Study Guide/Handbook on the US Constitution

June 18, 2016 Frank Kuchar

At the bottom of this newsletter you will see the cover to a new book, “The Handbook for We The People: A Primer on Strict Construction of the Constitution”. Originally, the book was written with the intent to serve as a study guide to the fundamentals of our Constitution and the principles of the government it created for high school students, but it is an excellent tool for anyone who would like to have an understanding of the original intent of the authors of the Constitution.

The author, a good friend of mine, used several sources in putting this guide together. The principles covered were based upon the writings of a retired attorney who is a devoted student and lecturer on the Constitution who writes under the pseudonym “Publius Huldah” (whom some of you may be acquainted with) along with writings of the founders including the Federalist Papers and Webster’s 1828 Dictionary which gives the meanings of the words as understood at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

The book is an easy read and contains seven chapters. The first chapter covers the basics of the principles behind the Constitution such as a brief description of Federalism, republican government, etc. The next three chapters cover in brief the enumerated powers of each of the three branches of government and touches on topics that are much in the news today such as the major clauses of governmental power (Welfare, Commerce, Necessary and Proper) and how they were intended to be understood by the founders.

Chapter six builds upon the principle of federalism and republicanism and delves into the topic of nullification – a tool, as explained in the chapter, the founders put in place for the states to use in keeping the federal government within its constitutional boundaries. Chapter seven focuses on the issue hotly debated today in regards to the relationship between religion and the state. The final chapter covers the concept of making amendments to the Constitution, including a brief look at the idea of what some are calling an “Article V Convention of the States”.

At the end of each chapter there is a list of questions and assignments to encourage the reader to delve deeper into the subject matter presented in the chapter. In the appendix is a list of references such as the text of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and a glossary of terms that are critical to understanding the original intent of our founders.

The prophet Hosea of ancient Israel, speaking for the Lord, declared “My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge.” It is the intent of this book to help our youth, citizens, and yes, even government officials at all levels, gain a basic knowledge so as to keep our republic from being destroyed. I highly recommend the book and would encourage anyone interested to look into it and use it for your children, grandchildren as well as any teachers and government officials you can convince to read it.

As a disclaimer, I did help in the early proofing of the book and making suggestions regarding the chapter questions; yet I have no financial interest at stake in the proceeds of the sales. My only concern is to get an excellent primer into the hands of those who wish to gain a firm grasp of the original intent of our Constitution.

Handbook for We the People

-June 17, 2016

Land of the Free and Home of the Brave?

June 2, 2016 Frank Kuchar

In all the times you’ve sung/heard that last phrase in the first stanza of our national anthem, have you ever given much thought as to why those two concepts are joined together? Reflecting back upon this past Monday when we remembered those who gave “the last full measure” to procure and secure our freedom, the inextricable connection between them becomes very clear.

We were established to be a land of free citizens through the bravery of a few who sought to make their home in a land of freedom. When those 56 men in Philadelphia pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor by signing our Declaration of Independence, they were bravely signing their death warrants in the eyes of the British Crown. It was their burning passion for liberty over their fear of death, as expressed by Patrick Henry, that gave them the courage to sign that document and bequeath to us the freedom we now see slipping from our grasp.

How is it that we sing this phrase and yet no longer act like we mean it or believe it? Are we a “land of the free”? Hardly; not like we were in times past nor as we were meant to be. Are we the “home of the brave”? For some we are, but not as many as there should be. We have those among us who are yet brave in the defense of freedom – every man and woman who put on the uniform of our military or local police and emergency service provider can be numbered among those who are “the brave.”

But what about the rest of us? Why are we allowing those we elect to represent us to create laws that chip away at our freedom without any accountability or repercussion? Why do we tolerate nameless, faceless, unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats to trample our constitutionally-guaranteed liberties with their unconstitutional acts and regulations? Why do we cower in fear before them when it is they who should cower before us? Is it because we have become too soft – too afraid to stand up and be counted because we fear becoming like a few brave fellow citizens who have and now languish in jail?

We celebrate two holidays – Memorial Day, in which we somberly reflect upon those brave souls who sacrificed their lives for us, and another, Veterans’ Day, for those who have and currently serve in defense of that freedom. These men and women bravely left their homes to ensure that our land remains free, and some have returned, not to the embrace of their loved ones, but rather in a flag-draped casket.

So the questions for us are: “How brave are you? How brave am I?” “How deeply do you want to be free? How deeply do I?”

-June 3, 2016

What “-ism” Are We?

May 28, 2016 Frank Kuchar

Our founders championed the political structure of “republicanism”, i.e. a system of government based upon democratically elected representatives who would govern in behalf of those who elected them and to whom they would be accountable for the manner of their governance. Since then we have seen the rise of socialism and its variants of communism and fascism throughout the world and more alarmingly, our transitioning from the republicanism upon which we were founded to fascism.

This week Michelle Obama demonstrated another “-ism” towards which our country has been lurching for decades – “nannyism”. One of the actions advocated by the first lady’s “Let’s Move” campaign was an overhaul of the nutrition labels on food packaging. These updates that she will be announcing were recently finalized by the Food and Drug Administration (another agency without authority granted to the federal government among the enumerated powers in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution). It is not the government’s role to tell companies what and how they must label their products – that is the role of consumers in the marketplace who can bring pressure on companies to do so or, if necessary, by the states.

Furthermore, as is usual with governmental regulations, it will only place more burdens on businesses, the cost of which will ultimately be borne by us, the consumers as all such costs are. According to industry estimates, it will cost companies at least $640 million to make the updates, with a net social cost of at least $1.4 billion.

The question to be asked is “Will this be an improvement or just more government heavy-handedness?” A number of scientists are going on record that these new guidelines are not based upon sound science. A dozen scientists have signed a joint letter stating that the new requirements are misleading. Among those signing this letter are Roger Clemens, a member of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, and Eric Decker, head of the Department of Food Science at the University of Massachusetts. They further state that these regulations are based upon the 2015 Dietary Guidelines, which were formulated by a committee that did not include even one expert on sugars; yet the first lady boasts that the most important change in these regulations is information about sugar content!

So as with most other similar government regulations, they are outside the scope of the role and authority of government as well as being inaccurate, misleading and costly. But then again, we are too stupid to know better than to consume an entire bag of Oreos, so we need the government to tell us.

-May 27, 2016

Government Intervention into Labor Relations

May 21, 2016 Frank Kuchar

The Department of Labor has announced new regulations redefining the classification of workers who will be entitled by law to overtime compensation and the salary levels below which workers must be reclassified. As with all such interventions by government, there are issues to be taken with this one on many levels.

First is the existence of a Department of Labor which is tasked with regulating labor relations within our economy. Nowhere in the enumerated powers of the US Constitution is the government granted the power to create such laws and regulations. We claim to have a “free marketplace”, but it is only lip service; in fact it is, by the definition of Fascism economics, a Fascist marketplace. As Ayn Rand put it, “…a system in which the government does not nationalize the means of production, but assumes total control over the economy is fascism.” This is the very description of the direction our government has been heading for decades, and is only picking up steam with such encroachments into business practices such as this.

Second, as with most, if not all, governmental encroachments into labor matters, the opposite end of what is desired is what is achieved. For example, consider Milton Friedman’s excoriating of the idea of a minimum wage (which is making the headlines nowadays): “Minimum wage laws are about as clear a case as one can find of a measure of the effects of which are precisely the opposite of those intended by the men of good will who support it. Many proponents of minimum wage laws…hope, by outlawing wage rates below some specified level, to reduce poverty. In fact, insofar as minimum wage laws have any effect at all, their effect is clearly to increase poverty…The effect of the minimum wage is therefore to make unemployment higher than it otherwise would be.”

The consequences of this latest regulation will be no different from what Friedman stated about the effect of the minimum wage. Are there occupations where individuals are being taken advantage of by companies that this regulation is intended to help? Most definitely. However the solution is not the heavy hand of government interference, but rather the power of the marketplace. When enough people refuse to perform certain kinds of jobs for the wages offered, companies will be forced to raise the salaries and/or benefit packages to attract the quality of employees they seek. As one who has earned professional certifications in the field of compensation I can attest that market forces are extremely forceful in determining compensation levels.

In Jesus’ parable of the workers in the vineyard, those who worked all day were paid the same wages as those who only worked a small portion of the day. When they complained because they had worked longer than the others, the owner said “Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go.” If we accept a position in exchange for a certain amount of compensation, then that is our decision; it is we who made the agreement and if we don’t like it, then either don’t accept the offer or stay in that position while seeking better employment. I have done this more than once in my career. It is not the function of government to improve our situation in life; it can only make life more difficult when it goes beyond the purpose for which it was created.

-May 20, 2016

The Two Ends of Tyranny’s Spectrum

May 13, 2016 Frank Kuchar

When we think of tyranny it is usually pictured in the form of a despot such as the emperors of ancient Rome or our modern-day want-to-be emperors such as Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jung-un, etc. When we look at our current system of government we could also add unelected bureaucrats who populate such agencies as the EPA, BLM, IRS, et al.

As you examine these various avenues through which tyranny can and has manifested itself, there is a continuum on which all of these forms fall. At the each end of it are two extremes that are manifesting themselves in America today.

On one end you have “democracy” – the rule of the majority. Our founding fathers rejected pure democracy on several grounds. Madison set forth the case in The Federalist No. 10 that democracy ultimately devolves into “spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property;” In such a society those in the minority are unprotected from the abuse and oppression by the majority. Today, as more and more individuals become dependent upon government for their sustenance, and more immigrants, both legal and especially illegal, are allowed into America and have no intention of assimilating the principles of “Americanism”, they will use government to oppress those who strive to adhere to those principles of individualism and limited government. Such a danger was expressed again by Madison in a letter to Thomas Jefferson on October 17, 1788:

“Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is cheifly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents.”

On the opposite end is the tyranny of the minority. This is becoming more prevalent today. The Occupy Wall Street hooligans chanted “This is what democracy looks like”, but such could not have been further from the truth. They were what anarchy looks like; they were an expression of attempted tyranny by a minority. Most recently we see those who can’t figure out what gender they are demanding access to restrooms and locker rooms corresponding to the gender they think they are because to not do so makes them feel uncomfortable. They are a tiny minority in our society yet governments, companies and schools are caving in to this minority even though it makes those in the majority feel uncomfortable. Such capitulations as these (and others in the news) are the submission of the majority to the tyranny of the minority.

Regardless of whether we are speaking of the tyranny of one individual, a particular political party or group of government officials, a majority or a minority within a society, it is still tyranny, and in none of these cases can the inalienable right of individual liberty be realized.

-May 13, 2016

My Rights, Your Rights – Who’s Right?

May 6, 2016 Frank Kuchar

There is much debate in our country today over this subject of “rights.” Many of these claims are without basis, for they are not truly “rights.” A “right” is something you are not given, but instead are born with – it is innate within you, and as such is something to which no one or group has a legitimate claim.

Such are the “inalienable rights” we are familiar with from our Declaration of Independence. It should be noted that the four listed in that second paragraph, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and the removal of a tyrannical government, are only the beginning point of “rights;” others are enumerated within the so-called “Bill of Rights” in our Constitution.

One of these additional “rights” is brought front-and-center in the first amendment, namely the right to free speech. The meaning of this short phrase is simple – I, you, and everyone else, have the inalienable right to speak our mind without the fear of repercussion. Such a right goes hand-in-hand with those other rights named in that amendment.

However, even rights have their limitations. My right to life, for example, ends when I willingly take away that right to life of another fellow human being. My right to speak freely ends when my speech slanders another, causing them harm, or prohibits them from likewise exercising their right to free speech. The motto of rights is simple – “do no harm,” for when you do, you forfeit your right of the same nature.

As we are in the throes of a tumultuous political season, I have witnessed countless examples of a violation of this principle of rights. Many individuals have taken part in protests against those seeking public office. Such protesting is a legitimate right; but when the actions of those protesters prohibit the rights of those candidates to speak or in prohibiting their fellow citizens from engaging in the political process in a peaceful manner, they have abdicated their claim to such a right.

There are so many other areas where we see this principle being violated. The riots in Ferguson, Missouri or Baltimore, Maryland, where thugs and hooligans went on a rampage, destroying private property (ownership of which is another alienable right) because they felt an injustice was committed are two recent examples.

If we are to be a “civil” society, it is high time we begin to act “civilly.” This is why we must ingrain the concept of “rights” and the motto of “do no harm” within our children by teaching and demonstrating this principle to them; for a society that is no longer “civil” is a society that will collapse inward upon itself and cease to exist.

– May 6, 2016

Property Taxes R & R

April 22, 2016 Frank Kuchar

Perhaps your state legislators are considering proposals for property tax reform like ours in Texas. The question to put to them is not “What reforms are you proposing for property tax assessments” but rather “Why do we even have a property tax in the first place?”

In his Second Treatise of Government published in 1689, the English political philosopher John Locke set forth the principle that personal property is the basis of personal liberty:

“…every man has a property in his own person; this nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body and the work of his hands we may say are properly his…this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to…”

Some 130 years later, John Taylor, a close compatriot of Thomas Jefferson, went even further in his work Construction Construed and Constitutions Vindicated, published in 1820, that not only is individual private property sacrosanct, but we do not have the right to hand control of it over to any other group or government:

“Societies are not instituted for the purpose of enabling governments to destroy natural rights; and as no man possesses a natural, or necessary, or convenient power over the natural rights of another, a majority of men cannot have a right to surrender to a government an absolute power over these natural rights…Neither nature, nor necessity, nor convenience, has invested the people, or their representatives, with an absolute power over private property, or over conscience;”

An income tax is, like the property tax, based upon the foregoing quotes, an assault upon individual property rights. Thus, if a state has an income tax, it too should be eliminated. But, if the income tax and property tax are eliminated, with what do you replace it? The answer: a consumption tax (or sales tax at the retail level only). This is not what some propose, a Value Added Tax, as that is an insidious, hidden tax (not to mention an oxymoron – what tax ever added “value” to anything?). Briefly, several advantages will come from this:

If you tax everyone and every organization, the tax base will be greatly expanded and thereby require a smaller tax rate than would otherwise be required.
For the same reason, if everything is taxed, not only will the rate be lower, but politicians will not be able to monkey with the tax code via legislation so as to curry favor with special interests or voting blocks of constituents.
Businesses will have lower costs and therefore their prices should come down. If they don’t lower their prices due to the decrease in expenses, then eventually free market competition from businesses that do will force each to become more price competitive.
Non-citizens who pass through or come for tourism and make purchases, will be contributing to the tax revenue, thus again, expanding the tax base.
Cities/states would no longer be able to use tax abatements to lure businesses to their locality which always makes the shortfall that results fall upon small businesses and homeowners.

There are any number of ways in which this revenue could then be distributed to the cities, counties and school districts, and that would be something for the legislators to determine would be the best approach for their particular state.

We do not need property tax reform; we need property tax R & R – Repeal and Replace. Without a property tax one thing is certain – when you become a homeowner it is you who are the owner. The state will never be able to seize your property because of a failure or inability to pay your property taxes.

-April 22, 2016

Declaration of Independence – Ignored Warnings

April 15, 2016 Frank Kuchar

All patriots are acquainted with the opening phrase of the second paragraph of our Declaration of Independence. Yet I fear that too many have never taken the time to read and/or study the entire Declaration and the complaints lodged within it against the tyranny of King George III.

One thing I am certain of – those in our government most certainly are not familiar with it, for if they were, they would heed the warnings within it and change the way in which they are exercising similar tyranny over us today.

Consider these four complaints stated by Jefferson – complaints you will readily see should serve as a warning to those in our government today.

“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.”

Does this not reflect the myriad of government agencies that have proliferated over the decades that are suffocating our freedom and liberties with endless regulations and oppressions? Think IRS, BLM and the EPA just to list a few.

“He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:”

Madison and others of our founders argued strenuously that the federal government’s powers were to be “few and defined”, whereas those left to the states would be “numerous and indefinite” (Federalist 45). Yet we see Congress, the executive branch with all its agencies, and the federal courts constantly and repeatedly overstepping their constitutional authority and subjecting the citizens of the several states to purported “laws” that are contrary to the constitutions adopted by the citizens of their respective states.

“For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:”

You can scarcely find a more obtrusive and anti-freedom tax system than what we currently suffer under. Yet when we petition our representatives for relief, they talk much but deliver only more oppression – or if nothing else, stand idly by while the IRS runs roughshod over us.

“We have warned them [those in the English government] from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.”

This statement, near the end of the Declaration, sums up the warning we are giving those in our government. There is a tsunami of anger and frustration rising up all across the land and for the same reasons as in the days of our forefathers. We all know how that matter was resolved:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. – That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute New Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Yes, those who govern us would do well to revisit our Declaration of Independence and give heed to the message and warnings it contains.

-April 15, 2016

What Happens If You Don’t…

April 8, 2016 Frank Kuchar

Pay your property taxes? Pay your income taxes? Comply with any EPA regulations regarding the use of your property? Comply with a multitude of local zoning ordinances or permits in regards to your property? We all know the answer to these questions as we’ve either experienced the consequences or know someone who has – the government, be it local, state and/or federal, swoops in and takes your property from you, fines you and perhaps even takes away your freedom by imprisoning you.

Does this sound like a government described by Patrick Henry during the Virginia ratification convention in 1788: “for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government”? My question hardly needs a response.

John Taylor, one of the most eloquent and ardent defenders among our founders of individual liberty and limited government, had this to say on the matter of property and individual rights:

“The restrictions as to taxing property, imposed upon both the federal and state governments, also recognize only a limited power over it in either; and as to the application of taxes, it is,…expressly limited to the execution of the powers delegated, for which purpose and no other the power of taxation was bestowed. Among the powers delegated, there is none to grant pensions, or to dispose of the public money according to the dictates of caprice, or benevolence,…

Societies are not instituted for the purpose of enabling governments to destroy natural rights; and as no man possesses a natural, or necessary, or convenient power over the natural rights of another, a majority of men cannot have a right to surrender to a government an absolute power over these natural rights…the freedom of conscience and of labour are essentially natural rights…Neither nature, nor necessity, nor convenience, has invested the people, or their representatives, with an absolute power over private property, or over conscience;…” (Construction Construed, and Constitutions Vindicated, 1820, p. 276)

Let those words of wisdom from almost 200 years ago sink in. Have we not done what Taylor said we have no right to do, namely surrendered our natural rights to a capricious government? It is unfortunate that we cannot require all of these young people thronging to Bernie Sanders rallies to read Taylor’s writings before being allowed to vote. Matter of fact, maybe it would help if all Americans were to read the wisdom of our founders before they cast their votes; maybe then we could elect men and women who would see to it that our government met Patrick Henry’s stated purpose of government.

-April 8, 2016

Tax Reform – “Fair” versus “Just”

March 18, 2016 Frank Kuchar

A few nights ago I listened to pundits debating the tax proposals of some of the presidential candidates as to which was better. The word “fair” was repeatedly used in the discussion. In another interview, Ben and Jerry of ice cream fame (who support Senator Sanders) were asked if they thought his proposal of a 92% marginal tax rate was “fair”, to which they replied “yes”. The interviewer pressed them on this and inquired if they would accept such a high tax on themselves given the level of their incomes, and they replied “yes” again, as it would be fair to those who earned less for the rich to “pay their fair share” (I guess it never occurred to them that they could voluntarily pay that tax now without an oppressive governmental confiscatory policy).

But is a tax system supposed to be “fair”? What is “fair”? That is an elusive definition as it depends upon what part of the income spectrum you fall. Sure, some rich individuals like these two may mouth support for such rates, but their refusal to voluntarily pay those kind of taxes highlights their hypocrisy.

I would argue that a tax system should be “just” and not “fair.” You may consider the terms synonymous, and indeed we use them in our regular course of conversation as such. However, they are not the same. The concept of “fair” is really a perception based upon the subjectivity of those impacted by a given situation, such as two siblings arguing over whether or not at Christmas time they were both treated “fairly” in the gifts they received.

“Just”, on the other hand, is a determination based upon an objective source such as law. We go to court when we feel we have not been treated “fairly” in order to seek “justice.” Our founders did not seek to establish a government that would be “fair”, but rather one that would be “just.” James Madison wrote in The Federalist Number 51:

“Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.”

Thus, according to Madison a tax system must be one that would comport itself to the concept of “justice.” So what would make for a “just” tax system? I submit that any tax on income of any kind is not a “just” system. In his Second Treatise of Government John Locke wrote

“every man has a property in his own person; this nobody has any right to but himself..labour being he unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to…”

To this Thomas Jefferson added in his first inaugural address:

“a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government,…”

It can be safely stated that any kind of an income tax system violates the statements made by these three great champions of personal liberty. Instead of arguing over this nebulous concept of a “fair” tax system, candidates should be setting forth their plans for a “just” tax system – which by the way has languished in Congress without a vote for two decades. This proposal involves the elimination of all income and payroll taxes and replaces it with a national consumption tax. Unfortunately it is commonly referred to as “The Fair Tax”, but it is a more “Just Tax” system. I want to be treated “justly”, for then I can say without equivocation that I have been also treated “fairly.”

-March 18, 2016