Advent Changes to the Liturgy

In less than two weeks the Catholic Church in the United States will implement the new changes to the Mass. I must confess that I have honestly tried to avoid learning very many specifics of what these changes consist of, confident that there will not be a single one with which I will agree. Nevertheless, I believe it is safe to say that the changes in language will in every instance be a move away from the ordinary language of the people to a formal, stilted, and obsolete phraseology.

Let's just take 'Et Cum Spiritu tuo'. The literal translation of course is 'and with your spirit', and that is the idea, literal translations of the original Mass texts. So 'and with you also' becomes and with your spirit. The problem of course is that a literal translation is not always the best translation, because it does not always reflect what the person wanted to convey. That phraseology may have been perfect 1500years ago, but that doesn't mean it gives the best sense of what the author of these words was trying to say. The Lord be with you, and with you also. Have we really improved our worship by saying and with your spirit. I mentioned this to my wife recently and she asked what does 'and with your spirit' mean. Of course we are going to teach her what it means and that will solve the problem.

How about Lord I am not worthy that you should come under my roof? The context doesn't even work. This is about coming into my home to heal a sick individual. For most of us it doesn't really relate to receiving communion. Its jarring, and once again the question becomes what does this mean. Is it talking about coming under the roof of my mouth? I know I thought that when I made my first communion. How can this be an improvement over 'Lord I am not worthy that you should come to me'? Why shouldn't our people in the pews every week be allowed to say prayers that make sense and are related to the current culture in which they live? What do we gain by using language that is no longer the language of the people?

This is a useless discussion of course because those with the power have made the decision and that is what it will be. They simply don't care what anybody else thinks. There are, however, a couple of points that I think are worth making. First I find it fascinating how the clergy is suddenly 'gung ho' about how wonderful the new translation is, and how much it will enhance everybody's appreciation of the liturgy and deepen the spiritual response to the sacred texts. I don't believe it for a minute. A couple of months ago I spoke to a priest friend who talked about how horrible this new translation is. I'm pretty sure he has not said one negative word to his parishioners. Its distrurbing to think how power can impose it's will on those it rules and forces to do its bidding. Totally forgotten are the battles the Bishops fought not so many years ago to prevent this new translation from being implemented. Of course Rome's response has effectively been to change the Bishops. I'm pretty sure no priest over 50 thinks this is a good idea but all are falling into line.

Secondly how is it that some commission in Rome can know how we folks in the pews in Maryland can best express our prayers of praise, petition, etc to God. We are talking about a commission that even lacks the day to day involement with the English language as it is spoken and used in the United States. What is this conformity all about? Why not have parishoners under the guidance and direction of the pastor choose words and phrases that they can relate to, and maybe have different texts for the childrens Mass, the teen contemporary Mass, and the Mass for the old folks like us? The decision to require everything and every word to be determined by Rome simply brings home to us more and more that this Church is not concerned with the lives and needs of its people but rather wants everyone to simply conform to its way of operation.

Finally, the reality is that these changes are minor and not so important in the overall scheme of things. This is of course one of the reasons the Church can get away with such a backward looking move. How upset can one become over word changes in a few of the regular parts of the Mass? Most of us will barely notice the changes as we continue with our usual attentiveness at Mass. It reflects, however, a heirarchy that has forgotten the Gospel message. It is a heirarchy that protects itself as it did in the sex abuse crisis. It is a heirarchy that stifles dissent which has severely impaired it as a prophetic voice and impaired its ability to develop new and creative approaches to the modern day challenges it faces. The Church has lost much of its ability to speak for the downtrodden, to speak on immigration reform, to command the respect of the lay people in the pews. It has become a heirarchy that has forgotten to live the gospel message of serving rather than being served, and recognizing as Paul did the charisms that exist in every segment of the People of God. The Bishops are not constitutive of the Church, and the time has come for all members of the Church to insist that their ideas, beliefs, and perceptions matter too.

The Top Ten Bizarre Ideas From The 2012 Campaign

I don't know if these are the top ten bizarre ideas of Campaign 2012, but there are so many to choose from it is difficult to tell. We are bombarded with ideas that are almost impossible to believe are being said seriously, yet are treated by that famous liberal main stream media as if they are rational and deserve to be on an equal footing as more thoughtful reasonable ideas. Let me just share a few of these bizarre notions in no particular order.

#10 Speaking out about injustice represents class warfare. Seeking to help people without jobs, find jobs, is class warfare? We have just had a report by the non partisan Congressional Budget Office that shows the rich have quadrupled their income since 1979, so there is indeed class warfare, but it is something the rich have successfully engaged in over the last few decades. Now when someone voices concern about this growing inequality they are instigating class warfare? It boggles the mind. How wide does the gap have to be between rich and poor before Republicans will be satisfied that the gap is wide enough? We have the most unequal income distribution of all advanced western democracies and our policies are to blame. Isn't it about time we develop policies that might help redress this inequality? How can someone like Eric Cantor accuse Democrats of class warfare with a straight face?

#9 We must continue to reduce taxes on the Job Creators. It is like being blackmailed. Give us what we want and we may hire a few people. But what happens? You give them what they ask for and then they want more, just like a blackmailer. How many times have their taxes been reduced already and yet we have seen no job creation. Calling these people job creators is truly bizarre. Let them create some jobs and then maybe they can be called job creators.

#8 The stimulus has failed. Well, it is true, that the stimulus did not put enough people back to work. But what has happened since it ended is proof of its efficacy. The stimulus kept the states from going bankrupt. It kept firemen, teachers and policemen on the job. Now the states are losing thousands and thousands of employees each month. We may well have entered a true depression without this stimulus.

#7 The President has failed to show leadership. Lack of leadership is evident to critics every time the President fails to support what the Republican leaders in the House and Senate want. Where he has had more of a free hand Obama has led quietly but effectively in Egypt and Lybia. He did not shy away from going after and eliminating Osama Ben Laden, and he was instrumental in bringing Khadaffy to justice. He has also made repeated efforts to reach out his hand to Republicans to get something done and they have turned their backs on him. This is not a failure of leadership but a failure of statesmanship and an unwillingness to put country ahead of party by Republicans. They have proven that if you make up your mind to reject anything and everything that is proposed, whether you think it good or not, you can prevent anything from being done.

#6 Businesses need certainty. What does this mean? It seems to mean that only when every whim of business has been accepted and agreed to will businss folk begin hiring or trying to help their country. If you want us to hire, then do what we tell you. Eliminate regulations, not becasue they are bad but because we don't like them. Again, blackmail.

#5 Regulations are killing business and need to be eliminated. It was the lack of regulation that enabled the Wall Street collapse to occur. Are there regulations that are unnecessary and perhaps constrict appropriate business growth and behavior? Possibly. Tell us what they are. But to say that regulation is bad makes no sense. We don't want our food supply protected to prevent the spread of diseases to our people? This is not a government responsibility? Business can be trusted to police itself? Again there is a lack of seriousness in this conversation that prevents a meaningful approach to the challenges we face.

#4 Candidate Ron Paul recently suggested eliminating 225,000 federal jobs. When we are trying to put our people back to work, how can it make sense to eliminate a quarter of a million jobs? Is it OK because they are government jobs? Do our American citizens who work for the government not count? As we look at the job statistics each month we are seeing growth in private indudstry jobs and losses in government jobs? These losses are hurting our ability to reduce unemployment. They may be government jobs, but they are real people with real jobs; including, firemen, policemen. teachers, etc. How do we help the employment situation by eliminating government jobs???

#3 Candidate Mitt Romney recently said to just let all foreclosures go forward. Do nothing to help people who are struggling to stay in their homes. Just let the banks have the homes. This is a complicated issue, so why do we have supposedly serious candidates just ignoring the realities again of real people with real problems. In many cases these problems are not of the peoples' own making, but the result of inappropriate decisions by the very banks that Romney want us to give the foreclosed homes to.

#2 Candidate Rick Perry described a recent 20% flat tax proposal that would increase taxes on the poor and the middle class while decreasing taxes on the wealthy. He also said he didn't care what burden it might create for the poor or middle class as long as he could reduce the burden on the wealthy. No one denies that simplifying the tax code is a worthy goal, but if it is to be used as a smoke screen for greater inequality and unfairness it is not at all helpful.

#1 The number one bizarre notion of the 2012 camaign is our inability to have reasonable conversations about the challenges we face. These are serious times and the Republicans have fielded a slate of candidates that no one can take seriously. President Obama is legitimately vulnerable, but the Republican field is a joke, and the Republican primary voters seem uninterested in responsible dialogue. The candidates have obliged these angry and confused primary voters by refusing to talk in a meaningful way about any serious issue. Whether it is a refusal to put revenue enhancements on the table, or accusing Democrats of class warfare the Republicans are coming to the table with bankrupt ideas. Their party and this country deserves better than that. As a former Republican myself I thing the likes of a Dwight Eisenhower, George H.W. Bush, Gerald Ford and even Ronald Reagan, deserve better than what has been provided so far. It is time this Republican field be held accountable for their failure to offer any worthwhile ideas to a country in need of them.

It is bizarre to refuse to put revenue enhancements on the table. It is bizarre to think cuts can be made in entitlements without building consensus from all parties. While Democrats are saying no to entitlement cuts, that is primarily because of the Republican attitude that they can make these decisions without anyone else's input. Look what happened in Ohio when Republicans thought they could eliminate worker rights and nobody would notice or care. If Republicans chose to work in a bipartisan manner to deal with entitlements responsible Democrats would get on board, but where are the responsible Republicans?

It is bizarre if the Republican party cannot accept the simple reality that our current challenges require our politicians working together to develop genuine private public partnerships that will advance the goals of our country. It is essential to invest in necessary infrastructure, to generate needed revenue, and to recapture our global advantages in the industries and technology that the world is embracing today. Industry nor government can do it alone and that is the fundamental imperative that all must embrace. My articles on the Federalist Papers demonstrate that our founding fathers understood the need to do what is right for the country, and never once envisioned the Constitution as a way to restrain men of goodwill in industry and government from doing what was necessary to maintain and enhance American Exceptionalism.

Federalist Papers Revisited #2

Now that I have completed my review of the Federalist Papers I am struck by a number of discoveries. First of all if anything can be said about the authors, particularly Alexander Hamilton, it is his absolute determination to achieve passage of this new Constitution, particularly in his own state of New York. He is distraught over the failure of the Articles of Confederation and the perilous state of the United States at this juncture. As a member of the Constitutional Convention himself, he is certainly conscious that the document is not perfect, nor could it be, but he doesn't doubt for an instant as to the necessity of it being adopted as soon as possible.

The authors clearly believed in a strong constitutional government, and the use of these papers today by those who are antigovernment or who have excessive distrust of government seems unwarranted. On the contrary, I believe these authors were very conscious of the limitations of the Constitution that was being proposed, and recognized that no one could possibly forsee what circumstances the future would hold. Thus over and over again they insisted that the federal government must have all the powers necessary to fulfill its obligations. The role of government was to pursue the happiness of its people.

The Federalist papers were written to advocate for the adoption of the new Constitution and they do that forcefully and without reservation. An example of this from Alexaznder Hamilton in Article 67 of the papers focuses on the presidency, and criticism that the Constitution made the President into more than a king with all sorts of royal prerogatives and powers. Hamilton refutes these critics point by point, carefully analyzing each relevant constitutional clause. In order to understand where he's coming from you need to understand the context of his arguments and his perspective. He supports ratification and opposes the critics he argues against. He does not share the concerns of the critics, but he is operating as a lawyer to show through the clauses of the document that their interpretation is not correct. I don't think this makes him a strict constructionist, it simply shows he will make use of every avenue to support his conviction that the Constitution must be adopted.

I want to mention some interesting points that seem to belie the position that conservatives often voice about these papers. For example the papers often argue that the federal government is less likely to abuse its powers than state governments. This hardly seems like an argument for states rights. In fact it vociferously mentions the need for states to give up rights in order that the federal government will have the ability to carry out its responsibilities.

The Federalist Papers go on to ridicule the governemnt of the Articles of Confederation and insist on the necessity of a strong federal government. They speak of the lack of respect accorded to our government by foreign powers, the inability to generate treaties that can or will be adhered to, and the inability of the government to have any sanctions for its laws or policies. The United States of America has essentially become a joke.

A number of additional points are made which deserve consideration. The authors highlight how many of those criticizing the constitution are promoting their own interests at the expense of the union. Hamilton in article 29 points out that government cannot function if we don't trust each other - we share the same ideals -why would we assume that our fellow citizens would want to harm our country and its citizenry? The militia needs to be under the control of the federal government. In article 31 he insists that government must have power to fulfill its obligations. State governments are at least as likely to encroach on federal government powers as the federal government would be to encroach on states. Madison adds in #44 that there is no way to know what the future will hold and what it will demand of government. Finally in Article 51, Hamilton or Madison notes that "if men were angels, no government would be necessary".

Another concern which is relevant to a contemporary issue is that of majority rule. Hamilton in #51 says "if the majority be united by a common interest the rights of the minority will be insecure", where the strong faction can unite and oppress the weaker anarchy may be said to reign. Yet Hamilton also says in #22 that we operate by majority rule and if that is thwarted we may be satisfied that nothing bad is being done but we forget how much good is not getting done. Clerarly the majority minority issue is a somewhat complicated one, but it seems likely that Hamilton would be deeply troubled by current senate rules which seem designed to obstruct the constitution's intent for the passage of Senate Bills, and specifically overturns the rule of the majority and substitutes instead rule by the minority.

Either Hamilton or Madison also say in #62 that government should pursue the happiness of the people and have a knowledge of how best to achieve that goal. An important ingredient for achieving that goal is a stable government, which is why six year terms for senators are required. Government needs continuity and legislators and presumably Presidents need to know what they are doing. Could there be some suggestion here from these authors regarding the current crop of Republican presidential candidates?

The following extended quote from Federalist Paper #45 by Madison is worth reproducing in terms of what it says about how the founding fathers perceived the new Constitution and the alleged danger to state governments from the powers that would be given to the new federal government:

"Having shown that no one of the powers transferred to the federal government is unecessary or improper, the next question to be considered is, whether the whole mass of them will be dangerous to the portion of authority left in the several States. The adversaries to the plan of the convention, instead of considering in the first place what degree of power was absolutely necessary for the purposes of the federal government, have exhausted themselves in a secondary inquiry into the possible consequences of the proposed degree of power to the governments of the particular States. But if the Union, as has been shown, be essential to the security of the people of America against foreign danger; if it be essential to their security against contentions and wars among the different States; if it be essential to guard them against those violent and oppressive factions which embitter the blessings of liberty, and against those military establishments which must gradually poison its very fountain; if in a word, the Union be essential to the happiness of the people of America, is it not preposterous, to urge as an objection to a government, without which the objects of the Union cannot be attained, that such a government may derogate from the importance of the governments of the individual States? Was, then, the American Revolution effected, was the American Confederacy formed, was the precious blood of thousands spilt, and the hard-earned substance of millions lavished, not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty, and safety, but that the governments of the individual States, that particular municipal establishments, might enjoy a certain extent of pover, and be arrayed with certain dignities and attributes of sovreignty? We have heard ... that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the New, ... that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form?.... the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued, and that no form of government.. has any value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object......
the more I revolve the subject, the more fully I am persuaded that the balance is much more likely to be disturbed by the preponderacy of the last (state gov'ts) than of the first (fed gov't).... the strongest tendency continually betraying itself in the members to despoil the general government of its authorities."

Lets be clear. The cry of states rights has always been a southern issue primarily because of slavery and later because of discrimination. Much of the South simply didn't like the laws of the union and didn't want to follow them. They would have no support from the founding fathers for this point of view, and they do a disservice to drag these giants and defenders of the Constitution into their long standing controversies. There is no indication that these founding fathers believed the constitution had solved every problem or should be interpreted in a very narrow fashion. In the final article, #85, Hamilton sums up his understanding of the meaning of this new Constitution: "I am persuaded that it is the best which our political situation, habits, and opinions will admit, and superior to any the revolution has produced...I never expect to see a perfect work from imperfect men". Finally he says that a union of thirteen states "must as necessarily be a compromise of as many dissimilar interests and inclinations. How can perfection spring from such materials"? Those who want to use and interpret the Constitution as if it were a biblical document handed down from on high are operating far from the ideals of our founding fathers.

The Federalist Papers and the Constitution

I used my trusty Nook to download a copy of the Federalist Papers. Isn't technology wonderful? Who would have thought that I could walk around with a copy of the Federalist papers in my hand and available at the push of a button? It cost me a whopping $2.99. Since these papers seem to have achieved Biblical status with many members of the Tea Party movement, I thought it was a worthwhile investment. Thus far I have read around 300 out of some 1200 pages and 29 out of about 85 articles, but I still think there are a few points that are worth making at this stage of my reading.

An initial concern is that too often these papers are used the same way many use the Bible. Quotes are identified that bolster a particular argument. This methodology is faulty whether one is using scripture or the Federalist Papers. Such documents need to be studied in their entirety to determine their purpose and the core of what the document is trying to say. To just zero in on one or a few comments, which we often do with political speeches, is frequently unfair and not a real indicator of what an individual actually believes.

Why were the Federalist Papers written? There would be no such document except that the authors wanted to persuade the citizenry as to the importance of the new Constitution being adopted. Jay, Madison, and Hamilton all saw it as vital to the future of the nation that a strong federal government be put in place. These documents make clear that the Articles of Confederation were inadequate to the needs of the country and that the individual states would have to give up some of their rights if the United States of America was to survive.

Alexander Hamilton in paper #15 speaks of the weakness of the Confederation and its inability even to ensure that bills were paid. He says, "we have neither troops, nor treasury, nor government." Clearly the Federalist Papers and the Constitution itself grew out of a practical need to address deficiencies of the time. Can the founding fathers expect anything less of us in our own time? An example of how these founding fathers and the Constitution are time bound is how often they speak of how our distance across an ocean from other countries protects us from harm. Clearly this is not an operative argument in today's modern world. It is also mentioned that the size or smallness of the country enables us to be an effective democratic government. We've grown a little bit since that time. These points are illustrative of how the world has changed and how we must accommodate the operation of our government to the changing times.

In strong and persuasive language the authors indicate several areas which require a strong federal government. These important areas include the defense of the country, commerce, full powers of taxation, and a federal system of courts, judges, etc. Specifically, in all these areas the states must defer to the national government and must comply fully with federal laws, regulations, and taxes.

In terms of defense it is argued that the strength of our nation comes from being united. In the Civil War we fought to maintain that unity because it is through unity that we have become a great power. The founding father's understood this. They pointed out that 13 states would be constantly bickering with each other and could not present a unified front to the world. If the union had been dissolved imagine how we could have confronted the Soviet Union, Japan etc. as small individual countries. Each section of the union has strengths and weaknesses and that strength comes from unity.

Commerce is an example of how the union prospers through what each section of the country has to offer. The fedaral government makes it possible for each section of the country to provide their resources to the country as a whole and to draw strength from the valuable resources of other sections of the country. These papers focus on how each state trying to develop treaties and trade agreements on their own became a global joke and prevented valuable commerce from operating smooothly.

One of the main concern of the authors of the Federalist Papers was the lack of revenue and the inability of the country to pay its bills. They made clear that taxation was necessary. The government needed to find and utilize all means to collect taxes whether on property, consumption, or other appropriate measures. Madison in paper #12 says, "A nation cannot long exist without revenues ... Revenue, therefore, must be had at all events" The need to have a viable tax collection system was critical. Madison adds, "government can never obtain an adequate supply, unless all the sources of revenue are open to its demands." It is useful to keep in mind these admonitions when we focus only on the cry of 'taxation without representation', and when we listen to the demands of current politicians to reduce revenues perhaps to the point that once again we cannot pay our bills.

Madison also highlights the importance of a federal system of courts and laws. He says, "Government implies the power of making laws. It is essential to the idea of a law, that it be attended with a sanction' .... or they are nothing more than advice or recommendation." He adds, " Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without restraint." Again, the present day attacks on government fail to recognize how critical it is if any of us are to succeed.

Let me just say in closing these preliminary remarks on the Federalist Papers, that our country today is troubled by a division that is greater than anything I have seen in my lifetime. Is it possible that we are headed in the direction of conflict that while it may not result in another Civil War, could end in the dissolution of the nation? When one of the front runners for the Republican Presidential nomination not so long ago seriously suggested that his state might secede from this union it should give us all pause. The purpose of the constitution was to help create a better country for all of us and whatever would help achieve that outcome was what the founding fathers were interested in. A couple of closing quotes from these famous papers might be instructive in that regard.

James Madison in paper #14 said, "We have seen the necessity of the Union as our bulwark against foreign danger, as the conservator of peace among ourselves, as the guardian of our commerce and other common interests....and as the proper antidote for the diseases of faction, which have proved fatal to other popular governments, and of which alarming symptoms have been betrayed by our own.

Alexander Hamilton in paper #15 said, "I have endeavored, my fellow citizens, to place before you, in a clear and convincing light, the importance of Union ... I have unfolded to you a complication of dangers to which you would be exposed, should you permit that sacred knot which binds the people of America together to be severed or disolved by ambition or by avarice, by jealousy or by misrepresentation."

Do Not Reelect Your Tea Party Representative

You live in a District that is represented by a Tea Party enthusiast. You supported that individual in the 2010 election. You were concerned about the economy, and you believed what you understood to be the Tea Party philosophy. You believed in smaller government, lower taxes, less spending, and a different way of doing business in Washington. Do you, however, agree with the way these representatives have refused to work with others to solve problems? Is that really what you were looking for when you sent your new Representative to Washington? Additionally, was it your desire to dismantle Medicare, cut Social Security, and balance the budget on the backs of the poor, the elderly, and others in need?

What has been the result of what seemed initially to be a not unreasonable experiment in government? We have seen a downgrade in our government's credit rating for the first time in our history. We have seen intransigence and rigidity, including a fierce adherence to a dangerous ideology which has resulted in an inability to achieve even the most rudimentary tasks of government. We have watched as the Republican Party has allowed the Tea Party minority to determine the agenda of government and to thwart reasonable proposals that could have a positive result for our country.

The Tea Party has demonstrated a refusal to participate in government. They have shown an inability to understand what it means to govern. It seems that they prefer doing harm to their country rather than working with anyone in government to move the country forward. They even have no use for members of their own party if they don't adhere to every jot and tittle of their agenda. These are the representatives who have attached themselves to the anti-tax hero Grover Norquist and have signed his petition. Your Representative has to check with him to determine what they are or are not allowed to do. It is he, not the Congress, that determines what is or is not a tax increase. Is this anyway to run a government?

Part of the difficulty is that like religious fanatics, they are so convinced of the rightness of their beliefs and plans, they do not value the ideas of others. They do not even value other individuals. Their plans and intentions are so perfect and so pure that anybody who does not jump on their bandwagon needs to be eliminated from the field of battle. It is this blindness to the real world we live in that makes it possible for them to say no and refuse any deal that comes along because only their vision of the world is an acceptable one.

So what may be the result if your Tea Party representative remains in office? It will likely result in a failure to allow the new congressional committee of twelve to reach a deal that will prevent a second credit rating downgrade. Continued adherence to this no new revenue pledge, dooms the Congress to be unable to address the very issue you sent your representative to Congress to address, namely the deficit and government spending. This dangerous stalemate will continue on every budget issue as time goes on. These members do not appear to want movement. Either they want stalemate or they prefer to be able to use failure as an issue rather than actually achieve progress. I don't see how such an approach to governance can be considered democratic or useful.

Tea Party supporters were asked at a recent presidential debate for Republican Candidates if they would accept a deal that was 10 to 1 in favor of spending cuts over revenue enhancements. The answer was a resounding no. This kind of approach to solving our nation's problems cannot be seen as serious or helpful. Since all the presidential candidates at the debate acquiesced to such a belief one has to wonder about the seriousness of their candidacies as well, but that is a subject for another time.

So, I recommend that each voter begin to seriously consider now, the implications of retaining in office any representative who does not appear to understand the Constitution or the operation of the legislative branch of government. You cannot reach meaningful compromise with a group of legislators who refuse to compromise. The issues facing our country today require serious individuals with an openness to reasonable ideas. Those in this category have strongly endorsed a balanced approach that includes spending cuts and revenue enhancements to work toward a balanced budget. Those who would obstruct meaningful movement in that direction need to be replaced by folks who are committed to work towards forming a more perfect union.

A Flawed Constitution

Well, the deal is done and Congress will likely approve the deal. Default will be averted and all will be well with the world. Or will it? What has this manufactured crisis done for the United States of America? Is our country and our Congress better off because of the arrival of a large group of freshman Congressmen known as Tea Partiers? Is this any way to run a government? What have we accomplished besides demonstrating that this government is incredibly dysfunctional, as the President has indicated?

One of the key elements of the tea party credo is the inviolability of the Constitution and the need to adhere to it in all its particulars. Ironically their strategy in this instance has demonstrated the serious flaws and perhaps even the failure of our Constitution to help us through the chaos the tea party created. The Tea Party has attempted, and with some significant success to operate the United States Government as a minority government. If their agenda is not implemented 100% they will ensure that nothing gets implemented even if it means the destruction of the economy or the country. Yet in my civics class I learned strange things like the existence of three branches of government so that no branch would have too much power. I learned that the bicameral legislature was designed to ensure equal representation for small states and for all the people. I learned that the essence of democracy involves the search for compromise.

The Senate was expected to check the behavior of the House from moving too fast, but it has now created its own rules to ensure once again that it is the minority that rules. Sixty votes are now required to pass virtually anything, including being allowed to simply discuss a topic. The Constitution was predicated on the premise that reasonable people would find a way to overcome their differences and find a way forward for the good of the country. The Constitution failed to envision the current crop of freshman Republicans. The system of checks and balances cannot work if one group decides it simply will not accept the check of another group.

The debt ceiling may well be raised but we have a true constitutional crisis. The American people have tended to like divided government and it has often served us well. It has prevented us moving too far to the right or left, but instead steering a middle course that has in many ways defined our greatness. Yet we have always been able to get things done when required, whether it be on social security, welfare reform, or many other examples that could be cited. What we have learned in this pseudo crisis is that a minority group of elected representatives can make it impossible to reach compromise if they just refuse to be part of the effort. That was not envisioned by the founding fathers and it highlights a glaring weakness in our ability to govern ourselves. The fact that a deal was finally struck after the havoc this has created in world governments, wall street, and main street, offers no assurance that we do have a government that functions. Add the fact that Republicans continued to insist that we revisit this crisis again in a few months and one is inclined to believe that they are actually delighting in their ability to gum up the works.

We are already hearing voices suggesting a need for some fundamental change in our government. The most frequently heard suggestion which has been mentioned often through the years is the need for a third party. I have no problem with a third party, yet I see little likelihood of it succeeding. A third party has never been successful in our country throughout our entire history. In my lifetime we have seen most notably, George Wallace, John Anderson, Ross Perot and Ralph Nader. I voted for John Anderson, and I felt Ralph Nader stole the election from Al Gore, but the bottom line is none of these insurgencies have done more than create some confusion in the electorate, and none have provided a lasting legacy. I see no reason to believe that the situation is any different now.

I really begin to wonder if we do not need to seriously look at a parliamentary system as one possible option. At least one party would be elected and could implement its agenda. If we didn't like it we could vote in the other party, and the party in power would have to call for new elections if it was felt that they had gotten out of hand. I'm not saying this would be a perfect form of government, or even that it would be better than what we have. I am saying that the time has come to seriously consider changes to our form of government because the Congress has truly let us down in this crisis. People are up in arms. They are wondering how Washington could have gotten us into this mess. The trajectory continues to deteriorate, and Americans have had it. They have been bombarding congress with cries of 'just get the job done', and they are incredulous at the inability of Washington to make something happen. I'm only saying that our form of government might be at least as much to blame as our elected representatives.

I think the time has come for serious people to sit down and consider modifications to our government that would help prevent the disgrace that we have just witnessed. An important beginning would be to change the Senate rules so that it would again become a true legislative body. Just as the Catholic Church needs a Third Vatican Council to explore issues facing the Churh today, perhaps the time has come to call for a new Constitutional Convention to review our Constituion and recommend necessary changes. Perhaps those changes would be minimal, and we can only hope that this is so. In any case all issues need to be on the table, and for sure we can't expect the current members of Congress to be of any assistance in effecting any necessary changes.

The Bible and the Constitution

The Tea Party, which has become ubiquitous these days, has been driving the political conversation for some time. A large number of these Tea Party regulars are also religious conservatives. One direction in which they seem to be taking the country is in treating the Constitution as a document delivered straight frrom the Godhead Himself. This approach to the Bible has been part and parcel of the religious conservative's approach to religion, but there can be some real dangers in approaching the Constitution in the same fashion.

We have already discussed a more realistic approach to understanding the Bible in earlier blogs and will likely pursue that discussion further in a later blog. At this time I want to consider some of the ways in which this raising the Constitution to the level of scripture is actually a misunderstanding of the framers intent and can box us into being unable to achieve important ends and appropriate progress for our country. Too many Tea Party regulars have chosen to deify the framers of the Constitution, but they are not meant to be deified and the Constitution is not a religious documnent.

First lets look at some of the ways in which the Bible and the Constitution may in fact be similar. In the first instance the Bible serves as the book by which Christians determine their beliefs and govern their behavior. The Constitution is the basis for all the laws of the land and thus, it is the document by which we govern ourselves. The Bible is interpreted literally, or more flexibly by some, or in the case of Catholicism, the Pope and heirarchy become the final arbiters of what the Bible means. The Constitution is also interpreted in a strict or loose fashion by scholars having various beliefs. The Supreme Court was established as the official determiner of the meaning of the Constitution. In that sense it is something like the Pope interpreting scripture. So there are some similarities.

Whatever one's religious beliefs, however, treating the Constitution as if it is some sacred document is not a good idea. First of all, because it isn't. Nor is the Supreme Court a religious body that has some infallible insight into the truth of the Constitution. Nor in fact does the Constitution always get it right on every issue. There are clear instances of this reality without even resorting to the decision to make every African Slave the equivalent of 3/5 of a person. In terms of the Supreme Court there are many decisions that are not only considered erroneous, but have been reversed by later courts. Bottom line, believing in the Constitution as one might believe in the Bible is a formula for serious problems. Even the founding fathers were conscious of their limitations and insisted on a mechanism for amending their own document.

Three issues that exemplify the problem might include the Health Care Reform Bill, the second amendment, and campaign finance reform. If the individual mandate is declared unconstitutional but we need an individual mandate to provide health care to our citizenry then we need to amend or enlarge are understanding of the Constitution to make that happen. If the second amendment permits all citizens to carry guns, and that means young people are carrying and using guns all over the streets of Detroit, Philadelphia, etc, then we need to find a way to make our country safe for all of our people. If money is a form of free speech and this means that the rich and powerful can set policy and determine who will govern and how they will govern, then we are compelled to redress the wrong that makes those of us with less power and wealth have less say in our government.

The point is that the wording of the Constitution is not meant to limit what we can do as a free people but to facilitate our efforts. It is our obligation to make the Constitution work for our country and it's citizens. It is not the words of the Constitution that should determine our actions, but rather the legitimate needs of our people. After all, it is the preamble of the Constitution that tells us that we have established this Constitution for the express purpose of forming a more perfect union. It can be debated whether the issues discussed above merit changing the Constitution or our approach to its interpretation. What cannot be debated is that the Constitution is not meant to prevent the enactment of laws to advance our nation. It is not meant to stand in the way of our building that more perfect union, but rather it is meant to make it possible for us to do so.

A rigid or strict construction of the Constitution seems to miss the point of what the framers were attempting to do. Just as many religious conservatives seem to have forgotten that the Bible was written by human authors, they also tend to forget how fallible and limited were our founding fathers. The founding fathers were conscious of their own limitations and were attempting to produce a document that would allow its people to operate as appropriate in the years ahead, not to fit it with a straitjacket. Clearly the Constitution is embedded in the culture in which it was generated and the conditions prevalent at the time. So many present day circumstances were unheard of and could not have been envisioned when the Constitution was written. Yet if anyuthing is clear, it is the expectation that this document will provide the framework for the country to be successful and for its people to prosper. To allow a strict constructionist view to prevent our people from taking our country in directions deemed proper would be to demonstrate a failure to understand the purpose of our Constitution. Thomas Jefferson was unlear in his own mind whether the Louisiana Purchase might be unconstituional, but he went ahead with it anyway because what was clear was that it was the right thing to do for the health and benefit of the nation he led. That is a good example or principle for us to follow.