Skip to comments.2012 America's Party Platform ratified in convention [Feb. 18, 2012]
Posted on 02/19/2012 3:53:59 AM PST by EternalVigilance
America's Party ratified its 2012 Platform in national convention yesterday, making an already-great conservative document even better, with the expansion of its solid property rights plank and the addition of the Equal Protection for Posterity Resolution as its primary pro-life language. Text included below for your consideration.
As free citizens of the United States and founders of Americas Party, we stand in agreement with the founders of our American Republic. Following their example, we declare to the world that our first governmental premise is the self-evident truth that our rights to life, liberty and private property come from our Creator God and are therefore unalienable. With those patriots, we understand that just government can only exist by the consent of the governed.
Our pledge, individually and corporately, is to seek to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. We will diligently work to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, and thereby fulfill the stated purposes of the Constitution of the United States and this organization.
In recognition of the multitude of ways in which our nations leaders have departed from Americas founding principles, we hereby petition local, state and federal government for redress of such grievances, with the urgent imperative demand that each and every officer of government henceforth faithfully perform their sworn duty to defend innocent human life and constitutional republican governance.
Our work is dedicated to our God; to all the patriots who came before us in self-sacrifice for liberty; to all of those who now faithfully serve our country; and to the posterity that will enjoy the blessed fruit of all their labors.
Together, as Americans, let us find the principled grounds for cooperation that will allow us to fully restore moral government of, by and for the people.
E pluribus unum.
America's Party 2012 Platform
America's Party has as its goal the return of our nation to a set of foundational principles. We call them "America's Principles." The word "principle" comes from a Latin root that means "first things." America's Principles are the "first things" that our country should consider in all of our domestic and foreign policies.
America's Party recognizes that these "first things" are clearly defined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.
However, we also believe that there is room for debate over prudential policy matters within certain parameters of fundamental American political thought and a framework of ordered liberty. We seek a return to an approach to government that facilitates that respectful and necessary debate, but that never compromises the moral premises that made this country great.
Our civic duties
Though in civic terms we call ourselves "Independent," we fully acknowledge our utter dependence, as individuals and as a nation, on Almighty God and His divine Providence and Protection.
We also recognize, and seek to actively fulfill, our God-ordained obligations as individual citizens to the whole sovereign body of the people, as well as our responsibility to maintain standards of high moral character, both personally and in our public life.
The imperative duty to protect Life
The leaders of Americas Party have publicly pledged that henceforth all governmental policies they endorse will be in complete accord with the principles and purposes stated below. They have also pledged to henceforth offer their endorsement or financial support only to other political leaders and organizations who live up to these principles.
The Equal Protection for Posterity Resolution
A Resolution affirming vital existing constitutional protections for the unalienable right to life of every innocent person, from the first moment of creation until natural death.
WHEREAS, The first stated principle of the United States, in its charter, the Declaration of Independence, is the assertion of the self-evident truth that all men are created equal, and that they are each endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, beginning with the right to life, and that the first purpose of all government is to defend that supreme right; and
WHEREAS, The first stated purposes of We the People of the United States in our Constitution are 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; and
WHEREAS, The United States Constitution, in the Fourteenth Amendment, imperatively requires that all persons within the jurisdictions of all the States be afforded the equal protection of the laws; and
WHEREAS, The United States Constitution, in the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments, explicitly forbids the taking of the life of any innocent person; and
WHEREAS, The practices of abortion and euthanasia violate every clause of the stated purposes of the United States Constitution, and its explicit provisions; and
WHEREAS, Modern science has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the individual human persons physical existence begins at the moment of biological inception or creation; and
WHEREAS, All executive, legislative and judicial Officers in America, at every level and in every branch, have sworn before God to support the United States Constitution as required by Article VI of that document, and have therefore, because the Constitution explicitly requires it, sworn to protect the life of every innocent person;
THEREFORE, WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES HEREBY RESOLVE that the God-given, unalienable right to life of every innocent person, from biological inception or creation to natural death, be protected everywhere within every state, territory and jurisdiction of the United States of America; that every officer of the judicial, legislative and executive departments, at every level and in every branch, is required to use all lawful means to protect every innocent life within their jurisdictions; and that we will henceforth deem failure to carry out this supreme sworn duty to be cause for removal from public office via impeachment or recall, or by statutory or electoral means, notwithstanding any law passed by any legislative body within the United States, or the decision of any court, or the decree of any executive officer, at any level of governance, to the contrary.
The reason for being of government, and of Americas Party
The protection of the life, liberty, and private property of the people is the primary reason for the existence of human government, and more particularly, our precious American republican form of self-government. This is why we willingly accept no breach of the rights of the free exercise of religion, free speech, free press, free assembly, free association, and the right to petition government for the redress of grievances. We defend all of the enumerated rights listed in our Bill of Rights, and, in addition, all natural rights that are not enumerated, as per the Ninth Amendment.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
The right of self-preservation and self-protection is inherent in all persons, communities and societies, which is why we fiercely defend the indispensable provisions of our Second Amendment. Liberty cannot be protected if the people have been stripped of the physical means of doing so.
Private Property Rights
Private property, the ownership of the means of production by the people, is a cornerstone of American liberty. Without it our free enterprise system, our free markets, and our republican form of self-government cannot endure. Without it, we cannot prosper. That is why we will defend against any trespass against this most basic, cherished, and necessary of our God-given, unalienable rights. That is why we will only pursue policies that will strengthen the economic position of the individual, the family, and the local community.
Restoring limited government
We seek to restore the intended balance between the three separate branches of our government, and to strictly limit government to the Enumerated Powers granted and expressed by the will of the people of the United States in our Constitution.
All existing functions of the Executive branch that are outside of those Enumerated Powers must be eliminated.
All spending and regulation by the Legislative branch that lies outside the Enumerated Powers must cease.
Judges who attempt to legislate from the bench, or who abandon the clear principles of our Constitution, must be checked if liberty and justice are to prevail in our society once again.
We demand a return to adherence to the provisions of the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Peace through Strength
We believe in a supremely strong, prepared, and well-equipped civilian-controlled United States military, and a bold, visionary and intelligent program of principled constructive engagement with the rest of the world. For us, "peace through strength" is not a mere slogan. It is the means of survival for our country in a very dangerous and often hostile world. Our friendship should be a sought-after possession of all men and women of good will everywhere in the world. Our enmity should be something that all rightfully fear.
As Ronald Reagan opposed and defeated the designs and desire of the Soviet Union to dominate the world and place it under the tyranny of their Evil Empire, we stand unalterably opposed to all who approve of, plan or commit terrorist acts. Since the first principle of America is the protection of innocent human life, any who would use acts of terrorism targeted at innocent civilians to forward their political, ideological or religious aims incur our effective and determined enmity.
We completely oppose any action that surrenders the moral, political or economic sovereignty of the United States and its people, and demand the immediate restoration of that sovereignty wherever it has been eroded.
We demand the immediate securing and continuous vigilant maintenance of our sovereign territory and borders. We oppose any private or governmental action that rewards illegal entry into the United States in any way, and demand speedy and full enforcement of our laws concerning all such activities.
Repeal of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments
We consider the federal income tax to be destructive of our liberty, privacy, and prosperity. Therefore, we are working to bring about its complete elimination and the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We recommend that the current system be replaced by an equitable, simple, noninvasive, visible, efficient tax, one that does not destroy or even infringe upon our economic privacy and liberty.
We also call for the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment. Its enactment greatly reduced the power of our state legislatures and state governments which are much closer to the people and damaged our system of federalism.
Marriage and the natural family
We seek the passage of a Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and oppose all attempts everywhere to redefine marriage as being anything but what it has always been: the union of one man and one woman. Since the natural family is the basic God-given institution of our civilization, and the nursery of our future, it must be protected from all who would destroy it.
Americas Principles work
America's Party is a principled party, but it is also a practical party. We believe that America's Principles work whenever the people diligently put them into practice.
We invite all like-minded Americans to join with us in our fight to restore and protect Liberty.
Truly, this is intended to be AMERICAS Party.
Approved in Convention February 18, 2012
© 2012 Americas Party
For your consideration.
I’,m going with Newt Gingrich.
That’s your right.
What is your choice?
The principles posted above. Without compromise.
That’s what this thread is intended to be about. Not personalities.
Who do you choose to be President?
I’ll tell you what. I’ll be happy to tell you that after you’ve demonstrated some willingness to address the substance of the post.
I join you pal.
Fox News: Firebrand Free Republic Founder Endorses Newt Gingrich With Epic Call to Action
I’m officially endorsing Newt Gingrich for President today
Jan 19, 2012 | Jim Robinson, Free Republic
I’m officially endorsing Newt Gingrich for president today. Was going to wait until after Florida, but see no reason to delay. We need Newt to win in South Carolina and Florida to stop any possible momentum building up for the establishment big government, statist, abortionist RINO!!
RomneyCare = ObamaCare = government tyranny!! Taxpayer funded abortion is as evil as evil can be!!
Newt is a pro-life Reagan Revolution conservative who led the Republican Revolution of the 90s, taking the majority away from the democrats who had held it for 40 years. And as Speaker, cut the taxes, cut the government, cut the spending, cut the deficit, cut regulations, cut unemployment, brought the federal budget under control for four years running. And unlike Romney, actually blocked a socialist healthcare system from becoming law. And created a pro-growth, pro-free market, pro-jobs environment and extended the Reagan economy throughout the 90s!! Newt is the ideal candidate to lead the Tea Party Revolution!!
Okay. Thanks for stating the obvious.
I’m pretty sure every FReeper knows where our host stands in the current presidential contest.
Having said that, do you have any commentary on the substance of our platform?
Newt is in trouble.
Between Newt and Rick Santorum, where are you?
Another question I would have for you, since you’ve derailed the thread already, making this about personalities rather than principle, is whether you think my unwillingness to support Mr. Gingrich, on principle, would make me unwelcome on Free Republic?
Do you think Jim requires FReepers to tow his line in his choice of candidates?
Do you think so little of our host that you think he has no tolerance for other conservatives, even when they have demonstrated over the course of nearly a dozen years that they hew strictly to the core principles of this free republic, the same principles he espouses?
I can’t support either of them, on principle.
To do so would violate the promises I have made.
I would like to reiterate my intent in posting this thread. It’s simply to seek feedback from my fellow FReepers on the content, the substance, of our platform - not to get into p*ssing contests over political personalities.
It is my contention that until the American people return to the plumb line of principle, and stop compromising it in their political actions, we cannot restore this free republic, or fulfill the stated purposes of the Constitution.
I can accept it all and agree it is something to which all Americns should agree
It is a document elegant in simplicity and with good solid reference.
There was one sentence that is cause for possible revision
“from the first moment of creation until natural death.” They got the first moment right but there is no definition of natural death.
In hospitals across the country that seldom takes place and is continuously debated by the providers and the families.
The document was drafted by the American party. What is the American Party. How does it differ from say the various Tea Parties? Or perhaps a Conservative party?
Thanks for your effort in bringing us this document
Go away you abominable thread stealer...... go to some other thread. Your message is redundant and not germane to this thread.
What? This is
I like the platform. If Mitt would somehow win the GOP nomination, it may be the last time the GOP would be considered to be part of a two party system. While the American party may not be able to leap to serious national status, they should start fielding serious Congressional candidates.
I love this platorm ... I myself cannot vote for the police state with Willard, Newt and Rick.
I like that platform. I have voted third party before. I have been more a fan of the Constitution Party at times that of the Republican Party.
But I cannot see voting third party at this juncture—not with Santorum doing well. I would even vote for Newt before going third party. Efforts such as America’s Party is undertaking seems to merely siphon off votes needed by one of the more conservative candidates. If Romney gets the nomination, though, I’ll consider going third party, since I won’t be voting for Mitt.
Since Democrats and Republicans are so much alike (it boils down to who will drive us off the cliff slower?) then a viable Third Party is badly needed.
But this is not the time to push for a strong third party. The time for that was right after the 2008 election, so we could have a united front prepared against the Usurper-in-Chief and the RINO herd.
At this late stage, a conservative third party would only draw votes away from other conservatives (such as they are), leaving Obummer with clear sailing to four more years of national destruction. No thanks. Sorry.
We were pushing from 2008 onward. Where were you?
Respectfully (and that’s not just lip service, EV) I think going third party is (with rare exception) cowardly, delusional, and counter productive to what I believe is your true desire.
It is essentially surrendering your party to the left in the delusion that you will somehow be better positioned to be victorious nationally, when you clearly aren’t willing to do what it takes to win an internal struggle.
It’s like finding a loop hole that allows you to run in a race despite losing the semifinals, and patting yourself on the back that you’re a finalist when you haven’t really earned it.
Sorry, I fought the “internal struggle” in the GOP as hard as anyone for twenty years. I know the score, intimately. It ain’t me that is delusional. It’s anyone who continues to willfully close their eyes to what became obvious quite some time ago, that the formerly grand old party will do NOTHING to return this republic to the principles upon which its survival depends.
We either build a new vehicle to forward the cause of life and liberty, or America has no chance. None.
What I think you are missing is that even if a third party does grow to become anything of consequence it’s going to be subject to the exact same internal battles you’ve already retreated from.
If you don’t have the mettle to stand your ground in the battle for one party, you deceive yourself that retreating to safe and undisputed territory is anything other than cowardly desertion and betrayal of your brothers in arms.
A wound from a friend.
When Iowa state GOP literally prevented any votes for Alan Keyes from being tallied beyond the precinct level in 2008 caucuses, the various GOP state and national committees remained silent. What do you do when your party refuses to count your vote? I'm grateful to the thousands of Republicans and others who have helped get America's Party established.
I’m sorry for the late reply, Steve.
I don’t have anything specifically against the AIP. I’m sure I and your membership are like-minded in many ways. However, I do stand by my characterization of third parties in general, especially the “counter productive” part.
Its net effect will be to weaken like minded people in the Republican Party, compounding the issue that drove you away from them, and delivering victory for those who would like there to be no difference between the two main parties. However it will have miniscule, if any, positive effect on the nation’s government. A net loss for the great nation that our founding fathers established.
If AIP (or any other idealistic third party) ever does become effective enough to prove my last statement wrong, this statement will be true: It will be infiltrated and compromised just like the Republican party has been... in which case, you will again have the choice to either fight for the heart of the AIP, or leave in disgust to form a new “pure” party, surrendering the AIP to those who have corrupted it.
It is the act of leaving in disgust, instead of fighting the corruption, that gives victory to those who would undermine what it once stood for. I’m sure you have seen this dynamic in many organizations. Think of how many once biblically based denominations have followed the same pattern: A few vocal people champion liberal causes with some success, driving some conservatives away in disgust, which leaves fewer conservatives to oppose them... so they have more success... so even more leave in disgust, until ultimately liberals have fundamentally changed a once great organization, to a liberal one, controlling all the the assets abandoned by those who left.
Leaving in disgust does not do anything but weaken your own side. How would you look on a lesser American Revolutionary General if at some point he had chosen to give up the fight and tried instead to convince as many soldiers as he could that there were just too many powerful Americans loyal to the Crown to win, and that it would be better to just go look for an uninhabited island somewhere else and start a new nation that way, abandoning America and abandoning those who had pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to the cause.
How is abandoning the fight in one party to start new “pure” party not like that?
I was very aware Alan Keyes’ campaign was sabotaged as much, if not more, from members of his own party than from the left, particularly his Illinois Senate run. I can only speculate as to why, but I’m seeing a very similar treatment of Newt Gingrich. I believe he, however, is not only more resolved, but better equipped, to make a stand on both fronts as necessary.
The Republican Party is no more a lost cause than the Nation as a whole. Political parties are corporate entities just like nations are corporate entities. If you are not willing to be eternally vigilant at one, you deceive yourself that you are eternally vigilant at the other.
Iron sharpens iron.
The problem here is that you have absolutely no idea how revolutionary America’s Party truly is, in a myriad of ways, both in terms of principles and practical process. You can’t think outside the old pathetic paradigm of the formerly grand old party and the run-of-the-mill failed third parties that have existed over the last century in American politics.
So, we’ll just have to show you how it is supposed to be done.
I’m certainly willing to hear your case. But candidly, I would prefer you begin with a single convincing example of where the characterization of third parties I put forth is flawed in regard to AIP, as opposed to language such as “myriad of ways”. You will lose me with statements that are unspecific and too hyperbolic to have any credibility.
You have my ear.
It’s all explained in exquisite detail at the following links:
That should give you at least a taste of how we’re something completely different than anyone has seen before.
We're not AIP any more. We're America's Party.
Thank you for that clarification. I was uncertain why I had seen both ways, and was worried I might be using the wrong one and not know it.
I have asked you for a single convincing example of where my characterization was flawed in regard to America’s Party.
What specifically in those twenty web pages can you point me to, that demonstrates at the very least one specific way in which my characterization of third parties is flawed in regards to America’s Party? I think it is incumbent upon you to make that case, and to start with your strongest argument.
If you are unable or unwilling to offer an explicit reasoned argument, or at the very least, point out where from the links I could make such an argument myself, then the implication that these twenty links are but a “taste” of a vastly greater preponderance of evidence, is absolutely absurd, and is neither worthy of respect nor consideration.
It’s all laying right out in the open at the links I gave you.
Starting with the fact that, in keeping with G. Washington’s wise words to the nation in his Farewell Address, we make our decisions electorally based on principle, not party affiliations. In other words, we are beyond being a mere party. A “meta” party if you will.
If the Republicans find candidates who live up to the first, non-negotiable, obligations of the oath of office, we will support them.
Believe me, this is not the norm, either with the Republicans, the Democrats, or any of the existing “third” parties.
There’s a lot more, if you’ll just look closely and think.
If you want to, that is.
Thank you for responding. I was a little disapointed when I saw you on another thread having not heard back form you. I thought it might indicate that I wouldn’t. I’m pleased that’s not so. ;o)
I’m not sure I follow what you mean by a “meta” party. I’ve got some background in both computer science as well as Greek and the word has significance from both... but I’m not sure how you are meaning it. I would like you to explain if you are willing.
I have, by the way, looked at all the links. I think my last response might have given an impression otherwise...
I apparently missed anything like “If the Republicans find candidates who live up to the first, non-negotiable, obligations of the oath of office, we will support them.” if it was in there.
I’m pleased to hear that... not because of a blind faith to the Republican party, but because I believe third parties (with rare exception) are most effective regarding their stated goals, when they work as a voting block within whichever one of the larger parties they most closely align.
Regarding the links... candidly, I did not find any wealth of apologetics or even descriptive info regarding the party.
The emphasis on not taking donations was in there a few times, and is demonstrative of how AP is different.
However, I don’t think there was anything that struck me as suggesting my unflattering characterization is flawed. If I am missing something, I would greatly appreciate you pointing it, specifically, out to me.
From the top of the “Affiliate” page:
“Principle before Party
Personal Affiliation with America’s Party is made without regard to your existing party voter registration.
If you agree with America’s Principles, and are prepared to consistently act on them in concert with other patriotic Americans, we need you!”
From the top of the “Be a Leader” page:
“Every Citizen a Leader
The first step for any leader we endorse, whether they are America’s Party Affiliates or not, is to make sure right up front that they are fully committed to the simple principles and clear purposes that are succinctly stated below, and that they will remain accountable to those principles and to We the People. These principles are already at the core of the duties encompassed by the sacred oath of office, so it’s not too much to ask or expect.”
One of the reasons you may not be able to find as much material as you might like is that our main website, americaspartynews.com, which was formerly aipnews.com, is currently down. Major server crash. It is hoped that our volunteers are going to have it back up and running this weekend. There are four years of archives there.
prefix meaning 1. "after, behind," 2. "changed, altered," 3. "higher, beyond," from Gk. meta (prep.) "in the midst of, in common with, by means of, in pursuit or quest of," from PIE *me- "in the middle" (cf. Goth. miþ, O.E. mið "with, together with, among;" see mid). Notion of "changing places with" probably led to senses "change of place, order, or nature," which was a principal meaning of the Gk. word when used as a prefix (but also denoting "community, participation; in common with; pursuing"). Third sense, "higher than, transcending, overarching, dealing with the most fundamental matters of," ...
One other point:
I have said again and again to our people across the country that I couldn’t care less whether the Republican Party lives or dies. I only care about whether the Republic lives or dies.
Many times, from the very inception of America’s Party, I have referenced George Washington’s strict warnings in his Farewell Address to the dangers of party or regional factionalism, and the absolute need for Union around principle.
The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.
For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.
But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole.
The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and, while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water, will more and more find a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad, or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and, what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength, or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.
While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rival ships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.
These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.
In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head; they have seen, in the negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi; they have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain, and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured ? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens?
To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.
All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.
However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
Likely... I noticed it looked like there had been a forum there but that it was unavailable.
It would be helpful to me, if you are willing, to enumerate who of the remaining four Republican presidential nominees does not "live up" (and consequentially does not get your support) and why.
I'll tell you ahead of time, my expectation is that your response, unless you simply refuse to answer the question, will allow me to demonstrate how your actions are counter-productive to your stated ideals.
I can’t support any of them.
The first obligation of the oath of office, no matter what office it might be, is the equal protection of the God-given, unalienable right to life of every person within your jurisdiction.
All of the current Republican candidates for president have promised to sign legislation which violates that sacred imperative right out of the gate, ie “fetal pain” legislation that defines babes in the womb as persons, and then allows them to be killed.
Even Blackmun, in Roe, admitted that if the child is a person, OF COURSE they are protected by the explicit provisions of our Constitution.
In other words, the lawless laws these folks are pushing are in fact worse than Roe.
Now, go ahead and explain to me how in order to live up to my ideals I have to compromise them, and how you are actually forwarding my ideals by supporting those who betray them.
And, just to keep the conversation on point, let's repeat what "my ideals" are, exactly:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."
I'm admittedly ignorant about "fetal pain" legislation. Before I fully respond, I'd like to know specifically what legislation and promises you are referring to.
"In other words, the lawless laws these folks are pushing are in fact worse than Roe."
Please don't take this as anything more than two insignificant and unsolicited criticisms:
Firstly, "lawless laws" seems self-contradictory. I think I know what you mean, but as is, I don't think it communicates effectively what you want it to.
Secondly, as I'm pretty sure at least two of the four candidates are, at the very least, somewhat pro-life... In that light, the "worse than Roe" characterization seems (again, at the very least) exaggerated.
It means they're codifying the killing of innocent persons. Which is lawless, and obviously unconstitutional.
"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." - the Fourteenth Amendment "An unjust law is no law at all." - Augustine "We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was 'legal' and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was 'illegal.'" - MLK, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail
"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law." - the Fifth Amendment
"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." - the Fourteenth Amendment
"An unjust law is no law at all." - Augustine
"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was 'legal' and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was 'illegal.'" - MLK, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail
I'm pretty sure at least two of the four candidates are, at the very least, somewhat pro-life...
"Somewhat pro-life" is an obvious oxymoron. The individual is either alive or has been killed. You can no more be "somewhat pro-life" than you can be "somewhat pregnant." You can no more be "somewhat pro-life" than you can be "somewhat faithful" to your spouse. You either is, or you ain't.
In that light, the "worse than Roe" characterization seems (again, at the very least) exaggerated.
It's worse than Roe in two MAJOR ways: A) It is the codification, or the passage into the positive law, of inequality, while Roe was merely a court decision in a particular case. Big difference. And B) It is the codification of the the killing of innocent persons, which even the Roe court admitted was explicitly unconstitutional.
I think I got what you meant, but I think that the phrase "lawless laws" is vulnerable to ridicule, and another choice might be more effective in conveying your position. Just my opinion, and I realize I'm giving you advise you didn't ask for... so take it for what it's worth. But it WAS meant to be constructive.
"Somewhat pro-life" is an obvious oxymoron."
I have to disagree with you there... and as I'm figuring out your position on the matter... I'm genuinely surprised (to put it, very, very lightly). I think I'm actually a little in shock, and I'm not just saying that to be melodramatic.
You seem to be taking the position that because these "fetal pain" laws, only prevent SOME abortions, but not ALL abortions, that they are WORSE than Roe v Wade because you believe that by failing to ban all abortions, that they are positively asserting that some abortions are legitimate, and by extension, those who support such laws are pro-abortion.
I hope I'm just wrong, and that I'm not really figuring out what you believe here, because it's literally making me sick to my stomach... The consequences of that distorted logic is devastating.
And, I should tell you this is not where I was intending this conversation to go. I think I need to let my initial emotional response pass and think about it a while before I decide how I should respond.
Thank you for being so courteous in this exchange.
If there is anything that you think may help clarify your position on this "fetal pain" law issue... please post it, especially if you think I'm misinterpreting your position.
But, even if they did save some, Americans didn't used to make Utilitarian arguments concerning such matters. They made moral and constitutional arguments.
Our Constitution, which every officer of government in this country, at every level, and in every branch, is required to swear to God to support, absolutely, imperatively, explicitly requires equal protect for every person.
"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."
"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
It's not optional, and no class of persons is excepted.
Just keep the oath.