Jan 28th, 2013 - Asked about the Constitution

-
I had someone ask why protect the constitution like it is the word of god. Once I got done sighing I looked at him and tried to be diligent with a concise explanation: The Constitution is the highest law in this country. It is our King, but instead of having a ruler to take our concerns too, we are suppose to take our concerns to ourselves, we are suppose to rule our own lives in this country. The Constitution is not there to rule us, instead it is there ONLY to limit the power of government. The reason we (by we I mean the government) must follow it and more importantly, follow due-process, and when is say that I mean not only the due process for you and I, but the responsibility of due process to changing a law is so that there remains a consistent, understandable ideal to follow. Due process ensures the absence of chaos and requires Logic and clarity of thought to prevail. There is a process for creating law. If all laws were equal, then one law could simply supersede the other. But the Constitution is not equal to laws, it is a supreme law above all other laws. Nothing can supersede it without the required due-process of a constitutional amendment. For example if we did not have the constitution or if congress could simply write laws that overrode the Constitution, then they could simply vote in a new law that took away the suffrage and gave them sole power to select a President. That is, they would pick someone they liked and we would be stuck with a government by Fiat. (yes, of course if something like that happened people would be outraged. But you should be outraged at any invasion on the Constitution). That is why the constitution is important, because it requires that the change of power go through a very serious process that a large, a super majority must agree on. So, when we talk about protecting the constitution we are talking about protecting our freedom to choose our own lives. It is not some old document, but a living document that represents each of today and all of our children and future generations.

His reply, "but guns....hurt people"

one more sigh and I said, "if pain and fear are so important, then you have bigger problems than guns. I need coffee."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

note 1 - people as property

-
Image
notes for my latest book on politics and life. ...it is imperative to continually point out that people are not property. There is no other truth. The majority of people are mindlessly on the side of "people AS property". They don't even know it. So they let a litany of insanity rule their lives. Ask someone why they think speeding is a crime and they'll say "well that person could cause an accident that could kill your family. You WANT YOUR FAMILY DEAD?!?" … their answer: - besides the fact they always seem to assume the worst in people - government has the authority to stop you from possibly, maybe, in the future, causing someone else harm . In other words: pre-crime. Then ask this same person if they believe government should mandate what time you should get out of bed, shower, eat breakfast, and leave the house.  They will, of course, say, "NO THAT'S SILLY"...because by this point they are screaming; people stop listening. ...
Read more

Free! Free! Free! – How socialism’s free things requires ownership over the means of production

-
Image
Recently Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a professed Democratic Socialist, appeared on Colbert. She made a couple of statements that are pure anti-human, and the crowd, unaware of the consequences of her comments, applauded. Colbert, seemingly enamored (not by her good looks mind you but by his past opinions on the virtues of communism), said nothing of any consequence. None of this, of course, should surprise anyone that is paying attention.  She stated that she believes education and health are basic human rights. So, since, they are basic human rights, they must be freely accessible to anyone that wants them.  Colbert didn’t even ask her, “Well, Alexandria, how exactly are you going to pay for this?” This is because democracies as a whole believe that the outcome of the vote is a moral truth and whatever costs created by the so-called elected officials, is a required condition of participation. If the state requires the users to pay for everything, then the users (slaves...
Read more

What is a Libertist?

-
Someone recently asked me this question. I was shocked. I had come to think the word was self-evident. So I turned to google to make sure I wasn't just a snooty upturned nose type forcing plebs to accept my jargon. Typing "define Libertist" into google and you have to go almost to the bottom before you come into the definition.  Google assumes I meant Liberttist, with two t's. A Liberttist, two t's, is a person that writes the texts that go along with an Opera and this text is called a Libretto. It, dictionary.com, tells me is derived from Libro, or book. Fair enough and completely sensical (I used 'sensical' on purpose because English professors everywhere still think it is not a word. My typing it and publishing it here, prove, gentlemen, otherwise).  But if you take out that second t the word means: one that defends Liberty. Thus my reason for shock, because I had assumed that since the word was in the name, that the clarity and purpose of modifyi...
Read more