How can the American people not see what their politicians are doing? How can they continue to elect politicians that are eroding their Freedoms? How can they fall for the same old tricks?
Americans today are more educated than they ever have been. Americans are an intelligent people. Historically, we are a hard-working and hardy people, that can overcome any enemy and any hardship. We have a tradition of seeing through the BS and making the right decision.
But, in today's world, many people are parroting the talking points of political parties without thought. Partisans are more concerned with which political party will be hurt more by sending us over "the financial cliff," than with how it will effect Americans. They are more concerned with pushing through partisan programmes than with the Constitutionality of those plans.
In one of the most classic of "a lie repeated often enough.." many Americans will often cite "a separation of church and state" as being a part of the Constitution, while that phrase is found no where in the Constitution, but rather is a part of the Communist Manifesto. And the courts and protestors continue to act on the misquote, while ignoring the actual words of the Constitution, of the 2nd Amendment that prohibit laws preventing "the free exercise thereof," of religion.
How can Americans not comprehend the importance of the US Constitution? Because their attention has been diverted to Hollywood. They have been entertained by the movies, by the antics of Hollywierdos, by starlets and harlots, to the point that Hollywood ran out of ideas and told Americans to entertain themselves with video games. Meanwhile, the mudslinging of political campaigns has become so repetitive and deceitful that its entertainment value is nil and its disgust value is maxed out. We've fallen prey to advertising slogans while failing to look below the surface of what the commercials claim the ruling class is doing.
"A wise Hebrew prophet once said 'No man liveth unto himself alone.' " Henry Noble Sherwood. Preface, Civics and Citizenship, Bobbs-Merrill: Indianpolis, 1934, a school textbook
Part IV of the textbook discusses government, including the US Constitution, its Amendments, as well as state and local governments. Chapter IX discusses "The Unfortunate Members" of Society, including the deaf or blind, the impoverished, and the mentally infirm, and civic responsibilities, through charity and community, at the local level, to help them. It goes on to define idiots, imbeciles, and morons. The point is that kids used to learn about the Constitution, as well as their responsibilities as a Citizen, in school. By law (PL 108-447, section 111, 2004), every educational institution that receives federal funding must teach the Constitution on the 17th of September, along with every Federal Agency, but both ignore the law.
The Civic duties of learning, knowing, and understanding the US Constitution have been removed from the educational system, replaced by political correctness, embedding the morals of the state, and preaching the tenets of environmentalism.
Politicians and parties will openly propagandize that "the Constitution is an outdated 200 year old document," while ignoring the Supreme Law of the Land. Their opposition will deny that it is "a living document," because the living concept of it, the Constitutional means of Amendment to it, is being ignored by those that are subverting it. And though the lie is oft repeated by party and partisan, rarely can any of the propagandists point to any clause that is outdated, or impertinent, because they don't know or don't care what it actually says. The Constitution is not a "living document" in that it can be overridden by politicians and legislative judges, but because it has the means built in to amend it, if the world changes around it.
It is only through ignorance of the importance and supremacy of the US Constitution, through ignorance of what is written in it, through ignorance of why the Founding Fathers wrote what they did, that voters allow partisan politics to ignore and erode the Rights and Freedoms of the People, from which all governing authority derives.
The Constitution is the law of how the US Government functions, and for what reason. It limits the scope of authority. The Bill of Rights further restricts that government, preserving the God-given Rights of Citizens in the face of that government. Those Rights are derived of "a higher power" than government, and hence not within the authority of government to remove, but they are guaranteed by the Constitution, specifically by the Amendments, known as the Bill of Rights.
The Supreme Court is set to rule soon on the "Constitutionality" of Constitutional Amendments to State Constitutions, in what is clearly a state government authority: definitions of marriage. There is only one possible Constitutional ruling: an amendment to a state Constitution is Constitutional unless the US Constitution spells it out as a federal authority, i.e. each state has jurisdiction over marital law. That is why it would take an amendment to the US Constitution in order for the Federal government to enter the legislative process of defining marriage. Neither Congress, nor the President, nor the Supreme Court, has any authority to create a law defining who can or can't "get married."
Congress does have the Constitutional authority, as an employer, to determine how and to whom it pays employee benefits, but not how the States define marriage. The Supreme Court does have authority to rule on whether or not those State Constitutional amendments are reflected legally in state laws, but not to overturn State Constitutions in regards to contract law, i.e. marital contract law, based on the US Constitution, because the US Constitution gives the federal government no authority on the matter.
The Federal Government does have the authority to levy an income tax, because of Constitutional Amendment, but it does not have the authority to tell a property owner to do or not do anything on his land, nor the authority to compel Individuals to purchase anything.
The supremacy of State Government in matters of domestic affairs is an implicit division of power within the US Constitution. This is as important for the subjects of Massachusetts and California, that want state run health insurance, as it is for the Citizens of Texas and Tennessee that don't. It means that both groups can get what they want, and the US Constitution bars the federal government and Congress and the President from legislating that Texans pay for Californian's health care, or preventing New Yorkers from voting in state run health care.
It means that businesses and people are free to "vote with their feet" and move from those states that strangle their financial success and upward mobility, to those states that fertilize it.
The benefits of small government are such that citizens are setting up private small government at the lowest levels. I'm referring to "Home Owner Associations," which are not unlike the roles of city governments, but as governed by mutual consent and more restrictive/invasive than municipal government. It is by mutual contract that the residents of an HOA has authority. By mutual contract, the property owner gives up rights of ownership of his own property, in order to control the activities of his neighbor.
And it is by mutual contract that the Citizens of the Individual States gives authority to the Federal government. But that mutual contract is the US Constitution, and it gives no authority to the Federal government, or its politicians to domestic governance. It gives no authority for treaties with the UN or Communist China to remove the authority of State Governments in domestic affairs, as the US Constitution retains all governance not given the federal government to the State Government, and it holds the US Constitution as supreme over all treaties.
But for every time that you insist or approve of a removal of the rights of your neighbor, you are also removing your own rights. And for everytime that you support the erosion of the US Constitution by your politicians, or fail to oppose it, you also support the erosion of your own Rights, as given by God, and guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. And while it may be things you think good being compelled on others in the moment, it may be things your ideological opponents consider good pushed on you later.
If your politicians compel me to buy health insurance I don't want today, my politicians may compel you to buy a modern firearm for defense of the Nation tomorrow. If your politicians insist that I maintain a proper exercise and diet routine today, my politicians have as much, if not more authority, to insist on you maintaining a proper marksmanship program at the firing range tomorrow. If there is a compulsion for me to get a vaccination to extend an umbrella of "protection" to those around me, then there is an equally valid argument that you maintain firearms, ammunition, and training to extend an umbrella of protection for your neighbors from criminals, terrorists, and foreign invasion.
It is your duty, as a Citizen, to know what the US Constitution says, and to understand why, to hold your politicians accountable, to defend my Rights, even when you don't like what I say, just as it is my duty to defend your Rights, even when I don't like what you're saying. It is your Responsibility to do so, before you exercise your right to vote, so that you can vote without ignorance.
Stumble It!
