Obama down to 52% approval according to Gallup. HCR is like a boat anchor tied around his approval ratings. Even some Congressional rats are smart enough to get off the HCR Titanic.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx#

And yet Obama keeps riding the HCR Titanic to the bottom.  For receiving such acclaim for being politically astute, Obama is really blind to this one.  The more he pushes this type of policy the more his approval rating will plunge like a waterfall.

Posted via email from conservativedynamics's posterous

Showing a friend the benefits of using Posterous to post across multiple social network sites!!

There is nothing important with this post except that I am just showing a friend the power of Posterous to post across multiple social network sites.

Posted via email from conservativedynamics's posterous

What if the Constitutional Convention Happened Today?

Thought I would share a discussion board comment I posted on one of my Master's Degree courses. The question had to do with what would be different if the Constitution Convention would have been held today rather than in 1787.

Had the Constitutional Convention occurred today rather than in 1787 the document we know today would have been drastically different as would have the convention itself. Initially, the convention would not have the secret meetings it enjoyed. The media would not have allowed it. There would have been reports on the happenings, individuals attending, and “exclusive” leaks from inside the convention. These reports would have ranged from revealing scandalous stories to publicly questioning the motives of the participants to discussing potential consequences over each proposed addition to or subtraction from the document. Wall to wall coverage and commentary of the meetings, at the very least, on the 24 hour cable news channels would have continued throughout the proceedings.

Special interest groups would not have allowed closed door hearings either. These groups would have fought for, and most likely obtained with help from their participant allies, access to the meetings and participants in order to lobby for the addition of language to further their desired causes. In addition, there would have been a massive public relation campaign by special interest groups to get the public to apply pressure to the delegates to add language or exceptions for specific causes or groups. This would, in turn, create a situation where the delegates would have to mount their own public relations campaign through press conferences, press releases, and other means to explain what they were doing and why in regards to the more controversial parts of the document.

Had there been closed door meetings, the participants would have had to deal with the unending litigation by various organizations suing to get access to the meetings and drafts of the documents. Had that failed, the losing organizations would have taken their case to the airwaves in an attempt to create enough pressure on the participants of the convention to relent and open up the convention to any curious soul that came along.

As for the delegates, there would be a great deal of pressure on them. The campaigns to become a delegate to the Convention would be extremely expensive with a great deal of pandering to various interest groups being quite evident, as seen in political campaigns of today. The delegates would most likely hold several town halls to get public input and defend their positions on the issues and document language. The delegates would also feel the need to have regular press conferences and public relations campaigns to garner support for their positions. Should there be any major disagreements between delegates, rather than hammer it out privately, the grievances and conflicts would be aired publicly as is done today with Congressional quarrels.

As for the document itself, the Constitution would have been much different than we know it today. It would have been a much longer and more specific document. We would not enjoy the broad language had the Constitution been created today. There would be many specific exceptions and detailed rights placed in the document making it much more unwieldy and complex. Many of the restrictions and limitations on the federal government currently enjoyed by Americans would not be included. Rather there would be detailed “rights” and “responsibilities” afforded to the federal government in allowing it to act in broad ways regarding regulation and the protection and dissemination of rights to the people themselves. The Constitution would become more of We the Government and less We the People. The breakdown of the branches of government and intended checks and balances would not be the same due to the constant push for supremacy of one governing body over another. On the other hand, The Bill of Rights would have been included initially rather than through amendments, although they would have been more lengthy, exception ridden, and detailed.

In the end, the convention would have been an open series of contentious meetings where the media and special interests would have had wide open access. There would be intensive special interest lobbying, continual press conferences, public quarrels among delegates, and wall to wall coverage by the media. The document itself would be a much more complex and specific document without the restrictions on government that we enjoy now.

The American Attitude Relating to Where Freedom and Rights are Derived has so Drastically Changed in the Last 235 Years.

It is most interesting as well as extremely disconcerting how over the last two hundred thirty-three years of this great country’s existence the attitudes relating to where freedom and rights are derived, and where government gets its legitimate power from has so drastically changed. Prior to and upon winning independence from Britain, the belief of the Founding Fathers and the average citizen was that individual freedoms and rights were derived directly from God. Expanding on the logic that individual freedom and rights came from God, it was concluded that the power of the government came from the people directly. When the ruling government guarded rather than impinging or attempting to destroy those rights and freedoms there was no problem. But as soon as the government began to attempt to take away the rights and freedoms of the governed thus moving down the road to tyranny, it was the right of the governed to alter or replace the government. When there was a problem or issue that affected the whole, the people worked together as a community to fix it. There was no sitting back and looking to government to do it for them.

Today, it is the exact opposite. Rights and freedoms are believed to derive from the government or the latest government program. It is only through government interference and regulation that freedoms and rights be asserted or protected. The power and validity of the government to rule is just assumed to come from government itself, a kind of self-emanating legitimacy. That people are to be instructed as to what rights and freedoms they are afforded by the government, the fact that these freedoms are fluid and changing, and accept it at face value as the governed. It has reached a point where at times it seems that our elected leaders act like they are doing us a favor by allowing us to vote them back into power every several years. The governed today seem to accept this reversal without even a whimper. When a problem arises, the people clamor for and expect the government to do something, anything to make things better rather than to work with others in their community to find a solution or to suffer a little personal pain and hardship.

There are those today that would say that times have changed and our beliefs towards freedom, individual rights and government must change as well. Some would say that the Constitution is a living document that changes as needed to accommodate current beliefs and attitudes. Others would say that the Constitution is a flawed document that only speaks to what the government cannot do while stating nothing in regards to what the government can and cannot do to the people or in the people’s best interest. The idea of working as a community to solve our problems is outdated and unrealistic (i.e. we the people are not smart enough to get it) due to the large size of our country, the intricacies of domestic and foreign policy, and how complex and internationally integrated our economy is. Because of the vast diversity of the country and historic wrongs perpetuated against government identified minority groups it is necessary for the government to interpret and grant to us those individual rights, through new or expanded government programs if necessary, that are deemed acceptable and necessary then enforcing those individual rights by any means necessary. That beyond interpreting, granting, and enforcing our individual rights, the government has the power to rescind, modify, or restrict any individual right deemed unsightly, outdated, or that may infringe on any real or perceived right of another.

These beliefs and attitudes towards freedom, individual rights, and government did not change overnight. It was a slow, gradual change over time through the use of several strategies. One strategy in this change is the modification in curriculum and graduation requirements which mandates less and less studies in the fields of history and government. Because of these modifications, students have become less familiar and knowledgeable in the ideological foundations that caused the formation of America in the first place. Students are now no longer or rarely taught the founding documents, the arguments surrounding them, or the Founder’s reasoning behind their drafting. Those courses which are required at both the high school and collegiate levels are often being taught by those who had nothing but scorn for the founding documents, the principles they stood for, and towards the Founding Fathers themselves. The instructors, rather than teaching how the founding documents and those who wrote them positively effected history, railed on how it was only a bunch of rich, slave owning, white men created the country and founding documents out of hypocrisy, greed and self-interest. That, the United States, rather than being a free country that was extremely generous both publicly and privately was instead an oppressive, imperialistic nation that should be looked upon with disgust and hatred. Students were taught that rather than have pride in their country, they should feel ashamed and embarrassed to be an American. Many of those students went on to teach future generations what they were taught. Those who chose to rebel against this prevalent school of thought were ridiculed, harassed, denied work, forced to quit, or outright fired.

A second strategy is the active struggle to remove any mention of God from society. The constant ridicule of, and assault on, those who espouse religious beliefs, especially Judeo-Christian beliefs, is wide spread in society. The mainstream media and Hollywood elites portray having a strong religious background or principals as an automatic disqualification to any elected office. Anyone with a strong religious background is labeled as a closed-minded radical that will impose their standards on the rest of the country if they had a chance. The religious are lampooned at every opportunity as superstitious buffoons that are uneducated and are easily duped by any con-artist or charlatan they come into contact with. One only has to look at the beating and derision of Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee took during the 2008 presidential primaries by the media establishment for an example. Constant lawsuits regarding the separation of church and state plague public entities at all levels causing these entities to do everything in their power to become as secular as possible to the point of ceasing time honored practices of having prayer before the start of official meetings or legislative sessions or demanding no mention whatsoever of either God or Jesus Christ in the prayer. Along with these suits or threats of such suits, there are politicians aplenty who are willing to remove any form of religion voluntarily for a variety of reasons. The town of Lodi, California is one example of this. The mayor has banned the use of Jesus Christ in prayers opening the city council meetings and has demanded a copy of the prayer beforehand in order to edit it to his liking. One of the favorite, but erroneous, arguments of the anti-religion establishment is that the Founding Fathers wanted nothing to do with religion and were not religious themselves. A quick scan of any of the founding documents or the writings of the Founders would quickly show one the fallacy of this argument.

A third strategy, closely allied with the second, is the move away from moral absolutism to moral relativism. This change is a subtle one. It moves away from concrete rights and wrongs in society towards each individual’s beliefs. We are now told that it is wrong, arrogant, and bigoted to judge the actions of another by one’s own morals and standards. Instead we must understand the beliefs and situation of other’s and accept their behaviors and actions regardless of how it fits within our morals and standards. This takes walking in another’s shoes to understand them to obscene and unacceptable heights. It also has taught our children that the only thing that matters is what you believe and feel is right or wrong and that it is not really wrong if they can justify as righting some past wrong they suffered or that they deserved it more than someone else. That there is no explicit standard in which to judge something or someone right and wrong, and any attempt to impose uniform standards of right or wrong is outdated, bigoted, and an attempt to unjustly control others.

The fourth strategy comes from our elected officials directly. We, as Americans, are constantly bombarded by elected officials, aided by their allies in the media and elsewhere, that some new law, regulation, or program needs to be implemented in the name of providing for us, protecting our current individual freedoms, or creating new ones. What used to be general rights or opportunities have become specific rights and guarantees. Politicians are telling Americans that wealth distribution, for example, needs to happen to even the playing field of the American Dream regardless of the fact that those who are being targeted took the necessary risks to fulfill their dream and succeeded despite setbacks and previous failures. During the 2008 presidential election, Candidate Barack Obama told Joe the Plummer that he didn’t want to punish Joe’s success he just wanted to make sure that those coming up behind him had a chance at success too and that spreading the wealth around was good for everyone. What’s more is that many Americans take what is being given to them by their elected officials without question. Whether these officials actually believe what they are saying or just providing lip service in order to enhance their reelection changes is beside the point here. What is important is that they are turning on its head the true concept and definition of individual freedom.

Many of today’s problems facing America stem from this about-face in beliefs and attitudes towards freedom, individual rights, and government and the strategies that have been utilized to facilitate this change. So how do we, as Americans, change the direction of the country? While the solution is pretty simple and straight forward it is not easy. First, we need to understand we have several weaknesses that are repeatedly used against us. The first weakness is that Americans are easily distracted. When we, as Americans, have had enough and stand up to the politicians in power, regardless of party, they throw some money or new program “designed to solve the problem” at us which gets us distracted and we go away leaving the politicians to do as they please as before. In order to make the necessary changes to the way government runs and those who run it we have to be able to reject and ignore the distractions thrown at us by the politicians.

The second weakness we must overcome is being easily divided and conquered as a people. Whether it is by class, race, sexual identity, or along some other lines; dividing the American people has been used extremely effectively by politicians to either maintain the status quo or to usurp additional power and control for decades, especially since the 1960’s. By playing on our biases, prejudices, and envies politicians separate and reduce us to jealous, bickering groups rather a united people. When Americans act as small, narrow groups we become just like the special interest groups we revile. We need to remember that the old adage united we stand, divided we fall is absolutely true! It is time for the American people to stop being divided and conquered by self-serving and power hungry politicians. In order to accomplish this we all need to look at the big picture and future as Americans rather than as short-term, short-sighted selfish individuals or special interest groups. Until we begin acting as We the People, we will continue to be divided and taken down a road that in the end none of want to go down.

The third problem, lack of civil involvement, stems from the other two. Because of being easily distracted and divided many people feel that it is not worth getting involved. The common feeling I run into is the why vote when it won’t matter. I have lived in many liberal-leaning states where the conservatives don’t participate because they believe that it is in vain. Take the states of Oregon and Washington for example. The heavily populated, urban areas of the Willamette Valley and Puget Sound have a history of voting in liberal politicians much to the disgruntlement and frustration of the rural areas of those states. On the flip side, it is interesting how many don’t get involved in the political process because their party is in control of their state or the federal government. In this case the attitude is that my party has the power so I don’t need to do anything. Regardless of the political stripe of the state one lives in, political participation is paramount. It is when there is a large amount of apathy that the politicians go off on a tear. When a politician fears coming back to an angry electorate, they begin to think about what they are doing. Done correctly and in large numbers, political participation should keep the elected representatives on their best behavior.

Remember it was one average individual, Thomas Paine, who wrote a pamphlet that pushed America towards independence. It was a small group of individuals that drafted and were instrumental in the ratification of the Constitution. It is now one individual and a small group of people that are shifting this country in a different direction than the Founders initially set. We the people can change that. We have to wake up to what is going on, stand united as a people, get involved in the political process, and focus on the needs of our great country rather than what we can extract from others for our own little interest groups. We also have to work to reverse the inaccurate and harmful teachings of today’s teaching instructors that are demonizing the ideals of America and America itself while teaching the younger generations that there are no absolutes to right or wrong only personal opinions. It will not be easy to go against the habits and attitudes that have been built over many decades but it is possible if we want our kids to live the same or better than we did. We, the people, did stand up and say enough in 1776 to gain independence from Great Britain; we can do it again today but it will take a great deal of work to reverse decades of neglect.

Anti-Federalists, Their Arguments, and the Federal Government Today

Anti-Federalists, Their Arguments, and the Federal Government Today

Many times Anti-Federalists are portrayed as self-serving, nefarious, and unpatriotic that needed to be left in the trash heap of history. In reality, the Anti-Federalists were generally far from self-serving rabble that they have been made out to be. Many of the most visible Anti-Federalists were highly respected individuals who fought in the Revolutionary War, signed the Declaration of Independence, and were political powerhouses in their respective states. Some of the notables to be listed among the Anti-Federalist ranks included Samuel Adams, George Clinton, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, George Mason, and the future President James Monroe. Opposing this star-studded group, among other popular figures, were the likes of George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison two of which will become future Presidents. Anti-Federalists are generally accused of having little in the way of a solid basis in their arguments opposing the ratification to the Constitution. Many authors, historians, and educators dismiss the Anti-Federalists without as much as a basic examination of their arguments. In this time of government bailouts of select private sector businesses, local and state government requests for massive amounts of money from the federal government, one party control of both the Executive and Legislative branches, and the unprecedented growth and spending of the Federal Government not seen since the Great Depression this is a perfect time for the arguments of the Anti-Federalists to be more closely examined.

The Anti-Federalists had great apprehension about the potential loss of sovereignty through the power given to the national government in the proposed Constitution and the resulting horrific effects that such a loss would have on the nation and her people as a whole. The Anti-Federalist belief was that through the integrity of state sovereignty, effective restraints would be in place to keep the national government from deteriorating into a despotic government thus protecting the liberties and freedoms of the people. Should the sovereignty of the states be dissolved and total power was acquired by the national government, Americans would find themselves in a worse state of affairs than they were under the most arduous times during their tenure as British colonists. In The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents, produced by Samuel Bryan in behalf of those opposing the ratification at the Pennsylvania convention, this assertion was brought to light.

“We dissent, secondly, because the powers vested in Congress by this constitution, the powers vested in Congress by this constitution, must necessarily annihilate and absorb the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the several states, and produce from their ruins one consolidated government, which from the nature of things will be an iron handed despotism, as nothing short of the supremacy of despotic sway could connect and govern these United States under one government.”(1)

This paper will look at the main Anti-Federalist argument in two ways. First, three pieces of evidence used to support the major Anti-Federalist argument of the government described under the proposed Constitution will become tyrannical and despotic by overcoming and destroying state sovereignty, the only true defense against such, will be examined. These three points are the issue of a standing army in a democracy, the power of taxation, and the broad powers to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”(2) Second, the main argument, through the application of the provided evidence, will be compared to the Federal Government as it is administered today in order to see if there is any evidence of validity to the Anti-Federalist argument and the evidence they provided in support of their argument.

The first major piece of evidence used by the Anti-Federalists to prove their argument is the issue of a standing army within a democracy during peacetime. The issue stems from the clause stating that Congress has the authority to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”(3) The fear of the Anti-Federalists was that the national government created by the proposed Constitution would be able to use this standing army to force compliance of enacted laws, and the potential for use by a despotic government to destroy the liberties of the people. Up to this point the national government, under the Articles of Confederation, could not raise and maintain a standing army. Instead, the national government had to rely on the states providing soldiers and materials for wartime service. Article Two explains the defensive system put into place by the Articles of Confederation by declaring that the states “hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.”(4) While this provided a defense pact that has the states agreeing to assist each other in times of crisis, Article Two also keeps the national government from being able to raise an army that may be used to take control and create a tyranny through the destruction of the liberties and rights enjoyed by the people as well as from the states in general.

In the Dissent of the Minority of the Pennsylvania Convention, those opposing ratification had the following to say about standing armies:

“The absolute command of Congress over the militia may be destructive of public liberty; for under the guidance of an arbitrary government, they may be made the unwilling instruments of tyranny. The militia of Pennsylvania may be marched to New England or Virginia to quell an insurrection occasioned by the most galling oppression, and aided by the standing army, they will no doubt be successful in subduing their liberty and independency.”(5)

The Impartial Examiner discussed his opposition to standing armies in the Virginia Independent Chronicle February 27, 1788:

“It as ever been held that standing armies in times of peace are dangerous to a free country; and no observation seems to contain more reason in it. Besides being useless, as having no object of employment, they are inconvenient and expensive… The severity of discipline necessary to be observed reduces them to a degree of slavery; the unconditional submission to the commands of their superiors, to which they are bound, renders them the fit instruments of tyranny and oppression. – Hence they have in all ages afforded striking examples of contributing, more or less, to enslave mankind; - and whoever will take the trouble to examine, will find that by far the greater part of the different nations, who have fallen from the glorious state of liberty, owe their ruin to standing armies.”(6)

The Anti-Federalists had viable concerns in relation to maintaining a standing army. Not only had England used a standing army in their American colonies to force the compliance of a multitude of legislative edicts including several that were taxation based, there was also historic evidence to lend credence to their argument against a standing army. Mercy Otis Warren, writing as “A Columbian Patriot,” provided the following historical context in relation to standing armies and the loss of liberty and freedom:

“It is hoped this country may yet be governed by milder methods than are usually displayed beneath the bannerets of military law. – Standing armies have been the nursery of vice and the bane of liberty from the Roman legions, to the establishment of the artful Ximenes, and from the ruin of the Cortes of Spain, to the planting the British cohorts in the capitals of America.”(7)

The Anti-Federalists, with the actions of the British army still fresh in their minds and historical evidence available, were not especially eager to relinquish such a power to a national government and opposed the Constitution on the grounds that the power to raise and maintain a standing army in time of peace was one step from the loss of liberty and the creation of a tyrannical government that ruled by force rather than through the good will of the people.

The second evidentiary piece in regards to the plausible loss of state sovereignty and the creation of an all-powerful, despotic central government is the powers of taxation given to the national government by the proposed Constitution. This issue comes from Article 1, Section 8 which states that the “Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises."(8) The Anti-Federalists knew that the power of the purse and taxation could be a powerful weapon in the destruction of liberty and sovereignty of the states as they believed that when both the state and national governments tried to levy taxes on the people that in the end the states would be push out and become reliant on the national government for funds.

Melancton Smith spoke on this issue at the New York Convention. He stated that if “taxes are laid by both governments on the same article: It seems to me impossible that they can operate with harmony. I have no more conception that in taxation two powers can act together; than that two bodies can occupy the same place. They will therefore not only interfere; but they will be hostile to each other.”(9) Smith, in regards to the loss of state sovereignty, further commented about the potential power that taxation by a central government would create. Smith claimed that if “therefore you give to one or the other, a power which may in its operation become exclusive; it is obvious that one can exist only at the will of the other; and must ultimately be sacrificed. The powers of the general government extend to the raising of money, in all possible ways…The individual states in time will be allowed to raise no money at all: The United States will have a right to raise money from every quarter.”(10) Samuel Bryan, using the pseudonym “Centinel,” further discussed this matter in a letter to the Independent Gazetteer in Philadelphia. Bryan wrote that “the all-prevailing power of taxation, and such extensive legislative and judicial powers are vested in the general government, as must in their operation, necessarily absorb the state legislatures and judicatories.”(11)

Like with standing armies, Anti-Federalists feared that the express powers of taxation would be used as a means to subjugate both state and individual. The subjugation of the state through the national government’s “extensive, exclusive revenues; the vast sums of money they can command, and the means they thereby possess of supporting a powerful standing force.”(12) The subjugation of the individual through a “power that has such latitude, which reaches every person in the community in every conceivable circumstance, and lays hold of every species of property they possess, and which has no bounds set to it, but the discretion of those who exercise it.”(13)

The third issue that, according to Anti-Federalists, proved that the government would become tyrannical under the proposed Constitution is a phrase in Article 1, section 8 which authorizes Congress to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”(14) The Anti-Federalists argued that this was a blank check for the central government to wield uncontrolled and unlimited power.

Robert Yates, writing to the New York Journal as “Brutus,” comments on this clause in his first letter, “there is no need of any intervention of the state governments between the Congress and the people, to execute any one power vested in the general government, and that the constitution and laws of every state are nullified and declared void, so far as they are or shall be inconsistent with this constitution, or the laws made in pursuance of it, or with treatment made under the authority of the United States.”(15) Yates continues, that Congress “has authority to make laws which will affect the lives, the liberty, and property of every man in the United States; nor can the constitution or laws of any state, in any way prevent or impede the full and complete execution of every power given.”(16)

The discussion by Yates continues within his sixth letter in which he states:

“What will render this power in Congress effectual and sure in its operation is, that the government will have complete judicial and executive authority to carry all their laws into effect, which will be paramount to the judicial and executive authority of the individual states: in vain therefore will be all interference of the legislatures, courts, or magistrates of any of the states on the subject; for they will be subordinate to the general government, and engaged by oath to support it, and will be constitutionally bound to submit to their decisions.”(17)

The clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the proposed Constitution giving Congress the power to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof”(18) was a great concern to the Anti-Federalists. The issue with this clause was the possibility that Congress would use it to consolidate power and be uncheckable with their power to the point that tyranny would take root and flourish.

Looking at the three pieces of evidence backing their argument in relation to the Federal Government as now administered, the question is whether or not there was any rationale or validity to the arguments of the Anti-Federalists in opposition to the ratification of the Constitution. The first argument discussed in this paper was that of a standing army during peacetime in a democracy. The Anti-Federalist viewed a standing army as a prelude and an invitation to tyranny, despotism, and the loss of the liberties and freedoms enjoyed by the people. The Anti-Federalists believed that the time would come when the national government would use military force to coerce obedience to their edicts and legislation. There were also historical examples used to add credence to their argument. However, while the Anti-Federalists would be absolutely appalled at the current size and scope of the military force in place, there is little evidence that the standing army that the country enjoys has been a devious tool of the Federal Government. There have been points in our history that could be pointed to, Kent State in 1970 and the Civil War specifically, as evidence of Machiavellian uses of the military against American citizens.

Most recently there had been a great deal of concern regarding President-elect Obama’s desire to start a civilian defense corps to assist the military with homeland security threats. The quote that created the furor was given at a July 2, 2008 campaign speech in Colorado Springs, Colorado where Obama said: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."(19) Even though there are various Constitutional justifications for the formation of such a group, which will not be examined here, a wide variety of individuals, blogs, and organizations are now using arguments along the same line that were used in the opposition to the ratification of the Constitution. One example of this is a comment in a World Net Daily column by Joseph Farah entitled Obama's 'civilian national security force'. Farah states that “there have been initiatives like this elsewhere – Cuba, the Soviet Union, China, Venezuela, North Korea. But has anything like this ever been proposed in a free country?”(20) A second example is from the blog “Gateway Pundit.” This blog has an entry dated October 29, 2008 titled Obama's Plans For Civilian Security Force Rings Marxist Bell. In the blog entry, the “Gateway Pundit” quotes the following from a Cuban national opposed to the proposed civilian defense force:

“Basically, what Obama is talking about is creating a Committee for the Defense of Liberal Ideology and Political correctness funded by a half trillion taxpayer dollars. National Security for this crowd is not about stopping terrorists from killing our children. National Security means to teach our children to understand the terrorists and their motivations so that our children can learn how to live their lives submissively so as not to offend the sensitivities of the very sensitive America haters.

Their version of National Security is to force you to act for the common good of society and not in your own best interest. Since this goes against human nature, the half trillion dollar ‘Civilian National Security Force’ will have to force Americans to change their nature.”(21)

Like their Anti-Federalist predecessors, those now raising the alarm use current and historical events as evidence. The Anti-Federalists used Rome, Greece, and England as examples in the 1780’s. Now North Korea, the Soviet Union, Venezuela, China and Cuba are presented as proof of scheming to take away liberties and freedoms.

Like the Anti-Federalists, those vocalizing concerns about Obama’s proposed civilian defense corps have opponents that claim that there is nothing nefarious happening to remove the liberties and freedoms of the people. Factcheck.org has provided a rebuttal to those who see a covert movement to steal liberties from Americans. On their website, Factcheck.org had the following to say about the issue:

“Obama was not talking about a ‘security force’ with guns or police powers. He was talking specifically about expanding AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps and the USA Freedom Corps, which is the volunteer initiative launched by the Bush administration after the attacks of 9/11, and about increasing the number of trained Foreign Service officers who populate U.S. embassies overseas.”(22)

Overall, to this point in history, there is no real credible evidence of concerted efforts to force compliance to and consolidation of Federal power through the use of the military or any military-like force. But there will always be conspiracy theories and suspicions about the use of the military to consolidate power in the Federal Government to the point that Americans will lose their liberty and be reduced to living under a despotic government.

Taxation is another modern hot button issue that follows along the same lines as the Anti-Federalists concerns. Through the power of taxation, the Anti-Federalists argued that the states would lose sovereignty and the national government would be come tyrannical and despotic through the heavy burden of taxation. Although there are repeated instances of loss of state sovereignty through the taxation powers of the Federal Government, the loss of sovereignty to the extent that the Anti-Federalists feared is questionable. Much of the lost sovereignty in the last 30-40 years has been sold by the states themselves in exchange for Federal money with strings and conditions attached. A perfect example of this is the No Child Left Behind Act.

No Child Left Behind Act was touted by the Bush Administration as highly flexible and removing much of the red tape experienced by the states in their ability to use Federal monies in their educational programs and schools. Instead this was a way in which the Federal Government has been able to take power away from states. However, the states are not completely innocent. This is a case where the acceptance of federal funds linked with conditions has created a situation where the states believe that they have to go along with the program over fears of loss of the federal monies they have become reliant on. The repercussions for repeatedly not meeting the required standards in the No Child Left Behind Act is where the states lose their sovereignty in dealing with the shortcomings at the particular schools or districts through Federally mandated corrections. Some of the penalties as outlined by a White House fact sheet on the No Child Left Behind Act are as follows:

“School districts and schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward statewide proficiency goals will over time be subject to corrective action and restructuring measures aimed at getting them back on course to meet State standards.

- If a school fails to make AYP for two consecutive years, it will be identified as needing improvement and must develop improvement plans incorporating strategies from scientifically based research. School districts will be required to offer public school choice (unless prohibited by state law) to all students in the failing school no later than the first day of the school year following identification. The district must provide transportation to the new school.

- If a school fails to make AYP for a third consecutive year, the district must continue to offer public school choice and provide Title I funds (approximately $500 to $1,000 per child) for low-achieving disadvantaged students in the school to obtain supplemental services -- tutoring, after school services, or summer school programs -- from the public- or private-sector provider selected by their parents from a State-approved list. Twenty percent of Title I funds at the local school district level must be used for public school choice and supplemental services.

- If a school fails to make AYP for a fourth consecutive year, it will be subject to increasingly tough corrective actions-such as replacing school staff or significantly decreasing management authority at the school level. If a school continues to fail, the school could ultimately face restructuring, which involves a fundamental change in governance, such as a State takeover or placement under private management.”(23)

While, again there is no solid evidence that the taxation powers of the Federal Government has forcibly removed the sovereignty of the states. There is evidence that the states have sold portions of their sovereignty in return for Federal funds. Though this is not the way that the Anti-Federalists expected the erosion of state sovereignty to happen, they would definitely have been dismayed at the amount of control and sovereignty that the states have been willing to give up on exchange for a small sum of money.

In regards to the loss of personal liberties through Federal taxation, there is some evidence. A solid case can be made regarding to loss of individual liberty in relation to personal earnings and property. Redistributive taxation removes the ability of the individual to use their earnings as they see fit by the Federal Government taxes that are used to provide services and funds to those who are not as well off as those taxed. Much has been said lately by various Senators, Representatives, and the President-elect regarding taking earnings from those who make a certain amount and redistributing it. This is not what the original intent was for the taxation clause in the Constitution. The intent was to provide the Federal Government the necessary funds to operate. During the time the Articles of Confederation was in force, the revenue obtained by the central government was from the good will of the states. There was no taxation authority for the central government. This was one area that the framers of the Constitution wished to rectify. Alexander Hamilton stated in Federalist Letter 21 that there “no method of steering clear of this inconvenience but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way.”(24)

Like the states, much of the personal liberties that have been eroded through taxation have gone the same way as state sovereignty, sold to the highest bidder. A demand by the general population for Federal intervention in areas from retirement to health care to welfare has required an increase in federal revenue. Social issues consistently account for three of the top five total expenditures in the Federal Budget. With the increasing costs of social programs funded by the Federal Government, there is a constant need for additional revenue or deficit spending. The Anti-Federalists would again be horrified by the way things are run today in regards to the Federal Government. However, they would be more appalled by the fact that the citizens are more than willing to give up collective freedom for money and security from a central governmental entity.

Lastly, the Anti-Federalists were fearful of the blanket authorization in the proposed Constitution which states that Congress has the power to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”(25) What is known from history is this clause is not the one that has caused the most consternation amongst states rights supporters. Gary Galles, economics professor at Pepperdine University, states that one “could quibble with the mechanisms the Antifederalists predicted would lead to constitutional tyranny. For instance, they did not foresee that the Commerce Clause would come to be called ‘the everything clause’ in law schools, used by centralizers to justify almost any conceivable federal intervention. The 20th-century distortion of the clause's original meaning was so great even the vigilant Antifederalists could never have imagined the government getting away with it.”(26)

Thus, even though the Anti-Federalists were incorrect about the clause used to consolidate power, there is relevance to their argument. Two examples of this are the Americans with Disabilities Act and the National Labor Relations Act. Both of which were upheld by the Supreme Court through the Commerce Clause. However, even with the use of the Commerce Clause to position supremacy by the Federal Government in certain policy areas, there is no modern evidence of the tyrannical, despotic, centralized government feared by the Anti-Federalists.

From the research done for this paper, there is no evidence that there was any idea that the Anti-Federalists saw the possibility of their fears being fulfilled through the willing sell-out of sovereignty and liberty by individual states and citizens for the strong, centralized government that exists today. While there is evidence that the Federal Government is much stronger than what the Federalists envisioned, there is no evidence that the wholesale tyranny and despotism pictured by the Anti-Federalists has materialized. However, there are viable concerns that the current road that the United States is taking may one day prove the Anti-Federalists correct in their arguments. But how it happens will not be as a forceful grab by the central government as the Anti-Federalists expected, but through the willingness by states and individuals to give up sovereignty and freedom for more protection and support by the Federal Government.

Notes:

(1) Samuel Bryan, The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents; available from http://www.constitution.org/afp/pennmi00.htm; Internet; accessed 9 December 2008.
(2) United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8.
(3) Ibid.
(4) The Articles of Confederation; available from http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html; Internet; accessed 9 December 2008.
(5) The Debate on the Constitution: Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification Part One: September 1787 to February 1788, ed. Bernard Bailyn (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, 1993), 551.
(6) The Debate on the Constitution: Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification Part Two: January to August 1788, ed. Bernard Bailyn (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, 1993), 253.
(7) Ibid., 291.
(8) U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8.
(9) The Debate on the Constitution Part Two, ed. Bernard Bailyn, 817.
(10) Ibid., 816.
(11) The Debate on the Constitution Part One, ed. Bernard Bailyn, 58.
(12) The Debate on the Constitution Part Two, ed. Bernard Bailyn, 817.
(13) The Debate on the Constitution Part One, ed. Bernard Bailyn, 617.
(14) U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8.
(15) The Debate on the Constitution Part One, ed. Bernard Bailyn, 166.
(16) Ibid., 167.
(17) Ibid., 614-615.
(18) U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8.
(19) July 2, 2008 Barak Obama campaign speech in Colorado Springs, Colorado; Quote taken from video Obama Civilian Security; available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s; internet; accessed 11 December 2008.
(20) Joseph Farah, Obama's 'civilian national security force'; available from http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=69601; internet; accessed 11 December 2008.
(21) Obama's Plans For Civilian Security Force Rings Marxist Bell, Gateway Pundit Blog, posted October 29, 2008, http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-plans-for-civilian-security-force.html (accessed December 11, 2008).
(22) Is Obama planning a Gestapo-like "civilian national security force"?; available from http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_obama_planning_a_gestapo-like_civilian_national.html; internet; accessed 11 December 2008.
(23) Office of the Press Secretary, The White House; Fact Sheet: No Child Left Behind Act; available from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020108.html; internet; accessed 11 December 2008.
(24) Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, The Federalist Papers (New York: Bantam Dell, 2003), 121.
(25) U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8.
(26) Gary Galles, The Antifederalists Were Right, Ludwig von Mises Institute; available from http://mises.org/story/2335; internet; accessed 14 December 2008.

Copyright 2008. No portion of this paper may be used or reproduced in any manner without prior permission of the author.