Presently, our legal system is a combination of common law
traditions that have been mixed with 20th
century social and political ideologies that often are contradictory and conflicting. The two major ideologies in conflict is: Liberty or Constitutional Democracy (republic) and Socialism. The first promotes individual freedom, disdains government intrusion, and promotes a nation For the People; which means that the nation of people as a group and/or several groups advocate individual rights and liberties for all. Socialism controls the power of government to where the collective becomes more important than the individual and the state is more relevant than the collective, ruled by a political elite whose agenda is personal gain and control of the populace by an elite group that governs whatever way it sees fit.
If we are to follow the principles that created our nation, conceived and created by the articles and amendments of the Constitution of the United States, it provides a powerful restraint upon the powers of government at federal, state, and local levels. Today, those principles have been adulterated by politicians over a period of many decades to where politicians buy votes through promised benefits, the load of the cost of those benefits being put upon a smaller majority of people.
It is no longer a clear-cut distinction between the traditional two political entities, one called Democrat and the other Republican, for both, except for a pitiful few, promote socialism in one degree or another.
After the campaign to make themselves look good by making the opposition look bad, they continue status quo as they did before, if reelected, or begin a lifetime goal of using the redistribution of other people’s money, the American taxpayer. This further increases their power by the conforming elements or groups of the populace who pay less taxes and expect welfare benefits, government handouts, to be an entitlement, a right, as if it were constitutional law.
Within those two traditional political entities there are divisions. Christian conservatives who must put religion within the elements of civic law and those conservatives who don’t. Social conservatives are also in argument with libertarians over the issue of individual liberty and just how far it can go before it becomes a corruption that threatens other citizen’ individual liberty or indirectly affects society as a whole. With religion it is morality and with civic entities it is virtues – both being important in a healthy society and a society that wishes to remain free under the real entitlements of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
All of this creates division among the People of the United States and to further divide the nation, ethnic and religious beliefs are used as political tools to obtain votes needed for either political party to gain the majority in the legislative branch of government as well as the executive and judiciary branches, relying on the political tool of emotion instead of reasoning. Thomas Jefferson
believed deeply upon reasoning, whether it concerned politics
, or religion
Social Security has been called the “grand social experiment” – but in reality it was an experiment in modified socialism in which its authors and those behind it at the time felt there could be a sound marriage between democracy and socialism; thus we have democratic socialists today who have taken on the name from liberals to progressives.
The political left, the democratic socialists (“progressives”) has gained control of legal and government agencies and departments, one of the most crucial is the Department of Education. The original group that began experimenting with democracy learned from the socialist platform of Marxism that control of the education of a nation’s youth guaranteed future loyal citizens to their cause and believing that the government must control the people for their own benefit.
On the political right, there are a few constitutionally minded individuals, but for the most part in the present government, they refer to themselves as “moderates” that work cohesively with the political left in a delusional concept of bipartisanship; when in fact they are just destroying the constitutional republic that unified a people, created a new nation that promoted individual liberty – not collective slavery to the elite operating the government presumed to be in control of the people because they still have the right to vote. But even the voting process has become corrupted, just as the three branches of government has, and to what degree depends upon who is holding public office.
Fixing problems/issues caused by previous public officials is most unpleasant and a hard task to take on. One can ask Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin in that matter. He campaigned to be governor knowing problems he would face, set up a “list of things to do” and began performing those tasks when taking office through the majority vote.
Things were fine until he did what needs to be done in other states and within the federal government system: reduce the power of unions over the people’s freedom of choice. He provided the opportunity for citizens to decide that work as public employees for the state government to make a choice whether to have a union or not. The term used by the media and unions is collective bargaining. Unions are a private-sector entity that has gained power within our government to escalate its cost and provide yet another brick to building government’s centralized power, as well as power over the earned income of the people. Unions have used several methods to come to the point if someone wanted a job that paid well, or just needed a job, they had/have to join a union. The privilege of such membership and employment protection averages at least $1,000 per year.
In addition to the union issue, Governor Walker made the government employees contribute towards their own retirement, like the rest of working America. What happened was, unlike his predecessor, he reduced government spending instead of increasing cost of government upon the people.
The primary whiners about Governor Walker’s kept promise to reduce government spending, create a better environment for businesses that would lead to more jobs, which in turn dropped the percentage rate of unemployment – were the members of the teacher union. Of course, they were egged on by the union leadership in that respect, but what these people are saying in regards for a demand for recall is that:
“Government spending reduction must take place as long as it doesn’t affect me”.
By being employed by the government, the taxpayers, they are part of the process of spending and budgeting. Simple.
Those union leaders who are raising such a fuss make two or three times a year more than Governor Scott Walker does. And the government employees under union control? They make more at their starting rate than the average American makes by a large margin, including benefits that other citizens wished they had – some just wishing they had jobs.
This Wisconsin recall issue has become focused upon by other states and citizens across America because it shows a stand against a private industry, unions, that have taken control of government; when in fact, unions should not be allowed to interfere with government, public employees. Unions from state to federal level has increased the cost of government. Before unions public employees were given fair and above standard wages in order to attract citizens in required positions of employment – so the need for unions is moot. In addition, before unions, government employees didn’t have to pay a fee from their paychecks to unions who theoretically controlled jobs and placements.
Bottom line: Unions, a private organization, should not be allowed to control or oversee government public employment. Government, We the People who pay for it, cannot afford to pay for government employees who make considerably higher wages than we do working in the same position in the private sector.
The principles that established our laws, the Constitution and its amendments, was founded with logic and reasoning; and thus We the People must also use those principles to safeguard and ensure that those we elect abide by those principles and follow the Rule of Law: constitutional law.
So, the divisions between the political entities is moot, because all politicians should become statesmen and stateswomen who hold constitutional law as the foundation of their principles and policies while performing their tasks required of their elected office. That can only happen if society reforms its way of thinking, reeducate themselves, and know everything there is about constitutional law and the record, character and background of those candidates we choose to elect.
In the case of the citizens of Wisconsin who are bent upon replacing Scott Walker
with Tom Barrett
in a recall election
. If Scott Walker loses to Tom Barrett it would be returning the type of government that Jim Doyle
operated and who caused the issues we face today and Governor Walker is working to fix.
Effectively, those people who are taking the side of the unions and Tom Barrett (same thing), believing their propaganda, are asking that our government return to a frivolous spending entity that expects the people to continue paying more and more while government spends and expands until, like a parasite, it kills its host.
Tom Barrett has a long record in politics:
|Barrett and Walker
|Mayor of Milwaukee
: As mayor, I will not raise property taxes
. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
, August 7th, 2003. Mayor Barrett raised property tax seven times in his eight years as mayor, likening himself as Jim Doyle as governor. (Milwaukee City Budget
). In addition to that legacy, Milwaukee has become the fourth in the list of poorest cities in America.
State Assemblyman: Voted to raise the state fuel tax, adding cost to consumers at the pump. (Milwaukee Journal; July 3rd, 1987)
State Senator: Voted for a tax increase that was more than $500 million. (Milwaukee Sentinel; July 4th, 1991)
Representative, US House of Representatives: Voted for the largest federal tax increase in US history that included increasing fuel tax. (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel; March 11th, 2004 and 1993 Budget Reconciliation, House Vote record #406, adopted on August 5th, 1993.
One of the mistakes We the People have been making is electing lawyers to public office. Any attempts of getting a handle in unconstitutional mandates and legislation and limiting government, they have errantly tried to find, and have succeeded, in finding loopholes in the law. That is what lawyers do when practicing their trade.
The true purpose of law and government is to protect fundamental rights, maintain citizens choice to choose (when it does not violate the rights of another citizen), and to resolve conflicts between individuals and groups in a fair, just, and constitutional manner. Politicians today pick and choose what they will enforce. A good example would be the serious issue about illegal immigration. They do not enforce immigration laws because they want an “easy” way out in the form of an amnesty, which has been done before, but only encouraged more to cross our borders illegally and stay long enough to wait for amnesty.
|High Court Subversion
The illegal immigrant, usually with false documentation, has become bold enough to actually go into the streets of cities and protest – calling those that want the laws of US immigration to be enforced, racists. Another growing element of illegal immigrants are advocating what they call a “revolution” in which they claim that certain areas of the United States rightfully belong to Mexico. This points to their ignorance of history where Texas, for example, was a republic that was friendly towards Mexico until the Mexican government turned on them with tyranny.
But the true claimant should be the Spanish who landed in Mexico, Florida, California started settlements and built monasteries to convert the natives to Christianity. Going back further than that, the Aztec and Mayan civilization was not located north of the Rio Grande River; therefore the real estate of the United States belongs to our nation legally. In our early history when we wanted to expand we made purchases like Louisiana from the French and Alaska from Russia. We were and never have been a conquering nation or one that looked to colonize the territory of another, because we were established as a democratic republic and that form of government has no such interests. We have accumulated territory along the way, but they are territories with their own government, sworn allegiance to the United States and protected by it – from their own free will.
The United States Constitution came closest to establishing limited government upon individual rights, but didn’t follow through in order to protect it from the courts, legislatures, and lawyers in a more concrete fashion. An example would be playing with the words in the Second Amendment which is a simple paragraph and to the point. Fortunately the Supreme Court has performed its purpose and put those who think the Second Amendment does not provide the right of citizens of the United States to keep and bear arms in their place as progressives.
If people think the language in the Constitution is not understandable, then it is a testament to the “dumbing down” of our educational system by the progressives that is the blame.
During the session of the 104thCongress a Constitutional Caucus was formed spearheaded by Rep. J.D.Hayworth (AZ) in 1995, and sent a letter of announcement that explained that it …
will explore ways to return power to the states and the people and restore a limited, constitutional government. It will focus on educating Congress and the public on the importance of returning the American government to “constitutionalism”.
This was a time when the political right had gained majority of Congress with the advent of Contract With America. It was a time for hope. But the movement did not get much support from the media, who, with the help of the political left, mad jokes and called it the “Contract On America”. The government continued to tax and spend and majority of voters catered to mainstream media’s advocacy for Big Government and social engineering programs, as well as voters continuing to vote for the same reasons – those that promised that government would make their lives better through legislation.
In addition to that caucus, think tanks had been formed, and among those organizations on the long list is Cato Institutewhose main purpose of its membership was to re-instill the purpose of government back to why it was created and limits its powers, thus making it more efficient and less costly. Today, Cato Institute is the prime think tank that considered to be mostly a libertarian point of view. Among reputable think tanks, a great source of information for those seeking reformation of our government to a constitutional republic, American voters, thanks to the Internet, can access useful information it seeks to use when choosing political candidates. Unfortunately, too many American voters rely upon media who, with political entities, use negative TV ads and other tools in order to keep the status quo. Out of that list are some think tanks that have developed a reputable name for themselves:
Claremont Institute – to restore principles of the American founding fathers … establish a limited and accountable government that respects natural law, private property, promote stable family life, and maintain a strong national defense.
Heartland Institute – American conservative and libertarian think tank based in Chicago that advocates free market policies and issues that include government spending, taxation, healthcare, tobacco, global warming, information technology, and free-market environmentalism.
Heritage Foundation – to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense – inspired and founded during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. It remains a strong influence upon US public policy, though its results have not materialized. It is considered the most influential conservative research organizations in the United States.
Hoover Institution – located at Stanford University in California, it is part of the library of Herbert Hoover founded in 1919 before Hoover became president. Its mission statement: representative government, private enterprise, peace, personal freedom, and safeguards of the American system. It is influential in the American conservative and libertarian movements whose list of scholarly membership include Edwin Meese, Condoleezza Rice, George Shultz, Thomas Sowell, and Amy Zegart.
The political left has its think tanks as well, like:
New Democrat Network – established by Simon Rosenberg in 1996 after he split from the Democrat Leadership Council, and was political strategist for Michael Dukakis and Bill Clinton presidential campaigns as well as the Democratic National Committee. It was a concerted effort to change the label of the political left from liberal to progressive that promotes the progressive movement opposing conservatism and advocating American democratic socialism. Primarily concerned with better working conditions for women and other labor-related issues, promoting policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon Baines Johnson who established the progressive movements of social engineering and an American form of socialism. The term “New Democrats” was made popular by Hillary Clinton. The organization is also involved in a Hispanic Project begun between 2003 and 2004 that seeks bonding with Hispanic voters by promoting amnesty programs for undocumented immigrants in order to expand the voting base of the Democratic Party.
Progressive Policy Institute – founded in 1989 under the concept of “New Democrats” it covers a wide range of policy issues and describes itself as centrist. Founded by Walter Mondale, the party has since melded into the New Democrat public policy institution that supported the No Child Left Behind Act, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). The organization both supported and criticized some policies of GW Bush; but opposed the partial birth abortion ban and the expiration of the 1994 assault weapon ban. It also opposed the Bush tax cuts that is presently due to expire if the present Congress does not continue it.
Each individual, capable of being self-responsible, can rightfully claim as fundamental rights any action or state of being that all others can simultaneously claim without forcing others to serve their needs.
Individual sovereignty is the underlying authority behind every legitimate form of cooperative government.
Families have a special, temporary form of sovereignty over the health, welfare and education of their children until those children are capable of being responsible for themselves.
The only proper way to establish a government among free and sovereign individuals, with police powers of enforcement, is by initial mutual agreement of all parties, and the subsequent agreement, on the same terms, of all those joining the compact at a later date.
Nothing done under government authority has any validity if it violates or limits a fundamental right, unless such limitations have been specifically agreed upon by all citizens participating in the governmental process.
Rules of rights and liberties are those of government, for example, individuals and families have sovereignty over their own affairs as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. It is an element of the international “golden rule”. Government should provide in its main goal defense for the fundamental rights of all citizens. Citizenship should be a covenant and a qualification, not entitled just by birth. For with the rights provided for citizens, responsibility is intertwined. Government should be financed by user fees for direct services of individuals and other taxes should be universal, uniform, and equal to all citizens and business institutions. Taxes should never be used beyond its sole purpose of raising revenue, as in social engineering or singling out a certain group of citizens; such as the overtaxed tobacco and alcohol products. Military and the police should only be used where a direct threat exists to the fundamental rights of its citizens and to enforce constitutional law. Any assistance given to foreign nations where a significant threat has been determined, should be carried out only by voluntary procedures.
The three areas of sovereignty are: individual, family, and nation. Those areas of sovereignty deal with life, liberty, ownership, and self defense. Those concerns of sovereignty should be safeguarded unless it infringes upon rights of others or present an immediate threat to the life of individuals, such as children. Family sovereignty is important, just as its nucleus and strength makes a strong nation. Our government, influenced by progressives; have corrupted the concept of marriage, which is the business of church and private organization, not government. A child also has fundamental rights and becomes independent once he or she is capable of meeting the qualifications of citizenship. The power of the state has traditionalism been the ruling element of legal age maturity, which has no basis upon the principles aforementioned.
Given a high level of evil influences in a pluralistic society, most good parents would exercise their freedom to form covenant societies with other like minded people in order to shield their children from many of these harmful influences.
In general fundamental rights:
By the fundamental character and essential nature of freedom, the inviolable, fundamental rights of man shall never be made subject to political confirmation. They exist regardless of the nature and institution of governments on earth, and cannot therefore be denied, rightfully, even by a majority of persons using democratic powers. While they may be listed for reference and voluntary approval in a constitution, they are not, by nature, subject to the ratification or amendment process.
When it comes to matters of state government rights, in light of the recent Arizona state laws that decided to enforce federal immigration laws when the federal government would not:
Secession does not have to mean war, only that each body’s ultimate sovereignty be respected. The northern states clearly violated the sovereignty of the southern states in forcing them back into the union. Such use of force clearly sets a precedent that no matter how tyrannical the Federal government becomes, no state or individual can leave. The peaceful right to secession should be stated in the constitution, and it should protect the fundamental rights of citizens both ways. In other words, no state could secede by majority rule, unless it continued to allow individuals who wished to remain part of the union to do so, without territorial integrity.
Often the discussion of liberties and limited government turns to the founding of our nation and the comparison of our government today. Skousen wrote:
The American revolution was unique in history, being a revolution of the higher, educated class of people. A much larger percentage of the educated, landed class that has ever existed before or since were well schooled in the English traditions of law and liberty. Very few of the leaders we have in power today have that same allegiance to liberty. A Constitutional convention today would be controlled by those who believe in raw democracy and many forms of socialism.
In conclusion of this portion of Constitution 101 series, I would like to reiterate that citizens of the United States must take it upon themselves, as they have in home-school programs, to educate themselves in constitutional studies like those provided by G. Edward Griffin. His video, Collectivism and Individualism presents a clear-cut view of how our political system has moved so far away from the creative ideology of the founders of the United States.
It is We the People that must make those who operate our government to conform to those principles and solid foundation of constitutional laws. The issues that threaten America today would be resolved more readily and efficiently if those principles were put into practice.