Saturday, October 1, 2016

America: You've Missed the Point

(I wrote this, obviously, just after the first debate between Trump and Clinton. However I still think a lot of the underlying principles apply now as well as into the future. As such, I will continue to post it. Thank you for your interest!—Brett)

I, like so many of my brother and sister countrymen, watched the debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Monday night. After giving it a couple of days to settle in my thoughts I've decided I would toss my political opinion into the blogosphere, you know, because that's just the way I roll.

As a veteran of the Navy I took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same," and I meant it. What this means to me is that I will never, under any circumstances, vote for or support any politician who will not do his (or her) sworn duty to, "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

No "ifs, ands or buts" about it. That's what I'm going to do.

So, the number of times that the Constitution was directly mentioned in the first debate was...wait for it...wait for it...ZERO! That's it. Zero. Zip. Nada.

The number of times any subject that has anything to do with the powers of the federal government, or the president, under the Constitution? One. Uno. Odin.

Any person who doesn't know or understand why the presidential oath of office is what it is, is pretty likely to also not understand the real purpose of the Constitution either; so let me do my sworn duty to those who don't know these things and fill them in for them.

I would ask the reader to pardon me if I go all philosophical on you, but the Founding Fathers were men who understood the rational nature of freedom. They were, as I would hope to be, political philosophers. It was well known and understood that the powers of big governments were antithetical to the freedoms they were trying and hoping to enjoy. It was thus written in the Constitution, in the form of limitations on federal powers, so that the States and the People would suffer less direct interference from the federal government, and would as such be able to get on with the business of tending to their own daily lives.

If I were to give any advice for the student of freedom concerning the reading of the Constitution it would be to read it as in the preceding paragraph. Look at it as a limitation of the powers of the federal government. Line after line, article, section and clause, right up through the 12th Amendment, it is limitations on them, limitations on them, limitations on them, and just in case there is any doubt, more limitations on them. It is only after that point where the federal government started to take on additional powers that the Founders never intended them to have.

But I digress. The subject of this post is on the presidential debate and how America has missed the point, not on how the Constitution has been over-amended.

Freedom from an oppressive government means that the government does not have the power to interfere with your life and thus leaves you more able to do the things you think are necessary to improve your life and the lives of those around you. In terms of political philosophy that's the very definition of what freedom is.

Now, also in political philosophy terms, the United States—because it is founded on the ideas on which the Constitution is based—is an embodiment of how to achieve freedom from an oppressive government, based on the limitations placed on that government, through the voted on agreement of the People of the States, with the Constitution. Because those ideas can willingly, and in freedom, be accepted; philosophically speaking, the United States is not a place on a map. If the United States were merely a defined and outlined set of borders on the map it could never grow or shrink.

More simply put; the United States exists as founded because we—the People and States—agree with the principles of freedom through limited federal power, on which the Constitution is based. Conversely, the less the Constitution is followed, the less like the United States we become, regardless of where our physical borders lie.

So, in big letters such that cannot be missed: The purpose of the Constitution is to protect your freedoms from out of control politicians. The president's primary job—per his oath of office—is to make certain the federal government remains in compliance with the Constitution.

Now, I kindly invite you to take a look around yourself in your daily life and find all of the places where the federal government exerts control over your life. Go ahead. I triple-dog-dare you! I also invite you to ponder the irony of the symbolism, in this context, of a young boy with his tongue stuck to a flag pole as opposed to, let's say, the monkey bars or swing set.

The Constitution was designed to protect you from all of those sorts of interferences. Now from this perspective we can easily see that the further the federal government encroaches on your daily life, the further they deviate from the limitations placed on them by the Constitution. More importantly, the more they deviate from those limits, the more the United States—as defined by the Constitution—is in danger.

Let me be perfectly clear about this so as not to invite ambiguity. Any president who takes the oath of office who does not to the best of his or her ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, is a domestic enemy. That's the point.

It is not the point of the American federal government to have a president, acting as king, fixing everything the way he and his supporters want it. The point of a president of the United States is to keep the federal government running under constitutional limits, so that everybody can fix everything for themselves the way they want it.

It is not the point of the president or federal government to use the force of big government to make companies stay here. It is not the point for them to provide childcare. It is not the point of them to stop and frisk people to see if they are armed or not. It is not the point of the federal government to invest forcefully confiscated money—and I challenge anybody on the fact that it is money taken by force—to any purpose mentioned in the Trump vs. Clinton debate Monday night, other than national security.

While I would agree that Trump's positions would likely be better for my own wallet, I, when I took the oath, did not take it to protect my own wallet at the expense of the Constitution. To do so would be to join in with the principles of corrupted establishment politicians in the subversion of the Constitution—and ultimately the United States—to the detriment of my own honor. I also think that Trump's positions would be better for the country at large but still that's not the point. We have one candidate who would use the unconstitutional big government his way for his supporters or we have another candidate who would use the unconstitutional big government her way for her supporters. Either way the United States, as defined by the Constitution, loses, and the path to monarchy wins. Either way, America, you have spent another ninety minutes watch two candidates argue about how they are going to solve problem which, constitutionally speaking, are none of their damn business whatsoever.

Yes America, I said it. You don't want a president of the United States. You, in nominating these two politicians, are asking for the choice of a king or queen.

So one might be tempted to say to me, "if you don't vote for Trump it is a vote for Clinton and she will certainly destroy the country." Well, I've been around the block a few times and I can pretty much spot some of the softer versions of extortion when I see them. I don't respond to extortion any more than I would to terrorists. What makes it worse in this case is the attempt is to get me to compromise my oath to the Constitution, which is something I will never do. Additionally, this very same extortionist fear mongering claim has been made since Jefferson vs. Adams. The reality of the situation is that free people don't roll over that easily. Have some faith in yourselves, okay? Don't allow yourself to be so easily painted into a corner.

The challenge should not be against my loyalty to the country, when it is the politicians who would violate the Constitution who are asking for my vote. And when one or more of his supporters start screaming at me for not following him, or her, it is not me who is violating my oath to defend the United States. Anybody that votes for any federal politician who would go against the founding principles of this country and the Constitution, is doing nothing but slapping those who have offered their lives to defend it, in the face.

It is not my fault that any politician's positions make him unsupportable by me through his or her unconstitutional proposals. It is their own fault, through their own lack of understanding of the principles of freedom, that does this. It is not my responsibility in any way to violate my oath to vote for the lesser of two evils...or else. If somebody at the federal level wants me to vote for them they have to show me how dedicated they would be in following their oath. It's just that simple. If they cannot follow that oath, as it is intended within the constitutional powers, they are liars as soon as they take it. Between myself and them it is not me who would violate my oath. Between myself and I it is not me who would lose my honor.

One thing I know for certain. If the American People, understanding freedom, stand up and demand the Constitution from the federal government, knowing full well what it is supposed to do, they will get it and the United States will win.


*One thing I'm going to add as an afterthought: I really do appreciate the love that Trump's supporters have for this country. Really. Nothing I've said should be construed to mean anything otherwise. I sincerely hope that you can study the Constitution and its obvious intent and guide your man to where he better understands it himself. Should you be able to move him far enough towards enthusiastically supporting constitutional liberties I would gladly vote for him. As for Hillary, my profanity filter kicks in and edits the rest of this post. :)

No comments:

Post a Comment