More twisting of plain words

Two convicted felons are using last month's Supreme Court ruling in Heller to challenge a federal law that prohibits them from owning guns. They're challenging based upon the court's ruling that the second amendment allows them to keep loaded handguns at home for self defense.

"Felons, such as Barton, have the need and the right to protect themselves and their families by keeping firearms in their home," says David Chontos, Barton's court-appointed lawyer.

Mr. Chontos and other criminal defense lawyers say the high court's decision means federal laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of people convicted of felonies and crimes of domestic violence are unconstitutional as long as the weapons are needed for self-defense.

Have you heard that quaint colloquialism that rhymes with "spit"? You know the one I speak of, the one with the literal meaning "fecal droppings from a male bovine?" Mr. Chontos apparently didn't really bother to read the courts opinion, where Justice Scalia said…

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill…

Look it up. It's on page 54 of the opinion of the court. I guess criminal defense lawyers don't really bother reading the opinions they cite in the defense of their clients. Is it any wonder it takes decades to see justice in some cases?

---

Originally posted at Perri Nelson's Website. Cross posted at NW Bloggers.

Essential resources for the citizen

It doesn't matter if you're a liberal, a conservative, a communist, a socialist, a Republican, a Democrat, or whatever political side you take… if you're an American citizen, there are some essential resources available free of charge on the Internet to help you to understand where our nation came from, and where it ought to go. Put aside ideology for a while, our nation is defined by the content of these documents.

Every one of them is available in its entirety online. This is probably one of the single best reasons for having an Internet connection in my mind. They just don't seem to teach this stuff in public schools anymore. These documents ought to be required reading for every American citizen…

1. The Declaration of Independence.

   "When in the course of human events…" The American Revolution was already in progress when the Continental Congress unanimously declared our independence from Great Britain on July 4, 1776. This is why we celebrate Independence Day on the fourth of July every year, even though the war was far from over in July of 1776. Drafted by Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence recognizes that all men are created equal and that we all have rights that are given to us by our creator. In other words, our rights come to us from God, and are not granted to us by any government.

   The Declaration of Independence also tells us that governments are instituted among men to protect their God given rights, and outlines the serious and grave reasons for overthrowing an existing government, something that the founders did not consider should be done lightly. A long list of grievances against the British Crown were enumerated, ending with the declaration that the thirteen colonies were from that moment forward free and independent states, sovereign nations if you will.

2. The Articles of Confederation.

   The strong federal government we have today is a far cry from the initial government of the United States that came out of the revolution. That first government was merely a loose confederation of independent sovereign states (not states as we know the word today, but literally states — sovereign nations). Knowing where we came from, and the weaknesses of that original governmental structure is essential to understanding the government that followed and the reasons for its founding.

3. The Constitution for the United States of America.

   This is the big one, the document that defines the structure of our federal government. It establishes the powers of the federal government. It establishes the limitations upon that government. It establishes the relationship between the states that gave up a little of their sovereignty to the federal government in exchange for the protection and unification provided by that government. It stands as the supreme law of the land. If you don't bother to read any of the other documents listed here, read this one and the next one.

   After reading the Constitution for the United States of America and the ninth and tenth amendments you should have an understanding of why it is that I believe that the founders intended a much weaker federal government than the one that we have now. This document is a major compromise between some extremely intelligent, strong-willed men who wanted a supremely powerful national government and some equally intelligent, strong-willed men that wanted the states to retain their sovereignty over the people. For a truly excellent description of the Constitutional Convention, including the changing factions and the evolution of the basic framework of our government, you might also want to pick up the book A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution by Carol Berkin. It's a fun read and contains a lot of insight into the mind and character of our founding fathers. It's a civics lesson that's truly entertaining.

4. The Bill of Rights.

   It has been said that the Constitution might not have been ratified if there hadn't been a Bill of Rights containing amendments to it presented at about the same time. The anti-federalists thought it necessary that certain of our inalienable rights be enumerated. As originally drafted, the Bill of Rights contained twelve amendments to the Constitution. The first two proposed amendments were not ratified. The remaining ten were all ratified and are now a part of our Constitution. When I write about "states rights", I'm often referring to the tenth amendment, an obscure passage that says quite simply:

   The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

   Clearly this is evidence that the founders intended to limit the power of the federal government. Remember that when you hear words similar to these…

   "The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials… I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice."
   — Justice Stevens, dissenting in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER, 554 U. S. ____ (2008)

5. Amendments 11 — 27 to the United States Constitution.

   Of course, the founders also knew that there would be times when the Constitution would not be sufficient for the needs of a growing nation. At the same time, they strongly believed that "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes". That's why they provided the processes by which it could be amended, and made it as difficult to amend as they did. Even so, seventeen additional amendments followed the Bill of Rights. Possibly the most profound changes to the structure of our federal government are included in these amendments. Interestingly enough, the second amendment that was ever proposed to the Constitution, part of the original draft of the Bill of Rights was finally ratified on May 7, 1992, the last amendment (so far) to be ratified, the twenty–seventh amendment…

   No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.

6. The United States Code.

   The United States Code is a compilation of United States Law as enacted by the Congress. The link here will take you to a page where you can select a section of PDF documents to download to your computer. If you have a CD Burner and the appropriate CD Burner software, you can download ISO images of the United States Code and burn them to CD. You can then install the program to your computer, just as if you had purchased the United States Code on CD-ROM from the Government Printing Office. If neither of these options work for you, you can always search the United States Code online.

7. The Federalist Papers.

   The Federalist Papers (also known as The Federalist) were a series of articles written in support of the Constitution for the United States of America. These were the arguments of the federalists for ratifying the Constitution and explain what the Founders thought that the Constitution meant. If you have a problem interpreting the original intent of the Constitution, this is a good place to start, assuming you've actually read it. Truly there's no better place to start than the actual document itself.

8. The Anti-Federalist Papers.

   Not everyone wanted the new Constitution to be ratified. The Anti-Federalist papers were a series of articles arguing against the ratification of the Constitution. While the anti-federalists were ultimately not successful in preventing the ratification of the Constitution, they were responsible for the Bill of Rights. Without their arguments, which concluded with Anti-Federalist number 84 On the Lack of a Bill of Rights, we might not have the first ten amendments to our Constitution, collectively known as the Bill of Rights.

   In some ways, the anti-federalists were quite right about the weaknesses of the constitution. I've remarked before on the prophetic nature of some of Brutus' comments in Antifederalist No. 78-79. The failure of the Constitution to put adequate restrictions on the Judiciary has resulted in a sad perversion of the founders original intent, leading to a judicial oligarchy that is practically unassailable. He noted that "There is no power above them that can correct their errors or control their decisions." The founding fathers, perhaps weary after a long, hot summer overlooked this point as they drafted the Constitution, and Alexander Hamilton dismissed the point in Federalist number 81 — but that's an argument for another day.

As we celebrate the 232nd anniversary of the official declaration of our independence from Great Britain I would like to suggest that each and every one of you make note of these resources, and READ THEM. Set aside any pre-conceived notions that you have regarding what we "need to do" as a nation and simply read these documents — at least the first five of them. Item two defined the original government of the United States, and was so full of weaknesses that the Constitutional Convention was held to improve upon the design of the confederation, resulting in the Constitution we have today. The sixth item is so large as to be practically unwieldy (and that in itself ought to say something about how far we've strayed from the first five documents intent). Items seven and eight give some perspective to the rest of this, helping to flesh out the founders understanding of what it was that they crafted.

Maybe then, after you've carefully read them and considered what they have to say about the role of the federal government, the role of the states, and the role of the people we will all have a common framework upon which to debate the issues of the day.

---

Originally posted at Perri Nelson's Website. Cross posted at NW Bloggers.

Money in politics

"Follow the money."

That sounds like good advice when you want to know who's behind a campaign or initiative doesn't it? That's part of the reason behind some of our campaign finance laws. Knowing who's funding a campaign is important… if you assume that all money is corrupt… and if the campaign is for a person rather than an idea.

I'm not so sure that the same applies to initiatives. After all, most initiatives are about ideas, not people. Take for example, Washington's initiative 1000, the so-called "right to die" initiative. The initiative's supporters call it the "Washington State Death with Dignity Initiative". The initiative's opponents refer to it as "the assisted suicide initiative".

It would seem to me that this particular initiative is very solidly about an idea and its opposite. There's no candidate running for office based on this initiative. It's all about an idea. Myself, I'm against this one. I don't think that suicide is a good idea, and I'm not all that thrilled about the concept of euthanasia either. Still, I've watched close friends die in pain and misery, and I can understand the motivation for both. I can honestly believe that the people who might propose an assisted suicide initiative could truly believe that it's a good thing to help people who are suffering achieve "death with dignity" and an end to their misery. I can also understand (quite easily since it's my own view) that some people might think that suicide isn't the way to depart from this life, and that euthanasia — at least where people are the ones being euthanized comes very close to murder.

You would think then, that the debate about this particular initiative should center around the ideas. The debate should discuss why it is believed that suicide is "death with dignity" or why it isn't. Does it really matter who is saying one thing or the other about it? Should we oppose the idea just because someone notorious might support it? How does the person supporting an idea change the validity of the idea? Should we support the idea simply because a religious organization might oppose it? Since when does the identity of the proponent or opponent of an idea have anything at all to do with the idea itself?

This is what I find so mystifying about some of the news coverage about this initiative and other campaigns. In the Seattle Times, we find this article, which begins as follows…

Both sides of a voter initiative to legalize physician assistance in dying, likely on track for the fall ballot, have accused the other of attempting to hide the identity of donors and opening the door to out-of-state interests.

Initiative supporters claim that right-to-life group Human Life of Washington wants to influence the election while keeping voters in the dark about the true source of opposition funds, which historically have come from Catholic churches and related organizations.

On the other side, Initiative 1000's official opposition claims that supporters' "sleight of hand" has so obscured the identity of donors that voters wouldn't know if convicted euthanizer Jack Kevorkian had written a check to the campaign.

Would it help to know that the people opposing initiative 1000 are supported by the Catholic church and related organizations? Shouldn't it be obvious that religious organizations would oppose suicide, assisted or not? Aren't those organizations entitled to fund an initiative that is in line with their own ideology? For that matter, what does it matter if Jack Kevorkian has written a check to the campaign. We all know that he supports the concept of assisted suicide and euthanasia.

Each side says arguments made by the other don't meet "the smell test." At stake, they argue, is nothing less than democracy, the people's right to know and freedom of speech.

As far as I'm concerned, that's a load of that specific sort of excrement that is produced by unneutered male cattle. Yes, the people have a right to know. Supporters and opponents alike, no matter who they are have a right to speak freely. NOTHING about the right to the freedom of speech requires the identity of the speaker to be known though. People cherish their anonymity on the Internet for example, even if the concept is really an illusion. As for democracy, the initiative process allows it to go forward. Most likely initiative 1000 will be on the ballot this fall. Democracy isn't being harmed simply because we may or may not know who supports the idea behind the initiative or who opposes the idea.

In this particular instance, the notion that the money trail has anything whatsoever to do with the issue at hand — whether assisted suicide is of benefit or harm to society — is a Red Herring.  It's nothing more than a distraction and has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits or failings of the initiative.

Oppose the initiative or support it. But if you're going to do so, do so on the merit or weakness of the ideas behind it. Who cares where the money comes from.

---

Originally posted at Perri Nelson's Website. Cross posted at NW Bloggers.

A politically incorrect question

What happens when you take farmland that is producing crops that are brought to market to feed your nation's people away from the farmers that own it by force, murdering those farmers if they don't comply with your desire to seize their land? Do crops grow without the seed being sown? Do crops thrive without fertilization? Do crops produce food when they are choked with weeds or burned to the ground? When you seize farmland from working farmers and give the land to men and women who know nothing of farming and who refuse to do the work required to nurture the crops what will the land produce for you to bring to market?

When a nation that once produced an abundance of food, a literal cornucopia that helped to feed a hungry continent stops farming, what sort of result do you expect? When a country's population is starving but the military government that is responsible for the collapse of that country's farming economy orders international aid organizations like Care International to suspend their operations in that country because of political paranoia what do you expect the political leaders of that nation to do?

 

 

I'm sure you can guess.

 

 

Come on... guess.

 

 

That's right — blame the racist west.

"The United Kingdom has mobilized her friends and allies in Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand to impose illegal economic sanctions against Zimbabwe." — Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe

According to the Associated Press, Robert Mugabe was "staying at a posh hotel near the top of Rome's Via Veneto, an elegant street lined with chic cafes." when he accused the West of maneuvering to bring about "regime change" in Zimbabwe.

Maybe that's why Father Pfleger thinks that America is the greatest sin against God. After all, we don't believe in Zimbabwean style redistribution of wealth here — unless we're liberal politicians anyway.

---

Originally posted at Perri Nelson's Website. Cross posted to NW Bloggers.

Is politics as usual doomed?

Probably not. But it's fun to watch as all of the negative campaigning takes place in the Democratic Presidential race and bomb-thrower after bomb-thrower goes down in flames. A lot of really outrageous claims have been made by political "operatives" who then are either fired or asked to resign.

It almost seems like a new twist on an old tactic. It used to be if you had something negative to say about your opponent, you just came out and said it. Then you'd say it through surrogates so that if it backfired you could say that you didn't support it. Now, you can have someone say it and before it gets you in trouble get rid of them.

It doesn't change the fact that someone said it, but you can pretend to be above all of that. I don't think that anyone is really fooled by it all though. There have been way too many of these convenient firings or disavowals of the support of bomb-throwers for it to be anything else but another political ploy.

---

Look at the character of some of the negative campaign remarks while we're on the topic. Remember, that we're talking about purely Democratic Party politics. The campaign in question is between two Democratic candidates that differ only marginally in their politics. There hasn't been much need for Republicans to step into the fray, because they aren't running against one — yet.

The negative campaigning has touched on the alleged religion of one of the candidates. Is he or isn't he a Muslim, as if that really matters. Why should it matter? It would seem that the campaign that raised the issue, and then got rid of their bomb-thrower thinks that it matters to Democratic voters. Does this imply that the oh-so-tolerant Democratic party might have a problem with religious discrimination?

The negative campaigning has touched on the race of one of the candidates, in more than one way, and from more than one side of the issue. Is Barack Obama getting a pass because he's a black man as failed Vice Presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro seemed to imply? Is he "not black enough" as Al Sharpton implied? Could it be that the Democratic party, which relies so heavily upon the black vote and is quick to condemn even a hint of white racism (ala Trent Lott's praise of Strom Thurmond, the longest serving Senator in history), has a problem with racism in its own ranks?

The negative campaigning has touched on the gender of one of the candidates as well, but not so much from the males in the campaign. Rather the female candidate has complained about the men ganging up on her and picking on her because of her gender, as if it should give her a pass. Again, Geraldine Ferraro made a point of gender as being important to the campaign as well. Aren't feminists claiming that it's about equality? So why should gender matter in the race at all?

---

As much as I detest both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, I wish they'd campaign on the issues. The "go negative without going negative" approach to this campaign is insulting to Democratic voters, and damaging to the Democratic party (not that that last is such a bad thing in my view).

It also points to the "power at any price" mentality of politicians today, particularly that of Hillary Clinton, whose campaign has been responsible for most of the negative campaigning. There's a long way to go yet before November. The negative campaigning is dividing the Democratic party quite nicely.

Perhaps if Hillary's campaign goes down in flames we'll see an abatement of the politics of personal destruction.

Somehow though, I doubt it.

---

Originally posted at Perri Nelson's Website.

Time to move on

This morning, I was awakened by my wife, who brought me coffee. As I was rousing from my groggy slumber my clock radio turned itself on, and I heard Mr. Spitzer's resignation speech.

New York governor Eliot Spitzer has resigned, purportedly over a sex scandal. It seems the governor, who spent his career as an attorney general and politician has been visiting high-priced hookers for the past ten or so years. He's right to resign.

After all, prostitution is illegal in New York. It's illegal in Washington D.C. It's also illegal in both places to solicit prosecution. As a former attorney general, Mr. Spitzer knew this, and in fact probably prosecuted people for it.

Democratic calls for his resignation that I've heard have touched on his hypocrisy. Democratic support for Mr. Spitzer has ranged from condemnation of America because of our backward value system to the it's just about sex argument. After all, more enlightened and culturally advanced Europeans think there's nothing wrong with a man acting on his base animal instincts, or cheating on his wife.

The fact remains that what Mr. Spitzer did was illegal. If he hadn't resigned, the New York legislature should have impeached him.

Conservative and Republican reactions have been varied. I first heard about this scandal on the Sean Hannity show a couple of days ago. On that day Sean was talking to J.C. Watts. It seemed to me that they struck the right tone. Eliot Spitzer was a man, subject to the failings of all men. What he did was wrong, and should have a price, but we shouldn't be quick to condemn him. After all, all men have moral failings.

We don't know for a fact that Mr. Spitzer actually engaged the services of a prostitute, but there's a lot of evidence that he did. Mr. Spitzer's apologies to his family and constituents never mentioned what he actually did. His resignation was short and to the point, again never mentioning his specific failing.

As I was listening to his speech I was grateful, because this was yet another scandal that really doesn't need to be all over the news. And then I heard the commentary from Glenn Beck. Frankly it was disgraceful. They replayed his resignation speech, interspersed with mocking commentary by Glenn. The schadenfreude was obvious.

It's always a shame to see a man fall to disgrace, particularly a man in a position of power. Regardless of his politics lives are often destroyed by it. Things aren't going to change in New York because Mr. Spitzer is leaving politics. The Democratic party still has a lock on power in the state. The lieutenant governor is just as liberal as the governor was.

Comparisons have been made between the treatment of Eliot Spitzer and Mark Foley, or Larry Craig. I even considered making one myself. After all, toe-tapping in a public restroom hardly compares with spending a thousand dollars for an hour with a prostitute. I thought better of it though.

The political parties and opposing ideologies are indeed different when it comes to this. Democratic politicians with moral failings that don't quite rise to provable violations of law are often lauded for those failings, while Republican politicians in the same circumstances are often hounded out of office by both parties for it. It doesn't seem fair.

Men, and women elected to public office ought to be held to a high standard. It doesn't matter which party they are from. When they are given the responsibility for crafting and enforcing our laws they should not be above them. If they violate those laws they should and must be removed from power.

But it's not a cause for great rejoicing.

Eliot Spitzer is leaving politics. The public will benefit by this in a small way, because a man who violated the laws he was sworn to uphold is no longer in office. Eliot Spitzer and his family will also benefit, because now that his sin is in the open he has the chance to repent and to repair his relationships.

We should take the opportunity to look to ourselves. Eliot Spitzer succumbed to his moral failings and was caught, but we all have moral failings (maybe not the same ones, but we have them anyway). This is an opportunity for us to consider them and hopefully do something about it.

---

Originally posted at Perri Nelson's Website. Cross posted at NW Bloggers.

On the Presidential election

Once again, the Patriot Post picks a winner…

“Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.”

-- James Madison (Federalist No. 39, 1788)

In this year when we are getting ready to select another President via a vast popularity contest, it seems good to remember what the original purpose of our federal government was and why the founders chose the method of electing a President that they did.

Remember, our Founders sought to bind thirteen nations together into a single union for the purposes of mutual defense, and to ensure liberty. It wasn't their purpose to eliminate the States, but to unify and defend them.

They started with a loose confederation of nation-states. When that confederation proved to be inadequate to the mutual defense of the nation-states they created a federal republic bound by a federal Constitution. Each and every State that has joined the United States has ratified that Constitution, which promises…

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

That promise ensures that, barring amendment to the Constitution, which must be ratified by the States, the federal government shall remain a republic. That promise outlines in a brief paragraph what the purpose of the federal government is, and why the States ought to join it.

As James Madison argued, the Constitution was a FEDERAL Constitution, and not a NATIONAL Constitution. This explains a lot about the mechanism the founders chose for selecting the President…

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

It's plain that the selection of the President was not intended to be a nationwide popularity contest like we see today. The President is intended to be the chief executive of a federal, not a national government. The President doesn't stand for the people, he stands for the States.

There have been several amendments to the Constitution that affect the election of the President. None of them have changed the clause just quoted, although they have had a diluting effect upon it, most notably the 14th amendment.

The point is that the States and not the people choose the President as the chief executive of the federal government. This is why it's distressing to me to see the States attempting to throw away that privilege and responsibility in moves toward direct democracy.

In the originally defined process, the Electors would each vote for two persons. Under the simplest scenario outlined in the original Constitution, after these electoral votes were counted, the one having the most electoral votes would be President, and the one having the second most electoral votes would be Vice President. Can you imagine the outcome today if that process hadn't been amended? Almost surely the President and the Vice President would come from opposing political parties.

---

Look at the choices that the Democratic party and the Republican party have given us this year. Compare their positions with what the founders declared that the president should be and do.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

This is the first and primary duty of the President as laid out in our federal Constitution. Which of the three candidates do you honestly believe is best qualified to fill that role? Some experience is desirable don't you think? Which of the candidates has that experience?

Of course such experience isn't that hard to come by. All three of the candidates have had the opportunity, although arguably one of them would have been excluded from combat until recently. Nevertheless, military experience isn't mandatory…

he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices,

Are any of the candidates on record having called the principal officers of any of the executive departments, particularly the military, liars? Have any of them said that they don't trust the opinions of… say the Secretary of Defense? Have any of them come out and challenged the veracity an officer of the military placed in charge of a high-profile military campaign of national interest while he was giving sworn testimony to Congress?

Whether you agree in principal with the war in Iraq or not, Congress authorized that action. Members of both major political parties called for action. Members of both major political parties voted to authorize the use of military force. Members of both major political parties voted to enact a policy of "regime change" in Iraq, and did so before September 11, 2001.

Which of the candidates, having voted for the authorization to use military force now claims to have been misled? Which of the candidates has made promises to remove the military from the war on terror? Which of the candidates has made promises to invade an ally (albeit a weak one) in the war on terror?

and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Which of the candidates has a questionable record when it comes to the subject of impeachment? Which of the candidates has a questionable record when it comes to pardons? Yes, I know that none of the candidates has been in the position to grant pardons, however one of the candidates has been in a position to influence some very questionable pardons.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Which of the candidates do you trust to appoint judges that will honor the Constitution as the founders intended? Which of the candidates have tried to obstruct the appointment of judges? Which have tried to obstruct the appointment of Ambassadors by supporting filibusters when they were in the minority, or by supporting the filibuster even when they were in the majority? Which of the candidates has made an issue of the firing of inferior officers by the head of one of the departments?

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

With a Senate bent upon obstruction, Presidents have found it necessary to take advantage of this power granted to them by the Constitution. Which of the candidates have made that necessary?

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Which of today's candidates can you think of that have challenged the carefully chosen words in the State of the Union address of a sitting president, calling them a lie when it was demonstrable that they were in fact true? Which of the candidates has the most questionable record with regard to the faithful execution of laws? Have any of the candidates been associated with the suppression of evidence? The harassment of witnesses in a trial? When it comes to integrity, do any of the candidates come to mind?

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

All three of the current candidates have been bound by Oath or Affirmation to support the Constitution. Which of them has respected that oath? Have any? All three of the current candidates are sitting Senators. Which of them has honored the limitations upon the Congress outlined by the Constitution? Which of them has worked to eliminate the earmarks and other appropriations of federal money for local purposes that the Constitution doesn't authorize throughout his or her career? Which of them have not? Which of the candidates (or their campaign staff) has made the religion of one of the other candidates an issue?

These are the issues upon which we ought to make up our mind who is most, or least, qualified among the candidates to be President. Personally, I find all three candidates to be lacking in one or another of these issues.

The answers to these questions have nothing to do with the liberalism or conservatism of the candidates. Frankly, they're all too liberal (using the current meaning of the word, not the classical meaning) for my tastes. But, when I consider the purpose our founders had for the office of the President, and I consider how the current set of candidates fit that purpose, I am left with only one choice.

I'm going to vote for John McCain.

---

Originally posted at Perri Nelson's Website. Cross posted at NW Bloggers.