Skip to comments.Put America’s First Principle Back Into Practice
Posted on 02/02/2014 10:09:40 AM PST by Jacquerie
Conservatives believe, as did our founding generation, a fundamental truth, a maxim that early on differentiated the US from other republics. The first principle of American political society is that government exists to secure our unalienable rights. Our Declaration eloquently expressed it as, That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, . . .
That straightforward concept begat the question, How to best secure those rights?
The answer was to be found in some form of republican government. By that, the founding generation meant the peoples representatives consent to all laws. That determination was all well and good, but was insufficient, for it left the difficult and decade long task of devising the particulars, the nuts and bolts of how to implement republican, freedom preserving government in thirteen suddenly independent societies that sometimes, (as now) confused republicanism with democracy.
Thirteen societies went their own ways in various grand experiments in self-government. About half continued an English tradition, a bill of rights in or alongside their legislatively adopted constitutions. Not all states were very successful in keeping their eye on the ball, of designing government for the single purpose of securing the unalienable rights of their people. The burdens of war exasperated lofty republican ideals such that some states approached something closer to democratic government than freedom enhancing republics. For instance, ones wealth wasnt always secure from tender laws and taxation approaching confiscation. Despots around the civilized world silently cheered as the American experiment appeared certain to founder on the shoals of too much of the democratic element.
With these experiences in mind, our Framers learned enough to design a government in 1787 that did not depend on a bill of rights, but rather one which strove to secure freedom by dividing power. They depended on the structure of their design, which set interests against interests, rather than the parchment barrier of a bill of rights, which they knew from experience to be an unreliable bulwark against tyranny.
Other patriots demanded a formal bill of rights and were rewarded with ten amendments that stated in no uncertain terms our rights to religious and press freedom, to protect ourselves and communities through force of arms, to be secure in our persons, personal papers and other possessions from unreasonable searches, to demand search warrants and grand juries, to not be subject to two trials for the same offense, no self-incrimination nor confiscation of property but for public use in exchange for just compensation, speedy and public trials, impartial juries, counsel for trial defense, no excessive bail nor cruel punishments.
Oh, and because the drafters of these amendments knew they couldnt possibly list all of our unalienable rights, they determined that the rights they didnt enumerate could not be denied to the people. To cap it off, the states retained every power they didnt grant to the government they created. Airtight right?
Look at subsequent history. With the exceptions of quartering troops and defense counsel at trials, none of the first ten amendments are in near full force, and most are, for practical purposes, gone from the American scene. Why did our government drop the ball? When did we forget the singular purpose of government? When did government begin to pick off, one by one, our unalienable rights? When did DC begin to shift focus from securing our rights and toward so-called social justice?
They were trampled by a majoritarian government that beginning in 1913 featured popular elections for members of the Senate.
It began when the lessons of our immediate postcolonial experiences were forgotten or ignored, when the Left sold forgetful Americans the snake oil of democracy. Power to the people! Those stiff, rich and out of touch state appointed senators stand in the way of the people!
Our Framers relied on the structure of the constitution, its vertical and horizontal divisions of power, and not a bill of rights to secure freedom. Today, most people actually equate democracy with freedom. The legitimate purpose of government, to secure our rights was forgotten and replaced with whatever a Leftist majority, and recently minority, thinks it can get away with. Obama won twice, get over it and do as you are told.
Until power is divided once again, until the national government is re-federalized, the DC uniparty will chip away at what little remains of our rights, and our continued descent into the hell of democratic tyranny is assured.
It might be too late. Perhaps the people are too corrupt to care, but that is no excuse for conservatives to not support an Article V state amendment convention to reestablish first principles, and correct the Leftist wrongs in our constitution
Whom do you trust, in our current crop of power-grabbers, to attend and write an Article V Constitution? I don’t trust any of them. States will send their worst party bottom-feeders as delegates, I guarantee it. The party hacks will have a field day.
Meanwhile, did you know George Soros is also pushing for an Article V?
I don’t like the idea of an Article V in this environment. I am confident there will be many good folks along to gently explain to me why I’m wrong, and I’m willing to listen.
“...Perhaps the people are too corrupt to care...”
Or too ignorant...
Thanks! We need to remember, be reminded often, that even though things don’t look great, or necessarily in our favor, to keep on fighting the good fight. It is not just for us, but for the generations that follow, that we must lay down our own form of sacrifice for the better good. We will then stand before God with a clear conscience. Some seem to forget that this life is not he one that counts, but that the things DONE in this life have consequences into the next. For good or for bad.
I didn't know Soros was on the side of our Framers. Strange bedfellows indeed.
BTTT your most excellent piece!
Most of the current population is definitely too ignorant, having been kept that way by the corruption in the educational system.
My problem with it is that even it was a sound conservative out come it would be adhered to anymore than the constitution we already have.
I do support the idea of states banding together to tell the feds to stuff it.
would = wouldn’t
>>Until power is divided once again, until the national government is re-federalized, <<
Not re-federalized, what we need is for it to be de-federalized. Get the feds out of every nook and cranny of our lives and get them back into the business that they should be which is defense of the nation as a whole. Now they defend every international corporation that contributes to our political system. The EPA is a mess. So is the NEA, the BLM, Army Corps of Engineers. You name it and the feds have screwed it up good.
And I’m sure George Soros wants the same Constitution that would come out of an Article V as the founders would have, right? Strange bedfellows indeed. No, Soros likes the idea because he sees it as a chance to wipe us out, once and for all.
I do not disagree with the need for something major needing to be done to get us to the founding principles. As Las Vegas Ron points out, what assurances do we have the newly formed government wouldn’t weasel around the new document? It will be the same bunch of lawyers weaseling the document we have now. I suppose we could write in a clause that all current office-holders are forbidden to occupy positions in the new government, but they are like teeth on a shark: A newer, deadlier row of them are line up right behind the ones presently in use.
Probability of achieving what we need to do? Pretty slight, but then the odds have been against us from the Founding, so what’s new?
I suspect my legislature is typical of the other 56, minus CA, IL, NY(?). It is a part time gig, in session for three months. Most reps are independent business people and know very well of the heavy DC hand. My rep is a nurseryman, 1,000 acres under cultivation and 150 employees. He doesn't need the added time burden required to be a rep.
I'm saying we shouldn't equate state pubbies and democrats with their pompous, tyrannical cousins in DC.
Article V is the only peaceful means we have. Let's use it.
An all powerful central government that enforces law arbitrarily is not much different than anarchy.
Great post!! Thanks, Jacquerie.
IMHO, all we need to do is enforce the constitution we have now. The only problem with it is that it is not followed.
I think at this point the best way to accomplish that is through the states....for a peaceful resolution anyway.
We need an Article V state amendment convention to reestablish first principles so badly my old bones dream about it every night. The Feds needs to be cut back and the States need to be stepped up to the front seats. Let the people decide what rules and laws they want in their own states.
The United Nations was put together for the express purpose of the New World Order plan. The United Nations Agenda 21 is part of that plan and it has taken hold in every local government that I know of. The most disheartening part is most people have no idea it is happening right under their noses.
How do we awaken the general populace?
Nothing is guaranteed, but I know that over half the states filed suit against Obamacare. AZ was told it couldn't defend its southern border. States around the nation are so much as told not to identify voters. The media purposely avoid our nascent resistance movement. Good. Let it build below the national radar.
So I believe the states know they can perhaps regain the power taken away from them 101 years ago. I doubt the states will dance around the edges, for structural reforms are needed and they know it, regardless of party.
Structural changes, like repeal of the 17th cannot be ignored.
If, as you predict, the states will weasel around amendments, we'll be no worse off.