Since the great 1964 Supreme Court case of Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 553, the rule in American elections (except in the case of U. S. Senate elections) has been "One person, one vote." But is that rule fatally undermined by a second rule that allows individuals, corporations, unions and PACs to make virtually unlimited "campaign donations" to candidates seeking election and re-election?
It is difficult to imagine a more eloquent and incisive explanation of the importance "one person, one vote" to a democracy, than the court made in Reynolds.
Plaintiffs filed a complaint contending that the apportionment of the Alabama Legislature resulted in a denial of "equal protection" under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
The district court found that "Population-variance ratios of up to about 41-to-1 existed in the (Alabama) Senate, and up to about 16-to-1 in the House. Bullock County, with a population of only 13,462, and Henry County, with a population of only 15,286, each were allocated two seats in the Alabama House, whereas Mobile County, with a population of 314,301, was given only three seats, and Jefferson County, with 634,864 people, had only seven representatives."
The district court said plaintiffs were denied equal protection "by virtue of the debasement of their votes since the Legislature of the State of Alabama has failed and continues to fail to reapportion itself as required by law."
On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision stating: "Undeniably the Constitution of the United States protects the right of all qualified citizens to vote, in state as well as in federal elections.... It has been repeatedly recognized that all qualified voters have a constitutionally protected right to vote ... and to have their votes counted. ... The right to vote can neither be denied outright, ... nor destroyed by alteration of ballots, ... nor diluted by ballot-box stuffing. The right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government. ... And the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise."
Citing its previous opinion in Gray v. Sanders, the court said, "How then can one person be given twice or ten times the voting power of another person in a statewide election merely because he lives in a rural area or because he lives in the smallest rural county? Once the geographical unit for which a representative is to be chosen is designated, all who participate in the election are to have an equal vote -- whatever their race, whatever their sex, whatever their occupation, whatever their income, and wherever their home may be in that geographical unit.
"This is required by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The concept of 'we the people' under the Constitution visualizes no preferred class of voters but equality among those who meet the basic qualifications. The idea that every voter is equal to every other voter in his State, when he casts his ballot in favor of one of several competing candidates, underlies many of our decisions.
"Continuing, we stated that 'there is no indication in the Constitution that homesite or occupation affords a permissible basis for distinguishing between qualified voters within the State.' And, finally, we concluded: 'The conception of political equality from the Declaration of Independence, to Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, to the Fifteenth, Seventeenth, and Nineteenth Amendments can mean only one thing -- one person, one vote.'"
The court added, "'We found further, in Wesberry, that 'our Constitution's plain objective' was that 'of making equal representation ... for equal numbers of people the fundamental goal ...' We concluded by stating: 'No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined. Our Constitution leaves no room for classification of people in a way that unnecessarily abridges this right.'"
The Reynolds decision unequivocally states:
-- The right to vote granted by our Constitution "can mean only one thing — one person, one vote."
-- The right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is of the "essence of a democratic society."
-- Any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government;
-- And the right of suffrage can be denied by a "debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise."
But there is a problem. Corporations, unions, PACs and very wealthy rich people can use their money to change the result of elections. Consider the effect of negative TV ads. A candidate atop the polls on Monday, can be at the bottom a couple days after the negative ads hit.
I may have one vote, just like George Soros, or Donald Trump. But their money -- like corporate, union and PAC money -- gives them power to influence voters to vote for the candidates they favor and against the candidates they oppose, that neither you nor I could ever hope to possess.
A friend of mine, a good attorney and lifelong Democrat, recently told me that the "system is broken, and cannot be fixed." I agree with him that the system is broken. But I still think it can be fixed -- but, only if something drastic is done.
Unless limits are placed on what individuals, unions, corporations and PACs can donate to candidates and incumbents anticipating re-election, all is lost.
The obvious solution is to set a "safe limit" (so small that no reasonable person would see it as an attempt to buy influence, and so small that no candidate or office holder would cast his vote in consideration of the donation).
Additionally, allow these "small, safe" donations only to come from individuals.
But if you feel compelled to allow unions, corporations, PACs and other entities to contribute, limit their contribution to the maximum one individual can give.
Individuals can join political parties, and vote for the candidates of that party. But they still must each cast their individual ballot. Freedom of association does not give them the right to "bundle" their vote.
The same must be true of political donations.
No person or entity can be allowed to bundle cash donations. Once bundling is allowed, bushel baskets of campaign donations drown out the voice of individual voters.
Unless something can be done to prevent candidates and office holders from taking donations in sums which appear to the public, the candidates and the officerholders to be large enough to give the appearance buying influence, I would have to agree that "things cannot be fixed."
Posted Online: Jan. 11, 2012, 3:31 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2012, John Donald O'Shea
Thursday, January 12, 2012
So, When Exactly is "Lawful Plunder" Appropriate?
In some of my earlier op-eds, I have argued that a just society "redistributes income" only in amounts sufficient to help people who are incapable of providing for their most basic needs.
But I have also argued that "income redistribution" when misused can quickly degenerate into "plunder."
(Note: I am not unmindful of the danger of all income in the nation gravitating into the hands of just a few. I plan to address this issue in the near future. But I am limited in space.)
I have argued that there is nothing "fair" about people who pay no federal income taxes, while insisting that tax rates be increased only on their "rich neighbors" who already pay most of the taxes, so that the "rich" will pay their "fair share."
Today I would argue that there is nothing "fair" about two large corporations, Sears and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, getting tax breaks amounting to $330 million per year, not available to all other Illinois corporations.
Gov. Pat Quinn justifies them saying, "You have to defend yourself. If Ohio is offering $400 million to Sears (to relocate) ... we will defend ourselves."
Translated, that means, that since Ohio is about to plunder Illinois, Illinois will allow Sears and the CME to plunder Illinois -- it will allow Sears and CME to escape the recent increase in the state income tax to 9.5 percent, while leaving the tax in place for all other corporations not threatening -- as yet -- to relocate.
If 9.5 percent is too high for the big boys to pay, and was a lousy idea in their cases, why don't the governor and legislators admit the increase in the state income tax was a lousy idea, and repeal it?
If there is something unseemly about the poor plundering the rich, there is something more unseemly about the rich plundering the poor.
In 1850, a French economist, Frederick Bastiat, wrote a pamphlet titled, "The Law."
In this age, when Congress gives a $500 million to Solyndra, and bails out Wall Street and GM with taxpayer dollars, does Bastiat look like a prophet?
"If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly.
"The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.
"But there is ... another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others... Man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others.... Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain -- and since labor is pain in itself -- it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work.
"Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter -- by peaceful or revolutionary means --into the making of laws. Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.
"As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder .... They emulate their ... predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests.
"In order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. Under these circumstances, then certainly every class will aspire to grasp the law, and logically so. The excluded classes will furiously demand their right to vote — and will overthrow society rather than not to obtain it.... They will say to you: since everyone else uses the law for his own profit, we also would like to use the law for our own profit.
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder.
"Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame, danger, and scruple which their acts would otherwise involve. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons, and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal.
"But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.
"Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole -- with their common aim of legal plunder -- constitute socialism."
Posted Online: Jan. 04, 2012, 2:09 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2012, John Donald O'Shea
But I have also argued that "income redistribution" when misused can quickly degenerate into "plunder."
(Note: I am not unmindful of the danger of all income in the nation gravitating into the hands of just a few. I plan to address this issue in the near future. But I am limited in space.)
I have argued that there is nothing "fair" about people who pay no federal income taxes, while insisting that tax rates be increased only on their "rich neighbors" who already pay most of the taxes, so that the "rich" will pay their "fair share."
Today I would argue that there is nothing "fair" about two large corporations, Sears and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, getting tax breaks amounting to $330 million per year, not available to all other Illinois corporations.
Gov. Pat Quinn justifies them saying, "You have to defend yourself. If Ohio is offering $400 million to Sears (to relocate) ... we will defend ourselves."
Translated, that means, that since Ohio is about to plunder Illinois, Illinois will allow Sears and the CME to plunder Illinois -- it will allow Sears and CME to escape the recent increase in the state income tax to 9.5 percent, while leaving the tax in place for all other corporations not threatening -- as yet -- to relocate.
If 9.5 percent is too high for the big boys to pay, and was a lousy idea in their cases, why don't the governor and legislators admit the increase in the state income tax was a lousy idea, and repeal it?
If there is something unseemly about the poor plundering the rich, there is something more unseemly about the rich plundering the poor.
In 1850, a French economist, Frederick Bastiat, wrote a pamphlet titled, "The Law."
In this age, when Congress gives a $500 million to Solyndra, and bails out Wall Street and GM with taxpayer dollars, does Bastiat look like a prophet?
"If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly.
"The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.
"But there is ... another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others... Man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others.... Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain -- and since labor is pain in itself -- it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work.
"Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter -- by peaceful or revolutionary means --into the making of laws. Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.
"As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder .... They emulate their ... predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests.
"In order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. Under these circumstances, then certainly every class will aspire to grasp the law, and logically so. The excluded classes will furiously demand their right to vote — and will overthrow society rather than not to obtain it.... They will say to you: since everyone else uses the law for his own profit, we also would like to use the law for our own profit.
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder.
"Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame, danger, and scruple which their acts would otherwise involve. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons, and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal.
"But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.
"Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole -- with their common aim of legal plunder -- constitute socialism."
Posted Online: Jan. 04, 2012, 2:09 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2012, John Donald O'Shea
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Can Congress Tax Americans on the Right to Breath?
(Editor's note: This is the second of two columns on the constitutionality of Obamacare.)
Last Thursday, I opined that the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) under Congress' power to provide for the general welfare.
The second issue, is this: Did Congress under Article I, Section 8 have the power to fund Obamacare by imposing an individual mandate? That is, does Congress have power to require every American (or their employer) either to purchase health Insurance from a health insurance carrier or to pay a fine?
There is, of course, the possibility that the court will uphold the legislation under the commerce clause. But is an American reading a book in his own living room engaged in interstate commerce? Can it fairly be said that because 20 or 50 years from now, he may be unable to pay for hospital care, and that the government may be required to pay those bills, that he is presently engaged in interstate commerce? Or that his present conduct affects interstate commerce?
Does the power to regulate interstate commerce give Congress power to require individual Americans to engage in commerce -- that is, to buy insurance? I don't think so.
It is one thing to regulate the conduct of someone engaged in or intending to become engaged in the near future. It is a very different thing to tell someone that he must get engaged in interstate commerce.
The commerce clause argument in favor of the individual mandate, however, is also premised on Congress' additional power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers."
It will be argued that the individual mandate has been determined by Congress to be "necessary" or "proper" to support the health care scheme. When an America has health insurance, that limits the risk that the government, somewhere in the future, will be required to pay that American's health care bills, or, at least, substantial portions thereof.
It can be argued that if an American refuses to buy such coverage, the penalty will create a fund which the government can use to pay his uncovered bills. But if that were the case, then the "penalty" is very much like a "tax," (I am using the word "tax" in its everyday nontechnical sense.) To put it another way, forcing someone to pay money to the government to provide a fund to help the government deal with health care costs looks to me to be more in the nature of an exercise of the "taxing" power," than a "regulation of commerce."
Therefore, it seems to me that if the individual mandate is to be upheld, the justification will again have to be found in the taxing power. Congress clearly has ... "power to 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." Note, there is no mention that Congress has power to collect penalties to provide for the general welfare.
So, is the individual mandate a tax? A duty? An impost? An excise? As used in Article I, Section 8, the word "tax" is used in a technical sense. In common parlance, we refer to duties, imposts and excise as "taxes." But in Article I, Section 8, a "tax" is something other than a duty, impost or excise.
Section 8 clearly provides that "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes ... to ... provide for ... the general welfare." But as requiring someone to buy insurance is not a tax on "income," the 16th Amendment, which allows Congress "to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the states, and without regard to any census or enumeration," clearly has no application.
And if it is a "tax," it is clearly unconstitutional because Article 8 provides, "No capitation, or other direct tax (as opposed to a 'requisition') shall be laid unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken." And whatever else can be said about the individual mandate, no one has claimed that it was created "in proportion to the census."
Additionally, it is obvious that the individual mandate is not a duty or and impost. Duties and imposts are levies on goods imported into the U.S.
So, if it isn't a tax ( in the constitutional sense), a duty or an impost, then to be authorized by the Constitution, it would have to be an excise. Is it?
An excise is a tax on doing something. It can be a tax on the production, use, sale or transfer of goods. Or it can be a tax on doing business, on the right to employ another, or on earning income. It can be a tax on passing one's property to an heir or legatee at death. So, if it is an excise, what "doing something" is being taxed? Breathing? Living? Being a citizen? Will the court for the first time say that Congress can lay and excise on the privilege of "being an American?" Or can Congress levy an excise on the privilege of "doing nothing" (not buying insurance)?
And of course, while Congress has been given "power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises," neither that section nor any other empowers Congress to require Americans to buy goods or services from anyone.
The court will find that Congress has power to provide for national health care. It seems to me that Alexander Hamilton's argument will again prevail, just as it prevailed when the U. S. Supreme Court upheld Social Security in the 1930s.
So, I think the constitutionality of the act will turn on my second question: Can Congress lay an excise on the right of Americans to breathe, live, or to be Americans?
The court never has said Congress has that power up until now. I am guessing it won't do so now. If it allows the funding penalty to stand, it will have to say that an excise can be a tax on"doing something, and even on doing nothing.
If Congress has such power, bye, bye liberty. It could require every American to purchase insurance coverage from the day he is born until the day he dies. And it could then also tax eating, sleeping, breathing .....
But given the fact that our forefathers came to America in search of liberty, it is really hard to believe that they gave Congress power to tax their right to breathe or be Americans.
Posted Online: Dec. 14, 2011, 2:30 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2011, John Donald O'Shea
Last Thursday, I opined that the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) under Congress' power to provide for the general welfare.
The second issue, is this: Did Congress under Article I, Section 8 have the power to fund Obamacare by imposing an individual mandate? That is, does Congress have power to require every American (or their employer) either to purchase health Insurance from a health insurance carrier or to pay a fine?
There is, of course, the possibility that the court will uphold the legislation under the commerce clause. But is an American reading a book in his own living room engaged in interstate commerce? Can it fairly be said that because 20 or 50 years from now, he may be unable to pay for hospital care, and that the government may be required to pay those bills, that he is presently engaged in interstate commerce? Or that his present conduct affects interstate commerce?
Does the power to regulate interstate commerce give Congress power to require individual Americans to engage in commerce -- that is, to buy insurance? I don't think so.
It is one thing to regulate the conduct of someone engaged in or intending to become engaged in the near future. It is a very different thing to tell someone that he must get engaged in interstate commerce.
The commerce clause argument in favor of the individual mandate, however, is also premised on Congress' additional power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers."
It will be argued that the individual mandate has been determined by Congress to be "necessary" or "proper" to support the health care scheme. When an America has health insurance, that limits the risk that the government, somewhere in the future, will be required to pay that American's health care bills, or, at least, substantial portions thereof.
It can be argued that if an American refuses to buy such coverage, the penalty will create a fund which the government can use to pay his uncovered bills. But if that were the case, then the "penalty" is very much like a "tax," (I am using the word "tax" in its everyday nontechnical sense.) To put it another way, forcing someone to pay money to the government to provide a fund to help the government deal with health care costs looks to me to be more in the nature of an exercise of the "taxing" power," than a "regulation of commerce."
Therefore, it seems to me that if the individual mandate is to be upheld, the justification will again have to be found in the taxing power. Congress clearly has ... "power to 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." Note, there is no mention that Congress has power to collect penalties to provide for the general welfare.
So, is the individual mandate a tax? A duty? An impost? An excise? As used in Article I, Section 8, the word "tax" is used in a technical sense. In common parlance, we refer to duties, imposts and excise as "taxes." But in Article I, Section 8, a "tax" is something other than a duty, impost or excise.
Section 8 clearly provides that "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes ... to ... provide for ... the general welfare." But as requiring someone to buy insurance is not a tax on "income," the 16th Amendment, which allows Congress "to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the states, and without regard to any census or enumeration," clearly has no application.
And if it is a "tax," it is clearly unconstitutional because Article 8 provides, "No capitation, or other direct tax (as opposed to a 'requisition') shall be laid unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken." And whatever else can be said about the individual mandate, no one has claimed that it was created "in proportion to the census."
Additionally, it is obvious that the individual mandate is not a duty or and impost. Duties and imposts are levies on goods imported into the U.S.
So, if it isn't a tax ( in the constitutional sense), a duty or an impost, then to be authorized by the Constitution, it would have to be an excise. Is it?
An excise is a tax on doing something. It can be a tax on the production, use, sale or transfer of goods. Or it can be a tax on doing business, on the right to employ another, or on earning income. It can be a tax on passing one's property to an heir or legatee at death. So, if it is an excise, what "doing something" is being taxed? Breathing? Living? Being a citizen? Will the court for the first time say that Congress can lay and excise on the privilege of "being an American?" Or can Congress levy an excise on the privilege of "doing nothing" (not buying insurance)?
And of course, while Congress has been given "power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises," neither that section nor any other empowers Congress to require Americans to buy goods or services from anyone.
The court will find that Congress has power to provide for national health care. It seems to me that Alexander Hamilton's argument will again prevail, just as it prevailed when the U. S. Supreme Court upheld Social Security in the 1930s.
So, I think the constitutionality of the act will turn on my second question: Can Congress lay an excise on the right of Americans to breathe, live, or to be Americans?
The court never has said Congress has that power up until now. I am guessing it won't do so now. If it allows the funding penalty to stand, it will have to say that an excise can be a tax on"doing something, and even on doing nothing.
If Congress has such power, bye, bye liberty. It could require every American to purchase insurance coverage from the day he is born until the day he dies. And it could then also tax eating, sleeping, breathing .....
But given the fact that our forefathers came to America in search of liberty, it is really hard to believe that they gave Congress power to tax their right to breathe or be Americans.
Posted Online: Dec. 14, 2011, 2:30 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2011, John Donald O'Shea
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Will the Supreme Court Uphold Obamacare? Part 1
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on whether The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") is constitutional.
The high court has stated that it will rule on the issues by July 4, 2012. As I see it, the court will consider two principal issues:
-- Could Congress rationally determine that it had power to create a national health care system (and that it needed to do so), and
-- Could Congress fund the system, by requiring Americans (or their employers) either to buy their own health insurance, or to pay a penalty.
Whether the legislation will be declared "constitutional" or "unconstitutional," will probably be based on the court's reading of Article 8 [1] of the U. S. Constitution, which provides:
"The Congress shall have the power to 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;"
The first issue is this: Could Congress fairly conclude that it might pass Obamacare (and needed to do so) in furtherance of the general welfare?
Arguments on that issue were first made almost immediately after our constitution was adopted. Those who argue that the law should be upheld will in all likelihood cite the 1791 Report on Manufactures to the House of Representatives by Alexander Hamilton, the first secretary of the Treasury.
"The National Legislature has express authority 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare,' with no other qualifications than (a) that 'all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States; and (b) that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to numbers, ascertained by a census or enumeration, taken on the principles prescribed in the constitution, and (c) that no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State.'
"These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary and indefinite, and the objects to which it may be appropriated, are no less comprehensive than the payment of the public debts, and the providing for the common defence and general welfare. The terms 'general welfare' were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which preceded; otherwise, numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a nation would have been left without a provision The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union to appropriate its revenues should have been restricted within narrower limits than the "general welfare;" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.
"It is, therefore, of necessity, left to the discretion of the National Legislature to pronounce upon the objects which concern the general welfare, and for which, under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. ... The only qualification of the generality of the phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this: That the object, to which an appropriation of money is to be made, be general, and not local; its operation extending, in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.
"No objection ought to arise to this construction, from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the general welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude, which is granted, too, in express terms, would not carry a power to do any other thing not authorized in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication."
Those, on the other hand, who believe the law to be unconstitutional will probably reference the writings of John C. Calhoun, especially his South Carolina Exposition and Protest of 1828. (Note, however, that Calhoun's position squares rather nicely with the last paragraph of Hamilton's report. But Hamilton's last paragraph has been largely forgotten or ignored by Congress and the courts.) Calhoun wrote:
"It is a bold and an unauthorized assumption, that Congress has the power to pronounce what objects belong, and what do not belong to the general welfare; and to appropriate money, at its discretion, to such as it may deem to belong to it.
"No such power is delegated to it -- nor is any such necessary and proper to carry into execution those which are delegated.
"This (the Constitution) pronounced to what limits the general welfare extended, and beyond which it did not extend.
"To prove, then, that any particular object belongs to the general welfare of the States of the Union, it is necessary to show that it is included in some one of the delegated powers, or is necessary and proper to carry some one of them into effect -- before a tax can be laid or money appropriated to effect it.
"For Congress, then, to undertake to pronounce what does, or what does not belong to the general welfare -- without regard to the extent of the delegated powers -- is to usurp the highest authority -- one belonging exclusively to the people of the several States in their sovereign capacity. "
I think Congress could fairly find that health care is a "nationwide" issue, and not merely a "local issue," and that it therefore could enact health care legislation in an effort to provide for the "general welfare." In the 1930s, Congress determined that it could provide for old-age pensions (Social Security) in furtherance of the "general welfare." The Supreme Court deferred to that Congressional determination and upheld the Social Security Act. I think it will likewise determine that Congress can enact national health care legislation in furtherance of the "general welfare."
Posted Online: Dec. 07, 2011, 2:27 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2011, John Donald O'Shea
Friday, November 25, 2011
Can 'Latinization,' Chant, Incense Make Church More Relevant?
The Catholic Church is coming out with a new translation of the Mass in the period before Christmas this year.
Is this is an effort to deal with the problem of declining membership which was recently described in a parish bulletin?
"The Catholic bishop of Peoria has begun a process of realigning the parishes of the diocese. Parishes will be 'clustered,' and, in some cases, merged
The bishop is doing so because the diocese has less priests to go around, and because the diocese, which claimed 220,000 Catholics in 1990, has seen the number dwindle to 160,000. There are, therefore, fewer people in the pews on Sunday and less children in the Catholic schools. Indeed, the three Catholic elementary schools in the Illinois Quad-Cities are what remains, after elementary school mergers.
Alleman which had 1,400 students in the late 1960s, now has only 440."
Add to that information, the following: a large Moline parish, which used to have Sunday Mass every hour with and additional Mass in the gym, now offers only three.
Why? What explains why the diocese has 27 percent fewer Catholics? How can the decline be stopped?
Can the loss of membership be explained by the fact that the Catholic Church has an all-male priesthood? Probably not. Few if any Catholics leave the church because it has a celibate male clergy. They've grown up with that.
Can it be explained by papal claims of infallibility? Again, probably not. If someCatholics disagree with the Pope's teaching ( e. g., on contraception), they generally don't leave the church; they simply ignore the teaching.
Can it be explained by the church's teachings on homosexuality or abortion? While a scant few might leave over those issues, I think it highly unlikely that that has caused 60,000 to walk.
What about its teaching on remarriage after divorce without a church annulment? According to a 2008 study the Barna Group, a Christian polling organization, 28 percent of Catholics are divorced. Catholics who are divorced and who remarry without first obtaining an annulment, are barred from receiving the Eucharist. (And it is estimated that only 10 percent of divorced Catholics get annulments.)
Do Catholic barred from taking communion for that reason continue as Catholics? Some do; most, I would guess, don't. And what about their children? Are they raised as Catholics? Sent to Catholic elementary schools and high schools?
Does the church's policy of denying the Eucharist to divorced Catholics who remarry without church permission explain, at least in part, why there are fewer Catholics? Has denying the Eucharist to Greeks and Protestants brought them back, or has it hardened the divisions? Can you bring people back to the church by telling them that they are not entirely welcome? Is that how Christ treated "sinners?"
There are, however, some non-doctrinal factors which may be driving Catholics away.
When I was younger, Sunday Masses normally ran about 40 minutes. (Masses then were scheduled every hour-on-the-hour. It took 10 minutes to clear the church and 10 minutes to refill it.)
The same Mass, which even now often runs no more than 18 minutes on a weekday, is now more often than not stretched to an hour and 15 minutes on Sunday.
How? The explanation is simple: processions, meditations, chants, additional music and longer sermons, and special ceremonies.
As a result, the Mass has lost its pace and its focus, and ceased to be meaningful. Such Masses cannot hold the interest of most modern Catholics used to movies, and television shows which succeed largely because they are coherent and brilliantly paced.
And what of the extended homilies? All too often they consist of nothing more than a rehash of that Sunday's scriptural readings. Rambling, incoherent homilies are more often than not irrelevant to the daily life of both young and older Catholics. They are rarely meaningful.
For a priest to be successful, he must be able to relate to his congregation. The time a priest spends with the congregation during his homily is precious. It is probably the only time during the week he will have with most of his parishioners.
Christ was successful in his ministry largely because he was a charismatic figure who spoke with "authority" as he delivered his message. Would thousands of people have followed him into the wilderness had he rambled on incoherently, or chanted much of his message in a "latin-ized" vernacular? Christ succeeded because his message was relevant, meaningful and well-delivered.
I ask these questions because the church is coming out with a new translation of the Mass in the period before Christmas this year. Catholic are enthusiastically told that the new English Mass will be a "better and more accurate translation of the old Latin Mass."We are also told we will be "singing the Mass more," and that much of the new Mass "is intended to be chanted."
My question is why? Did Christ speak Latin? Did Christ chant? Use incense? Will a more "Latin-ized" Mass be more relevant and meaningful to American Catholics? To young American Catholics? Is their any likelihood, that the revised "Latin-ized" Mass will draw fallen-away Catholics back to the church? Non-Catholics?
Or will more Catholics find worship increasingly irrelevant and less meaningful?
My guess is that turning the clock back to Trent and pretending that Vatican II never happened will not bring fallen-away Catholics back home or draw non-Catholics to the Church. I await the ad hominem response.
Posted Online: Nov. 25, 2011, 6:00 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2011, John Donald O'Shea
Is this is an effort to deal with the problem of declining membership which was recently described in a parish bulletin?
"The Catholic bishop of Peoria has begun a process of realigning the parishes of the diocese. Parishes will be 'clustered,' and, in some cases, merged
The bishop is doing so because the diocese has less priests to go around, and because the diocese, which claimed 220,000 Catholics in 1990, has seen the number dwindle to 160,000. There are, therefore, fewer people in the pews on Sunday and less children in the Catholic schools. Indeed, the three Catholic elementary schools in the Illinois Quad-Cities are what remains, after elementary school mergers.
Alleman which had 1,400 students in the late 1960s, now has only 440."
Add to that information, the following: a large Moline parish, which used to have Sunday Mass every hour with and additional Mass in the gym, now offers only three.
Why? What explains why the diocese has 27 percent fewer Catholics? How can the decline be stopped?
Can the loss of membership be explained by the fact that the Catholic Church has an all-male priesthood? Probably not. Few if any Catholics leave the church because it has a celibate male clergy. They've grown up with that.
Can it be explained by papal claims of infallibility? Again, probably not. If someCatholics disagree with the Pope's teaching ( e. g., on contraception), they generally don't leave the church; they simply ignore the teaching.
Can it be explained by the church's teachings on homosexuality or abortion? While a scant few might leave over those issues, I think it highly unlikely that that has caused 60,000 to walk.
What about its teaching on remarriage after divorce without a church annulment? According to a 2008 study the Barna Group, a Christian polling organization, 28 percent of Catholics are divorced. Catholics who are divorced and who remarry without first obtaining an annulment, are barred from receiving the Eucharist. (And it is estimated that only 10 percent of divorced Catholics get annulments.)
Do Catholic barred from taking communion for that reason continue as Catholics? Some do; most, I would guess, don't. And what about their children? Are they raised as Catholics? Sent to Catholic elementary schools and high schools?
Does the church's policy of denying the Eucharist to divorced Catholics who remarry without church permission explain, at least in part, why there are fewer Catholics? Has denying the Eucharist to Greeks and Protestants brought them back, or has it hardened the divisions? Can you bring people back to the church by telling them that they are not entirely welcome? Is that how Christ treated "sinners?"
There are, however, some non-doctrinal factors which may be driving Catholics away.
When I was younger, Sunday Masses normally ran about 40 minutes. (Masses then were scheduled every hour-on-the-hour. It took 10 minutes to clear the church and 10 minutes to refill it.)
The same Mass, which even now often runs no more than 18 minutes on a weekday, is now more often than not stretched to an hour and 15 minutes on Sunday.
How? The explanation is simple: processions, meditations, chants, additional music and longer sermons, and special ceremonies.
As a result, the Mass has lost its pace and its focus, and ceased to be meaningful. Such Masses cannot hold the interest of most modern Catholics used to movies, and television shows which succeed largely because they are coherent and brilliantly paced.
And what of the extended homilies? All too often they consist of nothing more than a rehash of that Sunday's scriptural readings. Rambling, incoherent homilies are more often than not irrelevant to the daily life of both young and older Catholics. They are rarely meaningful.
For a priest to be successful, he must be able to relate to his congregation. The time a priest spends with the congregation during his homily is precious. It is probably the only time during the week he will have with most of his parishioners.
Christ was successful in his ministry largely because he was a charismatic figure who spoke with "authority" as he delivered his message. Would thousands of people have followed him into the wilderness had he rambled on incoherently, or chanted much of his message in a "latin-ized" vernacular? Christ succeeded because his message was relevant, meaningful and well-delivered.
I ask these questions because the church is coming out with a new translation of the Mass in the period before Christmas this year. Catholic are enthusiastically told that the new English Mass will be a "better and more accurate translation of the old Latin Mass."We are also told we will be "singing the Mass more," and that much of the new Mass "is intended to be chanted."
My question is why? Did Christ speak Latin? Did Christ chant? Use incense? Will a more "Latin-ized" Mass be more relevant and meaningful to American Catholics? To young American Catholics? Is their any likelihood, that the revised "Latin-ized" Mass will draw fallen-away Catholics back to the church? Non-Catholics?
Or will more Catholics find worship increasingly irrelevant and less meaningful?
My guess is that turning the clock back to Trent and pretending that Vatican II never happened will not bring fallen-away Catholics back home or draw non-Catholics to the Church. I await the ad hominem response.
Posted Online: Nov. 25, 2011, 6:00 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2011, John Donald O'Shea
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Illinois Senate: When Does a Contribution Become a Bribe?
I am neither for nor against Smart Grid.
I write because I am appalled by reports that two utility companies, Ameren and Commonwealth Edison, and their friends generously poured money into the campaign coffers of members of the Illinois Legislature at a time when the utilities were lobbying for passage of that legislation.
These allegations show that the Illinois State Senate is a sewer.
When a judge takes "gifts" from a litigant whose case is pending before the judge, we call it a "bribe," and the judge goes to jail.
But when a legislator takes thousands of dollars from somebody who wants the legislator to vote a certain way on a bill, the money paid is characterized as a "campaign donation."
The Better Government Association (BGA) states that on May 31, the Illinois Senate passed a controversial bill to raise energy rates and revamp the grid.
In the 18 months ending June 30, Ameren and ComEd interests gave more than $400,000 to all but six members of the Senate. And in the three months after Gov. Pat Quinn's veto, they gave more than $170,000 to state legislators and party organizations, according to Illinois State Board of Elections records.
Since Jan. 1, 2010, members of the General Assembly and their political organizations received more than $1.5 million from the utilities. Last week 98 legislators voted to override the veto, 71 voted against and eight voted present. All told, 177 legislators shared in the $1.5 million utility "contribution." You do the math.
The McHenry County Blog obtained this information from a spreadsheet prepared by Campaign for Political Reform. Donations are for the 2011 calendar year through Oct. 18th. ComEd and Ameren got their rate hike and veto override on SB 1652 on Oct. 19. The Blog notes that there is a possibility of additional, last-minute contributions.
The blog lists the 2011 utility contributions to the 39 Senators who voted for Smart Grid.
It also notes a contribution to the Senate Democratic Victory Fund -- $89,250 --and to the Republican State Campaign Committee -- $42,650. The Democratic Party Senate campaign fund is controlled by Senate President John Cullerton. The Republican Party Senate campaign fund is run by Minority Leader Christine Radogno.
Here's the McHenry County Blog's list:
-- Radogno $38,000
-- Kirk Dillard $19,000
-- Mike Jacobs $16,750
-- Dale Righter $13,930
-- Antonio Munoz $13,850
-- Don Harmon $11,500
-- Toi Hutchinson $11,000
-- James Meeks $11,000
-- Bill Brady $9,500
-- Annazette Collins $8,250
-- A. J. Wilhemi $7,700
-- Mattie Hunter $7,000
-- Carole Pankau $6,350
-- John Millner $6,050
-- Donne Trotter $6,000
-- John Jones $5,750
-- Kimberly Lightford $5,500
-- William Haine $5.450
-- Terry Link $5,000
-- Michael Noland $4,750
-- Matt Murphy $4,250
-- Pam Althoff $4,000
-- David Leuchtefeld $3,358
-- Kwame Raoul $2,500
-- Sue Rezen $2,000
-- Maggie Crotty $1,500
-- John Cullerton $1,500
-- Linda Holmes $1,250
-- Iris Martinez $1,250
-- Emil Jones, III $1,000
-- William Delgado $1,000
-- David Koehler $750
-- Martin Sandoval $500
Did ComEd and Ameren pass out the money to ensure an ethical government? Do they honestly believe senators who pocketed the money were so honest and able that if they weren't reelected it would be a disaster for the people of Illinois?
Did they give money in the hope that the senators would consider only the merits of SB1652 -- free of all other considerations?
Did they give the money to induce them to vote against the bill?
Did they give the money to influence them to vote in favor of the bill, and subsequently to vote to override the governor's veto? Or did they simply give the money because these were the best senators money could buy?
And how generous does the contribution have to be to buy a legislator's vote?
Every senator, of course, would deny he was influenced by campaign donations. But what is the appearance? Does it look like an attempted bribe? Does it smell like a one?
If any judge in Illinois took even a $1,000 campaign contribution from any litigant before his court, he would properly be removed from the bench and indicted for corruption. Why should the rule be different for senators or representatives?
Back in the 1990s I wrote lyrics for a song for a Gridiron show, to the tune of Cole Porter's "Anything Goes." It was in an era of Illinois judges being arrested for corruption; the days of "Operation Greylord." My lyrics:
"When a judges take's bribes that's shocking.
Such graft sets the courthouse rocking,
to jail he goes, as "Greylord" shows.
"But when the cash is thrown at Congress
All rules are trashed and largess is apropos.
As everyone knows.
"Though "bribes" are still crimes these days
there are "gentler" ways
To describe outlays
that the lobbyist pays
Inside the beltways
To influence the ways
That his client's bill should go.
"When "bribes" become "campaign donations"
These artful equivocations augment cash flows.
Everything goes!"
Until the voters clean up this cesspool in Springfield, they deserve whatever the Legislature chooses to do to them. Does anyone out there care?
Posted Online: Nov. 10, 2011, 7:54 a. m. - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2011, John Donald O'Shea
I write because I am appalled by reports that two utility companies, Ameren and Commonwealth Edison, and their friends generously poured money into the campaign coffers of members of the Illinois Legislature at a time when the utilities were lobbying for passage of that legislation.
These allegations show that the Illinois State Senate is a sewer.
When a judge takes "gifts" from a litigant whose case is pending before the judge, we call it a "bribe," and the judge goes to jail.
But when a legislator takes thousands of dollars from somebody who wants the legislator to vote a certain way on a bill, the money paid is characterized as a "campaign donation."
The Better Government Association (BGA) states that on May 31, the Illinois Senate passed a controversial bill to raise energy rates and revamp the grid.
In the 18 months ending June 30, Ameren and ComEd interests gave more than $400,000 to all but six members of the Senate. And in the three months after Gov. Pat Quinn's veto, they gave more than $170,000 to state legislators and party organizations, according to Illinois State Board of Elections records.
Since Jan. 1, 2010, members of the General Assembly and their political organizations received more than $1.5 million from the utilities. Last week 98 legislators voted to override the veto, 71 voted against and eight voted present. All told, 177 legislators shared in the $1.5 million utility "contribution." You do the math.
The McHenry County Blog obtained this information from a spreadsheet prepared by Campaign for Political Reform. Donations are for the 2011 calendar year through Oct. 18th. ComEd and Ameren got their rate hike and veto override on SB 1652 on Oct. 19. The Blog notes that there is a possibility of additional, last-minute contributions.
The blog lists the 2011 utility contributions to the 39 Senators who voted for Smart Grid.
It also notes a contribution to the Senate Democratic Victory Fund -- $89,250 --and to the Republican State Campaign Committee -- $42,650. The Democratic Party Senate campaign fund is controlled by Senate President John Cullerton. The Republican Party Senate campaign fund is run by Minority Leader Christine Radogno.
Here's the McHenry County Blog's list:
-- Radogno $38,000
-- Kirk Dillard $19,000
-- Mike Jacobs $16,750
-- Dale Righter $13,930
-- Antonio Munoz $13,850
-- Don Harmon $11,500
-- Toi Hutchinson $11,000
-- James Meeks $11,000
-- Bill Brady $9,500
-- Annazette Collins $8,250
-- A. J. Wilhemi $7,700
-- Mattie Hunter $7,000
-- Carole Pankau $6,350
-- John Millner $6,050
-- Donne Trotter $6,000
-- John Jones $5,750
-- Kimberly Lightford $5,500
-- William Haine $5.450
-- Terry Link $5,000
-- Michael Noland $4,750
-- Matt Murphy $4,250
-- Pam Althoff $4,000
-- David Leuchtefeld $3,358
-- Kwame Raoul $2,500
-- Sue Rezen $2,000
-- Maggie Crotty $1,500
-- John Cullerton $1,500
-- Linda Holmes $1,250
-- Iris Martinez $1,250
-- Emil Jones, III $1,000
-- William Delgado $1,000
-- David Koehler $750
-- Martin Sandoval $500
Did ComEd and Ameren pass out the money to ensure an ethical government? Do they honestly believe senators who pocketed the money were so honest and able that if they weren't reelected it would be a disaster for the people of Illinois?
Did they give money in the hope that the senators would consider only the merits of SB1652 -- free of all other considerations?
Did they give the money to induce them to vote against the bill?
Did they give the money to influence them to vote in favor of the bill, and subsequently to vote to override the governor's veto? Or did they simply give the money because these were the best senators money could buy?
And how generous does the contribution have to be to buy a legislator's vote?
Every senator, of course, would deny he was influenced by campaign donations. But what is the appearance? Does it look like an attempted bribe? Does it smell like a one?
If any judge in Illinois took even a $1,000 campaign contribution from any litigant before his court, he would properly be removed from the bench and indicted for corruption. Why should the rule be different for senators or representatives?
Back in the 1990s I wrote lyrics for a song for a Gridiron show, to the tune of Cole Porter's "Anything Goes." It was in an era of Illinois judges being arrested for corruption; the days of "Operation Greylord." My lyrics:
"When a judges take's bribes that's shocking.
Such graft sets the courthouse rocking,
to jail he goes, as "Greylord" shows.
"But when the cash is thrown at Congress
All rules are trashed and largess is apropos.
As everyone knows.
"Though "bribes" are still crimes these days
there are "gentler" ways
To describe outlays
that the lobbyist pays
Inside the beltways
To influence the ways
That his client's bill should go.
"When "bribes" become "campaign donations"
These artful equivocations augment cash flows.
Everything goes!"
Until the voters clean up this cesspool in Springfield, they deserve whatever the Legislature chooses to do to them. Does anyone out there care?
Posted Online: Nov. 10, 2011, 7:54 a. m. - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2011, John Donald O'Shea
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Do We Need a $70 Billion Department of Education?
President George W. Bush, gave us No Child Left Behind and to ensure that its goals were met, the U.S. Department of Education's budget was increased from $14 billion to $60 billion.
His goal was to ensure that American children would be proficient in reading and math by 2014. Now 37 states are asking to be exempted from meeting that goal. President Obama believes the law is so flawed that he has invited the states to obtain waivers. States are required to submit their own plans to show how they will meet the law's requirements.
If you go to the Education Department website, it states that it "administers a budget of $69.9 billion in discretionary appropriations. It also states that "education in America is primarily a State and local responsibility."
The department has about 5,000 employees. Its mission is: "to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access." To that end, the primary functions of the department are to "establish policy for, administer and coordinate most federal assistance to education, collect data on U.S. schools, and to enforce federal educational laws regarding privacy and civil rights."
President Obama has called upon Congress to pass the American Jobs Act to provide an additional
-- $30 billion to support teachers' jobs
-- $25 billion to upgrade existing public school
-- $5 billion to modernize community colleges
But where does Congress get the money to send to the states in support of education? And where does the federal government get the power to be involved in education at all? You can search the powers delegated to Congress in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8) for the rest of your life and you won't find any express grant of power to Congress to deal with "education."
Americans who favor national power would argue that Congress has power to make laws to fund and regulate education either (a) under its power to "lay and collect taxes ... to ... provide for ... the general welfare," or (b) under its power to "regulate commerce."
Those who believe education is a power reserved to the states or the people under the 10th Amendment believe federal government intrusion in education is an unconstitutional usurpation of power. President Reagan in his 1982 State of the Union called for "dismantling" the education department. The 1996 GOP platform stated, "The Federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in school curricula ... This is why we will abolish the Department of Education, end federal meddling in our schools."
In the early day, the federal government was not in the business of making laws or providing funds for education. Until the Civil War, education was entirely left to states, religious organizations and people. A timeline, prepared by the Cato Institute, shows how long it took for Congress to discover that it had power to become involved in education.
-- 1862: The Morrill Act provides grants of land to the states, which may be sold and the proceeds used to fund colleges that focus on agricultural and mechanical studies.
-- 1867: Congress appropriates $15,000, and creates of a Department of Education, with four employees to act as a clearing house of data for educators and policy makers.
-- 1868: After a bitter fight over federal encroachment in education, Congress downgrades the new department to an Office of Education within the Department of Interior. Education did not regain its separate departmental status until 1979.
-- 1890: A second Morrill Act empowers the Office of Education to provide regular funding of the land-grant colleges.
-- 1907: The Morrill Acts are amended to add federal funding for vocational education.
-- 1911: The State Marine School Act authorizes funding of nautical schools in 11 specified cities.
-- 1917: The Smith-Hughes Act funds vocational schools. The Act imposes a range of detailed federal rules on recipient institutions.
--1930s: The New Deal funds an array of educational activities including school construction and repairs, the hiring of teachers, loans to school districts, and grants to rural schools. These programs create precedents for later permanent education subsidies.
Quite apart from constitutional arguments, however, there is a more fundamental question: Why do we even need Washington involved in education? Each year, 70 billion tax dollars are siphoned out of the state and sent to Washington to fund the education department and its activities. Now the president wants to take more.
Why not abolish the department, and let the states keep that $70 billion? Why are state and/or local bureaucrats less able to manage tax dollar than federal bureaucrats?
Are the states incompetent to "promote student achievement?" If the states are left with the tax dollars flowing to Washington, couldn't the states provide Pell-like grants, and financial aid? Are the states unable to prepare students for "global competitiveness?"
Has federal involvement made things better?
If given the same money and left to their own device, why are the states less able to "foster educational excellence" than bureaucrats in the education department?
Are states wanting in their capacity to "establish policy" for education? Are the states inferior at "collecting data" to better their schools?
Can't the state's and the federal and state courts enforce "equal access" and "civil rights" in the schools in the absence of the department?
So, Congress passed No Child Left Behind to solve a problem. Then when the law turns out to be a $46 billion bust, we grant three-fourths of the states waivers and tell them to come up with their own plans.
Was this a waste of $46 billion?
Indeed, is the education department a waste of $70 billion?
Don't forget, in 1867 the education department had four employees; it now has 5,000.
If you're a family of four, you're paying $900 a year for this. Would that money be better spent on local school? On your own family?
Posted Online: Oct. 25, 2011, 3:07 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2011, John Donald O'Shea
His goal was to ensure that American children would be proficient in reading and math by 2014. Now 37 states are asking to be exempted from meeting that goal. President Obama believes the law is so flawed that he has invited the states to obtain waivers. States are required to submit their own plans to show how they will meet the law's requirements.
If you go to the Education Department website, it states that it "administers a budget of $69.9 billion in discretionary appropriations. It also states that "education in America is primarily a State and local responsibility."
The department has about 5,000 employees. Its mission is: "to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access." To that end, the primary functions of the department are to "establish policy for, administer and coordinate most federal assistance to education, collect data on U.S. schools, and to enforce federal educational laws regarding privacy and civil rights."
President Obama has called upon Congress to pass the American Jobs Act to provide an additional
-- $30 billion to support teachers' jobs
-- $25 billion to upgrade existing public school
-- $5 billion to modernize community colleges
But where does Congress get the money to send to the states in support of education? And where does the federal government get the power to be involved in education at all? You can search the powers delegated to Congress in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8) for the rest of your life and you won't find any express grant of power to Congress to deal with "education."
Americans who favor national power would argue that Congress has power to make laws to fund and regulate education either (a) under its power to "lay and collect taxes ... to ... provide for ... the general welfare," or (b) under its power to "regulate commerce."
Those who believe education is a power reserved to the states or the people under the 10th Amendment believe federal government intrusion in education is an unconstitutional usurpation of power. President Reagan in his 1982 State of the Union called for "dismantling" the education department. The 1996 GOP platform stated, "The Federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in school curricula ... This is why we will abolish the Department of Education, end federal meddling in our schools."
In the early day, the federal government was not in the business of making laws or providing funds for education. Until the Civil War, education was entirely left to states, religious organizations and people. A timeline, prepared by the Cato Institute, shows how long it took for Congress to discover that it had power to become involved in education.
-- 1862: The Morrill Act provides grants of land to the states, which may be sold and the proceeds used to fund colleges that focus on agricultural and mechanical studies.
-- 1867: Congress appropriates $15,000, and creates of a Department of Education, with four employees to act as a clearing house of data for educators and policy makers.
-- 1868: After a bitter fight over federal encroachment in education, Congress downgrades the new department to an Office of Education within the Department of Interior. Education did not regain its separate departmental status until 1979.
-- 1890: A second Morrill Act empowers the Office of Education to provide regular funding of the land-grant colleges.
-- 1907: The Morrill Acts are amended to add federal funding for vocational education.
-- 1911: The State Marine School Act authorizes funding of nautical schools in 11 specified cities.
-- 1917: The Smith-Hughes Act funds vocational schools. The Act imposes a range of detailed federal rules on recipient institutions.
--1930s: The New Deal funds an array of educational activities including school construction and repairs, the hiring of teachers, loans to school districts, and grants to rural schools. These programs create precedents for later permanent education subsidies.
Quite apart from constitutional arguments, however, there is a more fundamental question: Why do we even need Washington involved in education? Each year, 70 billion tax dollars are siphoned out of the state and sent to Washington to fund the education department and its activities. Now the president wants to take more.
Why not abolish the department, and let the states keep that $70 billion? Why are state and/or local bureaucrats less able to manage tax dollar than federal bureaucrats?
Are the states incompetent to "promote student achievement?" If the states are left with the tax dollars flowing to Washington, couldn't the states provide Pell-like grants, and financial aid? Are the states unable to prepare students for "global competitiveness?"
Has federal involvement made things better?
If given the same money and left to their own device, why are the states less able to "foster educational excellence" than bureaucrats in the education department?
Are states wanting in their capacity to "establish policy" for education? Are the states inferior at "collecting data" to better their schools?
Can't the state's and the federal and state courts enforce "equal access" and "civil rights" in the schools in the absence of the department?
So, Congress passed No Child Left Behind to solve a problem. Then when the law turns out to be a $46 billion bust, we grant three-fourths of the states waivers and tell them to come up with their own plans.
Was this a waste of $46 billion?
Indeed, is the education department a waste of $70 billion?
Don't forget, in 1867 the education department had four employees; it now has 5,000.
If you're a family of four, you're paying $900 a year for this. Would that money be better spent on local school? On your own family?
Posted Online: Oct. 25, 2011, 3:07 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2011, John Donald O'Shea
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)