The Death of the US Constitution

There are times when it's necessary to take a step back, look at the big picture that is the status quo, and reflect on how it compares to times past. This post will examine the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments added to the US Constitution, in comparison to current governmental observance thereof.

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 House spent a day of time worth roughly $10 million reaffirming the national motto "In God We Trust," as if doing so was an actual necessity. Wither "no law respecting an establishment of religion."

In commenting on closing down Occupy LA, Mayor Villaraigosa said, "During the park closure, a First Amendment area will remain open on the Spring Street City Hall steps," implying that observance of free speech rights can be restricted by the states at all, let alone to specific geographical areas. SOPA and PROTECT IP legislation doesn't make it likely that the federal government pays any more attention to this amendment. Wither "freedom of speech."

Following a raid on Occupy Oakland, members of the press were removed from the protest area and told that it was now a no-fly zone. Two days before, press members with proper identification were met with police intimidation. Wither "freedom... of the press."

Many of the Occupy protests have been peaceful. Among these was one that took place on the U C Davis campus, where the students involved had every right to be there. This was also a site of police brutality, where Lt. John Pike used pepper spray on sitting students. A claim that the police were surrounded was later refuted by multiple angles of video taken by students with cell phone cameras. Wither "right of the people peaceably to assemble."

While the Occupy movement has many goals, a commonly prevalent three among most of its constituents is ending corporate personhood, reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act to reestablish separation of commercial and investment banks, and prosecuting those on Wall Street responsible for the sub-prime mortgage crisis. While a more formal draft of these grievances is still pending, it seems the voices of those in the movement have fallen on mostly deaf ears. Wither "petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Second Amendment

"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."

Few violations of this amendment originated recently. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act continues to impose a federal mandate requiring background checks for firearm purchases, where requirements have become more extensive and in some cases unrelated to firearm ownership since about 2008. Most states also require that a citizen secure a permit to carry that firearm in public, whether concealed or openly.

One phrase that is often overlooked when interpreting this amendment is "to the security of a free state." Several of the authors were statists; that is, they believed that the federal government should have few abilities with the rest left to the states. They also came from a country with a corrupt government and, in the event that theirs should fall to the same fate, likely wanted to communicate to citizens for the sake of awareness that revolution would remain an available course of action.

Third Amendment

"No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

This amendment was more applicable in times early in the country's history when its antithesis was a fairly common occurrence. There really hasn't been need for it since. This is one of the few amendments that Congress hasn't violated domestically, probably because a significant portion of the military is off in other countries like Afghanistan and Libya and the rest inhabit established bases (or their own homes in the case of reserves) throughout the country. Note that the amendment is not specific as to whether the quartering is domestic or foreign, yet this has happened and is happening in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.

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 US PATRIOT Act relaxed many warrant and surveillance (e.g. wiretapping) requirements, widely expanding the capabilities of organizations like the FBI to search and seize private property.

Occupy protesters have had their private property seized or destroyed by law officers.

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."

Sixth Amendment

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."

Seventh Amendment

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

Eighth Amendment

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

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 seeks to require Congress only to place the label of "terrorist" on an individual, American citizen or no, in order to remove their rights to due process, a trial, or any representation at all. Military force could be employed without probable cause or formal charge and the individual could be detained indefinitely, which could be interpreted as cruel and unusual.

Ninth Amendment

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Tenth Amendment

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Organizations like the FBI continue to conduct raids in states like California, which have legalized marijuana for medical use, claiming that federal marijuana laws are being violated when the right to control drug usage is not delegated in the Constitution and should be reserved for the states.

Conclusion

The federal government has evolved to a state where they observe the Constitution when it suits them, treating it more as a guide than giving it the respect it deserves for the level of law that it is. The Constitution as we know it is dying, particularly with the recent consideration of this year's National Defense Authorization Act. The founding fathers were right to restrict the powers of the federal government when they originally drafted the Constitution: look where allowing it to take on other powers has gotten us.

Accountability, or Lack Thereof

The many dimensions of U.S. society have reinforced a lack of accountability on all levels. The federal government has degenerated to an elementary school playground of finger-pointing, name-calling, and laziness leading to a lack of sufficient progress.

The divided government situation of the present administration has been a significant contributor to this, but such a situation has always been possible within our governmental framework. This was probably an intention of the country's forefathers, to the end that societal change would be discussed and debated across party lines and effected slowly and gradually. Yet members of Congress can't even be bothered to read legislation they pass.

And, of course, let's not forget Wall Street. Bankers invested in risky mortgages and would have lost everything had we, the taxpayers, not bailed them out. All it's served to do is increase the national debt at the expense of those taxpayers while the bankers collect corporate bonuses. Thankfully, enough wealth is held by the non-upper classes that they can still prevent change that is not in their favor.

And speaking of the 99%, they must be accountable as well. They elected the representatives who approved the bailout and each of the previous administrations that have led the country to this point. They've been asleep at the political wheel for years, enabling those who would make unnecessary war at the expense of the society they governed and serve the interests of corporations over those of the public.

A large part of the problem is that politicians can make all manner of promises during their campaigns, but once they're elected, they have little incentive to keep those promises. President Obama himself has broken a number of campaign promises that might have contributed to a less bleak status quo. Canada might have a good idea in this respect: they can issue a vote of no confidence to depose their executive power. Imagine if such a power were available to the states to recall any of their representatives. Congress would no longer be a nursing home for pampering aged politicians.

As mentioned in previous posts, corporations need to have less influence on government. Even more provocative than this sentiment, however, is that the public needs to have a more meaningful influence on its government. Voting is a privilege not to be taken lightly, one that should be exercised only by citizens willing to responsibly seek out education on candidates before casting their vote. Any solution to present problems must begin with the people.

The Corporate Age

Many people would point to any one individual participating in the Occupy movement and use it to decry the entire thing, which makes about as much sense as basing your entire view of America's political system on your first impression of a single citizen. Since the Occupy movement began, it's become a bandwagon for all manner of political figures attempting to promote their own agendas. Every movement has its crazies; this is nothing new. Corporations and capitalism aren't going away, and socialism and communism (hopefully) aren't taking their place.

Cronyism

Many people would also shun the idea that corporations have any fault in this situation and instead argue that the government is the entire cause of the problem. This belief is inherently flawed: without corporations, there would be nothing to diminish the people's influence on their government, and without the government, corporations would have nothing over which to exert their influence.

This a symbiotic relationship commonly known as cronyism: corporations provide the funding that helps representatives get elected, representatives pass legislation in the interest of those corporations. Rinse, repeat. This is one reason why there's little substantial difference in the quality of elected representatives between administrations: the same corporations are influencing their policy-making.

The front-runners for the 2012 presidential election are incumbent Democrat Barack Obama and former Massachusetts governor GOP Mitt Romney. One of the top campaign contributors for both candidates is Goldman Sachs, a Wall Street investment bank that profited on the subprime mortgage crisis. This isn't their first political conflict of interest, either.

While there may be others solutions, those that come to mind involve either capping or preventing corporate campaign donations and potentially applying similar restrictions on individual donations to keep the influence of the upper class comparable to that of the middle and lower classes.

The Bailout Fallout

The 2008 bailout was intended to prevent the financial failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, companies that were claimed to be "too large to fail" because the alleged impact on the American economy would be too devastating.

The federal money to fund this bailout came from American taxpayers and added to the federal deficit. Part of the rationale for the bailout was that the economy would worsen if avenues of funding provided to small businesses by these types of organizations was curtailed.

The problem is that banks aren't keeping up their end of the bargain: we bailed them out, but they're lending substantially less anyway. To add insult to injury, despite having to be bailed out, these institutions still found plenty to give out in corporate bonuses.

Less lending, fewer businesses, fewer jobs. This is likely a large contributing factor to the present 9% unemployment rate. Wages as a percentage of the economy have dropped roughly 7% in the last 50 years, leaving individuals lucky enough to have a job to pay taxes while some corporations are paying none or are even receiving tax benefits.

The current tax code that caters to corporate interests needs to be reformed. By the same token, business regulations also need to be reexamined to increase incentive for corporations to hire domestically rather than sending jobs overseas.

Conclusion

Corporations aren't inherently evil and they can do good things. This blog post is published on Blogger, a service owned and offered for free by Google that enables its users to easily publish their works and opinions. This is just one example of the beneficial effects that corporations can have on America.

However, as this post also establishes, Americans have several reasons to dislike corporations and the relationship they have with the government at the moment.

The Occupy Movement

So, the movement that began with Occupy Wall Street has gone global. Rather difficult not to take notice of it when the point of the movement, at least when it first started, was to raise awareness. While many people have shown their support for this movement, there are a few things preventing it from advancing.

The Groupthinkers and The Crazies

Yes, this movement has some level of groupthink behind it. Yes, groupthink is in general a dangerous thing. On sheer principle, anyone participating in the protests should have a full understanding of what's being protested and why. Sadly, this isn't the case. It's not that all protesters don't know what's going on, but yes, some of them don't.

Yes, there are people with extremist views trying to jump on the bandwagon to promote their own agenda. This is human nature. People are pushing for everything from open revolution to returning to a gold standard and dissolving the Federal Reserve. People are complaining about the general notion of corporate greed in a capitalist society when they probably couldn't define capitalism if you asked them to.

The Baptists have Westboro, the Republicans have the Tea Party, and the Occupy movement is going to have its own subset of extremists. If you let that form your entire impression of the movement, you're not paying enough attention.

The Authority and The Media

Politicians are taking advantage of the presence of a few crazies to belittle the movement. They're throwing out words that have been dirty in America for generations like socialism, communism, and Nazism simply to assert their position. They're demanding a single solution to a multifaceted problem from protesting citizens. They don't want the movement to succeed because the people behind it recognize that problems exist within our society and that our government is a major contributor to them. In some cases, even the police that we trust to protect us are contributing to our oppression. Thankfully, some of us have enough courage and honor that we're calling them out on it.

Mainstream media is merely a pawn parroting the politicians' statements. Like this country, the media was bought and paid for a long time ago. True news doesn't exist anymore. The only information we get is twisted, biased, and filtered to be what corporate businesses want it to be.

We as a country have learned to stop thinking for ourselves and readily accept the shit shoveled in our general direction. Before anything else can change, that needs to change.

The Idealists

Don't get me wrong: overall, Occupy is a good idea. There are problems with our society, that much is a given. However, the thoughts of the movement's protesters can't end there if they hope to ever actually accomplish anything other than being noteworthy news because they managed to attract enough attention. We need to identify the real problems that got us to where we are. We need to civilly discuss them with each other and figure out how to solve them. We need to try to keep an open mind and allow our positions to be subject to change.

Our governmental representatives have proven that they aren't even capable of reading a bill for their life-long salaries, much less making a decision that's in our best interest. Yes, we can elect new officials in the coming elections, but they're just as susceptible to the flaws of our current system as their predecessors. The system itself needs to be fixed, and that requires people more interested in that cause than in their own individual power or wealth.

Corporations are and will always be fueled by the incentive for profit in a capitalist society, not by whatever beneficial societal effects may or may not arise as a result. They can't be trusted to make decisions in the interest of society when their own interests conflict.

It's up to us, the people, to fix the world that we live in. That requires more than an idea or the acknowledgement or validation of a problem or a symptom.