The Consitution: No Interpretation Needed

Part I: History and Language

John Marshall: The First Activist Judge

Thomas Jefferson once said about judges that he had a fear of their "habit of going out of the question before them, to throw an anchor ahead, and grapple further hold for future advances of power." His distrust was furthered by Federalist judicial actions during the Alien and Sedition Acts, and it all came to a head with the Judiciary Act of 1801. The Judiciary Act created six new circuit courts to be presided over by 16 Federal justices, and a veritable battalion of federal marshals, clerks, and attorneys.

While these positions were (arguably) needed, the Federalist Congress shamelessly appointed their favorites into these positions. John Adams, not immune to favoritism himself, worked into the night feverishly signing their commissions right up until midnight March 3rd, his last day in office.

Republicans repealed the Act, but Jefferson found that some commissions had not been handed out. In a pique he held them up, refusing to lawfully distribute them. One of the appointees, William Marbury, petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus directing the new Secretary of State, James Madison, to honor his commission.

Chief Justice John Marshall, one of Adams' "midnight" appointees, was forced into a quandary: if he refused the writ, he would be accused of not being able to stand up to Jefferson, and his, as well as the Court’s, power would be diminished. If he issued the writ, he would be at odds with Jefferson, as he would be seen in at least equal footing with the executive.

In a stroke of cunning genius, Marshall declared that Marbury had the right of his commission. But his request has been based on an ambiguous clause of the Judiciary Act of 1789. Marshall ruled that the clause in question was unconstitutional, thus sacrificing Marbury as a pawn, and thereby setting up the Supreme Court as the interpreter de jure of the Constitution.

With this one action Marshall, by actually refusing power instead of "throwing an anchor ahead", did what Jefferson feared in grappling "further hold for future advances of power". And Jefferson could do nothing about it.

Language Barriers: Why Is There an "F" in the Word "Congress"?

Ideas, words, and even whole languages change over time. A scant 150 years ago, people thought nothing of sending their children off to work to the textile plant. Today not only is it illegal, but it's considered immoral to make a child work 8 hours a day for a wage (my son approves of this).

The word "artificial" at one time meant "created by an artist" (from the root word "artificer" or one who is a craftsman). Now it means something that is fake, or not natural. The English language itself is constantly changing, adding some words, removing others. Nobody says "the cat's meow" anymore (unless, of course, you're old, like me).

The language of the Constitution is not only written in "legalese", it is written in 18th century legalese. But all one has to do is sit down and read it to be able to understand its entire meaning. Yes, there are some oddities, such as the aforementioned "f" in "congress" (this was a "long s", used since the Middle Ages), and some words that, while not precisely having a different meaning today, have a different common usage. Ask the average Joe what the word "respect" today usually means, and they'll likely say it means how one person treats another. In the 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", the word "respect" is used to mean "to not give favor to".

It is these types of discrepancies between writing styles 224 years ago and writing styles now that have given rise to the Supreme Court not only reinterpreting the Constitution, but also being installed with justices that will interpret it in a favorable way.

In part II of my diatr...er...article, I'll show some highlights of the good (read: correct) interpretations, and the not-so-good, and why interpretation, instead of application, of the Constitution has eroded our rights as a nation, rather than protect them as the Constitution is intended.

Libertarians went from left-wing to ‘right-wing extremists’ overnight

If, on March 3rd 1933, you fell asleep a Libertarian, whom for the past 20 years had been called a member of the Left who worked alongside Progressives and Socialists in America then by the time you awoken on the morning of March 4th you would have been a “right-wing extremist”. How can this be? One day you are a member of the Left and next day you are being called a “fascist” and a “conservative”.

What about when the people you for 20 years allied yourself with suddenly turned their back on you. The ones you mentored in university classes, you wrote newspaper articles with, you protested with in the streets, they all suddenly look upon you with disdain. This is not some nightmare that someone had or some fictional dystopian book, this was real, and it happened right here in the United States.

From the onset of World War I and the Orwellian policies implemented by the Wilson administration a close alliance of necessity was formed by all those who seen the absolute terror being caused by the state. Libertarians, Anarchists, Socialists, Communists, and Progressives all came together. The entire issue of Laissez-faire capitalism, socialism, and such division was abandoned temporarily as a more pressing issue was being raised.

Before their eyes these men and women witnessed this country morph from one of a bastion of liberty to one with a propaganda bureau, citizen spies, arrest for protesting and speaking out against the state, federal segregation, the imposition of a powerful central bank, excessive taxation upon the people, and the involvement of the United States in the Great War. These citizens witnessed arguably the policies of the first Fascist leader in world history; Woodrow Wilson.

In 1920 Americans rose up against the entire history of the Wilson administration. They despised his foreign, domestic, and social policies which in turn created an era of rebellion, radical politics, and the rise of individualism once again. The Left did not completely win however as they now witnessed the government and big business get in bed with each other like never before along the continuation of national prohibition.

By the early 30s enemy number one for the left (Libertarians, Anarchists, Progressives, Socialists) was President Hoover. He began many of the policies which would become known as the New Deal, albeit to a far lesser degree. Since he was a Republican and the Republicans were the party of big business and prohibition the left set its sights on taking control of the Democratic Party again. Al Smith was the leading candidate for party nomination in 1932. Smith was a staunch anti-prohibitionist, non-interventionist, leader of the efficiency movement, and a limited government type, so obviously he appealed to the left.

He did not however win the party nomination. It instead went to 1920 Vice Presidential candidate Franklin Delano Roosevelt who proposed a ‘New Deal’ for the American people. Basically it was taking Hoovers’ policies, making them more radical and intrusive, and then adding his class warfare rhetoric into the mix. Seeing as how Hoover was so disliked at the time almost anyone could have defeated him in the election.

Seeing what Roosevelt was proposing angered Hoover because Roosevelt had taken the original bureaucratic programs supported by big business and pushed them further than he had or would. Please understand at that time Hoover was big government and Roosevelt was trying to beat him at it, i.e. who could out-statist the other.

Such New Deal programs as the NRA and AAA were basically just spin-offs of the Swope Plan, which was headed by General Electric CEO Gerald Swope and supported by the other big businesses. Hoover already refused to go as far as the Swope Plan even calling it “fascism”, angering almost all the big businessmen and the Chamber of Commerce, who then warned Hoover that they would throw their support behind Roosevelt. To prove how serious they were with their words when Roosevelt did enact the NRA and AAA it was Swope, Harriman, and Baruch who were involved in drafting and even administering the programs. So in effect, the New Deal was backed by the wealthiest businessmen in America.

Within only a few months of Roosevelt’s inauguration the Left collapsed. The Libertarians were appalled to realize that their old allies had now became their staunchest enemies, joining with the Roosevelt clique of liberal intellectuals, big business, big labor, and the state. Men and women who once fought against the state were now writing articles, doing seminars, and attacking their former allies and conservatives in defense of the state.

It did not end there however. Abandoning your old friends is bad enough but it became even worse. These newly empowered allies of the state then turned against their old friends by viciously attacking them with such labels as ‘reactionaries’, ‘right-wing extremists’, and ‘fascists’. How did these radicals of the left suddenly become right-wing and conservative? Did their positions suddenly shift? No. They still battled the state, opposed war and monopolies.

Now allow me to quote for you a little from Murray Rothbard’s ‘The Betrayal of the American Right’:

“Thus, in December 1933, Nock wrote angrily to Canon Bernard Iddings Bell: “I see I am now rated as a Tory. So are you—ain’t it? What an ignorant blatherskite FDR must be! We have been called many bad names, you and I, but that one takes the prize.” Nock’s biographer adds that “Nock thought it odd that an announced radical, anarchist, individualist, single-taxer and apostle of Spencer should be called conservative.”

 (Betrayal, p. 50)

From this betrayal of their former friends and allies emerged a new coalition, one completely unthinkable until that time. Libertarians, Anarchists, and the big business Conservatives all came together under a new coalition, one which was now outright opposed to the entire doctrine of New Deal welfarism and statism.

Progressives, Socialists, and even Communists joined together with the Liberals to push through the New Deal. The new coalitions had been born. One even the issue of World War II intervention could not tear apart.

Libertarians watched as the Conservative Republicans all fell over each other denouncing the Democrats New Deal. These were the same Republicans who for the past 20 years been pushing new regulations, bureaucracies, tariffs, and prohibition, all issues which are opposed to that of liberty. Many of the Conservative Democrats joined in the anti-New Deal crowd as well, forming the American Liberty League.

As we turn back to the core point of this piece, that of the Libertarians overnight going from Left to ‘Extreme-right’ without even moving, it begs the question of what exactly happened to the new ‘left’ and ‘right’. Did the Old Right just disappear with the death of Robert Taft and the rise of National Review Republicans or did the ‘Old Right’ re-emerge years later with the rise of the Vietnam War protests, Hippie movement, and the Individualist politics that defined the era?

If we are to accept that many, perhaps most, of the ‘old right’ members joined the ‘new left’ then where did they go after the protests died? Perhaps there is no real defining answer to that question other than saying that the ‘old left’ then ‘old right’ then ‘new left’ is just a constant current in American politics that will spring up with their Individualist and Non-interventionist politics on any side of the political spectrum.

We may have even seen them once again in 2009-2010 with the large scale Tea Party protests that swept the country and the arrival of a new breed of Republican, a more Individualist, states’ rights, and non-interventionist wing of the Republican Party. Much like the Democratic Party of the late 60s and early 70s, this wing is now fighting for control over the party and is trying to reassert itself as a dominant force in American politics, moving us in a more Individualist, liberty-loving, and isolationist direction.

With that could we then see the ‘new right’ take the torch of individual freedom and peace that the ‘new left’ held? Where would that put the present day Liberals when Neoconservatives and Social conservatives are forced to battle for their political life in a Republican Party now becoming overtaken by fiscal conservatism and isolationism? Will they go back home to the Democratic Party? And if so could we now expect a realignment of American politics?

With that all stated and the questions asked I do leave you to ponder what I have said and bid you a good day.

The Problem With Capitalism

The problem with capitalism is that it doesn't exist.  Perhaps it never truly has.  By making this argument, I run the risk of coming perilously close to sounding like the purists of communism who will make the same argument, and I suppose that when it comes to capitalism, I am purist, but in truth, I am a purist in language.  Martin Heidegger once asserted that we do not speak language, that language speaks us, and while there is plenty of evidence to support this truism, it is hardly the truth.  We can all fall prey to language speaking us, and us not speaking language, but we should never accept this flaw as being one of the natural problems of language, or of humanity.  We are all more than capable of speaking language and not allowing that language to speak us.  It requires due diligence, and plenty of critical thought, but we are no less capable of such efforts. 

If we are to speak language, not allow it to speak us, then it becomes necessary to clearly define the words we use in the language we speak.  The modern proclivity - at least in terms of the English language - is to use words as if they are pliable and can take on multiple meanings.  Such a proclivity tends to pollute the lexicon and undermine the very purpose of language, which would be to communicate clearly.  The word "capitalism" is just one such example.   When we are speaking language  words mean what they mean and A is A.  When language is speaking us words mean whatever the speaker means by them, whatever that means.  When people use the word "capitalism" it is rarely clear what they mean by that word. 

The problem with capitalism is not a problem with the economic system known as capitalism, it is a problem with the way we allow language to speak us.  This problem gets so bad that when the inevitable confusion that will surely follow arrives, instead of correcting the problem by clearly defining what we mean by using appropriate words, we complicate the problem even further by qualifying the word we are using inappropriately, as if one inappropriate action will cancel out the other.   Thus, we hyphenate capitalism to clarify what we mean.  People reading this will surmise that what I am speaking to is a "laissez faire - capitalism" as opposed to a "Keynesian - capitalism", or incredibly as opposed to corporatism.  Yet both "Keynesian - capitalism" and corporatism are very much considered to be capitalism.  Neither are, but this doesn't matter in today's vague and meaningless lexicon. 

What then is capitalism?  In its simplest terms, capitalism is an economic system where a free and unregulated market place allows for massive competition to flourish, and a form of currency backed by actual wealth is used so that buyer and seller alike have a convenient means of exchange that all parties can agree upon its value.   A free and unregulated market, massive competition, and a currency backed by real wealth used as the means of exchange.  In the United States today, and arguably since this nations very beginning, capitalism is nonexistent.  The United States does not have a free and unregulated market, massive competition is disappearing year after year under the heavy burden of corporatism, and the U.S. dollar is a fiat currency not backed by wealth at all.

Under an actual free and unregulated market, as opposed to the presumed "free market" in the U.S., licensing schemes would be nonexistent.  Under an actual free and unregulated market much of the so called "alphabet agencies", such as the FDA, the USDA, the FCC, the FAA, the EPA, and so on, would be virtually nonexistent.  Under a genuine free and unregulated market, massive competition would carry the day and not just be an ideal that politicians pay lip service to.  Of course, many will take my assertions and declare; "But that's the problem with capitalism!"  They will lecture on how without licensing schemes people are in danger of all types of ills, including threats to their very lives, and those lecturing us on this hypothetical will ignore the fact that in reality under a heavily regulated marketplace where professionals are regularly licensed people remain in danger of all types of ills, including threats to their very lives.  One of the best kept secrets in the United States is that iatrogenocide (death by doctoring - licensed professionals) is the third leading cause of death in the U.S.

Iatrogenocide is just one example of the complete failure of licensing schemes and regulation to do what it purports to do.  Under regulation, greed is still greed, poorly made products remain poorly made products, and potential health problems remain potential health problems, and the beauty of all this regulation is that it is government regulation, a monopoly that insists on immunity from its own failures.  Under a free and unregulated marketplace buyers have the option of buying goods and services from the sellers they perceive to be the best.  If a seller develops a reputation for not delivering on his promise, chances are, under a free and unregulated market, his business will fail.  When the government develops a reputation for not delivering on their promise, we shrug our shoulders and declare it politics as usual.  Under the heavily regulated marketplace of today, when a business begins to fail because of their failure to deliver on their promise, if that business is a corporation, government declares them "too big to fail" and bails them out. 

Ah, but the detractors of capitalism will point out that it was "deregulation" that led to the corporate bailouts.  This is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, of course.  The anti-capitalist crowd will use the term deregulation as if it is a shining example of all that is wrong with no regulation, as if deregulation could be equated to a free and unregulated marketplace.  Deregulation, by definition, means that regulation exists.  Deregulation becomes a sort of Orwellian language and is very much in line with the proclivity towards a vague lexicon.  Deregulation is not unregulated, it is merely a relaxing of certain regulatory rules.  However, this is not the only effect of the smoke and mirrors parlor trick of using deregulation to demonize capitalism, the greatest trick lies in its simple deflection.  It was not deregulation that led to government bailouts.  Regulated, or "deregulated", government is under no obligation to bail out a failed company. 

Of course, government knows full well it is under no obligation to bail out a failed company, and small to mid-sized businesses fail every day and the government feels no compunction to step in bail them out.  Indeed, small to mid-sized companies that make the mistake of incorporating very well may discover how quickly government is willing to revoke that charter of incorporation for the slightest of offense, but the corporate malfeasance of a major corporation will rarely - if ever - result in charter revocation, as the symbiosis between the government that created this artificial entity we call the corporation, and the corporation itself is a match made in hell.  Government stands to gain much revenue from corporate malfeasance through fines.  Yet, the anti-capitalist will point to this hellish relationship and declare this is what is wrong with capitalism! 

Corporatism is not capitalism.  Keynesian capitalism is not capitalism, and calling capitalism "laissez faire capitalism" is akin to calling redundancy repetitive redundancy.  Expert after expert will put great effort into explaining all that is wrong with capitalism, but the real problem with capitalism is clear.  The problem with capitalism is that it just does not exist.  

Taxes and Home Land Insecurity

If you believe that the true fiscal duty lies in cutting taxes, but not spending, then you're not a real fiscal conservative, I don't care what side of the aisle your on, that's just BS. More taxes certainly isn't the answer...But, if we're going to talk taxes and fairness, how about cutting 79,985 of the 80,000 pages of tax code. If you want an example of government policy that ONLY benefits the SUPER rich(Not talking the change Bill Gates has either, there are bigger wallets) look no further than the US Tax Code. Simplicity is key folks...Complexity is to the advantage of those who can afford the army of lawyers it takes to understand it.

If you think there's a shred of difference between Democrats and Republicans on this issue, you're also sorely mistaken. Since the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913 taxes have only increased. I've gone over this before, and quite frankly taxes are a boring discussion. But we have to try to understand why we're having this argument to begin with.

Republicans AND Democrats wanna spend. And they want you to pay for it. They have a vested interest in passing certain legislation...Let's face it, just because they're democrats doesn't mean they're not sucking the corporate tit. I thought people would have learned this after the 2004 election when Kerry ran on George Bush's platform. Is it any wonder the talking monkey got elected again if that was the choice? We've seen no change in policy...The "new" leadership claims precedent from the "old" leadership- Examples:

Rachel Maddow on Obama's pre-crime policy(YouTube)

Yep...Pre-crime. With the loose terms with which terrorism is being defined does anyone really trust this or future government with this sort of power? Why pay for it? I posit there are places in government where cuts can be made, like the DHS. The Department of Homeland Security. Why? Why not?! The DHS is the most visible footprint, in my eyes, of the former Bush administration. When this cabinet level department was created in 2002 this is what was said about it:

From Wired.com

Since the events of 9/11, a range of legislation detrimental to fundamental freedoms and privacy rights has been rammed into law, without any assurance that our safety will improve as a result.

Law enforcement interests pushed through a variety of surveillance measures, including some unrelated to terrorism, that had long been rejected as inappropriate in a free society.

Important protections related to monitoring and intelligence gathering, established after serious past abuses, were swept away with the assurance that this time the government won't abuse its powers.

"Grave questions of invasion of privacy"

Nov 26, 2002 | President Bush signed the landmark Homeland Security Act into law Monday, setting in motion the most ambitious reorganization of the federal government in decades. Already, though, critics on both the right and the left are worried that measure will create a mechanism for unprecedented spying on U.S. citizens.

One program in particular is emerging as a concern: the Pentagon's Total Information Awareness system. Privacy experts say the program will allow the government to routinely mine thousands of databases -- from drivers' licenses to bank statements to telephone records -- to compile dossiers with scant regard for people's innocence or guilt.

Much of these fears have been realized. Today the Obama administration oversees an Assassination program that puts American citizens in the cross-hairs on suspicion. Two months into his presidency the Obama Administration asked the Supreme Court to overturn Michigan V. Jackson...What is that? Well:

Supreme Court Overturns Landmark Case Michigan v. Jackson — With The Support of the Obama Administration

At issue in this case was the continued interrogation of a murder suspect who had invoked his right to counsel. Under Michigan v. Jackson, when a suspect has invoked his right to counsel, police may not initiate interrogation until counsel has been made available to the suspect. In this case, a Louisiana businessman Lewis Ferrari was found dead on the kitchen floor from gunshot wounds to his head and chest. Neighbors identified the van of Jesse Jay Montejo (later forensics found Mr. Montejo’s DNA under Mr. Ferrari’s fingernails). Police interrogated Montejo who, after five hours and various explanations, asked for a lawyer.

What if you're charged with terrorism for...I don't know, reading the Wikileaks file dumps...With the Total Information Awareness program, they'll know you did. So...

You wanna cut taxes? I sure do! And I posit there are ways to pay for it...If you look hard enough... We have a structure set up that is being actively kept in place by the very group of people we elected in 2006 and 2008 to dismantle it. They have yet to do so.

I'm all for cutting taxes, but the taxes I do pay I don't want going to draconian bullshit like this. My guess is, you don't either.

The Libertarian from Buffalo

Grover Cleveland was a man who in a period of four years rose from sheriff of Erie County to President of the United States. He was a man with strong morals and passionately dedicated to honesty, justice, and liberty as he fought tirelessly for the rights of voters during his terms as mayor of Buffalo, governor of New York, and President of the United States. Cleveland over time earned the reputation of being a man with solid principles and sound judgment.

Perhaps more background information on the man and his record are in order. Let us begin with his famous veto as mayor of Buffalo, New York. In the veto he clearly rebuked the corruption running rampant throughout his city, stating:

"I regard it as the culmination of a most bare-faced, impudent, and shameless scheme to betray the interests of the people, and to worse than squander the public money"

After this striking veto, word had spread outside of the county about his devotion to ethical politics and in one year he moved from Buffalo to Albany, becoming Governor of New York after emerging from the Democratic Primaries as a strong compromise candidate. In Cleveland’s first two months he signed eight vetoes and one in particular brought close attention. It was a bill to lower the fares of a railroad owned by Jay Gould, who just several years earlier rescued the railroads and made them solvent again. While the bill might have been popular his veto was supported by the newspapers in the state, which congratulated him for his will to stand on behalf of private property and the US Constitution.

1884 came around just two years later and Cleveland ran for President, this being the first time since 1856 that chances of a Democratic win were strong since the GOP nominee, James G. Blaine, was a weak candidate. Cleveland ultimately triumphed over his fellow Democrats even without the Tammany Hall backing due to his earlier opposition to this corrupt political machine as Governor.

“Ma, ma, where’s my pa?” This line was started during the campaign by the Republican James G. Blaine’s supporters to tarnish Cleveland’s pure reputation because in 1874 he paid child support to Maria Crofts Haplin after she claimed the child was his. Since she had slept with several other men around the same time there was no proof the child was actually his but he accepted responsibility of payments anyway.

When the results of the election came in Cleveland was announced the winner with 219 electoral votes to Blaine’s 182. As a result, Cleveland’s supporters turned the Republican catch phrase in their favor, “Ma, ma, where’s my pa? Gone to the White House. Ha! Ha! Ha!”

Now to focus on his politics as President of the United States, which he served as from 1885-1889 and again from 1893-1897, being the only President ever to serve two non-consecutive terms.

Cleveland begun his Presidency angering the railroad investors by launching an investigation of Western lands they held by government grant and since the railroads failed to extend their lines according to agreements, 81,000,000 acres of land was brought back under government control.

In 1887 Cleveland issued his most famous veto, that of the $10,000 Texas Seed Bill. Drawing a line in the sand and stating his political philosophy for all to see:

“I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people. The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.”

During the late 19^th century the silver cause was a popular one among Western and Southern farmers. The intention was to inflate the national currency so as to help relieve their chronic misfortune. Cleveland, not being one to favor any groups, refused to inflate the currency. Instead he fought strongly on the side of the gold cause, defending it even while the currency was under the assault of deflation. Knowing that any meddling with currency would not yield positive results for anyone, he and the rest of the Northern politicians refused to turn their backs on gold currency.

                                       

One of the most divisive issues during the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries was that of the tariff. Democrats, such as Cleveland, opposed high import tariffs while Republicans supported them. While in office Cleveland fought the high tariff, even going so far as to call it an attack upon Americans:

"When we consider that the theory of our institutions guarantees to every citizen the full enjoyment of all the fruits of his industry and enterprise, with only such deduction as may be his share toward the careful and economical maintenance of the Government which protects him, it is plain that the exaction of more than this is indefensible extortion and a culpable betrayal of American fairness and justice.”

Come 1893 Cleveland was back into the White House after his four year ‘vacation’. But his second term was not a happy one as just a few months into it the Panic of 1893 hit. Realizing that the economy only had gotten worse due to the lack of gold reserves because of the involvement of silver in the currency the Congress had to act fast in order to restore adequate reserves of gold. After fifteen weeks of debating the Senate finally repealed free coinage by a vote of 47-38 with the signature of President Cleveland the legislation passed.

Next was the Pullman Strike, which was the result of a depressed economy and the end of silver. By June 1894 roughly 125,000 railroad workers were striking, virtually bringing the nations’ rails to a halt. Cleveland soon intervened because the railroads carried the mail and several effected lines were under federal receivership. So he obtained an injunction in the courts which the strikers did not obey, as a result, federal troops were sent into Chicago along with twenty other rail centers.

By this point the general idea of Cleveland’s philosophy of government should be known. He was an unshakeable foe of subsidizing any business or group, regardless of their problems. Being a man of gold at that time was difficult but he stood firm in his opposition to the silver cause which had, in the end, damaged our currency and worsened the effects of the first Great Depression. On the issue of tariffs he treated them like all other taxes, opposing them when they are high on the grounds that it is basically extortion.

May history rest well on the side of President Grover Cleveland, a staunch Bourbon Democrat who would bow to no moneyed interest, power brokers, political machines, or corrupt influences that dare to challenge the integrity of the office he resided over. A man of the same tree of liberty from which the great Presidents Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson were born of.

Without any debate or argument, he was most definitely the last Jeffersonian Democrat to hold office of President of the United States of America. Yet why must he be the last? What has happened to the Democratic Party of year prior? I speak of the one that pulled more people off government doles than Republicans. Were they suckered into the ideas of statism because of people like Woodrow Wilson or was it the gradual changing of things which moved Democrats from the party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland to that of Wilson, Roosevelt, and Obama?

Whatever the answer to the question may be the facts still remain. Our country had noble men who stood on behalf of liberty, justice, and honor, while these men may not be noticed today they are still around. Lurking, waiting, for the day in which the truth that is freedom may be seen by the masses again after the fog of tyranny is once again removed from these shores.