What does "supporting the Constitution of the United States" actually mean? We know what the Constitution said originally. After all, we have the original document in hand. However, the document itself provides for making changes, or amendments so it is possible to say exactly what the Constitution said at any particular time, depending on when it was last amended. All of that is clear.
What is not so clear is what parts of this document mean, amended or not. We have to ask, "how do you read this section?" Well, when we read anything, we usually start out, at least, reading it in terms of a contemporary understanding of the terms, phrases, idioms, and colloquialisms used in the text. However, with any old document, there is a long history of meanings that may have changed in substantial ways. Hence, reading a section of the Constitution can vary significantly, depending upon what historical period we give emphasis to in our reading.
Today, we are faced with the fact that the Constitution itself is completely silent on the question of how it is to be read. That is, it gives no more credibility to those who would read it in its original meanings (so far as we can determine those from other historical sources) than it does to those who consider it a "living document" that we should read in a contemporary framework. Yet Conservatives want to insist that we read it in its original-meaning context. Unfortunately, they assume this but give no compelling argument for it.
Take the so-called "interstate commerce clause." Some Conservatives want to say that the Constitution does not use the expression "interstate commerce." That, of course, is true. What it actually says is that Congress has the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." What is at issue, then, is how we read "regulate Commerce . . . among the several States."
So my Conservative friend, Longshot, wants to claim that we read this literally as "States" and not as "people of the States." He goes on to claim that "a good case could be made that the intent of this power was to regulate the trade relations between the states in the Union. This would prevent the states from erecting trade barriers such as tariffs and quotas."
I have to say that I find this argument pretty shallow. When do states themselves engage in commerce with each other? I suppose that the State of California might sell certain resources to the State of Nevada. While that is certainly possible, it is far more likely that what the framers of the Constitution had in mind was that persons in one state might engage in commerce with persons of another state. This situation might prompt a state to lay a tariff on commercial goods passing across the state line; but isn't that precisely what Congress was empowered to prevent. If we look back at the document itself, there is no impulse to suggest that the only commerce to be regulated was literally that with foreign Nations rather than commerce with the people of foreign nations. It was a question of things crossing over boundaries between foreign nations and our national boundaries, no matter what the agency of commerce.
The reason for the Conservative argument is that Longshot doesn't want Congress to have power over people in a state, only the institutionalized state itself. You can regulate my state but you can't regulate me.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
The Constitution and Money
In order to understand why I am writing this particular blog you will need to read the comments section in Longshots' blog, On Political Economy. (http://onpoliticaleconomy.blogspot.com/2010/11/more-thoughts-on-constitutional-money.html#comments)
I have heard many conservatives argue that the Federal Reserve system is unconstitutional and that paper money is illegal. Like so many conservative arguments, it is extremely difficult to imagine what would happen to this country if we tried to retreat to a coin-cash economy. Not only is a major portion of today's money supply in paper currency but the digital age has taken us far beyond a paper-cash economy. "Plastic money" (ATM cards, credit cards, and store-specific cards) backed up by "electronic banking" means that a person may rarely see or use cash of any kind. Exchange in our economy is based on "deposits" at banking institutions. These deposits act as legal tender as they are shifted back-and-forth, often within the same banking institution, between individuals.
Deposits can represent legal tender because they are backed by actual paper or coinage currency, which can be paid out at demand. As we all know, however, banks do not maintain enough currency to pay out on all their deposits; they loan portions of their deposit reserves. This is part of what economists call the "multiplier effect." The actual money supply is alway larger than the credit basis of the country lying in gold in some vault. The expansion of legal tender in this effect is necessary to facilitating commerce and generating our GNP.
If this entire system were taken down and if people were to demand coinage in payment, the economy would collapse. Is that really what conservatives want?
As to the Constitutional argument, Article I, uses the term "money" several lines before it grants Congress the power of making coin-money, and well before it denies that power for the states. Hence, "money" is the more primitive term. Congress was well aware of paper money because so-called "Continentals" already existed as a way of funding the Revolution. The Constitution guarantees that all outstanding obligations will be carried over into the new government (Article VI); hence, the Continentals will be backed by the new government. We have had paper money as long as we have had our Constitution.
It is interesting that the United States Treasury resides within the Executive branch of government and that the Secretary of the Treasury is a member of the President's cabinet. None of this is spelled out in Article II, which deals with the Executive. Indeed, Alexander Hamilton was the first Secretary and it was under Hamilton that the first central banking institution (The Bank of the United States) was established (1790), patterned after (of all things) the Bank of England. That began a long and complicated history of central banking institutions.
While people have raised Constitutional arguments about central banking and paper money throughout our history, these arguments have not succeeded except for brief periods of time.
I have heard many conservatives argue that the Federal Reserve system is unconstitutional and that paper money is illegal. Like so many conservative arguments, it is extremely difficult to imagine what would happen to this country if we tried to retreat to a coin-cash economy. Not only is a major portion of today's money supply in paper currency but the digital age has taken us far beyond a paper-cash economy. "Plastic money" (ATM cards, credit cards, and store-specific cards) backed up by "electronic banking" means that a person may rarely see or use cash of any kind. Exchange in our economy is based on "deposits" at banking institutions. These deposits act as legal tender as they are shifted back-and-forth, often within the same banking institution, between individuals.
Deposits can represent legal tender because they are backed by actual paper or coinage currency, which can be paid out at demand. As we all know, however, banks do not maintain enough currency to pay out on all their deposits; they loan portions of their deposit reserves. This is part of what economists call the "multiplier effect." The actual money supply is alway larger than the credit basis of the country lying in gold in some vault. The expansion of legal tender in this effect is necessary to facilitating commerce and generating our GNP.
If this entire system were taken down and if people were to demand coinage in payment, the economy would collapse. Is that really what conservatives want?
As to the Constitutional argument, Article I, uses the term "money" several lines before it grants Congress the power of making coin-money, and well before it denies that power for the states. Hence, "money" is the more primitive term. Congress was well aware of paper money because so-called "Continentals" already existed as a way of funding the Revolution. The Constitution guarantees that all outstanding obligations will be carried over into the new government (Article VI); hence, the Continentals will be backed by the new government. We have had paper money as long as we have had our Constitution.
It is interesting that the United States Treasury resides within the Executive branch of government and that the Secretary of the Treasury is a member of the President's cabinet. None of this is spelled out in Article II, which deals with the Executive. Indeed, Alexander Hamilton was the first Secretary and it was under Hamilton that the first central banking institution (The Bank of the United States) was established (1790), patterned after (of all things) the Bank of England. That began a long and complicated history of central banking institutions.
While people have raised Constitutional arguments about central banking and paper money throughout our history, these arguments have not succeeded except for brief periods of time.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Embracing the Constitution
I checked out Longshot, the other day, and was pleased to see that he is writing in his blog again. However, I was a little surprised to find an ultra conservative tract on money. The Constitution speaks of coin only and was written at a time when Spanish coin was accepted as standard value. Ergo we should be true to the Constitution and eliminate those pesky things like paper money, the Federal Reserve, etc. What really is the problem that Conservatives have with money? I don't think I've ever heard a real explanation.
If we must go back to the literal Constitution in everything, then I guess I need to buy a three-corner hat and some knickers. I guess my wife can't work in the polls anymore since women shouldn't be voting; and I should buy a few slaves to take care of my lawn instead of paying Hispanics to do it. Oh, boy, that reminds me that, if we're really going to be Constitutionalists, it's the Hispanics who actually own this place.
Seriously, the magnificent thing about great documents like our Constitution is that they are "living" and can adjust to their historical context. Inflexible documents become useless and crash as history changes underneath them.
If we must go back to the literal Constitution in everything, then I guess I need to buy a three-corner hat and some knickers. I guess my wife can't work in the polls anymore since women shouldn't be voting; and I should buy a few slaves to take care of my lawn instead of paying Hispanics to do it. Oh, boy, that reminds me that, if we're really going to be Constitutionalists, it's the Hispanics who actually own this place.
Seriously, the magnificent thing about great documents like our Constitution is that they are "living" and can adjust to their historical context. Inflexible documents become useless and crash as history changes underneath them.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Our Real Economic Problem
I watched "60 Minutes" the other night and there was a very sad visit to a town in Iowa. They talked with numerous people who had lost their jobs and to many small-business people who were forced to fire workers and who may have to shut down their businesses.
The sad thing about this whole mess is that it really has little to do with the bad economy as such and a lot to do with the fact that the Maytag factory, which employed 2500 people, shut down and moved their operation to Mexico. Of course small businesses cannot make it! You cannot lose 2500 local incomes in a small town and stay in business.
What this made me realize is that all of the harping about more jobs during the election campaigns will have no results whatsoever unless the government is willing, in some way, to stop large manufacturing enterprises from leaving the country. The government cannot create jobs no matter what politicians we throw into office. And small businesses are not dying because of the failure of banks to loan money. The basic dire fact in this country today is that the large corporations that can escape high-priced American labor are doing just that. And what that means is that the American labor force is slowly being reduced to the level of a Third-World labor force. And the Middle Class is sliding down that slope with them.
Essentially, this has nothing to do with the recession but it does have a lot to do with the fact that we will not soon emerge from the recession. The jobs just aren't there and they are not going to be there.
Guess what. The Republicans are not going to do anything about this because they are "in bed" with the entrepreneurs who have invented this globalization scheme. And the Democrats are not going to do anything about it because they are completely gutless. But if nothing is done, the middle- and working-classes of America will soon find themselves at mere-survival wages as opposed to the golden age of America's "high standard of living." That means they will not be able to buy cars or purchase houses or go to fancy restaurants. So that also means that all those "service industries" we've been so proud of will also vanish. It's not going to be a pretty picture.
The sad thing about this whole mess is that it really has little to do with the bad economy as such and a lot to do with the fact that the Maytag factory, which employed 2500 people, shut down and moved their operation to Mexico. Of course small businesses cannot make it! You cannot lose 2500 local incomes in a small town and stay in business.
What this made me realize is that all of the harping about more jobs during the election campaigns will have no results whatsoever unless the government is willing, in some way, to stop large manufacturing enterprises from leaving the country. The government cannot create jobs no matter what politicians we throw into office. And small businesses are not dying because of the failure of banks to loan money. The basic dire fact in this country today is that the large corporations that can escape high-priced American labor are doing just that. And what that means is that the American labor force is slowly being reduced to the level of a Third-World labor force. And the Middle Class is sliding down that slope with them.
Essentially, this has nothing to do with the recession but it does have a lot to do with the fact that we will not soon emerge from the recession. The jobs just aren't there and they are not going to be there.
Guess what. The Republicans are not going to do anything about this because they are "in bed" with the entrepreneurs who have invented this globalization scheme. And the Democrats are not going to do anything about it because they are completely gutless. But if nothing is done, the middle- and working-classes of America will soon find themselves at mere-survival wages as opposed to the golden age of America's "high standard of living." That means they will not be able to buy cars or purchase houses or go to fancy restaurants. So that also means that all those "service industries" we've been so proud of will also vanish. It's not going to be a pretty picture.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Separation of Church and State
So this is becoming a big topic of discussion ever since Christine O'Donnell failed to realize that the Constitution addresses this issue in the First Amendment. [Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.]
Conservatives, of course, love to scream, that this text fails to use the exact expression "separation of church and state" and love to tell us that this precise expression comes only from a letter written later on by Thomas Jefferson. But the issue, of course, is what the "establishment clause" means in practical terms. And if that can be accurately characterized as the separation of church and state, shouldn't we be allowed to talk about it thus.
What the Constitution states, as fundamental law of the land, is that no citizen shall be prevented from the free exercise of his/her religious beliefs. That applies to any religious belief, including the refusal to have any religious belief. That includes Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, etc. as well as Christians. That's in our cherished melting-pot country! Where is that anti-Muslim sentiment now?
So Congress may not make a law establishing a national religion. That means that wherever Congress has authority no religion can be singularly preferred. Education is an interesting example. The concept of public schools and required elementary education originated in the Federal government. Today, the Federal government continues to provide a large portion of funding for public schools. This means that the Federal government has jurisdiction in public education. Hence, classes in Christian religion, support of Christian positions against instruction in biological evolution, and other situations in which Christian views are supported in opposition to others cannot be tolerated. To do so is to place the Federal government in the position of establishing Christianity as a state religion.
Conservatives, of course, love to scream, that this text fails to use the exact expression "separation of church and state" and love to tell us that this precise expression comes only from a letter written later on by Thomas Jefferson. But the issue, of course, is what the "establishment clause" means in practical terms. And if that can be accurately characterized as the separation of church and state, shouldn't we be allowed to talk about it thus.
What the Constitution states, as fundamental law of the land, is that no citizen shall be prevented from the free exercise of his/her religious beliefs. That applies to any religious belief, including the refusal to have any religious belief. That includes Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, etc. as well as Christians. That's in our cherished melting-pot country! Where is that anti-Muslim sentiment now?
So Congress may not make a law establishing a national religion. That means that wherever Congress has authority no religion can be singularly preferred. Education is an interesting example. The concept of public schools and required elementary education originated in the Federal government. Today, the Federal government continues to provide a large portion of funding for public schools. This means that the Federal government has jurisdiction in public education. Hence, classes in Christian religion, support of Christian positions against instruction in biological evolution, and other situations in which Christian views are supported in opposition to others cannot be tolerated. To do so is to place the Federal government in the position of establishing Christianity as a state religion.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
What Are We Doing?!!
The United States maintains military bases in MMM countries in the world outside of our homeland, including a total of XXX military personnel. [Don't have the exact figures at my finger tips.] Generally speaking this is rationalized as necessary for our homeland security, though we also explain it as part of a program of pacifying the world, an obligation that we seem to have assumed after the Second World War. In the 65 years after the War, this "program" has been primarily aimed at suppressing Communism around the world, even where Communism was obviously the local popular choice. One could say that the whole thing has been motivated by "making the world safe for Capitalism" but it has obviously been mostly aimed at supporting Capitalist Imperialism around the world, with American Capitalists fully involved. The story behind this has always been that Communism was expanding to threaten us. But, of course, the truth of the matter has always been that we ourselves were taking an increasingly aggressive anti-Communist position around the entire world. How have we gotten away with this behavior?
How many other governments in the world have military bases outside of their own countries? How many foreign governments have military bases inside of the United states? When the world looks at this picture and answers these questions, how can they avoid believing that the United States is an aggressive militarist nation with world domination at the heart of their foreign policy?
Not only is this policy inappropriate for the democracy that we are supposed to be, but it is also the major reason for our economic shutdown. Yet I have heard no one in this midterm election cycle actually bring up the fact that our economic woes at home are due to our extravagant missions abroad. It seems so much easier for us, as a nation, to kill and maim foreign citizens than to educate our own children or feed our own poor or offer better health care to Americans who couldn't afford it. Why is it that the American character has arrived at this strange state in its historical evolution?
How many other governments in the world have military bases outside of their own countries? How many foreign governments have military bases inside of the United states? When the world looks at this picture and answers these questions, how can they avoid believing that the United States is an aggressive militarist nation with world domination at the heart of their foreign policy?
Not only is this policy inappropriate for the democracy that we are supposed to be, but it is also the major reason for our economic shutdown. Yet I have heard no one in this midterm election cycle actually bring up the fact that our economic woes at home are due to our extravagant missions abroad. It seems so much easier for us, as a nation, to kill and maim foreign citizens than to educate our own children or feed our own poor or offer better health care to Americans who couldn't afford it. Why is it that the American character has arrived at this strange state in its historical evolution?
Saturday, October 16, 2010
The "Washington Rules"
I have just finished reading Andrew Bacevich's book "Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War," published this August. This is a book that every American should read, regardless of political party. The fact is that every political party has thoroughly subscribed to the militarist foreign policies that Bacevich carefully describes and documents, since the late 1940s. Even the Obama administration has carefully advanced this policy point of view in spite of Obama's claims of ending wars and being at peace with the world. The book is thoroughly researched and very well written.
Americans today, as we face up to the November mid-term elections, are fundamentally disturbed by economic issues at home. However, if Bacevich is correct, and I am sure he is, our economic woes are a direct result of Washington's disposition to believe and to act according to the principle that everyone in the world must conform to American values and that it is our obligation to police the world for offenders. If we were to back off of our militarist and aggressive policies abroad, we could easily deal with the many problems we have at home.
Fundamentally, the way to influence the world regarding the virtues of democracy is to exhibit the virtues of democracy at home rather than attempting to stuff it down everyone's throat abroad.
Americans today, as we face up to the November mid-term elections, are fundamentally disturbed by economic issues at home. However, if Bacevich is correct, and I am sure he is, our economic woes are a direct result of Washington's disposition to believe and to act according to the principle that everyone in the world must conform to American values and that it is our obligation to police the world for offenders. If we were to back off of our militarist and aggressive policies abroad, we could easily deal with the many problems we have at home.
Fundamentally, the way to influence the world regarding the virtues of democracy is to exhibit the virtues of democracy at home rather than attempting to stuff it down everyone's throat abroad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)