Give Me Liberty
I am often confronted by political detractors stating that my ideas of the Constitution are “quaint” and “outdated.” Indeed, I hold the ideals of the founders of our nation in high esteem. They were not perfect men by any stretch of the imagination, nor the Constitution a perfect document. However, both accomplished something never before realized in history. A nation was born where the framework established that government obeyed the laws of the people, and the people were the sovereigns of a nation.
These very detractors are often those who promote a concept where the rule of law applies only to those outside their immediate peer group. Regardless of political positions, be they leaning right, left or somewhere outside of the “mainstream,” they promote the concept that government may employ whatever measures necessary to advance their agenda regardless of the ramifications to those who are not in agreement with their goals.
Previously, I discussed what the positions of our founders were with respect to “authority” provided to the federal government under the Constitution. The premise that no authority exists outside of those codified under Article I, Section 8 can be clearly proven by a simple glance at not only the IX’th and X’th amendments, but the Federalist / Anti-Federalist papers and the individual writings of Madison, Jefferson et al. Why then do proponents of authoritarianism and statism constantly denigrate these positions and promote resistance to lawful authority?
Today, we live in a politically correct world where federal authority pervades our lives with malicious intent. Similar to the time when the Alien and Sedition Act was thrust upon our nation, we must remember the response of our most fervent of founding political thinkers.
Virginia’s response to this egregious assault on liberty was the Virginia Resolution of 1798 which in parts stated:
That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact [the Constitution]
and continues
the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the "Alien and Sedition Acts" passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government and which by uniting legislative and judicial powers to those of executive, subverts the general principles of free government
Kentucky’s followed in short order by producing the Kentucky Resolution of 1798 which in part stated:
That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.
and continued:
That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, and no other crimes, whatsoever
Kentucky felt it necessary to reiterate its position with the Kentucky Resolution of 1799 which in part stated:
That if those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact [the Constitution], by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained, an annihilation of the state governments... will be the inevitable consequence.......
I cannot help but wonder what has become of such men (or women) who would don the mantle of leadership and demand that the federal government act within the bounds of the authority granted to it by the individual states. Where are our state elected officials? Where is their leadership? Why do they remain silent regarding such unconstitutional laws such as The Patriot Act (federal spying on the citizens without probable cause or warrant) and the Military Commissions Act (suspension of habeas corpus)? Who will stand up for what is right and lead our people back to our roots of liberty?
Whenever I engage someone who states “if it isn’t prohibited (federal authority) by the Constitution, then it is legal,” I have the urge to strike out against their ignorance and perfidy. There is a phrase for those who promote resistance to lawful authority [the Constitution]. That phrase is sedition. It is long past the time we call the kettle black and call these nefarious people to task.
I for one will no longer remain politically correct for to do so only invites further transgressions against our liberty. My creator granted to me such rights as only to be limited and restrained to the extent of violating the equal rights of another. This is the essence of natural rights on which this nation was founded. Those who contend that government grants me my rights I will view as a mortal enemy to liberty. For those who refuse to take a stand on these issues, I am reminded of the following quote by Samuel Adams:
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”
It is high time that we as a people reject the politics of derision and embrace the mutual goal of returning our nation to its roots of individual liberty and personal responsibility. I ask you to join me in this endeavor. Get involved and make a difference. Challenge those who would rule over us as opposed to representing the interests of the people. Begin by helping clean your own house (locally) and rejecting those moneyed politicians who place the profits of their special interest benefactors above the rights of the people. Look beyond parties and follow the money. Become an informed citizen, for only an informed electorate can be the guardian of liberty.
- kdtunstall's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
IF WE DO NOT TAKE BACK OUR
IF WE DO NOT TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY THIS YEAR WE WILL HAVE NO COUNTRY. WE SEE THE HITLER OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM IN THE WHITE HOUSE. WILL WE DO NOTHING UNTIL AFTER HIS HOLOCAUST, OR WILL WE ACT NOW? WE NEED LEADERS WHO WILL SAY WHEN AND WE WILL MARCH WITH ARMS IF NEEDED.
GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH.
Its our patriotic duty to
Its our patriotic duty to start a revolution and restore the Constitution. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315
I couldn"t have said it
I couldn"t have said it better - In fact I did say it and it wasn't as clear and concise. Great Stuff
Ryan… First, thank you for
Ryan…
First, thank you for engaging me in civil discourse. It is a rarity in my circles. Many, if not most, attempt to label me as an “extremist” or on the “fringe.” Few will actually sit and ponder the “intent” of our founders for they have too much to lose (financially) should we return to a time when the Constitution was actually respected and obeyed as opposed to simply viewed with nostalgia.
Considering that Hamilton was an elitist and quite the aristocrat, believing that the common man could not possibly govern himself without the divine guidance of the gilded class, I tend not to agree with many of his views. Indeed, he argued for a monarchy, the abolishment of state governments and Senators elected for life.
Though I disagree with Hamilton on these points, he made many viable observations in the federalist papers. Of course I also value John Jay’s opinions, who some fail to consider a founder though I disagree with that view as well. Indeed, were it not for Hamilton’s promotion of the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation would have no doubt left us vulnerable to attack and unable to retire our war debt. Hamilton, to that end, was very capable of pointing out the flaws of the AoC and the arguments against a stronger role for government.
However, if we are to assume that government has limitless authority, as only “explicitly” forbidden by the constitution, then the authority of government is almost endless due to “interpretation.” A most valid point can be made with the “explicit” prohibition against ex post facto laws being enacted. Though explicitly forbidden in Article I Section 9 [3], this prohibition has not been enforced in recent history. For that matter, there are few of the prohibitions which government continues to respect in modern society.
Jana it is often a mistake to
Jana it is often a mistake to think of some of our government agencies, that we pay taxes too support, as watching out for us. They have their own agenda often and only seem to respond to politically influential interests. I hope you all do recover too!
I am opposed to the NC Dept.
I am opposed to the NC Dept. of Revenue targeting my family, leaving my children in a vulnerable position, exposing our family to the negativity of their greed, fundamentally trying to cripple our ability to recover! Hopefully we can!
Sorry I caught this thread so
Sorry I caught this thread so late. I think what stikes me about the original piece is this statement, "Today, we live in a politically correct world where federal authority pervades our lives with malicious intent."
"While I personally am not
"While I personally am not opposed to many things that the federal government does (such as NASA), I am opposed to them doing so without proper authorization."
I think Ryan, what I'm reading in the Tunstall response is that the issue for him is the will of the people through procedural safeguards as provided for in the constitution. I'm not sure how "limited" that is or is not. I can't speak for him, but don't find his critique at all reaching. We have many examples of constitutional abuses with large corporations today, which seem to offer a plethora of examples of what might be deemed wrongful extension (interpretation) by our court system that impedes our long established rights.
For example, the attack by many corporations on individuals free speech through the mechanism of SLAPP-suits (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Opinion; Canen & Pring, 1996). Because of thousands of these repeat cases being filed across the U.S. over the last 2-3 decades, 24 states have enacted legislation banning such suits. When did we allow this level of co-optation by large companies against the individual rights we are supposedly entitled too?
There are many examples we could use for discussion with each contradicting the other. I would still have to agree though, that the voice of the governed should be respected and in many cases, such as the one above, to open an interpretation has often been the case. Just from the last quote you offer it would seem a very strict view of the document is almost a requirement since the founders seemed very concerned with these abuses.
One would have to ask themselves why we even need anti-SLAPP statutes if the ‘Bill of Rights” is enforced to protect those that can not afford to defend in such harassing legal actions as my previous citation.
While FDR (as well as the
While FDR (as well as the rest of the country) was definitely putting pressure on the Supreme Court to change its outlook, a more careful look reveals that the decision in West Coast Hotel vs. Parrish was actually written before FDR's court-packing plan was revealed (though it was released to the public afterwards.) The court-packing plan was immediately rejected by both the public and Congress; rather it was national pressure put on the Supreme Court that influenced the change.
However, the real source of your displeasure with current interpretations of the Constitution goes all the way back to McCulloch v. Maryland, the 1819 case in which the Supreme Court decided that the Federal Government can operate a bank under the "necessary and proper" clause. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the authority to create a bank, but the Court allowed them to do it anyway. Why? Here's a great quotation from Chief Justice Marshall's opinion:
"To have prescribed the means by which government should, in all future time, execute its powers, would have been to change, entirely, the character of the instrument, and give it the properties of a legal code. It would have been an unwise attempt to provide, by immutable rules, for exigencies which, if foreseen at all, must have been seen dimply, and which can be best provided for as they occur."
And I don't think the Founders are all quite on the same page as your limited interpretation. Here's a quotation from Alexander Hamilton in a paper about the Bank controversy:
"...every power vested in a government is in its nature sovereign, and includes, by force of the term, a right to employ all the means requisite and fairly applicable to the attainment of the ends of such power, and which are not precluded by restrictions and exceptions specified in the Constitution, or not immoral, or not contrary to the essential ends of political society."
What is Hamilton trying to say? Notice how he mentions specific restrictions, taking care of your "speech crime" problem. Thomas Jefferson argued the exact opposite of Hamilton's logic; by no stretch of the imagination were our country's Framers in agreement on this issue. It does, however, seem interesting that in the deliberations on the 10th amendment, it was proposed that the word "explicitly" was added. This would have settled the debate; forever closing it to interpretation (and they were fully aware of this.) "The powers not explicitly delegated to the United States..." This proposal was rejected, forever opening it to interpretation.
Well Ryan, a look at history
Well Ryan, a look at history shows that FDR threatened to flood the SCOTUS unless he got his wish. This was not an appropriate method to effect change. As such, the government has been allowed to operate outside of its authority. This inherently violates the rights of the citizens.
While you believe that Medicare and Medicaid are "most successful," I actually work in the medical field and do not share your view. Both of these programs are a disaster and are nothing more than welfare for corporations. Most providers are clinging to the hope that the program will change while the big-box providers are raking in the cash. The Wall*Mart model in health care is coming as a result.
While I personally am not opposed to many things that the federal government does (such as NASA), I am opposed to them doing so without proper authorization. Personally, I feel that NASA should be part of the DoD.
If you allow the government to disobey the law, then you have set the precedent for further transgressions. Simply because one agrees with a certain agenda, does not mean that that agenda is harmless to others. Additionally, unless you demand such obedience, then you are not in a position to complain when they take away from you personally.
Very similar to the second amendment argument....if you allow them to pass laws (where they have no authority) then when they make say....YOUR political position and speech a crime, you can not complain.
What other parts of the Constitution are you willing for the government to ignore?
I agree that the amount of
I agree that the amount of power the federal government has taken for itself in recent years has been in many instances completely excessive (Example for example the Angel Raich case) http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/06/scotus.medical.marijuana/index.html
However... if the powers explicitly enumerated in the constitution are the only powers the federal government is capable of assuming it suddenly becomes impossible to implement some of our country's most successful social equity programs like welfare, medicare, medicaid, unemployment insurance, minimum wage, etc. etc. Indeed, the conservative bloc of judges who initially blocked most of FDR's New Deal programs based on the same basic outlook that you have were known by most of the country as the "Four horsemen of the apocalypse."
"What it does require is
"What it does require is mutual respect for the rights of others. This is something lost in the current paradigm." Tunstall
I think this is central to any democratic-republic. Without it we can't even begin to argue or debate the central meaning and issues. Often our egos interfere with an open and honest dialogue. It is important within this context to defend the 'Bill of Rights' for all Americans. Free speech is particularly under assault on and off-line and must be protected. If we can't who will we pass the legacy too?
" VIVE LA REPUBLIQUE "
" VIVE LA REPUBLIQUE "
I once prescribed to the idea
I once prescribed to the idea of attempting to "educate" as opposed to my current position.
kdtunstall: "I no longer care
kdtunstall: "I no longer care about offending those who would destroy my country and enslave my children."
You might find it very instructive to spend a few hours ruminating on why you ever did
http://www.govtrack.us/congre
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-3835
Ron Paul's bill "To restore the Constitution's checks and balances and protections against government abuses as envisioned by the Founding Fathers
Only one Ron Paul post?
Only one Ron Paul post? Incredible. Google Ron Paul. Donate. Pray. He's the only man who can possibly rein in the executive branch.
You should have left your
You should have left your email Campbell. I would have sent you my CV. I am way more involved than most.
This is going to seem so
This is going to seem so tired by now... but if a limited federal government is your goal... then get out there and work for Ron Paul. Donate on the 16th (teaparty07.com), put up posters, and tell your friends.
If you believe that in a government that coddles you from cradle to grave, then go about your business. You probably don't want to get too involved anyways :)
Additionally, nothing that I
Additionally, nothing that I have suggested or stated is not codified in the Constitution. Alternatively, everything you stand for and promote lacks such credibility.
Yet my views are in line with
Yet my views are in line with the founding fathers as evidenced above. Jefferson was the author of the Virginia resolution and Madison the author of the Kentucky counterparts. Remember him? He wrote the Constitution to a great degree.
Your desire to have a federal government entrenched into every facet of our lives is indicative of a larger problem."Political correctness" in the context of this article is only to the extent of calling those out who promote sedation. Our Constitution IS the "lawful authority" of these united States. Your position of inciting resistance to "lawful authority" is simply that....sedition.
This may offend you, but as you say, "I'll be damned" if I am going to bow down to you. I no longer care about offending those who would destroy my country and enslave my children.
This is a great example of
This is a great example of attempting to frame the argument. Rather than prove a point of view on any particular issue, you attempt to make everything a matter of rights (by your definition) vs. political correctness (again, by your definition). This is the most cynical and arrogant approach to public discourse and I'll be damned if I'm going to bow down to you as some God of what I should and should not believe.
The "blessing of liberty" are only ONE of SIX purposes of the Constitution as set out in the preamble. I would say that a strong federal government goes a long way to "form a more perfect union", "insure domestic tranquility", and "provide for the common defense." Your wish to ignore these stated goals of our national government won't make them disappear.
You evidently think the balance of power should shift toward the states and away from a national government. Congratulations, you have just taken sides in a centuries-old debate--not discovered some universal truth. And, keep in mind that we already tried having a weak national government. The Articles of Confederation lasted only 8 years.
I am constantly amazed when
I am constantly amazed when people claim that this nation was founded on religious principles, when many of the signers of the constitution where not what you would consider devoutly religious. Case in point Benjamin Franklin, member of many churches of multiple denominations, not for his deep faith but instead for the political gain in doing so. This represents the true view of probably most politicians as well as most citizens. We invoke religious beliefs to further our own agenda and conveniently forget our religious principles when they would conflict with our agenda. While the first Europeans to settle in America did so for religious purposes, religion was not the reason for the founding of a new government. The true purpose of the founding of this great county boiled down to money, we were founded on the principle that no man should be taxed without representation. But this ideal goes beyond just the loss of money, it goes to the idea that no man should be forced to serve a government that does not serve his interest. With this said, kudos to Mr. Tunstall, I am glad to hear more voices like yours in the community
What it does require is
What it does require is mutual respect for the rights of others. This is something lost in the current paradigm.
Correct, Craig. Religious
Correct, Craig.
Religious organizations turned into lobbying groups long ago. Faith is now part of the problem, not the solution.
Barret Metzler - "every
Barret Metzler - "every signer of the DoI was a devout and outspoken Christian." Not true. The Deists reject Christianity. And GWB is apparently guided by Christian principles which have led to his current treatment of the Constitution as so much TP. Acceptance of personal responsibility and a desire for a return to individual liberty does not require a Christian base from which to build.
Brilliant...as you state it,
Brilliant...as you state it, your heartfelt love for your country should be the starting point of EVERY civics class in America. That's where our country's woefully needed renewal MUST begin!
In the meantime, in the name of Democratic freedom with equal justice for all under the rule of law, let's us all be resolved immediately and in the years ahead to settle for nothing less than the public financing of all political campaigns in America + the formation of local "Committees of Conscience" throughout America to ride herd on all of our public officials all of the time so that we really can make good on the American promise of government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Barrett A. Metzler, well put.
Barrett A. Metzler, well put.
Critical thinking is all but gone.
Who of the candidates professes to honor the constitution?
The constitution has been
The constitution has been totally subverted ever since Lincoln ignored it in order to start and wage the Civil War, and it has been more or less ignored ever since the end of that war. When the Federal Government decided that it could wage war against it's own member states, it usurped their own authority entirely. The idea of the states being autonomous and working in a cooperative fashion was central to the entire idea of the USA and the backbone of the Constitution in the first place. Without that idea, the Constitution itself does not make any sense and yes, it doesn't apply.
We no longer live in a Democratic Republic. We live in a Oligarchy.
The primary concept is
The primary concept is correct. It is the reasons that such a concept is correct that is missing. Primarily, an American should understand that the basic reason for founding this country was religious. Too many people are comfortable disputing that fact. However, every signer of the Declaration of Independence was a devout and outspoken Christian, who believed that the continued Divine Intervention of a Supreme Being was necessary to the success of our nation. With that inspiration, we have been able to be wuccessful as a democracy longer than any other nation.
Now that we are losing the inspiration on a national basis, we are losing the nation. No more honesty, civility, comradeship, legality, religion, concern for others, nor the ability to follow The Ten Commandments or the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Until we give back our desire for God's assistance, we will continue to watch our nation fail in all matters that don't meet His teachings.
Nice...I already read this on
Nice...I already read this on MySpace.
An excellent work of
An excellent work of scholarship, Kev.
We ARE sovereign citizens and it is time for the R3volution.....
please vote for this article on reddit:
http://reddit.com/info/61dzu/comments/
Thank you.
"I cannot help but wonder
"I cannot help but wonder what has become of such men (or women) who would don the mantle of leadership and demand that the federal government act within the bounds of the authority granted to it by the individual states. Where are our state elected officials? Where is their leadership?"
Mr. Tunstall,
You and I both know where they are hiding. In the co-opted wings of both major parties behind the skirts of the puppet masters and funding strings...we see it in political race after race with candidates that have no principles, ethics and will lie without compunction to the electorate to satisfy their masters.
Thank you for not being one of them!
It is such a shame that so
It is such a shame that so many members of the public have failed to grasp these simple concepts and have beggared their lives, as well as those of their progeny, unnecessarily. Perhaps it is a failing of the parents who have raised their children without instilling these principles in them, multiplied on a grand scale. We should never depend upon the government to instruct the next generation on the subject of civic responsibility. But alas, this is what has happened within our once great country, to the detriment of each and every one of us. That such as this even needs to be written is an indictment of lethargic proportions to what has become of our land. I truly fear for the generations yet to come.
I for one agree strongly with
I for one agree strongly with the last line of the above synopsis, "Look beyond parties and follow the money. Become an informed citizen, for only an informed electorate can be the guardian of liberty."
This is the crux of the current problem in such a materialistic culture as ours, which appears to have lost its way. Thanks Kevin for telling it like it is! It isn't just about how much one can accumulate, but about the future of our country for generations to come.
I could not agree more.
I could not agree more.
You are correct Sir! We the
You are correct Sir!
We the People have allowed our National government to billow out of the carefully crafted containment system that the Constitution for the United States of America created. We wake up to find that the National government has become an institution that is doing all manner of things that it was designed to prevent. It has become the thing we designed it to prevent.
Governments are instituted among men to protect property and Liberty. Its function is to protect us from criminals and tyrants that would rise up and steal our property and subject us to their wishes.
Government was created to manage certain things for the benefit of We the People and is restricted from doing anything that is not delegated to it by the Constitution that authorizes the Government.
Government is not the King it is the Servant. The congress is not composed of our Leaders, they are our representatives. They are in office to do our bidding and swear an oath to uphold and defend the constitution.
These parameters are well understood and the requirement of the oath before holding office is proof that adherence to the intent of the constitution is a serious requirement and departure from adherence is a crime and falls within the definition of the new bill S. 1959: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 in congress covering Domestic Terrorist acts. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-1959
`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
`(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.
There is no doubt that violating a sworn oath is proof that the officer is pretending to be and impersonating an officer of the United States of America. Voting for bills that have not been carefully read are in the least a dereliction of duty and may constitute the worst type of homegrown terrorism.
To remedy this situation we need to do the following;
Return to honest voting with paper ballots counted in public view.
Wake up to the power of the precinct and get as many people as possible active in government.
Elect honest people that revere the constitution to all levels of government.
Recover the Grand Jury system and convene Citizen Grand Juries at every level of government to investigate and prosecute government servant violations of duty.
Dismantle and discontinue every form of regulation and infringement that has been put in place over the last 150 years.
Put regulation of the currency back into the hands of the people through their government
Eliminate all forms of taxation that are not done according to the Constitution including all Ad Valorem taxes like property tax.
We can accomplish all these things in short order if We the People get back in charge of our government.
Very well put. Hopefully we
Very well put. Hopefully we can redirect our local and state politicians to Constitutional responsibility.