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

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

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

Will Concealed Carry Laws Make Illinois Any Safer?

Illinois state Rep. La Shawn Ford, an African-American, third-term Democrat representing a West Chicago District, told the Chicago Sun-Times on Sept, 8 that he would support "concealed carry" legislation if it came up for a vote in the General Assembly. Rep. Ford said he "knows it sounds bad," but that his constituents desire to legally protect themselves with firearms.

"They're saying we're making criminals out of law-abiding citizens. They're saying you're only siding with the criminals because the criminals could care less about the law."

In the years that I served in the state's attorney's office and on the bench I never questioned the wisdom of outlawing the carrying of concealed weapons. I simply accepted the premise that if more people carried guns, it would translate into more gun violence. Mass killings over the past few years have caused me to begin to question my long-held beliefs.

-- On Nov. 5, 2009, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire with an automatic pistol at the Soldier Readiness Center of Fort Hood, Texas, killing 13 people and wounding 30 others. The shootings ended only when Hasan was shot and disabled by civilian police officer Sgt. Mark Todd. The soldier-victims were unarmed.

-- On Jan. 8, 2011, 19 people were shot by Jared Loughner, 22, as Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords met with her constituents. Six, including U. S. District Judge John M. Roll, and Christina Green, 9, were killed, and Rep. Giffords was shot through the head. The victims were unarmed.

-- On July 22, 2011, Anders Behring Breivik, 32, shot to death 69 people in Norway at a youth retreat. One of the first victims was an unarmed off-duty police officer hired to provide security. Police in Norway generally do not carry firearms. Breivik's victims were unarmed.

-- On Sept. 7, 2011, Edwardo Sencion of Carson City killed four and wounded eight others at an IHOP restaurant. Three of the dead were members of the Nevada National Guard. The victims were unarmed.

Our Second Amendment provides, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I have previously written why I think we have a Second Amendment. "At the time the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, no city in the United States had an organized police force. ...

"The counties had their sheriffs, but in an era before telephones, a sheriff at the county seat miles away afforded the frontiersman scant protection against marauding Indians, burglars and robbers. In the backwoods, a family's personal security rested on their ownership of guns. That was the patent reality in 1791."

In 1850, a French economist and philosopher, Frederic Bastiat, in his treatise "The Law," succinctly explained that the law's first purpose is "self defense."

"What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

"Each of us has a natural right -- from God -- to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.

"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. Thus the ... collective right -- is based on the individual right."

With that in mind, I am now asking myself:

First, assuming all four incidents might have occurred even if the carrying of concealed weapons had been permitted, had there been people carrying concealed, would one or more of gunmen have been shot before they killed and wounded as many as they did?

Second, if a person intent on committing mass murder knows that a number of his intended victims or bystanders -- especially those standing behind him -- may be armed, might he be deterred?

Third, if citizens competently trained in firearm safety and without criminal records or mental health problems are allowed to carry concealed, is their any real likelihood that unlawful shootings will increase due to misuse of that privilege?

Fourth, are there reliable statistic in states which permit concealed carry to answer my third query?

The Chicago Redeye has written that there were 34 gun homicides in Chicago during July 2011. Would gang members be as inclined to use guns if they knew their intended victims or bystanders might also be carrying concealed?

I don't know the answer to these questions. But I do know that unarmed citizens have little or no chance against heavily armed criminals bent on committing mass murder. When somebody like Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan uses a semi-automatic pistol that can fire 20 rounds from a clip as fast as he can squeeze the trigger, the police are probably not going to arrive in time to prevent the slaughter. And as long as smaller clips can be exchanged almost instantaneously, banning 20-round clips won't solve the problems.

At the time the 2nd Amendment was adopted, pistols and long guns generally fired a single shot. Reloading gave others time to counterattack or run. Modern automatic and semiautomatic weapons deprive victims of those options. And every one of the incidents cited demonstrates that having armed police just minutes away is not enough.

I can't think of any meaningful alternative except concealed carry to stop mass murders. Can you? Washington D.C. and Chicago have a strict handgun bans. Law-abiding citizens comply, but the criminals don't. Would concealed carry cut down on murders and mass murder, or just lead to more shootings? I don't know. Do you?

I have no desire to carry a weapon, but do I have any right to tell one of Rep. Ford's constituents, living in a crime ridden part of Chicago, that they are wrong to want protection?

Posted Online: Oct. 11, 2011, 3:47 pm - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2011, John Donald O'Shea

Awful Return on Q-C Investment

On Sunday, The Dispatch/Argus ran a laudatory front-page article: "Q-C Cashes in." The lead to that article crows. "Stimulus put $164M into area." With that "$164M in spending, 191 jobs were created or retained" in the 17th Congressional District.

That means each of those jobs cost the American taxpayers $858,639! It looks to me, like you and I just got fleeced.

To help you make up your own mind, here are some figures.

-- There are about 310 million Americans.

-- As of 2010, the population of the Quad-Cities metropolitan area was 379,690.

-- Therefore, one of every 810 Americans live in Q-C Metro area.

In 2009, Congress (then controlled by the Democrats) passed at President Obama's request the $840 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, commonly referred to as the ARRA, or as the Obama Stimulus Act.

So, if one out of every 810 Americans lives in the Q-C Metro area, and if the Q-C Metro area had received its proportionate share of stimulus funds -- one out of every 810 stimulus dollars -- we should have received $1,037,038,037. Instead we got a lousy $164,000,000! What happened to our other $873,000,000?

Again, if there are 380,000 people in the metro area, and if we received $164 million ARRA funds, we each got an average of $431. I don't recall getting my $431. Do you recall getting yours? Or did Washington decide somebody needed the money more than you or I did?

Of course, there is good news, as well as bad news. Washington didn't tax us to raise the $840 billion in ARRA funds.

Had Washington taxed all 310 million Americans equally, every American would have seen a new tax bill for $2,710. That's the good news! The bad news is that Washington borrowed the $840 billion, instead. So every American -- man, woman and child -- now owes an additional $2,710.

So the bottom line is this: for a $431 Washington handout that you and I didn't get, we each have been left with a bill for $2,710 -- which we did get!

So who got the $164 million? Those lucky people who the brilliant bureaucrats in Washington decided were worthier in all likelihood, than you or I.

Isn't "income redistribution" wonderful? The likelihood is that you didn't get a penny of stimulus money. And for that you -- and every member of your family -- each have been left with a debt of $2,710!

Of course, there are the "fortunate few" who Washington has deigned to enrich.

The owners of dilapidated Illinois Oil Co. building in Rock Island, and the Washington Square Apartments in Moline (or their successors in interest) have to be dancing in the streets. It's a wonderful thing to have your neighbors renovate your building at their expense. Those of us who have maintained our properties, it seems, have made a disqualifying mistake, for which we deserve to be punished -- by having our income redistributed.

So if these renovations are such "great investments," why weren't they undertaken by private sector investors with private funds? Or are the guys in Washington who gave us Solyndra the only ones smart enough to recognize a "great investment?"

My mother used to say "God helps those who help themselves."

Washington calls that old-fashioned, and says, "We'll help those that don't -- with your money!"
John Donald O'Shea of Moline is a retired circuit court judge.


Posted Online: Sept. 21, 2011, 3:10 pm - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2011, John Donald O'Shea

Treasury's Savingsman: U.S. Should Take Own Advice

The greatest lessons about saving money hit us when we're kids, especially from nursery rhymes, like Simple Simon, who never had money.


Always spending, never saving.

Then there was the Old Lady who had to live in a shoe because she relied totally on Social Security. And of course Humpty Dumpty would have fared much better had he put aside a little cash for his long term health care.

Hey, good lessons to remember. Saving for your financial future is no fairy tale, because if you don't have a goose that lays the golden eggs, you better "Choose to Save."

While driving recently, I heard a public service announcement (PSA) from the U.S. Treasury, which seems to fit very well with what I had planned to say in this op-ed. When I went to the Internet to try to find the text, I found that it was one of the Treasury's "Choose to Save Public Service Announcements." (http://www.choosetosave.org/psaplayer/index.html)

What particularly struck me about the ad was that it was 100 percent out of phase with the insanely irresponsible deficit spending coming from Washington. It gave me at least an iota of hope that somebody in Washington understands that buying-on-time ("deficit spending") is incompatible with saving for a secure future. Indeed, the PSAs on the site sounded a lot like my father and mother.

The Great Depression taught my parents a number of lessons that they practiced for the rest of their lives, and taught their boys.

On many occasions, my dad said that the cause of the stock market crash was the "buying of stocks on margin." Before "Black Friday," a person could buy a stock by putting 10 percent "down," and owing the rest. It was a way of buying stock "on time."

People who bought on 10 percent margin, made fortunes — as long as stock prices rose, and as long as they were able to sell at the appreciated prices! But when the market precipitously dropped on Black Friday, and when margin calls went out for the other 90 percent, few people could come up with it. Those that couldn't, lost the 10 percent they had put "down," and found themselves liable for the other 90 percent.

From their Depression experiences, dad and mom formulated rules designed to allow them to survive next depression.

Rule No.1: Never buy on time.

Rule No. 2: If you can't pay cash for it, don't buy it! Wait until you can pay cash.

Rule No. 3: Never pay interest. If you have to spend money paying interest, you will have that much less money to spend on things you really want.

Dad and mom made one exception to their rule. When they bought a house after World War II, they took out a mortgage.

They made a judgment that they could, on dad's income, afford to pay that mortgage. But to protect themselves as far as possible, Dad bought mortgage insurance to insure the house would be paid for in the event of his death.

For all other purchases, including automobiles, my parents saved and paid cash.

Mom was proud to tell how she bought their first radio with pennies she had saved. Dad, being a businessman, understood that business expansions generally required borrowing. But borrowing, even for that, was never dad's first option.

He frequently said, "there are two ways to make money: earn more, or spend less.

Mom and dad both believed in "putting something away for a rainy day."

Having survived the Depression, mom and dad always operated on the theory that they wanted things to be better for their boys. They never would have asked us to pay for their home, their car or even their medical expenses.

Throughout my life, I have followed their advice. I have always found paying cash for something makes you think twice before you buy it. To this day, I always ask myself if I want it badly enough to deplete my savings. It is amazing how many "things" I haven't bought over the years because I felt that I would be better off not depleting my savings.

These are old-fashioned notions. I suppose that at least half the people in the country would reject them as antiquated. They follow a modern precept: "If you want it, buy it and pay for it later." The treasury seems to disagree:

Announcer. And now, another adventure with Savingsman!

Attractive Young Woman. (Shopping) Oh dear! I can't afford that!

Evil Credit Card Guy. Charge it! You can pay it off later

Savingsman. Not so fast Credit Card Guy.

Attractive Young Woman. Savingsman!

Savingsman. Don't let him entice you ma'am, Credit Card Guy can lead you to big trouble ... you need a savings plan!

Attractive Young Woman. You're right Savingsman!

Savingsman. Get this Ballpark Estimate worksheet at choosetosave.org. It will help you get started!

Attractive Young Woman. Gee, thanks Savingsman!


Posted Online: Sept. 13, 2011, 3:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2011, John Donald O'Shea

Constitution Is a Flexible, Living Document -- Within Limits!

The Constitution gives Congress explicit power to regulate commerce among the states. Every baby born in America will eventually use public transportation and the interstate highway system. Population increases require greater congressional expenditures to build and maintain those systems.

So to prevent increases in the population with the attendant costs to the public, would Vice President Joe Biden (recall his recent China trip) say that Congress has power to regulate commerce among the states to limit the number of children a family might be allowed to have to one or two? To require the use of contraception or abstinence?

When the Constitution was adopted, the governments of the several sovereign states were not abolished. But the very people who set up the states, decided that states were good at some things, and not very good at others. Those powers the states possessed, but were not very good at exercising, were taken away and vested in the new federal government.

The powers vested in Congress are generally known as "enumerated powers" because they are "enumerated" in Article I. That article has not been amended since the date it was adopted. The 18 enumerated powers include:

-- Power to lay and collect taxes ... to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the U.S.

-- To borrow money on the credit of the U. S.

-- To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states.

-- To establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

-- To coin money, and regulate the value thereof.

-- To establish post offices and post roads.

-- To punish piracies and felonies on the high seas.

-- To declare war.

-- To raise armies.

-- To provide and maintain a navy.

-- To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into executing the foregoing powers.

There is no grant of power to Congress to establish a religion, regulate speech, or abolish the right to bear arms. But what if Congress, having enumerated powers, expanded them under the theory that the Constitution was a non-rigid, flexible, dynamic, living document, and under the theory that such an expansion was "necessary and proper" for carrying into execution one of its 17 other enumerated powers? What if Congress decided that pursuant to the power granted to it to "lay and collect taxes to provide for the general welfare," that it was "necessary and proper" that it should subsidize the Catholic faith over the Jewish faith?

What if Congress decided that the holy days of the disparate religions were burdening interstate commerce, and that it should establish one religion under its power to regulate commerce so as to remove the time lost by disparate holy days?

To make sure that sort of thing didn't happen, 10 Amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, were added to the Constitution in 1791.

The Bill of Rights was passed because the American people were afraid that even though Congress had only been given certain enumerated powers that, left to its own devices, it would, like every other government, seek to expand those powers in the name of necessity. The First Amendment contains an unequivocal statement that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging freedom of speech or the press." The Second provides that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Most Americans are aware of at least some of the amendments. But few seem to be aware of the 10th.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Nowhere is Congress given the power to say what marriage is, or what a state may prohibit as constituting, murder, burglary, or theft.

Nowhere is Congress given power to say whether a man and his wife my opt to use a contraceptive. As the states clearly had power to define marriage, and punish criminal offenses before the Constitution was enacted, and since no such power was delegated to Congress, these are powers "reserved to the states." And a married couples choice to employ or not to employ a contraceptive is similarly a question "reserved" either to the "states" or the "people." As a further guarantee, the 9th Amendment provides, "The enumeration in this Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

That means, the fact that Constitution expressly says that a man has a right to trial by jury does not mean that he does not also "retain" the right to share a contraceptive with his wife.

The Preamble states that a goal of the new Constitution was to "promote the general welfare." But if Congress can pass any law that it deems "promotes the general welfare," why bother to enumerate 18 specific powers? They become surplusage. And the Bill of Rights becomes a nullity.

Conservatives do not deny the Constitution is a dynamic, living document. But they believe it must be construed as the founding fathers intended it to be construed -- with the states and people exercising the "reserved powers" and with Congress exercising only those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution -- which the people of the states decided could better be exercised by a federal government!

So, when you authorize the painter to paint your living room, is it also "necessary and proper," or for your "general welfare" for him to paint your car?


Posted Online: Sept. 07, 2011, 2:23 pm - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2011, John Donald O'Shea