Let’s be truthful, you hate it when someone lies to you, don’t you? When someone lies to you their trustworthiness goes down quite a few notches, and you find everything they say after the lie suspect. Sometimes, if the lie is serious enough, it can break apart relationships and friendships.
Why is it then that you continue to believe in lies? Why is it that you lie to yourself all the time? Why is it that when someone brings you evidence of these lies, you become angry and refuse to accept it? If the truth is so important coming from others, why do you refuse to be truthful with yourself?
I recently read an article which stated that the Millennial Generation does not believe so much in political parties, but in political causes. The article also said that Millennial also have a high level of distrust in government.
While I am all for a healthy dose of distrust in government, I am leery of letting causes, or issues, become the deciding factor in whom you cast your votes for. Unfortunately, I do not believe that causes are confined to Millennials when deciding whom to vote for; I think most voters have a mental checklist of causes in their heads, and they compare how a candidate stands in regards to these causes, or issues, and votes for the one who comes closest to their own personal beliefs.
I can almost hear your voices now; “What the hell is wrong with that Neal?” Well, if you’ll bear with me, I will tell you what is wrong with that. While there is absolutely nothing wrong with believing in a cause, there is something wrong in casting your votes for those to fill seats of power in the federal government who promise to support, or push forward your particular cause.
People have grown up being taught that America is a democracy…it is not! We are, or we were anyway, a Constitutional Republic. An absolute democracy is where the great body of the people come together to legislate; and a simple majority is all that is required to enact law. A representative remocracy is where we elect representatives to meet together to enact laws on our behalf; but the same simple majority rule applies.
A Constitutional Republic, on the other hand, is similar to a representative democracy but differs in that the government established by the people is bound by law as to what it can and cannot do. Causes should not even enter into the equation when casting your votes; all that should matter is how well you believe that candidate will adhere to the limits imposed upon the powers granted the office they seek by the Constitution.
People today believe that the government exists to benefit them; that could not be further from the truth. At the time the Constitution was written, each State was a nation unto itself and the Constitution was written to establish a government that would serve the purposes found within the Preamble to that document, “… 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 Constitution was not written to be a panacea for the ills of society, or to provide for the specific needs of the people; it was established to manage to overall needs of the nation as a whole. The State governments were already in existence, and it was their function to provide for the needs of the people; the federal government was just there to ensure that the nation was defended, commerce was regulated so as to flow smoothly from point of manufacture to point of sale, and that the liberty of all were secured. Everything else was left to the States to accomplish.
In Federalist 45 James Madison explained that principle as follows, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
History teaches that government, under whatever shape it takes, is of an encroaching nature; that is to say that no matter the intentions of those who establish a system of government, over time that government will seek to expand its power and control over the people it governs.
IT DOES NOT HELP THAT YOU ACTIVELY SEEK TO HAND MORE POWER TO THEM BY ASKING THEM TO SUPPORT YOUR CAUSE!!!
On June 5, 1788 Patrick Henry stated something I wish more people took to heart, “You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government.” In seeking whom to cast your votes for, the preservation of your liberty should be the ONLY cause you seek to push forward.
James Madison is known as the Father of our Constitution. It was his idea to hold the convention which threw the Articles of Confederation onto the trash heap and replace them with the Constitution. It was his original outline for our system of government that forms the foundation of the system found within the Constitution. It was he, along with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, who wrote the Federalist Papers in support of the Constitution.
Although his motives may be questionable, his words, or promises regarding the nature, structure, and powers given the government by this Constitution should be given a serious amount of consideration when deciding whether the things our government currently does are allowed by the document he is responsible for.
In a speech on the House of Representatives in 1794, Madison said, “The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
In a letter to James Monroe he declares, “There is no maxim in my opinion which is more liable to be misapplied, which therefore needs elucidation than the current one that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong…In fact it is only reestablishing under another name and a more specious form, force as the measure of right…”
In an 1830 letter to A. Stevenson, Madison warns, “As the people of the United States enjoy the great merit of having established a system of Government on the basis of human rights, and of giving it a form without example, which, as they believe, unites the greatest national strength with the best security for public order and individual liberty, they owe to themselves, to their posterity and to the world, a preservation of the system in its purity, its symmetry, and its authenticity.”
And, as president, he declared the following when he vetoed a bill granting bounties, [subsidies] to the cod fisheries, “If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress… Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”
I can’t count the discussions, or arguments if you wish to call them that, I have had with people on both sides of the political spectrum on the limited authority granted government. Just the other night, (and I’m not criticizing this individual), someone said that Bernie Sanders would have been a better president than Trump because he ‘cares about the people.’ Sanders could be Mother Theresa for all I care, that does not give him the authority to exceed the specific powers granted government by the Constitution!
The same can be said to those on the other side of the aisle who are Trump supporters. Ya’ll claim that he is a whole lot better than the other option you had; Hillary. Yet how much of how he is getting these things done and what he is attempting to do violates the Constitution?
It doesn’t seem to matter, and this goes for both Republicans and Democrats, that the things their side is doing violates the Constitution. The only thing that matters is the causes their side is fighting for. My question is, which party fights to defend the liberty of the people which government was established to secure?
Listen, we either have a Constitution, which limits governmental power, or we don’t. You cannot cherry pick the parts you want to see upheld and ignore the rest; it either applies in its entirety, or it is null and void in its entirety. But, if it is null and void, then so is the government as well, for without the Constitution that government would not exist.
And, since one of the purposes for which that system of government was established is to secure liberty, then we either have rights in their entirety, or we have lost them and are slaves. Again, you cannot cherry pick which rights you wish to see limited and which you wish to see fully protected.
I either have freedom of speech or I don’t. I can either say things which others find offensive, or the freedom of speech is dependent upon the shifting tides of political correctness.
I either have the right to keep and bear arms or I don’t. I should not be limited as to what type arms I choose to keep, or be required to pay for a permit to carry them for my personal defense.
I either have the right to privacy or I don’t. Either I can retreat into my home and be free from prying eyes and ears, or the government can look and listen in on everything I do in the name of national security.
You might say that this is too harsh; too black and white; that it leaves no leeway for interpretation. You’re damned right I’m saying that; my rights are absolute; they weren’t gifts given me by my government, and therefore subject to their interpretation as to the extent I can enjoy them. As Jefferson so perfectly said, “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.”
Judge Hugo Black also said, “It is my belief that there are ‘absolutes’ in our Bill of Rights, and that they were put there on purpose by men who knew what the words meant and meant their prohibitions to be ‘absolutes’.” So you see, my black and white outlook, while uncommon today, is not without support.
In his Farewell Address to the people, George Washington warned, “If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”
If you think government should have the power to enact laws which further your cause, then the only legitimate way they could do that is if the Constitution were amended to grant them the power to do so. However, as the Constitution has not been amended; granting government a wide array of powers, to exercise those powers violates the Constitution; which just happens to be a law, “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances.” (Supreme Court, Ex parte Milligan, 1866)
And what do we call those who break the law? It does not matter that they are acting upon the wishes of a majority, we are not a democracy; we are a Republic where the rule of law dictates what our government can and cannot do.
And this is the lie you keep telling yourselves; that your party is right and the other party wrong when it comes to what is best for America and for we the people. What is best for America is for government to do the things it was supposed to do, and return the authority and sovereignty back to the States where it belongs.
But we all know that ain’t gonna happen, don’t we? After all, that same government led our nation into a bloody war which saw more than half a million Americans die, (more than World War II), just to establish its supremacy over the States.
And as long as people still place their causes over their liberty, not a damned thing is going to change in this country. It may get better or worse from your perspective as it pertains to your causes, but from the aspect of how much personal liberty you enjoy, it will only get worse.
And THAT is the truth which you refuse to accept.