Feb 19th, 2013 - Letter to the President

I keep coming back to the argument that the Constitution is the Highest, unchangeable Law of the land.

Although I can understand the philosophical approach of the progressive idiom, the idea of true democracy, and giving the full power of the people equal merit.  Sounds poetic, but it is far too simple an answer to the most complex question that has ever been asked: Do men require legal guidelines and leadership, by which they must form into a social network and how much of this network is required to exist over each individual’s Liberty?  In other words: Are we free or are we slaves?

I understand what the Democrats approach is and it is very close to the natural position of socialism if not out right communism.  I suppose many people would be okay with this.  I propose though, that if there is an opposite position, then by extension, socialism is illegal.  That is, if there is one man, standing in the middle of crowd, not willing to raise his salute, snap his heels, and tell the king or the president or the Chancellor that he will toe the line, then by the Mob's actions, he will required to participate in the system.  He, in effect, is a slave to the whole of the people.    For he must take on the burden of doing actions and behaving in accordance to what is demanded of him by the other 99%.  He, has lost his Liberty, whom lives under the vote of others.

This is the reason why so many long debates occurred between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, specifically, the very well and intelligent writings of Patrick Henry, Alexander Hamilton, and of course Thomas Jefferson.  They concluded with a document that you are familiar with as the Constitution and later, added to it by ratified the Bill of Rights.

For the constitution itself to have merit it must be considered formed in stone and only the great chisel held by the collective hand of the entire nation has the authority to append the stones lettering.  There can be no other way to examine it, because of the weight of enslaving any single person.  Jefferson, over and over, warned that an individual's Liberty was greater and more precious than the collective opinion of the whole.

Of course, they formed the Bill of Rights to help ensure that some form of the idea of Liberty remain after they and their children left the mortal coil, for like most thinking great men, their glory only lasts but a few years beyond their last words, for like all living things, the worms, spiders and parasites of man begin stripping away the beauty that was once there and shortly all that remains is the bleached bones from which the new king can raise his flag and call it glory.

It always comes back to the same problem.  Either the constitution is written in stone or it is a guideline written on vellum and as fragile as the men who wrote it.  

The problem with it being a guideline is that government could alter any of it for their own ends. Any part of it.  So far the government has told a free people that certain types of language is illegal, even though it is protected by the first amendment.  The government as told us that in some cases the right of due process is not necessary.  The government has told us free people that there are certain type so of Arms that we are not allowed to own (in California people are not allowed own some types of knives, because they are considered 'combat' style knives.  Knives are the oldest of the known weapons and have no comparable efficiency when looked at by modern arms.  One knife is the same as the next and its shape or color or size is nearly irrelevant in how effective it is).  All these things [really Liberties or Property if you have read any John Locke] guaranteed to be protected in the constitution.  Not simply ‘assumed’ or ‘hoped’…but out and out guaranteed against infringement.    But it keeps happening, and here we are again, more laws to further restrict something you have no authority to restrict.

I guess, that means, we aren’t that far away from legislators finding a reason to abridge Article I or alter the meaning of Article III or, as I am sure you would love, redefining Article II to simply allow themselves to appoint a lifetime president.  After all,  if the Constitution is merely a guideline, as your government and the Supreme Court seem to think, then by all means, you have the right to run again in 2016 for president simply by getting congress to pass a law allowing you to do so.  If the constitution is not a stone shield that must be altered, then a few votes from the senate and you could have your 'dictatorship' that you mentioned on google+.  I assume even you can see the stupidity of such an action, but yet, you and your progressives feel that the 2^nd is, in fact, definable.   

How is that not hypocrisy?  Being willing to respect the 22^nd amendment, but unwilling to respect the 2^nd, where the 2^nd says specifically, “Shall Not be infringed?”

What remains, is a government that is in constant flux chasing not the truth defined in the Constitution, but an animal that is chasing the lie of a tail that has long since fallen off.  There is nothing solid and true in such a world, only the ever diminishing flux of things taken, with nothing of value added back in.  

Once the seal was broken and the bottle opened, the wine of our Forefathers began to pour out, it can never be replaced by the vinegar of government.  It can only be replaced by new bottles of Liberty, created by those willing turn the earth and crushed the grapes that grow anew.  It will take free men to find freedom again.  Slavery leads only toward death.