I know I've said this before, but PLEASE! I'm begging you - conservative or liberal - to see things as they really are! Step away from the specific issues just long enough to gain the perspective of principle, then go back into the debate.
Progressives? True progressives - patient communists, and neo-fascists - I don't hold much hope for you to change. But there is that old parable of the Prodigal Son, right? Perhaps a better man than I would hold out hope...
Those who value individual liberty and those who value freedom of conscience, those who value the fruits of their labors and those who respect the fruits of others' labors, those who want to save their family and those who want to save the world? We have to work together now.
Start by reading the Constitution. You on the Left who just tuned out, please tune back in! Read the Bill of Rights. There's nothing in there that you and I can't agree on. Read the Constitution itself. The separation of powers isn't controversial. It's good sense.
The problem that liberals and conservatives have is the impact of extra-constitutional laws, statutes and usurpations that have been enacted in the years between 1789 and today. Beginning with the Alien and Sedition Acts, and culminating in the Patriot Act, the Financial Services Reform Act and the Affordable Care Act, individuals who see themselves as more enlightened than others, who think that they will be doing some great good, or who are greedy for power and who want to control others while carving out fortunes for their cronies have sought to subvert the rights and liberties guaranteed to all people by the Constitution.
We won't go into the issue of slavery here. Suffice it to say that ending slavery was a "deal breaker" for slave states and the pragmatist in each of the Founders allowed them to kick that can "down the road" for later generations to handle. And handle it, they did.
The idea of easy access to abortion is no less offensive to half the country than is the idea of homosexuals being unable to marry each other. I don't want to argue the merits of either here; I just want to acknowledge that we all have deep reactions to really big issues. And the Founders did not envision that the federal government would involve itself in those things.
The Constitution was a contract between the sovereign states and the federal government. It outlined the limits of performances and set expectations. The states recognized that separately they would be easy pickings for imperial powers like Spain, France and England; and at the same time they understood that the interests of a Virginian could be different from those of a New Yorker. And so, the states ratified a Constitution that provided for their common defense and required mutual aid in the case of foreign aggression. They ratified a Constitution that protected the rights and interests of ALL the states in the arena of interstate commerce, protecting against interstate tariffs and embargoes. In exchange for allowing the federal government so much power, the states insisted on retaining the right of self-governance in virtually all other aspects of law.
The Bill of Rights, as the Supreme Law of The Land, was designed to ensure that no government - state or otherwise - would ever infringe upon this very specific, but by no means exclusive, list of natural rights belonging to all mankind.
A full one-fifth of the Bill of Rights is spent in securing first to individuals and second to the states the opportunity and responsibility to regulate EVERYTHING not outlined in the Constitution, and prohibiting any federal government operation outside the confines of that document.
We must work together to put this "genie" that is the federal leviathan back in its bottle. The framers of the Constitution included in Article 5, a provision for amending the Constitution. It may be accomplished in one of two ways. First, Congress can pass amendments and the States can ratify them. Meaningful reform is not likely to come from a body as corrupt and intellectually dishonest as our Congress. It would be indeed biting the hand that feeds it. Second, the state legislatures may convene a meeting for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution. The amendments proposed must then again be ratified by the states.
So, when we talk about a "balanced budget amendment" or imposition of term limits, or a review by the states of significant legislation we aren't likely to see Congress too willing to move in that direction. It would diminish their power and influence over the 330,000,000 serfs they've worked so hard to create these past 100 years or more. It would mean a return to government of and by and for the People.
I would ask you to look into this, and to ask your STATE LEGISLATOR to support the convening of this meeting. It will be a long road, but it is one we had better start on before we go much further down the path to subjection.
Progressives? True progressives - patient communists, and neo-fascists - I don't hold much hope for you to change. But there is that old parable of the Prodigal Son, right? Perhaps a better man than I would hold out hope...
Those who value individual liberty and those who value freedom of conscience, those who value the fruits of their labors and those who respect the fruits of others' labors, those who want to save their family and those who want to save the world? We have to work together now.
Start by reading the Constitution. You on the Left who just tuned out, please tune back in! Read the Bill of Rights. There's nothing in there that you and I can't agree on. Read the Constitution itself. The separation of powers isn't controversial. It's good sense.
The problem that liberals and conservatives have is the impact of extra-constitutional laws, statutes and usurpations that have been enacted in the years between 1789 and today. Beginning with the Alien and Sedition Acts, and culminating in the Patriot Act, the Financial Services Reform Act and the Affordable Care Act, individuals who see themselves as more enlightened than others, who think that they will be doing some great good, or who are greedy for power and who want to control others while carving out fortunes for their cronies have sought to subvert the rights and liberties guaranteed to all people by the Constitution.
We won't go into the issue of slavery here. Suffice it to say that ending slavery was a "deal breaker" for slave states and the pragmatist in each of the Founders allowed them to kick that can "down the road" for later generations to handle. And handle it, they did.
The idea of easy access to abortion is no less offensive to half the country than is the idea of homosexuals being unable to marry each other. I don't want to argue the merits of either here; I just want to acknowledge that we all have deep reactions to really big issues. And the Founders did not envision that the federal government would involve itself in those things.
The Constitution was a contract between the sovereign states and the federal government. It outlined the limits of performances and set expectations. The states recognized that separately they would be easy pickings for imperial powers like Spain, France and England; and at the same time they understood that the interests of a Virginian could be different from those of a New Yorker. And so, the states ratified a Constitution that provided for their common defense and required mutual aid in the case of foreign aggression. They ratified a Constitution that protected the rights and interests of ALL the states in the arena of interstate commerce, protecting against interstate tariffs and embargoes. In exchange for allowing the federal government so much power, the states insisted on retaining the right of self-governance in virtually all other aspects of law.
The Bill of Rights, as the Supreme Law of The Land, was designed to ensure that no government - state or otherwise - would ever infringe upon this very specific, but by no means exclusive, list of natural rights belonging to all mankind.
A full one-fifth of the Bill of Rights is spent in securing first to individuals and second to the states the opportunity and responsibility to regulate EVERYTHING not outlined in the Constitution, and prohibiting any federal government operation outside the confines of that document.
We must work together to put this "genie" that is the federal leviathan back in its bottle. The framers of the Constitution included in Article 5, a provision for amending the Constitution. It may be accomplished in one of two ways. First, Congress can pass amendments and the States can ratify them. Meaningful reform is not likely to come from a body as corrupt and intellectually dishonest as our Congress. It would be indeed biting the hand that feeds it. Second, the state legislatures may convene a meeting for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution. The amendments proposed must then again be ratified by the states.
So, when we talk about a "balanced budget amendment" or imposition of term limits, or a review by the states of significant legislation we aren't likely to see Congress too willing to move in that direction. It would diminish their power and influence over the 330,000,000 serfs they've worked so hard to create these past 100 years or more. It would mean a return to government of and by and for the People.
I would ask you to look into this, and to ask your STATE LEGISLATOR to support the convening of this meeting. It will be a long road, but it is one we had better start on before we go much further down the path to subjection.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment