Libertyhound

Labor Day

2011-09-04T20:48:00.000-07:00

Labor Day is denigrated by some as a commercialized version of a Communist holiday. Those that say this are, of course, at liberty to make this claim but, should they actually look at the facts, will find that they are correct only about labor Day being much more commercial these days.

West Virginia Coal Miners in 1908

As the Industrial Revolution took hold of the nation, the average American in the late 19th Century worked 12-hour days, seven days a week in order to make a basic living. Children were also working, as they provided cheap labor to employers and laws against child labor were not strongly enforced. With the long hours and terrible working conditions, American unions became more prominent and voiced their demands for a better way of life.
The first Labor Day holiday was celebrated on Tuesday, September 5, 1882, in New York City, in accordance with the plans of the Central Labor Union when 10,000 workers marched from city hall to Union Square in New York City, holding the first-ever Labor Day parade. Participants took an unpaid day-off to honor the workers of America, as well as vocalize issues they had with employers. The Central Labor Union held its second Labor Day holiday in New York City just a year later, on September 5, 1883.

In 1884 the first Monday in September was selected by the Central Labor Union as the day each year that they would celebrate from then on and they urged similar organizations in other cities to follow the example of New York and celebrate a "workingman's holiday" on that date. The idea spread with the growth of labor organizations, and in 1885 Labor Day was celebrated in many industrial centers of the country.
As years passed more cities and states permitted labor organizations to hold celebrations. In 1887 the first states declared it a state holiday. These were Oregon, Colorado, New York, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. By the end of the decade Connecticut, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania had followed suit. By 1894, 23 other states had adopted the holiday in honor of workers.


Pullman Workers Protest

On May 11, 1894, workers of the Pullman Palace Car Company in Chicago struck to protest wage cuts and the firing of union representatives. They sought support from their union, the American Railroad Union led by Eugene V. Debs, and on June 26 the union called a boycott of all Pullman railway cars. Within days, 50,000 rail workers complied and railroad traffic out of Chicago came to a halt. On July 4, President Grover Cleveland dispatched troops to Chicago. Much rioting and bloodshed ensued, but government action broke the strike and the boycott soon collapsed. Debs and three other union officials were jailed for interfering with the U.S. Mails, presenting a threat to public safety and disobeying a Federal injunction to cease all strike activities.

The strike brought worker's rights to the public eye and on June 28 of 1894 Congress passed an act making the first Monday in September of each year a legal holiday in the District of Columbia and the territories.

Communists and Socialists the world over have held a similar celebration of the working class every May 1st. This date eventually became known as May Day. It is because of this that, in the U.S., the first Monday in September was selected. So to prevent any identification with Communism and Socialism.

More than a Century after the first Labor Day observance there is still some doubt as to who first proposed the holiday for workers.

Some historical records show that Peter J. McGuire, general secretary of the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners and a co-founder of the American Federation of Labor, was first in suggesting a day to honor those "who from rude nature have delved and carved all the grandeur we behold."

But Peter McGuire's place in Labor Day history has not gone unchallenged. Many historians believe that Matthew Maguire, a machinist, not Peter McGuire, founded the holiday. Recent research seems to support the contention that Matthew Maguire, later the secretary of Local 344 of the International Association of Machinists in Paterson, N.J., proposed the holiday in 1882 while serving as secretary of the Central Labor Union in New York.


1918 New York City Labor Day Parade

The form that the observance and celebration of Labor Day should take were outlined in the first proposal of the holiday. It was to be "a street parade to exhibit to the public the strength and esprit-de-corps of the trade and labor organizations of the community, followed by a festival for the recreation and amusement of the workers and their families". This became the pattern for the celebrations of Labor Day. Speeches by prominent men and women were introduced later, as more emphasis was placed upon the economic and civic significance of the holiday. Still later, by a resolution of the American Federation of Labor convention of 1909, the Sunday preceding Labor Day was adopted as Labor Sunday and dedicated to the spiritual and educational aspects of the labor movement.

Labor Day Backyard Barbecue

The character of the Labor Day celebration has undergone changes over the years. Today Labor Day is often regarded as a day of rest. And parades, speeches or political demonstrations are more low-key although, especially in election years, events held by labor organizations often feature political themes and appearances by candidates for office.

Celebrations include picnics, barbecues, fireworks displays, water sports, and public art events. Families with school-age children take it as the last chance to travel before the end of summer. Some teenagers and young adults view it as the last weekend for parties before returning to school.

A few of the more notable Labor Day events enjoyed by Americans are:

Mackinac Bridge Walk is an annual event that has been held in Northern Michigan every Labor Day since 1958.
The annual telethon of the Muscular Dystrophy Association has been held on Labor Day weekend since 1966.
Taste of Polonia is, since 1979, a Labor Day celebration of Polish cultural heritage, traditions, and customs held on the grounds of the Copernicus Foundation in Jefferson Park in Chicago, IL.
Boomsday, one of the biggest fireworks displays in the Southeastern United States, has been held annually on Labor Day since 1986 in Knoxville, TN.
NASCAR's Pepsi 500 on Labor Day weekend at the Auto Club Speedway in Fontana, CA.

So enjoy your Liberties this Labor Day. And to those who still claim it is Communist I say "enjoy a burger, a beer and your ignorance".

Inner space is useful. But is outer space history?

2011-07-27T23:45:00.000-07:00

The Economist has an article about how the age of space exploration is over. They are a little late on this announcement, as the peak distance that any human has traveled from Earth was reached about 40 years ago. The first age of space exploration has been over for a while.

But does that mean that our adventures in the Final Frontier are over forever? I'm not so sure. After all, think about maritime exploration. For thousands of years after the first canoe was launched, the high seas remained basically empty of human ships. Once we got the technology to conquer the seas, however, we quickly did so.

What technology would be needed to conquer space? It's clear that what we use now is too expensive for large-scale use. To reduce launch costs from Earth, we need either mass drivers, laser propulsion, or something of similar energy savings (a "space elevator", sadly, will probably never exist).

But we need more than that, because even with cheaper launch systems, manned space exploration is extremely expensive, especially given the radiation shielding and other add-ons that we'll need for interplanetary travel. What we need is a bigger, better energy source. With the Earth energy-constrained as it is, there are no fossil fuels to spare for Mars missions, and we'll be lucky if we get renewables to the point where they save us from backsliding to the iron age. That means that we need nuclear fusion.

But in addition to the means, we need a reason to go. What is in space that we can use? Well, if fusion becomes a power source, we might want to mine tritium from other planets. And with fusion, terraforming of Mars might one day be possible (fusion is really that good as an energy source!).

As for interstellar travel, that is really and truly off the table without technological breakthroughs so advanced that we currently can barely imagine what they are.

So basically, no fusion, no space adventures. But if we do invent fusion, then the whole equation changes, not just for space travel, but for every conceivable human activity. Hence, we should focus our engineering efforts not on manned space travel, but on fusion power. And if we ever succeed, then the Second Age of space exploration may begin, and the Economist's article may come to look as silly as those medieval assertions that the Atlantic could never be crossed.

Originally published by Noah Smith at his Noahpinion blog.

Liberty is Put at Risk When Economics Are Subverted by Politics!

2011-07-17T18:14:00.000-07:00

Economics is both a science and a philosophy. It both guides and is guided by politics. An economy can, unfortunately, be undermined by politicians who place political gamesmanship or short-term gain above the good of the people they are supposed to serve. The commentary below by Sean Hazlett makes a very good case on how liberty is put at risk when Economics is subverted by Politics.

______________________________________________________________

I tend to group politicians in four quadrants: 1) liberal and pragmatic, 2) conservative and pragmatic, 3) liberal and ideological, and 4) conservative and ideological. To be blunt, I would rather support politicians in buckets #1 and #2, than those in #3 and #4.

Frankly, both ideological liberals and conservatives are in charge of our country now, and it is starting to get scary.

On the one hand, Congressional Republicans ought to be lauded for securing an amazingly one-sided deal from the President on deficit reform. On the other hand, they ought to be chastised for not taking the deal.

A Pretty Sweet Deal -

The White House proposed an 83/17% split between spending reduction and revenue increases. The President even went as far to say that the revenue increases would come from eliminating loopholes rather than from raising marginal tax rates. Given that House Republicans produced a report earlier this year that suggested an 85/15% split was “the average for successful fiscal consolidations”, this offer is a pretty darn good one. Yet, many House Republicans continue to push the future of American prosperity to the brink.

There are several reasons why the Republicans should take this deal before it is too late:

Betting on a Bond Market Crash -

While the bond market seems to be counting on a resolution to the U.S. debt ceiling negotiations, if talks fail to generate a compromise by August 2nd, all bets are off. Debt rating agency Standard & Poor’s warned on Thursday that it could downgrade the United States’ AAA credit rating later this month, and that there was a 50% chance it might do so in the next three months, if Washington fails to secure an agreement on raising the debt ceiling.

The reduction of America’s credit rating would be a disaster for the bond market, pushing yields upward, and putting downward pressure on bond prices. The end result would be an increase in interest rates for the government, businesses, and households. Higher borrowing rates for the government translate into widening deficits. Higher rates for businesses would result in less capital investment and, consequently, less hiring. For households, higher interest rates translate into higher mortgage rates. Higher mortgage rates would lead to a further softening of the housing market. Weakness in the housing sector, in turn, would ripple throughout the rest of the economy. Finally, high interest rates are correlated with recessions.

Blaming Republicans -

By any reasonable measure, be it unemployment, anemic GDP growth, or rising gas prices, President Obama’s economic policy has been a disaster. Some Democrats continue to blame the President’s predecessor, but President Bush has been out of office more than two and half years. At this point, President Obama owns responsibility for the economy and will suffer most from a voter backlash in November 2012.

Until now.

The problem with ideologues in both parties is that when they draw a line in the sand, it is almost impossible for them to walk away from it. Some House Republicans have, unfortunately, put themselves in this position by demanding no tax increases whatsoever.

However, the country got itself into this mess by simultaneously overspending and reducing taxes. Overspending is probably 80% of the problem, while cutting taxes too aggressively accounts for the remaining 20%.

Yet the Tea Party Caucus’ fanatical insistence to avoid any additional taxation whatsoever is completely unrealistic. It further sacrifices the Republican Party’s chances of winning the next election.

According to a recent Quinnipiac poll, American voters disapprove of the way President Obama is handling the economy by a 56 to 38% margin. The Economist rightly suggests that the Republican Party risks alienating “the blue-collar whites who make up 40% of the electorate are fed up with Mr Obama, but also wary of sudden change and attached to entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security (pensions).” Moreover, in the same Quinnipiac poll, voters “will blame Republicans over Obama” by a 48 to 34% margin if the debt limit is not raised.

Ideological Gap Between House Republicans and GOP Voters Wider Than That Between GOP Voters and Democratic Ones -

According to Nate Silver, if “Republicans in the House insist upon zero tax increases, there is a larger ideological gap between House Republicans and Republican voters than there is between Republican voters and Democratic ones.” He argues that a recent Gallup poll suggests GOP voters want a deal consisting of 26% tax increases vs. Democratic voters wanting a deal with 46% tax increases — a 20% gap. In contrast, House Republicans want zero tax increases.

Republicans Should Take the Deal -

House Republicans really have secured a pretty sweet deal. They should take it, even if it means reversing their anti-new tax pledge. To do otherwise would risk a shot at the 2012 election.

Originally published by Sean Patrick Hazlett at his Reflections of a Rational Republican blog.

Liberty is put at risk when Americans don’t understand why our forebears sought it and won’t remember what has been risked to keep it.

2011-04-16T14:50:00.000-07:00

“Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” – George Santayana

2011 is the sesquicentennial of the start of the bloodiest and most divisive period that our country has ever faced. It is also the sesquicentennial of one of most egregious and illegitimate acts of our nation's government. Liberty is put at risk when Americans don’t understand why our forebears sought it and won’t remember what has been risked to keep it.

On a local radio program in Los Angeles, the host, who counted himself an "amateur historian", was interviewing a spokesman for the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Not long into the interview the host challenged the SCV spokesman that the Confederacy surely meant to destroy the United States by seceding from the union because they were breaking up the nation in violation of the Constitution.

The SCV spokesman rose to the challenge and rightly pointed out that the Confederacy didn’t seek to destroy the United States because it didn’t seek to overthrow and replace the government of the United States or any of the individual states in the Union. Rather, it was an exercise of their constitutionally protected State sovereignty when 11 States voluntarily disaffiliated themselves from the pact that was the United States of America to form another unification of States with common interests called the Confederate States of America.

The leaders of the 7 original seceding states (the other 4 seceded after the CSA was invaded by the USA) met in 1861 to draft the Constitution of the Confederate States of America which closely mirrored the Constitution of the U.S.A. They copied the U.S. Constitution because it was precisely the kind of agreement between the states that they wanted. They didn’t choose secession lightly. Many Revolutionary War battles had been fought in the south or by militia units from the south. They were not rebelling against the Constitution of the United States. They were rebelling against what they saw as the subverting of it by the federal government.

That exercise in State sovereignty led to the invasion of the Confederate States by the United States, four years of bloody war and the forced repatriation of the “rebel” States.

Were it not for the belligerence of the northern states of the United States, who would have to pay higher prices for goods and materials from the now foreign states of the Confederacy and face competition from them for overseas markets, it is quite possible that they would have become as good neighbors as the USA and Canada are today. It’s certain that, without some other initiation of armed conflict between the CSA and the USA, 1,030,000 people (3% of the total American population) needn’t have died. It is certain that 10 of the 11 secessionist states would not have had their legitimate governments ousted and replaced by an occupying army and a military government with the blessing of the states of the United States. It is also certain that, given the momentum of the anti-slavery movement worldwide and the opinions concerning slavery of southerners like Robert E. Lee, slavery would have died as an institution in the U.S. by the beginning of the 20th century.

But all of this is unknown in American education unless students do independent research and find it out for themselves or are fortunate enough to find one of the few teachers who truly teach American history in all of its vulgarity and all of its grandeur.

In 2006 the Intercollegiate Studies Institute published the first of a multi-part study on American civil literacy. The Coming Crisis in Citizenship: Higher Education's Failure to Teach America's History and Institutions concluded that greater civic learning goes hand-in-hand with more active citizenship. Students who demonstrated greater learning of America's history and institutions were more engaged in citizenship activities such as voting, volunteer community service, and political campaigns.

In 2007 the ISI published Failing Our Students, Failing America: Holding Colleges Accountable for Teaching America’s History and Institutions which found that, among other things, inadequate college curriculum contributes to failure. The number of history, political science, and economics courses a student takes help to determine, together with the quality of these courses, whether he acquires knowledge about America during college. Students generally gain one point of civic knowledge for each civics course taken. The average senior, however, has taken only four such courses.

In 2008 the ISI published part three of the study, Our Fading Heritage: Americans Fail a Basic Test on Their History and Institutions which stated, among several key findings, that television, including TV news, dumbs America down. In contrast, the civic knowledge gained from the inexpensive combination of engaging in frequent conversations about public affairs, reading about current events and history, and participating in more involved civic activities is greater than the gain from an expensive bachelor’s degree alone.

The ISI's most recent contribution to the series is The Shaping of the American Mind: The Diverging Influences of the College Degree & Civic Learning on American Beliefs which found that civic knowledge increases a person’s regard for America’s ideals and free institutions. Gaining civic knowledge—as opposed to merely graduating from college—increases a person’s belief in American ideals and free institutions. If two people otherwise share the same basic characteristics, the one with greater civic knowledge will be more likely to support:

America’s ideals: He or she will be less likely to agree that America corrupts otherwise good people.
America’s Founding documents: He or she will be less likely to agree that the Founding documents are obsolete.
American free enterprise: He or she will be more likely to agree that prosperity depends on entrepreneurs and free markets, and less likely to agree that global capitalism produces few winners and many losers.
The Ten Commandments: He or she will be less likely to agree that the Ten Commandments are irrelevant today.

History is made up of the actions of people within the context of what was occurring at the time. To think there's only one road leading up to a given event is simplistic. To know that many roads from many varied sources lead people to the momentous choices gives history its complexity and flavor. A good knowledge of history tells us where we’ve been, why people did what they did. And a good knowledge of history can help to guide us in where we’re going. Without context, history conveys imprecise knowledge of those actions’ causes and effects which reinforces prejudices, impairs clear decision making and weakens liberty.

Learn our history. Save our liberty.

2010-05-31T02:05:00.001-07:00

Memorial Day is a United States Federal holiday that is observed annually on the last Monday of May. Formerly known as Decoration Day, it commemorates U.S. men and women who perished while in military service to their country.

Since 2002, we have celebrated Memorial Day with the sons and daughters of our country fighting abroad in Afghanistan and in Iraq. And every day that passes, it seems the media reports less and less about these wars. Whether one agrees with the necessity of combating Islamic fundamentalist terror on their turf or not. We must not forget, we must not disdain, the sacrifices of those who have willingly offered up themselves to keep those who would do us harm as far away from us as possible. For these men and women have seen it as their duty and their privilege to stand before the storm on our behalf.

Memorial Day was officially proclaimed on 5 May 1868 by General John Logan, national commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, in his General Order No. 11, and was first observed on 30 May 1868, when flowers were placed on the graves of Union and Confederate soldiers at Arlington National Cemetery. The first state to officially recognize the holiday was New York in 1873. By 1890 it was recognized by all of the northern states. The South refused to acknowledge the day, honoring their dead on separate days until after World War I (when the holiday changed from honoring just those who died fighting in the Civil War to honoring Americans who died fighting in any war).

It is now celebrated in almost every State on the last Monday in May (passed by Congress with the National Holiday Act of 1971 (P.L. 90 - 363) to ensure a three day weekend for Federal holidays), though several southern states have an additional separate day for honoring the Confederate war dead: January 19 in Texas, April 26 in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Mississippi; May 10 in South Carolina; and June 3 (Jefferson Davis' birthday) in Louisiana and Tennessee.

Traditional observance of Memorial Day has diminished over the years. Many Americans nowadays have forgotten the meaning and traditions of Memorial Day. At many cemeteries, the graves of the fallen are increasingly ignored, neglected. Most people no longer remember the proper flag etiquette for the day. While there are towns and cities that still hold Memorial Day parades, many have not held a parade in decades. Some people think the day is for honoring any and all dead, and not just those fallen in service to our country.

To help re-educate and remind Americans of the true meaning of Memorial Day, the "National Moment of Remembrance" resolution was passed on Dec 2000 which asks that at 3 p.m. local time, for all Americans "To voluntarily and informally observe in their own way a Moment of remembrance and respect, pausing from whatever they are doing for a moment of silence or listening to 'Taps."

The Moment of Remembrance is a step in the right direction to returning the meaning back to the day. What is needed is a full return to the original day of observance. Set aside one day out of the year for the nation to get together to remember, reflect and honor those who have given their all in service to their country.

On January 4, 2007 Senator Inouye introduced bill S 80 to the Senate which proposes to restore the traditional day of observance of Memorial Day back to May 30th instead of "the last Monday in May". At present there are no co-sponsors. On the same day it was introduced, the bill was read referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. As of today there has been no further major action taken by the Committee on this bill.

"Their soldier lives were the reveille of freedom to a race in chains, and their deaths the tattoo of rebellious tyranny in arms. We should guard their graves with sacred vigilance. All that the consecrated wealth and taste of the nation can add to their adornment and security is but a fitting tribute to the memory of her slain defenders. Let no wanton foot tread rudely on such hallowed grounds. Let pleasant paths invite the coming and going of reverent visitors and fond mourners. Let no vandalism of avarice or neglect, no ravages of time testify to the present or to the coming generations that we have forgotten as a people the cost of a free and undivided republic." - General John Logan, Commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, May 1868.

The States of the United States of America Are, and Always Have Been, Sovereign Powers.

2010-03-14T00:15:00.000-08:00

The Philadelphia Convention of 1787

I've always been distressed when it is declared that States have no right to contest edicts from Washington D.C. and that federal law ALWAYS trumps State law. This mistaken assertion is usually given the same credence as if it were Holy Scripture.

Most recently there has been much nattering from main stream media and liberal pundits over Iowa and Virginia passing legislation, and 36 other States considering legislation, to "defy" the federal government should it pass laws to make health insurance mandatory for everyone. Iowa and Virginia are simply exercising the powers of sovereignty that they and the other 48 States possess. They’ve never officially yielded their sovereignty to the federal government. The 10^th Amendment of the Bill of Rights was inserted into the Constitution before its initial ratification specifically to protect that sovereignty from the federal government that the Constitution formed. We have a strong history that supports this.

In 1777, Congress sent out to the states for their ratification the Articles of Confederation, America’s first federal Constitution. It began by saying, “Articles of Perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.” Article I said, in full, “The Stile of this Confederacy shall be ‘The United States of America’ ”. Article II added, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

This language is, under the circumstances, entirely unsurprising. It would have been surprising had they said anything else. The United States were states, and they had joined together. The fact that their union had no set end date, in part because the length of the War for Independence could not be foreseen, was denoted by calling it “perpetual.” (In those days treaties between European states often purported to be “perpetual.” This didn’t mean that neither side could bring a treaty agreement to an end, but that there was no built-in sunset provision.) The express reservation of those powers that each state hadn’t passed on to the Confederation was a hedge against arrogation of power by the Confederation. After all, the new Congress under the Articles was to have an army so it might well be tempted to intrude on the states’ prerogatives. It was for this reason that Article II noted that sovereignty – indivisible final authority – remained to the states.

The Articles of Confederation went on to spell out what the Confederation was empowered to do for the benefit of the sovereign states in keeping with the federal (not national) nature of the government. The articles would not have made sense if the thirteen states had been one nation, or if their people had been one people. (Here again, we must recall that the word state in the 18^th century connoted a sovereign entity on the order of Spain or France, not a province like Andalusia or Dauphine’.)

To anyone familiar with the form of the dispute between the colonists and England that led up to the Revolution, the various elements of the Articles of Confederation can’t be surprising. The colonists had insisted for years that their colonial legislatures alone, not the British Parliament, could tax them. When Parliament had insisted that it alone was sovereign, and that sovereignty was ultimate power, the colonies had responded by locating sovereignty in their colonial legislatures. The colonists saw themselves as defending their traditional English rights. They believed that to defend their traditional rights from an overweening British Parliament it was necessary for the colonies to declare themselves “free and independent states.” Now, in order to formalize the military alliance that was fighting the Revolution, they opted not to merge their thirteen societies into one, but to cooperate so much as seemed necessary to win the war.

The Declaration of Independence recognized the individuality of the colonies when it stated “Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.” And also that the representatives of those colonies “do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States.” [Emphasis mine]

In the Treaty of Paris of 1782 that ended the Revolution, King George III recognized the independence not of a single American nation, but of thirteen “free Sovereign and independent States” (18^th century language for “nations”).

Delegates to the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, where our current Constitution was debated and crafted, rejected attempts by monarchists and nationalists in the convention to create a national (rather than a federal) government.

There was zilch in the Articles of Confederation, in the Declaration of Independence, or in the Constitutions ratification process to permit an American people to create a national government. The States would have had to surrender their sovereignty to have made themselves into a nation. But they did not do this. To do so would have been contrary to everything they’d just been fighting for.

The States each had their own foundation for governing their own affairs but, for the most part, recognized the benefits of a union, a contract, between them. For example they could speak to and make treaties with foreign governments with one voice that was stronger than their individual voices. They could also defend themselves from those same foreign governments with one arm that was stronger than their individual arms.

Each State held its own meetings, conventions, parlays and pow-wows to consider ratification of the Constitution and how accepting the pact would best benefit them. All of them found something to like and something to dislike. Some still had great reservations because of erroneous talk of the Constitution making a “nation” and gave serious consideration to not joining the pact. Sensibility, reason and self-interest influenced the decisions and all 13 States ratified the Constitution.

Sovereignty was of paramount importance to them in the late 18^th century and it was an exercise of State sovereignty in the mid 19^th century when 11 States disaffiliated themselves from the pact that was the United States of America to form another unification of States with common interests called the Confederate States of America. These State’s leaders met in 1861 to draft the Constitution of the Confederate States of America which closely mirrored the Constitution of the U.S.A. That exercise in State sovereignty led to the invasion of the Confederate States by the United States, four years of bloody war and the forced repatriation of the “rebel” States.

The United States of America was, and still is, a federation of independent States formed to handle certain specific functions for the common benefit of the member States and as more States rediscover that and make more use of their constitutionally protected sovereignty to check the federal government’s predilection for grabbing more and more unconstitutional authority to itself I think we’ll see more cases where any or all of the States say “oh no you don’t” to the denizens of foggy bottom.

Tea Parties Are Fine. But I Want to See a Convention.

2009-04-27T10:31:00.000-07:00

"In response to an unprecedented expansion of federal power, citizens have held hundreds of 'tea party' rallies around the country, and various states are considering 'sovereignty resolutions' invoking the Constitution's Ninth and Tenth Amendments. For example, Michigan's proposal urges 'the federal government to halt its practice of imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States.' While well-intentioned, such symbolic resolutions are not likely to have the slightest impact on the federal courts, which long ago adopted a virtually unlimited construction of Congressional power. But state legislatures have a real power under the Constitution by which to resist the growth of federal power: They can petition Congress for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. An amendments convention is feared because its scope cannot be limited in advance. The convention convened by Congress to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation produced instead the entirely different Constitution under which we now live. Yet it is precisely the fear of a runaway convention that states can exploit to bring Congress to heel. ...[A] Federalism Amendment would provide tea-party enthusiasts and other concerned Americans with a concrete and practical proposal by which we can restore our lost Constitution." --Georgetown University professor of constitutional law Randy Barnett

What a good idea. A Constitutional Convention. We've not had one since the 1st one and, in my opinion, it is far overdue.

Some History:
In 1787 representatives of 12 of our original States (Rhode Island declined to send anyone) met in Philadelphia to, purportedly, address problems in governing the United States of America, which had been operating under the Articles of Confederation following independence from England. The original purpose of the gathering was supposed to have been to revise the Articles of Confederation. However, the intention of many of its proponents, chief among them James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, was from the outset to create a new government rather than make adjustments to the existing one.

Much of what the Founders did in constructing both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution was based upon cultural and legal precedents going back as far as the 15th Century. The States that are repeatedly referred to in the Constitution were not administrative subdivisions (like a county, province or prefecture) of a cohesive nation but rather were sovereign States, each with its own government and population, who had some needs and concerns in common with their neighbor States.

Please recall that the preamble states that the Constitution is established "in Order to form a more perfect Union". The States were already unified in their desire to have a central body for their relations with foreign governments (war, diplomatic agreements, and resolving matters regarding the western territories). but the existing Continental Congress was found to be weak and fragmented by regional concerns.

From late May to mid-September the delegates debated, pondered, argued and prayed over the myriad problems they were there to address. The result of their work was a clear and simple document. Our Constitution.

Not all of the delegates were pleased with the convention's results; some left before the signing of the new Constitution, and three of those remaining refused to sign: Edmund Randolph, George Mason of Virginia, and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts. George Mason demanded a Bill of Rights if he was to support the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was finally added and is considered the final compromise of the Convention - several states asked specifically for these amendments when ratifying the Constitution, and others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that a bill of rights would soon follow.Of the 39 who did sign, probably no one was completely satisfied.

Their views were ably summed up by Benjamin Franklin, who said:

"There are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. ... I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. ... It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies..."

(For those who are interested, a very good synopsis of what occurred at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 can be found here.)

It was thought that, as it was written, little in the way of interpretation would be required because few and clear were the powers allocated to the new Government. It didn't take long though, only until the presidency of John Adams, for the Federal Government to begin assuming authority not given to it by the several sovereign States.

Today:
We find ourselves with a central government that is far too removed from, has far too much authority over, and far too little accountability to, the governed. As Prof Barnett suggests, even the hint of a Constitutional Convention would likely be enough to firmly get the attention of the Legislative(and one would suppose Executive and Judicial as well) branch. Even if no conventions are actually held they should get the message that the States that have enacted or are considering sovereignty resolutions are serious and are moving to reclaim their Constitutionally protected autonomy.

The concept of State's Rights shouldn't be as alien to us today as it is. American's fought a war during the mid-19th Century over sovereign State's rights to self determination.

By the way. The flag at the top of this post is called The Bonnie Blue and, though originally a flag of the Republic of West Florida, it has long been used as a symbol of support for State's rights.

Inauguration Day.

2009-01-20T00:14:00.000-08:00

Since 1789 we have inaugurated a President every four years (Notable exceptions being John Tyler (1841), Andrew Johnson (1865), Chester A. Arthur (1881), Theodore Roosevelt (1901), Calvin Coolidge (1923), Harry S. Truman (1945), Lyndon B. Johnson (1963) and Gerald R. Ford (1974).) and endowed them with the authority to lead the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, to act on our behalf with the leaders of foreign nations, to perform the duties of Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and with other powers specifically granted to the President by our Constitution.

We are now inaugurating Barack H. Obama as our 44th President. This in and of itself is not unusual as we've inaugurated Presidents 43 times before. What sets this inauguration apart. What makes it historic in its own right is that, for the first time in American history, our new President is black.

Many see his swearing in as the culmination of the dreams of people like Phyllis Wheatley, Frederick Douglass, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Jackie Robinson, Dr. Martin Luther King and many others.

America, first as colonies of Britain, Spain and France and then as a confederation of independant sovereign states, has slavery as part of its social and economic history. The first African slaves arrived in the British colonies of the eastern coast of America in the early 17th Century. In the years following their arrival, though there would be parts of the growing nation where slavery was either abolished or never began, and exceptional people who escaped it or fought it, it would take another 260+ years, and the forcible reintegration of 11 sovereign states into the confederation, to end slavery in the United States of America.

In the 144 years since, between 1865 and today, blacks in America have gone from being slaves to being whatever their talents and industriousness makes of them. Many are now trades people, business owners, educators, professionals, atheletes, performers, managers, scientists, military officers, executives and even ... politicians.

Which brings us to the doubly historic Presidential inauguration of 2009. First, there can be only one 44th President and Barack H. Obama will forever hold that title. But the second and far more singularly historic part is that, at the same moment, he becomes the first President of African descent.

Is his Presidency the culmination of peoples dreams for black success in America? History will decide that. And when all of the pomp and circumstance of Inauguration Day is done. When the speakers have spoken and the bands have played. When the real work begins the next day what I think that we really need to hope for the Presidency of Barack H. Obama is that he will work not with an eye towards his place in history for he has already made that.

There are those who say they wish for his failure. This is short sighted and does no good for the country. I personally expect that he will work ceaselessly and effectively with both eyes always towards what should be his one goal. That which is best for America.

Congratulations to President Barack H. Obama. Please do us prowd.

The 11th Hour

2008-11-10T18:51:00.000-08:00

11 November, 2008, is the 90th anniversary of the day that the guns fell silent all along the battlefront that stretched from the Flanders region (located in parts of present day Belgium, France and The Netherlands) to the Vosges Mountains in Eastern France. On that day in 1918, at "the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month" the Great War, The War of the Nations, The War to End All Wars, World War 1 came to a close in Europe. Armistice Day (now called Veterans Day in the U.S. and Remembrance Day in other parts of the world) marks only the symbolic end of WW1 because, while the conflict ceased on the Western Front, hostilities continued in other areas for months. It wasn't until 28 June 1919 that the war officially ended with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles by the defeated Germany.

65.3 million men were mobilized among all of the combatants. At the end of the war 7.3 million were dead and another 14.6 million had been wounded.

The end of World War 1 also brought about a speeding up of the collapse of the worlds empires. The German Empire was dissolved by the victors. The British Empire gained some territories from the treaty but, because of the strains of the war, by 1964 the empire was a ghost of its former glory. The The Ottoman Empire disappeared by 1923. The French Empire, like the British, made territorial gains after the war but, by 1962, had ceased to exist. The Russian Empire ended with the 1st Russian Revolution in February of 1917 (This was followed in October of 1917 by the 2nd Russian, or Bolshevik, Revolution) and gave birth to the Soviet Empire which in turn died by 1991. The Japanese Empire saw immense gains during and after the War but ceased to exist by 1945. The Italian Empire gained a few meager territories but, by 1960, dissolved completely. The Portuguese Empire neither gained nor lost territories but by 1999 had divested itself of all of its imperial territories.

Why do I mention empires that have crumbled to a well earned dust? Because many great changes in the world have been brought about as the result of terrible circumstances. As a result of the aftermaths of World War 1 (and also World War 2) far more people enjoy freedom and liberty today than they could have under the empires in existence in the early decades of the 20th century. Great upheavals often bring about great things. And these great things are often bought at great price.

The men who fought and died. The men who left home whole only to return damaged. The men who, on that November morning in 1918, heard the boom of the cannon and the crack of the rifle fall silent and heard, instead, the powerful roar of silence across the land. They all paid a great price.

And many more have done the same in the decades since in places the world over so that more people can enjoy the blessings of freedom and liberty.

But we must also recall the words of the inimitable Thomas Jefferson who said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. There are nations still today who are ruled by those with the same visions of grandeur and power that were found in the leaders of the old empires. And those leaders must be watched. They must be corralled. They must be made powerless to stop the flowering of true democracy. And tasks like this are usually completed by those who take up arms.

And so, on this day, we honor the men who have taken up arms for freedom and liberty in the world. Because to do otherwise is unthinkable.

A Strong Voice for Liberty Passes.

2008-10-27T22:02:00.000-07:00

Popular conservative commentator Dean Barnett has died at the age of 41.

Anyone who read Mr. Barnett's work at The Weekly Standard, at Soxblog, at Townhall or who heard him on The Hugh Hewitt Show knows what a great voice for Liberty he was. The nation, and the world, is a poorer place for his passing.

Here is the announcement that was posted earlier today at The Weekly Standard.

Tributes to Mr. Barnett may be found here.

2008-06-10T21:35:00.000-07:00

Liberty Rides Hard.
There are times when, given the relentless perniciousness of the leftists in our midst and their unabashed contempt for real freedom and liberty, I despair for the future of liberty in the world. I read the scrawlings of scribes, see the posturing of potentates and hear the odium of orators who’ve naught better to say about liberty than there’s just too damned much of it and it should be taxed, regulated or legislated out of existence.

This past weekend I was reminded that all is far from lost in this great nation. That liberty and the freedom to enjoy it are, while fervently sought by those in parts of the world that are far from free, still exercised here by people with a joy for life.

The Ink and Iron Festival is a celebration that merges what some would call Body Art (Tattooing, Piercing, etc) with displays of colorful custom and great classic cars and motorcycles along with musical performances and fantastic food was held at the Queen Mary in Long Beach, California.

The variety of people that were there to enjoy the sights, sounds, smells, tastes and general camaraderie often found when people gather to share an experience was a pleasant escape from daily life. I saw booths and tables where people displayed their skills and plied their trades. I saw a carnival for people to experience thrills and joy. I heard musicians exhibit their talents (or the lack thereof) to the applause or disdain of the assemblage.

I saw people of all types show off the cars, bikes and/or bodies that they had put so much time and expense into. There were Bikers and Punks, Goths and "Gangstas", Cowboys and Metalheads and much variety in between.

I saw sellers hawking leather goods, vehicle parts, videos, bikinis, retro memorabilia, automotive tools, vacations, tattoo/body piercing paraphernalia, jewelry, food and clothing. I saw booths full of merchandise extolling uniqueness and beauty. I saw rebellion and individuality packaged and marketed for mass consumption and I gloried in the irony of it.

And it all reminded me that, as President Franklin Roosevelt said in his 1st inaugural address, "this great nation will endure as it has endured".

While the fight goes on to preserve and advance liberty here and elsewhere, we as a nation still have very far to fall before finding ourselves in the pits of fascism and living in the statist utopia (there’s a contradiction in terms for you) that is so ardently striven for by those most rabidly on the left.

Memorial Day

2008-05-26T18:52:00.000-07:00

Safer to Trust the American People

2008-05-02T00:51:00.000-07:00

William Jennings Bryan was once severely criticized because, while he was a staunch anti-imperialist and spoke against the imperial designs of the worlds major powers of the time, he supported the ratification by the United States of the Treaty of Paris which ended the Spanish-American War and placed Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines under U.S. control (Cuba became independent in 1902, the Philippines became independent in 1946, Puerto Rico and Guam remain U.S. territories by choice.).

When accepting the nomination to be the Democratic candidate in the Presidential elections of 1900 Bryan addressed such criticism by stating "I thought it safer to trust the American people to give independence to the Filipinos than to trust the accomplishment of that purpose to diplomacy with an unfriendly nation (Spain)."

Let's fast forward to the present day. The United States is now engaged in battle with unfriendly forces, in the form of Islamic terrorists, for the continued freedom and the eventual full independence of the people of Afghanistan and of Iraq.

There are those who say that the U.S. conquered two sovereign nations in the names of oil and of imperialism. But at no time do those who make that claim present evidence of any policy, plan or legislation of the U.S. Government to do anything other than to turn full control of those nations over to the Governments that were freely elected (Afghanistan's first free election was in June of 2002. Iraq's was in January of 2005) by the people of those nations once those Governments state that they are ready to take control.

Contrary to the opinions of those who would prefer to see nefarious purpose in the presence of American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq it is quite readily evident that the intention of the United States and of the other members of the multinational coalition is to "pick up our toys and leave" once the home team says they're ready to run solo with the ball. It is true that there may be some U.S. or NATO military presence left in those nations after their Governments take full control but it will only be with the permission of those Governments just the same as it is in Germany or South Korea.

I think it is far "safer to trust the American people" to support and to recognize the freedom and independence of the Afghanis and Iraqis than to trust the accomplishment of that purpose to the good will and peaceful intentions of Islamic Terrorists.

Liberty is ...

2008-05-01T23:58:00.000-07:00

At its core liberty is what grants to each of us the possibility of being able to act in a way that enables us to take control of our own life and realize, to the best of our ability, our potential.

Liberty, though it can come in many forms, is absolutely vital to the health of a society. Without liberty people are stifled, life is oppressive, industry stagnates, nations collapse and cultures are stunted.

Liberty is not something to be granted by any Government, potentate or religious leader. Liberty can be curtailed for one, for a few or for all for a number of reasons. But your intrinsic right to liberty can only be taken by he who gives it. Our right to liberty is granted to us solely by our creator.

It's because the liberty of a nation can be curtailed by a Government, a potentate or a religious leader and the effect such curtailment has on that nation that liberty must be resolutely defended and never willingly surrendered or blithely cast aside.