Certain unwritten but commonly accepted truths undergird the U.S. Constitution. These concepts are known as 'the unwritten Constitution,' and are often cited in the writings of the Founding Fathers.
Constitutional truth is in no way as complicated a matter as the legal profession would have us believe.
The Founding Fathers did us all a great favor by leaving behind their written works for us to see. And within those documents we find the commonly accepted truths that led them to frame the Constitution in the manner in which they did.
For example, the First Amendment provision of freedom of religion was never meant to keep religion out of the public marketplace of ideas but to prevent government from establishing an official church of the United States, supported with our tax dollars such as we find in Great Britain and dozens of other countries.
In like manner, we know that the Second Amendment provision of the freedom to keep and bear arms is an individual right and not a collective one.
The Framers made both of these things clear in their many writings.
Mike Vanderboegh has written a most interesting piece on the topic of 'the unwritten Constitution' that begs for these issues to be discussed and considered by all of those who are serious students of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
I strongly urge each of you to carefully read it and contemplate the obvious issues that arise from it.
Showing posts with label Founding Fathers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Founding Fathers. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Monday, December 01, 2008
Wisdom for the Storms Ahead
A statement of advice is found in The Bible which says, 'Be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove.'
Very good advice, it would seem, for those who would act and behave with wisdom.
Wisdom is not in knowing that you have the power to act but in knowing when and how to act.
As we face great uncertainty in the coming days with regard to the Constitutional protections of our God-given rights, the issue it seems is not allowing ourselves to react in knee-jerk fashion to every single perceived threat to liberty.
The key issue is to act, not react, in response to actual, verified threats to our safety, our right to self-defense, our right to live peacefully in freedom.
The way of the Timothy McVeigh phenomenon is NOT our way. We want absolutely no harm to come to anyone, except in the case of clear self-defense.
On the other hand, when it comes to defending the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the lives of those we love, and our own lives, we will use the resources and tools the Founding Fathers used to procure and guard liberty.
Our forebears were not blood-thirsty barbarians but men and women of reason. And they left us with a clear heritage that spoke of their high regard for human life and liberty, as well as the means by which to protect life and liberty.
This is an entirely reasonable response to direct encroachments upon human freedom.
So it is today. But we have to be absolutely certain that when we act it is in response to a direct affront.
Read more on this vital issue by clicking here to go to Sipsey Street Irregulars.
Very good advice, it would seem, for those who would act and behave with wisdom.
Wisdom is not in knowing that you have the power to act but in knowing when and how to act.
As we face great uncertainty in the coming days with regard to the Constitutional protections of our God-given rights, the issue it seems is not allowing ourselves to react in knee-jerk fashion to every single perceived threat to liberty.
The key issue is to act, not react, in response to actual, verified threats to our safety, our right to self-defense, our right to live peacefully in freedom.
The way of the Timothy McVeigh phenomenon is NOT our way. We want absolutely no harm to come to anyone, except in the case of clear self-defense.
On the other hand, when it comes to defending the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the lives of those we love, and our own lives, we will use the resources and tools the Founding Fathers used to procure and guard liberty.
Our forebears were not blood-thirsty barbarians but men and women of reason. And they left us with a clear heritage that spoke of their high regard for human life and liberty, as well as the means by which to protect life and liberty.
This is an entirely reasonable response to direct encroachments upon human freedom.
So it is today. But we have to be absolutely certain that when we act it is in response to a direct affront.
Read more on this vital issue by clicking here to go to Sipsey Street Irregulars.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Brady Gang Charges 'Judicial Activism'
The Brady Campaign to rob citizens of their Constitutional rights has reacted to the news of the U.S. Supreme Court's agreeing to hear the D.C. vs. Heller case. The Brady Gang stated that the U.S. District Court that struck down D.C.'s gun ban is a case of 'judicial activism.'
It gives one pause to wonder how they made this gigantic leap of 'logic.'
For the first 150 years of this nation's existence it was assumed that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guaranteed and protected the individual's right to keep and bear arms. This is made clear by the numerous comments, speeches, and writings of the Founders of the Republic.
A mere cursory knowledge of the history of the ratification of the 'Bill of Rights,' the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, will make clear in any reasonable thinking person's mind that the entire foundational basis for having a Bill of Rights was to protect the individual rights of citizens.
Some of the signers of the Constitution were persuaded to do so only under the condition that such rights would be included as the law of the land once the original document passed the muster.
In addition, Thomas Jefferson, one of the primary advocates and writers of the Constitution, stated many times that the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear firearms is one of the foundational prerequisites for a free society, and that the only way for that society to stay free was through an armed citizenry.
My friends, these key foundational principles of this nation have been nearly lost.
The second half of the 20th century brought forth judicial activism with a vengeance. The High Court and lower courts often at will changed the meaning of some of the key terms that are central to a Constitutional Republic. In essence, these judicial charlatans rewrote sections of the Constitution for all practical purposes, making null and void the original intent of the Founders.
A true judicial activist does not blink at rendering Constitutional decisions that fly in the face of original intent. In fact, the notion of original intent is important to these judicial charlatans only to the degree that they are made aware of the 'quaint, outdated views of a bygone era.'
Thus, the judicial activist feels that he/she is free to essentially write new law from the bench rather than strictly interpret the law as the Founders intended...which is the ONLY legitimate task of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Activists and their supporters such as the Brady Campaign often forget that the legislative branch alone writes the laws. And then it is up to the High Court to determine if those laws are consistent with the Constitution, or, the 'original intent' of the Founders.
If Congress, the states, or local governments pass laws that are contrary to the principles of the U.S. Constitution, as designated by the Founders themselves, then those laws are rendered null and void, and struck down.
An activist court, however, may choose not to strike down such laws in spite of the fact that they may be entirely contradictory to clear Constitutional principle.
With the tendency of the High Court to engage in judicial activism since the 1950s and 60s, many of the precepts that the Founders held dear and regarded as sacrosanct have been discarded and nearly lost. One of those precepts is the notion that an armed citizenry is essential to prevent tyranny.
The Founders considered government itself, potentially even their own government, to be the biggest threat to liberty on earth, and that an armed citizenry was necessary to keep such oppressive government in check.
I often wonder if perhaps that deep inner conviction and drive has been totally lost on our society.
Apparently the Brady Gang thinks it has, or else they would not so blatantly and erroneously claim that a federal court that struck down D.C. laws that clearly violated the beliefs and values of our Founders is an act of 'judicial activism.'
The very fact that they feel they can say such a thing publicly, with a straight face, and believe the masses will buy it, is a stinging indictment on modern American society.
In fact, the Bradys' contention that a court ruling that affirmed original intent is actually judicial activism is a chilling example of the Orwellian nightmare of 'newsspeak' and 'doublespeak.'
It gives one pause to wonder how they made this gigantic leap of 'logic.'
For the first 150 years of this nation's existence it was assumed that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guaranteed and protected the individual's right to keep and bear arms. This is made clear by the numerous comments, speeches, and writings of the Founders of the Republic.
A mere cursory knowledge of the history of the ratification of the 'Bill of Rights,' the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, will make clear in any reasonable thinking person's mind that the entire foundational basis for having a Bill of Rights was to protect the individual rights of citizens.
Some of the signers of the Constitution were persuaded to do so only under the condition that such rights would be included as the law of the land once the original document passed the muster.
In addition, Thomas Jefferson, one of the primary advocates and writers of the Constitution, stated many times that the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear firearms is one of the foundational prerequisites for a free society, and that the only way for that society to stay free was through an armed citizenry.
My friends, these key foundational principles of this nation have been nearly lost.
The second half of the 20th century brought forth judicial activism with a vengeance. The High Court and lower courts often at will changed the meaning of some of the key terms that are central to a Constitutional Republic. In essence, these judicial charlatans rewrote sections of the Constitution for all practical purposes, making null and void the original intent of the Founders.
A true judicial activist does not blink at rendering Constitutional decisions that fly in the face of original intent. In fact, the notion of original intent is important to these judicial charlatans only to the degree that they are made aware of the 'quaint, outdated views of a bygone era.'
Thus, the judicial activist feels that he/she is free to essentially write new law from the bench rather than strictly interpret the law as the Founders intended...which is the ONLY legitimate task of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Activists and their supporters such as the Brady Campaign often forget that the legislative branch alone writes the laws. And then it is up to the High Court to determine if those laws are consistent with the Constitution, or, the 'original intent' of the Founders.
If Congress, the states, or local governments pass laws that are contrary to the principles of the U.S. Constitution, as designated by the Founders themselves, then those laws are rendered null and void, and struck down.
An activist court, however, may choose not to strike down such laws in spite of the fact that they may be entirely contradictory to clear Constitutional principle.
With the tendency of the High Court to engage in judicial activism since the 1950s and 60s, many of the precepts that the Founders held dear and regarded as sacrosanct have been discarded and nearly lost. One of those precepts is the notion that an armed citizenry is essential to prevent tyranny.
The Founders considered government itself, potentially even their own government, to be the biggest threat to liberty on earth, and that an armed citizenry was necessary to keep such oppressive government in check.
I often wonder if perhaps that deep inner conviction and drive has been totally lost on our society.
Apparently the Brady Gang thinks it has, or else they would not so blatantly and erroneously claim that a federal court that struck down D.C. laws that clearly violated the beliefs and values of our Founders is an act of 'judicial activism.'
The very fact that they feel they can say such a thing publicly, with a straight face, and believe the masses will buy it, is a stinging indictment on modern American society.
In fact, the Bradys' contention that a court ruling that affirmed original intent is actually judicial activism is a chilling example of the Orwellian nightmare of 'newsspeak' and 'doublespeak.'
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
The New Citizenship Test
The U.S. government has rolled out a new citizenship test to be given to those who desire to become legal citizens of the United States of America. Compared to the old test, this one comes up dreadfully short.
Patrick Henry is no longer considered required knowledge for those seeking citizenship. There is not a single question on Henry on the new test, compared to 3 on the old test.
Yet those who composed the new test must believe that knowing that Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker of the House is required knowledge. A question on the exam asks, 'Who is the current Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives?'
Understandably, there is a question on the exam about Martin Luther King, Jr. This is a part of the nation's history and is therefore part of our identity.
Nonetheless, the new test is short on U.S. history and long on 'current events.'
I'm sorry but I can't for the life of me figure out how a knowledge of current events makes one a good U.S. citizen. A person can be a citizen of Cuba or Venezuela and be fairly knowledgeable about current events.
The thing that makes a person a good citizen of the U.S. is a knowledge of and appreciation for our unique history, our form of government, our Constitution.
I would like to see prospective citizens answer questions such as, 'What are the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution commonly called?' Another is, 'Name the four components of the First Amendment.' Yet another would be, 'What individual right does the Second Amendment protect?'
And then of course I would include a question concerning the one thing named within the text of the Constitution that indicates the only legitimate role of government.
It would be absolutely essential that prospective citizens know who were Patrick Henry, Alexander Hamilton, George Mason, along with their contributions to the Republic. Added to that would be questions about the first three Presidents.
Granted, such questions would make becoming a citizen much more difficult. I make no apology for that. We should demand that only those with a basic knowledge of American history and government be allowed as citizens.
There are far too many among the present citizenry who are alarmingly clueless concerning these vital facts. Perhaps all of us should be required to take the test periodically.
Patrick Henry is no longer considered required knowledge for those seeking citizenship. There is not a single question on Henry on the new test, compared to 3 on the old test.
Yet those who composed the new test must believe that knowing that Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker of the House is required knowledge. A question on the exam asks, 'Who is the current Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives?'
Understandably, there is a question on the exam about Martin Luther King, Jr. This is a part of the nation's history and is therefore part of our identity.
Nonetheless, the new test is short on U.S. history and long on 'current events.'
I'm sorry but I can't for the life of me figure out how a knowledge of current events makes one a good U.S. citizen. A person can be a citizen of Cuba or Venezuela and be fairly knowledgeable about current events.
The thing that makes a person a good citizen of the U.S. is a knowledge of and appreciation for our unique history, our form of government, our Constitution.
I would like to see prospective citizens answer questions such as, 'What are the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution commonly called?' Another is, 'Name the four components of the First Amendment.' Yet another would be, 'What individual right does the Second Amendment protect?'
And then of course I would include a question concerning the one thing named within the text of the Constitution that indicates the only legitimate role of government.
It would be absolutely essential that prospective citizens know who were Patrick Henry, Alexander Hamilton, George Mason, along with their contributions to the Republic. Added to that would be questions about the first three Presidents.
Granted, such questions would make becoming a citizen much more difficult. I make no apology for that. We should demand that only those with a basic knowledge of American history and government be allowed as citizens.
There are far too many among the present citizenry who are alarmingly clueless concerning these vital facts. Perhaps all of us should be required to take the test periodically.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Jefferson's Opposition to Standing Army-Navy
As a matter of principle, Thomas Jefferson had expressed opposition to the concept of a standing army and navy in the years just after the nation's founding. This was in spite of the fact that the Constitution to which he swore allegiance stated that the one essential element of the federal government was to provide for the national defense.
In Jefferson's mind there was no contradiction between his stated philosophy and the words of the Constitution. He believed in a citizens' militia--an army of ordinary citizens who could be ready to fight for the nation's defense whenever necessary.
Jefferson had been one of the driving forces behind adopting the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. While the Constitution itself was ratified on September 17, 1787, the original document did not contain a 'Bill of Rights' as we know it today.
Certain of the nation's Founding Fathers had vehemently opposed the notion of a Constitution precisely due to the fact that it contained no guarantee of individual rights. Patrick Henry was one of these.
Due to the influence of Jefferson, Henry, and others determined to protect the inherent rights of all human beings, the Bill of Rights was approved on December 15, 1791 after the required number of states had given approval.
Jefferson's opposition to a standing army and his commitment to the nation's defense are entirely consistent when one considers the two concepts within the context of the Bill of Rights.
The second section of the Bill of Rights, known as The Second Amendment, made clear that the nation's defense would be the task of every citizen. Each individual citizen would together form a well-regulated, meaning trained, militia.
It was assumed that these citizens would be armed. That assumption is expressed by Jefferson himself many times in his public statements and written documents. Jefferson believed that an armed citizenry was the perfect defense against the tyranny of big government.
Thus, Jefferson's opposition to a standing army and navy was in no way regarded as a belief in public disarmament. To the contrary, Jefferson believed that a standing military was rendered relatively unimportant if not unnecessary specifically due to the fact that he knew the individual citizens were armed and ready to fight when called upon.
In spite of the best of intentions, Jefferson's two terms in office did not succeed in totally dismantling the standing military. History shows that the harsh realities of politics often detour even the greatest of statesmen.
Despite powerful voices encouraging American involvement in overseas conflicts, Jefferson had fought vociferously to keep America out of Europe's wars during the late 1700s and early 1800s. Nonetheless, those voices were powerful enough to keep the President from totally dismantling the military, particularly the Navy.
America's most strategic seaports were of great concern to many, given the might exhibited by the Spanish and French navies. Thus, there was strong support for a buildup of U.S. navy forces as a showcase to the world, demonstrating America's might.
A compromise was reached between Jefferson and the Navy's supporters when the President agreed to keep a standing Navy provided it would be a much smaller and more efficient one. The Jefferson compromise meant that the nation's coastline would be protected by a fleet of smaller, faster gun-boats, and Congress gave its approval to this plan during Jefferson's second term.
Another motivation for Jefferson's plan to streamline military operations was his belief in small, efficient, and cost-effective central government. Jefferson was a minimalist when it came to central government. Expenditures for the federal government, which included military spending, were cut.
This meant that government was forced to live within its means. Believing that the citizens themselves were responsible for the young nation's defense, Jefferson was committed to scaling back the size and scope of government services. This led to the end of internal taxation entirely during Jefferson's Presidency.
The obvious lessons to be learned from the Jefferson years are of incalculable importance for America today. A return to the core values of Jeffersonian democracy may well save the Republic from falling into a thousand years of darkness.
In Jefferson's mind there was no contradiction between his stated philosophy and the words of the Constitution. He believed in a citizens' militia--an army of ordinary citizens who could be ready to fight for the nation's defense whenever necessary.
Jefferson had been one of the driving forces behind adopting the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. While the Constitution itself was ratified on September 17, 1787, the original document did not contain a 'Bill of Rights' as we know it today.
Certain of the nation's Founding Fathers had vehemently opposed the notion of a Constitution precisely due to the fact that it contained no guarantee of individual rights. Patrick Henry was one of these.
Due to the influence of Jefferson, Henry, and others determined to protect the inherent rights of all human beings, the Bill of Rights was approved on December 15, 1791 after the required number of states had given approval.
Jefferson's opposition to a standing army and his commitment to the nation's defense are entirely consistent when one considers the two concepts within the context of the Bill of Rights.
The second section of the Bill of Rights, known as The Second Amendment, made clear that the nation's defense would be the task of every citizen. Each individual citizen would together form a well-regulated, meaning trained, militia.
It was assumed that these citizens would be armed. That assumption is expressed by Jefferson himself many times in his public statements and written documents. Jefferson believed that an armed citizenry was the perfect defense against the tyranny of big government.
Thus, Jefferson's opposition to a standing army and navy was in no way regarded as a belief in public disarmament. To the contrary, Jefferson believed that a standing military was rendered relatively unimportant if not unnecessary specifically due to the fact that he knew the individual citizens were armed and ready to fight when called upon.
In spite of the best of intentions, Jefferson's two terms in office did not succeed in totally dismantling the standing military. History shows that the harsh realities of politics often detour even the greatest of statesmen.
Despite powerful voices encouraging American involvement in overseas conflicts, Jefferson had fought vociferously to keep America out of Europe's wars during the late 1700s and early 1800s. Nonetheless, those voices were powerful enough to keep the President from totally dismantling the military, particularly the Navy.
America's most strategic seaports were of great concern to many, given the might exhibited by the Spanish and French navies. Thus, there was strong support for a buildup of U.S. navy forces as a showcase to the world, demonstrating America's might.
A compromise was reached between Jefferson and the Navy's supporters when the President agreed to keep a standing Navy provided it would be a much smaller and more efficient one. The Jefferson compromise meant that the nation's coastline would be protected by a fleet of smaller, faster gun-boats, and Congress gave its approval to this plan during Jefferson's second term.
Another motivation for Jefferson's plan to streamline military operations was his belief in small, efficient, and cost-effective central government. Jefferson was a minimalist when it came to central government. Expenditures for the federal government, which included military spending, were cut.
This meant that government was forced to live within its means. Believing that the citizens themselves were responsible for the young nation's defense, Jefferson was committed to scaling back the size and scope of government services. This led to the end of internal taxation entirely during Jefferson's Presidency.
The obvious lessons to be learned from the Jefferson years are of incalculable importance for America today. A return to the core values of Jeffersonian democracy may well save the Republic from falling into a thousand years of darkness.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
A Winning Political Strategy for the 21st Century
Those of us who are conservative-libertarian in our political views often wonder if the future looks bright for those who adhere to the principles of liberty as envisioned by the Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution. I believe it does. But a few changes are necessary.
First, it is important that we steer the nation back to the Constitution as a liberating set of ideas penned by those who longed to be free from oppression, coercion, and tyranny. Far from being an antiquated set of beliefs that restrict and limit human behavior, the Constitution's central focus is on the expansion of liberty.
Education in the home and in our schools is essential to the rediscovery of the Constitution as a liberating document.
Second, in light of the general principle of the expansion of liberty, we must affirm the right of individual citizens to make their own choices although some of those choices may not align with our personal preferences or beliefs.
For example, non-smokers certainly have a right to clean air around them, but smokers also have a right to smoke. This means that non-smokers must stand for the rights of smokers to do their thing in smoking areas, in their homes, and in other public places, as long as non-smokers are afforded a reasonable amount of smoke free air.
The same principle applies to the issue of coupling. Decisions regarding romantic preferences are personal and must be protected. Allowing a gay couple to have a civil union that is recognized legally is no threat to marriage.
For example, the fact that I am a heterosexual male who is attracted to the opposite sex in no way forces me to prevent same-sex coupling in order to somehow 'protect my manhood' or to 'protect marriage.' My manhood is fully intact no matter what gay persons do. And marriage between a man and a woman will survive even if gay couples are allowed legally recognized unions.
If we are to maintain liberty, we MUST safeguard personal habits and choices even if they may appear strange or inappropriate for us.
Third, we must keep conservative members of the religious community on board with us by affirming the right to religious expression in the public arena. If we believe in the unfettered, unobstructed right to bear arms, for example, then that same principle must apply to ALL of the rights enumerated in the Constitution.
Religious conservatives need to know that we value their beliefs and their contributions to the political process. If they feel devalued or used, they will either stay home on election day or make a stupid mistake by voting for a purveyor of anti-freedom in protest.
Deeply spiritual people of various stripes have blazed a trail for liberty in this nation. These honorable persons learned from the Puritans that we cannot limit freedom. Hindsight shows the folly of the Puritan experience of coming to America for liberty only to turn right around and limit religious liberty for their detractors.
Fourth, we must return to the original Constitutional principle that America's defense must be exactly what the word denotes, i.e., defense and not offense. Outside of World Wars I and II, America's involvement in foreign adventures has tended to result in disaster.
Are there exceptions to this principle? Of course. There are times when it is absolutely necessary to involve ourselves on the world stage when the alternative would be mass genocide and broad-scaled tyranny, such as the prospects of a Hitler-dominated Europe.
Fifth, we must stress the concept of personal empowerment over dependence. Personal empowerment is a liberating process of being in control of one's destiny, one's decisions, one's life. Dependence, on the other hand, is serfdom and slavery.
Americans must be shown that dependence on government is the ultimate slavery. The highest example of liberty is when an individual lives with the knowledge that ultimately he/she is his/her own guardian and master.
In addition to the fact that this principle will guide the way to our deciding what is truly necessary in government and what is not, this principle will keep taxes and big government in check.
Sixth, with mounting problems facing us from globalization, climate change, border security, immigration, terrorism, and the like, we must take a 'can-do' attitude to each of these threats. Americans built the Panama Canal. We invented air travel. We invented mass production of autos using the assembly line. We were the first to put a man on the Moon.
If we could take each of these significant giant leaps in human progress, then there is no doubt that American ingenuity will lead the way to significant developments in emissions-free travel, safe nuclear energy that includes missile shields, personal devices that detect terrorist threats, and any number of further strides in technology.
Seventh, legal immigration must be affirmed and encouraged while illegal entry into the country must be stopped cold. Our complaint is not with Hispanics, Asians, or any other ethnic group. Those who are willing to come here legally and gain their citizenship according to our laws are to be welcomed with open arms. We need and appreciate all that they bring to our society in terms of manpower and technology.
But those who break our laws right off the bat by attempting to gain something for nothing are to be prosecuted severely. If it is so vitally important for a person in a foreign country to come to America to live and work, then the very least we should expect is an adherence to our laws, a knowledge of our language, customs, and culture, and an appreciation for our rich history as a beacon for liberty.
Illegal aliens have no business being in this country at all. Their behavior is an affront to every single immigrant who came here legally and went through the process of becoming citizens.
Naturally these seven components of a winning political strategy for the 21st century are only a start. There are many more issues to be considered.
I would hope that a dialogue could ensue concerning the precepts described here as well as other pertinent issues. I certainly do not claim the final word. But it would seem to me that these are the basic essentials, the bare necessities for a future in which liberty is cherished, valued, and protected.
First, it is important that we steer the nation back to the Constitution as a liberating set of ideas penned by those who longed to be free from oppression, coercion, and tyranny. Far from being an antiquated set of beliefs that restrict and limit human behavior, the Constitution's central focus is on the expansion of liberty.
Education in the home and in our schools is essential to the rediscovery of the Constitution as a liberating document.
Second, in light of the general principle of the expansion of liberty, we must affirm the right of individual citizens to make their own choices although some of those choices may not align with our personal preferences or beliefs.
For example, non-smokers certainly have a right to clean air around them, but smokers also have a right to smoke. This means that non-smokers must stand for the rights of smokers to do their thing in smoking areas, in their homes, and in other public places, as long as non-smokers are afforded a reasonable amount of smoke free air.
The same principle applies to the issue of coupling. Decisions regarding romantic preferences are personal and must be protected. Allowing a gay couple to have a civil union that is recognized legally is no threat to marriage.
For example, the fact that I am a heterosexual male who is attracted to the opposite sex in no way forces me to prevent same-sex coupling in order to somehow 'protect my manhood' or to 'protect marriage.' My manhood is fully intact no matter what gay persons do. And marriage between a man and a woman will survive even if gay couples are allowed legally recognized unions.
If we are to maintain liberty, we MUST safeguard personal habits and choices even if they may appear strange or inappropriate for us.
Third, we must keep conservative members of the religious community on board with us by affirming the right to religious expression in the public arena. If we believe in the unfettered, unobstructed right to bear arms, for example, then that same principle must apply to ALL of the rights enumerated in the Constitution.
Religious conservatives need to know that we value their beliefs and their contributions to the political process. If they feel devalued or used, they will either stay home on election day or make a stupid mistake by voting for a purveyor of anti-freedom in protest.
Deeply spiritual people of various stripes have blazed a trail for liberty in this nation. These honorable persons learned from the Puritans that we cannot limit freedom. Hindsight shows the folly of the Puritan experience of coming to America for liberty only to turn right around and limit religious liberty for their detractors.
Fourth, we must return to the original Constitutional principle that America's defense must be exactly what the word denotes, i.e., defense and not offense. Outside of World Wars I and II, America's involvement in foreign adventures has tended to result in disaster.
Are there exceptions to this principle? Of course. There are times when it is absolutely necessary to involve ourselves on the world stage when the alternative would be mass genocide and broad-scaled tyranny, such as the prospects of a Hitler-dominated Europe.
Fifth, we must stress the concept of personal empowerment over dependence. Personal empowerment is a liberating process of being in control of one's destiny, one's decisions, one's life. Dependence, on the other hand, is serfdom and slavery.
Americans must be shown that dependence on government is the ultimate slavery. The highest example of liberty is when an individual lives with the knowledge that ultimately he/she is his/her own guardian and master.
In addition to the fact that this principle will guide the way to our deciding what is truly necessary in government and what is not, this principle will keep taxes and big government in check.
Sixth, with mounting problems facing us from globalization, climate change, border security, immigration, terrorism, and the like, we must take a 'can-do' attitude to each of these threats. Americans built the Panama Canal. We invented air travel. We invented mass production of autos using the assembly line. We were the first to put a man on the Moon.
If we could take each of these significant giant leaps in human progress, then there is no doubt that American ingenuity will lead the way to significant developments in emissions-free travel, safe nuclear energy that includes missile shields, personal devices that detect terrorist threats, and any number of further strides in technology.
Seventh, legal immigration must be affirmed and encouraged while illegal entry into the country must be stopped cold. Our complaint is not with Hispanics, Asians, or any other ethnic group. Those who are willing to come here legally and gain their citizenship according to our laws are to be welcomed with open arms. We need and appreciate all that they bring to our society in terms of manpower and technology.
But those who break our laws right off the bat by attempting to gain something for nothing are to be prosecuted severely. If it is so vitally important for a person in a foreign country to come to America to live and work, then the very least we should expect is an adherence to our laws, a knowledge of our language, customs, and culture, and an appreciation for our rich history as a beacon for liberty.
Illegal aliens have no business being in this country at all. Their behavior is an affront to every single immigrant who came here legally and went through the process of becoming citizens.
Naturally these seven components of a winning political strategy for the 21st century are only a start. There are many more issues to be considered.
I would hope that a dialogue could ensue concerning the precepts described here as well as other pertinent issues. I certainly do not claim the final word. But it would seem to me that these are the basic essentials, the bare necessities for a future in which liberty is cherished, valued, and protected.
Monday, September 03, 2007
Washington: The Beautiful Sound of Silence
Whenever the U.S. Congress goes into recess, the most beautiful sounds one will hear during the entire year emanate from the nation's capital--the sound of silence.
One of those times is now. The Congress has been in recess, but will return with a vengeance on Tuesday after Labor Day.
The Founding Fathers never intended for the Congress to be a full-time job for Senators and Representatives. Perhaps the complications and complexities of modern life have necessitated that change, but I have often wondered if we would not be much better off doing it the way the Founders did it.
Congress was historically in session only as long as it took to take care of the nation's business. Elected officials then had to quickly return home to earn a living and care for families.
Today, Congress is in session so much that it sometimes appears they create for themselves work to do, particularly in that massive and cumbersome monster of a pseudo-government they created called 'the federal bureaucracy.'
Federal bureaucrats are ultimately dependent on Congress granting them the funds and the means to meddle more and more in the affairs of the citizens. Without the meddlesome task of regulating the lives, the property, and the businesses of private citizens, these bureaucrats would have nothing to do.
It is without doubt the ultimate insult, the most ill-informed point of view, and the most blatant display of ignorance to judge an elected representative by 'how many bills they introduced.' Rather, the thing I wish to know is how successful was my Congressman or Senator in stopping legislation from being passed.
We have enough laws on the books as it is, most of which are never enforced, such as the nation's specific and thorough anti-illegal alien laws. Why, then, do we need more laws unless those particular laws expand liberty for the citizens rather than restrict and regulate?
A pet peeve of mine concerning the upcoming formal announcement of Fred Thompson as a candidate for President revolves around this very issue. Critics maintain that 'Thompson is not known for introducing legislation when he was a Senator.'
Well, HALLELUJAH! Amen! We should be celebrating that fact rather than bemoaning it!
The fact that Fred Thompson is not known for getting more laws passed in Congress is a key indication that he adheres to the philosophy of Jefferson--'the government that governs best governs least.'
A politician who adheres to the philosophy of the Founding Fathers is not going to be known for the legislation he or she passes. Rather, they will be known for legislative restraint.
Socialists such as Ted 'Senator Blowhard' Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, John Kerry, and company are the ones who have a corner on 'introducing legislation' that subjects the citizens to more restrictions and regulations. In fact, let them wear that badge of 'honor'--horror would be more like it.
And since this is the gang that controls Congress at present, although with only 16% of the public approving of the job they are doing, it is a good thing--a VERY good thing--that they are out of town on recess. If only they could stay out of town a bit longer.
Thus, when the present Congress is not in session, it is time to stop and count our blessings. For every day they miss work we don't have to worry about more and more cumbersome regulations and 'new legislation' designed to delve us ever deeper into the 'nanny state.'
Washington can actually be a very beautiful place--when the halls of Congress are silent.
One of those times is now. The Congress has been in recess, but will return with a vengeance on Tuesday after Labor Day.
The Founding Fathers never intended for the Congress to be a full-time job for Senators and Representatives. Perhaps the complications and complexities of modern life have necessitated that change, but I have often wondered if we would not be much better off doing it the way the Founders did it.
Congress was historically in session only as long as it took to take care of the nation's business. Elected officials then had to quickly return home to earn a living and care for families.
Today, Congress is in session so much that it sometimes appears they create for themselves work to do, particularly in that massive and cumbersome monster of a pseudo-government they created called 'the federal bureaucracy.'
Federal bureaucrats are ultimately dependent on Congress granting them the funds and the means to meddle more and more in the affairs of the citizens. Without the meddlesome task of regulating the lives, the property, and the businesses of private citizens, these bureaucrats would have nothing to do.
It is without doubt the ultimate insult, the most ill-informed point of view, and the most blatant display of ignorance to judge an elected representative by 'how many bills they introduced.' Rather, the thing I wish to know is how successful was my Congressman or Senator in stopping legislation from being passed.
We have enough laws on the books as it is, most of which are never enforced, such as the nation's specific and thorough anti-illegal alien laws. Why, then, do we need more laws unless those particular laws expand liberty for the citizens rather than restrict and regulate?
A pet peeve of mine concerning the upcoming formal announcement of Fred Thompson as a candidate for President revolves around this very issue. Critics maintain that 'Thompson is not known for introducing legislation when he was a Senator.'
Well, HALLELUJAH! Amen! We should be celebrating that fact rather than bemoaning it!
The fact that Fred Thompson is not known for getting more laws passed in Congress is a key indication that he adheres to the philosophy of Jefferson--'the government that governs best governs least.'
A politician who adheres to the philosophy of the Founding Fathers is not going to be known for the legislation he or she passes. Rather, they will be known for legislative restraint.
Socialists such as Ted 'Senator Blowhard' Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, John Kerry, and company are the ones who have a corner on 'introducing legislation' that subjects the citizens to more restrictions and regulations. In fact, let them wear that badge of 'honor'--horror would be more like it.
And since this is the gang that controls Congress at present, although with only 16% of the public approving of the job they are doing, it is a good thing--a VERY good thing--that they are out of town on recess. If only they could stay out of town a bit longer.
Thus, when the present Congress is not in session, it is time to stop and count our blessings. For every day they miss work we don't have to worry about more and more cumbersome regulations and 'new legislation' designed to delve us ever deeper into the 'nanny state.'
Washington can actually be a very beautiful place--when the halls of Congress are silent.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
An Interesting Constitutional Question
Liberal jurists have often referred to the principle of 'strict constructionism' with regard to Constitutional interpretation as 'old hat.' The notion that 21st century Americans must be bound by a document that was written within the context of the 18th century seems to them to be stale, antiquated, and unsuitable for modern times.
Thus, 'liberal' or 'progressive' jurists coined the term 'the living document' to designate their viewpoint that the process of Constitutional interpretation must be given the broadest leeway possible in order to make the document relevant to our times.
For example, since the Framers could not have possibly envisioned a time in the future when large, heavily populated areas would be overrun with handguns, often obtained illegally, then they could not have possibly meant that the Second Amendment should provide an unconditional cover for bearing arms.
Thus, using the 'living document' method of interpretation, such jurists would be in support of 'reasonable restrictions and limitations' on a Constitutional right.
The problem, of course, with such a view is that the principle can be applied to any of our guaranteed rights, including First Amendment rights. The Framers could not have envisioned a time when society would be dominated by media coverage, including peering into the private lives of citizens, complete with outlandish charges and accusations we have come to expect from tabloid journalism.
Thus, a case could be made that utilizing the principle of the 'living document' school of interpretation, progressive jurists and politicians could claim that reasonable restrictions and limitations on free speech and freedom of the press are entirely appropriate.
Clearly those who have espoused the living document method of interpretation have a history of supporting restricting the rights delineated in the Constitution. Thus, we do not actually have complete freedom of religion in this nation due to the numerous restrictions placed upon religious expression in the name of 'diversity.'
The same could be said for freedom of speech.
And we know that the Second Amendment right to bear arms has been attacked and restricted relentlessly by those who adhere to the 'living document' method of interpretation.
Perhaps the only individual right that has escaped such limitation and restriction is the freedom of the press. One can surmise that the press has been granted a pass because so many who adhere to the 'living document' school of thought work within the media.
It is always more expedient to restrict someone else's rights than your own.
Thus, an interesting Constitutional question comes to the forefront of the debate. What principle should be used to interpret the Constitution in modern times, when clearly times have changed drastically since the 18th century?
Originalists, or 'strict contructionists,' are often mischaracterized. Of course, strict constructionism does, indeed, mandate that the original intent of the Framers is the single most important consideration in arriving at a correct interpretation of a Constitutional issue. But this method of interpretation goes beyond merely the words printed on the pages of the original documents.
For example, when one truly wishes to discover the meaning of the Second Amendment, one must go to the original intent of the Framers. What did those words mean to them at the time?
Fortunately for us, they told us. The Federalist Papers, the writings of Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Franklin, and others spell out in detail the exact meaning of the Amendment. They feared tyranny above all and its inherent attempt to remove God-given rights.
Firearms in the hands of ordinary citizens were viewed as a means of empowering the people against the power of oppressive government.
Any serious consideration of the meaning of the Second Amendment must start here and come to terms with this basic philosophy of the Founding Fathers.
But the process of originalism doesn't stop there.
One must look at the underlying principle that provides the foundation for all future attempts to interpret Constitutional issues. And that principle is expansion of rights.
The Constitution itself states that there are many other rights that belong to human beings which are not spelled out specifically in the document itself, but which are valid nonetheless. The absence of specific references to those unnamed rights is in no way to be construed as implying that those rights are not guaranteed as well.
This very statement provides the foundation of the principle of expansion of rights, which for a century and a half was an important precedent in Constitutional interpretation. Those matters that the Founders did not or could not specify at the time must be judged by the general principle of expansion of rights rather than restriction of rights.
How important has this principle been to Constitutional interpretation? Without it, slaves would have never been freed or given the right to vote. Women would not have been given the right to vote.
The nation has sometimes strayed from this basic Constitutional principle, much to its peril. Prohibition is an example. Individual rights were restricted and removed rather than expanded and protected.
The result was rampant crime and a lucrative black market for criminals.
The nation learned its lesson and repealed Prohibition. Yet those who espouse the so-called 'living document' method of interpretation still seek to limit individual rights. What they have not been able to do at the national level they have succeeded in doing at the local and state levels.
The creeping crawl of government expansion leads to oppression. In Europe, for example, we see governments so afraid of the people that laws have been passed that prevent individual citizens from owning firearms. Our own federal government in the U.S. apparently has been afflicted with the very same disease. We see increasing signs year by year that our own government is just as afraid of its own citizens as it is the terrorists, to the point that government has sought at every hand to remove every means of self-protection the citizens have at their disposal.
This is precisely what the Founding Fathers feared more than anything else.
Thus, it is absolutely essential in these strange and interesting times that we appoint to the bench only those jurists who live by the Framers' principle of expansion of rights. As it stands now there are far too many who would restrict every single right guaranteed and protected by the Constitution.
Thus, 'liberal' or 'progressive' jurists coined the term 'the living document' to designate their viewpoint that the process of Constitutional interpretation must be given the broadest leeway possible in order to make the document relevant to our times.
For example, since the Framers could not have possibly envisioned a time in the future when large, heavily populated areas would be overrun with handguns, often obtained illegally, then they could not have possibly meant that the Second Amendment should provide an unconditional cover for bearing arms.
Thus, using the 'living document' method of interpretation, such jurists would be in support of 'reasonable restrictions and limitations' on a Constitutional right.
The problem, of course, with such a view is that the principle can be applied to any of our guaranteed rights, including First Amendment rights. The Framers could not have envisioned a time when society would be dominated by media coverage, including peering into the private lives of citizens, complete with outlandish charges and accusations we have come to expect from tabloid journalism.
Thus, a case could be made that utilizing the principle of the 'living document' school of interpretation, progressive jurists and politicians could claim that reasonable restrictions and limitations on free speech and freedom of the press are entirely appropriate.
Clearly those who have espoused the living document method of interpretation have a history of supporting restricting the rights delineated in the Constitution. Thus, we do not actually have complete freedom of religion in this nation due to the numerous restrictions placed upon religious expression in the name of 'diversity.'
The same could be said for freedom of speech.
And we know that the Second Amendment right to bear arms has been attacked and restricted relentlessly by those who adhere to the 'living document' method of interpretation.
Perhaps the only individual right that has escaped such limitation and restriction is the freedom of the press. One can surmise that the press has been granted a pass because so many who adhere to the 'living document' school of thought work within the media.
It is always more expedient to restrict someone else's rights than your own.
Thus, an interesting Constitutional question comes to the forefront of the debate. What principle should be used to interpret the Constitution in modern times, when clearly times have changed drastically since the 18th century?
Originalists, or 'strict contructionists,' are often mischaracterized. Of course, strict constructionism does, indeed, mandate that the original intent of the Framers is the single most important consideration in arriving at a correct interpretation of a Constitutional issue. But this method of interpretation goes beyond merely the words printed on the pages of the original documents.
For example, when one truly wishes to discover the meaning of the Second Amendment, one must go to the original intent of the Framers. What did those words mean to them at the time?
Fortunately for us, they told us. The Federalist Papers, the writings of Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Franklin, and others spell out in detail the exact meaning of the Amendment. They feared tyranny above all and its inherent attempt to remove God-given rights.
Firearms in the hands of ordinary citizens were viewed as a means of empowering the people against the power of oppressive government.
Any serious consideration of the meaning of the Second Amendment must start here and come to terms with this basic philosophy of the Founding Fathers.
But the process of originalism doesn't stop there.
One must look at the underlying principle that provides the foundation for all future attempts to interpret Constitutional issues. And that principle is expansion of rights.
The Constitution itself states that there are many other rights that belong to human beings which are not spelled out specifically in the document itself, but which are valid nonetheless. The absence of specific references to those unnamed rights is in no way to be construed as implying that those rights are not guaranteed as well.
This very statement provides the foundation of the principle of expansion of rights, which for a century and a half was an important precedent in Constitutional interpretation. Those matters that the Founders did not or could not specify at the time must be judged by the general principle of expansion of rights rather than restriction of rights.
How important has this principle been to Constitutional interpretation? Without it, slaves would have never been freed or given the right to vote. Women would not have been given the right to vote.
The nation has sometimes strayed from this basic Constitutional principle, much to its peril. Prohibition is an example. Individual rights were restricted and removed rather than expanded and protected.
The result was rampant crime and a lucrative black market for criminals.
The nation learned its lesson and repealed Prohibition. Yet those who espouse the so-called 'living document' method of interpretation still seek to limit individual rights. What they have not been able to do at the national level they have succeeded in doing at the local and state levels.
The creeping crawl of government expansion leads to oppression. In Europe, for example, we see governments so afraid of the people that laws have been passed that prevent individual citizens from owning firearms. Our own federal government in the U.S. apparently has been afflicted with the very same disease. We see increasing signs year by year that our own government is just as afraid of its own citizens as it is the terrorists, to the point that government has sought at every hand to remove every means of self-protection the citizens have at their disposal.
This is precisely what the Founding Fathers feared more than anything else.
Thus, it is absolutely essential in these strange and interesting times that we appoint to the bench only those jurists who live by the Framers' principle of expansion of rights. As it stands now there are far too many who would restrict every single right guaranteed and protected by the Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)