Constitutional Libertarianism

Constitutional Libertarianism

Sunday, May 19, 2013

Party members, We have found the problem and the problem is you.

Party politics has no business in American government.

It serves no purpose other than to polarize discussion and divert the public's attention from issues into an "us or them" mentality.

The more people run around trying to promote their party or the candidate that their party is pushing, the less they keep their mind open to what is really going on behind the scenes.

The more people push their chosen party affiliation over any other, you have a break in thought and communication.

A candidate who takes a party's money to run for office is beholden to that party's platform in some large degree.  For any candidate to say they are promoting any party's platform over the best interests of all the people, is to represent the interests of a select group over the interests of all others.  That is not what our system of government is supposed to be about.  That is a huge breach of liberty.  It is a violation of public trust from the very start.

What party politics accomplishes is a dependence on huge amounts of money required to successfully run for an office that pays a tiny fraction of that amount and incurs unethical obligations to financial backers for those candidates and party representatives.

Consider that over the past several elections, the policies and actions of the elected, regardless of party, only seem to continue and push forward the same policies and practices that have been building in scope from one "class" of elected reps to the next.

Being democrat or republican has not only not changed the policies and practices of the previous officeholders, but accelerated them in many cases.  Yet while the two parties seem to be in sync with each other in the background, they continue to divide the voting public with competing rhetoric and and maintain the status quo by encouraging voter apathy.

Yet all the people who climb aboard the party trains can do is spout that rhetoric and be played as combatants against each other.

Every time I take one of those silly online tests to see what political thinking or party I identify most with, it seems to show me as compatible with Libertarians and the Libertarian party.  Yet in all these years,  I have yet to ever refer to myself as a Libertarian and flat out refuse to join the Libertarian Party.

Why is that?  Because to do so would place me fully in the camp of screaming idiots who stand like pawns before the rich and morally corrupt party leadership who are the same team playing all sides of the board.  Sorry, can't allow that.  Won't participate in it.

Think for yourself, stay independent and question everyone and trust no party.

By the way, the federal government is supposed to be under the authority of the states.  it is the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights by the states that gives it what authority it has,  Not the other way around.

Thursday, May 9, 2013

Leave it back there or take it somewhere else

Let's come to an understanding right away here.  Every individual in the U.S.A. has the same rights under the U.S. Constitution.  Unless the state has rescinded those rights as a consequence to criminal actions, each individual has those rights.

However, there are some people who come to the U.S. from other countries and even some who were several generation by birth citizens who seem to think that they have rights but certain others do not.

This is usually evidenced in families, especially parents who seem to think they have some sort of total control of their children and spouses lives.

I have bad news for you.  Your children and spouses have exactly the same rights you do.  Your religious views do not pre-empt the U.S. Constitution or state laws.  If you want to live somewhere that allows religious laws to over ride local laws, you need to move to a different country.  That's not this country.

If you somehow think that only you have gained rights, liberties and freedoms by moving to the United States, you are incorrect.  You do not get to control other peoples lives just because your religion says so.  You can offer advice, provide counsel or even warning of what consequences they may face for taking a course of action.  You can even exercise your right to not have contact with that person.  You DO NOT have the right to interfere with that other person's rights.

You don't like who your daughter dates after she is an adult?  Sorry to hear that.  She has the right to spend time with who she chooses whether you like it or not Dad.

Try to tell your son to hurt or kill someone else for breaking some family or religious rule?  He doesn't have to do it and get himself in trouble by breaking laws here.  You may not like it, but he has to use his own thinking and judgement or he will face consequences for his actions just like you will.

The U.S. was this way when you came here.  By coming here, you accepted that.  If you don't like it, there are other countries around that accommodate your religious and other ways of thinking.

When you brought your family here from somewhere else, you weren't the only one to gain individual rights, liberties and freedoms.  Your whole family did.  You need to get that in your head and do the right thing.

Get it back on it's leash

My friends, neighbors and fellow citizens.  Here's a simple question, "What came first, the States or the Federal government?"

If you answered the federal government, you are incorrect.  The states existed before the U.S. Constitution was drafted and signed which thus created and limited it in its powers.

The states at the time created a union among themselves to provide  common defense and to improve trade and cooperation between the states.  The federal government which resulted as a consequence of that was never and never should be, "in charge".  The federal government is only what the states allow it to be. 

In the last century or more though, those who are elected and employed in the federal government have gotten things confused and somehow gotten the idea that the federal government is the "leadership" of the union. 

No, my friends, it most certainly is nothing more than an entity which was meant to handle the business of the combined states.  This is why, in no uncertain terms, the Constitution enumerated the federal government's powers from the start.  It was never meant to be the leash holder, but to wear the collar.

When we talk about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and we talk of "interpreting these, people come up with the wide array of ideas in how to do so.  However, rightfully speaking, there really is only one way to view the Constitution and Bill of Rights and that is from the perspective of the sates as they ratified those documents.

The states are the only power that can give the Constitution and Bill of Rights their status.  No ratification of an amendment by the states? No amendment.  pure and simple.  The states have the last word on the subject.  the federal elected representatives the employees and those appointees to positions within the federal government are there at the interests of the combined states.

When an amendment is pitched to each state for ratification, it is pitched with a purpose as to why it should be ratified.  Those stated reasons are the only really valid "interpretations that need to be understood because it is based on those stated reasons that the states ratified the amendment or not.

Do not let Congressmen, Senators, Presidents or Supreme Court Justices fool you.  They are there because the states say they are there.  The states say so by means of the U.S. Constitution.

There is a reason that presidents like Obama, certain congress persons, senators and others want to change or disregard the U.S. Constitution.   It is the shackle on their ankle.  That document is the power of the United States over the federal government.

The power in this country has always been, and will continue to be (unless we are stupid enough to change it) in the states that have come together and lend the weight of their authority to the Constitution which binds the federal government to being a servitor of the states. 

In simple terms, the federal government and all those within it exist to serve the states and the citizen residents in each state.

This attitude from Washington is an Isaac Asimov story come true.  The creation has come to think of itself as having power over it's creator.  It's time to assert our states authority and reign in a runaway federal government.

Saturday, May 4, 2013

What am I?

In response to the question "What are you?" referring to political/ideological affiliation, I say "I am a citizen".

I am not a republican, democrat, libertarian, progressive, conservative, liberal, et al...

I vote based on my own thinking, my own decisions, my own choices.

I vote for the candidate I think is the best suited to do the job, not the one who is affiliated with some group that corrals people.

I believe that the Constitution and Bill of Rights is the last word on the subject.  No person or group is above the law.  No person or group is beyond the scope of the law.

I believe the Constitution and Bill of Rights is directed at individual citizens, NOT groups or classes of people.

It is the responsibility of each individual to be informed and to accept the responsibility for their choices and decisions.

I do not expect the government to rescue me, to save me from myself or to protect me when I am perfectly capable to do so for myself.

I do not expect the government to do anything "for" me.   I do expect the federal government, which has been limited in it's powers by the Constitution, to stay out of the way of the individual citizens and the states.

 I see elected representatives as people who are doing a duty for their country and should not be elevated in status or placed in a separate class that follows a different set of rules from the rest of the people.  This is similar to doing such duty a serving in the military, or being a member of a volunteer fire dept. etc...

 What am I?   I am a citizen of the U.S. of A.