CANCEL BIDEN's ADDRESS

 

[Published on Newsmax 

SOTU Would Only Let Biden Trumpet His Hollow 'Accomplishments' | Newsmax.com]

Republicans should uninvite President Biden giving his State of the Union Address in the House Chamber.

Republicans can use this historic opportunity to draw attention to everything President Biden is doing to America. They know they will not convict Biden, or any of his Cabinet, using Impeachment.

Instead, Republicans can, in one master stroke, sanction Biden and realign the balance between the Legislative and Executive Branches.

There is no official reason for the speech.

There is not a requirement for it to be annual.

Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution only requires the President to “from time to time give to the Congress information of the State of the Union”.

There is no requirement for Congress granting the President the use of their Chamber for this ritualized taxpayer-funded infomercial.

Republicans would prove that the Congress is a co-equal branch, not subservient to the President. They would not be seen as a pack of trained seals clapping at dozens of cheap applause lines. They would not be the stage for ritualizing Biden's trumpeting hollow accomplishments and demonizing Republican opposition.

They would also avoid being put in awkward political binds as the President introduces controversial people seated next to the First lady, daring the Republicans not to applaud. Speaker Johnson would not have to maintain his dignity as Biden promotes the destruction of everything he holds dear.

Not inviting the President also brings the State of the Union back to its traditional position in American government.

President George Washington delivered the first State of the Union speech in person before a Joint Session of Congress on January 8, 1790. Since then, there have been 232 opportunities for Presidents to deliver their report before Congress. Presidents have delivered their report as a speech before a Joint Session of Congress only 108 times (46%).

The other 125 times were through written communication.

George Washington and John Adams delivered their State of the Union reports as speeches, but Thomas Jefferson was more comfortable with the written word. For 113 years, no other President delivered a State of the Union speech before Congress until Democrat Woodrow Wilson on December 2, 1913. This was part of Wilson’s elevating himself to new regal heights.

President Warren Harding continued this new practice. President Calvin Coolidge delivered his first and only State of the Union address on December 6, 1923, then went silent.

For ten years, Congress did not have to arrange a Joint Session for the State of the Union Address. Then Democrat Franklin Roosevelt asked for the forum in 1934. In 1946, President Harry Truman opted out of a formal speech because, during the previous nine months, he had spoken to five Joint Sessions of Congress relating to the end of World War II. In 1956, President Eisenhower opted out of the speech because he was still recovering from his September 24,1955 heart attack.

No one really missed the Presidential vanity hour. Twenty-six Presidents, including two of America’s greatest Presidential orators, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, choose not to speak to the Congress. Congress still operated. Legislative business proceeded. America survived.

Presidents issue a detailed Budget Message a few weeks after the State of the Union Report. This is a more tangible and actionable communication of the Administration’s priorities. Far more budget initiatives become reality than the dozens of empty promises made during a typical State of the Union address.

Americans have grown tired of this annual narcissistic charade.  President Bill Clinton’s first State of the Union Speech (SOTUS) was watched by a record 70 million.  The television audience for Biden’s 2023 SOTUS was only 27.3 million.

Congressional Republicans can reprimand Biden while reinventing government in the 21st Century. 

Let the President speak from the Oval Office and send a written version to Congress - that would more than meet the Constitutional requirement.

THE LEFT’s FINAL SOLUTION

[Also Published on Newsmax]

Leftists have launched their final assault on America.

Their goal is to obliterate America’s memory and sow the seeds for future generations to revile and reject everything that is good and noble in our country.

They intend to fundamentally change America’s historical narrative away from events and circumstances that made our country the world’s beacon of hope for freedom and representative government.  They strive to replace well-documented reality with a false narrative of America being the scourge of the world, based on its enslaving and stealing from everyone to enrich and aggrandize the white ruling elite.

Their plan is called the “1619 Project”, an alternative history curriculum for American elementary and secondary students.  It was announced in July 2019 with a series of front-page stories in the New York Times, and other major newspapers, explaining its content and the need to:

“reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are.”

The 1619 premise is, “our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written”.  Everything that happened in American history flows from the “original sin” of slavery.  Every concept, document, and institution that shapes and guides America was designed to promote slavery and therefore must all be eradicated to atone for centuries of racial oppression.

1619 proponents declare that we must “make amends” for America’s crimes against humanity by eliminating monuments, the Electoral College, the Senate, appointed Supreme Court justices, the Constitution, Bill of Rights, federalism, capitalism, and all vestiges of white history and culture.  The 1619 Project is partnering with those who deem the American Flag, Pledge of Allegiance, and National Anthem as offensive vestiges of racism, slavery, and white privilege.

We could ignore the 1619 Project if it was just the ravings of a coddled leftist professor in some Ivy League sinecure.  It is not.

The New York Times leads an array of news media, academia, think tanks, and public officials who see the 1619 Project as the final solution for turning America against itself.  Once they indoctrinate the current generation of elementary and secondary school students with hatred for America, drowning out dissenting voices with charges of racism and white privilege, they will have free rein to establish a permanent socialist state.

The 1619 Project was embraced by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, when she led members of the Congressional Black Caucus to Ghana during the August Recess.  They wanted the 1619 narrative of the first African slaves arriving at Jamestown to upstage commemorating the first session of an elected government at Jamestown.

To succeed, the 1619 Project must ignore mountains of facts, and fabricate a mountain of lies.

The centerpiece of the 1619 Project is that slavery was a uniquely American crime, infecting everything and everybody it touched to the present day.

The capture and enslavement of defeated foes is as old as humankind.  Slavery was integral to establishing regional dominance for the Egyptian Pharaohs, Muslim Emirs, Roman Emperors, and countless other rulers.  The Western Hemisphere’s great civilizations of the Mayans, Incas, and Aztecs enslaved their subjugated people for labor and ritual sacrifice. African rulers trading their slaves to Europeans was born from new sailing technology and the need for forced labor.

The 1619 Project ignores the fact that only 9.7 percent of the Atlantic slave trade involved England’s American colonies.  90.3 percent of African slaves were shipped to South America and the Caribbean.

The 1619 Project ignores that while 12 million West Africans were shipped by Europeans to the Americas, over 17 million East Africans were shipped by Arabs into the Middle East.  The 1619 Project ignores that the American colonies began banning slave importation in 1778, during the Revolutionary War, leading to a formal ban for the entire United States in 1794.  England did not ban slavery in its colonies until 1807.  Conversely, the Arab slave trade in East Africa was not eradicated until England destroyed the last slave forts in Zanzibar in 1909.  Slavery remains active, if officially banned, in much of the Arab world today.

The year 1619 is important, not because slaves arrived in the new world, but because for the first time in the Western Hemisphere, a free people elected representatives to govern and be held accountable at subsequent elections.  This was the first step to America becoming the most exceptional civic culture in world history.

Americans must do all they can to stop the 1619 Project and stand-up for the greatest nation on earth, before it’s too late.

MID TERMS MATTER

“CONSTITUTING AMERICA” SERIES ON CONGRESSIONAL HISTORY

The definition of a Midterm Election is that it is held mid-way through the term of the President. While not on the ballot, the President’s electoral mandate and actions to fulfill that mandate, are validated or challenged by voters as they elect members of the Legislative Branch.

Midterms were created as the solution to a fundamental issue in the founding of America:

What is the balance between responsive and responsible government?

The authors and advocates of the U.S. Constitution wrestled with this balance.

One the one hand, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, writing as “PUBLIUS”, asserted in their essays advocating for the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, that frequent elections guaranteed Congress’ elected Members responding to the will of the people.

Federalist No. 52:

“First. As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured…. It is a received and well-founded maxim, that where no other circumstances affect the case, the greater the power is, the shorter ought to be its duration.”

Guaranteeing responsiveness and accountability also needed to be tied to short terms in office.

FEDERALIST No. 57:

“The House of Representatives is so constituted as to support in the members an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people. Before the sentiments impressed on their minds by the mode of their elevation can be effaced by the exercise of power, they will be compelled to anticipate the moment when their power is to cease, when their exercise of it is to be reviewed, and when they must descend to the level from which they were raised; there forever to remain unless a faithful discharge of their trust shall have established their title to a renewal of it.”

On the other hand, Hamilton and Madison worried that too frequent elections would create instability.

Federalist No. 62

“The mutability in the public councils arising from a rapid succession of new members, however qualified they may be, points out, in the strongest manner, the necessity of some stable institution in the government. Every new election in the States is found to change one half of the representatives. From this change of men must proceed a change of opinions; and from a change of opinions, a change of measures. But a continual change even of good measures is inconsistent with every rule of prudence and every prospect of success. The remark is verified in private life, and becomes more just, as well as more important, in national transactions.”

Hamilton and Madison raised an issue they considered worse than instability - arbitrary and capricious public policy. They sought a structural solution, “necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions.” [Federalist 63]

Hamilton and Madison’s solution was to have two separate bodies within the Legislative Branch, one of which would have longer terms of service. “The proper remedy for this defect must be an additional body in the legislative department, which, having sufficient permanency to provide for such objects as require a continued attention, and a train of measures, may be justly and effectually answerable for the attainment of those objects.’ [Federalist 63]

The Senate, having six year terms for its members, would be a defense against, “particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn.” [Federalist 63]

Hamilton and Madison cited the importance of deflecting transitory and ill-thought public passion throughout history. “What bitter anguish would not the people of Athens have often escaped if their government had contained so provident a safeguard against the tyranny of their own passions? Popular liberty might then have escaped the indelible reproach of decreeing to the same citizens the hemlock on one day and statues on the next.” [Federalist 63]

They concluded that not only terms of service, but the cycles of elections would create the proper balance to assure responsive and responsible democracy: “when compared with the fugitive and turbulent existence of other ancient republics, very instructive proofs of the necessity of some institution that will blend stability with liberty.” [Federalist 63]

Their solution is embedded in the U.S. Constitution.

ARTICLE I; Section 3

1: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof,3 for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

2: Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year;

The combination of having the entire Membership of the House of Representatives face the electorate every two years, and only a third of the Senate submit to re-election every two years created Midterm Elections.

Throughout American history, Midterm Elections have reshaped Presidential agendas, ended or launched new political movements, and marked watershed moments in the civic culture of the nation.

The 1858 Midterm, prior to American Civil War, showcased the fragmentation of the Democrat Party over slavery and catapulted the four-year-old Republican Party into becoming the dominant plurality faction in both the House and Senate. Sixteen years later, Republicans lost 96 House seats and their majority in reaction to the Grant Administration scandals, and the mismanagement of Southern Reconstruction. 

The 1894 Midterms heralded the reemergence of the Republican Party as a new dynamic force that would bring William McKinley to the Presidency in 1896. The voters also blamed President Grover Cleveland for a major economic depression, leading to jobless workers marching on Washington demanding relief. The Democrats lost 116 seats in the House, the largest defeat in history. Fourteen years later, splits in the Republican Party, especially the falling out between old allies, Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, triggered Republicans losing 57 seats in the House and 10 Senate seats. This fragmentation worsened, leading to Woodrow Wilson winning the Presidency in 1912 with 42 percent of the popular vote in a three-way race.

The October 1930 Midterm reflected Americans reeling from the Stock Market Crash, facing a deepening Depression, and the collapse of trust in Republicans. The Republican Party lost 49 House and 8 Senate seats. The Republicans barely retained control of Congress by only two votes in the House and one in the Senate. Their Midterm debacle set the stage for the 1932 election, when Republicans lost the White House for twenty years, and lost Congressional power for three generations. Over the next 62 years, Republicans had ten years of intermittent rule in the Senate and led only two separate Congresses in the House.

America redefined itself in the 1994 Midterm elections. President Bill Clinton had overreached on universal healthcare. There was a revitalized Republican Party, fueled by Conservative Talk radio and the visionary leadership and aggressive tactics of Newt Gingrich.

Democrats were shocked, losing 53 House and 7 Senate seats. This brought Republican rule to the House for the first time since the 1952 election, a forty-two year hiatus. Only one Republican Member had served in the previous Republican era - as a House page.

Since 1994, Republicans have dominated the Legislative Branch, even gaining 6 House and 2 Senate seats in the 2002 Midterm, in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Bush Administration unpopularity and Congressional scandals led to voters ending Republican rule in the 2006 Midterms. President Obama’s policy overreach, Conservative Talk Radio, and the rise of digital and social media, brought Republican majorities back to the House in the 2010 Midterms and the Senate in the 2014 Midterms.

No matter the outcome of the 2018 Midterms, the wisdom of those who struck the balance between responsive and responsible government in the U.S. Constitution will once again be vindicated.

[Scot Faulkner advises corporations and governments on how to save billions of dollars by achieving dramatic and sustainable cost reductions while improving operational and service excellence. He served as the Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives. He also served on the White House Staff, and as an Executive Branch Appointee.]

Stopping Obama's Usurpation of Advice & Consent

This also appears at: http://www.constitutingamerica.org/blog/stopping-the-usurpation-of-advise-and-consent-guest-essayist-scot-faulkner/; https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/stopping-obamas-usurpation-advice-consent-scot-faulkner?trk=mp-reader-card


June 28, 2014 is an historic day in thwarting Presidential over-reach. On that day the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled President Obama’s recess appointments unconstitutional. NLRB versus Noel Canning, ET AL was a rare instance when the Judicial Branch acted as referee and reset the balance of power between the Executive and Legislative Branches.


The case centered on Noel Canning challenging a February 8, 2012 National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision on the grounds that its quorum only existed with the presence of invalid recess appointments. Noel Canning’s attorney argued that Obama’s ap­pointments were invalid because the 3-day adjournment between Congressional sessions was not long enough to trigger the Recess Ap­pointments Clause.


On January 25, 2013, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck the first blow against President Obama’s over reach by unanimously agreeing with Canning and ruling that the three recess appointments to the NLRB on January 4, 2012 were unconstitutional.


The Appeals Court asserted that the circumstance that would allow a President to make “Recess Appointments” under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution did not exist, because the Congress was in Pro Forma Session, not in a formal recess.


The Constitutional Convention of 1787 established two coequal chambers within the Legislative Branch.  One aspect of this balance is that:
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting. [Article 1, Section 5, Clause 4]


The formal end of a Congress is when the Legislative Branch adjourns “Sine Die” (from the Latin “without day”) meaning “without assigning a day for a further meeting or hearing”.  The Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution also sets a formal start and end time for each Congress.


The most complex consequence of Clause 4 relates to when Congress takes a recess and when it adjourns. A recess is a temporary halt to activity on the floor. Everything stops, and when the recess ends, the chamber resumes from where it left off. A recess might last 10 minutes or it might last weeks. The length of time does not matter. An adjournment is a formal end to business in the chamber, and upon return the chamber does not resume from where it left off. Just like a recess an adjournment can be for one minute or for three weeks.


Any formal break in Legislative Branch activity opens the door for a President to take certain actions. This includes making appointments which require Senate confirmation. Congressional leaders of both parties have devised ways to avoid inadvertently unleashing Presidential activism.


The Congress can take a break from legislative activity, and still avoid a formal recess or adjournment, by meeting in a “pro forma” session. Pro forma means “for the sake of formality”. In recent years pro forma sessions have prevented Presidents from making recess appointments, and in the case of President George W. Bush in 2008, deprived him calling a special session to reauthorize the Protect America Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.


As long as a Member convenes either the House or Senate to formally open and close a session there is no recess or adjournment. Members sometimes compete to see how fast they can conduct a pro forma session. The record is currently held by Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island who completed the task in 12 seconds.


Obama’s January 2012 appointments were designed to dramatically expand his appointment authority by asserting his recess-appointment power as a “safety valve” against Senatorial “intransigence.” [1]
The Supreme Court unanimously declared the President lacked the authority to make those appointments. [2]


Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court and quoted from the Federal Papers,  ”the need to secure Senate approval provides “an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to preventing the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity.” [3]


Breyer further wrote, “If a Sen­ate recess is so short that it does not require the consent of the House, it is too short to trigger the Recess Appoint­ments Clause. See Art. I, §5, cl. 4. And a recess lasting less than 10 days is presumptively too short as well”. [4] He dismissed the counter arguments of Obama’s Solicitor General as not, “either legally or practically appropriate”. [5]


Justice Scalia wrote a Concurrence that went further in assailing Obama’s attempt to nullify the Senate’s role in the appointment process [6].  Scalia exposed Obama’s “untenably broad interpretation” of Presidential power. [7] He also defined the Senate’s role in advice and consent on Presidential appointments “as a critical protection against “‘despotism,’ Freytag, 501 U. S., at 883”. [8]


The Concurrent Opinion was unprecedented in raising serious concerns over President Obama’s “aggrandizing the Presidency beyond its constitutional bounds and undermining respect for the separation of powers”. [9] It also challenged Obama’s rationale, “I can conceive of no sane constitutional theory…requiring us to defer to the views of the Executive Branch”. [10]


Justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito stood firm against Obama’s power grab by embracing the founding principles of America, “the limitation upon the President’s appointment power is there not for the benefit of the Senate, but for the protection of the people”. [11]


Scot Faulkner served as Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives and as a Member of the Reagan White House Staff.  He earned a Master’s Degree in Public Administration from American University, and a Bachelor’s Degree in Government from Lawrence University


NOTES:
[1] Tr. of Oral Arg. 21; page 74. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1281_mc8p.pdf
[2] NLRB versus Noel Canning, ET AL; No. 12–1281. Argued January 13, 2014—Decided June 26, 2014; 573 U. S. ____ (2014); 705 F. 3d 490, affirmed; Page 41.
[3] Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 76, p. 513 (J. Cooke ed. 1961).
[4] NLRB versus Noel Canning, ET AL; No. 12–1281. 573 U. S. ____ (2014); page 26.
[5] Ibid; page 43.
[6] Ibid; page 60. Scalia jointed by Justices Thomas, Roberts, and Alito.
[7] Ibid; page 61.
[8] Ibid; page 70.
[9] Ibid; page 108.
[10] Ibid; page 106.
[11] Ibid; page 107.

RIGHTING THE SHIP OF STATE

Congress and the White House are stumbling toward a temporary deal to reopen the Federal Government and raise the national debt.

This temporary fix does not solve any of the fundamental problems with government spending, fiscal management, or health policy. All it does is pull everyone back from the brink and give them limited time to find common ground.

Washington’s spiral into chaos and crisis began years ago. It accelerated after the 2010 elections. The debris field includes not just both political parties. The faith Americans and the rest of the world have in the functionality of the Federal Government is severely damaged. It is going to take more than a “grand bargain” on the budget to repair that damage.

During the descent into madness, all combatants displayed their willingness to destroy the fundamental fabric of America’s civic culture in order to win rhetorical points during ever smaller news cycles. Politicians and pundits acted as though America was a parliamentary democracy, where a legislative defeat would bring down the government, force the resignation of public officials, and trigger new elections.

Our Founding Fathers intentionally designed America’s rules of engagement to avoid the “all or nothing” confrontations that shape British legislation. Fixed terms of office were supposed to force opponents to work together and govern instead of remain in a constant campaign. The U.S. Constitution’s brilliance and resilience stems from practicality, not idealism. That said, it is going to take an historic effort on everyone’s part to repair the damage and restore trust in our institutions of government.

Unfortunately, many involved in these recent political battles seem to want to permanently undermine these institutions of government. "We are looking for an Egyptian moment here! Enough tyranny...” trumpeted an organizer for the truckers’ protest that ended up being more bluster than reality. Other political voices are advocating continued unrest and chaos. Some now champion nullification (ignoring the rules) or a constitutional convention to completely change the rules.

During 226 years living in a Constitutional Republic, Americans have weathered terrible, corrupt, and incompetent Presidents, tolerated dysfunctional and “do nothing” Congresses, and have had to retry and overturn ill-conceived Supreme Court rulings. No matter how bad things got, Americans and their civic culture persevered without risking collapse (save for our Civil War).

It is therefore dismaying that things got so far out of hand during this recent confrontation. The level of righteous ignorance about government functions and processes, the uncivil and abusive accusations about opposing agendas, and the shrill demagogy have created a hole in the fabric of our system that will take time and creativity to repair. Record low levels of support and trust in our elected leaders and record high levels of dissatisfaction must be addressed.

One possible way to rebuild rational discourse and productive engagement is to experiment with crowd sourcing and facilitated discussion. Go to http://onlinetownhalls.com/start/90 to join in an online conservation to test out a new community engagement tool.

Online Townhalls is used by professional and business groups to aggregate opinion and facilitate consensus. In 2012, the Organization of American States (OAS) and the U.S. State Department used Online Townhalls to engage citizens in 35 nations using four languages to support the Summit of the Americas.

Here is a 7-minute video that explains how to use Online Townhalls.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW2OLEM-qeE

Another way to learn about Online Townhalls is to follow a sample conversation based on the famous movie “Twelve Angry Men”. This tracks the jury’s consideration of trial evidence. http://onlinetownhalls.com/read/6

One online tool is only a very small step toward re-establishing sanity and decorum in our public processes. Just like after a wind storm, you start the recovery process by picking up the first downed branches. While chainsaws and a tree removal service may become part of the clean-up process, you have to start somewhere.

The recovery from our most recent political storm will take more than a few months. It will probably take years. We all must start somewhere. Your ideas are welcome! We must all pitch in. Perhaps trying out http://onlinetownhalls.com/start/90 is a good first step.

The Emancipation Proclamation

Published as part of Constituting America's "constitution reader" series

"90 in 90: History Holds the Key to the Future”

 in cooperation with Hillsdale College

http://www.constitutingamerica.org/blog/blog/2013/05/23/wednesday-may-23-2013-essay-69-the-emancipation-proclamation-scot-faulkner-former-chief-administrative-officer-of-the-u-s-house-of-representatives-and-currently-president-of-friends/

Essay #69 - The Emancipation Proclamation - Scot Faulkner

On January 1, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln’s right hand was trembling. He had spent the morning shaking hundreds of hands as part of the traditional New Year’s Day greetings at the White House. He remarked to Secretary of State, William Seward, that, “if my signature wavers they will say I was afraid to sign it.” He then took up his pen and wrote his name firmly on the Emancipation Proclamation. As Seward co-signed the document, Lincoln mused, “Seward, if I am to be remembered in history at all, it will probably be in connection with this piece of paper”. [1]

The Emancipation Proclamation was a masterful document in that it accomplished so much while preserving strict constitutional principles. Lincoln was first and foremost an attorney. He understood the need for government to act based upon the Constitution, which he had sworn to uphold, “I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling [that slavery is wrong]…I understood…that in ordinary course of civil administration this oath even forbade me to practically indulge my primary abstract judgment on the moral question of slavery.” [2]

The reason the Emancipation Proclamation intentionally has, “all the moral grandeur of a bill of lading” is that it is a, “narrowly justified executive action taken by the commander-in-chief of the armed services of the United States under the power granted him only in wartime, doing something he absolutely could not have done in peacetime, or merely on the basis of his own opinion.” [3]

Lincoln’s act was bold and reflected his keen understanding of the Emancipation Proclamation as a pivotal moment in the evolution of public policy regarding slavery and its abolition.

In the mid-1850s, the Republican Party brought together diverse factions from the splintering Democratic Party and the imploding Whig Party. While the “radicals” wanted immediate and universal abolition of slavery everywhere, the centrist position focused on controlling or preventing the expansion of slavery into new territories. Gerrit Smith, one of the financial backers of John Brown’s paramilitary activities on behalf of abolition in both Kansas and at Harpers Ferry[4], derisively declared, “The Republican party refuses to oppose slavery where it is, and opposes it only where it is not.” [5]

The Republican platforms of 1856 and 1860 assertively opposed expansion of slavery into the territories, but remained silent on outright abolition within existing states. At his 1861 Inauguration, Lincoln confronted seven southern states that had already seceded and the possible secession of eight more, which included the four key Border States. Nearly a third of his Inaugural Address was spent assuring these states that he swore an oath to defend the Constitution and the Constitution allowed slavery in existing states, “I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause—as cheerfully to one section as to another.” He went onto to provide assurances that, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” [6]

Lincoln’s assurances were designed to “buy time” for his administration to form. They also reflected the political reality that few in the North wanted a war based solely on emancipating slaves. [7]

Political realities were quickly overwhelmed by military ones. The moment Union forces occupied southern territory, slaves flocked to them in the hopes of gaining immediate freedom. The first such action occurred at Fort Monroe in Virginia on May 24, 1861. General Benjamin Butler established the concept of “contraband” whereby escaped slaves would be welcomed into Northern armies and used as workers, “as I would for any other property of a private citizen which the exigencies of the service seemed to require.” As a lawyer, Butler further invoked the concept that property used in a crime (in this case an illegal rebellion) can “be confiscated as “contraband” by legal authorities.” [8]

Butler’s precedent setting action led to a rapid evolution of Northern policy on freeing slaves. On August 6, 1861, Lincoln signed the First Confiscation Act, which authorized the confiscation of any Confederate property by Union forces ("property" included slaves). This meant that all slaves that fought or worked for the Confederate military were freed whenever they were "confiscated" by Union troops.

In October 1861, Secretary of War, Simon Cameron, expanded upon Congressional policy in his annual report, “Those who make war against the Government justly forfeit all rights of property…It is clearly a right of the Government to arm slaves, when it may become necessary, as it is to use gun-powder taken from the enemy.” [9]

Northern politicians were uniting around the concept that slavery was the life blood of the Confederate war effort. On January 14, 1862, Rep. George Julian (R-Indiana) asserted, “When I say that this rebellion has its source and life in slavery, I only repeat a truism. [The four million slaves] cannot be neutral. As laborers, if not soldiers, they will be the allies of the rebels, or of the Union.” [10] This sentiment inspired seven partial emancipation bills and the Second Confiscation Act. [11]

By the summer of 1862, the Second Confiscation Act was passed. It stated that any Confederate official, military or civilian, who did not surrender within sixty days of the act's passage, would have their slaves freed. While this was only applicable to Confederate areas that were already occupied by the Union Army, it did state that all slaves who took refuge in Union areas were "captives of war" and would be set free.

Emboldened by Congressional and Presidential policies, Union field commanders pushed the boundaries of interpretation as they moved deeper into Southern territory. On May 9, 1862, General David Hunter issued, “a sweeping declaration of martial law abolishing slavery in all three states constituting his “Department of the South.” [12] Lincoln quickly reversed this unilateral act, but added that while Hunter’s order might, “become a necessity indispensible to the maintenance of the [Union] government,” it was a decision “I reserve to myself”. [13]

Emancipation was being viewed as a means to victory. Lincoln began to also view it as an end. His efforts to cajole Border State politicians were going no where. Military reality was making his accommodation less and less necessary. On July 13, 1862 the Border State leaders issued a manifesto rejecting Lincoln’s last proposal. On that same day, Lincoln privately told Seward and Gideon Welles, his Secretary of the Navy, that he was ready to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. [14]

Geopolitics was also entering the equation. Lincoln had kept his public pronouncements on slavery to a minimum over concern for Border State loyalty. European nations viewed Lincoln’s tepid pronouncements as a license to trade with the Confederacy under international law. British and French neutrality was skirted by highly creative Confederate agents and European sympathizers. As long as America’s civil war was officially about opposing Southern independence, many British liberal and business interests rallied to the Southern cause. As the war wore on, top European political leaders wished to rebuild their economies, which were being damaged by the conflict. Recognition of the Confederacy, and mediating a peace, were actively debated within the government of British Prime Minister Lord Henry Palmerston. [15]

Lincoln and Seward realized emancipating the slaves would not only alter the dynamic of the war in America, but also end European support for recognition and intervention. England had abolished slavery throughout its empire in 1833 and would not side with a slave nation if the goal of war became emancipation. Lincoln was well aware of this geopolitical chess board, “Emancipation would weaken the rebels by drawing off their laborers and would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition”. [16]

On July 22, 1862, Lincoln called a Cabinet meeting to announce his intention to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. It was framed as an imperative of war, [17] “by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion.” Lincoln also justified, “upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity...” Another significant military aspect of the Emancipation opened the door for a multi-racial army and society, “And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.”

Seward raised concerns over the timing of the Proclamation; citing recent Confederate victories might make its issuance look like an act of desperation, “our last shriek, on the retreat.” [18] It was decided to wait for a Northern victory so that the Emancipation could be issued from a position of strength.

Striving for a game-changing victory became the priority for both sides. The summer of 1862 witnessed a series of brilliant Confederate victories. British Prime Minister Palmerston agreed to finally hold a Cabinet meeting to formally decide on recognition and mediation. [19] General Lee wished to tip the scales further by engineering a Confederate victory on northern soil. In essence, he wanted a victory similar to the 1777 Battle of Saratoga that brought French recognition and aid to America. [20]

The race was on, turning the siege of Harpers Ferry (September 12-15, 1862), the Battle of South Mountain (September 14, 1862), and Antietam (September 17, 1862) into the only battles of the war that had global impact. The final battle of Antietam forced Lee and his army back into Virginia. This was enough for Lincoln to issue his Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, five days after battle on September 22, 1862. When news of the Confederate retreat reached England, support for recognition collapsed, extinguishing, “the last prospect of European intervention.” [21] News of the Emancipation Proclamation launched “Emancipation Meetings” throughout England. Support for a Union victory rippled through even pacifist Anti-Slavery groups who asserted abolition, “was possible only in a united America.” [22]

Lincoln accomplished an historic Trifecta. He revolutionized the Union war effort by bringing 200,000 blacks into the Union army. He isolated the Confederacy from Europe, making Union victory inevitable. He also strategically shifted public policy within the parameters of constitutional government and laid the ground work for the immediate and universal abolition of slavery everywhere in America by amending the Constitution. For this masterful strategy of removing slavery strictly within the bounds of law Lincoln has been declared America's "last Enlightenment politician". [23]

Scot Faulkner served as the first Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives and is currently President of Friends of Harpers Ferry National Historical Park. You may read his columns at http://citizenoversight.blogspot.com  

NOTES
[1] Carpenter, Francis, How the Emancipation Proclamation was Drafted; Political Recollections; Anthology - America; Great Crises in Our History Told by its Makers; Vol. VIII (Veterans of Foreign Wars, Chicago, 1925) page 159.

[2] Miller, William Lee, President Lincoln; The Duty of a Statesman (Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2008) page 265.

[3] Miller, William Lee, Lincoln’s Virtues; An Ethical Biography (Vintage Books, New York, 2003) page 237.

[4] Renehen, Edward J. Jr., The Secret Six; How a Circle of Northern Aristocrats helped light the Fuse of the Civil War (Crown Publishers, New York, 1995) pages 123, 182, and 187.

[5] Foner, Eric, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men; The Ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War (Oxford University Press, New York, 1995) page 302.

[6] Lincoln, Abraham, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.

[7] McPherson, James, Battle Cry of Freedom (Oxford University Press, New York, 1988) pages 263-264.

[8] Detzer, David, Dissonance; The Turbulent Days Between Fort Sumter and Bull Run (Harcourt, Inc., New York, 2006) Page 334.

[9] Op. Cit., McPherson, page 357.

[10] Op. Cit., McPherson, page 495.

[11] Op. Cit., McPherson, page 496.

[12] Op. Cit., McPherson, page 499.

[13] Op. Cit., McPherson, page 499.

[14] Op. Cit., McPherson, page 504.

[15] Foreman, Amanda, A World on Fire; Britain’s Crucial Role in the American Civil War (Random House, New York, 2010) page 293.

[16] Op. Cit., McPherson, page 510.

[17] Op. Cit., Carpenter, pages 160-161.

[18] Op. Cit., McPherson, page 505.

[19] Op. Cit., Foreman, page 295.

[20] Op. Cit., McPherson, page 555.

[21] Op. Cit., Foreman, page 322.

[22] Op. Cit., Foreman, page 397.

[23] Guelzo, Allen C., The Great Event of the Nineteenth Century: Lincoln Issues the Emancipation Proclamation (The Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, 2006) page 3.

Rebuilding America's Civic Culture

[Richard Dreyfuss' Remarks at TEDx]



You might know me as an actor, but I’m here today as an advocatefor a very particular kind of education that I believe has gone missing from our schools today. Those of us who are older know it as civics. But I’m talking about not just one single class that you take in high school, but a complete K-12 curriculum.


Why do schools need this curriculum? I believe that tomorrow’s leaders need to be able to do three things, and do them very well.

They need to engage in civil debate.

They need to be pre-partisan.

And they need to appreciate the revolutionary notions that this country was founded on.
Let’s start with civil debate. Imagine we’re in Philadelphia. It’s July, 1787, and the Constitutional Convention has been in full swing since May. It’s hot and humid, we’re wearing wool suits and powdered wigs and pantaloons with stockings. We’re probably pretty cranky.

Fifty-five delegates from the thirteen former colonies are—pretty much—all arguing with each other. We’ve been independent from Britain since 1776. We have a temporary government, but it’s not working very well. We have to figure out how to rule ourselves.

You have the rock star, George Washington. Loaded with charisma and gravitas. If I was casting George Washington for a film, I couldn’t cast him. No one is good enough; no one living today has enough star power. Washington was the first person to think of himself as an American, as opposed to a Brit. King George thought he was the greatest man in the world, because he had willingly given up power.

There’s Alexander Hamilton, Washington’s right-hand-man during the war. Hamilton was the only true genius in the group, a person whose ability to understand political power was immense. He knew that this country could only be great as a world power, a manufacturing and industrial power. Hamilton looked west and saw the continent stretching out before us. He knew the future lay west, not east back across the Atlantic.

Our third key player is thirty-four year old James Madison. Shy. Short. Nerdy. Bookish. Absolutely brilliant at politics. He drafted a good part of the constitution while waiting for the others to arrive. Madison took notes under the table throughout the convention, so we have a pretty good idea of what went down.

Everyone at the convention has a different idea for how to structure the new government. Some want to copy England’s system and make George Washington king. Some want to let each state rule itself. Some want three Presidents, to share the power. Three presidents! Many of these men couldn’t stand each other, and Washington was frequently called over to mediate among them.

But throughout their disagreements, they maintained civil, if sometimes heated, debate. They found common ground. Civil debate is uniquely American, this idea that everyone has a voice, and all voices are equal. We take freedom of speech for granted, but it was these men in their powdered wigs who designed our system.

Is this what you think of when you think of the founding fathers? These guys couldn’t stand each other. Some of them were at risk of hanging if they came home with a single, federal government instead of each state being independent. But they worked through their differences and eventually came up with our constitution. Washington later described it as “little short of a miracle.”

So that is the first key aspect of American leadership that we need to be teaching our kids: civil debate.

Next is the ability to be pre-partisan. What do I mean by that? That you value the country more than your party, that you value the good of the whole, even before the good of the state that elected you.

It’s a pretty tall order. Our democracy depends on this principle. That a citizen of Tennessee can morph into a citizen of the whole, make decisions for the whole and—in many cases—make decisions against Tennessee, that's a pretty tough thing. It’s a very high expectation that we have of our citizens.

But tomorrow’s leaders need to recognize that some issues should be accepted and agreed to by all Americans, regardless of our party. Like civil liberties, free speech and assembly, freedom of religion, and the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. So teaching kids how to be pre-partisan is key.

Debate teams are a great example of this skill in action, because you are have a 50/50 chance of having to defend a position you disagree with. Learning to make a case for the other side allows you to have a broader understanding of the issue.

The third aspect of American leadership that we need to teach is to appreciate the revolutionary.

What was revolutionary about democracy? First of all, it depends on citizens, you and I. You don’t need good, educated, engaged citizens when you have a king or a warlord running the country. But democracy depends on everyone playing their part. Not just voting, but being engaged in the process. Understanding and appreciating how revolutionary democracy is.

What is amazing about America is that we said:

If you can get here, you can rise. No guarantee. But we give you the opportunity to rise, to be mobile, to start again, to fail and start again, to fail and start again. You can move around, say what you want, do what you want.

We were, and still are, a political miracle. And I mean, a political miracle. Because the norm is so dark and bloody and so unfair. We offered fairness and we offered a legal system that said no one was above the law. And that was completely unheard of.

We can see revolutionary in the Preamble of our Constitution. Let’s take a look.

We, the people of the United States:

Think about that for a minute. Never in history had a document like this been written. This assumes the people are deciding their own fate. This assumes that there will be a United States. It assumes that the average person from Tennessee or Massachusetts could be educated enough to help lead the country.

Think about that for a minute. All other forms of government assume you have to be born into leadership, or that leadership is won through violence. But in America, anyone in this room with the inclination, education, and drive, can run for and win office, and lead.

In order to form a more perfect union… by that they meant, a better way to lead, a better form of government than having a king tell you what to do, or having lords born into leadership who will always be in office, no matter how poorly they lead or how corrupt they are.

This next section tells us what the government is supposed to do. Notice the words in bold.

Establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves…

These are all active verbs. That means that the constitution is a living document, always able to be modified and interpreted. That’s why we still elect people to office, still have a Supreme Court, still have a President, still make laws.

Now the next three words are the ones I want you to pay special attention to:

and our Posterity.

Who is posterity? Posterity is our kids and our grandchildren.

And that’s what I fear is in jeopardy right now. Why? Because we no longer teach kids how democracy works. We no longer teach civics, how to debate in a civil manner, how to reason through a problem. Just turn on any news channel and you’ll see what I mean. People have no idea how to reason through a problem, they just repeat sound bites over and over.

If we don’t teach kids how democracy works and why it’s so special, so revolutionary, who will run the country in 30 years? In 50 years? Who will have the skill set to run the country when your grandchildren grow up?

Kids need to learn how we share public space with those we disagree with. How do we debate issues with civility? How can we tell facts from spin? They also need to learn how to communicate clearly, so they can interact with public officials or speak at a community forum.

These three elements: civil debate, being pre-partisan, and appreciating the revolutionary are critical life skills. We don’t need everyone in these civics classes to get a 4.0… we simply need enough people to get 4.0s to eventually run the country.

So I started this organization, The Dreyfuss Initiative, to address this issue. We’ve partnered with The American Bar Association and Common Core to develop a K-12 curriculum that offers elements of civics in lessons for every grade level. And I’m asking you to do a couple of things tomorrow.

For kids who are watching, go online and sign our petition, asking that they teach you how America works.

For parents, ask your kid’s teacher tomorrow, is civics being taught? Is debate being taught? And, how can I help?

If you don’t have kids, call your local school and ask if you can volunteer to help with a debate team or to teach civics or American history.

No matter what your politics, whether you’re a republican, independent, green, democrat, or libertarian, this needs to matter to you.

Because America is still the best answer to the question humans have been asking for 13,000 years: how can we live together in peace and prosperity?

And we need to teach our kids how to run it.

Thank you for your attention.

Congressional Adjournment's Unintended Consequences

This article was published in Constituting America

http://www.constitutingamerica.org/blog/blog/category/guest-constitutional-scholar-essayists/scot-faulkner 

Article 1, Section 5, Clause 4


Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 made sure the two Congressional chambers had equity when it came of the operations of the Legislative Branch. Neither the House nor the Senate may adjourn for more than three days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays) without the concurrence of the other Chamber. The formal end of a Congress is when the Legislative Branch adjourns “Sine Die” (from the Latin “without day”) meaning “without assigning a day for a further meeting or hearing”. The Constitution [Article 2, Section 3] also grants the President the authority to summon the Congress for a special session if circumstances require. The Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution also sets a formal start and end time for each Congress.

These various provisions have led to numerous unintended consequences.

One of the first instances was when the Southern states seceded from the Union. They deprived the sitting Congress of a quorum. In order to continue governing, President Abraham Lincoln issued the very first Presidential Order on April 15, 1861, Executive Order 1.

The most complex consequence of Clause 4 relates to when Congress takes a recess and when it adjourns. A recess is a temporary halt to activity on the floor. Everything stops, and when the recess ends, the chamber resumes from where it left off. A recess might last 10 minutes or it might last weeks. The length of time does not matter. An adjournment is a formal end to business in the chamber, and upon return the chamber does not resume from where it left off. Just like a recess an adjournment can be for one minute or for three weeks. However, unlike a recess, an adjournment creates a new legislative day (this is more relevant to Senate proceedings).

Certain things happen, under the standing rules of the House and Senate, precisely because it is a new legislative day. Much of it is routine business: the reading of the previous day’s journal, filing of reports, delivery of messages from the House, etc., but there are also consequential things. In the Senate, during the first two hours of each new legislative day, motions to proceed are not debatable, and therefore cannot be filibustered.

Any formal break in Legislative Branch activity also opens the door for a President to take certain actions. This includes making appointments which require Senate confirmation, and “pocket vetoing” legislation. A pocket veto means that the Congress cannot override the veto because it is not in session. An adjournment of the Legislative Branch also allows the President to reconvene Congress for a specific action [Article 2, Section 3]. Congressional leaders have devised ways to avoid inadvertently unleashing Presidential activism.

The Congress can take a break from legislative activity, and still avoid a formal recess or adjournment, by meeting in a “pro forma” session. Pro forma means “for the sake of formality”. In recent years pro forma sessions have prevented Presidents from making recess appointments, and in the case of President George W. Bush in 2008, deprived him calling a special session to reauthorize the Protect America Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

As long as a Member convenes either the House or Senate to formally open and close a session there is no recess or adjournment. Members sometimes compete to see how fast they can conduct a pro forma session. The record is currently held by Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island who completed the task in 12 seconds.