PERTURBED PRESIDENTIAL POLICIES PART I

In light of recently celebrating George Washington’s birthday yesterday, I felt eager and anxious to reconsider why it has been so natural for me to criticize my president while simultaneously expecting he ought to service me with better schools, farmers, bankers, and jobs? From where did this demanding and borderline-needy ethos develop within our nation? And why do I care so much when the rest of the world criticizes the US President for not accomplishing enough?

In case you’re not already familiar with the Federalist Papers, written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, they are a series of articles written for early American newspapers to publish in order to inform the American public of the law and theory behind the Constitution, in an effort to guarantee public support and ensure its ratification. According to Federalist Paper number 69, the job of the president seemed pretty clear and comparatively simple. Hamilton elaborates on four main functions (and no others). He discusses the president’s power to return any bills passed by Congress, to assume position of Commander-in-Chief over the Army and Navy, to receive and send foreign ambassadors, and to sign treaties (upon Congressional approval). (SOURCE)

Tracking the record of how these powers expanded across all the differing eras and presidencies in our country’s history would take more of a thesis format rather than a humble little “common-sensical” style blog post. That’s why I’d like to examine briefly two case scenarios as two definitive turning points in pushing our nation toward the current track we walk of executive power inflation: the Jackson era and the FDR era. Alas, it was so tempting, and so easy for me to drool over the expansion of the presidency that took place under George W. Bush’s term, but I have resisted the temptation to attack his administration specifically in this post, because I would argue that presidents like Bush and Obama are merely falling into a pattern that was jump-started by larger characters in our country’s history, like the two case-examples to follow…

Jackson remains remembered as one of the great presidents because he transformed the understanding of the presidency into the only office that serves as the direct representative of the American people (in its entirety). Since the chief executive is the only office voted onby everybody, Jackson interpreted his role as one that needs to be, first and foremost, a voice for the majority. Also a firm believer in democracy, Jackson stated, “The first principle of our government is that the majority ought to govern”. As the only representative of the majority in one office, Jackson went far beyond the reach of his predecessors in interpreting his constitutional role as president, since the “majority” was his only real check in power (and not the other two branches of government, so much). He was the first president to introduce the “spoils system” in Washington, where federal bureaucrats are fired because of their political disagreements with the president. He also took his veto power to another level. Before his presidency, nine bills had been vetoed. He alone vetoed twelve. He also discovered and utilized the “pocket veto”, where a bill is vetoed right before recess, thereby removing any chance of the veto to be overturned. (SOURCE See pages 105, 114, 126)

Jackson helped to bring the presidency into a more influential position, and utilized his influence in the name of supporting the equality of the middle class (or average citizen). The danger of such dependency on the majority ensues when the majority is wrong. Aside from Jackson nearly single-handedly conquering Florida and setting the stage for the annexation of Texas, his treatment of the Cherokee Indians remained uncontested by his check (the majority), even in light of the Supreme Court decision he blatantly ignored. In 1832, the Supreme Court ruled that Georgia could not impose its laws on Cherokee tribal lands. Jackson is often quoted as responding with, “(Chief Justice) John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!” Jackson went on to pressure Cherokee leaders to sign a removal treaty thereby forcibly removing Cherokee Indians from their lands, to walk the “Trail of Tears”, recorded as having caused the death of over 4,000 Cherokee Indians (SOURCE).

Perhaps this is an extreme example of the frighteningly powerful potential for a presidential figure with widespread popular appeal. The American populous can enable great expansion of the Executive when the Executive believes in its inherent entitlement to interpret the limits of its own position. But this is the very genius of the “checks and balances” system, defined by Rousseau, and adopted by the drafters of our Constitution. The president does not exist to represent the majority, Congress does. The president does not exist to interpret the Constitutional limits of its ability to act in the name of the people, the Supreme Court does. Why then, should we be comforted when President Obama tells us, ““My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington.”?? (SOURCE) Thanks Obama, but no thanks. I would rather my Congressperson feed me that line, and my president care more deeply about focusing on the tasks designed to occupy the presidency. Not the tasks currently delegated to a host of persons, working for a host of organizations, organized under a host of bureaucracies, placed under the heads of a host of presidential advisors, in order to feed the massive machine of our contemporary executive branch.

It seems blatantly apparent, from the example of Jackson’s legacy, that “justice” can be fluidly interpreted when too much power of interpretation is given to the office of one man. But what about under desperate conditions, when the people truly want the President to act in the name of their survival? Is there ever a case where deviation from the Constitution ought to be considered in the name of the protection of the people? We’ll consider these questions, and the case study of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in next week’s post. Until then, have a happy President’s Day week!

-E.C.Soria

INTERLUDE: BANKS BANKING OFF OF BAD BUSINESS

E.C.Soria, our most respected writer, is undergoing a hefty project, continuing her previous post about the President's role in comparison to the U.S. citizen's role in our nation. She is still in the process of digesting her thoughts and was fearful of rushing the process. I commended her efforts and encouraged her to continue on perfecting what she's trying to convey. I think it's going to be one of her finest pieces on this blog and I look forward to supporting it with my Illustrations. SO! My dear readers, please forgive our lack of a post today and think of this as a brief interlude. Next week will certainly shine with E.C.'s usual eloquence, but for now let's sit back and listen to a favorite politician and Senator of ours, Dr.Ron Paul. As controversial as he has been, I think he makes valid points and in this clip in particular he and Judge Napolitano make great observations on what's been going on between our Government and the Banks they/we are bailing out. Much thanks to M.G.Gonzales for directing us to this clip. Definitely take a listen and we'll be sure to see you next week!

-N.S.Soria

STATE OF THE UNION DECREE

Thank you, Mr. President…

As spurred on by the State of the Union Address last week, I’ve been recently reflecting on the state of the American Presidency. Obama’s Address was definitely a great speech (as most expected it to be), but most commentary after the Address focuses critiques on whether or not the speech accomplished what Obama needed to accomplish in order to strengthen his administration. It seems nominally questioned, though, whether or not we are simply expecting way too much from one speech, and more importantly, from one man.

The Address last week followed a cliché pattern of addressing accomplishments, admitting to trials faced and trials to come, and then proclaim a four-tiered paradigm for striving toward a strong USA…

The first layer of Obama’s speech, in terms of the direction of immediate government action, was in regards to financial reform. One can easily refer to the below post in order to gauge our sentiments on the only type of financial reform that seems to have taken place within this administration. Namely, pumping federal dollars into banks, only to turn around and tax them, in the name of redistributing such “gains” to smaller banks funding smaller businesses. This appears not only counter-productive, but wasteful.

The next layer of Obama’s speech, called for an investment in “greener” innovation. While the thought of more “green” industry in America sounds like a two-fold win, a more environmentally friendly America with more domestic “industrial” jobs. We ought also to be careful that money invested is going towards private industry, which will be more effective in providing gains in green technology while securing more jobs for the future, rather than investing more money in more government bureaucracies (i.e. $10 billion this year on the mere operation of the federal EPA), which hands greater responsibility to the federal government while also teaching us to depend on government expansion in order to create more jobs. This would not count as a win. (SOURCE)

The third step towards success was an allusion toward Obama’s newest National Export Initiative. I would fervently disagree that more agricultural exports guarantees more American jobs and that more agricultural subsidies equals more successful farmers. But even with these ideological differences aside, the logical conclusion from past patterns of government agricultural subsidies is that they are a waste. Over $95 billion was spent between 2001 and 2006 on agricultural subsidies, while 1.3 billion of those dollars went to landowners that didn’t plant a single crop (SOURCE). Furthermore, according to the current National Export Initiative, as listed under the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) Department of the US Department of Agriculture, the $54 million proposed for this Initiative will serve towards increasing salaries within the FAS by $34.5 million. Therefore, the leftover $19.5 million probably cannot be expected to ramp our agricultural prowess in the world by much. (SOURCE)

Obama’s final step in guaranteeing our comeback as a strong economically stable nation was laid out in the form of educational reform. Whereas, the need for an improved educational system is acknowledged across the board, the need to place greater responsibility in the hands of the federal government ought to be questioned. An example of Obama’s progress in educational reform includes one of his latest initiatives, referred to as “Race to the Top”. States have the opportunity to apply for grants for their schools that have been making progress in meeting national standards and for state-funded programs in meeting lower-scoring school’s needs. While more money for states sounds like a step in the right direction, this initiative will only grant money to 11 of the 50 states. (SOURCE). How is this a constitutionally sounds way to spend federal money (which ought to belong in the hands of the Union as a whole)?

If you’ve managed to even force your way this far through my droning complaints regarding Obama’s State of the Union Address, you might find yourself begging the same question I’m internally struggling with right now. How did I manage to write an entire post resembling the very whining and groaning of the thousands of journalistic commentators that I was calling into question at the beginning of my post? Maybe the greater question is how have we, collectively as a nation, become accustomed to looking to the face, speeches, and ambitions of one man, to give us our bankers, jobs, and schools? The process of critiquing this presidential figure has become much too easy for anyone (even myself), because we’ve turned his position into a presidential king of sorts, looked toward for providing us with everything and anything we can think of asking of him. Perhaps the investigation of how we’ve found our nation in this collectively needy and demanding position is worth considering. Perhaps a conversation to be continued for next week’s post…

-E.C.Soria

ILL FITTED TAXATION

Today is another day. The Sun is still shining, no matter where you are, high or low, beneath or above the clouds, it's there. There used to be a time, under that same Sun, when failure was acceptable to talk about, and truth was better investigated. Maybe because failure can mean the end of comfort, we avoid it and therefore avoid what lays before us each day; an opportunity to step ahead of our mistakes made in the past. No, there will be no golden-trumpets-of-truth to hit the fan about where the $3 trillion U.S. dollars went. Now we find ourselves unknowing and quick to punish.

"Daddy Warbucks," in this case the common U.S. citizen, has been busy paying for the bailouts of every failed big business. The money intended to jumpstart the economy has only left the economy in sagging disarray while rewarding bad business practices and political organizations for their ill intended business paths. For instance, ACORN received $5.2 billion USD in bailout money, and while currently under Federal investigation of voter fraud. And now the plan is to tax institutions for our own perpetuation of these horrible practices. These unallocated taxes are the kind of taxes that the founders of the U.S. Constitution fought against, taxation without representation. Is the Obama administration as guilty as the U.S. Congressional House and Senate who opened the gates of financial purgatory? Who dealt it smelt it, or is it who smelt it dealt it?

And still, ironically enough President Obama stated that "While the financial system is far stronger today than it was one year ago, it is still operating under the exact same rules that led to its near collapse." He is suppose to be the protector of the United States and representitive of the Constitution who tells Congress "You shall not pass" when they try to reward businesses who have spent beyond their ability to produce revenue. Now it seems we live in an age of titles of nobility, and of course not to be confused with real nobility. President Obama now wants to punish the very banks he saved by implementing a "Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee" at a yearly rate of $1,500 for every $1 million borrowed to finance lending and other activities. This could mean that every U.S. citizen will pay higher rates when they borrow money. The said intentions of the "Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee" are to force banks into submission and keep them small, creating "leverage." A controlled market, cannot and will not sustain liberty for long. Anarcho-capitalist free market is what our founders intended to have, but of course with a civil government governed by the common citizens and a set of U.S. laws and bindings listed in the U.S. Constitution. This all leaving room for our posterity and property which may bring forward courageous innovations under freedom, as well as a liberty to fail. Failure is important for a society which wishes to be free and helps it make prolific advances towards a better day.

With all that said, and a half an hour later after devouring a bag of Dorito chips, I must conclude; we live in a nation where punishment is brought on in the form of spanking a dead horse. Obama may have good intentions to punish businesses that were awarded bailout money which was spent on frivolously party-times, but where does the line get drawn? Allowing a person, or business to fail is the best thing to do and accounts as a learning process. As Abraham Lincoln said, "The fiery trials through which we pass will light us down in honour or dishonour to the latest generation." Let us learn from these mistakes and move on.

(Sources: Stossel's Report & Holman Jenkins' opinion)

-M.G.Gonzales with N.S.Soria

IMMIGRATION TALKS

Today’s blog does not come to you from any front-page news headlines, any inspiring words from Obama, or from any recent election results upsetting the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Rather tonight, I’m more troubled by the story of a dear friend (and fellow Spanish teacher/co-worker) of mine who has had to endure painstakingly long trials as a result of her attempt to legally navigate the US immigration system with her husband. Three years ago, upon getting married, my friend and her husband decided together they desired to make his status in the U.S. legal. According to their attorney (whom they cannot afford), it was legal for him to remain working in the states while waiting for his Permanent Residency Status to be confirmed. Two years later, the law changed, and with his status still pending, he was sent back to Mexico. One year later, his application for legal admission to the US is still indefinitely pending, and my friend is left here, debating with herself over the ethical merits of working here (away from her husband) to support her child, or moving to Mexico to be with her husband at the risk of them not being able to affording supporting a family. The most disturbing part of this story is the sheer commonality of it all. I’m certain we have all known people who have been affected in similar ways by US Immigration Law.

While it might initially seem outrageous to most of us to be sympathizing with any “illegals”, there are many reasons to believe we are creating harmful popular views of immigration under the current direction of our immigration system. After viewing a brief history of our Citizenship and Immigration Services Bureaucracy, one might observe that, historically, the area of Immigration Law fell under the arm of the Department of Commerce or Labor or Justice. Those seem to flow logically with the general purposes that immigration has served in our country in the past. Devastatingly though, upon the year 2003, when we were busy entering Iraq, the USCIS (Citizenship and Immigration Services) was altered in its make-up, and placed under the oversight of the Department of Homeland Security (also a newly evolved entity of 2003) (SOURCE) . Does it seem strange to anyone else that the Secretary of Homeland Security, who oversees things like “Counterterrorism” and “Preparedness, Response and Recovery”(SOURCE), also has the largest role in “promoting flexible and sound immigration policies and programs” (SOURCE)? We need to shift away from this perception of immigrants as part of “the other” or “potential threat” population, and rather, view them for what they are; future Americans, future us’. This is why efforts to thwart Comprehensive Immigration Reform need to be cautiously examined and avoided if they exist to only instill fear, thereby limiting the potential for greatness that our country really might have.

In the most recent holiday issue of the Economist, one article argues that “a country’s economic prospects depend in large measure on whether it is a place where people want to be”. Essentially, the more desirable a place is to be, the more creative people it will attract. The more creative people it attracts, the more ingenuity it inspires. And the more ingenuity it inspires, the greater its numbers of productivity and prosperity (SOURCE). “No matter where an immigrant hails from, he can find a cluster of his ethnic kin in America”. We need to stop viewing this appealing nature of our essential make-up as a burden, and rather view it as an opportunity and a definitive aspect of our country’s founding and development. We have all descended from migrants who have made their way to America over the past couple hundred years, and we have all descended from people who have played a significant role in the development of this nation into an appealing place to live. If we want to be great, let’s not start fearing this pattern now.

-E.C.Soria

THE WORLD IS MELTING AND SO IS MY BRAIN

I remember being in 5th grade learning the "3 R's," Recycle, Reduce, Reuse, and thinking that if I don't I could leave a barren wasteland in my wake for my children to suffocate and burn to death in. A horrid thought, I know, and one could blame it on my overactive imagination and/or schooling, but whatever the case the media hasn't detracted that sentiment much. Now we use more complex terminology and an array of advertised Green movements that can leave any American afraid of their own SUV's.

But on the horizon is this strange voice that says the science is wrong, the politicians are wrong, and that we've all been fooled! (The Great Global Warming Swindle) Could we dare question the ordained scientist of the IPCC? With the massive amounts of US money involved (SOURCE), and the Global policies that are quickly moving in to place (SOURCE), we probably should. Let's not pull a Galileo all over again.

A British politician and policy adviser, Chistopher Monckton, spoke openly against these treaties that are in the process of being annexed, and brought to light a dirty word, "Government." In an interview, Monckton states, "The extraordinary thing about the draft treaty which I have now seen is that it goes far further than anything that was planned at any previous session. What they're now going to do is to set up a world government, and the word 'Government' actually appears in the treaty. But you heard it here first. The word 'Election, democracy, vote, or ballot' does not appear anywhere in the 200 pages of the treaty." (SOURCE) Incredible to think that we've come this far based off of now questionable science that declares the World is melting and it's all our fault. Funny to think that when the IPCC, a source Al Gore used in his Inconvenient Truth documentary, declared that meat production creates large amounts of CO2 emissions that rivals World's transportation system (SOURCE), Al Gore was questioned if he was going to go vegetarian and he said no. (SOURCE) I wonder if this soon-to-be-billionaire flies around to his many guest star appearances and interviews on a private jet? Based on IPCC's science, it doesn't sound like Gore is practicing what he's preaching.

Professor Paul Reither of IPCC & Pasteur Institute, Paris once said, "This claim that the IPCC is the World's top 1,500-2,500 scientist... you look at the bibliographies of the people and it's simply not true. There are quite a number of non-scientists." (The Great Global Warming Swindle) And now the meeting of the nations in Copenhagen are working fast to obtain massive global funding and policies for a cause that might be based on questionable science. My suggestion is that if you have an ounce of doubt pay close attention to the Global and National policies that the World is trying to set in place and if you have been reading our blog, I'm sure you're familiar with our feelings about what we think the Constitution and our Forefathers have to say about us meddling too much in International affairs. I think this is a valid concern and we should all beware...

...but still, if you can, keep on Recycling, Reducing and Reusing. I think that's just plain healthy.

-N.S.Soria

A LITTLE THING THE STATE DEPT LIKES TO CALL, FMF

An interesting alliance the United States has maintained since the end of WWII (among many), is that with Israel. Perhaps it’s an interesting relationship, because it defines the understanding of our nation’s character to many ordinary middle eastern citizens. Perhaps it’s interesting because it is the only foreign military that receives billions of dollars in aid while simultaneously receiving the greatest amount of US vetoes against past UN Security Council’s efforts to investigate “war crimes” or “crimes against humanity” they may have committed. Perhaps it’s an interesting relationship, because after a two-week long war (between Hamas and the Israeli Defense Forces), where Israel lost 13 soldiers and Palestine lost over 1,400 people (SOURCE), the US government voiced a disposition of approval by continuing to provide the billions in funds that have propped up the Israeli military to such a position of global prowess.

The more one reads about the relationship between the US federal budget and the finances of the Israeli military, the more one might be more disturbed, than anything, with the general theory behind such foreign policy mechanisms that are so often utilized (in relating to any country) without much question by the American people. The bulk of the money sent annually to the Israeli military comes from what is referred to as the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) fund. It just so happens that the Israeli military has received especially favored attention from this fund. According to the Congressional Research Service, Israel has been granted nearly $3 billion annually since the year 1985, and this number is only promised to increase by $6 billion over the next decade (SOURCE).

But let us return to the concepts behind the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) fund. How could such a discreet portion of the State Department ever be justified in funneling billions of American dollars toward the development of foreign militaries? According to the State Department website, stronger foreign militaries can “contribute to international crisis response operations, including peacekeeping and humanitarian crises.” But what happens when these militaries contribute to ongoing humanitarian crises? (Has anyone ever heard of Gaza?). Furthermore, apparently foreign militaries can help “Maintain support for democratically-elected governments that share values similar to the United States for democracy, human rights, and regional stability.” But what happened to our founding fathers’ original beliefs that America is merely “the champion and vindicator only of her own”?? (John Q. Adams). Furthermore, according to our State Department, the FMF exists to “enhance rationalization, standardization, and interoperability of military forces of friendly countries and allies”. I’m not so sure I want “interoperability”, when our countries freedoms were founded on the rationalization that “enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, [America] would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom” (John Q. Adams). (FMF Quotes from SOURCE).

I’m aware that the relationship we have with Israel is not the only relationship we need to question. I’m also aware that the complications of our “interoperability” in the Middle East are beyond the reach of my understanding at this point. But perhaps that’s the point we need to take away with us. “Enlisting under other banners” will always entrench us in more war, more regional conflict, and more compromise when said conflicts directly contradict the strong principles of “liberty” and “equality under the law” that ought to be the things that shape our international identity. Perhaps the complicated bonds of our state department are beyond the reach of our rationalization at this point, because they negate the simplicity of the foreign policy once wish for our nation. It reminds me of how Thomas Jefferson once profoundly aspired for “Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliance with none”.

-E.C.Soria