In this day and age when it is glamorous and exciting to hold placards and wear three-cornered hats in D.C., most people who care about politics have either forgotten or have never learned the techniques that truly make a difference. Sure, marches on Washington are exhilarating and give an individual a feeling of pride and purpose. But how exactly does your Congressman or Senator vote on Constitutional issues?
Most people have no clue. And that is not by accident. In reality, these public servants know that most constituents don’t understand what “Constitutional voting” is and the remainder are so distracted by party politics that they don’t notice. These politicians are banking – successfully I might add – on the fact that the vast majority of people who even care about politics (way too few in my mind) remain ignorant of their voting records and even fewer have any knowledge of what the Constitution says and are, therefore, not aware that their representative’s voting record does not fall in line.
First, you owe it to yourself to take a look at and become familiar with the Freedom Index – a Congressional scorecard based on the U.S. Constitution. The higher the number, the better. If a Freedom Index Score is 100%, that means that the Congressman or Senator has voted along Constitutional lines every time he/she has had the chance. If it is o%, that means they never have. You may be surprised how many Democrats and Republicans alike have pitiful scores. Particularly if they have proclaimed conservatism and small government while on the podium or in front of a microphone.
Next, you may consider going beyond what the typical voter does (not to mention the typical citizen) by contacting your local Congressman by phone or letter (each letter is said to represent several thousand people’s opinion) and reminding them that you are not only aware of what is going on regarding a particular issue or several issues, but how it is important that they vote a certain way. This could be because they had initially promised an action while campaigning and are now backpedaling or, if it is a topic they failed to mention before getting elected, they are threatening to vote for despite the fact that you and your neighbors (those who are aware) vehemently oppose it. This is something that I do habitually and it is very satisfying. It is also much more effective in the long run than is a protest where it is known that the government has often planted troublemakers for the purpose of causing chaos and, in many cases, resulting in a pulled plug on the movement. The Establishment absolutely loves when hysteria replaces organization due to the fact that they can use it as an excuse for shutting it down. This is why it is so important to use techniques that have been proven to work over the course of history.
Most people who are interested in politics (and even those who are simply performing their “civic duty” by getting involved) lose sight of the real issue at hand by toeing and debating down party lines, focusing on personalities, and/or taking the media’s word for something. A seemingly very small percentage put on their bipartisan goggles and actually dig deeper than surface distractions in order to put these politicians’ feet to the fire. And the best way to do this is by helping the general public become aware of the things that are happening behind closed doors yet out in the open at the same time. These representatives are much too cozy amidst wrongdoing and need to see that the public are onto them so that a lack of job security is staring at them every time they get up in the morning. They must get up, after all, because they are apparently not losing much sleep.
Many people with whom I have spoken can quote obscure sports statistics or name every character in a soap opera over the past 40 years but have no idea who their Congressman is. And this is a shame considering that the latter likely has much more of an impact on their personal lives than do the other two.
The 2012 Presidential Election is fast approaching
The GOP race is now a field of 4 with only Romney, Gingrich, Paul, & Santorum still standing. Who will be the next candidate to exit the race & who will emerge as the eminent GOP nominee?
Follow us on Twitter & join our 2012 election FaceBook page for updates & new blog articles.
Contact us if you are passionate about politics & want to blog with us.
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
JF,
It is on rare occasion that very intelligent among us feel the need to tell their reader’s that they belong to this impressive group, congratulations on that. As to me treating my family badly, how did you know? I am publicly shamed, but I had it coming, thank you.
Back to your point. It is greatly dulled by taking an individual case out of context. The case law you sited has absolutely nothing to do with the article in question, other than to insert a quote that could have been valid if quoted in the context of the article in question.
By the way, my told told me I’m real smart too.
Erik,
The idea that the Constitution is a “living document” is not a liberal one, it just is. He framers understood two things. One, that the United States was going to grow and evolve far beyond the fledgling Republic that it was in 1797. They knew that as the country grew new laws would be needed, attitudes would change, and perhaps the way that the people of 1897 would be able to execute the Representative Democracy established would change and evolve as well. That is why in the document there is outlined the mechanism for change. That is why Senators are now elected by the people and not by the state legislatures. The attitudes of the people changed and the document changed with the. Now, this type of change is no small matter that is why the framers made this kind of change so time consuming and laborious, because those changes have long lasting and deeply felt effects.
Two, the framers understood that the law is constantly evolving. Every case that is heard has the potential to generate new case law, and that new case law adds to the depth and breadth of the conversation. That is why the framers gave us the Supreme Court and the lower courts to one hear the cases and judge them under the law and then to review them further and further up the chain, all the way to the Supreme Court to place that judgment next to not only the worlds written in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but also the intent of those words. Every one of those judgments further informs our understanding of both the law and its intent. While the Bill of Rights in its protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, and that a man be secure in his possessions and papers, the 1796 wording was unclear when it come to computers, digital files, e-mail etc. The law was examined, both the wording and its intent, and that same protection was applied to digital files, and the necessity for a search warrant applied. The document, and the law in created, along with our understanding of it and its application evolved as time progressed.
The framers were wise men. They knew that they could never craft a governing document that could account for everything in the future. Likewise they knew that the laws they wrote may be totally inadequate for the country in 100 years or more. That’s why they left to their posterity the ability to reshape and mold the Constitution to its new times, to allow it to grow and evolve as the country they created did. To hold the Constitution as ridged and unchanging is to rob this generation, and future generations of the most forward thinking idea our founders left to us.
JFesta,
I’ve never questioned your intelligence or work ethic. As a matter of fact, it is on record on this very blog that I have complimented you several times for your research.
This said, we are not in a university political science class. When I write, I do so in a way where people from all walks of life can participate. In addtion, you seem to not be able to see the forest for the trees. You analyze things so deeply that you pull things out that I would challenge aren’t there. You have consistently criticized me for referring to conspiracy theories yet, though yours may be more subtle and not as fantastic, you do every bit the same thing. By trying to squeeze the contents of the Constitution into a liberal tube instead of reading them the way they were intended, by the common man.
By claiming that the Freedom Index is a conservative publication simply based on such statements as “….rates congressmen based on their adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty, and a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements.” , you are possibly exposing the Left’s opposing view of the Constitution. The same Left who has clamored for years in order to try to make it a “living, breathing document” that can be changed on a whim with the ascribed standard being up for an interpretation based on the changing times as opposed to unchanging principles on which it was constructed.
Peace
Erik,
I give you long complex answers because these are complex questions. Simply providing links is useless. It’s a tool for the lazy. The specific answering of a question with a position based and supported in facts requires the citation of facts specific to that point. But hey, what do I know, when I was in college I just won my universities prize for excellence in research.
The Freedom Index has a conservative point of view, they admit as much in their introduction, “The Freedom Index: A Congressional Scorecard Based on the U.S. Constitution” rates congressmen based on their adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty, and a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements.” This is a traditionally conservative point of view and thus colors the awarding of votes.
J. Bryon,
Number one, lose the condescending tone. If you want to speak down to someone like that save it for your family, they have to put up with it, I don’t. If you want this to be a respectful conversation, start with a respectful tone in your mouth.
Two, the article cited boils down its argument to the notion that the Defund ACORN Act was not a Bill of Attainder, but rather the Government deciding whom not to contractually do business with. You asserted that, “Using your logic, we could never defund any organization until after years and years of court fights, appeals and the arrival of uncontested verdicts.” This is simply not the case. Congress may fund, defund, contract with and void the contracts, as well as place legal limitations on the funding of anyone it wishes. This is however done in Appropriations Acts. These acts, that are subsequent to the passage of a yearly budget handle things like, the extending of defense contracts, additional war finding etc. Had the defunding of ACORN been done as part of an appropriations bill the action would have been within the purview of the Congress and completely constitutional. The fact that this action was taken on its own, and in a direct reaction to the release of the undercover surveillance tapes shows a direct intent to impose a punitive measure against a specific group without the scrutiny and judgment of law being applied. This makes the action a Bill of Attainder and thus unconstitutional.
“Every one must concede that a legislative body, from its numbers and organization, and from the very intimate dependence of its members upon the people, which renders them liable to be peculiarly susceptible to popular clamor, is not properly constituted to try with coolness, caution, and impartiality a criminal charge, especially in those cases in which the popular feeling is strongly excited, – the very class of cases most likely to be prosecuted by this mode.” So quoted Chief Justice Warren in his opinion in Brown v. United States. In this quote illustrating the reactionary nature of a legislature in cases such
Erik,
Excellent call to arms in these days of legislative malfeasance!
JFesta,
Looks like you’ve taken a left turn and hit a wall in the fog.
I will try to abbreviate on your long winded mistakes.
Dost thou forget whom controls all funding decisions within thy own house? Yep, it’s them libs. Your fundin & De-fundin committees are loaded with em.
The obscure article which was dug up by the manipulators of all that is good, desperate to keep this corrupt ship sailing misquoted and twisted what was meant for an individual to apply to a leftist hack organization.
I know this will give you hives, truth can be a histaminic irritant:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Legalissues/wm2630.cfm
So, if you like, chug some benydril and read the specifics. In this forum I shall refer you rather than list the dozen mistakes you’ve made and omitted.
Using your logic, we could never defund any organization until after years and years of court fights, appeals and the arrival of uncontested verdicts. da (a obscure legal term meaning “obvious”)
JFesta,
You have really got to be kidding me. Why is it that every time you write a comment you write a novel? I am not even going to bother poring through everything you wrote since you could have easily cut down the size by 90% by simply linking us to the articles as opposed to typing them out. I am more impressed by someone who can say a lot with little wording than I am with someone who says little with much wording.
Whose ideology do you think the Freedom Index follows? The Dems are in control of the House and Senate right now. If the Freedom Index was “skewed” regarding ACORN and there is an ideology in play, then it is being played poorly by the very people who should be ACORN proponents. You are obviously grasping for straws. I didn’t write the Freedom Index and it is widely accepted by people on both sides of the aisle. If you choose to dismiss it as “ideology”, be my guest. But I’m not sure if you have the credentials to convince anyone else exept for those who are in your slanted camp to begin with.
Erik,
In many of your articles you make the point of refering to The Freedom Index. I’ve taken a good look at the Freedom Index and I believe that it skews its scoring along ideological lines. A case in point, after undercover tapes of ACORN employs in several cities were released both houses of congress too votes to stop all federal funding to that organization. The Freedom Index gave votes in favor of defunding a pro-Constitutional vote. The justification was that since community organizations were not listed in the Constitution it is unconstitutional to fund them. Therefore they gave the defunding vote a pro-Constitutional vote.
The problem is this. this specific vote meets the exact criteria for a Bill of Attainder as outlined in Article 1 of the Constitution. Qouting from Findlaw.com, “U.S. Constitution: Article I
Clause 3. No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed .
Bills of Attainder
”Bills of attainder . . . are such special acts of the legislature, as inflict capital punishments upon persons supposed to be guilty of high offences, such as treason and felony, without any conviction in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings. If an act inflicts a milder degree of punishment than death, it is called a bill of pains and penalties. . . . In such cases, the legislature assumes judicial magistracy, pronouncing upon the guilt of the party without any of the common forms and guards of trial, and satisfying itself with proofs, when such proofs are within its reach, whether they are conformable to the rules of evidence, or not. In short, in all such cases, the legislature exercises the highest power of sovereignty, and what may be properly deemed an irresponsible despotic discretion, being governed solely by what it deems political necessity or expediency, and too often under the influence of unreasonable fears, or unfounded suspicions.” 1701 The phrase ”bill of attainder,” as used in this clause and in clause 1 of Sec. 10, applies to bills of pains and penalties as well as to the traditional bills of attainder. ”
This defination is historically and legaly supported by the case law cited. ” The prohibition embodied in this clause is not to be strictly and narrowly construed in the context of traditional forms but is to be interpreted in accordance with the designs of the framers so as to preclude trial by legislature, a violation of the separation of powers concept. The clause thus prohibits all legislative acts, ”no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial. . . .” That the Court has applied the clause dynamically is revealed by a consideration of the three cases in which acts of Congress have been struck down as violating it. In Ex parte Garland, the Court struck down a statute that required attorneys to take an oath that they had taken no part in the Confederate rebellion against the United States before they could practice in federal courts. The statute, and a state constitutional amendment requiring a similar oath of per sons before they could practice certain professions, were struck down as legislative acts inflicting punishment on a specific group the members of which had taken part in the rebellion and therefore could not truthfully take the oath. The clause then lay unused until 1946 when the Court utilized it to strike down a rider to an appropriations bill forbidding the use of money appropriated therein to pay the salaries of three named persons whom the House of Representatives wished discharged because they were deemed to be ”subversive.” ”
In short the lega view of this claus is this; ” The clause protects individual persons and groups who are vulnerable to nonjudicial determinations of guilt and does not apply to a State; neither does a State have standing to invoke the clause for its citizens against the Federal Government.”
The crux is this. the Freedom Index holds that a “Yea” vote to defund ACORN was Constitutional even though the act was clearly a Bill of Attainder, an action of the legislature specifically prohibited in Article 1. The question thus becomes, if on this vote, the Freedom Index ranked as pro-Constitutional a clearly unconstitutional vote how many others have they ranked through a idealogical lens and this misranked?
{ 1 trackback }