The (real) Spirit of '87

In a nice article posted at the Tenth Amendment Center, Timothy Baldwin (son of Chuck Baldwin) writes the following,

[T]o suggest that state sovereignty always give way to the national power is to completely do away with the line. It is in fact to destroy even the natural law of self-preservation. If you accept Corwin’s proposition of “getting back to the constitution”, you might as well throw the tenth amendment in the dump, along with the freedom it protects.

which concepts are of intense interest to me, witnessed by the fact that I've written about them numerous times at this blog including at least one entry in which I suggested (tongue in cheek, of course) that we make this false and dangerous doctrine of federal authority always trumping state authority official amending it into the constitution and settling the issue once and for all time. Indeed, we could simply scrap the entirety of the U.S. Constitution and replace it with this simple doctrine, for as I've also said before, to scrap the 9th and 10th amendments is the same thing, for all intents and purposes, as scrapping the entirety of the constitution.

In a comment directed at Mr. Baldwin's above statements, I wrote the following:

To suggest that state sovereignty always give way to the national power is to completely do away with the line.

Precisely correct! It is, in point of fact, a contradiction in terms the suggestion that state sovereignty can in any way exist alongside an all powerful central authority to which the states must always yield. One of the fundamental laws of logic is the law of non-contradiction (A cannot be non-A), which such a concept palpably violates and is therefore of no legitimate authority whatsoever, which is to say that rational people are in no way bound to observe it nor anyone who propagates such blatantly false illogical conceptions.

It is in fact to destroy even the natural law of self-preservation.

Well, the law itself cannot be destroyed. It can, however, be undermined to the extent that for all intents and purposes (governmentally speaking) it is non existent. And that’s what it invariably comes down to, now isn’t it. Indeed, the law of self-preservation applies as well to the national government as it does to the states and to the people. In asserting unlimited arbitrary power over them, the national government, in point of fact, is destroying itself and the reason for its existence. And we all know what the Declaration says about that — “Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [the preservation of the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], it is the right of the People to alter or abolish it…”

In the end, and as I think Mr. Baldwin intimates further down the article, it all comes down to a clash of worldviews (doesn't it always?). Worldview A holds that there are certain inviolable principles perpetually at work in the physical universe and, acknowledging that these principles and laws exist, seeks to operate within the boundaries therein prescribed insofar as they can be dileneated, while Worldview B rejects the idea that these principles and laws really exist as anything more than the false conceptions and inventions of [lesser-evolved] minds led astray. Worldview B seeks, therefore, to ignore them, everything being to such people "relative" except, of course, the idea that "everything is relative" which is not relative but a fixed and immutable law of the universe. Setting aside the contradiction here, is this the one and only fixed and immutable law of the universe, this idea that everything is relative? I don't know, it gets a bit confusing given that such people also palpably contradict themselves in dogmatically asserting that "we can't legislate morality" while at the very same moment, and in fact in the very issue itself, pushing intensely for the ... well, ahem ... the legislation of morality.

Anyway, do read the article in full. Baldwin helpfully lists at least twelve instances in which the Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution contain the same principles. Not that it really serves our purposes since the constitution establishes an all-powerful central authority designed to eventually suck all other state and local authority into its ever-growing, ever more violently destructive vortex.

Them founding fathers, they was a shifty bunch, wasn't they!

Read More

Conservative vs. Libertarian - what is the source of the problem?

Under Dr. Keyes's excellent post United by Right, I attempt to identify the root cause of the confusion and disagreement between libertarian commentator Silent Consensus, and the majority of commenters under that and earlier threads at the site.

Here is an excerpt from my latest comment to the entry:

Re the irreconcilable differences between Silent Consensus and the majority in this forum:

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. Yes, yes, it's an overused line, but that doesn't negate the fact.

There are three minimal requirements for intelligent conversation to occur: 1) an intelligent mind capable of transmitting a thought, 2) an intelligent mind capable of receiving a thought, and 3) a common mode of communication between them (a common language).

I personally find that it is almost always that third one that gets in the way of carrying on an intelligent conversation between minds. We speak the same (English) language, yes, extracting our words from a common store or reservoir, but at the same time we assign to them different significations, primary and secondary, depending on our philosophical beliefs. Thus, we're really speaking different philosophical dialects of the same language, which acts as a barrier or an impediment to our being able to transmit and receive thoughts with normal clarity. And it goes without saying that a high degree of clarity is an absolute must when attempting to carry on intelligent conversations with someone else, political, religious, whatever.

I, of course, encourage you to follow the link to the entry and read the entirety of the comment in which I quote John Jay from Federalist no. 2 where he lays it down as essential to, and inseparable from, the growth and development of the founding generation into a body politic sufficiently prepared and uniquely qualified to establish "general liberty and independence," the societal cohesion necessary to accomplish the formidable task.

Which, of course, has implications for us and our ability to maintain general liberty and independence, in our time, as well. Something I ultimately chose not to delve too far into in the post, opting rather to keep my focus primarily on the confusion, and what I deem to be the source of the confusion, that Silent Consensus is creating in the forum. Jay's observation is important as it applies to us nonetheless. And I'll have more to say on it here later.

**********

Loyal to Liberty commenter chiu chunling writes in part:

Silent Consensus isn't a libertarian, though he makes free to mouth such arguments. He simply is trying to set up a straw-man idea of freedom to establish a problem that can only be solved by totalitarianism.

I believe that self-government means self-determination, and further that self-determination depends on self-control and self-restraint. I simply use a conceptually consistent idea of "self" as being an entity which has the potential for independent existence, which is to say, I do not mean only the body, which is dependent for its composition and continuation on circumstances.

This response to my comment is, on some level, meant to refute what I said concerning libertarianism's idea of what the term self-government primarily signifies. But in fact it solidifies the point. Where chunling indicates that he believes that self-government means self-determination and further that self-determination depends on self-control and self-constraint, he's simply acknowledging my simpler version of the exact same idea, namely that the primary signification of self-government is self-control, self-constraint, not self-determination. This is not what Silent Consensus believes, and his IS a libertarian understanding of the term self-government.

Now, maybe chunling counts himself among libertarians and was thus offended by my comments. Fine. But as I've said many, many times before, there are libertarians, and then there are Libertarians. A pure Libertarian like Silent Consensus has a strong sense of the absolute autonomy of the individual, or, extreme individualism. Chunling is not a pure libertarian, Silent Consensus is.

Read More

Understanding the Constitution

(Note: In my right sidebar under the fifth heading "Links of Interest" is a permanent link to the Federalist Papers there for your perusal. I've written before that it was through my own reading and study of the Federalist Papers that I came to the knowledge of how destructive to our form of government the fourteenth amendment has been, original intent of the framers of the fourteenth notwithstanding. Subsequent amendments have further worked to the destruction of the federal principle so vital to our system, and the fourteenth amendment (original intent notwithstanding) paved the way to this destruction. A good familiarity with the Federalist Papers is essential to understanding the original intent of the men who sat in the Constitutional Convention. And there's the added bonus of discovering the great genius of these great Americans in devising the balanced system that they did.)

If you think you understand the Constitution, the depth and breadth of the principles contained therein and the form of government it establishes, here is a lengthy excerpt from the introduction of a new book on the subject titled "Defending the Republic" which will help you discover how much (or how little) you know and understand about the constitution in reality.

Read More

(Webster's) Founding quote of the day

This is one of those features that I enjoy so much over at The Maritime Sentry. No; I'm not planning a Webster's Founding quote of the day, it is a function taken up by others whom I respect, and I will not invade on their territory. However, I don't see anything wrong with an occasional "Founding quote of the day" here at Webster's, particularly given that this blog frequently highlights the wisdom and authority of the founding generation.

Below is my first installment:

The brief exposition of the Constitution will unfold to young people the principles of republican government; and it is the sincere desire of the writer that our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the BIBLE, particularly the New Testament or the Christian Religion.

-Noah Webster, History of the United States c. 1834

Read More

Birthright Citizenship equals Natural Born Citizenship

What is "natural born" citizenship anyway? Are "birthright citizenship" and "natural born citizenship" one and the same things? Apparently to some Americans they are.

Birthright citizenship is, of course, the idea that originates from the fourteenth amendment citizenship clause:

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.

Wikipedia gets down to where the rubber meets the road on birthright citizenship:

When accorded automatic birthright citizenship based on birth on American soil, a newborn's status is generally unaffected by the legal status or citizenship of that individual's mother or father. (italics added)

Quite so. But as bad and self-destructive as this is, carried to its logical conclusion, let me add that birthright citizenship, once conferred upon such a newborn, and under our current system and definition of "birthright citizenship", can never be revoked so long as they both (the U.S. and the birthright citizen) shall live short of the individual himself formally renouncing his U.S. citizenship, and/or, on proof of treason against the United States.

Additionally there is the little issue of the legality/illegality of the parents of the birthright citizen in question. If you're incapable of following that train to the caboose, I'm afraid there's likely not a whole lot of hope for you.

In his appearance on Meet the Press last Sunday, Colin Powell asked the following, obviously intended as a rhetorical question: "Is there something wrong with a seven year old Muslim kid believing he or she can one day become president?" We all know what the PC answer is, and we now know what Colin Powell's opinion on the matter is -- such an America Powell wants nothing to do with. Notwithstanding that, the non-PC answer is an emphatic YES!, there is something, indeed everything wrong with a Muslim child believing he can one day become president of the United States of America, a Western nation founded on Judeo-Christian values by White European Protestant Christians. But the hard fact of the matter is nonetheless this, liberal dominance has introduced into this country a system of immigration and naturalization by which our mortal enemies can effect a hostile takeover of our country by foreign mercenaries without a shot ever being fired. Indeed, by and with the aid of liberals and liberalism. I.e., birthright citizenship, which is to say "natural born" citizenship.

When Hamilton wrote in Federalist no. 46 that "the Convention have guarded against all danger of this sort...", by which he intended the raising of a foreign "creature of their own" to the presidency, he was working from the original constitution, not that watered-down leftist version we have now. The blatantly stupid and illegitimate concept of "birthright citizenship" would have never even occured, as more than a passing and laughable thought, to our founding fathers and their generation. But as I've pointed out so many times before, WE (heavy on the WE) "hold these truths to be self-evident," and WE (heavy again on the WE) "THE PEOPLE, in order to form a more perfect union," etc., refers not to us, but to them; their generation, unless and until WE, meaning us, formally assert the truths contained therein as our fathers did.

There is some question as to Barack Hussein Obama's, a.k.a. Barry Soetoro's U.S. citizenship status. So far as I'm aware he's never produced a certified copy of his original Hawaiian birth certificate to anyone, anywhere, including the courts. If the document really exists, then why not simply produce it and end all the confusion, the speculation, and the ongoing legal battle? The copy which his people have posted at his website is extremely questionable as far as I'm concerned. I was born in 1965, four years after Barack Obama's birth, and my California birth certificate bears not even the slightest resemblance to Obama's alleged Hawaiian birth certificate posted on the site. The certificate posted there is very modern looking, more resembling a modern title to an automobile than a genuine birth certificate of the era. Moreover, anyone slightly more computer savvy than I am could easily produce such a forgery bearing whatever name they chose to put on it. Indeed, I think I could even do it, computer illiterate that I am, if I put my mind to it. And it's striking how very little information is on the document, whereas my birth certificate is, by comparison to the alleged Obama birth certificate, loaded with information relevant to my birth.

What I should like to see is an example of a Hawaiian birth certificate c. 1961, the year of Obama's birth. Let us compare the two documents.

But to me this issue of birthright citizenship -- which amounts to nothing more than simply being born on American soil -- equalling natural born citizenship must be dealt with post haste. It is the height of stupidity to say that the mere fact of ones birth on American soil, in spite of everything else that is relevant, satisfies the Constitutional prerequisite of natural born citizenship establishing permanent eligibility for holding the highest office in the land. If this is what U.S. law reflects, then U.S. law on this question of natural born citizenship must be completely overhauled, again, post haste.

Read More

How many immigrants naturalized?

When we talk about the immigration situation in this country rarely do we speak in terms of exact numbers of immigrants who are granted citizenship. I've often cited the words of Noah Webster on the subject who wrote:

I consider it a matter of infinite consequence the cautious admission of foreigners to the rights of citizenship. Numbers of them who have recently arrived in this city come with violent prejudices against arbitrary government, and they seem to make no great distinction between arbitrary government and a government of laws founded on free elections.

Another founder I've cited on the subject before is George Washington. While this particular advice of Washington's has nothing to do with immigrants per se, it is logically derived from his statements that Washington, like his contemporary Noah Webster, took a very cautious approach to the admittance of foreigners to the rights of citizenship.

It is with indescribable regret that I have seen the youth of the United States migrating to foreign countries in order to acquire the higher branches of erudition ... Although it would be injustice to many to pronounce the certainty of their imbibing maxims not congenial with Republicanism, it must nevertheless be admitted that a serious danger is encountered by sending abroad among other political systems those who have not well learned the value of their own.

And although it may be injustice to some to pronounce the certainty of their bringing with them to America maxims not congenial with Republicanism, it must nevertheless be admitted that a serious danger is encountered by bringing to these shores and naturalizing hundreds of thousands of foreigners every year who have not well shaken off the anti-Republican principles that they learned and practiced in their countries of origin.

So how many foreigners does the United States naturalize on an annual basis? Read this New York Times AP story to find out. It looks like we're headed for a banner year in 2008. And if the actual numbers do not alarm you, I doubt that you and I have anything more to talk about.

Read More

My Indian opponent finally comes clean

Jason A., a.k.a. jdogg, finally comes clean with me about his attitude concerning his Indianness and how it trumps his Americanness, among other things.

Jason's revelations, of course, are no surprise to me. I've been stating repeatedly in our discussion in this thread that this is the case; that anyone (not just Indians, but certainly Indians too) having dual citizenship must, by virtue of that dual citizenship, divide his loyalties between the two competing entities. And anytime this happens, one of the two is going to take precedence over the other. For Jason, he's an Indian first, and an American ... somewhere down the line.

Jason writes:

You are American, I am Native first, then American. What you argue for makes you basically my enemy. It's against the best interests of my people.

If I had it my way a statement like that would automatically disqualify such person making the statement from being a U.S. citizen. But we ain't there yet.

Well, Jason thinks that what I'm advocating is against the best interests of his people. But as I've been pointing out all along, in that thread and elsewhere, it can never be in the best interest of his people nor in the best interest of my people for his people or my people, or any people for that matter, to have dual citizenship in two distinctive political entities with two distinctive sets of interests. This is clearly and simply an impossibility. And what more evidence of the fact do we need than Jason's own hostile admission?

Another of my positions that Jason complains about is my perfectly reasonable position that dead men should have no power to rule over the living, whether they be dead Indians or dead whites, or in this particular case both. (I brought this out with Yeagley earlier in the discussion, at which point he abandoned the conversation. But can you blame him? I mean, think about it, what would it mean either way he answered the question?)

In other words, there is no law or treaty or constitution, nor any contract negotiated between men that can ever have the oppressive force of being sacredly and inviolably binding on future generations who do not willingly give their consent to it. Indeed, as the Declaration of Independence states "...that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." There is no truth more evident to my mind (no truth more self-evident) than that "the governed" of which Mr. Jefferson speaks are in fact "the living."

Most of you are also aware (though I wonder about Jason) that the DoI also states "...that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or abolish it." Again, we're talking about the living here, which means, people alive at this particular moment in history; me and you. For how can dead men alter or abolish anything in the here and now? But let us turn our attentions to the word "alter" in the foregoing statement for just a moment.

Jason seems to believe that if we decide to alter any point in any treaty made between dead whites and dead Indians, to his peoples' perceived disadvantage, then whites have once again broken the terms of an agreement that he believes is written in stone for all eternity. Meanwhile, Jason, in what he perceives to be the interests of his people the Indians, is going to do all he can to build upon, to add to what was originally agreed to in the treaties made between Indians and whites. I don't know about you, but I'm not inclined to be a slave to anyone, living or dead. But I'm telling you folks, I know a lot of Indians of one degree or another, and this is the general attitude among those that I know. I'm not saying all Indians share this view, I'm simply saying that this is the general attitude among Indians I know personally.

But Jason's attitude makes me wonder whether the main point of contention between Indians and whites, which is now commonly understood to be the fault of whites because they/we broke the terms of the bargain, is in fact this very point of a difference in governmental philosophy? For is it not so that a Paternal attitude toward the government of men is in direct conflict with that form of government which our founding fathers established on this continent? We know that our founding fathers borrowed much from Mr. Locke who, in his treatise on Government thoroughly dispenses with the idea of Paternal authority as a ruling principle among free men.

Anyway, I don't want to delve into it in this particular post, but I think it can be shown that the fourteenth amendment, the establishment of a U.S. citizenship, and all the things we've discussed before which derive therefrom, relates very closely to this whole issue of dual citizenship. Perhaps I'll take that up in a future entry. Stay tuned.

(Incidentally, the image I've posted above is titled, of all things, Founding Fathers. Am I seeing a problem or six here?)

Read More

No globalization without representation?

I wonder when that phrase (or some version of it) might become popularized as a universal battlecry among foreign peoples relegated to, or by their own volitions (it matters not) living in the lands of their births yet intimately impacted by the decisions of the President of the United States ... and of our Congress, and our Judiciary, and of the very people who inhabit this continent; the new universalist globalist battlecry to extend to all the peoples of the world the liberal principle of universal suffrage in American elections?

VA has an entry up this morning in which she cites one Mr. Simon Jenkins from his article of May 9, 2008 published in the U.K. Times. Mr. Jenkins writes:

The globalised president is a different matter. This leader must represent America’s values - and consequent actions - everywhere that is touched by American policy. His or her decisions benefit or afflict millions of people, rich and poor, in dozens of countries on every continent. Yet they have no vote.

Iraqis, Afghans, Palestinians, Israelis, Pakistanis, Colombians, Brazilians, Russians, Chinese have no means of saying yes or no to decisions taken in Washington that may intimately affect their families, their security, their jobs and prospects. Nobody accounts to them or invites them to any caucus. Few of them enjoy democratic privileges even in their own countries. Yet the next president of the United States can mean life or death.

Commenter Alex seems to have been on the same page as me when he wrote:

There's plenty of glib media commentary on the responsibilities of the 'global presidency'. But while journalists cater to the insatiable public appetite for news of presidential follies (and reluctant admissions of accomplishments), almost nothing is heard from the academics who might be expected to provide some scholarly analysis of "decisions that benefit or afflict millions of people, rich and poor, in dozens of countries on every continent. Yet they have no vote".(emphasis mine)

Yet they have no vote! Shout it from the rooftops! What could possibly be more unjust, more unfair, and yes more immoral than to have people who are potentially afflicted and murdered, whose very lives, liberties and fortunes are subject to the whims of a president of the United States who have no voice in the installment of that president?

This whole issue could be argued from many different perspectives, I suppose. One position would say that there is at least some truth to what Mr. Jenkins is saying; that globalization has indeed intimately connected the decisions of the President of the United States with the diverse peoples of the world, and that therefore the peoples of the world should have some voice in the election of the president. The logical end of this would of course be, as I said, involvement of foreigners in the entire American political process. Did not our founders say that "...governments ... derive(ing) their just powers from the consent of the governed?" If the policies of a president of the United States affect the lives of average Pakistanis, then these Pakistanis are, by definition, "the governed," are they not? The government of the United States can have no "just powers" then, aside from the direct involvement of the Pakistani people, whose lives are intimately affected by U.S. policy, in the American political process.

Months back John Savage wrote in a comment to one of my posts:

I've decided that wherever they differ from us moderns, our Founding Fathers deserve the presumption of being correct. Whether it's on Islam, the role of government, interpretation of Scripture, race, or whatever else, we're the children looking up to our great teachers. Where opinions have changed, the burden of proof lies on those who came later. Our situation is parallel to that of the people who painstakingly rediscovered ancient knowledge after the Dark Ages, is it not?

To keep with the spirit of John's outstanding comment, what we must not do, as I've said or implied innumerable times in the past, is to cherry pick from their writings statements they made which would seem at first glance to support our particular view of the world and of a given topic. As the adage goes "a text out of context is a pretext." This is the reason I cited above the quote from the Declaration of Independence. Let us not forget that it is a declaration of American Independence; let us not neglect to attend to the preamble which declares that during the course of human events it sometimes become necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another. In other words we should always read a particular sentence or phrase in context of the whole piece of work, and that whole piece of work in context of the whole American movement for independent nationhood, in the case of the Declaration of Independence. And as I've said many times as well "WE [heavy on the WE] hold these truths to be self evident", and etc. WE can't and shouldn't speak for anyone else as we seem inclined to do.

But in this case of a so-called 'global president', and the inherent right of all people affected by the presidency, both natural results of 'globalism', it seems to me, we would all be very well served to look to the example and wisdom of our founding fathers, as John Savage says, and in this particular case to Washington's Farewell Speech.

Read More

Is Democracy a legitimate form of Government?

Check out this post over at Vanishing American where VA, in an amazing show of self-restraint, stands aside and lets the giants speak.

My first thought in deciding to post on this topic was to follow VA's lead and let these great men speak for themselves; to let the quotes stand on their own. But ultimately I could not resist the temptation to share a few of my thoughts on the quote that stood out most prominently for me. The "standout" quote for me while reading through this list, and a quote I don't recall ever having seen before, incidentally, was the following from Aristotle, Politics:

Democracy arose from men thinking that if they are equal in any respect they are equal in all respects.

In other words, and very simply stated, democracy arose from liberalism, since liberalism is the ideology which teaches this false doctrine that if men are equal in any respect, they are equal in all respects.

Now if, in your opinion, I'm unfairly attributing to Aristotle ideas he is not actually trying to convey, or I'm putting words in his mouth, or I'm destroying, in any way, the spirit of his message, please do not hesitate to let me know. But it seems to me that one may justly paraphrase the above quote to say:

If men are not equal in all respects, they are not equal in any respect. This is the core fundamental thinking of liberalism, the establishment of which, as the governing rule of society, is the core fundamental object of democracy, liberalism's form of government; government of, by, and for liberals.

I think I may have just experienced something of an epiphany here. It seems to me that democracy is not a form of government at all, at least not in the normal sense in which we use the term "govern-ment," which implies structure and order and restraint, and so on. Indeed, democracy, as a ruling theory arising from liberalism, seems more anti-governmental than govern-mental to me.

Read More

Warning:

The following blog entry posted yesterday evening contains language very favorable to the founding generation.

Whenever I've spoken, in the past, about the the Founders in the terms John has articulated in the following blog entry, almost invariably someone will come along who feels compelled to remind me that these men were just that, men; that they had flaws just like you and me, and on and on and on, as if I'm unaware of this. Allow me to say that this is not necessary.

As someone who has read and studied the founders quite a bit, and who has a fairly sizeable collection of their writings, in book form, directly available to him, I can tell you that if in their writings they did not constantly reinforce this opinion of themselves, I still could not have missed their humanity, which is to say their flaws.

But thanks for your concern.

Read More

John Savage on the Founding Fathers

This may be the first instance on record at this blog where someone has left a comment to one of my posts which precisely articulates my view of a specific subject, namely the founding fathers, their knowledge and their wisdom.

That commenter is, of course, John Savage, as the post title indicates. And here is what he wrote, which I most definately, though I share his sentiments exactly, could not have said better (or as well) myself:

I've decided that wherever they differ from us moderns, our Founding Fathers deserve the presumption of being correct. Whether it's on Islam, the role of government, interpretation of Scripture, race, or whatever else, we're the children looking up to our great teachers. Where opinions have changed, the burden of proof lies on those who came later. Our situation is parallel to that of the people who painstakingly rediscovered ancient knowledge after the Dark Ages, is it not

And I think John is right, our situation is parallel to that of the people who painstakingly rediscovered ancient knowledge after the Dark Ages.

Thanks to John for stating so well what I've been saying ... not so well ... for a long long time.

Read More

Where Me and Jefferson get a little crossways

I appreciate the contribution of Thomas Jefferson to the founding of this country probably as much as anyone does. But there's one point of disagreement between he and I that I just can't get over.

In his autobiography, Mr. Jefferson discusses the Virginia bill on Religious freedom which he authored, and particularly what the Virginia legislators at the time had intended in passing the bill in its final form.

Jefferson writes:

The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason & right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority,...

in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination. (italics added)

Really? The rejection of this singular proposition by a great majority -- inserting the name Jesus Christ in the midst of Jefferson's phrase -- is proof that the Virginia assembly meant to comprehend every religion under the sun, even those religions which are strikingly incompatible with a Western worldview, within the mantle of its protection?

One would think that if Jefferson's assertion is correct, there would be a large body of compelling evidence to support and fortify his claim to which he would point us, but he makes no reference to any such evidence. Why? Also, what plan and what author and what religion is Jefferson referring to when he says "a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion?" The only thing that's clear to me in this phrase is the term "our" meaning "their" meaning the Virginia assembly that passed the bill as the voice of the freemen of that State. He is referring to some specific plan of some specific author of some specific religion, is he not? That's the impression I get.

Read More

What does the constitution say about immigration?

The question has come up about whether a State in this Union has the right to create and enforce its own internal immigration laws, and I think this begs an answer...

I have my own view of the subject, of course, and this view of mine is liable to come out at some point along the way. Indeed, it has come out before elsewhere, but I'd like to discuss the topic here at Web's.

I'm definately not one of those "roll over and just take it, that's the way it is" kind of fellows, which is probably fairly obvious to some of you. So, when someone says to me that my State, for instance, cannot defend itself against an invasion by illegals because federal law prohibits it, I don't necessarily just accept that. I can give you a prime example here...

I recently sent an email to one of my State legislators (young fella, seems nice enough'n'all) asking whether he and the legislature were preparing to battle for our State's new immigration law. In reply he basically informed me that "the Legislature has done all it can do in crafting the law, now it's up to the courts to determine whether it'll stand." To me, this legislator has already conceded defeat. He is saying that we (the State Legislature) may suspect that the federal government has abdicated its responsibility, and if our suspicions are correct, then we have the authority to take up the slack for our citizens.

But who determines whether the State legislature's suspicions about the fed are correct? Apparently the fed, according to this legislator.

Now, I don't know whether this is the general position among the members of our State legislature. Since this individual is a democrat, and our State Congress is majority Republican, I would venture a loose guess that it's probably not the general view shared by the majority, at least not to the extent that this legislator seems to hold the view. But I certainly could be wrong.

Given that example, which is probably a pretty good measure of what State legislators believe across the country, on what principle do they found this belief?

The U.S. Constitution is deafeningly silent on the issue of immigration. In the original, Congress is given authority to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, Article I, Section 8. That being about the extent of what the constitution says concerning immigration, and that only by inference, it seems to me that we'd have to look elsewhere to determine whether what its silence seems to imply is in actuality the case.

Fortunately we're not left totally in the dark on the subject, or to our own devices in assuming that its relative silence on the subject means this, that, or the other. In Federalist #42, Madison discusses briefly what was intended by this phrase "The Congress shall have power...to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Says he:

"The dissimilarity in the rules of naturalization has long been remarked as a fault in our system, and as laying a foundation for intricate and delicate questions. In the fourth article of the Confederation, it is declared ``that the FREE INHABITANTS of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice, excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of FREE CITIZENS in the several States; and THE PEOPLE of each State shall, in every other, enjoy all the privileges of trade and commerce,'' etc. There is a confusion of language here, which is remarkable. Why the terms FREE INHABITANTS are used in one part of the article, FREE CITIZENS in another, and PEOPLE in another; or what was meant by superadding to ``all privileges and immunities of free citizens,'' ``all the privileges of trade and commerce,'' cannot easily be determined. It seems to be a construction scarcely avoidable, however, that those who come under the denomination of FREE INHABITANTS of a State, although not citizens of such State, are entitled, in every other State, to all the privileges of FREE CITIZENS of the latter; that is, to greater privileges than they may be entitled to in their own State: so that it may be in the power of a particular State, or rather every State is laid under a necessity, not only to confer the rights of citizenship in other States upon any whom it may admit to such rights within itself, but upon any whom it may allow to become inhabitants within its jurisdiction. But were an exposition of the term ``inhabitants'' to be admitted which would confine the stipulated privileges to citizens alone, the difficulty is diminished only, not removed. The very improper power would still be retained by each State, of naturalizing aliens in every other State. In one State, residence for a short term confirms all the rights of citizenship: in another, qualifications of greater importance are required. An alien, therefore, legally incapacitated for certain rights in the latter, may, by previous residence only in the former, elude his incapacity; and thus the law of one State be preposterously rendered paramount to the law of another, within the jurisdiction of the other. We owe it to mere casualty, that very serious embarrassments on this subject have been hitherto escaped. By the laws of several States, certain descriptions of aliens, who had rendered themselves obnoxious, were laid under interdicts inconsistent not only with the rights of citizenship but with the privilege of residence. What would have been the consequence, if such persons, by residence or otherwise, had acquired the character of citizens under the laws of another State, and then asserted their rights as such, both to residence and citizenship, within the State proscribing them? Whatever the legal consequences might have been, other consequences would probably have resulted, of too serious a nature not to be provided against. The new Constitution has accordingly, with great propriety, made provision against them, and all others proceeding from the defect of the Confederation on this head, by authorizing the general government to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States."

(More to come later)

Read More

Jefferson on Balanced Government

In his autobiography Thomas Jefferson makes his case for Balanced Government.

Jefferson writes:

But it is not by the consolidation, or concentration of powers, but by their distribution, that good government is effected. Were not this great country already divided into states, that division must be made, that each might do for itself what concerns itself directly, and what it can so much better do than a distant authority. Every state again is divided into counties, each to take care of what lies within its local bounds; each county again into townships or wards, to manage minuter details; and every ward into farms, to be governed each by its individual proprietor. Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread. It is by this partition of cares, descending in gradation from general to particular, that the mass of human affairs may be best managed for the good and prosperity of all. ...

In a letter to Justice William Johnson, Jefferson writes:

The capital and leading object of the constitution was to leave with the states all authorities which respected their own citizens only, and to transfer to the United States those which respected citizens of foreign or other States: to make us several as to ourselves, but one as to all others. (emphasis mine)...

Jefferson continues:

On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

[...]

Can it be believed, that under the jealousies prevailing against the general government, at the adoption of the Constitution, the States meant to surrender the authority of preserving order, of enforcing moral duties and restraining vice, within their own territory?...Can any good be effected by taking from the States the moral rule of their citizens, and subordinating it to the general authority, or to one of their corporations, which may justify forcing the meaning of words, hunting after possible constructions, and hanging inference on inference, from heaven to earth, like Jacob's ladder? Such an intention was impossible, and such a licenteousness of construction and inference, if exercised by both governments, as may be done with equal right, would equally authorize both to claim all power, general and particular, and break up the foundations of the Union.

[...]

"The States supposed that by their ninth amendment, they had secured themselves against constructive powers..."(emphasis mine)

Read More

Balanced/Constitutional Government via Article V?

With the direction the postings here at Webster's have taken the last few days, with no small thanks going out to Mr. Auster of VFR, I'd like to begin a discussion on how to effect Balanced Government, as we over at the AFB would describe it, and a return to constitutional government, as Mr. Auster at VFR has described it...

Yes; essentially I think that the AFB's Balanced Government, and VFR's return to constitutional government, are the very same things stated differently. But how do we get there? This is the question I'd like to investigate, and I invite everyone to join into the conversation.

To begin the discussion, I will simply point to an aspect of Article V of the U.S. Constitution which I do not believe to be widely known among this citizenry. That aspect, or provision of Article V is what I termed several years ago for my own purposes, the state initiated method of amendment. That said, I would direct you to the text of Article V itself, as well as Federalist #85. And I will let you draw your own conclusions.

I will definately be adding to this post later. Stay tuned.

Read More

Toward Amending the Constitution with pinpoint accuracy

(Note: In addition to the VFR Article linked below, see also Austers entry from today, How to drive a stake into the heart of modern liberalism, which provides some background information on Auster's original proposal, as well as his recent amendments to it.)

I've mentioned before the Enumerated Powers Amendment proposal offered by the folks over at the Federalist Patriot, and some of the reasons for which I think it a good and a necessary amendment. And truly, I thought I'd never see an amendment proposal that is as good, or that could better that one.

However, Lawrence Auster from VFR has introduced me to an amendment proposal that may well outclass that of the EP Amendment. Now, I've put little reflection to Auster's amendment proposal to this point. So I'm not going to offer any reasons as yet for why I think this one may be a better proposal. Except to say that instead of going after judicial activists and judicial activism, as the EP amendment does, what Auster is proposing is to get to the very heart of the matter which tends to this kind of activism on the part of the federal judiciary. (I have mentioned that the final sentence in the EP amendment does bother me, and this is primarily why)

One thing that has, for a long time now, bothered me about the fourteenth amendment is that its language more or less lends itself to faulty interpretations, and thus to faulty and unauthorized applications. Berger's book, Government by Judiciary, which came highly recommended to me by Mr. Auster himself, deals specifically with the intent of the framers of the fourteenth amendment, which is very helpful to someone like myself who has seen some real problems with the fourteenth, but did not have the scholarly background to determine what the real intent of the framers actually was.

What Auster is suggesting in his amendment proposal, and in light of Berger's excellent scholarship, is that the language of the fourteenth be clarified so as to be consistent with what the framers intended by that language, not what meaning may be squeezed from the text, as Jefferson so aptly put it.

Here's the thing, I'm not endorsing Auster's amendment in this post. What I am endorsing, and emphatically so, is his willingness to explore ways of overcoming the evils we experience at the hands of the federal judiciary, via its long practice of ascribing meanings to certain phrases in the fourteenth which all the evidence shows was not originally intended by the framers of the amendment.

We all know the old adage "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." In this case of the fourteenth amendment, this seems to be strikingly appropriate and fitting. And I absolutely agree with Auster when he says that whether it is likely that we can effect such changes via such an amendment proposal, it is nevertheless vitally important that we discuss it. And I would add that it is vitally important that we discuss, or explore ways, or means, in which there is some real potential for reaching the goal of "returning to constitutional government." The AFB deals particularly with that.

Look for more to be added to this entry later. And in the meantime, go read Auster's proposal, and tell us what you think. As I understand it, this is still a work in progress. So if you can think of something that may be added or taken away, do not hesitate to let Auster know. But on just a little reflection from this end, it looks like he's got the makings of a very good amendment here. Indeed, this may well eventually make its way into the section here at Webster's, Select VFR Articles.

Read More

The less religious we are, the more religious they see us

And I would be remiss if I did not throw a prop Hermes's way regarding his excellent entry, Freedom is slavery; increasing secularism is increasing theocracy.

My brothers over at the AFB and I have talked about this weird phenomenon before. Why is it that the less religious we become, the more the left wants to associate any mention of a return to a morally sane order, with what it perceives to be our wishing to establish a theocracy? And what makes them think that we could establish one even if that were our desire? I don't know how leftists define the term, but my definition suggests it's an impossibility outside the direct influence of God himself. By a correct definition of the term -God rule- what society has ever existed, with exception of the Israelites, that can in truth be denominated a theocracy? And please don't bore me with the conventional Roman example under Constantine's rule. Give me a break!

I should rather think that the secularists have made their secularism into a quasi-religious fanaticism. So essentially what they're vying for is a secularocracy. You want to cast about meaningless and arbitrarily defined terms, there ya go.

And by the way, this gets back to the main point of the post entered immediately beneath this one. Leftist perceptions are so utterly skewed by their view of the world that to put any serious stock in the idea that they can be relied upon to experience a timely perceptive revelation that their efforts have moved to the arena of counter-productivity, is to put our faith in a vain hope.

Read More

Who would be in YOUR top ten?

Has anyone ever asked you to give a list of five or ten people you'd most like to meet, or to have a private discussion with? Have you ever thought about what your answer would be if asked that question?...

I know for myself, and if it were possible, I'd like to meet such people as George Washington and John Quincy Adams, to name a couple of historical figures. But I'd also like to meet and talk to certain contemporaries of mine. At least a couple of spots on my list would be reserved to kindred souls within the ranks of traditional conservatism. You know, down-to-earth types whose work commands your respect.

Well, today I had the opportunity to have a nice conversation with one of these kindred souls via email, and the conversation was very pleasant, very enlightening, very uplifting. And we discussed one of my favorite topics to some extent which is the fourteenth amendment and the relationship between its establishment and where we are today.

I won't go into anything else here except to say that I was turned on to some very helpful materials, including a book title that I've heard before but which sub-title seemed to elude me. I'm told that if I'm into the fourteenth amendment, then I'm in for a real treat in reading this book. And I am into the fourteenth amendment, big time, as my brothers over at the AFB can fully attest. So I can barely wait to get my hands on a copy.

But I would simply say to that individual of whom I speak, it was an honor discussing this topic with you, and I appreciate your cordiality very much. Thanks for all your help, and again, thanks for what you do. And keep up the great work!

-TM

Read More

Is Worldview the Cure for the 'Disease' We Face?

In the previous post put up yesterday evening I asked you all to look for a post this morning having to do with what I discovered upon reading the entries put up at a few of my favorite blogs while we were away. The implication being, of course, that I was going to concentrate my efforts this morning on saying a few things about the aforementioned blogs and the entries which had been posted during my absence. Well, as these things seem to go for me fairly frequently these days, that has now all changed, though I intend to do another post on that subject later today...

It's no secret that I frequent VA's blog, nor that I hold her in pretty high esteem among bloggers. And it's been on numerous occasions like this one that a post at VA's has sparked some idea for a related post here at Webster's.

Most of you know by now that I have a pretty simple approach to the world and the problems facing it. Usually it all boils down, for me, to a poor religious foundation on an individual level. That leads to a poor foundation at the various group levels. Truly I believe, in direct contradiction to what seems to be the conventional wisdom these days, that the 'whole' of society is exactly equal to, not greater than (or lesser than for that matter), 'the sum of its parts.' Personally I believe this very idea, or concept, is at least indirectly responsible for many of the problems our society faces these days.

If the idea is accepted and acknowledged generally as a truth (and I think it may safely be said that it is), then I know we have a huge problem on our hands that results from that kind of thinking. There may be 'power in numbers,' but no more or less than those numbers add up to. And if you want to discover the character of the nation and this people as a whole, just look to the individuals making the nation up and let that be your answer, disheartening as it may be. At least that's an honest approach which leaves little room for individuals to wriggle themselves out of their ultimate responsibilities.

And that's really the subject I want to get to in this first full post following my recent absence. VA discusses this morning the problems involved with identifying personal issues of 'self-indulgence' as, or equating them with legitimate 'diseases.' She focuses her post on drug and alcohol addiction, and the tendency these days to treat them both as diseases, as opposed to treating them in the old fashioned, or the traditional way as problems associated to the lack of personal restraint and control.

Personally I believe strongly in the admonition of the Bible to 'raise up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not soon depart from it.' And truly, y'all, can any of us say with a straight face that a majority of American children (little people) these days are raised by their parents, or influenced by our society in that way?

America's Schoolmaster, Noah Webster, certainly keyed in on this approach essential to maintaining and perpetuating a largely 'self-governing' society. In his very definition of the term “education,” Webster defines it as “all that series of instruction and discipline intended to enlighten the understanding, correct the temper, form the manners and habits of youth, and to fit them for usefulness in their future stations. Note Webster's choice of terms here – discipline, correct, form, fit. And I gotta ask, folks, if our methods of 'education' are not “intended” to do all that, then why would we ever think we'd end up with a society comprised of self-governing people? How could we ever honestly believe that our constitution and the principles it was founded on could ever survive?

As I read VA's post the thought kept coming to mind, sentence after sentence, that this is far from what is intended within today's 'educational' establishment. But the primary educators of our children, irregardless of who, or what sphere of government is ultimately chosen to the task of educating them, are their parents and adult family members. But what exactly is happening with today's youth? Why is education, and the primary educational institutions in this country (the home, the church, and the schools) failing our kids? Why does each successive generation seem to exhibit less and less self-governing qualities, and more and more dependency on others, on government, on drugs, on alcohol, you name it?

Is it not that they're being raised this way? Is it not that the disease of liberalism has so infected all of our primary educational institutions that this is just the natural result of their poor raisings? I believe so, and I believe that one indicator of this is the growing tendency for parents to seek a medical cure for problems of the temper exhibited by their children, and for the schools to assist them in doing so.

All too often these days parents are all too willing to identify problems with their children which they seem to believe is related to some 'disorder' possessed of their children in a way unique to other children. I suspect I know at least part of the reason parents are inclined to accept these false notions about their kids. First, it gets the parents off the hook for the bad behavior of their kids, or so the parents believe. Second, the parents derive a lot of self-indulgent pleasure from the sympathies they receive from family members and the general public when they have a child with 'special needs.' Third, if they have a 'special' child with 'special' needs, there are all kinds of financial benefits to be derived therefrom, and so on. But is the problem correctly identified, and is it as widely spread as we're led to believe? I certainly believe that the problem is mis-diagnosed much of the time, if not most of the time.

One thing I've always said regarding my own children, albeit somewhat jokingly, is that “they all had A.D.D. until I beat it out of them.” What I mean by that, obviously, is that they all (every last one of them) showed all the signs of having an 'attention deficit' until it was cured through the methods of instruction and discipline intended to (1) enlighten, (2) correct, (3) form, (4) fit. And if this is not the method for producing self-governing individuals 'fit for usefulness in their future stations,' as self-governing, independent, and productive American adults, then I'm utterly deluded.

The point being, of course, that our tendency these days as parents and guardians to darken the understanding, encourage the practice of bad behavior through non-correction, to allow the manners and habits to be formed outside a guiding moral influence, and to raise children not fit for usefulness in their future stations is all too common, and all too noticeable out in the real world. And if you don't believe it, just make it a point the next time you go to a public place, to watch how much parents indulge their misbehaving children.

But of course these misbehaving children just can't help themselves, can they? They must have some disorder that causes them to behave so badly, whether there's been a term put to it yet or not, and for which there must be some prescription drug available to control it. And if not there will be, right? Pretty convenient excuse for those parents who themselves are very often self-indulgent, drug addicted types, wouldn't you agree?

-DW

Read More

Do We Deserve Our Government?

This is one of those questions that just eats at ya, y'know? Those who know me well know that I've been an outspoken critic of the American People for a long time now, placing the blame for our governmental situation on ourselves at least as much as on any of our so-called 'leaders,' and often more so. One of my oft repeated refrains, in fact, has been some form of this: “the next time you have a complaint about your elected officials and the way they're conducting themselves, in their 'personal' or their 'private' lives, just go to the nearest mirror in your home, look at yourself and repeat these words “I am (insert offending leader's name).”

Now, this is not a very popular position to take, even within 'conservative' circles, but as VA and others write, 'we should be able to have an adult conversation about this thing, and whether it has any truth to it.' Indeed we should, and ultimately we must, I should think...

I mention VA because she put up an entry a few days ago dealing with this very question over at her blog, Iowa and the government we deserve. And yes, implicit in the title is the idea contained in the body of the post indicting us Americans – We the People – for the government we have and complain so often about. We've had this conversation more than a few times over at the AFB, and elsewhere, and the conversation went southward fairly quickly in some instances where someone was offended by the notion that we have ourselves, and only ourselves, to blame for our condition, when ya boil it all down.

Personally I think the idea applies to Americans in a very unique way. Even at this point when things seem to be so very bad; when our government seems so very out of control, when the cancers of liberalism and political correctness seem to have almost thoroughly overtaken us in our political capacity as 'one nation; one people,' we still hold the purse strings; we still are the ultimate and the final authority in this government founded on laws and free elections.

In some other parts of the world, people are ruled by 'arbitrary' government, that is, they are ruled by illegitimate government, founded on illegitimate ideas of government. But not us. Not yet. Not completely. Many of us traditionalists who point to our Christian roots as the very foundation which gave rise to this government 'of, by, and for the People,' as well as has been chiefly responsible for sustaining it, often recur to scriptures such as Psalms 11:3, “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?”, in our various warnings that we need to get back to those traditional roots in order to 'secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.' The implication being, of course, that the foundations themselves, once destroyed, leave us with a fragmented or a non-existent means of putting humpty dumpty back together again.

So, is our nation's foundation still left intact? In other words, do we still have in place a solid enough foundation upon which to rebuild those parts of the American edifice which we've witnessed (and actually contributed to in many cases) deteriorate over time, but at a very accelerated pace over the last couple of decades? I'm thinking here in terms of the absolute moral degradation that has seemingly overtaken us during that span of time.

To me the question is a vitally important one, because either way we answer it within ourselves, ultimately will determine within us, and without us, what measures we take, or don't take, to ameliorate the impending crisis. And seriously, folks, I don't care what it is we're talking about, whether it's immigration reform, conducting a war against islamic jihadists the world over, restraining (or not) such things as promiscuous and immoral sexually devious lifestyles, putting restraints on certain tendencies to be ungovernable, to be anarchist; or coming to grips nationally with the immorality of Abortion, or whatever, our Christian tradition always (Always!) applies in an extremely 'foundational' way.

Our founding fathers and mothers understood this concept very well. And they passed on to their children and grandchildren these fundamentally reducible principles of 'Christian Self-Government.' Not only do we see it in their writings leading up to the revolution where this example may be given as a prime one of a collective determination on their parts,:

Whereas it has pleased the righteous Sovereign of the Universe, in just indignation against the sins of a People long blessed with inestimable privileges, civil and religious, to suffer the plots of wicked men on both sides of the Atlantic...

-A Proclamation of the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts, April 15, 1775

But we see it as well in their progeny such as this exemplary example shows:

I have been blamed by men of science, both in this country and in England, for quoting the Bible in confirmation of the doctrines of physical geography. The Bible, they say, was not written for scientific purposes, and is therefore of no authority in matters of science. I beg pardon! The Bible is authority for everything it touches...The Bible is true and science is true, and therefore each, if truly read, but proves the truth of the other...

-Matthew Fontaine Maury

Many other examples of the same line of thinking may be had by even a cursory investigation into our unique history as a distinct nation. But the point is this, that which makes us, and always has made us a distinctive people when compared against other peoples of the world is our history of being unwilling to allow extra-biblical, extra-traditional doctrines to creep into our thinking. Our founders understood that to do so would eventually pave the way for extra-constitutional, anti-traditionalist American values to corrupt our system, our laws, our institutions, our very culture. And so it is that we bear witness to today.

So what is the answer? How do we get this nation back on track? Truly I believe that the only answer, when you get down to where the rubber meets the road, is that we need to rediscover our Christian roots, and to apply those uniquely Christian principles of government that this nation was founded upon. Some of course will scoff at this notion, but if I know anything at all to be a 'truth,' it is that if there is a God (and God exists, don't kid yourselves), then He has revealed certain things to his moral creatures (mankind), in 'general' and 'special' kinds of revelation. The Bible being of that latter kind of revelation, reason would teach us that, as Maury relates, whatever it touches, it is authority for. And if it touches on political science, it is authority for that as well.

Truly we are at fault my friends, because with all of our scientific 'advances,' and those things which we've discovered, not invented, having made our lives so easy, we have forgotten to whom to give the glory.

Blessed be the name of the Lord!

-DW

Read More