"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
Patrick Henry
"Resistance to tyrants is obedience
to God."
Thomas Jefferson
"Necessity is the plea for every
infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed
of slaves."
William Pitt
"A wise and frugal government, which
shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them
otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement,
and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This
is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle
of our felicity."
Thomas Jefferson
"Any people that would give up
liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor
safety." Benjamin Franklin
"Generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what
the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do
to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government
must do on your behalf."
Barack Obama
There are a lot of people who think the U.S. Constitution is an obsolete document; that since it was written over 200 years ago, it's not really feasible to apply it to today's issues. I think that, if the last few weeks show us anything, it's that The Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, and the beliefs of the Founding Fathers, are more relevant than ever. As Patrick Henry stated in the quote above, the purpose of the constitution, is to restrain or limit the power of government; to shield the people from overreaching, tyrannical government. The quote by President Obama, proves that he understands this; he just thinks it's a bad thing. There's so much more that government could do, but, The Constitution forbids it. So, he ignores The Constitution; out of "necessity". We "need" to provide health care for everyone, so it's acceptable to force the people into buying it, for themselves and those who can't afford it. We need to make sure everyone has a home, food, cell phones, high speed Internet, and a college education, so it's OK to force one half of the people to provide these things to the other half. We need to be sure Muslims and nonbelievers aren't offended, so it's OK to restrain the religious freedoms of Christians. We need to provide free birth control to anyone who wants it, so it's OK to force the Catholic Church to pay for it, which violates their beliefs. We need to catch terrorists and other criminals, so we must allow TSA agents to search the genitals of airline passengers, we must allow the government free access to the private phone records and emails of citizens without requiring them to show constitutional probable cause, and we must wave constitutional protection for any citizen that president decides is an enemy combatant. We "need" the government to protect us from everything, including ourselves; and, as William Pitt said of necessity, "It is the argument of tyrants" and "the creed of slaves".We have traded so much of our liberty, in exchange for what we were told was safety and, as Ben Franklin said, we now, "deserve neither"; and that's exactly what we've received. The key word in the last couple of statements is "we"; we the people have allowed this to happen; in many cases, "we've" willingly surrendered our freedom or asked government to take it. No, I don't like Barack Obama, I think he's arrogant, destructive, un-American, and a tyrant. But, to blame all this on Obama and the Democrats is ignorant and cowardly. I think our two party political system is the root of all evil, and is destroying our nation. For decades, both parties have been equally willing to violate the constitution and infringe on the freedom of the people, so long as it furthered their agenda. "We" the people have looked the other way, or encouraged them, if they were members of our party. The federal government has absolutely no constitutional authority to intervene in the affairs of private business, with the exception of regulating foreign trade and interstate commerce. But, Richard Nixon and the Republicans created OSHA and unleashed it on the private sector over 40 years ago. "We" tolerated it because we "need" to keep workers safe. The tenth amendment to the constitution says:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
I'm not a constitutional scholar, but it's not a long document, and I can read. No where, does it delegate authority for worker's safety to the federal government. Michele Obama is widely criticized for telling us what to eat, particularly, what to feed our kids. But, George W. Bush and the Republican congress gave us "No Child Left Behind", which legally defined what we can feed our kids when they're at school. "We" "need" healthy kids. But again, there's not a word in the constitution that gives the federal government any authority to oversee the diets of our kids or to intervene in education. As for the daily revelations of the government seizing phone records, emails, Internet browsing histories, and spying on us with camera drones, Senator Harry Reid said yesterday, that everyone just needs to calm down, because this stuff has been going on for years; and he's right. Well, I don't think we need to calm down, but, it has been going on for years; and Obama didn't start it. After the attack on 9/11, Americans were, rightly, scared. President Bush seized on this fear and passed "The Patriot Act". We were told that it would force law enforcement agencies to share information, which would help prevent future terrorist attacks; all of which sounds sensible. However, it also did a lot of other things. The Patriot Act, authorized government to obtain warrants for "roving wire taps", which means the warrant can apply to multiple of infinite phone lines. That's how they show justify seizing the phone records of hundreds of millions of people. How do you show probable cause for seizing that number or records? The act also allows government to obtain a warrant and conduct surveillance on people without being required to tell them; as was the case with Fox reporter James Rosen. The Patriot Act also expanded the number of judges that can issue these warrants; allowing the justice department to go shopping for judges, as they did in the Rosen case, until they find one that agrees; in the Rosen case, it took 3 judges before one bit.
The point of that boring history lesson is that; "we", all of us, elected the government that has committed these violations of our constitutional rights. And, regardless of any Supreme Court decision, they are, clearly, violations of the constitution.
Amendment I
"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."
Is the IRS, EPA, and OSHA intimidation and harassment of Tea Party groups, not a violation of their rights to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government? Is forcing the Catholic Church to provide birth control to it's employees, not a prohibition of the free exercise of their religion?
Amendment II
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Are laws that make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to buy guns, or that restrict the type and capacity of guns, not an infringement or the right to keep and bear arms?
Amendment IV
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Is the seizure of the personal data and records of millions of people, not unreasonable? Has a sworn oath of probable cause for seizing my phone records, emails, and Internet activity been given?
Amendment X
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Has the federal government not infringed on thousands of rights, which were reserved to the states or the people?
Maybe The Constitution needs some changes. We have a process for that, and it's been done before. But, if the government is not bound or restrained by The Constitution, the the only thing left to govern us is despotism. The founding fathers foresaw this possibility, and Thomas Jefferson wrote in The Declaration of Independence:
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
There's no doubt in my mind what the founders would do, and political party or affiliation would never enter the conversation. The question is: What are we gonna do? Whatever the answer is, we better get started.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
I'm not a constitutional scholar, but it's not a long document, and I can read. No where, does it delegate authority for worker's safety to the federal government. Michele Obama is widely criticized for telling us what to eat, particularly, what to feed our kids. But, George W. Bush and the Republican congress gave us "No Child Left Behind", which legally defined what we can feed our kids when they're at school. "We" "need" healthy kids. But again, there's not a word in the constitution that gives the federal government any authority to oversee the diets of our kids or to intervene in education. As for the daily revelations of the government seizing phone records, emails, Internet browsing histories, and spying on us with camera drones, Senator Harry Reid said yesterday, that everyone just needs to calm down, because this stuff has been going on for years; and he's right. Well, I don't think we need to calm down, but, it has been going on for years; and Obama didn't start it. After the attack on 9/11, Americans were, rightly, scared. President Bush seized on this fear and passed "The Patriot Act". We were told that it would force law enforcement agencies to share information, which would help prevent future terrorist attacks; all of which sounds sensible. However, it also did a lot of other things. The Patriot Act, authorized government to obtain warrants for "roving wire taps", which means the warrant can apply to multiple of infinite phone lines. That's how they show justify seizing the phone records of hundreds of millions of people. How do you show probable cause for seizing that number or records? The act also allows government to obtain a warrant and conduct surveillance on people without being required to tell them; as was the case with Fox reporter James Rosen. The Patriot Act also expanded the number of judges that can issue these warrants; allowing the justice department to go shopping for judges, as they did in the Rosen case, until they find one that agrees; in the Rosen case, it took 3 judges before one bit.
The point of that boring history lesson is that; "we", all of us, elected the government that has committed these violations of our constitutional rights. And, regardless of any Supreme Court decision, they are, clearly, violations of the constitution.
Amendment I
"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."
Is the IRS, EPA, and OSHA intimidation and harassment of Tea Party groups, not a violation of their rights to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government? Is forcing the Catholic Church to provide birth control to it's employees, not a prohibition of the free exercise of their religion?
Amendment II
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Are laws that make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to buy guns, or that restrict the type and capacity of guns, not an infringement or the right to keep and bear arms?
Amendment IV
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Is the seizure of the personal data and records of millions of people, not unreasonable? Has a sworn oath of probable cause for seizing my phone records, emails, and Internet activity been given?
Amendment X
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Has the federal government not infringed on thousands of rights, which were reserved to the states or the people?
Maybe The Constitution needs some changes. We have a process for that, and it's been done before. But, if the government is not bound or restrained by The Constitution, the the only thing left to govern us is despotism. The founding fathers foresaw this possibility, and Thomas Jefferson wrote in The Declaration of Independence:
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
There's no doubt in my mind what the founders would do, and political party or affiliation would never enter the conversation. The question is: What are we gonna do? Whatever the answer is, we better get started.
No comments:
Post a Comment