Public Sector Unions

"A full 88% of America is union-free. Yet, despite the fact that the vast majority of American taxpayers do not belong to a union, let alone work for the government, we Americans are being held hostage by a loud and thuggish minority who feel that it is their right to force the vast majority of Americans to acquiesce to their demands." So comments Peter List [1] in the wake of the massive rallies that both support and protest Governor Scott Walker (R-WI). Gov. Walker's budget plan and the union reaction to it are a microcosm of America right now. The question of what role, if any, public sector unions should have is a question America can no longer ignore.

First, a little background:

"Big Labor" made their first major attempt at public employees in 1919, when the Boston "policemen's club" petitioned for affiliation with the American Federation of Labor (AFL). The Police Commissioner prohibited officers from joining, but the AFL recognized the Boston Police Union anyway, and they called a strike one month later. The Commissioner fired the striking officers and announced they would not be rehired. When Gov. Calvin Coolidge sent in the National Guard to replace the strikers, AFL President Samuel Gompers demanded Coolidge dismiss the Commissioner and reinstate the officers. Coolidge refused, saying: "There is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, anytime, anywhere." He later wrote that he acted with "faith that the people would respond to the truth." In fact, the people responded so favorably that Coolidge was elected president just three years later.

Coolidge was succeeded by Herbert Hoover, who was followed by Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was no fan of public employee unions. "The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," Roosevelt wrote in 1937, "the employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress." (Hold that thought, we will come back to it.)

It was Robert Wagner (mayor of New York City) who, by a 1958 executive order, authorized city employees to form a union. Pres. John F. Kennedy followed in 1962 by allowing federal workers to unionize.

How did that work out for the unions?

Private sector union membership had already peaked, at nearly 36% of the US workforce, in 1953 and had already begun a decline that continues to its current 12% (in some areas, 7%). Five years after the peak, public employees began organizing and union membership continues its steady rise, now at 36% of federal civilian employees [Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Department of Labor] [2].

One cannot speak with certainty that the timing of this political paradigm shift was intentional, but two implications are clear: Union leaders saw the handwriting on the wall and began looking for a new market. A Democratic mayor and a Democratic president conveniently provided that new market – a market that is now totals more than 50% of all union members.

This growth is not surprising when added to a monetary fact: The 2008 average compensation (wages and benefits) for federal civilian employees was $119,982, compared to an average of $59,908 in the private sector [Bureau Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce].

Of course, there are growing pains. To earn the dues, unions have to win elections to represent workers. In California, a recent contract vote went way overboard. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) represents many healthcare workers in California. Following a severe internal dispute, a new organization – the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW) – was created. A competition ensued to represent California healthcare workers. NUHW is now suing SEIU over harassment of NUHW supporters:

One plaintiff, Beverly Griffith, a former administrative vice president of SEIU-UHW who worked at Alta Bates Summit Medical Center in Oakland, said 'five SEIU agents' followed her at the hospital in February 2009, 'yelling at her and preventing her from doing her work.'

. . . [From the NUHW newsletter:] SEIU spent an estimated $10 million on attack mailings, robo-calls, TV and radio ads, and 1,000 paid staff flown in from across the country, but failed to win enough support from workers to win the election without breaking the law. Homecare providers reported scores of incidents of voter intimidation, illegal threats, and ballot manipulation by SEIU staff. In addition, delays by the State Mediation and Conciliation Service (SMCS) in sending replacement ballots could have disenfranchised hundreds of providers whose ballots were not counted because they arrived after the June 15 deadline.

. . . On Feb. 25, 2010, SEIU staff disrupted a group of healthcare workers and union supporters meeting peacefully in the cafeteria of Garden Grove Hospital. [A] video shows SEIU staffer Lisbeth Castillo yelling at a hospital employee and spouting obscenities before lunging at an NUHW volunteer and striking him. [3]

The article makes no accusations against NUHW by SEIU, so counterclaims cannot be examined. The point is not the merits of the charges. Government workers pay dues to support these unions. Unions are engaging in expensive lawsuits. Even if state governments can avoid direct involvement in these lawsuits, taxpayer money paid to government workers ends up funding these lawsuits, meaning everyone in the state ends up supporting this union-on-union fight.

There is also the conduct question: If these charges are true, are these unions the people we want representing civil servants? Current events in Wisconsin suggest these charges could be true. Certainly, these are not the only states in which such accusations have been made.

How has it worked out for the public?

George Meany, legendary AFL-CIO president, said government "is a monopoly not subject to the discipline of the marketplace. Allowing those workers – many already protected by civil-service law – to organize and bargain collectively might ultimately give them the power to hold politicians and taxpayers hostage."

Is Wisconsin being held hostage?

The economic forces that helped sunder private unions are now, in a different sense, looming over their public counterparts. Governors are attempting to balance state books. Wisconsin faces a $137 million shortfall this year and a $3.6 billion deficit over the next two years. But unlike the factories of decades past, some employers (the Wisconsin governor) are asking unions not only for concessions (which have been agreed to) but to amend the structure of public unions themselves.

Republicans argue that only structural union reform will sustain budget reform. Labor says this is union busting of the old fashioned sort – Republicans siding against labor because labor sides with Democrats.

This is why tens of thousands of union members have protested in Madison, Wisconsin, for two weeks. It's why Democratic lawmakers fled their state to filibuster the legislation. Wisconsin Republican Governor Scott Walker seeks to end collective bargaining for most public union wages, among other measures. Other states, like Ohio and Iowa, are considering similar legislation. [4]

In other words, the people can't afford what previous Democrats promised the unions, so the Governor demanded necessary belt-tightening, so Democrats refused the call to quorum, preventing the legislature from conducting the business of the State of Wisconsin. Sounds like a hostage situation to me.

Michael Barone grew up in heavily-unionized Detroit, Michigan, and says he assumed unions were part of the natural order of things. Time has changed his view; in 2010, he reported that, "One-third of last year's $787 billion stimulus package was aid to state and local governments – an obvious attempt to bolster public-sector unions. And a successful one: While the private sector has lost 7 million jobs, the number of public-sector jobs has risen. The number of federal government jobs has been increasing by 10,000 a month, and the percentage of federal employees earning over $100,000 has jumped to 19 percent during the recession." [5]

The tremendous windfall by state and local governments in 2009-10 is no coincidence – unions are well-known for supporting the Democratic Party, which won the White House and majorities in both chambers of Congress in 2008. I have heard estimates as high as 90% of union donations go to Democratic candidates and causes. Are 90% of union members Democrats? I doubt it. Though reliable demographics are lacking, it is certain that union members include Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens and, of course, persons not affiliated with any party. If unions are even close to the national statistics on party registration, the unaffiliated are the largest group.

Regardless of the actual numbers, millions of union members are forced to support financially candidates they do not support philosophically. That's not what America is about. Public sector unions are attempting to control which individuals become the negotiators (public office holders) for their employers (the people). That's conflict of interest, a legal principle by which many have been forced to recuse themselves from legal and political processes.

To summarize:

"My principled objection to public-sector unions is that their powers limit [republican] sovereignty over taxation and public spending in a way that advantages some citizens at the expense of others – in a way that makes fiscal exploitation more, not less likely. Should they have grievances about their cut of the public budget, non-unionized government employees have recourse to the exact same [republican] institutions as do other groups of citizens, which is as it should be. If we cannot trust [republican] bodies to treat government workers fairly, then we cannot trust [republican] bodies generally," says The Economist. [6]

(I have replaced "democratic" with "republican" in this comment because, as we all should know, the United States and the several states are republics, not democracies.)

You may think this a series of rambling, disconnected thoughts. To a point, it is, because this discussion is far too broad for such a forum as this. My goal is simply to introduce this debate. You will also notice that private sector unions are specifically and completely excluded from this discussion. That's intentional; private companies are owned by their stockholders, and I am not one of them, so it's none of my business. I leave them to succeed or fail as they will. I leave to you to decide what success they are having, given the fact that union membership has steadily declined over the last half century.

Public sector employee unions are different. As a US citizen, I am a stockholder, one of about 300,000,000. I like The Economist's concept – we really ought to trust the legislative branches (both federal and state) to treat public employees properly. There's only way that will be possible – the stockholders (the people) must place individuals in those legislatures that are trustworthy. That means a lot of people need to lose their jobs. Fortunately, those people are not represented by a union.

Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.

[1]    Peter A. List, editor, "Is the White House Helping to Orchestrate a National Union Uprising? You be the Judge" Labor Union Report; http://www.laborunionreport.com (22 February 2011).
[2]    For more detail, read Kevin C. Brown, "Public-Sector Unions" MRZine, a project of the Monthly Review Foundation; http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/brown200510.html May 2010). (20 May 2010).
[3]    Jane Jamison, "California Gov’t Unions Litigate for Power Using Taxpayer Millions," Uncoverage.net; http://www.uncoverage.net/2011/02/california-govt-unions-litigate-for-power-using-taxpayer-millions/ (27 February 2011)
[4]    David Paul Kuhn, "Big Labor's Last Stand," Real Clear Politics; http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/
02/27/big_labors_last_stand_scott_walker_public_unions_political_stakes_109045.htm (27 February 2011).
[5]    Michael Barone, "Public-sector unions bleed taxpayers," Washington Examiner; http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/
public-sector-unions-bleed-taxpayers#ixzz1FBTW1N5H (7 February 2010).
[6]    "Free Exchange," a blog of The Economist; http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/02/labour_unions (23 February 2011).

Is Immigration a State or Federal Issue?

Proponents of immigration as a state power say:

First, that immigration is not mentioned in the Constitution, therefore, it isn't a delegated power.

A spurious argument without strength; a great many things aren't mentioned in the Constitution – sailors yes, but not marines; post roads but not toll or military roads; importation of persons but not slavery, to name a few items.

The US Marine Corps has defended the Republic for almost 230 years. The National Road was undertaken in 1811 to facilitate settlement of the Northwest, and the National Defense Highways (now called the Interstates) were originated by Pres. Harry Truman specifically for military use.  Slavery is mentioned nowhere until the 13th Article of Amendment (1865), but Congress reserved the right to tax importation of slaves in 1787.

You might suspect I am splitting what few hairs remain to me, and you would be precisely correct because the proponents of this theory are doing just that.  Specific words it may lack, but the concepts and principles are there, if you care to look.

Second, that the federal government didn't enact immigration law until 1880s, therefore, it isn't a federal power.

An even more spurious argument, if such is possible.  The question is never who did it; the question is who was authorized to do it.  Anyone who makes the argument, "The federal government didn't do it, therefore, the federal government can't do it," must brace themselves for an argument which is the other side of that same coin, "The federal government did it, therefore, the federal government can do it." No one outside the current Presidential Administration (and a few old Congressional warhorses) buys into such fundamentally flawed logic as that.

I stand with those who call immigration a federal issue:

My primary arguments are Constitutional.  Article I Section 8 states (in part): 

The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States . . . To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and . . . To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers. . . .

First, I submit that immigration is necessary to naturalization – you have to come into the US before becoming a citizen of the US.  You cannot apply for citizenship in a foreign country.  (Actually, you could, but no sane country would accept such an application.)  It doesn't matter whether you intend to acquire citizenship or not when you come.  Some come intending to be citizens; some come to work or study temporarily; some come intending to stay but then decide against; some come temporarily and later choose to become permanent fixtures.  Whether or not any individual takes advantage of the option to become a citizen is immaterial, that option always exists.  Since we cannot know who will take advantage of the option, every immigrant must be considered a potential candidate for citizenship.  Therefore, every immigrant must operate under the same, uniform rules.

Second, immigration does not initiate in the several States, immigration initiates in foreign countries.  The federal government has plenary authority over international relations.  The decision on which foreign citizens may travel from a foreign country into the United States is a diplomatic decision.  Therefore, by definition, immigration is a federal decision.

Finally, in Edwards v. California (1941), the Supreme Court invalidated a California law which forbade bringing non-resident indigent persons into the state.  In this case, the Court unanimously held that the movement of persons is commerce.  Regulating interstate commerce or international commerce is a delegated federal power.  Only 13 States have international land borders.  If the States did control immigration, aliens could only enter those States without federal permission, and, once there, could not leave the State, except to leave the Union.  Entering the other 37 states would require crossing state or national borders or international waters, and would have to be conducted under interstate or international commerce rules.

Secondarily, there are legal arguments in federal favor.  Who says that Congress didn't regulate immigration before the 1880s?

In 1790, the First Congress passed the first law referencing immigration:

That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the Constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.  And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens:

Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:

Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen, except by an act of the Legislature of the State in which the person was proscribed.

This first act is doubly notable.  Congress required residency (which requires immigration) as a prerequisite for naturalization, and required the federal government to partner with the several States in judging worthiness for citizenship – at least in regard to those persons who had been resident in the States before the Constitution took effect.

In 1798, the Alien & Sedition Acts permitted President John Adams to deport foreigners deemed dangerous and increased the residency requirements to 14 years.  The fact that these were generally bad ideas is immaterial to the fact that Congress passed them, the President signed them and the Courts never objected to them.  By the way, one of them, An Act Respecting Alien Enemies, included no sunset provision.  It remains in effect as 50 USC 21-24.  If the federal government has authority to force aliens out of the country, does it not follow that the federal government has authority to force aliens not to enter the country?  What simpler method for forcing them out could be found than to refuse them entry in the first place?

In 1849, the Supreme Court ruled on "the Passenger Cases" – Smith v. Turner and  Norris v. Boston, saying that States did not have the right to impose a tax on passengers disembarking into the State from overseas.  This predates Edwards v. California by almost a century, establishing that transport of people is commerce, establishing that States cannot control (by taxation) interstate or international commerce.

In 1875, the Supreme Court ruled on two more cases – Henderson v. Mayor of New York and Chy Lung v. Freeman.  In the latter, the High Court stated specifically, "passage of laws which concern the admission [that is, immigration] of citizens . . . of foreign nations to our shores belongs to Congress, and not to the States."

Contrary to some beliefs, the Chy Lung decision was not new doctrine. It was nothing more than the definitive statement of laws Congress had been passing, and powers Congress had been exercising, since the founding of the present government.

Lastly, there are two practical arguments:  If the several States controlled immigration, we would have 51 different sets of rules.

We'd have one set in each of the several States and Congressional rules on immigration involving territories.  This is clearly not an acceptable state of affairs. Article IV requires:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Suppose that States did control immigration and Oregon had stricter rules than California.  If immigrant John Doe doesn't like Oregon's rules, he could enter California or any other state that was more lenient.  Oregon would be forced to accept John Doe as a legally resident alien in spite of the fact that Doe didn't comply with Oregon's immigration law.  Let's be clear, if Oregon didn't want Doe to immigrate into Oregon, Oregon would still have to accept Doe because California accepted Doe.  The very control the States seek would be totally circumvented, by the lawful acts of other states.

We could also see a very interesting situation:  Foreigners wanting to visit the District of Columbia could not enter the District, except by passing through Virginia or Maryland, since the District has neither air nor sea ports.  Each State might try to outdo the other in ease of transit so as to command the greater part of the tourism industry.  But the federal government would still control immigration law concerning the federal district, and Congress isn't constitutionally required to give full faith and credit to state law.  Virginia or Maryland could actually admit aliens who could be refused entry into Washington.  Similar problems could arise in New York City, since New Jersey is host to one of the New York City metropolitan area airports and two of its sea ports.  Such competition could arise between New Orleans and Mobile or Philadelphia and Baltimore, and other cities or States.

Oh, did you notice the two inconsistent arguments?  On one hand, I say that, if States had control, immigrants would be locked into their State of entry because of the interstate commerce clause.  On the other hand, I say that any immigrant could go to any State if that immigrant complies with any State law under Article IV.  Practically speaking, how could this inconsistency be resolved?  Lawsuits — possibly many long, expensive lawsuits.  Where would it end?  In the Supreme Court of the United States which already has ruled (and would rule again) in favor of federal control over immigration.

Those who seek State control over immigration are honestly trying to solve a problem that the federal government is willfully ignoring.  It's a noble effort, but misguided – whatever State-based solution they come up with will cause more problems than it solves, and it won't change anything.  Those who want to fix America's immigration problem need to fix America's Congressional problem:

Stop electing politicians and start electing statesmen!

Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant, and have a great Presidents' Day!

Don't be fooled, a Con Con is not the Answer

Two members of the Utah House of Representatives, David Clark (R-Santa Clara) and Bradley Daw (R-Orem), introduced resolutions to this legislative session calling for a Constitutional Convention (or Con Con).  This is correctly called an Amendment Convention or Article V Convention, since it is authorized in that article of the US Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress . . .

I have three objections to a Con Con:

First:  We don't need one.

If we find that the United States Constitution doesn't meet a specific need of the people, we can deal with that specific need through a specific amendment.  It's a very clear, very simple, very logical and very successful process.  Some have estimated that over 10,000 amendments have been proposed to Congress – 856 during the five Congresses sitting in the 1990s; 214 in the 101st Congress alone! [1]

The best advantage of the one-at-a-time amendment process is its ability to winnow-out bad ideas.  First, the proponents must convince 358 people (67 senators and 291 representatives) that a given change is necessary.  That is difficult on its own, and the difficulty is by design, to prevent amendments unworthy of the august instrument, such as:

Prohibiting involuntary busing of students (submitted to the 102nd Congress).
Establishing the right to a home (105th).
Defining air, water, wildlife and other resources as common property of the people (105th).
Specifying a right to equal, high-quality health care (107th).
Formally authorizing the Senate filibuster (109th).

Additionally, there have been 11 proposals (since 1986) to revoke the 22nd Article of Amendment .  While we may not object to the content, the fact that proponents are 0-11 over 25 years will, hopefully, demonstrate that the people do not want it, and prevent future Congresses from wasting time on it.

Assuming the proposal gets to the States, proponents then have to convince a strategically-placed three-quarters of the 12,800 people that comprise the 50 state legislatures.  This means that every successful amendment has been subjected to the closest scrutiny – a minimum of 40 separate debates.

Giving that level of scrutiny could be impossible if a Con Con forces us to deal with dozens of proposals.  Dozens of proposals?  Wouldn't be the first time:  Virginia sent 40 proposed Constitutional changes with their ratification; New York sent 33; Rhode Island sent 21; and so on.

As we consider a Con Con, let us remember the wonderful old Parliamentarian saying, "Motion dies [a well-deserved death] for lack of second."

Second:  The deputies.

As with any political appointee or electee, we need to ask hard questions, and we need to demand clear answers:

What qualifications must each deputy meet?  How will each be chosen?  The several States will choose their representatives based on that State's individual preference.  This, by itself, unnerves me greatly.  I submit there will be no statesmanship in an endeavor fraught with political wrangling from square one.  Think of the political resume bullet!  "Was a deputy to the Constitutional Convention," the first in over two centuries!  Everyone with political aspirations will want a seat at this pot-luck table, whether they bring a decent meal or not, and we know that many will use the seat to further their own personal ambitions at the expense of the general welfare.

How many deputies will attend?  The easiest way to staff a Con Con would be one deputy per state (never going to happen).  I see one deputy per electoral vote as the most logical second choice.  This was actually proposed by our own Senator Hatch in the 1980s (yes, sports fans, Orrin Hatch supported a Con Con; one more item for your list) – one delegate from each congressional district plus two statewide delegates.  That would mean 535 people who have absolutely no rules, no agenda (except what they bring with them) and absolutely no accountability (to anyone!) to decide the fate of the 300+ million people in the USA.  That, by itself, should be enough to scare anyone away from supporting a Con Con.

Will they vote state by State or as individuals?  Logic suggests that, since the States called the Con Con, each delegation should cast one vote for that State, by majority or consensus or whatever means they chose.  Again, never going to happen, unless each State figures out a way to homogenize the political opinions of its delegates.

That, in itself, could cause huge problems.  Utah, for example, has been called the most conservative state in the Union, but it isn't entirely conservative.  The State legislature has a greater majority of Republicans, but even among the GOP, there is a wide spectrum of political opinion.  Could the Utah legislature send 6 die-hard conservatives to the Con Con?  It's possible, but suppose that the Democrats demand one appointment.  They could, given that the 2nd Congressional District keeps electing a Democrat.  There could be a lawsuit.  The federal courts could become involved; in fact, if the State is a party to the suit, the Supreme Court could and, in my opinion, should take original jurisdiction.  The matter could end up in court for so long that Utah could miss the convention!

This selection process gets hairier and scarier with every sentence, and we have yet to mention the history of Congressional voting.  In the early days, sectional divisions predominated:  The agricultural south against the industrializing north; the settled east against the frontier west, etc.  Today, it is Republicans against Democrats or conservatives against liberals, meaning each delegate would be more likely to vote with his or her political allies, instead of residential allies.  But even this is not certain.  Suppose a federal lands proposal came up – western states have huge portions under federal control, eastern states don't.

Just thinking about all these possibilities brings to mind the image of a Con Con with Charlton Heston in the background, screaming like he did in Planet of the Apes, "It's a madhouse, a madhouse!"

It's a possibility not so remote as you or I might imagine.

Third, remember the loudest complaint about the last Con Con?

Deputies to the Federal Convention of 1787 were sent with specific instructions:  To amend the Articles of Confederation into a workable document.  They didn't.  Very early on, they decided the Articles were hopeless, and they abandoned that effort to start over from step one.

There is no guarantee that a modern Con Con would act differently, and much evidence suggesting they would follow the example of 1787.  Even if some state legislatures appoint deputies that have specific instructions, other states won't, and those deputies will push their agenda as hard as they can.  Rep. Daw, in HJR014, "Joint Resolution Applying for an Article V Amendments Convention" does make an effort:

This resolution applies to the United States Congress for a convention to be called to propose an amendment to the United States Constitution providing that an increase in the federal debt requires approval from a majority of the legislatures of the separate states; directs that the amendments convention must be entirely focused upon and exclusively limited to that subject . . .

Here's a question for Rep. Daw, if the Con Con is to have only subject, why bypass the established, accepted, less costly (in time, effort and money) process for one with so many unknowns and risks?  Rep. Clark's HJR002, "Joint Resolution Applying to Congress to Call a Constitutional Convention on the Process for Repeal of Federal Laws" fails even to mention this serious point.

Last year, the American Spectator quoted Phyllis Schlafley, founder and president of The Eagle Forum, in discussing those who think a Con Con could be controlled.

"They're dreaming . . . Have you ever been to a big convention? You know perfectly well that once a convention is convened, it can do whatever it wants to.  Whoever is handling the gavel can gavel people down and do whatever they want.  I've been to too many conventions, and there's no way it can be limited."
To bolster her case, Schlafly cited a letter sent to her in 1988 by former [Chief Justice of the United States] Warren Burger, which is viewable on the Eagle Forum website.
Burger wrote that "there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention.  The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda.  Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey." [2]

Cinematically speaking, we could end up with Animal House, or worse, Animal Farm.
 

The last resort:  Ratification.

Whatever comes out of a Con Con must still be ratified by three-quarters of the several States to take effect.  We don't have to agree to all of the proposals; we don't have to agree to any of them.  We didn't, after all, ratify two of the original articles in the Bill of Rights when they were proposed, and a half-dozen since have gone down in flames.  But, that means another 50 fights in the 50 States.

Financial considerations should never prevent us from doing what is right, but in such economic times as these, why spend the time, effort and money when we don't have to?  A Con Con would cost the United States and the several States a billion dollars or more before all is said and done.  A scant sum, perhaps, in view of this year's estimated $1.55 trillion deficit, but, in the immortal words of  Sen. Everett Dirkson (R-IL), "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money."

After considerable analysis and research, I find not one persuasive argument for a Constitutional Convention, and many compelling arguments against it.

I also find myself reminded of one more quote – from Geena Davis in 1986's The Fly: "Be afraid. Be very afraid."

Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.


[1]  According to US Constitution Online (http://www.usconstitution.net/constamprop.html).
[2]  Philip Klein, "Is It Time for a Convention?" American Spectator, October 2010 (http://spectator.org/archives/2010/10/12/is-it-time-for-a-convention).

The Truth about Black Political History

February is Black History Month, and I hope the few Democrats who have the good taste to read my blog have enjoyed Black History Month so far, because I am about to rain on your parade.

According to the website of the National Black Republican Association, "It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks."

The Democratic Party, meanwhile, pretends to be the party of the downtrodden African American, and paints Republicans as the downtrodders, but, as the ancient sage observed, "What you do speaks so loud that I cannot hear what you say."

A brief peek at a few key points in African American History:

May 22, 1856: Two years after the Republican Party's birth, Sen. Charles Sumner (R-MA) rose to decry pro-slavery Democrats. Rep. Preston Brooks (D-SC) responded by grabbing a walking stick and beating Sumner unconscious. Sen. Sumner could not resume his duties for three years.

1865: Congress proposes the 13th Article of Amendment to the several States, outlawing slavery. Congressional Republicans unanimously approve the proposal, Democrats vote against it – 63% in the Senate and 78% in the House.

1866: Congress proposes the 14th Articles of Amendment to the several States, requiring the States to guarantee equal protection. Republicans approve it by votes of 94% in the Senate and 96% in the House. Democrats are unanimously against it.

1868: The Democratic Party's campaign slogan is "This is a white man's country: Let white men rule."

1870: Joseph Rainey (R-SC) and Hiram Revels (R-MS) become the first blacks elected to the US House and US Senate, respectively. In fact, every African American member of Congress until 1935 was a Republican.

1872: Republican Pinckney Pinchback is elected by Louisiana as America's first black governor.

Regarding the post-bellum South: We will stipulate to the numerous abuses heaped upon the former Confederacy by carpetbaggers and other northern scalawags, noting that these were individual acts, not acts of institutional policy.

We also note that the Republican-controlled Congress fought what was almost a second war with Southern Democrats all through that era, with charges of corruption and violence on both sides that were more true than any of us in the 21st Century care to admit.

However, we must point out that the "Jim Crow" laws championed by local Democratic Parties all over the Union prevented many African Americans from voting. They probably reached their height with Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court decision legalizing the "separate but equal."

August 17, 1937: Pres. F D Roosevelt nominated Sen. Hugo Black (D-AL), to the US Supreme Court. Black was a former Ku Klux Klansman who defended Klansmen against race-murder charges.

September 24, 1957: Following the historic Brown v Board of Education ruling, Democratic Gov. Orval Faubus deployed the Arkansas National Guard to maintain segregation at Little Rock's Central High School. Republican Pres. Dwight Eisenhower responded by deploying the US Army's 101st Airborne Division to insure desegregation at Central High.

January 3, 1959: Robert Byrd (D-WV), a Ku Klux Klan alumnus, joins the US Senate. In 1966, Byrd had written to the KKK's Imperial Wizard, "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia." In 2001, Byrd told an interviewer, "There are white ni----rs. I've seen a lot of white ni----rs in my time. I'm going to use that word." Byrd served in the Senate until his death in 2010; he was never challenged in a primary by another Democrat.

1960: Republicans propose the 1960 Civil Rights Act; 18 Senate Democrats filibuster for 5 days and 5 hours, then admit failure. Pres. Eisenhower signs the Act.

1964: After a 14-hour filibuster, Robert Byrd (D-WV), Al Gore, Sr. (D-TN) and 21 other Democratic senators fail to scuttle the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Sen. Everett Dirksen (R-IL) rallies 26 Republicans and 44 Democrats to invoke cloture and allow passage – 82% of Republicans and 66% of Democrats vote in favor. Sen. Dirksen, by the way, was also a champion of 1957, 1960 and 1965 civil rights acts. Democratic Pres. Lyndon Johnson took the lion's share of the credit for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, then showed his anger with Dr. King's protest against the Vietnam War in 1967 by calling Dr. King "that ni--er preacher."

1975: Republican Pres. Gerald Ford promotes Daniel James as the Air Force's first black 4-star general.

1982: Republican Pres. Ronald Reagan promotes Roscoe Robinson as the Army's first black 4-star general.

1983: Pres. Reagan establishes Dr. King's birthday as a national holiday.

1987: Pres. Reagan names Colin Powell America's first black National Security Adviser. Two years later, Reagan names Gen'l Powell as the first black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

1991: Former Klansman David Duke runs for governor of Louisiana as a Republican; The Louisiana Republican Party endorses incumbent Democratic Gov. Edwin Edwards.

[In fairness, we note that Democratic Pres. Bill Clinton promoted J. Paul Reason as the Navy's first black 4-star admiral in 1996.]

2001: Republican Pres. George W. Bush appoints Colin Powell first black US Secretary of State and Dr. Condoleeza Rice as National Security Advisor. Four years later, when Bush nominates Dr. Rice to succeed Sec'y Powell, Sen. Byrd leads Democrats in stalling Rice's confirmation for a week. Former Republican James Jeffords (Ind-VT) joins 13 Democrats in voting against Rice, the most votes against a State nominee since Henry Clay in 1825. Dr. Rice recalls, "The first Republican I knew was my father, and he is still the Republican I most admire. He joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did. My father has never forgotten that day, and neither have I."

In other news:

The 'War on Poverty' originated in Pres. Johnson's 1964 State of the Union address. The proposals enacted by Congress totaled just 1.2% of the US gross domestic product (GDP). By 2008, it rose to 5% of GDP and, for fiscal year 2011, Pres. Obama proposed just short of $1 trillion, a 50% increase over FY 2007.

"Our aim," said Johnson, "is not only to relieve the symptom of poverty, but to cure it and, above all, to prevent it." Did he and his successors succeed? In 1959, the US poverty rate was 22.4%, and had already declined to 19% by 1964. It reached an all-time low of 11.1% in 1973, then hit its post-1964 high of 15.2% in 1983. After dropping again, the poverty rate rebounded to 15.1% in 1993 and, as of 2008, stood at 13.2%. One could say that the poverty rate has been steady, wavering between 11% and 15% for over 40 years.

What has this to do with African Americans? So glad you asked! According to the Bureau of the Census:

Among married families: 8.3% of blacks live in poverty, compared to 5.8% of Americans overall.

Among unrelated individuals living alone: 27.9% of blacks; 19.1% overall.

Among single parent families: 40% of blacks; 26.6% overall.

Dr. Thomas Sowell – African American, Libertarian pundit – in a 2004 column on the 'War on Poverty,' adds, "The poverty rate among black families fell from 87% in 1940 to 47% in 1960, during an era of virtually no major civil rights legislation or anti-poverty programs."

Speaking in 1988, President Reagan said, "The federal government declared war on poverty, and poverty won."

Dr. Sowell also said, "While some good things did come out of the 1960s, as out of many other decades, so did major social disasters that continue to plague us today." The invoice for this particular plague has passed $7 trillion, with no compelling evidence of positive effect. Thanks, Lyndon.

One more, just for fun:

Barack Hussein Obama II, apart from his suspect natality, has been no friend to his fellow African Americans. Oh, wait, is he an African American? His mother was European American and his father was African. Back in 2007, Leslie Fulbright, of the San Francisco Chronicle wrote, "People across the political and racial spectrums started discussing presidential candidate and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's race after he spoke at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Some insist he is not African American and is unsuited to be a black candidate, because he is not a direct descendant of slaves and hasn't had what they see as an authentic African American experience."

That technicality aside, we have just passed the halfway point of the first black president's term. What has he accomplished?

In speaking of his presidency, we decline to make an issue of the fact that he began his political career with a fundraiser at the home of confessed domestic terrorist William Ayers (of "Guilty as sin, free as a bird!" fame), and that the family attended Trinity United Church of Christ for some 20 years, but never heard Pastor Jeremiah Wright's anti-American rhetoric.

In reviewing his presidential record, however, his campaign promise for a more ethical administration is fair game. Two top-level nominees – Tom Daschle (Health & Human Services) and Nancy Killefer (Chief Performance Officer) – withdrew when the nation learned they had failed to pay federal taxes. Three others –Timothy Geithner (Treasury), Hilda Solis (Labor) and Ron Kirk (Trade Representative) – were confirmed despite ethics questions. One, Hillary Clinton, was confirmed as Secretary of State despite the fact that she was Hillary Clinton.

He also promised a "no lobbyist in the White House" rule. Apparently, he was talking about the White House in Moscow or the Kyrgyz Republic, because one reporter estimated that 10% of Obama's choices for senior staff posts have ties to lobbying firms.

The $750+ billion stimulus/bailout was proposed and enacted with a stated purpose of keeping unemployment below 8% and preventing Chrysler, Ford and GM from going bankrupt. Unemployment went above 8% in January 2009, peaked above 10% and is still above 9%. Chrysler and GM went bankrupt, while Ford, which refused bailout money, reported a near-$1 billion profit in 2009.

Obama also presented additional recommendations that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated would result in a $1.2 trillion deficit for FY 2009. The CBO was wrong – by year's end, the deficit passed $1.4 trillion, and is projected to top $1.55 trillion for FY 2011. Of particular interest to African Americans, these budgets defunded a scholarship program specifically designed to get deserving black children into private schools in Washington, the type of schools that the first couple chose for their children. The budgets also cut millions in aid to historically black colleges.

In 2010, three federal courts declared his moratorium on oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico unconstitutional; he did it anyway. A federal court and Congress called his new Internet regulations unconstitutional; he imposed them anyway. A federal judge pronounced his healthcare bill unconstitutional; he proceeds with its implementation in direct contempt of a federal judge.

Not only has the Democratic Party foisted upon the United States a black man whose only value is as a bad example, the Party's policies continue to destroy the "land of opportunity" that has allowed so many African Americans – as well as Asian Americans, Native Americans and European Americans – to succeed, prosper and create their own version of the American Dream.

 
Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant!