Thank God, with my apologies to the Almighty, that we have become “politically correct.” The term “politically correct” is defined as language or behavior intended to minimize offense while conforming to considerations of civility in debate on public policy and issues.
A day does not go by without a friend providing me with some statement, cartoon or story about political correctness. My Christmas and other holidays are enriched by emails about the use of acceptable terms when expressing seasonal greetings. I actually enjoy this whimsical consideration of my friends.
I have problems with political correctness. At home and elsewhere, rather than suggesting a news story is “pure unadulterated bull $#*!,” I am forced to suggest it merely “challenges credible truth.” Rather than state that brain matter has been substituted with other substances in the course of neurological surgery, I am forced to allow comments as an “alternate opinion.” Political correctness requires the diminution of other references to the extent that comments of sub-literate representatives are allowed to pass as credible sources for factual reference without review of actual facts.
At times, with particular reference to certain elected officials or issues, this ordeal reaches a crescendo of explicative statements with words deleted to such an extent that the result is all but unintelligible gibberish. Of course, my family and friends are spared from a barrage of words and the considerable risk that the Almighty may wish to end my comments with an independent intervening lightening bolt.
What is lost in political correctness is a tolerance that allows for factual inaccuracy and the absence of logical rigor. In exchange we are exposed to a level of sophistry that would challenge Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. When news sources are not held to account, political correctness allows editorialists and reporters to use questionable facts and assertions that blur news with opinion in a quagmire akin to animal waste storage ponds.
We should demand more. The question is whether our news sources could actually rise to that aspiration and whether we could decipher the difference. Perhaps political correctness does have a purpose other than civility.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Historic References for the War Funding Debate
With April 2007 as one of the deadliest months for US Forces in Iraq after declaration that “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” (White House Press Release, May 1, 2003), perhaps it is time to get some concepts straight. Informed debate calls for some understanding about the roles of the President and Congress. I respectfully suggest that a view offered without understanding of our constitutional process is little more than gibberish.
First, I suggest full reading of The Spirit of Laws (Montesquieu, 1748); James Madison’s Essays No. 47 and 51 and Alexander Hamilton’s Essay No. 69 in The Federalist, and at last The United States Constitution (Debates at Convention are optional.) To address the balance of Executive and Legislative power without historic reference is disingenuous.
As a matter of substantive constitutional law, the President may not wage war without congressional approval. This has been the case since the very outset of our nation. Article 1, Section 8 (11) gives Congress the power to declare war. Mr. Chief Justice Marshall wrote in 1801: “The whole powers of war being, by the Constitution of the United States, vested in Congress. . .” Talbot v. Seeman, 1 Cr. 1 (1801), cited as authority in Holtzman v. Schlesinger, 414 U.S. 1304 (1973). In 1973, Mr. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote in Talbot “In my judgment, nothing in the 172 years since those words were written alter[s] that fundamental constitutional postulate. . .”
In summary: The Civil War ended by Presidential Proclamation. WW I ended by Joint Declaration of Congress. WW II ended by German Instrument of Surrender, May 7, 1945/July 5, 1945 and The U.S. – Japan Peace Treaty of 1951, ratified by the U.S. Senate. The Korean war “ended” by armistice on July 27, 1953, with no peace treaty. Gerald Ford declared an end to the Vietnam War and termination of all U.S. aid on April 23, 1975. In each event, Congress was intricately involved in the “politics” to terminate the legal state of war. The United States Supreme Court stated that termination of a state of war “is a political act” in Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948).
Article I, section 9 of our Constitutional vests authority in Congress to provide for “the common defense and general welfare.” It is constitutionally appropriate for Congress determine how to fund a war. The President as Commander-in Chief directs the military while funding comes from Congress. Even George Washington understood this balance during the American Revolution. The conflict is inherent and necessary to preserve our constitutional balance. See Hamilton, Federalist No. 69.
Perhaps when we first seek to understand and respect the constitutional balance established by the Founders, the term “patriotism” undertakes a deeper meaning than sophistic posturing. Perhaps adding some historic and constitutional intelligence will result in a more considered view. Perhaps, not.
First, I suggest full reading of The Spirit of Laws (Montesquieu, 1748); James Madison’s Essays No. 47 and 51 and Alexander Hamilton’s Essay No. 69 in The Federalist, and at last The United States Constitution (Debates at Convention are optional.) To address the balance of Executive and Legislative power without historic reference is disingenuous.
As a matter of substantive constitutional law, the President may not wage war without congressional approval. This has been the case since the very outset of our nation. Article 1, Section 8 (11) gives Congress the power to declare war. Mr. Chief Justice Marshall wrote in 1801: “The whole powers of war being, by the Constitution of the United States, vested in Congress. . .” Talbot v. Seeman, 1 Cr. 1 (1801), cited as authority in Holtzman v. Schlesinger, 414 U.S. 1304 (1973). In 1973, Mr. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote in Talbot “In my judgment, nothing in the 172 years since those words were written alter[s] that fundamental constitutional postulate. . .”
In summary: The Civil War ended by Presidential Proclamation. WW I ended by Joint Declaration of Congress. WW II ended by German Instrument of Surrender, May 7, 1945/July 5, 1945 and The U.S. – Japan Peace Treaty of 1951, ratified by the U.S. Senate. The Korean war “ended” by armistice on July 27, 1953, with no peace treaty. Gerald Ford declared an end to the Vietnam War and termination of all U.S. aid on April 23, 1975. In each event, Congress was intricately involved in the “politics” to terminate the legal state of war. The United States Supreme Court stated that termination of a state of war “is a political act” in Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948).
Article I, section 9 of our Constitutional vests authority in Congress to provide for “the common defense and general welfare.” It is constitutionally appropriate for Congress determine how to fund a war. The President as Commander-in Chief directs the military while funding comes from Congress. Even George Washington understood this balance during the American Revolution. The conflict is inherent and necessary to preserve our constitutional balance. See Hamilton, Federalist No. 69.
Perhaps when we first seek to understand and respect the constitutional balance established by the Founders, the term “patriotism” undertakes a deeper meaning than sophistic posturing. Perhaps adding some historic and constitutional intelligence will result in a more considered view. Perhaps, not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
