There Ought To Be A Law

When personal responsibility was a given

No phrase in the American lexicon grates on my nerves more than 'there ought to be a law'. Usually this phrase is uttered by some well meaning, yet ignorant person in response to some sort of perceived injustice. The thought process is that some law should be in place, or proposed to limit the behavior which caused the perceived injustice. The only problem is... this reasoning flies in the face of our system of government.

There are a few inherent flaws with this reasoning, and I'll show you how I came up with this.

1. The United States Constitution was designed to limit the government. It was a document to restrain government from exercising too much power and influence over our lives. The founders understood that 'men are governed best, when they are governed least'. They knew that in order for America to be a prosperous and free nation, men must be able to govern themselves responsibly without interference from some all powerful referee. In the event that man was unable to do so, a justice system was established to settle grievances. However, it was understood that the justice system was a system of last resort. Should free, self-governed men not be able to settle their disputes on their own, the final recourse was to take the matter before a justice of the peace to arbitrate the matter for them. However, by creating laws, inherently freedom is diminished, and the role and power of the government are expanded. If you take away my right to 'X', then you've removed my freedom, and expanded the government's role in policing the enforcement of that removed right.
   


2. I've read through the United States Constitution, and nowhere can I find where it limits citizens rights to, well, anything. There was the 18th Amendment which outlawed the manufacture, transport and sale of liquor, however, that was overturned by the 21st Amendment. Therein lies the beauty of our system of government. The limits were placed solely upon the governing powers and not upon the citizenry. John Adams framed it this way, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." In other words, he knew that in order for our society to exist and flourish, men had to understand that there was a universal right and wrong, and had to accept a morality superior to themselves. Without the ability to do so, the nation would dissolve into chaos and anarchy specifically because there were not (and never intended to be) laws which prohibited behavior of the citizens of the United States. Prohibition by definition is preemption, and preemption does not exist in the Constitution. Our system was set up so that men were free to do whatever they wish, but that they would have to bear the full consequences of their actions. This novel concept is known as personal responsibility. When you create a law which preempts behavior, personal responsibility is limited or removed altogether.
   

Personal responsibility demands people held accountable to their actions. In the event that someone makes a poor choice, our justice system and Judeo-Christian precepts exist to make penance for the error. Sadly, our country long ago moved away from the concept of personal responsibility and instead began to preempt the rights of the citizens. Since that time, our recognition of an absolute moral authority has diminished, and our callousness and disdain for the rights of others has increased. In our nation today, we've eliminated personal responsibility to the point that 4 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices recently ruled against the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. They hold the opinion, contrary to the authors of the Constitution, that in order to prevent violence, the right to hold a gun must be preempted. How far we've fallen from the nearly Utopian society which the founders designed and left to us.

Now, you may be asking yourself, why I felt the need to write this. If your curiosity is so piqued, I would point you to this column by a local newspaper associate editor which is nothing short of breathtaking ignorance on display.

Please take the time to comment! Click the Informed Opinion Link adjacent to the Post Title.

Independence Through The Pens Of Patriots

On this most hallowed of US holidays, it is important to remember those who risked everything to provide for us this free and prosperous nation which we now live in. Here are a few quotes from some of those men regarding the gift which they provided.

God Save our American States!

• "I should, indeed, with peculiar delight, have met and exchanged there congratulations personally with the small band, the remnant of that host of worthies, who joined with us on that day, in the bold and doubtful election we were to make for our country, between submission or the sword; and to have enjoyed with them the consolatory fact, that our fellow citizens, after half a century of experience and prosperity, continue to approve the choice we made. May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These are grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them."
  -Thomas Jefferson, June 24, 1826


• "Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature."
  -Samuel Adams, November 20, 1772


• "The Second Day of July 1776 will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. . . . It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires, and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more."
  -John Adams to Abigail Adams, July 3, 1776


• "The liberties of our Country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have receiv'd them as a fair Inheritance from our worthy Ancestors: They purchas'd them for us with toil and danger and expence of treasure and blood; and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle; or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men. Of the latter we are in most danger at present: Let us therefore be aware of it. Let us contemplate our forefathers and posterity; and resolve to maintain the rights bequeath'd to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. - Instead of sitting down satisfied with the efforts we have already made, which is the wish of our enemies, the necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance. Let us remember that "if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom." It is a very serious consideration, which should deeply impress our minds, that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event."
  -Samuel Adams, October 14, 1771

Do yourself a favor and read What Jefferson Wrought over at RCP.

Please take the time to comment! Click the Informed Opinion Link adjacent to the Post Title.

Quotes From Radicals

Quotes from radicals about people, their guns and their government.

1. "Government is not reason, nor eloquence. It is force. And like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master."
2. "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."
3. "I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."
4. “"The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation – enlightened as it is – if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men."
5. "A government of laws, and not of men."
6. "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
7. “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.”
8. "It's not tyranny we desire; it's a just, limited, federal government."
9. "Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
10. "If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."
11. "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
12. "It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it."
13. "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
14. "This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins."
15. "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."

Inspired by Bill Whittle's latest installment of 'Afterburner,' I have collected these quotes to share how the founders felt about the right to bear arms and government intrusion within our lives. Today's Tea Party Activists share these same ideals and yet are ridiculed as being out of touch with the traditional American ideal of tolerance and a reserved nature. In fact, tolerance for any government intrusion is not in accordance with any American ideal, nor is it how our founding fathers professed to believe. Our founding fathers warned against a strong central government and it's inevitable path toward tyranny. We are responsible to ourselves, our deity and to our fellow man. We are not responsible to a government. The government was initiated to be responsible to the citizens of this nation. The constitution was written to be an inhibitor of government power, not an advocacy for it. Unless people begin to understand the founding of this nation and the restrictions that were set upon the government, then we are doomed to a fate of lost liberties and the eventual loss of our republic.

The catalyst for the American Revolution was the passage of the Intolerable Acts. These acts consisted of five separate acts which reduced freedom and increased government influence in people's daily lives. Here they are listed:

• The Boston Port Act: a response to the actions of the Boston Tea Party which was a rebellion against the crown's mandate that a certain good must be purchased by an imposed vendor. The act served to close the port of Boston, handicapping the cities ability to conduct business.
  
• The Massachusetts Act: dictated local government and ruling class positions were to be decided by the King. It also restricted the ability of people to gather together in meetings.
  
• The Administration of Justice Act: gave governors the ability to relocate trials for accused officials to another colony or even to England itself if the governor felt that the official could not receive a fair trial. It served to allow government officials to get away with crimes as often the victims in the case could not take time away from work to participate in the trial.
  
• The Quartering Act: gave governors and officials increased power to mandate the location for housing soldiers. The mandate included homes of colonialists.
  
• The Quebec Act: unrelated to the Boston Tea Party, this act expanded the borders of the Canadian colony, removed mentions of the protestant faith from oaths of allegiance and expanded the practice of Roman Catholicism. It served to remove land which had belonged to the colonies and was governed by a representative legislature to a non-representative government.
  

Imposed restrictions upon the peoples ability to conduct free enterprise; the appointment of non-elected governing officials; the governing class walking away from crimes unpunished; the coerced use of private property for public/government use; increased non-representative government. Do any of these sound familiar? The founders and many colonialists found this to be tyranny, do we?

The authors of the above 'radical' quotes are listed in order below.

1. George Washington
2. George Washington
3. Thomas Jefferson
4. Samuel Adams
5. John Adams
6. Thomas Jefferson
7. George Washington
8. Alexander Hamilton
9. Thomas Paine
10. George Washington
11. Benjamin Franklin
12. George Washington
13. Thomas Jefferson
14. Benjamin Franklin
15. Thomas Paine

I'll leave you with one final and quite popular quote from the author of the Declaration of Independence and the third President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson:

What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Please take the time to comment! Click the Informed Opinion Link adjacent to the Post Title.

Separation of Church and State

 Thomas Jefferson

These are some of the most powerful words NOT found in the United States Constitution. What makes them so powerful? The complete and utter misconception that they are law. For those of you who are not familiar with the concept of separation, follow along as I show it's beginnings and the latest, twisted example of Thomas Jefferson's promise.

Before we get started, I want to put up some reference material which will be important to the blog post. It is the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

James Madison is the man who actually penned the first ten amendments to the Constitution, however, it is Jefferson who is primarily responsible for the concept of the separation of church and state that we know today. During 1801 and 1802, Thomas Jefferson was corresponding with a group of Baptists in Danbury, CT named Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins and Stephen S. Nelson. The Baptists, concerned with political interference in the practice of their religion (i.e. the reason they left Europe) and with the fact that the Constitution did not specifically list freedom of religion as an 'inalienable right,' just as a freedom not to be prohibited, wrote a letter to President Thomas Jefferson expressing their concerns. It should be emphasized that their concern was for the free practice of religion, not the protection from religion.

In his return letter to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson reaffirmed the protection granted by the Bill of Rights for the free practice of religion and declared that the First Amendment in essence buil[t] a wall of separation between Church & State. Jefferson's intent, as well the pleadings of the Baptists are crystal clear. The First Amendment of the United States was written to protect the ability to practice an individuals religion of choice without interference from the Government. It is not implied nor intended to provide freedom from religion, but instead freedom of religion. However, early in the 20th century as progressives established themselves within the power structure of the United States government, they began to slowly redefine the very definitions of ideas and statutes given in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Separation of church and state shifted from a protection of the church to a protection for the state.

Fast forward to the 2000's. An attorney, emergency physician and atheist named Michael Newdow filed a lawsuit attempting to remove the phrase 'Under God' from the pledge of allegiance as it was alleged to be a violation of the separation of church and state. In an initial ruling on Newdow vs. United States Congress, Elk Grove Unified School District, et. al., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the phrase 'Under God' constituted an endorsement of religion and therefore violated the First Amendment's prohibition of respecting religion, also known as the Establishment Clause. Michael Newdow brought the lawsuit on behalf of his daughter, of whom he did not have primary custody. When the ruling of the 9th Circuit was appealed to the Supreme Court, the USSC ruled that Newdow did not have primary custody of his daughter and therefore did not have standing to allege that the recitation of the Pledge was a violation of the Establishment Clause.

In 2005 a new lawsuit was filed in US District Court on behalf of three unnamed families, challenging the legality of the 'Under God' phrase within the Pledge. From Wikipedia:

Judge Karlton issued an Order stating that, upon proper motion, he will enjoin the school district defendants from continuing their practices of leading children in pledging allegiance to "one Nation under God." The case was later appealed to the Ninth Circuit under Newdow v. Carey...

Which brings us to today... er, more specifically, yesterday.

A federal appeals court in San Francisco upheld the use of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency, rejecting arguments on Thursday that the phrases violate the separation of church and state.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected two legal challenges by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who claimed the references to God disrespect his religious beliefs.

"The Pledge is constitutional," Judge Carlos Bea wrote for the majority in the 2-1 ruling. "The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded."

Atheist blogger Allahpundit sums up the opinion in his post:

Where, as here, compulsion to recite is absent, government action respects an establishment of religion only if the government coerces students to engage in a religious exercise. Coercion to engage in a patriotic activity, like the Pledge of Allegiance, does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court recognized this distinction in the earliest of the school prayer cases, Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962). In Engel, the Court considered a school’s policy directing children to say aloud a prayer written by state officials. The Court found this policy violated the Establishment Clause because “[the] program of daily classroom invocation of God’s blessings as prescribed in the Regents’ prayer is a religious activity. It is a solemn avowal of divine faith and supplication for the blessings of the Almighty. The nature of such a prayer has always been religious.” Id. at 424-25. The Court was also careful, however, to distinguish the prayer in Engel from a ceremonial reference to God in a footnote…

In other words, the Establishment Clause is violated only if (a) you’re forced to praise God or (b) forced to listen to someone else praise God in the context of a prayer. No prayer + no compulsion = no problemo!

I'll save you from the dissenting opinion by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, but you can read it here if you are so inclined, all 130 pages of it.

The flaw in the reasoning of 'Under God' dissenters is and always has been that some how the recitation of God's name makes you religious or constitutes the practice of religion. Saying God's name no more makes you religious than saying the word plane makes you a pilot. Reciting the phrase 'Under God' no more constitutes the practice of religion than looking at a plane makes you a passenger on that plane.

However, this and every issue of the recitation of God's name along with every public Christmas display would be a non-issue for evermore if people truly understood the origins of the separation between church and state. I would argue that James Madison and Thomas Jefferson would grieve and openly weep were they able to see how their words have been twisted into a justification for the war being waged on religion in this nation today.

What's your opinion? Is the phrase 'Under God' in the pledge of allegiance unconstitutional? Is 'Under God' controversial? Let me know in the comments!

Please take the time to comment! Click the Comment Link adjacent to the Post Title.

Rockin' Like It's 1776

That sound you just heard was Glenn Beck popping a boner...

>

I may be the last to the party, but this has to be one of the single best things I have ever witnessed on the web. Except for the Reh Dogg video below, of course...

Original video here. And here.

Please take the time to comment!