Apologies to Neville Chamberlain

I have been quick to dismiss Mr. Obama as the "Neville Chamberlain of our time." I have been waiting for him to declare "Peace in our time."

But Memorial Day set me to thinking about conflicts past and I realized that my comparison between the two men is unkind - to Mr. Chamberlain.

Wikipedia summarizes his life and career as follows:

Arthur Neville Chamberlain (18 March 1869 – 9 November 1940) was a British Conservative politician and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1937 to 1940. Chamberlain is best known for appeasement foreign policy, in particular regarding his signing of the Munich Agreement in 1938, conceding the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia to Germany, and for his "containment" policy of Germany in 1939 that culminated in declaring war on Germany on 3 September 1939. After working in business and local government and a short spell as Director of National Service in 1916 and 1917, Chamberlain followed his father and older half-brother in becoming a Member of Parliament in the 1918 general election at age 49. He declined a junior ministerial position, remaining a backbencher until he was appointed Postmaster General after the 1922 general election. He was rapidly promoted in 1923 to Minister of Health and then Chancellor of the Exchequer but presented no budget before the government fell in 1924.

He returned as Minister of Health, introducing a range of reform measures from 1924 to 1929. He was appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer in the coalition National Government in 1931 and spent six years reducing the war debt and the tax burden. When Stanley Baldwin retired after the abdication of Edward VIIIcoronation of George VI, Chamberlain took his place as Prime Minister in 1937. In 1938, he returned the so-called Treaty Ports to the Irish Free State.

Chamberlain was forced to resign the premiership on 10 May 1940, after Germany invaded the Netherlands, Belgium and France. He was succeeded by Winston Churchill but remained very well regarded in Parliament. Before ill health forced him to resign, he was an important member of Churchill's War Cabinet. He had a key role in the formation of the Special Operations Executive. Chamberlain died of cancer six months after leaving the premiership.

Chamberlain is most remembered for his appeasement of Hitler, going so far as to agreeing to the surrender of the Sudetenland at Munich. This decision is often depicted as a cowardly submission to Hitler's bullying.

Yet Chamberlain was operating under many handicaps:

1. He personally hated war (what clear thinking person doesn't?);
2. His nation wanted desperately to avoid a repeat of the horrors of WWI.
3. The Sudetenland was a German speaking region of Czechoslovakia. Was it so unreasonable to unite that region with the rest of Germany? After all, in 1938 the full horror of the Nazi regime was not apparent AND WWI was triggered in part by attempts to enforce the rigid old imperial boundaries and authority.
4. Germany had begun merrily re-arming in 1933, Britain had not.
5. Not only was Britain far behind in the arms race, it could not afford to build an army and an air force to counter Germany AND a navy to counter Japan in the Far East.
6. He did not recognize that, in Hitler, he confronted one of the true monsters in history.

In sum, he attempted to reach a reasonable compromise with a thoroughly unreasonable man, while negotiating from a place of relative weakness.

Mr. Obama, in contrast, believes that we - you and I - are the great monsters in history. He evidently believes it is his role to protect us by saving the world from us. In his world view, all the world's ills are a justified response to the depredations of the United States, and particularly those of George W. Bush.

Mr. Chamberlain loved his nation, for all its flaws. As for Mr. Obama, he is sorry that he did not come to power earlier.

Some thoughts on freedom

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down: [up] man's old -- old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

Ronald Reagan, "A Time for Choosing," 1964

Forgive me, James Madison

A few modest amendments to the Constitution for the benefit of the Republic.

Repeal the 16th Amendment.

The Founders understood what we have forgotten - that it is unwise to allow those who do not work to impose taxes upon those who do.

Impose term limits upon the posts of Speaker of the House and Committee leaderships.

Nancy Pelosi may be a wonderful representative of her constituents, but she does not represent me. I'd like to level the field for someone who does.

Reduce the terms of Federal judges (including the Supreme Court) to ten years, with a maximum service of two terms. Implement a procedure efficiently remove the mentally infirm.

The Founders believed that Federal judges should be insulated from political pressures, but they surely did not intend to create, at best, sinecures and, at worst, a body of unelected legislators. As for removing the infirm, one need only recall the dotage of William O. Douglas understand the need for such a provision.

Revise the Interstate Commerce Clause to clarify that the Federal government enjoys only the powers SPECIFICALLY granted to it.

Look at the mess we're in after 70 years of courts deciding that the government has the powers the court believes are necessary.

Remove the protection granted to elected representatives for dumb decisions.

Public officials should be held accountable as fiduciaries of the public resources. Corporate directors who do not fulfill their duties of due diligence, honesty and loyalty may be held personally liable for the damage their actions cause. We are currently paying for the stupidity known as the Community Reinvestment Act; our grandchildren will be paying for TARP and the Obama deficits. Fraud upon the citizenry, such as the Social Security program, should be criminal offenses. Those who imposed these travesties upon us should be accountable. Those who use as a defense "I didn't read the bill" should be liable for treble damages.

Government Motors?

Dear Mr. President,

There is much talk in the news of late regarding the possibility that the government might take a large equity share in GM. As you were a professor of Constitutional law, could you direct me to that part of the Constitution that authorizes such action?

Please note that I ask out of genuine confusion. I am not merely a right-wing extremist who believes in the enumerated powers doctrine. As a business attorney, I am perplexed.

For example, at the moment I am in my room in Franklin, Tennessee, the home of Nissan Motors, USA. If the proposed deal goes through, will Nissan be competing with General Motors or Government Motors? The conventional wisdom in Tennessee is that Nissan enjoys a cost advantage over GM because Nissan uses non-union labor. What would prevent the government from protecting its investment by requiring unionization of auto plants?

Which leads to another question: Who will regulate the regulators? Would CAFE, EPA and vehicle safety regulations apply to the products of the new Government Motors? Would specific state regulations, such as those in California, be trumped under the Federal Preemption Doctrine?

Or, to whom will management be accountable? You may recall a decade or so ago when the GM Board rather abruptly fired Roger Smith from his position of CEO. The Board was exercising its prerogative - dismissing an executive who had delivered disappointing results. Presumably you, or your successors, could remove an individual CEO who roles out a series of flops, but what of a president who appoints a series of disappointing executives? Board members can be held to answer to shareholders. Indeed, the directors may be PERSONALLY liable in the correct circumstances. Public officials, however, face no such exposure. Who would we, the taxpayer/shareholders name in a derivative suit?

I am also mindful of past experiments with government-owned auto companies. Look what government control did for MG and Jaguar.

Are setting out on a road that dead-ends in East Germany, circa 1968, in which the only car available is the car decreed by the government, no matter how lousy that car may be? I fear you might find the back seat of a Trabant rather cramped.

To Sean Hannity and John Rich

Gentlemen,

Regarding Mr. Rich's new song "Shuttin' Detroit Down," I do not think it is an appropriate anthem for the current revolt against socialism.

A few people - a very few - may be "livin' it up on Wall Street," but the biggest parties are going on in DC - on Capitol Hill, and at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

It's not the execs who screwed up their companies that I'm ticked at. I'm ticked at the feckless, corrupt, ignorant, incompetent bunglers in Congress and the White House (past and present) who decided to gleefully give our way our money, and who decided that this "crisis" is an occasion to abolish the Constitution.

Barney Frank and company probably love the song. It distracts from their own misdeeds.

Dear Mr. President - April 4, 2009

Dear Mr. President, with regard to your recent European concert tour:

Please tell me that you did not actually bow to the Saudi king. The photos I have seen appear to have caught you genuflecting, as Catholics do before the altar in church. The image is troubling, for the Saudi king is neither divine, or my ruler. Why then, would you, as the representative of a free people, of a people who violently rejected monarchy 200-odd years ago, bend your knee to a modern king? Did you truly mean to suggest that ALL Americans now owe obeisance to "royalty"?

How dare you denigrate your employers as "arrogant."

With regard to your calls for international regulation of financial entities and other proposals tending to erode the sovereignty of the United States, do you recall the Declaration of Independence? The part that declares "these Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent...?" I know that you are a Constitutional scholar. Could you point me towards the provisions of the Constitution that authorize you to bargain away that independence without so much as submitting a treaty to the Congress for ratification?

I regret that the First Lady of France recoiled so visibly from your proffered ceremonial kiss. She is, by all accounts, a true "free spirit." Perhaps she recognized you as an enemy of freedom.

Introducing the Star Chamber

The recent recipients of bonuses from AIG have been tried, convicted and urged to commit suicide by a number of prominent members of Congress, all for the crime of fulfilling their contracts.

Their actions are a disgrace to their offices and a betrayal of their oaths to protect the rest of us from such flagrant denials of due process.

But perhaps, somewhere in the thousands of pages of recent spending legislation the Bill of Rights has been replaced by the Star Chamber, of which Wikipedia says:

The Star Chamber (Latin Camera stellata) was an English court of law that sat at the royal Palace of Westminster until 1641. It was made up of Privy Counsellors, as well as common-law judges, and supplemented the activities of the common-law and equity courts in both civil and criminal matters. The court was set up to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against prominent people, those so powerful that ordinary courts could never convict them of their crimes. Court sessions were held in secret, with no indictments, no right of appeal, no juries, and no witnesses. Evidence was presented in writing. Over time it evolved into a political weapon and has become a symbol of the misuse and abuse of power by the English monarchy and courts.

It was mistakenly thought that in 1487 an act was passed which established a special "Court of Star Chamber" to deal with the nobles; however; the only legislation passed in that year in this context was to set up a tribunal to prevent the intimidation of juries and to stop retaining. It seems to have gone out of use by 1509 and it had no connection with the later Court of Star Chamber whose primary purpose was to hear political libel and treason cases.

In modern usage, legal or administrative bodies with strict, arbitrary rulings and secretive proceedings are sometimes called, metaphorically or poetically, star chambers. This is a pejorative term and intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the proceedings. The inherent lack of objectivity of any politically motivated charges has led to substantial reforms in English law in most jurisdictions since that time.

As the U.S. Supreme Court described it, "the Star Chamber has, for centuries, symbolized disregard of basic individual rights. The Star Chamber not merely allowed, but required, defendants to have counsel. The defendant's answer to an indictment was not accepted unless it was signed by counsel. When counsel refused to sign the answer, for whatever reason, the defendant was considered to have confessed." Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 821-22 (1975).

But at least we now precisely what "change" Mr. Obama has brought to us. We are no longer citizens of a free republic. We are subjects.

I'm Confused

Dear Mr. President,

Are you familiar with the “shareholders derivative suit”? It is a standard tool of corporate governance. It allows shareholders to sue the directors of a company for bad results. To be precise, the directors may be held personally liable for losses suffered by the company if they acted in bad faith, engaged in self dealing or failed to exercise due diligence. Making a bad business decision is not grounds for liability; making a bad decision without doing your homework is. Which calls to mind the AIG bailout and claims by various members of the government that they had no knowledge of the retention bonuses. Given your public commitment to transparency and accountability, would you kindly introduce legislation allowing voters to sue, personally, all members of Congress and the Executive who failed to do their homework?

I realize that most of these individuals have not yet ascended to the ranks of the Truly Evil Rich, so it would not be feasible to recover from them the billions they have frittered away. I would propose more modest consequences. Those found liable would be removed from office, disqualified from future office (even dogcatcher), lose all benefits (including campaign funds socked away for a rainy day) and be subjected to audits going back to three years before they first took office.

Applying this new liability to the AIG case does prevent some difficulties. Retroactive penalties are generally disapproved of as ex post facto laws, which are prohibited by the Constitution. Similarly, affected individuals may also claim that, by being singled out for punishment, they are the subjects of a Bill of Attainder, also prohibited by the Constitution. You may recall that the Bill of Attainder was a favorite tool of Henry VIII of England. He used it to legally murder a number of those who opposed, or simply displeased him. Yet, coming from the current Congress and Administration, the claim would would ring false. Recent legislation designed to recover the retention bonuses through punitive taxes certainly seems to be little more than legislation intended to punish a disfavored few.

Curiously, that disfavored few have attained that status by living up to their contracts. They EARNED the bonuses that have caused so much fuss. They kept their end of their deal with their employer – AIG – and the US government. If they snookered us, you and your should be attempting to discover who dropped the ball, not on how to welch on what turned out to be a bad deal for the US.

In sum, I am confused. It would seem that our Republic is in the hands of dishonest, vindictive incompetents willing to sacrifice even our most fundamental protections to preserve their positions of power. Your silence on these questions suggests that either you do not understand them or find no reason to object to them. You promised us “hope” and “change.” I hope you did not intend such an appalling change for the worse.


Scipio

PS I apologize for the slight deception in my last letter. I know there are not 37 Articles to the US Constitution. I was citing the Constitution of the former Soviet Union.

International Amnesty

Dear Mr. President,

I understand you have taught Constitutional law. I would ask, therefore, how you reconcile pending amnesty proposals for illegal aliens to Article 37:

Citizens of other countries and stateless persons living here are guaranteed the rights and freedoms provided by the law, including the right to apply to a court and other state bodies for the protection of the personal, property, family and other rights.

Citizens of other countries and stateless persons, when living here, are obliged to respect our Constitution and our laws.

Does the requirement to respect our laws apply only AFTER arriving here, and not to the manner of arrival?

Does being foreign born, and having a contempt for our laws, entitle one to preferential treatment, treatment not available to the law abiding?

New Revenue Sources

Dear Mr. President,

In these times of economic crisis, when the government needs every kopeck it can raise, it has occurred to me that the following suggestions might be helpful.

1. End the “War on Drugs.” Our experience with Prohibition teaches us that this simple step ill save money currently spent, mostly futilely, on interdiction. In addition, legalization would drive down prices, undercutting the drug cartels that cause such troubles in Mexico and other Latin American nations. Finally, legal sales can be taxed – as with alcohol.

2. Windfall profit taxes for additional sales of goods and services resulting from awards, such as Academy Awards, New York Times Bestseller status, the Pulitzer Prize, or an author's election to office or other public disgrace.

3. Strict registration and licensing of celebrities who wish to become “activists.” Licensing fees for these lobbyists would be a flat percentage of their annual gross incomes.

4. Lift the current ban on offshore oil drilling. This step would reduce the cost of energy and encourage production, creating jobs. In addition, with consumers now conditioned to higher fuel prices, a surcharge to fund socially responsible research into alternative energy, would pass unnoticed.

5. An illegitimacy tax. While procreation may be a natural right, creating a burden on society is not. In addition, modern DNA tests remove uncertainty regarding paternity. Parents should therefore be directly responsible for the cost of public benefits to protect and rear their offspring. Parents who cannot afford to pay these assessments should be required to work off their obligations.

6. An appointment to office tax, being a percentage of the total sum an appointee contributed directly or through surrogates, to secure the election of the appointer. As a corollary, appointees who are not current in their taxes would be assessed a surcharge equal to 200% of their tax deficiency. Payment in full being due before appointee is permitted to take office.

7. A celebrity tax, payable by entertainers, sports figures, political pundits and others who derive their income not from production of goods or services having practical utility but from their own notoriety. An additional surcharge could be levied upon those “famous for merely being famous.”

8. Registration and licensing of print and broadcast journalists. While print and broadcast journalists exercise a public trust, events over the last decade – witnesses various deceptions perpetrated by or on the New York Times and CBS Evening News – reveal that these organizations cannot be allowed to police themselves. Oversight is clearly necessary to ensure the accuracy and integrity of all reporting. Neither is there any reason that these organization should not contribute handsomely to the public fisc in return for the opportunities they enjoy.

9. An entertainment tax. While rest and recreation are, of course, necessary to the well being of individuals, in these times of national crisis such as these they must be pursued in moderation. To that end, taxes may be imposed on such items as motion pictures, televisions, condoms, DVDs, home theaters, video games and works of fiction (including the writings of any holder of or candidate for political office).

10. A leisure tax. Given the current crisis, unproductive members of society are a luxury we cannot afford. Thus all able-bodied men and women not otherwise gainfully employed should be put to work at socially productive tasks. Given the millions we spend each year on public education and training, no one should complain that they have not been given opportunity to acquire the skills needed for their preferred employment. As Captain John Smith taught during a similar time of national peril “He who does not work, neither shall he eat.”

Respectfully,

Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus Major

Dear Mr. President -

I fear your address to the All Party Congress has left me profoundly troubled.
Whence will come all the trillions of dollars you intend to spend?

You could confiscate all the wealth of all the "rich" and still not be able to pay the bills.

If you merely print money, you will impoverish us all. Witness Zimbabwe.

You can try to borrow the money, but will you use for collateral?

It all appears a mammoth Ponzi scheme, in which you rob those who do not support you to pay those who do.

It will truly be "change," as you promised, but not change for the better.