There is something about Charleston that races the pulse, pumps the blood just a little faster, and stimulates ones thinking. Mentioned this some time back, but its such a salient question it deserves re-addressing. A Constitutional crisis is a situation in which a legal systems Constitution or other basic principles of operation appear unable to resolve; it often results in a breakdown in the orderly operation of that government or system. Often, generally speaking, a Constitutional crisis is a situation in which separate factions within a government disagree about the extent to which each of these factions hold sovereignty. Most commonly, Constitutional crises involve some degree of conflict between different branches of a government, that is in our case, the executive, legislature, and/or judiciary, or between different levels of government in the Federal/State system. Such conflicts tend to be over the legality of a power reach. Examples include… the Stamp Act 1765, by which the British Parliament sought to tax the Thirteen Colonies, set off protests from colonial politicians against taxation without representation. Parliament continued to assert its authority in subsequent acts, throwing colonial governments into chaos and leading the colonists to declare total independence from Britain. The 1800 presidential election: The House of Representatives was convened to determine whether Thomas Jefferson or Aaron Burr, each receiving 73 votes in the electoral college, should become President. The House cast 35 ballots without giving either person a majority. Finally, Alexander Hamilton intervened to urge representatives to vote for Jefferson, leading to Jeffersons election in the 36th ballot. After the event, the Constitution was amended to prevent similar crises from recurring. The Nullification Crisis of 1832, in which South Carolina declared that it would not permit collection of a Federal tariff. The secession of seven Southern states, which the Federal government did not recognize, leading to the American Civil War. 1876 presidential election: Republicans and Democrats disputed voting results in three states. The Electoral Commission, created by Congress, voted along party lines in favor of Republican candidate Rutherford B. Hayes, who damped Southern fury by withdrawing federal troops from the South. The Goldwater v. Carter case involved the President breaking a the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty without Congressional approval. Intense issues often cause opposing sides to cry constitution crises, but I’m a strong advocate that very few arguments rise to that level. One for sure, is private interests controlling the general public’s currency and budgeting! The debate over private control of public money is nearly as old as the republic itself, dating back to the days of Alexander Hamilton, who built America’s first attempt at a central bank, and Andrew Jackson, who dismantled the second. By 1913, at the founding of Federal Reserve System, two rival views had emerged of what a modern central banking system should be. Some Democrats wanted a system in public hands, that is, a government-controlled central bank that could not be a front for the “ Money Trust ” dominated by New York City bankers. But Republicans almost uniformly argued that a government-run system was tantamount to socialism. They preferred a private-run system, based in New York, over which the government would have essentially zero control. Woodrow Wilson’s election in 1912 led the way to a compromise that put most monetary policy decisions in the hands of 12 privately run Federal Reserve Banks, all but one located outside of New York City, but subject to mostly ill-defined supervision by a government-controlled Federal Reserve Board based in Washington, D.C. This Wilsonian compromise produced a failed experiment in central banking. In the absence of statutory clarity, personalities clashed within the system as Reserve Bank presidents fought each other and against the Fed board for dominance. In 1935, at the Roosevelt administration’s insistence, Congress abolished the old system and replaced it with one where the private bankers would wield significantly less power. In fact, the administration’s proposal originally eliminated the bankers from the business of monetary policy entirely. President Roosevelt’s proposal created an FOMC of purely public appointees, all based in Washington. But the bankers’ supporters in Congress pushed back and preserved a minority status on the FOMC. The new design would give the committee 12 spots, with seven for Presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed members of a new Board of Governors and only five to represent the private Federal Reserve Banks. Here are three questions you should always ask yourself concerning the potential for a Constitutional crises: 1. Does the Constitution empower the Supreme Court to judge the constitutionality of federal laws and regulations, and uphold or strike them down as the court sees fit? 2. Does the Constitution prohibit the states from determining the constitutionality of federal laws and regulations, and uphold or strike them down as they see fit? 3. What does the Constitution have to say about the powers not delegated to the United States federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States? Are we truly at a Constitutional crises, or are some people just plain too dramatic???
Posted on: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 19:13:21 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015