I Fear for the Future

On the front page of The Ann Arbor News today there was a little box with a letter to incoming President Obama. In part the letter said:

[...]I think you deserve to be the president because you are going to do smart and good stuff, like give poor people homes and a life.

Granted this letter was from an 8 year old, but this thinking of the President as some sort of Superman is pretty pervasive, and to some degree represents the type of thinking taught in our schools today. I've seen similar comments from adults as well, which is also pretty scary. I really hope that Obama does well as President, but based on concepts and policies coming out during the transition I can't say that I'm very hopeful. Couple many bad ideas with a Congress that is even worse and I fear that a return of the Carter era 70's is quite likely, and possibly something much worse.

Hillary for Benevolent Dictator '08 - Part 3

In another example showing how much contempt Hillary Clinton has for freedom and the U.S. Constitution, we have this gem of a quote (courtesy of the New York Times)

We need a president who is ready on Day 1 to be commander in chief of our economy.

First, I would like to know where the Constitution grants such a power to the President. Commander in Chief of the armed forces, yes, economic ruler, I don't think so. Second, the economy is not something which can be given orders on how to behave. An economy is the result of individuals going about their lives, trying to make them better. No president or ruler can change that. Many have tried and the result is always the same, less freedom, smaller economy. Just ask the former Soviet Union. I'j sure that Hillary has the ego to feel that she can to better, however.

Very scary.

Hillary for Benevolent Dictator '08 - Part 2

In an earlier post I made reference to a comment made by Hillary about all the expensive ideas she had to make this country great. Well, she's at it again. In a recent post on the Cato@Liberty blog, David Boaz writes about a Clinton ad which ran before Christmas in which our heroine is shown wrapping gifts and putting lovely tags on each one with titles such as 'Universal Health Care', or 'Universal Pre-K'. The implication is that she is somehow Santa Claus and wants to give these lovely gifts to all her adoring subjects. Makes me sick just thinking about it.

Like most politicians, and presidential candidates in particular, she loves to make promises about all the things she will 'do' for the country and completely ignores the fact that the only way she can make it happen is through coercion and force. For example, candidates talk about how 'they' will bail out mortgage holders. Or they talk about how 'they' are going to make sure that everyone will have health care. It sounds as if they personally will be paying for this. Unfortunately while most people realize that the candidates themselves aren't going to foot the bill, they somehow think that the costs will ultimately be borne by someone else and not themselves. Depressing to think about.

A Living Constitution?

Recently there has been several letters to The Wall Street Journal concerning the notion of a 'Living Constitution'. The idea is that times change and the founders didn't expect us to be tied down to concepts from the past. The 9th amendment was mentioned as explicit proof that the founders intended the Constitution to be a living document.

On one level I agree with the argument. Certainly the 9th amendment allows for the people to retain rights which weren't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. In fact, that was the primary purpose of this amendment. However, whenever I hear people talking about a 'living' Constitution, most of the arguments seem to be in favor of expanding government power, not individual freedom. New interpretations are given on specific limitations on government set forth in the various articles. We've seen government expand as the courts give unique interpretations to the commerce clause, the 'general welfare' clause, etc.

The key thing that most people seem to ignore is that the only reason the Constitution exists is to create a government and grant it certain powers. The founders knew that governments have been the greatest impediment to freedom throughout history and they sought to create a document which would strictly limit the power of the government. The last thing they would have wanted to create was some sort of 'living' document where new interpretations could expand the power of government without the explicit will of the people. The only way government power was to be expanded (or contracted, for that matter) was through the amendment process, which they made difficult for a reason.

It's vitally important to remember why the Constitution exists. It's not to grant rights to the people. It's to grant power to the government. As such, it needs to be as tightly focused as possible. For freedom to reign, we must continue, as Jefferson wrote, to bind the government to the chains of the Constitution. What point are chains if they are made out of bungy cord?

Best quote from the Michigan Republican Presidential debate

In response to Mitt Romney's comment that he would have to consult attorneys before going to war, presidential candidate Ron Paul quipped:

Why don't we just open up the Constitution and read it?

Way to go Ron!

I just read the news that Ron Paul has collected $5,080,000 in campaign contributions in the third quarter of fundraising. He managed to raise $1,200,000 of that in just 11 days. Pretty impressive for a lesser known candidate.

Ron Paul for President

It's nice to see that Ron Paul is at least getting some press. There was a nice column in today's Detroit Free Press about his campaign. I've also seen articles or columns talking about his candidacy in The Wall Street Journal, CNN and other places. With the exception of his thoughts on immigration, I agree with almost everything he says. I know he won't win, but I think it's a good thing that his ideas are at least being heard, even if in small quantities.