Tagged: Constitution Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • feedwordpress 08:43:56 on 2017/07/24 Permalink
    Tags: Constitution, , Governance, , Message, , ,   

    The only legitimate fountain of power… 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    James Madison is notable for many important quotes, but my personal favorite is this one:

    “The people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived.”

    If ever there was a quote made for the people of today, it’s this one. So many Americans are lost in the fog of false accountability. We rely too heavily on government because we assume they have the power. In some ways, they do, but it’s a power limited by the constraints of the Constitution. This is important to remember because too often it’s just assumed that what the government says or does is to be taken as the final word.

    We have the power. It’s not just with our votes. We have the ability to rise up and work together to rein in the tremendous levels of overreach we’ve seen from Washington DC our whole lives. We don’t need to rise up in arms as our founding fathers did. Today, we still have enough law and order in America to be able to rely on proper political channels. This is why the growth of the Federalist Party is so vibrant and relevant. It’s time to reassert our interest and adherence to the Constitutional governance we have at our fingertips.

     
  • feedwordpress 04:56:05 on 2017/05/22 Permalink
    Tags: Albert Einstein, Constitution, , , ,   

    The strength of the Constitution 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    Everyone knows Albert Einstein was arguably the sharpest mind to walk the earth in modern history. What many don’t realize is that his insights into culture, society, and politics were often just as profound as his understanding of physics. This quote is quite true and demonstrates an ideal that may never be achieved, but that we still should strive for as Americans blessed to be part of this great nation.

    The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure.

     
  • feedwordpress 01:30:31 on 2017/05/21 Permalink
    Tags: , Constitution, , , Leaders, ,   

    Focusing on philosophies instead of individuals 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    One of the basic tenets of small-government-loving Federalists is that the individual American holds primacy over all other levels of government. “Self-government” is what the founders envisioned. They believed that the states and the national government had roles to play, but those roles were intended to empower the individual and his/her family.

    This belief has brought about a crossover of ideas that is false. Just because Federalists believe in the power of the individual, that doesn’t mean that Federalists should embrace individuals as the answer in political wars. One of the biggest problems we face is that we’ve developed a culture of followers. In short, we have “idols” who millions of people latch onto in order to not only lead them if elected but also to help them formulate their own opinions.

    As an active member of Ted Cruz’s grassroots support, I came across many people who treated Cruz as the guy who could fix things. They viewed him with a reverence that fell just shy of religious zealotry. He’s not the only one who brought this level of support. We’ve seen it with Ron Paul. We witnessed it for eight years with President Obama. We see it today with President Trump. As Americans, it’s imperative that we never put so much weight onto any one person because invariably they will disappoint us.

    On the other hand, the conservative and Federalist philosophies are designed to embody the type of allegiance that is all-too-often granted to individuals. Why? Because both philosophies are squarely rooted in the supremacy of the Constitution above all things other than the Bible. As Americans, we are given certain unalienable rights at birth. These rights are natural and God-given. The Constitution doesn’t grant them to us, but it does defend them in ways no individual or party could ever do. It’s for this reason that we should seek leaders who hold defending the Constitution itself as their highest non-religious calling.

    We don’t need politicians to defend us or our rights. We need politicians who defend the Constitution. In its words and in the empowerment of its status as the foundation of government, our God-given rights are naturally defended. If our leaders will do everything in their power to defend the Constitution from forces within and abroad (including other American leaders), they will be performing the most important duty in their role as public servants.

    Relying on men and women to defend our freedoms will invariably lead to disappointment and failure. If our leaders would simply defend the Constitution, everything else will fall into its appropriate place.

     
  • feedwordpress 06:48:00 on 2016/07/21 Permalink
    Tags: , Constitution, , , , , , ,   

    Lost in the Non-Endorsement is the Fact that Everything Cruz said was Righteous 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    Ted Cruz willfully put himself in the middle of a Trumpstorm by speaking at the Republican National Convention and not endorsing the nominee, Donald Trump. He is, once again, the most hated man in Washington DC as many of his peers will see this as a betrayal of the will of a plurality of the Republican party. All they wanted him to do was sell out his principles and values and endorse the man who trashed him for months, called his wife ugly, and accused his father of perpetrating the most famous murder in American history.

    That’s all.

    Every bit of focus from the media will be on the fact that Ted Cruz asked people to “vote their conscience” up and down the ticket and to focus on defending the Constitution. He spent a good amount of time talking about defending freedom. He even congratulated Trump for winning the nomination. He did not utter the words, “I endorse Donald Trump,” and for that he will be vilified.

    What’s missed is the fact that calling on people to vote their conscience SHOULD be enough to get them to vote for the GOP nominee. After all, if the Republican party is on the side of conservatism, freedom, and defending the Constitution, then it should be an easy leap to associate “voting your conscience” with voting for the Republican nominee. The problem is this: telling people to vote their conscience doesn’t necessarily mean voting for Trump. It’s the saddest state of political affairs when a Republican nominee going up against the corrupt Hillary Clinton cannot be definitively proclaimed as the vote of one’s conscience.

    Cruz said to vote for those who will defend the Constitution. That, too, should be a no-brainer for the Republican nominee in any other year. The Republican party is one that should live and breath by the doctrines of the Constitution. That should not be in doubt. By telling people to vote for the defender of the Constitution in 2016, there’s simply no guarantee that Trump is that person. In fact, he’s said more things throughout the campaign that go against defending the Constitution than even Clinton. She butchers her interpretation to fit her goals, but at least she attempts to stay within its bounds. Trump, unfortunately, does not know those bounds because he does not know the Constitution.

    While meeting with GOP Senators earlier this month, he was asked what he would do to uphold Article I powers in the Constitution. This, of course, refers to the powers granted to Congress. Trump’s response was that he’d uphold Article I, Article II, Article XII, and all the rest. Unfortunately for Trump, there aren’t 12 Articles in the Constitution. There are 7. Even worse, he unwittingly declared that he would uphold his own powers as President which are detailed in Article II. That’s the problem we’re facing with President Obama; he has attempted to expand Article II powers which is exactly what had the GOP Senators concerned. Trump, who clearly knows absolutely nothing about the document that is to be defended by the office he’s running for, is the first GOP candidate in modern history to be arguably less protective of the Constitution than the Democratic nominee.

    Ted Cruz proved very clearly that he’s fearless, principled, and has a clear understanding of the things that Trump needs to know. That Republicans will bash him for expecting people to vote for freedom, conscience, and defense of the Constitution is the clearest sign of the downfall of the party itself. Trump has killed the GOP. It’s time for a new conservative party to be formed immediately.

     
  • feedwordpress 02:26:59 on 2016/04/30 Permalink
    Tags: Constitution, , , , ,   

    Reconstituting America 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    When considering the things that have made America the most prosperous and powerful nation in the history of the planet, there are many options. Some would say it’s the people and our embrace (albeit reluctant at times) of diversity that built this nation of immigrants. Others might point to serendipity; we are rich with natural resources and favorable conditions through which a nation can flourish. There is, of course, a spirit of excellence that has been instilled in our leadership since the first Lieutenant ordered men to attack the British in the Revolutionary War.

    All of these are true and have been driven by one force: the Will of God. Before you click away, this is not going to be a preachy article. It’s important for those who believe to never lose sight of our Father as the reason for all of our blessings. Even if you’re not a believer, the only difference in understanding our greatness would be the source. Whether by divine intervention or a fortuitous set of circumstances coming together over the last 240 years, America is still the greatest country in the world because of one gift from our founders: the Constitution.

    Liberals and populists often view the Constitution as an outdated document that couldn’t possibly be flawless today. They would be wrong. The guiding tenets and specific rules set forth in the Constitution were written for all time by men who had experience with living under tyranny. They had a clear understanding of the potential for governments to be corrupted by power, so they established a set of checks and balances that would keep the power from being centralized. They knew that government has within its nature the desire to grow and that even with the best intentions, too much power invariably leads to reduction or destruction of individual liberties. They knew how precious freedom is and they realized that it must always be protected above nearly all other principles.

    The Constitution isn’t perfect, but it’s flawless. Some will, at this point, try to point out the flaws within the Constitution that needed to be amended, but that in itself is a testimony to the flawless nature of the Constitution. You see, there’s a reason that Constitutional Amendments are so few and far between. If they were easy to achieve, the desire to make changes for the sake of a generation’s situation would be too strong to ignore even if that change could hurt in the future. The ability for the Constitution to be corrected based upon a super-majority in Congress or the states meant that it had the power to evolve at the proper pace. Changes cannot be frivolous, but they also cannot be impossible. This is one of the most beautiful gifts the founders gave to all generations that followed them.

    For over two decades, a large portion of the population has been indoctrinated to favor a belief in downplaying the importance of the Constitution. There are many reasons that this is happening, but the two most prominent are systematic. First, there is the shifting of values that liberals have been pushing harder and harder since Ronald Reagan left the White House. This shift has been spiked by the Obama administration and manifests in nationwide gay marriage (which should be a state issue), superseding of 1st Amendment rights such as religious liberty, and most recently the willingness to endanger women and children for the sake of being sensitive to someone’s lifestyle choices. This has all been expected and it represents the constant battle that must be fought between conservatism and liberalism. It’s a dialogue that can be healthy for a nation that is so culturally diverse. If it were the only battle, there wouldn’t really be a problem.

    Unfortunately, it’s not in a bubble. There’s another issue that’s much worse. Conservatism is being downgraded within the Republican party itself to the point that it’s now considered the fringe. There has always been a battle between “the Establishment” and/or “the Neocons” versus the Constitutional conservatives, but the corruption of big government Republicans solidifying power through the media, lobbyists, and big business cronyism has pushed the party further to the left than it has ever been.

    The pledge to defend the Constitution, once considered a doctrine of public service, has been relegated to a portion of the formality required to grab the spoils of political victory. The promises politicians make to govern within the bounds of the Constitution used to be a clarion call that guided leaders in the Republican party. Today, it’s simply an applause line during campaign rallies that holds no sway over most once they assume office.

    Reconstituting America is a task that must be undertaken now. It’s two-fold. First, we must return to the Constitutional bounds of governance that will keep the nation aligned away from the corruption that has seeped into Washington DC. Second, we must take those components of government that are broken and either fix or eliminate them. There’s too much government. It’s engulfing our freedoms and spitting out the chewed up remains in the gutters along K Street. Two decades of decadence have left the country on the verge of collapse that so few people see coming. Some are sitting around enjoying our iPads and sipping on Mai Tais while our foundation erodes beneath us. Others are being crushed by their financial burdens, unable to see the troubles coming around the corner because they have to feed their families this afternoon. Still others are bent on our own destruction from within. The country must be reconstituted and the only way to do this is by electing leaders who will live by the principles that brought us to this point of prosperity in the first place.

    The fight against the left will always be there. The fight from within the Republican party must be won now, today, because without the banner of conservatism, the GOP is no better than the Democratic party. This is why I refuse to support Donald Trump. Beyond the stump speeches and promises to build his wall, the doctrines of liberalism that he espouses are more suitable for the Democratic party than the party of Lincoln, Coolidge, and Reagan.

    There are so few Constitutional conservatives in Congress today; out of 535 men and women on Capitol Hill, less than 50 of them are true Constitutionalists. Ted Cruz is one of them. Of the candidates remaining, only Cruz has the ideology and the plan to reconstitute America.

     
  • feedwordpress 21:48:06 on 2016/02/26 Permalink
    Tags: Constitution, , , , Freedom of the Press, ,   

    Trump’s Texas Attack on 1st Amendment Should Terrify Every American 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    Anyone who has read this site knows that we’re no fans of mainstream media. However, we’re also very big fans of the Constitutional 1st Amendment protections given to the press that allows us to gain knowledge about important issues. With Donald Trump threatening to make it easier for libel lawsuits against the media, we’re seeing one of the most dangerous roads that he has proposed travelling.

    At a rally in Texas, he said he’s “going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money.”

    Again, we have been very critical of the majority of mainstream media outlets, but we have the right to be critical just as they have the right to do the things that force us to be critical. That’s one of the most important protections we have as a country in knowing that the news media does not have to operate in fear of retribution from the government or other powerful entities. Other countries have demonstrate that when we limit the freedom of the press, the ones who benefit are the very people that the press can expose.

    Libel is bad. People can be hurt when news outlets spread falsehoods that can damage people. However, expanding any form of the law beyond its current Constitutional alignment is the first step towards quashing the free speech that Americans have embraced for two centuries. For someone who claims to be opposed to political correctness, an attack on the 1st Amendment is absolutely unacceptable.

    It’s the first step down a very slippery slope that this country simply cannot afford.

    Keep in mind that there are already protections in place for public figures that are working extremely well. If a publication publishes a negative piece with the intention of malice, they can and should be sued. How much looser does it have to get to appease Trump’s nefarious goals? Does he want to eliminate the malice portion and make it to where negative pieces cannot be written at all? Is he going to force a burden of proof that would make it next to impossible to expose corruption in a timely manner? Who is he trying to protect if not himself?

    By limiting the power of the press to expose his actions, Trump is essentially establishing a barrier between the people and the truths that they want to hear. Any conservative who values the Constitution must oppose Trump’s liberal policy proposals. Even Obama never went this far. Trump is a disaster.

     
  • feedwordpress 00:06:56 on 2016/02/06 Permalink
    Tags: , Constitution, , , , Jim DeMint, , , ,   

    Jim DeMint Can’t Endorse a Candidate but He Basically Just Did 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    As President of The Heritage Foundation, a powerful conservative think tank, former South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint can’t endorse a GOP candidate at this time. So early in the race, it would be inappropriate and damage the credibility of his organization. However, he can tell Republicans what he would like to see in the next President. In doing so, he precisely described one candidate: Ted Cruz.

    His article on the Washington Times details the traits he’d like to see from a policy perspective in the Republican nominee.

    Let’s break down his policy statements. You’ll notice that he’s either promoting an idea that Cruz espouses or denounces an idea that other top candidates attempting to claim the conservative mantle are spewing.

    If you want prosperous citizens, don’t overtax them — and don’t burden them with artificially high consumer costs arising from excessive regulation.

    While Marco Rubio and Donald Trump have tax cuts in their economic plans, they don’t address these cuts as conservatively as Ted Cruz’s flat tax. Moreover, the comment on excessive regulations is a direct attack against the type of support that Rubio has given and that Trump has supported regarding mandates and regulations in business. Big Sugar and Big Corn are perfect examples of this, not to mention Trump’s desire to impose tariffs on China that will dramatically increase the cost that American citizens pay for products.

    If you want more people to have good-paying, full-time jobs, then don’t burden employers with mandates that price full-time employment beyond their reach.

    This is an attack on Obamacare. While the allegedly conservative candidates all call for an end to Obamacare, Trump has vowed to replace it with another version of socialized health care.

    If you want to treat everyone fairly, don’t tailor laws to help certain industries or hurt others.

    Again, this goes back to the subsidies and regulations that Rubio has built and that Trump has supported. Specifically for Rubio, it’s the Big Sugar puppeteers that have had Rubio protect their own business from the “evils” of a free market economy but that hurt other industries such as candy manufacturers, soft drink retailers, and pretty much any company in the country that uses sugar.

    You might notice a common theme between these points: they all involve reducing the power of government to dictate the terms of everyday life and giving citizens more power and responsibility for running their own lives.

    Donald Trump has never spoken of reducing the power of government. He has unabashedly bemoaned the management of Washington DC, not the overreaching that they’ve done or the power they’ve accumulated. His authoritarian style is the exact opposite of what the conservative movement really wants, but he’s pulled the wool over many conservatives’ eyes because they don’t understand what he truly represents. Rubio is better than Trump on this issue, but his proposed increases in spending do not speak well towards a true desire to reduce the size of the federal government.

    Fortunately, we have an excellent set of guidelines for getting there. It’s called the Constitution of the United States. Conservatives don’t revere the “Supreme Law of the Land” around just because we love tradition. We revere the Constitution because we recognize it as a comprehensive blueprint for a freer society. The Founding Fathers left a lot of power in local hands for a reason: They knew just how bad things could get when a distant, out-of-touch government called the shots.

    Marco Rubio uses the Constitution as a campaign prop. Donald Trump has never read it. Ted Cruz has literally memorized it. He’s fought for it on multiple occasions in front of the Supreme Court. He adores it as his guiding principle, second only to his Bible.

    DeMint would jeopardize the impartiality of his organization by making a direct endorsement, but this is as close to an endorsement for Ted Cruz as he’s allowed to make. It isn’t just pointing us towards Cruz, though. It’s a reminder that conservative values will work if the voters do what it takes to make them the most important issue in this race.

     
  • feedwordpress 11:30:21 on 2016/01/28 Permalink
    Tags: Constitution, , , Eminent Domain, , , ,   

    Eminent Domain Must Be Redefined 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    As a Constitutional conservative, the very thought of changing things in the Constitution gives me pause. I’m reluctant about “modernizing” as a trend towards the Constitution based upon what we’ve seen done by the Supreme Court over the decades as well as our current President. The SCOTUS took advantage of the Constitution with rulings such as gay marriage last year and the POTUS has tried to do anything he can to circumvent the Constitution.

    With all of that said, responsible and conservative adjustments should be made to the Constitution. One such issue that needs clarity is eminent domain. I’m not one of those purists who believes that private property should under absolutely zero circumstance be taken from individuals. There are extreme situations when such a need applies. For example, if the Keystone pipeline is to ever be built, we would need to use eminent domain to properly install it.

    That is the least extreme concept that I can think of that would be acceptable in a new form of eminent domain. In other words, the case needs to be clear that it is overwhelmingly for the greater good that eminent domain is invoked.

    The second thing that needs to be changed is a redefinition of fair returns. If someone is going to be compelled by the courts to give up their property for the sake of the common good, they shouldn’t be compensated fairly. They should be over-compensated. They should consider themselves blessed that their land happened to be in the right place at the right time in order to give them a windfall return. I’m not talking a percentage above fair market value. I’m talking about a factor. If the factor were set at five and someone’s land is worth $100,000 on the free market, the government should pay them $500,000 for the land.

    Again, I cannot stress that with dangerous waters such as the ones we’re discussing, this would have to be done perfectly. Amending the Constitution is no light matter. Redefining it by establishing a rock solid precedent could work, but it would be better as an Amendment. Most uses of eminent domain are righteous, but as we’ve seen with Donald Trump, there are times when it’s abused for frivolous reasons. This cannot be allowed to be corrupted by billionaires or corporations that have connections, bribe officials, and make a good sales pitch.

    If you’re not familiar with the dastardly use of eminent domain by Trump, here’s a recap:

    As Reuters rightly points out, this could be one of the minor but singular and defining concepts that Cruz could use. It’s not just about attacking Trump for his past. It’s about defending citizens in the future who could find themselves on the receiving end of another billionaire’s greedy whims. A President Cruz should strive to narrow the scope of eminent domain as a tool for good that is immune to the evils that it can be used to perpetrate.

    Eminent domain is a necessary tool, but it’s something that needs to be tightened. The next President must be willing to take on the issue before another billionaire uses it to attempt to hurt people for the sake of greed.

     
  • feedwordpress 00:14:10 on 2016/01/03 Permalink
    Tags: , Constitution, , , , , , ,   

    Like It or Not, Religious Liberties Must Extend to All 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    It’s very easy for those of a Judeo-Christian faith to feel like ours is the only classification that should be protected by the Constitution. As a Christian, I know how important it is to defend the religious liberties of all. It has nothing to do with fairness or religious unity. To defend our own religious liberties, we must also defend the liberties of other religions.

    This should go without saying, but apparently it needs to be said. A recent poll shows that most Americans believe that religious liberties must be defended, but when the questions are broken down into different religious groups, the numbers start to separate. It’s more acceptable for Christian liberties to be protected than for Mormon, Jewish, or Muslim liberties in the eyes of many people. This is a mistake.

    We don’t have to agree with other religions in order to recognize that they must be given liberties in order to protect our own. The 1st Amendment is designed to allow religious discourse to the point that nobody’s religion can be ground for discrimination. Things are changing and ironically they’re doing so by using the concept of discrimination against religions, particularly Christianity. It may be the most clever strategy ever employed by the atheist progressives of this country. The gay marriage decision by the Supreme Court was their biggest victory to date, but it’s not their last. They will continue to wage this war and they won’t stop until all religious liberties are reclassified as forms of discrimination.

    In the coming months and years, we will be faced with attacks against the freedoms that have helped to maintain the faith in this country while strengthening our stability as a nation. They aren’t necessarily doing it to weaken the country (not all of them, at least) but are doing it because they don’t realize they’re weakening the country with every attack on the Constitution. While some could argue that the 2nd Amendment is the biggest deterrent to the collapse of all liberties, it’s really the 1st Amendment that controls more hearts and minds and is therefore more precious in the fight against tyranny.

    As Christians, we might not like that Muslims, Hindus, atheists, or people of any other religion must have their faiths protected, but its imperative if we’re going to maintain and strengthen our own liberties. As Americans, we should defend the liberties of all since those liberties are precisely what give us strength.

     
  • feedwordpress 03:59:51 on 2015/12/22 Permalink
    Tags: Constitution, , Federal Government, , , , ,   

    William F Buckley on Expansion of Federal Activities 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    One of the hardest lessons for political novices to learn is that the federal government has a natural tendency to grow when its true purpose is and always has been to remain as small as possible. This isn’t something for Constitutional scholars to debate with modern political pundits. It has been demonstrated time and again that a focus on individual citizens and support of localized governments is the right way to keep the country operating properly.

    When the federal government steps in, there are invariably problems with scale. The guidelines that communities use differ so dramatically from area to area, city to city, and state to state that the very concept of the federal government involving itself too deeply in matters that should be localized usually gets butchered. The US government should keep us safe and empower smaller levels of government to thrive.

    The problem, as William F. Buckley Jr. so eloquently points out, is that those who rise to federal power want more of the say in what happens at the lower levels. This is why now more than ever we need a President who understands how the Constitution works and is willing to defend it.

    The visual nature of social media means that from time to time we will be sharing messages that should resonate for our audience. To see more of them, which are great for sharing on social media, simply click on the Messages category.

     
c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
esc
cancel