, and rejected it in all three branches of government. &#160;For the president, they settled on the indirect process that people in each state would elect respected figures as presidential electors. They, in turn, would exercise their personal judgments in voting for presidents.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;This process&#160;began to&#160;fall apart in the third election,&#160;when John Adams&#160;became president. &#160;By then, political parties had developed, despite the warnings against&#160;them both in Washington&#8217;s Farewell Address to the American People, and in James Madison&#8217;s Federalist paper, No. 10. &#160;Electors were then simply pledged to specific candidates.&#160; Today, most electors are required to vote as pledged when elected, and it is a felony for them to exercise&#160;any discretion.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The Electoral College contains one continuing value . Because&#160;electors for president are elected state by state, candidates must to some extent focus on states, rather than merely on the largest cities, ignoring most of the nation.&#160; The framers did this deliberately.&#160; They made the&#160;electors equal&#160;the states'&#160;senators plus representatives&#160;to maintain the states' political importance.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Alexander Hamilton argued in the ''Federalist, No. 78,'' that the institution of the electoral college would prevent men who offered only &#34;talents for low intrigue and the little arts of popularity&#34; from becoming president of the United States. &#160;I leave it to the readers to decide how many times the electoral college has allowed people with &#34;talents for low intrigue and the little arts of popularity&#34; to become president.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;We have never been quite satisfied with the electoral college.&#160; More than 10,000 potential amendments to the Constitution have been introduced in Congress over the centuries.&#160; More than 1,000 of those were addressed to the terms and methods of election of presidents.&#160; None has ever come close to passage.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Two of the proposals were to&#160;choose the president by lot either from among the sitting senators, or sitting governors.&#160; Combine both of those and most presidential elections and a great deal of bad television ads, would have been eliminated, including the remaining parts of the 2008 election with three senators still in the running. 
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Various&#160;attempts have been mounted lately to get around the electoral college with legislation.&#160; All such are unconstitutional because the Constitution trumps mere law.&#160; The only remotely possible reform is election of electors in each congressional district, rather than winner-take-all, statewide. &#160;States can do this by simple legislation, as Maine and Nebraska already have. 
[Next week: Article II, the Presidency in Practice.]]]></description>
					  <author>John Armor</author>
					  <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate>
					  <subject />
					</item>

				

					<item>
					  <title><![CDATA[John McCain, You&#39;re No Teddy Roosevelt]]></title>
					  <link>http://www.chronwatch-america.com/blogs/1006/John-McCain-Youre-No-Teddy-Roosevelt.html</link>
					  <description><![CDATA[&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;In a recent interview with the New York Times, John McCain was asked to name the individual he would cite as a &#34;model&#34; conservative.
&#160;
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;That would be Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, or perhaps even George W. Bush, right?
&#160;
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;His answer: None of the above.
&#160;
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;In fact, McCain said the following about his own political leanings: &#34;I count myself as a conservative Republican, yet I view it to a large degree in the Theodore Roosevelt mold,&#34; McCain said.
&#160;
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/us/politics/13mccain.html?_r=2&#38;oref=slogin&#38;adxnnlx=1215890279-bp6wbjqwDmRh3%20KyqyI9OA&#38;pagewanted=print&#38;oref=slogin
&#160;
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;McCain's &#34;model&#34; conservative was, of course, a great American, much admired for his intelligence, energy, and determination.&#160; Roosevelt was also very hawkish on America.
&#160;
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;So much so, in fact, that one must wonder if John McCain is even aware of Roosevelt's thoughts with respect to immigration?
&#160;
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;In 1907, for example, Roosevelt said the following about immigrants and being American:&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#34;In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us; he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. 
&#160;
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;''But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. &#160;Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all.&#160; We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.&#34;
&#160;
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;It is a wretched shame that Teddy Roosevelt is not around in 2008 to set John McCain straight on American sovereignty, language, and culture.
&#160;
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Think about it: &#160;How would Teddy react to the fact that 12-38 million uneducated, illiterate peasants from Mexico have illegally crossed U.S. borders and have taken up unlawful residence in America in violation of our immigration laws? 
&#160;
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;How would he take it upon being learning that the overwhelming majority of illegal aliens in the U.S. do not speak or understand English, and actually refuse to learn America's language?
&#160;
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;How would Teddy react upon learning that millions of illegal aliens marched through the streets of America with Mexican flags and Spanish banners in tow as they demanded the same rights and benefits as American citizens?
&#160;
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;What would Teddy Roosevelt say to a &#34;conservative&#34; presidential candidate who favored scuttling the rule of law in order to grant amnesty to the invaders?
&#160;
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The really big question:&#160; How would Teddy Roosevelt react if ordered to &#34;Press 1 for English&#34;?
&#160;
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;John McCain, you're no Teddy Roosevelt!
John W. Lillpop 
San Jose, Californiajohnlillpop@yahoo.com]]></description>
					  <author>John Lillpop</author>
					  <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate>
					  <subject />
					</item>

				

					<item>
					  <title><![CDATA[The Owner&#39;s Manual (Part 3)--Article I, the Congress in Practice]]></title>
					  <link>http://www.chronwatch-america.com/blogs/1005/The-Owners-Manual-Part-3--Article-I-the-Congress-in-Practice.html</link>
					  <description><![CDATA[(Third of a series of ten.&#160; For&#160;other articles in this series, click on View all articles by John Armor--and &#34;Blogs by this author.&#34;) 
The Congress in Practice&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Most world governments are unitary; all powers are exercised from the center.&#160; By definition that means dictatorships, but it also applies to most democracies.&#160; Only a few of the world&#8217;s modern governments have states, provinces, or cantons with powers of their own which the national / federal government cannot claim.

&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;In the United States, the states came first. &#160;They, in turn created the federal government. &#160;This is not just a theoretical subject, of no real world consequence.&#160; To the contrary, the separate powers in the hands of the states are one of the reasons why the U.S. Constitution has survived as long as it has.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Because the Constitution required ratification by nine of the thirteen states to go into effect, its design could not directly threaten the state governments.&#160; The framers of the Constitution sought to assure the states about the new federal government. &#160;James Madison wrote in ''The Federalist, No. 45'':
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#34;The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.&#160; The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people....&#34;
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Just reading those words and considering this week&#8217;s news stories, it&#8217;s clear the federal government is far beyond those restraints.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution grants these powers to Congress: Tax collection of taxes, borrowing money, regulating international and interstate commerce, coining money, establishing post offices, declaring war, supporting the military, and having exclusive control over the capitol city.&#160; These are obviously concerns which need be controlled at the national level.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Immediately following in Section 9 are powers prohibited to Congress. These include no bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, no money to be spent without appropriations, and no granting of titles of nobility.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Madison argues that both in subjects of law and administrative officials, the states will always be larger and more complex than those of the federal government. &#160;Elsewhere, Madison and his co-authors, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, argue that the federal government would not be concerned with such subjects as criminal law and domestic relations law (family law, divorce, child custody, etc.).
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Especially in laws passed during the Great Depression, the federal government has become active in subjects that formerly belonged to the state governments.&#160; The first question is, why does that really matter? &#160;Isn&#8217;t a good idea for a new law still a good idea, regardless of what government raises it?
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Thomas Jefferson&#8217;s philosophy of government was that decisions should be made at the level of government, closest to the people who had to live with that decision.&#160; That meant local government first, state government next, and federal level as the last alternative.&#160; When the federal government seizes powers that don&#8217;t belong to it, this principle is violated.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Justice Brandeis wrote in a Supreme Court decision that the states are &#34;legislative laboratories.&#34;&#160; Each reaches its own decisions on any subject.&#160; State laws which prove successful can be copied by other states.&#160; Those which fail, serve as a caution to other states not to follow that path.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;On the other hand, when the federal government claims the same subject, if a law is passed that doesn&#8217;t work, there is no clear comparison to show the failure of the law. &#160;Instead of being in only one or two states, being exposed, and being abandoned, the mistaken law is nationwide and (often) permanent.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The concept of a federal government with limited powers, unlike Monty Python's parrot,&#160;is not entirely dead.&#160; Occasionally the Supreme Court will strike a federal law which clearly invades the province of the states. &#160;(See U.S. v. Lopez, 1995, which concerned the limits of the commerce clause.)&#160; More often, Congress defines its own powers broadly, the president signs the bill, and the Supreme Court, to its discredit, gives its stamp of approval. &#160;(See McConnell v. FEC, 2003, on the First Amendment and campaign finance &#34;reform.&#34;)
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The framers warned that the natural tendency government to accumulate power would succeed,&#160;whenever two branches of government fail to obey their constitutional restraints. &#160;When all three fail, the usurpation of power by the federal government is guaranteed. &#160;&#34;Separation of powers&#34; was intended as a control system against violation of the Constitution. &#160;But&#160;this&#160;control is&#160;failing.]]></description>
					  <author>John Armor</author>
					  <pubDate>Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate>
					  <subject />
					</item>

				

					<item>
					  <title><![CDATA[The Owner&#39;s Manual (Part 2)--Article I, the Congress]]></title>
					  <link>http://www.chronwatch-america.com/blogs/1004/The-Owners-Manual-Part-2--Article-I-the-Congress.html</link>
					  <description><![CDATA[(Editor's note:&#160; This is the&#160;second in&#160;John Armor's&#160;series of ten articles to explain the Constitution and America's government.&#160; The first article appears below.&#160; Watch for others in the series, which will appear periodically in this space.)&#160;Article 1, the Congress&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;In the modern world, we take it for granted that every nation has a parliament or legislature. &#160;Even the most barbarous, tin-pot despot usually rules with a pliant, controlled legislature in place under him. &#160;There was no such assumption of a legislature when the U.S. Constitution was being written in Philadelphia.&#160; That is why the very first Article of the Constitution created the Congress. 
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Section 1 states, &#34;All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.&#34;
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The framers of the Constitution were well aware that movement toward popular sovereignty in England consisted of Parliament obtaining the &#34;power of the purse,&#34; control over government spending, from the Crown.&#160; The framers went one step further in powers they gave to Congress, giving the power to declare war solely to Congress, but that&#8217;s getting ahead of the story.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The central idea of the government came from the Declaration of Independence, that government rests on the &#34;consent of the governed.&#34; &#160;But the heritage was much older than that. &#160;In November, 1620, all 41 adult males who had come over on the Mayflower, signed a compact in which they, &#34;combined ourselves together into a civil Body Politick,... And ... to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony...&#34;
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;This was the first written statement of government by popular will on American soil. &#160;Perhaps the best known is the slogan of the American Revolution, &#34;No taxation without representation.&#34;&#160; Certainly the most elegant statement is Abraham Lincoln&#8217;s from the Gettysburg Address: &#34;Government of the people, by the people and for the people....&#34; &#160;In short, the first order of business had to be the creation of a Congress.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Our Congress is not divided into two houses with different criteria for election/selection because England has two houses, the Lords and the Commons. &#160;Instead, this odd arrangement, which appears in relatively few nations, is born of the difficulty of reaching agreement on any government, in Philadelphia.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Our original, failed government was the Articles of Confederation.&#160; In it, each state had equal representation.&#160; Each sent&#160;three to seven&#160;congressmen, but they collectively cast only one vote.&#160; Yet, at that time one state, Virginia, had one-third of all residents. &#160;Virginia and the other large states thought Congress should be based on population.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;This fight between the small states that wanted each to have an equal vote, and the large states that wanted a population base, nearly caused the collapse of the Philadelphia Convention.&#160; Delegate Bedford Gunning of Delaware suggested darkly that &#34;other nations may take us by the hand&#34; if the small states did not get their way.&#160; Ultimately, the Grand Compromise was struck that the states would have equal representation in the Senate, and proportional representation in the House.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;In designing their new government, the framers were well aware of the successes and failures of the few republics that had been created in history.&#160; They were well aware of direct democracy, in which the citizens voted in person on public issues.&#160; This was the pattern from Athens, which had been followed successfully by hundreds of jurisdictions in New England governed by town meetings.&#160; But given the limits on travel and communications of the day, they deemed direct democracy both wrong and impractical for the United States.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The framers faced two daunting challenges in the design of the Congress.&#160; One was to create a durable balance between the new federal government and the long-existing state governments. The other was to make the federal government itself durable, more durable by far than any other republic.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;There are, today, problems with the federal-state balance, and also with our long term survival. &#160;Still, history has entered a verdict of success.&#160; The government of the United States under its Constitution as amended, has survived longer than any other government under any other written constitution in history.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;All but six of the world&#8217;s nations have written constitutions.&#160; France and Poland were the first two written constitutions after ours.&#160; Hundreds of constitutions have been written, put into place, and failed, since the U.S. Constitution went into effect with ten states participating in the election of President George Washington. &#160;The reasons for the failures of the others and the success of ours, are found in the designs of those documents. 
[Next week: Article I, the Congress in Practice.]]]></description>
					  <author>John Armor</author>
					  <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate>
					  <subject />
					</item>

				

					<item>
					  <title><![CDATA[The Obamanation of Oak Park]]></title>
					  <link>http://www.chronwatch-america.com/blogs/1003/The-Obamanation-of-Oak-Park.html</link>
					  <description><![CDATA[&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160; OAK PARK, Ill.--A Pier 1 Imports store now stands where the home of some early settlers to Oak Park once stood. &#160;These settlers could watch men drive cattle towards Chicago to be slaughtered.&#160; They headed west on a dirt road that would become Lake Street.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;This village about six miles from Chicago's Loop was once home to Frank Lloyd Wright and Ernest Hemingway. &#160;In a less than charitable phrase, Hemingway described Oak Park as a community of &#34;broad lawns and narrow minds.&#34;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;You have to wonder how much times have changed in Oak Park. &#160;The broad lawns are still here, but when it comes to politics, perhaps the narrow minds have become closed minds.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Oak Park is a prosperous community.&#160; The median income for a household in the village is about $59,200, and the median income for a family is about $81,700. &#160;The village also has one of the highest rates of intellectuals and college faculty members of any city in Illinois.&#160; Yet even with their above average income and education, many residents here, like elsewhere, vote from habit and unexamined ideologies.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;It is out of their habit and ideologies that Oak Parkers &#34;hate&#34; President George Bush and &#34;his&#34; war. Talk to voters here and some will say that&#160;this is a war for oil, yet even as gas prices rise, they cannot answer the question, &#34;So, where's the oil?&#34;&#160; In fact the Bush Iraq policy in the long run may have us win the war but lose the oil.&#160; 
The Slide Into Modernity&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Recently, Senator Obama gave a speech on &#34;patriotism&#34; and another speech on &#34;religion&#34; in which he proposed to expand faith based initiatives.&#160; Then, he changed his position on the war and encouraged a &#34;gradual&#34; withdrawal from Iraq.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The few Republicans in Oak Park counter this rhetoric with a political reality of their own.&#160; They question the &#34;Obama phenomena.&#34;&#160; They argue that if Senator Obama keeps speaking, then traditional religion and patriotism soon will become by rhetoric what they are not.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;How can this happen? &#160;If there is an explanation for the &#34;Obama Phenomena&#34; among Oak Park residents, then it must be an explanation that considers the present day reality of voters in this suburb. This requires that we admit many voters in Oak Park are attracted to Senator Obama for all the irrational reasons voters are attracted to any candidate. &#160;In politics a perceived reality becomes the reality.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Besides irrational reasons, there are also rational and historical ones that explain the motives of present day Oak Park voters.&#160; Consider first that fact that there are many churches in downtown Oak Park. The churches range from Unitarian to Roman Catholic.&#160; The many churches of Oak Park remind us that it was out of churches like these that the abolitionists came.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;There would have been no War Between the States without the social forces set in motion by these abolitionists. &#160;Their convictions made them settle for nothing less than the complete abolition of slavery, even if it meant shedding blood.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Decades after the abolitionists, Reverend Ernest Bell left Austin, a community just east of Oak Park, and rode the commuter train to downtown Chicago.&#160; There he would lead the bloodless crusade against prostitution and &#34;white slavery&#34; in Chicago's Levee District.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;From this community of churches in Oak Park also came followers of Martin Luther King, Jr.&#160; Yet, something happened after that civil rights movement.&#160; The religious motive was transformed into the socialist motive.&#160; The churches in Oak Park kept their form, but seemed to have lost their content.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Times change.&#160; The ceremony of the Eucharist gives way to singing and preaching, and then, singing and preaching gives way to Marxism. &#160;It was the 1960s that happened, and then in the 1970s it was Roe v. Wade that happened.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The generation of the 1960s were the parents of many of those who now live in Oak Park.&#160; These upper middle class parents used their wealth to educate their children.&#160; The children, however, inherited only half a tradition.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;After the 1960s, the loss of tradition furthered by changes in education, the protest against the war in Vietnam, a faceless modern architecture, the Civil Rights Movement. and Roe v. Wade, came together in a mosaic that saw all protest groups as equal.&#160; Many Oak Parkers slid into modernity and embraced cultural and moral relativism.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;It was this slide into modernity that saw the religious content of protest drop out and secular liberalism take its place.&#160; The Democrat Party became the political party of the left and in urban areas, it became the party that managed minorities.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;In documenting this change, one observer writes, &#34;Recently, Oak Park demographics have shifted from long-term, more conservative residents, to younger, urban, more liberal residents.&#34;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;This shift left behind the white working class and the &#34;Reagan Democrats,&#34; who still feel uncomfortable with the Obama for President campaign.&#160; As it happens, few of these conservative Democrats now live in Oak Park.&#160; They cling to their guns and religion farther west in Melrose Park and elsewhere.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;It is also a blindness to corruption on the local level in Chicago and the hope for virtue on the national level that makes the Democrat Party in Oak Park a party of political schizophrenics.&#160; They see one thing happening in Chicago but believe another thing in Oak Park.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;President Bush and Mayor Daley share a common biography. &#160;They both came to office on the tender of their father's name, but in Oak Park the civil rights metaphor can turn this stone into bread for Democrats.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Senator Obama's campaign to become President was born from Chicago's political corruption.&#160; Tony Rezko, who is now in prison, could be called the stepfather of the Obama campaign. &#160;It was Rezko money that first greased the wheels on which the bandwagon rolls.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Voters in Oak Park know this, but they don't care.&#160; The Trojans wanted peace, too, and never thought to look inside their trophy. &#160;So, the Obamination of Oak Park is accomplished not by connecting the dots of reason but by playing hopscotch. Civil Rights and Post-Americans
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Abortion on demand, the result of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, was the seed from which much of the contemporary liberal, Democrat Party politics grew.&#160; Senator Barack Obama is one of the fruits of this harvest. &#160;He has consistently voted in favor of abortion, even supporting partial birth abortion.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Radical feminism and same sex marriage also sprang from the seed of abortion on demand.&#160; Many of the liberals of Oak Park saw all these causes as part of the expanded cause of &#34;civil rights.&#34;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;It is an expanded view of civil rights that has lead some Democrats in Oak Park to misunderstand the real threat Western Civilization faces from Islam.&#160; The events of 9/11 are still given a left twist here. &#160;The invasion of Iraq did little to clear the fog the media creates about Islam as a &#34;peaceful religion.&#34;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;You'd think 1,500 years of Islam's conflict with the West would be taught in the Oak Park River Forest High School, whose Classical Greek motto since 1908 is &#34;Ta G'arista,&#34; or &#34;those things that are best.&#34;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Maybe, with iPods plugged in every ear, students in Oak Park don't have to read about the aristocratic root of their motto. &#160;They can forget about the sack of Constantinople, too.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Today, many students at OPRF high school are taught a curriculum that emphasizes relativism instead of the judgment of what is best. &#160;How many of Oak Park's students believe that even if the United States never had a black man or woman as president, it still could be a great and good country?&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Like their parents, these students are becoming what author Mark Krikorian calls &#34;post-American.&#34;&#160; A post-American no longer believes in American exceptionalism.&#160; Many post-Americans no longer believe in the nation state, either.&#160; For them, traditional patriotism is old fashioned and outmoded.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;For post-Americans, The Declaration of Independence served its purpose, but we have to put it behind us.&#160; France is disappearing as a nation state.&#160; Why shouldn't the United States do likewise?&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;It is the charming relativism and globalism of Senator Obama that appeals to many Oak Park residents. &#160;When the senator says he wants to change America, AND THE WORLD, they put aside the old belief of &#34;American exceptionalism,&#34; and follow him into a new world order that may be more pandemonium than peace.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Senator Obama holds out for us religion without content and patriotism without a nation.&#160; It is the political equivalent of a shell without an egg. &#160;The far left Democrat Party that supports him has become a shell institution, too, an institution that sociologist Anthony Giddens claims looks the same from the outside but is radically changed on the inside.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Yet, the Democrat Left is not without a morality. &#160;It believes the United States MUST become a secular state before it disappears as a nation state.&#160; Senator Obama is attractive to post-Americans because he offers a mirror image of morality that reflects this secular obligation. The Lump of History
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160; On lazy summer afternoons, Oak Park teenagers hang out at Tasty Dog on Lake Street.&#160; They paint their faces with makeup, laugh, text message one another, and try out their new bodies with stuttered gestures of desire.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;We may wonder about these teenagers the same way the poet Cavafy wondered when he wrote, &#34;They put on bracelets with so many amethysts, and rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds.&#34; &#160;These high school students are carefree.&#160; Their parents will take care of politics, the bills, and all that.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Some reports say Constantinople was so vast that when Sultan Mehmed the Second's troops breached the defensive wall on one side of the city it took days for news of the defeat to reach the other side.&#160; Chaos and looting did not pass by the distant residents, it was just delayed.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Maybe it would be better if the residents of Oak Park had cynical minds instead of narrow ones. &#160;Then, they would see that Illinois Democrats are not out for change or social justice, but simply politicians out for power. &#160;They want to make the nation look like Chicago. &#160;And the Republicans, well, they may want the nation to look like Elmhurst.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Perhaps, too, there are other forces at work besides party politics that shape our future and our destiny.&#160; These forces may make the election of Senator Obama to be president irrelevant.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Revisionist historians now tell us that the War Between the States could have been avoided, and the Second World War avoided, too. &#160;These wars happened because our politicians and our politics failed us.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Still, the Holocaust remains an undigested lump in their understanding.&#160; As President Lincoln reminds us, no matter how we rewrite it, we cannot escape history, even in Oak Park.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Some of us lived through the presidency of Jimmy Carter, for better or worse. &#160;Others will say they bore witness to the regime of President Bush.&#160; Try as we may, we may not be able to head off Armageddon. All we may be able to do is bear witness.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Early on a Sunday morning in July it is quiet in Oak Park.&#160; An SUV stops in front of the Starbucks on Lake Street. &#160;A man gets out followed by his wife and children.&#160; They go to buy coffee and snacks.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Moments later, mom sips a latte as dad raises the tailgate and rearranges sleeping bags, a cooler, and backpacks.&#160; They are heading out on vacation, but first, breakfast.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Then, the doors of the SUV slam shut. &#160;They drive off.&#160; An &#34;Obama '08&#34; and a &#34;Peace Now&#34; bumper sticker are conspicuously in place above the SUV's tail lights.&#160; The political tide rises.&#160; Good men may be mistaken.&#160; Follow at your own risk.]]></description>
					  <author>Robert Klein Engler</author>
					  <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate>
					  <subject />
					</item>

				

					<item>
					  <title><![CDATA[American Government:  The Owner&#39;s Manual (Part 1)]]></title>
					  <link>http://www.chronwatch-america.com/blogs/1002/American-Government--The-Owners-Manual-Part-1.html</link>
					  <description><![CDATA[(Editor's note:&#160; This is the first in a series of ten articles written by a noted legal scholar to explain America's government.&#160; Watch for others in the series, which will appear periodically in this space.) 
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;When you buy a car, a blender, a hair dryer, etc., you also get an owner's manual.&#160; Many of us start using the device without reading about it, get ourselves into trouble, and fall back on the last alternative in computer programming. &#160;&#34;When all else fails, RTFM,&#34; translated loosely as &#34;Read the pea-pickin&#8217; manual.&#34;
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Many Americans for many reasons, have concluded that our government is failing, or has already failed.&#160; But how many of us have read the Owner's Manual recently, or even read it in the last ten years?
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Two recent issues point out the dangers of operating, or trying to understand, American government without reading the Owner's Manual.&#160;&#160;The new issue is the 4-3 decision of the California Supreme Court, requiring the establishment of homosexual marriage in that state.&#160; The continuing issue is the war against terror, in Iraq or elsewhere. The Owner's Manual is, of course, our Constitution.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The first question is: who owns the United States of America?&#160; It seems like an obvious question. &#160;But when you ask it, answer it, and think about the answer.&#160;&#160;Some critical conclusions follow.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;We were all taught in the third grade or thereabouts that&#160;&#34;the people are in charge in the USA.&#34; &#160;Later, we get the phrase, &#34;popular sovereignty.&#34;&#160; The Declaration of Independence declares that &#34;governments ... derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.&#34; &#160;The Manual agrees: In Article IV, Section 4, it says: &#34;The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican Form of Government....&#34;
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;That has nothing to do with the Republican Party. &#160;Political parties are not mentioned in the manual. &#160;Political parties did not exist when the Constitution went into effect in 1789.&#160; And the Framers warned us against the dangers of political parties (then called &#34;factions&#34;) in the ''Federalist, Number 10.''
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The meaning of &#34;Republican ... Government&#34; goes back to Aristotle&#8217;s ''Politics.'' &#160;It means government by representatives who were elected by the people. &#160;Although most of us today use the shorthand of calling the United States&#160;a &#34;democracy&#34; (from which the Democratic Party drew its name), the Manual tells us that is wrong. &#160;Pure democracy means direct action by the people. &#160;Half of the states have this in their constitutions. &#160;But the Owner's Manual for the United States&#160;was written without direct democracy, nor have any amendments included that to date.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Choices of what went into the Owner's Manual, or not into it, from 1787 through 1992, are all deliberate. &#160;Later in this series we&#8217;ll get into details such as separation of powers, checks and balances, etc.&#160; It&#8217;s enough for today&#8217;s two issues to know that legislative power belongs to Congress and the state legislatures, and that only Congress has the power to declare war.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;In the California decision mandating homosexual marriage, four members of the court took unto themselves the power of the legislature to pass laws creating or changing public policy.&#160; The three dissenting judges had the theory of government correct in saying that, whatever the merits of the intended policy, it is not the business of judges to create that policy by force. &#160;Unfortunately, those state judges had the bad example of five justices of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Texas sodomy case.&#160; There, the justices, by a one-vote majority, also invaded the province of the legislature.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Concerning the war on terror, various politicians, press, and pundits have claimed that the Bush administration has no legitimate power to prosecute the war. &#160;Again, it is a matter of reading the Manual. Article I, Section 8, clause 10 gives to Congress alone the power &#34;to declare war.&#34;&#160; It takes only a Joint Resolution; the president doesn&#8217;t sign that, and cannot veto it.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Then it&#8217;s a matter of checking the gauges.&#160; Congress did declare war, through a Joint Resolution Authorizing the Use of Military Force (&#34;across international boundaries&#34;).&#160; That was folded into the Patriot Act, 18 September, 2001.&#160; For those who claim that isn&#8217;t a real Declaration of War, the language is nearly identical to that used by Congress in 1805 to authorize President Jefferson to attack, and defeat, the Barbary Pirates.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Once Congress has declared war, then the president&#8217;s powers as commander in chief, kick in. (See Article II, Section 2.)&#160; Those powers remain in effect until Congress ends the declaration, or ratifies a Treaty of Peace.
&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;So, these are two, major issues which are easily understood, if we just read the Owner's Manual.&#160; It is also a good idea for the press to read the Owner's Manual from time to time. 
[Next: Article I, The Congress.]]]></description>
					  <author>John Armor</author>
					  <pubDate>Sat, 05 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate>
					  <subject />
					</item>

				
				  </channel>
				</rss>
			