Can Democracy Survive When Political Leaders Lie

"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Mark 8:36

How far can a candidate (or political party) go to win an election? Can the candidate lie? Can the political party?

If a Super PAC lies to further the interest of the candidate or political party, can the candidate say, "They are independent; we don't control what they say." Or must the candidate denounce the lie told by the Super PAC?

And if the candidate opts not to denounce the lie and benefits, is he not complicit in the lie? If a friend of mine lies saying, "I have won the Congressional Medal of Honor," can I accept any advantage that follows from the lie?

If I don't disavow the lie and profit from the lie, do not I myself become a liar? Is it permissible to use an evil means -- a lie -- to achieve a good end -- victory at the polls?

On Aug. 7, Priorities USA, a Super PAC, released a political ad titled, "Understands." It features former steelworker, Joe Soptic. The ad is calculated to link Mitt Romney with the death from cancer of Mr. Soptic's wife. Mr. Soptic, referring to Bain Capital takeover of GST Steel plant, says, "I do not think Mitt Romney realizes what he's done to anyone. Furthermore, I do not think Mitt Romney is concerned.

"When Mitt Romney and Bain closed the plant, I lost my health care, and my family lost their health care. And a short time after that, my wife became ill ... she passed away in 22 days."

But here is the timeline:

-- 1993: Bain Capital acquires GST.

-- 1999: Romney takes paid leave-of-absence from Bain to run 2002 Olympics.

-- 2001: GST goes bankrupt.

-- 2002: Joe Soptic is laid off from GST, finds job as school janitor (at much lower salary).

-- 2006: Joe Soptic's wife dies from cancer accidentally discovered when she goes to the hospital for pneumonia.

So, on these facts, would any impartial American jury find Romney caused the death of Renae Soptic? I don't think so. A juror or two might be persuaded, but not 12.

So is this political ad a lie? A lie is generally defined as an intentionally false statement, or a statement made with a reckless disregard from the truth. Had the ad come right out and said, "Mitt Romney murdered my wife," that statement clearly would have been a lie under either prong of my test. The ad doesn't go that far, but it does falsely allege that Romney closed GST.

Romney didn't close GST. He had gone three years before to run the Olympics, and had no part in the plant shutdown, or in Mr. Soptic being laid off or losing his insurance.

To say that a "short time" after (in reality, four years), Mrs. Soptic became ill, and passed away 22 days later, ignores the timeline and the fact that Mrs. Soptic's cancer was discovered seven years after Romney went off to run the Olympics and four years after Mr. Soptic was laid off.

The purpose of the ad is to paint Romney as an "unfeeling predatory capitalist," who runs around closing plants, blithely unconcerned about who he hurts, and that the GST closing resulted in Mrs. Soptic's death.

So, why am I bothered by politicians and PACs that lie? If they lie to get elected, why won't they lie once in office?

Similarly, I am concerned about the Obama administration seeking to redefine abortion as a "woman's health care issue," and not as a "moral issue" as the Catholic Church argues. I don't trust politicians to tell what us is moral.

President Harry S. Truman once said, "The fundamental basis of this nation's laws was given to Moses on the Mount. ... If we don't have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State."

For many people in politics, lying has become a way of life. For them it is an acceptable means to an end. As long as they perceive the end to be a societal good, they believe the means chosen to attain the good are moral. Most churchmen would disagree.

The Catholic Church, the oldest of the Western Christian churches, after considering whether the ends justify the means for 2,000 years, teaches, "Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. Well-formed conscience is upright and truthful ...

"Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them. Some rules apply in every case: One may never do evil so that good may result from it; the Golden Rule: 'Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.'"

The Church's bottom line is: "One may never do evil so that good may result from it."

Truman saw that. If we tolerate politicians who lie to achieve a greater good, or who utilize lies put forth by their supporters, and refuse to disavow them, then lying becomes a permissible political tool to achieve what whatever the government labels or defines as good.

Posted Online: : August 22, 2012 3:00 am  - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea

Share

Romney Guilty until Proven Innocent?

"I was told by an extremely credible person that Romney has not paid taxes for 10 years. People who make as much money as Mitt Romney have many tricks at their disposal to avoid paying taxes ... It's clear Romney is hiding something, and the American people deserve to know what it is.

"I don't know if it's true." -- Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev.


The Democrat majority leader demonstrated from the floor of the U.S. Senate why Washington D.C. is a cesspool. Then, not content with messing the Senate floor, he went on to tell the Huffington Post that, a "person who had invested with Bain Capital," called his office and said, "Harry, he (Mr. Romney) didn't pay taxes for 10 years!"

Sen. Reid continued, "Now do I know that that's true. Well, I'm not certain."

When Mr. Reid states that Mr. Romney had not paid taxes in 10 years, there can be but two logical -- diametrically opposed -- interpretations: Mr. Romney lawfully paid no taxes because he took advantage of all deduction made available to him by the tax code. Or Mr. Romney is guilty of tax evasion -- a felony.

Now, if Mr. Reid were merely saying, Mr. Romney took advantage of all lawful deductions, then what did Mr. Romney do that any other lawfully acting American wasn't permitted to do? Doesn't the rational person paying federal income tax take advantage of every deduction allowed to him?

But then, what is Sen. Reid talking about when he goes on to say "People who make as much money as Mitt Romney have many tricks at their disposal to avoid paying taxes? What (dirty?) "tricks"?

Aren't those "tricks" known as deductions? Aren't all Americans entitled to take every applicable deduction allowed? And who wrote the code with all those "tricks?" Clearly not Mr. Romney. Aren't the tax laws made by Reid and his cronies in the U.S. House and Senate?

I suggest Mr. Reid intended his remarks to be pejorative. If that is not so, why accuse Mr. Romney of "hiding something, ... and the American people deserve to know what it is?"

Mr. Reid's innuendo is clearly that candidate Romney is a tax evader -- a criminal. What kind of man accuses another of employing "tricks," "hiding something" or criminal tax evasion, and then backs it up with insipidity? ("I don't know if its true." Or, "Now do I know that that's true? Well, I'm not certain.")

Gov. Romney is a public figure. Ordinarily, public men can't be libeled or slandered unless the libels or slanders are made with a "reckless disregard for the truth." But what else is it other than a "reckless disregard for the truth," when Mr. Reid says, "I don't know if its true"?

Does a man act ethically when he implies another is guilty of tax evasion? When he repeats something -- from an unnamed source -- that he does not know to be true? But then of course, Sen. Reid, has a trump card.

For a speech made in the Senate, Article 1 of the Constitution says Mr. Reid cannot "be questioned in any other place." He can't be sued for libel or slander.

In criminal law, a judge can't issue an arrest or search warrant without first finding probable cause. When a police officer applies for a search warrant, and the officer is relying on hearsay of a "confidential source" or "unnamed informant," the affidavit for a warrant must show more than that an informant says, "Mr. X is committing a crime."

First it must show specific facts that make probable a crime is being committed. The affidavit must further factually demonstrate to the judge that the informant (who is not before the court and not subject to penalties of perjury) is a "reliable informant." The American public has been told nothing factual by Mr. Reid which in any way demonstrates that his "unnamed informant" is or was "reliable." Mr. Reid concluding that his source is credible does not make it so.

Instead, Mr. Reid demands that Mr. Romney release 10 years of his tax returns; that is, that Mr. Romney must "prove his innocence." That is the rule of the Spanish Inquisition, not of the American judicial system. In America, men are "presumed innocent until they are proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." A senator should know that. Even a Republican candidate for president should be accorded that presumption. And if Mr. Romney has been evading taxes for 10 years, where has the IRS been?

On Feb. 9, 1951, Senator Joseph McCarthy, R-Wis., said, referring to people in the U. S. State Department:

"I have in my hand 57 cases of individuals who would appear to be either card-carrying members or certainly loyal to the Communist Party, but who nevertheless are still helping to shape our foreign policy."

In 1951, calling somebody a communist was the preferred way of destroying them. Today, suggesting that a candidate is a rich tax-evader seems to be the method of choice.

Americans came to despise Joe McCarthy. As the accuser, Harry Reid has the burden of proof.

If he cannot demonstrate he is acting in good faith, he will deserve to be called, "Dirty Harry" and ranked with Joe McCarthy.

Posted Online: : Aug. 13, 2012, 5:00 am  - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea

If You're Successful and It Isn't Your Fault, Whose Is It?

"There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back. ... Look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something: There are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

These remarks come from a speech delivered by President Barrack Obama on July 16 at Roanoke, Va. When I first heard reports of this speech, I was shocked.

I was shocked further when I found the entirety of the speech at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/13/remarks-president-campaign-event-roanoke-virginia.

The president is obviously correct when he says roads, bridges, the internet and the American system facilitate American business. But that is like saying no farmer is successful without farmland. You obviously can't farm without farmland, but without the efforts of the farmer you get only weeds, brush and trees. Nor can you raise corn without seed. But if the farmer owns land, and buys seed and leaves the seed in the barn, he isn't going to have a corn crop -- unless somebody else does the work for him.

The same is true of having a good teacher and a road. Imagine a man and his wife opening a Yoga studio in downtown Moline. They won't have a successful business because they had wonderful teachers, ample nearby parking, and a road in front of their business.

The proof is simple. The guy who runs the business next door may be located along the same road, have the same access to parking, and may have had the very same teachers during his school years. But why does the Yoga business thrive after six years, while the business next door goes out of business? The reason is clear. The owners of the Yoga studio worked hard to be successful, and made good business decisions. The owners of the defunct business either didn't work hard enough or made improvident business decisions.

Why has Apple Computer succeeded? Did it build a better computer? A better iPod? A better iPad? A better iPhone? Did they have better ideas? Better execution of their ideas? Or did it have better roads to service its business?

There is no question but that it can be a great help for a business to have the government bury it with subsidies, e.g. Solyndra. But if good teachers, roads, and government subsidies translate to success, Solyndra shouldn't be in bankruptcy.

When the Pilgrims came to America in 1620, there were no roads, schools and government subsidies. They set up their community under the model of the early Christians, as told in the Acts of the Apostles. They worked community farms, and all shared equally in the produce of the land. And they nearly starved to death. It was only after the Pilgrims were allowed to farm individual plots and to keep the produce of those plots, that the community prospered. And of course, some barely got by, while others grew prosperous.

For 70 years the U.S.S.R. was a communist society. The worker derived no benefit if he worked harder than his neighbor. The only people who prospered were top government officials. The citizenry lived in a dull, gray, functional government apartment buildings. After 70 years, the Soviet people had had enough.

And now, President Obama holds them up as a model for us. Not satisfied with equal opportunity (liberty) for all Americans, the president opts to emulate Marxist, communist, and socialist models, and incessantly calls for income redistribution and equality of outcome.

If good teachers are the key to success, why does one student prosper while the next goes to prison? Doesn't individual effort have something to do with success? Why does one student learn to read and play the violin, while the next remains illiterate and does drugs?

Why does one student become a doctor, while the guy at the next desk earns minimum wage all his life? Better roads? Bridges?

Perhaps President Obama thinks the way he does because of his own experience. Politicians only become president because others (media-moguls, money-men and voters) opt to push him to the top of the "greasy pole." But most successful business men do it on their own.

Posted Online:  July 31, 2012, 1:50 pm  - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea


 

Al Gore Concession Speech among American History's Finest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"So let it be with us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AT WHAT POINT SHOULD A CHURCH ENTER THE POLITICAL THICKET?

   

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

of Peoria explains why:

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

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

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

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

    religious freedom.''


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

what it perceives to be the equivalent of murder?


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

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

prior to 1954 the Churches were not so circumspect.


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

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


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

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

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

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

    language to clarify that the prohibition also applies to statements opposing

    candidates.

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

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

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

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

    or public office."

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

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

states

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

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

    IRS did substantiate improper political activity in 26 cases and issued

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



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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Commissioner, Mr. Chief Justice Burger wrote

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

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


    “Granting tax exemptions to churches necessarily operates to afford an

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


     The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between

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

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

    the desired separation insulating each from the other.”


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

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

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

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

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


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

the court said bluntly:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

“defeat” of a candidate.


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

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

perceive to grave evil, who needs them?

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

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012, John Donald O'Shea 

   




  

Alexander Hamilton Wins: Congress Is All-powerful

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- If you eat anything the government deems unhealthful;

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

-- Or if you die.

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

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

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

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

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

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

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012, John Donald O'Shea 

Do Government Dollars Compromise Constitutional Rights?

  Recently, a liberal friend of mine wrote "the public is allowed to set rules ... through its elected representatives and those rules apply to all citizens." In America, that statement is only somewhat true.

Indeed, to insure that it never could be wholly true, our Founding Father adopted the Bill of Rights. But does the statement become true, if the citizen accepts money from the government?

In England, from the time of Henry VIII, often when a new monarch took the throne, the religion of the realm changed. Henry was Protestant. Mary was Catholic. Elizabeth I was Protestant. Charles I favored Catholics. Americans in 1789 wanted nothing to do with changing their religions every time the majority in Congress changed.

The First Amendment was designed to insure that religion was beyond the power of each new majority in Congress to "esRecently, a liberal friend of mine wrote "the public is allowed to set rules ... through its elected representatives and those rules apply to all citizens." In America, that statement is only somewhat true.

Our Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution) exists for the primary purpose of putting certain rights that James Madison and his contemporaries deemed essential to a free America beyond the power of the majority and their elected representatives to change. Indeed, those amendments has always denied the federal government power to do any of the following:

-- Designate a "state religion," or specify how Americans should worship. Such a law would run afoul of the "establishment" and "free exercise of religion" clauses of the First Amendment.

-- Prohibit individuals or the press from criticizing the president, Congress or the Supreme Court. This would run afoul of the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and free press.

-- Abolish the right to bear arms, as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

-- Order the quartering of troops in private homes in time of peace, as prohibited by the Third Amendment;

-- Authorize the government to conduct indiscriminate searches and seizures in the absence of probable cause as required by the Fourth Amendment.

-- Take property for public use without paying just compensation as required by the Fifth Amendment;

-- Abolish the right to jury trial, and speedy and public trials in criminal prosecutions, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment

-- Impose cruel and unusual punishments as prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.

Were my friend to give the matter further thought, I'm confident he would concede that the Bill of Rights prevents the majority from changing our rights therein guaranteed. Still, he would probably argue that, "If the church accepts money (from the government) for its quasi-public activities, it must follow whatever rules the elected representatives of the public choose to apply to all citizens."

I think that statement is equally overly broad. By "quasi-public activity," he no doubt means universities, hospitals, and charities that provide adoption services. But hasn't the church for 1,000 years, and for centuries before our Constitution was adopted, considered these as part of its religious mission to love our fellow men and to teach all nations?

So does a church forfeit its First Amendment rights if the church accepts money? If so, how much money may it accept before it surrenders its rights? -- that is, before it must "follow whatever rules the elected representatives of the public choose to apply to all citizens?"

If the University of Notre Dame accepts a nickel from the U.S. government, must it provide to its employees and students insurance that provides coverage for contraceptives and abortifacients?

What if it accepts payments of tuition under a federal loan? What if it accepts tuition for ROTC students paid by the U.S. Navy? What if the university and the state share the cost of construction of a new road to alleviate traffic congestion on football Saturdays? What if it accepts the benefit of having its property tax exempt?

If any of these things result in forfeiture of rights, Notre Dame should have lost its First Amendment rights long ago. That First Amendment provides "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

Note there is nothing in the amendment, stating "except if the church accepts money for its quasi-public activities."

By accepting Social Security benefits or a state pension, have I forfeited my right to the "free exercise" of my religion? To free speech? If I don't, why would the church, absent a clear warning that that was the consequence?

There is no question that the government must have the right to legislate to protect the public. But when that power impacts upon the free exercise of religion, that power must be used delicately. That is the rule stated in the U. S. Supreme Court case of Cantwell v Connecticut (1940): "In every case the power to regulate must be so exercised as not, in attaining a permissible end, unduly to infringe the protected freedom."

Congress' power to protect the public from cannibalism would certainly trump a church's practice of cannibalism.

A president's desire to make contraception and abortion widely available would seemingly permit far less infringement.

Of course, when it comes to money, Congress can always offer a church a choice:

You can take our money, or refuse it. If you take it, these are the strings!

Posted Online:  June 19, 2012, 2:31 p.m - Quad-Cities Online

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