On the Usurpation of Political and Constitutional Power

Anybody who has taken the liberty of perusing their state laws, local ordinances, or even homeowners association documents has undoubtedly come across some high-toned, heavy-languaged law that at the very least leaves one scratching their head, if not questioning whether or not it’s even English.   As law making goes, the drafters are usually attempting to make the matter as concise and unambiguous as possible to suit the purpose of the law.  They take great pains to choose words whose definition and context will both accomplish their legislative goal, and convey the proper intent of the law. 

Of course, I may be giving these guys way too much credit, and certainly some are far more adept at this endeavor than others.  Yet even the most adept, who arguably the founding fathers of our nation were, are not immune to the wanton avarice of those individuals who seek to distort, contrive, and extract dubious and unintended meanings to suit their purpose. 

Little Tommy Jefferson, in all his would-be erudition, recently came across a fine example of this very phenomenon.  Most of my small but worthy readership is no doubt familiar with the American legacies of FDR’s New Deal, and LBJ’s Great Society.  These periods resulted in unprecedented growth in the federal government, and the birth of Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and other welfare programs.  Their Constitutional justification for doing so lie in their interpretation of Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution: 

The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; (emphasis added) 

Now, the one thing about a document so grand in importance and significance as the Constitution is that it was clearly well thought out.  The Constitutional Convention labored arduously to bring about a documented system of government that would stand the test of time.  Furthermore, they did so with much study and meditation on historical systems of government – their advancements, their downfalls – and writings of historical leaders, philosophers, and political scientists.  It was hardly done willy-nilly.

What’s more, they left a significant amount of documentation behind to explain their intentions.  One such collection of documents is ‘The Federalist’.  In Number 41, James Madison asks the question, “Is the aggregate power of the general government greater than ought to have been vested in it?”  The founding fathers were clearly concerned with government growing beyond practicality, and indeed becoming a dangerous and tyrannical power against the people.  To that end, it can fairly be said that the Constitution was written to be a minimalist document, allowing only for those things that were thought to procure and preserve the greatest amount of freedom as possible to the people.  Its simplicity is truly its genius.  

Article I, Section 8 – Powers of Congress sets about clearly enumerating what Congress has the right to do.  Theoretically (always a fun word… usually used when the proverbial, uh... poop is about to hit the fan), Congress should not venture beyond these enumerated powers.  But, as the saying goes, “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”

The very argument FDR and other benevolent Democrats (and some Republicans) used above to usurp vast powers of taxation for the establishment of social programs in the name of the “general Welfare” was addressed by Madison in Number 41:

It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defence or general welfare.  No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Madison goes on to argue that such a broad and general interpretation of that language is clearly unfounded given the specificity of the following enumerated powers:

Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.

Ahh Jimmy, tsk tsk tsk… such naiveté.  Events and decisions by the Supreme Court in 1937 would go on to procure the legacy of social spending programs to this very day, and has served as a license for government expansion and involvement in many more aspects of our lives. 

To be clear, I’m not writing to debate the merits of social programs; in any event, I don’t see them going anywhere.  But, what is useful to debate is federal government’s role in such programs.  To that end, another poignant quote comes to mind.  Gerald Ford, in his Presidential address to Congress on August 12^th, 1974, said:

A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.

Prophetic?  Maybe.  But, perhaps no more so than Madison’s final sentence in Number 41:

How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

We’ll see Jimmy… we certainly shall see.

On The "Uh Oh" Phenomenon

To reveal a bit of personal information, I have a 21-month-old toddler running around the house these days. She’s an absolute cutie. And if you know anything about toddlers, you know that they continually surprise you with their attempts at using new words. While this is exciting and amusing, it’s not without its annoyances as well. Once they figure a word out, they continue to blurt it out with excessive pride in their assimilating into mom and dad’s world.

Well, mine lately has taken to the term “Uh Oh”. She falls down she says “Uh Oh”; she drops her sippy cup and “Uh Oh”; she looks out the window and says “Uh Oh”; she clicks a ball point pen and says “Uh Oh”. You get the point. Everything now is “Uh Oh”. It’s cute and innocent, but also annoying because as it is your charge to look after this child you are still obliged to turn your head quickly, or run in from the other room, or rush to her side to see what the “Uh Oh” is. The phrase is meant to be an alarming thing, and to the extent that it evokes a response from mom and dad, it has become her favorite means of getting our attention; she is able to exercise a modicum of control over us with this effective wolf cry. I mean, God forbid she says “Uh Oh” and we ignore it to find she’s stabbed the dog, or Picasso’d the walls in poop. Certainly there are varying degrees of inflection in the “Uh Oh”, but no matter how innocent the cry, you still ignore it at your peril.

As I was sitting around listening to Little Miss Wonderful “Uh Oh” around the house, I couldn’t help but juxtapose her with the U.S. news media. A strange comparison you think? Well, not to the erudite intellectual… ahem. The media uses the “Uh Oh” day in and day out without fail; it gets your attention and gets you tuning in. You avoid it at your peril (so they would have you believe). Like my daughter, it is their favorite phrase and instrument of control over their audience.

Now, some reading this will say, “Duh, that’s what they’re supposed to do”. Of course, what relatively intelligent human is not on to their game? But has anybody else noticed that the media’s inflection in their “Uh Ohs” has grown increasingly alarming? From the financial crisis to unemployment to the auto bailout to the environment to swine flu, they certainly have had their fair fodder for sounding the alarms lately. While I don’t want to jump on the anti-fear-mongering bandwagon (that dead horse has been savagely beaten), it’s hard not to notice how headlines are being offered these days. It has become all too common to see a host of tragic, traumatic, and dramatic headlines get top billing while the potential mustard seeds and rays of light get pushed to less prominent positions. Those of us looking for more favorable fare are left to search for the silver lining.

In the end they do it because it hooks the biggest percentage of fish every time. What does it say about us as a society that we respond to tragedy in this way? If you are honest with yourself (and I know you are), you know that people tune in to dark headlines not out of any degree of empathy, but more for the spectacle it provides: dare it be said, tragedy is entertaining. I can’t help but think that the reason has something to do with how we deal with our own lives on a day-to-day basis. Seeing something or somebody that is in a worse off position than ourselves somehow gives us a sense of relief that our lives aren’t that bad. I used to call it the Jerry Springer Effect – people tune into Springer to see the hilarity and outrageousness of character presented and then turn to their colleagues and friends and say, “I would never!” It in some way validates our station and circumstances. While there are any number of arguments and explanations for the phenomenon, it still leaves me shaking my head.

But, for the media toddlers it’s their best gig. They’ll “Uh Oh” their way into our living rooms, car radios, and home pages every day because they know our heads will snap to attention to make sure there’s no poop on the wall.

On The Perceptions of Credit

Like most of you were likely doing on your Saturday afternoon, I was cruising through some high-minded social philosophy reading when a particular concept struck me as noteworthy. It had to do with the concept of “Credit”. Henry Hazlitt says in his tome, Economics In One Lesson (pg. 28), “All credit is debt”. Now, I doubt this line is particularly exclusive to Mr. Hazlitt (though it could be), but viewing the concept of credit from that perspective must remind you: Credit isn’t cash. Think about what a store clerk may ask you when it’s time to check out: “Will that be cash, or credit?” Though either will still purchase you that new G.I. Joe you’ve been eyeing, they are clearly different concepts.

What is “Credit”, but a representation of someone’s ability to pay back a debt? Hazlitt explains further (pg. 31):

“Credit, on the contrary, is something a man already has. He has it, perhaps, because he already has marketable assets of a greater cash value than the loan for which he is asking. Or he has it because his character and past record have earned it. He brings it into the bank with him. That is why the banker makes him the loan. The banker is not giving something for nothing. He feels assured of repayment. He is merely exchanging a more liquid form of asset or credit for a less liquid form.”

Now, to further put this in context, think of the phenomenon all, or at least a good majority of us, have experienced, or at least have heard about. The minute you begin your inaugural perusal through your college campus during the first days of the semester, through the throngs of people who aren’t yet disenchanted with the idea of showing up to 8 o’clock class, there are these fun little booths with people handing out free t-shirts, gift cards, promotional cd’s, stickers; anything and everything to get you to their booth to do what?: SIGN YOU UP FOR YOUR FIRST CREDIT CARD!!

I’m using credit cards here as an example because I think most would agree they are the most iniquitous of debt instruments available today to the general public; they’re highly relevant. College students (freshmen in particular) are so yearning to expand their horizons of freedom and “fit in”, that they will readily put themselves into harm’s contractual way. But most college freshmen’s thoughts on the term “Credit” are nowhere near realistic. In fact, to most people the term “Credit” more readily translates into another term, “Purchasing Power”. While credit certainly does increase an individual’s purchasing power through the use of financial leverage, what most people ignore is that it is effectively a mortgage on your future earning power to obtain today what you otherwise had no money to afford. Again, CREDIT ISN’T CASH. You still have to “Pay the Piper”, as they say.

America, whether unashamedly, unwittingly, or uncaringly, today is a debt culture mainly due to our misconception of “Credit”; we choose to see it more as “What can I have today?” rather than “What have I forfeited tomorrow?” While some manner of inflation may be avoided by early purchase of goods, ultimately the interest costs associated with borrowing outweigh inflation several times over, and furthermore put more of a damper on future purchasing power as more of a persons money is spoken for by the interest on goods they already own.

Now, in no way do I want to suggest that credit should be avoided at all cost. Credit, unlike some of our current members of Congress, is not the Devil. However, it should be understood clearly, and used wisely.

Little Tommy Jefferson in all his would-be erudition is not immune to the follies of credit -misunderstood. While I revel in the good decisions I’ve made, I am not without my fair share of lament for those I’ve screwed up royally. Nonetheless, perceptions can and do change. Let’s hope our collective perceptions of debt and financial savvy change soon… or we’re all gonna be kickin’ it like homeys in international debtors prison.

A Humble Welcome

By way of introduction, let me welcome you to my new blogspot, “I Wanna Be Erudite”. So, what the hell does that mean? For the sake of those rushing to Google the word “Erudite” (yes Google is as much a verb as a noun now), I’ll explain further. Without citing any particular source of definition, the term means to be scholarly and learned, having great knowledge of one, or a host of subjects, typically garnered through reading. If that’s too heavy for you then consider rearranging the title into “I Wanna Beer… udite!” OK, corny, but I do like to soak my thoughts in suds from time to time.

Back to erudite. By extension, it is no accident that I’ve chosen Little Tommy Jefferson as my Nom de Plume. Thomas Jefferson, along with so many of our country’s great minds – Franklin, Adams, Madison, Washington…Bush (that’s a funny) – represent to me the epitome of erudition. These Renaissance Men were extremely well read on a host of topics, not the least of which was the human condition. Through open minds and a keen awareness of history, they were able to have a profound effect not only on their contemporary countrymen, but on numerous generations to come, and the world over. These men sought to master the mind, promote the greater understanding of human nature, and inspire their friends and communities to scarcely imaginable heights. Yes friends! I WANT TO BE THE NEW HOPE FOR AMERICAN DEMOCRACY!!!

No, not really. Except to say that I do intend to use this spot as a means to examine, if only for myself, the socio-political, and economic playland we currently find ourselves in. BUT, that’s not all I intend to do. I hope to hit on a number of topics including sports (women’s beach volleyball is good), music (uh… Hootie anybody?), film (think Fletch), and the occasional expose on bah mitzvah etiquette; all this while maintaining a light and funny attitude towards it all.

In truth, what you can expect are my thoughts on a range of things, in which I hope you find some worthwhile mustard seeds for your own personal reflection. But above all, I hope I can entertain you enough to come see what I’ve conjured up on a regular basis. In closing, I leave you with my inspiration for this endeavor:

“The wise social philosophers were those who merely hung up their ideas and left them hanging, for men to look at or to pass by, as they chose. Jesus and Socrates did not even trouble to write theirs out, and Marcus Aurelius wrote his only in crabbed memoranda for his own use, never thinking anyone else would see them. They have come down to us by sheer accident”. – Albert Jay Nock (A Journal of These Days) - 1934