Say someone of prominence began running ads on the television, paid for with his own money, telling people that they are the boss, that the government works for them and that if they believe a law to be unconstitutional, that they are not obligated to obey it, how do you think the government would react? Do you think that the FCC, (Federal Communications Commission) would allow those ads to air? Do you think that this individual would be allowed to spread his anti-government rhetoric without being silenced?
How do you think our government would react were a prominent man get on national TV and say that the liberties of our country and the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards; and that it is our DUTY to defend them against all attacks? Or what if this person said that whenever a government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was created that it is the right of the people to abolish said government?
This man would be considered a person whose ideas were both radical and dangerous to the fabric of society. Yet those two quotes came from two founders of this nation, Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams, with one being found in our Declaration of Independence. So what has changed? The Constitution, although it has been amended numerous times, remains as the framework for our government, its limitations upon their authority remain in place. The ONLY thing that has changed is the attitude and beliefs of the people who inhabit this country as to the purpose of their government.
We are not taught the true nature and purpose of our government in our schools. We are not taught to cherish the liberty and rights that our founders fought and died preserving for us. Why is that so? It is so because the government, by way of the Department of Education, sets the standards for the curriculum of our schools. The government tells our school systems what we can be taught, and that is why so many people mistakenly believe that we are a democracy, a system where the majority rules. While it is true that the majority does rule, it must be according to the law, with the Constitution being the law that limits the areas upon which our government may enact legislation to a few specific general areas, not an all-encompassing array of laws designed to control and regulate our lives.
We have all heard the term fear mongering, the spreading of fear in order to garner support for a position or piece of legislation. Both political parties are guilty of using it to gain support for their agendas. Under this so-called War on Terror we have seen numerous laws passed, and bureaucracies established to protect us from these terrorists.
In Federalist 8, written by Alexander Hamilton, we read, “Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.”
Had we not been conditioned to believe that we face possible threats to our safety and security, would we have accepted these intrusive searches prior to boarding an airplane? I think not. Yet because we have been told that the threat does exist, we meekly have surrendered our Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches.
People are so complacent, so apathetic, that they no longer are to take the time to understand their Constitution, to discover the intent of the founders in establishing our system of government, based upon the preservation of our rights and our liberty.
In Federalist 26 we read “IT WAS a thing hardly to be expected that in a popular revolution the minds of men should stop at that happy mean which marks the salutary boundary between POWER and PRIVILEGE, and combines the energy of government with the security of private rights. A failure in this delicate and important point is the great source of the inconveniences we experience, and if we are not cautious to avoid a repetition of the error, in our future attempts to rectify and ameliorate our system, we may travel from one chimerical project to another; we may try change after change; but we shall never be likely to make any material change for the better.”
You see, as long as the people of this country continue to believe that their government is within their Constitutional authority, nothing is going to change. People must learn what limits the Constitution imposes upon government, and then be ready and willing to hold their representatives accountable to it.
Federalist 15 states, “Government implies the power of making laws. It is essential to the idea of a law, that it be attended with a sanction; or, in other words, a penalty or punishment for disobedience. If there be no penalty annexed to disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to be laws will, in fact, amount to nothing more than advice or recommendation.” But what if the government is the one who is in violation of the law, what sanction, or penalty can we the people impose upon them for their actions?
Federalist 48 states, “Will it be sufficient to mark, with precision, the boundaries of these departments, in the constitution of the government, and to trust to these parchment barriers against the encroaching spirit of power? This is the security which appears to have been principally relied on by the compilers of most of the American constitutions. But experience assures us, that the efficacy of the provision has been greatly overrated; and that some more adequate defense is indispensably necessary for the more feeble, against the more powerful, members of the government. The legislative department is everywhere extending the sphere of its activity, and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.”
Finally, in Federalist 78 we read, “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.
If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents.”
We the people of this country have all the power, not the government, although that is not what they would like you to believe. It is only by our good graces that they have any authority over our lives. As long as we remain complacent, they will remain free to expand their powers, and limit our rights.
It is my belief that our country is speeding towards a crisis of monumental proportions. There is an awakening going on in which the people are finally beginning to realize that their government has assumed powers it was never intended they possess. Also, I believe that our government realizes that they have totally screwed things up in this country, and that they are scurrying to cover their own asses and prepare for an uprising of angry citizens.
Whether or not we can take back our nation from those who have stripped us of our rights and turned our country into the mess it has become is yet to be seen. I don’t see it happening, but that is just my point of view. I do know that as time goes on, people such as myself who speak out against the policies and actions of my government will be vilified and condemned with increasing vehemence. As the French philosopher Voltaire once said, “It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.”