Transatlantic Politics

It is time to quit squabbling about who will get the most financial aid, who will get the most pork, who will get the most benefits from governmental redistributions of wealth, or what the treasury or the taxpayers should do next to make our lives "happier."   It is time to engage in serious discussions about whether the US government is doing what it is constitutionally required to do.  To have such a discussion, it is best to start with the language of the Constitution.  I would like to see us begin the discussion with a look at Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution:

US Constitution, Article IV, Section 4:  The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Now, with this definition in mind, I present two easily-answered questions when posed within the framework of the US Constitution:

• Test question #1:  Is the Federal Government protecting the States against invasion?  Compare and contrast the viewpoints of the citizens of Oregon and North Dakota to the viewpoints of the citizens of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, whose states are experiencing an invasion of illegal immigrants.
• Test question #2:  To quell domestic violence in the aftermath of Katrina: the National Guard and federal troops should have been deployed in New Orleans:
• (a) as soon as a federal official thought it prudent, or
• (b) at such time as the New York Times would later assert, after applying biased 20-20 hindsight, was the time when the federal government should have acted, or
• (c) upon application from the Louisiana legislature, or
• (d) upon application from the Governor of Louisiana?

If you missed any of the questions above, I would suggest studying the US Constitution and then following my easy four-step plan: read, appreciate, understand, & apply.

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Somehow we have equated permissive inaction with "making laws which establish religion".  Is the phrase, "Separation of Church and State," anywhere in this, the first article of the Bill of Rights?  Even more interesting, is there any language in this article which says that religious messages (Ten Commandments) or religious displays (manger scenes) or religious activity (praying) is not permissible on public property?

US Constitution, Amendment I: 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.

The politically correct position regarding religion is obscene for its blatant obfuscation and sophistry. Am I the only one who finds it at least curious, if not infuriating, that when trying to identify and define pornography, the Supreme Court applies the following standard (from Miller v. California):

"Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest . . ."

But when defining impermissible religious action there is no such requirement for applying contemporary community standards.  Thus, the standard for the impermissible establishment of religion in Knoxville and Birmingham is the same as in San Francisco, Seattle, and Manhattan.

I submit that we now have a government which is anti-religion and, at the direction and guidance of the ACLU, is actively engaged in and making laws "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  Why is this not in the public discourse and debate?  Where is the leadership from an elected official?  One Alabama judge tried to lead, and paid a heavy personal price when The People refused to defend their rights.

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Are we served best by political rhetoric that positions and promotes "Americans against Americans" or by political rhetoric that positions and promotes "Americans against bloated, incompetent governmental bureaucracies"?  I submit that the Constitution of the United States of America was not written to define how citizens of the USA deal with each other, but how we permit our government to deal with us, The People.
 
We, and our rights, are being trampled on by our personal failures to question our government and our blind acceptance of misleading platitudes in place of knowledge and accuracy.

In spite of what Reverend Al Sharpton, Reverend Jesse Jackson, and the Press would have us believe regarding Michael Vick, Michael Jackson, and other criminal defendants (but not about the Duke lacrosse players), we MUST presume that Mr Vick is innocent, at least until he is proven guilty in a court of law.  WRONG!  We, The People, are free to make whatever presumptions we choose to make, whether they be arrived at upon thoughtful inquiry or stupid acceptance of nonsense.  However, We, The People, in our Constitution have set a different standard to which the government must adhere.  Is the Constitution the source of the often cited phrase of "Presumption of Innocence?"
    
That font of facts, Wikipeadeia, says, "Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments." See also Coffin v. United States:

U.S. Constitution, Amendment V:  No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

U.S. Constitution, Amendment VI:  In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Amazing, no "Presumption of Innocence" is imposed upon the citizenry, and no constitutional power or fodder for the Thought Police.   Thus, I am free to presume that Mr. Vick is guilty of all manner of dastardly deeds and crimes, and under the First Amendment I am free to state my opinion publicly to anyone who is so unfortunate as to be within the sound of my voice or the wide coverage of my written words.

So, what is the "Presumption of Innocence?"  It is the framework that establishes that you and I cannot be compelled to "prove" our innocence against unproven allegations from a powerful governmental system which presumes (and therefore prejudges our) guilt.  It is not a club to prevent the citizenry from rejecting individuals, distasteful individual behavior, and ineffective government officials.

One last thought on prosecution — the legal proceeding leading to state sanctioned punishment.  It is greatly different from persecution.  You and I do not have the power to prosecute people.  However, we have the power to persecute people.  What is persecution?   Today's politically correct definition is: "To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs."  Interestingly, Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary (1996) has a more traditional and accurate definition: "To harass in a way that causes suffering, esp. because of principles or religious belief: oppress."

We, The People, must reclaim our right to publicly harass (i.e. To annoy or disturb persistenly) individuals and organizations which demand our silence and acceptance while they spew false, immoral, destructive, and traitorous concepts and philosophies. Silence is no longer golden, it has become self-destructive.

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!