LIBERTY AND FREEDOM

10 07 2010

Authored by William Robert Barber

Since Presidents Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, administration of both political parties have step-by-furtiveness step increased the size, scope, and power of government. Proportionally and in unison with such expansion of federal power there has been an abatement of individual freedom. Furthermore, the country’s fifty states, as an intended consequence of the 16 th amendment and the seemingly ubiquitous application by congress of the “commerce clause”, an enumerated power listed in the constitution in article 1, Section 8, clause 3, are more like fiefdoms with a fealty for pecuniary dependence than sovereign entities. Presently, as an example of the “commerce clause” and its instinctive status of overreach, Obama Care mandates that every individual citizen must buy health insurance.

I suppose it is just a matter of time until congress takes the final step and regulates what and when we eat per meal plan and of course, what we pay for what we eat. Such an overreach will eventually instate mandatory exercise programs detailing time and location, and naturally, what one wears to exercise must be purchased from government licensed union stores.

Is it not so that the spirit and meaningfulness of the whole is nothing less, nor more, than the sum of its pieces and parts? If the spirit of Americanism represents the intangible value and meaningfulness the tangible, isn’t subsequently the measure of the tangible, with all of its meaningfulness, wholly dependent on the veracity of the intangible spirit? Therefore, if the spirit is effected, the long-tail result of such an effect will be that the meaningfulness of the particular tangible will disunite from its original intent, its veracity of purpose will diminish, and the theme of truthfulness distort? Is this not exactly what happened to the application of our nation’s constitution?

I suggest that one’s individual liberty as defined in the meaning of Americanism is the spirit and the definitive of meaningfulness is the constitution. These constitutional rights in the simplicity of the textual are to the common reader unambiguous and pointedly targeted to the political, social, and economic affairs of each and every American. These rights to liberty are, for each and every citizen, innately proprietary.

In symbiosis and lawfully enjoined to individual liberty is the freedom of and for personal sovereignty. Liberty cannot exist without the freedom. The a-priori meaningfulness of personal sovereignty (freedom) is conspicuous within the tangible of laws that restrict the power of government; conversely, where the natural liberty of the individual is limited by government, the impairment of personal sovereignty is imminent. Therefore, the operating objective of legislation, respective of any perception of needs, is to make no law that ingresses upon an individual citizen’s natural liberty and personal freedom.

An indicator of governing ingress on liberty and freedom is the following rule of thumb: The greater the ingress on individuals and businesses, the more porous, ill defined, and ambiguous its tax laws. For instance, if an individual is required to hire a professional in order to, with surety, accurately affirm one’s individual tax return, the governing power is, by matter of practicality, coercive. If one requires an attorney to tell the truth in court, then maybe attorneys should not represent clients in the courtroom. Besides, it is apparent that these representatives of the court in cooperation with judges, have complicated the process of litigating, simply to insure their profitable participation.

When the electorate voted for Obama and his progressive brethren, a new order of an old brand of governing principles was enacted. The populous traded values, from the bucolic American expressiveness emboldened within the existential spirit to the reliance on government programs, committees of experts, a belief that social collectivism is a solution and corporate capitalism is the problem. These resuscitated governing doctrines are an old brand of liberal progressivism, cousins of socialism, communism, and fascism.

Individual liberty and freedom trump any and all government entitlements, promises, or covenants of surety; a citizen, in the interest of being and staying a free person, must not ever trust any government, politician, elected representative, or any of its proclaimed intentions. Vigilance is the necessity as well as the obligation of citizenry.

Do vote conservative!





THE CONSTITUTION OF MARCH 4, 1789

23 06 2010

Authored by William Robert Barber

America is a nation of laws. The foundation of these laws is integrated in the constitution; included — but not replacing, and always subordinate to Supreme Court review — are the historical precedents of judicial resolutions. With more than just a few exceptions, the three branches of this government have worked within the original separation of powers thesis incorporated within the constitutional system of checks and balances. The exceptions to original constitutional intent, though concerning, did not lastingly spike the power of one branch over the other. That is until the administrations of Wilson, both Roosevelt’s, Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, Bush the younger, and now Obama. In other words, for the greater part of this country’s recent history, the constitution of original form has been successfully assaulted and vectored to other than original interpretations.

Per constitutional amendments, legislation, ad hoc understandings, or executive orders, politicians have drastically changed not only the face of constitutional interpretation but substantively reconfigured the meaningfulness of the original ten amendments. I do understand the counter party reference to the idea of adaptation to new and unfolding events. That these new and unfolding events necessitate the need for change… yes, I got that message. My contention is that though change is a relevant factor of consideration, the process of initiating such change cannot be trusted. Hence, any change from the original must be subject to forces greater than trusting in congressional legislation, ad hoc understandings, or executive orders.

Although the Obama administration has, by means legislatively perverse (I speak of the recent healthcare initiative that is now law wherein the process called “reconciliation” was the means for the federal government to capture a significant portion of the nation’s economy), simply taken advantage of a legislative means that surely was not within the original constitutional intent, it matters little that the intent of this particular process was created for a different purpose. What matters is that the legislative body made this change from original constitutional intent. The consequence of that change, like so many other legislative enactments, did not anticipate the unintentional; nevertheless, the result worked counter to the interest of the populous and the original intent of the constitution.

Attitudes and mores change. These changes affect societal customs as well as the mind-set of individuals. This into perpetuity of constant transformation (of attitudes and mores) has a direct and effectual influence on the particulars of political systems, politicians, and politics in general.

Immanuel Kant contemplated a behavioral norm postulating that the beginning evolves to the exactness of its end: Thesis, antithesis, synthesis, and thesis.

For Kant, change is a constant; nonetheless, change seems to identify itself more as a circle than a straight line. In the dictum of Kant, it does not matter: if the line is discerned at the moment of measure, to be vertical or horizontal, the persistence of persuasion is for the line to bend back to its original thesis.

Subsequently, even if Kant’s theory was missing the exactness of truism, one must concede. A societal change of attitude and mores influences individual thought. Such change, much like style within the world of fashion, will triumph over substance and effectually change the original thesis. This factual of human behavior, though a normative inconsequential for fashion, is, as noted in the Obama healthcare process of reconciliation, an excellent example of legislative perversion.

The constitution was designed around the notions that power is an omnipotent elixir; that eventually all politicians and governmental pieces and parts, in the perception of self-service, will yield honesty, integrity, honor, even good sense to its overwhelming dominance. Conclusively, power and the powerful cannot ever be trusted. Thus the constitution, a document that purposefully limits power by dividing the federal government via a system of checks and balances, should never be altered by any process other than either a constitutional convention or the process provided for adding or deleting an amendment.

My presumption is that in the near term, conservative thought will not attain a veto proof majority. Thus the reality of convening a constitutional convention is small, tiny, infinitesimal, well, near impossible; but, maybe we conservatives can abate the perversion of the constitution’s original intent by electing more of like-same ideology. Maybe?