The Flow of Consciousness

Congratulations, Senator Obama. You’ve beaten John McCain by approximately six percent of the popular vote, and you’ve more than exceeded the 270 electoral college votes. You’re now the president-elect, and you’ll be the first African-American to be the president of the United States of America.

On January 20, 2009, you’ll be sworn in by the Chief Justice. Your oath will be:

I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Will you preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution?

You’ve barely mentioned it at all during your campaigning. I’m very skeptical, sir. A lot of the things you want to do would require constitutional changes, and it’s likely that fighting for those constitutional changes will be even harder than your fight to win the presidency.

Follow the constitution and your presidency will be one of the greatest. Exploit it, circumvent it, or ignore it, and you will be just another politician who somehow managed to get the seat in the Oval Office.

I bid you good luck and wish the blessings of the God or Gods of every American upon you. You will need them.

A while ago, I started using GovTrack.us to watch actions on bills in the house and senate. I did so because I am interested to see how Ron Paul votes and how my Congressman, Jason Altmire, votes. I know that Arlen Specter and Bob Casey, Jr. generally are not going to vote as I would, but it’s nice to see if I’m right whenever there’s some senate action on GovTrack.

Today, when looking through the GovTrack feed, I found three recently-introduced House Resolutions that stuck out to me. I detail them and give my comments herein. I must remind the reader that I am a just little more than a beginner level interpreter of Congressional bills, so if I have incorrectly analyzed or have mistaken a meaning, please supply constructive criticism with links to references in a comment.

H.R. 6074 Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act of 2008. The Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act of 2008 was introduced by Wisconsin Democrat Steve Kagen. Section 101, the “No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act of 2008″ (NOPEC, how quaint) amends the Sherman Act, the country’s antitrust statutes, to prohibit any foreign state or agent thereof from working with another foreign state or agent thereof to limit the production of, set prices for, or otherwise restrain trade of oil, natural gas and petroleum products.

What right does the US have to extend our antitrust laws to foreign nations? This act is obviously targeted at OPEC, given its text and its apropos acronym, NOPEC. Now, I see the application of this to oil-related companies in the US which are owned by foreign governments or companies. However, if one of these companies were to be sued under antitrust laws, wouldn’t that suit give them justification to raise the prices in order afford the expensive legal process in the US?

It seems that Congress would be better off spending its time telling Japan to stop having a monopoly on Pocky or telling OPEC non-member Norway to stop being the #3 producer of oil in the world.

H.R. 6079. California Democrat Adam Schiff’s text for H.R. 6079 has not been released yet, but the description says it all:

To direct the Secretary of State to submit a report outlining the steps taken and plans made by the United States to end Turkey’s blockade of Armenia, and for other purposes.

What constitutional business has the US in meddling with arguments between Turkey and Armenia? The US is once again trying to be the bully settling the quarrel between two people it doesn’t usually pick on, thus trying to make itself feel better and look better even though it continues to illogically blockade allies of those two countries, plus many more!

H. Res. 1205: Noting that the Government of Iraq will likely enjoy $32 billion in surplus oil revenues in 2008…. Massachusetts’ Democrat William Delahunt’s H.R. 1205 recognizes that Iraq will bring in $32 billion in oil surplus this year and directs asks the government of Iraq to give $1 billion of that to refugees and displaced persons and that the Iraqi government give that money to other countries to help those countries afford the refugees. There are many clauses in the resolution, but a few are particularly outstanding:

Whereas the United States has a moral responsibility to assist those affected by the violence pervasive in Iraq since the United States invasion and should generously support the efforts of international and nongovernmental organizations to ease the human suffering of the displaced;

Mr. Delahunt, you may see a “moral responsibility” to assist, but I see a legal responsibility for the US to let the government of Iraq do what it deems right. We’ve already screwed up that country enough by meddling in its affairs and invading it without a constitutionally-required Congressional declaration of war. Money to help refugees wouldn’t be necessary if we’d have stopped military action when the “mission” was “accomplished.”

What do all of these bills have in common? They meddle in affairs of other nations and seek to impose our will and our laws in ways which are unconstitutional and illogical. No country has to listen to what another country’s politicians have to say.

If OPEC doesn’t play nice, what is the US going to do? Bomb them? Hardly, even that seems to be the most common answer to non-compliance with the wishes of Washington. If Turkey continues to blockade Armenia, what is the US going to do? Alienate our relations with Turkey in order to help out Armenia? Or are we just going to give guns to the Armenians and money to the Turks, like we did in the middle east with several nations there?

If Iraq won’t give $1 billion to its refugees, what is the US going to do? Will Bush or his successor promise to keep troops in Iraq or continue bombing, thus forcing even more Iraqis out of their homes?

The US has no ground on which it can stand in regard to these bills. It’s empty posturing by delusional politicians who think that they can exercise their will on anyone they choose.

Congressman Altmire,

I write to urge you to argue and vote against H.R. 5990, the “Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act” recently introduced by Rep. Jim Matheson [D-UT]. This legislation unfairly targets video games without citing a reason for the ban on sales to minors, and fails to acknowledge the similarly violent, sexual, and other objectionable content of equivalently-rated television and film.

The Entertainment Software Ratings Board is merely a self-regulatory body established by the Entertainment Software Association (ESA). The review process for video games is based on developer submission of pre-recorded content to the Board, not the Board or its agents actually playing through the video game. This can result in omissions causing a lighter rating or misjudgments causing unfair, heavier ratings.

In fact, two major video game publishers/distributors–Activision and Vivendi Universal–recently left the ESA. A third and one of the largest of its kind in the world, Electronic Arts, is rumored to be considering leaving, as well. They disagree with the ESA’s policies; that is their reason for leaving, as far as I know.

Also, there is no constitutional grounds for this prohibition. Article I Section 8 of the Constitution makes no mention of entertainment media, and more than likely citizens’ rights groups will cry foul that this legislation violates the First Amendment. The interstate commerce clause would allow the Federal government to prohibit sales to minors or mandate rating across state lines as partially stated in Section 2(a) of H.R. 5990, but not within the states–that’s a states’ rights issue supported by the Tenth Amendment.

Moreover, the legislation will do almost nothing to prevent video games with content not meant for minors. Parents will purchase games for their children irresponsibly and without regard for content. If the federal government should do anything in regards to video games with objectionable content, it should urge the ESA and ESRB to educate parents about the rating system and perhaps ask the ESA to mandate that all retailers adhere to guidelines and face penalties or ejection from the ESA if a retailer is caught selling high-rated video games to minors.

If such legislation passes and withstands a constitutionality trial, then a dangerous precedent will be set by which other entertainment media (books, film, television) could, or even /should/ be equally regulated/prohibited.

The Video Game Voters Network is at it again, this time sending letters to the presidential candidates.

I changed the title to Responsibility Education, Not Unconstitutional Regulation to more closely match how I feel about the policy.

Video Game Voters Network: Write the Candidates

Check out the Congressional letter-writing campaign, too!

Rick Fisk wrote an article entitled No Country for Free Men for LewRockwell.com which rationally examines the debacle in Texas in which state authorities removed several hundred children from a Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints ranch where a few polygamist men lived with their many wives. The details of the story are explained as needed in the article, and if you’re really interested, I’m sure that Google News will yield further details.

Apparently, the FLDS skirts anti-polygamy laws by not actually getting marriage licenses for each wife. It’s a loophole that probably won’t and arguably shouldn’t be closed (my views on the relationship between marriage and the legal system are very different from most peoples, but are irrelevant to this discussion). However, the part of the system which the FLDS exploits, as Fisk points out, is the welfare system.

The state may not recognize unlicensed marriage, but they also have no legitimate legal authority to turn a religious institution into a “legal” institution. However, the FLDS goes a step further by having the “unwed” mothers apply for state welfare. They don’t just want to live their lifestyle in peace, they want to have the people of the State of Texas pay so that they can afford to maintain so many wives and children.

We “normal” folks may not agree with polygamy, even though our species—and most mammalian species—is polygynous. It’s a religious belief, as well as a socioeconomic belief. However, it’s practiced in other parts of the world without incident, so it’s not inherently a bad thing.

However, relying on welfare; relying on others to allow you to live your life your way is wrong.

When you step back and examine what is going on in this case, you can see that we are being conditioned into believing that the rights enumerated in our constitutions are not inviolate as is stated, but totally irrelevant if the state merely acts as if it has authority.

Government invading our lives, you say?

And finally, Texas’ taxpayers get to foot the bill for the hundreds of lawyers who will descend on the courtroom at their expense to “advocate” for the children – as it is called in CPS administrative court parlance. I don’t know if anyone has bothered to tally up what this may cost the taxpayers but it could easily reach 8 figures by the time everything is said and done. And not one of those state-paid lawyers will be arguing that the State’s action is constitutionally unjust. Quite the contrary. They’ll be counseling their “clients” to cooperate and make it easy on everyone.

Please read the full article, No Country for Free Men. I’ve been waiting for an enlightened view of the situation, such as that article, before chipping in my two cents.

Congressman Altmire,

First, I applaud your recently-introduced modernization of the G.I. Bill. Taking care of veterans after they’ve served the country is an important and noble thing. They’ve served us well, so we need to return the service and give them the means necessary to continue to be responsible, productive citizens after discharge.

Second, and on a more negative note, I’m frustrated with the House’s passing of a H.R. 1077, the resolution calling for China to stop its shenanigans in and with Tibet.

I fully support the Tibetans—independence is an important moral to Americans such as you and me. Were I in Congress, I would recognize an official Tibetan government when it forms and open trade with it.

However, this H.R. 1077 does little more than condemn China for something the U.S. has already condemned them! It’s toothless gnashing and saber-rattling, Congressman. The bill doesn’t /do/ anything—it doesn’t place any economic sanctions on China, it doesn’t enable any action, it doesn’t doesn’t have any force of law. It’s empty posturing.

Moreover, the U.S. Constitution does not grant Congress the power to meddle in how China treats the people of Tibet—other than through trade policy. The Constitution does grant Congress the right to regulate trade with China (Article 1, section 8, paragraph 3), and, as such, an economic or immigration restriction would be far more effective than a simple condemnation.

There’s an axiom I find quite apropos for this empty condemnation. It’s called Lazlo’s Chinese Relativity Axiom: “No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese could care less.”

What, if I may ask, was your reason in voting for this resolution, and on what grounds did you find it constitutional?

I finally got these on-line.

Ron Paul entering

Real Change = Smaller Government

“I’m not talking about superficial change, I’m talking about real change. We don’t need more government, what we need is a lot less government. We don’t need more government meddling in our personal lives, and we don’t need more government trying to run the economy. And we don’t need more of our government mandates and dictates to police the world. What we need to do to bring our troops home and save a lot of money.”

Extended remarks

It was a fantastic evening. I’ve made contact with the lovely lass who took a picture of me with the Congressman—she’ll have the picture to me when she finds or buys a USB cable for her camera.

I was thinking this earlier: We must beware of those promoting superficial change, and especially when promised by unethical candidates and candidates who break the law and ignore the Constitution.

Ron Paul was on KDKA AM 1020 this evening. I took notes as I listened.

The beginning topic was monetary policy, mostly the rampant inflation caused by the Federal Reserve printing more money, thus devaluing the money already in circulation. He clarified that most people think of printing more money as literally printing more money, but the process is actually handled more by computers and the processes by which our economy handles the creation of wealth. An example of this is when the Federal Reserve issues bonds to the government for money which doesn’t exist. This essentially creates money, driving us more into debt, devaluing the dollar, and causing prices to rise.

“We are more likely to destroy the dollar than do the right thing.”

On the new, sweeping changes which give the Federal Reserve oversight of a lot of the mortgage market: “The Federal Reserve is an unconstitutional organization…and we want to give them more power?…We’re moving closer to socialism…actually fascism…” Note: I know very little about the new legislation, so I didn’t understand some of what they were discussing.

“There’s a large number of people who are…now aware, but not fully understanding.” Young people are becoming more aware of the debt the current government is creating. They may not understand it entirely, but they are concerned and they don’t like what they hear.

“This notion that conservatives should always support war is wrong…that Republicans should always support war.” He acknowledges that Republicans who do that often get labeled as the “Blame America First” crowd and made out to be like Jane Fonda.

“I’m in medicine. If we make a mistake, and keep killing people, we acknowledge it and change. I think we’re using the wrong medicine in Iraq, and we need to acknowledge it and change, by pulling out.” [heavily paraphrased]

“Our troops follow the oil wells. 8 years ago…Colombia…made out to be drug war…oil lobby pushed harder…oil wells in Colombia.”

Domestic drilling? “I think that’s a good idea.” “When Texas came into the union, there was almost no government ownership of lands.” The people owned the lands, and they drilled. “Private property solves these problems…In Alaska, everyone owns it; no one owns it.” Nothing gets done.

Host: “In order to accomplish this, you’d have to reverse everything done in the past 40-50 years.” RP: Basically. “My supporters call it the Ron Paul Revolution, but really it’s the revolution started by our forefathers.”

Universal healthcare. “Get the government out of the way; it’s destroyed the private practice of medicine.” “Rules laws and taxes on it.” “Best thing to do is to let people choose, let them take medical expenses out of taxes.” “Idea that government can deliver better healthcare than the private sector is wrong.”

“Have to have priorities….cut back what we do overseas….hundreds of millions of dollars to help AIDs in Africa, and no one actually every sees the money.” Stop all overseas spending, pull the troops home, and take care of our own.

Host: “Congressman, you’re making too much sense.”

Race issue. Racial divide. “Government hasn’t done a very good job…grandest solutions came out of private sector…sports. Government designates people as groups.” How can you have laws which help groups? Libertarians see the individual, and don’t categorize. Affirmative action.

Education. “I don’t like nationalizing anything like education.” It’s something that could be amended into the Constitution. “No authority for federal government to be involved in education.”

Environment. “Local people with property rights, with local regulations, are far more effective…at dealing with pollution…than federal regulations.” ”

Plans for convention. “I have no plans, no intentions [to run third-party]….supporters active in PA…stickin’ by supporters and the chance to really change the country. No reason in the world why Pennsylvanians shouldn’t be able to vote for a true conservative with a constitutional background.

“Changing the course of the country is far more important than winning the election.” [paraphrased]

Host: “What he’s proposing would involve changing the minds of way too many people.” People interpret his distaste for federal control to be a distaste for the topic, e.g. he wants to get rid of the department of Education, so he doesn’t think education is important. This is incorrect thinking. Ron Paul thinks it is of high importance, and that the government can’t possibly know what’s best for everyone.

Callers highlighted the Freedom March on Tax Day and that his honesty is tip-top.

If you can find a recording of it, send it to me and I’ll update the quotes.

Congress once voted to appropriate relief aid for a couple of families in Georgetown whose houses had burned. Congressman David “Davy” Crockett was out a few days later seeking votes for an upcoming election. He met a person named Bunce who disagreed with the vote, because Congress was not granted the power of charity.

“The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from necessity of giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.”

Mr. Bunce said this, speaking to Congressman Crockett. Crockett immediately agreed, and changed his stance on the matter, promising never again to vote in favor of such a bill.

You should read the full story, available at a certain favorable candidate’s web site.

Side note: If you’re in western PA, join the RP meetup group.

Perhaps I placed too much faith in the Internet community. Perhaps I placed too much faith in people, hoping that they would read a document that takes no longer than 15 minutes to read—time well-spent, considering most people probably posted ye olde “tl;dr” or some other remark, or simply deleted the post, as the folks on the xkcd forums did. I guess I have a little more clout at Notebook Forums and StrafeRight.

Maybe I’m simply losing faith in America. People would rather spend 15 minutes watching five stupid YouTube videos than read—perhaps for the first time—the document that gives them the rights they so enjoy. No, I didn’t come to this realization now. I’ve known this for years. Post the Constitution Day could pretty much be considered a test of that.

Maybe I didn’t reach the audience I thought would care. I managed 12 diggs, a purple rating on Slashdot Firehose, and a single vote on Newsvine (my vote).

The US election system has become a farce. The media picks the two people who vie for president, because the media is entangled in government.

The only candidate worthy of my vote is Ron Paul. He is the only candidate—from either party—who has repeatedly stated that he promises to follow the Constitution. No other candidate has made such a promise.

That is, unless one considers an oath of office for congress to be a promise. McCain violated that promise Feb. 12 when he voted in favor of S. 2248, the FISA Amendment Act of 2008 (I wrote a letter yesterday to Senators Specter and Casey regarding it). Neither Clinton nor Obama voted, and Huckabee is not a senator (nor is Ron Paul). I can guarantee that, if present, Paul will vote against it when it comes to the House.

I already pointed out that the Democrat candidates didn’t reference the Constitution at all during a debate. McCain regularly violates the Constitution (look at his voting record!). At least Huckabee wants to amend the Constitution in order to push his evangelical agenda.

Maybe I’ll just march on Washington.