Smoky Mountains Sunrise

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Mike Pence: The Presidency and the Constitution


A truly great reflection on what the American presidency was and must be again. May our next President possess this depth of knowledge and wisdom.


MIKE PENCE graduated from Hanover College in 1981 and earned his J.D. from Indiana University School of Law in 1986. After running for Congress in 1988 and 1990, he was named president of the Indiana Policy Review Commission, a state think tank based in Fort Wayne, Indiana, in 1991. He was first elected to Congress from Indiana’s 6th District in 2000 and was most recently elected to a fifth term in 2008. That same year he was elected to serve as House Republican Conference Chairman. During the 109th Congress, he also served as chairman of the House Republican Study Committee, the largest caucus in the House of Representatives.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on the Hillsdale College campus on September 20, 2010.

THE PRESIDENCY is the most visible thread that runs through the tapestry of the American government. More often than not, for good or for ill, it sets the tone for the other branches and spurs the expectations of the people. Its powers are vast and consequential, its requirements impossible for mortals to fulfill without humility and insistent attention to its purpose as set forth in the Constitution of the United States.

Isn’t it amazing, given the great and momentous nature of the office, that those who seek it seldom pause to consider what they are seeking? Rather, unconstrained by principle or reflection, there is a mad rush toward something that, once its powers are seized, the new president can wield as an instrument with which to transform the nation and the people according to his highest aspirations.

But, other than in a crisis of the house divided, the presidency is neither fit nor intended to be such an instrument. When it is made that, the country sustains a wound, and cries out justly and indignantly. And what the nation says is the theme of this address. What it says—informed by its long history, impelled by the laws of nature and nature’s God—is that we as a people are not to be ruled and not to be commanded. It says that the president should never forget this; that he has not risen above us, but is merely one of us, chosen by ballot, dismissed after his term, tasked not to transform and work his will upon us, but to bear the weight of decision and to carry out faithfully the design laid down in the Constitution in accordance with the Declaration of Independence.

The presidency must adhere to its definition as expressed in the Constitution, and to conduct defined over time and by tradition. While the powers of the office have enlarged, along with those of the legislature and the judiciary, the framework of the government was intended to restrict abuses common to classical empires and to the regal states of the 18th century.

Without proper adherence to the role contemplated in the Constitution for the presidency, the checks and balances in the constitutional plan become weakened. This has been most obvious in recent years when the three branches of government have been subject to the tutelage of a single party. Under either party, presidents have often forgotten that they are intended to restrain the Congress at times, and that the Congress is independent of their desires. And thus fused in unholy unity, the political class has raged forward in a drunken expansion of powers and prerogatives, mistakenly assuming that to exercise power is by default to do good.

Even the simplest among us knows that this is not so. Power is an instrument of fatal consequence. It is confined no more readily than quicksilver, and escapes good intentions as easily as air flows through mesh. Therefore, those who are entrusted with it must educate themselves in self-restraint. A republic is about limitation, and for good reason, because we are mortal and our actions are imperfect.

The tragedy of presidential decision is that even with the best choice, some, perhaps many, will be left behind, and some, perhaps many, may die. Because of this, a true statesman lives continuously with what Churchill called “stress of soul.” He may give to Paul, but only because he robs Peter. And that is why you must always be wary of a president who seems to float upon his own greatness. For all greatness is tempered by mortality, every soul is equal, and distinctions among men cannot be owned; they are on loan from God, who takes them back and evens accounts at the end.

It is a tragedy indeed that new generations taking office attribute failures in governance to insufficient power, and seek more of it. In the judiciary, this has seldom been better expressed than by Justice Thurgood Marshall, who said: “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.” In the Congress, it presents itself in massive legislation, acts and codes thousands of pages long and so monstrously over-complicated that no human being can read through them—much less understand them, much less apply them justly to a people that increasingly feel like they are no longer being asked, but rather told. Our nation finds itself in the position of a dog whose duty it is not to ask why—because the “why” is too elevated for his nature—but simply to obey.

America is not a dog, and does not require a “because-I-said-so” jurisprudence; or legislators who knit laws of such insulting complexity that they are heavier than chains; or a president who acts like, speaks like, and is received as a king.

The president is not our teacher, our tutor, our guide or ruler. He does not command us; we command him. We serve neither him nor his vision. It is not his job or his prerogative to redefine custom, law, and beliefs; to appropriate industries; to seize the country, as it were, by the shoulders or by the throat so as to impose by force of theatrical charisma his justice upon 300 million others. It is neither his job nor his prerogative to shift the power of decision away from them, and to him and the acolytes of his choosing.

Is my characterization of unprecedented presumption incorrect? Listen to the words of the leader of President Obama’s transition team and perhaps his next chief-of-staff: “It’s important that President-Elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one.” Or, more recently, the latest presidential appointment to avoid confirmation by the Senate—the new head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—who wrote last Friday: “President Obama understands the importance of leveling the playing field again.”

“Take power. . .rule. . .leveling.” Though it is the model now, this has never been and should never again be the model of the presidency or the character of the American president. No one can say this too strongly, and no one can say it enough until it is remedied. We are not subjects; we are citizens. We fought a war so that we do not have to treat even kings like kings, and—if I may remind you—we won that war. Since then, the principle of royalty has, in this country, been inoperative. Who is better suited or more required to exemplify this conviction, in word and deed, than the President of the United States?

The powers of the presidency are extraordinary and necessarily great, and great presidents treat them sparingly. For example, it is not the president’s job to manipulate the nation’s youth for the sake of his agenda or his party. They are a potent political force when massed by the social network to which they are permanently attached. But if the president has their true interests at heart he will neither flatter them nor let them adore him, for in flattery is condescension and in adoration is direction, and youth is neither seasoned nor tested enough to direct a nation. Nor should it be the president’s business to presume to direct them. It is difficult enough to do right by one’s own children. No one can be the father of a whole continent’s youth.

Is the president, therefore, expected to turn away from this and other easy advantage? Yes. Like Harry Truman, who went to bed before the result on election night, he must know when to withdraw, to hold back, and to forgo attention, publicity, or advantage.

There is no finer, more moving, or more profound understanding of the nature of the presidency and the command of humility placed upon it than that expressed by President Coolidge. He, like Lincoln, lost a child while he was president, a son of sixteen. “The day I became president,” Coolidge wrote, “he had just started to work in a tobacco field. When one of his fellow laborers said to him, ‘If my father was president I would not work in a tobacco field,’ Calvin replied, ‘If my father were your father you would.’” His admiration for the boy was obvious.

Young Calvin contracted blood poisoning from an incident on the South Lawn of the White House. Coolidge wrote, “What might have happened to him under other circumstances we do not know, but if I had not been president. . . .” And then he continued,

“In his suffering he was asking me to make him well. I could not. When he went, the power and glory of the Presidency went with him.”

A sensibility such as this, and not power, is the source of presidential dignity, and must be restored. It depends entirely upon character, self-discipline, and an understanding of the fundamental principles that underlie not only the republic, but life itself. It communicates that the president feels the gravity of his office and is willing to sacrifice himself; that his eye is not upon his own prospects but on the storm of history, through which he must navigate with the specific powers accorded to him and the limitations placed on those powers both by man and by God.

The modern presidency has drifted far from the great strength and illumination of its source: the Constitution as given life by the Declaration of Independence, the greatest political document ever written. The Constitution—terse, sober, and specific—does not, except by implication, address the president’s demeanor. But this we can read in the best qualities of the founding generation, which we would do well to imitate. In the Capitol Rotunda are heroic paintings of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the victory at Saratoga, the victory at Yorktown, and—something seldom seen in history—a general, the leader of an armed rebellion, resigning his commission and surrendering his army to a new democracy. Upon hearing from Benjamin West that George Washington, having won the war and been urged by some to use the army to make himself king, would instead return to his farm, King George III said: “If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.” He did, and he was.

To aspire to such virtue and self-restraint would in a sense be difficult, but in another sense it should be easy—difficult because it would be demanding and ideal, and easy because it is the right thing to do and the rewards are immediately self-evident.

A president who slights the Constitution is like a rider who hates his horse: he will be thrown, and the nation along with him. The president solemnly swears to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. He does not solemnly swear to ignore, overlook, supplement, or reinterpret it. Other than in a crisis of existence, such as the Civil War, amendment should be the sole means of circumventing the Constitution. For if a president joins the powers of his office to his own willful interpretation, he steps away from a government of laws and toward a government of men.

Is the Constitution a fluctuating and inconstant document, a collection of suggestions whose purpose is to stimulate debate in a future to which the Founders were necessarily blind? Progressives tell us that even the Framers themselves could not reach agreement in its regard. But they did agree upon it. And they wrote it down. And they signed it. And they lived by it. Its words are unchanging and unchangeable except, again, by amendment. There is no allowance for a president to override it according to his supposed superior conception. Why is this good? It is good because the sun will burn out, the Ohio River will flow backwards, and the cow will jump over the moon 10,000 times before any modern president’s conception is superior to that of the Founders of this nation.

Would it be such a great surprise that a good part of the political strife of our times is because one president after another, rather than keeping faith with it, argues with the document he is supposed to live by? This discontent will only be calmed by returning the presidency to the nation’s first principles. The Constitution and the Declaration should be on a president’s mind all the time, as the prism through which the light of all question of governance passes. Though we have—sometimes gradually, sometimes radically—moved away from this, we can move back to it. And who better than the president to restore this wholesome devotion to limited government?

And as the president returns to the consistent application of the principles in the Constitution, he will also ensure fiscal responsibility and prosperity. Who is better suited, with his executive and veto powers, to carry over the duty of self-restraint and discipline to the idea of fiscal solvency? When the president restrains government spending, leaving room for the American people to enjoy the fruits of their labor, growth is inevitable. As Senator Robert Taft wrote: “Liberty has been the key to our progress in the past and is the key to our progress in the future.... If we can preserve liberty in all its essentials, there is no limit to the future of the American people.”

Whereas the president must be cautious, dutiful, and deferential at home, his character must change abroad. Were he to ask for a primer on how to act in relation to other states, which no holder of the office has needed to this point, and were that primer to be written by the American people, whether of 1776 or 2010, you can be confident that it would contain the following instructions:

You do not bow to kings. Outside our shores, the President of the United States of America bows to no man. When in foreign lands, you do not criticize your own country. You do not argue the case against the United States, but the case for it. You do not apologize to the enemies of the United States. Should you be confused, a country, people, or region that harbors, shelters, supports, encourages, or cheers attacks upon our country or the slaughter of our friends and families are enemies of the United States. And, to repeat, you do not apologize to them.

Closely related to this, and perhaps the least ambiguous of the president’s complex responsibilities, is his duty as commander-in-chief of the military. In this regard there is a very simple rule, unknown to some presidents regardless of party: If, after careful determination, intense stress of soul, and the deepest prayer, you go to war, then, having gone to war, you go to war to win. You do not cast away American lives, or those of the innocent noncombatant enemy, upon a theory, a gambit, or a notion. And if the politics of your own election or of your party intrude upon your decisions for even an instant—there are no words for this.

More commonplace, but hardly less important, are other expectations of the president in this regard. He must not stint on the equipment and provisioning of the armed forces, and if he errs it must be not on the side of scarcity but of surplus. And he must be the guardian of his troops, taking every step to avoid the loss of even a single life.

The American soldier is as precious as the closest of your kin—because he is your kin, and for his sake the president must, in effect, say to the Congress and to the people: 'I am the Commander-in-Chief. It is my sacred duty to defend the United States, and to give our soldiers what they need to complete the mission and come home safe, whatever the cost.'

If, in fulfilling this duty, the president wavers, he will have betrayed his office, for this is not a policy, it is probity. It is written on the blood-soaked ground of Saratoga, Yorktown, Antietam, Cold Harbor, the Marne, Guadalcanal, the Pointe du Hoc, the Chosin Reservoir, Khe Sanh, Iraq, Afghanistan, and a thousand other places in our history, in lessons repeated over and over again.

The presidency, a great and complex subject upon which I have only touched, has become symbolic of overreaching. There are many truths that we have been frightened to tell or face. If we run from them, they will catch us with our backs turned and pull us down. Better that we should not flee but rather stop and look them in the eye.

What might our forebears say to us, knowing what they knew, and having done what they did? I have no doubt that they would tell us to channel our passions, speak the truth and do what is right, slowly and with resolution; to work calmly, steadily and without animus or fear; to be like a rock in the tide, let the water tumble about us, and be firm and unashamed in our love of country.

I see us like those in Philadelphia in 1776. Danger all around, but a fresh chapter, ready to begin, uncorrupted, with great possibilities and—inexplicably, perhaps miraculously—the way is clearing ahead. I have never doubted that Providence can appear in history like the sun emerging from behind the clouds, if only as a reward for adherence to first principles. As Winston Churchill said in a speech to Congress on December 26, 1941: “He must indeed have a blind soul who cannot see that some great purpose and design is being worked out here below, of which we have the honor to be the faithful servants.”

As Americans, we inherit what Lincoln in his First Inaugural called “the mystic chords of memory stretching from every patriot grave.” They bind us to the great and the humble, the known and the unknown of Americans past—and if I hear them clearly, what they say is that although we may have strayed, we have not strayed too far to return, for we are their descendants. We can still astound the world with justice, reason and strength. I know this is true, but even if it was not we could not in decency stand down, if only for our debt to history. We owe a debt to those who came before, who did great things, and suffered more than we suffer, and gave more than we give, and pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor for us, whom they did not know. For we “drink from wells we did not dig” and are “warmed by fires we did not build,” and so we must be faithful in our time as they were in theirs.

Many great generations are gone, but by the character and memory of their existence they forbid us to despair of the republic. I see them crossing the prairies in the sun and wind. I see their faces looking out from steel mills and coal mines, and immigrant ships crawling into the harbors at dawn. I see them at war, at work and at peace. I see them, long departed, looking into the camera, with hopeful and sad eyes. And I see them embracing their children, who became us. They are our family and our blood, and we cannot desert them. In spirit, all of them come down to all of us, in a connection that, out of love, we cannot betray.

They are silent now and forever, but from the eternal silence of every patriot grave there is yet an echo that says, “It is not too late; keep faith with us, keep faith with God, and do not, do not ever despair of the republic.”


Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.


Thursday, October 21, 2010

Obama: Angel of Death




In 2010, Colorado will mark the beginning of the end of the culture of death. The first state to legalize abortion, will fittingly be the first state to banish it.


Teachers Fight Release of Data

American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten is also president of NY State's largest local affiliate, the United Federation of Teachers in New York City.

From The Wall Street Journal
By Barbara Martinez

The New York City teachers union is fighting the release of data that tries to gauge the effectiveness of 12,000 of its members, saying the measuring system is too flawed to make teachers' names public.

The city Department of Education was set to release the data Wednesday, spurred by public-records requests from news organizations, including The Wall Street Journal. But the United Federation of Teachers threatened a lawsuit, and the DOE delayed its plans. A DOE spokeswoman said that unless a court interferes, the city intends to make them public Friday.

The reports attempt to measure the progress that students in fourth through eighth grades make under a teacher by comparing their state test scores in math and English in a given year with the previous year.

The "value-added" data is a source of deep controversy in New York and in other districts nationwide. In New York City, the value-added scores of teachers are determined using a complex formula that attempts to take into account various factors outside of the teacher's control, such as poverty, class size and student disabilities. The reports compare the teachers to other teachers with similar students.

Proponents of disclosing the data say that parents have a right to know whether their children's teachers consistently move students forward. But critics argue that the science for figuring out how much a teacher affects a student—despite attempts to account for outside factors—is still too new to trust with wide-scale dissemination.

"There isn't a reliable value-add system anywhere on this planet," said union President Michael Mulgrew. He said he isn't opposed to developing such a system, but the current one produces scores that aren't ready to be publicized with teachers' names. He said of 20 value-added reports teachers have sent him, 13 had errors, such as listing pupils not in the class.

The DOE said there has only been a smattering of complaints, and they have been quickly resolved.

Mr. Mulgrew also found fault with basing the data on test scores, which the state this year acknowledged were flawed. In addition, the union provided a 2008 letter from a DOE official that promised that in the event a public-records request was made for the data, "we will work with the UFT to craft the best legal arguments available to the effect that such documents fall within an exemption from disclosure."

Natalie Ravitz, DOE's spokeswoman, said the agency does "not believe that any of the exemptions" under the records law "apply in this matter, which is what we told the UFT. But that will be for a judge to decide."

Mr. Mulgrew said the UFT will likely seek an injunction Thursday to prevent the disclosure.

The DOE used value-added data this year for the first time to help determine whether to give a teacher tenure. For some teachers, the DOE has up to four years of annual student test data on which to build a value-added score. Only 12,000 of the city's nearly 80,000 public-school teachers have such scores because they teach math or English to fourth through eighth graders. Testing begins in third grade, which provides a baseline score.

"Nobody is saying that value-added estimates tell the full story," said Timothy Daly, president of the New Teacher Project, a Brooklyn group that helps districts nationwide, including New York, recruit teachers. But it is "far more useful" than the current practice of "using one or two brief classroom visits by an administrator marking a checklist as an evaluation system."

Still, even proponents of value-added systems said publishing teacher names makes them nervous. "There are a lot of benefits to this approach, but the science of the methodology at this point isn't where it should be to attach teachers names to it," said Douglas Ready, a professor at Columbia University's Teachers College.


Write to Barbara Martinez at Barbara.Martinez@wsj.com


Ohio Democrat Threatens Pro-Life Leader with Jail

SBA List president Marjorie Dannensfelser
and Rep. Steve Driehaus

From Human Events
By Connie Hair

Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-Ohio) got himself into deep water when he took a principled stand to defend life earlier this year -- then buckled to his pro-abortion leadership to vote in favor of passing Obamacare.

The legislation passed by Democrats allows the use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortion on demand through government-run insurance plans.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of the Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List), is being threatened with possible jail time for informing voters that Driehaus voted in favor of taxpayer-funded abortion with his vote for Obamacare.

Read the rest of this entry >>


Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Pope Names 24 New Cardinals




At his regular weekly public audience on October 20, Pope Benedict XVI announced his plan to elevate 24 new members to the College of Cardinals.

Confirming the expectations of Vatican journalists, the Holy Father announced that a consistory will be held on November 20. He named 20 prelates who will become voting members of the College of Cardinals. Four others who will receive a red hat in recognition of their long service to the Church, but because they are over the age of 80 they will not be eligible to participate in papal election.

The 20 new cardinal-electors will bring the total number of voting cardinals to 121—one above the normative maximum of 120. However the Pope has the authority to waive that maximum—as Pope John Paul II did in the past. The number will drop back down to 120 by January 2011, when the French Cardinal Bernard Panafieu, the retired Archbishop of Marseilles, turns 80.

The twenty new cardinal-electors will be:

  1. Archbishop Angelo Amato, the prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints;
  2. Archbishop Fortunato Baldelli, the Major Penitentiary;
  3. Archbishop Raymond Burke, the American-born prefect of the Apostolic Signatura;
  4. Archbishop Raymundo Damasceno Assis of Aparecida, Brazil;
  5. Archbishop Velasio De Paolis, the president of the Prefecture for Economic Affairs of the Holy See;
  6. Archbishop Kurt Koch, the president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity;
  7. Archbishop Reinhard Marx of Munich;
  8. Archbishop Medardo Mazombwe, the retired Archbishop of Lusaka, Zaire;
  9. Archbishop Laurent Monsengwo Pasinya of Kinshasa, Congo;
  10. Archbishop Francesco Monterisi, the archpriest of the Roman basilica of St. Paul outside the Walls;
  11. Coptic Catholic Patriarch Antonios Naguib of Alexandria, Egypt—the relator general for the current Synod of Bishops for the Middle East;
  12. Archbishop Kazimierz Nycz of Warsaw;
  13. Archbishop Mauro Piacenza, the new prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy;
  14. Archbishop Paolo Romeo of Palermo, Italy;
  15. Archbishop Albert Malcolm Ranjith Patabendige Don of Colombo, Sri Lanka;
  16. Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, the president of the Pontifical Council for Culture;
  17. Archbishop Robert Sarah, the new president of the Pontifical Council Cor Unum—the charitable arm of the papacy;
  18. Archbishop Paolo Sardi, the pro-patron of the Knights of Malta;
  19. Archbishop Raul Vela Chiriboga, the retired Archbishop of Quito, Ecuador; and
  20. Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, DC.
The four prelates who will be raised to the College of Cardinals, but ineligible to vote in a papal election because of age, are:
  1. Msgr. Domenico Bartolucci, the longtime director (now retired) of the Sistine Chapel choir;
  2. Msgr. Walter Brandmuller, the former president of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences;
  3. Archbishop José Manuel Estepa Llaurens, the former ordinary for the Spanish military forces; and
  4. Archbishop Elio Sgreccia, the former president of the Pontifical Academy for Life.

Most of the Pope’s choices were expected, although the names of Archbishops Mazombwe and Vela were not often heard in the speculation prior to the papal announcement. Interestingly, both of these archbishops are already retired—although they remain eligible to take part in a conclave. Cardinal-elect Mazombwe, who is 79, will lose that eligibility next September.

Archbishop Marx will be the youngest of the new cardinals, and the youngest member of the College as a whole. Msgr. Bartolucci, who is 93, will become the 4th-oldest member of the College.

Among the prelates whose names are conspicuously absent from the list of new cardinals are two leading archbishops of the English-speaking world: Archbishops Vincent Nichols of Westminster and Timothy Dolan of New York. Both archbishops have succeeded cardinals who remain under the age of 80: Cardinals Cormac Murphy-O’Connor of Westminster and Edward Egan of New York. Vatican tradition weighs against the appointment of a new cardinal from any archdiocese whose former leader remains a cardinal-elector.

White House Insider: Coming Soon – Serious White House Scandal


We are very intrigued by the following story at NewsFlavor. A major scandal in an administration this arrogant and contemptuous of the Constitution seems inevitable and the perfect trigger for a not-so-civil war between the Clinton and Kennedy wings (Hillary and Obama) of the Democrat Party. Add the tinder of massive defeat in just under two weeks, and watch the conflagration.

White House Insider: Coming Soon – Serious White House Scandal | Newsflavor