I’ve just finished a self-imposed month-long reading of both the Federalist and the Antifederalist papers, The United States Constitution, The Articles of Confederation, Nullification by Thomas Woods (and an interview with him) and a few other books. When my eyes simply could not focus for another second, I studied the Learning About Liberty Audio courses from the Cato Institute and The Great Debate: Advocates and Opponents of the American Constitution by Thomas Pangle from the Teaching Company. To take a breather I tuned into a week of Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano over on Fox Business Channel. After weeks of books and hours of audio and The Judge, I’ve come to a simple yet profound conclusion.
We don’t need a License to embrace Liberty. We needn’t any outside permission to practice freedom. Both are inalienable, latent within each of us as a birth right. The Constitution of the United States doesn’t grant us anything, except a shield from the power grab of encroaching governments. Our rights are in our human DNA, a part of our very chemistry. When Patrick Henry exclaimed “Give me Liberty or give me death” he was articulating the simple, biological fact. The opposite of Liberty is death; same as if someone surgically removed your spine. NO spine, NO life.
NO liberty = death.
I’ve also come to understand that not only the Constitution, but the ideas enumerated in it, are pretty simple, albeit powerful stuff. Those looking to grab more power over our innate freedoms do what they can to convince us how complicated and dense the document is. They practice a legalistic origami to justify their existence, tell us they do so under the guise of protecting an illiterate populace while, lemming-like, we drink their Koolaid and surrender the keys.
You don’t have to be a Constitutional lawyer, a PhD, a TV anchor or a career politician to figure this out. It’s truly not rocket science.
Does a law fall within Constitutionally protected parameters? Yes or No? Is it Constitutional or not?
In the powerful book Nullification, Tom Woods quotes Thomas Jefferson. “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves.”
Look around you. Do you believe we live in a society where the people are the “safe depository of the ultimate powers” or is the government, at all levels, trying to take those powers from us? From Obamacare mandates to a budding, 11 year old female entrepreneur in Oregon shut down by local authorities for selling lemonade without a permit, just how free do you feel?
On a side note, as an Irishman, I’m told there is no more derogatory, insensitive and offensive a term that one can hurl at me than “mick.” I guess I’m supposed to be offended, mortified, hurt, wounded, blah, blah, blah….to that end…
Please feel free to call me a “mick” on Facebook
You are welcome to ridicule me as a “mick” on Twitter
Join me at The Brian Brawdy Show. Liberty’s Line in the Sand
More 2 Explore
Comments
The Honorable Legislator’s Creed: This I Believe
I. This I believe: The Constitution of the United States was written in plain English for the benefit of all citizens. There are no hidden meanings that require interpretation beyond that which any educated citizen might read and understand for themselves. Individuals offering extraordinary, mystical or elitist interpretations of words in the Constitution are displaying symptoms of despotic progressivism and not to be trusted.
II. This I believe: Liberty is a state of existence where one is free of force or fraud against their persons and their property. Defense of liberty for every citizen is the foundation upon which our nation stands. Nobody, government in particular, has the right to tell any honorable citizen what to do or to extract value from the property of that citizen. It is a fundamental right of every citizen to be left alone. Anyone who rationalizes an attack upon liberty as: “an unfortunate but necessary sacrifice for the greater good” is displaying symptoms of despotic progressivism and not to be trusted.
III. This I believe: When confronted by dishonorable behavior, the honorable citizen has a duty to employ what ever tools of defense are at hand for the purpose of mitigating risks generated by that behavior. Any force up to and including deadly force may be employed to protect the person and property of themselves or of any other honorable citizen. Anyone who seeks to deprive the honorable citizen use of any tool for the protection of liberty is displaying the symptoms of despotic progressivism and not to be trusted.
IV. This I believe: Honorable behavior is the mechanism by which liberty is defended. The honorable citizen defends liberty for themselves and their family. The heroic citizen assumes personal risk in protection of liberty for their fellow citizens. Anyone who counsels patience and passive restraint while awaiting individuals with tools of defense to race to your aid are displaying symptoms of despotic progressivism and not to be trusted.
V. This I believe: The law under our constitution is a collective extension of the individual citizen’s right to self defense. The law is about securing justice for the dishonorable behaviors of others. The consequences of dishonorable behavior call for investigation, apprehension, detention, impartial examination of fact, and just consequences for individuals found guilty. The law is a tool for applying a measured and just response to dishonorable behaviors of individuals. The law cannot be a shield. Further, the law under our Constitution is NOT a tool for the despotic progressives to effect social engineering or plunder.
VI. This I believe: The Constitution is quite clear in the enumeration of duties and powers chartered to the federal government. Nonetheless, the legislative behaviors by the federal government of the United States have been running amok for over 100 years. Worse yet, the courts have torturously revised history of their own case records to justify a congressional rampage through a legislative candy shop. The net result is that the vast majority of federal legislation over the past century is decidedly unconstitutional. Anyone observed to brush questions of constitutionality aside are displaying symptoms of despotic progressivism and not to be trusted.
VII. This I believe: No citizen, no officer of government, no court has a charter under the Constitution to force any honorable citizen to do anything. Anyone who proposes, supports or implements any law or regulation that attacks the liberty of any honorable citizen is displaying the symptoms of despotic progressivism and not to be trusted.
VIII. This I believe: The law under our Constitution is blind to age, sex, religion, physical condition, or ethnicity. Law crafted under our Constitution must first be a response to an attack upon the liberty of a citizen and second, apply equally to every citizen irrespective of cultural, economic or societal station. Anyone who proposes, supports or implements any law or regulation that sets one honorable citizen apart from another is displaying the symptoms of despotic progressivism and not to be trusted.
IX. This I believe: The honorable legislator under our Constitution will propose no law nor will they support any law which attacks the liberty of an honorable citizen. Any candidate for office who does not embrace this principal of government is not qualified to hold office under our Constitution.
X. This I believe: The honorable legislator under our Constitution will act at the federal level to either rescind or otherwise disable any existing law, regulation, or institution of government, which violates the liberty of any honorable citizen. Employees of government involved in the promulgation of unconstitutional law will be ordered to immediately cease and desist all such activities. And further . . .
XI. This I believe: In crafting the Kentucky Resolution of 1799, Thomas Jefferson tells us that when the federal government brings an unconstitutional law into effect the states have recourse to declare such laws unconstitutional, null and void. The honorable federal legislator under our Constitution will encourage their home state’s legislature to take judicial notice of unconstitutional action by the federal government. Each state can then take appropriate action to reject any federal violation of state’s and/or citizen’s rights.
XII. This I believe: In order that articles X and XI may be implemented with dispatch and efficiency, honorable legislators serving in the federal government should be employees of their respective states. Their home state should be responsible for setting salaries, benefits, retirement packages, operating budgets, and expenses for all representatives and their support staffs in Washington. Nothing of value is permitted to be transferred to the use or control of any state employee from any outside source which includes but is not limited to the federal government and all private interests foreign or domestic. Violation of this rule is a dishonorable activity that disqualifies the offending individual from holding this or any other position of responsibility. Washington facilities owned or leased by states in Washington DC should be as inviolate as an embassy on foreign soil.
XIII. This I believe: The only reason an honorable citizen feels compelled to vote is to remove a dishonorable legislator from office. The only reason the dishonorable citizen is compelled to vote is to secure for themselves a larger piece of somebody else’s pie. The dishonorable citizen is not qualified to vote under our Constitution.
XIV. This I believe: Application of these simple-ideas to the conduct of citizens and their government under our Constitution abides no moderation, bi-partisanship or compromise. While the behaviors of dishonorable individuals may be conducted with any frequency and magnitude, the honorable citizen maintains rigid expectations for the behavior of a legislator under our Constitution. Failure to embrace any of the foregoing demonstrates a lack of qualification for office in the government of the United States. The foregoing also illustrates the critical nature of honorable behavior. Without it, we do not have a nation. Without it, prospects for all peoples of the world are exceedingly bleak.
Thanks Laura,
Great way of putting it!
This is true, Brian. And to take it one step further, there are people who are enslaved by their own freewill to fears of not having enough, being abandoned, being sick, being stolen from and of dying. And it seems that the greater their fears, the more they inflict harm on others. A person unafraid of dying truly enjoys a liberty that no man take from him.