Column for February 1, 2007

We need to return to Constitutional ideals

Did anyone actually watch The State of the Union Address this year? In years past, I would sit and listen to the long speech made even longer by endless applause and ovations. I have a hard time with all of that political grandstanding by both sides of the aisle. I did not watch the State of the Union speech this year. Instead, I watched the recorded episodes of this season's "American Idol" program. I would rather read the speech in its full text later.

If you have read my columns for any length of time, you know I am a strong conservative/neo-libertarian. I believe in actual adherence to our Constitution, otherwise it is just a nice, old piece of paper with ink on it.

Just once, I would love to see a true State of the Union address given. Article II Section 3 of the US Constitution says: "He [the President] shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them".

Note that it does not say that the State of the Union is to be once per year, nor does it say that it is to be a speech before both houses of Congress. For that matter, it does not even specify that it shall be a speech at all. The speeches rarely actually contain "information of the state of the union". Recommendations to Congress of "such measures he shall judge necessary and expedient" have been replaced with grand plans of expansion of the government and personal agenda items. This happens regardless of the party affiliation of the President.

President Bush made the statement, "America's prosperity requires restraining the spending appetite of the federal government." HELLO? Under the GOP control of both houses of Congress and The White House, Republicans have spent more than the Democrats ever did. Government expanded at a nearly unprecedented rate of growth.

Another mind boggler from the speech was "My budget substantially reduces or eliminates more than 150 government programs that are not getting results, or duplicate current efforts, or do not fulfill essential priorities. The principle here is clear: A taxpayer dollar must be spent wisely, or not at all." I truly wish he meant that statement.

What is lacking? How about content such as our annual revenue and expenditure figures? How about annual debt figures? I would love to see an honest assessment of our national strengths and weaknesses. Sure, the speech has things such as "we are facing (insert problem here) in our (insert program name here)" generic things, but nothing concrete that actually states what our union status presently is.

Here is one blatant lie in the speech. "The United States has no right, no desire and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else." My rebuttal is but one word...Iraq.

President Bush then went on to talk about "democracies" in the Middle East, Ukraine, Afghanistan, etc. First and foremost, STOP USING THE TERM DEMOCRACY! We are NOT a democracy. We never have been and hopefully never will be. I didn't see the term "republic" used in the speech. Article IV, section 4 of the US Constitution states "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government". This should be a guarantee that a republic will be our form of federal government to be modeled for individual states to follow.

What needs to happen is that each new Congressman, Senator, President, judge, and federal employee needs to have a civics lesson prior to taking office or employment. After all, the President's oath of office is, "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." If only that were true and all unconstitutional legislation was eliminated or at least vetoed. I wish we had at least a president who would see things that way. It is easier to have one man than 535 to think clearly, one would think. Maybe I am wrong.