We the rich, not we the people

Everyone learns in school that America is a federal republic and that people have a big stake in it. That's just not true. People have very limited powers under the U.S. Constitution. An examination of one word in the Constitution shows the truth of the document.

I looked throughout all the words and found that "people" are only mentioned twice (in the opening phrase "We the People of the United States" and in Article I, section 2 that states: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the People of the several states."). But one word doesn’t prove everything, but it does propose the idea of a set of laws catered to the wealthy. A related word, “person” is mentioned fourteen times. Of those mentions of the word, none of these times it actually applies to the general populace. It relates to slaves, criminals or procedural matters (being elected to office or applying to those in public office). Another similar word is “citizen.” The word is used seven times in document and only once it applies to the all the people in America. Looking at words in the original Constitution (without amendments) isn’t even a full analysis of the document itself but it shows the people have a limited role and that that most educated are needed in power. Looking at the powers the Constitution gives the people helps further an investigation into the real intent of the Constitution.

I created a list of the rights the Constitution, including the amendments gives to the people [I am not counting requirements for any elected office]:

· People can vote for Representatives every two years (Article I, Section 2, Clause 1)

· People are entitled to the same rights in every state, rights that are in the Constitution (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1)

· People have the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of peaceable assembly and right to petition government for grievances (Amendment I)

· People have the right to have guns (Amendment II)

· No soldier may be in someone’s house without the owner’s consent (Amendment III)

· Right of people to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure and a right to privacy (Amendment IV)

· People cannot be charged for a capital crimes unless in the military there can be no double jeopardy for a crime and no self-incrimination (Amendment V)

· People have the right to obtain witnesses, know why he/she is charged with a crime, have a lawyer and have a speedy public trial. (Amendment VI)

· People can have no excessive bail, fine or cruel or unusual punishment (Amendment VIII)

· People have rights not spelled out in the Constitution (Amendment IX)

· Slavery or involuntary servitude is abolished unless a punishment for a crime (Amendment XIII)

· All people born or naturalized in America are U.S. citizens (Amendment XIV)

· People of any race or color can vote (Amendment XV)

· Senators are elected by the people every six years (Amendment XVII)

· People of any gender can vote in elections (Amendment XIX)

· People do not have to pay a tax or poll tax to vote (Amendment XXIV)

· If you are 18 years or older, you can vote (Amendment XXVI)

· It is implied you can vote for President and Vice President in Amendment XII and in Article II Section 1 of the Constitution

Still, despite these powers that go to the people, only a few have to do with changing government. Many of the amendments that I mentioned only protect the rights of the people, but don’t allow them to change the system. The only power people have to change the system that is in place is to express their opinions, assemble in protest, petition the government and vote for public officials (I bolded these instances on the list above). If you boil it down, that’s not many rights available. I have some plans to help make the Constitution better and I’ll propose some amendments which I believe would give more power to the people, creating a government that works on more input from the people.

Going through online websites I looked for Amendments and I found some promising ones. The first Amendment is by a user on Democratic Undeground.com. I felt that the amendment had an interesting premise and I give credit to this user for coming up with the idea, but I had to change a few aspects of the Amendment itself. I do not expect this amendment to pass Congress, but it’s good to put every idea out there. Here’s the text of the Amendment, which would be Amendment XXVIII or Amendment 28:

AMENDMENT XXVIII [The Recall Amendment]

Section 1. The President and/or Vice President shall be subject to a recall election in the event that at least thirty-seven percent of the number of persons who voted in the most recent election for Presidential and Vice-Presidential electors petition the Federal Election Commission for a special election for the President and/or Vice President.

Section 2. If a petition is certified as valid by the Federal Election Commission, a time, place and date shall be set such an election by the Federal Election Commission with counsel from the Boards of Elections in every U.S. state and territory.

Section 3. Members of Congress shall be subject to a recall election in the event that at least thirty-seven percent of the number of persons who voted in the most recent election for that position petition the Federal Election Commission for such an election.

Section 4. If the petition is certified as valid by the Federal Election Commission, a time, place and date for a special election shall be set by the Federal Election Commission with counsel from the State Board of Elections in the state that said member of Congress represents.

Section 5. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

I know it’s not perfect, but I tried to do the best. The amendment would give the power to the Federal Election Commission instead of the federal legislature because I feel that they are the board of elections on the federal level. Also I feared that if it went through the state legislatures, the governorship or United States Congress, that corruption could be present. I know that the Federal Election Commission could be corrupted, but I do not know any other agency to oversee this aspect of the law. It seemed to simplify the process. I would like to show another Amendment, this one proposed by U.S. representative Jesse Jackson, Jr. in 2005:

SECTION 1. All citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, shall have the right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides. The right to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, any State, or any other public or private person or entity, except that the United States or any State may establish regulations narrowly tailored to produce efficient and honest elections.

SECTION 2. Each State shall administer public elections in the State in accordance with election performance standards established by the Congress. The Congress shall reconsider such election performance standards at least once every four years to determine if higher standards should be established to reflect improvements in methods and practices regarding the administration of elections.

SECTION 3. Each State shall provide any eligible voter the opportunity to register and vote on the day of any public election.

SECTION 4. Each State and the District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall establish and abide by rules for appointing its respective number of Electors. Such rules shall provide for the appointment of Electors on the day designated by the Congress for holding an election for President and Vice President and shall ensure that each Elector votes for the candidate for President and Vice President who received a majority of the popular vote in the State or District.

SECTION 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

I don’t like Section 4 of the amendment, feeling it supports the Electoral College but an amendment that replaces Amendment 26 and is shorter would be even better. I’ll write such an amendment in the future but for now this amendment shows that reform will happen in the future. The amendment proposed by Congressman Jackson explains the point: throughout the Constitution it says that all people have the right to vote but it is not the case and none of the Constitution says that States cannot set guidelines for who can vote. So, in a sense it never really says people have a constitutional right to vote, it only says they can vote. On the other hand, there are many other amendments that I will not mention that are presented on motiontoamend.org and reclaimdemocracy because to would repetitive. There is one more idea I would like to put forward. I have one more idea for an amendment:

The Ratification Amendment

Amendment XXVIII or Amendment XXVIV (Amendment 24 or 25)

Section 1. Article V of the Constitution is hereby repealed

Section 2. The Congress whenever fifty-one percent of both houses deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or when the people in all the states of the United States shall call a convention as implied by the freedom to assembly that is enumerated in Amendment I.

Section 3. An amendment shall become part of this Constitution when ratified in a vote by fifty-one percent of the people in an election which the date, time and place shall be set the appropriate boards of elections of every U.S. state and territory, or by conventions organized by the people in three fourths of the states in the United States or when the Congress approves an amendment by setting times to ratify such an amendment if determined to be necessary; or other methods may be proposed by the people or the Congress for the purpose of ratification.

Section 4. During the amendment process, the Archivist of the United States shall update the people and the Congress on the status of the ratification of the amendment; if the amendment is ratified, the Archivist of the United States shall announce it to the Congress and the people.

Section 5. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

I could propose even more amendments but I feel that it would make this analysis too long. Throughout the next month I’ll be posting on my blog, HermannView, amendments that I have written around Independence Day this year. One such amendment is like H.J.RES.9 which would abolish the Electoral College and provide for the direct popular election of the President and Vice President of the United States except my amendment would make it open to all political parties rather than just Democrats and Republicans. All parties must have the right to be in elections, it’s just what’s fair for everyone. America has never been a democratic republic; it was originally a federal republic. That’s the government that created by the 55 delegates in 1787 and revised by the Bill of Rights in 1791. Today the government we have is not a federal republic much anymore it is a plutocratic republic and it’s sad to admit that.

The wealthy control the political process and everyone should know it. If a politician is not aligned with the rich, they are limited by those that are rich. The only way we the people can get our power back is by protesting, speaking out against the injustice in America and promoting reform whenever possible. Don’t vote along party lines, vote for who you think is right for the job no matter what political party (Green Party, Democratic Party, Citizens Party, Republican Party, Independence Party, United Equality Party, and go to politics1 list for more), who you think will help usher in reform. Those people will help make America a better place. In the end, Americans need to do all they can to reestablish the original federal republic the Constitution asked for and go even further, giving more power to people in a democratic republic. America is not a democracy, it is a plutocratic republic where the government panders to the wealthy class and that can change with citizen action.

American isolationism: A false concept?

For a long time I have learned in U.S. history classes throughout my life, in documentaries and the popular consciousness is that for hundreds of years, up until WWI, if not continued after WWII, America was an isolationist country. I am starting to question that idea. I was trying to fact check the new controversial Time Magazine cover story that asked about the death of the Constitution and I found the United States had numerous interventions in its history. But that’s not the reason I started to question this idea. In the inaugural speech Franklin Pierce made on March 4, 1853 he made a shocking statement. When I put President Pierce’s speech and the ideas I had come up with before, I questioned this idea that is taken for granted by many people and many experts.

To most people, they believe that America began to start intervening in the affairs of other countries in the Cold War. Students of history would say U.S. interventions are false in the beginning of the 1900s. Both ideas are false, as confirmed by the fateful words of President Franklin Pierce in 1853, “our attitude as a nation [is to] render the acquisition of certain possessions not within our jurisdiction eminently important for our protection...[They] should...be obtained...in a manner entirely consistent with the strictest observance of national faith...no act within the legitimate scope of my constitutional control will be tolerated.” (http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3553). I had no idea it stretched back that far and was shocked when I found out the truth. A Congressional Research report confirmed that what Mr. Pierce had stated was correct. These types of interventions had been happening for years and years:

• 1810 -- West Florida (Spanish territory). Gov. Claiborne of Louisiana, on orders of the President, occupied with troops territory in dispute east of the Mississippi as far as the Pearl River, later the eastern boundary of Louisiana. He was authorized to seize as far east as the Perdido River.
• 1812 -- Amelia Island and other parts of east Florida, then under Spain. Temporary possession was authorized by President Madison and by Congress, to prevent occupation by any other power; but possession was obtained by Gen. George Matthews in so irregular a manner that his measures were disavowed by the President.
• 1813 -- West Florida (Spanish territory). On authority given by Congress, General Wilkinson seized Mobile Bay in April with 600 soldiers. A small Spanish garrison gave way. Thus US advanced into disputed territory to the Perdido River, as projected in 1810. No fighting.
• 1813-14 -- Marguesas Islands. US forces built a fort on the island of Nukahiva to protect three prize ships which had been captured from the British.
• 1814 -- Spanish Florida. Gen. Andrew Jackson took Pensacola and drove out the British with whom the United States was at war.
• 1816-18 -- Spanish Florida - First Seminole War. The Seminole Indians, whose area was a haven for escaped slaves and border ruffians, were attacked by troops under Generals Jackson and Gaines and pursued into northern Florida. Spanish posts were attacked and occupied, British citizens executed. In 1819 the Floridas were ceded to the United States.
• 1818 -- Oregon. The USS Ontario dispatched from Washington, landed at the Columbia River and in August took possession of Oregon territory. Britain had conceded sovereignty but Russia and Spain asserted claims to the area.
• 1836 -- Mexico. General Gaines occupied Nacogdoches (Tex.), disputed territory, from July to December during the Texan war for independence, under orders to cross the "imaginary boundary line" if an Indian outbreak threatened.
• 1844 -- Mexico. President Tyler deployed US forces to protect Texas against Mexico, pending Senate approval of a treaty of annexation. (Later rejected.) He defended his action against a Senate resolution of inquiry.
• 1858-59 -- Turkey. The Secretary of State requested a display of naval force along the Levant after a massacre of Americans at Jaffa and mistreatment elsewhere "to remind the authorities (of Turkey) of the power of the United States."
• 1865 -- Panama. - March 9 and 10. US forces protected the lives and property of American residents during a revolution.
• 1867 -- Nicaragua. Marines occupied Managua and Leon.
• 1871 -- Korea. - June 10 to 12. A US naval force attacked and captured five forts to punish natives for depredations on Americans, particularly for murdering the crew of the General Sherman and burning the schooner, and for later firing on other American small boats taking soundings up the Salee River.
• 1876 -- Mexico. - May 18. An American force was landed to police the town of Matamoras temporarily while it was without other government.
• 1893 -- Hawaii. - January 16 to April 1. Marines were landed ostensibly to protect American lives and property, but many believed actually to promote a provisional government under Sanford B. Dole. This action was disavowed by the United States.
• 1903-14 -- Panama. US forces sought to protect American interests and lives during and following the revolution for independence from Colombia over construction of the Isthmian Canal. With brief intermissions, United States Marines were stationed on the Isthmus from November 4, 1903, to January 21, 1914 to guard American interests.
• 1918-20 -- Soviet Russia. Marines were landed at and near Vladivostok in June and July to protect the American consulate and other points in the fighting between the Bolshevik troops and the Czech Army which had traversed Siberia from the western front. A joint proclamation of emergency government and neutrality was issued by the American, Japanese, British, French, and Czech commanders in July. In August 7,000 men were landed in Vladivostok and remained until January 1920, as part of an allied occupation force. In September 1918, 5,000 American troops joined the allied intervention force at Archangel and remained until June 1919. These operations were in response to the Bolshevik revolution in Russia and were partly supported by Czarist or Kerensky elements.
• 1970 -- Cambodia. US troops were ordered into Cambodia to clean out Communist sanctuaries from which Viet Cong and North Vietnamese attacked USand South Vietnamese forces in Vietnam. The object of this attack, which lasted from April 30 to June 30, was to ensure the continuing safe withdrawal of American forces from South Vietnam and to assist the program of Vietnamization.
• 1983-89 -- Honduras. In July 1983 the United States undertook a series of exercises in Honduras that some believed might lead to conflict with Nicaragua. On March 25, 1986, unarmed US military helicopters and crewmen ferried Honduran troops to the Nicaraguan border to repel Nicaraguan troops.
• 1988 -- Panama. In mid-March and April 1988, during a period of instability in Panama and as pressure grew for Panamanian military leader General Manuel Noriega to resign, the United States sent 1,000 troops to Panama, to "further safeguard the canal, US lives, property and interests in the area." The forces supplemented 10,000 US military personnel already in Panama.
• 2001 -- Afghanistan [war]. On October 9, 2001, President George W. Bush reported to Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," and "Senate Joint Resolution 23" that on October 7, 2001, US Armed Forces "began combat action in Afghanistan against Al Qaida terrorists and their Taliban supporters." The President stated that he had directed this military action in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks on US "territory, our citizens, and our way of life, and to the continuing threat of terrorist acts against the United States and our friends and allies." This military action was "part of our campaign against terrorism" and was "designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations." [this war has continued onto the present-day]
• 2003 -- Iraq War. On March 21, 2003, President Bush reported to Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," as well as P.L. 102-1 and P.L. 107-243, and "pursuant to" his authority as Commander-in-Chief, that he had "directed US Armed Forces, operating with other coalition forces, to commence operations on March 19, 2003, against Iraq." He further stated that it was not possible to know at present the duration of active combat operations or the scope necessary to accomplish the goals of the operation "to disarm Iraq in pursuit of peace, stability, and security both in the Gulf region and in the United States." [this war still continues tody]

I found that as history came closer to the present, more so-called police actions were committed by the U.S. armed forces. That’s why it gets thin in the way of possessions of land. From evidence I reviewed, I believe the American Empire started to protect its citizens starting in the 1890s and increasing after the 1920s. During Pierce’s Administration (1853-57) there wasn’t acquisition of possessions as he exclaimed in his inauguration speech, but it was in the spirit of what he said. It was basically police actions to protect American interests:
- 1852-53 -- Argentina. - February 3 to 12, 1852; September 17, 1852 to April 1853. Marines were landed and maintained in Buenos Aires to protect American interests during a revolution.
- 1853 -- Nicaragua. - March 11 to 13. US forces landed to protect American lives and interests during political disturbances.
- 1853-54 -- Japan. Commodore Perry and his expedition made a display of force leading to the "opening of Japan."
- 1853-54 -- Ryukyu and Bonin Islands. Commodore Perry on three visits before going to Japan and while waiting for a reply from Japan made a naval demonstration, landing marines twice, and secured a coaling concession from the ruler of Naha on Okinawa; he also demonstrated in the Bonin Islands with the purpose of securing facilities for commerce.
- 1854 -- China. - April 4 to June 15 to 17. American and English ships landed forces to protect American interests in and near Shanghai during Chinese civil strife.
- 1854 -- Nicaragua. - July 9 to 15. Naval forces bombarded and burned San Juan del Norte (Greytown) to avenge an insult to the American Minister to Nicaragua.
- 1855 -- China. - May 19 to 21. US forces protected American interests in Shanghai and, from August 3 to 5 fought pirates near Hong Kong.
- 1855 -- Fiji Islands. - September 12 to November 4. An American naval force landed to seek reparations for depredations on American residents and seamen.
- 1855 -- Uruguay. - November 25 to 29. United States and European naval forces landed to protect American interests during an attempted revolution in Montevideo.
- 1856 -- Panama, Republic of New Grenada. - September 19 to 22. US forces landed to protect American interests during an insurrection.
- 1856 -- China. - October 22 to December 6. US forces landed to protect American interests at Canton during hostilities between the British and the Chinese, and to avenge an assault upon an unarmed boat displaying the United States flag.
- 1857 -- Nicaragua. - April to May, November to December. In May Commander C.H. Davis of the United States Navy, with some marines, received the surrender of William Walker, who had been attempting to get control of the country, and protected his men from the retaliation of native allies who had been fighting Walker. In November and December of the same year United States vessels Saratoga, Wabash, and Fulton opposed another attempt of William Walker on Nicaragua. Commodore Hiram Paulding's act of landing marines and compelling the removal of Walker to the United States, was tacitly disavowed by Secretary of State Lewis Cass, and Paulding was forced into retirement.

These actions in the 1850s made America into the so-called “global policeman”, years before Teddy Roosevelt’s Big Stick Policy, to use the U.S. Navy to gain global supremacy and keep the Western hemisphere under control of the federal government. As a result, America was not an isolationist state, rather it was involved in affairs of the world if it concerned the United States of America, its citizens or its interests. The report released by the Congressional Research Service last year confirmed these facts as valid. To justify this, let me define two terms: interventionism and isolationism. Isolationism, according to dictonary.com is: “the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.” By contrast interventionism is defined as “the use or threat of force or coercion to alter a political or cultural situation nominally outside the intervenor’s moral or political jurisdiction.” (http://www.iep.utm.edu/interven/). The United States did try to advance itself, but not all of its resources were devoted to betterment of the whole country. In addition, the U.S.A. did not isolate itself from the affairs of other nations and did not decline to enter foreign alliances, agreements, etc... as long as these affairs benefited the state of America. Efforts in what would now be called ‘police actions’, the U.S. military made sure that the U.S. never really remained at peace, even if it seemed there was peace. Peace means no war, and there have been armed conflicts throughout U.S. history. Before I get into more current arguments about isolationism and politics, I wanted to debunk another part of history many are thought in the classroom.

On Randi Forums a user commented: “Discussion "elsewhere" has made me aware that the idea that the US was strongly isolationist before Dec. 7th, 1941 still holds for some people. I'd like to take this opportunity to point out the results of polls taken by the Gallup organization and the Public Opinion Quarterly during 1939-1941 show that the US was NOT primarily isolationist. The fact of the matter is that many people were aware that we had to face up to the fact that we would drawn into the war, and, albeit it reluctant to face the maelstrom yet again, knew that we would have to fight the Axis.” I looked up the source that was quoted, the public opinion quarterly to see if this user was correct. I didn’t find that source exactly, but i found an essay about supposed isolationism before WWII: “At first glance, the empirical evidence seems to support this hypothesis. Polls taken from 1938 to late 1941 show that an overwhelming majority of the American public opposed direct U.S. involvement on the side of the allies...For example, a Gallup poll in June 1940 found that 72 percent of the respondents supported drafting men into the army “if enough men do not volunteer.” Moreover, a series of 10 Gallup polls from June to October of 1940 found that between 62 and 76 percent of respondents agreed that, “every able-bodied American boy twenty years old [should] be required to go into the army or navy for one year.” I tried to look more in depth on this issue and couldn’t find much more. Even if you were able to prove that America was isolationist in public opinion, the federal government continued a policy of interventionism. Even the government that we trust believes this is not true as conveyed on the State Department website. The website states: “During the 1930s, the combination of the Great Depression and the memory of tragic losses in World War I contributed to pushing American public opinion and policy toward isolationism. Isolationists advocated non-involvement in European and Asian conflicts and non-entanglement in international politics. Although the United States took measures to avoid political and military conflicts across the oceans, it continued to expand economically and protect its interests in Latin America.” Interestingly enough, the State Department goes against its own argument. From a source I used earlier, a 2004 Congressional Research Service report, it mentions four interventions in the 1930s
- 1932 and 1934 (China)
- 1933 (Cuba)
After 1934, there is a gap in U.S. involvement until 1940, which should show isolationism, accompanied by the end of an intervention in the Dominican Republic that year (http://www.maps.com/ref_map.aspx?cid=726,741,1029&pid=11333). So, America may have been isolationist for six years, from 1934 to 1940, but otherwise, the U.S. was not isolationist in its history. However, this led to war as acedemicamerican stated. That war was WWII.

The myth of isolationism up until 1941 in U.S. history is false but it is brought up again and again in political talk today. John McCain recently talked about parts of the Grand Old Party, or the Republicans, that oppose the current war in Libya. Real Clear Politics quotes him as saying:
“Well, I was more concerned about what the candidates in New Hampshire the other night said [about the Libyan war]. This is isolationism. There's always been an isolation strain in the Republican Party -- the Pat Buchanan wing of our party.” At the end of the article it concludes: “This is not isolationism; it is a rational effort at judging how best to advance American values and interests in an ever-more witheringly dangerous world. The charge of isolationism should be reserved for the genuine article. Such name-calling advances neither rational debate nor national interest.” I believe that America being isolationist (as it was for six years of its history (1934-1940)) could be disastrous, but complete interventionism is not good either. The American empire must balance it’s ability to stand up for human rights around the world and respect the sovereignty of other countries. In order for this to occur, America would have to close many if not all of its military bases across the world, military spending, material, and manpower would have to be reduced. The American government must remember “the best defense is the best offense.” In the end, like every empire, America’s stretching of armed forces will break the country as a whole and cause it to decline 20-30 years in the future, if not sooner.