Two Hundred and Thirty Five Years

Using a more modern definition, one might see the United States as a sort of Empire. No, not the same manner of empire as that which was maintained by the British from circa 1580 to 1997 (a span of over 400 years) which entailed establishing colonial authorities across the globe, but one that executes it's authority via cultural, economic, and military influence without directly commanding the affairs of each individual country.

Actually, in many ways, America's “empire” is similar to that which it previously was subservient, in that, for a long time, there has been little or no real political rivalry, and we have commanded the world economy, in a manner of speaking, for decades. Problem is that we seem to be trying to copy what the British accumulated in two centuries while only being at it for less than one, and doing it without the same colonial enterprise that the British utilized.

This, combined with our lack of a King or other such solitary leader, somehow makes the United States less of an empire...

This gigantic military and economic power is precisely that which will bring about our downfall, and further, is exactly what the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution wanted us to avoid. Our President, not Obama specifically but the authority of the office, has risen to be something very similar to a King, which today can even wage limited warfare without the approval of another authority. People often credit the President with having accomplished things (or not) that are totally outside of the power of the executive branch, and in some way they are often correct simply because some manner of [probably corrupt] behind-the-scenes pressure seems to be in use to effect change. Further, the pomp and splendor of state dinners and other political and diplomatic events has certainly surpassed that to which British Kings were accustomed in the 16^th and 17^th centuries, something I believe says a lot about how detached they are from the laborers of the country – the knuckledraggers that actually do all of the work.

Fact is, the United States maintains a significant military presence in at least nine different countries, three of which are considered combat zones (Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya). In Japan and South Korea also reside a heavy man-count, I presume to counter threats from North Korea. In all, nearly a quarter of our active-duty personnel are stationed in other countries, some of which today seem nonsensical, including our so-called combat zones. Mind you, Congress hasn't formally declared war on another country since our June 5, 1942 declaration on Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania during World War II. Since then, lesser designations and possibly Constitutionally-questionable military actions have been authorized and funded by Congress, but never an admission that a state of war actually exists.

In many of the most important ways, the Executive Branch today operates independently of the other branches of government, and in many other ways may pressure the other branches to bend to it's will. No one man controls the country, but the President and his administration has a number of officies that tend to function without direct oversight of any other government body. Politically, economically, and internationally, the behavior of our government is in direct opposition to the core values supposedly espoused by the founding fathers, yet many of us continue to blindly accept it based on some concept of the greater social good... a concept that wouldn't even exist had we not spent ourselves into a debt oblivion that is crushing everything in sight under it's weight.

In closing, yes, I love my country. I love it for what it was prior to World War I, for what it could have been had it held fast to principles of non-intervention and, dare I say, isolationism, and for the fact that I still have the right to speak out against it when I deem it necessary.

Of those, one (at least partially) remains. When it is totally gone, there will be nothing left of America as far as I'm concerned.

Take the Time to Re-Read

The idea came to me recently to read through certain points of the United States Constitution, particularly as it pertains to treaties that the United States has entered into, and their implications in law. This was, of course, in an attempt to refute certain concepts of international law on the basis of their Constitutionality, but it would seem that I may have to revise my earlier understanding.

I found several mentions of treaties in the document, but three stood out. I have truncated them for brevity (within reason), but I believe the meaning of the text is undamaged:

• Article 2, Section 2:
  “The President shall... ...have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...”

• Article 3, Section 2:
  “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority”

• Article 6:
  This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The preceding segments plainly state that treaties entered into via the Constitutionally defined process are, in fact, equal to the Constitution for the purposes of the judiciary process. While I think this is dangerous, it is stated in the document twice.

Bear in mind that the Constitution does defend itself, but the text does not specifically declare that treaties cannot be held above it in such conflicts – only “laws” of “any state.” Even if we mean to define the word “State” to include foreign “States,” treaties and laws aren't the same thing. This certainly brings into question the original founders' meaning, but I'm stuck on a logical failure in that I don't feel like we can be truly certain of what they meant at the time – the only thing we have to go on is what the text of the document literally reads.

The above supports the Supreme Court's ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) that declared that the Geneva Conventions had to apply to “enemy combatants,” which to me really means foreign terrorists. I argued at the time that the Supreme Court had no business even ruling on the basis of the Geneva Conventions, and it would seem that I was probably in error in that.

Frustrating, but inevitable from time to time.

So our own Constitution, when relating to treaties with other nations, is on parity with authorities granted by those treaties, effectively forcing me to re-evaluate the entire relationship with the United Nations. I don't have to like the U.N., mind you, but I feel compelled to try to understand the organization a little better.

So here is what I intend to do: I've selected a few key documents that I intend to read (some of which I have read before, but I feel like I should read again in this context) and I will try to expand my understanding of them. I'm sure I'll come across other materials to read, at which point I'll surely share them if they are relevent.

Key Documents of Interest:

• The Constitution of the United States
  http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
• The Charter of the United Nations
  http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml
• Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_the_Permanent_Court_of_International_Justice
  (Considered an “integral part” of the U.N. Charter, but for some reason not included in the Charter's actual text).
• Text of the Geneva Conventions:
  http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/CONVPRES?OpenView

I don't have to like the concept of our sovereignty being subject to international interests, but if I'm going to argue against the current way of the world, I might as well find ways to do so within the context of it rather than trying to argue it away entirely – because it won't be changing anytime soon. Call it the New World Order, or blame the Freemasons, or whatever, it doesn't change the fact that the system that exists today will be built on more and more over the coming years until it either cannot be sustained economically or is destroyed through war.

I wish I believed that human-kind was smarter than that, but I truly don't.

If the Federal Government Shuts Down...

In the even that the Federal Government gets “shut down” by the lack of a budget bill, what will we miss out on?

Schools and colleges will still be open to “educate” us.

Utility companies will continue to provide electricity, water, and trash collection services. Even your cable TV will be unaffected.

The internet will remain online. Your precious porn will not suddenly disappear, nor will you be unable to Tweet to your friends about it.

Hospitals will not start refusing new patients. ER's will not suddenly become overcrowded (no more so than they are now, anyway), overwhelming medical services across the nation.

Banking institutions will continue to handle your credit card transactions and loan applications.

Even unemployment benefits will continue unabated, as these, while mandated by the fed, are paid for by state governments.

I understand that the unfortunate fact is that there ARE things that will indeed be affected by a so-called government shut down, and some of these services are critical to the lives of certain Americans. I'm just trying to quickly illustrate that a great deal of the services we have come to expect have nothing to do with the federal government, and I have a feeling that most Americans could live without them. Maybe that is why there is so much publicity about this – Congress is afraid that we'll realize we don't need them if they disappear for a while?

Hmm... I wonder if congresspeople, and/or the President, still get paid if this “shut down” happens...

Educational Debuff

Writing “Unlevel Playing Field” got me thinking, there is another issue that I believe presents a major drawback to the American people in today's global economy. As we see fewer and fewer manufacturing jobs (for a verity of reasons ranging from outsourcing to increased automation), we see an increase in the need for people to become more educated so that they can compete for a number of less physically strenuous, but more complex service related jobs. Yes, I am equating manufacturing jobs with “unskilled labor,” which seems to be a fair comparison coming from someone who works in a position that qualifies as such.

The issue isn't that I'm against education. In fact, I admit that I have a tenancy to evaluate a person's base worth to society based first on my own estimate of their intelligence, as ugly as that sounds (at least I'm honest). The problem here is that the cost of getting a decent education is prohibitively high, making it extremely difficult for people to justify the decades of student loans they will be repaying.

I have learned, however, that in some countries, a student would not be burdened by such insane costs. Of course, this could lead me to issues of constitutionality if someone wants to suggest that the U.S. federal government pay these costs, but state governments could without question, if they weren't already fiscally destitute. And yes, that too could lead me on another tangent.

So what I'm getting at with this is it would seem to me that another massive debuff on our economy is the significant lack of college educated people... arguably our high school diploma level of education is barely adequate, and many people are unable or unwilling to invest the little money they may have in what they may consider a gamble at-best. This coming from a non-college-educated person married to a woman with a four-year degree that has not been particularly helpful to her getting a job, yes I consider many college degree programs to be a gamble, and I'm too risk averse to bother with it.

So take what you will from my rambling... and maybe I'll come back soon with more to add.

Unlevel Playing Field

Best I can figure by compiling several sources, I can deduce that the workers in Chinese factories make around $1.00 per hour (this is rounded up to the nearest dollar, but sources vary from 44 cents per hour to 83 cents per hour) before overtime in factored in (whatever that means in China). Some sources make a point to state how much worse the rates are in places like Mexico or Indonesia, but being most goods I see at our local stores are Chinese, I'll pick on them specifically.

I can't say whether $1.00 per hour is considered a decent wage there, but that aside, it does go to illustrate a fundamental problem with our trade policies. Some call it free trade – that basically we put a minimal level of restrictions on what comes in or out, but I think we should have placed one huge restriction on incoming trade a long time ago. Fact is, businesses in the United States are required to pay their employees a certain “minimum wage,” and other countries may not have such a standard, or their standard is far below ours.

Now I know people can cry foul because the cost of living is simply not at high in those countries, but I simply see that as the main disadvantage we're facing today. If companies in other countries were required to pay at least the U.S. idea of minimum wage to their workers, we would probably still manufacture a great deal of these products here at a competitive price. Of course, we can't just change this now – I'm pretty sure that would spell disaster. It is important, however, to recognize a major flaw in our trade policy and remember it as we move on to the future.

I seriously believe that our nation would be in a better position today, at least economically, if we had made a few key decisions differently. In 1935, the federal government instituted the nation's first federal minimum wage standards. At that time, it is my belief that we should have insisted any company desiring to sell products in the U.S. pay that wage and prove it to the federal government in order to be permitted the right to sell it here. If this had happened, and been adhered to even half of the time, not only would we have forced the improvement of living standards in those countries, but we would have kept prices consistent with that which manufacturers in the U.S. can compete – keeping jobs here in the U.S.

I'm sure enforcing this would have been a nightmare in the 30s, but today I imagine it would be relatively easy (not that it would be without problems or cost).

Again, I wouldn't advise trying to implement this today, considering we have so little real manufacturing left in this country. What we would be left with is a bunch of super expensive import products and no American-made options. That, and our trading partners would be really pissed off.

Anyway, just thought I'd use a little lunacy to help illustrate what I think to be one of the fundamental reasons why the U.S. is hurting today in the global economy. Come back tomorrow to read the second part of this ongoing ramble.

Massive Debt + Math Wrath = Insane Financial Fail.

I've heard a fair bit of conversation, and been involved in quite a bit of it myself, about the idea of the United States defaulting on its debts. I often hear it said that the United States “has never defaulted on a debt,” or that the strongest economy in the world “could never collapse” (much like the Titanic could not sink?).

No one learns about this particular subject in Civics class, but I think we all should. The United States has indeed defaulted on it's contractual obligations to pay debts, particularly as it pertains to paying them in gold, and one specific mention of such a default is the result of the Joint Resolution To assure uniform value to the coins and currencies of the United States, enacted June 5, 1933.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gold_Repeal_Joint_Resolution

Once passed, this effectively told all creditors of the United States, most or all of whom previously had the legal right to have our debts be repaid in gold, that we repudiated the obligation to do so – that they would be paid in our national currency instead. Of course, at the time, our government (under President Franklin Roosevelt) was in the midst of the Great Depression and enacting policies that greatly devalued the US Dollar, making it an unattractive medium of exchange for investors (sound a little like what is going on today?). This resulted in lawsuits landing in the United States Supreme Court, where the law was upheld (barely), and set the stage for the complete abolition of the Gold Standard (or Gold Exchange Standard, as it might be better described after 1933) in 1971 under Richard Nixon.

Fact is, claims that the United States has never defaulted on a debt are false, and if it has happened before, it certainly can happen again. Today we see signs that the Federal Reserve is devaluing our currency (Quantitative Easing) and that, in particular, foreign investors are less interested in our currency as a major medium for trade. Of course, making your money less valuable makes sense when you owe 14 trillion dollars (not to mention the trillions of dollars in obligations that we are contractually obligated to pay over the next 50 years). Hell, our debt roughly equals our nation's Gross Domestic Product (the total market value of all goods and services produced in the country in a year). Everything I observe tells me that the United States government is not simply capable of defaulting on its debts, but that it will be forced to do so.

Financial Comedy

12 cents each. That's all, I swear!

You want 1.1 billion of them? That's great!

There is just one catch. Some random percentage of them will be defective due to faulty equipment and sloppy processes, and those will have to be destroyed and new one will need to be made, all at your expense.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/40521684/The_Fed_Has_a_110_Billion_Problem_with_New_Benjamins

That's pretty much what is happening in relation to the newfangled, so-called “high tech” $100 Federal Reserve Notes. Aparently there is a defect that will cause some number, as of yet undetermined, to be useless, and each one of these worthless pieces of “high tech” paper costs 12 cents.

I guess it is OK to waste so much money when you consider that the money used to pay for it is also worthless... but that doesn't make it sound any better when you consider all the stuff people can still, for now at least, buy with it.

I sometimes wonder if we waste more money implementing new anti-counterfeiting measures than we'd waste simply dealing with the counterfeiting directly. 12 cents doesn't sound like much, but that's 12 cents for each of 1.1 billion bank notes... totaling 132,000,000 dollars. If these were one dollar notes, each one would cost 12% of it's face value to create, but regardless of the tiny fraction of the cost involved with these $100 notes, 132 million dollars is still a lot of money to see disappear into thin air.

Of course, I'm sure they printed enough to compensate for it...   

Federal Regulations on... Bake Sales?

Alright folks, my wife brought my attention to an article that I want to make sure gets noticed by as many people as possible:

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/nation-world-news/hold-the-brownies-bill-could-limit-bake-sales-1020132.html

So, let me get this straight... there are “public health” organizations that believe that the items commonly available at fundraisers such as Bake Sales (among others) are “bad for us, mkay?” Alright, I'll bite – sure, I can't argue for any nutritional benefit to most such foodstuffs, but how does that become an issue for the Federal Government? Why does some random organization, no matter how well financed or intelligent it's members may be, have the right to forcibly interfere with my food choices?

From what language in the Constitution does the Federal Government derive the power to write any such legislation at all? If someone says the “Commerce Clause,” it serves only to illustrate just how ridiculous interpretations of the Constitution have gotten.

If a particular school district wants to enact health rules on fundraisers, by all means, let them, but tell the Fed that their help is neither needed nor desired.

What Constitutes Law if Judges Can Apply Anything?

I noticed an article today that I'm a little confused about regarding an Oklahoma legislative decision that supposedly bans the use of Islamic “Shariah” law. The article is echoed, albeit somewhat differently (of course) by other news sources, so I'm going to post the two that I found most relevant.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/08/oklahomas-ban-shariah-law-blocked-critics-say-attorney-general-failed-respond/

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/08/oklahoma.islamic.law/index.html?iref=allsearch

The CNN article is somewhat more informative, stating that the amendment will “officially disfavor and condemn the Muslim community as being a threat to Oklahoma,” which I can somewhat agree with from the standpoint of the First Amendment. It continues, claiming that it forces “Oklahoma courts to rely on federal and state law when deciding cases and forbids courts from considering or using" either international law or Islamic religious law.”

On the second point mentioned above, I am very pleased and wish most States would apply similar laws. No document signed or created outside the boundaries of the United States should carry any force in our legal process, nor should any religious text be utilized on it's own as if it codifies law. Each state has it's own law codes, as does the federal government, and those statutes should be the only source of legal authority in the nation.

So I agree that singling out any one religious group is almost certainly in violation of the First Amendment. That said, I think that the legislators should seriously consider returning the issue to their voters after eliminating the specific references to Islamic law. The same effect can be had without singling out any one religious text – or are they afraid that they can't be generic without having their new legal weapon aimed back at themselves???

Hmmm....

Tariffs on Imported Candy Reach Record Highs

Well the Trick or Treating thing was fun this year. We ended up doing it twice because one of our friends' neighborhood was doing it on Saturday whilst my wife's family's locality was doing it on Sunday. Of course, this meant that I hung out “with the guys” and passed out the candy while the ladies took the kids out.

Numerous cheap lagers were consumed, of course. I have paid for that a little this morning but my coffee is seems to have, thus far, compensated adequately.

But for all the hassle involved in drinking those lagers, we do reap some benefit:  My son's candy haul was rather impressive. Duties paid on the imported sweets should yield to the King a nice sugar high from time to time. Yes, I have been teaching my son the concept of taxation through the taking of a certain percentage of his candy each Halloween. *evil laugh*

Tomorrow's election should be kinda interesting. I don't really have a whole lot to say about it at the moment, being that I've resigned myself to the idea that the two major parties are worthless... suffice to say, my votes will be placed firmly within the territory of the Constitution and Libertarian parties (depending on which is presented as an option) and with the Republican candidates only when no other option is available.

I know there are many expecting some sort of major reversal in Congress this week as a result of the election, but I don't really expect any “change” even if a massive number of Republicans replace Democrats... it is only if we oust these two self-righteous legions entirely that we have the potential to truly see change in the behavior of our government. Fiscal responsibility has not been the strong suit of either major party in decades with even the best facade of such plagued with cronyism, corruption, and so-called “pork barrel politics.” I guess what I'm trying to get at is that no one should be holding their breath in anticipation of anything special or new...

And now, hi ho hi ho, off to work I go...

September 17, 1787

On this fateful day 223 years ago, James Madison helped to pen what I dare to consider to be the most important document ever written by man*, the Constitution of the United States. I suspect that most people forget about this day, or worse, believe that the Constitution was written and/or signed on our Independence Day, July 4, 1776.

Of course, this happens because we tend to forget that the United States had a constitution prior to that which we have now, the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Of course, this document (effective from 1777 to 1787) established a much weaker, ineffectual government that was soon seen as needing replacement for fear that foreign powers and internal trade disputes would tear the country apart.

That is where our current Constitution comes in. This document set up a government with a well defined sphere of influence and a clear separation of powers between its different branches and even itself and the States. While this concept has been forgotten, perverted, and downright ignored at numerous times since, I continue to have faith in the principles laid out therein. Further, I maintain hope that people will become interested, and dare I say concerned, about the state of affairs in relation to the Constitution. Finally, I hold dear to the love I have for our great nation.

May The Creator bless America and all those who cherish it.

* Some may argue that the Bible should hold title as the “most important document ever written by man,” forgetting that the Bible is seen by most theologians as being inspired by God, thus not entirely a work of man.

The Hickersonian Political Platform

First and foremost, I must acknowledge that my personal political ideology is not the same as that of the entire family. My wife is, arguably, much more liberal on most topics than I am, but she also doesn't really care about a lot of political subjects. For that, I sometimes find myself quite thankful – I can only imagine the stress of continually arguing various subjects with the only person in the world I can't get rid of... Anyway...

My personal philosophy on political structure always goes back to the Constitution. I'm a self-proclaimed strict-constructionist, which (in simplicity) means that the text of the Constitution, or of any document, can only be interpreted by itself and a dictionary. A lot of people insist on attempting to interpret documents based on the original writers' intent, which I have come to believe is nearly impossible to know, and others seem to think that politicians can and should be able to simply re-invent the context of a statement whenever it suits their needs. Fact is, to me there can be only one way to interpret a volume of text, and while I'm willing to allow for some wiggle room for “oops, we were wrong” scenarios, I can't excuse changes in interpretation of law that permit any government a so-called new power that it never seemed to have previously.

I do take this to extremes... I know, and to some degree I understand and appreciate that people find my comments humorous. I don't believe that there is any Constitutional justification for federal funding of highways, federal regulation of telecommunication systems, or even the existence of NASA, an entity that appears to branch out from the Air Force but performs missions that are governed outside of that entity. I tend to think that most of these things should be handed at the state level where the Constitution throws pretty much everything that isn't specifically spelled out in it, or the Constitution should have been amended to permit the authorities that the government currently exercises with impunity.

With the above said, I know better than to say that I think we can return to what I would consider to be a Constitutional standard. Most people wouldn't even consider it a desirable situation, and those that would probably relish the idea of economic havoc and misery that might ensue as a result. The biggest evil of our government is that it has grown so large and powerful that we're all too addicted to it to give it up without sacrificing something that we feel like we need. Of course, I feel like this is the point behind why the politicians have led the government to this point – we need it more and more every passing day, and that means they can tax us both directly (income, sales, and property taxes) and indirectly (corporate taxes, search and seizures of property that “may have been used in the commission of a crime”, and inflation) and we'll never really do anything about it.

So I look to this problem with a weary eye and I am forced, as many are, to pick a side that is seemingly “less evil” than the other side(s), and usually I'm either forced to pick one of two entities or to choose a third that has nearly no real authority with which to lead. Placing my faith behind Democrats feels to me like giving the government a blank check and telling it to spend as much as it wants on pretty much anything, most of which seems to affect me none but cost the country millions. Placing my faith behind Republicans feels similar, except that I'm giving the check to business and the military in specific with which to execute economic irregularities and conflicts in countries many Americans tend to be unable to even identify on a map.

I side with Libertarians on a great many issues but they seem to have no political momentum whatsoever; same with Constitutionalists when don't even get a slot on most ballots because there isn't enough support for them to fill their petitions...

Generally speaking, unless provoked by someone else, I don't really bother to discuss politics much anymore due to my disgust with the mess. Much like the problems I see at work every day, no one is really interested in fixing the “real problems” because they probably have no idea what the problems really are. Do I know better? Not really...

So politically, I choose to stand for my principles. I call myself a Strict-Constructionist / Constitionalist, and until something better comes along, I will continue to advocate a simple, plain text version of handling law and politics. The only question I really feel like I have to ask when it comes to new legislation and regulation of anything at the federal level is: “Where in the Constitution does the government derive that authority?”