Obama's "27th" line in the sand

What does this (my article's title) mean: "Obama's '27th' line in the sand?"

First of all, I'm referring to the 27th Amendment to the US Constitution: "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened."

Second: I urge President Obama to draw a line in the sand by seizing the Bully Pulpit to beat up the GOP House because of its blatant attempt to violate the 27th by means of text inserted into the so-called "No Budget, No Pay" bill passed by the House on Jan. 23, 2013. That text reads:

“In order to ensure that this section is carried out in a manner that shall not vary the compensation of Senators or Representatives in violation of the [27th amendment], the payroll administrator of a House of Congress shall release for payments to Members of that House of Congress any amounts remaining in any escrow account under this section on the last day of the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress.”

Even though the bill's text says it "shall not vary the compensation," it does exactly that. Since a Senator gets paid twice per month and a Representative once per month, the bill is clearly unconstitutional since its worst case scenario would delay payment for up to 8 months. I maintain that this "delay" constitutes a "varying of compensation" clearly prohibited by the 27th. Nothing could be clearer.


Barack Obama's Oath and the Bully Pulpit

Earlier this week - a scant 3 days ago - in front of tens of millions of people watching on TV, Barack Obama swore this oath:

"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."

President Obama should immediately go on national television and throw down the gauntlet by saying this:

"I swore an oath to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,' so I say this to House Speaker John Boehner: I will sign the debt ceiling bill into law but only if the part that blatantly and obviously violates the 27th amendment is removed from that bill's text. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle know the vital importance this bill will play in avoiding a default in the payment of the United States' debt obligations. Be that as it may, I find it unconscionable that the House saw fit to include an provision irrelevant to that goal which violates the 27th amendment.

"I remind Speaker Boehner and other members of the House: You swore an oath to 'support and defend the Constitution' - an oath which includes this final sentence 'So help me God.'  Not even my oath mandated 'So help me God.' The House, by intentionally including language which violates the Constitution, makes a mockery of the oath you took invoking God. For House members who are not men of faith, I suppose that is a moot point. For those of you who profess such faith, however, I remind you that this is a matter of grave concern.

"This is the oath you took:

"'I...do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.'

"I hereby charge any member of Congress who refuses to remove this unconstitutional language from this bill to be, in the language of the oath you took, a domestic enemy of the Constitution. And that would make you a traitor.

"For those who might claim the 27th amendment isn't clear enough or that it isn't 'valid' since the Supreme Court has never interpreted it, I point out the obvious:  Any reasonably literate adult, upon reading the text of the 27th amendment, would easily understand its clear and concise language. Furthermore, they would also understand how the language of the bill seeks to violate that clear and concise language.

"To the GOP members of the House, I additionally call into question your loyalty to the concept of constitutional strict construction. To the members of the House from my own party, I remind you that expediency can never be a good reason to violate the Constitution.

"Again, I will refuse to sign this bill into law unless its language attacking the 27th amendment is removed."


Unfortunately...

Barack Obama has already signaled that he will sign this "No Budget, No Pay" bill. Which is too bad. For he could have taken a stand in favor of the Constitution. A stand so strong that Boehner and company would have immediately removed the offending language from the bill. There can be no doubt of this, since Boehner's GOP cohorts, should they balk, would suffer from the whithering blasts of a continuous presidential assault which calls them, in no uncertain words, traitors.

In addition, Obama would have gained by permanently damaging the GOP's reputation for being greater "strict constructionists" [in terms of Constitutional interpretation] than Democrats are reputed to be.


An additional comment on strict construction

Just so you know how strongly I feel about the letter of the law, I hereby explain why Barack Obama did not successfully take the oath of office on January 21, 2013. In front of millions, he said, "I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear..." However, by including his name in the text of the oath, Obama did not recite the prescribed oath which follows - and which, in the Constitution, is emphasized by quotation marks:

"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."

That's the oath.

Now some might accuse me of being too picky here. To which I respond: If the Constitution is supposed to border on the sacred, if we can't do as it specifically says, then why bother having any kind of constitution in the first place?

Chief Justice Roberts could have addressed the teeming thousands present in the freezing cold by facing them and saying:

"President-elect Barack Hussein Obama will now take the oath of office, which I will now administer."

Then, turning toward Obama, he could have said, "Raise your right hand and repeat after me: 'I do solemnly swear..."

There! That would have been more like it - more Constitutional. I refuse to believe that our leaders lack the intelligence to have come up with this option or one similar to it. I'm left wondering, though, why they don't exercise that intelligence far more often. And if you think I'm being too picky, I counter with: They're not being picky enough - and it shows in the way they conduct the nation's business.


End note:

I hope you find this link useful in terms of understanding what this so-called "No budget, No pay" bill offers:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/23/news/economy/debt-ceiling-house-republicans/


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

Steven Searle, former candidate for the US presidency (2008 and 2012)
Founder of the Independent Contractors' Party

"Unless we can embrace a commonsense interpretation of our laws - and write laws that can be so interpreted - we will continue our slide down that slippery slope leading to our destruction."

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Reflections on US gun control

Question: Why is President Obama emphasizing the "need" for more gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre which claimed 26 lives? This is clearly a fight the President didn't have to provoke, since it could always be claimed that such mass shootings are rare and not much can be done to stop them.

If Obama urges Congress to pass new gun control legislation, such measures seem doomed to failure or (if passed) to being ineffectual. Why bother to pass a law limiting how many rounds a high-capacity magazine can hold, when concerned citizens will merely stockpile them before any such law can be passed? Same goes for any attempt to ban assault rifles. Even attempts to tighten requirements for background checks will be resisted as "intrusive" and will easily die a filibuster death in the Senate if they should somehow make it out of the House.

So why would Obama put so much of his prestige on the line when Congress won't go along with any meaningful changes? As for bypassing Congress by means of issuing Executive Orders, that would be political suicide since such action would be perceived as an usurpation of Congress's power to legislate.

There are two factors which will serve to severely limit the effectiveness of any action the President might wish to take:

• Since we have over 300 million privately-owned weapons in the US, the sheer volume of that arsenal will make it easy for people who might not be legally eligible to acquire guns ;
• Since gun manufacturing is such a big business in the US, anything more than a token attempt to limit production or sale would negatively impact the economy.

What Obama might be up to

The practical effect of Obama's posturing on this issue has been to increase sales of privately-owned weapons and high-capacity magazines, as well as to fire up the gun rights crowd. It doesn't make sense for a President to do anything that would inspire weapons sales. Money spent on weapons isn't money best spent. If someone buys a car, that impacts the economy positively - he is able to shop at a wider variety of locations and his increased mobility would help his employability. He pays for gas, tolls, insurance, licenses, taxes, and maintenance while feeling that these outlays are "worth it."

But how does owning a gun or, more to the point, an arsenal of guns, help the economy? Guns don't serve the same function as would tools, which can aid in manufacturing useful products. Guns just lie around until the owner decides to hunt or target shoot, or finds himself in need of self-defense. The money spent on acquiring a gun arsenal could better be used for investment purposes or to acquire an education (or other self-improvement) that has a demonstrably positive effect on the economy as a whole.

In fact, after the spike in guns sales serves to over-saturate the market, people with guns to sell won't have much of a market left. Then what? Will they, if they decide they need some ready cash, try to sell illegally to gang bangers or militia types? Will some of our gun manufacturers go out of business or lay off workers?

For a President to talk up gun control when there are such very good reasons not to, makes me wonder about a hidden agenda. One undeniable result of such talk has been to increase internet chatter from self-styled anti-government protesters. I have no doubt that such chatter is being monitored by the feds with an eye toward identifying the participants. It amazes me how many people really believe their internet ramblings are anonymous. I have no doubt that service providers such as Yahoo routinely reveal the identities of "anonymous" posters to agencies such as Homeland Security and the FBI.

I had a recent internet exchange with someone who owns an arsenal of over 30 guns, promising that he'd start shooting if anyone tried to take his guns away. One of my responses: If you've got 30 guns, the government already knows who you are and they won't try to take away your guns; but you might find yourself the victim of an identity theft resulting in a total draining of your bank account. This individual suddenly broke off our dialog, perhaps thinking he was at risk.

I had also told this same individual, "The feds don't have to bother trying to take your guns away from you, since they already have you where they want you - irrevocably embedded in the Matrix. As far as they're concerned, you can keep your guns since you'll always pay whatever taxes they levy, support whatever wars they wish to wage, and vote for whichever Dem/Pubs they care to put on the ballot."

The federal government might find it convenient to distract people by appearing to threaten their Second Amendment rights. Such distractions serve to lessen the effectiveness of efforts to (for instance) reform our political system. And that helps them maintain and further consolidate their power.


An out-of-touch NRA

The National Rifle Association doesn't advocate that ex-felons should be able to own guns, not even those who'd served their time for the commission of non-violent crimes. Legally speaking, there is no such thing as an ex-felon. But a post-incarcerated "felon" is, strictly speaking, a legal fiction. Once a person has served his time, he shouldn't be subjected to additional punishments. But the law and order crowd thinks, "Once a criminal, always a criminal." That sentiment, however, flies in the face of a cherished USA belief in second chances - which is why many support bankruptcy laws (not to mention, corporate bailouts) that enable persons (including corporations which are also "persons" under the law) to start over again.

Since the NRA is silent on the rights of ex-felons to own guns in order to defend their homes and many of those ex-felons are from minority groups, it's easy to conclude the NRA isn't too fond of minorities. The absence of minority NRA members and the lack of effort by the NRA to recruit them speak volumes. As the USA population becomes less white, NRA runs the risk of isolating itself. Which it also does whenever it appears the feds are about to enact new guns laws, thereby bringing out the crazies. Case in point: One particular crazy named Alex Jones who had started a petition to deport Piers Morgan, not liking Piers's stand on gun control. Check out Alex's rant which spewed forth while being interviewed by Piers' on his TV show, especially the part starting at 2:15 on this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtyKofFih8Y

Any reasonable person listening to Alex's nonsense should easily conclude, "This is a mad dog who needs to be put down." More charitably, I'd say, "With friends like Alex Jones, the pro-gun lobby doesn't need enemies."


Fear of the UN encroaching on US sovereignty

One reason cited for why we need our guns is to prevent UN troops from enforcing USA treaty obligations by means of entering this country. This could lead to a New World Order encroaching on our national sovereignty which is apparently much feared by loyal USA citizens. I personally believe we're going to end up with a New World Order one way or another. And I'm in favor of this, since I also believe the concept of "national sovereignty" is the single greatest threat to world peace and to the overall advancement of the human race. While I acknowledge the attachment of people to the little piece of dirt they happen to call home, I also see such a sentiment as hopelessly out of date. We must move on from there.

Our only hope lies in trying to shape the New World Order into a form beneficial to the most people, rather than serving only the interests of those at the top. My campaigns, as expressed on this blog, for a complete replacement of the US Constitution, replacement of Dem/Pubs by unaffiliated independents in Congress, and the institution of a governance model based on Cross-Sectional Representation are my attempts to empower the greatest numbers of USA citizens.

But fear runs deep. I even read one post threatening to shoot any blue-helmeted UN enforcer who sets foot on US soil. This poster didn't address the possibility of the US President inviting them here to participate in joint military exercises. But I doubt this poster cares one way or the other whether POTUS and/or Congress does that. The sense I get from a lot of these posters is, they're perfectly willing to violate the law as long as such action is for the greater good of preserving (their interpretation of) the Constitution.

A UN presence on US soil isn't inconceivable and would start on a small scale. I can also see the possibility of such a force helping out in the event of a crippling natural disaster, much to the gratitude of the victims. And to the consternation of the NRA and its allies.


Some miscellaneous observations

ONE:  Like it or not, we have a Standing Army

Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution makes clear that Congress has the power "to raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years." Of course nothing could stop Congress from immediately appropriating new money once any given two-year appropriation runs out. And I'm sure the Founding Fathers knew that. But this two-year limit seems to be a signal that the Founders were trying to discourage the establishment of anything remotely resembling a permanent military.

The first five words also give a clue, since "to raise and support armies [plural]" indicates that several such armies might need to be raised and supported (and then disbanded) as the USA's history unfolds. To me, the notion of Congress passing back-to-back-to-back appropriations without break respects a Standing Army rather than a succession of armies needing to be raised and supported.

This appeared in the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776, which ended up being the precursor to the US Constitution's Second Amendment:

QUOTE:

That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

UNQUOTE.

Even though the Second Amendment was meant to address the threat of standing armies, we have one and it's not going to go away.

TWO:  No militia in this day and age could possibly resist federal power.

Here I cite and wish to contradict Noah Webster's assertion that, "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole body of people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States..."

Webster was not alone in this sentiment, which was true back then but hasn't been since the end of World War II - at least. The feds have greater firepower and the advantage of efficient communications networks on their side. Any members of a vague and ill-defined "at large" militia wouldn't even know who their officers are and couldn't coordinate any possible large-scale resistance. All we'd have is a bunch of guys working in isolation trying to figure out who their targets should be.


THREE:  How can a governing legal document over 200 years old still be considered relevant?

We don't have anything from the late 1700's that we still use today that hasn't been infinitely improved upon - except our Constitution. The USA prides itself on innovation but we still cling to this hopelessly outdated document. Many of us even believe the Constitution can't be replaced - which ought to be refutable by simply thinking, "Are the dead [the Founders] to rule the living now and forever?" As for any claim that the Constitution itself details no mechanism for its replacement, I ask "So what?"


FOUR:  The government should focus its energies on eliminating personal arsenals.

A lot of people support the idea of being able to own guns in order to protect their homes. I don't have a problem with that. This I have a problem with: A distinct minority thinks it has the right to keep an arsenal.

The feds could and should easily eliminate these arsenals by means of a graduated tax. If someone owns more than 5 guns but fewer than 11, he'd have to pay an onerous annual tax; between 11 and 16, an even more onerous tax, and so on. The only permissible way to keep such an arsenal would be to permanently disable all such excess weaponry so it could never again be operable.


FIVE:  The NRA must be seen as guilty of inconsistency.

I refer to the Second Amendment: " 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."

If our at-large militia (which, by the way, doesn't exist) is supposed to be a counterbalance to federal forces, why doesn't the NRA advocate for the right to "keep and bear" bazookas, rocket-propelled grenades, portable anti-tank rockets, etc? Our federal forces have these things, so if we're to oppose the feds, surely we must have a right to have access to the same level of armament as they do.

As for the right to "bear arms," the Constitution doesn't bar concealed weapons. Why should a concealed-carry permit be necessary? Once someone owns a firearm, having passed a background check to acquire that, why should he need yet another permit to hide this on his person? Carrying around an unconcealed gun would serve to make the carrier a target, yes? Doesn't being in the (non-existent) at-large militia entitle us to the element of surprise?

And yet, the NRA is silent on all of these issues.


SIX:  Are USA military forces trained on the possible interpretations of the Second Amendment and are they trained on when it is permissible to open fire on US citizens?

I ask these questions because I don't know the answer, though I suspect the answer is "no" to both. Our military culture does not encourage soldiers to think for themselves - only to follow orders. How much longer can that be acceptable?

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

Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (2008 and 2012)
Founder of The Independent Contractors' Party

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com