The resurrection of the 9th & 10th Amendments: Applied
I hope you enjoyed the birthday break (see below). This is the continuation of my earlier post on Constitutional right and law...although I actually wrote this post about two days earlier.
Most of you who read this blog (all eight of you) are aware of my opinions on the Constitution and our relationship as We the People to our municipal, state and federal governments. I have been slowly forming a preference for strong local government (municipal and state) and weak federal rule. Amar's The Bill of Rights did a lot to inform that preference and solidify it knowing that a.) those who drafted the Constitution did as much as possible to limit the federal government's power without making it so weak that it couldn't support itself (like the failed Articles of Confederation) and b.) the drawbacks to such a locally focused Constitution opens the door to problematic issues like slavery. The abolitionist movement and, really, everything from Reconstruction up through the 1960s and 1970s reiterated that, when states misbehave a federal government is needed to bring them into line.
So it has been interesting to see in the last few months since Obama has started pushing through his economic recovery plans that there is a visible mobilization against an increasingly large and powerful federal government. Obama is clearly going the FDR route towards economic recovery with massive spending and federal programs. He and his administration are also throwing their weight around in the business world. A report of his meeting with the US's top banking CEOs stated that he was the only thing that stood between them and "the pitchforks." Most banks, it seems, are keen to return whatever TARP funding they got due to the amount of control it would give the feds (you can correct me where I'm wrong here). I am not really in a position to judge the rightness or wrongness of TARP funding and all that it entails, so I will digress.
Interestingly enough, there has been something of a grassroots reaction against the growing influence of the fed. You have probably read or heard about the "Tea Parties" that are being held in different cities in the US. Drawing their inspiration from the Boston Tea Party where the Sons of Liberty, a sometimes-violent revolutionary group in New England, raided a British cargo ship loaded with tea and dumped it into Boston Harbour as a protest against British taxation of tea imported to the Thirteen Colonies.* The modern tea parties are not nearly so radical. They are basically just public protests against the encroachment of the federal government on people's (or The People's) lives.
- - I continue to dispute the merits of this protest. It's really a subject worthy of its own post, but suffice to say, the idea that the Colonies were unfairly taxed is far more debatable than our history textbooks would have us think. Thank you Mr. Hall for allowing me to come to that conclusion.
Its kinda funny that I actually wrote the above paragraph two days before Tax Day and had no idea that there would be a huge blossoming in Tea Parties across the country. I think the fact that they are a pretty grassroots and loosely-led movement is really cool and amazing and was pleased to hear that the participants were well behaved. My only minor criticism is that "big government" and "reckless government spending" should not be equated with "Obama." As my dad has often said, Bush did not veto a single spending bill during his 8 years in office, a total anathema to classic conservatives. Big Government knows no party bounds. So I was a bit cynical to hear that the Tea Parties are in reaction to Obama's economic recovery plan and that such voices were more or less silent during Bush's time in office. I have heard that participants were also disenchanted with Bush's fiscal policy and that Obama's budget is simply the straw that broke the camel's back.
This could simply be the fact that Republicans are jumping on the bandwagon and trying to use the tea parties to reestablish themselves after their crushing loss in the elections. I find this pretty sick and hypocritical, but totally unsurprising. I really really hope that the tea parties continue and that they stay grassroots and non-partisan....but this is America, so that probably won't happen. For myself, I am inclined to agree in part with the Tea Parties. I am not in favor of high federal taxes and certainly not when the money is used to bail out large companies. I think a few big companies going bankrupt is healthy for the market and saying that you want to save jobs is a short-sighted solution to a long-term problem. If states charged high taxes and that money went towards education and state-run social programs I would be willing to pay that, especially since States can use that money more efficiently. Again, I digress....
Then the other day I came across two stories. One was published in two online papers: WorldNetDaily (a conservative/libertarian paper) and the Washington Times (at the least non-liberal) [note - the story has since been run on the BBC]. The story was on a recently released report from the Department of Homeland Security on right-wing extremism in the US. According to the DHS, there is a small, but growing movement of violent right-wing extremists who are active in issues of illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty. The report expresses concern particularly over the recruitment of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Granted a lot of these organizations, which are referred to as right-wing terrorist organizations, are probably worthy of condemnation and surveillance. Many are white-supremacist or seek to, ironically, instill Christian values through violence. Really what interested me, and which wasn't really touched on, was the idea of anti-government groups or organizations and militias which desire more power to state and local governments. This, to me, is a constitutional dilemma. Does the federal government have the right to subdue state militias that seek to protect the sovereignty of states? It seems to me that this is EXACTLY what the Bill of Rights guarantees.
The other was a press release from the Office of the Governor of Texas (admittedly a state that has always done things its own way) announcing Gov. Rick Perry's support of House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 50 in favor of states' rights as laid out in the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. The resolution condemns federal regulations that threaten civil or criminal penalties to states that do not comply. Perry and the legislators who drafted the resolution state that the federal government has overstepped its bounds and is becoming "increasingly oppressive in its size." Now granted, this is Texas we're talking about here and I'm sure there is some perfectly good reason why states should be compelled to comply with certain federal regulations. But I have to say that it is quite something to see a state of the Union actually trying to wield its 10th Amendment rights. When was the last time you saw that happen? [note - since I wrote this, Perry has really been out and about with this 10th Amendment rhetoric and spoke before one crowd that even started chanting, "Secede! Secede! Secede!" This could just be Texas being Texas.]
All in all I think we are possibly seeing the beginning of a backlash against Big Government...though it may lead to a rise in Little Big Governments. Really its probably too early to tell, but still with "Tea Parties," concern over pro-state government organizations, and now state governments trying to flex their muscles, who knows what will happen in the next few years.
Breaking things up with a little birthday break!
Well, today is April 17. It is the day after my birthday and the day before Melissa's birthday (we like to refer to today as "our" birthday) and it is ALSO my dear friend Sarah's birthday!
In honor of this collision of births, I thought I'd post this little clip. It is from the Soviet animated film "Crocodile Gena". This song, which Gena plays and sings is the Russian equivalent to "Happy Birthday to You". Everyone here knows this song and sings it on their birthdays. It's kind of funny, because it strikes me as a much more Russian attitude towards birthdays. It's a nice song too. Below the clip is my rough English translation of the lyrics.
Song of Crocodile Gena
Let the sidewalks run
Steadily along the puddles
And water along the asphalt, like a river
Its unclear why on this
Day of bad weather
I am so happy
Chorus
Ax, I am playing accordion
On a scenic byway
Unfortunately birthdays
Are only once a year
Suddenly the wizard arrives
In his sky-blue helicopter
And he shows free movies
He wishes me "Happy Birthday"
And probably gives me
A gift of 500 popsicles
Chorus
What a country!
The resurrection of the 9th & 10th Amendments: Theory
This is kind of a preface-post. I had originally written a post in reaction to three things: the tea-parties that have sprung up across the country (though I actually wrote it the day before the ides of April), the Department of Homeland Security's controversial report on right-wing extremism, and the 10th Amendment movement in Texas and Gov. Rick Perry's quick move to act as standard bearer for the movement.
In order to really fully lay out my thoughts, I have to explain my thoughts on the Constitution and interpretations of relationships between the US Federal Government, the various State Governments, and We the People. A lot of what I have to say I have probably said before and is laid out quite well in Akhil Reed Amar's fantastic book, The Bill of Rights.
Basically, when the Founding Fathers were drafting the Constitution, they approached it from a position of extreme distrust of centralized government. The abject failure of the Articles of Confederation proved that there was at least some value in having a reasonably strong federal government, but the drafters wanted to make sure that states were sufficiently strong to resist any encroachment by an oppressive central government, much like the colonies had experienced with Britain.
It is interesting to look at how little the Constitution, in its original form, imposes itself upon the States. Of course now, largely thanks to the "civil war" amendments abolishing slavery and granting citizenship and voting rights to blacks and, later on, women, the Constitution is interpreted more as protecting the rights of individual citizens. But in its original form the Constitution, and its accompanying Bill of Rights, was meant to delineate where the federal government's authority ended and where that of the States and the People began. Indeed, the only actions that the Constitution forbids both States and the Federal government to do is to grant titles of nobility and to pass ex post facto laws.
The Bill of Rights, as envisioned by its authors, is basically a list of things that the federal government is forbidden to impose on the State governments. The 2nd amendment right to bear arms and have a militia (the militia part is often forgotten in popular rhetoric today) makes much more sense as a State's rights issue. Each state has the right to organize a militia and to use force to let the federal government know when it has overstepped its bounds.
We often refer to our 1st Amendment rights to religion, speech, and so on. But when the Constitution was drafted many States had already endorsed official religions in their own constitutions. There was never ANY questioning of their right to do so in 1789. It is quite interesting to see that, under the original interpretations of the Constitution, States were actually allowed to pretty much do what they wanted....hence the slavery issue.
Somewhere in the last 250 years this idea that the States were the most important unit of governance was lost and I'm not sure where. So all that is going on now, the rhetoric that the federal government has become too big, talk of secession in Texas, and a federal report warning of anti-government groups (some of whom advocate a transfer of power to states and localities) is pretty closely tied in to a classic interpretation of the Constitution. So this was the background post and the foreground post is coming up...
Hedgehog in the Mist
It's been awhile since I've blogged and even longer since I've blogged about anything vaguely Russian. I was browsing YouTube today and came across one of my absolute favorites.
Say what you will about Soviet cinema, but they are pros at animation. Really most cartoons and children-type shows that you see today that aren't imported are old Soviet relics that they keep using. This is probably less a testament to poor funding for children's television than it is to the timelessness of Soviet animation.
Case in point is the following short, which I first saw a few years ago. "The Hedgehog in the Mist/Ёжик в тумане" was created by Yuri Norshtein, regarded internationally as one of the all-time great animators. At a world conference of animators in 1979 and again in 2003, two of Norshtein's films were declared the two greatest animated films ever, one of them being "Hedgehog." I found a version with English subtitles so I decided to post it so you could see it yourselves.
I'll be back later this week with another cartoon. Two posts in a week? Amazing!
Ugh, again with the protestors.
I've been flipping through a gallery of photos of the protests in London during the G20 conference. It the usual fare of masked people and cops picking fights with each other.
I don't need to go off here on my opinions on modern mass demonstrations. In short, there is usually a fair chunk of people who don't actually care about the issues in question, but just want an excuse to get their own agenda some attention...and that kind of selfishness is pretty anti-civil disobedience. A more long-winded post can be found here.
So anyway, flipping through the album, I came across this photo. I'd like to draw your attention to the sign on the right-hand side of the frame. It says "Stop World War 3 over Iraq! Nuclear Holocaust." Again, part of the problem with mass demonstrations is that they aren't necessarily conducive to any sort of exchange that would nurture understanding.
Now, if you have a load of people shouting, "We Want Bread!" that's one thing. But this guy's sign confuses me. How is Iraq connected to a potential outbreak of WW III? It was my understanding that the situation had calmed there somewhat and that Afghanistan was the new danger zone. It can't possibly mean that terrorists will get ahold of nuclear missiles in Iraq since it has long been known that there aren't any there.
It could be two separate thoughts like, "stop WW III in Iraq, but also nuclear holocaust as well!" There is not only a grammatical problem here, but why cram two thoughts into one sign? Surely even putting one on the front of the sign and the other on the back would work well. Even if this were the case, Obama and Medvedev held a press conference to talk about nuclear disarmament. I know that for both Russians and Americans, the word of their opposite's president is not held in super high regard, but I think there is reason for optimism with this particular issue. So it would seem that we are in no imminent danger of nuclear holocaust.
As far as the rest of the picture, "Captalism isn't Working!" is fair and, "Democracy is an illusion!" is believable from a certain point of view. "Once Currency, One Country" is incomplete so I can't really judge it, but it looks like the kind of statement you'd hear from right-wing British nationalists afraid of the Euro. Strange that they would be mixing with leftists and anarchists. Also, if you're flipping through the gallery look out for the guy carrying the sign saying "Consumerists Suck!" There's so much wrong with that statement that I don't know where to start.
Sorry if I seem bitter and cynical, but well if you know me, you know my thoughts on this stuff. If you don't, well, you generally won't find me in places like this...largely because of the idiots who are photographed by major newspapers.
---
© 2003-05 theblvd