To update it, simply look at the underlying HTML code and substitute the old URL with the addy of the newest posting.
Posted on 12/15/2003 6:06:04 AM PST by Valin
Who Speaks for the People? By Christopher G. Adamo December 15, 2003
We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America. --The United States Constitution--
Upon reading the text of the Preamble to the Constitution, as well as the remainder of that document, certain foundational principles of the American experiment become altogether undeniable. The founders clearly understood that those things which would, to the greatest degree, advance the cause of the individual, also would redound to the utmost long-term benefit of the nation.
Such a concept was a dramatic departure from the typical mindset of governing bodies throughout times past. Even to this day, most nation states operate under an opposing ideology, in which the presumption is that those things working to the best advantage of the state somehow will reverberate to the greatest profit of the individual. This latter concept prevails solely because those in power prefer it for their own sakes. Yet history lacks any evidence to support it.
As Americans have, in recent years, become continually less knowledgeable regarding the reasons for the success and greatness of their country, the underlying principle of the Constitution has been increasingly subordinated to its antithetical counterpart. Under the dubious auspices of "the compelling interest of the state," a plethora of detestable decisions have been codified into law in recent years. Clearly the Founders, being of a noble caliber unknown among political circles in the present day, instead recognized as paramount the "compelling interest" of the individual, who by himself could not otherwise prevail against the enormous power of the state.
Wednesday's "campaign finance" decision by the Supreme Court stands as the latest abomination to the rights and liberties of the American people. And as with all such decisions handed down by America's nine-member board of royalty, it bears no association whatsoever to the principles on which this nation was founded, and within which its government is supposed to operate.
It is noteworthy to briefly consider just what manner of state this court perceives America to be, wherein its "compelling interests" are somehow served by "rights" of child-pornographers and the "right" to engage in sodomy (both having been supported by recent Supreme Court decisions), but which is threatened by free political speech. Is it not more likely that the Court's own hegemony on power is threatened by such speech, and therefore must be protected by the systematic suppression of those unworthy masses?
As one horrendous outrage after another against the Constitution (and ultimately therefore against the people) proceeds from this nation's high courts, it becomes ever more obvious that the "unalienable rights," so long taken for granted by Americans, are no longer guaranteed to any degree. Americans retain only those freedoms the courts decide, on a case-by-case basis, that they have. And to an ever increasing degree, the particular "rights" being promoted are only those advocated by the lowest elements of this country's "counterculture," which has labored diligently during the past four decades to irreversibly alter the fabric of society.
Sounding eerily similar to the standard diatribe accompanying each ensuing gun law, the Court's majority asserted that campaign finance "reform" law, while plainly abridging the rights of citizens to engage in political speech, would not be sufficient to "clean up the political process," as it ostensibly was enacted to do.
According to the five justices upholding the law: "We are under no illusion that [this campaign finance law] will be the last congressional statement on the matter. Money, like water, will always find an outlet. What problems arise, and how Congress will respond, are concerns for another day." Thus, the court gives its blessing to the notion that, in order to purge itself of corruption, a corrupt Congress must possess the authority to restrict the political activity of the people.
Of particular significance is the fact that, in the aftermath of the decision, "movers and shakers" across the political spectrum are weighing its effects almost entirely as to its expected positive or negative impact on their own political fortunes, with scant concern for the devastating blow it dealt to the rights of common citizens. And this appalling situation will only worsen until the people commit to doing whatever is required to regain their lost power in the American political system.
http://gopusa.com/chrisadamo/ca_1215.shtml
To update it, simply look at the underlying HTML code and substitute the old URL with the addy of the newest posting.
I've found that smaller publications are more likely to pick a letter like that to publish, and their influence is not to be despised- I have actually had local folks track me down to shake my hand in person, on account of letters that had appeared in the local press.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.