This is a concept in Constitutional Law which must be reclaimed:
I cannot subscribe to the omnipotence of a state legislature, or that it is absolute and without control, although its authority should not be expressly restrained by the constitution or fundamental law of the state. The people of the United States erected their constitutions, or forms of government, to establish justice, to promote the general welfare, to secure the blessings of liberty, and to protect their persons and property from violence. The purposes for which men enter into society will determine the nature and terms of the social compact, and as they are the foundation of the legislative power, they will decide what are the proper objects of it. The nature and ends of legislative power will limit the exercise of it. This fundamental principle flows from the very nature of our free republican governments that no man should be compelled to do what the laws do not require nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit. There are acts which the federal or state legislature cannot do without exceeding their authority. There are certain vital principles in our free republican governments which will determine and overrule an apparent and flagrant abuse of legislative power, as to authorize manifest injustice by positive law or to take away that security for personal liberty or private property for the protection whereof of the government was established. An act of the legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority. The obligation of a law in governments established on express compact and on republican principles must be determined by the nature of the power on which it is founded.
A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean. A law that punished a citizen for an innocent action, or in other words for an act which when done was in violation of no existing law; a law that destroys or impairs the lawful private contracts of citizens; a law that makes a man a judge in his own cause, or a law that takes property from A. and gives it to B. It is against all reason and justice for a people to entrust a legislature with such powers, and therefore it cannot be presumed that it has done it. The genius, the nature, and the spirit of our state governments amount to a prohibition of such acts of legislation, and the general principles of law and reason forbid them. The legislature may enjoin, permit, forbid, and punish; It may declare new crimes and establish rules of conduct for all its citizens in future cases; it may command what is right and prohibit what is wrong, but it cannot change innocence into guilt or punish innocence as a crime or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private contract or the right of private property. To maintain that our federal or state legislature possesses such powers if it had not been expressly restrained would, in my opinion, be a political heresy altogether inadmissible in our free republican governments.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Friday, July 8, 2011
Clueless on Education
In a recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Jeb Bush and Joel Kline penned their opinion to return the American educational system to excellence. In their initial paragraph they set forth the problem:
Common Core State Standards will not correct the woeful education in our government school system. Education is vastly more than a list of things to know. To their credit, they do pay lip service to the need for more when they write, “The literacy standards require students to make arguments with evidence rather than just restate their own opinions or experiences.” However, to truly understand the full import of educational reform, this simple statement is insufficient.
Education consists in teaching a person how to think and inculcating a love for learning. The ancient Greeks had the concept of making the ideal man, the paideia. The early Christian Church expanded upon this concept for the paideia of God. At the core of the paideia of God was inculcating in each person the love for learning. This classical approach to education recognized that children develop in their educational process through three phases: a grammar phase, a logical phase and a rhetorical phase, more commonly known as the trivium. Any parent can see these phases in his or her children. There is a phase during which a child enjoys and is good at simple memorization. As the child matures, he or she begins to think more abstractly and asks the question “why?” He or she begins to interrelate concepts in order to draw conclusions. An understanding of logic becomes critical at this phase. Finally, there is a stage at which a child revels in argument. The goal of education is to teach a child how to marshal all of the knowledge and logic of situation for the purpose of persuasion, to come to a conclusion for one’s self and for others. The ancient Hebrew would have referred to these characteristics as knowledge, understanding and wisdom.
This brings us to the second flaw in Bush’s and Kline’s analysis: the one responsible for education. The family is the God ordained institution for raising and educating children. This is inherent in the created order. When my wife and I brought our three daughters into the world, they were not immediately swept away to become wards of the state. They were given to my wife and me to love and care for, and to educate. My wife and I know our daughters better than anyone else in the world--at least until their marriage. They remain my responsibility to educate.
Although there has been over the course of the last century a progressive movement to make the state the caretaker of our children, it is this movement that has been the downfall of our culture. What is government? Government is an institution created to enforce rights and administer justice. Government acts through the execution of law. Law is a set of standards by which people must live. When government speaks of common core standards that is all it can speak of: “standards.” By its very nature, government is limited in its ability to provide education in that it can only speak to the grammar phase, the mere content of knowledge. It must truncate its education prior to the logic and rhetoric phase. It cannot teach the beauty of a good syllogism or a beautiful poem, because the student must meet certain “standards” of knowledge.
Some will respond that the government can and typically does go beyond teaching grammar. And I will readily admit that it does, but the question remains, can it appropriately do so. Our founding fathers, who were classically trained, understood that one primary goal of education is the inculcation of virtue in accordance with a standard of truth. An understanding of virtue and truth is critical to a right logic and a right rhetoric. However, today we live in a society of enforced relativism. Who defines virtue and truth? Can the state define virtue? Remember that there is a so called “separation of church and state” in this nation. Whose virtue and truth will the government teach? Either the government must truncate its education at the grammar phase or it must violate the separation of church and state it has so carefully built.
This brings us to the third and most significant flaw of Bush’s and Kline’s analysis. The flaw is that the purpose of education is to make our children servants of our economic machine. This concept is foreign to western civilization up until the last hundred years or so. Western civilization grew on the concept of the paideia. The Renaissance was the recovery in medieval western culture founded on classical thinking, founded on paideia. Classical learning, the Renaissance, produced the greatest works of art, literature, theology, and industry in the medieval age. Our founding fathers were great men who were classically educated in ancient philosophy as well as Christian ideas. Many of them were trained in multiple classical languages and read the original thinkers throughout history. We have rejected these characteristics in return for a smug attitude of technological, economic and utilitarian superiority.
The Missouri Constitution provides that, “A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the general assembly shall establish and maintain free public schools for the gratuitous instruction of all persons in this state within ages not in excess of twenty-one years as prescribed by law.” The first part of the above proposition provides the motivation for the provision of gratuitous instruction. The motivation of the state is to maintain the rights and liberties of the people. Unfortunately, our culture has lost the greater importance of an educated people, the paideia. What should be considered as a safety net for education for the state, has been made the pinnacle of education. What should be considered a last resort has become the paradigm of education.
The paradox of education is that when you design education to achieve a goal, you lose true education. The paradox is similar to the dog and his bone. Upon seeing a reflection of himself in the lake and thinking it was another dog with another bone, he drops his bone in order to obtain the bone of the other dog. In his efforts he loses his bone. As we turn our eyes to a goal of obtaining education for some purpose other than the love for learning, we lose the love for learning and seek only self advancement. By keeping our focus on inculcating a love for learning, we disciple people to love to think. People who love to think can teach themselves to engage in any economic endeavor.
Senator Kurt Schaefer has already expressed his priority for the legislature’s budget next year on the matter of education. Education will become an increasingly significant issue in the years to come. While money is not bad, it should be used in accordance with truly worthy goals and in accordance with appropriate methods. If we are to recover an education system that works, it must inculcate a love for learning, be controlled by parents and produce thinkers, not just those who know things.
The success of today's students will determine our nation's destiny. America's economic strength and standing in the world economy are directly linked to our ability to equip students with the knowledge and skills to succeed in the 21st-century economy. Students are no longer competing with their peers in other cities—they are competing with students across the globe. Business leaders have become champions of education reform, recognizing the role that rigorous academic standards have on their success.Their opinion proceeded to attribute the responsibility for education to the states and to champion the need for common core standards. They concluded with a hopeful eschatology:
It is the states' responsibility to foster an education system that leads to rising student achievement. State leaders, educators, teachers and parents are empowered to ensure every student has access to the best curriculum and learning environment. Governors and lawmakers across the country are acting to adopt bold education reform policies. This is the beauty of our federal system. It provides 50 testing sites for reform and innovation. The Common Core State Standards are an example of states recognizing a problem, then working together, sharing what works and what doesn't.Unfortunately, Messrs. Bush and Kline’s analysis suffers from no less than three flaws. First, they misunderstand the goal of education, the need to make an economic engine out of our children. Second, they misidentify the institution responsible for education. Third, they misidentify the substance of education.
Common Core State Standards will not correct the woeful education in our government school system. Education is vastly more than a list of things to know. To their credit, they do pay lip service to the need for more when they write, “The literacy standards require students to make arguments with evidence rather than just restate their own opinions or experiences.” However, to truly understand the full import of educational reform, this simple statement is insufficient.
Education consists in teaching a person how to think and inculcating a love for learning. The ancient Greeks had the concept of making the ideal man, the paideia. The early Christian Church expanded upon this concept for the paideia of God. At the core of the paideia of God was inculcating in each person the love for learning. This classical approach to education recognized that children develop in their educational process through three phases: a grammar phase, a logical phase and a rhetorical phase, more commonly known as the trivium. Any parent can see these phases in his or her children. There is a phase during which a child enjoys and is good at simple memorization. As the child matures, he or she begins to think more abstractly and asks the question “why?” He or she begins to interrelate concepts in order to draw conclusions. An understanding of logic becomes critical at this phase. Finally, there is a stage at which a child revels in argument. The goal of education is to teach a child how to marshal all of the knowledge and logic of situation for the purpose of persuasion, to come to a conclusion for one’s self and for others. The ancient Hebrew would have referred to these characteristics as knowledge, understanding and wisdom.
This brings us to the second flaw in Bush’s and Kline’s analysis: the one responsible for education. The family is the God ordained institution for raising and educating children. This is inherent in the created order. When my wife and I brought our three daughters into the world, they were not immediately swept away to become wards of the state. They were given to my wife and me to love and care for, and to educate. My wife and I know our daughters better than anyone else in the world--at least until their marriage. They remain my responsibility to educate.
Although there has been over the course of the last century a progressive movement to make the state the caretaker of our children, it is this movement that has been the downfall of our culture. What is government? Government is an institution created to enforce rights and administer justice. Government acts through the execution of law. Law is a set of standards by which people must live. When government speaks of common core standards that is all it can speak of: “standards.” By its very nature, government is limited in its ability to provide education in that it can only speak to the grammar phase, the mere content of knowledge. It must truncate its education prior to the logic and rhetoric phase. It cannot teach the beauty of a good syllogism or a beautiful poem, because the student must meet certain “standards” of knowledge.
Some will respond that the government can and typically does go beyond teaching grammar. And I will readily admit that it does, but the question remains, can it appropriately do so. Our founding fathers, who were classically trained, understood that one primary goal of education is the inculcation of virtue in accordance with a standard of truth. An understanding of virtue and truth is critical to a right logic and a right rhetoric. However, today we live in a society of enforced relativism. Who defines virtue and truth? Can the state define virtue? Remember that there is a so called “separation of church and state” in this nation. Whose virtue and truth will the government teach? Either the government must truncate its education at the grammar phase or it must violate the separation of church and state it has so carefully built.
This brings us to the third and most significant flaw of Bush’s and Kline’s analysis. The flaw is that the purpose of education is to make our children servants of our economic machine. This concept is foreign to western civilization up until the last hundred years or so. Western civilization grew on the concept of the paideia. The Renaissance was the recovery in medieval western culture founded on classical thinking, founded on paideia. Classical learning, the Renaissance, produced the greatest works of art, literature, theology, and industry in the medieval age. Our founding fathers were great men who were classically educated in ancient philosophy as well as Christian ideas. Many of them were trained in multiple classical languages and read the original thinkers throughout history. We have rejected these characteristics in return for a smug attitude of technological, economic and utilitarian superiority.
The Missouri Constitution provides that, “A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the general assembly shall establish and maintain free public schools for the gratuitous instruction of all persons in this state within ages not in excess of twenty-one years as prescribed by law.” The first part of the above proposition provides the motivation for the provision of gratuitous instruction. The motivation of the state is to maintain the rights and liberties of the people. Unfortunately, our culture has lost the greater importance of an educated people, the paideia. What should be considered as a safety net for education for the state, has been made the pinnacle of education. What should be considered a last resort has become the paradigm of education.
The paradox of education is that when you design education to achieve a goal, you lose true education. The paradox is similar to the dog and his bone. Upon seeing a reflection of himself in the lake and thinking it was another dog with another bone, he drops his bone in order to obtain the bone of the other dog. In his efforts he loses his bone. As we turn our eyes to a goal of obtaining education for some purpose other than the love for learning, we lose the love for learning and seek only self advancement. By keeping our focus on inculcating a love for learning, we disciple people to love to think. People who love to think can teach themselves to engage in any economic endeavor.
Senator Kurt Schaefer has already expressed his priority for the legislature’s budget next year on the matter of education. Education will become an increasingly significant issue in the years to come. While money is not bad, it should be used in accordance with truly worthy goals and in accordance with appropriate methods. If we are to recover an education system that works, it must inculcate a love for learning, be controlled by parents and produce thinkers, not just those who know things.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Kill All the Lawyers
The phrase "kill all the lawyers," often attributed to Shakespeare as expressing distaste for lawyers, is in reality a complement if the comment is taken in its context. The following is the text of a portion of Part 2 of King Henry the VI:
Drum. Enter CADE, DICK the Butcher, SMITH the Weaver, and a Sawyer, with infinite numbers
CADE
We John Cade, so termed of our supposed father,--
DICK
[Aside] Or rather, of stealing a cade of herrings.
CADE
For our enemies shall fall before us, inspired with
the spirit of putting down kings and princes,
--Command silence.
DICK
Silence!
CADE
My father was a Mortimer,--
DICK
[Aside] He was an honest man, and a good
bricklayer.
CADE
My mother a Plantagenet,--
DICK
[Aside] I knew her well; she was a midwife.
CADE
My wife descended of the Lacies,--
DICK
[Aside] She was, indeed, a pedler's daughter, and
sold many laces.
SMITH
[Aside] But now of late, notable to travel with her
furred pack, she washes bucks here at home.
CADE
Therefore am I of an honourable house.
DICK
[Aside] Ay, by my faith, the field is honourable;
and there was he borne, under a hedge, for his
father had never a house but the cage.
CADE
Valiant I am.
SMITH
[Aside] A' must needs; for beggary is valiant.
CADE
I am able to endure much.
DICK
[Aside] No question of that; for I have seen him
whipped three market-days together.
CADE
I fear neither sword nor fire.
SMITH
[Aside] He need not fear the sword; for his coat is of proof.
DICK
[Aside] But methinks he should stand in fear of
fire, being burnt i' the hand for stealing of sheep.
CADE
Be brave, then; for your captain is brave, and vows
reformation. There shall be in England seven
halfpenny loaves sold for a penny: the three-hooped
pot; shall have ten hoops and I will make it felony
to drink small beer: all the realm shall be in
common; and in Cheapside shall my palfrey go to
grass: and when I am king, as king I will be,--
ALL
God save your majesty!
CADE
I thank you, good people: there shall be no money;
all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will
apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree
like brothers and worship me their lord.
DICK
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
CADE
Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable
thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should
be made parchment? that parchment, being scribbled
o'er, should undo a man? Some say the bee stings:
but I say, 'tis the bee's wax; for I did but seal
once to a thing, and I was never mine own man
since. How now! who's there?
Drum. Enter CADE, DICK the Butcher, SMITH the Weaver, and a Sawyer, with infinite numbers
CADE
We John Cade, so termed of our supposed father,--
DICK
[Aside] Or rather, of stealing a cade of herrings.
CADE
For our enemies shall fall before us, inspired with
the spirit of putting down kings and princes,
--Command silence.
DICK
Silence!
CADE
My father was a Mortimer,--
DICK
[Aside] He was an honest man, and a good
bricklayer.
CADE
My mother a Plantagenet,--
DICK
[Aside] I knew her well; she was a midwife.
CADE
My wife descended of the Lacies,--
DICK
[Aside] She was, indeed, a pedler's daughter, and
sold many laces.
SMITH
[Aside] But now of late, notable to travel with her
furred pack, she washes bucks here at home.
CADE
Therefore am I of an honourable house.
DICK
[Aside] Ay, by my faith, the field is honourable;
and there was he borne, under a hedge, for his
father had never a house but the cage.
CADE
Valiant I am.
SMITH
[Aside] A' must needs; for beggary is valiant.
CADE
I am able to endure much.
DICK
[Aside] No question of that; for I have seen him
whipped three market-days together.
CADE
I fear neither sword nor fire.
SMITH
[Aside] He need not fear the sword; for his coat is of proof.
DICK
[Aside] But methinks he should stand in fear of
fire, being burnt i' the hand for stealing of sheep.
CADE
Be brave, then; for your captain is brave, and vows
reformation. There shall be in England seven
halfpenny loaves sold for a penny: the three-hooped
pot; shall have ten hoops and I will make it felony
to drink small beer: all the realm shall be in
common; and in Cheapside shall my palfrey go to
grass: and when I am king, as king I will be,--
ALL
God save your majesty!
CADE
I thank you, good people: there shall be no money;
all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will
apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree
like brothers and worship me their lord.
DICK
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
CADE
Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable
thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should
be made parchment? that parchment, being scribbled
o'er, should undo a man? Some say the bee stings:
but I say, 'tis the bee's wax; for I did but seal
once to a thing, and I was never mine own man
since. How now! who's there?
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Freedom and not the Patriot Act
For the past few weeks I have been dialoguing with many in the tea party movement about the Patriot Act. Many in the tea party object to a vote for the Patriot Act. They claim the Patriot Act violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a serious charge. My perspective has been “who cares?” Don’t get me wrong, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is critically important, but what is more important is the liberty of all citizens. Indeed, all of the U.S. Constitution is important. And that is the point. It is all of the U.S. Constitution that is important.
The improper expansion of rights granted by the U.S. Constitution can take away freedoms just as easily as the improper retraction of those rights. We know this from the so called right of privacy found within some specious penumbra of rights in the Bill of Rights. The creation of the right of privacy has given us the right of a mother to murder her unborn child. We must think critically about the Fourth Amendment. An inappropriate expansion of criminal rights can harm the rights of law abiding citizens as well as crime victims. The Fourth Amendment states as follows:
However, the point I continually try to make to those who object to the Patriot Act is that you must distinguish between the law and the administration of the law. The law may be fine, but it may be abused. In that case, it is the abuse of the law and not the law itself that is at fault. It is the execution of the law and not the law that must be changed.
One fine patriot pointed me to a recent editorial by Bruce Fein: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=1439. This is an excellent article regarding the guarantees of liberty found in our Constitution. Unfortunately, it has very little substantive to say about the Patriot Act. The most substantive charges against the Patriot Act are contained in one brief paragraph toward the end of the piece:
Having made these concessions about the law, I would make a different point. As I read the piece by Mr. Fein, I am reminded of a point that I have been making for some time. Our liberties have been under continuous and increasing harassment for almost a century from the federal tyrant. We are subjected to the straight jacket of regulated compassion in the form of the confiscation of our property for food stamps, employment security, social security, health care security. Our industry has been violated by environmental regulation. Our companies are told where they may locate. Our employees are told with whom they may associate. We are in bondage to our federal slave master. Why should they not also think they can wire tap and search our property?
Those within the tea party movement that quibble over one vote on the Patriot Act are making a point to small. They have lost or never seen the grand vision of the original tea party, liberty for the entire culture. This quibbling over one vote on the Patriot Act is beneath the vision of our founding. It is not the Patriot Act that is denying our people liberty; it is the many different failures and malfeasances of our federal government. It is the arrogance of the federal tyrant.
Government has a proper authority and it has areas beyond its authority. We lose liberty when government fails to fulfill its proper authority and attempts to usurp authority not granted to it. Some argue that certain breaches of the Fourth Amendment must be accommodated in light of 9/11. I do not make that argument. My argument is that when 9/11 occurred, we had already lost our liberty. Our liberty was lost when the federal government failed to fulfill its proper duty: defend our borders. Our liberty was lost when the federal tyrant, inebriated with its own power and agenda, failed to serve the people by protecting the borders. The Patriot Act is simply an attempt to cut our losses on liberty already lost. It is like a hockey goalie backing up into the net and kicking the puck out of the net after it is in the net. We can all agree that the puck needs to come out. We can quibble over how the puck should come out of the net, but at that point, the game is already lost. Those good patriots who want to quibble over a vote on the Patriot Act need to expand their vision.
Paul Lake wrote a wonderful little story, Cry Wolf. Cry Wolf, after the genre of Charlotte’s Web, describes a community of farm animals. Upon the death of the farmer, the farm animals enter into covenant to protect the community. However, one day, an injured deer happens to come upon the farm. A debate ensues as to whether the farm animals should give aid and comfort and ultimate membership to the injured deer. The owl advises that it is beneath the dignity of the community to deny the deer admittance. What follows are a number of circumstances which test the covenant and expand the list of animals permitted in the community, until, at last wolves are admitted. The story continues without one farm animal ever recognizing that their advice is coming from an owl, one who was never a member of the original covenant. The community is ultimately destroyed because it has lost sight of its original covenant.
We have a national covenant. It is found in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. We have lost our vision of our national covenant. Our national legislature is infested with those who flaunt our national covenant as of no consequence. There are advisors in our midst that deny that we are, “One nation under God.” We must oust those who are not committed to the covenant. The tea party should regain and champion the vision of the founding of the nation and quit quibbling over small matters such as votes over the Patriot Act. Our founders were radical thinkers. They sought liberty and they gave their blood for it. There is a memorable line in Mel Gibson’s movie Braveheart. After some disputation with the nobles regarding strategy in responding to the king Longshanks, William Wallace makes the following statement to the nobles: “You're so concerned with squabbling for the scraps from Longshank's table that you've missed your God given right to something better. There is a difference between us. You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom. And I go to make sure that they have it.” I call on the tea party to remember this admonition. Look beyond the one single vote and develop a strategy for freedom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9AG3Z9Nyu0.
The improper expansion of rights granted by the U.S. Constitution can take away freedoms just as easily as the improper retraction of those rights. We know this from the so called right of privacy found within some specious penumbra of rights in the Bill of Rights. The creation of the right of privacy has given us the right of a mother to murder her unborn child. We must think critically about the Fourth Amendment. An inappropriate expansion of criminal rights can harm the rights of law abiding citizens as well as crime victims. The Fourth Amendment states as follows:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.The citizens of this great nation are to be secure in their “persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Are our citizens being subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures? I will grant that they are. All you have to do is recall the many recent stories of the groping that goes on at our national airports.
However, the point I continually try to make to those who object to the Patriot Act is that you must distinguish between the law and the administration of the law. The law may be fine, but it may be abused. In that case, it is the abuse of the law and not the law itself that is at fault. It is the execution of the law and not the law that must be changed.
One fine patriot pointed me to a recent editorial by Bruce Fein: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=1439. This is an excellent article regarding the guarantees of liberty found in our Constitution. Unfortunately, it has very little substantive to say about the Patriot Act. The most substantive charges against the Patriot Act are contained in one brief paragraph toward the end of the piece:
Section 206 of the Patriot Act authorizing roving wiretaps to collect foreign intelligence; section 215 authorizing orders to seize any "tangible thing" like books or computer hard drives to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities; section 505 authorizing National Security Letters to seize customer records of financial institutions, credit bureaus, and telecommunications providers by the government's assertion of relevance to preventing international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities; and, section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 authorizing surveillance against hypothetical "lone wolf" international terrorists are all abusive of citizen liberty because they encroach on the right to be left alone without probable cause to believe the target is implicated in crime.This is helpful in that it provides specific allegations on particular provisions. I could quibble over the fact that these provisions are primarily focused on foreign terrorism and not citizens. I could quibble over the fact that these provisions related to things that are outside of “persons, houses, papers, and effects” and relate primarily to open communications that people have no right to expect to be private. But I will not. I will grant they permit the conduct which violates the Fourth Amendment, thereby removing the distinction between the administration of the law and the law itself. I will assume that the evil conduct we observed is authorized by the law.
Having made these concessions about the law, I would make a different point. As I read the piece by Mr. Fein, I am reminded of a point that I have been making for some time. Our liberties have been under continuous and increasing harassment for almost a century from the federal tyrant. We are subjected to the straight jacket of regulated compassion in the form of the confiscation of our property for food stamps, employment security, social security, health care security. Our industry has been violated by environmental regulation. Our companies are told where they may locate. Our employees are told with whom they may associate. We are in bondage to our federal slave master. Why should they not also think they can wire tap and search our property?
Those within the tea party movement that quibble over one vote on the Patriot Act are making a point to small. They have lost or never seen the grand vision of the original tea party, liberty for the entire culture. This quibbling over one vote on the Patriot Act is beneath the vision of our founding. It is not the Patriot Act that is denying our people liberty; it is the many different failures and malfeasances of our federal government. It is the arrogance of the federal tyrant.
Government has a proper authority and it has areas beyond its authority. We lose liberty when government fails to fulfill its proper authority and attempts to usurp authority not granted to it. Some argue that certain breaches of the Fourth Amendment must be accommodated in light of 9/11. I do not make that argument. My argument is that when 9/11 occurred, we had already lost our liberty. Our liberty was lost when the federal government failed to fulfill its proper duty: defend our borders. Our liberty was lost when the federal tyrant, inebriated with its own power and agenda, failed to serve the people by protecting the borders. The Patriot Act is simply an attempt to cut our losses on liberty already lost. It is like a hockey goalie backing up into the net and kicking the puck out of the net after it is in the net. We can all agree that the puck needs to come out. We can quibble over how the puck should come out of the net, but at that point, the game is already lost. Those good patriots who want to quibble over a vote on the Patriot Act need to expand their vision.
Paul Lake wrote a wonderful little story, Cry Wolf. Cry Wolf, after the genre of Charlotte’s Web, describes a community of farm animals. Upon the death of the farmer, the farm animals enter into covenant to protect the community. However, one day, an injured deer happens to come upon the farm. A debate ensues as to whether the farm animals should give aid and comfort and ultimate membership to the injured deer. The owl advises that it is beneath the dignity of the community to deny the deer admittance. What follows are a number of circumstances which test the covenant and expand the list of animals permitted in the community, until, at last wolves are admitted. The story continues without one farm animal ever recognizing that their advice is coming from an owl, one who was never a member of the original covenant. The community is ultimately destroyed because it has lost sight of its original covenant.
We have a national covenant. It is found in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. We have lost our vision of our national covenant. Our national legislature is infested with those who flaunt our national covenant as of no consequence. There are advisors in our midst that deny that we are, “One nation under God.” We must oust those who are not committed to the covenant. The tea party should regain and champion the vision of the founding of the nation and quit quibbling over small matters such as votes over the Patriot Act. Our founders were radical thinkers. They sought liberty and they gave their blood for it. There is a memorable line in Mel Gibson’s movie Braveheart. After some disputation with the nobles regarding strategy in responding to the king Longshanks, William Wallace makes the following statement to the nobles: “You're so concerned with squabbling for the scraps from Longshank's table that you've missed your God given right to something better. There is a difference between us. You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom. And I go to make sure that they have it.” I call on the tea party to remember this admonition. Look beyond the one single vote and develop a strategy for freedom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9AG3Z9Nyu0.
Friday, May 27, 2011
From Carol Bloomberg
The only thing I will contest is that the whole thing started in 2010:
Thanksgiving 2020
"Winston, come into the dining room, it's time to eat", Julia yelled to her husband. "In a minute, honey, it's a tie score," he answered. Actually Winston wasn't very interested in the traditional holiday football game between Detroit and Washington. Ever since the government passed the Civility in Sports Statute of 2017, outlawing tackle football for its "unseemly violence" and the "bad example it sets for the rest of the world", Winston was far less of a football fan than he used to be. Two-hand touch wasn't nearly as exciting.
Yet it wasn't the game that Winston was uninterested in. It was more the thought of eating another Tofu Turkey.
Even though it was the best type of Veggie Meat available after the government revised the American Anti-Obesity Act of 2018, adding fowl to the list of federally-forbidden foods, (which already included potatoes, cranberry sauce and mince-meat pie), it wasn't anything like real turkey. And ever since the government officially changed the name of "Thanksgiving Day" to "A National Day of Atonement" in 2020 to officially acknowledge the Pilgrims historically brutal treatment of Native Americans, the holiday had lost a lot of its luster.
Eating in the dining room was also a bit daunting. The unearthly gleam of government-mandated fluorescent light bulbs made the Tofu Turkey look even weirder than it actually was, and the room was always cold. Ever since Congress passed the Power Conservation Act of 2016, mandating all thermostats "which were monitored and controlled by the electric company" be kept at 68 degrees, every room on the north side of the house was barely tolerable throughout the entire winter.
Still, it was good getting together with family. Or at least most of the family. Winston missed his mother, who passed on in October, when she had used up her legal allotment of life-saving medical treatment. He had had many heated conversations with the Regional Health Consortium, spawned when the private insurance market finally went bankrupt, and everyone was forced into the government health care program. And though he demanded she be kept on her treatment, it was a futile effort. The RHC's resources are limited, explained the government bureaucrat Winston spoke with on the phone. "Your mother received all the benefits to which she was entitled. I'm sorry for your loss".
Ed couldn't make it either. He had forgotten to plug in his electric car last night, the only kind available after the Anti-Fossil Fuel Bill of 2019 outlawed the use of the combustion engines for everyone but government officials. The fifty mile round trip was about ten miles too far, and Ed didn't want to spend a frosty night on the road somewhere between here and there.
Thankfully, Winston's brother, John, and his wife were flying in. Winston made sure that the dining room chairs had extra cushions for the occasion. No one complained more than John about the pain of sitting down so soon after the government-mandated cavity searches at airports, which severely aggravated his hemorrhoids. Ever since a terrorist successfully smuggled a cavity bomb onto a jetliner, the TSA told Americans the added "inconvenience" was an "absolute necessity" in order to stay "one step ahead of the terrorists". Winston's own body had grown accustomed to such probing ever since the government expanded their scope to just about anywhere a crowd gathered, via Anti-Profiling Act of 2017. That law made it a crime to single out any group or individual for "unequal scrutiny", even when probable cause was involved. Thus, cavity searches at malls, train stations, bus depots, etc., etc., had become almost routine. Almost.
The Supreme Court is reviewing the statute, but most Americans expect a Court composed of six progressives and three conservatives to leave the law intact. "A living Constitution is extremely flexible", said the Court's eldest member, Elena Kagan. "Europe has had laws like this one for years. We should learn from their example", she added.
Winston's thoughts turned to his own children. He got along fairly well with his 12-year-old daughter, Brittany, mostly because she ignored him. Winston had long ago surrendered to the idea that she could text anyone at any time, even during Atonement Dinner. Their only real confrontation had occurred when he limited her to 50,000 texts a month, explaining that was all he could afford. She whined for a week, but got over it.
His 16-year-old son, Jason, was another matter altogether. Perhaps it was the constant bombarding he got in public school that global warming, the bird flu, terrorism or any of a number of other calamities were "just around the corner", but Jason had developed a kind of nihilistic attitude that ranged between simmering surliness and outright hostility. It didn't help that Jason had reported his father to the police for smoking a cigarette in the house, an act made criminal by the Smoking Control Statute of 2018, which outlawed smoking anywhere within 500 feet of another human being. Winston paid the $5000 fine, which might have been considered excessive before the American dollar became virtually worthless as a result of QE13. The latest round of quantitative easing the federal government initiated was, once again, to "spur economic growth". This time they promised to push unemployment below its years-long rate of 18%, but Winston was not particularly hopeful.
Yet the family had a lot for which to be thankful, Winston thought, before remembering it was a Day of Atonement. At least he had his memories. He felt a twinge of sadness when he realized his children would never know what life was like in the Good Old Days, long before government promises to make life "fair for everyone" realized their full potential. Winston, like so many of his fellow Americans, never realized how much things could change when they didn't happen all at once, but little by little, so people could get used to them.
He wondered what might have happened if the public had stood up while there was still time, maybe back around 2010, when all the real nonsense began. Maybe we wouldn't be where we are today if we'd just said "enough is enough" when we had the chance, he thought.
Maybe so, Winston. Maybe so
Thanksgiving 2020
"Winston, come into the dining room, it's time to eat", Julia yelled to her husband. "In a minute, honey, it's a tie score," he answered. Actually Winston wasn't very interested in the traditional holiday football game between Detroit and Washington. Ever since the government passed the Civility in Sports Statute of 2017, outlawing tackle football for its "unseemly violence" and the "bad example it sets for the rest of the world", Winston was far less of a football fan than he used to be. Two-hand touch wasn't nearly as exciting.
Yet it wasn't the game that Winston was uninterested in. It was more the thought of eating another Tofu Turkey.
Even though it was the best type of Veggie Meat available after the government revised the American Anti-Obesity Act of 2018, adding fowl to the list of federally-forbidden foods, (which already included potatoes, cranberry sauce and mince-meat pie), it wasn't anything like real turkey. And ever since the government officially changed the name of "Thanksgiving Day" to "A National Day of Atonement" in 2020 to officially acknowledge the Pilgrims historically brutal treatment of Native Americans, the holiday had lost a lot of its luster.
Eating in the dining room was also a bit daunting. The unearthly gleam of government-mandated fluorescent light bulbs made the Tofu Turkey look even weirder than it actually was, and the room was always cold. Ever since Congress passed the Power Conservation Act of 2016, mandating all thermostats "which were monitored and controlled by the electric company" be kept at 68 degrees, every room on the north side of the house was barely tolerable throughout the entire winter.
Still, it was good getting together with family. Or at least most of the family. Winston missed his mother, who passed on in October, when she had used up her legal allotment of life-saving medical treatment. He had had many heated conversations with the Regional Health Consortium, spawned when the private insurance market finally went bankrupt, and everyone was forced into the government health care program. And though he demanded she be kept on her treatment, it was a futile effort. The RHC's resources are limited, explained the government bureaucrat Winston spoke with on the phone. "Your mother received all the benefits to which she was entitled. I'm sorry for your loss".
Ed couldn't make it either. He had forgotten to plug in his electric car last night, the only kind available after the Anti-Fossil Fuel Bill of 2019 outlawed the use of the combustion engines for everyone but government officials. The fifty mile round trip was about ten miles too far, and Ed didn't want to spend a frosty night on the road somewhere between here and there.
Thankfully, Winston's brother, John, and his wife were flying in. Winston made sure that the dining room chairs had extra cushions for the occasion. No one complained more than John about the pain of sitting down so soon after the government-mandated cavity searches at airports, which severely aggravated his hemorrhoids. Ever since a terrorist successfully smuggled a cavity bomb onto a jetliner, the TSA told Americans the added "inconvenience" was an "absolute necessity" in order to stay "one step ahead of the terrorists". Winston's own body had grown accustomed to such probing ever since the government expanded their scope to just about anywhere a crowd gathered, via Anti-Profiling Act of 2017. That law made it a crime to single out any group or individual for "unequal scrutiny", even when probable cause was involved. Thus, cavity searches at malls, train stations, bus depots, etc., etc., had become almost routine. Almost.
The Supreme Court is reviewing the statute, but most Americans expect a Court composed of six progressives and three conservatives to leave the law intact. "A living Constitution is extremely flexible", said the Court's eldest member, Elena Kagan. "Europe has had laws like this one for years. We should learn from their example", she added.
Winston's thoughts turned to his own children. He got along fairly well with his 12-year-old daughter, Brittany, mostly because she ignored him. Winston had long ago surrendered to the idea that she could text anyone at any time, even during Atonement Dinner. Their only real confrontation had occurred when he limited her to 50,000 texts a month, explaining that was all he could afford. She whined for a week, but got over it.
His 16-year-old son, Jason, was another matter altogether. Perhaps it was the constant bombarding he got in public school that global warming, the bird flu, terrorism or any of a number of other calamities were "just around the corner", but Jason had developed a kind of nihilistic attitude that ranged between simmering surliness and outright hostility. It didn't help that Jason had reported his father to the police for smoking a cigarette in the house, an act made criminal by the Smoking Control Statute of 2018, which outlawed smoking anywhere within 500 feet of another human being. Winston paid the $5000 fine, which might have been considered excessive before the American dollar became virtually worthless as a result of QE13. The latest round of quantitative easing the federal government initiated was, once again, to "spur economic growth". This time they promised to push unemployment below its years-long rate of 18%, but Winston was not particularly hopeful.
Yet the family had a lot for which to be thankful, Winston thought, before remembering it was a Day of Atonement. At least he had his memories. He felt a twinge of sadness when he realized his children would never know what life was like in the Good Old Days, long before government promises to make life "fair for everyone" realized their full potential. Winston, like so many of his fellow Americans, never realized how much things could change when they didn't happen all at once, but little by little, so people could get used to them.
He wondered what might have happened if the public had stood up while there was still time, maybe back around 2010, when all the real nonsense began. Maybe we wouldn't be where we are today if we'd just said "enough is enough" when we had the chance, he thought.
Maybe so, Winston. Maybe so
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Why I Support Todd Akin for U.S. Senate
This is a piece that I have wanted to write for some time. However, it is hard to write. In some senses it is too simple. In others, it is too difficult. Simply put, Todd Akin is the right man for the United States Senate. His commitments to the U.S. Constitution are firm. His track record is faithful to his commitments. And he is a man of continuing faithfulness to his commitments. More complexly, well, where do I start . . . ?
There are certain men who seem to cut across popular culture who refuse to let popular culture affect them. Ronald Reagan was such a man. In a time when many spoke of an expansion of the federal government and appeasement of the Soviet Union, Reagan spoke against both. As to the latter, his policies brought the Soviet Union to an end. And as to the former, his philosophy still holds sway in a significant portion of our culture. The tea party’s philosophy of limited government finds its heritage in Reagan.
Todd Akin is such a man, quiet and unassuming, infinitely approachable, generous in his time and conversation. Todd has been a champion of principled government for as long as I have known him, which approaches thirty years now. His principled conservatism permeates his discourse, whether it is his humorous sparing with my father on who received the lowest ranking on the River Front Times legislative ranking to his challenging the U.S. military on its obligation to respect the institution of marriage.
Todd speaks the principles of the Founding Fathers in the language of the founding of the nation. His annual celebration of the nation’s birthday at his home is a celebration in our heritage in liberty. At such celebrations, he typically dresses in the uniform of a continental soldier and rehearses the history of our national founding, one based on the themes of “One nation under God” and “No king but King Jesus.” Congressman Akin spoke in the language of the tea party movement before there was a tea party movement.
Congressman Akin remains true to these founding principles against progressive forces within both the Republican and Democratic parties. When personally prompted by President Bush to vote in favor of the expansion of medicare, he voted against it because constitutionally it was the right thing to do. He has voted against federal bailouts under both Republican and Democratic administrations. He is a tireless advocate against the tyrannical usurpation of authority over our health care. Todd has drunk the water in Washington, D.C. and is unaffected.
Will there be times when principled constitutionalists will disagree with Senator Akin’s votes? Of course, even principled constitutionalists disagree on the priority of principles and method. This is to be expected. Will Senator Akin error? Of course, but we know from experience that it will not be due to a compromise in principle.
Do votes matter? Yes, they do. But are they the most important thing? No, they are not. We live in a world that is constrained by covenant. We live in a world built on relationship and community. We have lost this idea in our individualistic country. We live in a selfish culture where my so called “rights” are elevated even at the expense of future generations, my comforts enhanced at the burdening of my grandchildren. This is a trend that must be reversed. We must regain a community and discard the straight jacket of regulated compassion. The most important thing is to change our culture for the better and through liberty enable our people to be truly compassionate. It is critical that we change the national dialogue from a focus of selfishness to one of liberty and community. It is the message that matters. Senator Akin is equipped to communicate the message of liberty and is willing to do it, and he has the moral fiber to follow through.
Our founding fathers consistently warned against elevating a man who appears too eager to elevate himself. This is a warning well heeded. Such men, too eager for self promotion, often succumb to self interest. Todd, in typical fashion, has been measured in his response to requests to seek the U.S. Senate seat, seeking God’s will in the matter. This response too recommends him highly.
There are others out there who are qualified for the post for U.S. Senator. However, based on my view, few have the principles, the commitment to those principles, the proven track record proving those principles and the moral fiber to fulfill the duty of U.S. Senator as does Todd Akin. I pray for him in his decisions and in the campaign before him.
There are certain men who seem to cut across popular culture who refuse to let popular culture affect them. Ronald Reagan was such a man. In a time when many spoke of an expansion of the federal government and appeasement of the Soviet Union, Reagan spoke against both. As to the latter, his policies brought the Soviet Union to an end. And as to the former, his philosophy still holds sway in a significant portion of our culture. The tea party’s philosophy of limited government finds its heritage in Reagan.
Todd Akin is such a man, quiet and unassuming, infinitely approachable, generous in his time and conversation. Todd has been a champion of principled government for as long as I have known him, which approaches thirty years now. His principled conservatism permeates his discourse, whether it is his humorous sparing with my father on who received the lowest ranking on the River Front Times legislative ranking to his challenging the U.S. military on its obligation to respect the institution of marriage.
Todd speaks the principles of the Founding Fathers in the language of the founding of the nation. His annual celebration of the nation’s birthday at his home is a celebration in our heritage in liberty. At such celebrations, he typically dresses in the uniform of a continental soldier and rehearses the history of our national founding, one based on the themes of “One nation under God” and “No king but King Jesus.” Congressman Akin spoke in the language of the tea party movement before there was a tea party movement.
Congressman Akin remains true to these founding principles against progressive forces within both the Republican and Democratic parties. When personally prompted by President Bush to vote in favor of the expansion of medicare, he voted against it because constitutionally it was the right thing to do. He has voted against federal bailouts under both Republican and Democratic administrations. He is a tireless advocate against the tyrannical usurpation of authority over our health care. Todd has drunk the water in Washington, D.C. and is unaffected.
Will there be times when principled constitutionalists will disagree with Senator Akin’s votes? Of course, even principled constitutionalists disagree on the priority of principles and method. This is to be expected. Will Senator Akin error? Of course, but we know from experience that it will not be due to a compromise in principle.
Do votes matter? Yes, they do. But are they the most important thing? No, they are not. We live in a world that is constrained by covenant. We live in a world built on relationship and community. We have lost this idea in our individualistic country. We live in a selfish culture where my so called “rights” are elevated even at the expense of future generations, my comforts enhanced at the burdening of my grandchildren. This is a trend that must be reversed. We must regain a community and discard the straight jacket of regulated compassion. The most important thing is to change our culture for the better and through liberty enable our people to be truly compassionate. It is critical that we change the national dialogue from a focus of selfishness to one of liberty and community. It is the message that matters. Senator Akin is equipped to communicate the message of liberty and is willing to do it, and he has the moral fiber to follow through.
Our founding fathers consistently warned against elevating a man who appears too eager to elevate himself. This is a warning well heeded. Such men, too eager for self promotion, often succumb to self interest. Todd, in typical fashion, has been measured in his response to requests to seek the U.S. Senate seat, seeking God’s will in the matter. This response too recommends him highly.
There are others out there who are qualified for the post for U.S. Senator. However, based on my view, few have the principles, the commitment to those principles, the proven track record proving those principles and the moral fiber to fulfill the duty of U.S. Senator as does Todd Akin. I pray for him in his decisions and in the campaign before him.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Reading Scripture
It is hard to read the Prophets in the Old Testament with the question how do I apply this to my life. It is hard because the circumstances are so different from today. The messages are to a different people, not to me. As I read more about the Prophets, it strikes me that they should be read a bit differently. The Prophets foreshadowed Christ. They also reveal a dialogue between the prophet and Yahweh. Therefore, when we read the Prophets, we should be reflecting on the character of Yahweh and of His Christ. The next question is not how each passage apply to my life but how does the character of Yahweh that I find in the Prophets affect my life. This impacts directly what man is to believe concerning God but only indirectly what duty God requires of man. And then again, maybe this is not any different from the way I should read the rest of Scripture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
