Odd Bits: Planning, Latin, and Burdens

::1::

We started doing Latin a while back, and I started wondering: once we've learned some stuff, what is there that we can read? I'm sure that I'll find some other, more traditional things, but there's this fun list of classic children's books that have been translated into Latin. Some of them are even picture books, which should make a good starting place for building a collection of Latin works. I think that, when you are serious about learning a language, collecting materials in that language should be a priority: literacy follows books, not the other way around, so I don't like to wait until we are already good at it before we start finding materials that are enjoyable to look at.

::2::

I love this story about the guy that got the Constitution amended -- who pushed and pushed until one of the Amendments that James Madison authored, one considered for inclusion in the Bill of Rights, but never actually ratified, was passed in 1992. Just as good is the way that the process affected the teacher that gave the poor grade that started it all.

::3::

It's time to make some lesson plans, if I can ever get my life to settle down and figure out how to get some uninterrupted time at my desk! This season isn't very good for that kind of thing. So here's a couple of homeschool links:

• narration for older students
• be frugal -- but mind copyright, too
• method vs system in planning: don't forget to think
• recitation is an art; learn it 

::4::

Odd Bits: December

A grab-bag of things that caught my eye the past little while.

Something For Mom:

The American tradition of self-education has gone so far underground that most people find "get an education" and "go to school" to be synonymous, and that which is self-taught often feels like it doesn't "count" -- but it wasn't always that way, and not everybody's forgotten. Mom doesn't need to loose herself in her Mothering. But it takes some mindful effort, and probably learning some new skills, to work on educating yourself: we don't typically leave home armed with the tools of self-education! The good news is, we don't have to make it all up from scratch. For instance. This lovely bit from Afterthoughts Blog is actually an introduction to a whole series on the topic of Mom's self-education. And they're working on a Mothers' course at Ambleside Online! It's going to be a while before it's ready to go, but there's enough there to give some good ideas for starting now. She touches on reading (audio books while you get dinner count!), on listening to lectures (we often call those podcasts, now), on getting in touch with nature, and a number of other things. And many of them can be squeezed in the cracks of daily life, even if we have minimal time to carve out for it.

Something Current: 

I'm a big fan of the Bill of Rights. I love that the Constitution is written, more or less, in plain English: you don't need a law degree to understand what it was they had in mind.  The Bill of Rights just had its 225th birthday, mostly without any fanfare. But Rand Paul wrote a great piece about it, and then The Blaze had a pretty good article about Paul's work. Here's my favorite bit from Paul:

---

Not all of these 225 years have been kind to the Bill of Rights, though.  It’s been challenged, debated, and far too often just ignored. Don’t be fooled into thinking this would have surprised the Founders. We have the Bill of Rights precisely because the Founding Fathers knew government can’t resist stretching its limits. When some in government say “of course we can,” you and I are supposed to use the Bill of Rights to say, “No, you can’t.” Some believe government has grown too large to hold down with these chains, that it’s too late to rein it back in.  If the Bill of Rights were mere words on paper, perhaps we could afford to indulge that feeling. But they are not mere words.  They are principles fundamental to who we are as a people and what we represent as a nation.

---

Something Seasonal:

It's a Wonderful Life has been my favorite Christmas movie for as long as I can remember (rivaled only by White Christmas). I'd never given much thought to the actors; it's all about the story for me. But this year, when I watch it, I'm going to be looking at Jimmy Stewart, as well as at George Bailey. Turns out that this great movie also has a great story.

Something Educational: 

I came across this, from Memoria Press, about how a Classical approach to phonics works. I don't know tons about the history of phonics instruction, but what they describe about how a "classic" approach (a structured, orderly approach, with plenty of well-timed practice) works makes a great deal of sense to me, and has been very successful with my kids: Hero reads well, and Dragon is coming along beautifully. I particularly liked this bit:

---

The traditional phonics sequence is effective because it is systematic, not random. It reveals the underlying order of the great variety of English spelling patterns, one pattern at a time. This orderly presentation is an aid to memory and is the very heart of phonics. Without it, many students are unable to recognize, master, and read English words fluently, for the English language has the most irregular spelling of any of the modern languages.

---

I've seen some say that, because there are a large number of irregulars in English, we shouldn't bother burdening kids with phonics. However, English is something more than 90% regular, and it seems absurd to ignore that fact. Your average educated native speaker of English knows about 35,000 words (about 20% of the current contents of the language), which makes 32,500+ of those words rule-following words. Teaching the rules -and in a rational order- seems pretty sensible, when compared with the daunting task of trying to memorize all 35,000 words individually! For the chronically curious, there's a follow-up article. And a pretty interesting discussion of how many words there are in various languages, and how many of those words are typically used by natives and non-natives of various stripes.

Something About History:

Way back when, a guy named Roger Williams had these radical ideas about how the law ought to stay out of dictating convictions and faith -- what we now call Freedom of Religion, or Freedom of Conscience. He left England shortly after the Puritans founded Massachusetts, but found that though they enjoyed being able to worship their own way, they hadn't learned to allow the same to others -- he ended up getting banished from their colony, so he set up his own: the Providence Plantation. Which became famous for its religious toleration. And he wrote The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution, which came highly recommended after a recent Facebook conversation. I'm looking forward to digging into it.

Keep the Electoral College

I'm glad that Hilary lost; I'm sad that Trump won.

There's often a lot of hurt and pain, following an election. Voting for Darrell Castle, I knew my guy was going to lose, and I'm at peace with that; you get used to it, voting third party. But a number of my friends fully expected they'd backed the winner, and they're sad, upset, and frightened by the outcome. I think either Hilary or Trump winning is grounds for being sad, so it's pretty easy to be sympathetic to those who are upset by our outcome. They talk about how they are so concerned about where our country is headed. They feel disenfranchised. Some of them were panicky. The outcome was a surprise; many feel robbed. I remember feeling some of those things when Obama was elected; it's not a pleasant place. It's a hard place to be. So I can understand why there's talk of doing away with the Electoral College. Four years ago, and eight years ago, it was a different set of friends expressing many of the same feelings, and also rumbling about doing away with our Electoral College; that seems to come up pretty regularly, about every four years.

---

"We live in a very different world than they did, and changes need to be made in order to adjust. The way I see it, we're in more trouble every time we try to make rules from hundreds of years ago that no longer make any sense apply to our current country."
-Heather, on Facebook

---

The Electoral College isn't the problem, and it's not that the Constitution was created hundreds of years ago. It's the monarchical power we've allowed to collect in the presidency that's the problem, and both parties are complicit. Donald Trump, while never a stellar specimen of human decency, was never a cause of widespread fear or dismay as a private citizen. It is Donald Trump with the vast powers that the presidency has assumed that is a cause for alarm. And there is a just cause for alarm.

---

Many instances can be produced in which the people have voluntarily increased the powers of their rulers; but few, if any, in which rulers have willingly abridged their authority. This is a sufficient reason to induce you to be careful, in the first instance, how you deposit the powers of government.
-Brutus #1

---

So there's quite a few voices out there right now questioning the legitimacy of our system, and being upset because, as has happened a few times before, Trump won the necessary Electoral votes, but did not collect a majority of popular votes. I've seen a number of opinion pieces suggesting that it's time to do away with the College, this one being pretty representative.

However. Our system was never intended to be a one person one vote kind of system. We are not a democracy, and in fact the Founders were highly critical of democracies, considering them unstable and prone to violent endings, and little more than mob rule or a tyranny of the majority (see the opening of Federalist #10, for example). We do not have a democracy, what we have is a carefully balanced constitutional republic, designed to bring the interests of the People, the States, and the federal Union into balanced and stable harmony, and to serve and protect both the majority and minority voices. A pure democracy can never hope to do all that.

One of the tools used to achieve this balance is the Electoral College. Like the Senate, the College is weighted slightly in favor of the small States. (The House favors the populous States.) But to really understand the way the College works, you have to realize that we are not actually a single nation; we are a federation. One of the charges the antifederalists brought in the ratification debates was that the Constitution aimed to make a single nation of what was then thirteen individual sovereign States. When the colonies threw off English rule they did it working together, but they becme, not a single nation, but thirteen nations -- thirteen States, with Rhode Island being as distinct from and independent of Virginia as the States of France and Spain are distinct and independent of each other. Antifederalist charges that the Constitution aimed to end that independence (for instance in Brutus #1) were vehemently denied in the Federalist Papers, while firmly advocating for continued united cooperation and safety from bloody interstate quarrels in the Union:

---

An entire consolidation of the states into one complete national sovereignty, would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever power might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the state governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States.
-Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #32 (emphasis original)

---

So the idea of the United States as "one nation... indivisible" is an incorrect concept of our system, and you cannot really understand the Electoral College with this misconception. What happens is, in each of the several States, the citizens of that State assemble and select a president. In this process, the citizens of each State assemble and cast their votes in order to instruct the Electors from their individual States. Wisconsin's citizens may not dictate to Illinois what who they will select; they are making choices for their own State only. Then, the process is completed with the Electoral College. The College takes the individual votes and weights them in order to ensure that small States are not excluded from the process, in order to aggregate the individual elections held in the several States into a single decision binding upon them all. The Electoral College exists to balance power between the interests of large and small States, and creates the possibility of "swing states" rather than allowing candidates to focus on just California and other populous States and ignore Maine, New Hampshire... and Wisconsin. It keeps ALL States relevant in elections, which is a pretty important function. It also helps to preserve the sovereignty of the several States, and their unique character, by preserving influence to the States, as well as to the individual people, a voice at the federal table.  Historically, the several States have taken turns at being "safe" for this party or that one, and at becoming swing States, so, over the long run they take turns at being more and less in the limelight at election time. Understanding the process makes it clear how very irrelevant it is which candidate collected the greater number of popular votes and how that correlates with the Electoral Votes: we are not having a single election, so the aggregate of popular votes is unimportant, regardless of if it aligns with who wins the College or not.

Every time we've moved from the inspired systems the Founders gave us, we've moved from balance into imbalance and removed checks on the growth of the federal government's power. You can see this in the changes made in the Seventeenth Amendment, which gave us direct election of Senators, rather than having them selected indirectly by the State Legislators, a system which gave those who feel the loss of State power in federal overreach first and personally in their own loss of power the ability to select -- and to recall - Senators who did not remember and observe the limitations on Federal authority. I am convinced that the direct election of Senators not only created massive overgrowth of the federal government, but that it also contributed in no small part to the loss of our identity as a federation of sovereign nations. We are not supposed to have a national system, and but a federation (think Star Wars's Galactic Senate, which was a cooperation among allied entities who each retained their own government and individual culture).

Abolishing the Electoral College would be a huge loss in a number of important ways, and it would make the parties still more powerful; more of the toxic partisan wrangling would be an inevitable result, as well as an increase in the already bloated influence that parties have over politicians who, ostensibly, are hired to represent us. Has you ever wondered why Congress sits in parties, rather than by State? It wasn't always so, and I think it speaks volumes about how their first loyalty lies with the party -- not the People or the State they are supposed to represent. Abolishing the Electoral College will exacerbate an already serious problem.

Rather than abolishing the Electoral College, what we ought to do is repeal the 12th Amendment. Prior to the passage of the 12th, the runner-up became the Vice President, which, rather than leaving Hilary and her supporters out in the cold, we would have kept those voices at the table, with influence both in the White House, and also in the Senate, as the VP is the president of the Senate. Then we could keep the balance of power that the Electoral College gives us and it would keep better representation for those States and individuals who preferred someone other than the front runner.

Additionally, the system we've had since the 12th was passed institutionalized the toxic party system that creates such terrible divisions in our people. Washington warned us of the dangers of party in his farewell speech, and we disregarded his wisdom, to our sorrow. The problems he warned about have pretty much all come about in the deep partisan divides we currently suffer from.

The Constitution is so remarkable, as far as balancing and splitting power both horizontally between the branches, and vertically, between the States and the federal governments, and to abolish the Electoral College would further deform that balance. Instead, we should correct the mistaken 12th Amendment.

There are other objections, not based on the one person one vote argument. This comment is pretty representative of what I have seen of those: 

---

Yeah. I'm not cool with keeping a system that was based on white male power and slavery. Let's get rid of it
-Gwen, on Facebook

---

The Constitution, including the Electoral College, isn't about white male power. Its about bridling the avaricious elements of human nature in order to secure maximum Liberty to ourselves and our posterity. It is true that the principled response to the slave States would have been to count slaves at zero fifths -- not because slaves were not human, but because the slave States should not have been claiming they were no better than cattle AND counting them as citizens for purposes of representation. That defect has been corrected, and in a way that counts all humans correctly. But let's not rashly throw the baby out with the bath water.

Slavery is abolished (as it should be), and many things have changed since then -- but human nature is not one of them. And it is in understanding and coping with the human tendency to crave power that the Founders shine the brightest. Each fundamental change of the Constitution away from the limited republican system they gave us brings us closer to democracy's mob rule -- which is exactly why losing an election is such an unpleasant experience. That ought to warn us that we're traveling down the wrong road, and the answer is repeal of the Amendments such as the 12th and the 17th so that we can restore the balance, rather than doubling down on the error and bringing in still more mob rule.

Debatable: Trump, Clinton, Johnson, Castle (part 1)

The debate last night was short at least two candidates that should have been present: Darrell Castle and Gary Johnson. This morning, I'm looking at the transcripts, the additional candidates' response and commentary, and comparing all their comments to what the Constitution says.

---

The Constitution is so very important, folks; it's so much more than just a piece of paper, or a legal document, it is the Charter of Liberty. And, without it, government is just cut loose from us. It's free to do whatever it wants, like it is now; it doesn't recognize any limits, and that's important. We have to limit it to the Constitution.
-Darrell Castle, statement

---

I'm using this transcript, and giving this fact-checker an occasional glace. I contacted the Castle and Johnson campaigns in an effort to get their responses to the same questions, but at this time have not heard from them. I tried to collect their from the internet relevant comments from candidates that should have been on the stage, but were not. Text from the transcripts and candidate comments are bolded; my commentary follows. I am ignoring irrelevant comments designed to make voters feel good or the opponents look bad. So, here goes.


"This debate is sponsored by a nonpartisan commission."
Rigged, of course, since really any candidate that has ballot access in the bulk of the States ought to be on stage. This is one of the several ways that the Republicans and Democrats belittle and minimize so-called "minor" players: by exclusion. Then, when few have heard of them and few votes follow, they point to it as proof that there's no call for a third party. Meanwhile, fully a third of Americans find no representation among the Republicans and Democrats. But we're supposed to believe that that third has no ability or interest in being represented. It's a pretty racket.



Clinton: "First, we have to build an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top. That means we need new jobs, good jobs with rising incomes. I want us to invest in you. I want us to invest in your future. That means jobs in infrastructure, in advanced manufacturing, innovation and technology, clean renewable energy, and small business, because most of the new jobs will come from small business."


There is no Constitutional authority for "investment" by the President. The President's jobs deal primarily with executing - carrying out - the laws passed by Congress (Article II Section 1), with the military (Article II Section 2). He may recommend measures to Congress (Article II Section 3),  and he deals with foreign ambassadors  and other public ministers (Article II Section 3), and he's got responsibility for judicial nominations (Article II Section 2). But he's not tasked with creating jobs, and what is not specifically delegated is out of bounds.

---

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. 
-Tenth Amendment

---

Clinton: "And I want us to do more to support people who are struggling to balance family and work."

This is the same - outside of the office of the President, and not a power delegated to Congress, either. This would be a great project for the Clinton Foundation or other private charity, but it's outside the proper role of government.


Johnson: “We had a 11.6 percent job growth that occurred during our two terms in office. But the headlines that accompanied that report – referring to governors, including me, as ‘job creators’ – were just wrong. The fact is, I can unequivocally say that I did not create a single job while I was governor. Instead, we kept government in check, the budget balanced, and the path to growth clear of unnecessary regulatory obstacles.” (Source)

This appears to be a Constitutionally sound methodology: government in check {he'll need Congress to assist, or plan to veto a whole lot}; a balanced budget {the budget is a particular concern to the House, as all revenues must originate in the House (Article I Section 6), but the President may recommend bills (Article II Section 3) and he has veto power as well (Article I Section 7)}; and a path cleared of unnecessary regulatory obstacles {for repeals, he would need Congress's cooperation in introducing and passing new bills (Article 1 Section 8), but he could do quite a bit by just vetoing bills with burdensome amounts of regulations (Article I Section 7), and by shutting down unconstitutional regulatory agencies that operate within the Executive departments (Article II Section 2)}.


Castle: I'm all in favor of returning power to the States; that's what my taxing program is all about: empowering the States and disenpowering Washington. That's what we're about. I'd be a Tenth Amendment President, for sure. (Source)

There's not tons to go on here, but the fact that he is referencing the Tenth Amendment's limits on what the federal government can do, as well as talking about returning the States to their proper role is refreshing.


Castle: I favor the tax system that's set out in Article I Section 9 Paragraph 4, and that is that the tax would be apportioned among the States. That is, if you have one percent of the nation's population, you would be responsible for collecting one percent... apportioned by census in the same manner that we elect Representatives. That would take power away from Washington and return it to the States and the People where it belongs; it would eliminate some of the concepts of Washington funneling money to the States and saying, "If you don't do this or that," or, "If you don't pass this or that we're going to cut off your money." (Source)

Gotta love it when the candidate cites the relevant portions of the Constitution for me. I cannot argue with his view of the Constitution here, or with the likely outcome. He would have to get Congress on board to do it, which might be a challenge, though if he has the grit to veto the budget if it's not done this way, it could happen. I do not think that the Sixteenth Amendment would be a problem, because it doesn't require uneven taxes, it merely allows them.


Clinton: "So let's have paid family leave, earned sick days — let's be sure we have affordable child care and debt-free college. How are we going to do it? We're going to do it by having the wealthy pay their fair share and close the corporate loopholes."

These are measures that she, if elected, may recommend to Congress for consideration. But it would be way out of the role of the President to try to do any of these things unilaterally, by Executive Order or any other method. All powers of legislation - the creation of law, whether it's called law, regulation, or another name - resides in the Congress, not the President:

---

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States...
-Article I Section 1

---

Trump: "So Ford is leaving. You see that, a small car division leaving. Thousands of jobs leaving Michigan, leaving Ohio, they are all leaving. And we can't allow it to happen anymore."

I fail to see how the President can, without usurpation, make this happen. Congress and the unelected bureaucracies (many of the unconstitutional) have burdened our businesses, large and small, with an unsustainable level of regulation, so they take their jobs elsewhere. If we want them back, we have to do something about the regulation. For the President to attempt to do it on his own (and Mr. Trump doesn't mention collaboration or cooperation with Congress, just stopping the flow of jobs), would be completely unconstitutional. It would require legislation to remove barriers to businesses creating jobs, and legislation is Congress's department (Article I Section 1).


Trump: "As far as child care is concerned and so many other things, I think Hillary and I agree on that. We probably disagree a little bit as to numbers and amounts and what we're going to do, but perhaps we'll be talking about that later."

 So, this reference to childcare is pretty vague -- the fact check/analysis version of the debate has a bit more information:

---

Trump’s plan would allow parents to deduct their state’s average cost of child care, and he would also introduce rebates for lower-income parents. There would also be new savings accounts for parents to set aside money for child care. As for Clinton, she has said that families should not pay more than 10 percent of their income for child care, though it’s not clear how that would be implemented. She also has called for more Head Start funding, as well as universal pre-K programs.

---

The power to tax is among the powers delegated to Congress (Article I Section 8), and so the President may rightly recommend to Congress measures he deems "necessary and expedient" (Article II Section 2) including amendments to the tax code, but I think it would be wise if we encouraged our candidates and the sitting Presidents to move away from "I will do..." kind of statements because it normalizes the transfer of power from Congress to the President - which is a very common brand of usurpation. Thanks to the Sixteenth Amendment, it is no longer necessary for taxes to be evenly borne among the States, nor for them to be tied to the population of the States in any way, so that requirement is not a hindrance to a childcare proposal. However, Congress is still bound by the description of their powers in Article 1 Section 8:

---

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
*To borrow money on the credit of the United States; 
*To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;
*To establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform rules on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
*To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
*To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
*To establish post-offices and post-roads;
*To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
*To constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court;
*To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
*To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
*To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
*To provide and maintain a navy;
*To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
*To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
*To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
*To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings; And,
*To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

---

This list is an exhaustive list of all the things about which Congress may legitimately legislate, and I don't see how childcare could be a federal matter. If it is to be done by government (a questionable proposal), then this would have to be matter left to the several States to do or not do as their populations see fit to instruct the various legislatures. The Tenth Amendments makes clear that powers not delegated are reserved, and therefore off limits to the federal level:

---

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. 
-Tenth Amendment

---

Therefore, both Trump and Clinton are calling for an unconstitutional expansion of federal power when they call for federal meddling in childcare.


Trump: "Under my plan, I'll be reducing taxes tremendously from 35 percent to 15 percent for companies, small and big businesses. That's going to be a job creator..."

 The President may recommend legislation he deems "necessary and expedient" (Article II Section 3),  but Trump's "I'll be reducing taxes..." indicates that he thinks this can be done by the President alone, which would be unconstitutional and a usurpation of Congressional power.


Trump: "We have to renegotiate our trade deals and we have to stop these countries from stealing our companies and our jobs."

Trade deals, as with all treaties, are made "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate" (Article II Section 2), so it is conceivable that the President could do this, and it would not be too big of a stretch for the President to take credit, though it would be more proper for him to acknowledge the input and consent of the Senate.


Trump: "First of all, you don't let the companies leave."

He doesn't have any specific plans stated, so there's not much to analyze here, but it's worth pointing out that our country was founded on the concept of inalienable Rights, among them the right to life, to Liberty and self-determination, and the right to control property. This comment shows that Trump places little value on either self-determination or on property rights. Given his record, this should come as no surprise.


Trump: "And once you say you're going to have to tax them coming in and our politicians never do this because they have special interests and special interests want those companies to leave because in many cases they own the companies."

Clinton: "[Experts] looked at my plans ... and I intend to get it done..."

 Working with Congress, and within the constraints of the laws that Congress passes, is the heart and soul of the work of the President. The President cannot expect to get his way on every single issue because he is not a monarch; he is a leader of a representative government within a system of principled limitations on the government's power. Trump and Clinton both show here that they fail to grasp that concept.


Johnson: "Free trade, not isolationism, is what will lead to more US jobs. (Source)

Trade deals, as with all treaties, are made "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate" (Article II Section 2), so it is conceivable that the President could do this, with a willing Senate.


Clinton: "Scientists say [climate change is] real... And here's what we can do. We can deploy half a billion more solar panels. We can have enough clean energy to power every home. We can build a new modern electric grid. That's a lot of jobs."

First, there would have to be laws passed allowing the Executive to act to bring in more solar panels - but there is no authority for Congress do that in the Enumerated Powers of Article I Section 8. The measures she's talking about here could have various regulations added (though adding to the regulatory burden isn't an effective way to stimulate anything) or regulations could be taken away, but the actual instillation and the funding from it need to come from private, or possibly State funds, but to do it at the federal level would be illegitimate.


Next there's some unpresidential and highly irritating bickering (preschoolers typically behave better than these two), where neither one of them says anything of substance. Then this:


Trump: "I'm going to cut regulations. I'm going to cut taxes big league..."
Clinton: "Clinton: I will not add a penny to the debt..."

More of the same: promises for unilateral action -the Founders would have said monarchical action- by the President. These types of comments are not indicative of a solid understanding of or respect for the Constitution. Our candidates act this way because We The People let them; this is on us.


Castle: That is what this whole debate is about: power and the desire to keep it. I doubt whether the president or Congress really care how much we owe or what it costs us. What they care very passionately about is staying in power ... What is the root of the debt problem? Borrowing is the problem that makes our entire monetary system unsustainable. You can't solve a problem caused by borrowing by borrowing more; but the attitude seems to be "let's do more of what's not working - perhaps we just haven't done enough of it." The problem then is not just borrowing to pay bills and finance debt but literally borrowing our money into existence. (Source)

Borrowing against the credit of the United States is a power of Congress (Article I Section 8), but I have no problems with the assertion that we are well beyond what could be termed "responsible borrowing".  Mr. Castle, as President, could potentially take this problem on by vetoing bills that included what he deemed to be too much borrowing (Article I Section 7), though Congress could override him (Article I Section 7).


Clinton: "What I have proposed would cut regulations and streamline them for small businesses. What I have proposed would be paid for by raising taxes on the wealthy because they have made all the gains in the economy..."

At least in this breath she's talking about proposals.


Clinton: "I think it's time that the wealthy and corporations pay their fair share."

If by fair, she means a just proportion, then we should have skipped the Sixteenth Amendment: prior to that point, taxes were to be uniform throughout the United States (Article I Section 8)- which is the only just way to do it. But now there's specifically and deliberately no requirement for any kind of equity in the tax code, which leads to this sort of inequitable and pandering to the covetous by wrangling about so and so "paying their fair share".


And that's enough for today. I'll try some more, probably on Friday.

Socialism and Agency

In the process of a discussion of current presidential candidates, a very old friend of mine asked me how socialism violates agency. It's a good question.

Somewhere in junior high or high school, they introduced socialism, and I thought, "Hey! Cool! This sounds really close to what they described in Sunday School when we talked about the United Order! I wonder if they're the same thing, and the world is going to come around and figure it out?" Since then I have realized just exactly how unlikely it is that the world would "come around to" and figure out or embrace doing things the Lord's way. That's just not the way our culture is going, unfortunately. However, the question of if they are alike, possibly even the same, is an important one: we are bound by Christian Duty to care for one another, and particularly to care for the poor, the widow, and the unfortunate among us, and our hope for salvation is tied, in part, to our care for each other. So nothing in what I'm saying here should be construed to say that we should abandon the poor or anybody else - I am looking only at if socialism is what ought to be done, if it is consistent with scripture and the teaching of the prophets. The question is not if we ought to help, but is socialism how we ought to do it. To try to look at other options for assisting, in addition to examining socialism's place in LDS theology, is simply too much to take on in a single blog post.

In any case, there are a some superficial similarities between socialism and the United Order, particularly in the claims that each system makes: both systems make the elimination of poverty one of their primary goals, but in spite of this they are not the same. The difference between the systems comes, to a great degree, in how they deal with agency. Under the hood they are not only different, but diametrically opposed. It is not enough that we should try to care for each other: we are required to do it in the Lord's way, and no other way is acceptable.

Agency, as well as devotion to Christ, are the elements present in the United Order that are missing in socialism. Devotion to Christ is a necessary prerequisite for the United Order.

---

The basic principle of all the revelation on the united order is that everything we have belongs to the Lord; therefore, the Lord may call upon us for any and all of the property which we have, because it belongs to Him. This, I repeat, is the basic principle. [Conference Report, October 1942, p. 55]
-Elder J. Reuben Clark, Jr., quoted in The Law of Consecration

---

Because it is all His, He can call for any or all of it, at any time and for any reason that He chooses, assisting others being one of the things that He has said the United Order exists to do, though that assistance consistently plays second fiddle to the perfecting of the Saints who are living the Order in the talks that I have read. Socialism, on the other hand, is not at all focused on Christ. It is a purely political system, and indeed, historically, socialist regimes have most often been actively hostile to  religion, which is an extremely unlikely way to do away with the evils of greed and selfishness. To try to eliminate evil from society without both eyes firmly focused on Christ just seems contradictory to me.

But the question posed was focused on the relationship of socialism and agency. I think the best way to approach the question is to return to the beginning, and consider the two plans as proposed in the Premortal Counsel, with particular attention to the methods and effects of the plan that was rejected. One of the key features of that rejected plan - and I believe that this feature is what made it so appealing that a full third of the hosts of heaven wanted it adopted - is that he promised that "not one soul should be lost". No risk of failure, no empty seats; everybody wins. It's a powerful enticement. However, it's not the Father's way: this plan promising success to everyone was not only rejected, but those who continued to embrace it after a certain point were cast out for rebellion.

So why is that? Under our Father's plan, not only is there a risk of failure, but the way is variously described as strait, straight, and narrow, and we are told repeatedly that, although nothing can separate us from our Father's love, "few there be that find [the narrow way]". It is not particularly surprising that God's way of doing things seems somewhat counter-intuitive, but we also know that not only did we accept this plan that anticipates that some will fail, but that we were ecstatic about its adoption.

I think the key to understanding this apparent contradiction is in understanding the method by which our Father intends to assist us in coming to our full potential. Agency is key -so much so that it precedes the Atonement, in that the Atonement only becomes necessary under conditions where we have Agency. It is the capacity to act -and not be acted upon- that allows us the growth that is critical to reaching our potential as Sons and Daughters of God, and joint-heirs with Christ. Regarding this potential, Brigham Young said:

---

"I wish to notice this. We read in the Bible, that there is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars. In the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, these glories are called telestial, terrestrial, and celestial, which is the highest. These are worlds, different departments, or mansions, in our Father's house. Now those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon another's sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods. They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others, but they must be dictated to in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control themselves in the least, but James, Peter, or somebody else must control them. They never can become Gods, nor be crowned as rulers with glory, immortality, and eternal lives. They never can hold scepters of glory, majesty, and power in the celestial kingdom. Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the true independence of heaven, who will go forth boldly in the service of their God, leaving others to do as they please, determined to do right, though all mankind besides should take the opposite course."
-Brigham Young, 20 Feb. 1853, emphasis added, JD 1:309

---

Brother  Brigham was talking specifically about unthinking deference and obedience to church leaders, but his comment gives great insight into what is necessary for us to reach our full potential - what he calls "the true independence of heaven". This independence, of a necessity, allows the space for people to choose poorly, because only preserving the potential for poor choice can we allow space for the choices that are good and beautiful. Socialism is destructive of Agency because it treats the Sons and Daughters of God as perpetual children, incapable of either providing for themselves, or of demonstrating the necessary virtue to care for their fellow man. It denies that we have the capacity to function under the divinely decreed independent circumstances, and it denies that we have the will to discipline ourselves for our own good or the good of others. It works on the assumption that people will not voluntarily do good, so we must use the power of the State to compel them to do good. This assumption comes directly from our Enemy's plan, rejected from the beginning because of the way it destroys Agency, and with Agency, goes all hope for the growth necessary to reach our potential.

In general, I think that it is good to recall, when we hear of a program that promises to deliver something, even something good, to all without exception, it is very likely that, upon close examination, it will be more in line with Satan's plan than with the Lord's. The only way to guarantee that everybody will succeed is to do away with Agency: otherwise, there will always be those who make uncommon decisions, to both positive and negative effect.

One of the things we touched on as a "for instance" was education. My friend accurately identified our public school system as an example of socialism in America today. He said that it is a place where socialism is serving us well, but I must respectfully disagree. Not only are news articles about poor student performance a dime a dozen, concerns about low reading achievement rampant, there's plenty out there about adults who won't read, and who have a dismal understanding of civics and our Republic is the norm, as is sexually explicit "literature" (surely the opposite of the best books the Lord has commanded we seek learning from), but  to me the most telling is the comparison between what I personally learned as an honors student in high school, and then in two years at UIUC (ranked as a relatively exclusive university), and what 8th graders learned 100 years ago. The 1912 8th grade exit exam left me feeling woefully under-educated. One of the few things the Right and the Left seem able to agree upon is that our schools are failing -- which hardly seems like recommendation for education as a poster child for socialism "working well".

Additionally, when the concept of public schools was introduced, the Brethren were absolutely adamant in their opposition. President Brigham Young, in the 1877 General Conference said this, at once condemning both the principles of socialism and also the specific practice of public education:

---

“I am opposed to free education as much as I am opposed to taking away property from one man and giving it to another who knows not how to take care of it. .... I now pay the school fees of a number of children who are either orphans or sons and daughters of poor people. But in aiding and blessing the poor I do not believe in allowing my charities to go through the hands of a set of robbers who pocket nine-tenths themselves, and give one-tenth to the poor. Therein is the difference between us; I am for the real act of doing and not saying. Would I encourage free schools by taxation? No! That is not in keeping with the nature of our work..." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 18 p. 357)

---

The early Brethren actually intended that the Church Education System should be a private school system, and not just the seminaries and institutes that we currently rely on. Brigham Young said in a letter to Karl Maser that "you ought not to teach even the alphabet or the multiplication tables without the Spirit of God", and Elder John Taylor, in a message from the First Presidency (collected here), said:

---

Our children should be indoctrinated in the principles of the Gospel from their earliest childhood. They should be made familiar with the contents of the Bible, the Book of Mormon and the Book of Doctrine and Covenants. These should be their chief text books, and everything should be done to establish and promote in their hearts genuine faith in God, in His Gospel and its ordinances, and in His works. But under our common school system this is not possible... In no direction can we invest the means God has given us to better advantage than in the training of our children in the principles of righteousness and in laying the foundation in their hearts of that pure faith which is restored to the earth. We would like to see schools of this character, independent of the District School system, started in all places where it is possible. (emphasis added)

---

Sadly, the Saints at that time did not listen, and would not send their children to the church schools, or, if they did, often failed to pay tuition. But the fact remains: at the time the public schools were introduced, the Brethren opposed both the adoption of the public schools, and also spoke forcefully against the socialistic principles that underlie them, condemning both as being inconsistent with the gospel. In fact, as public schools were proposed across the nation, it was most often the parents and pastors who opposed them. One citizen in Massachusetts put it this way:

---

A government system of education in Prussia is not inconsistent with the theory of Prussian society, for there all wisdom is supposed to be lodged in the government. But the thing is wholly inadmissible here . . . because, according to our theory, the people are supposed to be wiser than the government. Here, the people do not look to the government for light, for instruction, but the government looks to the people. The people give the law to the government. To entrust, then, the government with the power of determining the education which our children shall receive is entrusting our servant with the power to be our master. This fundamental difference between the two countries, we apprehend, has been overlooked by the board of education and its supporters.
-Orestes Brownson, Testimony against proposed Truancy Laws before the Massachusetts Board of Education, 19th Century

---

100+ years out from the decision to adopt public schools, we see Agency abridged in a myriad of ways. It is distant and arbitrary government, not individuals and families, that determine when a child starts school, what he will study, and to a very large extent, where he will attend, as well as how long he must stay. Government determines how many hours children must attend, and if they are deemed truant, it is parents that are fined and potentially jailed for it. Parents have a holy trust in their children, yet in the eyes of our socialistic system they are deemed incompetent to determine the most basic aspects of their child's education. In my case, this meant that when I met a midwife who agreed to take me as an apprentice, I couldn't even consider doing it seriously: attendance at the public school was compulsory, and completely and wholly incompatible with the odd hours that newborn babies keep. Not only was my Agency thwarted, but it was done so in a way that had life-altering effects, and that from only a single instance of socialized opposition to Agency!

To the extent that socialism is introduced, our Agency is circumscribed. President McKay and others of the leading Brethren have repeatedly described Agency as the greatest of God's gifts to man, next to life itself. If Agency is a gift that is next to life itself in importance, then we should be as reluctant to do destroy to our neighbor's Agency as we are to destroy his life.

Socialism just isn't up to that standard.

Commonplace Sampler: September

Little, in fact, had either the Vatican or Galileo comprehended just how serious a rival Jupiter and its moons are to Earth and Luna. They are more fairly compared to the entire solar system. We now know that Jupiter comprises two-thirds the mass of all nine planets and it is the biggest of the so-called gas giant planets, a class that also includes Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. Unlike the inner terrestrial planets - Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars - these planets lack solid surfaces. Instead, they are made from the same stuff as stars: hot gas. ...

So, too, many of the Jovian satellites are more like planets than moons. The terrestrial planets only have three moons among them - Luna and Mars' satellites, Phobos and Demos. But the gas giants are surrounded by swarms of smaller bodies. Jupiter has the largest entourage, with eight regular moons and more than 60 so-called irregular moons. These moons are categorically different from teh terrestrial variety: Luna is probably a chip off Earth's block and the Martian moons may be captured asteroids. In contrast, the regular Jovian moons likely condensed from spare material around a proto-Jupiter, much in the same way as the planets coalesced from leftovers swirling near our newborn Sun.
-The Moons of Jupiter, p11


The Asters are the second largest family of flowering plants, surpassed only by the mostly tropical Orchid family. Worldwide, there are about 920 genera and 19,000 species, including 346 genera and 2,687 species in North America. Aside from lettuce (Lactuca), artichoke (Cynara), and endive (Cichorium), surprisingly few genera are cultivated for food.
-Botany in a Day, p 163


You can employ the same techniques. When a student asks a question, be careful lest you answer it! Or more emphatically, be careful lest the teacher answer it. How easy it is for a teacher to respond quickly to simple questions, to close a conversation that might have ignited a sparkling and lively discussion. The wise teacher deftly and pleasantly responds, "That's an interesting question. What does the class think of this?"
-Boyd K. Packer, Teach Ye Diligently, p 68


God left the world unfinished for man to work his skill upon. He left the electricity in the cloud, the oil in the Earth. He left the rivers unbridged and the forests unfelled and the cities unbuilt. God gives to man the challenge of raw materials, ... not the east of pictures unpainted and the music unsung and the problems unsolved... That man might know the joys and glories of creation.
-Thomas S. Monson, quoted on Facebook


O Lord, rebuke me not in Thine anger, neither chasten me in Thy hot displeasure. Have mercy on me, O Lord; for I am weak: O Lord, heal me; for my bones are vexed. My soul is also sore vexed: but Thou, O Lord, how long? Return, O Lord, deliver my soul: oh save me for thy mercies' sake.
-Psalm 6:1-4


You cannot exercise faith in God until we acknowledge that He exists and we have a correct understanding of His character, nature, and attributes. So the beginning of faith starts in the understanding of Christ.
-David A. Bednar, quoted on Facebook


The vision that you glorify in your mind, the ideal that you enthrone in your heart, this you will build your life by, and this you will become.
-James Allen, quoted by Shiloah Baker in "Training Mother Helpers"


Here [Helaman 6:7-9] we find one of the (extremely) few times peace existed between these two groups [the Nephites and the Lamanites], and the narrator lists for us a few resulting and related benefits. The first product of peace mentioned is open migration between the inhabitants of each distinct civilization. Free intercourse and commerce have special mention, and are corollaries to the unrestricted ability to travel and reside where one pleases. Second, the record notes that this exchange between the individuals of each group yielded increased prosperity for all involved. They became “exceedingly rich” and had “an exceeding plenty”. As with other scripture, this one can and should be likened unto us.
-Conner Boyack, Immigration, Individual Rights, and the Constitution


You’re not self-governing if you can’t rule yourself. Classical education is the means to freedom, the sine qua non of a free people, because it trains people in self-governance, in perceiving and living with the truth.
-Andrew Kern, quoted in "In The Common Core Era, Families Flock To Its Opposite"


More than once I have scolded members of a class just a little when they seemed to ridicule in one way or another a question asked by one of the group. And I have repeated with some emphasis the statement that there is only one stupid question: the one that isn't asked. Every student should have an open invitation to ask questions all of the time.
-Boyd K. Packer, Teach Ye Diligently, page 74


We make it a consistent practice in our family to respond to the questions of our children, an in doing so, we find that they ask many questions. If parents are not careful, they can dam up the quest for knowledge.
-Boyd K. Packer, Teach Ye Diligently, page 74


"All those antagonistic questions he asked you; it was just marvelous the way you handled them.  He was so antagonistic and bitter and yet the interview itself was successful."

I have never forgotten his answer. He said, "I never pay any attention to the questions - that is, if the interviewer is antagonistic. If he doesn't ask the right questions, I give answers to the questions he should have asked."
-Boyd K. Packer, Teach Ye Diligently, p77


There is another important matter we should discuss. A teacher naturally wants everyone to be satisfied and in agreement with him. That is not always to be. Often in the best teaching someone is left unsatisfied, perhaps even upset. Particularly this is true if we have an encounter with someone who is antagonistic. A mature teacher will know from the beginning that when the conversation is over someone will be unsettled and upset. Let it not be the teacher.
-Boyd K. Packer, Teach Ye Diligently, p83


In many churches of the world a doctrine is taught that holds that men are basically evil; that they are earthy and carnal and devilish, conceived in sin and possessed of a tendency to be wicked. This doctrine holds that the corrupt and evil nature of man must be conqured. It holds out the meager hope that by an extension of grace man may, on occasion, be lifted from his evil, carnal,and groveling state. In simple terms it avers that man is, by his very nature, inclined to be bad.

That is false doctrine. ... The doctrine is not only false, it is very destructive. ...

How glorious it is to have the revealed word of God, to know that we have a child-parent relationship with Him. If we are of His family, we have inherited the tendency to be good; not evil. ... God is our Father. We therefore are inherently good.
-Boyd K. Packer, Teach Ye Diligently, p88


I am fully aware that in the world there are individuals whose basic motivation seems to be contrary and disruptive and evil. I know this exists, but it is against their nature.
-Boyd K. Packer, Teach Ye Diligently, p89


For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
-Patrick Henry, Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death speech before the Virginia Convention, 1775.


If you have good thoughts they will shine out of your face like sunbeams and you will always look lovely.
-Attributed to Roald Dahl on Facebook


The world is indeed full of peril, and in it there are many dark places; but still there is much that is fair, and though in all lands love is now mingled with grief, it grows perhaps the greater.
-Haldir, Elven guard of Lothlorien, Fellowship of the Ring, p 452


Man's greatest happiness comes from loosing himself for the good of others.
-Attributed to David O. McKay on Facebook.


He understands. He can give pardon and bring peace. THE SPECIALTY OF THE SAVIOR IS MERCY. And He requires that we be specialists in mercy.
-Marion D. Hanks, "My Specialty is Mercy" October Conference 1981

 

2016: First Forum Debate

So, there's a quite a few Republican candidates - and some of them actually seem to care about the Constitution. So I'm attempting to compare their comments to the Constitution. Of course, you can't look just at talk; talk's cheap. But it's a starting point for looking at the candidates.




Rick Perry
First, they ask Rick Perry about illegal immigration, and what he would do about it. He wants to secure the boarder, sounds like with a combination of fences and soldiers. The moderator also wanted to talk about if we should reduce the number of Green Cards, at least until we have a handle on illegal immigration. Mr. Perry really didn't seem to want to talk about that. Instead, he went on a tangent about how the relevant (unnamed) agency is broken, and can't track the folks who are here on temporary visas.

What neither of them mention is that immigration is supposed to be nearly entirely up to the States, and not a federal issue at all, outside of making uniform rules, so that it works the same in every State (see Article I Section 8 Clause 4). This would have been a fantastic time for him to talk about this, and to showcase his work in Texas as being the Constitutionally correct course of action. He talked about how they've been very effective in Texas, but not about the Constitutional foundation of what they are doing there. He talks about how, when we know who is here, we can make smart decisions about visas, but I don't know how a single office can know that for all the 50 States.

Next, they ask him about the economy. GDP growth is at 2%. How's he going to make that number better? (This answer starts at 9:30) The gentleman from Texas then explained what he did in his state. These are his claims:

• Texas created more jobs than anybody while he was governor, to the tune of 1/3 of all new jobs created being found in Texas.
• That growth was caused by tax policies that let you keep more of what you earn,
• by fair and predictable regulatory climate,
• by not allowing "over-suing",
• by public school policies that are "accountable" and give businesses a skilled workforce. This is a project that it is Constitutionally problematic to bring to the federal level: the Constitution does not authorize any federal meddling in education, whatsoever. Education is not mentioned, so it falls under the powers reserved, under the Tenth Amendment.
• He wants to use North American (rather than Russian or Saudi) energy. That's not a bad idea, but energy isn't supposed to be a federal question. Tenth Amendment, again.

The Department of #Energy could be abolished...http://t.co/8LBPe15h8Y #Cato2016

— DownsizeTheFeds (@DownsizeTheFeds) August 4, 2015

 
• And he talked about reducing the income tax, though he didn't give any concrete details about what he wants to do.

Now, according to the Cato Institute, Mr. Perry did not shrink government while he was governor. (Though, he didn't claim to have done so either, in this segment, anyway) But he did get a B from Cato for fiscal restraint, which looks like it just might be something worth paying attention to. And apparently he's been serious enough about tort reform (and somewhat successful at enacting, it looks like), that there are some lawyers that really hate him.


Rick Santorum
The first question is pretty awesome: "Should the federal government subsidize any sector, and if so, which ones?" And, surprisingly, he gets the answer right. "I don't think we should be subsidizing..." Though, he kind of ruined the moment by adding that "but..."

@RickSantorum No subsidies, period. Unless they make us "competitive." #Cato2016

— Adam Bates (@AdamTaylorBates) August 3, 2015

I can just imagine the kicking and screaming if he was to actually stop a bunch of subsidies. He then spends a couple minutes waxing poetic about manufacturing jobs that we're losing. Then, a list of things he'd like to do about it:

• A flat tax. 20%. That still seems like a whole lot to me. If we reduce our government to Constitutionally sound levels, 20% would be too much. 
• Serious tax breaks for manufacturing that comes back to the US. This isn't exactly unconstitutional - the Sixteenth Amendment allows them to do this. However, the Sixteenth Amendment is, in my opinion, a terrible idea, because it violates the founding principles of our nation. The idea was to have equal treatment under the law in taxation, but this amendment specifically, explicitly gives them the power to play favorites, and tax whoever, for however much. As Chief Justice John Marshall said in McCulloch v. Maryland, "The power to tax is the power to destroy." When we passed the Sixteenth, we removed some significant restraints from that power, to our detriment.

Next, they talk about welfare reform. How does one motivate welfare recipients to go back to work? Santorum talks about some reform that he's already done, with putting time limits on welfare benefits, and also having a requirement to work when receiving these entitlements. Additionally, he touched on the need to create jobs for these people to go into. However, Constitutionally, there is no authority for the so-called entitlements.

---

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
-James Madison, Father of the Constitution

---

There have been no Amendments allowing it, so this sort of spending is still illegitimate, however common it has become.

Santorum goes on to talk about the deleterious effects that he sees immigration, both illegal AND legal, having on the ability of unskilled American workers to find employment. As a solution, he wants to dramatically reduce immigration of all types, and to use an E-Verify system to find the illegals and send them home. Constitutionally, this is problematic because that sort of immigration enforcement ought to belong to the States. It's also problematic because it betrays a lack of understanding of the way that Markets work. He needs to take an Econ 101 class from Hillsdale. Rather than squashing immigration, he ought to be focusing on reducing the regulatory burden.



There are also significant issues with E-Verify. For instance: who wants yet another layer of Big Brother? Who wants to find themselves in a situation where they are tagged as illegal - and thus ineligible to work - even though they are perfectly legal? This is government we're talking about; it's not going to work as advertized.

---

Beyond the technical limitations of E-Verify, Mr. Smith and other supporters are holding out the false hope that an effective verification system will be the key to putting millions of Americans to work. That belief is based on the false assumption that low-skilled immigrants and low-skilled unemployed Americans are interchangeable. They are not.
Immigrant workers are overrepresented in low-paying, unpleasant jobs for the simple reason that not enough Americans want those jobs. The pay, status and working conditions do not match the qualifications and aspirations of the large majority of Americans currently looking for employment in our recovering economy.
-Cato: E-Verify Threatens American Jobs and Liberties

---

Loving Liberty is Tough

I love Liberty. I think it holds the key to curing so many of the world's ills: poverty, exploitation, church-state conflicts, discrimination, tons of things. Liberty lifts. Liberty strengthens. It ennobles.

Liberty is very, very unpopular.

Sure, people sometimes pay lip service to Liberty and the Constitution, but in general, people don't understand either, and they aren't that interested, and they don't like the sound of it.

---

We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion... (D&C 121:39)

---

"We need to use government to compel people to help, because otherwise people won't do..."

"We have to have compulsory education laws because otherwise people won't..."

I see it all the time. People don't want liberty because they want to force their neighbor to "be good." Which means some very different things to different people. Or, they'll come at it from the other side: it's been so common to use government as a limitless lever to shove people, that individuals can't imagine how anything could possibly get done without that shove. And, when you suggest that Liberty would not only work to improve society, but work better than compulsion, people often get pretty upset.

Add to that an awareness of just how much Liberty has been lost (the losses in the past 100 years are staggering), and it can sometimes get pretty disheartening.

Who am I kidding? It's completely discouraging, and if it wasn't that I am convinced that Liberty is an eternal principle, and an essential part of the Lord's plan, and also convinced that the Lord has things under control and the evil attacks on Liberty and all else that's good will be, in the end, utterly futile, I would give up. It's hard, constantly rocking the boat. It's exhausting, emotionally. It takes a toll on relationships I cherish, sometimes a heavy toll, and sometimes the cost is high, and I can't always see that my words have any impact, whatsoever.

I have long been fascinated by the story of Isaiah's call as a prophet.

---

Also, I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.

And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate, And the Lord have removed men far away, and there be a great forsaking int he midst of the land.

But yet in it shall be a tenth, and it shall return, and shall be eaten: as a teil tree, and as an oak, whose substance is in them, when they cast their leaves: so the holy seed shall be the substance thereof. (Isaiah 6:8-13)

---

I've been drawn to it since I was a teen, before I really understood any more than that Isaiah was being sent on a hard, hard mission. "Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant." That's a good long time to preach while nobody's listening. I admire a man who can take on an assignment, knowing it's going to be that. And I ached for the people who refused all the Lord's efforts to heal them. For a long time, that's all I saw from this passage. I didn't understand the last verse well enough to take anything from it. But my husband gave me Strong's Concordance for my birthday, and I've begun exploring the Hebrew and Greek meanings of some of the difficult words in the Bible, and it makes things so much clearer. The word that's rendered "substance" in this verse, is a "pillar" in Genesis 35:14&20. Well, the pillar of an oak tree is its trunk, which looses its leaves every fall, but then grows them back again. Isaiah's mission was to testify of Christ, and he taught the people that Christ would proclaim Liberty to the captives, and heal the brokenhearted. No, people then mostly didn't listen to Isaiah, but that didn't tell the whole story, any more than a oak's naked branches in early winter is all that's left of the tree.

More than once, I've stepped back, and tried to stop talking about Liberty. But the Gospel of Christ is all about Liberty, and if we are to exercise our hard-won agency we need to protect the Liberty that gives us the space in which to use it.  Every time, the Spirit gives me a breather, and then asks me to go back and do it some more. Talk some more. Try again to show people the gift that Liberty really is.

Still, watching the news, the outlook for Liberty right now is pretty bleak. However, I recently read an article that reminded me again, and in a new way, that the news isn't all that there is to the story.

---

It is crucial not only to think about the problem but also to see the solutions being lived out all around us. We need to learn to observe the marvelous businesses starting and succeeding every day, the beauty of spontaneous human interaction, the order and prosperity that emerge from the exercise of human choice. We should thrill in the many ways that people go about their lives in casual defiance of the central plan. We can glory in the creations all around us that were never mapped out or approved by politicians, or by the experts in their pay.

In other words, focusing on the solutions rather than solely on the problems can brighten your day and give rise to creativity in the service of the good. Liberty is not just the absence of oppression; it is the presence of well-lived lives and institutions that emerge despite every attempt to stop them. In this sense, freedom is blossoming all over the world. If we can focus on making that positive change, rather than dwelling on what’s wrong with the world, our task becomes more delightful and a dedication to liberty becomes more sustainable.

---

I love that. Look at the solutions being lived around us. Focus on the positive changes. Look for the wins. I need to get better at both seeing them, and at talking about them. After all: one good thing leads to another.

Examining the State of the Union

Responsible citizenship isn't always fun. For instance, the State of the Union. In German they taught us this word, "totlangweilig." Deadly Dull. Also prone to make blood shoot from your eyes, should you happen to be a Constitutional Originalist. So. Here goes. The speech. Compared to the Constitution.

Text in italics comes from the speech, unless otherwise specified. Bolded text is the Constitution.

---

"In two weeks, I will send this Congress a budget filled with ideas that are practical, not partisan."

 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; (Article III Section 3)

---

It is perfectly legitimate for the President to suggest legislation, including the budget. It is, however, also perfectly legitimate for Congress to ignore his suggestions, as they and they along hold the legislative power. If they should chose to ignore it, whining is unbecoming of both the president and his supporters; that's how checks and balances work. The president (regardless of party) doesn't get anything he wants, just because he wants it. He is a president, not a monarch.

---

"And in the months ahead, I’ll crisscross the country making a case for those ideas."

---

I suppose there is nothing in the Constitution forbidding it, but this seems rather an unnecessary expense, given that we live in the age of instant internet communications, and a 24-hour news cycle. Post it on the White House webpage. Give a speech. I don't want to pay for your fancy travel, thanks. It's wacky expensive, and I'm tapped. To me, this looks suspiciously like campaigning, and I don't like it when any politician does that on the public nickle.

---

We believed we could prepare our kids for a more competitive world.  And today, our younger students have earned the highest math and reading scores on record.  Our high school graduation rate has hit an all-time high.  More Americans finish college than ever before. 

---

A careful reading of Article I Section 8 will show that there is no authority for Federal involvement in education. None. The legitimate thing to do would be to shut down the Department of Education immediately and return all funding earmarked for that to the people. Or to debate and pass an Amendment authorizing it. Anything else at all is usurpation and lawlessness. Since the odds of the Federal Government limiting itself are infinitesimal, States should immediately begin to Nullify this illegal Federal intrusion.

---

We believed that sensible regulations could prevent another crisis, shield families from ruin, and encourage fair competition.  Today, we have new tools to stop taxpayer-funded bailouts, and a new consumer watchdog to protect us from predatory lending and abusive credit card practices.  And in the past year alone, about 10 million uninsured Americans finally gained the security of health coverage.

---

Again, a careful reading of Article I Section 8 (It's a key section, and one of the most important for a citizen to be familiar with, in my opinion), will show that much of this is unconstitutional. Health insurance, for example, is not a legitimate concern for the federal government, as it cannot be  sold across State lines, and they may only regulate interstate commerce, and not commerce that takes place entirely with the State.

---

The Congress shall have Power To... regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States... (Article I Section 8)

---

Now, claiming that he wants to "stop taxpayer-funded bailouts" is rather disingenuous, since as President-elect, he supported the auto bailouts, and, while it was Bush who signed the first auto bailouts, the mess persisted, and the handoff between the two administrations went, to my eye, very seamlessly, and between the Bush and Obama Administrations' work on not one, but two auto bailouts, taxpayers paid more than 80 billion dollars in bailouts.

Not so incidentally, there is no authority for Congress to participate in commerce of any sort.  They may regulate only, and only when the commerce takes place across State lines. Bailouts are not regulatory in nature; it's participatory. They are, therefore, unconstitutional.

---

And these policies will continue to work as long as politics don’t get in the way.

---

It is worthy of note that the current fashion in Washington, when lawmakers of any stripe don't get their way, is to point fingers at the other guy and accuse him of being obstructionist. While there may be some justice to that charge, it's not necessarily an all bad thing that not every initiative comes to fruition. In the heat of the moment, people conveniently forget that we have checks and balances built into our government. We talk about it in Civics Class, and it's generally thought of as a good thing, designed to protect liberty. But when it starts to play out in real life, it's not called checks and balances any more, it's "playing politics" and it's "partisanship" and "obstructionist." But the fact is, it's not supposed to be easy  or quick to make law. On the contrary, each law has to be debated by several different groups, pass through multiple committee hurdles, and then finally be approved by the President and eventually upheld by the courts. This process is lengthy and difficult, and that is by design. It's done that way to protect our liberties from the very human tendency to accumulate power and concentrate it in the hands of only a few. That's not what America is about. So it's ok if the President doesn't get all - even most - of what he wants for the nation. He's just one guy; he's not supposed to have that much power.

As time allows, I'll be back to look at the rest of this speech. There is plenty more to go.