In defense of the United States of America

“Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.”

– Abraham Lincoln, in his “Address before the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield” (27 January 1838)

In 1776, the United States rightly declares that “all men are created equal”

On a warm summer day in 1776, the Continental Congress declared: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” (Source: Declaration of Independence, 1776) It has often been noted that the man who wrote these words was a Virginia slaveholder named Thomas Jefferson. Clearly, the promise of equality had not yet been realized when he wrote these words, even in his own household. There was much to do in the coming decades to give these words a fuller meaning. But people have rightly looked to these words as a “promised beginning.” We made a promise that, one day, all men (and also women) in this country would see legal recognition of their equality. Some interpret this to mean that all of us must have equal wealth, or equal income, or equal status of some other kind. If so, then the promised equality could never be realized, because there will always be people who succeed, and there will always be others who desperately struggle to make ends meet. No utopian scheme ever proposed for ending poverty has ever yet been brought to pass, despite fervent efforts to implement such schemes. Whether or not these schemes bring any actual progress … may be a better topic for another post. But the Founding Fathers did create a “land of the free, [and] home of the brave.” They created a land of opportunity, where one could rise through industry and honest toil. And they created equality of opportunity, arguably the kind of equality that was meant to be enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.

John Trumbull’s “Declaration of Independence”

Setting maximum healthcare prices doesn't really help consumers (price controls never do)

You're applying for a dream job at a particular organization. You “just know” that this occupation is right for you – or, at least, that it will lead you to a great career. But then you are told that the position doesn't actually pay you. You have to work for free if you work there, and you won't get compensated with anything else, either. Are you likely to stick around by working for this organization? If you're particularly altruistic, you might stick around just for the rewarding feeling of “helping people.” But most people would quickly abandon the job, and move to something that actually pays – particularly when they've got kids or other obligations to take care of.

Actually, Republican presidents DON'T spend more

“[The Congress shall have the power] To borrow money on the credit of the United States … ”

– Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution

Democrats often point to bogus studies claiming that the “Republican presidents spend more” …

I have often criticized the federal government for its continually spendthrift ways. People on both sides are often alarmed at the extent to which our federal deficit spending and national debt are growing. But who is really to blame for this situation? My friends on the left often point fingers at the Republicans, and tell me that “the Republican presidents have historically spent more than the Democrat presidents.” Many of them point to bogus studies that seem to support this argument (often the same studies), with data about “which presidential administrations have spent the most.” These studies point fingers at virtually every Republican president in recent times, but tend to criticize Ronald Reagan in particular, I have noticed. By contrast, they credit the Bill Clinton administration with much lower deficit spending levels, saying that “he is the only recent president who hasn't increased the deficit.”

Ronald Reagan

… but presidents don't actually control the purse strings in this country (Congress does)

What's wrong with these studies? For starters, presidents don't actually control the purse strings in this country – Congress does. Presidents can only veto the budgets passed by the Congress. The influence of a president is not insignificant, of course, but nor is it the “primary factor,” as these studies erroneously seem to imply it to be. Ronald Reagan faced a Democratic Congress for all of his administration (excepting the first 17 days of it), while Bill Clinton faced a Republican Congress for all but the first two years of his eight-year administration. During the last six years of his administration, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. In light of who controls the nation's purse strings in this country, it would thus seem that the blame for this massive deficit spending during the Reagan administration belongs to the Democratic Congress that then controlled the nation's purse strings. By the same logic, it would also seem that the credit for the lower deficit spending during the Clinton administration belongs to the Republican Congress of that time. I could easily cite other examples of presidents who have faced hostile Congresses (there are many), but suffice it to mention just the most prominent two of them for this debate for now. I can provide others upon request, if need be. While presidents obviously play an important role in the budget process, it would seem that their role is somewhat junior to that of the Congress. Congress is the senior partner in this process, and has far more influence over the budget process than any president does.

Bill Clinton

The minimum wage doesn't really help the poor …

One day, a man named Bob goes to the store to buy some milk for his family. Since the price is only $2.00 per gallon that day, he decides to buy 2 cartons of it for a grand total of $4.00. But when he goes to the store again a week later, he finds that the price has risen to $4.00 per gallon. Consequently, he decides to buy just 1 carton this time around for the same price, and wait until the price goes down to buy more. Some people would cut back more than that, and others would cut back less than that. But the demand for the product is not decided by just one customer's purchases. You have to add up the purchases of all of the consumers in that economy to get an accurate demand number. This is known as an “aggregate” figure, and represents the total demand for a given product in a given place at a given time. When you look at these “aggregate” numbers, we can say that the quantity demanded still goes down as the price goes up. Even if some people are still purchasing the same amount of milk as before, the total demand for that milk still goes down. (Applied to your own pocketbook, that logic will probably make sense, at least for some products.)

The Second Amendment: Protecting the gun rights “of the people”

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

- Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (ratified 1791)

Does the Second Amendment apply only to the "militia," or to the whole "people"?

The Second Amendment says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" (Source: Second Amendment). Supporters of the right to "bear arms" have long pointed to this portion of the amendment as evidence for legal gun rights possessed by individuals. But gun control advocates point with equal fervor to the prior clause of this amendment, which said that "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ... " (Source: Second Amendment). They argue that this mention of the phrase "militia" somehow means that the gun rights apply only to the country's armed forces, and therefore cannot be legitimately possessed by the whole "people." If this argument is to be believed, then it would seem that there couldn't have been much of a distinction between the "militia" and the "people," or this latter clause about the "right of the people" would have been a non sequitur that didn't follow from the previous clause (which was presumably supposed to support it, if this amendment's context is any clue here). But there is now a greater distinction between the two than there was then, because the term "militia" is currently understood in a very narrow sense that didn't apply at the time that this amendment was first written.

"Brown Bess" musket and bayonet, which was used in the American Revolution

What distinctions did the Founding Fathers make between the "militia" and the "people"?

Because of this, gun control advocates maintain that a constitutional right to "bear arms" applies only to a narrow portion of the country's population. Thus, they argue, it cannot be understood to apply broadly to the whole "people," as people like me would hold. Thus, it would seem appropriate to correct the record here, and to show that the term "militia" was actually understood to mean something broader when this amendment was written. Gun control advocates may be partially correct in one respect, I should acknowledge here, when they say that not everyone was always included under the term "militia." Nonetheless, this definition was much broader than contemporary interpretations would usually admit today. In the context of the amendment itself, it is clear that it was never intended to be restricted to the "militia" anyway (as I will show later). But even if it was, the concept of a "militia" can be shown to be much broader than the mere armed forces of this country. It should thus be understood broadly today, if the original intent of the amendment is to be upheld.

American infantry in the Revolutionary War

Nixon's visit to China: Driving a wedge between China and the Soviet Union

This might seem a strange way to begin a blog post about American diplomacy in the Nixon era, but the year 1949 was significant for both the Russians and the Chinese. For the Soviets, it was the year that they became the second nation (after the United States) to get the atomic bomb. For the communist Chinese, it was the year that they proclaimed the "People's Republic of China" in the mainland, which is the communist government that still rules China today. Both of these were massive events that were of the utmost importance for this story, but it was the second event that has the most explanatory power for what went on there. Thus, it is the second of these two events that I will be focusing on here at the beginning of this post, as a way of setting up my discussion of the other things later.

Mao Zedong, dictator who proclaimed the "People's Republic of China"

The tyrannical police state: The worst nightmare of the Founding Fathers

"A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee justice, and be found in another state, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime."

- Article 4, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution

Headquarters of the United States Department of Justice, or "DOJ"

Although the president enforces the laws, they can't punish people without the courts ...

In our Constitution, it says that the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States" (Source: Article 2, Section 3). This includes prosecutors and police officers. Many of these laws to be "faithfully executed" authorize particular punishments for various actions, from fines to imprisonment to being executed (depending on the seriousness of the offense, as perceived by the Congress). If the president had carte blanche to enforce these laws passed by Congress, with no limits to this power, he could carry out these punishments anytime that he said these laws were violated - or even at times when they were not. (If, that is, there were no judicial branch to check this power, and require him to prove that these violations actually happened as he claimed they did.) Thus the Constitution created a judicial branch that was as independent as possible from the President and the Congress, so that no one group would possess the power to enforce these laws at their own whim or fancy. This is one of the real bulwarks of our Constitution, and is one of the true guarantees of our liberties. Thus, I wish to spend some time on it in this post, and educate us all about our constitutional rights as American citizens - particularly those found in the Bill of Rights.

Supreme Court of the United States

... so the very existence of the court system is itself a check on the presidency

Specifically, the Constitution said that "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." (Source: Article 3, Section 1) The courts have a certain power to strike down laws passed by the Congress, which is another important power that I should note (at least in passing) before moving on to my main topic, which is judicial restraints on the president and the police force. (I discuss striking down laws in some detail in one of my other blog posts, if you're interested in that subject. This post, by contrast, will be more focused on the Bill of Rights, and on the judicial checks on the executive branch.)

U. S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (an influential appeals court) - Pasadena, California

Actually, the death penalty IS constitutional (as the Fifth Amendment makes clear)

"The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law."

- Coffin et al v. United States (1895), the Supreme Court case which codified the presumption of innocence for people accused of crimes

People are innocent until proven guilty, and do not have to "prove" their innocence

There's a saying in America that is often quoted in these contexts, which is that people are "innocent until proven guilty." This saying is so familiar to Americans that we often take it for granted, I think. We may not always realize how rare it is in the world to have this kind of default assumption. In this country, the burden of proof is on the prosecution - or in civil cases, the "plaintiff" - rather than the defendant. The defendant is not even required to open his or her mouth to "prove" his or her own innocence. This is not written explicitly into our Constitution, but it is implied by a number of amendments, and was codified by the Supreme Court case quoted above. Moreover, a jurist from a previous century named Sir William Blackstone - a man who is quoted in the Federalist Papers - proclaimed that "the law holds, that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer." (Source: Blackstone's "Commentaries," Book IV, Chapter 27) This doctrine is sometimes known as "Blackstone's formulation" or "Blackstone's Ratio."

William Blackstone

William Blackstone thought it "better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer"

John Adams expounded on "Blackstone's Ratio" in the "Boston Massacre" trial, when he said that "We are to look upon it as more beneficial, that many guilty persons should escape unpunished, than one innocent person should suffer. The reason is, because it’s of more importance to community, that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt should be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in the world, that all of them cannot be punished; and many times they happen in such a manner, that it is not of much consequence to the public, whether they are punished or not. But when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, it is immaterial to me, whether I behave well or ill; for virtue itself, is no security. And if such a sentiment as this, should take place in the mind of the subject, there would be an end to all security what so ever." (Source: Adams' Argument for the Defense, 3-4 December 1770) When a person really is guilty of a crime (as sometimes happens), this can still make it somewhat difficult to bring criminals to justice, of course. Thus, the police force and prosecutors have to possess a high degree of skill to provide the necessary proof of these actions. But if these protections are not in place (and many countries don't have them), then innocent people are vulnerable to an arbitrary tyranny that can punish them at will; and there are few things that Americans fear more than an absolute government with unlimited power. Thus, there must be a balancing act in any free country between individual protections and criminal justice, where the people are protected against both unlimited government and violent criminals. Thus, it might be helpful to go over some of these constitutional protections from our Bill of Rights.

John Adams, the defense attorney in the "Boston Massacre" trial

The First Amendment: Protecting religion from government (and not the other way around)

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

- Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association, on January 1, 1802

The most hotly debated sentence in American history

The Constitution has many passages in it that are hotly debated today, and these debates will likely continue for years to come. But if I were asked what is the most hotly debated sentence in American history, my vote might well go to this one: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." (Source: First Amendment) This is the Constitution's famous First Amendment, and it is indeed the first of the ten amendments that make up our modern "Bill of Rights." It would also seem to be the first thing that the people of that time wanted to include when they endeavored to list various "rights" in the Constitution via the Bill of Rights, and so one might surmise that these rights need to be understood today by the people who live here.

Thomas Jefferson

Establishment of religion, or "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

The very first thing that this amendment mentions, I should acknowledge here, is respecting an "establishment of religion." This clause has been sometimes associated with a famous phrase by the American Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, which is "a wall of separation between Church and State." This is a phrase that rings loudly in the ears of atheists today, because of the persecution that they see from the Christian majority surrounding them. Indeed, atheists love to remind society that so many Founding Fathers were actually Deists (rather than Christians), and that they were thus somewhat different from the "Christian majority" surrounding them (which they delight in pointing out often). But between the "establishment of religion" clause and the amendment's first semicolon is one other important phrase - and only one other phrase - which is the part forbidding government from "prohibiting the free exercise" of their religion. This clause has long been associated with the phrase "freedom of religion," which is a phrase that rings loudly in the ears of unabashedly-religious people in the same way; and which is similarly revered as sacred.

United States Bill of Rights

The First Amendment: Protecting freedom of speech and freedom of the press

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

- Evelyn Beatrice Hall, in a statement often misattributed to Voltaire (although the author rightly viewed this as an accurate paraphrase of Voltaire's sentiments)

The first thing many people think of about the Constitution

The Constitution is filled with passages that are of the utmost importance to this country, from separation of powers in the original Constitution to the Bill of Rights in the amendments. But if I were asked which passage may be the most important to the majority of Americans, my vote might well go to this part of the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." (Source: First Amendment) This is the Constitution's famous First Amendment, and it is indeed the first of the ten amendments that make up our modern "Bill of Rights." It is also the first thing that most people think of when they talk about what's important to them in the Constitution, since the rights that we have are easier to visualize than abstract concepts of separation of powers and checks & balances. (Although these things are vitally important, too, as I detail in another post that I wrote elsewhere.)

United States Bill of Rights

Freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and the right to "petition the government"

The bedrock of American political life today may be the parts about freedom of speech and freedom of the press. These are both forms of a larger concept called "freedom of expression" - one in the spoken form, and the other in the written form. (Although I'm sure that sign language and other gestures would also be considered to be "freedom of speech" under this constitutional definition, and free expression on the Internet has long been held to be included under this amendment as well.) The right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances" is another specific form of this freedom of expression, which is usually written down on paper and other hardcopy material. But it is also sometimes found in the Internet form that I have mentioned as well; and it is well that this freedom of expression (in all of these forms) is protected by the First Amendment. It has been codified as a general principle in all political communication throughout this country - and other communication, for that matter.

Martin Luther King giving his "I Have A Dream" speech, 1963

Some thoughts about civics education

"This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

- Article 6, Section 2 of the United States Constitution

It's a document that was written 200 years ago, but has remained the law of the land for over two centuries. It's a document that created the most successful government in history, but is increasingly under attack today. It's a document that is more inspiring than most high schoolers would think possible, but which most high schoolers could tell you only a little about.

Abraham Lincoln

Quote from Lincoln about Constitution

The document is, of course, our Constitution; and in the words of Abraham Lincoln, "Let reverence for the [Constitution], be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap - let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; - let it be written in Primmers, spelling books, and in Almanacs; - let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars ... While ever a state of feeling, such as this, shall universally, or even, very generally prevail throughout the nation, vain will be every effort, and fruitless every attempt, to subvert our national freedom." (Source: 1838 Address Before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois)

The Constitution