We Need to Understand What the Constitution Is, Isn’t, Prohibits, and Defends

February 24, 2013 by
Filed under: Uncategorized 

Many of us need a crash-course in “Purpose of the Constitution – 101” and “Purpose of Government – 101” – which is why I continue to study those our Founders revered and studied, our Founders themselves, and our founding documents.  Because even amongst the most ardent Conservatives I too often hear talk of our “Constitutional rights” instead of our Constitutionally protected rights (and that’s not semantics my Friends, it’s the foundation of the debate; the premise which determines from where our rights flow – and therefore how/when they can be restricted and by whom).  I likewise hear that “we have to do this/that because it’s what our Founders created,” and “we need to strictly adhere to the constitution,” and “our Founders would be shooting by now.”  I’ll address the fallacies associated with each of these, but I’ll immediately start with “strictly adhering to the Constitution,” because that’s the one most likely to be scrutinized, and will already have some scratching their heads.  But please, just follow me though this, Friends…

 

Let me first ask you this: if you’re playing poker with friends and they start ignoring the rules as they’re written or intentionally abusing them in order to “win at all cost;” then will you continue to play with them?  If they’re intentionally, willingly, and knowingly breaking the written rules for their own selfish desires, do you see any logical reason to keep playing under the intentional misinterpretation until your money is gone and you’re indebted to them?  Understand that you didn’t create the rules, men long before you did; and while the rules are nearly perfect as written, that doesn’t mean you’re obligated to play only by those rules, without altering them as would seem to best affect your happiness and prosperity.  Of course another option is that you simply walk away, and never play poker again, or never play with those guys again.  But you love poker, and you love that group of friends; so don’t abandon the game or your friends, simply use your right as one of the bodies who engaged in this pre-constructed pact to assert that you are altering the rules to make it fair and just.

 

From 1787 – 1789, Representatives of the several States, United to create and eventually ratify the Constitution, in order to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” The States created it, so naturally they can “alter or abolish” it at any time. Let me add that I don’t wish to abolish anything, though some altering is in order – because it’s been intentionally misinterpreted, so that rather than “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, et al,” it instead has become a concentration of power, which has evinced a plan “invariably…to reduce us under absolute Despotism.” No, we’re not there yet; but that is the goal of the progressive movement.

 

And I should clarify my intention: it’s not that we shouldn’t adhere to the Constitution, rather we can’t continue to honor its virtues and intended limitations, while our adversaries are skewing its objective to grow its powers and use against us – through venal uses of the “Supremacy,” “Necessary and Proper,” and “General Welfare” clauses, et al. We need to assert our just and ordained power as States (NOT as individuals; that would be insurrection, anarchy, chaos…) to alter our mindset of subjection to it – or ignore the intentional misinterpretations of it.  When congress passes legislation that is detrimental to the efficacy of a States’ internal governance, and outside the enumerated powers granted them in Article I, then “it is our right, it is our duty, to [ignore] such Government…for our future security.” When the President tries to enact an Executive Order upon the States, we tell him to go pound sand, read the Constitution, and understand the limited powers granted him through Article II. When the Supreme Court rules by political leaning instead of Constitutional interpretation, we need not adhere to their folly, rather tell them to give a cursory once-over to Article III, which spells out their purpose and job.  Then, we tell all of them to read the document they’ve sworn to uphold and protect, and to pay especially close attention to Amendments Nine and Ten.

 

The Constitution did not ordain us to live under its constraint for all time, even if it became restrictive to the very Liberty it was created to protect.  It does not command us to be constrained, even while progressives have overtaken the branch charged with interpreting it, which gave way to a new vision of governance, which gave way to a new way of the public interpreting it (through schools replacing thought, logic and reason with indoctrination – teaching its “meaning” or “intent” instead of the document itself; and worse yet, intentionally mis-teaching it), which gave way to a new type of Representative being elected, which gave way to a new way of allowing ourselves to be governed.  It did not make us slaves to the government it created.

 

Yes, it is best to subject ourselves willingly to the power of the government we live under – but only if that government is virtuous, just, trustworthy, and confined to its proper role; protecting property rights and maintaining a moral, decent, and honorable society.  But when our government becomes the suppressor of Liberty instead of its protector, the usurper of wealth instead of its guardian, a roadblock to economic freedom instead of the body charged with ensuring no man or group of men can restrict the free markets through coercion; when instead of ensuring justice for all, it becomes the primary and powerful source of injustice – then only complacent fools would continue to live under such self-imposed serfdom.

 

The Constitution is merely a pact between individual states – i.e. individual nations – with a similar heritage, language, and creed.  It was created solely to create and sustain a government best apt to secure the happiness of the population collectively from outside threats, and maintain domestic tranquility.  It was not created as a document to bind men to a new and concentrated power of government.  Our Founders were far too smart and virtuous for that; too studied in Natural rights and the origins and necessity of Liberty; too reverent to the Supreme Judge of the World.

 

That’s why these people who so whimsically say “our Founders would be shooting by now” show a monstrous ignorance of who our Founders really were.  Who would they be shooting at?  Why would they be shooting?  No, they wouldn’t be shooting, but they would be “altering their Form of Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness,” with the understanding that government “derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.”

 

Yes, the progressives have undoubtedly evinced “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably…to reduce us under absolute Despotism.” However, such has not been “the patient sufferance of these States.” (Seriously – what have we done to alter our suppressive government, besides complain a lot and electe “Republicans” who don’t know the proper role of government either? They’re less likely to usurp our Liberty, but they still don’t know how to set us free.)  And we have notsubmitted facts to a candid world;” we’ve simply worked on some campaigns of – again – people who sounded “better,” but still didn’t truly understand the actions needed to recapture our fleeting Liberty.  So again I’ll ask: why would they be shooting, and at whom?

 

Friends, we may be at the precipice of experiencing a financial collapse the likes of which few, if any, alive have ever known.  And as with most, it is self-imposed and self-created; all because we’ve allowed our government to consolidate powers in one large body, against the warnings of the men who created our Republics.  We have surrendered ourselves, as Thomas Jefferson stated, to “lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.” Simply electing “Republicans” or even “Conservatives” isn’t the answer – we need people who understand the origins of Liberty, and what it takes to protect it. We need those who understand the proper role of government, and aren’t afraid to articulate it, even when belittled by the “educated” and “elite.”

 

I know that many believe nullification to be “dangerous” or “unnecessary” – but I believe our only hope is an agreed upon form of nullification; and it would be best if it came in the form of a Constitutional Amendment to establish its process. That way, the danger of allowing our courts to be involved (which would be illogical, absurd, and dangerous as an obvious conflict of interest) is removed, and it’s unable to be challenged by our over-empowered federal government. I believe a simple majority would be too unstable, and a super majority would be too cumbersome: so I believe that a Constitutional Amendment stating that the Legislatures of 3/5 of the States agreeing to erase an erroneous overstep of Congress would be sufficient.  The Amendment should read something along these lines:

Any law, regulation, or agency, created or established, directly or indirectly, by Congress or any branch or creation of the federal government, not contained within the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8, may be made null and void, nugatory and of no effect, when agreed upon as such by a simple majority of Legislators, in the Legislatures of three fifths of the several States.”

 

Do you find this too “extreme,” or feel it’s unjustified?  Then let me ask you this: if Romney had won the Presidency, and Republicans had as super-majority in the House and 60 seats in the Senate; what would change?  Seriously – what would change??  Would they be working to eliminate federal Medicare and Medicaid, leaving those decisions to the States?  Would they repeal the greatest destructors of jobs and free markets; the EPA and the Interstate Commerce Commission?  Would they get rid of the Department of Education; which hinders the ability of State and local educational bodies to deal with matters of education?  If you answer “yes,” then I believe you’re either overly optimistic, or completely delusional.  And if you answer “no,” then what is your solution if not nullification?

 

And now ask yourself this: where is the justification for any of these programs to be found in the Constitution?

 

Friends, we can either sit by, watch our Republic crumble under the mass of debt, misspending, corruption, usurped powers, immorality, concentration of power, et al – or we can do something about it.  But sitting idly and saying things like “our Founders would be shooting now” or “there’s nothing we can do because of the federal government” is either a misunderstanding of what governance is and what powers we as individuals and States hold, or it is pure lethargy, brought on by complacency, manifesting itself in your willingness to be bonded in slavery.  I for one will not sit idly by and watch this happen.

 

Ronald Reagan said in his “Time for Choosing” speech that “the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.”  Well I hate to burst your bubble, but that doesn’t only apply to our liberal friends.  It applies to anyone who honestly believes we’re subjected to living under this national governance, acting outside its established scope of powers, with no hope or recourse.  If that’s your belief, then you also “know so much that isn’t so.”

Comments

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!





Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

order antabuse online