Trust Government

I read this in another forum;

"You give the government information and it will be abused. It is not a matter of if it’ll be abused, it’s only a matter of when…"

Truth be told, this is not something unique to Obama. It is not even unique to the federal government.

The Founding Fathers had it right; government is a necessary evil that must be kept on a tight rein. Like a killer guard dog; it may keep trespassers off your property, but you don't let your kids play with it.

But, government is what it is because we, the People, have let it become that way through our apathy and downright laziness. All we are interested in are the conveniences, not the consequences - as long as they fall on "someone else."

For example, a recent article told of a young man who was devastated by his insurance premiums going up thousands of dollars because of Obamacare. He stated that he was all for socialized medicine, but didn't think that he had to pay for it.

This man is emblematic of the People in general. No one thinks. Well, too few, anyway.

Further, students are not taught the greatness of the history of the United States. Since the sixties, soft subjects have been hit hard by revisionists who despise the place of the US in the world, of US exceptionalism. The result is that schools focus on the bad things in American history at the expense of the good. Students are taught that the Constitution is a "living document" that changes and morphs at the whims of society, rather than the law of the land that it is with a specific legislative process required to change it; Article V.

We have become like the Catholic church, where the path to Glory must be through priests. The Church opposed what the Gutenberg press brought, because it made the Bible available to the common man, rather than just the clerics. However, in our case, we have become a society that accepts the supreme Court, elected officials and a small elite as the "clerics" of the Constitution, the law, of Liberty and Freedom.

We are in need of a Constitutional Reformation. But, rather than a reformation to introduce new ideas, it needs to be a reformation to embrace old ideas; that individual, common citizens are quite capable to read and understand the Constitution, the law and what Liberty and Freedom mean. That we should not accept the biased whims and political follies of a small collection of old men and women, simply because they wear black robes, or because they occupy great structures of classical architecture.

These "clerics" are our SERVANTS. They are in office as our EMPLOYEES. We must hold them to their oaths and that our Constitution rules over them.

Rather than Harry Potter, we need the works of John Locke, Montesquieu, Paine, Hamilton, Madison, Jay - the works our Founding Fathers read and were guided by in the creation of this nation. Then and only then will we be knowledgeable and FREE to know if what the "clerics" do is right or wrong.

Otherwise, we will be serfs, satisfied with the Bread and Circuses of government control, silently and stupidly trudging a path defined by others who ensure that we are guided away from the oases of Freedom and Liberty, keeping us locked in control and subjection.

An Example of the Folly of the supreme Court

In US v Lopez (1995), the Court found that banning guns from around schools was unconstitutional, that it was beyond the reach of the Commerce Clause.

In the dissent, Souter wrote of the "old judicial pretension [that had been] discredited and abandoned" from which "the Court extricated itself almost 60 years ago."

What he referred to was the pre-Court Packing scandal Court that was more in line with the Constitution. It was "untenable jurisprudence."

So, in Souter's view, the pre-1937 Court had been "abandoned."

But, here comes Kennedy with his concurrence with the Court saying, "stare decisis ... counsel[s] us not to call into questionthe essential principles now in place."

So, here we have Souter saying that we have to abandon the old ways, but Kennedy holding that we are bound to the old ways.

Now, the way things have been going, this nation is actually ruled by five guys in black robes (the majority). Sure, Congress and the president are involved, but the final say has been taken by the supreme Court when they usurped a power not granted them in the Constitution; judicial review.

However, these robe-clad guys are telling diametrically opposed stories. We end up with our lives being dictated by whatever OPINION sways the Court.

Obviously, not by LAW, because the LAW is the LAW, regardless of any opinion. A speed limit sign says "30 mph" and it means "30 mph," not, "oh, I think it means 42 mph..."

The same is true for the Constitution, except there are five guys who get to decide that it does mean 42 mph, regardless of the words.

If the Court was infallible, then Souter and Kennedy would not be so different in their words. They'd both agree that either decisions from pre-37 mattered or they did not.