Overwhelming Constitutional Protections with Procrastination

I have listened very carefully to the arguments being offered about illegal immigration and the size of the problem. What emerges is a picture where there are 12 million illegal households set up in our country, costing the taxpayers $113 Billion dollars per year in government services. Apparently there are approximately 300,000 "anchor babies" so called born in the United States every year. This figure alone dwarfs the total number of legal immigrants who enter our country.

Much like the corporations who were "too big to fail"and required government subsidy or takeover, this problem is "too big to solve" by the simple enforcement of law. Or so we're told.  How did we get here?

In 1868, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, for the purpose of protecting newly freed slaves from certain people who would have them deported on, what at the time, were valid Constitutional reasons. Our citizenry, to their credit, realized that this flaw could, and should, be rectified, thus protecting slaves freed by our government with the expressed intent of being citizens.  We fought a war over this amounst ourselves and killed of a third of our male citizens resolving it.

The 14th Amendment reads thus:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."

Problem solved, right?  Maybe not. As it turns out, just as the Framers never foresaw the freeing of thousands of slaves as presenting a legal problem, neither did those who crafted and got ratified the 14th Amendment foresee that it would be used as the means for convincing a kindhearted citizenry that the failure of it's government to police its borders made it then impossible, or at least unpalatable to do so, after the fact.

So what are we really facing?  First off, we are facing a problem where exploding population is being fueled by a combination of the failure, at the front end, to enforce constitutional law.  That failure is self feeding, because the folks who came here illegally are having legal children whom we are too kind to strip from their parents to deport the parents. This population explosion has occurred and we are finding ourselves in the midst of a critical unemployment crisis, and we wonder why?  We are creating it, ladies and gentlemen, by allowing folks to walk in and grab our jobs.

So we are facing an insurmountable problem, right?  I think not. We are facing a problem that was created by our own procrastination. And it is a problem that is only unsolvable if we continue to procrastinate.   

The solution is NOT, as some would tell you, to abandon selectively the Constitutional protections we have enjoyed all these years.  The solution is found within those Constitutional protections.

1.  We need to stop procrastinating. Enforce immigration law, no matter what the cost. I'm betting if we invested the $113 billion we are giving to illegals, we'd put a dent in it.

2. Since the 14th Amendment as successfully protected the slaves from deportation, let's begin the process of amending that.  The Constitution provides us with the mechanism to do so. Let's not ignore it, let's fix it. Let's pass an amendment that defines citizenship. Let me suggest language:

"Those people will be deemed citizens by virtue of having been born to at least one parent who is a United States citizen, at the time of his/her birth, or who was legally naturalized prior to the birth of the child who would then be a citizen. Present residents of the Untied States, who had filed Federal income taxes for the 5 years prior to the ratification of this act, would be considered citizens, and their offspring would be afforded such as well."

3.  The period of time that it normally takes to ratify an Amendment would give ample time for hardworking residents to become 5 year taxpayers, and would create incentive to establish "green card status" which is being, for whatever reason, avoided by illegals.  Goodness knows, we are not arresting and deporting, and we are paying benefits to them. Give em the green card...

4.  Finally, learn the lesson of National Procrastination. Not only doesn't it work, it is being used to create crises that are then being used to undermine the simple protections our Constitution has afforded us.

I fear the erosion of those Constitutional protections far more than I do the costs of enforcing them.

A Natural Born Citizen

Over the last week or so, the public battle has raged over President Obama's birth certificate. That battle has been fueled by the rhetoric of potential Presidential candidate Donald Trump. Now, don't get me wrong, I am NO fan of Donald Trump. I think he is making a mockery of our electoral process.

But the question of whether President Obama meets the Constitutional qualifications to be President is significant. I don't think it had to do with where he was born. I've accepted that he was born in Hawaii forever. Nor do I, or have I, questioned if he was a Untied States Citizen.  But let's look at the qualifications as expressly stated in the Constitution:

"Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution states, "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible who shall not attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."

The interesting Constitutional argument is over the definition of "natural born citizen". The battle rages more quietly over this, but this argument is much more profound. What the constructionists will tell you is that "natural born" means that you are a citizen both of whose parents were also citizens. One can be, and is, a "citizen" by virtue of being born to one parent who is a citizen. But to be "natural born", BOTH of your parents are required to be citizens at the time of your birth.

But the difference between "citizen" and "natural born citizen" is belied in the "grandfather clause" that follows it: "or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution". Why did they include THIS language if a "natural born citizen" was interchangeable with "citizen".  Because it is proof that they intended to define it differently. Why? Because MANY of the colonists had fathers who were English citizens.

The Framers wanted to set the bar higher for President than they did for simple citizenship. They were striving for "purity" of lineage and more so, purity of loyalty. The loyalty between a man and his father is epic. It was just too much of a risk to bet the safety of our Republic to a man who might have split loyalties.

And it looks as if, by arguing the wrong argument, we may have taken that risk.

Why Property is Private

The Constitution guarantees the private ownership of property within the Fifth Amendment. Certainly government is allowed to own property for its own use, such as buildings, military bases, hospitals and means of individual transport, necessary to do the business of government and provide for the greater protection. It is pretty clear that the Framers never meant for government to own businesses. There was darned good reason. The private ownership of property, goods and services....of the means of production is an essential component of freedom.  We are seeing an excellent example of the reason behind that this week in America.

Because it was "too big to fail", so called, General Motors was given billions of dollars in bailout money to save it from its own terrible business practice.  At the same time, Toyota had taken over the mantle of #1 US car manufacturer. Not hard to understand. They had lower production costs, primarily because they had lower labor costs. In spite of paying an average of $36 per hour to its assemblers (Yep, folks, that's $75 large a year before overtime), Toyota's expenses were less. Offered a tad more money to be spent on quality and innovation, huh?

So, what occurs directly after the bailout money is paid? A public crisis occurs with "stuck throttles" on the flagship Toyota Corrola. Our public officials cry out, "Is Toyota killing people with their inferiors cars?" Evening news highlights it. Politicians demand investigation. Evening news highlights that too. The investigations begin. Meanwhile, Toyota says publicly that they are pretty sure it is caused by floor mats sliding forward and covering the accelerator. That could be defined as a design defect. It could also be attributed to dumbassed drivers who don't take care to inspect their vehicle before they drive it. Should cars also have "Coke can rolling from under the seat and getting under the brake" detectors? Hmmmm....I may have an idea there.

Then, in the midst of the Toyota throttle crisis, our government begins "Cash for Clunkers". This program gives enhanced trade ins for older gas guzzling vehicles, that have become decrepit enough not to be traded in. Who do you think made these cars? Toyota? Oh ya...they were one of the first companies to feature energy efficient cars. Weren't THEY the company who highlighted the Prius?  Oh ya. And aren't they the company whose cars last forever?  Doesn't GM make Blazers and Suburbans and Escalades and Impala's and Hummers?  Are they the car company whose cars tended to rust out? Oh ya...

And when the "Clunkers" were traded for down payment cash, were people buying those unsafe, accererator sticking, murderous Toyotas? "I'm not buying those until they square THAT away!!!"

Well, this week, earning reports come out on major Dow components including GM. Guess what? They will report that they are the #1 car manufacturer again. Surprising?  Not at all. The power of the government that owns them was brought to bear against its competitor. The competitor who built less "clunkers" that burned less fuel, and gave us the first "hybrid".

Oh, and that pesky stuck throttle? The investigation showed it was floor mats and operator error. THAT was reported once, quietly, on one evening news show per network.

The Framers of our beloved Constitution understood clearly that the power of government, with its powers of investigation and regulation, give it an unfair advantage in competition on the free market.

And with the loss of fairness on that free market, we each lose a chunk of our liberty.

Does the Constitution Guarantee....

...that I am cared for in my dotage?

We need to look, from a Constitutional and sensible perspective at what I am entitled to as an American senior citizen. The debate over Social Security, its solvency and whether any cuts are required or fair is raging. I am one of the senior citizens who is effected by any change made. On June 4th, I turn 62 and become eligible.  I'm not gonna take it, I can't survive on it at that level. I don't even want to stop working. I kinda like getting up every morning and being useful. But I've paid into the system for 40 years....

Here's what frightens me. I have factored Social Security into my plans for my dotage. I have fallen for the ruse. I now expect government to care for me, at the exclusion of my own person preparation, and the caring involvement of my children and family. What a sucker I've been. I feel foolish..I feel "owned".

You see, our Founding Fathers guaranteed me "the pursuit of happiness". They didn't, nor did they intend to, afford me the happiness itself. Their intention was for me to pursue it. "Catching" that happiness is on me.

Social Security is the illusion of giving me that happiness. The illusion I didn't have to pursue it, and that, my friends, was the great lie. In spite of the fact that I am on the doorstep of my dotage, I still have a brain. In fact, and unfortunately, it seems to understand the subtleties better. I now understand that I couldn't have that pittance taken out of my pay and have it support me. I now understand that government money managers are vastly inferior to the ones who work for me at my brokerage. I now understand that to have any life under Social Security, I have to work until I'm 72. But now that I'm in the anteroom of that event, it doesn't look so damned bad. I like working.

So here's my thought. To those who are younger than me I want to say two things: 1. I urge you to manage your own future. To embrace the words "the pursuit" and do so. Forge your own future without government. You'll end up happier. And 2.  Don't make your decisions about Social Security based on me. Cut my benefits. Make me work longer. Build a system that requires that my children and grandchildren understand that it is through their own labors that their future is forged. It's about the "pursuit" and not about the happiness.

And if that has draconian consequences for me, it will be a small gift to those children. I love them more than life anyway. I doubt I'll die in the gutter like the doomsayers rhetoric would tell you. And if I do, and my grandchildren have a future built on their pursuit of happiness, so be it.

I'm good with that.

Of Means, Ends, and the Protection of Capitalism

I have been giving a lot of thought to the term progressive.  It is partially because, as Constitutionalists, I think we look for the "home run" that returns our system back to the simple values the Framers had used to create the document. But to fully understand it, we have to look at the progressive ends (plural by intent) that are being used, and the progressive means that are being employed.

The Constitution affords us, as its central theme, the rights to free thought and the rights to property. It creates a framework to protect those basic concepts from both people and, more especially, government. It creates absolute sanctity of thought, and proscribes only certain limited ways that government may seize private property. Those avenues include eminent domain and fair yet limited taxation.

In this day and age, these principles are being eroded, and our Constitutional Capitalist system is in jeopardy. "We" have been convinced, by a progressive campaign of slanted information that is convincing "us" that we are better served if a government does stuff for us, than if we do things for ourselves. It certainly would be a nice idea if the police could catch criminals before they harm us. Yet we don't think about how much Constitutional liberty we have to give up to get that protection. If you can be detained before you commit a crime, it becomes a frightening world where sugared sodas are being banned. "You're under arrest! We know you're thinking of drinking a Coke Classic!" Frightening.....extreme...but far off target? I think not.

And how nice and comforting is it to know that, if we become unemployed, or disabled, or just down on our luck, our government has "benefits" for us, to "protect us" and make sure we don't suffer. Yet we don't acknowledge that progressively more and more people have availed themselves of those protections, and become dependent on it.  The "Don't Feed the Bears" sign doesn't exist because they don't want bear poop. It exists because the bears become dependent on tourists, expect to be fed by tourists, and see tourists as their only source of food.  Then the tourists go away for the season, and the Park Rangers have a group of hungry dependent bears on their hands.  The government just doesn't go away...

Instead, government is, like those Park Rangers, required to grow their responsibility and feed the hungry bears. How do they do this? They take food, in the form of tax money, from the folks who are working.  Not a big deal...It's the least they can do. Again, the problem here is that as more and more "bears" get dependent, more and more is taxed from the working tourists and given to the "non-working" (read that non foraging) bears. Let's look at the facts. In 2009, 48% of the "bears" paid no Federal income tax, compared to 52% who did. That 52% of the "bears" who paid Federal income tax were paying dangerously close to 50% of their earnings in combined taxes. Federal income, State income, property, sales, excise, use, cigarette, booze, dog license, fuel, and so on and so on taxes. Not to mention the increased cost of goods and services being passed on due to these taxes imposed on business.

Now let's go back to that Constitution. Is that taxation that is fair? Equal? Taxation, Constitutionally, is required to be equal amongst men, not according to their means.  It was designed that way purposely. It was designed to foster hard work, self reliance and to limit government, because our Framers knew the evils of big government. They had just freed themselves from the chains of big government.  And the notion that one man could legally get another man's "stuff" was abhorrent to them. Benjamin Franklin, one of those Framers, cogently put it this way, "When people learn they can vote themselves money, it will herald the end of the Republic."

Yet we have been led astray...

You see, our Constitution guarantees us the fruits of our labors, not the fruits of others' labors.  A different system guarantees us the fruits of others' labors. That system is called Socialism. "From each according to his means and to all equally."  Socialism is the system that redistributes wealth, and we are marching progressively in that direction every day. So what's wrong with that you might say. It's only fair. Why should some suffer while others prosper? Why can't we enforce a little charity?  And I might be seduced into agreeing with my innate American kindness. The only problem is that the system doesn't work that way. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and designed a system that protected us from the inherent flaws of socialism.

You see, the inherent flaw in socialism arrived at by the redistribution of wealth is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money.  We hear that platitude frequently on conservative blogs.  That is the ultimate cause of the failure of socialism. And that is being bandied about as the "nail in the socialist coffin"....the magic bullet that will protect capitalism.

This is just a new sense of security "we" are being lulled into.  You see, the next necessary step that we would be progressively required to take, when "we" ran out of other people's money, is for the government to "acquire" the means of making money. It will be required to "nationalize" industry, goods and services, and real estate, to produce the money to redistribute, because those pesky bears need it! 


Now, ladies and gentlemen, do you really believe that the likes of international financiers, or the magnates of industry, or the political brokers of power are going to allow you to choose who operates that government monolith created by the nationalization of property? Or do you think that, as the ultimate end, a very few very wealthy people will effectively own everything?

And do you think that that ultimate end will look like the monarchy our Founding Fathers so fervently were trying to prevent with our Beloved Constitution?

I think the answer is clearly YES!!!!!