Tag: Constitution

Losing My Freedoms

No Comments

October 20, 2010 at 9:56 amCategory:Freedoms

constitution

The government of the United States of America exists for one purpose, according to the Declaration of Independence: to secure the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, endowed to every individual by their Creator. The people who adopted this profound declaration also wrote and adopted another document: the Constitution of the United States of America. Remember all those?

The Declaration of Independence declares the purpose of government; the Constitution declares the source and limit of power entrusted to the new government by its creators.

Today's sad reality is that government no longer "secures the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" for every individual. The purpose of government today is to dictate to every individual what he may or may not do, and to impose a fee for the privilege of doing it.

The people who created the United States wanted their government to defend them from invading enemies. They wanted a system of law that dealt justice equally. They wanted a system of standard weights and measures and money to facilitate free and fair trade among the people.

They did not want their government involved in their personal affairs. In fact, the Constitution says quite explicitly that no government official may enter the private property of an individual without a warrant signed by a judge, after a sworn affidavit of probable cause of a crime.

This has changed.  Now, no one questions the Environmental Protection Agency official who can show up on your property to declare that the ditch you are digging is polluting the waters of the United States.

Most employees of the Department of Agriculture – and too many in Congress – believe that government has every right to send its agents onto a private farm to count the number of livestock animals, to retrieve all sorts of information about the source age, and movements of these animals and to require the owner to report his activities to the government on a regular basis.

The Constitution was not amended; how did the government gain all this new, unspecified power?  As long as government honors the constitutional prohibition from entering private property without a properly executed warrant, the people are in control of government. The moment government successfully violates this limitation, government is in control of the people.

Since the 1990s,  "Sustainable Communities"  have sprung up, which are cages that contain people who must live precisely as government dictates.  They are defined by comprehensive plans, often mandated by state government through laws and state requirements that must be met by private owners. Failure to conform to these requirements can mean fines, jail and even the confiscation of property.

How does a nation of people thirsting for freedom so fervently that they were willing to fight the king of England to win it, move to a nation of people that allow its government to impose far more onerous taxes and living restrictions than the king of England ever did? Not only does this nation now allow its government to impose these unauthorized powers, many people celebrate the new "sustainable" (read: government-managed) society.

The moment the United States government gained and began to exercise control over its people is the moment the United States began its descent. The nation is no longer the sum total of the pursuit of happiness of its individuals, but is becoming the managed product of the current power brokers.

The moment the people realize that government control is extinguishing their freedom is the moment revolution is kindled. This moment occurred the first time in 1776.  The current losses of freedom to well-meaning (or maybe not) central planners will – sooner or later – have to answer to and finally yield to the unstoppable power of free people.

But when will they wake up? I fear it will be way too late.

When America began its descent — Henry Lamb
Share

Liberal Thinking

No Comments

October 16, 2010 at 8:38 amCategory:Uncategorized

Ken BlackwellCongressman Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) was being pressed in a live TV debate, and that is how it happened that he blurted out the truth.

Here’s a portion of what very liberal Mr. McGovern said:

    We have a lousy Supreme Court decision [in the Citizens United case] that has opened the floodgates, and so we have to deal within the realm of constitutionality. And a lot of the campaign finance bills that we have passed have been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I think the Constitution is wrong. I don’t think that money is the same thing as human beings."

While it is fine to disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court, it is a dangerous thing to say the Constitution itself is wrong.

Did Mr. McGovern take an oath to support the U.S. Constitution? Does he consider himself bound by his oath?

Read more…
– Ken Blackwell, What Liberals Really Think

Share

Private Property is Private

No Comments

August 29, 2010 at 8:40 amCategory:Uncategorized

Joseph PhillipsThe right to private property was one of the central issues involved in the American Revolution. The colonists’ cries of “taxation without representation” were but protests of what they saw as an unjust taking of private property.

The founders, of course, did not understand property simply to mean one’s possessions. Property was understood to include the fruit of one’s labor; it included a man’s conscience—the things he believed and thought, and the ideals he held dear.

James Madison wrote that individuals have a property, “In their opinions and the free exercise of them.” As well as “a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions and in the profession and practice dictated by them.” In short, “as man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.”

Some Americans continue to share the belief that the right to private property is sacrosanct–other Americans, not so much.

In a 2001 radio interview, a young Barack Obama lamented that the Warren Court had not been more radical and had not addressed the redistribution of wealth, which is to say the redistribution of private property.

Obama continued to opine that the Constitution was a charter of “negative liberties,” which failed to declare, “What the federal or state government must do on your behalf.”

The truth is that when read through the lens of the Declaration, the Constitution lays out how the government will carry out its mission — protecting each citizen’s private property!

– read full article by Joseph C Phillips at Townhall

Share