Sunday, April 5, 2009

Defending the Constitution

I read an article on the written by the Welshman
here. He also writes a blog, The Liberty Sphere where he has been advocating the cause of following the Constitution for a long time now. But this is not about the blog, but the Examiner article. At the end of the article are comments from readers. Those who agree, of course, can be characterized as "hear, hear, it needs to be said over and over." It is the comments of those who do not agree that both puzzles and dismays me. Keep in mind that the Welshman did not say anything that Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, or Justice William Douglas did not say, as evidenced by the quotes from these famous patriots. But you can read it for yourself.

Now, let's look at a typical comment from someone who obviously disagrees. Liberal Patriot says:

This is article is evil. It's a veiled, cowardly threat intended to incite violence. Bush infringed upon the Constitution more than any President in my lifetime. Where were you then? Obama is actually doing something for those of us who aren't rich and he's not against the 2nd Ammendment. Grow up and take some responsibility for the consequences of threatening editorials like this, that are intended to set the crazies in motion. I don't see any tyranny. If you do, you're paranoid. I have more freedom now, under Obama, than I did under Cheney.
The first two sentences claim this article is a threat. As a matter of fact, the Welshman is just reporting what he is hearing and reading elsewhere. A lot of people are mad, and getting madder with each move this administration makes. As to the charge that the Bush administration infringed Constitutionally protected rights, I think you will find that the Welshman called out Bush as well. The fact is the government has become successively more tyrannical since the administration of Theodore Roosevelt. Whether it is moving toward socialism, or fascism is somewhat irrelevant. The fact is that the government has been taking extra-constitutional powers, at the expense of the individual for a century. Most of these power grabs have been applauded by the press. The myth of the plucky reporter sticking it to the establishment is just that: a myth. The fact is that editors and publishers set editorial policy, and they do not want to get in bad with the establishment. So, only few counter voices are allowed, mostly to show they are "fair and balanced." But it is all a show.

Next he claims for Obama that he is doing something for the not-so-rich, and oh by the way, is not against the 2nd Amendment. I am guessing that Liberal Patriot has been drinking beer and watching the Superbowl and March Madness because he hasn't been paying attention to the news. Obama now owns this economy. While he didn't do it alone, his failure to use the veto pen has placed variously 12-19 Trillion dollars of debt on the American people. See here. I am inclined to think the larger of the figures is more correct because of optimistic assumptions that I do not think are going to happen. But in any case, who does our commenter think will pay this debt? There are only so many Bill Gateses and Warren Buffets to tap. Gates, the last I heard had a wealth of only $400 billion. Great, now we only need to come up with $18.6 Trillion. But, here comes the moral and Constitutional question. Is it right to take Bill Gates' billions in order to help the not-so-rich? The fact is that Bill Gates earned (yes earned) that money. For the government to now take it and hand it over to someone like Liberal Patriot, who didn't have the vision, or the business acumen to earn it himself, is slavery. See Walter Williams here. Slavery, of course is Unconstitutional. We fought a war, and had Constitutional Amendments and everything (See Civil War.) No, the truth is that Obama's policies so far have placed a huge debt on our children, our grandchildren, and their grandchildren. Everything we purchase will become a lot more expensive. Eating Hamburger Helper may seem like a luxury in the future. Is that helping the not so rich?

As to the 2nd Amendment, Obama has never seen a gun control bill he did not like. He has never, in his career in the Illinois Legislature, or the U.S. Senate, either not voted for a gun control bill, nor voted in favor of any Pro-second Amendment initiative. The fact is that merely saying "I support the Second Amendment" and then saying "I want to ban so called 'assault weapons'" is oxymoronic. The Second Amendment guarantees the people can have so called "assault weapons" and a great deal more. The Second Amendment is there because We the People need a credible threat sometimes to make our elected representatives (not leaders) listen to us instead of lobbiests, foreign governments, and whoever they are listening to now.

What so offends people like the Welshman, and me, who believe in Constitutional governance is that Obama as much as said that he thinks the Founders made a mistake writing the Constitution as they did. Newsmax has the story here. It now appears that because of these "deep flaws" Obama feels that following it, even a little, is not really necessary. The Constitution is more of a guideline, rather than the supreme law of the land. He seems to think that while a 2/3 majority of the House and Senate, and 3/4 of the States are required to change it, a simple majority of voters is enough to scrap it. Or, if he can't get enough votes, then 5 men in black robes can also scrap it. Liberal Patriot wants us to do something different, I imply from his language. How about this: we try following the Constitution instead of using it for toilet paper.