This is the final installment [of] my three part report on the Intercollegiate Studies Institute’s one day conference on The Roots of American Order. So here is part two of mine titled Lift a Glass to the Past: America Rooted in Tradition or a New Covenant? (Click for parts one and two)

After a break for lunch, Mark C. Henrie took up America’s Britishness. Henrie wrote the ISI’s A Student’s Guide to the Core Curriculum that explains the value of a traditional core of studies in Western civilization and his session reflected that study.

Capitalizing on Birzer’s citation of Edmund Burke who praised the colonist’s essential Britishness, Henrie made the point that America is best understood not as a break from tradition but as the culmination of a long series of continuous ideals that range back through Western history, specifically through England.

Henrie says that we get four essentials from England.

1. The English language and literature
2. The common law and a respect for the rule of law
3. A desire for self government
4. Manners and a social order

One of the questions that researchers have often wondered is why American English and British English are essentially the same? Why didn’t America reinvent English for its own purposes in the same way the Dutch altered German, for instance? Henrie says that the reason is that the focal point of language in the colonies was contained in the King James Bible and that pervasive reliance on a single source of language arrested any development of a widely diverging American version of English. We Americans inherited the English language through the Bible.

Next Henrie talked of our ideals of law. As an example of the American focus on the law, Henrie notes that Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Common Law was more popular per capita in the colonies than it was in England. He also said that it was likely that the ideals of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” came from Blackstone.

Our ideals of self-government are also a British idea. Accordingly, Officials in Parliament were initially elected from their own local areas and sent to Parliament to represent the nation just as we continued to do in Congress.

In the Q and A afterwards, though, I noted that one of the reasons that the Crown couldn’t understand our point of view on representation in Parliament was because we took our representation a tad farther than the British did.

In England, once elected to Parliament it was expected that those that took their seat were to stop worrying about representing their home turf and consider themselves as representatives of the whole of Britain. On the other hand, since we in America were so geographically isolated and since we did not initially have here a national body in which to sit, we had a higher expectation that our local representatives would go into colonial government to represent the views of those that elected them. In many cases, Americans bound their representatives to the voters and allowed them little room for maneuver while members of the House of Commons in Britain had no expectation at all that their constituents back home would control their efforts in Parliament in any way.

So, when Americans expected to have an actual seat at the table in Parliament where our own officials might sit to represent us, British officials deemed such a thing unnecessary because all of Parliament sat in virtual representation of the whole of the Empire. The Crown simply saw no reason for Americans to sit in Parliament but this was an abrogation of their right to self-government as far as the colonists were concerned.

As an outgrowth of this expectation of self-rule all the way down to the local community, federalism was born and this was an entirely new idea.

Finally, as Burke noted, America was bequeathed a particularly British sense of manners, comportment, and a social order that also saw us more like the British than unlike them. The Britishness that undergirded our entire culture in all parts of the colonies was strong enough to stave off the various other European influences (French, German, Spanish, what have you) and maintain our status as the true heirs to British sensibilities.

Once again we see that we are beholden to our traditions.

Finally we heard from E. Christian Kopff on The Philadelphia Miracle.

Reflecting the religious theme of the day’s events, Kopff recalls how nearly every founder termed our founding as a miracle born of divine intervention and that our efforts were not just efforts for us but for all mankind.

But he noted that Machiavelli said that every nation must be forced back to its first principles at some time or lose itself and that we are today at such a crossroads.

Here I think another Machiavelli quote is pertinent to the discussion:

Princes and republics who wish to maintain themselves free from corruption must above all things preserve the purity of all religions observances, and treat them with proper reverence; for there is no greater indication of the ruin of a country than to see religion condemned.
– Niccoló Machiavelli, The Discourses. 1517.

I might also stretch this to include civil institutions along with those religious. We are today in a state of eschewing our civil and religious traditions and this has led to our current discontent as far as I am concerned.

Kopff discussed how he thinks the conventional wisdom on the Constitutional debates states that there was some unknown shift during the debate of the Constitution from the one-state-one-vote plan to the current system of proportional representation. Kopff thinks that the delegates were actually persuaded by arguments of proportionalism as opposed to cajoled by some corrupt bargain as some historiography has led some to believe.

Kopff notes that during the debate, John Dickinson of Delaware said that experience should be “our only guide” because rationalism may “lead us astray.” (see the quote I started this piece out with above) Not only does Kopff think that the delegates were persuaded by Dickinson’s argument here, but he thinks there was a realization by the delegates that tradition and history should serve as their bedrock.

He rejects that the Enlightenment influence was as pervasive as many argue it was. He points out that rationalism — as espoused by Rousseau, for one — as a thing that is born free of past encumbrance is impossible. Kopff asserts that rationalism can only be built on tradition and past experience, he posits that tradition validates rationalism.

To my mind, he makes a good point. After all fans of rationalism seem to imagine that at its inception rationalism represented an anti-religious ideal and a breaking from tradition, a new way of thought. Yet, these same people accept that rational thought can be born of nothing, not based on past experience? Isn’t that the same thing as divine revelation? I mean, divine revelation insists that it is born of God’s word and not of earthly traditions and man’s efforts. And here comes rationalism divorced from man’s tradition to be born as if from a miraculous revelation? It seems to me that the rationalists merely exchanged the idea that God is divine with the idea that the individual human’s mind is divine.

Without experience and tradition, rationalism most certainly can lead us astray. We are seeing that today with a left-wing wishing of what could be if only…! With the left’s insistence that our traditions and systems are useless, corrupt, or need the panacea of “change” to “fix” them, we are truly seeing the “rational” going uninformed by tradition and experience in America today.

We are all too often rejecting our American principles as venal and broken. We have for fifty years told the world that we are wrong, even evil. And now we have a president that has made it his duty in nearly every single speech he’s given to say that we have been wrong on everything. Is it any wonder that we have an enemy in radical Islamists that have taken our word for it and decided to punish us accordingly?

The truth is, we are not a nation that needs to be remade. We are a nation that needs to get back to first principles. Are there some problems with our early ideas? Certainly. But to throw the baby out with the bathwater is a fool’s action. The fact is, we are a great nation because of our traditions and principles, not despite them and we need to retrain our citizenry in those principles.

I was glad to have gotten the chance to attend this ISI conference and look forward to its future efforts. In the mean time, if you’d like to see a whole series of video and audio lectures on American exceptionalism, history, and traditions some that stretch back some 40 years, visit ISI’s lecture series on its website. There you’ll see some great lecturers from folks like the four I met this weekend (and including them). ISI also has an interesting blog called First Principles that is worth visiting.

Part One: Lift a Glass to the Past: America Rooted in Tradition or a New Covenant?

ISI Conference Part Two: Christ in Our Soul

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Judge Andrew Napolitano announced on the Glenn Beck Show this week that he is planning to do a Constitutional Law seminar on Fox News. I see this as the next avenue of Tea Parties: We begin to talk about the U.S. Constitution, and what liberty really consists of, in detail, and we keep talking about it.

Thomas Jefferson said:

“… God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed.

The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive.

If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty…. And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.

The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)

That is an awesome quotation – an awesome thought.

Napolitano is the author of a wonderfully informative book, Constitutional Chaos. I’m looking forward to the lecture or lectures as a way to get the conversation started.

Not everyone is anxious to hear the Judge’s ideas, however. It would be naive to think Liberals would be interested in the U.S. Constitution. I found one Liberal site admitting they are “more than a little queasy” at some of the issues Napolitano addressed yesterday:

Freedom of choice and control over your own body will be lost.

More of your hard earned dollars will be at the disposal and tender mercies of federal bureaucrats. It was not intended to be this way.

We can vote the bums out of their cushy federal office

…we can persuade the state governments to defy the Feds in areas like health care where the Constitution gives the federal government zero authority.

We can ask our state legislatures to threaten to amend the Constitution to abolish the income tax, to return the selection of US senators to state legislatures and to nullify, to nullify! all the laws that Congress has written that are not based on the Constitution.

But there is one thing we can’t do. Just sit back and take it.”

Napolitano has been laying out our politically incorrect abuse of the US Constitution for a very long time. Here’s a snippet from the introduction to his book Constitutional Chaos:

What’s at Stake in America Today

I, myself, am a strong and fervent believer in Natural Law. The only valid laws are those grounded in a pursuit of goodness. Anything else – like taking property from Person A and giving it to Person B, like silencing an unpopular minority, like interfering with freedom of worship – is an unjust law, and, theoretically, need not be obeyed. St. Thomas Aquinas said only just laws impose an obligation of obedience, because unjust laws are not within the power of the government to enact; and only laws that seek goodness are just. This is the essence of Natural Law. No government may enact laws interfering with our freedoms no matter how popular the enactment.

The positivist would say since the government gives freedom, the government can take it away. The Natural Law says only God gives freedom and the government can only take it away as a punishment for violating the Natural Law, and then only through due process.

To a positivist, the government’s goal is to bring about the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people. Under the Natural Law, the only legitimate goal of government is to secure liberty, which is the freedom to obey one’s own free will and conscience, rather than the free wills or consciences of others.

The problem today in America – the greatest and gravest threat to personal freedom in this country – is that the positivists are carrying the day. Under their sway, the government violates the law while busily passing more legislation to abridge our liberties.

If we wish to survive the near future with our rights intact, we need to understand the size and scope of the threat. We must also understand its true identity: a government that breaks its own laws. ~  Constitutional Chaos, Judge Andrew Napolitan

About Natural Law, new President George Washington said:

The foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; …the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained…”

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Sen. Tom Coburn, the Oklahoma Republican who developed a close friendship with President Obama when they served together in the Senate, is threatening to have the entire health care bill read on the Senate floor.
Senior Senate Democratic aides had heard Coburn was considering having potentially thousands of pages read aloud in effort to stall passage. “If he did this it would be even outrageous for a guy who’s become known as Dr. No around here,” one of them told POLITICO.
Coburn’s office confirmed that he is indeed thinking about having the bill read.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

After Newt Gingrich declared that DeDe Scozzafava’s exit left and out of the NY-23 special election was the “statesmanlike thing to do,” DeDe be-itch slapped the brilliant Newt with her endorsement of Democrat David Owens.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The people of South Carolina have given me the privilege of representing them in Congress for more than 10 years now, and over that period I’ve learned a great deal about how things work in Washington. One of the more unfortunate things I’ve come to realize is that Congress has the power to corrupt even those with the most honorable intentions. Too often, I‘ve seen good, honest citizen legislators come to Washington only to realize that in Congress, you either conform to the system or find yourself on the outside looking in. As a result, the American people are left with more “career politicians” who go along to get along in Congress, and end up beholden to special interests, lobbyists, and big government policies.

Though there is no simple solution to this trend, there is a clear place to start: term limits. With term limits, we can put an end to the “if you can’t beat them, join them” approach to legislating, and begin enacting responsible legislation that is in the best interest of our nation. As a result, I will soon be introducing a constitutional amendment limiting current and future members of Congress to serving three terms (six years) in the House and two terms (12 years) in the Senate.

Let’s face it, Washington has become far more powerful than any one person or party. If we want to change the policies, we must first change the process. By imposing term limits, we can ensure frequent turnover which allows for new ideas and fresh perspectives in Congress. Additionally, term limits will keep politicians in-tune with their constituents and less focused on pleasing those who promise to help get them re-elected.

While term limits are certainly a step in the right direction, they are not enough. I sincerely hope my amendment will be ratified, and then be followed by other structural reforms that make our public institutions more transparent and accountable. The American people deserve congressmen who fight to give them a voice rather than fight for their personal power and success. If the people want new policies and real reform, it’s not enough to change the congressmen — we must change Congress itself.

Bravo, Senator! Term Limits would certainly be a step in the right direction, putting more power back into the hands of the people and eliminating career politicians perverted by the beltway culture. I wish him luck on this amendment! A Constitutional amendment is a huge undertaking, especially when you are asking pigs to diet.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

You know, we all love the Internet. Heck, I make a good portion of my living on Al Gore’s most famous invention so it gets a big thumbs up from me, for sure. But we have to admit that there are an awful lot of goofballs on these Internet tubes. In some ways, the whole venue isn’t quite ready for prime time, if you will.

Let’s take Obama’s Internet experience, for instance. His giant email list and heavily active campaign website was touted as the new way to affect politics. Obama’s mybarackobama.com site was crowned as the new mover and shaker of Washington. During the end stages of the campaign millions of people streamed to his site every day, polls were taken, ideas shared, “meet-ups” planned and executed, and a massive voter drive all successfully added to Obama’s big November win. And once he took the White House it was assumed that Obama would take this Internet army to new heights of political activism. So, what has happened since Obama took residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue…

About nuthin’ at all.

In fact, some of his Internet efforts have turned into a joke. During the transition period Team Obama created what it called the “Citizen’s Briefing Book.” This webpage was sold as a way to “help” Obama program his agenda as he took office, a way for the people to feel empowered and connected, and a way for Team Obama to understand what the fans wanted done as he began his presidency. The site featured a way for web visitors to submit ideas to the president and promised that the top ideas would be featured in the president’s plans as he moved forward. Other visitors to the page could vote on these ideas and the top ones would be enshrined in policy, Team Obama promised.

The result is an embarrassment of comedic proportions. After 44,000 submitted proposals by Obama’s fans and 1.4 millions votes tallied for them, the results were surely not what Team Obama expected. The final vote and top ideas were posted on the site but were quickly forgotten and formed no part of Obama’s agenda. Why? Here’s why:

In the middle of two wars and an economic meltdown, the highest-ranking idea was to legalize marijuana, an idea nearly twice as popular as repealing the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy. Legalizing online poker topped the technology ideas, twice as popular as nationwide wi-fi. Revoking the Church of Scientology’s tax-exempt status garnered three times more votes than raising funding for childhood cancer.

That’s right, in this day of wars and world-wide terror attacks, economic collapse, foreign threats and constant natural disasters Obama’s fans were more concerned about getting high, gambling at cards, and the status of a nutty, but tiny, pseudo religion.

So what did we learn from this web effort? What else than that Obama’s fans are goofs that have no clue about the serious issues of our day.

Of course, this whole experiment is a perfect example of why a direct democracy is the last thing we Americans should ever want. Most people are not informed enough to vote intelligently on every issue of government. The founders knew this and that is why they vigorously opposed a direct democracy — even feared it — and created this representative democracy.

I am not saying that everyone in the voting public is stupid. Far from it. But most people simply don’t have the time to stay up on all these issues as they lead their lives. They have their families, their employment, their lives to worry about. To worry about all the things government is supposed to do is what we expect of our representatives. And it is their duty to navigate the delicate balance between being guided by their own ideals and that of the voting public. That is their job, after all.

So, let Obama’s pot headed, gambling addicts hand wring over the Church of Scientology. But please spare us any thought that the Internet could become our sole forum for government.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

I was part of a small number of bloggers and Internet writers invited to speak with Representative Joe Wilson (R, SC) Friday afternoon. Rep. Wilson wanted to alert us all to a resolution that would provide that all bills that go through the House of Representatives would be posted on the Internet for 72 hours prior to any possibility of a floor vote.

The Resolution is House Res. 554, amending the Rules of the House to require legislation and conference reports to be available on the Internet 72 hours before consideration. If this resolution is approved by the members of the House, all bills — including H.R. 3200, the House Healthcare bill — will be placed on the Internet for all to see for three days before the bill can be voted on.

In an email on this issue Wilson said, “Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats have continually rushed major legislation to a vote to ensure little to no public scrutiny. If we succeed, Americans can finally separate fact from fiction.”

Under normal procedures, a resolution introduced must first go to a conference committee of one sort or another. But the House has a way to force a bill to skip the committee process and go right to the floor for a vote. As Representative Wilson explained the process is called a “discharge petition.”

What’s really important is the discharge petition. At the front of the House you’ll see every now and then we’ll be up there signing a little book and that’s a discharge petition. If 218 people (Representatives) sign the petition, this is a way to skip the committee process and bring the bill to the floor. With 218 signatures, this would force the speaker to bring the resolution to the floor.

“This is a great opportunity,” Wilson told me, “for the blogging community to contact all Democrats, all Republicans and urge them to sign the discharge petition.”

This particular petition is known as the Greg Walden discharge petition named after Representative Greg Walden (R, Oregon) who is sponsoring the petition.

Currently, 178 members of the House have already signed the petition and we all need to contact our Representatives to have them sign that petition. (The Clerk of the House has a webpage with all the signatories to the petition at http://clerk.house.gov/111/lrc/pd/petitions/Dis6.htm currently posted.)

CNSNews’ Fred Lucas asked Rep. Wilson if he were the “right person” to become the face of this petition drive due to the recent “animosity” that Democrats have for Wilson. Wilson reminded us all that “a few years ago” he was voted the second friendliest member of Congress. Wilson was also gratified that even recently he has been characterized as a good friend by some members of Congress even after his actions at Obama’s speech.

I have in the past two weeks had a number of members of Congress and even at press conferences introduced me — and I think they meant it — as my good friend. Sometimes, you know, they don’t mean it.

Thus far it looks like five Democrats have signed the Walden discharge petition. Democratic Reps. Walt Minnick (Idaho), Brian Baird (Wash), Dan Boren (Okla.), Parker Griffith (Ala.) and Gene Taylor (Miss.) have signed.

This is certainly a non-partisan issue. Who could be against all bills being placed on line for 72 hours before a vote? “We’re also backing up what President Obama said during the campaign last year,” Wilson said.

Wilson also reminded us all that the president himself advocated for such an idea. “President Obama indicated that he would not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.”

“So what we’re doing should not be considered as partisan, it shouldn’t be considered as a slap to the president because it’s not, it’s actually less than even what he campaign on,” Wilson said.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The Constitution is the people’s permission for the federal government to operate. As originally written, any issue not directly given as a responsibility of the federal government was to be left to the states. As specified in the 10th Amendment.

“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.”

The supreme authority in the United States is actually granted to us, the people, by our Creator as stated in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration was much more than our asserting our emancipation from an oppressive dictator, it was our establishment as a people. This establishment went on without direction until after the American Revolutionary War when the Articles of Confederation were established. This loose agreement among the newly freed former colonies of the British crown established them as independent states with no way to settle disputes among them. This facilitated the Constitutional Convention which was empowered by the states to refine the existing Articles of Confederation.

When it was convened a decision was quickly made that the current Articles of Confederation were so flawed that they needed to be abandoned and a new agreement of the states needed to be made.

The intent of those who drafted our Constitution need not be interpreted as those who believe that it is a living breathing and evolving document would have you believe. For the love of Pete it is written in English. The intent is just as clear today as it was in 1787 when it was signed. The United States was and is to be a Constitutional Federal Republic in that the political power of the nation is to be centered in the various states NOT as some would have you believe the federal government.

Upon its signing, the US Constitution was nothing more than 7 Articles establishing the responsibilities of the Congress, President, Supreme Court and subordinate courts, interstate relations, a method of amendment, an establishment of authorization for the payment of debts, supremacy, and oaths of office, and the mode of ratification. It was to be understood, that if the Constitution did not address an issue specifically, it was for the states themselves to deal with or the people.

The USA Began to Unravel Before the Ink Was Dry

Since it’s ratification in 1789, the United States Constitution has been modified for better or for worse according to Article V.

The first fracture in this limited government was made with the adoption of the Bill of Rights. Jefferson, the Democrat that he was, believed that by establishing a bill of rights it would open the Constitution up to assumptions. If the government can assume one right over the people, where would it end. We now know. It doesn’t end.

How Abortion Has Led to the Downfall of a Nation

The next crack was with the adoption of the 14th Amendment. As necessary as the 14th was at its time in history, the amendment was written so broadly that those who cannot understand that a document written in English needs no interpretation will find meaning in its lack of wording to define rights or responsibilities that were never intended. This is how a Constitutional right to terminate life can be found in an amendment adopted to establish citizenship for all persons living in the United States at a specific moment in time regardless of previous state of servitude; and that those persons could not be denied due process under the law. I’m sorry people but slavery has been illegal in the United States since 1862. NO ONE living in 1972 – or since – had ever been a slave. Subsequently they could not be denied due process of law based upon a previous status of servitude. The basis for the legalization of abortion in the United States as legislated by the Supreme Court – a clear violation of Articles I and III of the Constitution – could not and should not have been made by the Warren court. The Amendment cited does not apply.

In contrast to the Warren Court’s establishment of the superiority of the 14th Amendment over all other provisions of the US Constitution, the 10th Amendment shines brightly above it. Or at least with any free thinking individualist with skills to comprehend a sentence written in plain English.

“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.”

Abortion is in the most liberal of terms a medical procedure. There is no Constitutional authority for the federal government to regulate, over-see, fund, or otherwise interfere with medical procedures in this country in spite of the establishment of Medicare and Medicaid. Simply put, there is no existing authorization in the Constitution allowing the federal government to do so. However, under the 10th Amendment the states have such a right.

The Warren court decided to supercede the right of the State of Texas to deny a woman an abortion because the state had established the procedure as being not lawful within its jurisdiction. The Warren court’s decision to hear the case much less find some twisted “Constitutional right” was a clear violation of states’ right as defined under the 10th Amendment. Their justification for even hearing the case in the first place – interstate commerce. A medical procedure – legal or illegal – has suddenly become a matter of interstate commerce. This will be the justification for Obamacare next. But I digress.

With this decision, the Warren court made it possible to argue that since every product and/or service performed in this country – legal or illegal – has an intrinsic value and might be a cause for an individual to cross a state line in order to seek said product or service, it is automatically a matter of interstate commerce and thus the jurisdiction of the federal government. And if a product or service is denied to a citizen of a state by the state, it can be argued that the citizen’s rights of due process have been violated even though, that person had no previous condition of servitude.

Using that argument, in Nevada, anyone can walk into any public building and play a slot machine. Here in Ohio we cannot. Therefore my right to feed a potential gambling addiction (which I don’t have) cannot be satisfied. Because companies in Nevada supply these type of machines, it can be argued that Ohio’s anti-gambling laws constitute a violation of my 14th amendment rights under interstate commerce. I don’t have readily available access to those machines. (note: this is actually a better argument for interstate commerce due process interference than the Roe decision was.)

In a sense, the Roe decision opened the 14th amendment up for bastardization by any liberal crazy with a wild hair to do anything that is currently forbidden by a state government.

The Income Tax and the Beginning of Class Warfare

The next modification to our Constitution that contributed to our demise as a country is the 16th Amendment. A very simple amendment the establishment of an income tax.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

This removed the requirement established in Article I requiring an enumeration of the people before the levying of any taxes in Article I Section 2 Paragraph 3. I know the reason for doing so however, that does not justify the levying taxes without an enumeration of the people as required by our founders. Removing the racial make-up and devaluation of the human-being implied by Article 1 Section 2, it still should be required that if any new tax is to be imposed on the people, an enumeration of the populous should be conducted in order to know how much revenue would be generated by said tax. This only makes common sense and thus why it was originally written into article I.

This income tax has been a vehicle by which a particular political party has created a separation of the people based solely on one’s ability to earn. Hard work, effort, and the taking of risks in this country is what makes it great. Those who wish to impose some twisted sense of social equality based solely on existence have created in a sense a war among the classes that takes place every 4 years at the ballot box. Those who ‘have’ continue to be vilified in this nation rather than rewarded for creating wealth and providing opportunities for others to establish themselves and provide for their families. A progressive and overly burdensome tax system has been implemented in order to spread the wealth in a quest to redistribute the wealth of the nation according to Karl Marx and Frederick Engels.

The worst kept political secret in this nation is that the Democrat party has been working towards full implementation of social Communism by way of income redistribution. And the vehicle used most often is the 16th Amendment.

The Popular Election of Senators – The States Are Removed from the Equation

With the passage and ratification of the 17th Amendment, the people would in a sense have two Houses of Representatives. Originally, the state legislatures had the responsibility of appointing 2 Senators in different term classes to the United States Senate for terms of 6 years. This is outlined in Article 1 Section 3 of the Constitution.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Being appointed by the state legislature made a Senator accountable to the state from which he/she was appointed. This gave the state more power. With the passage of the 17th Amendment, the people of this nation removed this accountability to the states and in a sense made the states subservient to the federal government. And the end of our Republic was begun.

Clause 1. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

Clause 2. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

Clause 3. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

As of the ratification of the 17th Amendment, we are no longer a collection of 50 separate and independent nations, we are nothing more than 50 provinces or districts within the out of control monster known as the United States.

Conclusion

Many cite the Constitution as the ultimate authority in the United States. This idea is nothing more than fiction. It is the will of the people as expressed by the people. We will it or it cannot be so. This authority is granted to us by GOD and declared to the world as such by the Declaration of Independence.

With the growing emergence of the sovereignty movement among the states, I can see a day when the United States as we know it could – and I emphasize the word COULD – be obsolete. If every one of the 50 states declared themselves independent again – like the Constitution originally intended – then perhaps a new agreement among the states could replace the now totally flawed and bastardized Constitution like it replaced the Articles of Confederation. One could only hope.

Gribbit Reporting for Stop the ACLU – Ohio

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

In the Senate, Republicans will meet this week to coordinate strategy, but some plans are already in motion for public meetings and a blizzard of radio and television appearances. Senators Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, a family practice doctor, and John Barrasso of Wyoming, an orthopedic surgeon, will take their “Senate Doctors Show,” an Internet program, on the road to argue that the Democratic plan will not improve care or control costs.

In the House, Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, chairman of the Republican Conference, distributed a packet to colleagues on Friday urging them to argue that the Democrats’ plan would include “more than $800 billion in new tax hikes” and “harmful cuts” to Medicare that would “result in millions of seniors losing their health coverage.”

That’s pretty much it on the GOP plans, according to the Grey Lady. But, in essence, the Republicans are going to continue explaining to the American people exactly what the legislation means to their future health care, health insurance, and pocketbooks.

With Republicans mobilizing against the proposed health care overhaul, President Obama, Congressional Democrats and leading advocacy groups are laying the groundwork for an August offensive against the insurance industry as part of a coordinated campaign to sell the public on the need for reform.

The effort will feature town-hall-style meetings by lawmakers and the president, including a swing through Western states by Mr. Obama, grass-roots lobbying efforts and a blitz of expensive television advertising. It is intended to drive home the message that revamping the health care system will protect consumers by ending unpopular insurance industry practices, like refusing patients with pre-existing conditions.

So, on one hand we have the Republicans explaining the issue, on the other, we have Democrats attacking private industry, demonizing them, in order to push through legislation that will fundamentally change the entire health care system, turning the U.S. into Canada. Canada may be a great country for their beautiful landscape and invention of ice hockey, but, they can keep their horrible health care system.

The question is, will enough Americans buy into the Democrat demonetization plan? Or, will they realize that this is par for the course with the Democrats, attacking instead of explaining? David Axelrod stated “Our job is to help folks understand how this will help them.” So, far, they haven’t. There have been lots of campaign style rhetoric that “we have to do this to lower the cost,” yet, they never actually say how it will lower the cost.

Of course, it probably won’t matter, since elected officials tend to be completely disconnected from the American people, and do what they want to do. I’m betting most of the Democrat town halls will be tightly controlled and access will be restricted. Anyone want to take me up on that?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Screaming constituents, protesters dragged out by the cops, congressmen fearful for their safety — welcome to the new town-hall-style meeting, the once-staid forum that is rapidly turning into a house of horrors for members of Congress.

On the eve of the August recess, members are reporting meetings that have gone terribly awry, marked by angry, sign-carrying mobs and disruptive behavior. In at least one case, a congressman has stopped holding town hall events because the situation has spiraled so far out of control.

Aw. The poor babies. Imagine them being so out of touch with their constituents that their constituents are livid and expect their elected officials to be responsible to their constituents.

“I had felt they would be pointless,” Rep. Tim Bishop (D-N.Y.) told POLITICO, referring to his recent decision to temporarily suspend the events in his Long Island district. “There is no point in meeting with my constituents and [to] listen to them and have them listen to you if what is basically an unruly mob prevents you from having an intelligent conversation.”

The problem is, the conversation has tended to be one way, and I am not just speaking about Democrats.

Democrats, acknowledging the increasing unruliness of the town-hall-style events, say the hot-button issues they are taking on have a lot to do with it.

“I think it’s just the fact that we are dealing with some of the most important public policy issues in a generation,” said Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa), who was confronted by a protester angry about his position on health care reform at a town hall event several weeks ago.

No, it’s not that you are dealing with them, it is HOW you are dealing, or, in some cases, not dealing, with them. Hence, the really pissed off constituents, who expect value for and responsibility with the money taken at the barrel of a jail cell.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post