Our Decrepit Constituion: Protecting Vested Interests

Our Decrepit Constituion: Protecting Vested Interests

Our present constitution is an experiment. Our previous governing document, the Articles of Confederation was seen as a failure because it had severe and incurable problems. The Articles created a loosely allied group of states. There was no central authority, no president, and no way to resolve disputes between the states. The Articles led to trade and taxation disputes between the states and outbreaks of violence.

A group of citizens led by Daniel Shays took up arms against the government of Massachusetts. The federal government lacked the military power to put down the insurrection, so the state's wealthier citizens formed a private militia to do the job. The state government easily suppressed the rebellion, which had been inspired by taxation and austerity policies. Washington considered the rebellion an awful presage of things to come, but was happy that the state had been able to control it so quickly.

Shays's Rebellion had at its root the difference between the well-off and the poor. At that time, the currency was worthless and the small farmers in rural Massachusetts had nothing with which to pay taxes. They had to watch as banks foreclosed on their property. They also resented the money from taxes being transferred to wealthy financiers. Massachusetts resolved the problem by discounting its debt.

Jefferson, with his typical laissez-faire philosophy, considered Shays's Rebellion a good thing, a means to water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants. George Washington and James Madison considered the uprising a sign that a stronger central government was needed, one that had the ability to raise revenues and support a professional army. They took steps in the new Constitution to strengthen the federal government and to increase its ability to levy taxes and maintain a standing army.

The adoption of a new Constitution did not prevent armed uprisings, however. The Whiskey Rebellion was a revolt against excise taxes proposed by Alexander Hamilton, the first Treasury Secretary under President Washington. Once again poor farmers revolted against paying taxes when they had no paper money, only produce. Washington led a sizable militia force into western Pennsylvania to put down the revolt. The revolt evaporated before any military engagements occurred.

Fries's Uprising in 1799 was caused once again by taxation issues. The poor farmers of western Pennsylvania objected to the imposition of a property tax. Farmers in slave states could apply this tax to their slaves. Slaves could be sold to get cash, but property could not. While the newly strengthened federal government was able to suppress the insurrection, President John Adams drew criticism for his handling of the crisis, while Albert Gallatin, by acting as a calming force, gained prominence among the anti-federalists.

All three of these rebellions were popular uprisings against the wealthy financiers who held war-debt from the revolutionary war. Hamilton's excise taxes transferred money from the poor farmers in the west to the wealthy bankers in the east. Madison referred to these uprisings as excesses of democracy. He and his allies designed the Constitution to assure that the faction of the majority (I.e., the poor) could not dominate the faction of the minority (I.e., the wealthy).

The Constitution protects the wealthy minority from the poor majority by a system of checks and balances. The Framers explained these features as intended to prevent tyranny or anarchy. John Adams gives the Long Parliament as an example of a single-house legislature that led to tyranny. While John Adams was a well-read, well-traveled man, his conclusions do not take into account changing times and circumstances. The Long Parliament may have led to tyranny, but it started out as a reaction to tyranny of the British king. It failed to hold regular elections, which Thomas Paine suggests as a counterweight to tyranny. Adams discounts this argument entirely. Yet we know today that there are many single-house legislatures that have not devolved into tyranny or anarchy, the British House of Commons foremost among them. Whatever arguments may have been accepted at the time of the framing have now been refuted by subsequent events.

The British Parliament found a way to neutralize its obstructive House of Lords because it has no written constitution and hence has more freedom to change its customs to respond to changing circumstances. The American Constitution has no such ability. In evolutionary terms, the American Constitution has proven itself unable to evolve and has set itself on the path to extinction.

Our Decrepit Constitution: Electoral College and The Civil War

Electoral College

Americans credit the men who wrote the Constitution—the framers--with great wisdom and foresight. Supreme Court Justices have started a cult that worships the Constitution as a perfect document. They pore over its text and the opinions of its creators as though they were religious texts and revelations of the true word. Some also claim that the framers were inspired by God, usually by a Christian fundamentalist God.

None of these beliefs is true. The framers were neither godlike nor exceptionally wise. The document is not based on religious ideas. The Constitution is deeply flawed and becomes more so with each passing year. The framers made it hard to change. Amendments require passage by both houses of congress with a two thirds majority, then ratification by three fourths of the state legislatures. Most amendments also specify that they must be ratified within seven years.

The framers have recently been considered by some the infallible source for American law. This assumption implies that they were always right, at least about law and government. This assumption was very far from the truth.

The framers invented the electoral college, ostensibly to prevent the voters from making a mistake when electing a president. Instead, it was the electoral college that made the mistake, in 1800, when it gave the same number of electoral votes to both Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. The House of Representatives elected the president that year. The Constitution created a crisis where none existed.

The framers decided that each state should have only two senators. This compromise gave more power to the less populous states at the expense of the states with larger populations. In 1787 the most populous state, Virginia, had 20 times the population of the smallest, Delaware. In 2010, the most populous state, California, had 65 times the population of the smallest, Wyoming.

History tells us that states vote in regional blocs, with relative size having little to do with their decisions. Neighboring states New York (a large state) and Rhode Island (a small state), for example, voted for the same presidential candidate in the last seven elections. Neighboring states Louisiana(small) and Texas(large) voted for the same presidential candidate in the last seven elections as well. Louisiana and Rhode Island, both small states, voted for different candidates in all seven elections.

Since small states no longer vote in a bloc, if they ever did, the election of two senators from each state, regardless of population, does not serve the purpose intended by the framers. Instead of balancing the interests of different sized states, California's two senators represent a disenfranchisement of 36 million voters in relationship with Wyoming. The framers may have been right in 1787, but their judgment on this matter, at least reflected by presidential choices, is wrong today.

The framers made no provision for political parties in their Constitution. This oversight has become a serious problem in recent years. The British Parliamentary System recognizes that there will always be more than one party. The leader of the majorityThis arrangement gives the leader of parliament, the prime minister, the ability to govern if he can unite his own party behind his platform, a relatively easy proposition, given that all members of his party stood for election on the same platform.

The American system divides government between political parties. This division makes legislation more difficult to pass and slows down the process of government. James Madison argued that representative democracy rather than direct democracy because he claimed that direct democracy gave rise to factions. Madison defined a faction as a group of citizens united in some passion or common interest against the interest of others. He singled out the factions that arise from inequality of wealth and argued that a representative democracy would protect the minority from the majority.

Madison believed the best way to guard against factions was to create a representative democracy. Direct democracies, he claimed, always failed within a short time. The difficulty that arises here, which is a major difficulty with all opinions expressed by the framers, is that these conclusions are drawn on examples with almost no data. The number of direct democracies documented by history in Madison's day was precisely one, the direct democracy of Athens during the fifth century BCE. Any argument based on such limited data must be questioned.

It is pointless to argue whether Madison's theories on factions or democracy were correct. Like the philosophers he admired, Madison argued using only pure examples to illustrate his ideas. Madison argued that representative democracy had advantages over direct democracy but failed to recognize that no pure direct democracy has ever existed nor ever could exist. The representative democracy created by the Constitution has over the years become more democratic, through the direct election of Senators in the federal government and the addition of democratic ideas such as initiative and referendum in the individual states.

The Civil War

Madison considered that factions of the majority were dangerous to a nation, not those of the minority. He had in mind the faction of the poor, which is always greater than the faction of the rich. Madison's Constitution intended to guard against majority factions and guard minorities. This presumption, that only majority factions are dangerous, has been disproved by history. Several crises in American history have arisen because of minority factions, primarily because the wealthy have been successful in seizing and holding the reins of power in precisely the manner which the framers sought to prevent. The rise of a tyrant, which Justice Scalia claims that the Constitution has prevented, has never been a problem in America. What has been a great problem, and remains a problem today, is the accumulation of vast riches by a small class of people, who use their wealth to seize and retain power.

Scholars often speak of a Constitutional crisis as being a political problem that cannot be resolved easily by the Constitution. Examples of such crises were the election of 1800, when Jefferson was elected president by the House of Representatives; the election of 1876, when Benjamin Harrison became president with fewer popular votes; and the Watergate scandal that ended the presidency of Richard Nixon.

The most serious crises in American history did not arise from a failure of the framers to foresee an event. Instead, they were caused by the framers' express intent. Despite Madison's concerns, there have been no factions of the majority. Instead, three crises in American history have been caused by factions of the minority, who were not poor but wealthy. The Civil War, the Great Depression, and the Great Recession were caused by flaws in the Constitution.

The framers needed to gain the support of slave holders. They inserted several pro-slavery features into the Constitution. Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution defined a slave as worth three fifths of a person. This article strips African Americans of their rights as humans. African Americans not only submit to the lash, they must also give their votes to their masters, who were free to vote, again and again, to keep them in perpetual servitude. This article continued in force for seventy-six years. It contributed to the widespread belief that African Americans were racially inferior and reinforced the conviction in the Southern states that their actions were legal and just.

Article II, Section 1 establishes the electoral college for the election of the president. The slave-holders were concerned that their slaves, once freed, would take control of state government from them. They saw the electoral college as a means to permit a small group of voters to thwart the will of the majority. This worked in actuality. Only 1.3% of the population cast their votes in the first presidential election. Virginia had the most electors, thanks to its large number of slaves. The first president was George Washington, a prominent Virginian and a slave-holder. The second president was John Adams, from Massachusetts. Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe were all Virginians and slave holders. Andrew Jackson, from Tennessee, was also a slave-holder from a slave state.

These early slave-holders held the presidency until 1836. At that time, slave-holders from southern states had held the presidency for 40 of the previous 48 years. They used their tenure to promote slavery at home and abroad. They appointed southerners to the Supreme Court with lifetime tenure. These supreme court justices tried to perpetuate slavery and spread it to the northern states.

The US Supreme Court ruled, in Dred Scott decision(1857), that a slave who lived in a free state was still a slave. All six southern justices voted with the majority. Northern opponents of slavery feared that this decision meant southern slave-holding states could export slaves to the north. The decision heightened tensions that led to the Civil War breaking out in 1861. Although the Supreme Court did not cause the Civil War, Dred Scott showed how much influence the southern states had gained through the electoral college and the pro-slavery compromise within it.

Our Decrepit Constitution: 3. The Silver Bullet

Our Decrepit Constitution: 3. The Silver Bullet

On December 12, 2000, the US Supreme Court decided that George W. Bush would be president of the United States. The Court acknowledged that the Constitution left the election of the president to the people, but decided nevertheless to intervene, something it had never done before.

The Constitution furnishes almost no guidelines for the election of the president, one of the most important political undertakings of the government. The framers intended for the president to be chosen indirectly, by electors elected by the people, not by the people themselves. The framers intended for the electors to meet after the popular vote was taken. Only then would the electors decided the actual winner of the election.

As usual, however, the framers omitted the process to be followed in case of dispute. In particular, they did not specify that the Supreme Court, an unelected body of judges who held lifetime appointments, should not determine the outcomes of elections. In 2000 this led to the election of a president by five such judges after 200 million citizens had cast their votes in the general election. Furthermore, all five of these judges had affiliations to the Republican party, whose candidate they chose as the winner. These judges showed no reluctance to support their party's candidate, despite the express intent of the framers to lift the Supreme Court justices above the fray of electoral politics by giving them lifetime tenure.

Over the years, the citizens of the US became concerned about the influence of corporations and large political contributions. The Congress, responding to the will of the people, passed laws that regulated contributions from corporations. In Citizens United v FEC, the Supreme Court ruled that the concerns of the people were groundless. The Court ruled that corporations were nothing more than associations of individuals and as such were entitled to the same rights as individuals under the First Amendment.

This ruling supported the Court's belief that the rich had more rights to express their opinions, since it is obvious to everyone that the rich can buy more speech than the poor. The Court delared that there cannot be too much speech. Through this ruling, the court overruled the people of the United States, whose common sense tells them that corporations spending vast amounts of money wield inordinate influence over politicians and their decisions.

In Citizens United, the Court once again found a way to support the Republican party. They voted five to four along party lines to permit unlimited corporate contributions. Many groups have been proposed that an amendment to the constitution would resolve this issue. The impartiality of the supreme court is fundamental to the design of the Constitution. The framers designed the Constitution to operate by checks and balances. Without an unbiased Supreme Court, their design fails.

The Constitution conceals this flaw and many others. The framers intended the Constitution to be amendable, yet only 17 amendments have been enacted, other than the Bill of Rights, in over 200 years. There are several reasons for this failure of the original design.

1. The United States has many more states than it had originally. When there were only 13 states, the number of legislatures required to ratify an amendment was 10. Today, when ratification requires the approval of 38 state legislatures, the amendment process should be at least 3 1/2 times as difficult.
2. The population of the United States is more than 100 times what it was in 1787. Persuading a number of people of the necessity of a change increases with the number of people who must be convinced. The people do not directly vote to ratify amendments, but they do vote for the legislators who must make the decision.
3. Both the larger number of states and the larger population make the amendment process more time-consuming.
4. The increase in time and energy, and above all money, that can be spent to defeat an amendment makes it unlikely that an issue can achieve a 3/4 approval. Money can be spent liberally to confuse the issues. Confusion will make the amendment less likely to pass.
5. The vast amount of money that must be raised to ratify an amendment will make it difficult to pass a complex amendment, such as one that abolishes the Electoral College.

Numerous amendments have been proposed to overturn the Citizens United decision. The opponents of this decision correctly view it as a threat to democracy itself. All of these amendments, however, share a common flaw. These amendments seek to correct a single decision of the Supreme Court, but history has shown that the enemies of democracy will soon find another way to suppress the rights of the people. Given the impediments blocking any Constitutional Amendment and the large errors and oversights in the Constitution itself, there is only one solution. The amendment process itself, as described in Article V of the Constitution, must be changed.

The change required is simple. The Constitution must be amended by referendum and initiative, using the same process as already exists in many states. Such an amendment, known as the National Initiative, has already been proposed.

The existing initiative and referendum laws were proposed during the Progressive Era (1890 – 1930). At that time, people were concerned that big corporations were controlling state legislatures. Corporations are once again threatening our democracy. We need the National Initiative, the Silver Bullet that can rectify many of the Constitutions problems and return the government to its rightful owners, the People.

Our Decrepit Constitution: 2. The Framework

Americans credit the men who wrote the Constitution—the framers--with great wisdom and foresight. Supreme Court Justices have started a cult that worships the Constitution as a perfect document. They pore over its text and the opinions of its creators as though they were religious texts and revelations of the true word. Some also claim that the framers were inspired by God, usually by a Christian fundamentalist God.

None of these beliefs is true. The framers were neither godlike nor exceptionally wise. The document is not based on religious ideas. The Constitution is deeply flawed and becomes more so with each passing year. The framers made it hard to change. Amendments require passage by both houses of congress with a two thirds majority, then ratification by three fourths of the state legislatures. Most amendments also specify that they must be ratified within seven years.

The framers have recently been considered by some the infallible source for American law. This assumption implies that they were always right, at least about law and government. This assumption was very far from the truth.

The framers invented the electoral college, ostensibly to prevent the voters from making a mistake when electing a president. Instead, it was the electoral college that made the mistake, in 1800, when it gave the same number of electoral votes to both Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. The House of Representatives elected the president that year. The Constitution created a crisis where none existed.

The framers decided that each state should have only two senators. This compromise gave more power to the less populous states at the expense of the states with larger populations. In 1787 the most populous state, Virginia, had 20 times the population of the smallest, Delaware. In 2010, the most populous state, California, had 65 times the population of the smallest, Wyoming.

History tells us that states vote in regional blocs, with relative size having little to do with their decisions. Neighboring states New York (a large state) and Rhode Island (a small state), for example, voted for the same presidential candidate in the last seven elections. Neighboring states Louisiana(small) and Texas(large) voted for the same presidential candidate in the last seven elections as well. Louisiana and Rhode Island, both small states, voted for different candidates in all seven elections.

Since small states no longer vote in a bloc--if they ever did--the election of two senators from each state, regardless of population, does not serve the purpose intended by the framers. Instead of balancing the interests of different sized states, California's two senators represent a disenfranchisement of 36 million voters in relationship with Wyoming. The framers may have been right in 1787, but their judgment on this matter, at least reflected by presidential choices, is wrong today.

The framers made no provision for political parties in their Constitution. This oversight has become a serious problem in recent years. The British Parliamentary System recognizes that there will always be more than one party. The leader of the majorityThis arrangement gives the leader of parliament, the prime minister, the ability to govern if he can unite his own party behind his platform, a relatively easy proposition, given that all members of his party stood for election on the same platform.

The American system divides government between political parties. This division makes legislation more difficult to pass and slows down the process of government. James Madison argued that representative democracy rather than direct democracy because he claimed that direct democracy gave rise to factions. Madison defined a faction as a group of citizens united in some passion or common interest against the interest of others. He singled out the factions that arise from inequality of wealth and argued that a representative democracy would protect the minority from the majority.

Madison believed the best way to guard against factions was to create a representative democracy. Direct democracies, he claimed, always failed within a short time. The difficulty that arises here, which is a major difficulty with all opinions expressed by the framers, is that these conclusions are drawn on examples with almost no data. The number of direct democracies documented by history in Madison's day was precisely one, the direct democracy of Athens during the fifth century BCE. Any argument based on such limited data must be questioned.

Our Decrepit Constitution: 1. Bill of Rights

The framers of the U.S. Constitution cobbled together a document that described a possible government for the thirteen original colonies. All of the framers who signed the constitution understood that it is not a perfect document. It is a compromise. The Senate is composed of two delegates from each state as a compromise to appease the smaller states. This principle, adopted by the California State Constitution for its State Senate, was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), when Earl Warren wrote that legislatures represent people, not trees or acres. The U.S. Constitution, 48 years later, still supports the notion that U. S. Senators represent trees, not people.

The Constitution limited eligible voters to white male property owners. The property owners could also cast votes on behalf of their slaves, each of which was set equal to 3 fifths of a white man. Seventy-six years later, the Fourteenth Amendment gave to African-Americans the right to vote. Fifty-five years after that, the Nineteenth Amendment extended the franchise to women. Yet modern textualist jurists insist that we should interpret the words of the Constitution exactly as the framers meant them. This is nonsense. The framers were parochial thinkers in a backward country, still threatened by larger neighbors and Native American tribes. They were hardly the repositories of all wisdom that modern conservatives imagine them to be, nor did they believe that of themselves. Their experience did not include much of what today informs our thinking about human rights, science, and philosophy.

Some of the framers might be included in the group of thinkers who epitomize world wisdom on the subjects of politics and government, but not all. Madison, Hamilton, and Jay authored the Federalist Papers. Other signers of the Constitution are less well known as thinkers. Later thinkers would also be included in the prestigious group, like Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Susan B. Anthony, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Martin Luther King, to name only a few Americans. The international list would be much longer and would include a number of non-Americans who influenced the framers, including Locke and Montesquieu.

Americans in general, not just conservatives, believe that the Constitution is a semi-divine document. It gives us foolproof rules for governance. It protects our rights. We believe this despite the numerous constitutional crises that have occurred over the years.

Constitutional Crises

The first constitutional crisis involved the manner prescribed by the Constitution for the election of the president. This crisis occurred in 1800, when opponents of Thomas Jefferson tried to have Aaron Burr declared president. Burr was the vice presidential candidate, but the Constitution failed to recognize that the Vice President and the President would usually have the same number of electoral votes and that this fact could be exploited by politicians. The election of 1800, only the third presidential election held under rules established by the Constitution, was decided by the House of Representatives instead of the electors.

The nation has a severe problem. The Republicans have kept their promise never to raise taxes, but they lowered taxes and made vast appropriations for two wars without raising the funds to pay for them. No one likes high taxes, but the government needs money to pay for the programs that voters have approved and that business and the poor may rely on. The Constitution, which makes it impossible to pass laws without compromise, compounds the problem. The Republicans will not compromise on their political positions. They have made a constitutional crisis into a government crisis for which no one has found an answer.

Despite evidence to the contrary, many people, including members of the courts, consider that the Constitution is perfect or nearly so. All we need to do is tweak it from time to time. But the document itself forbids change. The Constitution is 224 years old this year. It is a creaking vessel taking in water at every joint. It was designed to slow the pace of change. Recently it has succeeded so well that it seems to be turning time backward to a time when only property owners had rights, minorities were enslaved, women had no vote, and only one culture was accepted and protected by the government.

The Supreme Court determined the outcome of the presidential election of 2000. The election in Florida was indecisive. Both sides claimed victory. A series of actions by the Florida state legislature and courts were appealed to the Supreme Court, which made its decision along strict party lines. Nothing in the Constitution gives the authority to decide elections to the Supreme Court, but nothing in the document prevents them from doing so.

Our leaders and thinkers spend a great deal of time thinking about how to make the Constitution work, just as medieval thinkers exhausted their energies trying to imagine God and his plan. The thinkers who followed medieval times created a government ruled by a document, just as the Church was ruled by the Bible. The study of the Constitution has become as sterile and fruitless as the theological studies of the Middle Ages. We need to stop wasting time fantasizing about what the framers intended and start thinking about how to put our country back on track.

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The first amendment was intended to guarantee the rights of individuals to speak out against the abuses of government. From the very beginning, these rights were challenged by the government, which passed the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798. The Supreme Court never invalidated the Alien and Sedition Acts, although the Acts specifically banned freedom to criticize the government. The government used the Acts to imprison a Congressman, John Lyon, for writing a letter critical of President Adams and other similar acts. The Constitution did not protect Lyon's rights.

More recently, the supreme court has ruled that people with large sums of money have a right to drown out the voices of the majority. A small group of plutocrats spent hundreds of millions of dollars in 2012 to elect candidates to office. They did not succeed in getting the presidency, but they did succeed in many other races and they retained control of the House of Representatives. The framers envisioned a representative democracy. The Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment as giving inordinate power to a small group of wealthy people. The government has almost ceased to be a democratic republic and is close to becoming a plutocracy.

The plutocrats have taken advantage of the Supreme Court's ruling by financing propaganda. They use vast fortunes to buy advertisements on television, radio, and in print. They buy their own newspapers, radio stations, and television networks. The newspapers and networks created numerous scandals that were damaging to their political opponents.

The First Amendment protects people's right to tell lies, but it does nothing to protect people from the damage done by lying, legally called defamation. The laws against defamation in the U.S. are too weak to prevent elections being altered by lies. In 2004, a group of wealthy Republicans spent millions of dollars to convince the public that John Kerry had lied about his war record. The Kerry campaign had no way to stop the lies being broadcast continuously for weeks. The First Amendment protected the defamers and engineered Kerry's defeat.

Rupert Murdoch has subverted the press by buying Fox News Channel and turning it into a non-stop propaganda networkfor the Republican party. The wealthy publishers, Disney and Warner and their peers, still have this freedom. The rest of us do not. The copyright law makes an exception for fair use, meaning that you or I can use copyrighted material without paying for it under circumstances. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) took the right of fair use away from anyone posting to social network sites on the internet. The DMCA determines that a copyright holder can demand that a publisher, such as Facebook or YouTube, must immediately remove any material from its website or face severe fines. This removes the concept of fair use from copyright law, since Facebook or YouTube will not protect your fair use right and risk large fines. The Congress has taken away your right to due process, since the material must be removed immediately. You can appeal, and may win, but lawyers cost money and trials take time. If fair use must be won it court it is not safe to publish anything that may be contested.

It may appear contradictory that laws against defamation are too weak to prevent intentional lying but copyright laws are not strong enough to protect the right to fair use of copyrighted materials. The parties favored by the two laws have a great deal in common, however. They have plenty of money to defend themselves from charges of defamation or to attack people they accuse of violating copyrights.

The First Amendment forbids the congress making any law respecting the establishment of any religion. Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. This law, by defining marriage exclusively as a right of heterosexuals, adopted the religious views of part of the population and incorporated those views into federal law. The First Amendment did not prevent this from happening and could not help people who suffered from its effects. In 2012 the Supreme Court appears ready to annul the law, only sixteen years after its passage. The constitutional system appears to work, but only after time and money have been expended to fight this law. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Second Amendment

Its supporters, including members of the supreme court, ardently believe that the second amendment guarantees every U.S. Citizen the right to own a gun. The actual wording of the amendment does not appear to support this belief:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The form of this amendment is a logical inference, meaning that if and only if the first part of the sentence is true, then the second part will also be true. Therefore, if a well regulated militia is not necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms may be infringed by federal law. In some cases, where firearms cause danger to the people, then arms must be regulated to protect the public safety.

Justices of the Supreme Court who wish to return the country to the supposed golden age of the 18th century have ceased to analyze the actual meaning of the Constitution. They instead have developed complicated systems to infer that the framers, or at least the society of the late eighteenth century, believed that the right to bear arms should exist independent of any militia. This is hardly plausible, since the framers showed themselves to be fearful of the masses in numerous aspects of the Constitution.

The Second Amendment is obsolete. It guarantees citizens the right to bear arms because a well-regulated militia is essential to the security of a free state. This amendment passed before the U.S. had a standing army. Many of the framers, including Thomas Jefferson, opposed a standing army or navy. They intended to defend the country from England or France, then world superpowers, with a volunteer army whose soldiers kept their own guns.

During the Civil War militias were called out by the governors of the southern states to serve as the nucleus for an army of rebellion. In response to this abuse by the states, the Militia Act of 1903 established the National Guard under the dual control of the states and the federal government. The Militia Act gave the President the authority to place the state militia under the authority of the Army, thus effectively preventing their use for purposes of insurrection. Yet second amendment supporters continue to threaten rebellion.

The Second Amendment continues in force long after it has outlived its original purpose. Today it causes more harm than good by providing a legal excuse for the sale of deadly weapons to civilians. Twelve thousand people die from gunshot wounds in the U.S. every year. The Second Amendment, intended to protect the United States against invading armies, now contributes to needless slaughter of our citizens.

The politicized Supreme Court ruled in 2008 (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570) that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual's right to own a firearm, regardless of his membership in a militia. In this ruling, the majority of the Court continued its identification with the Republican Party by ignoring the legislative history of militias after 1789. Their ruling would have been correct in 1789, in a frontier country where everyone was required to bring a musket with them when they were called up.

A musket is a single-shot weapon that takes up to a minute to reload. The bullet must be inserted into the barrel of the musket, then tamped into place with a steel rod. A person must practice long hours to reload quickly and aim the gun properly. He will find great difficulty hitting a moving target, especially one that tries to get away. Most minutemen were not great marksmen, nor were they capable of coordinating their shot

It is not 1789 any longer. Our hand-held weapons can fire 50 or 100 shots in minutes without reloading. Gun sales advocates frequently argue that murderers will find other weapons if guns are not available. These advocates cite the genocide in Rwanda where 500,000 people were killed with machetes. The massacres there occurred over 100 days and involved up to 500,000 attackers. By contrast, a single individual with an automatic rifle killed 20 children, along with the 6 adults that tried to protect them, in less than an hour. Had the shooter been armed with a knife, it is likely that no children would have died, as there were adults on site who tried to disarm the shooter.

President Obama has recently announced several initiatives on gun control. He announced, as do all other politicians making public statements in support of gun control, that he is a firm supporter of the second amendment. Gun control laws protect the American people from the dire consequences of the second amendment. Its repeal would save thousands of lives annually.

Fourth Amendment The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Patriot Act was the first law that subverted the terms of the fourth amendment. Section 215 of the Act made it possible for investigators to demand that a suspect turn over tangible things so long as these things are needed for an authorized investigation. The investigators no longer need to show probable cause, or even reasonable grounds, that the person under investigation is engaged in criminal activity.

In 2002 President Bush signed an executive order authorizing the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct warrantless wiretapping of thousands of American citizens without a court order. At about the same time, the NSA began working on a top-secret project called Stellar Wind, that would collect millions of documents, phone calls, and digital transactions and store them in a massive facility in Bluffdale, Utah. These digital records were collected from law-abiding American citizens without warrants.

The Fourth Amendment did not stop the President from authorizing warrantless searches, nor did it stop the Congress from passing legislation that apparently violates the constitutional provision against unlawful search.

Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The framers put their faith in independent, reasonable jurors. A grand jury today seldom decides cases against the advice of the prosecutor who convened the jury. The prop of an independent grand jury has been removed, although the independence of jurors may always have been illusory.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has held that the Constitution does not prevent the execution of a defendant who has been convicted by a full and fair trial and later convinces a habeas court that he is innocent. This is true. The Fifth Amendment states that a person may not be deprived of life without due process of law. It does not prevent a state from manufacturing evidence against a defendant. The Supreme Court, following Scalia, considers only the careful observance of procedure, not flaws in the process itself, or the prejudice of the people. Troy Davis, whose case Scalia was commenting on, was executed by the state of Georgia despite efforts of numerous individuals and organizations to secure a review on the basis on recanted testimony..

The framers erroneously assumed that state governments would take care not to convict innocent persons. Instead, according to the NAACP and Amnesty International, states have shown a propensity to convict African-Americans for crimes regardless of their guilt or innocence. Since 1973 over 140 persons have been released from death row where they had been confined as a result of due process. The defendants were not protected by the Fifth Amendement, but because of a post-trial actions, such as the discovery of DNA evidence.

An unjustly convicted person should not expect a reprieve from the Supreme Court, where Scalia refused to consider Davis's case, calling it a fool's errand and a sure loser.

Due process starts with the presumption of innocence. Without that presumption, the accused is presumed guilty until he clears himself. The reasonable doubt is then given to the prosecution. Without that coin to throw onto the scales of justice, a defendant has little chance to escape punishment.

The Fifth amendment explicitly prevents the state from forcing a defendant to testify against himself. This clause was intended to prevent the use of torture in criminal trials, where it was still used in the eighteenth century. The Bush Administration, wishing to use torture against captured terrorists, simply disregarded the Fifth Amendment. John Woo, a lawyer appointed by the president, wrote an opinion that justified the use of torture. His opinion was used by the CIA to justify their treatment of enemy combatants.

Eighth Amendment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The Eighth Amendment bans cruel and unusual punishment. The state of Alabama impressed prisoners into chain gangs and forced them to toil in the hot sun without concern for their health or safety. Chain gang members who became angry at their treatment vented their anger on the men who were chained next to them and could not escape their attacks. Prison wardens rounded up African Americans on fictitious charges to supply their customers, who profited from this form of slave labor. The institution of the chain gang was outlawed by the U.S. Supreme Court as cruel and unusual in 1910. Despite this ruling, Alabama and Arizona once again began using chain gangs in the 1990s until the Supreme Court outlawed the practice again in 1996.

As a form of discipline, Alabama prison authorities chained prisoners to a high railing and forced them to stand for hours, a practice decried as torture by the United Nations. The Federal Court indicated (Gates v. Collier 501 F.2d 1291 (1974)) that this practice in Mississippi constituted cruel and unusual punishment as early as 1974. The prison system of the state of Alabama was still using this form of punishment in 1995. The Supreme Court definitively declared this practice unconstitutional in 2002 (Hope v. Pelzer 536 U.S. 730 (2002)). This indicates the prisons in Alabama continued inflicting cruel and unusual punishments on inmates for at least 21 years after the courts ruled such practices unconstitutional.

Justice Thomas (Hudson v. McMillian (1992)) argued that such treatment did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment because it was not part of a judgment. Thomas apparently believes that the treatment of prisoners, once they are sentenced and incarcerated, is of no concern to the Supreme Court. This opinion comports with the views of eighteenth century politicians, who did not intend the eighth amendment to apply to prisoners; it has no place in the present day, more than 50 years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (1948) declared that no one shall be subjected to cruel or inhuman punishment.

In 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder ordered independent prosecutor John Durham to investigate whether the CIA had used any unauthorized.interrogation tactics in the years following 9/11. Durham discovered that the CIA had destroyed 92 video recordings of interrogations, but Holder concluded that most of the subjects had never been in CIA custody. Holder thereupon closed the remaining two investigations in 2012. If these were not interrogations by the CIA, then they may have been interrogations conducted by extraordinary renditions.

Holder's opinion, hence the Obama administration's opinion, is thus that whatever happens to a prisoner of war once he is handed over to a third party cannot be blamed on the American CIA officer who handed him into hostile hands.This reluctance to prosecute Americans under the terms of the Geneva Conventions may explain why the Obama administration has not sought indictments against the politicians who planned and executed the Iraq War. The laws of the United States do not apply to non-citizens; the Eighth Amendment is not broad enough to provide protection to foreign prisoners of war. The Geneva Conventions apply equally to all nationalities, but these rules are not recognized as law in American courts, partly because of reservations made by the Americans when the accords were adopted, and partly because American courts do not recognize international law as binding.

The Constitution is Dead

Our statutes don’t morph. They don’t change meaning from age to age to comport with whatever the zeitgeist thinks appropriate. When you read Chaucer, you try to figure out what the words meant when they were put down on paper. It’s the same thing with the law. --Justice Antonin Scalia

Scalia is correct when he says the Constitution is dead. Abraham Lincoln, who loved the Constitution well, declared in his inaugural address that

no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions.

But the Supreme Court under the leadership of Justice Scalia is currently engaged in a project to change all our laws to comport with what the framers of our Constitution believed. When he is asked whether a new law is constitutional, Scalia goes directly to the text of the document. If he finds that the Constitution agrees with this new law, he approves the law. If he finds otherwise, he declares the law unconstitutional and throws it out.

Scalia is an expert interpreter of laws, but he is no literary critic. Otherwise, he would understand that every critic reads Chaucer differently. There is no absolute meaning in a work of literature. Each generation finds something different in Chaucer or Shakespeare. The new discoveries make these works of literature relevant again.

When Scalia argues that the Constitution is dead, he is arguing that we need a new document to take its place, or at least one that is completely altered. The Constitution is a fossilized relic of a bygone age. We should study it for its ideas, but we should not try to preserve them intact.

We should reform the Constitution so that it is easier to change. The framework that Justice Scalia praises so highly has broken down utterly. The Congress is so feeble that it can hardly pass a bill. The President is so powerful that he can violated the Bill of Rights with impunity, merely by declaring a war on some tiny group of people in a far corner of the globe.

The people have passed laws to repair flaws in the Constitution. Justice Scalia and his brethren strike them down. Their decision in Citizens United tells the people that they cannot decide what kind of government they want, but must accept the kind of government described by the framers. All power in the state arises from the people. If the Constitution prevents the people from making decisions based on new information, then it is the Constitution that must yield, not the people.

Nothing lasts forever. Everything eventually outlives its usefulness. The time has come to retire the Constitution and seek a replacement more suited to today.

A Tale of Two Spies

The Shafeek Nader Trust honored two whistleblowers at a ceremony on November 12. The ceremony was chaired by Laura Nader while her brother Ralph watched silently from the edge of the audience. They chose to honor William Binney, formerly of the National Security Administration (NSA) and John Kiriakou, formerly with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Both of these men were portrayed as whistle-blowers who became targets of Obama's justice department.

The Trust used this awards ceremony as a stage to press for the impeachment of President Obama. They invited an ultra-conservative lawyer, Bruce Fein, to make their case. Fein has called for the impeachment of the last three presidents and made his reputation by participating in the impeachment of Richard Nixon. 

Conservatives have abused every part of the Constitution to keep themselves in power. Impeachment should be a last resort, as in the case of Nixon. In the case of Clinton, impeachment was a means to prevent the duly elected president from fulfilling his promises. Conservatives are now trying to destroy Obama's second term. No one who believes in democracy should support this movement.

The Trust chose to honor William Binney and John Kiriakou at one ceremony. One of them is a whistleblower; the other is a self-promoter. Both worked for intelligence agencies, Binney for the NSA and Kiriakou for the CIA. There the similarities end.

Binney worked as a codebreaker for the army and then the NSA for 40 years. He kept on doing the job because, as he says, it was fun. Binney is a tall, nerdy man with a pleasant voice and a wry sense of humor. He addressed the audience too briefly to display his humor fully. He was honored, among other things, for the 2007 New York Times video in which he described “Stellar Wind”, a top secret computer program of the National Security NSA. The NSA has been using this program to collect information on all Americans and then storing this information in a huge repository in Bluffdale, Utah. Binney, who clearly is knowledgeable on this subject, calculates that the Utah facility has the capacity to store 100 years of the entire world's electronic communication.

Binney worked for years as a code breaker and electronic espionage expert at the NSA. In 2001, the NSA proposed a new project that would cost billions of dollars. Binney coded a much more modest program that could be implemented for a fraction of the price. Binney called this program ThinThread and used it to sift through the electronic records coming in from overseas. Soon he noticed that his contractors were drifting away and computers were being requisitioned for another project. This project was Stellar Wind. His contractors told Binney they were eavesdropping on the communications of American citizens. Binney decided this was wrong so he informed the Congressional oversight committees. Since then, he has been testifying regularly.

In 2007, Binney agreed to appear in a 7-minute video for the New York Times. In the video, he spoke freely about Stellar Wind. He related an amusing incident when his home was raided by the FBI. He was in the shower and an FBI agent interrupted him while pointing a gun at his head. The FBI wanted to know if he had knowledge of any crimes. He said he did, and sat down with them (after first getting dressed) to explain the crime committed by Bush, Cheney, General Haynes (head of NSA) when they started using Stellar Wind to spy on the American people.

“I presented them with a problem,” he said. “Because these FBI agents did not have security clearance.” The problem for the government was that Binney did give up top secret information, but he did so at the point of a gun. Binney knew that the senior officer on the raid did have clearance, but could say nothing to the others. Binney reminded that officer that the Nuremberg defense would not work, that the officer could not claim that he was just following orders. To this date, Binney has not been charged with any crime. He believes the NSA needs better oversight: procedures that regulate collection of electronic data or selection of drone assassination targets need to be publicized, not executed in secret. The congress needs to act to define and limit the powers of the president in these areas.

Binney is the prototype of a whistleblower. He resigned his position with the NSA and began testifying before every committee of congress that invited him. He has told everyone who listens that he believes the actions of the NSA are unconstitutional and illegal. The second honoree at the evening's ceremony did not act from similar honorable motives.

John Kiriakou, formerly of the CIA. Kiriakou worked for the CIA for 14 years, beginning in 1990. The CIA had been directing various covert wars in Central America and the Caribbean at that time. Its proxies were widely believed to be involved in illegal activities, including dealing drugs, killing prisoners, and torture. None of these activities deterred Kiriakou from joining the CIA.

After 9/11, Kiriakou and the CIA became involved in covert activities in Afghanistan. Kiriakou says that he had the opportunity to learn how to torture prisoners using waterboarding but that he refused to take the course. Again, he was not bothered by the CIA's sanction of illegal activities. Kiriakou evidently read top secret agency reports, since he later reported that Abu Zubaida was waterboarded.

Kiriakou quit the CIA in 2004. He did not appear to have moral or legal issues with the agency. His motive was, evidently, to further his career. He immediately went to work in a series of private industry jobs related to his expertise in gathering intelligence.

Kiriakou gave an interview to ABC News in 2007 in which he claimed that waterboarding was effective in extracting data from Abu Zubaydah. After his ABC interview revealed Kiriakou as a whistle-blower, the former CIA agent gave interviews for other media organizations repeating his position that waterboarding was effective and necessary.

In 2009 the Obama administration ordered four secret memos released to the press. These memos disclosed to the first time that Abu Zubaydah had been waterboarded not once but 83 times, and that he stopped giving valuable information after his captors started mistreating him. In his 2009 book, Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the CIA's War on Terror, Kiriakou admitted that he had not been present at Abu Zubaydah's interrogation but instead relied had on internal CIA cables for his information.

In 2012 the Justice Department brought charges against Kiriakou for four violations of US official secrecy law, primarily based on email communications with the co-author of his book. The Attorney General had failed in its attempt to prosecute

In a question and answer period after his statement for the award ceremony, Kiriakou was asked why he was being prosecuted at this time. He avoided answering the question, but the answer is obvious from the charges against him. Three of the charges relate to revealing the name of a covert operative. In 2008, Kiriakou revealed to two journalists the name and telephone number of a covert CIA officer who had directed the waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah. The evidence for this was an email correspondence between Kiriakou and the journalists. Kiriakou's defense was that the journalist already knew the covert officer's name from another source. The evidence in the emails included in the court record did not support this.

The fourth charge against Kiriakou was that he lied to the Publications Review Board about the book he published in 2009. In the book, Kiriakou gave detailed descriptions of waterboarding, which at the time was a classified procedure. He told the Review Board, however, that this was a fictionalized account. He confided to his co-author in emails that the board would not probably not bother to check his story and that maybe they could get some classified material into the book. Kiriakou walked into a trap there. The most common charge used by the government against defendants is lying to a federal agent, a felony. The lying generally occurs during an investigatory interview, so defendants frequently avoid such interviews. Kiriakou could not avoid the interview because he had written a book. He should have taken care to tell the truth at the interview, but instead chose to deceive the FBI about the contents of his book. His hubris betrayed him.

The true whistle-blower acts selflessly. His moral sense is offended by the actions of his organization. He code of honor leaves him choice but to reveal company or government secrets to the public. William Binney expressed this by saying that he knew that spying on American citizens was wrong and he could take no part in it. But he never exposed individual operatives to danger, nor did he give details of his project away that would have permitted enemies to counteract them or use his inventions against the United States. His actions did not break any laws and he has never been charged with a crime.

Kiriakou, by contrast, did not take a personal risk by telling what he knew about waterboarding in the CIA. At the time he spoke, Kiriakou had already been out of the CIA for five years, so he did not fear dismissal. He did not oppose waterboarding on moral grounds. He argued that waterboarding was effective and almost painless, since it only took 30 seconds to elicit a confession from the most hardened Qaida soldier. Kiriakou revealed this information at least in part because he was contemplating writing a book about his experience and he needed to raise his public profile to sell the book.

Barack Obama became president in 2009. One of his first acts as president was to release four classified documents that described waterboarding by the CIA, as well as two Justice Department documents that were written at the request of the Bush administration to provide a legal opinion that waterboarding was legal, despite historical evidence that it had always been torture and therefore banned by the Geneva protocols. When Obama released these documents, Kiriakou could no longer be prosecuted for divulging classified material.

After Kiriakou disingenuously prayed that Obama might commute his sentence, Bruce Fein gave a speech calling for the impeachment of Barack Obama. Fein was a member of the team that brought impeachment charges against Richard Nixon. After serving as an assistant Attorney General in the Reagan administration, Fein also called for the impeachment of Bill Clinton and George Bush. His charges coincided with the charges that Ralph Nader has made against Obama, that Obama has unconstitutionally waged war against Libya and killed US citizens without a trial using drones.

Bruce Fein spoke for about five minutes giving as fine a jury summation as you will ever hear. Following his speech, Laura Nader, the chairwoman, called for those in attendance to sign a petition calling for President Obama to pardon Kiriakou. This petition made no sense. Kiriakou was caught by the justice department while making a series of blunders, not because he was exposing wrongdoing by the CIA but because he was marketing himself as a security consultant. The Justice department was doing its job by protecting CIA agents from having their identities compromised. The chances that President Obama would help Kiriakou were almost nil.

Jesselyn Radack from The Government Accountability Project (GAP) sat beside Kiriakou during the awards ceremony. Radack had already written a couple of articles, one on the Daily Kos and another in Salon, in which she declared her support for Kiriakou and denounced the Obama administration. The Obama administration deserves some criticism in other cases, but its behavior in this case seems appropriate. Kiriakou was a whistle-blower who acted in his own interest. Radack would have us ignore the facts of the matter (she never mentions that he publicly approved waterboarding) and also ignore the fact that Obama acted almost immediately upon his election to ban waterboarding and released previously classified documents that showed the extent of the problem.

Radack claims that the Obama administration is waging war against reporters. Not a single reporter was arrested or charged. The government charged insiders who revealed classified material to the press. The issue of protecting classified information should be entirely separate from the issue of whistle-blowing. Binney was a whistle-blower. He testified before congressional oversight committees. When they ignored him, he spoke to the press. He never revealed the identity of any NSA and he never revealed details of the classified projects he was working on. Binney wanted the leaders in the Bush administration to take the blame for breaking the law, not the low-level programmers who carried out the orders of others.

According to the indictment, Kiriakou specifically named a low-level CIA operative to three reporters. The information he gave them was forwarded to attorneys for inmates in Guantanamo, along with pictures, which were found by the jailers at Guantanamo. Kiriakou therefore endangered the life of a CIA operative, the crime with which he was charged and the one to which he pleaded guilty.

The awards ceremony had elements of a trial. The defendant, Kiriakou, could not testify fully because he had already signed an agreement with the court not to claim innocence of the crime to which he was pleading guilty. So he said he believed in his heart that he was innocent, then refused to proceed any further because, he claimed, he might have said too much already. Kiriakou pretended that he had no idea why the government had decided to prosecute him 5 years after he had given the interview to ABC. He knew very well that he was not being prosecuted for leaking information about torture. That was not one of the charges against him. The government was charging him with crimes committed after that interview and unrelated to it.

Radack took the part of his attorney in this drama. She said the only reason he was pleading guilty was so that he could be with his children while they were growing up. If Kiriakou had said that, he would have violated his plea bargain, but the substance of the plea bargain was not revealed to the audience. Just as in a criminal trial, the quasi lawyer, Radack, withheld information that made her quasi client, Kiriakou, look bad.

Radack was not Kiriakou's lawyer during his trial. She pleaded his case in the press, always arguing in ways calculated to minimize his guilt. Kiriakou pled guilty to only one count, that he lied to the FBI in an effort to get classified material into his book. Radack argued that the classified material was not published. She concealed the actual indictment from her readers. The crime he pled guilty to was lying to a federal investigator, not making classified material public.

The groups involved in this awards ceremony, the Shafeek Nader Trust and the Government Accountability Project, as well as the individuals who assisted them in this enterprise, Jesselyn Radack and Bruce Fein, should have chosen a better subject for their efforts. Everyone who leaks information is not a whistle-blower. Kiriakou leaked some information (the habitual use of waterboarding) while maintaining falsely that waterboarding was effective. Binney and Thomas Drake are principled men who speak the truth at great personal risk. Drake has lost his job and pension. Radack also made a difficult decision to publicly expose the lies of the Bush Justice Department. True whistle-blowers deserve our support. Self-promoters do not.

Other progressives have called for Obama's impeachment. Ralph Nader has accused Obama of committing war crimes that amounted to impeachable offenses. Glenn Greenwald believes that Obama could be impeached over the invasion of Libya. These people want to destroy the progressive agenda by attacking Obama on constitutional grounds. We are at war now, a war between the one per cent and the ninety-nine percent. This is an all-out, no holds barred battle. Progressives need to decide which side they support and not play intellectual games as if they are lecturing on a college campus.

Sources (partial list)

Brian Ross interview with John Kiriakou, Oct 12 2007, ABC News, http://abcnews.go.com/images/Blotter/brianross_kiriakou_transcript2_blotter071210.pdf

Scott Shane, Waterboarding used 266 times on two suspects, New York Times,http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/world/20detain.html?_r=0,(Shane was one of the two journalists referred to in the Kiriakou indictment).

Jessylen Radack, The Truth about the Espionnage Act Prosecution of John Kiriakou, Government Accountability Project,

http://www.whistleblower.org/blog/42-2012/1894-the-truth-about-the-espionage-act-prosecution-against-whistleblower-john-kiriakou