My Proposal for a Party Platform

The Arkansas Populist Party

I. Arkansas -
Arkansas is a unique state in our country, rich in natural resources, traditional values, and a hardworking labor force. It is not state where distant party idealogies in Washington D.C. are accepted at face value, oftentimes at their own detriment. We are a state which strongly resists being quantified and categorized into left or right ideologies, and we believe that the Arkansas people have the right for their unique views to be heard both in local government and in the federal government.

As a party, we strongly support the right of self-determination for the people of Arkansas on the pressing social and economic issues of our day. We commit to the state motto of "Regnat Populus" ("The people reign"), believing that a free and democratic United States relies on free and democratic states.

We commit to working with any of the national parties who are willing to meet our demands as representatives of the Arkansas people, but we are absolutely opposed to caucusing or joining in coalitions which prevent us from holding those major parties accountable.

II. Constitutional Reform
The Arkansas Populist Party believes that the Constitution of the state of Arkansas must be amended to allow proportional representation in the House of Representatives using the open party list voting method or another similar (and transparent) voting formula.

We believe that state delegations to the United States House of Representatives should be elected proportionally by the whole state so that each representative represents the same number of people and that the share of votes earned by smaller parties are duly represented.

We support a national popular vote for the President of the United States using the Instant Runoff Voting (preferential) system.

We support term limits for Senators and Representatives in the United States Congress.

III. Taxation
We believe that the wealthiest should contribute more to the stability of our state and the support of our most vulnerable citizens. The APP supports an increase in the highest marginal income tax rates for federal income taxes.

The APP supports an altered income table for Arkansas state tax brackets, so that no income tax is collected on those who earn less than $12,600 and the tax indexes are increased for those earning higher incomes.

The APP believes that people should have more freedom to spend their money in the way that they see fit. For that reason we support a single, standard sales tax throughout the state at 5%, with no tax on food items.  We believe that tobacco products should be taxed at the same rate as other non-food items.  

The APP believes that the federal government should not use federal funding to force states to accept national policies which fall under state authority. We believe that the Arkansas drinking age should be lowered to 18. In order to replace federal funds lost as a result, Arkansas would increase the alcohol tax.  In the federal government, AUP representatives and Senators will support a general repeal of federal restrictions on local self-determination with regards to alcohol and tobacco consumption.

The APP supports lowering corporate taxes and the tax burden on small businesses.

The APP is opposed to taxing online sales and purchases.

IV. Life Issues
Fundamental to all other freedoms is the right to life. Without this right, secured even for those who are unable to defend or speak for themselves, all other rights become illusory, as it is certain that a person who is not allowed to live will also not have health care, freedom of speech, freedom to pursue a better life, or otherwise enjoy the benefits of a just society.

Populists strongly support the rights of states to regulate and restrict the abortion industry, a right that is currently denied to them by the federal government.

We support the right to life of the unborn as well as the rights of mothers to longer, paid maternity leaves, free prenatal healthcare, and public aid in establishing publicly-funded college savings plans for newborns.

The APP believes that the process for implementing the death penalty should be reformed so that each defendant is given a separate, impartial hearing to confirm both guilt and eligibility for the death penalty. We believe that it should be in the power of local governments to abolish the death penalty for crimes committed in their communities. We welcome members who propose abolition of the death penalty altogether and will support a frank exchange of ideas on this issue.

The APP is opposed to physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia.

The APP is opposed to research using human embryos.

V. Family Issues
The APP strongly supports the right of the people of Arkansas to a fair and democratic process for determining whether to recognize gay marriages under the law, while always maintaining the highest respect for members of the LGBT community.

We support equal treatment of LGBTQ workers in the workplace and are opposed to any prejudice against LGBTQ Arkansas residents.

We support the extension of spousal benefits to domestic partners.

We support a protection of the rights of individuals who oppose same-sex marriage and, for reasons of conscience, refuse to offer services pertaining to it.

We support an increase in deductions permitted for additional children.

VI. Minimum Wage 
We support an increase in the minimum wage to $9 over a year-long period and a law which adjusts the minimum wage for inflation and rising cost of living.

VII. Labor Organization
We support tax incentives for corporations whose workers are members of a legally recognized union.

We believe that every worker should have the right to join a union and that workers should be empowered to form unions by a fair and free democratic process.

We support Right to Work laws which allow any person to hold any job, but believe that individuals should only be able to access health care benefits, retirement funds, and other benfits negotiated by unions if they join the unions themselves.

VII. Health Care
We believe that access to primary care for children is a right that should be guaranteed by universal coverage.

We support a single-payer health care system throughout the United States, administered by state governments, and paid for by general tax revenue.

We support the freedom of individuals to choose their own doctors and determine their level of care with their own money, but we believe that individuals should always have the option of joining an inexpensive public health system.

We support tort reform to restrict lawsuits against doctors for punitive damages.

VIII. Immigration
The APP believes that immigrants are the backbone of a working economy. They support the creation of wealth and ensure that there are enough working, taxpaying people in this country to support our social infrastructure and move Arkansas and the United states forward.

The APP believes that the states should determine the legal status of undocumented immigrants and should be able to create a path to citizenship for any of their residents.

We support cooperation and dialogue with Mexican authorities to create integrated police records that will help us track and apprehend individuals who have committed crimes in the United States and Mexico.

We believe that the immigration process should be simplified and the number of immigrants permitted to live and work in this country should be increased.

We oppose proposals to deport all undocumented workers in this country and believe that a federal legalization process should be created.

IX. Homeland Security
The APP supports the reform or elimination of the Department of Homeland Security.

We believe that states should have access to all federal law-enforcement records collected by federal agencies and should be permitted to disclose them in accordance with their own laws.

We oppose the FISA court and believe that warrants should be obtained for all wiretapping and surveillance through the ordinary court system.

X. Education
The APP believes that every child has the right to an excellent, free education provided for by public funds in cooperation with and under the direction of their parents.

We believe that the best way to achieve this is through community-directed education which seeks to keep children in their own communities rather than through competition between school districts.

We also believe that parents should have the right and ability to remove their students from the public school system and enroll their children in private schools or engage in home education with public assistance.

For this reason, the APP will support the creation of a voucher system for homeschooled parents worth up to 65% of student's equitable share of funding and 85% for parents who enroll their children in private schools. As a condition for accepting public vouchers, private schools will be prohibited from collecting tuition fees.

Populists oppose transferring students to schools outside of their local district through the so-called "school choice" program except for reasons of hardship.

The APP is strongly opposed to further consolidation into larger and larger public schools and believes, where possible, small charter schools utilizing the latest teaching methods should be established in districts which include several smaller communities. Students attending such schools should receive 100% of their public funding.

The APP is committed to ending tuition and fees for students attending two-year community colleges.

The APP supports the creation of a JROTC program in every public high school and an ROTC program in every public university.

XI. The Natural State
Fundamental to the character of Arkansas is its wide diversity of resources and natural beauty. This natural beauty is not only something that gives pleasure, it is a resource, attracting thousands of sportsmen, tourists, and entrepreneurs each year, in addition to helping to supply many Arkansans with essential food and water.

We are committed to protecting water quality and wildlife in Arkansas; the APP believes, however, that it is the people of Arkansas, and not Washington, who should have the most say in protecting our environment.

We support responsible hunting and fishing and will do everything we can to encourage hunters both inside and outside of the state to make use of the diversity of wildlife in this state.

We will support regulations seeking to protect our air from dangerous pollutants.

The APP will support the programs which seek to alleviate the difficulties experienced by Arkansas farmers through a vigorous public safety net. We support reduced taxes on incomes derived from farms as well as on the purchase of farm equipment and supplies. We believe that policies pertaining to Arkansas farms should be made in Arkansas, not Washington.

XII. Public Safety
Individuals have the right to feel safe in their persons and belongings. To that end, we support the efforts of law enforcement and believe that they should be compensated more for their services.

The AUP believes strongly in the right to bear arms, both for personal protection and for hunting. We will oppose any laws to increase regulations on gun ownership in this state.

We recognize that the prison system in this state is overcrowded and underfunded. The source for this problem is largely the over-incarceration of nonviolent offenders for scores of drug-related offenses.

We therefore propose to eliminate prison terms for nonviolent drug and alochol-related offenses (with the exception of  drunk driving laws) and reduce all such crimes from felonies to misdemeanors.
Marijuana use is a hotly debated topic in this state. In order to give people more individual freedom, we will strongly advocate for the federal government to give states authority over regulating the use and prosecution of drugs.

We support the legalization of marijuana production, purchase, and use for individuals over the age of 21.

We will vigorously fight the production of harder drugs and seek to curtail their use by minors, always, however, with the goal of keeping drug offenders out of the prison system and into programs of recovery that help to make them better and more productive citizens.

XIII. Religion and State
Arkansas is a state with strong moral and religious convictions. The APP believes that such a faith in God is a strength and not a weakness for our people.

We support the expression of religious faith by public institutions, provided that such expression does not in any way coerce participation by those of a different faith or of no faith at all.

We believe that the academic study of religion is a key component in a complete education and will seek to give it greater attention in the development of state educational standards.

We are in favor of partnerships with faith-based initiatives to help the poor and vulnerable.

XIV. Social Security
The APP believes that Social Security benefits are the right of individuals who have paid into the system. However, the social security system is in need of reform so that it benefits individuals of all social classes, but especially the poorest, rather than simply providing an additional source of income for wealthy retirees. We support reform, for individuals under the age of 45, that will distribute Social Security benefits on a need-based system.

The Republic of Arkansas (world-building exercise)

Several months ago, I began conceiving a short story set in an independent Republic of Arkansas. Of course, I am no good at writing novels, but I did have some ideas on how the government of that Republic might take shape. So, I composed this. Enjoy and comment!


The Constitution of the Republic of Arkansas (in outline)
I. The Legislative Department -

A. Legislative power shall be vested in the General Assembly of the Republic of Arkansas and the people of the same, in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.

B. Popular Initiative and Referendum -
1. Laws, either as statutes or as amendments to the Constitution, may be passed by referendum if petitioned for by 1/10 of the registered voters in the Republic or if initiated by the President of the Republic with the consent of the Senate. These initiatives must be certified as executable by the Attorney-General of the Republic.

2. After a referendum is initiated, the President of the Republic shall designate a day no sooner than one month from the certification of the petition or the consent of the Senate and no later than 6 months afterwards on which voters shall cast ballots on the matter. It may also be placed on the ballot
at the next General Election with the consent of the Senate.

3. In order to pass, it must be approved by a majority of the voters casting ballots in the referendum and by a majority of voters in each of more than half the counties in the Republic. If, however, the referendum is for an amendment to the Constitution then it must be passed by a majority of the voters casting ballots and a majority of voters in each of two-thirds of the counties in the Republic.

C. The General Assembly - The General Assembly shall consist of a House of Representatives and a Senate. 
1. The Senate -

a. Composition-
i.The Senate shall consist of twenty-five Senators each representing one of twenty-five geographical districts of roughly equal population, as determined at the last census, and fifteen Senators representing functional districts. Senators shall serve terms of 4 years.

ii. The functional districts shall consist of multiple-member constituencies, each represented proportionally to the number of electors casting ballots in those constitutuencies in the previous election, provided that each constituency receives at least one seat, and elected in single-seat races at large by preferential ballot. Those functional constituencies shall be as follows: (1) Labor Unions (2) Healthcare Professionals (3) Educational Professionals and Students (4) Business and Finance Professionals (5) Civil Servants (6) Clergy and Charitable Non-Profit Workers (7) Creative Artists and Entertainers (8) Legal Professionals and Law Enforcement Officials (9) Service Professionals (10) Farmers and Agricultural Workers

iii. Each geographic district shall return one Senator, who shall be elected by preferential ballot (Instant Runoff Voting).

iv. Every voter shall be entitled to cast one ballot in a geographic constituency and one in a functional constituency. If a voter is not entitled to vote in a constituency because of unemployment or because his or her primary occupation is domestic, he or she may either vote in the functional constituency pertaining to his last primary occupation or in the functional constituency of his or her spouse.

b. Officers
i. The President of the Senate shall be the Chancellor of the Republic.

ii. Other officers shall be appointed by the Chancellor with the consent of the Senate from the members thereof.

2. The House of Representatives-

a. Composition -
i. The House of Representatives shall consist of fifty Representatives representing fifty geographic districts and an additional number of members appointed from party lists to make the House proportional in the manner described in the Appendix for the Additional Member System as provided for by this Constitution. Representatives shall serve two-year terms.

ii. Each of the geographic districts for the House of Representatives shall be formed by dividing each Senate district into two House districts of equal population by the shortest possible line.

b. Officers - The Speaker of the House and other officers shall be elected by the members thereof.

c. Impeachment - For high crimes or misdemeanors, the House of Representatives may impeach any person holding an office of trust or profit under the Republic. Such impeachments shall be tried in the Senate, with the Vice President presiding or, if the Vice President himself is being tried, with the President of the Republic presiding. In order to be convicted, the accused must be found guilty by a majority of the whole number of members of the Senate, who shall be under oath. Penalties issued by a court of impeachment shall not exceed removal from office and barring from holding public office, but the person so convicted may be held liable in another court for violations of the law.

3. Legislative Process -
a. In order for any bill to become law it must be passed by both houses of the General Assembly.

b. Once a bill has been passed by both houses, it must be presented to the President of the Republic who, if he agrees, shall sign it, but if not, shall return the same to the House in which it originated with his objections, which shall be entered on the journal.

c. If a majority of the whole number of members of that house shall vote again to pass the bill, it shall immediately become law on the signature of the presiding officer of the same, certifying that the law has passed.

II. State Department -

A. Composition -
1. The State Department shall consist of the President, Chancellor, Treasurer of State, Secretary of State, and Attorney-General.

2. Each of the State Department officers shall be elected by the people for a four-year term concurrent with the Senate by preferential ballot.

B. Responsibilities of the President
1. The President shall represent the Republic to foreign powers and at home in a ceremonial manner in accordance with the advice given him by the Executive Department.

2. The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Republic, but may not make or declare war except on the advice of the Executive Department and may not appoint officers except in the manner prescribed by law.

3. The President shall have the authority to call for new elections to the Executive Department when the same has lost the confidence of both houses of the General Assembly.

4. The President shall appoint all judges whose appointment is not otherwise provided for in this Constitution with the advice and consent of the Senate.

5. The President shall have power, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to grant pardons and reprieves for violations of the law, except to himself or any of his immediate family.

C. Responsibilities of the Chancellor
1. The Chancellor shall preside over the Chancery Court of Equity, which shall have jurisdiction over all cases pertaining to equity and to those cases delegated to it by law.

2. The Chancellor shall be President of the Senate and shall determine its agenda and appoint the members of all committees within the same.

3. The Chancellor shall act as President in the case of a vacancy, in which case he shall vacate the office of Chancellor and a Vice Chancellor selected by the Senate shall take the office of Chancellor.

D. Responsibilities of the Treasurer of State
1. The Treasurer of State shall maintain all records of the revenue and expenditures of the Republic and shall be responsible for the collection of all taxes.

2. He shall appoint the Directors of the National Bank of Arkansas in accordance with the charter thereof as provided for by law.

3. He shall submit an annual budget for approval by the General Assembly, which may alter no expenditures or statutory requirements as passed by the Assembly.

E. Responsibilities of the Secretary of State
1. He shall maintain all vital records of the state and administer all elections.

2. He shall be responsible for the maintenance of the Capitol grounds.

F. Responsibilities of the Attorney-General
1. The Attorney-General shall prosecute national crimes in accordance with the instructions of the Executive Department and shall represent the state at law.

2. He shall advise the various departments of government on the implementation and interpretation of the Constitution.

III. The Executive Department -
A. Prime Minister
1. Executive power as granted by this Constitution shall be vested in a Prime Minister of the Republic, who shall serve at the pleasure of the General Assembly for a maximum term of twelve years.

2. The Prime Minister shall be elected in the following manner:
i. Upon the vacancy of the office of Prime Minister, the Senate shall convene and cast ballots for the Prime Minister from the members of the House of Representatives.
ii. The two persons having the highest number of votes shall then be presented to the House of Representatives, who shall vote for one of the two candidates. The person having the highest number of votes shall be elected Prime Minister.
iii. The Prime Minister shall serve until either a vote of no-confidence passes both houses or a period of four years has elapsed, at which time another election must be held. No person shall serve as Prime Minister for longer than twelve years.

B. The Prime Minister may delegate executive responsibility to ministers appointed by him in accordance with the provisions of the law.

IV. The Judicial Department -

A. The Supreme Court -
1. Final appellate authority shall be vested in a Supreme Court of the Republic, which shall consist of nine judges elected by the people of Arkansas for twelve year terms.

2. After the first election in consequence of this Constitution, the Supreme Court shall, by lot, be divided into three classes, the first of which shall vacate their seats after four years, the second, after eight, and the third, after twelve, so that every four years one-third of the Supreme Court is elected.

3. Members of the Supreme Court must, in order to stand for election, be nominated by at least 1/5 of the members of the General Assembly from either house.

B. The General Assembly shall, by law, provide for other courts inferior to the Supreme Court having jurisdiction over national crimes and civil cases.

C. Municipal Courts
1. Judges: Each county and special municipal district shall elect a Municipal Judge to hear cases arising from municipal law. He may be assisted by other judges in a manner determined by each municipality.

2. Responsibility for prosecuting cases arising under municipal law shall fall to the Municipal Attorney, who shall be appointed by the executive of the County or Special Municipal District with the consent of the assigned legislative assembly. 

D. Chancery Court - All cases arising from equity shall be heard by the Chancery Court. The Chancellor may be assisted by Vice Chancellors appointed by him with the consent of the President of the Republic as provided for by law.

E. Justice of the Peace Courts -
1. Each county and special municipal district shall be divided into townships, within each of which shall be elected a justice of the peace, who will have jurisdiction over all non-felony traffic offenses, inquests, indictments, and warrants of arrest and search within the township. Justices of the Peace shall be elected for four-year terms.

2. Appeal from a Justice of the Peace Court shall be to the Quorum Court and, after this, to the Supreme Court of the Republic.

V. Municipalities

A. Counties -
1. Territory and Jurisdiction - The Republic is divided into counties, each of which has sole municipal authority over the territory within in it, with the exception of military bases and special municipal districts as designated by law.

2. Legislative Branch -
a. Legislative authority shall be granted to the Quorum Court of each county.

b.Each county is divided into townships, for each of which is elected a Justice of the Peace who shall, in addition to their duties as Justice of the Peace sit on the Quorum Court together with an equal number of County Commissioners, who shall be elected at large in single-seat races by preferential ballot for terms of two years.

c. The President of the Quorum Court shall be the County Vice President, but he shall have no vote unless the Court is equally divided.

3. Executive Branch - 
a. Executive power over the County shall be vested in a County President who shall be elected by the people of the county by preferential ballot.

b. In the case of vacancy, the County Vice President shall assume the office of County President. The County Vice President shall be elected by the people of the county by preferential ballot. When the Vice President assumes the office of President, the Quorum Court shall elect another person as Vice President to serve the remainder of the term.

B. Special Municipal Districts -
1. Territory and Jurisdiction - State law may provide for certain urban areas to be self-governing as Special Municipal Districts having the same authority as Counties and exempted from county control.

2. Legislative Branch -
a. The Legislative Power of a Special Municipal District shall be vested in a City Assembly, which shall consist of 35 members elected proportionally by party list for terms of four years.

b. President of the City Assembly shall be the Mayor of the City, who shall be elected by the people thereof for a term of six years. However, he may not speak on a substantive issue in the Assembly nor vote unless authorized to do so by a majority of the assembly.

c. In order for any ordinance to pass, it must be approved by a majority of the City Assembly and signed by the mayor or, if he objects, then by a 2/3 majority of the City Assembly in a second vote.

2. Executive Branch -  Executive Power shall be vested in a City Executive who shall be appointed by the President of the Republic with the consent of the City Assembly for a term of four years.

Appendix: Additional Member System for elections to the House of Representatives
1. Each party shall nominate a list of candidates. Every geographical district candidate shall subscribe to one of the duly registered lists of candidates, and the leader and name of the party to which that candidate subscribes shall be listed next to him or her on the ballot paper.

2. When casting a vote for one of the geographical candidates by preferential ballot, the first choice of each voter shall be counted as a vote for the party list to which the preferred candidate subscribes. In order for the votes for a list to be tallied in the overall percentage, that list must receive at least 5% of the total number of ballots cast or one geographical district seat.

3. The party whose geographical candidates received the highest number of seats (or, if this tied, then the one which received the highest number of seats and the lowest percentage) receives one candidate from his party list of candidates. This sum (geographical seats + 1) is divided by the percentage of votes won as first-choice preferences received by candidates from that party throughout the Republic.

4. This quotient is then multiplied by the percentage earned by each of the other parties who qualified to have their party votes counted. From this product is subtracted the number of geographical seats won by that party, and the resulting difference is the number of seats allotted to that party from their party list.

5. The seats allotted by party list to each party are filled in an order determined by the party itself according to its by-laws.

6. Each party list is limited to fifty members, but the number of members in House may change from election to election.


EXAMPLE:       GEOGRAPHICAL SEATS   PERCENTAGE   LIST SEATS     Total Seats
CONSERVATIVE      28                    39            1            29
LIBERAL           20                    35            6            26
NATIONALIST       1                     17            12           13
SOCIALIST         1                     9             6            7
                                                                   75 Members

(Here was the flag I came up with for the novel.)

A Choirboy's View on Same-Sex Marriage

I want to start off this post with a little backstory on my relationship to homosexuality. From the time that I have been in high school, I have had gays, lesbians, and bisexuals among my closest circle of friends. This isn't surprising since I was in choir and band, and then I spent a good deal of my time after high school discerning for the Catholic priesthood. If you don't think you will run into a lot of homosexuals while discerning for the Catholic priesthood, you are gravely mistaken. ALMOST all of them are celebrating the decision made by the Supreme Court last week, and I have been watching my Facebook feed blow up like a cross between a three year-old with finger paints and a Care Bear stare. It's raining rainbows, and that's not even possible.

Now, among my group of friends, I would say that I am in the absolute minority in opposing the civil recognition of same-sex marriage. I respect their feelings on the matter, and I do not fault them for them, but I am a 1000% certain that most of  them do not have the same respect for mine; many of them don't probably even know that I am opposed to it.

But let's back up. First off, I want to say that I am absolutely against ANY discrimination against a person on the mere basis of their sexual orientation. I am against this because my Catholic faith leads me to believe that every person is in the image of God, that they were made with challenges and talents (sometimes the same thing) just like everyone else, and that they have the right to pursue holiness and happiness just like everyone else. My Catholic faith loudly proclaims:
"They (homosexual persons) must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." (CCC 2358)

It is for this reason that I generally conceal my opposition to same-sex marriage. If in any way my views or opinions on the matter prevent me from helping or being a friend to someone who identifies as gay, lesbian, trans, bi, or other, I want those to be minimized and to simply be present to that person as a loving Christian. On the other hand, I genuinely believe, and this is based on both faith and experience, that LGBTQ individuals will be happier, healthier, and more integrated if they adopt a lifestyle based on the teachings of Christ in the Catholic faith. That doesn't mean that they must try to "change their orientation", hide their identity, or that they will never fail. It simply means that they will integrate their view of sexuality with that of believing it to be a participation in the creative mystery of God. The Lord knows I fail on this almost constantly myself, so I don't expect anything different from anyone else. That's why, in the Catholic Church, we put Reconciliation and Healing at the center of our worship.

On the other hand, it seems almost ludicrous to me that, at the head of most movements raising the banner of "the sanctity of marriage" are Churches that are full of second, third, and fourth marriages, as if something can truly be sacred which is violated by almost every Christian denomination. As a Catholic, I can't help but think that unions, often even celebrated in Churches, which amount to no more than "I promise to file joint tax returns and have sex (+ contraception) with you until I can't stand you any more" aren't really any better than performing a same-sex marriage at the same altar. Same-sex marriage is rooted on the same philosophical premise as pretty much 85% of the marriages performed in this country, so it shouldn't really surprise anyone that the Supreme Court ruled that they should have the same protections.

I am worried about the effect that this will have on the relationship between religion and public life, particularly in places (like the South) where religion has enjoyed a position of high respect and privilege. In fact, it seems to me that the particular concern the founders (of both the nation and the states) showed to give religion that place of privilege in civic life, preclude us from judging those who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds, merely because those objections come from their religion. As the civic life, because of this ruling, takes on more and more of a different flavor from that which most of the populace is seeing and hearing preached in their Churches, we should expect those churches to do one of two things: either dwindle as fewer and fewer people are able to square their experience inside the Church with that outside the church or change their doctrinal stances to accommodate civil society, in which case they will also dwindle as ordinary people begin to see them as meaningless or extraneous. While I cannot agree with the institution of civil marriage as it previously existed in this country, I also can't agree with changing it, as changing it will, in general, lead to irreparable harm to the prevalence of religion in this country. Only if individuals' opinions were changed freely, through a fair and democratic process (not litigation), should an institution as ancient and venerable as marriage have been altered to accommodate those changes in perspective.

St. Aelred of Rievaulx, pray for us!

The Confederate Flag: My Story

Lately there have been a lot of rumblings on the news and in social media around the Confederate Battle Flag. Essentially, these hinge on whether this is a symbol of hatred or bigotry and whether it ought to be removed from public spaces or even banned outright. I thought I would add my voice as a (mostly) white, Southern man.

As most of you know, I went to a school whose mascot was the "Rebels". Confederate imagery was everywhere. People brought Confederate flags to the games; the fight song was Dixie; and the school colors were red and grey. You can see a Confederate flag depicted on the sign in front of the school and, in my time at least, it hung proudly in the gymnasium.

That flag basically meant different things for different people in the community. For some of the more history-conscious folks, it represented Southern heritage and pride in our former status as a sovereign nation. It had a lot the same connotation as IRA symbols in Ireland: complicated, but still something that represented regional identity. For others, it was a symbol of rebellion against the "cultured" people up North. It was a statement that we were backwoods, gun-totin' rednecks and we were here to stay--and, perhaps, when we sobered up, "rise again".

For the vast majority of people in my community, neither of those things were the case. It was generally just intended as a symbol of our school, and the people from outside of our area who misappropriated it for nationalistic, racist, or even redneck imagery were seen as strangers who just didn't get it and who were likely to get us all in trouble.

As a young, (mostly) white man in the South, and as someone who had plenty of friends both north and south of the Mason-Dixon line, I was keenly aware of the cultural difference between Southern and Northern states. This difference cannot be reduced, or even characterized, by an increase in racism as you journey to Dixie. In fact, I never heard such racist comments as what I heard out of middle-class white people once I moved to Michigan and then Massachusetts. Where I had come from racism was a--to use a term I wholly disapprove of--"white trash" thing. I openly adopted the Southern banner as something that symbolized my country and my people. I owned one myself and hung it in my dorm room, much to the annoyance of some of my friends at Hope College.

After many highways and byways, I come to the present day. Not too long ago I dated a young African-American lady, and, in sensitivity to her feelings on the matter, removed my Confederate flag from my room. For her, the flag symbolized institutional racism and a history of slavery to others on the basis of her skin, and I felt (and still feel) that I needed to respect that. So, down it went, to be replaced proudly by my Arkansas state flag. (I know some are raising a fuss about that now, but really, it's a DIAMOND. We have diamonds in Arkansas.)

With all that in mind, let's take a look the main issue at stake here. Is the flag a symbol of racism, of states rights, or of Southern heritage? If my story tells you anything, it ought to be that the flag has many different meanings to many different people. Stating that one meaning (because it is negative) ought to preclude all other possible meanings seems simplistic to me.

Certainly, the flag can be used in a hateful, racist way, and it is, in fact, justifiably a complicated symbol due to its history. Yes, the Civil War was fought over slavery, despite what so many people argue. Just compare, side by side, the United States constitution with the Confederate States constitution. There are no additional provisions to maintain state sovereignty. There are only two substantial differences: the Confederate constitution provided for a President elected for one term of seven years instead of a repeatable four-year term (not that big of a deal), and the Bill of Rights therein included a provision that protects slavery as an institution for all time. If the states indeed fought for states' rights, they certainly didn't decide to state it in a legally binding document. Instead, they enshrined the right of people to deny other people their rights.

Again, we can look at the history of the Confederate flag as a symbol in places like South Carolina, where the flag was never flown on state grounds until the Civil Rights movement began in earnest. Here, the flag was definitely being used to intimidate the African-American community, to solidify the unjust system of segregation, and to ally the state with the Dixiecrat movement. It must come down.

All that being said, it seems to me that we also have to believe people when they tell us that the flag is not being used in a racist way. If we are to respect people's freedom of expression, if we are going to accept that individuals have enough sense to vote, to drive cars, to fly planes, and to pay taxes, we ought to at least take them at their word, until their actions prove them false. If a person displays the Confederate flag in a hostile or racist manner, sure, make them take it down; but if, on the other hand, the descendants (black and white) of Confederate veterans, the rednecks, the cultured Southern gentry, want to display it (peacefully) as a symbol of regional unity, then by all means let them, and leave your judgments at the door.

Let's not be naïve, though. In many (if not most) instances, the use of the Confederate flag is inappropriate in a civil context. The South needs to find new symbols, perhaps even ones based on their predominately Christian beliefs, to symbolize regional unity. We need a banner that all of us, black, white, Latino, or other, can unite around, because Washington bureaucrats are waging a war on our key cultural values, and we are going to need every person, regardless of color, creed, orientation, language, etc. to work together to stop them.

Reforming our History Curriculum - A Global Approach

This year, I decided to undertake a project that I had no idea how I would actually complete: teaching a World History course. As someone who loves history and ancient civilizations, I thought it would be a cinch. And, after all, I knew more about recent history in the far-flung corners of the world than the average Joe, or so I thought.

As I have fought my way through the course, I realized that something was fundamentally off about how we teach history in our public school's system. To give an example, looking through the textbook, I realized that, in a single chapter, we were supposed to cover the highlights of African history, a history that, in recent times, affects almost every aspect of foreign policy in which our nation is engaged. We, through the democratic process, are making decisions about countries like the Congo, Rwanda, Egypt, Israel, etc., without really having a thorough understanding of the motivations of the people who live there. And the reason is that we fundamentally misunderstand their history, mostly because we haven't studied it.

Then we got to the Asia chapter, again, confined to about one twenty-page chapter in the book with four lessons. I have to admit, on Chinese ancient history, I am an absolute ignoramus. I was totally lost on how to explain the differences between Manchurian China and the Qing, or what the effects of the Mongolian invasion were, and correspondingly, how to fundamentally improve my students' knowledge of these subjects. And yet, if we consider current events as the standard by which we evaluate our history curriculum, it is Asia, particularly China, whose history and culture are completely changing the conditions under which we live.

We are in a global society now, and yet our history curriculum seems to assume that an American will never encounter or need to encounter businessmen, politicians, or even ordinary folk from countries that are only a mouse-click away. Currently, as I understand it, the basic framework for the secondary history curriculum is this:
7th grade - Geography and World Cultures
8th grade - Civics
9th grade - World History
10th grade - American History
11th grade - American Government
12th grade - Elective (Usually an AP course)

The problem with this system is that each of the courses, at best, offer a scattershot of particular cultures in which we are supposed to interact. The "World History" course, in particular, offers particular challenges because, at best, students will gain a shallow concept of the overall development of their OWN civilization and its global sources, but more realistically, will be reduced to learning a modicum of trivia about this or that far-eastern country. Also, each of these courses is going to be primarily focused on the ANCIENT history, or the "origins" of each of the topics under which they seem to fall, which means that, in my experience of the public school and in teaching World History myself, an inordinate amount of time is spent at the beginning of the year on the distant past, while the transition from antiquity to modernity gets short shrift.

Also, the breadth of these courses tends to result in ideological attempts to focus on one particular "theme" throughout the text. This is a good pedagogical method for the curriculum, but oftentimes those themes are unduly ethnocentric. For example, in my World History textbook, ONE chapter is spent on Indian history, a nation that currently has around a billion citizens and is the driver of economic development throughout the world, while TWO chapters are spent on Scientific and Industrial Revolutions in Europe, respectively.

Some attempts have been made at reforming this process in experimental or "classical" private schools, which have introduced a chronological method for teaching history. The basic premise here is that, in order for students to gain perspective on history, they need to learn things relative to the events that were happening contemporaneously. Also, students learn best from a good story and, as experience teaches us, a good, memorable story starts from the beginning and proceeds in a logical order.

There are some certainly some merits to this approach. In teaching the Renaissance, for example, I had the rather bothersome task of trying to bring a chapter that kept jumping from date to date in a topical, rather than chronological order. My students were completely confused. The only way around this was to have them create a timeline of all the events in a clear, straightforward presentation. When we finished this, we starting seeing relationships between the events that we hadn't seen before in the chapter, such as the observation that the Northern Renaissance didn't really get in full swing until after the Protestant Reformation, and that this definitely influenced the different direction that Northern humanists took the rediscovery of classical learning. You can't have Milton without Calvin, Knox, and Luther.

On the other hand, part of this depends on the continuity of the story that you are telling. Different civilizations develop at different times along different lines, and to tell a chronological history of the world in a single course necessarily involves underemphasizing some cultures and emphasizing others. In my experience, the usual way that World History texts resolve this is by centering on outside sources for the American experience, an "inside looking out" approach. The problem with this is that the American experience of today is fundamentally different from that of yesteryear precisely because multiple cultures are participating IN it: just consider the role of Latin American politics in the modern United States. What a history curriculum needs to do is change the focus from an "inside looking out" perspective to an "outside looking in" perspective, if it is going to be truly educational.

So, while wishing to keep the best of the chronological approach, I tend to think that we need a radical reorganization of our history curriculum along ethnological lines. If we are to teach students the story of humanity, we need to refocus our efforts on helping them gain perspective in detail of the various cultures that are participating in the global culture of the twenty-first century. We also need to change our philosophy from teaching students starting with the most familiar and quotidian experiences to the least, to starting with the most distant culture to the most familiar, taking the history of the human species as our fundamental guide. We all share a common origin, so we can all start at the same spot.

In my ideal world, the history curriculum would focus on specific areas of the areas of the world, and then proceed along a chronological basis. Here is a sample curriculum (very roughly drawn):
7th Grade - Ancient Civilizations (Beginnings to the Fall of Rome)
8th Grade - Middle Eastern and African History
9th Grade - Asian History
10th Grade - European History
11th Grade - American History
12th Grade - Pacific History

Students would cover, in a more integrated manner, all of the topics that are the focus of current social studies curriculum. For example, the development of Christianity and the rise of Islam would cover religious studies and be developed in 8th grade. Students would learn about the development of democracy and the philosophies behind it in 10th grade, while they would then learn about our governmental system in particular in American History, which would also include the history of Latin America considered as an integral part of our own story. They would learn geography more effectively, because they would spend more time on individual regions than they have time for in 7th grade Geography.

The arrangement above is not perfect, I am perfectly willing to admit, and the complexity of these individual topics would require a great deal of care in designing texts. The other challenge would be finding teachers who are qualified to actually teach the particular courses, but in our interconnected world, the possibility of finding experts on particular topics of history, such as Asian or African history and bringing their instruction to the United States is greatly aided through the use of e-learning technology and the ease of transferring money over long distances. A global educational network would, in fact, serve to improve the lives of academics and instructors (and thereby, the people with whom they do business on a daily basis) in developing nations. Imagine a cohort of enthusiastic graduate students from South Africa who are being paid American wages to spread knowledge about their culture in a foreign country. The possibilities are rather mind-boggling.

I Am a Global Conservative: A Creed

The following is not so much a manifesto as a statement of core beliefs that I have formulated in the last few years. I have come up with a term, the Global Conservative, which pretty well summarizes my position. I hope that I can continue to change this list as my level of understanding and knowledge grows and matures.

I am a global conservative.
I believe that religions, families, cultures, and languages share their authority with the state rather than derive their rights from it, and that the state should refrain from altering or interfering with them except to protect human dignity.
I believe that people have the right to enjoy the fruits of the labor and should not have their property rights taken from them or diminished except for the safety of others.
I believe that people should be free to travel, do business, and settle wherever in the world they choose, and that no person should be denied the right to work in a place where products from his home country are sold.
I believe that freedom of trade without freedom of movement is modern-day mercantilism.
I believe that international structures should enforce the rule of law and the protection of human dignity throughout the world, that these international bodies should consist of representatives directly elected by the people, and that violations of peace, human rights, and contract should be treated as criminal, rather than political, offenses.
I believe that environmental protection is a global matter that should be settled by international governing bodies of democratically elected members.
I believe that democracy is the best protection of natural rights, which derive not from the state, but from our Creator.
I believe that labor should be organized to protect the rights of workers and to combine their efforts for mutual benefit.
I believe that scientific knowledge belongs to the whole of humanity, and that all such knowledge should be made available to all people throughout the world.
I believe that consumerism is the greatest threat to public morals and integral human development, and should be counterbalanced by laws which promote public decency, modesty, and self-sufficient lifestyles.
I believe that parents are the primary educators of their children, and that states should seek to support, not control, them as they carry out this task.
I believe that we all have the right to active citizenship at the local, regional, national, and global levels.
I believe that we are all one race: the children of God.

Education Reform (My Personal Platform)

So, as all of you know, I am a teacher. I have taught for the past six years in various private institutions. I also had the great opportunity of teaching in a public school for a little while at the beginning of my career, and I have met and worked with students from both a public and a private background in the context of an online environment. That, admittedly, may not amount to a whole lot of experience professionally next to some of you, but I would submit that the following suggestions are not so much centered on a criticism of the teaching profession or education per se, but on the way that we organize the education system as a whole. In other words, what I am talking about here is the way that we integrate all of the state's learning environments into a coherent whole. And that has way more to do with politics than it does with educational praxis. So this is a sort of outline, in brief, of the various ideas I have collected over the past few years for reforming Arkansas' public educational system.

First, I think it essential that, in order to have a uniform assessment of skills regardless of educational background, we have a fairly objective system for assessing a student's qualifications at the end of his education. It does very little good to have yearly exams (most of which do not prevent a student from passing to the next grade) which are merely intended to assess the ongoing quality of instruction, if the students, at the end of the program, are not prepared to go on to higher studies. There is also the challenge that annual benchmark exams, as we used to call them in Arkansas, are very specific to each grade level and so encourage teachers to merely "teach the exam" to up their qualifications. I think this is an abuse of the whole idea of instruction. What we should be using exams to do is to help parents decide whether their children are getting the best out of their education, and that would imply a high-stakes exam leading out of high school.

So, what I would propose is that we break apart the whole separation between schools, homeschools, and private schools. Students in Arkansas would simply receive an "Arkansas High School Diploma", of which there would be two different categories. The first, taken at the end of tenth grade, would be a "Standard Level Diploma", which would essentially cover most of the material in the GED and ACT. Students who passed it would receive a diploma and could legally discontinue their education, if they chose. The Standard Level Exam would also include a number of sections for elective courses, which a student could decide to take based on his own level of confidence in the subject. It would not matter where they were educated; they would all qualify for the Standard Level Diploma in the same way.

Students who passed the Standard Level Diploma and qualified with above average or excellent scores in particular subject areas could then take courses in those areas to prepare themselves for the Advanced Level Exam, which they would take at the end of the twelfth grade. Provided that they received average or higher scores in a minimum number of subjects and at least one or two electives, they would qualify for the Advanced Level Diploma which, again, they would receive directly from the state with no involvement from the local school or school board.

I believe that this method of qualifying students would ultimately be the most equitable for students. Parents themselves could decide: Is paying money for a private education really worth it in terms of results? Can I educate my child to the qualifications necessary for them to achieve a useful diploma? I believe in freedom and choice in the realm of education, and I think that forcing the parents (and students) to look seriously at the alternatives before them would benefit everyone involved.

The next part of this is where I will probably get myself into trouble. On the one hand, I support school choice, in the sense that I do not believe that parents should have to pay taxes or fees to public schools when they choose to enroll their children in a private institution, unless, of course, those fees are redirected to the schools which parents themselves chose. This, however, I only support in the instance that the schools that parents are enrolling their children in are free of charge, meaning that they do not ask nor require those parents to pay for their children to take classes at the private school. This is because the taxes themselves are collected on an ENTIRE community to guarantee that everyone in that community receives an education, whether they can afford it or not. It is a rudimentary form of wealth redistribution, and I agree with it wholeheartedly. Just because a person can afford a better school, does not mean that funds should be withdrawn from those schools that serve everybody. It would be like letting people bring their own popcorn to the movie theater. On the other hand, if those private schools are doing a good job educating the community as a charitable organization, then of course, we should support the charitable instinct of individuals over the crushing presence of a welfare state. Another option, of course, would be to exempt individuals from paying the school property taxes and instead taxing tuition payments to private schools, but I doubt that would be any more or less popular.

Where I absolutely do not support school choice is in allowing parents whose children live in one school district to send their children to another school district unless, in exceptional circumstances, the student is simply unable to go to their local school. The reason for this is much the same. Many students, particularly those in poor neighborhoods, will be unable to afford to send their children to schools outside of their district due to additional transportation costs; and if they do decide to send their children away, the longer distance will mean less time at home with family, less time for homework, and less connection between the local community and its school. A local school is a center of knowledge and empowerment for a small community, as well as a neighborhood. If we allow students to flock to this or that public school, it will inevitably rip students out of their communities during the most foundational time of their lives and ultimately result in their integration into a general culture-less consumerist society with no morals and no background.

I also believe in small local schools. Oftentimes, small local schools become a target for accusations of waste, poor management, and poor instruction. However, consolidation has not achieved any more financial viability in the long term as unconsolidated schools, and the negative effects (peer pressure, violence, high teacher-student ratios) seem worse than the problems they were trying to fix. Yet, even from a financial and professional point of view, technology has finally caught up to the problem. It is now possible that a small school in, say, Ash Flat, Arkansas could have a course in Mandarin Chinese, taught by an instructor from Hong Kong and supervised in a large multi-level classroom with a paraprofessional supervisor. I know this because I do this job on a regular basis. It has its own challenges, of course, but in general, I have been satisfied with the results. Today, every school in every small town could have any course offered in the state of Arkansas, and qualified professionals could teach from their own hometowns in multiple districts at competitive pay without having to take jobs outside of their field. Who needs a coach to be a history teacher any more?

I also believe that the school day should be significantly shortened or opened up throughout the state. Ideally, students should be free for at least an hour in the day to study, participate in intramural sports, receive religious instruction from clergy of their choosing, or some other profitable recreation. Students do not have enough time to really process what they are learning in the modern school environment, and I think that results in very shallow presentation by the teachers to keep up with the curriculum timetable. What those periods of time set aside for leisure should NOT be used for is work. Work can happen in the classroom or after school: schools should not be in the business of turning their students into so many cogs in the industrial machine.

Finally, I think it is essential that we consider establishing specialty institutions to target boys and girls for fields in which they are underrepresented. This would require some gender segregation, but with the overall goal of making the professional field more diverse in particular areas. For example, Arkansas needs a public school of math and science that is for female students only. Imagine, also, a boys-only arts and humanities school, or an advanced academic institution for students with learning disabilities. Once again, it is essential that these institutions be either free or public (or both) and focus on enlisting students who show particular aptitude for these skills. Merely making them available would lead to a consistent downgrading of expectations to meet parents' demands.

There are, of course, many different areas where we could improve our educational system and methods. I, however, am a teacher, and if I wrote down every possible improvement (additional courses in agriculture and fine arts, people?), I would never have enough time to grade papers. As it is, I think that adopting even a few of these ideas would so radically change people's perspective on education, that a lot of other improvements might simply follow as a natural consequence.

On Limited Government, Unlimited Government, and Immigration Reform

I thought about posting this as a Facebook status, but then it got longwinded and I realized that I had already given this perspective multiple times to past Civics (or, in our school, American Government) students, albeit in a somewhat altered form.

Recently, there has been a lot of coverage of the President's decision to extend amnesty, using the powers of the executive branch, (although, given that he is merely not enforcing the law against those accused rather than forgiving them, amnesty is not a very precise term) to certain classes of undocumented immigrants. The battle cry on the part of many Republicans has been "separation of powers" and "executive overreach" for this illegal action. And it does, in fact, raise questions about the effectiveness of our system of checks and balances in stopping the President from deciding when he will and will not carry out the law.

Although there are many different forms of government--constitutional monarchy, representative democracy, parliamentary democracy, semi-presidential democracy, absolute monarchy, federal, etc--there are in fact only two different approaches to government: limited and unlimited. These two different approaches are not particularly tied to one form or another, although it is difficult (outside of the realm of Tolkien's Middle Earth, perhaps) to imagine an absolute monarchy in a limited government or a presidential republic in an unlimited government. 

These two approaches will eventually color the entire system of governance. A limited approach to government basically assumes the autonomy of the individual units of a society: the citizen, the family, the business, the Church, etc. The government, considered as the sum total of those who, through various offices, control the secular state, is therefore limited to specific roles, and in those roles, constantly scrutinized through a redundancy of various branches. Thus, for example, the executive branch, which has the duty of carrying out the law, will be checked by the judicial branch before they can actually carry out the law in terms of punishment, and the legislative branch will be prevented from enacting whatever laws it wants by, on the one hand, the right of the judiciary to make sure that the laws correspond with the appropriate powers of government, for example, by making sure that laws are in accordance with the Constitution, while most limited constitutions provide for some kind of veto exercised by the executive branch. It is equally important, in terms of maintaining a limited government, that each of the various branches, however they are divided, are elected or appointed by separate procedures. This is the system that we have in the United States.

An unlimited government, on the other hand, assumes that the State is a total entity, consisting of various parts: the Church, the secular government, the family, etc. All of these are units of the whole, usually represented (at least ceremonially) by a single figure, such as a King, or in socialist countries, by the Party. In democracies, the People would take this role. In an unlimited system, the various branches are checked by a single entity, sometimes not the entity that is actually invested with responsibility for the whole state, as for example in Great Britain where Parliament holds near-absolute power, through the Crown, over Church, State, family, individual, etc.

The difference between these when it comes to issues like the one that I mentioned above cannot be overstated. If a Prime Minister, against the wishes of a majority in the U.K. House of Commons, went ahead with overlooking the execution of this or that immigration law, he would probably be subject to a vote of no confidence, have to tender his resignation, and conduct new elections for the House. He is always checked by that higher authority which, it is assumed, represents the majority of the people's interests (whether it does or not). Likewise, if the House of Commons decided that judges were interpreting laws a bit too liberally, they might dissolve an entire court system and choose a new one with new judges who would behave like they wanted them to.

On the other hand, in our limited system, if the Congress wishes to prevent the President from carrying out a law in a particular manner, the Constitution gives them very little recourse, since the execution of laws (the very laws that they write, oddly enough) is assumed not to be any of their business. They are given basically four options: they can sue the President in the courts (which almost never works because of the assumed separation of powers), they can deny funding to his executive priorities (which also never works because they would have to pass a law to that effect, which the President would almost certainly veto), they can subpoena his officers (who will probably plead "executive privilege") and make his life difficult for items on his legislative agenda (which he will just do back to them), or they can impeach and remove him (which they almost never have enough votes to pass and has never been done in the two hundred twenty-five years of our Constitution).  Likewise, if they don't like how the courts are interpreting the law, they can basically complain and hope for the appointment of better ones after the next election.

To summarize, we can say this: In an unlimited system of government, a particular branch has almost total control of the state, but no one component of the state is ever unchecked by that one component. While in a limited system of government, despite the fact that checks and balances exist, the individual branches are pretty much left to aggregate power on their own, unchecked. This power will usually fall on the branch of government that appears to have the clearest mandate from the electorate, whether that electorate is the people or a junta of military leaders or a King.

That is ultimately the source of this, and almost every, conflict that has occurred as a result of an expansive or "imperial" Presidency in the United States. Contrary to the arguments which one can read in the Federalist Papers, the Presidency is actually a sort of German  monarchy, limited in its ability to enact its agenda by certain Constitutional forms, but ultimately holding the position of supremacy over the government. In fact, one might argue that, although the Federalists were politically motivated to argue that separation of powers would lead to real checks on the various branches, many of them, especially Hamilton, already saw that the state which they had created would be led by a single, powerful (and unelected) President with powers that were limited only by formal procedures. Certainly Hamilton had no great love for democracy.

A limited government will ultimately only function as a group of bodies checking and balancing one another if, and this is the key, all of the members of each branch of government are agreed that this is what they should be doing. In other words, they all must agree, amongst themselves, not to try to score political points by failing to check one another. For example, too often the Congressmen  are worried about putting a  President of their own party in an awkward political position so that he can't carry out the party agenda as effectively, while on the other side of the aisle, and adverse Congress will pass laws that are popular but clearly opposed to the President's ideology just to embarrass him and score political points. This particularly happens when the two parties differ widely on fundamental values (as they do in American politics). We cannot, as a society, even agree when life begins or whether a dead person has finally escaped from taxation. Moreover, our society is so media-saturated that politicians are not eking out political power in Washington, D.C. anymore by causing other politicians trouble, they are scrambling for it in opinion polls and 24-hour news networks, which means that they feel even less safe leaving the boundaries of party orthodoxy.

The only way for Congress to restore balance to our system, then, is to try to become as popular as the President, not an easy task for a body that regularly polls at less than 15% favorability or less. People like democracy, but they don't particularly like watching it happen, which is part of the reason for this discrepancy. The Congress must act in such a way that they show that they can lead the government, that the majority of people have confidence in them, and that the Presidency is a useless position without the help of the legislative branch. That is a very tall order.

Now let's make an assessment of the President's decision and what should be done about it. I would say that Congress has only one way to make itself the representatives of the People and so fight the President for leadership of the government, which is, in fact, what this fight is all about. They should de-fund the President's amnesty program and pass one of their own, protecting the same people (if not more) and accomplishing the same goals, but forcing the President to appoint new officers to the various administrative positions that this type of law would entail. This would make him have to submit to Congress on the timing of the implementation and give the voters a chance to make their voices heard as regards those officers. I don't think that Constitutional bickering will accomplish anything in terms of restoring the balance of power unless they actually appeal to the people on whose sovereignty the constitution depends.

Ballot Initiatives and the Federal Government

"We the People"

Today, at early voting, I was privileged to vote on a number of issues which will directly affect my quality of life in my home state. This got me to thinking about the role of such ballot initiatives in other states and the possibility of having such a mechanism at the federal level.

For those of you that come from states where this is not a significant feature, let me explain. A ballot initiative (or referendum) is a process where ordinary citizens can collect signatures to propose a law, and then the law can be enacted by a majority vote at the following election. Some states also provide for this process to be initiated by the legislature or by various municipal organizations (my home state does both), while others introduce various quirks into the system by requiring approval at multiple ballots. While one version of this process or another exists in most state governments, to varying degrees (with the exception of Delaware, which apparently doesn't trust its people very much...), there is currently no provision for direct democracy at any level in the federal government.

In my home state, ballot measures serve an important function for a state in which party affiliation is often at odds with the prevailing ideology. Democratic and Republican legislators or city governments may be hesitant to propose laws which do not correspond to the national party platform, even if they are measures which they personally support. Ballot initiatives allow the people, often times with the help and encouragement of their legislators, to break the gridlock in the state Capitol and enact laws that pretty much everyone, or at least most people, agree on but can't obtain the right political conditions to enact.

Ballot initiatives, particularly when those initiatives correspond to important legislative goals, also seem to benefit democratic participation in general. When people know that their vote is going to really change the direction of the country in a direct and unambiguous way, they will tend to make more of an effort to participate in elections, increasing voter turnout and knowledge of the essential issue. Scotland experienced this, for example, when a proposal on independence when the people voted directly on the question of independence: a turnout of nearly 80% was recorded. In my own constituency, this last election is bringing people out to cast their ballots on issues ranging from the sale of alcohol to city limits. And in the meanwhile, those people are also voting in the national midterm elections which usually draw a very small crowd.

In a country where gridlock between the various houses of Congress and/or between Congress and the President seem to be the order of the day, and disenchantment with our highest level of governance is at an all-time high, I think it is important that we consider direct democracy as an alternative. Since our government is unable to reach consensus on a variety of issues, and the two political parties are dominated by pluralities that are radically opposed to one another, why not look into allowing the people to weigh in on legislative proposals?

There would be several ways of approaching such a measure, and all of them, unfortunately, require the arduous process of Constitutional amendment. However, we have passed amendments before and, I think, might be able to manage it again if things keep going the way that they are going.

Such a process should tend towards a balance between direct majoritarian democracy and the consensus of states implied by our federal system. Here is what I would propose:

•  First, the bill would need to be proposed by a small group (I would suggest one-tenth of the overall number of states) of state legislatures, which would include the possibility of those states with ballot initiatives proposing such measures directly from the people. The proposal could then be challenged by interested parties on Constitutional grounds before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who would make a determination on the legality of the measure. 
•  Then, the measure would be put directly to the people in all of the fifty states and in all the territories of the United States. In order to pass, the bill would need to be approved both by a majority of the overall number of voters and by majorities in more than half the states. 
• The bill would then be protected from Congressional amendment or repeal for either a minimum period of time (two years, for example) or until another ballot initiative authorized it. 

The effect of such an amendment would be that a greater number of issues close to the heart of the American people would fall under their deliberation. More citizens would participate in elections, particularly midterm elections, because the issues that affect them would really be on the ballot, rather than just the public personas of individual politicians. Politically divisive issues such as immigration and entitlement reform which have little chance of action at the federal level could be decided on by the people, using their own judgment apart from party politics. Unpopular laws could be repealed without the fear of Presidential veto. In essence, such a measure would guarantee that the people, considered both as a single body and as a number of states, would actually exercise sovereignty over the national government, and it is precisely on this basis that the Constitution exercises any binding authority in the first place.

"We the People of the United States, in order to form a perfect union......"

How I Would Reform the United States Senate

The following is an idea I have been mulling around for a few days. The House of Representatives, because it follows districts determined by the state legislature, already, in the experience of two centuries, adequately represents the interests of the states. The Senate should then, in my mind, represent the interests of the nation as a whole. I propose that, instead of electing Senators per state, they be elected to represent federal Senate districts of roughly equal population which would be drawn by the House of Representatives every ten years. . Considering that many Senators serve repeated terms for decades with almost no opposition, and the shifting boundaries that would come with different House of Representative compositions and census records, this would be a major democratization of the house and result in more new faces in the Senate. I also propose that the House of Representatives have the power to set deadlines for the passage of legislation that they send to the Senate. If the Senate fails to amend or reject the bill they are sent within that period of time, then it is considered to have their implicit approval and is transmitted to the President as if they had passed it. This would greatly limit the overuse of filibuster in the Senate. Finally, the Vice President would have the power to appoint whomever he wants as President pro temp. and appoint the members of committees, making the Vice President's role as President of the Senate more important. This would allow him to guide legislation through the Senate with less delay.

Article I
The Senate shall be composed of members elected one per federal Senate district every 8 years, but no Senator may serve more than two consecutive terms.

Article II
Every tenth year, after the conclusion of the federal census, the House of Representatives shall divide the territory of the United States, including lands belonging to the United States but not part of any particular state, into a number of districts equal to twice the number of states. These districts shall each contain as equal a number of persons as may be possible, but all island chains shall be considered as contiguous with the ocean coasts of the nearest state for the purposes of apportionment. This division into districts must then be approved by the Supreme Court of the United States as being fair and in accordance with the provisions of law and this Constitution.

Article III
On the day appointed for federal elections, the registered voters in each district, who must be duly qualified in the states in which they are resident, shall each cast one vote for Senator. If any candidate receives more than half of the votes cast, he shall be elected Senator, but if he does not, then a second election shall be held within three weeks between the candidates having the two highest numbers of votes or the two candidates having the highest number of votes, whichever number is lower, with the person receiving the greatest number of votes declared the winner. If, however, even this is tied, then the House of Representatives shall, upon meeting for the first time in consequence of the election, determine which of the candidates in eh second election are to be seated in the Senate.

Article IV
The states shall be responsible for collecting the votes for Senator and reporting them to the federal election authorities created by law.

Article V
The President of the Senate shall be the Vice President; however, he may appoint as President-pro-tempore any member of the Senate to preside in his absence. The President of the Senate shall appoint the members and chairmen of all committees.

Article VI
Upon transmission of any bill to the Senate, the House of Representatives may, upon the agreement of a majority of its members, designate any period of time greater than ten days for the Senate to consider the bill, after which, if the Senate shall not have voted against the bill or passed an amended version of it, it shall be immediately presented to the President of the United States by the Speaker of the House as having obtained the approval of the House and the implicit approval of the Senate, who shall sign or reject the bill in the same manner as if it had been passed by both houses.

Article VII
Congress shall have authority to enforce this amendment by necessary legislation.

How I Would Reform the Electoral College

The following is the text of an amendment (in very rough outline) which I would support to reform the Electoral College. Basically, it makes it so that, if a candidate receives 60% of the vote from a state, he receives 60% of the Electoral Vote from that state. It also creates an "alternative vote" system, so that the Electors indicate their second preference for President. If one of the candidates wins, then the person who received the most second preference votes from that candidate's electors becomes Vice President. (As an example, if most Democratic electors voted for Nader as a second choice and Gore won the Presidency, then Nader would become Vice President.)

Amendment to the Constitution – The Electoral College

Article I

Each state shall appoint a number of electors for the President of the United States equal to the number of Representatives to which that state shall be entitled in Congress plus two; the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and such other organized territories as law may recognize shall each be entitled to choose three electors.

Article II

Every candidate for the office of President shall, within each state in which he intends to run for office, nominate a number of candidates for electors equal to the whole number of electors to which that state is entitled.

No elector shall hold an office of trust or profit under the United States or be compensated in any way for his services by any person or government.

On the day appointed for the election of President, the registered voters of each state shall each cast one vote for one of the candidate’s slate of candidates as electors. The state constitutional officer responsible for elections in that state shall then appoint from each slate a number of electors proportional to the number of votes which the person received from the people, with any remaining electors being distributed in order to those slates having the highest remainder until the whole number of electors for that state have been appointed.

 Article III

On the day predetermined by law, the electors shall gather in the capitals of their respective states and cast two distinct votes, one indicating their first preference for President and the second indicating their second preference from among those candidates who submitted a slate of electors in that state or any other state. The ballots shall then be transmitted under seal to the President of the Senate and opened in the presence of Congress on a date determined by law.

When the ballots are opened, if any person receives a majority of first-preference votes, he shall be elected President, and the person receiving the most second-preference votes from those electors casting ballots for the person elected President shall become the Vice President.

If, however, no person receives a majority, then the second preference votes of the person receiving the fewest votes shall be distributed to the remaining candidates. This process shall continue until either all the second preference votes are exhausted or one of the candidates receives a majority. After this, the person with the most votes is elected preference, and the person receiving the most second-preference votes of those who cast their first-preference votes for the winning candidate shall be named Vice President.

Article IV

If, at the conclusion of the voting, there is a tie in the number of votes, then the members of Congress shall immediately vote between the candidates who have the highest number of votes to determine the President, with each member having one vote. The person receiving the most Congressional votes shall be President, and the person receiving the second highest number of votes shall be Vice President.

Article V

Congress shall have authority to enforce this amendment by necessary legislation.

Prolegomena to a Low Mass

Now, before I make my case for the Low Mass, let me start out by saying that there are two kinds of "professional" traditionalists.

The first group of professional traditionalists are the "Scholarly" trads, whose love of tradition is fueled by a great desire, not only for celebrating the Mass according to the rubrics, but for putting it on with the utmost solemnity possible according to the rubrics, exploiting every liturgical possibility and following up on every technical description of the ceremonies which has been given for the past four hundred years, at minimum. This group of traditionalists is a really necessary group, because they often have the skills to back up their snobbery, and any solemn liturgical function, without their advice and counsel, often fails to rise to the occasion. However, I must say that I pity them, having assumed such a role for a number of years because, while they attempt to construct, reconstruct, or describe each ceremony in its blissful glory so that the faithful may "experience" the full majesty of the Church's liturgy, they often find themselves to be the only ones on whom the experience is lost, or they make the planning stage of carrying out any liturgical function so miserable that everyone in the congregation is more focused on the movements of the altar servers than on the altar.

The second group of professional traditionalists are those who, while not so obsessed with minutiae of liturgical praxis, are nonetheless committed to dragging out Church services for as long as possible with a plethora of hymns, devotions (usually the same of both, repeated endlessly Sunday after Sunday), announcements, the same old Mass settings and plainchant propers, and multiple other public demonstrations of their piety before everyone can go to Lunch or get busy with the work of converting the world. These, too, are an absolute necessity to the Church, not the least of which because, when the time comes for May Crownings or Rosary services or Novenas, they know how to pull off such events in a manner that will generally edify the congregation and please them. One must be sure, however, that he has taken his insulin before such events (however necessary) so as not to go into diabetic shock.

I, as the name of my blog implies, am not a professional traditionalist of either sort. I am an amateur, content merely to try to get myself and a few others into the pearly gates by means of the marvelous Extraordinary Form. Like any amateur worth the name, I love, within the limits of my time and understanding, the solemn liturgies of the Church along with all of its devotions and sentimental flourishes. I find nothing wrong with them, taken in and of themselves, provided that they are done well and, in terms of time, in proportion to the capacity of the people trying to carry them out. What I do not approve of, however, and it seems to be a common theme among many of the professionals, is this fairly common denigration of the Low Mass and those who prefer it.

The Low Mass is a particularly genius creation of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. One will look in vain for a "spoken" Divine Liturgy in the Eastern Rites. For non-Catholic Churches, the concept of a group of people speaking an entire service, including those parts that would normally be sung, combined with long periods of near-silent prayer is about as foreign as a Buddhist temple. Only in the Roman Rite is it to be found, and for good reason.

We Roman Catholics have had to deal with a lot in our time. When the rest of the elite traipsed off to Constantinople, leaving behind the poor Romans to deal with all the barbarians and Latin grammar, the Western Empire, and together with it the Latin Church, was given the unenviable task of converting a horde of pagans who, unlike the noble Romans and Greeks, worshipped under trees and among standing stones and suchlike. And there was so much ground to be covered. So, we learned how not to let the best be the enemy of the good, pack up our liturgies, and get along with what we had. Barbarians not being known for their singing voices, we invented the low mass in order to save what was left of our sanity.

Well, that may be a slight exaggeration. But in any case, my point is that the Low Mass comes from evangelistic necessity and is rugged by design. It thrives anywhere, it brings Christ to anyone, because it requires so little to carry out and yet achieves, with noble simplicity, a truly contemplative act of worship.

Now, there are Low Masses and there are Low Masses. The "lowest" Mass, I think, can be found in monasteries, seminaries, and pretty much any place that a priest finds himself without the intrusion of laity. In these places, there are far too many priests to have each of them celebrate a High Mass, and yet the power of the Mass is such that the Church has long recommended to priests the daily offering of the Mass. The effect of this, for the priest, is that it confirms to him the intimate relationship with Christ that was conferred to him by his priesthood, on the one hand, and his obligation to offer sacrifice for the good of the Church on the other. A priest is always a priest, whether among the people or not.

Now, these "lowest" Masses are perhaps the largest targets of professional liturgists, who are particularly adept at coming up with rules on how people should properly love and worship God, without considering the honor of God or the sanctification of souls as major factors in their consideration. Such liturgists, whom I shall hereafter refer to as "Nazis", look at the room full of priests, each celebrating their own Mass with their own servers, quietly whispering the prayers in an almost inaudible tone, and conclude that these men must be antisocial, given, after all, that they are sharing their most intimate encounter with God with a half-dozen or dozen other men in the same room. "How dare they not be goose-stepping in time with all the other concelebrants!" exclaim the Nazis.

The fact is, however, that I have indeed, with only the slightest hint of fear at the approach of the liturgical Gestapo, been present at almost countless private Masses. I can say that anyone steeped in the history of the Church and in the spirituality of the Mass cannot help but accept the fact that such Masses are celebrated with and for the entire Church, for it is the prayer of the Church by a priest of the Church that is being offered, not the priest's own private prayers, and this is united with the intentions of the Church and the private prayers of the Church precisely through the silence and the explicit mention of them by the priest in the Ordinary of the Mass. There is nothing more "for" the Church than a priest who gives himself entirely, heart and mind, to the Sacrifice of Calvary, at which only one Bishop was originally privileged to assist and only one celebrant--indeed, the laity were so few that Jesus felt it obligatory to make one on the fly before completing the sacrifice. And there is nothing to compare with the experience of being in a monastery during the period of time set aside by low masses and being completely surrounded by the sacrifice of Calvary wherever one looks. The only thing that can even approximate the experience is to be amongst a group of people, each one shouting their own praise to heaven or praying quietly to God, and yet it is far better than that, because the sacrifice of praise being offered is that which is uttered in heaven by the Holy Trinity itself.

Next we have the ordinary, work-a-day parish daily mass, which, again, is hated by the Nazis for two unforgivable features: (1) it is generally quick and (2) the people pray during it. This is clearly opposed to the New Mass where (1) it is generally quick as well, but has less than half the verbosity of the traditional Mass, despite taking the same amount of time, and (2) the people mindlessly mumble the same words at precisely the same moment, so that if, during the middle of the Eucharistic Prayer the priest stopped and said "Good morning!" they would all give the appropriate liturgical response, "Good morning, Father!"

Now, the beauty of the parish daily mass is precisely in that it is simple and wholly without fuss. A priest merely walks in, says the prayers in the book while the people follow along, as best they can (and most of them really can, despite what people say), and offer their own prayers to God. There is not a better packaged deal of grace in all of Christendom: hear scripture, pray for your intentions, get your Rosary prayed, receive Holy Communion, adore the Lord, unite yourself with the Church, and all in 35 minutes or less! And from that brief moment the whole day is sanctified. We are strengthened and prepared for battle, and we do not spend so much time fussing over the shininess of our AK-47s that we get blown up by an IED in the interim. In other words, the daily low mass works.

Finally, we must consider the very pinnacle of the Low Mass, the Dialogue Mass with hymns. This is about as far as a Low Mass can go before we have to draw the line and tell it to start owning up to its High Mass pretensions. In this Mass, the priest and people alternate reciting the parts of the Mass usually reserved to the server, and the whole is penetrated, from time to time, especially at the entrance, offertory, communion, and recessional, with hymns sung in the vernacular. Yet, even this Mass has its virtues. When you are out on a camping trip, or celebrating a feast day with a priest who cannot, for all the world, sing, or have an hour or less to occupy, this form of celebration is particularly effective at conveying the joy of the faith, perhaps even more than the solemn Gregorian tones of the High Mass, to the largest group of people.

And, again, as someone who has also experienced this type of Mass, it WORKS. There is no need for a vernacular liturgy or for people who are not capable to fuss around with putting on a Solemn High Mass. The liturgy is still the liturgy and the graces of that liturgy effectively communicate grace to those participate. I have seen a school transformed by the introduction of a Dialogue Mass, which forces them to speak words which, before, were obscured by the chant and music of High Mass and to reflect on their meaning. After one such celebration, in fact, many of them were asking questions about parts of the Mass they had never noticed before.

Now, all of this is not to say anything against the High Mass, and, indeed, I believe that it is a parish's duty to celebrate, and enjoy, the weekly High Mass. It should be the pinnacle of our Sunday, if we are able to attend. But I cannot abide the amount of disapproval and scorn that so many show a Low Mass, as if it were somehow less "worthy" than the High Mass. The question is not of worth, but of propriety. There are times for a High Mass, and there are times for a Low Mass; each has its gifts, and each has a unique way to communicate God's grace to the Church militant.