Richmond Tea Party » Constitution

Liberty Defined

TRS — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:39:10 +0000

LIBERTY. It never ceases to amaze me how many of the Left can be so ignorant to the meaning of that word, while just as many are so blindly unaware of its importance. Some may realize they have Liberty, or at least should have it. But to liberals, Liberty is just another word to hijack. Liberty means whatever they want it to mean, especially when it helps to push their agenda. Its usage has been constantly abused, its meaning twisted, and eventually contorted into something unrecognizable. This once divinely-considered concept of freedom has become a mutant – a product of higher thinking, where it can be used to advance left-wing ideology under the guise of ideas like “tolerance,” “acceptance,” and “diversity.” Conversely, I do not tolerate, and I do not accept such flagrant disregard for the Truth. I do not accept what the Left has done to diversify the meaning of one of our most sacred, God-given rights. And neither would have the Founders accepted such ridiculous notions. They had much more respect for the word. It was a divine idea to them – something they fought to protect, not casually dismiss. In fact, the significance of this one inalienable Truth, Liberty, resonated deep within the breast of every early American patriot. With great pith, George Washington exemplified this in his First Inaugural Address:

The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.

I believe this sentiment still resonates today – in fact, I know it does. I have seen it. However, as a result of the relentless, pounding assault on our Constitutional principles, the meaning of the word has been nearly lost. To our forefathers, the word Liberty possessed powerful connotations that needed to be clearly defined and protected. And so, I will do my best to illustrate more clearly those implications. Let me start with the origin – the Truth of its nature: It begins with God, the Creator. As stated in the Declaration of Independence, signed July 4, 1776,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Just as Life and the pursuit of Happiness are God-given rights, so too is Liberty. And since it is NOT given by the government, government cannot remove, alter, or diminish it. The Declaration continues:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

The role of government, as intended by our founding fathers, is solely to protect these rights. The United States is a true republic. Our government has no power not given by its people. It has no power to “create” rights for any person of any income class, race, sexual orientation, etc. Rights are NOT created by government. Rights were created by the Creator. To understand that Liberty is God-given, and not given by a governing body, is paramount. Leftists who scream “right infringement” when homosexuals are not allowed to marry are of the mind that marriage is a right. This is incorrect. Marriage is a holy sacrament, a God-given gift traditionally between a man and a woman, legally recognized by the state. It is a privilege to be married, not a right. Since privileges are not addressed by our Constitution on the federal level, the matter is for the state to decide. States are not obstructing liberty if they decide not to recognize gay marriage. They are, in fact, exercising the legal power afforded to them by our Constitution. Marriage is not a right, and states possess the legal authority to decide what constitutes a marriage and what doesn’t. Furthermore, as the Declaration states, all people on Earth are created equally, not just white Americans. We all have equal rights, and, in America, we recognize this and enforce the law to protect these God-given rights. These rights afford us the freedom to pursue Happiness, practice whatever religion we choose, and to live freely, as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. Government, as intended by our Founders, does not hold the power to “create” rights for any group of people, minority or otherwise; It only has the power to protect those rights already created for everyone. The Heritage Foundation maintains this description of Liberty:

Liberty is the rightful exercise of freedom. It balances man’s inherent freedom to pursue happiness with the corresponding duty to respect the rights of others.

Our God-given right to Liberty is the most powerful concept our Constitution sets forth. It implies the notion of equal opportunity for all. It implies freedom in the most righteous sense. Liberty is God-given, government protected. Now here are some examples of what it means to be free: Liberty means having the right-to-life. Liberty does not mean one has the right to take that same right-to-life from others, born or unborn. Liberty means having the freedom to choose how one practices his religion. Liberty does not mean one has the right to force his beliefs on others, or on the organizations of others, concerning how they have chosen to live their lives, or practice their religions, collectively or individually. Liberty means having the freedom to pursue Happiness, in any way one chooses. Liberty does not mean that one is entitled to being happy. Liberty means having the freedom to pursue economic worth (GET RICH). Liberty does not mean one is entitled to succeed in that endeavor. Nor is one entitled to the economic worth of others who have succeeded where he fails. Liberty means having equal opportunity to seek gainful employment regardless of race or sex. Liberty does not mean that one is to be favored for employment over others based on his or her own race or sex. Liberty means having the freedom to choose a partner for marriage. Liberty does not mean that religions can be forced to compromise their values, which may be traditionally opposed to same-sex marriage. Henceforth, they cannot be forced to recognize one’s same-sex relationship as a legitimate union. The federal government has no authority to intervene on this, nor is it required to recognize any same-sex marriage, for any reason. See 1^st Amendment. This country was founded on the idea that all men are equal because we were created equally. The purpose of government is to protect these God-given rights through the force of law. And that’s it. This government was not constructed to advance the agendas of any specific group that liberals have deemed “oppressed”, and it was not constructed to promote the saving of this planet. Although individual-driven conservation is a worthy cause, it is not within the power of government to instruct what we can and can’t do with our own land, as long as our actions are not infringing upon others. Liberals will maintain that the role of government should be much, much more than simply the protectors of Liberty. They believe that government should be the creator of new liberties, ostensibly unforeseen by our founding fathers. In their minds, more government involvement in our lives means more individual liberty protected. When, in fact, the government has now grown so large and intrusive that it clearly infringes upon the individual rights of the same people the Left has professed it was designed to protect. This is precisely the tenet of Liberal/Socialist doctrine that is destroying this country, and our liberty to boot. As Thomas Paine opined in his pamphlet, Common Sense,

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one…

Liberty was once defined for us by a few brilliant men. Their collective accomplishment is one this world has yet to repeat. We live by the saving grace of these men and their visions of a truly free America. It brings me great anguish to witness their legacy destroyed by a Left-wing establishment who, contrary to conventional wisdom, know exactly what they are doing. They plead for compromise, but their true motive is to demolish Liberty as we know it and replace it with government. There can be no compromise with that. But, as always, there is hope. Liberty, as the Founders knew it, survives today. For more than 236 years, Liberty has survived. It is our beating heart. And it will be, as it was once for them, our salvation. No matter the state of despair we find ourselves in, we will always know what it means to be free. And that is worth fighting for.

More on President Obama’s Illegal Power Grab

EricM — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 01:37:55 +0000

Now would be a great time to contact your representatives to express your outrage over this, and to demand action to defend the Constitution. From the Washington Times:

Richard Cordray started his new job on Thursday as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Though he may wear that fancy new title, he lacks the statutory power and constitutional authority of the office. On Wednesday, after the Senate adjourned for one day, President Obama unilaterally installed Mr. Cordray to the CFPB and added three members to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), claiming these were “recess appointments” even though the Senate was in pro-forma session, not recess. In his first speech, Mr. Cordray insisted his appointment was “valid” and “now, for the first time, we can exercise the full authorities granted to us under the new law.” He said at the Brookings Institution he was immediately “launching the bureau’s program for supervising nonbanks. We will begin dealing face-to-face with payday lenders, mortgage servicers, mortgage originators, private student lenders and other firms that often compete with banks but have largely escaped any meaningful federal oversight.” In other words, Big Brother is in business now. Sen. Rob Portman insists this usurpation of power violates the law. Established by the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010, the CFPB was not allowed to regulate entities other than banks until a director was confirmed. “The statute creating the CFPB makes clear that only Senate confirmation of a director – not a recess appointment – can activate the new powers of this agency to regulate consumer transactions with Main Street businesses,” the Ohio Republican said in a statement. Under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, the president has the power to fill executive-branch vacancies during a Senate recess. The upper chamber is currently in a pro-forma session, which means it meets every three days but no official business takes place. Both chambers must take a simple majority adjournment vote to go into recess, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did not ask to do so. The Nevada Democrat knew Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, wasn’t about to give the president a chance to appoint Mr. Cordray. This is part of the Senate’s proper advise-and-consent role for nominees. Senate Republicans even said that they would confirm Mr. Cordray, but only if three key structural changes were made to increase CFPB’s accountability. As Mr. McConnell’s spokesman, Don Stewart, pointed out, “Not a single Senate Democrat will come forward and say we are in recess. That tells you something.” For the vacant slots on NLRB’s board, Mr. Obama installed Sharon Block, Terence Flynn and Richard Griffin. While Mr. Cordray had a confirmation hearing in September, this trio has never been vetted by the Senate. The White House was so rash in pushing the Democrats, Mr. Griffin and Ms. Block, that it hasn’t even sent their paperwork to the Senate. “The American people don’t get a chance to have a hearing on these people before they will be able to make outrageous decisions like Boeing,” Mr. Stewart said, referring to NLRB’s attempt to stop the airplane manufacturer from building a nonunion plant in South Carolina. Undoubtedly, one of the many businesses unfairly regulated by this pack of bureaucrats will sue. When this happens, the courts ought to stay any further agency actions to reinstate the Founding Father’s intention of checks and balances among the three branches of government.

Emily Miller is a senior editor for the Opinion pages at The Washington Times. h/t to: Washington Times

President Obama Seizing Power from the Senate

EricM — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 23:09:56 +0000

From the Red State Virginia Blog:

With the unprecedented power grab he made this week, President Obama is ignoring the Constitution and acting as though he is a monarch or a third world dictator. His appointments of three members to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), and the Director of the newly established Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) are not constitutional, and the appointment of the D/CFPB defies the language of the law that established the CFPB. Obama claims these are recess appointments; appointments made while Congress is not in session, and authorized under Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution “The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate…” The problem is the Senate is not in recess. Under Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution, “Neither House of Congress can adjourn for more than 3 days without the consent of the other House.” The House of Representatives has not consented to Senate adjournment. Furthermore, the same Section empowers both houses of Congress to determine their own rules, and the Senate established a rule under Senator Reid’s leadership, to operate in a “proforma session”. The Senate is currently operating under such a proforma session, and is not in recess even though most members are not in town. This proforma session rule was devised by Democrats including Senator Obama, as a tactic to prevent President Bush from making recess appointments. Bush recognized the authority of the Senate to operate in this manner, and as a result many of his appointments were blocked by Democrats using this tactic. President Obama is now trying to override the Senate rules by challenging the Constitutional authority of the Senate. He is attempting this maneuver so that he can make unconfirmed appointments to stack the NLRB with Union Cronies, and to circumvent the law passed by Congress establishing the CFPB, which states in its language that the Director must be confirmed by the Senate. This Congressional language is clearly defended in Article, 2, Section 2 of the Constitution, which gives the President the power to appoint “such inferior officers” but also reserves the power of Congress to limit the President by requiring Senate approval. In this case Congress put actual language into the law requiring Senate confirmation of the D/CFPB, and also limiting the power of the CFPB until such a Director is confirmed. The President does not like this. Obama further declares that he should have the power to circumvent the Constitution because he has not made as many appointments as Bush did. Besides being irrelevant to the Constitutional argument, this completely ignores the fact that for over two years Democrats had complete control of Congress and rubber stamped all of his appointments, thus reducing the need for him to make recess appointments. Congressional Democrats including Senators Webb and Warner seem not only content to stand by and ignore this power grab, but are actually applauding his “bold move”. I wonder how they will feel once the precedence is set, and a Republican President attempts the same “bold move”. I urge every American to contact their Senators and Representative and demand that they stop this attack on our Constitution by President Obama.

h/t to Red State Virginia blog.

Will Sheriffs Be the Last Line of Defense in Protecting Our Rights?

EricM — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 01:41:12 +0000

A long but compelling video discussing the role of sheriffs in protecting the rights of citizens. Worthy of your time.

Dear John McCain, Carl Levin, et alia

JJac — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 23:34:04 +0000

“Lex mala, lex nulla.” – St. Thomas Aquinas (L-Marbury; R-Madison) Marbury v Madison:

Affirmative words are often, in their operation, negative of other objects than those affirmed; and in this case, a negative or exclusive sense must be given to them or they have no operation at all. It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such a construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it. The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognize certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it. That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis, on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent. This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns, to different departments, their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments. The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction, between a government with limited and unlimited powers, is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act. Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it. If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power, in its own nature illimitable. Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.

- Chief Justice John Marshall, 1803 term. Justice Marshall was born in Fauquier County in 1755.

Constitutional Adherence – a history lesson

roncappelli — Fri, 27 May 2011 23:30:37 +0000

Too many people today don’t even know what’s in the Constitution, let alone why it was written the way it was. As a result, they are fooled by the argument that it is outdated and out of touch with today’s modern world. This argument is further enhanced by the claim that with advancements in knowledge we are able to improve on what our Founding Fathers originally wrote without the aid of hindsight, which we now possess. The fallacy of this argument is that our Founding Fathers received a higher level of liberal education in their day than most of our colleges give today. Most of those who wrote the Constitution could read and write in Latin and ancient Greek and were required to read classical literature in its original language. Nearly all of them were schooled in prestigious colleges and many of them studied under renowned teachers. Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, had a personal library that contained thousands of books, all of which were non-fiction and were of such scholarly work that most people today would be bored reading them. James Madison, the principal author of the Constitution, had nearly the same size library. After graduating from what is now called Princeton University at age 20, he spent most of his early adult life studying political science. Because of their education the framers of the Constitution had thousands of years of hindsight from their study of governments dating back to ancient Greece and beyond, and were very familiar with the various forms of government that existed in Europe in their day, understanding both their strengths and weaknesses. More than that, they had firsthand experience with living under the heavy hand of tyranny, which is something that very few American academics of today can claim. With deliberate forethought, the framers of the Constitution sought to create a government that would not only give us the freedom to live as we desired, but one that would not eventually descend into tyranny as all other governments in history had done. Those who now offer a so-called better form of government are offering nothing different from what has been tried and failed in the past. What the Tea Party wants is to continue following the wisdom of our Founding Fathers instead of the folly of today’s self-proclaimed elite.

Magnificent

JJac — Thu, 26 May 2011 00:31:36 +0000

99 more like this one. Nevadans: what the hell is wrong with you?

Constitutional Adherence – a Republic

roncappelli — Mon, 02 May 2011 23:11:48 +0000

“I pledge allegiance to flag of the United States of America and to the democracy for which it stands.” That’s not what we say when pledging our allegiance to the flag! But today that’s what most people have come to think America is all about. Everywhere you read and nearly every commentary and Congressman you hear talks about how we are a democracy, but we’re not. The Constitution specifically states that we are a republic (Article IV, section 4) and nowhere in that document will you find the word “democracy” or “democratic” and there’s a good reason why. The word “democratic” comes from the Greek word “demos,” meaning “people” and “kratos” meaning “force” or “power.” Therefore this word literally means, “power to the people.” The Greek word “arche” means “to rule.” Therefore, the word “demos- arche” (democracy) means “the people rule.” But isn’t that what our Constitution is all about, you ask? Surprising as it may seem, the answer is “No.” Pure democracy is mob rule. If I got five of my friends to agree that we should take your money, under a democratic system, if six of us voted “yes,” and you voted “no” you’d lose your money. Our Founding Fathers realized that a democracy is one of the worst forms of government because people can easily be swayed by a charismatic leader to vote against their own best interests. The word “republic” comes from the Latin word “republica” which is a contraction of the word “res,” meaning “interest” and “publica” meaning “public.” Therefore, a republic is a form of government that has the public’s best interest in mind. In our system of government there are certain rights that ALL citizens have that no one can take from us, even if 99% of the people vote to do so and those rights are listed in the Declaration of Independence and in our Bill of Rights. Those who don’t like to abide by the rules of our republican form of government get around that obstacle by claiming we are a democracy. By saying it often enough they hope to sway an ignorant public into believing it and once that happens then it becomes an easy matter for some charismatic leader to get 51% of the people to vote away all of our freedoms. As Tea Party members we are fighting to save our republic from becoming a democracy.

Constitutional Adherence – Rights

roncappelli — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 01:01:00 +0000

Although the Declaration of Independence is not a part of the Constitution, it is nonetheless the foundation upon which the Constitution rests. The Declaration of Independence sets forth the principles that guide our country while the Constitution sets up a system of government that preserves those principles. The Declaration of Independence states that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights and the Constitution was designed to protect those rights from being trampled on by the government. However, today, the idea of “rights” seems to encompass nearly everything from food, to housing, to wages, to education, and the list goes on and on. But, those are not rights. To understand why, Tea Party members need to know exactly what rights the Constitution is designed to protect and preserve and what it is not meant to provide. As understood by the Framers of the Constitution, a right is something that is unalienable. The root of this word is “alien” which is someone who doesn’t belong to a particular society. In other words, they are a foreigner. To be an un-alien means that a person belong in or is a part of a particular society. As such, they are not a foreigner but a citizen. In the same way, an unalienable right is not a right that is foreign or alien to us but is something that belongs to us. It is something we were born with and that all humans possess. For example, all humans are born with the right to live or, stated in reverse, no one has a right to take someone else’s life. All humans have the right to live free. No one really desires to be a slave to someone else. What someone produces by their own labor or has legally obtained for themselves, belongs to them and no one wants to have their possessions taken from them. These are examples of unalienable rights. But, while man has the right to work for what he wants, he does not have the right to have his needs provided for by someone else, yet that is exactly what all government social programs do. They take the possession of one group of people in the form of taxes and simply give it to another group of people who have not earned it. To do that a government must violate the unalienable rights of one group in order to give another group something they have no right to. That’s unconstitutional because the Constitution was meant to protect the inalienable rights of ALL its citizens, not just a privileged few, even if those few are the poor and the destitute.

Driving us to taxes

roncappelli — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 02:24:16 +0000

The Hill has reported the following story:

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) this week released a report that said taxing people based on how many miles they drive is a possible option for raising new revenues and that these taxes could be used to offset the costs of highway maintenance at a time when federal funds are short. The report discussed the proposal in great detail, including the development of technology that would allow total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to be tracked, reported and taxed, as well as the pros and cons of mandating the installation of this technology in all vehicles. … The report was requested by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who said that federal funds are tight, and in asking for recommendations on how to raise that money, he noted the possibility of a VMT tax as a way to solve the problem of collecting less in taxes as people move to more fuel-efficient vehicles.

The Tea Party stands for small government but our current Congress is looking for more and more ways to increase their power over us. Now they are thinking about mandating a device that tracks the number of miles we use, which is taking the idea of Congressional oversight to a whole new level. With modern GPS technology it would be a simple matter to add a GPS feature to the mileage tracking device without us even knowing about it. Then, using state DMV records, it would be easy for the Federal Government to track the location and movements of any car they wanted. Furthermore, the stated purpose of this tax is not just for raising revenue to pay for road repairs and construction but as a tool to make people “move to more fuel-efficient vehicles” and it would also cause us to drive less so as to avoid paying more in taxes. This is an outrageous attack on our liberties because it infringes on our freedom to travel where, when, and how far we want, manipulates us in our purchases of a car, and also has the potential of infringing on our privacy. The term “limited government” means that the government’s power is limited to doing only what the Constitution allows, which also specifically prevents the Federal Government from interfering in our life. The reason why our forefathers separated themselves from England was precisely over the issue of taxation. There was the Stamp Act, the Tea Act, the Townsend Act, the Declaratory Act, and others that imposed taxes on a wide variety of products. Now we see our own government imposing taxes on more and more products and taking more and more of our money to feed an ever-expanding government. Worse yet, they are doing it in a way that limits our freedom. The Declaration of Independence states that the purpose of government is to secure (i.e., protect) the unalienable rights that each of us has been endowed with by our Creator. Whenever any government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and our Constitution provides us with a way to peacefully do that. We have the right to petition our government and we have the right to vote in or out those who make our laws. That’s how we alter an out-of-control, unresponsive government. The Tea Party also stands for fiscal responsibility and spending more than we take in is fiscally irresponsible. Adding more taxes to solve this problem only makes things worse. The principles of good money management that apply to homes and businesses apply equally as well to governments. As any household knows, the only fiscally responsible way of handling money is to live within our means. Worse yet, taking more money from our paychecks also takes more money out of the economy which is what creates recessions, which then lowers tax revenues to the government. This is a destructive cycle. The original intent of the Constitution was never meant to have the Federal Government take care of all our problems. It was deliberately written to limit the powers of Congress while giving us the greatest amount of freedom and security. When we are already trillions of dollars in debt, it is obvious to any reasonable person that we don’t have the money to do much of what Congress has mandated. Congress represents us, the American people therefore they answer to us, not we to them. All Americans, have the Constitutional duty to hold our representatives accountable for how they spend our money and secure our unalienable rights. If we allow them to spend us into bankruptcy and take away our natural liberties then shame on us. We are the protectors of the Constitution, not our representatives. Let us carry out our responsibility with diligence and integrity.