Statist or Constitutionalist: A Choice in Government
by Bryan Björnson, A1S8 Society LLC
Which type of government do you want?
That is the question that confronts American politics today. Do we want Statist or a Constitutionalist government? What is the difference between them? A Constitutionalist wants the limited government that lives by the checks and balances in our Constitution. A Statist believes that our Constitution is a “living document” and it can be used to justify the creation of any government program imaginable. Here is an explanation of how we now have a Statist government and how we can bring back the Constitutional government we once had.
A Statist’s hero is FDR. A Constitutionalist’s hero is James Madison. Both men were Presidents of the United States. One wrote most of our Constitution. The other threw it away. How did FDR throw away our Constitution? He did so when he changed the meaning, the understanding of two very important words in our Constitution. These two words can be found twice in our Constitution. The first is in the preamble the second is in the most important Article and Section of our Constitution, Article I Section 8. For it is in Article I Section 8 that the enumerated powers of our government are found. Article I Section 8 lists what our Constitution our government can do. What are those two words? They are the words “general Welfare”. FDR with the creation of the New Deal changed the meaning of the “general Welfare” from what James Madison meant to what FDR wanted them to mean. When FDR did that he threw our Constitution away! Here is what Madison had to say about what the words general welfare mean when he wrote Article I Section 8 of our Constitution.
““If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.” James Madison
The New Deal gave Congress the discretion to promote the general welfare by spending as much money as it wanted to on whatever Congress wanted to spend money on. That according to the man who wrote Article I Section 8 of our Constitution is not limited government! Who should we listen to when it comes to what our government can and cannot do? The man who wrote our blueprint for limited government our or the man who wanted to, and did, increase the size of our government beyond its Constitutional limits? A Statist will say FDR, the man who threw away our Constitution with his New Deal. A Constitutionalist will say James Madison the man who wrote our Constitution.
Constitutionalists are firmly committed to James Madison’s understanding of the words general welfare. The limited government that we had from when our Constitution was ratified up to the days of the New Deal made the US the great country it is. Even after some 70 years of New Deal Statism the strength of the blueprint for limited government is still working. However, with the very strong possibility of a new, New Deal being enacted our Constitution might not survive. The idea that the cause of our problems, the New Deal, will also be the cure for our problems is extremely doubtful.
What then would cure the problems facing our country and how can the cure be brought about? First we need to change how or campaigns are financed. Second, repeal as many of the laws that have as we possibly can. Implementing these two changes will be difficult.
In our elections we do not, in theory, allow anyone to vote who is not a registered voter in that district. Why then do we allow anyone who is not a registered voter in that district to vote for candidates with a financial contribution? If candidates can only get financial contributions from registered voters in their district it would have several positive effects on our political campaigns.
-It would make our elected officials more accountable to the voters in their district.
-It would reduce the amount of money spent on political campaigns.
-It would require candidates to spend more time in their district.
-It would encourage people who had lived a long time in the district to run for office.
Why would this happen? When candidates can only get money from their friends and neighbors, people they have known, people they see and do business with they are less likely to be dishonest. When the money comes from a smaller area the amount that can be raised is smaller. When the candidates can only raise money in their district they have to spend more time there. When the candidates are long time residents of the district they know the district better.
The first law that should be repealed is one that few people have ever heard of but one that affects them every payday. What is this law and how does it affect every working American? It is the 1943 Current Payment Tax Act (CPTA). It allows our government to deduct taxes from our paychecks. What that does is make it so that our taxes get paid before we do. Why should our taxes get paid before we do? When our taxes are paid before we are then the growth of our government goes unnoticed. That is the Statist’s dream, an unnoticed and unaccountable flow of money into an ever growing government. To repeal the CPTA will put our government on the same pay as you go system that every American must live on. Prior to the passage of the CPTA taxes were paid once a quarter and the taxes for the first quarter were due in the first quarter of the following year. The taxes you owed for the first quarter of 2009 would be due in the first quarter of 2010. A return to paying taxes, instead of having them confiscated every payday, means that people could put that money in the bank and earn interest on it. Imagine what that would do for our economy!
The A1S8 Society is a conservative political organization created for the sole purpose of bringing back the limited Constitutional government our country once had. It is conservative in the truest sense of the word, we wish to conserve that which works in country's government and get rid of that which doesn't. Just as you conserve a garden by removing the weeds the A1S8 Society wants remove the weeds, bureaucracies, from our government. The A1S8 Society has been in existence since June of 2005 . The A1S8 Society is a membership based organization open to all who want to bring back the limited Constitutional government our country once had. We must return to a weed free government to conserve the great American experiment in self-government. Information about me, Bryan Björnson, can be found here http://conservativerevolutionary.org
Categories: Constitutional Issues
Tags: Framers intent civic responsibility
TPP suggests a visit to http://conservativerevolutionary.org/ and examining the ideas that Mr. Björnson advocates.
RLB
Reply to this
It is obvious, especially under the current administraton that statism is on the rise - but Bush was no slouch in expanding governent either - DHS, Medicare prescriptions, No Child Left Behind... you can call these things worthy, and stretch it out and call these things necessary (really stretching) - but you can't say that any of it was required or endorsed by the Constitution. Security is naturally handled by the military and State Dept. The government has no business in healthcare or in education. The author is correct in laying that mess at FDR's feet. Goverment needs to go back to doing what it does well, which Mr. Madison spelled out clearly in the Constitution - no more and no less.
Reply to this
More conservative whining? Is everything lurching to the right here? The reason that we have a "big" government is that we have "big" problems that only the government is equipped to handle. You don't see Bill Gates or Warren Buffett stepping up beyond their foundations to help. Matter of fact, Warren Buffett endorses and advises the Obama Administration. When will you guys stop crying in your beer and realize that Reagan is dead and his ideas are outdated?
Reply to this
Randi, the ideas for my article did not come from Pres. Reagan. They are from our Founding Fathers. Men who risked their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to create the limited government we once had. Just because we have big problems does not mean we need big government to solve those problems. When big government is the cause of those problems that greatly reduces, if not makes impossible, the ability of our government to solve them.
Reply to this
Randi and I are usually on the same side of the issues - and I have some serious disagreements with you about some of the proposals on your website (mostly from the practicality of trying them - like trying to eliminate SocSec - no politician is crazy enough to go there. But a good idea is a good idea, and I like the campaign finance idea - simple but brilliant in all the ills that would fix. I can see the sense in going back to paying taxes rather than having them withheld - but that's a longshot too. I also would not limit government as much as you would, but the country runs by a general consensus. What kills us is when we exclude good ideas because of where they originate. It doesn't matter if it was Reagan , FDR or Washington - a good idea is a good idea.
Reply to this
The American Revolution was a longshot. The odds against a ragtag bunch of volunteers building an army to go against the best army in the world was suicide. Is it too much to ask a politician to risk their job to fix our country? Is it too much to ask of you to join an organization, the A1S8 Society, that will force our politicians to do what is right? Is it too much to ask of the American public to fight for the limited Constitutional government our Founding Fathers put everything they had on the line to create? Is the spirit of Patrick Henry dead?
Reply to this
We have a fundamental disagreement about the role of goverment. You feel that government has no business in many places, and I feel that some problems are so big that they can only be solved by the whole country united in action - which is government. The abolition of slavery and civil rights (which I would hope you thought were worthy causes) would not have happened without government involvement. Ditto for the intergration of the armed forces under Harry Truman, or the lifting up of the american economy out of the great depression by the same FDR that you demonize. It's easy now to judge these programs a bad call and try to get rid of them - but in context, and at the time, they were considered necessary to the well being of the country and it's citizens. Should the social programs have been temporary? Maybe - but that isn't how they were created, and they have served the country well for years, and have elevated us as a society that cares for it's least fortunate. I think we lose more by abandonig these programs than we do by finding ways to keep them going.
Reply to this
Yes, Randi you are a statist. A statist who still believes the myth that FDR's New Deal programs got us out of the Great Depression. That is not true. In fact the reverse is true, FDR's New Deal extended the length of the Great Depression. When you learn the truth about how FDR's New Deal hurt our economy more than it helped than you will stop being a statist. Since you believe the statist myth that a government program is an act of compassion it is no surprise that you are a statist and proud of it. Those social programs have not served us well. Had people not been forced into paying taxes for Social Security but allowed to invest the money as they saw fit they and our economy would have grown faster than it has. Then how can it be considered compassionate to tax people to provide for their retirement with Social Security and then when they get it tax their Social Security check. Explain how it is compassionate to tax people and then when the promise of returning people their money it is taxed again?
Reply to this
So, yes, I am a statist. And proud of it!
Reply to this
Geez Randi - having a bad day? Just because Obo is down in the polls a bit is no cause to lash out. I really like the idea of limiting contriibutions to residents in the represented district. That would suck the money and lobbyists out of Congress, and can you imagine Senators not having the benefit of national coffers? - someone new might get elected every now and then. I'm all for that - of course someone will come ot with a "freedom of speech" issue in the courts to stomp this good idea - but thank you for thinking. It's more than most do.
Reply to this
Hey, I'm no conservative, but I see the value in limiting campaign contributions to actual constituents of the legislators. That is an idea with no downside except to those who want to spread corruption. I'm thinking a petition drive. Can TPP get behind this as a project or Policy Initiative?
Reply to this
I like the campaign reform idea too - it could be turned into real law. Repealing witholding though? That's a dreamer's dream - it would involve congress trying to wean itself from the pork barrel, and become what it is supposed to be - a limited intrusion into our lives. Not in a million years. Power does not cede power except through force.
Reply to this
Libertarianism 101A - nice to see it catching on all over the place. Limited government, and keeping it's nose out of my business. It's the wave of the future, if only we can get the Republicans to come home, or the Libertarian / Conservatives to break off. As it is right now, "a house divided against itself cannot stand" - props to Honest Abe.
Reply to this
This country was founded on having the way clear so that you could rise to your own potential. Somewhere along the line (1933, I'm thinking), somehow we got it in our heads that this, as a system was unfair, and the government took it upon itself to become the public charity of choice. Now I'm not some hard-hearted Scrooge - I give to a wider variety of charities than Bill Gates and I volunteer in my community to help the less fortunate - but that always has been and always should be a function of private charity. If it is not, you have happen what happened under the "Great Society" - creation of a permanent poor underclass completely dependent on the government. This is the opposite of what the Constitution guarantees. I absolutely support government getting back to the basice of the Constitution. That will do more to fix the economy than the best idea Obama has to offer.
Reply to this
But what of the poor who are dependent - isn't it cruel just to cut them off?
Reply to this
2 points - First, it is not the job or the purpose of government to collect my money for the purpose of disbursement to others in the name of charity or because we feel bad about the situation. That is the function of the Red Cross et al.
Second- Welfare Reform - probably Bill Clinton's best accomplishment (regardless of it's origins with Newt Gingrich) showed that those dependent people can make it in society and get real and productive lives with a little help at a lot ess cost than a welfare check every two weeks for life. BTW, Obama is busy dismantling this progam to empower the poor to help themselves in favor of the LBJ rules that will just recreate the problem. So much for progress. Give me the Constitution.
Reply to this
The statist all too often abdicates their personal responsibility to affect the change they wish to see by saying-"something ought to be done, and the government ought to do it for me."
This weekend I had a conversation with a young man who insisted it was fine to burden others with the responsibility to care for him and his estate when he died because it was no longer his problem. I asked if he felt that he ought to prevent the burden from falling onto his survivors and family and his response was that the state should address those issues, he was, after all, going to be dead.
This thinking goes to the core. Where is the personal responsibility? Ghandi said-"Be the change you wish to see". He did not say ask for others to make things the way you want them.
Reply to this
Personal responsibility is both a core value of conservatism, and sorely lacking in American society today. I think it is because over 70 years of New Deal / Raw Deal Americans have lost their shame over being dependent on others. For a capable and healthy person to be sitting home collecting off of the government dole used to be a scandal - now it's getting paid.
Reply to this
This relates in the Obama "saving the economy" way - I read an article about people who were unemployed for various reasons due to the recent tanking of the economy. The article profiled a man who was collecting his unemployment, and using his savings, as an extended vacation subsidized by the taxpayers. His days included art museums and walks in the park, and apparently everything except looking for work. When did this sort of behavior become OK? When has living off of others tax dollars become the acceptable fall back plan?
Reply to this
It's trying times to be a patriot - what with the world all caught up in the importance of Michael Jackson and Billy Mays. It was said in the "Crisis" article that Caesar feeds us bread and circuses so that the masses do not rise up. In this case it's a McMeal and American Idol. Civics and government is no longer taught in school, and that patriotic burst that we all had at 9/11 was directed at "keep shopping". There is no sense of duty because no one recognized as a leader is calling us to duty. Every President since Reagan lesft has pretty much coddled us and hoped that we loved him - including the current one who is managing to poison the well at the same time. I know Reagan is gone and not coming back, but I can't believe history is not calling a new leader forward right now - someone who will restore pride in hard work and playing fair - not rewarding people who continue to make bad decisions, and who refuse to help themselves.
Reply to this
Wow - way more eloquent than usual pressman - this one hit a chord for you? That's a solid point though - for people to get in line behind a leader and move in one direction together, we need that leader. And he needs to be recognized as such, and followed as such. Bush may not have been all that eloquent, and screwed up more than once, but at least he had the balls to lead. Obama, Clinton, Bush 41 and Carter all ran committee meetings. And Obama beat McCain, which just echoes his lack of talent. The Libertarians have Bob Barr, but really no traction - and how do you follow a man whose name comes out as a children's book elephant. It seems the country has to be on the verge of being flushed down the tank to have a real leader step up.
Reply to this
All of this conservative grandstanding is great, but not practical. There is no way to bind government back once it's been let out of the bottle. FDR did a number on the country that was compounded by LBJ, Carter and now Obama. I hate to admit it, but even Clinton was reasonable (of course he had Gingrich holding his feet to the fire). Clinton's one triumph - welfare reform, was rolled back in the stimulus and no one even noticed. Or cared. hort of a full on Constitutional Convention, I don't know what could possibly fix this mess - no one involved will voluntarily give back power.
Reply to this
I came in riding what I tought was the great wave of non-partisanship and bought into the Obama myth. Like they say, if it sounds too good to be true... Anyhow,the things that I thought I supported in Obama turned out to be things he didn't even support, the Dems are folllowing him off the cliff, and the Republicans are racing to see if they can jump off first. I think the campaign contribution idea would go far in getting a congress responsive to it's actual constituents - and that would go a long way to addressing the ills in the system. It's a great starting point and I'll second what kstowe said early in the posting - this looks like a good action item for TPP - possibly jointly with A1S8. An online petition is a great way to start - it got MoveOn moving...
Reply to this
This is all well and good with going back to a government who's only function is to equip the military and sign treaties, but do we really want to go back to that. Especially in this bad economy, hundreds of thousands, if not millions are suffering and need to be helped. A society is not measured as great by starving it's children, or by tossing out it's hopeless with the trash. America is supposed to be better than that. We have a moral obligation to care for those less fortunate than ourselves. The only way to do that on the scale that it needs to be done is through the government.
Reply to this
I looked in the Constitution and over the years have read it many times. NOWHERE does it say that charity is a lawful function of the government. I would rather drop welfare entirely for improved schools and vocational training. Stop cutting checks and make people capable of earning checks. That was Clinton welfare reform, and you're right - Obama gutted it in the stimulus. And schools are the business of the cities and the states, not the Fed. As should most things be. What fits in NY or CA would be a disaster in Michigan or Kansas. That is why the Fed was originally limited to the functions in the Constitution, and the states held authority over everything not specifically granted the Fed through the Constitution. One size has never fit all. If California wants a huge welfare program to handle it's urban blight, fine. CA can pay for it. They shouldn't expect Kansans who are busy at work to fund it for them. Kansas would rather blow the money on better roads and schools. If the Fed gets back to it's basics, the states would have the money to pursue their ambitions - which was the ORIGINAL idea.
Reply to this
I would ad that the state and local governments answer to their constituents as that is the way most state constitutons are written. The federal government is designed to answer only to the larger question of country and is not necessarily responsive to the will of the people - which is why it's role should be limited.
Reply to this
I understand that under the Constitution, we probably should not be engaged in most of what we have allowed the government to get involved in. Most of these things cost little if nothing to start - (Social Security, WIC, Dept of Energy or Education), and seemed like a really good idea to most at the time. All of the unintended consequences had not even been imagined yet. Given that point, CAN we dismantle and do away with this stuff and these programs? Once created, they sort of take on a life of their own. They create their own cottage industires - which, because the interests are government entities, the cottage industries become large and vital to the national economy as a whole. Ronaldus Magnus tried to reverse Jimmy Carter's two new Cabinet departments (Energy and Education, again...) but could do neither without severe disruptons to the national economy. There is a constitutional and a moral argument for rolling all of this back, but the damaged caused by fixing the problems may well send us completely over the edge as a stable society.
Reply to this
I'm not usually fighting for the liberal cause, but come on... rolling back the government to the 1700's. Now FDR might have done something unconstitutional, but the legislature and the Supreme Court gave it all a wink and a nod, and promises were made - to the American people. These promises - such as Social Security and unemployment, and educational grants and loans, have been in force for 60 to 80 years, and people have come to depend on them. The conservative "character" preaches living up to your commitments. In this case, the commitments that the government made to it's people. Now it's okay to tinker and fix the system, as Reagan did in the 80's to keep it working - but, the tradition in this country is that once a commitment is made, it can't just be willy-nilly abandoned. That's just abusing the people from the opposite direction.
Reply to this
That's basic contract law - once a contract is entered into, the contract cannot be nullified by either party without cause. And "oops! we did this by mistake" is not a bona fide legal argument. I'm sure that even under the current makeup of the Supreme Court, a class action suit would be won by the American people if all social programs were canceled. This isn't to say I disagree with the concept that we shouldn't be doing these things as a government, but once it's done, it's pretty much done. "Statutum tempus mos" - established custom. The concept of "stare decisis" - decided law - made famous during the John Roberts hearings applies. Without compelling new evidence or arguments, decided law will stand.
Reply to this
What we are seeing now is the most unprecedented grab at statism since FDR. It didn't even start with Obama, but on Bush's watch with creation of DHS to intrude into our rights and make us safer. TARP is a Bushism, which led to the combined Bush / Obama nationalism of the finance industry in the US. Now is following the auto industry and anyone else with a bad business plan who wants a handout. I don't think that the author goes far enough into exactly how dangerous these times are for personal liberty and it's not just the gay marriage debate that gets everyone's attention. Look at the climate package a money grab to finance the ultra left's fantasies, and placing the burden on the average taxpayer in the form of higher costs for everything attached to a carbon atom (which is pretty much everything). We are asleep as they take our liberty. And no one really cares about that either... WTF???
Reply to this
rocky - is all okay? you are usually te reasonable argument - not the guy flying off the wall.
Reply to this
Obamanomics came home to roost this past week. Friday I had to announce to my team that we were dissolved, and most were now among the unemployed. Yesterday, I found out that I was done as well. Sad part is that we're part of the bullet-proof economy - engineers all - skilled, qualified and experienced. Most of us should find work fairly easily, but was this really necessary? Our biggest client was the government, and now there's the re-prioritization from Predators and Patriots to CFL bulbs. The newest of us was here 10 years. We go from the latest hi-tech cutting edge stuff to what - designing wind turbines? Just not as sexy...I have a friend who often says that the problem with the country is that we used to teach our kids to reach to the moon, and now we teach them to sort their garbage. It's hard to argue with a valid point.
Reply to this
Well, what are the odds? Haven't stopped by in awhile, and when I do, it's someone else showing up in my shoes. Actually worse - I still have managed to hold my job and my house, but not with any visible relief coming. The economy is still sucking, and while I can't even pretend to understand what either Bush or Obama have done, all I can see is no change and more of the same. My neighbors are still losing their jobs and their homes, the economy is still in a tailspin, and whatever magic that I'd hoped for in Obama never showed. The only true lesson anyone candraw from this is that statism is impotent in the face of bad economics. Since the government is not fixing anything, as far as anyone can tell, it should just get out of the way, and let the people involved fix their own problem.
Reply to this
It's funny that going into the 4th of July weekend, we should be having this conversation. Really, what is the difference between constitutionalism and statism? Boiling it down to the Founders grievances, isn't is just individual liberty to pursue youe own excellence, as opposed to being taxed and regulated to death? Lets go another way - America = individual liberty = free markets. Statism encroaches on the economy by making the government such a major player that is skews all other participants. The US government has in the past few months (under Bush AND Obama - nationalized the real estate, finance and insurance business sectors, and is in the process of resticting what free companies are left in each sector. GM is now a government run concern and is abandoning their big sellers (trucks, SUVs)for plug-in econoboxes that are very PC, but no one really wants to buy one - which anyone with a family to transport knows. A state run economy (statism) is most often associated with the old Soviet Union - have we learned nothing from history?
Reply to this
rocks - sorry about your situation. I can understand how frustrated you are. Got a form from Obamanation this week from a customer who bought from me using stimulus funds. It wanted to know how many jobs were created / saved because of the $5000.00 worth of product bought. They gave me a hard time when I answered "none" - seems they wnat the count to reflect everyone who touched the purchase order - from the CSR to billing to shipping and packing. By this count Obama's 5K save 15 or so people at my company. Not a bad return on investment. Which brings me to samurai. I agree - statism and communism are the pretty and ugly sides of the same coin. Can't remember who said it, but "The government that can give you everything, can take everything away." Give me my Constitution, and the government that came with it. Good luck rocks-
Reply to this
The problem with "statism" or "constitutionalism" is the absolutism of the words. I have witnessed too often the unintended consequences of FDR and LBJ - good intentions that decimated the black family. It is damage that we are still recovering from. At the same time, to expect a government to not involve itself beyond the scope of a piece of paper has never been accomplished in history. We are probably the best example of sticking as closely as possible to the original. As times change and needs change, so does the role of government. Slavery was a divisive but absolute part of life in early America. It was an economic issue as well as a rights issue - would anyone argue that since slavery is not directly addressed n the Constitution, the federal government had no business intervening? I think not. It is when we move away from the world we all live in to the absolutes no one can live up to that we get into trouble.
Reply to this
So here on our Independence Day weekend, we find an ugly (or not so ugly) truth about why America is the way it is. We believe anything is possible here because that's the way the system was set up. A bunch of fairly wealthy business types set up the system in a way that in their experience they considered fair. They thought that anyone shopuld be able to rise to the limits of their potential, and that no government entity should be powerful enough to drag a person down. They set it up so that anyone who wanted to work hard and apply themselves could succeed. The basis of individual liberty is the value of each individual supervceding the state. None of the founders was a statist - though later some saw value in the idea (when they were serving as president (Adams comes to mind, Monroe as well).
Reply to this
No shame in that - especially since the only thing they wantred FROM government was a common defense from other people trying to take away that individual liberty. Thank God for Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams and all the rest of them. Happy Birthday America!!!!!
Reply to this
Happy Birthday America dittos - and let's celebrate that we can still sit here and disagree publicly, and the government isn't going to shut us down here. The Founders got that right for sure.
Reply to this
"dittos" - haileyw I'm impressed, A proper lib like you using Rush buzzwords... I'm so proud!
Reply to this
Well, if there's one day we should all get along, it's today. Don't be too proud - I'm still celebrating Al Franken...
Reply to this
Since it is July 4 - some not so trivial trivia. July 4 2009 marks the 222 year of our Constitutional form of government, 233 years since independence, 144 years since the end of the Civil War, and 402 year since the founding of Jamestown. We are the oldest functioning representative democracy on the planet, and we still don't have it perfect, but we've had more practice at it than anyone else. Maybe what we have created is unique to America, because we are a country with an adopted nationality. As our ancestors arrived in Ellis Island or San Francisco they were greeted by the same possibilities of liberty, and the same difficulties of imperfection. Even when we do get it wrong, we have a tendency to fix it and as Lincoln said - "move towards a more perfect Union." If we can keep doing that, our future remains bright, no matter how bad things look right now. And just to keep this relevant to the actual article - Constitutionalism all the way, baby!!!!!
Reply to this