FederalRepublic.net

By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

WASHINGTON — With Republicans facing a potential backlash at the polls in November, a renewed national debate over gay marriage can only boost the morale of the party’s religious conservative base, which for a variety of reasons is near mutiny, say sources in the movement.

“It could be an issue that may not necessarily bring them back, but it will bring them out, which is the key thing for the fall elections,” said Bill Greene, head of RightMarch.com, an Atlanta-based conservative activist organization.

He described the Republicans’ conservative base as “pretty ticked off” over the way GOP senators have handled illegal immigration reform, the budget and President Bush’s judicial nominations, many of whom are still stalled in the Senate. But Greene said a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage “may be one prong of a multifaceted attempt at re-energizing the base.”

On May 19, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the Federal Marriage Amendment. And the Associated Press reported Thursday that Bush will lend support to the amendment in an announcement Monday.

Link

As much as I agree with most Americans that the ultimate definition of marriage should be a union between a man and a woman only, a constitutional amendment is not needed to regulate an issue which I believe, clearly lies with the states.

Republican leadership and the Bush Administration, attempting to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage, has turned the constitution into a catalyst for social change, something I fear could be harmful to our republic in the long run. I believe the proper place for such social change, like the definition of marriage, lies squarely on the shoulders of the states or the people. The attempt to socialize the constitution, in my opinion, is a cheap trick designed to win votes in the November election, a short term priority for the Republican Party. Passing an amendment to the constitution and changing the basis of our laws altogether is a permanent action, an action that will forever change legislation and hamper the struggle to renew states rights.

Using the constitution as a catalyst for social change cheapens the respect it deserves and shows that officials in our federal government have no respect for a once thriving federalism, but only care about the power of the central government in Washington.

By Charles Hurt

The long-fought Senate immigration bill that opponents say grants amnesty to 10 million illegal aliens is unconstitutional and appears headed for certain demise, Senate Republicans now say.
 
A key feature of the Senate bill is that it would make illegals pay back taxes before applying for citizenship, a requirement that supporters say will raise billions of dollars in the next decade.
 
There’s just one problem: The U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits revenue-raising legislation from originating in the Senate.
 
“All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives,” according to the “origination clause” in Article I, Section 7.

Republicans — including the bill’s supporters — say this will kill the bill, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist says he’s offered a simple solution. He wants to attach the immigration bill to a tax bill that has already passed the House. It would then proceed as planned to a “conference committee,” where negotiators from the House and Senate hammer out differences between the two chambers’ immigration bills.

“This is a procedural issue that we could overcome,” said Carolyn Weyforth, spokeswoman for Mr. Frist.

But Minority Leader Harry Reid won’t go along with that fix. His office said yesterday that the concerns raised by Mr. Frist and House Republicans are “technical in nature” and can be ignored.

“If Republicans are serious about enacting comprehensive immigration reform, I’ve got a deal for them,” spokesman Jim Manley said. “All they have to do is nothing. Just let the House and Senate bills go to conference and let the conferees work their will.”

The bill as written, however, will never make it to conference, Republicans say. Under House rules, any member can introduce a “blue-slip resolution” to return the legislation to the Senate. And although there are plenty of House conservatives eager to kill the Senate bill any way they can, Hill staffers say it would likely be done based on “policy-blind constitutional issues.”

“If there is a blue-slip issue, it is not about policy,” said one House aide familiar with the matter. “It’s about procedure and the House’s prerogative to uphold the United States Constitution.”

Link

While most Americans agree that immigration reform is needed, the Senate bill raises serious issues about how much Congressional leadership favors following the U.S. Constitution, the basis of our republic.

Harry Reid may not think Article 1, Section 7 of the constitution is a big deal, but if the Senate leadership does not care about simple tax revenue rules in the constitution, how much more respect for the constitution could the leadership really have? The constitution is the basis of our republic, it is the base of our laws and our way of life. Even the simplest clause must be followed if we are to pass the freedom our constitution gives us to our grandchildren.

James Madison once said:

I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.

I believe Madison is right. Attaching a tax revenue amendment to the Senate bill is in my opinion, a gradual and silent encroachment into unlawful territory forbidden by our constitution. If the tax bill is allowed to stay in the bill as originally created, the Congress will not only have shown the American people the constitution means nothing, but will have denounced the American way of life and everything the founding fathers stood for. This usurpation of government power must not be tolerated. Republican Party leadership must seize this opportunity to uphold the constitutional principles our nation was founded on.

One day I was surfing around the web reading my favorite political blogs and I came across a great article from Brad Warbiany, who is a leading contributor for The Liberty Papers. In it, Brad explains what a political radical really is and how they can be defined. As one who feels I am a radical by definition, I feel Brad fully explains the political backdrop and mindset of one who truly wishes to see our country live up to its promise and go back to the constitutional law we once adhered to:

Janice Rogers Brown believes that the Constitution is the guiding law in our land. Specfically, she reads the Constitution literally, and believes that whatever is not in there shouldn’t be done by our federal government. And she’s an extremist. An extremist isn’t by definition wrong, or bad. It simply means that she is out of the mainstream.

There’s a good reason for this. The mainstream has been moving more and more left for the last 92 years (I use 1913, when the Sixteenth Amendment was passed for that calculation). Someone who views the New Deal as a socialist program and openly states so is not in the mainstream. Someone who believes that private property rights may include the right of discrimination is not in the mainstream (even though it is obvious she doesn’t approve of discrimination). Someone who has the view that coerced redistribution of income is a mild form of slavery is not in the mainstream. It is her view that this country is ruled by laws, as enshrined in the Constitution, and if the “mainstream” wants to change that law, it requires Constitutional amendments, not judicial activism.

So am I a “radical”? Am I an “extremist”? Yes. It is obvious that compared to the mainstream thought in this country, I am nowhere near the average Joe. The average Joe believes that the rule of the majority is just. The average Joe believes that government exists to promote his agenda, not protect individual rights. The average Joe views taxation and regulation as tools for social engineering. The Republican and Democratic parties are full of average Joes looking not to further American ideals with their votes, but to get “their guys” holding the reins of power.

So yes, I am a radical. I’m not afraid of that label, because the government I envision is radically different than the one we have. And yes, I am an extremist. Because I believe that we should be much closer to the extremes of personal liberty and personal responsibility than we currently are. I make no claims that the rest of the country thinks the same way I do. But the principles I believe in don’t require them to. They can live they way they want, and I’ll live the way I want. They don’t offer me the same courtesy. My beliefs put me well outside of the mainstream. But with such folks as Janice Rogers Brown out here with me, I can at least claim good company.

Yes Brad, I am also a radical and you are in great company…hands down.

From Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As Americans face a deadline for filing taxes, President George W. Bush on Saturday pressed Congress to extend tax cuts, saying they create jobs and economic growth.

A push by House and Senate Republicans for $70 billion in tax cuts was derailed earlier this month before lawmakers went on a two-week spring recess.

The tax cuts would have extended the maximum 15 percent tax rate on capital gains and dividends beyond 2008. Without congressional action, capital gains taxes would jump to 20 percent and dividends would be taxed as regular income.

“Tax relief has done exactly what it was designed to do: It has created jobs and growth for the American people,” Bush said in his weekly radio address.

“Yet some here in Washington are now proposing that we raise taxes, either by repealing the tax cuts or letting them expire,” he said. “To keep our economy creating jobs and opportunity, Congress needs to make the tax relief permanent.”

Link

To help allow the United States to have economic prosperity into the end of the decade, it would be wise for Congress to extend and/or make permanent the Bush tax cuts of 2003. By extending the tax cuts, Congress allows the potential for millions of citizens and businesses to have more money in their own pockets, allowing them additional capital to invest and plenty more to spend.

While tax cuts are wholly beneficial for the economy, we must work to do more. Congress must become fiscally conservative, cutting spending and programs which are no longer needed. Congress must also work to eliminate overlapping programs that have the same job or programs that are not needed anymore. Not only will cutting spending help the Congress move toward balancing the federal budget, it will also help to offset federal budget deficits and long term debt.

It has been said the founding fathers of this country took much inspiration from the Virginia Declaration of Rights in writing both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. I’d like to share some of the similar rights now found in the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution or the Declaration of Independence which were originally found in the Virginia Declaration, written in 1776:

1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Article one of the Virginia Declaration is distinctly similar to the Declaration of Independence in that people are entitled first and foremost to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.

Article two communicates as does the constitution that ultimate power of government is vested in its people.

3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; of all the various modes and forms of government that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

Article three of Virginia’s declaration explains that government is instituted for the common good and security of the state. It also outlines that citizens may alter their government if they find the established government proves inadequate for their governance.

9. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article nine, like the Bill of Rights, prohibits excessive or cruel and unusual punishment.

12. That the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.

As this article suggests, freedom of the press is indispensable to the public liberty and is an obvious precursor to the first amendment.

13. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.

A well-armed body of the people is the best defense against government tyranny. This article is an obvious precursor to the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

15. That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

In my opinion, article fifteen expressly explains that liberty requires a firm adherence to justice and fundamental principles. In modern thought, this article expresses the importance of equality and due process of those under the law.

16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.

Article sixteen is obviously a precursor to the first amendment freedom of religion. The article points out people may worship by their own conviction and conscience.

Link to the Virginia Declaration of Rights

By Patrick Hynes

In a recent USA Today op-ed, Tom Krattenmaker argues that “playing the God card” has backfired on President George W. Bush. The president’s favorability has fallen through the floor, Krattenmaker argues. And surely God would never side with unpopular presidents. “The God’s-on-our-side rhetoric is looking even less credible now, after more than a year of frequently bad news for the president and his administration,” he writes.

As for the actual “God’s-on-our-side” rhetoric, Mr. Krattenmaker’s examples are pretty lame. He quotes an obscure alternate delegate to the 2004 Republican National Convention and New York Governor George Pataki (no favorite of the religious Right, to be sure) as proof that the GOP considers itself “God’s Official Party.” He then chides the president himself for calling freedom “God’s gift to every man and woman in this world”; a florid idea every president since George Washington has expressed in one manner or another.

To be fair, Krattenmaker cites equally lame examples to show Democrats take the Lord’s name in vain, too.  But nowhere in his piece does Krattenmaker make reference to the Left’s recent extraordinary claims to divine endorsement.  Since their 2004 drubbing at the hands of roughly 30 million conservative Christians, Democrats have invoked the Lord’s name in such ways and with such frequency; it would make the Rev. Pat Robertson blush.

“God is a liberal,” declare Jim Carville and Paul Begala in their latest book Take It Back. “Jesus is not a Republican,” demands Clint Wallis, editor of, among other tomes, the very un-Christian sounding The I Hate Republicans Reader. “Jesus is a progressive.” 

“When did Jesus become pro-rich?” asks liberal evangelical author and activist Jim Wallis. “Jesus cared for the poor/so do we,” reads a South Dakota Democratic Party bumper sticker. “The role of government is to protect its people and work for the common good. This is not the time for a budget reconciliation process. To do so is not only unjust, it’s a sin,” echoed the Leftist National Council of Churches USA. 

Here’s how The Hill described a Nancy Pelosi floor speech on the budget process in 2005, “In the final Democratic speech before the vote, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said a vote in favor of the bill amounted to a ’sin.’”

Link

It’s funny to see the Democrats pulling toward the right every election year, and especially interesting to see them when they quote Bible verses. For some reason, when I see a Democrat quote a verse from the Bible, they never seem sincere.

However, sincerity is not the issue I’d like to discuss today, though Democrats give sincerity a bad reputation. I’d like to explore the issue of God in politics, and more specifically, whether Jesus would’ve been liberal or conservative.

To understand whether Jesus would’ve even cared about government, we must first explore what the Bible says about government. Paul, in Romans 13, explains what the role of government is and how God feels about it:

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

Here, we can clearly see that God has created government for the good of mankind and to promote the rule of law. And as the Bible says it is to our advantage to follow God’s commandments, it is likewise to our advantage to do what is lawfully right, or follow what rules our government has given us.

In the book of Matthew, chapter 22, Jesus is asked by Pharisees if it is right to pay taxes to Caesar:

Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”
 
But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?” “Caesar’s,” they replied. Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

This passage clearly shows that Jesus  respected the rule of law in Isreal at the time. Because Jesus would know that God instituted government for the good of mankind, it would be wise, if not prudent, for him to pay taxes to help uphold the institution of government.

Now let us move back to the issue whether Jesus could’ve been considered liberal or conservative. The inherent problem with this argument is that we must move beyond the partisan bickering and ask ourselves “What is the real difference between liberals and conservatives?” Simply, conservatives and liberals hold different beliefs about the role of government in American life.

Jesus, in all his wisdom, did not tell us what role government should have, except that government should be an authority to be followed. He also layed down specific guidelines for his followers and promoted moral values like generosity, integrity, honesty, and servanthood. It would only make sense for government officials to uphold these values. Jesus did not promote the values simply for his followers, but for everyone on Earth.

So the basic argument of Democrats or Republicans stating Jesus would be on their side is simply inaccurate. In my opinion, Jesus did not tell us what type of government to have, whether conservative or liberal, but instead demonstrated what kind of people we should be. This thought includes all people, and even those who work in, and create government. Therefore, I conclude, Jesus was neither a conservative or liberal, but instead, someone who thought government and the people following its laws, should be moral and demonstrate the love of God.

By Megan Basham - Townhall.com Film Critic

I have seen the terrorist, and he is me. And you. And all of us. So says Evey (Natalie Portman), an acolyte of V (Hugh Weaving), the swashbuckling savior of future England who disguises himself as Guy Fawkes.

But don’t worry, because being a terrorist is now a good thing. As we’ve been told by the media, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter…or masked superhero as the case may be.
 
In fact, according to The New York Daily News’ critic, Jaimi Bernard, even the term “suicide bombing” is now relative. “One person’s idea of social liberation through symbolic fireworks is another person’s suicide bombing,” she insists in her review of V for Vendetta.
 
So even though V threatens to detonate a load of explosives strapped to his chest, killing dozens of innocent people at the BBC (oh, excuse me, BFC) if they don’t give him air-time, just think of him as Batman — a little overly-dramatic and conflicted perhaps, but also sexy and an undeniable force for good.

I can see him this way because of all the Wachowski Brothers have taught me. My eyes have been opened, and I am no longer an automaton of the Right-wing religious-military-industrial complex.

Thanks to this “parable about terrorism and totalitarianism” (Roger Ebert) I have been “prodded to think” (The San Francisco Chronicle). And I now think that the Bush administration blew up the twin towers and tried to blow up two other U.S. targets on 9/11 in order to scare Americans into giving them more power. I think that conservatives hate art, literature, and music—especially jazz music—and want to lock it all away because, well, they’re just mean like that.
 
I think that Catholics are in league with Republicans, and that together it is they, and not radical Islamists, who would like to exterminate all homosexuals and execute anyone that produces material critical of the Church-State. I think it is Christians who persecute people for reading the Koran and not Muslims who persecute people for reading the Bible.

I think that the West’s military personnel are the ones who place hoods over innocent people’s heads then mercilessly torture and kill them, and that broadcasts of Islamo-fascists doing so are so much laughable propaganda.
 
But most of all, in true V style, I think that documents, like buildings, are only symbols, and that burning them can change the world. Therefore, I propose that we storm the National Archives and torch the Constitution—the document responsible for unleashing the Great Evil that is America.

After all, that’s what the Wachowskis want, isn’t it? When [spoiler alert] the English masses gather and cheer as Parliament, that British symbol of representative government burns, aren’t we too supposed to cheer? Aren’t we supposed to want to run out of theater ready to don our Osama Bin Laden masks, ready to confront the world’s biggest terrorist mastermind on the White House lawn?

Oh, but wait, the movie is “dystopian” and therefore has nothing to do with current events. The “yellow-alerts” the vile dictator employs are a coincidence. The campy television show in which vaudevillian Al Qaeda operatives torture busty blondes, suggesting that the threat of terror is as fictional as it is ridiculous, means nothing.  The balding talk show host with a pill-popping problem isn’t intended to smear a real person.
 
And the fact that the script takes glee in constantly referring to the “former United States of America” and “their war” that left them “the world’s leper colony?” Umm, okay, that’s a little hard to explain…let’s just call that comic justice.

I could go into more detail, but really, there is no point. The fact the film’s release had to be postponed when V’s final heroic act of loading explosives onto a subway car in the London underground proved too realistic illustrates how in-sync the Wachowski’s are with actual terrorists. Forget not being worth the price of admission, this ode to Al Zarqawi and his ilk certainly wasn’t worth the price of pretty Miss Portman’s flowing mane of chestnut hair.

Link

I highly, highly disagree with everything this author says about the new movie “V for Vendetta.” As one who recently watched the movie and one who is a right-wing conservative, I have to denounce this whole article.

First, I’d like to explain away the comment about the “…glee in constantly referring to the former United States of America.” The growing conflict in the movie had to have a beginning, whether most people like that beginning or not. It is a logical beginning, having the War on Terrorism get out of hand and Britain cracking down on outlaws in what seems to be a new, dictatorship or police state. This in only a logical scenario, as mass bombing or nuclear explosions in any country would yield marshall law.

Second, I’d like to argue against the sarcastic comments: “But most of all, in true V style, I think that documents, like buildings, are only symbols, and that burning them can change the world. Therefore, I propose that we storm the National Archives and torch the Constitution—the document responsible for unleashing the Great Evil that is America.” The author again, takes the movie out of context in this instance, believing “V” is leading us to a mindset of destroying national symbols in an effort to make change. This scenario is real, and it has happened before. For example, colonists dropped large shipments of tea into Boston Harbor to protest tax policies and injustice of Great Britain in the 1770’s. Why did the colonists choose tea to drop overboard? Because tea was a great symbol of British economic strength. I have no doubt if someone destroyed the White House on national TV, it would definately make some sort of statement.

Third, I would like to argue away with what this author is communicating about how “V” was glorifying terrorism. In my opinion, “V” did not glorify terrorism one bit. First, Britain was portrayed as a fascist regime. Second, the people had no rights, including the right to free speech (a comedian was arrested, beaten, and killed for making fun of the dictator). The government also demonstrated the following characteristics: widespread abuse of power by government officials, thought control, the torture of prisoners, the lack of lawful due process, chemical testing on their own people, and many other types of abuse. These abuses are not right and violate the human rights of individuals. Therefore, it was in the best interest of “V” and anyone who joined him to take up arms against their government.

The Declaration of Independence states:

But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.

This duty, to provide a new guard for the future security of Britian, was what “V” was trying to do in the movie. If the author of the above article could’ve looked at the context of the movie in a logical manner, the author might have come to a different conclusion. However, they did not look at history, nor the context in which the screenplay was written. In my opinion, the author of the above article was dead wrong about the new movie “V for Vendetta.”

If my country would massively violate all rights of the citizenry, denounce our constitution, arrest and kill all gays and muslims, suppress my right to free speech, burn and destroy books and music, and do all the other things the British government did in the movie, I would gladly take up arms against those abuses.

The Associated Press 

Two new polls gauging Americans’ views on government openness found a majority believe the federal government leans more toward secrecy than openness, while eight in 10 are convinced that an open government is necessary for an effective democracy.

The polls released Sunday also found, however, that the public believed government should keep some information private, particularly if it was necessary to combat terrorism.

One poll, by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University, found that 64 percent of respondents thought the federal government is somewhat or very secretive, while more than a third think their local and state governments lean more toward secrecy. Fifty-five percent said state and local governments were somewhat or very open.

But Americans were more closely divided on when government information should be made public, according to the telephone poll of 1,007 adults.

Forty-six percent said government records should be considered public and their release should only be blocked when it “would do harm”; 42 percent said the government should protect its information and only release it if there is a “sound legal case” for it to be public.

A separate poll released Sunday found respondents were supportive of open government and access to public records — though solid majorities also said that government officials should keep records secret if “necessary”, or to help in the war on terrorism.

Link

There are two issues here that I think are not understood by many Americans when it comes to government. While an educated body politic is to the advantage of the American republic, there are many issues which must be kept secret for legislative or national security reasons. The first statement “Two new polls gauging Americans’ views on government openness found a majority believe the federal government leans more toward secrecy than openness” is just not accurate. Most all legislation, executive orders, and Supreme Court decisions are available on the internet or from other government resources (excluding those affecting national security). I’ve looked up laws many times over the years and I believe most American people are lazy and not willing to look up the information they care about. Our country is ruled by a media which promotes nothing but 30 second sound bites, and those sound bites are what feeds most Americans. There cannot be an educated electorate when most listen to sound bites for their news.

Second, John Jay established and explained the need for secrecy in Federalist #64:

It seldom happens in the negotiation of treaties, of whatever nature, but that perfect SECRECY and immediate DESPATCH are sometimes requisite. These are cases where the most useful intelligence may be obtained, if the persons possessing it can be relieved from apprehensions of discovery. Those apprehensions will operate on those persons whether they are actuated by mercenary or friendly motives; and there doubtless are many of both descriptions, who would rely on the secrecy of the President, but who would not confide in that of the Senate, and still less in that of a large popular Assembly….So often and so essentially have we heretofore suffered from the want of secrecy and dispatch, that the Constitution would have been inexcusably defective, if no attention had been paid to those objects.

Here, John Jay explains that secrecy is of key importance, not only for the ratification of treaties or defining foreign relations, but keeping the Senate at bay. As we’ve seen with the modern issue of domestic spying (which is perfectly legal under FISA), the Senate has been up in arms because it was kept out of most FISA dealings, which by legislation, is an executive branch responsibility. Here, the Congress is not paying attention to separation of powers principles, but that is another issue.

Third, I have an issue with the second to last paragraph of the above article: “Forty-six percent said government records should be considered public and their release should only be blocked when it “would do harm”; 42 percent said the government should protect its information and only release it if there is a “sound legal case” for it to be public.” The American People must understand the above paragraph is essentially the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act. As it is common knowledge that our government is ultimately responsible to the people, it is essential we have the resources to find out what the government is doing. If people want to know what the government is doing and can’t find the information online or in other resources, they can simply file a Freedom of Information Act request for the information. Again, the above paragraph demonstrates a lazy American electorate, not willing to keep informed about their government.

On a different note, our founders knew that is was to our advantage to have an educated electorate. But they knew, as I know now, there are plenty of people who have no idea what the proper role of government is, nor do they understand how to find information about our government. That is why we have an electoral college.

By The Associated Press

President Bush plans to send proposed legislation to Congress on Monday that would allow him to control spending by vetoing specific items in larger bills, a Bush administration official said.

The president, who has not vetoed any legislation during five years in office, asked Congress in his State of the Union address to give him line-item veto power.

Bush plans to announce that the proposed bill is headed to Congress during his remarks at the morning swearing-in ceremony for the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the announcement has not been made.

Both Republican and Democratic presidents have sought the power to eliminate a single item in a spending or tax bill without killing the entire measure.

President Clinton got that wish in 1996, when the new reform-minded Republican majority in the House helped pass a line-item veto law.

Two years later, the Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional because it violated the principle that Congress, and not the executive branch, holds the power of the purse.

Link

While I agree with many of President Bush’s policy ideals and his strong leadership, I disagree with the administration that the President should be granted a power to cancel specific items within legislation after the legislation has become law. In my opinion, this clearly violates separation of powers principles as outlined in the Constitution. Let us explore this briefly.

Article one, section seven of the Constitution is as follows:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it…

The principle of the President’s power to veto applies to a bill submitted to him by Congress which is hoped to be passed into law. If we look at the text in this section, it says “Every bill,” and does not say anything in regard to appropriations within bills, which the President would be authorized to cancel if a line-item veto statute was constitutional.

Second, let us look at the recent Supreme Court decision on the unconstitutional Line Item Veto Act of 1996. In essence, the Line Item Veto Act gave the President the power to “cancel in whole” three types of provisions that have been signed into law: “(1) any dollar amount of discretionary budget authority; (2) any item of new direct spending; or (3) any limited tax benefit.”

According to the Supreme Court decision in “WILLIAM J. CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL ., APPELLANTS v. CITY OF NEW YORK,” the court concluded the Line Item Veto Act was unconstitutional for several different reasons (I have shown what I sense to be the most important principles in the decision):

There are important differences between the President’s “return” of a bill pursuant to Article I, §7, and the exercise of the President’s cancellation authority pursuant to the Line Item Veto Act. The constitutional return takes place before the bill becomes law; the statutory cancellation occurs after the bill becomes law. The constitutional return is of the entire bill; the statutory cancellation is of only a part. Although the Constitution expressly authorizes the President to play a role in the process of enacting statutes, it is silent on the subject of unilateral Presidential action that either repeals or amends parts of duly enacted statutes.

…our decision rests on the narrow ground that the procedures authorized by the Line Item Veto Act are not authorized by the Constitution. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is a 500-page document that became “Public Law 105-33″ after three procedural steps were taken: (1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate approved precisely the same text; and (3) that text was signed into law by the President. The Constitution explicitly requires that each of those three steps be taken before a bill may “become a law.” Art. I, §7. If one paragraph of that text had been omitted at any one of those three stages, Public Law 105-33 would not have been validly enacted. If the Line Item Veto Act were valid, it would authorize the President to create a different lawone whose text was not voted on by either House of Con gress or presented to the President for signature. Something that might be known as “Public Law 105-33 as modified by the President” may or may not be desirable, but it is surely not a document that may “become a law” pursuant to the procedures designed by the Framers of Article I, §7, of the Constitution.

This case has presented another unique aspect in that the President has authority to use up to specific amounts of funds Congress has appropriated in order to execute the bills which have been signed into law. However, the line item veto power would give the President authority to cancel, or to “not create the effect of law” with specific appropriations within a total bill. This is fundamentally different than not using all appropriated funds given for the execution of the law and is thereby unconstitutional. The Supreme Court tackled this very issue:

Thus, in both legal and practical effect, the presidential actions at issue have amended two Acts of Congress by repealing a portion of each. Statutory repeals must conform with Art. I, INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 954 , but there is no constitutional authorization for the President to amend or repeal. Under the Presentment Clause, after a bill has passed both Houses, but “before it become[s] a Law,” it must be presented to the Presi dent, who “shall sign it” if he approves it, but “return it,” i.e., “veto” it, if he does not. There are important differences between such a “return” and cancellation under the Act: The constitutional return is of the entire bill and takes place before it becomes law, whereas the statutory cancellation occurs after the bill becomes law and affects it only in part. There are powerful reasons for construing the constitutional silence on the profoundly important subject of presidential repeals as equivalent to an express prohibition. The Article I procedures governing statutory enactment were the product of the great debates and compromises that produced the Constitution itself…

I agree with the majority of the court here in their 6 -3 decision. For the text of this case regarding the line item veto, please click here. 

“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.”

The Pledge of Allegiance was first created in 1892 as a celebratory remark used throughout public schools in celebration of the 400th anniversary of Columbus discovering the New World. Since then, it has become a national motto of unity and a defense of the American way of life. As I’ve always loved the Pledge of Allegiance, I’d like to analyze each passage of the Pledge, determining what its real meaning is. Let us begin.

1.

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America…

Let us break down the first phrase of the Pledge, “I pledge allegiance…” The word “I” emphasizes the individual, having one’s own opinions, views, and experiences. “Pledge” by definition means a solumn, binding promise or the act of guaranteeing something. The word “allegiance” is a word meaning love, devotion, or loyalty toward something. In other words, the first part of the above phrase “I pledge allegiance” means for an individual to promise devotion. But what is the individual promising devotion to?

To finish the phrase, the individual promises devotion “to the Flag of the United States of America.” Flags have always been used as sysmbols of objects, countries, or people. They have been used to represent a certain way of life or a specific cause. Thus, an individual promises devotion and loyalty to the United States’ way of life or the specific purposes of the United States. Specific purposes would include those laid down by the Constitution of the United States - “In order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity…” Thus, “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America” means to promise devotion and loyalty to the American way of life and the promise and purpose of America.

2.

…and to the Republic for which it stands…

This phrase is indeed a powerful phrase in that it emphasizes what the American flag stands for. Again, flags have been used as symbols for near all recorded history. In this case, the flag stands for the American Republic. The founders of this country first determined that the United States ought to be a Republic. In Federalist #39, James Madison explained,

If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic.

Abraham Lincoln also described our Republic as a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people…”

3.

…one nation under God…

In 1954, then President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved the words “under God” in the Pledge in order to differentiate the United States from the officially atheist Soviet Union. President Eisenhower remarked, “In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country’s most powerful resource in peace and war.” This phrase also helps to emphasize another American motto, “In God We Trust.”

4.

…indivisible…

“Indivisible” means to be united. The founders of this country knew it was in our best interest for the several states to be united into one federal republic to protect the common interests of all the states, including foreign policy, commerce, and defense. As John Jay remarked in Federalist #2,

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.

5.

…with Liberty and Justice for all.

To explore this last phrase, we must turn to the Declaration of Independence, written and ratified by the Continental Congress in 1776. The Declaration declares, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” The founders clearly understood that government was not a grantor of rights, but that rights were given by God. They also understood all people are created equal and that the rights to life, liberty, and happiness are not negotiable.

In conclusion, what does the Pledge of Allegiance really mean? It means an individual promises to be loyal to America’s purpose and promise, understanding we must be united as a country, accept our spiritual heritage and deep traditions, and know that as Americans, we have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and happiness.