A History of the Reception Clause

WARNING: Do not break the law before, during, or after reading anything I mention.


An excerpt of my article on the History of the Reception Clause of the U.S. Constitution
    
     In September 1792, Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, wrote a lengthy letter to President George Washington explaining that the Secretary of Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, entertained dangerous designs to subvert the very essence of Republican government. This letter highlighted the political dissention plaguing Washington's cabinet and the nation. Hamilton's "system flowed from principles adverse to liberty," Jefferson exclaimed to the President, "and was calculated to undermine and demolish the Republic, by creating an influence of his department over the members of the Legislature."19 Jefferson further claimed, with regard to French and English commercial policies, that

my system was to give some satisfactory distinctions to the former, of little cost to us, in return for the solid advantages yielded us by them; and to have met the English with some restrictions which might induce them to abate their severities against our commerce.20

Jefferson adamantly despised Great Britain's commercial depredations of American trade, which Hamilton seemingly favored. Hamilton "has forced down his own system," the secretary passionately noted, which was "inconsistent with the honor and interest of our country."21 In Jefferson's view, Hamilton was too involved with the policies under the State Department's purview, and "stepped farthest into the control of the department of the other."22  The dispute was centered on the seperation of power doctrine, and the sphere of influence of departments over certain federal operations and policies.  

     Washington's administration faced significant problems in April 1793, commercial trade, especially involving the West Indies, the revolutionary debt the United States owed France, internal political dissention, coupled with the murderous turmoil associated with France's Reign of Terror. In a letter to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay, Hamilton clearly delineated the major foreign policy dilemmas confronting the United States in regard to the French Question. On April 9, 1793, one day after Edmond Charles Genet, newly appointed French Minster to the United States, arrived in South Carolina, Hamilton addressed the issue of whether the Minister should be received by the United States. The Treasury Secretary asked Jay

[i]f we receive a Minister from the Republic, shall we be afterwards at liberty to say - We will not decide whether there is a Government in France competent to demand from us the performance of the existing treaties. What the Government in France shall be is the very point in dispute. 'Till that is decided the applicability of the Treaties is suspended. When that Government is established we shall consider whether such changes have been made as to render their continuance incompatible with the interest of the U States.23

Hamilton suggested that the instability of France's government should induce the United States to change its foreign policy posture. "I am of the opinion," Hamilton confidently remarked, "that we have at least a right to hold the thing suspended till the point in dispute is decided."24 The revolutionary war debt the United States...


19 Andrew A. Lipscomb, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington, D.C., 1903) vVIII.,397.
20 Ibid., 398.
21 Ibid., 399.
22 Ibid.
23 Harold C. Syrett, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (New York, 1969), vXIV, 297.
24 Ibid.

President Truman's Palestine Policy - 1945 Part II

WARNING: Do not break the law before, during, or after reading anything I mention.


Another excerpt from my article on the Recognition of Israel.    

     On the same day that Truman announced the creation of the Palestine Committee, the White House made public a letter to British Prime Minister Attlee. In it, Truman stressed his contention that "granting of an additional one hundred thousand of such certificates would contribute greatly to a sound solution for the future of Jews still in Germany and Austria."40 Truman vigorously pressured the British to let Jews migrate to Palestine. "[N]o other single matter is so important," Truman fervently professed, then "for those who have known the horrors of concentration camps" to "be permitted to resettle" in Palestine.41 The letter was filled with dreary reminders of German atrocities - as if the Prime Minister was not aware of the horrific atrocities committed. "No claim is more meritorious," the President ardently proposed, "than that of the groups who for so many years have known persecution and enslavement."42 The Chief Diplomat was a strong and sympathetic advocate for minority rights and the future of Jewish resettlement in Palestine. The president's Wilsonian character was stern. It was not purely political, but politics were certainly intertwined with policy, as it usually is. Truman's policy on Palestine was formed and expressed well before any election. The president was either idealistically sincere, or cynically crafting a political issue to use in the elections of 1946 and 1948; the former should be given more weight than dissimulation on Truman's account.

     At the beginning of a press conference on November 20, 1945, the president announced a change in the Army command. During the conference, a reporter made the observation that there was peace "but it is still not peace."43 Truman had a lengthy answer for the reporter who then postulated, "[h]ave something for the people to shoot at?"44 "Well, it isn't a matter of being something for the people to shoot at," Truman pedantically replied, "[i]t is for the establishment of world peace."45 The prior week, Truman poignantly reminded the reporters, the conference took a momentous "first step toward implementing the United Nations Organization." This "will be the fundamental organization," Truman assured them, "through which we can get peace in the world."46 That democratic institution was a remaking of Wilson's initial League of Nations vision, which could be a proper venue for the Palestine question, and similar international disputes, to be peacefully resolved. On that same November day, former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt wrote a letter to the president. In it, she astutely analyzed the Palestine situation and Jewish plight in general. Eleanor told Harry that she was "distressed that Great Britain has made us take a share in another investigation of the few Jews remaining in Europe."47 If only other nations had taken some refugees, Roosevelt paternalistically noted, "we would not have to continue to have on our consciences the deaths of at least fifty of those poor creatures daily."48 Mrs. Roosevelt's disdain for the British was clear. She shrewdly remarked, "I object very much to being used by them."49 Mrs. Roosevelt did make the crucial observation, though, that "[t]he question between Palestine and the Arabs, of course, has always been complicated by oil deposits, and I suppose it always will."50 Truman addressed Mrs. Roosevelt's concerns in a letter a few days later. Truman was "very hopeful" that something peaceful work out in Palestine that would "be of lasting benefit."51 He optimistically maintained "we expect to continue to do what we can to get as many Jews as possible into Palestine as quickly as possible, pending any final settlement."52 Mrs. Roosevelt and President Truman's sentiments were aligned, and both were deeply concerned about the future of displaced Jews, fully conscious of the intricate complexities surrounding, what Dean Acheson called, an "international puzzle."

40 Reid, Public Papers of the Presidents, 470.

41 Ibid.
42 Ibid.
43 Ibid., 494.
44 Ibid.
45 Ibid.
46 Ibid.
47 Steve Neal, Eleanor and Harry (New York, 2002), 46.
48 Ibid.
49 Ibid.
50 Ibid.
51 Ibid., 48.
52 Ibid.

President Truman's Palestine Policy - 1945

WARNING: Do not break the law before, during, or after reading anything I mention.


An excerpt from my article on the Recognition of Israel.

     On Thursday, August 16, 1945, shortly after returning from Potsdam, Germany, United States President Harry Truman gathered the White House press corps in his office for a mid-morning news conference. The president was in a chipper mood. He jokingly told the eager reporters "you hadn't all had a chance to look me in the face or ask me any impertinent questions." Laughter from the news corps broke out, as the president wryly smiled, then further aroused his attentive audience's humor by adding that there was nothing "that you would break your arms to get out of the door for this morning." As the festive greeting and hardy laughs eased down, more serious business began. After a few questions concerning the future of the Manhattan project, V-J Day, and General Douglas MacArthur's surrender terms with the Japanese, a reporter asked if there was "[a]nything about the Jewish national state discussed at Potsdam?" Truman candidly disclosed that he "discussed the matter with Mr. Churchill and Mr. Attlee, and [was] still discussing it." A follow-up question beckoned from another Washington scribbler, "not with Stalin?" The president casually replied, "No, there was nothing he could do about it." Truman isolated Stalin and the Soviet Union by downplaying their significance as an important influence in the Near East. Great Britain was the nation necessary to secure a peaceful path in a strategic region. President Truman adeptly handled a variety of other questions peppered to him by the ravenous press corps.

     Toward the end of the press conference, an inquisitive reporter could not leave until the president could at least elaborate a bit more about a Jewish national state. The correspondent wanted to pin the president down on a direct policy position, and further asked "[w]hat was the American view on Palestine at Berlin?" Truman realistically asserted that American foreign policy toward Palestine was primarily concerned with letting "as many Jews into Palestine as it is possible to let into that country." President Truman, and several other administration officials, were seriously concerned about exacerbating the humanitarian situation with uninhibited mass migration into Palestine. The President also announced that the situation would "have to be worked out diplomatically with the British and the Arabs." "[I]f a state can be set up there," the president cautiously advanced, "they may be able to set it up on a peaceful basis." Optimism about a peaceful settlement of a Jewish state in Palestine was sincere and pragmatic. Truman recognized and appreciated the innumerable unforeseen ramifications surrounding such a noble endeavor, while delicately maneuvering through the seemingly innocuous and "impertinent" questions. President Truman's diplomatic willingness to publically back the possibility of a Jewish national state, with certain conditions, was an act of national clarity on policy, and, given cold war constructs, security. The Chief Diplomat maintained that the United States had "no desire to send 500,000 American soldiers there to make peace in Palestine." Truman, acting in his constitutional authority as Chief Diplomat, altered U.S. policy toward Palestine during that seemingly innocuous media session. The President utilized an informal press conference to delineate policy parameters regarding Palestine. From the earliest stages of the Truman administration, Jewish immigration, a future Jewish state, and cold war intrigues were important issues driving the president's policy considerations, not political expediency.

Warren R. Reid, Public Papers of the Presidents: Harry S. Truman 1945 (Washington, D.C., 1961), 224-26, 228.

Extreme Liberalism Is a Threat to Liberty

WARNING: Do not break the law before, during, or after reading anything I mention.


Liberty is a liberal notion, and moderate forces must prevail in tempering its intensity. All too often humans are succumbed by intemperate passions that unduly influence perceptions and actions. The extremes of liberalism manifest themselves in two distinct ways. One extreme is either too liberal and the other is not liberal enough. The former is excessively liberal in matters of perceptions and conceptions, and the latter is excessively deficient in the same respects. A majority of human beings are moderately liberal in nature, and have a desire to acquire more freedom, security, and happiness in a temperate manner. Extremes of liberalism are far from the moderate stream of normal behavior. Individuals either reduce their liberalness or increase it. For those who are too liberal, they seem to want to do all things for all people, and expect others to follow in that line of thinking. There are also those who are not liberal enough, and exhibit the same stubbornness, but are narrow-minded individuals with parochial views. Both extremes are righteously indignant to each other and the more moderate sentiments. Given that the extremes are really minority sentiments, they should not be as influential as they currently are. It seems as if American citizens, the vast majority moderately liberal in nature, according to the present description, should not be torn apart by the radical extremes that hamper domestic tranquility.

No matter what the party label, in this country’s political history, the fundamental question vexing every citizen is how much power we grant the Federal government, and what is the extent of it, according to the United States Constitution. Both the major political party’s, in recent history, have come down on either side of this fundamental question perpetually facing American citizens. The Democratic Party has the notion that the Federal government should do more, for more, with more, and the Republican Party is the exact opposite. The problem with the two party system is that there are extreme forces at work in each.  The base in each party are really extremes that exert too much influence given its minority representation.  It is a shame that only 60% of American citizens vote, given the close nature of political contests.  The other 40% could push the slim majorities in either way, giving more legitimacy to our national voice.  The extremes need to be banished from the two major party's, and forced to become independent entities, with their own structure, and their own candidates, and not continue to infect the more moderate forces by hiding in the two party's.  The influential extremes of liberalism must be diminshed in order to move this country forward in the 21st century.

American Principles for the 21st Century

WARNING: Do not break the law before, during, or after reading anything I mention.

 National Security

There are numerous enemies, foreign and domestic, that seek to undermine the best practices of universal Liberty. The nations, groups, and individuals that suppress Liberty tend to be the assailants of our own. Our Constitutional Republic must have security as its primary objective, without it, we cannot enjoy the blessings of Liberty. We need to foster alliances based on Liberty and mutual respect with independent nations. America, when it is in our national interest, should engage with any nation, group, or individual, no matter their character.

It is an imperative to our national survival, and to all liberty-loving nations of the world, to have a military capability able and flexible enough to protect diplomatic and economic interests abroad, and keep forging international relationships based on the best practices of sovereign nations.

An efficient and flexible system is essential to protect the United States from various forms of foreign and domestic threats to our collective freedom, and, if necessary, our allies, while never surrendering our dignity, independence, and national sovereignty. Temporary alliances are necessary instruments as long the interests of this nation are at stake, just as every other country has a right to do. America must always possess liberty, justice, mercy, benevolence, honest industry, and even severity, if necessary, in our peaceful endeavors throughout the free world.

America’s borders, most especially the southern line, need a great deal more security.  Without a stronger border policy and infrastructure, our sovereignty is at stake, and our laws flouted.  Illegal immigration and contraband denigrates the sanctity of laws and citizenship.

Every port, terminal, and major energy facilities must be secure. Our information and communication infrastructure needs more attention on and around earth. An integrated space platform and a satellite defense system are two critical components to our national security.

Combine all foreign and domestic intelligence agencies, except military components, into one department or super agency, and placed in the Homeland Security Department.  Every element from every department or agency that deals with terrorism should coalesce into one entity with one budget.

U.S. Armed Forces are a volunteer force.  There should only be a compulsory draft if a nation invaded America, or imminent invasion, by a substantially credible threat of professional forces.  Our national guard should be de-federalized, or at least a modest state militia created to attend to local emergencies. ROTC programs should be encouraged and a high school volunteer multi-disciplinary intern program established. 

Every service member deserves equal rights and privileges under the law while serving the United States. Recent veterans, our most honorable citizens, should have access to free education if engaged in actual combat, or served at least eight years.  Repatriation and professional development programs are necessary to ensure a smoother transition when veterans return home.  All soldiers, and their immediate family, must receive uninterrupted full benefits and pay while on active duty. All disabled soldiers and honorably discharged veterans should receive full lifetime benefits. Any fallen soldier in combat receives a Liberty Badge of Honor to distinguish their last measure of devotion from the rest of our intrepid citizens. Full lifetime benefits are in order for the spouse and children under eighteen, and a college scholarship fund set aside for their children.

All citizens should respect the right to keep and bear arms, and to protect each other and this nation from all forms of tyranny and lethal threats to our life, liberty, and property.

Education
An ignorant and undereducated citizenry is a threat to our Liberty. State, county, and local governments should be the primary vehicle for education in the United States. The Federal component should be minimal at best. Public education is primarily the jurisdiction of State governments. The Federal Department of Education should have a much-reduced role, if not abolished, and placed in the State Department, along with the HHS and DOT. We are still in the chalk and eraser stage and need to advance with technology.

Every public school should be fully equipped with information technology and linked on a national network to enhance our interconnectedness and share information. Math and science should be a major focus of curriculum; our children and posterity are the innovators of the future.

The Federal government should entice, through a reduction of payroll and corporate taxes, private companies to donate IT infrastructure and renovate or construct buildings, modernize and consolidate the numerous facilities that currently exist, first targeting the most economically distressed districts.  Reform teacher/administrator pensions, have a merit-based system with competitive pay scales.

Household financing and economics needs to be invigorated. Volunteering and community service should be encouraged. Also, physical fitness and nutrition are essential components to a well-rounded education. Civic education is also vitally important to produce a basic, but well-defined, understanding of the virtues and values of citizenship. Vocational trade schools and charter schools are important institutions that need investment.  English should be the official language of the United States, not be considered a second language.

Economy/Taxes
There is nothing that frustrates the electorate more than excessive taxes, waste, and fraud. A large national debt, and continuing budget deficits are blemishes on our national character.  The Federal budget should be balanced, unless during a major crises. Non-essential services, commissions, agencies, and departments should be decreased, or abolished.  Free-market capitalism can only exist and thrive when Life, Liberty and Property is protected. Proper and transparent regulation of financial institutions, and the various capital instruments, is required to earn the trust, faith, and confidence of American citizens and people abroad.

A stronger United States dollar, low inflation, and a proportional trade balance are critically important to this nation. Levy a 10% tax increase on all imported goods, and invest in commercial infrastructure and security.  For all those global corporations that might be impacted by oversea retaliation, taxes on domestic profits will be reduced if the foreign burden proves to be a major issue to the bottom line.

Elements in the Federal Bureau of Investigation having to do with fraud and white collar crimes should be combined with the SEC and the IRS, and placed in the Treasury Department to investigate domestic financial corruption and foreign manipulation. Elements of the Commerce and Labor Departments placed in the Treasury Department; otherwise, a reduced footprint is in order. 

Individuals and corporations should be attached to, and responsible for, any financial risks they assume in capital markets, experiencing the gains as well as the losses. Everyone should have private and personal retirement and health care accounts. Do not overextend credit beyond an ability to pay for it, and live within the means.

The Federal government should not institute a public health insurance plan, rather, provide incentives for lower cost and competition, and reduce the amount of frivolous court cases promoted by self-interested lawyers. No company is too big to fail.  The Federal government must not establish any interest in any public or private institution, or group of institutions.

The obligations of contracts shall not be impaired. Immediately, all federal taxes on income should be lowered by at least 20%. Any new tax scheme can only exist as a law for 2 years, and must have 2/3 of both Houses of Congress to enact and extend. Any new service, program, or mandate, must have 2/3 of both Houses of Congress to enact.

Federal income taxes should be based on a flat rate, a cap at 20%, citizens pay more on a voluntary basis, or an outright repeal/alteration of the 16th Amendment to also include a proportional enumeration. No tax should be levied that unjustly targets any particular segment of society for any reason or public benefit.

A special tax during emergencies can be levied, but only by a vote of 2/3 of both Houses of Congress. A full audit of the Federal government must occur at least once every Congressional session, and made public through various mediums.  All individuals wishing to pay more to the federal government can simply write a check.

Lower taxes across the board will provide extra resources for individuals and businesses to create jobs and be productive. Our national infrastructure needs refurbishment, especially the interstate highway, water and energy facilities, ports, bridges, rails, and tunnels, to provide the free and safe flow of people and commerce throughout our vast continent.

Federal taxpayer money should not be spent on internal state projects that do not have to do with interstate commerce.  All customs duties excises and imposts on commerce, going into the federal treasury should only be used for a national infrastructure project.  For example, a public transportation system in a particular city should be the responsibility of the state, county, or city/town.  A bridge crossing state lines, an interstate highway, or a port engaged with interstate and foreign commerce is under the jurisdiction of congress.

State revenue derived from taxing commerce coming from another State and sold must be used for internal state regulation of customs duties and infrastructure expenditures, and any surplus revenue must go to the Federal Treasury as the constitution requires.

Employment, investment, and national growth could thrive under these moderate proposals.

Energy Independence

Diverse energy resources are vital components to the United States economy and national security. Crude oil is a carbon-based resource that has numerous applications and will continue to be, in the immediate and foreseeable future, a major world commodity.

To protect our nation from the instability and whims of a commodity market, we need energy independence. Within the next generation or two alternative fuel sources will be the leading segment of energy production. We need to harness all the vast energy resources and opportunities of our continent, and put people to work in all the various resource industries.  Wind, solar, bio-fuels, hydro, geothermal, nuclear, oil, natural gas, clean coal, are agents of power generation and fuel that we are going to depend on.

The Federal government is the largest landowner.  They are sitting on massive resources, proven and unknown quantities, which would enable us to be energy independent.

The agricultural industry is a most critical resource that sustains our population. We all need a balanced diet of meat, fish, dairy, poultry, fruit, vegetables, grains, nuts, sugars, and fats, America can produce all of this for us and the other dependent populations of the world. Agriculture is an important American characteristic of this nation, and human existence, which should always be a noble, reliable, profitable, and safe industry.  Our utility infrastructure should be diverse and integrated into a national grid system that is safe, reliable, connected, and secure.

Employment, technological innovation, energy independence, and national security are common benefits to every American citizen. Our national security, education, economy, and energy are inextricably linked together and must foster innovation and leadership in the 21st century. America is blessed with tremendous human and natural resources that can be marshaled together for the mutual benefit of humankind.  If we encourage these principles, through a limited, but highly focused national government, America will continue to excel for at least two more centuries.  

We Have A Republic, Sir.

WARNING: Do not break the law before, during, or after reading anything I mention.



On Sunday morning we got a tasty treat on ABC's "This Week," in which Roger Ailes, Titan of Fox News, dug in on enemy ground and defended his character, his business, and conservative values. One of the many interesting statements that caught my attention, though, was Paul Krugman's statement:


KRUGMAN: Well because we have a super majority system. Because we have a system in which you cannot at this point get anything done without 60 points in the Senate. I mean, what I've been thinking about right now is at this point, the House of Representatives has passed a health care bill and has passed a strong financial reform bill. It has passed a strong climate change bill. In any other advanced democracy, that would mean that all of these things would have happened. But in the U.S. system, it takes 60 votes in the Senate to accomplish anything and because the Democrats nominated somebody in Massachusetts who didn't know her Red Sox, that entire agenda has run aground -- incredible.

Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/01/31/paul-krugman-and-arianna-huffington-v-roger-ailes/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+timeblogs/swampland+(TIME:+Swampland)#ixzz0eKvGSpcA

We have a Republic, Sir. The House of Representatives is the more democratic branch, since it is attached to the people in numerous districts. The Senate is more closely aligned with the states, and have distinct executive and legislative features, which, at times, serves as a buffer against hasty majorities in the House. The real significance of Krugman's views is that they do not appreciate our governing system. The arrogance is there for all to see and hear too, and the utter contempt for the prudent citizens of Massachusetts, as if they voted simply based on baseball. To even suggest that was a motivating factor of voters, on national television, performs a gross disservice to the journalism profession, and human reason, whatever they are these days.

The Reformation of Islam

WARNING: Do not break the law before, during, or after reading anything I mention.


The stream of foreign invaders coming to America are mainly derived from tyrannical regimes of the Near and Far East. These broken countries are ruled by despotic rulers who suppress liberty and blame their condition on America, the West, and Israel. The petty Princes and tyrants are doing just fine by accumulating more wealth and power over the population. Freedom of expression is tightly controlled, unless it is anti-American. Princes and tyrants play a double game of living off the West, while providing a virulent and warped religious instruction that perpetuates hatred and suspicion. We are now experiencing the Reformation of Islam and its consequences. Muslim's are trying to free their minds from oppressive restraints, and extricate a noble religion, which is inextricably linked to the state. When a government assumes control over education and religion, it stifles freedom. Liberty is the remedy for all the symptoms they are exhibiting. There is a struggle over who will control the minds of the population, and states have always corrupted religion and education to accomplish that end. It is unbelievable that any rational individual could place blame on America and "the West."