Most often the most ignored right in the Bill of Rights itself is the Third Amendment. If I were to ask anybody on the street I believe 99.99% of the people asked would not know what the Third Amendment was. So just incase you are one of those who are unfamiliar with it, here it is:
"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered
in any house, without the consent of the Owner,
nor in time of war, but in a manner to be pres-
cribed by law."
Why do we have this in our Constitution? Is there a threat that our military will attempt to take quarter in our homes and that the American people will be forced to billet the troops at our own expense? The answer to these questions are no, of course not, our military has adequate housing and never in the history of our Nation has this been an issue that we've needed to fret. So why was it added into the Constitution by our Founding Fathers then? The answer is both simple and complex at the same time.
First the simple answer. If we read the Declaration of Independence we will see that one of the complaints against Ol' King George was that he had a large amount of standing troops during times of peace during the colonial days of America. These troops were permitted to take over any home of their choosing and would eat all the food and behave in manners unbefitting proper gentlemen of the day. The colonist were obliged to feed, house and care for (in a manner similar to servidtud) the troops for the duration of their stay. These billeting requirements usually lasted until the colonist had no more to give then the soldiers would move on to their next host. This was a sore spot to the colonist therefore when there was a push by the federalist to ensure a standing army during times of peace in the new fledgling nation, those opposed to this insisted on having a guarantee within the Constitution protecting the American people against the tyranical advances of a rogue army. That is pretty much the short of it.
Similarly, just as the First and Second Amendment protected the Citizens against an oppressive government, the Third was added with the same purpose in mind. Our Founding Fathers, understood that if there was a desire by the government who controlled the military to oppress the people, there would be no barrier to protect the person in their property from full scale "invasion". They therefore knowing once again the steps which would be taken by an oppressive government, having been subjected to one and studying the oppressive regeims of the past, placed into the Constitution various laws and protections to ensure that the Citizens would have a chance against their government if need arose.
Indeed as stated at the begining of this treatice, the Third Amendment has been widely forgotten and ignored. No litigation has arisen from this particular Amendment although it has been used to cite the Constitutions guarantee to privacy and property. In one instance which was brought before a lower court, in a case regarding a group of corrections officers who were on strike and subsequently expelled from their State sponsored housing to house the National Guard who were taking over guarding duties at the prisons effected by the strike, the court ruled that the corrections officers' Third Amendment rights were violated by the actions of the State. This ruling was appealed to an Appeals Court and the ruling was vacated, stating that due to the circumstances surrounding the eviction from the housing facilities, and the necessity to provide security at the prisons the State had not violated the rights of the guards and therefore there was no issue of Constitutionality at hand. Other than this one court case no other case has been brought up with regards to the "original" meaning or intent of this Amendment.
This is one Amendment which needs to be watched carefully, because when we forget and ignor something that at one time was a problem, it will usually come back to haunt us in the future. The old addage, those who ignor history are usually doomed to repeat it is very true. This Amendment is important for the sole fact that it shows a clear picture that our Founding Fathers understood historical events and endeavored to protect us from the cycle which has destroyed every major power in the history of the world. It also shows that they desired to protect us from the burden and expense of a tyranical government.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
The Freedoms: Commentary on the Bill of Rights, The Second Amendment
Now that we’ve reviewed the First Amendment to the Constitution, let’s take a look at the most attacked and controversial of freedoms granted within the Constitution, the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment reads as follows:
“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.”
First, let us define Militia. What exactly is a Militia? The textbook or dictionary definition of a militia is as follows: An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers, a military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency, the whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service. Many of the Founding Fathers distrusted a standing army of professional soldiers. They believed that a Militia comprising of citizens would keep the government “honest” and America’s borders secure. Their main fear of a standing army of professional soldiers was that in their experience a standing army could be utilized against the people thereby putting in jeopardy the Nation as a whole. They insisted that when a Bill of Rights was adopted and amended into the Constitution that a provision for the Citizens to defend themselves against oppression from their Federal government and defense against enemies from abroad and domestic by permitting the formation of a Militia and the individual arming of the Citizens of the Country be added thereto.
The argument that has been made by proponents of the First Amendment is that the reasoning behind the positioning of the amendment indicates its importance and therefore you can’t infringe upon that right because of its great importance. If that argument is to stand uncontested, then one must agree that the positioning of the Second Amendment makes it equally as important. It is my belief that the Founding Fathers understood the events, which would lead to an enslaving of the people and the actions, which would be taken by the government to oppress its Citizens. It is clear by the wording of the Second Amendment that it was intention of the Founding Fathers to establish the individual right to bear arms and therefore establish the right of the Citizens to own weapons.
Opponents to the Second Amendment have repeatedly claimed that it makes no guarantee of an individual right to own weapons. One argument that has been made is that gun ownership in Colonial America was scarce and uncommon. They’ve come to this conclusion by reviewing probate records from that era. They say that there is seldom any mention of a gun in the lists of assets found within those records. As an estate planner let me explain the holes found within this argument made by gun ownership opponents. Typically when an asset list is made for the intent of an estate items of worth are made more particular mention of. That is when a list of assets is made you would list furniture, jewelry, personal treasures, etc. Items which hold a particular value to you and your family which would be passed on to family members that they would consider valuable. An asset list would not include clothing, kitchen utensils, and other common household items typically found in everybody’s home because those items would not be of great importance in establishing a value. The absence of guns on the probate lists of the Colonial America era does not necessarily mean that gun ownership was uncommon. As a matter of fact gun ownership was more than common, more so than owning multiple suits of clothing. The obtaining of food was in most cases an individual endeavor. It was not common to go to the neighborhood grocery store and pick up your meat for the day. Another indication that gun ownership was common was the fact that many townships of the day shared Constables and County Sheriffs; this meant that the people were responsible for their own personal protection from highway men, thieves and Indian attacks and any other danger which should present itself during the course of daily life.
The Second Amendment has consistently come under attack by groups claiming that the mere existence of firearms promotes crime. Many Nations throughout the world have taken steps to ban the ownership of firearms to their citizenry with the hopes of lowering and eliminating crime. The outcome of these Draconian measures has been dismal for those Nations adopting such regulations. For example, a recent article on crime in England claimed that a person would be safer walking the streets of New York City, NY than walking the streets of London, England, and England has in place strict gun bans which include even novelty (toy, non-operational) guns. There was a recent incident in which a woman was attacked while walking home by a group of thugs desiring to do her harm, she had in her possession a toy handgun that she had taken from her grandchildren and presented it to her assailants to effectively escape. Upon reporting the incident to the local police she was arrested for threatening bodily harm with a dangerous weapon. England is not the only Nation to see an increase in violent crimes since adopting either all out gun bans or strict restrictions on personal gun ownership. Here in the United States we have seen the opposite happen as States have relaxed restrictions and provided Conceal Carry laws allowing their citizens the right to carry a firearm. The most recent of these would be Minnesota where the anti-gun lobby including several of the State’s Chief’s of Police insisted if the State passed a law allowing the individual right to carry a weapon “blood would run in the streets.” Over the past 7 years that the law has been on the books, murder rates have steadily decreased and crime has been kept at bay and in some areas decreased as well. This has been the trend in every State that has adopted less restrictive gun laws for its citizens.
When the Assault Weapons ban expired a few years ago and Bush refused to renew it, the anti-gun lobby once again bemoaned the fact that millions of children would needlessly die and that the U.S. murder rate would skyrocket to unparalleled precedents. This has of course not happened nor has the increase of crimes using assault style rifles occurred as they prophesied would happen. Time and time again the anti-gun lobby has been proven wrong in their dooms day predictions, yet we as a people still give credence to their drivel. Recently Stanford Law Professor Don Kates along with a Canadian law professor named Gary Mauser conducted a legal analysis in the which they reviewed dozens of existing studies from around the world on the subject of gun bans and the reduction of crime and murder rates. Their research proved the mantra from the anti-gun lobby to be not only wrong but blatantly false. There is no empirical evidence to support the statements made by the anti-gun lobby or their cohorts in the legislative bodies of government.
These defenses of the Second Amendment are not meant to imply that firearms are not used in the commission of crimes. Firearms are used in the commission of 66% of murders in the U.S. Yet even this number is misleading due to the fact that it includes crimes committed by guns obtained illegally. If the number were to be removed for crimes committed by legally obtained weapons the numbers would fall dramatically. After firearms the next weapons of choice are those classified by the FBI as other weapons, which include rocks, arrows, tools and so forth. Close behind those are knives and other cutting instruments. My intention in pointing this out is the fact that firearms are not the only weapons of choice for the committal of murder. Even if we as a society could effectively rid America of all firearms including those obtained through illegal means, murder would still be where it is today. In other words, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. It sounds trite but it is true. An SUV can’t drive itself into a pedestrian, and a gun cannot discharge itself, it is operator initiated in both instances.
In summation, the individual right to keep and bear arms is in fact a Constitutionally guaranteed right granted us by our Founding Fathers. In their minds the right to defend oneself from violent crime from criminals or oppression from government was one in the same. Any attempt to remove the individual right to keep and bear arms should be met with most strenuous resistance that we can sum up within ourselves. The only reason why anybody would want to remove our right to self armament is to enslave us and give themselves the ability to trample under foot the rest of our freedoms within the Constitution.
To view the study conducted by Professors Kates and Mauser , follow this link: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2
“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.”
First, let us define Militia. What exactly is a Militia? The textbook or dictionary definition of a militia is as follows: An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers, a military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency, the whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service. Many of the Founding Fathers distrusted a standing army of professional soldiers. They believed that a Militia comprising of citizens would keep the government “honest” and America’s borders secure. Their main fear of a standing army of professional soldiers was that in their experience a standing army could be utilized against the people thereby putting in jeopardy the Nation as a whole. They insisted that when a Bill of Rights was adopted and amended into the Constitution that a provision for the Citizens to defend themselves against oppression from their Federal government and defense against enemies from abroad and domestic by permitting the formation of a Militia and the individual arming of the Citizens of the Country be added thereto.
The argument that has been made by proponents of the First Amendment is that the reasoning behind the positioning of the amendment indicates its importance and therefore you can’t infringe upon that right because of its great importance. If that argument is to stand uncontested, then one must agree that the positioning of the Second Amendment makes it equally as important. It is my belief that the Founding Fathers understood the events, which would lead to an enslaving of the people and the actions, which would be taken by the government to oppress its Citizens. It is clear by the wording of the Second Amendment that it was intention of the Founding Fathers to establish the individual right to bear arms and therefore establish the right of the Citizens to own weapons.
Opponents to the Second Amendment have repeatedly claimed that it makes no guarantee of an individual right to own weapons. One argument that has been made is that gun ownership in Colonial America was scarce and uncommon. They’ve come to this conclusion by reviewing probate records from that era. They say that there is seldom any mention of a gun in the lists of assets found within those records. As an estate planner let me explain the holes found within this argument made by gun ownership opponents. Typically when an asset list is made for the intent of an estate items of worth are made more particular mention of. That is when a list of assets is made you would list furniture, jewelry, personal treasures, etc. Items which hold a particular value to you and your family which would be passed on to family members that they would consider valuable. An asset list would not include clothing, kitchen utensils, and other common household items typically found in everybody’s home because those items would not be of great importance in establishing a value. The absence of guns on the probate lists of the Colonial America era does not necessarily mean that gun ownership was uncommon. As a matter of fact gun ownership was more than common, more so than owning multiple suits of clothing. The obtaining of food was in most cases an individual endeavor. It was not common to go to the neighborhood grocery store and pick up your meat for the day. Another indication that gun ownership was common was the fact that many townships of the day shared Constables and County Sheriffs; this meant that the people were responsible for their own personal protection from highway men, thieves and Indian attacks and any other danger which should present itself during the course of daily life.
The Second Amendment has consistently come under attack by groups claiming that the mere existence of firearms promotes crime. Many Nations throughout the world have taken steps to ban the ownership of firearms to their citizenry with the hopes of lowering and eliminating crime. The outcome of these Draconian measures has been dismal for those Nations adopting such regulations. For example, a recent article on crime in England claimed that a person would be safer walking the streets of New York City, NY than walking the streets of London, England, and England has in place strict gun bans which include even novelty (toy, non-operational) guns. There was a recent incident in which a woman was attacked while walking home by a group of thugs desiring to do her harm, she had in her possession a toy handgun that she had taken from her grandchildren and presented it to her assailants to effectively escape. Upon reporting the incident to the local police she was arrested for threatening bodily harm with a dangerous weapon. England is not the only Nation to see an increase in violent crimes since adopting either all out gun bans or strict restrictions on personal gun ownership. Here in the United States we have seen the opposite happen as States have relaxed restrictions and provided Conceal Carry laws allowing their citizens the right to carry a firearm. The most recent of these would be Minnesota where the anti-gun lobby including several of the State’s Chief’s of Police insisted if the State passed a law allowing the individual right to carry a weapon “blood would run in the streets.” Over the past 7 years that the law has been on the books, murder rates have steadily decreased and crime has been kept at bay and in some areas decreased as well. This has been the trend in every State that has adopted less restrictive gun laws for its citizens.
When the Assault Weapons ban expired a few years ago and Bush refused to renew it, the anti-gun lobby once again bemoaned the fact that millions of children would needlessly die and that the U.S. murder rate would skyrocket to unparalleled precedents. This has of course not happened nor has the increase of crimes using assault style rifles occurred as they prophesied would happen. Time and time again the anti-gun lobby has been proven wrong in their dooms day predictions, yet we as a people still give credence to their drivel. Recently Stanford Law Professor Don Kates along with a Canadian law professor named Gary Mauser conducted a legal analysis in the which they reviewed dozens of existing studies from around the world on the subject of gun bans and the reduction of crime and murder rates. Their research proved the mantra from the anti-gun lobby to be not only wrong but blatantly false. There is no empirical evidence to support the statements made by the anti-gun lobby or their cohorts in the legislative bodies of government.
These defenses of the Second Amendment are not meant to imply that firearms are not used in the commission of crimes. Firearms are used in the commission of 66% of murders in the U.S. Yet even this number is misleading due to the fact that it includes crimes committed by guns obtained illegally. If the number were to be removed for crimes committed by legally obtained weapons the numbers would fall dramatically. After firearms the next weapons of choice are those classified by the FBI as other weapons, which include rocks, arrows, tools and so forth. Close behind those are knives and other cutting instruments. My intention in pointing this out is the fact that firearms are not the only weapons of choice for the committal of murder. Even if we as a society could effectively rid America of all firearms including those obtained through illegal means, murder would still be where it is today. In other words, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. It sounds trite but it is true. An SUV can’t drive itself into a pedestrian, and a gun cannot discharge itself, it is operator initiated in both instances.
In summation, the individual right to keep and bear arms is in fact a Constitutionally guaranteed right granted us by our Founding Fathers. In their minds the right to defend oneself from violent crime from criminals or oppression from government was one in the same. Any attempt to remove the individual right to keep and bear arms should be met with most strenuous resistance that we can sum up within ourselves. The only reason why anybody would want to remove our right to self armament is to enslave us and give themselves the ability to trample under foot the rest of our freedoms within the Constitution.
To view the study conducted by Professors Kates and Mauser , follow this link: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2
Thursday, November 6, 2008
The Freedoms: Commentary on the Bill of Rights, The First Amendment: Part Three
I would now like to take a look at the final part of the First Amendment as we've already discussed the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech and the press. This part of the First Amendment refers to the "right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Let us first look at "the right of the people to peaceably assemble". What does it mean to peaceably assemble? Well to define the word peaceably, it means: without disturbance or peacefully. To define peacefully, it means: characterized by peace; free from war, strife, commotion, violence, or disorder: a peaceful reign; a peaceful demonstration. I strongly believe that this right is essential for the assurance of order within our society. If this right is restricted or infringed upon then we as a society loose an integral part of our freedoms. It is through this guarantee that we are permitted to attend our church meetings throughout this Country, come together in book clubs, Rotary Clubs, Scout troops, etc. It is this guarantee which allows us as Americans to voice our opinion with regards to important subjects as we come together to rally for a cause. It is this freedom that we rely upon when we protest the actions of government or other organizations.
This being said, this right or freedom does not come without limitations. Let's go back to what it says as written, "peaceably assemble". We've defined peaceably as free from strife, commotion, violence, or disorder. Groups that come together and shout profanities at people attending the funerals of soldiers killed in action while fighting in Iraq are not protected by this Amendment although they claim the ability to do so from some loose interpretation of the First Amendment. The shouting of profanities to funeral attendees as well as religious devotees attending a religious meeting are in essence full of strife and commotion. There is not much to be said of this. There has been a very loose interpretation of this right, granting groups and organizations to assemble in an attitude of strife and disorder all the while claiming protection under the First Amendment. I believe our society needs to review this Amendment and enforce it as written.
Secondly, our right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". I do believe that this is the one right that our government has not profaned as of yet. We have always been permitted to write our government officials. I believe the reason behind the fact that our government has always upheld this right is due to the fact that they are under no Constitutional obligation to redress any grievance presented to them, as they look at it. A perfect example of this would be shortly after the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were forced from their homes, murdered, and ruthlessly beaten in Missouri and forced from the State by Gov. Lilburn Bogg's Extermination Order, in the which he stated, "the Mormons must be treated as enemies and.... driven from the State or exterminated." They gathered affidavits and testimonials from those who had suffered at the hand of the Missourians and sent them off to the Congress. Congress ignored their petition for redress. They then went and met with President Van Buren and presented him with their complaint. After listening to the stories of abuse and mistreatment, President Van Buren exclaimed, "your cause is just, but there is nothing that I can do to help." In the eyes of the government there was no course needed to be taken, and the right of the Mormon people to petition the government for redress was not infringed upon in the slightest.
These rights outlined herein are essential to the assurance of a free Nation. They must be upheld by our government and properly applied by our Citizens. If we are to ensure the right of assemblage and petition we can not and must not abuse these freedoms. Ours is a sacred duty to emphatically uphold the freedoms guaranteed within the Constitution and pretend to no other. By so doing we will maintain order in our American society and peace will be established in our cities and in our homes.
Let us first look at "the right of the people to peaceably assemble". What does it mean to peaceably assemble? Well to define the word peaceably, it means: without disturbance or peacefully. To define peacefully, it means: characterized by peace; free from war, strife, commotion, violence, or disorder: a peaceful reign; a peaceful demonstration. I strongly believe that this right is essential for the assurance of order within our society. If this right is restricted or infringed upon then we as a society loose an integral part of our freedoms. It is through this guarantee that we are permitted to attend our church meetings throughout this Country, come together in book clubs, Rotary Clubs, Scout troops, etc. It is this guarantee which allows us as Americans to voice our opinion with regards to important subjects as we come together to rally for a cause. It is this freedom that we rely upon when we protest the actions of government or other organizations.
This being said, this right or freedom does not come without limitations. Let's go back to what it says as written, "peaceably assemble". We've defined peaceably as free from strife, commotion, violence, or disorder. Groups that come together and shout profanities at people attending the funerals of soldiers killed in action while fighting in Iraq are not protected by this Amendment although they claim the ability to do so from some loose interpretation of the First Amendment. The shouting of profanities to funeral attendees as well as religious devotees attending a religious meeting are in essence full of strife and commotion. There is not much to be said of this. There has been a very loose interpretation of this right, granting groups and organizations to assemble in an attitude of strife and disorder all the while claiming protection under the First Amendment. I believe our society needs to review this Amendment and enforce it as written.
Secondly, our right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". I do believe that this is the one right that our government has not profaned as of yet. We have always been permitted to write our government officials. I believe the reason behind the fact that our government has always upheld this right is due to the fact that they are under no Constitutional obligation to redress any grievance presented to them, as they look at it. A perfect example of this would be shortly after the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were forced from their homes, murdered, and ruthlessly beaten in Missouri and forced from the State by Gov. Lilburn Bogg's Extermination Order, in the which he stated, "the Mormons must be treated as enemies and.... driven from the State or exterminated." They gathered affidavits and testimonials from those who had suffered at the hand of the Missourians and sent them off to the Congress. Congress ignored their petition for redress. They then went and met with President Van Buren and presented him with their complaint. After listening to the stories of abuse and mistreatment, President Van Buren exclaimed, "your cause is just, but there is nothing that I can do to help." In the eyes of the government there was no course needed to be taken, and the right of the Mormon people to petition the government for redress was not infringed upon in the slightest.
These rights outlined herein are essential to the assurance of a free Nation. They must be upheld by our government and properly applied by our Citizens. If we are to ensure the right of assemblage and petition we can not and must not abuse these freedoms. Ours is a sacred duty to emphatically uphold the freedoms guaranteed within the Constitution and pretend to no other. By so doing we will maintain order in our American society and peace will be established in our cities and in our homes.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
The Freedoms: Commentary on the Bill of Rights, The First Amendment: Part Two
Now let us take a look at the next part of the First Amendment of the Constitution as it is written:
"Congress shall make no law...., abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,..."
What does it mean to abridge the freedom speech? According to the definition of the word abridge to abridge one's freedom of speech means to reduce, diminish, or make less. How can a government abridge someones freedom of speech? One way is to put limitations upon what a person can say with regards to those who govern.
Why did the Founding Father's think it important to guarantee this freedom? Could it be that they knew the manner in which an oppressive government would try and effectuate control over people? During the years leading up to the Revolutionary War the British Crown sent officers of the Court to the New World to monitor those things which were being said against the Crown. Individuals who were found speaking out against the Crown were subsequently jailed and their material possessions taken from them as a consequence of their actions. Merely expressing displeasure in the governance of the Colonies made one fear for their lives and families. After the long fought war for independence the Founding Fathers were insistent that we as a people be permitted to express our displeasure and our views without fear of retaliation (except for cases of treason against the United States). This freedom is essential to a free people. If one is truly free and not the subject of an oppressive regime then they have the right to express their displeasure. On the other hand this freedom doesn't mean that it is without regulation and governance. For example you can't enter an airplane and jestingly declare you are going to hijack the airplane. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded building without consequence. These are common regulations placed upon our freedom of speech. There are social restrictions placed upon our freedom as well. It is not socially acceptable to enter a room full of children and commence spewing forth obscenities, the consequence to this action would be an escorted visit to the local police station for disorderly conduct. The list goes on with regards to the regulation of this essential freedom.
This being said, is this freedom equally extended to all Americans alike? The unfortunate answer to this is no. Today's society has interpreted the meaning of this portion of the First Amendment to imply that only the minority voice is protected from the restriction or oppression of speech. In addition to this inequality in the protection of one's freedom of speech, many have also interpreted this to mean that they have the right to be heard by all. Let's look at the wording once again, "Congress shall make no law......, abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,..." I see no mention of the fact that only certain groups identified by Congress shall have this protection, nor do I see any mention that when exercising this freedom do you have the right granted to be heard. Furthermore, Congress is currently attempting to move forward with the passing upon of legislation which will make statutory law that which is commonly referred to as the "Fairness Doctrine". The Fairness Doctrine was originally adopted by the FCC in 1949 to regulate the presentation over public airwaves of controversial subjects and subjects of importance to the American people to ensure that these subjects were presented in a fair and balanced manner. Essentially it required companies and individuals holding broadcasting licences to give equal time to opposing views of any given subject. This policy was a general practise within the FCC of many years until 1985 when the Director of the FCC decided that the Fairness Doctrine hurt the public interest and violated the First Amendment. It was finally abolished as a policy in 1987.
Many within the walls of Congress and the Senate along with special interest groups believe that the Fairness Doctrine was essential to the dissemination of information through public airwaves. Recently Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat from New Mexico told a local conservative talk show host, "I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view," and "All I’m saying is that for many, many years we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country, and I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since." In June of this year Nancy Pelosi, Democrat from California told reporters that her fellow democratic Representatives did not want to forbid reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, adding “the interest in my caucus is the reverse.” When asked by John Gizzi of Human Events, “Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?’”, the Speaker replied "Yes." Others who have voiced their support of the re institution of the Fairness Doctrine are Dick Durban, Democrat from Illinois and John Kerry, Democrat from Massachusetts. Their desire to establish the Fairness Doctrine through Congressional intervention through legislation has extended beyond the mere application to radio stations and licensed broadcasters. Their current desire is to extend the doctrine to web sites and blogs. Which means blogs like this one would be required to represent both sides of all Constitutional issues or cease all operations and writing. This doctrine would silence talk radio which is dominated by conservative radio hosts, it would cancel Fox News, which has been attacked by the liberal left and Congress as a biased news outlet working for the Republican Party.
Would America be better served with the implementation of the Fairness Doctrine? My attitude is of course no. I see no benefit to the American people. I do perceive an encroachment of my freedoms and the freedoms of those who are like minded. Would the Fairness Doctrine be enforced upon MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS? Would those news outlets who have during the last 18 months revealed themselves as no more than political hacks, left leaning liberals, and outright socialists be required to present the news in a fair and balanced manner? As of right now, only talk radio and conservative blogs and websites have been identified as targets deemed dangerous to the American public.
We as Americans owe it to ourselves and our children to ensure that this doctrine is not revived. We have a solemn responsibility passed upon us by our Founding Fathers, one which if we neglect to protect will be taken from us and we will be subjects to an oppressive government, that which our Founding Fathers intended not to happen.
In my next post we will discuss the final portion of this Amendment to the Constitution, which is our freedom to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for redress.
"Congress shall make no law...., abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,..."
What does it mean to abridge the freedom speech? According to the definition of the word abridge to abridge one's freedom of speech means to reduce, diminish, or make less. How can a government abridge someones freedom of speech? One way is to put limitations upon what a person can say with regards to those who govern.
Why did the Founding Father's think it important to guarantee this freedom? Could it be that they knew the manner in which an oppressive government would try and effectuate control over people? During the years leading up to the Revolutionary War the British Crown sent officers of the Court to the New World to monitor those things which were being said against the Crown. Individuals who were found speaking out against the Crown were subsequently jailed and their material possessions taken from them as a consequence of their actions. Merely expressing displeasure in the governance of the Colonies made one fear for their lives and families. After the long fought war for independence the Founding Fathers were insistent that we as a people be permitted to express our displeasure and our views without fear of retaliation (except for cases of treason against the United States). This freedom is essential to a free people. If one is truly free and not the subject of an oppressive regime then they have the right to express their displeasure. On the other hand this freedom doesn't mean that it is without regulation and governance. For example you can't enter an airplane and jestingly declare you are going to hijack the airplane. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded building without consequence. These are common regulations placed upon our freedom of speech. There are social restrictions placed upon our freedom as well. It is not socially acceptable to enter a room full of children and commence spewing forth obscenities, the consequence to this action would be an escorted visit to the local police station for disorderly conduct. The list goes on with regards to the regulation of this essential freedom.
This being said, is this freedom equally extended to all Americans alike? The unfortunate answer to this is no. Today's society has interpreted the meaning of this portion of the First Amendment to imply that only the minority voice is protected from the restriction or oppression of speech. In addition to this inequality in the protection of one's freedom of speech, many have also interpreted this to mean that they have the right to be heard by all. Let's look at the wording once again, "Congress shall make no law......, abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,..." I see no mention of the fact that only certain groups identified by Congress shall have this protection, nor do I see any mention that when exercising this freedom do you have the right granted to be heard. Furthermore, Congress is currently attempting to move forward with the passing upon of legislation which will make statutory law that which is commonly referred to as the "Fairness Doctrine". The Fairness Doctrine was originally adopted by the FCC in 1949 to regulate the presentation over public airwaves of controversial subjects and subjects of importance to the American people to ensure that these subjects were presented in a fair and balanced manner. Essentially it required companies and individuals holding broadcasting licences to give equal time to opposing views of any given subject. This policy was a general practise within the FCC of many years until 1985 when the Director of the FCC decided that the Fairness Doctrine hurt the public interest and violated the First Amendment. It was finally abolished as a policy in 1987.
Many within the walls of Congress and the Senate along with special interest groups believe that the Fairness Doctrine was essential to the dissemination of information through public airwaves. Recently Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat from New Mexico told a local conservative talk show host, "I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view," and "All I’m saying is that for many, many years we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country, and I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since." In June of this year Nancy Pelosi, Democrat from California told reporters that her fellow democratic Representatives did not want to forbid reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, adding “the interest in my caucus is the reverse.” When asked by John Gizzi of Human Events, “Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?’”, the Speaker replied "Yes." Others who have voiced their support of the re institution of the Fairness Doctrine are Dick Durban, Democrat from Illinois and John Kerry, Democrat from Massachusetts. Their desire to establish the Fairness Doctrine through Congressional intervention through legislation has extended beyond the mere application to radio stations and licensed broadcasters. Their current desire is to extend the doctrine to web sites and blogs. Which means blogs like this one would be required to represent both sides of all Constitutional issues or cease all operations and writing. This doctrine would silence talk radio which is dominated by conservative radio hosts, it would cancel Fox News, which has been attacked by the liberal left and Congress as a biased news outlet working for the Republican Party.
Would America be better served with the implementation of the Fairness Doctrine? My attitude is of course no. I see no benefit to the American people. I do perceive an encroachment of my freedoms and the freedoms of those who are like minded. Would the Fairness Doctrine be enforced upon MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS? Would those news outlets who have during the last 18 months revealed themselves as no more than political hacks, left leaning liberals, and outright socialists be required to present the news in a fair and balanced manner? As of right now, only talk radio and conservative blogs and websites have been identified as targets deemed dangerous to the American public.
We as Americans owe it to ourselves and our children to ensure that this doctrine is not revived. We have a solemn responsibility passed upon us by our Founding Fathers, one which if we neglect to protect will be taken from us and we will be subjects to an oppressive government, that which our Founding Fathers intended not to happen.
In my next post we will discuss the final portion of this Amendment to the Constitution, which is our freedom to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for redress.
Friday, October 31, 2008
The Freedoms: Commentary on the Bill of Rights, The First Amendment: Part One
Recently I was watching television and had the opportunity to watch an episode of "Little House on the Prairie". The episode was about an immigrant family from Russia who had moved to Walnut Grove and purchased a farm within the community. To make a long story short, in the episode the state levied a property tax increase which the community was livid about, and eventually seized the property of this Russian family because the person who sold him the property had not paid the property taxes in seven years. Charles being upset with his own tax situation seeing this happen was angered at the Country for allowing this to happen and informed his family that they would not be celebrating the Centennial celebration of the birth of this Nation. He went to try and console this family in their loss and complain against the Country. In a manner which caused me to become emotional this gentleman reminded Charles Ingals and myself what it means to be a Citizen of this great Country, and reminded him of what he called, "the freedoms", or what we would call the Bill of Rights. He went on to tell Charles and the rest of the towns people that they should consider themselves lucky to be living in what he considered to be the greatest Country on the face of this earth. This episode got me thinking about the Constitution and the greatness of this Country, and you know what, he was right. Each of us should consider ourselves lucky to be living here in this Country. With everything that we complain about, we are still free, and "the freedoms" still are important. I would like to take the next few posts to review each one of these "freedoms" or rights because I believe that we as a Nation have become so blinded by the media's interpretation of them as well as the way we are taught them in school that we don't take the time to read them for ourselves.
As part of our regular weekly family night in our home we've taken the opportunity to study the Constitution with our children during the course of the past year and a half. We started with a video on the Constitutional Convention and from there took the opportunity to discuss with our children what the Constitution is. Since then we've been going over the Amendments to the Constitution the first ten of which are called The Bill of Rights. The first of these guaranteed rights granted us by our Constitution is:
As part of our regular weekly family night in our home we've taken the opportunity to study the Constitution with our children during the course of the past year and a half. We started with a video on the Constitutional Convention and from there took the opportunity to discuss with our children what the Constitution is. Since then we've been going over the Amendments to the Constitution the first ten of which are called The Bill of Rights. The first of these guaranteed rights granted us by our Constitution is:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging
the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for
a redress of grievances."Let's dissect the first Amendment to ensure that we understand its significance to us as a people. First, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." I don't think there are many who would argue the meaning of this first section, although there are those who would read into it the separation of Church and State which all too often is mistakenly applied to the Constitution. As a matter of fact when I first posted this blog I had a survey in which I asked if the Constitution contained the phrase, "separation of church and state", and I had some people say that it was found within the Constitution. The truth is, that this supposed separation only exists within the halls of the Supreme Court and not the Constitution. If this phrase is not found in the Constitution, where does it come from?
In 1802, Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a group called the
Danbury Baptists, while referencing the First Amendment to the Constitution he
wrote:"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
To understand fully what Mr. Jefferson was referring to we need to know the history or events leading up to the writing of this letter. This group was concerned that Connecticut would pass laws prohibiting their free exercise of religion and felt that they were in danger of being disbanded by political bias. In a letter dated October 7, 1801 they wrote a letter to Thomas Jefferson who had just been elected President of the United States they presented their concern thus:
"Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty — That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals — That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor..."
The quote above, attributed to Thomas Jefferson was his response to them to assuage their fears. The afore mentioned quote of President Jefferson if taken at face value, indicates something far different from that which society today interprets them to mean. As a side note the "wall of separation" and thus "separation of church and state" never appeared in any Supreme Court Ruling until Reynolds v. United States in 1879 (see blog posting : "Marriage and the Constitution", dated October 11, 2008). It is clear in President Jefferson's letter that he is explicitly referencing the ability of the legislature to establish a religion or govern in the affairs of religion and not that there should be no "religiosity" in political realms. I believe this to be in the contrary. Many of our Founding Fathers indicated religion as being the basis upon which this Country was founded and that if religion and God were to ever be removed by the people in their political realms this would be the cause of great troubles which would befall the Nation as a whole. To prove this point let me here provide some quotes from those who would know what our Founding Fathers thought on the subject of religion and our Country.
John Adams said on October 11, 1798, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Samuel Adams on October 4, 1790 stated, "Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity… and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.” John Quincy Adams during a Fourth of July speech in 1837 said, “Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?" “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"? Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration of Independence said on November 4, 1800, " Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."Finally, lets end with Benjamin Franklin. In 1749 while laying out the plan for education for public schools in Pennsylvania he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."
I believe the quotes as sited by those who are traditionally considered among
our Founding Fathers in this Nation are sufficient to prove my point that at
no time during their lives did they ever believe that religious actions or God
should ever be removed from the public interest or arena. I could go on for hours with quote after quote proving this point, but as stated already I believe these should suffice.In my next post I will continue with my treatise of this subject of the First Amendment and we will discuss the second part of the freedom of speech and of the press.
Friday, October 17, 2008
The Constitutional Rights of "Joe" the Plumber
Well it was bound to happen. The man known to America as Joe the Plumber is being attacked by the media. All he did was ask a tough question of Obama and now he is public enemy number one, because he owes back taxes (totaling less than $1,200) and his name is not really Joe, it's Samuel. He should be taken out and severely punished for lying about his name. Oh, and did you know he isn't even a licensed plumber? Yeah, his boss is, not him, how dare he call himself a plumber. I am being facetious here of course. I could care less about his back taxes, or his name or even if he is a plumber or not. What I care about is the fact that his individual right to speech has come under fire. All for asking the question on why he should vote for Obama taking into consideration his current economic situation. If Obama can't answer the question without being put out when a person doesn't agree with him on the outcome is that any reason to cause that he be excoriated for his position in being opposed to his economic views. Any intelligent non-political analysis of Obama's economic "plan" will uncover errors and omissions of major importance.
History has repeatedly shown that you cannot tax a nation into prosperity, it is anathema to common sense. His plan would give tax incentives to companies for a period of two years to create jobs in America and then at the end of two years those incentives would expire and those companies would loose the advantage of the domestic workforce. No company would go through the expense of hiring and training a workforce for two years. The "benefit" doesn't exist and therefore it is a smoke screen or merely a poor attempt at political posturing. America seems to be buying it though, he cares about the little guy, the working class American. When you look into his proposals you will see who he cares about, and it is himself. He will create more unemployment and create more financial stress in the market until he can implement his true economic agenda, socialism.
His health care plan for example, will require companies that are wealthy ($250,000 and more) to provide health care benefits for their employees and be assessed a tax to fund the national fund for health care. Employees will be able to retain their current benefits without any problems according to Obama. Let's look at reality, a company who is paying for health care and paying an additional tax to cover universal health care will gradually lower benefits until the employee declines employer sponsored health care, these employees will then move over to the universal health care increasing the demand. By the way if you think that this is merely an attempt to smear Obama and say that he is unintelligent, look at the case of Hawaii. Seven months ago Hawaii passed the Nation's first universal health care program to cover all children in Hawaii. Today they announced that they were closing it down because too many people who were getting benefits from either work or self-paid were taking their children off of their policies and getting them on the State sponsored policies, which overburdened the system and depleted the funds allotted for it. The same will happen with Obama's plan and there will be a massive push for the government to takeover the health care system. Just like we see right now with the government buying up stock in banks, taking ownership of banks throughout the country.
Obama mentioned in the debate the other night that we as a Nation and them as the government need to re-evaluate the way things are done in the United States with regards to debt and our economic plans, this is merely code for we need to re-evaluate capitalism and consider moving more toward communism if we are to succeed in today's world. Communism is not the answer for America, free market enterprise without government intervention is though. We don't need more government oversight of every little detail, this just creates more bureaucracies to deal with and which drain much needed financial resources from the federal government and therefore from the people.
Let's get back to "Joe" the wanna be plumber. He in actuality represents each and every hard working American. Each of us wants to live the American dream of owning our own company or reaching a level of success in our careers where we are earning six figures easily. Under Obama this dream or hope becomes dead, or as Obama would put it, our " Audacity of Hope". This our audacity is what Obama wishes to conquer and help us overcome by being more Patriotic and paying more taxes and giving up on this foolish notion of business ownership for self improvement and or career advancement. Those who are suckling on the breast of the federal government will continue to be taken care of for their continued support while those who dare try to obtain greatness will be litigiously whipped into submission until we freely accept the redistribution of wealth in America give up our supposed claim to individual rights understanding that the Constitution is a document of yesterday and today America must embark on a new journey, a journey to align ourselves with their view of America as broken and mean spirited.
I for myself will never accept this view of America. I am free, and I will remain free. My rights and this freedom which I claim is not given to me by man, but by God. May our Nation forever be one, united under a common sense of duty and respect. My prayer for America is that our politicians will respect us as Americans and allow us to live free under the protection of the Constitution. May we ever remain a Nation United!
History has repeatedly shown that you cannot tax a nation into prosperity, it is anathema to common sense. His plan would give tax incentives to companies for a period of two years to create jobs in America and then at the end of two years those incentives would expire and those companies would loose the advantage of the domestic workforce. No company would go through the expense of hiring and training a workforce for two years. The "benefit" doesn't exist and therefore it is a smoke screen or merely a poor attempt at political posturing. America seems to be buying it though, he cares about the little guy, the working class American. When you look into his proposals you will see who he cares about, and it is himself. He will create more unemployment and create more financial stress in the market until he can implement his true economic agenda, socialism.
His health care plan for example, will require companies that are wealthy ($250,000 and more) to provide health care benefits for their employees and be assessed a tax to fund the national fund for health care. Employees will be able to retain their current benefits without any problems according to Obama. Let's look at reality, a company who is paying for health care and paying an additional tax to cover universal health care will gradually lower benefits until the employee declines employer sponsored health care, these employees will then move over to the universal health care increasing the demand. By the way if you think that this is merely an attempt to smear Obama and say that he is unintelligent, look at the case of Hawaii. Seven months ago Hawaii passed the Nation's first universal health care program to cover all children in Hawaii. Today they announced that they were closing it down because too many people who were getting benefits from either work or self-paid were taking their children off of their policies and getting them on the State sponsored policies, which overburdened the system and depleted the funds allotted for it. The same will happen with Obama's plan and there will be a massive push for the government to takeover the health care system. Just like we see right now with the government buying up stock in banks, taking ownership of banks throughout the country.
Obama mentioned in the debate the other night that we as a Nation and them as the government need to re-evaluate the way things are done in the United States with regards to debt and our economic plans, this is merely code for we need to re-evaluate capitalism and consider moving more toward communism if we are to succeed in today's world. Communism is not the answer for America, free market enterprise without government intervention is though. We don't need more government oversight of every little detail, this just creates more bureaucracies to deal with and which drain much needed financial resources from the federal government and therefore from the people.
Let's get back to "Joe" the wanna be plumber. He in actuality represents each and every hard working American. Each of us wants to live the American dream of owning our own company or reaching a level of success in our careers where we are earning six figures easily. Under Obama this dream or hope becomes dead, or as Obama would put it, our " Audacity of Hope". This our audacity is what Obama wishes to conquer and help us overcome by being more Patriotic and paying more taxes and giving up on this foolish notion of business ownership for self improvement and or career advancement. Those who are suckling on the breast of the federal government will continue to be taken care of for their continued support while those who dare try to obtain greatness will be litigiously whipped into submission until we freely accept the redistribution of wealth in America give up our supposed claim to individual rights understanding that the Constitution is a document of yesterday and today America must embark on a new journey, a journey to align ourselves with their view of America as broken and mean spirited.
I for myself will never accept this view of America. I am free, and I will remain free. My rights and this freedom which I claim is not given to me by man, but by God. May our Nation forever be one, united under a common sense of duty and respect. My prayer for America is that our politicians will respect us as Americans and allow us to live free under the protection of the Constitution. May we ever remain a Nation United!
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Marriage and The Constitution
Before I start in on my intended subject of same-sex marriage, let's take a look at the history of marital laws in the United States of America and the Constitutionality of those laws as set forth by the courts. In order to do this we will need to take a look at the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints since the laws with regards to marriage as passed by the Congress and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court dealt principally with the Mormon church.
In 1862, Congress passed the anti-polygamy law known as the Morrill Act. This was the first act of the national Republican party in trying to derail the Mormon church since they were created to rid society of the two pillars of social blight, slavery and Mormonism. This law forbade the practise of plural marriage or polygamy. It created strict penalties including prison terms for those who violated the law. The Church was to cease all practise of polygamy immediately. In 1875 members of the Church with the consent of the leaders of the church challenged the law in the Supreme Court. In 1879 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the United States in the case Reynolds v. United States, in a unanimous decision by the court, it ruled that the U.S. Congress had all right given under the Constitution to define marriage and make laws to enforce that definition by the governing body. As a side note, what I find interesting with this 9-0 decision in favor of the Morrill Act in 1879 is that in 2008 the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Constitution protected the individual right to keep and bare arms. I'll let you make your conclusions as to the motivation backing the premise behind these two decisions, and I'll continue with my original topic. With this new found backing by the court, the congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act with stiffer penalties if not adhered to immediately. The Church facing complete isolation and the prospect of loosing all property through seizure by the Federal Government moves to make the practise of polygamy illegal within the Church. Many men who refuse to leave their families are placed in prison and others flee to Mexico to live in peace with their wives and children. I could get into a discussion with regards to the Constitutional issues surrounding this ordeal, but I will leave it at that and continue on topic.
Now let's flash forward in time to today. There has been several attempts by some in congress to introduce an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The opposition to this amendment within the congress has stated that congress has no right to define marriage and that it is a state's right issue. In principle I believe this stance to be correct. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution as found in the Bill of Rights and ratified in 1791 states as follows: " 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." This means since the Constitution makes no mention of a definition of marriage or contrary to the ruling of the Supreme Court in 1879, the States and or the people make the decision on the definition of marriage. This being said, although I believe the ruling of the Court to be motivated by religious bigotry and intolerance, nonetheless they ruled that the Congress has the Constitutional authority to define marriage within the United States, and since we as a people cannot go against the ruling of the Supreme Court as witnessed in the case with Roe v. Wade the Congress has the authority for now to define marriage.
I therefore ask this question, why then has the Congress refused to act on this subject? I believe the answer is simple. As in many instances in recent decades our illustrious elected officials have repeatedly refused to take upon themselves the responsibility to govern in those tough issues and have sat idly by and allowed the Courts to legislate from the bench. I believe this is what they are attempting to do in this case with full knowledge as to how the Court will eventually rule. We see in Massachusetts once the people voted in favor of a Constitutional Amendment the Courts came back and said, that although the people spoke, they have no right to define marriage and same-sex marriage was legalized. In Connecticut this week, their High (and mighty) Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage thereby taking out of the hands of the people to define marriage for themselves. Next month in California Proposition 8 will attempt to define marriage in California as between one man and one woman. If the people come out in favor, will the Courts in California uphold the ruling? I believe we can safely assume that the answer to that will be, No. Since they have already ruled in favor of same-sex unions in California.
Twenty-seven states currently have Constitutional Amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage. Forty-one states have statutory laws prohibiting same-sex unions but all are under judicial review. With political hot bed, our Congress has been unable to muster the 2/3 votes needed to pass the law. If nothing is done within Congress the Courts will determine the outcome of this battle between traditional and re-defined marriage.
What can we do? We can write our Congressmen and women and demand that action be taken to define marriage as between one man and one woman. We must hold our legislatures accountable to do their job and stop the Courts from legislating from the bench. Article III of the Constitution states that,"...the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and such Regulations as the Congress shall make." This means that Congress makes laws and the Court upholds them, not the other way around. It is time that our government understand the Constitution and stop trying to skirt the issues at hand.
Make no mistake about it, either the voice of the people will be heard, or the Courts will be heard on this issue. Then what will be next? Will homosexuality be taught to our children in schools as a normal choice and perfectly acceptable so that a 5-year old in kindergarten will grow up with their parents telling them one thing and their teachers and educators telling them something else? Will parental rights be completely stripped away with regards to this issue? I believe the answers to these questions will be in the affirmative. Then will those who practise bestiality, or necrophiles, or pedophiles be granted their rights under this new found Constitutional right? Where does it stop? It won't.
My call is to all Americans worthy of that appellation to stand up and make your voice heard. If we are to save the sacred institution of marriage then we must act. The future of our Country and our societies demands that we do something now. Stand up, and prepare for the battle ahead, because this is not a matter of just marriage, but a matter of National security. I feel strongly about this subject. We must act or be acted upon.
God Bless America! And may Freedom ring from the tops of every hill penetrating in every climb and may the flame of freedom burn brightly in the hearts of every American until we are able to say, We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America!
(Video on same-sex marriage)
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1815825713
In 1862, Congress passed the anti-polygamy law known as the Morrill Act. This was the first act of the national Republican party in trying to derail the Mormon church since they were created to rid society of the two pillars of social blight, slavery and Mormonism. This law forbade the practise of plural marriage or polygamy. It created strict penalties including prison terms for those who violated the law. The Church was to cease all practise of polygamy immediately. In 1875 members of the Church with the consent of the leaders of the church challenged the law in the Supreme Court. In 1879 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the United States in the case Reynolds v. United States, in a unanimous decision by the court, it ruled that the U.S. Congress had all right given under the Constitution to define marriage and make laws to enforce that definition by the governing body. As a side note, what I find interesting with this 9-0 decision in favor of the Morrill Act in 1879 is that in 2008 the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Constitution protected the individual right to keep and bare arms. I'll let you make your conclusions as to the motivation backing the premise behind these two decisions, and I'll continue with my original topic. With this new found backing by the court, the congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act with stiffer penalties if not adhered to immediately. The Church facing complete isolation and the prospect of loosing all property through seizure by the Federal Government moves to make the practise of polygamy illegal within the Church. Many men who refuse to leave their families are placed in prison and others flee to Mexico to live in peace with their wives and children. I could get into a discussion with regards to the Constitutional issues surrounding this ordeal, but I will leave it at that and continue on topic.
Now let's flash forward in time to today. There has been several attempts by some in congress to introduce an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The opposition to this amendment within the congress has stated that congress has no right to define marriage and that it is a state's right issue. In principle I believe this stance to be correct. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution as found in the Bill of Rights and ratified in 1791 states as follows: " 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." This means since the Constitution makes no mention of a definition of marriage or contrary to the ruling of the Supreme Court in 1879, the States and or the people make the decision on the definition of marriage. This being said, although I believe the ruling of the Court to be motivated by religious bigotry and intolerance, nonetheless they ruled that the Congress has the Constitutional authority to define marriage within the United States, and since we as a people cannot go against the ruling of the Supreme Court as witnessed in the case with Roe v. Wade the Congress has the authority for now to define marriage.
I therefore ask this question, why then has the Congress refused to act on this subject? I believe the answer is simple. As in many instances in recent decades our illustrious elected officials have repeatedly refused to take upon themselves the responsibility to govern in those tough issues and have sat idly by and allowed the Courts to legislate from the bench. I believe this is what they are attempting to do in this case with full knowledge as to how the Court will eventually rule. We see in Massachusetts once the people voted in favor of a Constitutional Amendment the Courts came back and said, that although the people spoke, they have no right to define marriage and same-sex marriage was legalized. In Connecticut this week, their High (and mighty) Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage thereby taking out of the hands of the people to define marriage for themselves. Next month in California Proposition 8 will attempt to define marriage in California as between one man and one woman. If the people come out in favor, will the Courts in California uphold the ruling? I believe we can safely assume that the answer to that will be, No. Since they have already ruled in favor of same-sex unions in California.
Twenty-seven states currently have Constitutional Amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage. Forty-one states have statutory laws prohibiting same-sex unions but all are under judicial review. With political hot bed, our Congress has been unable to muster the 2/3 votes needed to pass the law. If nothing is done within Congress the Courts will determine the outcome of this battle between traditional and re-defined marriage.
What can we do? We can write our Congressmen and women and demand that action be taken to define marriage as between one man and one woman. We must hold our legislatures accountable to do their job and stop the Courts from legislating from the bench. Article III of the Constitution states that,"...the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and such Regulations as the Congress shall make." This means that Congress makes laws and the Court upholds them, not the other way around. It is time that our government understand the Constitution and stop trying to skirt the issues at hand.
Make no mistake about it, either the voice of the people will be heard, or the Courts will be heard on this issue. Then what will be next? Will homosexuality be taught to our children in schools as a normal choice and perfectly acceptable so that a 5-year old in kindergarten will grow up with their parents telling them one thing and their teachers and educators telling them something else? Will parental rights be completely stripped away with regards to this issue? I believe the answers to these questions will be in the affirmative. Then will those who practise bestiality, or necrophiles, or pedophiles be granted their rights under this new found Constitutional right? Where does it stop? It won't.
My call is to all Americans worthy of that appellation to stand up and make your voice heard. If we are to save the sacred institution of marriage then we must act. The future of our Country and our societies demands that we do something now. Stand up, and prepare for the battle ahead, because this is not a matter of just marriage, but a matter of National security. I feel strongly about this subject. We must act or be acted upon.
God Bless America! And may Freedom ring from the tops of every hill penetrating in every climb and may the flame of freedom burn brightly in the hearts of every American until we are able to say, We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America!
(Video on same-sex marriage)
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1815825713
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)