Abolish the US Presidency

I propose an Amendment to the US Constitution to abolish the presidency – at least, as we know it. There would still be a President but he would not be – as he is now – an Imperial President.

My amendment would render as obsolete most of Article II of the Constitution, which opens by saying:

“The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

I propose the following as a change in that sentiment:

“The President of the United States shall be considered primarily as the nominal head of state, as a diplomat serving at the pleasure of and under the instruction of Congress.”

It is important here to immediately address what I mean by “Congress.” Most Americans hold their duly-elected Congressmen in such low esteem, even used car salesmen look good. So I couldn’t possibly mean that kind of Congress. Instead, I foresee a Congress composed entirely of independents who are unaligned with any interest group or political party. Redefining Congress in this way is important in light of these two parts of my proposed amendment:

·       The only persons eligible to serve as President will be sitting Congressmen.

·       The only persons eligible to vote for President will be sitting Congressmen.

That is to say, the President will have been an actively-serving Congressman who surrenders that office upon being elected by a majority of his fellow Congressmen for a four year term as President.

I can hear the hue and cry now about We-the-People being stripped of our right to choose our leader. [As if We really have much choice in the matter.]  However, that redefined leader will have very few powers and will serve his four year term unless Congress, for any reason of its choosing, decides to replace him at any time, with or without cause.

The President that I envision will be Congress’s chief representative in dealings with foreign nations. That is, he’ll be a conduit through which the sense of the Congress will be known. He will not, however, be the Chief Executive who presides over the agencies currently listed under his control; Congress will determine who will lead those agencies and those leaders will be subject to immediate replacement by Congress. However, as long as they are in charge, they can manage these agencies, with their decisions being subject to Congressional override.

The President will have nothing to do with Supreme Court nominations; there’s no reason the Congress couldn’t handle that task on its own.

The President will not be Commander in Chief, since the Congress itself (or a select few Congressmen of its choosing) will convey its orders to our armed forces. The only military function to be served by the President, which is a carryover from past presidents, is his role in launching the US’s nuclear weapons.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Our Founding Fathers’ single greatest failure was in determining that we needed (what is really) a One-Man Branch of Government. Unfortunately, this de facto king managed to acquire ever-increasing power unto himself. Our greatest failure as an electorate was to go along with this scam.

Even the Constitution makes plain that it is Congress that is to be preeminent, since Congress is mentioned first (in Article I) and the Presidency second (in Article II). But, lo and behold, we all went along with the nonsense that we have three separate but equal branches of government. That absolutely was never the intention: Congress was meant to be dominant. For those who doubt that, ask yourself this: Why is Congress the only branch that can (without being subject to appeal) impeach members of the other two branches but can't itself be impeached?

Closing Thoughts

We don’t really need a President, in our current sense of what that office implies. Instead of being a leader, too often he is a lightning rod that attracts opposition to himself simply because that’s just one more way to attack his political party. The President becomes a polarizing figure who manages to bring out the basest emotions of the body politic as each election cycles begins anew.

If we had a President who ceased to be so vital to the legislative process, then We-the-People would start paying more attention to having a quality Congress. Having an Imperial President tends to muddy the waters, helping us lose our focus.

This last part might not seem all that important, but I would eliminate this sentence from Article II:

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

I am amazed that this had been included in the first place by the Founding Fathers, especially since it’s there for no good reason. I mean, come on people, once a candidate is elected President, should he be denied his office if he should decide to refuse to take this oath?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“We will probably never change our minds about the presidency because we share so much in common with citizens of other nations – civilized or not: We love our strongman form of government.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

The USA’s [NOT!]Civil War, and guns for felons

Today, I’m going to address the issue of guns for felons. From there, I’ll turn to the grossly misnamed Civil War of the USA’s past and the possibility of a genuine Civil War in the future.

The Source

As always, it’s a good idea to start with the source. In this case, the Second Amendment to the US Constitution:

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.

Based on this, by what authority are felons barred from owning guns? My question stems from my conviction that, once a felon serves his sentence (that is, after he has paid his debt to society), he shouldn’t continue to be punished. But in fact he is, for under our legal system, there is no such thing as an ex-felon. Even after release from prison, such a person is marked for life; he continues to be treated as a criminal.

Such “disenfranchisement” bears the US Supreme Court’s approval based on three words in the 14^th Amendment. Those three words, which I’ll highlight in yellow below, are contained in Section 2, which in part reads:

But when the right to vote…is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

In a nutshell, this section simply allows states the right to deny the right to vote, but must pay the consequence of reduced representation in Congress, the only exemption concerning those who rebel or commit an “other crime.”

Now, the 14^th Amendment is odd for a number of reasons, two of which I’ll cite here:

ONE:

I’m amazed that the Supreme Court could give to state authorities the “right” to disenfranchise (I’ll call them) ex-felons based on something as unconstitutionally vague as the words “or other crime?” That is to say, someone can lose their right to vote for a crime such as…loitering!? Not even the Constitution itself is of much help here; I’m thinking specifically of Article II, Section 4 which states:

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

I’m amazed that two serious crimes are mentioned (treason and bribery), only to have follow (in the same breath, as it were) “OTHER [my emphasis] high crimes and misdemeanors.”


TWO:

[I will quote the following from this source, inserting my own comments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Acts .]


QUOTE:

After the end of the American Civil War…the United States Congress passed four statutes known as Reconstruction Acts. … Fulfillment of the requirements of the Acts were necessary for the former Confederate States to be readmitted to the Union.

[COMMENT: I find it hard to understand why these states had to be readmitted, since the position of the Union during the war was that secession was illegal (in other words, it wasn’t recognized as having taken place). To “readmit” these states must therefore imply that they had been in fact lawfully seceded.]

[AND]

In addition, Congress required that each state draft a new state constitution, which would have to be approved by Congress. The states also were required to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution…

[COMMENT: As for the 10 words highlighted in turquoise: How can an Amendment be considered legitimately ratified if a state was forced to vote for its ratification? Even more to the point, since such a state (apparently) needed to be readmitted to the Union, by what right could it have voted for ratification in the first place?]

:UNQUOTE.


Undermining the Second Amendment

One well-publicized intention of the Second Amendment was to provide for an at-large militia which, if granted the right to bear arms, could serve as a check on the possibility our government would ever take a turn toward tyranny. Such a tyrannical force could, conceivably, decide to disarm potential malcontents. People incarcerated as felons (especially for crimes of violence) would be exactly the type of persons who would be most willing to take action against a government they feel to be unjust.

So, from the government’s point of view, it would be useful to disarm such persons. But that same government would market this policy to the general public as a means of insuring public safety, though I hasten to point out – no such considerations were incorporated into the Second Amendment itself. That’s how fundamental the Founding Fathers considered to be the right to bear arms.

But of course times change, and those who were once the revolutionary Founding Fathers have been replaced by those who are far more interested in keeping (and expanding) their own personal power.

You would think that the NRA and the GOP would be at the forefront of the battle to restore gun ownership rights to ex-felons. But you would be wrong by so thinking. Those two groups have been tied to the so-called Law and Order rhetoric for so long, they couldn’t support the rights of others who are overwhelming marginalized by everybody else.

[NOTE: I don’t know what the Tea Partiers think of felons and guns, but I doubt they would boldly champion the cause of the ex-felon. Doing so would detract support from their other agenda items.]

It’s interesting to see how the GOP seeks to divide us on this issue. There are 291 words in the GOP’s 2012 platform under the heading, “Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.” I will quote from (and comment on) some of those words:

QUOTE:

We uphold the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, a right …solemnly confirmed by the Second Amendment. We acknowledge, support, and defend the law-abiding citizen’s God-given right of self-defense.

[COMMENT: The term “law-abiding” citizen is a euphemism for non-felon. Why shouldn’t a felon have a “God-given right of self-defense?”]

[AND]

Gun ownership is responsible citizenship, enabling Americans to defend their homes and communities.

[COMMENT: This last sentence is almost too funny. Since felons are denied the right to own guns, is the GOP saying that felons are no longer citizens? If “gun ownership is [supposed to be] responsible citizenship,” then how can the GOP tolerate the disarming of ex-felons who would be more than happy to rebel against a tyrannical government? For the potential for such a rebellion to be successful must surely be part of what is meant by “to defend…their communities.”]

:UNQUOTE.

Comparing The Battle of Athens, Tennessee in 1946

to the (misnamed) American Civil War

There are a lot of Second Amendment enthusiasts – that is, the kind who think our guns will protect us against our own government – who cite the case of the Battle of Athens, Tennessee in 1946. They see that “Battle” as an example of the power of unregulated guns to beat the Establishment. Keep in mind, as you read the following quote, that the “Battle” was fought against sheriff’s deputies, holed up in a jail with uncounted ballots, in order to release those ballots to determine who the [are you ready for this?] next sheriff should be.

QUOTE [including my comments]:

SOURCE: http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/athens.htm  ]:

As Recently As 1946, American Citizens Were
Forced To Take Up Arms As A Last Resort
Against Corrupt Government Officials.

[AND]

On August 1-2, 1946, some Americans, brutalized by their county government, used armed force as a last resort to overturn it.


[COMMENT: No such thing happened. The “county government” wasn’t overturned. What happened? Ballot boxes were liberated, which denied election to a candidate for sheriff representing an oppressive cabal.]

These Americans wanted honest open elections. For years they had asked for state or federal election monitors to prevent vote fraud (forged ballots, secret ballot counts and intimidation by armed sheriff's deputies) by the local political boss. They got no help.

:UNQUOTE.

Unbelievable! Homegrown militia types tout this as a great victory for citizens bearing arms. However, they conveniently overlook the greatest example in our history of citizens taking arms against the federal government in a struggle which they lost. I’m referring of course to the USA’s 1861 – 1865 War of Secession.

Simply put, there were 11 states which no longer wished to remain part of the United States of America. And, Constitutionally-speaking, they had every right to withdraw from that Union. Even our Declaration of Independence, in its very first sentence, speaks of when “…it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth [their status as an independent nation].”

To be sure, the Confederates didn’t lose quickly. Against an army that was twice their size, they inflicted twice as many killed as they themselves suffered. They had guns and even an organized and very effective army. But in the end, their right to bear arms did not do what it was supposed to do – act as insurance against a tyrannical government. [“Tyrannical” in the sense of being forceful in its insistence that the 11 seceding states remain in the Union.]

Reflections on the True Meaning of

the USA’s War of Secession

I passionately and thoroughly disagree with calling this war, a Civil War. For it was not, simply because it doesn’t fit the universally-accepted definitions of what comprise civil wars. It was a War of Secession. In fact, I would like to see an Act of Congress officially naming this conflict as such a war.

I am a firm believer in the truth and, also, in truth in packaging. It’s about time we saw this conflict for what it was. I’ve often wondered why the Union was so insistent against secession, though it didn’t take long to realize that the issue of slavery was only of modest importance.

The fact is, the South wasn’t really integrated into USA society as a whole. And that’s simply because, there was no such thing at the time. The Unionists weren’t as much opposed to secession as they were to what that might bring about. And the primary fear was, the possibility of the various European powers vying for influence (and investment opportunities) in the newly-minted Confederacy. And that, in turn, could mean competition, something the industrial North could not tolerate.

Why we need a New Order of New Leaders

I’m going to cite one more quote of interest to show the cynicism of our lawmakers, who are far more interested in making exceptions for the sake of business than in enforcing the pure intentions of the Second Amendment (not to mention, other laws which they choose to enforce only at their own whim).

QUOTE:

Under federal law, those convicted of a felony are forbidden from purchasing or possessing firearms and explosives. Yet as the result of a 1965 amendment to the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, convicted felons were allowed to apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) for "relief" from the "disability" of not being able to buy and possess guns.

The "relief from disability" program was established as a favor to firearms manufacturer Winchester, then a division of Olin Mathieson Corporation. In 1962 Olin Mathieson pleaded guilty to felony counts stemming from a kickback scheme involving Vietnamese and Cambodian pharmaceutical importers. Under the law as it existed at the time, Winchester could no longer be licensed as a firearm manufacturer. The "relief from disability" program allowed Winchester to stay in business.

SOURCE: http://www.vpc.org/studies/felons.htm

:UNQUOTE.

Why, oh why, do exceptions to policies so often come into existence only for the benefit of the well-connected?

The Civil War of the Future

After you’ve read this post, I hope you’ll see how futile would be armed insurrection against the US government. For what was true at the time of the War of Secession is certainly more true now: The feds can outgun, in terms of quantity and quality, any conceivable militia which, by no stretch, could be as organized and omnipresent as the feds. The best such militias could hope for would be to serve as an irritant, much as street gangs are to municipal police departments. The risk of such an approach would be to bring down the awful specter of martial law and a further consolidation of federal power.

And that would serve to squelch any possibility of a sympathetic mass uprising by the general public.

The Civil War of the Future will be intelligently fought – and won – without firing a single shot. Elsewhere on this blog, especially in my earliest postings, I’ve described how that might be accomplished, which I’ll leave it to you to pursue. But I will say this: Our greatest strategy involves educating the public to the necessity of voting against all incumbents, at all times, for all offices on a consistent basis for at least ten years. Only that can work to pave the way for non-party aligned, independent office seekers to get elected.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com