Government Should Exist Without Morals

Morals are a good and proper thing for a functioning society. They serve to govern the relationships between individuals, shared opinions among cultures, and provide structure for the discussion of the undefinable absolutes (right versus wrong). However, given their very objective nature, they do not provide a finite answer. What is deemed acceptable by one culture may be very objectionable by another. While there is nothing wrong with the differences in these objective definitions, conflict will arise between those that are overly invested in their version of virtue. Every religion, culture, or other definable segment of the population suffers from people that take the sentiments of their shared beliefs to the edge of considerations, and endeavor to force those views onto others. An individual, embracing the narrative of his ideals, is limited in what he can accomplish. A group, sharing the same viewpoint, while their voice is stronger, can’t inflict change, but only try to inspire agreement. A governing body, empowered by the consent of the masses with a monopoly on the use of force, can instill the viewpoints it agrees with.

Therein lays the threat of allowing a Government to legislate morality. Whose morals are going to be enforced? Such is the threat of a Democracy, where the whims of the majority reign. One group, with a shared belief of what is morally right, utilizing governmental might to enforce their view points and infringe the rights of those that disagree with them. Some public debates of the day that best reflect this problem are the issues of Abortion and Gay Marriage. Religious sentiments are that each is morally wrong, found in violation of the teachings they espouse, or at least the understanding that those opposed have adopted. So, they rally those that agree with their views around them and voice their objections, an activity protected by the Constitution. They vote for politicians and legislators that share their belief, that if elected will work to govern by these beliefs. These officials promote legislation that endorses and enforces these beliefs on the rest of society.

At that point, the limitation of Government Authority has been violated. For, much to the supposed chagrin of those that wish otherwise, the United States of America was constructed as a Republic, limited and governed by the rule of law, vice suffering the whims of the majority. The powers granted to the Federal government by the Constitution are finite, purposefully done to limit the overall power it can wield, for the stronger government is the less liberty the citizen can enjoy. Yet, despite those limits, our Federal Government has continued to enhance and extend its authority over the member States, taking actions that overreach the authority granted to it. Such activities have been allowed to take place because of the grand abdication of responsibility by the majority of the populace. In each of the mentioned arguments, and the many others that plague society, people view government as a tool to instill their ideals, doing so either in spite or ignorant of the fact they are violating the rights of those they object to. Government officials, eager to retain or gain authority in their office, follow the sway of the majority, placating the crowd. The crowd embraces the overreach of government, specifically in the areas that reflect and support their interests, surrendering more power to the behemoth.

Such is the threat of allowing the Government the power and ability to enforce morality on society. Creating social change, by bringing people into agreement with the merits of your belief, is an appropriate endeavor for any citizen. Using the Government authoritarian muscle to violate or subvert the rule of law is a perversion of its design. Everyone must be reminded, as often as it requires that there are things Government not only should not, but can not do.

Personal Viewpoint Corner:

I am opposed to Abortion, mostly because it is a demonstrated abdication of responsibility for actions taken. Past that it becomes a trickier issue that I haven’t completely settled on. At some point, the gestating parasite turns from a collection of cells to a life, with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That should be the defining line of any legislative protection for the ‘unborn,’ which brings its own level of subjectivity. When is the point when it can be considered alive?

Regarding Gay marriage, in their efforts to enforce the morals of one constituency, Government has served to violate the contractual freedoms of another. Government violates the sanctity of Marriage by taking any action at all. Marriage is solely the province of the religious entity that people seek to be wedded by. No matter the religious preference that people wish to be wedded by, that is a protected right to do so, up until it starts to directly conflict the rights of someone else. No one, however uncomfortable they might be, has the right to not be offended. The Governments sole role in this relationship should be to protect the contractual rights of each member, to include the realms of taxes, inheritance, custody, medical decisions, and other related matters. The only limitation the Government should be allowed to place is to ensure each involved party is of an appropriate age of consent and that they are competently entering into the contractual agreement. For clarity, note that I did not allow for any limitation on the gender or number of the participants in the contract. While it is my personal preference for monogamous relationships, why should my will override the will of those that would consensually participate in a polyamorous relationship? 

I support Universal Background Checks!

Following the shooting at Sandy Hook, there was an understandably emotional, yet poorly reasoned, outcry for something to be done. President Obama put out a bold list of goals, matched with a hollow collection of executive orders telling components of the Executive Branch to do their jobs. In the legislature, the possibility of a renewed, stronger, Assault weapons Ban was dead on arrival, and every other ‘important’ measure the President called for fell flat on its face. Despite heavy doses of demagoguery from each side of the issue, the amendment moving to institute Universal Background Checks, heralded as a bipartisan compromise, failed. Represented simultaneously as a common sense measure and an effort to raise the cost of firearm ownership, it was burdened by the agitation of American Gun owners, derided by the anti-gun movement for not doing enough, and the target of massive dollars from both sides. Painted as an opportunistic attack on are freedoms, and defended as a long overdue correction to our countries loop holes.

Separately, the concept of requiring identification and proof of citizenship to vote, to the point of better defending the rights of citizens, is labeled as a sideways effort to disenfranchise the poor, elderly, and minorities. Multiple localities throughout the country have passed laws requiring identification, and are working to improve the requirements to get the identification, while the opposition cries it is a poll tax and will deny others the ability to exercise their rights, moving to challenge the laws in courts. The U.S. Department of Justice takes aggressive steps against locals that try to instill voter id laws, leaping to claims of racial discrimination.

So, the liberal side wants Universal Background checks for firearm ownership, which conservatives object to. Meanwhile, conservatives want a requirement to present proof of citizenship and identification to vote, which liberals object to. Having considered the costs and benefits of each ideal, weighed against constitutional limitations, I believe that there is a move that can gain approval from each side.

The legislature should revisit the Universal Background check legislation, and expand it. Let us make it truly Universal. Rather than just limiting it to the sale or transfer of firearms, make it a step in the application for government issued identification. Everyone would be required to undergo the background investigation as a matter of course, and could use the ID provided to then go forth and exercise the Constitutionally protected rights to vote or keep and bear arms. Rather than violating the 14^th amendment to unfairly target one segment of the population, those that exercise the 2^nd amendment, this law would apply to all parties. Also, there would be no exemptions for Law Enforcement Officers, Politicians, or any other connected party.

Much like the Individual Mandate of the Affordable Care Act, by requiring that each and every individual of voting/gun purchasing age underwent a background check, the costs for the bureaucratic infrastructure could be spread over the entire population, i.e. those who chose not to exercise their rights to vote or own firearms would subsidize the process for those that do. Overall, this would mostly be an amplification of the process citizens go through in applying for a Driver’s License at the DMV. Currently, most jurisdictions require: proof of citizenship, address in the issuing local, and proof of who you are. Following passage of the Drunk Cynic Universal Background Check, your criminal and mental history would also be taken into consideration, much like sections 11 and 12 of DD form 4473, that anyone who purchases a firearm from a Federal Firearm Licensee must fill out.

Tailing disclaimer: For any actively interested parties, the reason beyond the long delay between posts is that I just completed a massive move, and I didn't want to bother with the stress of diving political topics.

War of Words

In the ongoing battle of ideologies, Liberal versus Conservative, as currently defined, Conservatives continue to lose ground when it comes to definitions. In some fights, they simply surrender the fight without even firing a verbal volley. The lead cause for the hesitation to properly express their convictions, while working to strengthen the definitions and ideals that are used to portray them, is fear. Political Correctness censors them, concerns about being labeled a racist, homophobic, bigot, or any other expression of villainy by the thought police stills their tongues. People are forced to walk on egg shells, or risk being persecuted and vilified by the press. The mainstream media has made an art of sensationalizing the statements of conservatives, while down playing those of liberals. The bi-polar nature of their actions is a sad example of cognitive dissonance. However, while the media acts like the town crier, and is not without blame, the true tragedy of the situation is the utter lack of moral fortitude from our supposed Conservative leaders. By allowing liberal ideology to control the conversation, determining the wording and definitions that form the substance of our society, they have abandoned the field.  The populace mast gather behind them and either hold them to task, or replace them with better candidates.  The following are an examination of a few of the current talking points about which the representatives of either side bicker, presented for consideration and debate.

Affirmative Action

Affirmative action is not equivalent to equal opportunity. In an effort to assuage guilt for past atrocities, and create a statistic which can be brandished with glee, the government has created the unintended consequence of replacing emotional bias with a persistent government enforced bias. With threats of force, our government has instilled the idea that the work force should be mathematically comparable to the entire population. If the ratios do not coincide, then charges of discrimination are levied. Heavy legal action follows, the mysteriously infinite funds of the government brought to bear against the finite pocket of the accused. Quite aware of the possibility of financial ruin, institutions go out of their way to meet the invisible quotas. When comparing the qualifications of two individuals, the one of lesser merit may win out if they serve to improve the institutions statistical appearance. This decision isn’t made because it will improve the company. If they had chosen the better qualified applicant, they would have been in a stronger economic position. No, this choice was made solely to placate the beast that our government has become.

Through force, government has lowered the bar for acceptance that must be met, not just for those who enjoy a favored minority status, but for everyone. Why strive to be better if less is accepted? Efforts of favoritism serve to discredit the work of everyone. We have arrived at a point where it is considered appropriate to judge people by the color of their skin, or by their gender, before considering their character.

Illegal Immigration

If someone entered the country without official documentation, they have broken the law and are here illegally. While credit should be given for their attempt to improve their lot in life, their willful violation of the laws of this country is an affront to everyone who abides by them to enter. Companies that employ these illegal immigrants, often at rates much less than they could pay a legal citizen, should be held accountable. States and local governments that abide the invasion, either by ignoring their presence or actively funding them through social services, must be held accountable for those choices. For the Federal government to ignore the porous nature of our nation’s borders, to the point of near abdication of its responsibility to protect them, is inexcusable. However, by employing illegal immigrants, companies can maintain the price of their product or service artificially low, since they can pay the workers less. Further, since the preponderance of illegal immigrants are of Hispanic origin, and the continued growth and importance of the Hispanic voting bloc, our Politicians generally view the situation as a venue for personal gain. Talk of amnesty of is applauded, while direction for state and federal agencies to not enforce the law is quietly ignored. The foremost impact of unregulated immigration is an increased demand on social services, without the corresponding tax dollars to fund it. Swaths of our country are surrendered to drug and human trafficking. American citizens suffer trespasses, theft, and destruction of property, yet when they attempts to mount a defense are confounded with litigation and liberal outcries. States that move to respond to the Federal government’s abandonment on the issue are suddenly confronted by with claims of pre-emption, the federal government defending its continuous inaction by claiming only it can take action.

Despite the financial and sociological ruin wrought by this invasion, it would be a legislative and economic disaster if we attempted mass deportation.  For all the evils it causes, there is a strong subset of the illegal alien population that provide a positive contribution to the American society and economy, aside from their willful violation of immigration law. Their sudden withdraw from the workforce would have an abrupt impact: assuming that the positions these people hold provide a lower wage because illegal immigrants are available to fill them, the salaries would have to be raised to attract citizens. The resultant rise in salaries will give rise to the prices seen at the consumer end, echoing through the economy. Even if the assumption is false, and there is a sudden increase in available jobs, that doesn’t address the feasibility of detaining and deported the untold millions of illegal aliens. It is not logistical supportable; there are not enough personnel in the state or federal agencies combined, not even considering the social outcry that would rise in response to the images of government agents going door to door in their search. Rage would flow from the entire ideological spectrum, Liberals claiming human rights violations, Conservatives claiming it is a warning of future government encroachments on the rights of citizens. Even if they could be identified and arrested, where would we detain them for processing? How would we arrange for their return to the country of Citizenship? Even more confounding, what would we do with the ones that were refused re-entry, detain them from now to eternity?

Considering the nigh impossible task of removing all of them, against the mammoth burden some have placed on social services, we should address the latter, given its higher chances of success. Turning from the subset of illegal immigrants that are industrious or demonstrate a will to be productive members of society, we should target the rest of the population: the dregs, those with qualities more akin to parasites.  Hardened predators that delight in the suffering of others, oppressing their communities through fear.  It is this subset that inflicts the overt destruction from the illegal immigrant community and society at large. Aside from the villainous nature, the worst consequence of their existence is the manner in which they propagate. Through their action, the promise and opportunities for prosperity others might have had is disrupted, a wake of broken dreams left by their passing. For every feel good story of personal triumph over adversity, there is a though of what more they could have achieved if unhindered, of the others that weren’t even that lucky. Amongst the pestilence, there is the weed, those that produce no benefit and cause little harm, but exist as a continuous drain on society. They thrive in their dependency and subsist on charity and hand outs stolen from the efforts of producers by the government under the threat of force. So that the industrious may flourish, the pestilence must be eradicated, and weeds starved out. A focused effort of policing to disrupt the pestilence where it festers, strengthening the community so that it may be more resilient in the future. That sense of community must be fostered, so a chorus of voices will stand in response against the spread of the pestilence, and each individual is better secured in their personal liberties. For the weeds, sever them from the government provided hand outs. They have no entitlement to the services of government as illegal immigrants, no claim to the wealth generated by the labors of another. Bereft of the gentle succor, they will either develop into a productive member of the community and prosper, or descend into criminal acts and suffer. The analogy of pestilence, weeds, and blossoming prosperity is not the province of the illegal immigrants solely. The same can be said of humanity and its entirety, with the same resultant recourse.

Entitlements

In parks and forests nationwide, there are prominent signs prohibiting the feeding of wild animals. The basis is the accepted, and demonstrated, fact that visitors providing food to the animals will lead to a condition of dependence forming. They cease to be self reliant, focusing instead on the easy meals provided for them. Why hunt when it is easier to wait to be fed? Further, the animals will associate humans with easy food, and engage them for more food. Then there is the shift, when the easy meal supply slackens. The now dependent animals, hungry yet bereft of the skills to provide for themselves, will follow the association of humans with food, and strike out.  This demonstrated cycle of dependency has been seen several times over, yet people fail to make the connection to the impact of welfare and similar entitlements.

It is appropriate to assist the down trodden in their time of need. However, this period should not be allowed to continue uninterrupted to perpetuity. It cannot progress to the point where they wallow in dependency, turning from ambition and initiative. For those that devour without production, allowance can be made for private charities, where an individual gives freely of his production, for that work is his by the right of his labor and he can dispense with it as he deems appropriate. However, the use of government force to redistribute the worth of his efforts into the hands of the unproductive is a violation of his property rights, and not within the scope of a just government. When it is understood that wealth can be more easily gained through accruing government favor than personal effort, the louse will take the gentler road, exchanging his vote, his voice, and eventually his liberty. Politicians who promise such trinkets will gain the blind support of the dependent. Seeing the easy reward offered under government favor, sloth will spread throughout the populace, until the receivers outnumber the producers. It will be at that critical juncture that the system established by government favor and the redistribution of another’s wealth will begin to collapse. Then, the shame of government will erode, replaced by anarchy and tyranny, the calm of despotism within a storm of upheaval.

As recently demonstrated, our society has passed the point where this malfeasance can be corrected promptly at the national level. The uninformed are far happy to exchange long term suffering for short term joys. The reigning politicians reflect this reality, sharing the same short sighted perspective as there constituents. Before the whole can prosper, the rot within must be corrected. Conservative ideals must be reintroduced to the country, personal responsibility must be rewarded, and utter dependence is shamed.

All of mankind’s great advancements can be attributed to the work produced by an individual, or the concerted efforts of many individuals. These efforts created wealth, enriching the community. Conversely, those that produce nothing are a blight on society.

Closure

What proceeded were concepts, ideals that I hold as conservative beliefs on a couple of issues that are currently facing the country. Sadly, there are several more issues facing the nation, so there will be more commentaries to follow.

Social Lesson - Rape is Wrong!

The social problems of this country are numerous, but they are vastly outnumbered by the failed attempts to solve them. There are people alive today only because I valued my own life more than theirs. Such is the nature of a polite society, where actions, such as morally justifiable homicide, have consequences. Being of sound mind, I understand that if I chose to murder someone, I would also have to deal with the consequences. I think that way because I had the benefit of being raised by responsible authority figures.

The dark opening was inspired by my immediate guttural response to a news story an associate forwarded. The short summary is that a high school student celebrated, drank to heavily, and after she was incapacitated, she was molested and raped by peers. While that is damnable in of itself, this wasn't an act committed secretly in a dimly lit bedroom. She was violated in full view, witnesses abound, with videos and pictures beaming her defilement straight to social media. No one stepped to her defense, no one rescued her from a bad situation, and no one called the Cops.

Addressing the problem from the inside out, lets first critique the actions of the victim. Call me callous, a heartless ass, but I hold her at fault. Disregarding the underage drinking, she drank past the point of being conscious of her surroundings. Her choice to lose control of the situation lead to her downfall. Then there are her aggressors, the un-evolved neanderthals that gave not a wit for the girl they violated. While it may have crossed their minds that their actions were wrong, that thought didn't stop them. Their attacks on her person continued, and grew ever bold over the course of the night. Finally, there are the witnesses; those who watched and did nothing. Those who recorded the attack, allowing it to escalate through out the night. These dregs of humanity that lacked the moral fortitude to do any thing proactive. It was this point in the tale when I thought my anger reached it's zenith.

Then I learned about the response from the authorities, and I was proved wrong. My emotions shifted from righteous anger to city burning Old Testament Biblical Fury. Her claims were first dismissed, excused with attacks on her character. Her attackers were local sports heroes, destined for high school greatness and life long mediocrity. Can't allow the truth to tarnish such an image. When calls for justice continued, and the details of the attack spread to the internet, those raising the rallying cry were charged with defamation of the attackers. It took continued actions of the family, a crime blogger, and others to motivate the authorities into action.

After I got past the initial feelings of rage, and images of wrathful vengeance they inspired, I defaulted to thinking about the core problems and methods of prevention. Obviously since twenty five percent of American Women have experienced rape or sexual assault (conservative value), and half of those have involved alcohol, we should re-institute prohibition. Wait, no. Instead, how about some life lessons in understanding your lines of defense.

First line: Be responsible for your own Safety. Don't drink, or use other substances, to the point that you surrender the awareness of your your surroundings. Being observant of the activities around you will enable you to escape a bad situation for it develops and fully encompasses you. Further, if you are a 105 lb female, unless you are built like River Tamm, the 240 lb guy will be able to snap you like a twig. Even if you are, that may not be enough for the four guys that see you as a quick grab. Arm yourself, within the letter of the law. If that means pepper spray, buy some and join the fight for stronger self defense options.

Second line: Don't hang out with opportunistic rapist douche bags. Watch for the signs. In the event you at some point let the first line fall, minimize your risk of it happening around the type that would take advantage of your mistakes. The office tool that makes your skin crawl, the odd guy on the bar that hits on every lady. As an extension, don't trust any drink you didn't watch get made yourself.

Third line: Don't go into battle alone. The victim of this tragedy had no one that would raise a voice in her defense, no shelter from the onslaught of predators. If you have ignored the first two, then don't neglect this one. Even if you haven't, there is the potential for the wolf in sheep's clothing to sneak past. Two person integrity, at the least, will greatly raise your chances of staying safe. If one person had called the cops, or even the victims parents, at the start of her molestation, the destructive impact of the night would have been limited.

When I started reading the story of this girl's suffering, my initial response was an urge for violent action. I wanted nothing more than to find the predators that so impacted her life, and end theirs. Upon learning that people stood by and did nothing, my ever diminishing faith in American society grew even dimmer. I grew up with lessons of chivalry and integrity. From Arthurian legends to the modern tales of Drizzt Do'Urden and Malcolm Reynolds, the gentleman must be ready to come to the defense of the lady (not to discount female empowerment, it is just in my nature to protect). While I understand there are villains in the world, such folk that verge on sociopathic, the existence of people that are so ambivalent turns my stomach.

Past the rage and critique, I felt concern. I will blame it on a mix of animalistic and learned instincts, but my thoughts turned to friends and family. To the women that have positively affected my life falling prey to such crimes. Specifics turned general, and I started looking into rapes and sexual assault statistics. As I looked, I kept finding anecdotes where either action by the victim, or interference from a bystander, would have prevented tragedy. I realized long ago that I was among a dying breed of people raised by responsible figures and blessed with a sense of morals and decency. Yet every where I look, I find more examples of societal decay, peers unaware of the social contract they are beholden to as supposed citizens of the Untied States of America. This is not a declaration of surrender, or an intention to sequester myself in a cloister of the like minded. Quite the opposite; I intend to fight for the country of values that was bequeathed to me by my fore fathers. As Thomas Jefferson said:

God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

As a citizen of the USA, I have an inherited responsibility to maintain and strengthen the values that made this country great. It is lapses that has allowed the societal decay that creates predators and miscreants such as those that perpetrated the crimes against the victim of this tale. If I fall, it will be violent, bloody, with me fighting to my last breath, surrounded by the bodies of my enemies (speaking metaphorically of course, unless circumstances dictate otherwise). I urge you to do the same. Be aware of threats to yourself and your loved ones, and stand prepared to respond with sufficient force to not only defeat the threat, but to deter future attack.

(Links to the story that soured my mind: NY Times Sports Page and Crime Blog)

A Patriot's Serenity

A volunteer to the service, he joined the cause of independence because his morality and faith demanded it of him. He wasn’t a General and won’t be found in the history books. Malcolm Reynolds was a Sergeant, leading thirty men into the fight. As the battle raged on, his military leadership lay dead or dying, the ranks of men and women following his lead swelled to two thousand. In the final climatic days of the battle for Serenity Valley, there were only four hundred still alive under his command. Confronted by staggering losses and overwhelming opposing numbers, the leaders of the Independents surrendered the field. While politicians and bureaucrats brokered the terms, two weeks of waiting whittled his force to one hundred and fifty, barely eight percent of those that had followed him. Deserted by his leaders, the cause he had championed was lost. Here was a man with a history of duty and patriotism; not his punch lines, but his core beliefs. Some people don’t know what to do when their belief system collapses. Malcolm Reynolds is one of them. Mercy, forgiveness, trust. All of this, he left behind, though it could be said that he never left Serenity Valley.

Yes, the above anecdote is the foundation of a fictional character, Malcolm Reynolds of Firefly, summarized by a character establishing quote pertaining to GSGT Bob Lee Swagger from Shooter. However, its existence as fiction does not mean a quality life lesson can’t be found. It is stories such as those that our society uses to pass on ethos and morality. A similar tale was recently opinioned by LT COL Tony Shaffer, relating to the final moments of former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, an American Patriot who died during the attack on the Benghazi Consulate. All of the facts regarding the attack, it’s impetus, or the response, have not yet come out. Regrettably, they may never be fully revealed, and questions, controversy, and doubts will continue long into the future.

The notion that four Americans were abandoned in favor of political factors is mentally shattering. The greatest strength of the U.S. Military is the faith the service members have in their fellows. Each would readily sacrifice his own life to save the man next to him. More important, best expressed by the United States Marine Corps motto, Semper Fidelis (Always Faithful), is the rigid belief in No Man Left behind. A dozen will stand up, rushing to rescue one, without regard for their own lives.. In the case of Benghazi, news stories relate tales of help and aid that was ready, but never deployed. Also debated is what the Administration actually knew about the nature of the attack compared to what they told the media and public. The political spin will continue as our knowledge on the particulars are refined. To further obfuscation the matter, each side will make accusations against the other side, utilizing false impressions of their opponent’s policy to guide the conversation. What is needed, in response to all the political maneuvering, is a skeptical citizenry with a questioning attitude. Do not accept the statements from politicians, senior military leaders, or even the media pundits at face value. Ask the hard questions, insist on full disclosure, and do not relent.

Past all the political nonsense, always hold on to the heart of this story. Tyrone Woods, an American Patriot, facing overwhelming odds, fought to protect his fellows. Those moments where a select few stay behind, to defend the retreat of others, deserves to be honored and memorialized. The ability to defy one’s innate sense of self preservation and run towards the sound of gun fire must be rewarded with respect. The geek in me sees such boldness as the source for the “art reflecting life” of the fictional Browncoats from Firefly. As a final note, while you may end up on the losing side of the battle, may you never find yourself on the wrong side.

Illogical Ineqaulity

What follows will not be a socially acceptable opinion. There are many that will label me a racist, out to destroy every civil right success. So to preface the claims that follow, it is important to note that they come from a strict legal review of the situation, and reflects how I have reviewed the established rule of law.

I recently held a discussion with a legal associate on the merits and differences between the ideas of Constitutional Originalist and the belief in the Living Document. In the interest of full disclosure, I championed the cause of Originalist, as would be indicated by previous postings, and she supported the Living Document. While we were both impassioned for our cause, the discussion was amiable.

First, to avoid confusion, and demonstrating the importance of the meaning of words, we established an understanding on the basis of Originalist and Living Document, and to that end I will echo our shared definitions here:

-          Originalists believe that the words of the Constitution were set upon their ratification. Their meaning allows for only one interpretation. However, the Constitution is not a finite document, and processes have been included to modify it as society evolves.

-          The Living Document is designed to last the duration of our country. Therefore, as society changes and the legal needs evolve, the interpretation of the words of the Constitution must change to reflect that.

With that understanding set, she posed the following question to demonstrate the merits of the Living Document, which I addressed from an Originalist perspective.

“Consider two Supreme Court cases, Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which established the legal doctrine of Separate but Equal, and Brown v. Board of education (1954), which defined Separate as inherently unequal. Since the decision of each case was based in the guarantee of Equal Protection of the Law regardless of race, as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment, how do you reconcile the difference in interpretation?”

Admittedly, at the onset of the discussion I was at a disadvantage of not knowing the particulars of either case, yet I held a firm understanding of the merits of the Fourteenth Amendment. To level the field, my associate related the details of the two cases. Plessy v. Ferguson regarded the claim of Homer Plessy, a man of mixed ancestry, who claimed his Fourteenth amendment rights were violated when he was arrested for declining to move to the “colored’s only car” of train. The courts ruled that since the accommodations for “whites and colored’s” were equal, the railways policy of segregation was not a violation of his Fourteenth amendment rights. The decision, coined as Separate but Equal, justified the actions of segretationalists and was extended to schools, voting rights, and mundane items such as water fountains and restrooms. However, the doctrine was overturned in Brown v. Board of Education. Demonstrations of differences in accommodations between white and black schools were used to postulate that separate is inherently unequal. The Brown court held: “We conclude, in the field of public education, the doctrine of Separate but Equal has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are by reason deprived of equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the Fourteenth amendment.” Despite the doctrine being found unconstitutional in this case, its application would continue until it was finally expunged by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In light of the specifics of those two cases, and my understanding of the Fourteenth amendment, I provided my answer with no regard to political correctness. At this point, I ask that you bear with me as I state my case, holding judgment and personal attacks till the end. The argument of separate being inherently unequal is logically false. While it can be demonstrated that inequalities existed between separated entities, this only implies a failure of each being held and maintained to an equal standard. The decision made in the Brown court was not in keeping with the limitations of the Constitution, but rather an act of judicial activism for the sake of political expediency. The Fourteenth amendment provides for the equal protection of the law for all citizens, regardless of race. No measure is given, or direction, for integration of the races. In overturning the doctrine of Separate but Equal, social concerns were allowed to trump the Rule of Law.

Now, do not misconstrue that assertion to imply that I support segregation, or worse, I hold one race superior to the others. In practice, segregation is socially deplorable and economically infeasible. However, as long as the accommodations or legal protections offered to all parties were equal, even if separate, there was no violation of the Constitution as written. Further, there was no Constitutional authority to enforce efforts of integration, but only the strength to ensure that each party is accommodated equally. From this stance, the portions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that encourage or force integration, while being morally important and in service to a strong society, are unconstitutional. The extension of this authority through an overreach of the Commerce Clause is also unconstitutional.

The appropriate action for the Brown court would have been to hold to the Separate but Equal doctrine, and enforce sanctions on the municipalities that failed to provide equal accommodations. If the parties involved were unable to provide separate but equal accommodations, due to limited resources, than equal share of the current accommodations should have been granted until separate but equal ones were available. Economically speaking, the cost offering equal but separate accommodations to each portion of the market, as defined by race, would be much greater than providing one standard of accommodations to the whole market. Further, since the separate portions would compete for the same resources, and must be equal in standards, than each would be of a lower grade than the one standard that could be offered to the whole market. If the court had held to the constitutionally supported doctrine of Separate but Equal, enforcing that all separate accommodations offered within the jurisdiction of the Government be equal, economy of scale would have driven the problem to the morally acceptable conclusion.

Regarding the concept of separate being inherently unequal, if that was the socially appropriate norm of the time, the country would have been better served if that principle had been added to the Constitution through the amendment process of Article V. If politicians, and more importantly the citizens, wanted the government to be invested with the authority to force the moral issue of integration, than an amendment should have, and still must be, made to the Constitution. Instead, the Supreme Court was allowed to re-determine legislative policy from the bench, and in effect weaken the protections offered to the American citizen by the Constitution. No matter how socially acceptable this action was, or even has become, it is still an affront to the limitations placed on the government by the Constitution. If such a violation of the rule of law can occur, than it can be repeated. The next time, it may be against the will of the American citizenry and in service to tyrannical oppression.

Arguing Responsibly

What follows will take a different track than previous rants, because it is a direct response to my detractors. That isn’t a claim that the words here have garnered serious attention. Standing apart from this digital persona, in conversations taking place at other forums, I am usually asked as to why I bother arguing, often by those that supposedly share my opinion. They have already written off the opposition as being beyond reason, coming to the talk with only emotion and willing to disregard every thought that would upset their view on life. By this estimation, I am wasting my breath, and time, in trying to hold a civil discussion.

 

To show such disregard to the opposition is an arrogant mistake. If we underestimate the enemy, he will either catch us unaware, or we miss the chance to change his mind. Even if our judgment is spot on, and we refuse to join the argument, then we yield the entire discussion. Only their voice will be heard, while we stand mute.

 

Since we must speak out, than I say it must be done in a firm, reasonable manner. Be firm in your stance, but avoid open aggression or hostility in your tone. It is possible to hold true to your convictions while still respecting the view points of the other side. By understanding their reasoning, the ‘why’ of their beliefs, you will be better equipped to explain your own. Finally, by approaching the discussion with an open mind, you may realize what you held as truth is a misconception. In the end, to err is human, and are we anything but?

 

As good a closer as that seems, there is one more point that must be made explicitly. Any argument entered is not for the sole benefit of those doing the talking. In today’s life of instant upload, every idea expressed may be quickly known by millions. Even if your opponent is emotionally set and unreasonable, those who witness may be more open to conflicting ideas. Always assume, and act as if, someone watching may find merit in your words. Maintain tact and decorum against thoughtless claims; flatly reject personal attacks without rising to the same.

Having a sound Constitution

The social problems of this country are numerous, but are vastly outnumbered by the failed attempts to solve them. The continued effort to undermine and erode the protections offered to the individual by the Constitution is disheartening. Over two hundred years ago, the first ten were inscribed, contained within the Bill of Rights. Since then, there have been seventeen amendments made, all in accordance with the methods established. No the document was not perfect at ratification, for it failed to grant the same protections to all parties. However, as the standards of our society grew, its deficiencies were corrected.

Foremost, it must be stated that the Constitution does not grant any rights to the individual. Rather, it protects rights that are held by nature of existing. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; simply put. The twenty six amendments provide strict direction to the government of the protected rights of the individual (twenty-six vice twenty-seven, accounting for the one repealed). These well argued words do not instruct you on what you are allowed to do, but provide limits upon the actions of the government.

The Constitution is more than an enumerated list of individual rights to protect us from a tyrannical government. It serves to define the style of government that the people could trust; a representative republic, limited by the rule of law. Going further, the powers of that government were divided into three separate branches, self governed by a series of checks and balances, so that no one branch could threaten the freedoms of the populace unhindered. The powers given to the Federal government were limited and few, though interpretation and ideals of a ‘living document’ have given rise to an unmitigated expansion with the excuse of serving the public good. As stated, and now further explained, our Federal government was established as a Republic, limited by the rule of law, and not a democracy to suffer the whims of the majority.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, no prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people. In short, any element, action, or process of the United States government that does not conform to the limitations of the Constitution exists in violation of it. There are only two viable responses to such a transgression; either an amendment is made to the Constitution in accordance with Article V, as it has been done seventeen times, or the offender must be abolished. Letting it continue is an affront to the integrity of this country and a disregard for the trust of every Citizen. Misconstruing the words of the Constitution, as those who hold the belief of a ‘living document’ suggest, threatens the Constitution with invalidation. If the written words can be reinterpreted at will, there is no strength in the words and all of them are forfeit.

Though the idea of the Constitution being a ‘living document’ must be rejected, that does not imply that it is dead either. It was not a perfect set of standards as initially ratified, as proven by the seventeen amendments made since. Thus, the founders included a process for amending it, because the realized that neither they nor the society they were worming were without fault. The grand ideal of every man being created equal and entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were not realized at the ratification of the Constitution. The hypocrisy that slave owning white men made such claims was well noted even then. Such a contradiction would last nearly ninety years, a gradual socio-economic change, and a Civil War, until slavery would end in the United States. Over six grueling years, the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments were drafted and ratified providing for equal protection by and from the law without discrimination for maters of race or color. Sadly it would take another century of hatred until the full weight of social change would bear down on segregationist hatred.

Among the legislative pillars that were used to limit the newly free Americans to an inferior status, those in power endeavored to keep them disarmed. They were not original in this attempt, nor were they the last, because it was demonstrated before, and since, that tyrants will act to disarm their subjects. The purpose being that it is far easier to dominate people who are incapable of effectively fighting back. Britain sought to disarm the American Patriots in order to forestall insurrection, and Nazi Germany endeavored to disarm Jews before killing over six million of them. The founders, understanding this lesson of history, sought to protect the individual’s right to self defense and place it beyond reproach. To that end, they well enshrined that liberty by stating, unerringly, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Despite those words, politicians and special interest groups have worked doggedly to impose ‘reasonable restrictions’ on an individual’s right to self defense, or in some case subject it complete revocation. Opponents to an armed populace point to the professional police as a reason that personal arms are unneeded with one hand, while judicially releasing those officers of any obligation to protect us with the other. The actions of criminals and degenerates are used as excuses to legislatively disarm the law abiding. The very belief that the law breakers will yield their firearms because owning one has been made illegal is laughable. Yet the politicians continue, calling for the public to be disarmed while they stand surrounded by armed guards. If there is one thing that both criminals and tyrannical governments fear, it is an armed populace capable of resisting their dominance.

The right of self defense, to safe guard one’s own life is indeed sacred. It is matched by the ability to be free within one’s mind. Each individual’s beliefs and concerns are theirs fully, and they are endowed with the freedom to share them with their fellow man. Share, that is, up until they impede on the rights of another. The reciprocal, that others are free to share their ideals, is also true. Some cannot be arrested or detained simply because their exercise of free speech offends another party. Such an attempt to squelch anyone’s rights in this manner should suffer immediate public outrage. For no matter how disagreeable that exercise of free speech is, if the government or mob can censor the right of one person, why not another’s? That edge, where the government turns from a guardian of everyone’s freedoms to subjective thought police serving to protect the feelings of the offended is infinitely fine, and dastardly destructive when it is turned upon those who oppose governmental tyranny. It is the right of every free American to voice their beliefs, and their responsibility to speak against the trespasses of government.

While the voice of one man true in his convictions (or woman true in hers) is impressive, the voice of a country well informed cannot be ignored. To that end, the founding fathers sought to protect the freedom of press. Through knowledge, an individual can seek the certainty of action. A forthright press, that holds the political class on all fronts, can ensure an honest reporting of government action. The politicians, held accountable for his actions, must remain true to the interests of his constituents, or suffer removal by the same. Through such interaction, the well being of the republic, and freedom of the individual, will blossom and grow. However, the process is torn asunder when there is collusion between the government and the press. When the press spreads the lies of the government, in an effort to confuse and control the governed, the promise of liberty withers on the vine. With such a risk, every citizen must guard against allowing their vigilance to lax. Suffer no lie to be repeated unchallenged, and let no misguidance be followed. Speak true against those who would violate the public trust, so their utterances may be discarded as pointless refuse.

When considered completely, the constitution is not all encompassing. It acknowledges the existence of rights retained by the people not listed within its pages, and states that they remain strong. Further, the Constitution is not the metaphoric sword and shield to be hung above the mantle, with memories of battles won long ago. Understand, the barbarians are ever on the horizon, threatening to sweep down upon the unprepared, burn your home, and scatter your flock. Maintain the sword honed sharp and free of rust. Keep the grasp of the shield strong, the boards stout. Read and learn the strength of the words that shelter the freedoms you have by nature of breathing. Hold a vigilant watch for the horde, while keeping a wary eye for wolves among the sheep.

Disclaimer: While I will not claim to be a Constitutional Scholar, I have read it often, and given my best effort to understand the words and the ideals it portrays. I have read the writings of our founding fathers to great extend to better understand the intentions they had for the newly formed United States of America. If the above reads like nothing more than a motivated history lesson, it is because I strongly believe the truth of it has been befuddled as of late. The masses that are apparently ignorant of how our country was established, standing unaware of the social contract they implicitly accept by claiming to be American Citizens, is baffling. There should be public outrage at the actions of our government, rather than mute acceptance. Instead, we have grown to the point where many will happily accept the government’s redistribution of another’s labors, and seek only to improve their share. It has become common place to accept the censor of another’s rights, just because some don’t agree with their position. In truth, even the rights of the Criminal and bigot must be protected, for if theirs can be limited than the rights of all are forfeit.
Further, if I did not discuss your favored right, it was not an intended slight. I confined the main body of this to less than fifteen hundred words, and had trouble keeping it that small. I do not disparage the nineteenth, and its role in offering equal legal protection to the sexes, the fourth, or the fifth. The sixteenth, I am going to treat separately, and, admittedly, you can expect several revisits of the second.

The Only Response To Bigotry

The social problems of this country are numerous, but they are vastly outnumbered by the failed attempts to correct them. Hatred spans every cultural divide, the reasons sprinting beyond any rational sense. Cultural differences and petty grudges are gathered and directed by opportunists, spurned by hidden meanings and veiled intentions that only they can find. A simple crime, grievous in its own right, is grown and spun to a deed of great malevolence because of the demographics of the victim. It is not enough that we should be appalled that the act was perpitrated, but every nuance of the deed must be measured to see if there was a threat against a protected demographic.

A great man once shared his dream of a day when everyone would be judged by the content of their character, vice the nature of their demographics (paraphrased). The strength of that vision was lost, not because of his death, but because no one sought to keep it alive. Though he is memorialized to a great extent, his message has been discarded. Would it shame him to learn schools are being moved to ration discipline by racial quota, vice imparting it on those that disrupt the class? Would he think it grand that criminal acts are being excused as a manner of culture?

Hatred and bigotry exist. There is no excuse for that. No matter your race, religion, economic station, or sexual identity, someone holds an irrational hatred for you. There may always exist a fragment of the population that thrives on its hatred for another fragment. However, the battle against hatred cannot be waged through legislation. In creating laws that specifically defend a particular class, you are threatening the rights of every member not of that class. Further, the protected class suffers as the standard is changed in their favor. Rather than rising to the same standards as all others, they can abide at a lesser level. Thus, as an anecdote, Affirmative Action does not equate to Equal Opportunity. When there is a quota to meet, one may be hired over another, despite his lower qualifications for the position. The workforce he joins is relatively weaker for it, because his output will be less than the one he supplanted, at the same pay.

The only sound way to fight hatred is through society’s rejection of it. The might of law does not compare to the righteous defense raised by a moral society. Though, do not misconstrue this as a call for violence against the angry or misbegotten. It is solidarity, a wall of spirit that must stand against the waves of hate that is required. As vile and revolting as many may find the beliefs of bigots to be, their rights are protected by the Constitution, and they are free to express them up until the point they infringe on the right of another. To seek to censor their rights through the power of law is in err, and stands as a threat to the rights of everyone. For if one person’s right to think and express their beliefs can be legislatively limited, why can’t another’s rights also be limited so?

Look to the groups that have grown in response to the aggression of bigotry. Religious zealots chose the funerals of Fallen Soldiers to express their hatred of homosexuals, and veterans rise to shield the families of unknown comrades. Liberal segregationists rejected the calls for equality, and met a force of white and black Americans standing shoulder to shoulder against the onslaught of fire hose and police canines. When hostility is met with hostility in the war of competing beliefs, it will only give rise to greater violence and strengthen bitter emotions. Reject the desire to seek reprisal, and form a united defense. A strong, moral, society can clear away the blight that is their expressions of hatred. Answer the irrational with truth, respond to their confusion with assertion, and suffer not a lie to survive.

Expansion of the government, despite their assertions, is not the solution to our societal woes. Individuals must gather in mass, and throw down the claims of political correctness and false divisions. Every household should strive to become a member of the community they reside within, and be degusted with the squalor that has festered around them. Standards of behavior should become universal, measured without noting race or religion. Yes, some factions may be stricter than others, but there exists a common ground. Do not kill, do not rape, do not steal, these are principles which every man of every faith and creed can embrace. These are not polite suggestions — these are codes of behavior, lost to us like sands through the hour glass, a grain at a time (near-verbatim to the source). This is a thing that society must address, for the problems cannot be legislated away.

The Continued Attack on Personal Responsibility

Mayor Bloomberg's move to ban 'sugary beverages' over 16 ounces is the latest volley against the concept of personal responsibility, but not the most disturbing. Admittedly, there is a trend of people getting fatter because the have made bad life choices. A diet of fast foods and inactive lifestyle all have consequences on the midsection and cardiovascular health of the hefty American. While I normally I don't bother to complain about the personal choices of others, I am bothered by the expectation that others should now bear the burdens of their bad decisions. In the age of entitlements and welfare, the responsible American is always expected to suffer for the ills of his fellows, normally through the government taking by force the results of his personal endeavors.

As it stands, nearly half the nation is on some sort of government assistance, multiple states are in a severe budget crisis, and true unemployment continues to rise. We are slowly approaching the point where the number of societal leeches is going to out number the quantity of producers in this country. Attacks pointing out the failings of the Welfare programs are viewed as mean, the response always an out cry of emotion vice a stance of reason. Our system is plagued by these leeches, who continue to vote into office politicians that are willing to pay for those votes with the tax money of the producers. For an international comparison, turn to Greece. For a local reason to be hopeful, with a couple answers of telling dread, look at Wisconsin. A Governor, understanding the failings of his states economy, has resolved to change and bring economic reform. Liberals and Union workers through out are trying to strike him down, concerned only for the near term as they are forced from the government tit. What they fail to understand is that if things continue as they have, the government would fail and they would be entirely without.

When did we begin to suffer this notion that personal responsibility is an anachronism? Surrender your responsibilities to the state, for the shall care for you. Allow the schools to raise your kids, and drug the disobedience out of them. Trust in the police force for your self defense, yet be prepared to flee until they arrive to protect you.

Debt Crisis

The news for the last several weeks has been jammed from dusk to dawn with politicians blaming the other side lack of actions or irresponsible action for the possibility that the country may suffer a reduction in its credit rating. The ins and outs of how this will affect the general consumer has been covered ad nauseum. Each news station has continued to demonstrate their varying level of biases for the left or the right ideological views. Reporters dig and try to get their answers.

Politicians have called for the president to act unilaterally, while he calls out to the public to bury the legislative branch in phone calls. Each side of the isle assaults the other for being uncompromising. Infighting has spawned on each side with blames of disloyalty and idealistic wavering. While each plan put forward has its staunch supporters, the opposition are quick to supply endless criticism. As we close on the deadline, my faith in politicians continues to wane.

I do not pretend to be completely knowledgeable regarding economic matters. Try as I might to stay intuned with the workings of the government and business, some matters get missed. So, the following may seem overly simplistic:

• Is the concept that we can't afford to continue spending at the current rate oblivious to politicians.
• Do politicians believe that they are fooling anyone by saying "Revenue" in place of Taxes?
• At what point will the nation realize the destructive nature of the entitlement state we continue to build?
• Can we finally discard the illusion that everyone is owed a piece of the American dream?
• What would be the governments response if you chose to run your household budget just as they run our economy?

It would be irresponsible to sit here and call out problems without offering answers. As an aim, the growing 'entitlement class' (lovely buzz word), is a blistering leech on the economy and the limited resources. The concept that people can get funded to do nothing, under the guise of catering to the American dream, and will pull them self from such a status is a lie. The ideal of personal responsibility is lacking from the bulk of the populace. These non-producing societal drains have allowed the government to assume responsibility for them, and will use their vote to maintain the flow of entitlement programs.

Second round: Prisoners. These people have demonstrated that they are unable to live within the boundaries established by society. The were incarcerated for the specific reason to remove them from society. While some level of humane care is appropriate, the construction of a class of pampered layabouts is disgusting. That a prisoner sees better care than a struggling teacher is asinine. Cut the fat, transform prisons into labor camps, and turn their ill choices into society benefit.

Additional volleys on hold for targets of interest.

Reality. The reasons for the failures of our governmental system were best explained by George Carlin. Their failures are the result of our inability to produce and select quality representation. We continually settle for "the best of two evils" out of fear. Further, the media, the grand Fourth state, suffers from being to friendly with the politicians and hungry for ratings to to effectively monitor politicians actions. Hard hitting press is reporters gathering in mass to read through Sarah Pallins emails. Exhaustive journalism has been replaced with news designed to pull the heartstrings and inspire an emotional response, vice work an angle of reason. It is as if they have come to doubt the intelligence of their viewers (which, in most cases, is proven true sadly).

Freedom of Choice, and Responsibility

There in lies the keystone for my political musings, the axiom upon which all else is based. Each individual is responsible for the choices they make and the consequences they are going to bear because of those choices. Its is not the governments place nor mine to overtly regulate the happenings of a private man that do not inflict great harm onto the populace. However, under the guise of our best interests, the institution has made several forays into areas of personal choice to regulate society.

It is for this reason that many localities have seen fit to legislate businesses to be smoke free. The choice no longer rests with the proprietor, who should be allowed to weigh the success that his business will have against the choice to allow or disallow smoking. No, the government has found that it is in everyones best interest to ban smoking in his establishment for him. While the overarching goal has merit, a healthier society, that is not the purpose of government. Further, what of those that choose to smoke? Their actions, while not illegal, are being restricted without a solid basis.