United Liberty
Herman Cain should read the Constitution
Fri, 06/10/2011 - 1:30pm | posted by Jason Pye
During his official announcement for the Republican nomination for president, Herman Cain said that we don’t need to re-write the Constitution, rather re-read it. I tend to agree, but he made an embarrassing gaffe on the Constitution, citing language that was actually from the Declaration of Independence. And recent comments he has made, including his contempt for the Fourth Amendment and basic civil liberties, leave one with the impression that Cain may need to do some reading of his own.
While appearing on Glen Beck’s show on Wednesday, Cain again expressed caution in appointing a Muslim to a position of power if he were president, noting that he would do so if they took a loyalty oath:
BECK: So wait a minute, are you saying that Muslims have to prove, there has to be a loyalty proof?
CAIN: Yes, to the Constitution of the United States of America.
BECK: Well, would you do that to a Catholic or a Mormon?
CAIN: No, I wouldn’t, I wouldn’t because there is a greater dangerous part of the Muslim faith than there is in these other religions. I know there are some Muslims who talk about but we’re a peaceful religion. I’m sure that there are some peace-loving.
Cain once again demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the Constitution, which explicitly states in Article VI, Clause 3 that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Another aspect of the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, that he gets wrong is in regards to the Second Amendment. According to a recent interview with Wolf Blitzer, Cain said that states have a right to regulate guns; if they see fit:
BLITZER: How about gun control?
CAIN: I support the 2nd amendment.
BLITZER: So what’s the answer on gun control?
CAIN: The answer is I support, strongly support, the 2nd amendment. I don’t support onerous legislation that’s going to restrict people’s rights in order to be able to protect themselves as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.
BLITZER: Should states or local government be allowed to control guns, the gun situation, or should…
CAIN: Yes
BLITZER: Yes?
CAIN: Yes.
BLITZER: So the answer is yes?
CAIN: The answer is yes, that should be a state’s decision.
Cain’s belief runs afoul of recent Supreme Court decisions that have found gun regulations in the District of Columbia and Chicago to be unconstitutional and that the language found in the Bill of Rights protected a fundamental individual liberty. While states may pass reasonable regulations, they cannot, as some cities have done or tried to do, legislate away the Constitution. If that was Cain intended to say, he should have been more clear.
Lastly, I would like to know where in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution is Congress given the power to bailout and/or partly nationalize financial institutions with taxpayer money. Cain has taken some criticism for his backing of TARP, and justifiably so. He responds with this:
“If they want to nail me with my support for TARP — you know what? I’m not going to be able to counter that,” Cain told TPM in a wide-ranging interview last weekend. “Here’s what we will do — we will have a spot on our website that says, ‘if you really want to know the truth about my position on TARP, go look at this two-minute video.’ If they choose not to, I can’t change that.”
[…]
he said that anyone who thinks of him as a TARP advocate has the wrong idea. While he supported the idea of government pumping cash into banks during the darkest days of the financial crisis, Cain says he takes great issue with how the money was doled out.“I thought TARP was going to be an opportunity for the government to allow any bank that needed to to restructure its balance sheet,” Cain said. “But it didn’t. It only picked its friends. That’s when I turned against TARP.”
Cain says that the way TARP worked — he said it was used to “reward winners and losers” — was not what he expected. And that turned him from a friend of the program to a foe.
But Cain still speaks highly of the idea of TARP in a way that would probably give some of his supporters pause.
“We needed to do something drastic because we were facing a very drastic situation,” Cain explained. “The concept was fine.”
This explanation is poor. Can assumes that government is an honest player, which it isn’t. It routinely picks winners and losers in various ways; through the Federal Reserve, the tax code, pork projects and government contracts. The bailouts represented the worst of cronyism and corporatism. Moreover, TARP likely made bailouts a permanent policy of the federal government. Either Cain is naive or he thinks you’re stupid enough to believe him.
You’re a Ron Paul supporter, so I don’t expect you to give Herman Cain an easy time but still….
I believe the president has a duty to make sure that everyone in his administration has the Constitution of the United States of America as their #1 loyalty. Muslims that believe in sharia law as above the constitution should not be allowed in government. I think we can all agree with this, and that is all Herman Cain is saying.
Herman Cain has been very clear that he is a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment and that he does NOT believe the government can take away our guns like in DC. He does believe that the government has the right to control guns through things like conceal carry permits. Which have been reoffered that states have this right by the supreme court on numerous occasions including Robertson v. Baldwin and District of Columbia v. Heller
The constitution does give congress the ability to “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin”. Under this power the Federal Reserve was created to be a lender of last resort. Even Milton Friedman, believe that the Federal Reserve inappropriately refused to lend money to small banks during the bank runs of 1929, causing the great depression. Cain has NOT supported the way that tarp was implemented, only that if all the banks were about to crash at the same time, something should be done to stop that.
reoffered => *reaffirmed
You’re a Ron Paul supporter, so I don’t expect you to give Herman Cain an easy time but still….
Am I? I didn’t know that.
I believe the president has a duty to make sure that everyone in his administration has the Constitution of the United States of America as their #1 loyalty. Muslims that believe in sharia law as above the constitution should not be allowed in government. I think we can all agree with this, and that is all Herman Cain is saying.
He is welcome to express his personal opinion; but he is running for president and he has said that asking a person to take an oath of loyalty (nevermind that an individual takes an oath to uphold the Constitution when they are sworn in to their position) solely based on their religion would be unconstitutional.
It’s that cut and dry.
Herman Cain has been very clear that he is a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment and that he does NOT believe the government can take away our guns like in DC. He does believe that the government has the right to control guns through things like conceal carry permits. Which have been reoffered that states have this right by the supreme court on numerous occasions including Robertson v. Baldwin and District of Columbia v. Heller
Simple question: Why didn’t he just say that? As I said, states have a right to enact reasonable regulations per Supreme Court rulings; such as concealed carry, as you mentioned. However, they cannot enact regulations that would deprive a citizen of their protected right.
He either dropped the ball on the question, and I said that was entirely possible, or doesn’t know the issue well enough to speak intelligently on it (and that would be a shocker).
The constitution does give congress the ability to “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin”. Under this power the Federal Reserve was created to be a lender of last resort. Even Milton Friedman, believe that the Federal Reserve inappropriately refused to lend money to small banks during the bank runs of 1929, causing the great depression.
TARP was an act of Congress, not the Federal Reserve. Yes, the Fed did lend money to banks during the most recent economic crisis; however, they also printed a lot of money, which will likely result in inflation.
Additionally, this is a debate that stretches back to the early 18th century. You have taken a rather expansive, Hamiltonian view of Article I, Section 8. I prefer the Madisonian (ie. textural) view.
At any rate, that is not what we are discussing here.
Cain has NOT supported the way that tarp was implemented, only that if all the banks were about to crash at the same time, something should be done to stop that.
And this is my criticism of Cain. As I noted (a point you ignore), his defense of his support of TARP is wholly inadequate, and naive at best. Not to mention that it runs counter to his supposed belief in free markets, which is to let irresponsible businesses fail.
Sorry my mistake, I saw the phrase looking back over your posts and saw the phrase “As a libertarian, I’m obviously a fan of Ron Paul.”, just didn’t think you would be supporting Gary Johnson, as you would be the first person I have seen that is.
An oath of loyalty to the Constitution of the United States of America. Every single person in government should be able to swear an oath to uphold and defend the constitution. Why did he single out Muslims that he would not feel as conferrable with them (and would make sure that they would defined the constitution), because some Muslims have said (and I have talked to a few that have), that sharia law is the only law and all other law is worthless. I have never heard a catholic or a Jewish person or another religious person say that.
I dont know if you watched the video of that CNN interview, but to me it is clear that is what he meant by “gun control”, is things like conceal carry permits. He clearly should have been more clear in what he meant, and he will probably clarify that latter, but for now, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. If he comes out and says that states have the right to ban guns, I will be the first one yelling and screaming at him :).
I pointed to a possible constitutional way in which help could be given to our banks in times of economic emergency. At that time that Herman Cain made his statements in support of TARP, the details on what the legislation was going to be hadn’t yet be released. All we knew is that there has just been a $550 billion dollar run on the banks, and things were looking scary. Once he learned the details of HOW they were going to do it, he didnt support that. If you want to know more about Herman Cains stance on TARP and bailouts I suggest you watch these:
TARP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSm2d6DqkUs
TARP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jR1dgh0tZok
Bailouts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0gWVPVjY3g
I saw the phrase looking back over your posts and saw the phrase “As a libertarian, I’m obviously a fan of Ron Paul.”, just didn’t think you would be supporting Gary Johnson, as you would be the first person I have seen that is.
I have issues with Ron Paul, some of them I’ve expressed here. I don’t think he should be running for president for a few reasons. If Johnson weren’t in the race, I probably wouldn’t bother voting in the primary.
I pointed to a possible constitutional way in which help could be given to our banks in times of economic emergency.
No, you bent the Constitution in a lazy attempt to “make it work.”
At that time that Herman Cain made his statements in support of TARP, the details on what the legislation was going to be hadn’t yet be released.
That’s dangerous. He didn’t know the plan, which was conceived arbitrarily, yet endorsed it anyway. That’s how we get bad policy.
All we knew is that there has just been a $550 billion dollar run on the banks, and things were looking scary.
Again, this is how we get bad policy. Knee-jerk reactions are not a way to pass legislation.
If you want to know more about Herman Cains stance on TARP and bailouts I suggest you watch these…
Mr. Cain and I have spoken one-on-one on at least two occasions. I live in Atlanta and listened to his show until the day he backed TARP. I’m well aware of his position.
Ok, now that we got that out of the way. You seem like a very smart guy. I am interesting in what you think on what should have been done instead of TARP. $550 billion has just been pulled out of the banks in a matter of hours (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5HOscRbNwM).
My current opinion is based on Milton Friedman when he said about the first great depression in “Free to Choose”:
“The [Federal Reserve] System could have provided a far better solution by engaging in large-scale open market purchases of government bonds. That would have provided banks with additional cash to meet the demands of their depositors. That would have ended—or at least sharply reduced—the stream of bank failures and have prevented the public’s attempted conversion of deposits into currency from reducing the quantity of money. Unfortunately, the Fed’s actions were hesitant and small.”
Would you just let all the banks fail? Is there a constitutional way to fix this problem in your opinion?
No, not unless they were amending the Constitution through the Article V process. The key phrase you’re missing in what Friedman is said is “open market.” The selling of bonds to finance debt, if that is what Friedman means here (and it sounds like it does), is different that the Fed arbitrarily printing money into inject in the economy. But again, this is not what Congress did with TARP. You don’t seem to grasp that.
The foundation of capitalism is profit and loss. If your business cannot succeed due to bad practices, then yes; they should have allowed to fail. As Dan Mitchell said, “Capitalism without bankruptcy is like religion without Hell.”
>>Lastly, I would like to know where in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution is Congress given the power to bailout and/or partly nationalize financial institutions with taxpayer money.
Not hard to find:
Article I Section 8
1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
… .
18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Um, no. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution does not in any way, shape or form allow Congress to bailout private financial institutions.
You would have to take a rather expansive view far from the Founding Fathers intent to even come close to making that slide.
Sorry dont agree with this (despite what the recent supreme court has held, previous supreme courts have held otherwise and I believe it will eventualy swing back the other way).
FEDERALIST No. 41: “Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. “
If you don’t know the ‘Federal Reserve’ isn’t Federal, isn’t a ‘reserve’ but is an intentionally-misnamed privately-owned Bank ( the Federal Reserve Bank )
it’s unlikely you can understand anything about who controls those in the Federal government and how—through fractional banking—you, and generations yet unborn have been indentured into perpetual debt service.
http://www.bigeye.com/griffin.htm
A Talk by G. Edward Griffin
Author of The Creature from Jekyll Island
Brief explanation of the purpose and intent for amendments to the Constitution of the United States as follows:
The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution as Ratified by the States December 15, 1791
PREAMBLE Congress OF THE United States.
“THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution…”
archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.
Amendment II “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
It sounds like Mr Cain is not a friend of liberty. He supports local regulation of the second amendment. Would he support local regulation of the first amendment also?
Let’s make this easy for Mr Cain. Amendments tell us what the government can NOT do. Which of our freedoms will he bother to protect?
Short list?
Post new comment