About an hour ago I had to go out to pick up a couple items at the grocery store and fill up my truck with gas. Something a woman said started the gears rolling in my brain, and by the time I got home I had the basis for the things I’m about to say worked out in my head. But first, a little background.
Some of my readers may have seen pictures of my truck, while others may have seen it at work in the parking lot. For those who haven’t, the rear windows contain a collection of stickers which display, shall we say, a certain level of political activism and distrust of my government. One of them in particular resembles a Danger sign which says Pissed Off Patriot. Anyway, as I was getting gas for my truck a young woman saw that particular sticker and asked what I was so pissed off about. I asked her how much time she had for me to explain. She then asked if I could boil it down to basics. That is the premise upon which this article is based upon, getting down to basics.
Before I continue there is something I would like to toss into the mix, so to speak as I think it somehow ties in to what I wish to say. There has been a lot of discussion on the blogosphere about Rand Paul’s decision to endorse Mitt Romney for President. I don’t care to get too involved in the various theories as to why he did it, I simply want to say WHO CARES? Rand Paul is simply one man, and being a man is entitled to make his own decisions, be they right, or be they wrong. My father used to always tell me, “Don’t worry about what other people do, worry about what you do.”
Sometimes I think people place far too much weight upon what other people think or say, and this is especially true when it comes to who is endorsing a particular political candidate. Honestly, should it matter one bit to you what someone else thinks? Are people incapable of forming a decision of their own without being influenced by the thoughts of other elected officials, their favorite celebrities, or even the news media? Come on people, you were born with a brain that, if utilized, is capable of analyzing facts and coming to conclusions of your own. Honestly, it should make no difference in your decision which candidate Rand Paul chose to endorse. You should stand by your principles regardless of what other people do.
And that is what I am trying to do here, get down to the principles for which each of us stand for. Let’s put aside all the conspiracy talk now and get down to basics. Forget about the evils of the Federal Reserve System, the CFR and the Bilderberg Group, the fact that our government either knew about, or was complicit in the events of 9/11. Forget all these things and let’s get down to basics.
Okay, for starters, do we all agree that, as stated in Article 6, the U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and that all elected officials are bound by oath to support and defend it?
Secondly, do we all agree, that as per Article 5, the amendments which comprise the Bill of Rights were duly ratified and therefore are part and parcel of the Constitution, and therefore, also the Supreme Law of the Land? These two concepts are the foundation upon which everything I believe, and everything I am about to say, rest.
Now, before I go any further, I would like to provide you with 3 statements taken from Supreme Court rulings. The first is from the case of Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee in 1816, and states, “The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction, and no excuse for interpolation or addition.”
The second is from the case of Powell v. McCormack (1969), and states, “The values of the Framers of the Constitution must be applied in any case construing the Constitution. Inferences from the text and history of the Constitution should be given great weight in discerning the original understanding and in determining the intentions of those who ratified the constitution. The precedential value of cases and commentators tends to increase, therefore, in proportion to their proximity to the adoption of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or any other amendments.”
And finally, from Ex parte Milligan, (1866) we read, “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. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of men than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism.”
To paraphrase what I have just provided you, the Constitution was written in a manner so that it could be easily understood by the average citizen. Secondly, the values of the framers of the Constitution were to be given priority when determining matters of constitutionality as opposed to the values of the current crop of elected officials or public sentiment. Finally, the Constitution applies to, and protects all people, particularly when one considers that the safeguarding of their rights is one of the purposes for which government is instituted, (see Declaration of Independence if you don’t believe me).
I, above all things, am a realist, and I understand that this is not a perfect world, and therefore what I am about to say will never happen. When you go out to choose a candidate to represent you in office, be it at the local, state, or federal level, you should first, and foremost, look at what that candidate says and see if what they say they are going to do can be justified by the specific powers granted to government by the Constitution, or if they may violate rights which are protected by the Bill of Rights. If not, in a perfect world, that candidate should not get your vote. It’s that simple, and that complicated.
When I am in the process of choosing a candidate I look to see if what they have done in the past shows that they will support the Constitution, and I look to see if they intend to expand the size and scope of power of government. Our government is already far too big and powerful and anyone who wishes to INCREASE its size, and scope of power, will not get my vote.
Yet for the average person, this is simply too much work, looking through past voting records, taking the time to understand the Constitution and apply it to the things people say they want to do when elected. Unfortunately people want their government to do things for them, to fix problems, protect them, when in reality that is not the purpose for which government was instituted…and therein lays the problem.
In a letter to Hugh Taylor in 1823, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “It is the duty of every good citizen to use all the opportunities which occur to him, for preserving documents relating to the history of our country.” So, by that guideline, are we a nation of good citizens? I think not.
From his Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson also wrote, “It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.”
Finally, Jefferson said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”
So, in getting down to basics, I am pissed off because the people of this country do not seem to know the first thing about how their system of government was supposed to function. I am pissed off because they believe in the two party paradigm, and that we must continually settle for the lesser of two evils when choosing a candidate to represent them.
So, be ye Republican, or be ye Democrats, I am pissed when your party continually provides me with choices, neither of which care the least bit about supporting the Constitution or protecting my inherent inalienable rights.
Is that basic enough for you?