It would appear that many Americans today are 'scared' of the direct words of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution.
Why would this be?
I provide 2 possible explanations today in my column at Columbia Conservative Examiner.
It seems I sparked a heated debate that has been raging at my Examiner site and at Digg. Be sure to click on the link above, read it, comment if you wish, and pass it along to others.
And thank-you very kindly for all of your support in recent days. I am deeply grateful.
Showing posts with label Framers of the Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Framers of the Constitution. Show all posts
Monday, April 06, 2009
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
'The Unwritten Constitution'
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.
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.
Friday, November 07, 2008
Statism vs. Liberty
The notion of a big government nanny state takes on many forms. Big government Republicans can be just as dangerous as liberal Democrats. Both support big government and are therefore the purveyors of statism.
Despite their protests to the contrary, statists by their very nature oppose human liberty.
We have seen the work of so-called 'compassionate conservatives' in vastly expanding the size and scope of government. Liberty has suffered as a result.
To be sure, 'compassionate conservatives' compensate for their statism by supporting tax cuts. Big government liberals have never supported the idea that citizens get to keep more of their own money.
As Geraldine Ferraro told Bill O'Reilly recently when O'Reilly complained about Obama's possible hefty tax increases on his money, 'Just be glad you get to keep some of it.'
This is the liberal ideology in a nutshell. They think your money belongs to them and you get to keep some of it only by their good graces.
Ferraro is totally and absolutely wrong. She should just be glad we allow the government to take some of it.
After all, that money is ours, not the government's. We pay taxes only as the citizens allow government to collect it.
At least the big government conservatives agree with my view on taxes.
But I am greatly disturbed by recent trends among conservatives, especially within the GOP, to embrace and support the expansion of government. This is totally antithetical to the views of our Founders.
As someone stated recently as I was reading through blogs, perhaps the terms 'conservative' and 'Republican' have lost their significance. Perhaps better terms are 'statism' as propounded by big government statists, and 'liberty' as propounded by small government Jeffersonians.
An encouraging sign that the true conservatives, the small government Jeffersonians, have gotten the message is that a group within government made up of the guardians of liberty has been engaging in a series of meetings since the election.
This group maintains that they put no stock in the fact that a person may refer to themselves as 'Republican' or 'conservative.' The only thing that matters to them is whether or not the person is anti-statism and a guardian of liberty as envisioned by the small-government Framers of the Constitution.
And this is the best sign of hope I've seen in a long time.
Despite their protests to the contrary, statists by their very nature oppose human liberty.
We have seen the work of so-called 'compassionate conservatives' in vastly expanding the size and scope of government. Liberty has suffered as a result.
To be sure, 'compassionate conservatives' compensate for their statism by supporting tax cuts. Big government liberals have never supported the idea that citizens get to keep more of their own money.
As Geraldine Ferraro told Bill O'Reilly recently when O'Reilly complained about Obama's possible hefty tax increases on his money, 'Just be glad you get to keep some of it.'
This is the liberal ideology in a nutshell. They think your money belongs to them and you get to keep some of it only by their good graces.
Ferraro is totally and absolutely wrong. She should just be glad we allow the government to take some of it.
After all, that money is ours, not the government's. We pay taxes only as the citizens allow government to collect it.
At least the big government conservatives agree with my view on taxes.
But I am greatly disturbed by recent trends among conservatives, especially within the GOP, to embrace and support the expansion of government. This is totally antithetical to the views of our Founders.
As someone stated recently as I was reading through blogs, perhaps the terms 'conservative' and 'Republican' have lost their significance. Perhaps better terms are 'statism' as propounded by big government statists, and 'liberty' as propounded by small government Jeffersonians.
An encouraging sign that the true conservatives, the small government Jeffersonians, have gotten the message is that a group within government made up of the guardians of liberty has been engaging in a series of meetings since the election.
This group maintains that they put no stock in the fact that a person may refer to themselves as 'Republican' or 'conservative.' The only thing that matters to them is whether or not the person is anti-statism and a guardian of liberty as envisioned by the small-government Framers of the Constitution.
And this is the best sign of hope I've seen in a long time.
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.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)