Al Gore Concession Speech among American History's Finest

Whether or not you approve of the United Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore, it effectively resolved the bitterly contested 2000 presidential election.

That being said, the lion's share of the credit for the peaceful transition must be accorded to Mr. Gore, himself. He chose to abide by the the Supreme Court ruling. Had he behaved differently, America could have experienced riots in all its major cities, and perhaps even civil war.

In a concession speech a day after the ruling, Mr. Gore told the American public:

"Just moments ago, I spoke with George W. Bush and congratulated him on becoming the 43rd president of the United States. ... I offered to meet with him as soon as possible so that we can start to heal the divisions of the campaign and the contest through which we've just passed.

"Almost a century and a half ago, Sen. Stephen Douglas told Abraham Lincoln, who had just defeated him for the presidency, 'Partisan feeling must yield to patriotism. I'm with you, Mr. President, and God bless you.' Well, in that same spirit, I say to President-elect Bush that what remains of partisan rancor must now be put aside, and may God bless his stewardship of this country. Neither he nor I anticipated this long and difficult road. Certainly neither of us wanted it to happen. Yet it came, and now it has ended, resolved, as it must be resolved, through the honored institutions of our democracy.

"Over the library of one of our great law schools is inscribed the motto, 'Not under man but under God and law.' That's the ruling principle of American freedom, the source of our democratic liberties. I've tried to make it my guide throughout this contest, as it has guided America's deliberations of all the complex issues of the past five weeks.

"Now the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken. Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court's decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College.

"And tonight, for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession. I also accept my responsibility, which I will discharge unconditionally, to honor the new president-elect and do everything possible to help him bring Americans together in fulfillment of the great vision that our Declaration of Independence defines and that our Constitution affirms and defends. ....

"This has been an extraordinary election. But in one of God's unforeseen paths, this belatedly broken impasse can point us all to a new common ground, for its very closeness can serve to remind us that we are one people with a shared history and a shared destiny.

"Indeed, that history gives us many examples of contests as hotly debated, as fiercely fought, with their own challenges to the popular will. Other disputes have dragged on for weeks before reaching resolution. And each time, both the victor and the vanquished have accepted the result peacefully and in a spirit of reconciliation.

"So let it be with us.

"I know that many of my supporters are disappointed. I am too. But our disappointment must be overcome by our love of country. ...

"The strength of American democracy is shown most clearly through the difficulties it can overcome. Some have expressed concern that the unusual nature of this election might hamper the next president in the conduct of his office. I do not believe it need be so.

"President-elect Bush inherits a nation whose citizens will be ready to assist him in the conduct of his large responsibilities. I, personally, will be at his disposal, and I call on all Americans -- I particularly urge all who stood with us -- to unite behind our next president.

"This is America. Just as we fight hard when the stakes are high, we close ranks and come together when the contest is done. And while there will be time enough to debate our continuing differences, now is the time to recognize that that which unites us is greater than that which divides us. While we yet hold and do not yield our opposing beliefs, there is a higher duty than the one we owe to political party. This is America and we put country before party; we will stand together behind our new president."

I regard Mr. Gore's concession speech as one of our nation's greatest speeches. It is eloquent both in what was said and in Mr. Gore's commitment to the rule of law. Imagine what he could have said. Envision him having said, "This election was stolen!" Or, "I will not abide a corrupt decision of a corrupt partisan court!" Imagine him demanding "a new election, with international monitors." Or calling for his supporters to "take to the streets to prevent obstruction of the will of the voters." Mr. Gore's speech saved our Republic from chaos and possible civil war.

But as dangerous as the 2000 situation was, imagine a future election scenario with the challenger eeking out the narrowest of wins, with the president calling the decision "a corrupt decision by a out-of-touch partisan court." Imagine further the president refusing to abide by the high court's decision, declaring himself the winner, and stationing troops in the streets to maintain his power. Such a thing has never happened in America, but it could in the future.

This is why Mr. Gore deserves to be greatly respected for what he said and did.

Posted Online: July 19, 2012, 3:19 pm  - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea

AT WHAT POINT SHOULD A CHURCH ENTER THE POLITICAL THICKET?

   

    The Catholic Church has sued the Obama Administration. Bishop Daniel Jenky

of Peoria explains why:

    'We all know that our religious freedom is under direct attack as articulated

    in the federal government's Health and Human Services Mandate. ... “The

    mandate forces Catholic schools, universities, hospitals, and charitable groups

    to provide insurance coverage of abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives and
   
    sterilization. This is directly contrary to our Catholic mission and violates our

    religious freedom.''


    But if the Obama Administration is truly directly attacking the “religious freedom”

of Catholics and the Catholic Church, why isn’t the church calling upon its membership

to “dump” President Obama in the fall election. If killing fetuses is truly a grave moral wrong,

why “pussy foot.” Why merely suggest that Catholics should “vote their consciences?” Why not

come right out and call for the President’s defeat? I suggest there are two reason.

   
    Father Michael Schaab of St. Pius Parish in Rock Island gives the first reason:

    “People always are concerned and leery that the church doesn't get into

    situations in which it looks as if they're being told how to vote. But the Bishop

    has been clear that's not the intent,''


    But if the church really believes abortion is tantamount to murder, why isn’t that “the

intent?” What’s the purpose of having a church if it won’t forcefully speak out against

what it perceives to be the equivalent of murder?


    So why doesn’t the church come right out and say, “If you truly believe that

abortion is a grave moral wrong, you can’t vote for President Obama in the fall? Indeed,

prior to 1954 the Churches were not so circumspect.


    On the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) website, you will find the following, which I

suspect is the real reason for the church “pulling its punches.”


    “In 1954, Congress approved an amendment by Sen. Lyndon Johnson to

     prohibit 501(c)(3) organizations, which includes ... churches, from engaging

    in any political campaign activity. [O]ver the years, it has in fact strengthened

     the ban. The most recent change came in 1987 when Congress amended the

    language to clarify that the prohibition also applies to statements opposing

    candidates.

    “Currently, the law prohibits political campaign activity ...  churches by

    defining a 501(c)(3) organization as one "which does not participate in,

    or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements),

    any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate

    or public office."

    So, the question is this: Does the church have a realistic fear that if that if it descends into

the “political thicket,” that it will lose its tax exempt status? You decide. That same web site also

states

    “For the 2006 election cycle, the IRS received 237 referrals and

    selected 100 (44 churches, 56 nonchurches) for examination. More
   
    than half of these cases are still under investigation. However, the

    IRS did substantiate improper political activity in 26 cases and issued

    written advisories. So far, there are no revocation recommendations.



   But why does the IRS’s conduct not violate the First Amendment. That amendment

states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the

free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech ...”


    If a President raised a campaign war fund of a billion dollars with the promise he would

repeal the 13th Amendment and re-enslave all blacks, wouldn’t the churches, as a free exercise

of their religion and speech, have a right to denounce him and encourage the election of his

opponent? What if the President called for the extermination of all Jews, Catholics and Baptists,

or the suppression of all religions, wouldn’t the churches have the right to compare him to

Hitler and Stalin, and call upon their congregations to make sure he was not re-elected?


    There is a Constitutional reason that the churches are not taxed. Chief Justice John

Marshall long ago said “the power to tax is the power to destroy.” In 1970, in Walz v. Tax

Commissioner, Mr. Chief Justice Burger wrote

    “The legislative purpose of a property tax exemption is neither the advancement

    nor the inhibition of religion; it is neither sponsorship nor hostility. ...


    “Granting tax exemptions to churches necessarily operates to afford an

    indirect economic benefit ..., but yet a lesser involvement than taxing them.


     The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between

    church and state and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal

    relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce

    the desired separation insulating each from the other.”


    For the 2006 election cycle, the IRS investigated 100 churches, and found 26 violations.

It revoked no tax exemptions. Why? Because the IRS has to know that to do so would violate

First Amendment (free exercise of religion and free speech) rights, and would be

unconstitutional. No rule is better settled than that the First Amendment exists first and foremost

to guarantee political speech. Where true political speech is involved, “no law” means “no law.”


    In the much maligned (by liberals) 2009 case of Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm.

the court said bluntly:

        “We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of
   
         political speech, the Government may impose restrictions
   
        on certain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic
   
        lead us to this conclusion.”


  The “disfavored speakers” who brought the Citizens United case were corporations who wished

to use their “general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech

 (“electioneering communication”) ... expressly advocating the defeat of a candidate.” The Court

stated, “the Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations.” Most

churches are corporations. And if under Citizens United, they can expend funds to advocate the

“election or defeat of a candidate, they certainly can engage in pure speech to advocate the

“defeat” of a candidate.


   But even if the churches would have to sacrifice their tax exemptions to condemn grave

moral wrongs, shouldn’t they do so?  If they fail to speak out in the face of who and what they

perceive to grave evil, who needs them?

Posted Online: July 17, 2012, 7:21 a. m.  - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012, John Donald O'Shea 

   




  

Alexander Hamilton Wins: Congress Is All-powerful

"Congress may also 'lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.'" -- Article 1, U.S. Constitution

Chief Justice John Roberts and four liberal justice have written an opinion upholding Obamacare which conclusively demonstrates why the Constitution must be construed consistently with the intent of people who wrote it, but even more importantly, with the intent of the people of the 13 states who voted to adopt it in 1789.

The chief justice begins the majority opinion with a statement of law that nobody who has studied the Constitution could possibly disagree with:

"The Federal Government 'is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers.' That is, rather than granting general authority to perform all the conceivable functions of government, the Constitution lists, or enumerates, the Federal Government's powers. ... The Constitution's express conferral of some powers makes clear that it does not grant others. And the federal government 'can exercise only the powers granted to it.'"

From there, the chief justice, goes on to write an opinion that gives the U.S. government a power to tax so extensive, that had it been so explained by the "Federalists" to voters prior to its 1789 ratification, the people of the 13 states would have overwhelmingly voted against it.

Indeed, the opinion grants Congress an unlimited power to tax for the "general welfare" -- a power that no American in his right mind would have voted for in 1789.

Here are excepts from the opinion that show just what the five-judge majority said.

"The Government advances two theories that Congress had constitutional authority to enact the individual mandate. First, the Government argues that Congress had the power to enact the mandate under the Commerce Clause. Under that theory, Congress may order individuals to buy health insurance because the failure to do so affects interstate commerce, and could undercut the Affordable Care Act's other reforms. Second, the Government argues that if the commerce power does not support the mandate, we should nonetheless uphold it as an exercise of Congress' power to tax."

The court did not sustain the constitutionality of the "individual mandate" under the power to "regulate commerce."

What it said in reference to the Commerce Clause, was dicta unnecessary to its ultimate holding, "The Constitution grants Congress the power to 'regulate Commerce.'

"... The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated. "The Framers gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it, and for over 200 years both our decisions and Congress's actions have reflected this understanding. There is no reason to depart from that understanding now."

The majority clearly held that under the Commerce Clause the Framers "gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it."

That much of the opinion was consistent with the the court's earlier statement that government 'is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers." But all that was unnecessary to the ultimate decision.

The five-judge majority rendered its decision relying on the "taxing power" to, in effect, "regulate commerce" to an extent not authorized by the "commerce power" itself:

"There may, however, be a more fundamental objection to a tax on those who lack health insurance. Even if only a tax, the payment under 5000A(b) remains a burden that the Federal Government imposes for an omission, not an act.

"If it is troubling to interpret the Commerce Clause as authorizing Congress to regulate those who abstain from commerce, perhaps it should be similarly troubling to permit Congress to impose a tax for not doing something."

So, if the intent of the Framers is important, why isn't the intent of the American people who voted to ratify the Constitution in 1789 even more important? Did they have any inkling in 1789 that in voting to ratify the constitution they were authorizing Congress to impose a tax for not doing something?

Under this holding, Congress has to tax you to "provide for the General Welfare:"

-- If you heat your home with natural gas, or if you don't heat your home with solar panels;

-- If you have children, or if you don't have children

-- If you have too many children or not enough children;

-- If you use contraceptives, or if you don't use contraceptives or if you use too many contraceptives, or not enough contraceptives;

-- If you have an abortion, or if you don't have an abortion;

-- If you eat broccoli, or if you don't eat broccoli.

-- If you are too fat, don't go on a diet

-- If you eat anything the government deems unhealthful;

-- If you breathe, inhale oxygen, or exhale CO2;

-- Or if you die.

Are these the powers Americans in 1789 intended to vest in Congress?

What is the point of creating a government of "enumerated powers," if, by use of the "taxing power," government power is unlimited."

Alexander Hamilton's theory of an unlimited "taxing power" as expressed in his "Report on Manufactures to the House of Representatives" has been taken to the extreme by five justices.

The views of Madison, Jefferson, Calhoun and the American people who voted to ratify the Constitution have been relegated to the ash can.

I now see why the figure of justice is always seen wearing a blindfold: it is so she can't see the damage being done to the original intent of our Forefathers by judges writing the opinions.

Posted Online: July 05, 2012, 5:00 a.m. - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012, John Donald O'Shea