The Observation Deck

In accordance with Mayor Summers' proclamation, the Lakewood Public Library is celebrating Constitution Week. This time is meant for us to, quoting the mayor's proclamation, "reaffirm the ideals the Framers of the Constitution had in 1787."

I don't know what display, if any, the Main Branch has put together. The Madison Branch, however, has pulled many of its books on the Constitution and our Founding Fathers for easier access.

Come on in, pick one to read and learn about the rich heritage of our country.

Maybe you'll see that little sentence there, Roy. "We the people. . ."

sharon kinsella wrote:Maybe you'll see that little sentence there, Roy. "We the people. . ."

You're right Sharon. I congratulate you on your ability to recognize a sentence when you see one.

Except that those 3 words are written larger than all the rest, so they aren't exactly little and there is no period after 'people', so you seem to be ignoring the rest of what is actually a much longer sentence.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Health care...welfare...housing...social security, hmm. What happened to them? Oh, that's right, this is just the preamble.
...
I can't seem to find anything about those in the rest of the Constitution or the Amendments either.
Maybe you should come in for a little refresher...

Good point Roy.

We'll just have to add a few more amendments, won't we?

Oh yes...for those who need to know...please learn this simple fact from a sheepskin-waving cum laude Political Science graduate....Our Constitution is a LIVING document. It is indeed not static, as there have been many amendments added over two centuries, particularly relating to human rights and dignity, and I would suspect that there will be many more amendments to come, especially if WE THE PEOPLE have anything to do with it.

Back to the banjo...

It does mention welfare, to wit, "Promote the General Welfare"

I think most reasonable people would infer from that that the government did have some responsibility to insure that EVERYONE had an opportunity to enjoy a decent life. That further means that no groups would be left behind, discriminated against, or trampled on in the rush to abuse and consume every natural resource the country had.

I apologize for the tardiness of this post, but I wanted to make sure all my 't's were crossed and 'i's were dotted.

Gary Rice wrote:Good point Roy.

We'll just have to add a few more amendments, won't we?

Oh yes...for those who need to know...please learn this simple fact from a sheepskin-waving cum laude Political Science graduate....Our Constitution is a LIVING document. It is indeed not static, as there have been many amendments added over two centuries, particularly relating to human rights and dignity, and I would suspect that there will be many more amendments to come, especially if WE THE PEOPLE have anything to do with it.

Back to the banjo...

Gary, the trouble is, we are not having that discussion (about amendments) except for the balanced budget amendment recently. Over the years, Congress and the Presidency have never brought those issues up and I would contend the reason is they know it would never make it through the amendment process.
Until the Constitution is amended to allow "universal health care" or "social security" on a Federal level, those programs are strictly in violation of the Constitution. If these programs existed purely within one or more states, they would be perfectly legitimate, per the 10th Amendment.

Grace O'Malley wrote:It does mention welfare, to wit, "Promote the General Welfare"

But not in the way I meant it or the way you are thinking of it.

1. It indeed does say "promote," but not "provide". It is not their job to provide welfare. They could "promote" it by allowing individuals to live life, enjoy their liberty and pursue their own happiness.

2. Federalist Number 41 spells out that the general welfare is promoted IF Congress sticks to the 18 enumerated powers defined for it by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

3. A quote from James Madison, one of the architects of the Constitution:
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may a point teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare...Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."
http://www.constitution.org/je/je4_cong_deb_12.htm

And Thomas Jefferson, writer of the Declaration:
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but is restrained to those specifically enumerated, and ... it was never meant they should provide welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers."
--The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, June 16, 1817.

Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants at such a distance and from under the eye of their constituents . . . will invite the public agents to corruption, plunder, and waste. . . . What an augmentation of the field for jobbing, speculating, plundering, office-building, and office-hunting would be produced by an assumption of all the state powers into the hands of the federal government!
--The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, August 13, 1800

4. Words can change their meaning over time. An 1828 Webster's Dictionary lists this as a meaning for welfare: "Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government." Words also can have different meanings. From Merriam-Webster.com, we find definition 1: "the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity."
If I say, "I'm concerned with your welfare," I'm not talking about the status of your food stamps. See what I mean?
These definitions tie in to both the first and second items on my list. Government can promote the general welfare if it returns to its original Constitutional powers and allows the people to make their own ways in the world.

Grace O'Malley wrote:I think most reasonable people would infer from that that the government did have some responsibility to insure that EVERYONE had an opportunity to enjoy a decent life. That further means that no groups would be left behind, discriminated against, or trampled on in the rush to abuse and consume every natural resource the country had.

The opportunity to enjoy a decent life. Hmmm. If the government has "some responsibility" to ensure everyone has the opportunity to get it, they would have to define what it is so they know when people fall short, right? What if my definition is different from someone elses? I may not fall short in my eyes, but I might be falling short in the eyes of the government.

Where we would differ most is what you would consider "further means." Its not the government's job to pick winners and losers. Look what happened with Solyndra.
We are all created equal, as the Declaration of Independence says, but after that we each have to find our own way in the world. Equality of opportunity NOT equality of results.

Roy is obviously well-read, and he always seems to enjoy a good debate.

That point being made, I have a couple of observations...

First of all, I would suggest that the quotes that were offered and the points that were made, whether being from our "Founding Fathers" or from anyone else...these are nothing more than opinions regarding the nature of governance, and at times, bitter and often extended debate has frequently been the rule, rather than the exception over the course of our American experiment in government- as to what course this nation should follow in matters both foreign and domestic.

The tie that binds us as a nation has been the civility of that debate, at least for the most part- but even that civility has been shattered by violent words and even the force of arms, many times in our history. From Shay's rebellion through the Indian Removal Acts and resultant wars, on down through the Civil War, the Draft Riots, into the 20th Century and the Palmer Raids, the post WWI soldiers' protests in Washington, the Depression...the Communist-hunting 1950's, on down to the protests of the '60's, Kent State, and so many more conflicts of interest, our country has always been the arena of a hotbed of controversy, whether that would be regarding the waging of war, dealing with social issues, or with the exercise of political dissent.

Therefore a point of view is precisely that- a point of view only- to be respected, but not necessarily agreed with, no matter how well stated.

There are several other points here:

"Until the Constitution is amended to allow "universal health care" or "social security" on a Federal level, those programs are strictly in violation of the Constitution."

Well, that's again a respected opinion of course. Others have argued that the Income Tax, The Federal Reserve System, the Draft and goodness-knows what else are wrong too, but thus far, they have not succeeded with their arguments for the most part, I do believe.

"Words can change their meaning over time."

Do they really? Or do we simply interpret them subjectively?

Actually, the quote above could frame a very persuasive argument for an activist court system to be able to interpret the Constitution to fit whatever they wanted it to fit.

There is, fortunately in our government, a system of checks and balances.

The French have their "Code Napoleon", a system of codified law to fit nearly every occasion. Our own legal system however, is based on precedent, and nuances of a law's meaning can be argued and laws can even be changed or nullified, because the rights of the people are (hopefully) respected. (at least that's how I remember my law class, but as always-these are only my thoughts and opinions and I may be wrong... )

Oh yeah, one thing more...

I'm NOT going to put forth a party-line argument here, whether left or right wing. I personally think that we need to get back to living within our means in our country, and doing what we say we'll do. This country needs to get back to the things that unite us, rather than divide us... but how? That's the question.

Back to the banjo...

Gary Rice wrote:First of all, I would suggest that the quotes that were offered and the points that were made, whether being from our "Founding Fathers" or from anyone else...these are nothing more than opinions regarding the nature of governance...

You're right, they are opinions on governance, just as The Communist Manifesto would be an opinion on economic and governmental structure presented by Marx and Engels. However, the quotes I gave are also the opinions used to develop the government system we were given by the Founding Fathers. The quotes offer an added level of insight into the system the Founders developed. Since we obviously can't ask them, this is our next best option.

Gary Rice wrote:"Until the Constitution is amended to allow "universal health care" or "social security" on a Federal level, those programs are strictly in violation of the Constitution."

Well, that's again a respected opinion of course. Others have argued that the Income Tax, The Federal Reserve System, the Draft and goodness-knows what else are wrong too, but thus far, they have not succeeded with their arguments for the most part, I do believe.

Alright, if its just my opinion, let me ask you what your opinion is?
If you agree, hey, great.
If you disagree, then tell me how you see "universal health care" or "social security" as Constitutional. What clauses give Congress the power to create those institutions?

Gary Rice wrote:"Words can change their meaning over time."
Do they really? Or do we simply interpret them subjectively?
Actually, the quote above could frame a very persuasive argument for an activist court system to be able to interpret the Constitution to fit whatever they wanted it to fit.

In my experience, they do and the meanings can change slowly or rapidly.
A rapid change example might be one I observed personally watching old TV shows. On The Dick van Dyke Show episode entitled "The Impractical Joker", Rob (van Dyke's character) is pranked on his phone by his coworkers and falls for it. Upon hanging up the phone and talking to his wife (Mary Tyler Moore) he says, "You know what I was, I was a jerk." She argues for a moment, but breaks down and agrees, "Rob, you were a jerk."
By current definitions a jerk is, defined by Merriam-Webster, an annoyingly stupid or foolish person or an unlikable person; especially : one who is cruel, rude, or small-minded.
Listening to the exchange of the episode, this does not fit. Rob is not "annoying stupid" or "unlikeable". I would say that a "jerk" at that time would be defined as someone who could easily be jerked around, similar to a fish set on the hook of a fishing pole.
(Sorry, I didn't expect that to turn into a dissertation on 60s sitcom language.)
Briefly, some examples of slow changes in words meanings can be found in words like "manufacture", "brave", "awful", "prove" or "tell". I had to look those up, but very interesting stuff though.

How exactly is it an argument for an activist court? If words can change meaning, shouldn't it be an argument for judges to be strict constructionalists? If, in 100 years, the word "liberty" has changed its meaning to that of "genocide" (BIG IF, I know) wouldn't you rather someone look at the Constitution how it was written, not how it is to be interpreted today?

Roy,

Perhaps it's my old "teacher hat", or perhaps its just a personal reluctance on my part, but I'm not one who enjoys arguing a partisan ideological political point of view.

I suppose I have a couple of personal reasons for that.

Perhaps the biggest reason is that so many times, when I've come out in defense of something, I either changed my mind about the issue later, or realized that I would have been better off keeping my big mouth shut in the first place. As I near my 60th birthday, it's easy to look back on some of the positions I've taken in the past with the same shock that I've felt when I've looked at my junior high photographs.

It's not that I would want you or anyone else to necessarily follow my example in taking this approach. (Maybe you looked GREAT in 7th grade? ) It's just that over the years, (as you alluded to with the meaning of words) political positions and party platforms change, just as the meaning of words can. I personally (and privately) favor some positions that you would probably regard as being quite conservative in nature. I also favor some positions that you would probably regard as being rather liberal, but I won't talk about these here either. I am not one to wave the flag of an ideology. To the contrary, I believe that ideological absolutism contributed to the 20th Century being the most violent in world history.

I will admit to being pragmatic, and loyal...in that, for example...

...being a retired public employee, I will support public employees, and whomever supports them.

I support the students of the public schools, as well as the Board, the administration and support personnel, and of course, teachers.

I support public forum and debate, though I personally dislike debating.

As far as "universal health care" and Social Security goes, I would probably support both concepts conditionally, but with the tacit understanding that we do not have a socialistic state. We are not Canada. There are many private medical businesses involved in our country, and compromises will always need to be worked out. I am a believer in political compromise whenever possible.

The reality that I perceive is that we have effectively had informal universal care for quite a while. There have always been charity cases in hospitals. To my knowledge, virtually everyone can get medical attention for life-threatening emergencies in our country. We have charity clinics out there in many, if not most cities. It's only the recent politicization of the medical issue that has blown the situation up to the point where it presently is. At least, that's my perception anyway.

Social Security is the only income that many people are able to get, and for the most part, they worked for it. You see the pitiful interest (or lack thereof) that people get on their savings these days. I THINK that may have been to encourage people to try to invest in the market, and how did THAT work out for many people's investments? (Some have indeed done well of course, but others?) A guaranteed retirement income is a wonderful thing. As with any good pension plan, Social Security is a personal contract with an individual. You pay in, you get back later. The longer you work, the more you get. If you live long, you get back more. If you don't? You won't.

If I had a good answer to many of the questions that you pose Roy, I'd clue you in, but truth be told, I do not.

The only thing that I can say I do believe strongly regarding these issues would be that ideology is not the answer.

Ideology, my friend, IS the problem, in my honest opinion. George Washington had pretty hard things to say about political parties, and I tend to agree with him:

"However combinations or associations of the above description (political parties) may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796

Now THAT'S a "Founding Fathers" quote for you.

As for your question about the importance of the Constitution's "original meaning"?

If you know your history, you also know how that document came into being with many bitter discussions, and how many drafts it took to do it. Even when it was more or less in final form, it would not be ratified by the states until the Bill of Rights was added. The Constitution will ever be interpreted and re-interpreted.

I believe that one of your favorite people to quote was ol' Ben Franklin, who, in response to a lady's inquiry as to what kind of government we would have, reportedly said " A Republic, Madam, if you can keep it."

The response in my mind would be "Well, we can, can't we?"

It just takes a little work...

Back to the banjo...

Funny you mention that Franklin quote. I designed 3 posters for Madison Branch, advertising Constitution Week. The one I placed on our back door had precisely that quote.
(The front door one had a quote from James T. Kirk, but that's my quirky sense of humor for you.)

I also find your timing with that Washington quote intersting. A certain radio host and TV commentator who just started his own internet-based network gave Washington's Farewell Speech as a reading assignment. He does speak of his disgust for a dual-party system.

I have to head off to work, otherwise I would comment further.

We may have more in common than you think.

There's an old philosophical ideal regarding true friendship that can be stated something like this:

With real friendship between individuals, whatever viewpoints that they share may seem important, but in those matters where they disagree, those differences must be importantly less important.

Back to the back. (pulled a muscle, the banjo will have to wait a bit)

(Have you seen Dr. McCoy? )

I have a little more time to write now, so I wanted to address a couple things from earlier:

1. You say you support both concepts of social security and universal medicare "conditionally". That, however, wasn't my question. I wasn't asking about your opinion of the programs. I was looking for your opinion of their Constitutionality.

2. Regarding Social Security:
I agree with you that for many people, Social Security has become the only source of income they have. However, I believe the reason for it being the only source is a matter of choice. Over the course of time, people have begun to look on Social Security as their only means for retirement.

I will also agree with you that they worked for it. If you pay in $XXXXX then you should get out that much, plus the interest. However, it is, to me, unreasonable when people get out it (or any pension system) far and above this principle and interest.
For example, Ida May Fuller of Vermont. She was the first ever recipient of monthly Social Security checks. From 1937 (beginning of Social Security withholdings) to 1939 (when she retired), she had $24.75 withheld. Her first check from Social Security was for $22.54. She lived until the age of 100 and collected more than $22,000.

Tell you what. I'm working on a blog about Social Security. If you're interested in reading and discussing, I'll post it here as well.

By the way, where did Grace go?

Good evening Roy:

As for the constitutionality of the topics that you pose, as you seem to point out, I'm not sure that they would be addressed in that document specifically at all. The Constitution's primary purpose was to set up and organize a government. The 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights had to be added in order for the document to be ratified, due to the fears of many that the Federal Government could otherwise claim for itself too much power. As you are aware, many more amendments were added after the first 10, and one, Prohibition, was added and then repealed.

Not being a lawyer, much less a Constitutional lawyer, I could not answer your point in an academic sense, but I do remember from law class that the Constitution has indeed been subject to interpretation over the years. As I pointed out, we do not have codified Napoleonic type law. The validity of our laws, as I understand this concept, are based on precedent. Our system, like it or not, changes with the times, which is why the Supreme Court nominee choices are so important to various political factions whenever a vacancy comes up. Social Security has certainly stood the test of time. Whether Universal Health Care will, remains to be seen.

As for pensions, a well run pension plan certainly allows for an individual to withdraw more than they invested in it, if they live long enough to collect it, because actuarial tables and overall mortality predictions, as well as the number of people enrolled, all call for the system to normally work pretty well. It's a lot like a well-run insurance agency, where thousands of premiums more than cover the occasional pay-out. That said, some pension plans invested badly over the last 20 years. Still, the ones I am thinking of have recovered pretty nicely since the last big economic nosedive. Pensions, including Social Security, can and do normally work well, but to your point, it always pays to have other personal investments if one is able to have them. Most people call those investments: (a. Wife/girlfriend b. husband/boyfriend c. children) To save extra with a family to feed can be a real challenge.

The SSI recipient whom you mention may reportedly have done well, but for people like that, there were many more who passed away and did not collect all that was due them, although there are often survivor benefits. Some pension systems allow survivors to recover the decedent's pay-ins only. Others pay out for a specific number of years, or until there is a re-marriage.

These systems do work, for the most part.

As for Grace? I have no idea, but like the rest of us, I have a feeling that if she has a point to make, she'll be back on 'Deck.

Back to the banjo...