October 4, 2017--The Second Amendment

No one will ever be able to convince me that the Second Amendment to the Constitution allows someone or anyone such as the Las Vegas mass murderer to possess dozens of high-powered automatic weapons and thousands of rounds of armor piercing ammunition.

In fact, I have read quite a bit about the Founders' intent and history of the amendment that allows citizens to bear arms--especially Michael Waldman's definitive, The Second Amendment: A Biography--and it is obvious even to someone who knows just a little about the early history of our country to conclude otherwise.

The Amendment was exclusively about bearing arms to form a militia. It did not even provide for a right to bear arms for self defense. Perhaps to many it should have, but like it or not it does not. That is a later, much later, 20th century interpretation of the meaning of the Second Amendment.

This was because there was general fear of America, like the then authoritarian European powers, having a centralized, national standing army that could potentially be used to stifle the freedoms of citizens.

But, of course, we now have a standing army, a standing navy, and a standing air force.

The right to bear arms was never intended to preserve the freedom of mass murderers.

At breakfast yesterday morning, John Allan mentioned that on a separate track, the Republican controlled Congress, beholden to the National Rifle Association (note the name of the NRA is not the National Automatic Weapons Association--"Rifle" captures the meaning of their original purpose, an organization for sportsmen and hunters), John mentioned that the House of Representatives was about to pass a bill to make it easier for gun enthusiasts to purchase silencers for their weapons.

I was incredulous. Silencers are for criminals and assassins  not law-abiding citizens. But though John is always well informed and accurate in what he says, I was skeptical that this could possibly be true. Even with the Congress we have and Donald Trump in the White House.

But later in the day, I checked and sadly, as usual, John had it right. At most, reports I read, the massacre in Las Vegas will "slow up" its passage.

James Madison and Thomas Jefferson would not be happy.

November 17, 2014--Co-Equal?

Flipping channels the other morning in search of anything other than the local weather forecast and reports about gridlocked traffic, I paused for a moment on MSNBC to see how their post-election post-mortem was proceeding.

They had already concluded that there was no chance of anything bipartisan happening between a cranky Republican Congress and an equally grumpy Barack Obama, who was about to issue a series of executive orders to deal in part with our immigration mess.

John Boehner was sputtering that if the president did this the GOP would fight him "tooth and nail," some of his members gleefully chiming in in the background that this could lead to Obama's impeachment; while over in the Senate, about-to-be Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said that if Obama signed those executive orders it would "be like waving a red flag in front of a bull" and could easily lead, McConnell threatened, to yet another government shutdown.

Boehner I ignored--he has his Tea Party members to contend with; but I took McConnell at his word because if there is anything he knows about it's bull.

One of the MSNBC panelists pointed out that Obama acting as promised would assure nothing gets done since, "in our system," the federal government is made up of "three co-equal parts" and unless there is some semblance of working together it will mean that more than the traffic will be gridlocked.

Really, I thought. Have the MSNBC folks read their Constitution recently?

In fact, in great detail, whatever we think of it, the Constitution goes to great length to make certain that the three branches of our government will be anything but equal or, if you prefer, co-equal. And to assure that the Congress, which at least theoretically most represents "the people," in fear of European-like monarchal tyranny or dominance by corrupt and unrepresentative courts, our Founders took care to structure things so that Congress would be preeminent.

Not the executive branch and not even the Supreme Court. In fact, creating the Supreme Court was an afterthought on the part of the Framers. That's how much they despised and feared the potential power of a corrupt judiciary. And so they severely limited its powers. As they did the presidency, again, for fear of tyranny.

Congress has the exclusive power to enact laws (forget executive orders which by their nature are constitutionally questionable--something we may see tested if Obama does his immigration thing) and once passed and approved the executive, like it or not, the president must enforce. Indeed, though bills passed by Congress must be approved by the president, if they are vetoed, the Congress still has the ultimate authority to enact them by voting to overturn that veto. And if the president refuses to follow the Constitution he can be impeached and removed from office. By Congress. As can Supreme Court and other federal judges. Again, solely by Congress. Only voters can get rid of even felonious or demagogic congressmen.

This doesn't sound co-equal to me.

What about the president's constitutional prerogatives as Commander in Chief? Doesn't that make him preeminent? Not really.

When the Constitution was written in 1787 the new republic didn't have a standing army and so there was very little for the Commander in Chief to command. In fact, the Framers were reluctant to agree to a standing federal militia or navy. That too they saw to be a threat to representative government. Again, looking toward Europe, it was the last thing they wanted.

It is only since the Second World War when, because of the advent of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles and the speed with which they can be launched, that so much retaliatory power has accrued to the presidency. But, again with the necessary acquiescence of Congress. It is felt that the national security state that we have become requires such powers be granted to the president. But, if Congress disapproves of presidential military ventures it has the exclusive power of the purse--only Congress can authorize governmental spending.

This doesn't sound co-equal to me.

And when it comes to the Supreme Court, it too is a bit less than supreme. True, for the most part, when they rule it becomes the so-called "law of the land." But they rule about very little and even if and when they do, if Congress does not like a ruling it can pass other similar laws designed to get around SCOTUS rulings and, if that fails, amend the Constitution. Admittedly this is a rare and arduous process, but still the power resides with the Congress (and the states) to change if they wish our most sacred document.

Again, this doesn't sound co-equal to me.

Like it or not, the structure of the government we have is not as viable as it was in the sleepier 18th, 19th, and even 20th centuries. But it is what we have. Governmental gridlock was not something to be avoided, but was a desired part of the process. A relatively weak and unintrusive federal government is what our Founders intentionally framed for us and though we now know how intrusive an unfettered government can be, because of checks and balances, an ineffective government with a dominant Congress is what we have. Just what was intended.

April 29, 2014--Career Politicians

Congressman Aaron Schook, Republican from Illinois, was a guest on Monday’s Morning Joe.

His current claims to fame? He just returned from a trip to six European countries accompanying Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan. And, more interesting, he had recently posted an Instagram photo of himself surfing in what looked more like Waikiki than Kiev.

When pressed about the photo, the former Cosmo model said that since nothing is private any more, wanting to control how he is perceived by the public, he is now posting things about himself to get control of his own "narrative."

As if there is pent-up desire for anyone to want to know more about him, much less how he looks in a bathing suit. Actually, quite hot, which, I was imagining, was why he was booked for Joe in the first place since when asked about anything involving public policy or foreign affairs, he sputtered innocuously, with a vacant but handsome look from standard Republican talking points.

When asked about immigration reform he said, correctly, that nothing will happen this congressional session unless Republicans and Democrats work together.

“Why is that so difficult?” he was asked.

He shrugged his shoulders and with a sigh said that when you think about running for Congress and then during the early days if elected, your desire to do “the right thing” evaporates when you realize this is “a hard thing to do.”

To this glimpse of insight there was no follow up.

Neither Mika nor any of the others (Joe was not present) asked why it’s hard.

Perhaps because they already knew the answer—new congressmen quickly learn that in the House to get along you have to go along with your party’s leadership (Democrats as well GOPers). And, in order to give yourself the best chance to be reelected every two years you have to tow the party line and not alienate the money people who will provide the cash to fund your campaigns.

Debriefing with Rona over coffee we talked about why neither of us has ever heard a reporter or cable news host probe why seemingly every member of Congress sees getting reelected time after time as his or her highest priority.

Rather than seeing this form of public service to be just that—service—all seemingly are primarily interested in building congressional careers.

Our Founders envisioned participation in the government to be a responsibility, not résumé building. They didn’t call for members of Congress to be paid (for years they weren’t) much less have retirement and health insurance benefits. Or, congressional barbershops, restaurants, and gyms.

They would be horrified to see people lingering in Congress for decades.

Wouldn’t it have been interesting for someone on Morning Joe to have asked Congressman Schook, who is a conservative and reveres the Constitution, how he reconciles his own congressional careerist ambitions with the vision of those who fought our Revolution, wrote our Constitution, and called for citizens to play limited and temporary roles in our government.

I’m not sure there are talking points for that. Either for congressmen or, for that matter, talk show hosts.