Aug 26, 2019 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Student unrest in many universities demonstrates what is becoming obvious; institutions of higher learning are becoming radicalized and project intolerance for anything but a liberal view. Too few permit conservative or libertarian speakers and far fewer a constitutionalist.
I was not surprised, some years ago, to hear a mother share with me her son’s fear that he did not wish to attend college because he did not wish to be politically indoctrinated. Parents increasingly worry about the radicalization of their children as well. As the years go by I hear this more frequently. Often when asked my profession, a political science professor, I get that look, “Oh! You’re one of those.” So, the assumption is that professors, especially those in political science, are socialists or worse: Unfortunately, this is largely true.
College is supposed to be a “big tent” housing all types of thinking so that the student can gravitate to what he thinks best after all sides are presented. Although everyone gives lip service to this statement, there still exists a preferred philosophy. Most colleges insist that they adhere to intellectual diversity, but the evidence and textbooks suggest otherwise; the vast majority of colleges and universities are weighted in favor of one ideology and professors to one political party. This is not hidden. Some political science textbooks acknowledge this.
There exists a consensus of what a “good education” is. Students are immersed in race consciousness, feminism, multiculturalism, environmentalism, collectivism, globalism, political activism, class warfare, global warming, acceptance of sexual deviations as normal, and minimization of the importance of Christianity. The end product, the student, must come to accept the above script. It is also in virtually all textbooks. It’s not that any of these notions are bad, in and of themselves, but it is the nearly universal absence of the opposing view that is most troubling parents/students who do not want the indoctrination.
This reminds me of the 1960’s popular tune “Little Boxes” by Malvina Reynolds with lyrics. “And the people in the houses…made of ticky tacky… All went to the university, Where they were put in boxes And they came out all the same.”
It’s not fear of political science classes alone in most colleges and universities. Students can escape the indoctrination across the hall in a history or sociology class. Not so! Such bias permeates most academic areas. An English professor from a large Midwestern university, who did not wish to be identified because of possible retribution, spoke of English classes giving less emphasis on grammar, punctuation, or sentence structure and more on the political correctness. “Everything from Theater to Philosophy to History to English has, in effect, become sociology,” he wrote. “Teaching subject matter has become less important than teaching a very political perspective.” In the end, “They get taught the same thing over and over: a radical critique of the entire American social structure, an indictment of capitalism, anti-Christian propaganda, and collectivism over individuality.”
Of course, additional courses reinforce the “good education” and the result is that if students have not learned to think for themselves, or have some opposing information from home or church to think with, they graduate and carry the indoctrination into every segment of society as gospel. New teachers from kindergarten to the universities will pipe the same, or similar, message.
Age and experience may alter the indoctrination but the twig is already bent in a prescribed direction and the student, like the twig, will give first consideration to returning to the indoctrination when confronted with anything in opposition. Colleges have so much power over “right” thinking.
An extreme example of this years ago, was a French Language and Culture class at Penn State University that required students to view the Michael Moore film “Sicko,” which focused on the inadequacies of the U.S. healthcare system and promoted national healthcare. In a French language class!?!
The indoctrination begins immediately in some colleges, critics say, “with orientation where students begin by learning about the evils of ‘white privilege’ in a program called the ‘tunnel of oppression’ and sit through lectures informing them that they are part of a ‘rape culture’.” University of Delaware forced incoming freshmen to participate in a “treatment” program a part of which informed them that the word racism applies only to “all white people.” It also “blamed whites for having created the term racism” in the first place “to deny responsibility for systemic racism.” At Hamilton College in New York, fall 2010, male students were required “to attend a ‘She Fears You’ presentation to make them aware of the ‘rape culture’ of which they were allegedly a part and of the need to change their ‘rape supportive’ beliefs and attitudes” (New American, Aug. 5, 2013, pp. 23-27).
No wonder the young man did not wish to be subjected to what he saw as indoctrination. Because he knows that there exist other views there is hope for him, more especially if he selects professors who attempt to give alternative views of which there are still some, he will be fine. But it will take his personal effort to not come out of the university experience “all the same.” It is students, the majority, who have no idea that there exist alternative views that are most in danger.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly columns, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Aug 19, 2019 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D.
Most now understand that “red flag” laws violate the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights and many Republicans, including the President, now seem willing to join Democrats, after the recent shootings in El Paso and Denton by crazed left-and right wing extremists, to put dents in the Second Amendment hoping these laws “might” somehow help. But few realize that they also virtually emasculate the Bill of Rights. What follows are the amendments “red flag” laws damage and how.
Amendment I. “Red flag” laws encourage “police-led searches” of our social media, thus effectively “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” constitutionally protected in the First Amendment. Disagreeable speech is labeled “hate” speech, thus potentially “violent” speech, thus subject to the removal of ones weapons laws. Liberty ends when free speech, press, assembly and religion end.
Amendment II. This amendment was specifically designed to protect the first amendment giving the people the ability to resist tyrannical government as the Founders had—even by revolution if required. Any law, state or federal, that threatens the Second Amendment as written by the Founding Fathers is unconstitutional. In New Mexico that includes requirements for firearm storage and background checks for private firearm sales. In New York, it includes banning bump stock devices. In Washington State it is I-1639, which “classifies semi-automatic rifles commonly owned for recreation and self-defense as assault weapons and prohibits young adults under the age of 21 from purchasing them.” These violate “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
But “red flag” laws go further, potentially allowing thousands of innocent citizens to be punished only upon the fear that a crime might be committed. Secret lists of innocent people are created by family, acquaintances, and potentially disgruntled ex-lovers or spouses. Any one that can approach a judge with the claim that someone is a danger to himself and/or others, the sheriff is sent to disarm and confiscate his weapons. Those identified are punished without having committed a crime. All this without a shred of evidence of unlawful behavior.
Amendment IV reads in part: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Today computers and electronic devices are our “papers” and “effects” include our weapons of self preservation. It is “unreasonable” and unconstitutional to confiscate them on the assumption that they may be used inappropriately. We might also wish to remove their automobiles, knives, hammers, or medicines they MIGHT use to harm themselves or others.
Continuing, “No Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.” Heretofore “probable cause” was based upon evidence of having actually done something, not opinion that someone might do something. Again, there exists no crime! A warrant alone is not due process. “Supported by Oath or affirmation,” means by government agents who have sworn allegiance to protect and preserve the Constitution, which under “red flag” laws this action violates.
Amendment V reads in part: “No person shall be…deprived of…property, without due process of law.” Due process is denied thousands under “red flag” laws. None were charged with a crime, arrested or convicted before gun confiscation. Without due process all of our rights and properties are unsecured. It is that simple.
Amendment VI lists the rights of the accused, the due process procedure entitled to all citizens, in “all criminal prosecutions.” Although “red flag” laws are not criminal prosecutions, they have the same effect. They accuse and administer punishment. They are “speedy” but not “public” as constitutionally required. None were “informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; … confronted with the witnesses against him; … [allowed] compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and …[allowed] the assistance of counsel for his defence.” Where was the “impartial jury?” None of these four constitutionally required conditions were met prior to confiscation, as no crime had been committed. Those targeted by the government in “red flag” laws had no opportunity to resist confiscation.
Amendment VII reads “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.” Twice mentioned is common law which is the underlying principles of justice that govern all human relationships—natural law—whether fully understood or not.
This amendment speaks to property exceeding $20.00 in value, of which all guns exceed. Although largely fallen into disuse because of the now unrealistic money requirement specified, the amendment suggests the importance of common law and jury (peers) trials, rather than judges, making the decisions regarding property. Certainly “red flag” laws exempt juries and confiscate property (guns).
Six of ten Bill of Right Amendments are severely damaged by “red flag” laws with due process, the backbone of our judicial system, the greatest fatality. This is certainly the greatest threat to the Bill of Rights since the Obama sponsored National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which already effectively neutralized Amendments 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Bill of Rights (see “New Bill Damages Bill of Rights and Could Target Americans for Military Detention,” LibertyUnderFire.org).
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly columns, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Aug 12, 2019 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D.
Given the mass murders due to gun violence last weekend, 22 in El Paso, Texas, 9 in Dayton, Ohio, 11 in Chicago, 4 in Baltimore; it is easy to see why President Trump would seek a national solution—it is a national problem. Still, the Constitution specifically forbids a national solution—even a state solution—without a new amendment to the Constitution altering the second Amendment, because self-defense is an individual right (even God-given) not a right from government.
The Second Amendment reads: “A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” At the time of writing “militia” was the citizen and “shall not be infringed” meant off limits to government.
The only constitutional solution is a new amendment processed through Article V which requires a two-step proposal and ratification process, the latter requiring three-fourths of the states. Anything short of this is a serious “infringement” (violation) of the Constitution and a single violation justifies future violations until this particular freedom (self defense with a firearm) is lost to future generations.
“Red Flag,” laws are thought to be the “go to legislation” for the presumed mentally unstable of society that could resort to violence against themselves or others. These potentially allow thousands of innocent citizens to be punished only upon the fear that a crime might be committed. Secret lists of innocent people are created by family, acquaintances, and potentially disgruntled ex-lovers or spouses.
Anyone that can approach a judge with the claim that someone is thought to be a danger to himself and/or others, the sheriff is sent to disarm and confiscate the alleged offenders weapons. Those identified are punished without having committed a crime. All this without a shred of evidence of unlawful behavior. This legislation flies in the face of presumed innocence first which, until now, has been the backbone of our judicial system.
“Red Flag,” laws, are based entirely upon the assumption that someone may commit a crime, rather than, has committed a crime. If we disarm enough we will get the supposed perpetrator before he commits a crime. Their speech or behavior is viewed a red flag. Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung and Castro, all socialists, would have loved such laws. They could have labeled and disarmed their opposition before they did anything.
“Under Colorado’s proposed law, anyone can make a phone call to the police. They don’t even have to be living in the state. There is no hearing. All the judge has before them is the statement of concern.” Moreover, “little certainty is needed. Some states allow initial confiscations on just a ‘reasonable suspicion,’ which is little more than a guess or a hunch.” In just nine months of Florida’s Red Flag law passage, just last year, “judges granted more than 1,000 confiscation orders. In the three months after Maryland’s law went into effect on Oct. 1, more than 300 people had their guns taken away.” In Anne Arundel County, “a 61-year-old man died when the police stormed his home at 5 a.m. to take away his guns” (“The Folly of ‘Red Flag’ gun laws,” June 17, 2019, The Washington Times).
The biggest problems with Red Flag evaluations is that they happen “ex parte,” without the defendant present to defend himself. Due process, guaranteed in the Bill of Rights in three places, is denied. If “ex parte,” a second hearing is scheduled, some weeks later, where the defendant must provide evidence proving his innocence (U.S. & Texas LawShield Blog). You must prove yourself innocent of something that you never did, nor probably thought of doing, but was previously punished for by the forcible confiscation of your weapons. We are dangerously close to destroying the backbone of our judicial system, the presumption of innocence.
Some remember going down a similar path with Japanese-Americans many years ago. More than 110,000 were feared to be potentially dangerous in World War II and thus were rounded up in secret raids throughout western states and placed in “relocation camps.” No crimes had been committed and the United States later had to pay reparations to descendants for this injustice.
Both mass murderers appear to be politically motivated. El Paso mass shooter and Trump supporter Patrick Crusius, 21, traveled 650 miles to target a community at least 80% Hispanic for his victims. Far left Dayton, Ohio mass shooter and Elizabeth Warren supporter Connor Betts, 24, worshiped Antifa and hated ICE. Both far left and far right think the other crazy and capable of violence which is the foundation for Red Flag laws. Both want the power of government to remove the other.
An ominous cloud hangs over America if its citizens flood authorities with calls to take away the gun rights of the other. Historically government is happy to do both. El Paso and Dayton may be equivalents to Fort Sumpter in the Civil War.
LibertyUnderFire has already published how Red Flag laws violate, not only the Second Amendment, but amendments I, IV, V, VI and XIV as well. It essentially emasculates the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. President Trump cannot support red flag laws and the Constitution simultaneously.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Jul 28, 2019 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D.
Virtually all of my acquaintances in the LGBT Community are Democrats, but their party leaders have left traditional democratic principles and are now strong advocates of socialism. So why not move with them? Perhaps there are good reasons the LGBT community should fear socialism. Show me a “real” socialist country that guarantees their right to even exist.
Russia, the first socialist country, quickly conquered its 15 neighbors and assembled itself into the the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, (U.S.S.R.). Vladimir Lenin criminalized homosexuality under Article 121 which read. “Sexual relations of a man with a man (pederasty), shall be punished by deprivation of freedom for a term of up to five years. Pederasty committed with the application of physical force, or threats, or with respect to a minor, or taking advantage of the dependent position of the victim, shall be punished by the deprivation of freedom for a term of up to eight years.” (Basic Documents on the Soviet Legal System; by WE Butler, p. 344, The Criminal Code of the USSR). After the conquest of Germany ending World War II the Union grew by 8 additional countries to 23. It might be well to remember that prison then was forced hard labor with meager rations which often resulted in starvation.
Adolf Hitler’s the National Socialist Workers Party, of Germany, otherwise known as the Nazi Party, was decidedly socialist. Hitler preached class warfare and agitated the working class to resist “exploitation” by capitalists, particularly Jewish capitalists. Nazi persecution of homosexuality was horrific including castration, murder, and incarceration in Nazi (short for nationalist socialist) concentration camps. Both gay men and lesbians were targeted.
In the socialist Republic of China during the Mao tza Tung era homosexuality was pathologized and criminalized. During the Communist Revolution (1966 to 1976), homosexuals were regarded as “disgraceful” and “undesirable” thus heavily persecuted. Homosexuality was banned until 1997 and removed as a sexual illness in 2001 yet “psychiatric facilities across the country still considering homosexuality as a mental disorder on various degrees and continuing to offer conversion therapy treatments,” the same as did its counterparts North Korea, “illegal through decency and obscenity laws,”and North Vietnam. The treatment of homosexuals under Fidel Castro in Cuba was horrific.
Venezuela, the most recent socialist country, headed by past president Hugo Chavez, likewise has not shown itself as “gay friendly.” In 2009 the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission sent out an urgent alert expressing their concern regarding the arbitrary detention of LGBT leaders in Caracas reporting that they had been verbally harassed, beaten and detained by Caracas police.
LGBT adherents, flirting with a love relationship with socialism, might take notice of what else the internationalist had to say about how modern socialists treat their community. “This incident is one of many arbitrary arrests carried out against the LGBT community under the ‘Operation Safe Caracas’ campaign, meant to crack down on crime. The police harass and abuse people whose sexual orientation and/or gender identity differs from social norms. These detentions are arbitrary under international human rights law and violate the right to life and security, to be free from arbitrary detention, to be free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, to be free from discrimination, to equality before the law, to freedom of expression, and to the rights of human rights defenders” (Venezuela: Condemn Arrests of LGBT in Caracas, OutRight Action International, November 12, 2009).
All the above socialist countries lowered their standard of living by adopting socialism. The USSR faced famine, even cannibalism, twice in 1921-23 and again in 1932-1933 and was twice rescued by capitalist America. Millions died in these government contrived famines to liquidated undesirables like the Kulaks, Ukrainians and Kazakhs. In Venezuela today, under Nicolus Maduro, people are eating out of garbage cans. China and Vietnam escaped much of the economic hardship by incorporating some of the free market philosophies of the West.
We observe an expansion of human suffering and death of “undesirables” under socialism. Even today China has a million Uighur Muslims in concentration camps primarily because of their religious beliefs; some suggest for ethnic cleansing. The LGBT community has never been the majority in any country and thus their practices are lawful only in a sympathetic democracy or dictatorship, which could be changed at a whim. Democracy is tolerant until the money is gone. Once fully in place, socialism becomes the most intolerant form of government known and genocide, practiced by most socialist founders, was justified for the good of the whole.
The Constitution, under federalism and as written, left behavior matters (alcohol, drugs use, or sexual preferences—even abortion) entirely to the states or lesser governments. Thus pockets of such could exist in counties or cities. But citizens of such are protected by a common Bill of Rights in any measure against them and there could never be genocide, castration or concentration camps as government policy as elsewhere. In our republic alone, again as designed, the peoples right to exist does not come from government but from God, and is guaranteed.
Socialism seeks to mold all into sameness—not just economically. Dissident, religious, or sexual expressive groups are not viewed as moldable. These will never fit. The LGBT community has nothing to gain by flirting with socialism.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org
Jul 15, 2019 | Constitution, Economy, Liberty Articles, Taxes
Harold Pease, Ph. D.
As government controls more portions of the economy, democracy transcends to socialism. Sometime in this transition democracy ceases to be democracy although the term continues to be used, and no-one can identify that moment when it is too late to pull free.
So why should the dependent class, defined as the approximately 47% who pay no federal income tax and are largely those who benefit from food stamps, subsidized housing, healthcare and other assistance programs, fear socialism? Because socialism has a history of ending assistance programs. Democracy enables a marriage between the assisted class with their vote power and politicians wishing to empower themselves by, in effect, transferring wealth from those who have to the poor. Once established this marriage self perpetuates and amplifies. Try seeking office today on a platform that ends all governmental assistance programs—or, even just one, food stamps.
The brakes (limits) of the Constitution are powerful when observed but they cannot perform well once gifting (bribing the dependent class for their vote) has been introduced into the body politic. Once ingrained it cannot prevent itself from offering larger and more gifts until elections are bidding wars without constitutional restraints. This feeds an enlarging national debt that can never be paid. We see this today in the Democratic Party presidential debates: free college, reparations for the descendants of ex-slaves, a guaranteed income, and free healthcare for everyone in the world willing to cross our borders illegally. In exchange for your vote the socialist politician advocates that everything be free. This is his most powerful lure and works well on idealistic youth and the already dependent but it risks collapsing the economy, democracy, the Constitution and liberty.
Aristotle recognized this when he wrote, “Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotism.” The deadly virus of democracy is voter gifting by politicians willing to sell their souls for elected office.
King Solon of Athens created the governmental form a republic because the philosopher king believed that man should govern himself and, once he had the republic in place, left Athens to attend the University of Alexandria in Egypt never to return. The new idea, personal freedom, resulted in five major unintended consequences: a booming economy, a creative and intellectual surge, an ever enlarging voter base, an unequal distribution of wealth because not all were equally gifted or industrious and, finally, class envy because, although all who worked were comparatively better off from pre-republic standards, some still had more.
The ever enlarging voter base deteriorated into a democracy which had no brakes, no resistance to class envy and the marriage between the expanding less productive who could link their vote with unprincipled politicians willing to transfer the fruits of labor from those who produce to those who do not in exchange for their gaining power. Democracy degenerates into gifting but soon enough there does not exist enough money to sustain the gifting and it ends with an economic crash. Once despotism replaces democracy there are no constitutional checks.
Rome repeated the same experiment with a similar result about a century later. Bread and circuses (free food and entertainment) destroyed the noble idea.
The previous failures were known to the well-read Founding Fathers who wanted the burst in creativity and general prosperity for all as delivered in a republic without the class envy and voter gifting. What if the powers of government were divided and separated into three branches with each a check on the other two and each given a list of the things they could do with gifting excluded? What if all powers not specifically mentioned in Article I, Section 8, remained with the states and the people as stipulated? What if all taxes must be spent only on the items on the list? What if the federal government could not assume additional power without the consent of 3/4th of the states? The government could not take over the economy by confiscation or regulation and the poor could never destroy the rich or devour the middle class. We could never degenerate into democracy then to the most common form of despotism today, socialism—fathered by Karl Marx.
Not a single sentence in the Constitution gives a benefit to anyone, only an environment of equality where one can maximize his talents.
In our republic all votes are not equal. Under the Constitution as designed only the House of Representatives was democratically elected by the people. State legislators voted for U.S. Senators, an Electoral College selected the President, and he appointed supreme court justices for life confirmed only by the Senate.
We must apply the brakes of the Constitution to retain our republic. Otherwise in time the productive classes cannot provide the money that is demanded of them to feed and otherwise subsidize the less productive class. It already can’t. We exceed 22 trillion dollars in debt. Each taxpayer owes the federal government $182,881, payable today (See USDebtClock.org). Despite unrealistic promises, socialism gives only slavery and shared poverty.
Gifting must end. When the banks crash a new government will form and it will not honor the debt that destroyed its predecessor government, nor is it likely to fund social security, medicare, unlimited war , income security, federal pensions or any other program that contributed to it. Under socialism freedom does not survive.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Jul 1, 2019 | Constitution, Liberty Articles, Taxes
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
A week before the 4th of July everyone dons patriotic symbols . A week later few do. The event comes and goes: colors red, white, and blue are popular for a day. One might be viewed as “super patriotic” (as though this were bad) were one to display the symbols too long.
The evening is filled with fireworks (the bigger the better) but few know why. When asked, the most common response is freedom. “Freedom from what or whom?” I ask. If a stare could kill, I’d be dead. But there is no real understanding behind the expression. It is rare when anyone answers correctly, “Freedom from excessive government.”
The cause of the American Revolution was excessive government. Some say, “taxation without representation” but this is but a part of excessive government. Every U.S. History text has a chapter dealing with the causes. It is filled with the rules and regulations that were most oppressive to the colonists: the Stamp Act, Tea Act, Currency Act, Iron Act, Molasses Act, Sugar Act, even the Hat Act. Such acts were viewed by the colonist as restrictions on their freedom to act independent of governmental permission. When they descended like rain, as they did prior to the Revolution, the colonists demanded to know why, when not satisfied, they resisted the rulings without success, then, “Where is my rifle?”
For one day of the year there is peace between liberals and conservatives. Each wear the emblems of the Revolution and demonstrate their patriotism by raising bigger flags, exploding bigger fireworks, eating bigger steaks and guzzling more alcohol. Parades too are non-partisan and show patriotism, but for what? The next day we ask the federal government to place more restrictions on our neighbor and give us more free stuff at his expense, totally ignoring the Constitution and the reason for the Revolution.
Few share with their children the reasons behind these symbols and still fewer tie the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution which essentially ended the need for a future revolution by restricting the federal government to a handful of areas in which they can constitutionally restrict our behavior (Article I, Sec. 8), freezing forever, if we adhere to the Constitution as designed, our legislative branch doing the same thing to us as had parliament to the colonists. If the two are not tied together then the American Revolution was just a revolution, rightly commemorated by having a longer weekend and an excuse to get drunk.
Lost in the translation and replaced by the blank stare previously mentioned, is your right to do most everything you wish without permission from a government, more especially one located hundreds, often thousands, of miles away. Outside the short list in Article I, Section 8, which, incidentally, has no restrictions on the individual himself, the Constitution left the individual to manage himself. When his behavior offended the right of others to also self-manage, his community, starting at the lowest level (cities, counties, and finally his state government), may regulate his behavior protecting the right of self-management for others as well. Please review this list with family and friends.
This is called freedom. And this is the end result of a 13-year transformative period from the Declaration of Independence through the Articles of Federation to the Constitution, which included the Bill of Rights. The federal government constitutionally could only increase its power through Article V, which required the permission of the states. Today it does so at will because legislators openly oppose these documents or do not care.
The collective view of the Founders was to never elevate to a higher level that which could be resolved at a lesser level. Resolving problems at the lowest level of government, the city for example, allows the individual access to his elected representatives for redress and the offended to those he has most directly offended. A more just outcome is likely.
The 4th of July and Constitution Week in September are our best opportunities to share the message of why the Revolution and the Constitution interconnect and are among the more important events in U.S., even world, history. These two events are our best opportunities to remember and convey to friends and family what liberty is and how and why it must be preserved. Do they know that the vast majority of all inventions on earth came from within the United States under this Constitution, from the clipper ship to moon landing technology? Liberty incentivizes creativity. Do they know that it was purchased by blood and if lost will remain lost until purchased by blood again? Have you told them that if just one generation fails to convey to the next these precious ideas, it will be lost to their posterity. Freedom is not free and never will be.
We are grateful to those who know the real meaning and significance of this event in history and are willing to share it with others. We are forever indebted to those who gave their lives for our freedom in the Revolutionary War and thereafter. We remain grateful for fireworks and parades as long as we do not forget that excessive government is the enemy of liberty, then and now, whether it is taken from us by a parliament, as then, or a Congress, as today.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
