Desegregating Little Rock: Eisenhower Promotes Justice

During WW2, General Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower established himself as a serious advocate of civil rights. During the Battle of the Bulge in late 1944 and early 1945, Eisenhower defied directives coming from the Department of War: the Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, appointed by President Franklin Roosevelt, ordered that U.S. soldiers be segregated into Black and White units, and that Black soldiers were not eligible for combat duty, for the extra pay that came with it, or for the promotions that often resulted from it.

Seeing what needed to be done, Eisenhower desegregated and integrated his troops. The result was victory.

Eight years later, General Eisenhower became President Eisenhower. During his campaign, he expressed his intentions to desegregate and integrate various aspects of American life. His opponents in the election, nominated by the Democratic Party, argued for segregationist policies.

Once elected, Ike proceeded both resolutely and cautiously. He was resolute in that he would not be deterred from his goal of integration; he was cautious in that he knew that his actions could cause angry backlash from the Democrats, as historian Kasey Pipes writes:

As early as 1953, Eisenhower had written in his diary of the possibility that a “conflict of the police powers of the state and of the nation would set back the cause of progress in race relations for a long, long time.” Almost alone among political leaders of the time, Ike feared that a Little Rock-type eruption could happen. This premonition guided his every move. Thus, from the beginning of his presidency, he moved carefully and cautiously. He wanted to bring about change on civil rights, but he wanted to do so in a way that did not “inflame passions” as he often said. This explains why even after the Little Rock crisis began he moved deliberately. He wanted to exhaust every possible option before resorting to force. Still, when he did try everything else with no success, he didn’t hesitate to use military action to enforce the order of the federal court.

Ike was not dramatic. He was committed to doing the right thing, and his commitment was unshakeable, but also unemotional. Ike was driven by duty, not by passion.

The Democratic Party had made Orval Faubus the governor of Arkansas in 1954. Faubus used his powers to continue his party’s segregationist policies. Ike’s communication with Faubus in 1957 exemplify his tendency to avoid inflammatory rhetoric while maintaining his determined stance:

Eisenhower replied to Faubus on September 5 with a brief and elliptical message: “The Federal Constitution will be upheld by me by every legal means at my command.” Eisenhower intended this to sound like a thinly veiled threat.

After exhausting any chances of persuading Faubus to comply with the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision — a decision made under the watchful eye of Chief Justice Earl Warren, who was an Eisenhower appointee — Ike knew that he needed to ignore Faubus and take his own actions.

To comply with the Supreme Court’s decision, Faubus should have allowed the integration of Little Rock Central High School. But he didn’t. It was Eisenhower’s job to see to it that Black students had access to education in that school.

In September 1957, Eisenhower ordered the legendary 101st Airborne Division, an elite military unit, into Little Rock. The 101st made sure that African American students had access to Central High School and that they were safe. Eisenhower had made it happen: desegregation was advancing.

Black leaders praised Ike’s decision. Martin Luther King Jr. wired the president, thanking him for his support of “Christian traditions of fair play and brotherhood.”

Ike was pragmatic. He avoided drama and passion. He preferred to get things done with as few words as possible, and certainly without inflammatory rhetoric. He also wanted to achieve goals with a minimum of collateral damage. He achieved integration, desegregation, and advancements in civil rights, and hoped to do so with as little trauma and destruction as possible.

While successful and popular, Ike’s calm approach was occasionally criticized, as Kasey Pipes explains:

Eisenhower favored gradual reform while many in the civil rights movement urged dramatic change. He often told his staff that “more than laws” had to be changed in order for America to truly be a just society. Indeed, no less a source than Dr. Martin Luther King believed Ike was sincere in wanting to help the cause of civil rights. But King faulted Ike’s “conservatism” which was “fixed and rigid” and prevented him from moving more quickly and more dramatically to enact civil rights. At Little Rock, the president did not hesitate to defend the order of the federal court. Even still, his preferred approach was to let the local and state authorities find a solution. When it became obvious that Governor Orval Faubus had no intention of solving the problem, Ike solved it for him.

Although MLK didn’t always agree with Ike’s tone, the two of them nonetheless successfully collaborated. MLK and Eisenhower worked together, along with Vice President Richard Nixon, to promote the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and to ensure its passage through Congress.

This was followed by a similar process to obtain passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1960.

The Nature of the Communist Organization: Understanding the Danger

Education is, and has long been seen as, a defense against evil forces: against the forces which would take away ordinary people’s liberty and freedom. A nation whose citizens are well-educated finds a source of strength and protection in those citizens.

It is also true, however, that educational systems can be subverted and used to produce those who endanger the lives, and the ways of life, of their fellow citizens. Although the international communist conspiracy evokes images of downtrodden impoverished workers rebelling against an allegedly exploitative economic system, historian John Stormer points out that self-styled revolutionaries and radicals come from elite and wealthy social groups:

The membership of the first Communist spy ring uncovered in the U.S. Government was not spawned in the sweatshops of New York’s lower east side or the tenant farms of the South. Alger Hiss, Nathan Witt, Harry Dexter White, Lee Pressman, John Abt, Lauchlin Currie and their comrades came to high government posts from Harvard law School.

During the Cold War — roughly 1946 to 1990 — the Soviet espionage network inside the United States promoted the notion that communism and socialism were fervently desired by those in the working classes. It is clear, however, that the energy behind the international communist conspiracy came from well-educated and affluent people. They could use their influence and social networks to recruit spies and gain access to policy makers and opinion makers, as well as access to confidential military and political information.

A report produced by the U.S. Senate explains:

A trite explanation offered by the ill-informed is that communism is a product of inequalities under our social system. Hence, these people argue, if we will alleviate these conditions, we will never have to worry about communism. Since it is manifestly impossible to devise a social system in which everybody will be satisfied, this would mean that we should meekly fold our arms and accept communism in our midst as a necessary evil for which we ourselves are chiefly to blame. In the second place, this approach overlooks the fact that millions of dollars spent on cleverly devised Communist propaganda is bound to have some effect in any society, no matter how relatively contented, especially when supplemented by the activities of thousands of ardent zealots.

Socialism and communism, political ideologies allegedly designed to benefit the lower classes, are most popular among the upper classes. There might be several reasons for this: some wealthy people might sincerely if mistakenly believe that these ideologies would help the poor; others might cynically see an opportunity to gain political power for themselves while pretending to have altruistic motives.

In any case, there is a clear statistical correlation between affluence and an affection for communism and socialism. The Senate report states:

The misery theory of communism runs contrary to actual fact in our country. New York State, for example, has approximately 50% of the total Communist Party membership. Yet it is second in terms of per capita income as well as per capita school expenditures. California is second with approximately 16 percent of the total party membership and yet it is fourth in terms of per capita income and seventh in terms of per capita school expenditures. Similarly, Illinois is third in membership standing with approximately 5 percent and yet it is sixth in per capita income and third in terms of money spent for schools.

While the wealthy may be inclined to promote socialism and communism, the working class, allegedly the beneficiaries of these ideologies, oppose them, seeing better chances for advancement in a system of free enterprise, free markets, and property rights. Those who’ve actually experienced poverty, rather than those who’ve merely read about it, resist the encroachment of communism and socialism. The Senate report continues:

Conversely, Mississippi is lowest in the scale of Communist Party membership but is also lowest in per capita income. The misery theory of communism does not jibe with these figures nor with the fact that such wealthy persons as Frederick Vanderbilt Field, and prominent members of the Hollywood film colony, have been found to be members of the Communist Party. Indeed the misery theory of communism is exactly what the Communists would have us believe, in order to mislead us.

The most vocal and militant proponents of communism and socialism, as well as the disguised versions of those ideologies presented under a veneer of more acceptable domestic political wordings, come almost exclusively from a class of people whose wealth is significant enough to allow them expansive leisure time.

Various celebrities from the movies, TV, and popular music industries routinely promote communism and socialism, while enjoying a lifestyle of chauffeur-driven limousines, lavish travel, and the costliest jewelry and wardrobes. They routinely own several large homes, scattered around the country if not around the world, each of which is worth many times the humble houses of the workers whom they claim to represent.

The ideologies which claim to help the poor are, in reality, the toys of the rich.

The Civil Rights General Becomes the Civil Rights President: Eisenhower Desegregates Little Rock

Several things remained constant when General ‘Ike’ Eisenhower became President Eisenhower. One of them was his commitment, not to talk, but to act on behalf of civil rights.

Eisenhower spoke less, but did more, than his White House predecessors Harry Truman and Franklin Roosevelt. In fact, Eisenhower directly opposed President Roosevelt and Roosevelt’s Secretary of War, Henry Stimson. Roosevelt and Stimson imposed a policy of segregation onto the U.S. Army.

As Supreme Allied Commander, Eisenhower wouldn’t and didn’t accept Roosvelt’s segregationist edicts. In late 1944 and early 1945, Ike defied Roosevelt, and integrated various military units as he saw fit. Later, Eisenhower would use the word “justice” to explain such actions, as historian Kasey Pipes explains:

Eisenhower’s career intersected with the civil rights movement at several key points. The first was the Battle of the Bulge in World War II. General Eisenhower, needing more troops, essentially went against war-department policy (drafted by George Marshall) and offered African-American troops the chance to fight at the front. After the war, troops who volunteered to go to the front of the line at the Bulge weren’t eager to go to the back of the bus in Birmingham. This helped build the momentum of the civil-rights movement in the postwar era. As President, Eisenhower found himself again confronted with civil-rights challenges including the two Brown rulings, the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the Emmett Till murder, the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and, of course, Little Rock. The story of the civil-rights movement in the 1940s and 1950s can’t be told without telling the story of Eisenhower.

On September 9, 1957, Ike signed into law the 1957 Civil Rights Act. He’d worked together with Martin Luther King and Vice President Richard Nixon to get Congressional approval for the bill.

Less than two weeks later, Ike ordered the 101st Airborne, a legendary infantry division, to Little Rock, Arkansas. Eisenhower was determined to overrule the Democrat Party there, which, in the person of Governor Orval Faubus, was preventing Black students from attending a public high school.

Ike’s victory in Little Rock was a continuation of the civil rights emphasis which he'd expressed as he was first running for president.

“During the 1952 presidential campaign,” historian William Hitchcock explains, Eisenhower spoke clearly about his support for the civil rights movement, “stating that he would eagerly abolish segregation in the nation’s capital and continue to expunge it from the armed services.”

Eisenhower saw the matter clearly: He’d appointed Earl Warren to the Supreme Court. Under Warren’s leadership, the famous Brown vs. Board of Education cases, two of them, were decided. As president, it was Ike’s duty to carry out the Supreme Court decisions, which he did in Little Rock, as Kasey Pipes reports:

Little Rock should be remembered as a seminal moment in the civil-rights struggle — perhaps the seminal moment. If integration had failed at Little Rock, it’s hard to imagine it succeeding anywhere. And it would be great if parents, teachers, and journalists would remember that the 101st Airborne soldiers did not arrive on their own orders. Dwight D. Eisenhower had something to do with that.

Little Rock wasn’t the beginning of Ike’s civil rights engagement, and it wasn’t the end, either. Eisenhower wanted to strengthen and solidify the gains made in 1957, and so he pushed for the 1960 Civil Rights Act, which he was able to sign into law before he left office.

Not Race, Not Income Levels, but Family Structures are Weakening the Nation: The Family’s Impact on Society, and Society’s Impact on the Family

Statisticians and social scientists are concluding, sometimes reluctantly, and often against their own ideologies, that the single most significant variable in the life of a child from before birth to the late teenage years is whether or not that child is a member of a functioning and functional family.

There is a set of variables which shapes the family: income level, religion, race, the presence or absence of substance abuse, gambling, etc. But the single most powerful variable is whether or not the family is headed by an intact married couple.

The divide between rich and poor, the divide between races, and divide between other demographic factors all pale in comparison to the massive influence which parents have on their children.

The biggest gap in society now is not between levels of income, and not between races, but between the single-parent family and the intact family. Citing the research of James Wilson, Mary Eberstadt writes:

It’s the family divide, Wilson argued in his book Two Nations (1998), that has become the best indicator for all kinds of problematic behaviors: dropping out of school, going to jail, delinquency, emotional problems, out-of-wedlock births, early sexual activity, and unemployment, to name just some. “These differences,” noted Wilson as he analyzed the piles of numbers, “are not explained by income. Children in one-parent families are much worse off than those in two-parent families even when both families have the same earnings.”

Statistically, the impact of different income levels is erased when the factor of family structure is included in the calculations.

This surprising result was not sought, and not even wanted, by those who found it. Both culture and policy have believed that race, ethnicity, and income were the variables which most influenced the nature of childhood.

It is an idea so potent that it still has the power to shock, even 14 years after its first appearance: Family structure has replaced poverty as the best predictor of youth problems.

Policies and programs designed to help children have instead merely enabled the underlying cause. With good intentions, society has created mechanisms which make it ever easier for parents to abdicate their responsibilities.

Think of all the institutions created to replace the family. What is the dawn-to-dusk school day, and the concomitant attempt to abolish summer vacation, if not a necessity mothered by the empty home? What is the tres chic anti-bullying movement, if not an elaborate, improvised response to the need to do something that capable fathers, especially, used to do — i.e., stick up for their kids?

Nothing will substitute for parents. The best and most ethical social workers, teachers, counselors, and coaches are excellent ancillaries for parents, but poor replacements for parents.

The search continues for substitute mothers, substitute fathers, and substitutes for all the others who once took care of their own.

An effective way to address education problems, to address recreational or illegal drug use, to address juvenile crime, and to address teen pregnancy is to explore, and then reduce, the underlying causes which create increasing numbers of single-parent families.

Few girls or women, in their late teen years, have it as an express goal to become a single mother. They do not, and did not, want this. Which factors have led to the rise in single-parent families, and how can they be curbed? Both the factors, and the actions which can reduce their impact on society, may be partly addressable by policy actions, but will certainly require interventions that no city, county, state, or federal government can orchestrate. Organic changes in culture and society, in families and lifestyles, cannot be legislated.

The occasional policy move might help, but it will be people, not governments, who begin to create better lives for children in American society.

Kennedy Opposes Eisenhower’s Civil Rights Act: JFK Resists Ike’s Move Toward Justice

In late 1944 and early 1945, General Eisenhower took bold steps to integrate the U.S. Army during the Battle of the Bulge. Defying orders from President Roosevelt and Secretary of War Henry Stimson, Eisenhower ordered Black soldiers and White soldiers to work together in combat units. This opened the way for Black soldiers to receive combat pay and be eligible for more promotions.

African Americans enthusiastically voted for him in 1952, and General Eisenhower became President Eisenhower.

During his eight years as president, in the words of historian William Hitchcock, Eisenhower acted, and acted “decisively, to advance the progress of civil rights.”

Known fondly as “Ike,” his actions included appointing Blacks to high federal offices. Ike appointed Jesse Ernest Wilkins, who became the first African American to attend White House cabinet-level meetings.

Ike also used federal troops to overcome the resistance of Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus. Ike ordered the troops to protect Black children who were attending public schools in the city of Little Rock.

When Eisenhower proposed a civil rights bill to Congress in 1957, he encountered fierce opposition from future president John F. Kennedy, as historian C.N. Trueman writes:

Kennedy put political realism before any form of beliefs when he voted against Eisenhower’s 1957 Civil Rights Act.

100% of the Republican votes cast, both in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, supported the bill. But many Democrats, under the leadership of Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, opposed the bill:

The Democrats were almost united to a politician in their opposition to the bill / act. Kennedy had aspirations to be the Democrats’ next presidential candidate in the 1960 election. If he was seen to be taking the party line and demonstrating strong leadership with regards to opposing the bill, this would do his chances no harm whatsoever. This proved to be the case and Kennedy led the Democrats to victory over Richard Nixon in 1960.

So it was that John F. Kennedy opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, while President Eisenhower supported it. Eisenhower won.

Why was Ike so adamant in championing civil rights legislation? Because he saw that, despite the advancements he’d already made, there was still work to be done, as historian Nate Sullivan writes:

During the 1950s, African Americans continued to suffer racial discrimination. While the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1870, gave African Americans the right to vote, they often were subject to voter intimidation.

“This was especially true in the” states controlled by the Democratic Party.

Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower sought to change this through the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which provided federal oversight to ensure that African Americans had the opportunity to vote free from intimidation or coercion. This was the first federal civil rights legislation since the Civil Rights Act of 1875.

While the Republicans were united in their support of the bill, the Democrats were divided. Among the leaders of the Democratic Party at that time were both Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.

As a Democrat, Kennedy was hesitant to lend his full support to the Republican’s civil rights bill.

While some Democrats were willing to vote for the civil rights bill, many Democrats “were fiercely opposed to civil rights reforms.” Some Democrats opposed the bill simply by voting against it. Others took the additional step of adding hostile amendments to the bill, hoping thereby to weaken its effectiveness. “By 1957, Kennedy had his eye on the White House, and he did not want to lose the support of” his fellow Democrats. Voting for the bill would have destroyed Kennedy’s presidential hopes.

He therefore voted against the bill (it did pass however). In fact, throughout his career as a senator, Kennedy chose not to make civil rights an issue. Many historians feel he took this approach because he did not want to lose the support of his party. He likely was concerned about coming across as too radical and alienating his own base.

In an ironic twist, Lyndon Johnson found a way to claim that he supported civil rights: he supported an amended version of the bill. But Johnson’s amendments were designed to weaken the bill to the point of ineffectiveness. So Johnson was able to gain support from both sides. Yet it was clear that Johnson had no genuine desire to see advancement in civil rights.

Eisenhower signed the 1957 Civil Rights Act into law. He’d worked together with his vice president, Richard Nixon, and with Martin Luther King. The three of them had found or created enough support to move the bill through Congress.

His next move, to overcome the opposition of Kennedy and Johnson, was to see the 1960 Civil Rights Act through Congress, which he likewise signed into law. The 1960 version of the act was designed to close certain loopholes which Johnson had put into the 1957 version.

When Eisenhower completed his time in office, leaving the White House in January 1961, he’d compiled a series of civil rights victories.

The Eisenhower Presidency: A Pivotal Moment in America’s Civil Rights Era

When Dwight Eisenhower won the 1952 presidential election against a resolutely segregationist Democratic Party, he did so in part because of the credibility he’d earned with African American voters nearly a decade earlier.

In late 1944 and early 1945, Eisenhower, as Supreme Allied Commander, was engaged in the intense fighting at the Battle of the Bulge. As an officer, he needed maximum flexibility in maneuvering his troops to different locations as needed.

The mobility of U.S. soldiers was limited by directives from President Roosevelt, and from Roosevelt’s Secretary of War, Henry Stimson. Both Roosevelt and Stimson wanted Eisenhower to move his troops within the confines of their segregationist directives: they wanted Black and White soldiers to remain in separate units, and to deny Black soldiers the opportunity to volunteer for combat service.

Eisenhower was massively frustrated by the segregationist regulations. Logistics within a major modern army are complicated in any case, and the blatantly racist policies of Roosevelt and Stimson only made matters worse.

In a courageous move, Eisenhower disobeyed the orders from Washington, integrating the troops under his command, and giving African Americans in the army the opportunity to be in combat. With combat came quicker and more significant promotions, and extra pay. Black voters did not forget, and in 1952 voted for him in large numbers.

African Americans voted for Ike in even larger numbers to reelect him in 1956.

Known fondly by his nickname, “Ike” was popular among all Americans, and he used his social capital to promote the civil rights movement, as historian William Hitchcock writes,

He presided over two enormously important developments that would shape the history of race in America. He lent support to Attorney General Brownell’s strenuous efforts to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957; and he used the power of his office to enforce court-ordered school desegregation in Little Rock, Arkansas, overcoming the resistance of the demagogic governor, Orval Faubus.

Eisenhower, and his vice president, Richard Nixon, had invited Martin Luther King, Jr. to the White House. Ike, Nixon, and MLK strategized about how to find enough votes in Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957. In the end, of the votes cast to turn the bill into law, 100% of the Republican votes cast, both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, supported the bill. A number of Democrats also voted for the bill.

Between this victory in Congress, and Ike’s use of federal troops to protect the “Little Rock Nine” as they attended school, 1957 was a landmark year in the civil rights movement. Encouraged by these developments, Eisenhower went farther. He introduced another civil rights bill.

The strength of the 1957 Act had been somewhat weakened by Senator Lyndon Johnson, who’d added some hostile amendments to it. Ike sought to strengthen the provisions of the 1957 law by passing the 1960 Civil Rights Act.

By the time Eisenhower left office, he’d passed two major pieces of civil rights legislation, collaborated with MLK, and made a clear and adamant stand in favor of desegregation in Little Rock. Ike achieved significant forward movement in civil rights.

When Government is a Problem: The Unintended Consequences of Ignoring the Separation of Powers

All kinds of people complain about the government: rich and poor, old and young, men and women, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, Progressives and Libertarians. Why? As historian Ben Shapiro notes, “the problem with government isn’t that government doesn’t get enough done — it’s that it gets too much done.”

The government is often tempted to be overactive — to do more than it should. The main task of the government is to protect the lives, freedoms, and properties of its citizens. But often, governments want to do more than that — to regulate, encourage, or discourage activities; to undertake programs and projects that go beyond defending people’s individual political liberty.

To be sure, often government actions are undertaken with good intentions, and with sincere desires to help. But even when the government wants to help, it cannot. In some situations, the best thing the government can do is stand back, and let society fix its own problems.

As President Ronald Reagan said in 1986, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help.”

Well-intentioned government programs usually have unintended consequences: Government programs to end poverty actually cause more poverty; when the government tried to reduce illegal drug use, such use increased; when governments try to make peace, the result is usually a war; when governments try to fix the economy, wages fall and more people become unemployed.

In 1849 Henry David Thoreau wrote, “That government is best which governs least.” He was likely recalling a magazine article from 1837 which included this line: “The best government is that which governs least.”

To protect people’s freedom is to limit the power of the government. The idea of “limited government” is the foundation of freedom.

People should not, in the words of Ben Shapiro, “become accustomed to the government taking care of them.” It seems like a nice idea, but throughout history, it has led only to dictatorships and atrocities.

There is a choice: people can have freedom, or they can have a government which reaches into their lives and tries to help them. They cannot have both. Solutions to social problems come from society, not from the government. Solutions to economic problems come from businesses and economists, not from the government.

If people mistakenly believe that the government can fix problems, then that belief “leads to calls for government action with every supposed crisis,” as Ben Shapiro says. He continues:

If we want to restore logical boundaries to government, we can begin by restoring logical boundaries to our desire to rely on the government. To do that, however, we must first understand how the government currently works. Here’s a hint: it has almost nothing to do with the Constitution.

Consider how our government currently works, how it worked in the past, and how it might work in the future.

Again, people from nearly every political viewpoint, from every race, from every religion, all agree — the government isn’t working well at present. That’s because, as Shapiro points out, the government currently has little to do with the Constitution.

While nearly every elected or appointed political leader will quote from the Constitution and praise it, in reality, the organizational mechanisms of the Constitution are routinely ignored.

When the Constitutional system is working properly, it does things like end slavery, as it did between 1863 and 1865, or ensure women’s right to vote, as it did in 1869, long before the amendment confirmed it in 1920.

So what does it mean for the Constitutional system to work properly? What does that look like? A big part of the answer is the “separation of powers.”

Each part of the government has its own assignment to do. The legislature, or Congress, is supposed to make laws. The executive, or president, is supposed to apply the laws. The judiciary, or court system, is supposed to interpret the laws.

Yes, it gets a little more complex than that in some situations, but the basic principle of “separation of powers” is this simple principle.

Things go wrong when the executive branch makes laws. For example, the president appoints people to operate government agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or Department of Commerce. When those agencies start making their own rules and policies, instead of applying the laws which Congress has made, then there is a problem. They have effectively taken Congress’s job. There is a name for this problem: “administrative law.” It’s when the administration, instead of the Congress, makes laws.

Another way things can go wrong is this: The legislative branch can usurp the role of the executive branch. This happens when Congress has hearings and investigations. While it is appropriate for Congress to hold committee meetings and to gather facts relevant to debates about potential legislation, it is not appropriate for Congress to investigate (that’s a task for the executive branch), and it is not appropriate for Congress to hold hearings (that’s the work of the judicial branch). The one rare exception is an impeachment process for a federal employee.

Many of our current problems arise from the fact that the three branches of government are not restricting themselves to their assigned tasks. If each branch of government will do its work, and not the work of the other branches, then many of our problems will be solved, and desired outcomes like freedom, prosperity, justice, and peace are more likely.