Media accounts of candidate activities and/or their public statements by themselves rarely give enough information to vote intelligently, and candidate debates, at least on the state, county, and city level, are poorly attended. One wonders if candidate charisma along with color, size, and number of signs displayed are not the most significant factors for most voters in making a selection.
However, many do wish to vote intelligently but may not know how to proceed. They first need to formulate a philosophical base that should go far deeper than the rhetoric of a political party. If I may be so bold to cite a personal example, my own base begins with my solid Christian background. Regardless of party or ideology, I want my public servants to emulate such solid values as honesty, integrity, morality, etc. I also would like to believe that when confronted with tough decisions they, like Washington and Lincoln, would not hesitate to ask God to illuminate their understanding.
Next, my ideological base rests solidly in the writings of the Founding Fathers, and theirs was based upon human nature and natural law that does not change. My years of study of the Constitution has convinced me that individual liberty cannot be maintained by straying too far from it or from the collective philosophical base of that group of early patriots. I have made their collective ideological base my own.
Their philosophical base consisted of many elements. Space permits my covering only a few. They believed that government should be limited, its powers strictly defined, and that these powers should be listed specifically in a contract with the people. On the federal level those limits are outlined in the U.S. Constitution. (Art. I, Sec. 8 limits the Legislative Branch; Art II, Secs. 2-3 limits the Executive Branch; and Art. III, Sec. 2 limits the Judicial Branch.) Hence, I cannot support a candidate who works to increase government influence over the individual—whether at the city, county, state, or federal level—and/or who believes in fudging or moving outside those specifically listed grants of power, and you can’t either if you wish to remain Constitutionally grounded.
Another basic premise of the Founding Fathers crucial to the preservation of liberty is that we should never elevate to a higher level of government that which could be resolved at a lesser level. In other words, the county should never assume as part of its governance load that which the city could and should do. Nor should the state assume the prerogatives of the county, or the Federal Government those of the state, county, or city.
When this happens, power flows upward and away from the people and is seldom returned. Those who make the decisions are less accessible, thus less susceptible, to local influence; and the program, now managed from hundreds or thousands of miles away, usually costs more because of less efficient management.
Often the enticement of money is used to facilitate the transfer of power. States have a tough time saying no to federal grants; and when state governments offer inducement moneys to cities and/or counties for some project or program, rare is the councilman or supervisor with the courage to say no. Initially the money is free, then with a few strings attached, finally with conditions mandated; and thus the autonomous independent nature of cities and counties is compromised. I knew a city councilman some years ago who complained that his city was virtually controlled by the state in that at least half of what was placed before him for his vote was already mandated by some higher governing entity.
Hence, a major concern in my voting practices rests with this question: Could this function be handled at a lesser level of government? If yes, then it should be. When considering candidates for public office, does this person actively work to keep decision-making power as close to the people as possible—even if it is unpopular to do so—or is his usual answer to every governmental dilemma more government and more money to fund more programs? The latter candidate is sure to leave us with less freedom and less money as well.
A country ceases to remain a country when it ceases to protect its borders. The Roman Empire ceased to exist for that very reason, coupled with moral decay.
Two places in the Constitution reference the need to protect our borders: the Preamble identifies as a purpose of the federal government to “provide for the common defense” and Article IV requires that they ”protect each of them (the states) against invasion.” With more than half a million illegals crossing the border a year, this is an invasion, and the federal government is not doing its job. Too many people who are totally ignorant of their governing document want to weigh in on this issue. Fortunately, Arizonians understand. Arizona did not make illegal immigration illegal, the federal government did.
The new bill, “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,” is the direct result of the Federal Government not protecting its citizens from invasion. It has nothing to do with race or any other subject. It has to do with enforcing an already existing law. It simply codifies federal law into state law. If the feds won’t protect us, the state government will. Thank you Arizona for protecting our Constitution, and other states should follow.
For a person to be stopped, he or she must already be offending the law. Once stopped, those suspected of being illegal immigrants are asked to provide papers. But the stop itself must be for other reasons. The actual law reads: “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.”
This procedure is similar to that followed when a driver is weaving from one side of the road to another. The stopping officer demands a breathalyzer test and asks to see a drivers license and vehicle registration papers. If something does not feel right the officer may also check the vehicle against those that have been reported stolen or the individual against a wanted list. The Constitutionally ignorant have made a case for the unconstitionality of the law on the basis of the 4th Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Such could be argued for any of the regular aforementioned police activities. But as noted the law prohibits unreasonable searches.
For individuals or cities showing sympathy for those breaking federal law, Arizona would remind them that they are accomplices to a crime and now break state law as well. The bill reads: “No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.” All this could be avoided if the federal government did its Constitutionally mandated function and provided for the common defense by protecting us against invasion.
Under pressure, President Obama has finally agreed to send 1,200 National Guardsmen to the border. However, that is about one seventh of what is needed. The phrase too little too late comes to mind.
All are encouraged to spend their vacation time in the lovely state of Arizona to soften the blow of the boycott against them.
As the federal government grows and becomes ever more intrusive on our liberties, more people then ever before are looking to the Constitution to save us. Of particular interest is the list of the things the federal government is entitled to do, identified in Section 8.
During this time in history, the colonies had just rejected Parliament’s attempt to gain more power over them; in fact the cause of the American Revolution was excessive government. As a result, the states knew they needed to handcuff the federal government so that unrestrained government could never happen again. In the Constitutional Convention they decided to only forfeit specific powers to the federal government, and those powers were things that the states agreed that they could not reasonably do themselves. All areas not mentioned were to remain with the states.
There are many less well-known facts to keep in mind as you review Section 8. Convention delegates curiously placed every power in one sentence with 18 paragraphs. This strange construction was to make it even more difficult for future power grabbers to isolate and enhance a power. Everything had to be considered in the context of the one sentence.
The Founders gave the federal government only four areas of power: taxes, paying the debts, providing for the general welfare (that’s not the same as providing the general welfare), and providing for the common defense. That is it. All four powers are identified before the first semi colon. Everything that follows are simply qualifiers of these four.
The Founders did not dare to leave the phrase “general welfare” for future power grabbers, as there is no telling what they could do with this vague concept if left undefined. They understood that it is the nature of all governments to grow. As a result, clauses 2-9 list 14 powers that comprise “general welfare.” Five deal with borrowing money, regulating its value, and dealing with counterfeiting. The other nine powers include naturalization, bankruptcies, establishing post offices, protecting inventors and authors, establishing “tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court” and “regulating commerce with foreign nations and among the several states.”
National health care is not anywhere near the 14 powers detailing general welfare. For this reason national health care is unconstitutional. If national healthcare can be prostituted from this list anything can, thus ending any pretense of a government with limited powers. We might as well have a sentence that Congress can make any rules they like.
This section is hated by big government advocates who do everything they can to explain it away. They are betting on the likelihood that you and I won’t read and understand this section nor hold them accountable to it. They cleverly disguise their policies to try and force them to fit into these categories, and whether they actually do or not is irrelevant to them. For this reason your liberty is under fire. Read Article I Section 8 and keep it marked for frequent reference. Send this column to your friends and neighbors. Hold your leaders accountable at the polls. Be on the side of freedom in this fight against tyranny.
I am thrilled that Nancy Pelosi finally understands the need to politicize the churches. Actually they played a major role in bringing on the American Revolution as they, from the pulpit, encouraged their parishioners to actively advocate liberty. With respect to liberty, the loss of such has proceeded to the point that today you are either a part of the problem or part of the solution. Ministers, this is the Second American Revolution, using words rather than muskets for now. Your people need to be encouraged to stand up for freedom while they still can. In most revolutions Christians are among the first victims.
Now Nancy, illegal immigrants are those whose first act in America is to break the very laws that you helped create, thereby defying what you do. That is why they are called “illegal.” I hope the ministry also points this out to their people. And Nancy, I hope that you never criticize the Christian Coalition or any other group that advocates the restoration of Christian values in our schools such as prayers, or symbols, or express themselves with signs in California that express a conservative viewpoint, such as advocating against gay marriage or abortion. Should you do so, be prepared to be called a first class hypocrite.
So Nancy let us hear what you have to say about the Bible and the Christian ministry in politics so that we can better understand your new position of strong Christian advocacy.
There are only two reasons for the enumeration mandated by the Constitution every ten years that we now call the census: determining the number of representatives needed for a given area, and directing federal taxes. Constitutionally there is but one legitimate question: how many people live in this residence? With the House of Representatives based upon population the first reason is obvious. But the second reason expired when the 16th Amendment to the Constitution introduced the infamous income tax.
Today three columns of invasive questions now fill 28 pages of information that you would not share with your neighbors. With respect to housing they want to know what kind of building you live in, when it was built, how many rooms, your mortgage, taxes, insurance and utility costs, and move-in date. They also want to know how many automobiles are kept on the premises.
With respect to your personal life they want to know how many times you were married, the date of your last marriage, and if you have serious difficulty concentrating or bathing. At one point they even asked for the number of stillbirths or abortions you have had. Even your nosiest neighbor does not know these things.
With respect to employment they wish to know when and where you worked last and how you got there; even how many minutes to get to work is requested. And, of course, you must disclose your salary, who you work for and what kind of work you do as well as your educational level. President George Bush in 2000 grumbled: “I can understand why people don’t want to give over that information to the government. If I have the long form, I’m not so sure I would do it either.” In China under communism, they had spies gather this information. Today in the “Jerry Springer generation”, where nothing is sacred or private, we willingly give it to the government.
The part I like best are the questions where I am forced to categorize myself by race, but there is no category for someone that doesn’t make distinctions on the basis of race. If given the choice, many would categorize themselves simply as American, and yet in America that is not offered as an option.
The American Community Survey conducting the census publishes a pamphlet called “50 Ways Census Data Are Used.” Only two of the ways this data is used are constitutional. So how can the government collect sensitive data for the purpose of performing a function on the federal level for which there is no authorization without serious distortion? They can’t. When the first question outside how many people live in your home was asked, the intent of the Constitution was violated.
Should one refuse to answer all unconstitutional questions, the punishment is a fine of up to $5,000. Some time ago they even threatened imprisonment.
The Founding Fathers authorized no other purpose for the head count. If offered a window to our day, they would be appalled at the federal government’s misuse of this power as a means of creating a national information gathering service on you.
