It was announced in the mainstream media that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco overturned a prior panel ruling (?) which had found the State of Washington's prohibition banning voting by felons unconstitutional.
The case apparently was grounded and brought as a "racial discrimination" case, however, and the basis for the decision appears politics also just may have been a factor in this recent ruling.
After all, with the exception of two states in the nation all have some provisions barring convicted felons from the election process. Some more stringent than others, and even a few that actually prohibit felons from voting for life (forget "letting the punishment fit the crime," or after the punishment has been handed down and fulfilled "records" being then wiped clean upon petition for felons, and automatically for misdemeanor offenses).
Seems to me maybe the lawyers for the case might have missed using that other Constitutional provision, the "privileges and immunities clause," that also might have been another legal avenue to travel. I mean, two states do not remove voting rights for felons, so aren't those prisoners getting a "privilege" that those prisoners in other states do not, since the buzz words also being used by the spin doctors on this one is that voting is a "privilege" in this country, and not a "right?"
Huh?
In a government of the people, by the people, for the people it most certainly is a "right" in this writer's view, but then we have also quite clearly lost any measure of having a representative government due to just such wacko court decisions as these, as of late, all the way to the top branch in that last Citizens United "corporate" case brought by a somewhat "commercial" entity, or perhaps dare I say, federally funded through its "educational" focus?
I mean, foreigners now are exerting their influence in the hallowed halls of Washington more and more, both through their lobbying efforts and also through their campaign donations to those "bundlers."
The court also cited a "precedence" from an 1886 case, and strange that this "progressively liberal" court would hold with a case while bypassing the intent of the founders and their reverence for just what type of government they were creating, and which actually had to do more so with capital offenses in which jury trials actually were given in those days, and cases were not plea bargained, or those jailhouse appeals denied as regularly as they appear to be more and more then thereafter.
Many times, for budgetary reasons.
I wonder if Washington State has privatized its state jails as Arizona has?
I mean, the fewer inmates, the less those Wall Street penal conglomerates get for their budgets and shareholders, and the less the states also get from the federal government in order to also run some of those state prisons. This is, after all, another emerging industry creating all those jobs for those homeland security graduates and ex-military primarily.
Is it any wonder that more and more of those pro se jailhouse appeals are getting either denied, or "lost," as was the case in Louisiana several years ago in a published article which was written after a Clerk of the Court committed suicide presumably due to his guilt over having been a participant in such a court process for at least a decade.
And while Arizona's prisons have been privatized right and left supposedly due to "budgetary" constraints, I just wonder where all those monies also are coming from in order to upgrade and build all those new jails especially with the budget being of such major concerns to a great many states these past five years, while the most monies that went in that stimulus actually did go to the states for such purposes. I guess this is another "outsourcing" of governmental powers and duties to private industry in these now "commercial" prisons once again that will have their bottom line profits most in mind in running them, and with little state oversight whatsoever as was recently in the headlines.
I mean in this "ends justifies the means" style governing now on every level, the more and more that minor offenses are criminalized which don't involve loss of property or injury, the more "jobs" it creates, and dividends for those shareholders who are invested in those commercial ventures at this point.
This is the mentality that seems to be running rampant at the city, county, state and federal levels more and more.
Just think how much crime stimulates the economy, and creates jobs. Construction jobs, security and prison guards for the returning military and homeland security grads, the "tech" industry for all those cameras and surveillance devices, identity theft protection companies and jobs, insurance company profits for expanded coverages then needed on homeowners and auto insurance due to the rising auto theft rates in most state throughout the nation - why it does appear that it is a major stimulus for quite a few sectors of Wall Street.
In fact, if there wasn't crime at all, just think how many more would be lining up at the social service offices right now.
Maybe that is also a factor in this economic depression.
The need for more criminals in order to stimulute also the global economy, Wall Street, and the U.S. economy - after a theft, you have to go out and buy something to replace what was taken, after satsifying that deductible, that is. After your car is stolen or broken into, you need to satsify that deductible when making those repairs, or buying tha new (or used) car to replace it.
Maybe this is why more and more in local communities there are no neighborhood patrols really much anymore in residential communities, since that would affect and impact the economy and jobs of those private security companies too, although they have no real legal authority to do anything really other than place a call to the local police force if the worst should happen and there should be a property crime in their jurisdiction.
It just might not be the budget at all If there were regular neighborhood patrols once again there just might be less crime, maybe, and thus less jobs and profits for those on the "crime does pay" gravy train. Or if the economy actually did improve significantly.
But with lesser offenses, this country IS supposed to be the "land of the free" - so just why has there been such a progressive move to criminalize more and more petty offenses, offenses in which there is no direct victim such as many of those minor "possession" charges on marijuana use, not sale, and others. You can spend jail time even for misdemeanor offenses at this point in most states throughout the nation.
Many of the even public misdemeanor jails are charging inmates for their own meals, or confiscating their wages then from any work they do for the "privatized" jailhouse general stores upon their return. I mean being in jail itself, deprived of your freedom and separated from society for your crime, was SUPPOSED to be THE punishment for major offenses.
Those incarcerated, especially those felonies not involving harm or injury to another, are or were taxpayers - but it appears when handing down their double, triple and even quadruple penalties for even minor felony offenses, the states are forgetting the common law provisions on civil and criminal crimes in this country. And most aren't even "convicted" but are plea bargained also for "budgetary" needs by those public defenders.
Letting the punishment fit the crime has been lost in the process. And even giving those juries the instructions that they also have not only the duty to hand down their verdict on the evidence presented, but also the duty to examine the law and punishments attached by statute also as to legality in their view as representatives of "the people," and not "the state."
Although even obtaining a jury of your peers is almost impossible, since juries are now profiled by the lawyers involved, or are comprised of citizens that truly are not "peers" of the defendant at all - many of whom are themselves city, state, county or federal workers who are paid from some of those fines and fees attached to those crimes - especially the minor offenses.
And yet, there is a concerted move also progressively to continue to attempt to remove trials by jury for more and more offenses even. With the state acting as both the charging party, and jury in more and more "bench" trials for misdemeanor criminal offenses, and with even traffic fines at all time highs requiring most to enter into "payment plans" at added costs even over and above those fines, which should be a clue right there as to the levels at which they are now set. The very definition of fascism, actually.
So how is removal of voting privileges in any manner letting the punishment fit the crime, unless it truly is the highest offense within our Constitution.
High treason.
I mean spies, and those in high political office should not be afforded that "right" when by their actions they have shown that it is not this country or its Constitution which guides their actions, or to whom they owe their fealty.
I wonder, just how many in Washington that are highly publicized casting their votes even while running for office, should have their ballots challenged?
Maybe what we need at this point is a recount ever decade, rather than a census.
I just wonder how many "foreigners" and "party politicians, including those "mavericks" of both mainstream political parties whose political leanings have nothing to do with Constitutional government, votes would then be thrown out.
Another ruling by the Ninth that appears to be following British law at the time of the American Revolution contrary to those Bill of Rights primarily and fundamentally, and not U.S. true law at all, as this ruling to this writer flies in the face of the entire intent of America's founders in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Weighed against the increasing access to the U.S. Courts by foreign individuals for even prosecution matters not to mention their appeals paid for through Americans taxes for those numerous appeals before deportation for true capital offenses, who are not even American citizens, speaks volumes in just how far off this recent decision is as by this court especially, as opposed to Constitutional intent in the entire foundation of America's intended form of government.
Whose "prisoner" voices should be heard most of all really, as those who have been many times "politically" convicted due to "budgetary" restraints, or whose crimes have been criminalized which under the common law are merely civil crimes without a clear "victim" to begin with.
While those pardons are given to high level Wall Street officials whose "direct victims" were literally hundreds or thousands of individuals in property theft, rather than banning them from any further employment in the financial sector for at least a good many years, the pot smokers and low level DUI offenders under those three strike rules are banned from the political and voting process, or those plea bargained lower felony "civil" victimless offenders "for life" in a few states?
Or how about those foreign drug dealers and auto thieves who are peddling their wares to America's youth most of all or stealing cars cross borders, who then are afforded to gain "standing" somehow in the U.S. courts and turn around and sue for "emotional distress," as what occurred by at least one foreigner after having been shot in the rear by the American border patrol, to then profit from their crime?
San Francisco, your "heart" seems to be misplaced, along with this Court's fundamental understanding of Constitutional government.
Showing posts with label freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label freedom. Show all posts
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Friday, June 12, 2009
U.S. Chamber of Commerce Gets Stimulus: Now "Educational" Institution?
Buried in the news due to the brouhaha and continuing sensationalism in reporting which has occurred due to the shooting earlier this week at the Holocaust Museum and the liberal spins on the story now being expanded and repeated without much "hard" evidence and proof on the true motivations and actions of this 89 year old apparently demented man and World War II enlistee, who has yet to be questioned himself it appears (and who knew enough about computers to have and maintain his own website at 89, and was on one source a "Nazi officer," although American enlistee?), there have been several other stories not as widely covered.
One of which is the recent announcement by the United States Chamber of Commerce that they have decided to undertake a mission at the tune of over 10 million dollars in order to "educate" the public on the economic benefits of "capitalism and free markets," over what many are labeling Mr. Obama's socialistic moves this past several months in taking over and bailing out several of our major private industries.
Such as the banks and auto manufacturers, and redistributing the wealth according to Congress and the Executive Office's priorities for global policy reasons most of all.
Global socialism, in other words.
The problem that I have with that is first the question of just where, in this struggling economy with industries across the spectrum pleading poverty, the Chamber is getting this 10 million in order to undertake their "educational focus and program?"
Since such a declaration of intent falls within the parameters of "education" and a major focus of the stimulus sums were earmarked for "educational purposes," could the U.S. Chamber now be one of those recipients of stimulus monies, another payback by both the Democrats and Republicans to their big business supporters for their 2008 election coffers?
Doesn't this simply mean that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a social welfare recipient itself now of the U.S. taxpayers? And their agenda merely is more propaganda for their member corporate interests, i.e., convincing the public that their lobbying efforts have the American citizens and consumers in mind with their "free market" theories?
Since the U.S. Chamber does not support any "buy American" clauses in most of the Congressional legislation that has come out of the Hill for literally decades, and is a big supporter of "free trade" global agreements, open borders and global tourism is one of their primary focuses especially between the United States, Canada and Mexico, is not their idea of "free market" and "capitalism," simply "global corporate socialism," under the much rumored North American Union banner of one world government under U.N. dictates, rather than America's own Constitution?
"Corporatism" is entirely different than "free market" capitalism, an economic theory that the founders found actually compromised U.S. industry and labor. The United States Chamber of Commerce is similar in agenda to the East India Tea Company which existed prior to America's Revolutionary War in its public/private partnership with the sovereign, and dominating and monopolizing European imports and exports and the marketplace.
A "monopoly," as it were, squeezing out the independent, small business entrepreneurs, and compromising U.S. domestic production and labor in the process. While getting "tax breaks" and "privileges and immunities" at the colonialists expense for inferior products and unfair trade practices.
The U.S. Chamber may be "U.S. owned," but its agenda is clearly globally, not domestically, focused for its member corporations in supporting and promoting many U.S. interests which have moved offshore, or employment of foreigners at the cost of American labor in order to increase profits and production and skirt around U.S. minimum wage and labor laws for these multi-national corporations, while promoting and supporting a "hands off" policy with respect to regulation of executive level pay.
Although corporations, by their very nature, are the "property" of the disinterested shareholders once those corporations go public.
In my opinion the entire argument with respect to executive pay levels and government involvement could be cured by recognizing these U.S. corporations for what they are. Property. And as "public" corporations, owned by the shareholders who should have final and absolute authority with respect to compensation levels for their top level management with the caveat that all such matters as public corporations be determined by "one vote per ownership" no matter how many shares are held by an individual or corporate investor, or based on a 2/3rds majority vote in order to protect those minority shareholders from majority "block" voting.
This isn't baseball cards we are dealing with here, it is multi-billion dollar corporations, and yet our Congress and government have now even given "corporate person-hoods" privileges and immunities far greater than the American people and citizens individually.
Governmental protection, and now the American people are enforced shareholders in these major corporations, again without any voice in the huge "socialization" of these debts but left holding the bag but without any beneficial interest for their now investment, which corporations are now being brokered and sold piecemeal to foreign and global interests primarily, and giving foreign governments and industries more and more influence in the American political process, again, over and above the lawful American citizens in addition to their jobs and homes.
But with this announcement of the new nationwide "Campaign for Free Enterprise," and its education branch funded with over 10 million in stimulus monies, is it not the epitome of hypocrisy to fund a purported "free market and free enterprise" campaign with sums gained through public welfare and "socialism" at its core?
It seems that returning to our Constitution and intended form of government, if Congress was actually performing the functions for which it was lawfully charged to do, would guarantee that the larger would not snuff out the weaker in this "global corporatism" the American people are now subjected to on each and every level.
It appears the "Campaign for Free Enterprise," is simply another "job creation," and stimulus of the Bush/Obama administrations and our treasonous federal legislators for big business and global corporate interests which is now being funded by the American taxpayers - with "freedom" and "liberty" which formerly were "principles," and Constitutional directives now only to have morphed into an industry all its own and simply another government funded new job stimulus and "industry" for the Fortune 500's additional financial gain most of all, and it appears selected "freedom and liberty" focused citizens organizations and groups.
Since such groups have sprung up in abundance since the Bush years, and now "freedom" and "liberty" are being used as industries all their own in trinkets, ad revenues for websites, and fees and costs for traveling to and from freedom and liberty based paid speaker "seminars."
The "free market" global capitalist corporatists version of the opposing global social corporatists "global warming" scam.
http://www.uschamber.com/press/releases/2009/june/090610_enterprise.htm
One of which is the recent announcement by the United States Chamber of Commerce that they have decided to undertake a mission at the tune of over 10 million dollars in order to "educate" the public on the economic benefits of "capitalism and free markets," over what many are labeling Mr. Obama's socialistic moves this past several months in taking over and bailing out several of our major private industries.
Such as the banks and auto manufacturers, and redistributing the wealth according to Congress and the Executive Office's priorities for global policy reasons most of all.
Global socialism, in other words.
The problem that I have with that is first the question of just where, in this struggling economy with industries across the spectrum pleading poverty, the Chamber is getting this 10 million in order to undertake their "educational focus and program?"
Since such a declaration of intent falls within the parameters of "education" and a major focus of the stimulus sums were earmarked for "educational purposes," could the U.S. Chamber now be one of those recipients of stimulus monies, another payback by both the Democrats and Republicans to their big business supporters for their 2008 election coffers?
Doesn't this simply mean that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a social welfare recipient itself now of the U.S. taxpayers? And their agenda merely is more propaganda for their member corporate interests, i.e., convincing the public that their lobbying efforts have the American citizens and consumers in mind with their "free market" theories?
Since the U.S. Chamber does not support any "buy American" clauses in most of the Congressional legislation that has come out of the Hill for literally decades, and is a big supporter of "free trade" global agreements, open borders and global tourism is one of their primary focuses especially between the United States, Canada and Mexico, is not their idea of "free market" and "capitalism," simply "global corporate socialism," under the much rumored North American Union banner of one world government under U.N. dictates, rather than America's own Constitution?
"Corporatism" is entirely different than "free market" capitalism, an economic theory that the founders found actually compromised U.S. industry and labor. The United States Chamber of Commerce is similar in agenda to the East India Tea Company which existed prior to America's Revolutionary War in its public/private partnership with the sovereign, and dominating and monopolizing European imports and exports and the marketplace.
A "monopoly," as it were, squeezing out the independent, small business entrepreneurs, and compromising U.S. domestic production and labor in the process. While getting "tax breaks" and "privileges and immunities" at the colonialists expense for inferior products and unfair trade practices.
The U.S. Chamber may be "U.S. owned," but its agenda is clearly globally, not domestically, focused for its member corporations in supporting and promoting many U.S. interests which have moved offshore, or employment of foreigners at the cost of American labor in order to increase profits and production and skirt around U.S. minimum wage and labor laws for these multi-national corporations, while promoting and supporting a "hands off" policy with respect to regulation of executive level pay.
Although corporations, by their very nature, are the "property" of the disinterested shareholders once those corporations go public.
In my opinion the entire argument with respect to executive pay levels and government involvement could be cured by recognizing these U.S. corporations for what they are. Property. And as "public" corporations, owned by the shareholders who should have final and absolute authority with respect to compensation levels for their top level management with the caveat that all such matters as public corporations be determined by "one vote per ownership" no matter how many shares are held by an individual or corporate investor, or based on a 2/3rds majority vote in order to protect those minority shareholders from majority "block" voting.
This isn't baseball cards we are dealing with here, it is multi-billion dollar corporations, and yet our Congress and government have now even given "corporate person-hoods" privileges and immunities far greater than the American people and citizens individually.
Governmental protection, and now the American people are enforced shareholders in these major corporations, again without any voice in the huge "socialization" of these debts but left holding the bag but without any beneficial interest for their now investment, which corporations are now being brokered and sold piecemeal to foreign and global interests primarily, and giving foreign governments and industries more and more influence in the American political process, again, over and above the lawful American citizens in addition to their jobs and homes.
But with this announcement of the new nationwide "Campaign for Free Enterprise," and its education branch funded with over 10 million in stimulus monies, is it not the epitome of hypocrisy to fund a purported "free market and free enterprise" campaign with sums gained through public welfare and "socialism" at its core?
It seems that returning to our Constitution and intended form of government, if Congress was actually performing the functions for which it was lawfully charged to do, would guarantee that the larger would not snuff out the weaker in this "global corporatism" the American people are now subjected to on each and every level.
It appears the "Campaign for Free Enterprise," is simply another "job creation," and stimulus of the Bush/Obama administrations and our treasonous federal legislators for big business and global corporate interests which is now being funded by the American taxpayers - with "freedom" and "liberty" which formerly were "principles," and Constitutional directives now only to have morphed into an industry all its own and simply another government funded new job stimulus and "industry" for the Fortune 500's additional financial gain most of all, and it appears selected "freedom and liberty" focused citizens organizations and groups.
Since such groups have sprung up in abundance since the Bush years, and now "freedom" and "liberty" are being used as industries all their own in trinkets, ad revenues for websites, and fees and costs for traveling to and from freedom and liberty based paid speaker "seminars."
The "free market" global capitalist corporatists version of the opposing global social corporatists "global warming" scam.
http://www.uschamber.com/press/releases/2009/june/090610_enterprise.htm
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Freedom of Religion: The Founders and Framers View
As a point of reference in interpreting what the founding fathers wished to avoid with respect to the language in the Constitution on religion as contained within the First Amendment, it might be informative to read the text of Ben Franklin's speech on the day it was ratified.
The failure to provide a "Bill of Rights" for the people of this nation against any abuse of the new government actually was what was responsible for holding up the Constitution's ratification, hence, Mr. Franklin's speech and the promise that the first work of this new government would be those first ten amendments.
And while freedom of religion was the intent in order to prevent what had occurred in England between the Catholics and the Protestants for centuries and then establishment of the state-wide Church of England, it is clear from the text of Mr. Franklin's speech that the provision was intended to protect the freedom of the states on this issue, and also so that no "sect" of the Christian faith was declared the "official" U.S. religion nationwide.
The provisions also with respect to the exclusion of "religious tests" for holding office were actually meant to protect religion also since the requirement of the British people to swear allegiance to the sovereign over the Pope or God was the cause of much of the religious strife in their homeland whose entire belief system was based on biblical foundations above man-made or "sovereign" law.
"Freedom of religion" is quite different than the ACLU definition which clearly is toward banning religion and religous reference from all public forums and squares.
Below is Franklin's pre-ratification speech:
"Mr. President,
I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.
It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong.
But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right -
In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution.
For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one throats.
Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die.
If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects; great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign Nations as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity. Much of the strength; efficiency of any Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends, on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its Governors.
I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress and confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts & endeavors to the means of having it well administred.
On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument." (Benjamin Franklin, Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia)
And while the "separation of church and state" will continue to be debated and misconstrued, mostly by the ACLU and the atheists, what is lost is that the "separation" of church and state was actually given for the church's protection and to protect the freedom of Americans to worship at the church of their choosing, not to protect the government from the "interference" of the Christian faith at all.
The entire concept of providing for freedom of religion in this country as an individual right in and of itself as primarily Christian or deists themselves, but who abhorred the positions many were placed in during their lives in England having to swear allegiance to king and country when the sovereigns edicts were against their moral and religious principles and beliefs.
The government of the founder's acknowledged religion and religious beliefs and provided for it in our national culture, with the specific provision for its inclusion attempting merely to avoid the differences in the scriptural teachings with respect to the Protestant and Catholic sectarian differences having application at a governmental level nationwide, since the federal government actually was intended to have few and limited powers over the states and people over-all.
Historically in its origins, the Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim beliefs and their wars were primarily due to intolerance of other faiths, each desiring a "country" of their own where their faith was clearly "nationwide," while the Christian wars were fought over sectarian differences between Catholics and Protestants and the various denominations, scriptural interpretations, rituals and practices within them in their former country of England.
Thus this is what the founders were intending to avoid, and also placing the government as accountable to the people and not above it, so that religious tests and fealty to government over the "supreme" Nature's God's laws in the event of moral conflict when the federal government overstepped itself in any respect would then be lessened or avoided.
Tolerance of other religions practices and beliefs is actually uniquely Christian in it's origins in its scriptural provisions, as Christ himself taught in the Golden Rule and parable of the Good Samaritan in loving one's neighbor or enemy AS oneself, and doing unto another as you would have them do unto you - allowing them their freedom to worship God in the manner that you yourself enjoy, whether affiliated with a specific church or not, so long as it does not impinge upon the rights of other of his children to worship in the manner they see fit.
And "of" is not "from" except, perhaps, in a language other than English.
The failure to provide a "Bill of Rights" for the people of this nation against any abuse of the new government actually was what was responsible for holding up the Constitution's ratification, hence, Mr. Franklin's speech and the promise that the first work of this new government would be those first ten amendments.
And while freedom of religion was the intent in order to prevent what had occurred in England between the Catholics and the Protestants for centuries and then establishment of the state-wide Church of England, it is clear from the text of Mr. Franklin's speech that the provision was intended to protect the freedom of the states on this issue, and also so that no "sect" of the Christian faith was declared the "official" U.S. religion nationwide.
The provisions also with respect to the exclusion of "religious tests" for holding office were actually meant to protect religion also since the requirement of the British people to swear allegiance to the sovereign over the Pope or God was the cause of much of the religious strife in their homeland whose entire belief system was based on biblical foundations above man-made or "sovereign" law.
"Freedom of religion" is quite different than the ACLU definition which clearly is toward banning religion and religous reference from all public forums and squares.
Below is Franklin's pre-ratification speech:
"Mr. President,
I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.
It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong.
But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right -
In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution.
For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one throats.
Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die.
If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects; great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign Nations as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity. Much of the strength; efficiency of any Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends, on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its Governors.
I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress and confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts & endeavors to the means of having it well administred.
On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument." (Benjamin Franklin, Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia)
And while the "separation of church and state" will continue to be debated and misconstrued, mostly by the ACLU and the atheists, what is lost is that the "separation" of church and state was actually given for the church's protection and to protect the freedom of Americans to worship at the church of their choosing, not to protect the government from the "interference" of the Christian faith at all.
The entire concept of providing for freedom of religion in this country as an individual right in and of itself as primarily Christian or deists themselves, but who abhorred the positions many were placed in during their lives in England having to swear allegiance to king and country when the sovereigns edicts were against their moral and religious principles and beliefs.
The government of the founder's acknowledged religion and religious beliefs and provided for it in our national culture, with the specific provision for its inclusion attempting merely to avoid the differences in the scriptural teachings with respect to the Protestant and Catholic sectarian differences having application at a governmental level nationwide, since the federal government actually was intended to have few and limited powers over the states and people over-all.
Historically in its origins, the Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim beliefs and their wars were primarily due to intolerance of other faiths, each desiring a "country" of their own where their faith was clearly "nationwide," while the Christian wars were fought over sectarian differences between Catholics and Protestants and the various denominations, scriptural interpretations, rituals and practices within them in their former country of England.
Thus this is what the founders were intending to avoid, and also placing the government as accountable to the people and not above it, so that religious tests and fealty to government over the "supreme" Nature's God's laws in the event of moral conflict when the federal government overstepped itself in any respect would then be lessened or avoided.
Tolerance of other religions practices and beliefs is actually uniquely Christian in it's origins in its scriptural provisions, as Christ himself taught in the Golden Rule and parable of the Good Samaritan in loving one's neighbor or enemy AS oneself, and doing unto another as you would have them do unto you - allowing them their freedom to worship God in the manner that you yourself enjoy, whether affiliated with a specific church or not, so long as it does not impinge upon the rights of other of his children to worship in the manner they see fit.
And "of" is not "from" except, perhaps, in a language other than English.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Mixed Messages: Obama Speaks At Notre Dame, Protestors Escorted Out
Recently Barack Obama presented another one of his speeches to the graduating class of Notre Dame University in South Bend, Indiana - a private Catholic University.
Since the announcement of Mr. Obama's handpicked universities for his appearances, there had been much controversy and debate with respect to his choice of Notre Dame due to his clear advocacy and support for unrestricted access to abortions in this country, even going so far as to oppose an Illinois bill attempting to ban the heinous late term "partial birth" abortion practice within that state prior to his election to the Senate, which did come up during the election campaign a few times and which he never convincingly explained.
This practice has also been known due to its brutal method, to cause trauma and injury to the woman in the process, and the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld its ban due to both the timing and the method which is then used, and the risks to the mother.
The Catholic Church, of course, takes exception to this position as in violation of their church teachings on the sanctity of human life.
There was much build up reported in the mainstream media in this country, with some in the academic community vocalizing their objections, and others apparently more interested in the press that such a visit would entail for the university who attempted to downplay the conflict.
Its hard to fault some at the school, since they were in a "no win" political situation. Although if ever there was a time for the head of the university to take a stand for his Church's teachings, you would think this would have been one of them in order to set that example for those graduating seniors. But does appear that there was some force preventing him from doing so.
Perhaps this was the point all along.
It truly was interesting in light of Mr. Obama's positions that he would choose Notre Dame to begin with, and sort of makes one wonder what his true agenda actually was all about.
There are literally thousands of college campuses in this country, and it did appear there was a method to his madness in that of the three universities selected - Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona; Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana; and the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland - one was a public university, another a private religious institution, and the third a military academy.
According to the local South Bend newspaper, the final event was pulled off without a hitch. The reason being, of course, that as soon as some of the more vocal members of the student body decided to use their freedom of speech, they were summarily escorted from the auditorium by the security detail assigned for the event.
Interestingly, the piece from the local paper also summarized the gist of the message Mr. Obama had chosen for those graduating seniors. The final paragraph of which quoted Mr. Obama's final instruction and message:
"In this world of competing claims about what is right and what is true, have confidence in the values with which you've been raised and educated," he said. "Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your journey. Stand as a lighthouse."
Based upon the treatment of those in the audience who were "unafraid to speak their minds when their values were at stake," and their subsequent ejection from the event, I hope I'm not the only one that caught the hypocricy there.
Although Notre Dame is a private university, it receives much in the way of public funding in grant monies from the American taxpayers, and is not at all truly privately funded at all. And most of those private funds also come from members of the Catholic community.
I wonder who spoke at Mr. Obama's graduation ceremony from Harvard as one who was schooled and would gather passed his Constitutional law classes?
Mikhail Gorbechev?
http://www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090518/News01/905189969/1011/News
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/16/obama.notre.dame/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
Since the announcement of Mr. Obama's handpicked universities for his appearances, there had been much controversy and debate with respect to his choice of Notre Dame due to his clear advocacy and support for unrestricted access to abortions in this country, even going so far as to oppose an Illinois bill attempting to ban the heinous late term "partial birth" abortion practice within that state prior to his election to the Senate, which did come up during the election campaign a few times and which he never convincingly explained.
This practice has also been known due to its brutal method, to cause trauma and injury to the woman in the process, and the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld its ban due to both the timing and the method which is then used, and the risks to the mother.
The Catholic Church, of course, takes exception to this position as in violation of their church teachings on the sanctity of human life.
There was much build up reported in the mainstream media in this country, with some in the academic community vocalizing their objections, and others apparently more interested in the press that such a visit would entail for the university who attempted to downplay the conflict.
Its hard to fault some at the school, since they were in a "no win" political situation. Although if ever there was a time for the head of the university to take a stand for his Church's teachings, you would think this would have been one of them in order to set that example for those graduating seniors. But does appear that there was some force preventing him from doing so.
Perhaps this was the point all along.
It truly was interesting in light of Mr. Obama's positions that he would choose Notre Dame to begin with, and sort of makes one wonder what his true agenda actually was all about.
There are literally thousands of college campuses in this country, and it did appear there was a method to his madness in that of the three universities selected - Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona; Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana; and the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland - one was a public university, another a private religious institution, and the third a military academy.
According to the local South Bend newspaper, the final event was pulled off without a hitch. The reason being, of course, that as soon as some of the more vocal members of the student body decided to use their freedom of speech, they were summarily escorted from the auditorium by the security detail assigned for the event.
Interestingly, the piece from the local paper also summarized the gist of the message Mr. Obama had chosen for those graduating seniors. The final paragraph of which quoted Mr. Obama's final instruction and message:
"In this world of competing claims about what is right and what is true, have confidence in the values with which you've been raised and educated," he said. "Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your journey. Stand as a lighthouse."
Based upon the treatment of those in the audience who were "unafraid to speak their minds when their values were at stake," and their subsequent ejection from the event, I hope I'm not the only one that caught the hypocricy there.
Although Notre Dame is a private university, it receives much in the way of public funding in grant monies from the American taxpayers, and is not at all truly privately funded at all. And most of those private funds also come from members of the Catholic community.
I wonder who spoke at Mr. Obama's graduation ceremony from Harvard as one who was schooled and would gather passed his Constitutional law classes?
Mikhail Gorbechev?
http://www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090518/News01/905189969/1011/News
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/16/obama.notre.dame/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
U.S. Constitution is De Facto Law of the Land
Below is an excerpt from the Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 256, which affirms that the U.S. Constitution, unless and until LAWFULLY amended as contained within it's express provisions, is a contract between the federal and state government and it's people, and the defacto Law of the Land.
As a contract itself and in spite of U.S. history almost from the moment it was ratified by the 13 original colonies, any and all interpretations or applications of the provisions contained within it under the "common law" upon which contract law is based according to the Magna Carta (used by the founders in their deliberations) by any and all judicial authorities at both the state and federal level is to be done using the "common useage" English definitions in such interpretations or applications pursuant to "contract law doctrine." The footnote citations relate to U.S. case law which enforces this restatement and can be researched after pulling up the Am.Jur citing for a listing of footnoted case laws at any local law library:
Section 256. Generally.
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal [29] or state, [30] though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, [31] but is wholly void, [32] and ineffective for any purpose; [33] since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it, [34] an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. [31] Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. [36] No repeal of such an enactment is necessary. [37]
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, [38] confers no rights, [39] creates no office, [40] bestows no power or authority on anyone, [41] affords no protection, [42] and justifies no acts performed under it. [43] A contract which rests on an unconstitutional statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. [44]
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law [45] and no courts are bound to enforce it. [46] Persons convicted and fined under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid. [47]
A void act cannot be legally inconsistent with a valid one. [48] And an unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. [49] Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. [50] Since an unconstitutional statute cannot repeal or in any way affect an existing one, [51] if a repealing statute is unconstitutional, the statute which it attempts to repeal remains in full force and effect. [52] And where a clause repealing a prior law is inserted in an act, which act is unconstitutional and void, the provision for the repeal of the prior law will usually fall with it and will not be permitted to operate as repealing such prior law. [53]
The general principles stated above apply to the constitutions as well as to the laws of the several states insofar as they are repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the United States. [54] Moreover, a construction of a statute which brings it in conflict with a constitution will nullify it as effectually as if it had, in express terms, been enacted in conflict therewith. [55]
An unconstitutional portion of a statute may be examined for the purpose of ascertaining the scope and effect of the valid portions. [56]
The numbers in [brackets] are footnotes that refer to court decisions. You can look them up in the American Jurisprudence at any law library.
Juries in the United States have the right and power to judge the law as well as the facts. This means that a jury can acquit a defendant for any reason or none and need not give any reason for it's decision. Therefor bad statutes that are unconstitutional or immoral can be set aside, or good laws that are misapplied can be ignored. This is called "jury nullification."
As a contract itself and in spite of U.S. history almost from the moment it was ratified by the 13 original colonies, any and all interpretations or applications of the provisions contained within it under the "common law" upon which contract law is based according to the Magna Carta (used by the founders in their deliberations) by any and all judicial authorities at both the state and federal level is to be done using the "common useage" English definitions in such interpretations or applications pursuant to "contract law doctrine." The footnote citations relate to U.S. case law which enforces this restatement and can be researched after pulling up the Am.Jur citing for a listing of footnoted case laws at any local law library:
Section 256. Generally.
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal [29] or state, [30] though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, [31] but is wholly void, [32] and ineffective for any purpose; [33] since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it, [34] an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. [31] Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. [36] No repeal of such an enactment is necessary. [37]
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, [38] confers no rights, [39] creates no office, [40] bestows no power or authority on anyone, [41] affords no protection, [42] and justifies no acts performed under it. [43] A contract which rests on an unconstitutional statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. [44]
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law [45] and no courts are bound to enforce it. [46] Persons convicted and fined under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid. [47]
A void act cannot be legally inconsistent with a valid one. [48] And an unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. [49] Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. [50] Since an unconstitutional statute cannot repeal or in any way affect an existing one, [51] if a repealing statute is unconstitutional, the statute which it attempts to repeal remains in full force and effect. [52] And where a clause repealing a prior law is inserted in an act, which act is unconstitutional and void, the provision for the repeal of the prior law will usually fall with it and will not be permitted to operate as repealing such prior law. [53]
The general principles stated above apply to the constitutions as well as to the laws of the several states insofar as they are repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the United States. [54] Moreover, a construction of a statute which brings it in conflict with a constitution will nullify it as effectually as if it had, in express terms, been enacted in conflict therewith. [55]
An unconstitutional portion of a statute may be examined for the purpose of ascertaining the scope and effect of the valid portions. [56]
The numbers in [brackets] are footnotes that refer to court decisions. You can look them up in the American Jurisprudence at any law library.
Juries in the United States have the right and power to judge the law as well as the facts. This means that a jury can acquit a defendant for any reason or none and need not give any reason for it's decision. Therefor bad statutes that are unconstitutional or immoral can be set aside, or good laws that are misapplied can be ignored. This is called "jury nullification."
Monday, April 13, 2009
Congress Introduces "CyberSecurity Act of 2009"
For free speech and privacy activists it appears that the Patriot Act was not enough. Nor the Patriot Act II signed into law shortly after newly elected Barack Obama was sworn into office hiding the provisions of a National Health Care database of citizen's health care records to be created by the government violating privacy rights at taxpayer's expense.
Now there is a move by Congress to grant powers to the President to regulate and control internet access. This "hope" and "change" is getting worse by the day. In it's current form, it appears the powers given are fairly broad in an effort to protect America's infrastructure in times of "crisis." However, the definition of a "crisis" is left to the sole discretion of the President.
Senate bills No. 773 and 778 (The "Cybersecurity Act of 2009) introduced by Senator Jay Rockfeller D-W.V. creates a new government agency (expanding government jobs and taxpayer expense once again) entitled the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor which would be accountabl directly to the president whose main publicized function would be in defending the U.S. from "cyber attack."
The purpose of the bill as stated in its draft form is as follows:
"To ensure the continued free flow of commerce within the United States and with its global trading partners through secure cyber communicatons,
to provide for the continued development and exploitation of the Internet and intranet communications for such purposes,
to provide for the development of a cadre of information technology specialists to improve and maintain effective cyber security defenses against disruption,
AND FOR OTHER PUPOSES."
In the working draft of the legislation recently obtained by an Internet privacy group, the plan also grants the Secretary of Commerce access to all internet service providers which can in any way be deemed to be critical to the nation's infrastructure and defense "without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access."
This measure as defended by Mr. Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe, co-sponsors of the bills, is meant to give the Secretary of Commerce discretion to protect American's banking and health records in order to shut down those providers the President designates in the event of a "cyber attack."
The problems most in the cyber industry have brought up most often in response to these proposals is the lack of a clear definition of just what are the "critical infrastructure" networks, and the lack of any accountability of the President or the Secretary of Commerce given such powers and simply left at their sole discretion.
And the potential for access of the government, of course, to citizens private records in violation of the Constitution's "search and seizure" provisions.
The bills have been read twice on the floor, and have now been referred to Committee.
Now there is a move by Congress to grant powers to the President to regulate and control internet access. This "hope" and "change" is getting worse by the day. In it's current form, it appears the powers given are fairly broad in an effort to protect America's infrastructure in times of "crisis." However, the definition of a "crisis" is left to the sole discretion of the President.
Senate bills No. 773 and 778 (The "Cybersecurity Act of 2009) introduced by Senator Jay Rockfeller D-W.V. creates a new government agency (expanding government jobs and taxpayer expense once again) entitled the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor which would be accountabl directly to the president whose main publicized function would be in defending the U.S. from "cyber attack."
The purpose of the bill as stated in its draft form is as follows:
"To ensure the continued free flow of commerce within the United States and with its global trading partners through secure cyber communicatons,
to provide for the continued development and exploitation of the Internet and intranet communications for such purposes,
to provide for the development of a cadre of information technology specialists to improve and maintain effective cyber security defenses against disruption,
AND FOR OTHER PUPOSES."
In the working draft of the legislation recently obtained by an Internet privacy group, the plan also grants the Secretary of Commerce access to all internet service providers which can in any way be deemed to be critical to the nation's infrastructure and defense "without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access."
This measure as defended by Mr. Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe, co-sponsors of the bills, is meant to give the Secretary of Commerce discretion to protect American's banking and health records in order to shut down those providers the President designates in the event of a "cyber attack."
The problems most in the cyber industry have brought up most often in response to these proposals is the lack of a clear definition of just what are the "critical infrastructure" networks, and the lack of any accountability of the President or the Secretary of Commerce given such powers and simply left at their sole discretion.
And the potential for access of the government, of course, to citizens private records in violation of the Constitution's "search and seizure" provisions.
The bills have been read twice on the floor, and have now been referred to Committee.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Florida Town Denies Right to Assemble
Apparently with the recent state of affairs in the United States with Americans outraged at Washington for the continuing war in the Middle East most expanding under the Obama Administration, any and all campaign representations to the contrary, our unsecured borders and a potential war now raging in the border states due to federal negligence post 9/11, and the recent bailouts and handouts which also occurred recently that risk America's economic future now for several generations, a Tea Party protesting such actions scheduled for this weekend was cancelled.
The reason for the cancellation?
The City of Cape Coral, Florida was concerned that there would be too many attendees for the City to handle. Oh, and the required permits and insurance costs for such a gathering needed to be scheduled and paid in advance.
While American citizen's Bill of Rights freedoms are under attack as never before, until amended states that the "right of the people to assemble shall not be abridged". The federal, state and local governments continue in their creative methods to both undermine and negate the government that our forefathers fought in order to secure. And pay lip service then every 4th of July but apparently have no real concept of just what those freedoms and "inalienable" rights as included in those Bill of Rights really mean for American citizens.
The details and excuses given for the cancellation can be found at:
http://www.winknews.com/news/local/42019772.html
The reason for the cancellation?
The City of Cape Coral, Florida was concerned that there would be too many attendees for the City to handle. Oh, and the required permits and insurance costs for such a gathering needed to be scheduled and paid in advance.
While American citizen's Bill of Rights freedoms are under attack as never before, until amended states that the "right of the people to assemble shall not be abridged". The federal, state and local governments continue in their creative methods to both undermine and negate the government that our forefathers fought in order to secure. And pay lip service then every 4th of July but apparently have no real concept of just what those freedoms and "inalienable" rights as included in those Bill of Rights really mean for American citizens.
The details and excuses given for the cancellation can be found at:
http://www.winknews.com/news/local/42019772.html
Friday, March 27, 2009
Freedom of Religion - The Founder's View
As a point of reference in interpreting what the founding fathers wished to avoid with respect to the language in the Constitution on religion as contained within the First Amendment, it might be informative to read the text of Ben Franklin's speech on the day it was ratified.
The failure to provide a 'Bill of Rights' for the people of this nation against any abuse of the new government was actually the "sticking point," hence, Mr. Franklin's speech and the promise that the first work of this new government would be those first ten amendments.
And while freedom of religion was the intent in order to prevent what had occurred in England between the Catholics and the Protestants for centuries, it is clear from the text of Mr. Franklin's speech that the provision was intended to protect the freedom of the states on this issue, and also so that no "sect" of the Christian faith was declared the "official" U.S. religion nationwide. "Freedom of religion" is quite different than the ACLU definition which clearly is their militant stance that in all public matters our government offices and schools are to be not just denomination free, but God free.
Mr. President,
I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right....."
In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects & great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign Nations as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity. Much of the strength & efficiency of any Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends, on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its Governors. I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress & confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts & endeavors to the means of having it well.
On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.
(Speech of Benjamin Franklin given prior to the ratification of our Constitution - Source U.S. Constitution Online)
And while the "separation of church and state" will continue to be debated and misconstrued, mostly by the ACLU and the atheists, what is lost is that the 'separation' of church and state was actually given for the church's protection and to protect the freedom of Americans to worship at the church of their choosing, not to protect the government from the 'interference' of the Christian faith at all.
The entire concept of providing for freedom of religion in this country as an individual right in and of itself is a U.S. founder's Godly doctrine, after all. The government of the founder's acknowledged religion and religious beliefs and provided for it in our national culture, with the specific provision for it's inclusion over the various sectarian differences and practices based upo the Christian and Jewish models.
Historically in it's origins, the Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim beliefs, however, provisions do afford tolerance of other actual faiths, while the Christian wars were fought over sectarian differences between the Catholics and the Protestants primarily, including the Crusades of the Catholic Church and history of England and it's religious wars due to sectarian differences, and in this past century with Northern Ireland.
"Tolerance" of other religions beliefs is uniquely Christian in it's origins, as Christ himself taught in the Golden Rule and parable of the Good Samaritan.
And "of" is not "from" except, perhaps, in another language other than English.
The failure to provide a 'Bill of Rights' for the people of this nation against any abuse of the new government was actually the "sticking point," hence, Mr. Franklin's speech and the promise that the first work of this new government would be those first ten amendments.
And while freedom of religion was the intent in order to prevent what had occurred in England between the Catholics and the Protestants for centuries, it is clear from the text of Mr. Franklin's speech that the provision was intended to protect the freedom of the states on this issue, and also so that no "sect" of the Christian faith was declared the "official" U.S. religion nationwide. "Freedom of religion" is quite different than the ACLU definition which clearly is their militant stance that in all public matters our government offices and schools are to be not just denomination free, but God free.
Mr. President,
I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right....."
In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects & great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign Nations as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity. Much of the strength & efficiency of any Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends, on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its Governors. I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress & confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts & endeavors to the means of having it well.
On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.
(Speech of Benjamin Franklin given prior to the ratification of our Constitution - Source U.S. Constitution Online)
And while the "separation of church and state" will continue to be debated and misconstrued, mostly by the ACLU and the atheists, what is lost is that the 'separation' of church and state was actually given for the church's protection and to protect the freedom of Americans to worship at the church of their choosing, not to protect the government from the 'interference' of the Christian faith at all.
The entire concept of providing for freedom of religion in this country as an individual right in and of itself is a U.S. founder's Godly doctrine, after all. The government of the founder's acknowledged religion and religious beliefs and provided for it in our national culture, with the specific provision for it's inclusion over the various sectarian differences and practices based upo the Christian and Jewish models.
Historically in it's origins, the Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim beliefs, however, provisions do afford tolerance of other actual faiths, while the Christian wars were fought over sectarian differences between the Catholics and the Protestants primarily, including the Crusades of the Catholic Church and history of England and it's religious wars due to sectarian differences, and in this past century with Northern Ireland.
"Tolerance" of other religions beliefs is uniquely Christian in it's origins, as Christ himself taught in the Golden Rule and parable of the Good Samaritan.
And "of" is not "from" except, perhaps, in another language other than English.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
