Why Liberals Hate the Constitution
Since there are many more conservatives than liberals, and conservatives have so many guns, people often wonder why conservatives don’t just round up all the liberals and ship them to Antarctica to be forced to mine for jewels and gold. Well, there is a very good reason for that: by a strict constructionist interpretation of the American Constitution, there is no support for being able to deport liberals to a mining camp.
Now, if conservatives were a bit more flexible with their view of the Constitution, they would say things like, “Well, we have to remember it’s a living document, and the Founding Fathers hadn’t even thought of the threat of hippies running around free when they wrote it.” And then they’d look to the Commerce Clause and say, “Well, keeping liberals from meddling in America and forcing them do something useful like mining sure would help the economy, so it’s within the government’s power.” And then it’d just be a manner of scheduling all the boats to get liberals to Antarctica.
But that would violate the spirit of the Constitution since, by plain English interpretations of the government’s powers, we can’t forcefully ship liberals to Antarctica no matter how much people may think that would help the country. And that’s the point of the Constitution: people are constantly changing their ideas of what is good and bad, but the Constitution is much harder to change. It puts limits on what the government can do, and those limits can only be changed when huge majorities agree to it through the amendment process. And even after ObamaCare, there inexplicably isn’t enough support for a “Liberals Are to Be Sent to Mines in Antarctica” amendment.
After the hysterical way liberals reacted to the reading of the Constitution by Republicans to open Congress, with Democrats objecting to it, left-wing newspaper editorials denouncing it, and liberals online freaking out over it, no reasonable person would argue that liberals don’t hate the Constitution, but the reasons why aren’t as obvious. So the question becomes, why do liberals hate the Constitution so much — especially when it’s the only thing protecting them from freezing to death with pickaxes in their hands?
We are all aware that liberals want the Constitution to be a living document, like if Geppetto wanted Pinocchio to become a real boy so it would be easier to strangle him to death. They want it living so they can render its words meaningless. To them, the Constitution is this cryptic document only the most educated Ivy Leaguers are able to interpret. Recently, the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein even stated that “the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago.” And then we have all these court decisions — much longer than the document itself – that find all these hidden rights not mentioned in the Constitution and explain away the ones that are clearly stated. And don’t argue with liberals on the subject, because they’re really smart and the only ones able to understand what they’re talking about.
Thus the freakout over the Constitution being read aloud. No matter how much liberals try to mystify the Constitution and obscure its meaning, hearing the actual text of the document quickly destroys that fiction. It almost reads like a direct condemnation of all the government expansion and power grabs liberals have been up to lately. You can’t hear its words without imagining the ghost of George Washington punching hippies. So you can see why they’d rather it not be brought to the public’s attention.
Cosigned Ammendments, from the left.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof unless people find it offensive in the public square; or abridging the freedom of speech unless it’s hateful, or of the press, unless it is unfair; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, unless they are racists.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, just regulated heavily or prohibited outright.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, which is to say that abortions shall be available without any infringement what-so-ever.
See, they are all for liberty and support the Constitution!
I relize that the writer is a capable political humorist and shows it in this article, but the hostile reaction of “liberals” to the reading of the U.S. Constitution is really a bad unfunny thing. It reflects that “liberals” aren’t liberal and that they have descended into a belief in authoritarian socialism that is hostile to constitutional liberty.
Good point… but only if sarcasm can be used effectively to state the truth without being misunderstood.
Expressing agreement with the writer can be done with out “aggreeing” with those “formerly passive” liberals.
–O/W — Good post!
Liberalism, as a whole, fails the basic test of government power. That being,
“Would you be comfortable with those you disagree with, philosophically or politically, having this much power- over you?”
What goes around comes around, and no “philosophy”, however pristine, remains in the seat of power forever. The Founding Fathers knew this, and deliberately designed the Constitution as a brake on the power of government, to avoid a culture in which political power could be used to inflict any sort of bizarre dogma on the people in the name of “right” or “good” or “purity”. They’d seen that too many times in Europe’s history, including in England- which fought a couple of vicious civil wars over it. (My guess is that they admired Cromwell, or the Long Parliament, no more than they did Charles I or Charles II.)
When the Homeland Security Act was passed, and the Transportation Security Authority was created, I predicted that those who supported both (mainly on the right) would end up regretting it. When they asked me why, my answer was “Two words; President Hillary.”
President The Self-Exalted One has done an absolutely bang-up job of proving me right, even with The Hill as merely SecState.
I think conservatives may have learned a lesson about the Constitution from that. I predict that one day, liberals will be in the same position, and will be wailing “How can they do this to us?”
And the answer will be the same. Unfortunately, I doubt it will sink in, even then. Except to compel liberals to come up with yet another grand scheme for Absolute Power Forever. (“If we are in power eternally, we can do whatever we want, and nobody can get back at us for it.”)
It never works. But don’t bother trying to tell them that- it’s a waste of breath. They’ll never believe you.
(I speak from experience.)
clear ether
eon
You said exactly the same thing as the writer except you did it without any humor… Rinse repeat…
Best.Article.Ever!
“15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They say they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he grudgingly admits that they exist; whereas he enthusiastically points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.” from ‘The Unabomber and the Left’ at http://sanfransanity.blogspot.com/
I love the image of George Washington punching a hippie!
Indeed, if there were a t-shirt depicting George Washington punching a hippie, I would buy one.
To put it as succinctly as possible, liberals hate the constitution because for every stupid idea they have that they want to inflict upon this country, the constitution’s response is, “No! Bad monkey!”
The last statement shows the authors actual intent and his wish that the Constitution could be circumvented–a typical ultra-conservative desire.
The article was full of satire so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and take yours as satire, otherwise it would just be deliberate obfuscation.
Nancy Pelosi is an ultra-conservative? Who knew!
Reading the Constitution to a liberal is like showing a crucifix to a vampire. Liberals want to suck the government dry of money and freedom and the Constitution is the only weapon we have left to stop them. Well, like most vampires, they will run for cover when the new day dawns in November 2012. Then they can go back into their coffins where they came from, waiting for the next progressive darkness to come over the nation.
Liberals want to suck the government dry of money and freedom and the Constitution is the only weapon we have left to stop them.
I’m guessing you meant people not government.
It is the conservatives who are sucking the country dry. You right wingers have a character flaw that prevents you from seeing the facts.
I’m almost sorry to have to point out that you have misquoted the operative part of the second amendment… It’s “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” You left us out. We are the people, we have the right (no permits required to exercise a right) to keep and bear arms. And that right shall not be infringed. If you can tell me what kind of gun, sword, knife, club etc, that I can keep you are infringing on that right. If you can tell me where I can carry said arm, you are infringing on that right. If someone doesn’t like that, then amend the constitution. There are NO legal gun laws in this country.
The 2nd amendment also says “well regulated”- but as always you people selectively leave that clause out in an attempt to justify your views.
These aren’t “liberals” or Democrats anymore. They are steeped in marxist theology, and the only issue is whether they are merely fascists, or socialists or outright communists.
So… the only thing keeping keeping conservatives from engaging in a Nazi-style mass deportation program is the existence of the Constitution? Therefore if we had a different type of government, those same conservatives would embark on such a plan?
I’m afraid this article doesn’t make much headway on the ‘conservatives are not Nazis’ argument. I realize it’s supposed to be humor, but are you sure you meant to post it to a conservative website rather than a liberal one?
It is satire. He is saying that IF conservatives were like liberals…
The article was praising the Constitution, that the Constitution prevents ANYONE from gaining the power to do such things.
I just can’t tell whether you didn’t comprehend this article or whether this is just purposeful baiting.
Purposeful baiting? I would never ever do that. Especially not on an article with the headline “Why Liberals Hate the Constitution.”
In total seriousness: all conservatives are Nazis. It’s been proven.
And let’s see… everyone knows that Nazis should be hunted down and killed. So Aaron stands guilty of inciting hate and violence, and of eliminationist rhetoric. Should it ever happen, in our nation of 300 million citizens, that a conservative is killed – then his or her blood will be on your hands.
This is hilarious! Baiting raised to a new level, a progressive level!
Oh and by the way, the Nazis were socialists. Guess which side of the political spectrum that puts them.
By whom?
How?
References?
Please note that Under Godwin’s Law, you’ve just lost an argument that you started.
cheers
eon
Aaron: well, why not? We’re now hearing, for example, some congressman proposing a law banning guns within 1000 feet of a politician – because, of course, the mere existence of such a law will immediately cause all sociopathic killers to abandon their plans for fear of falling afoul of it. By the same logic, then, yes: the existence of the Constitution is all that prevents conservatives from carrying out their nefarious plans.
Peter King is a conservative only in New York City.
I honestly can’t tell where the satire starts or ends in these comments.
Yeesh, chill out!
The argument that “Conservatives are not Nazis” is non-existent to sane people and it’s basis is the opposite of reality. Is the word Socalism in the acronym Nazi? Did Hitler and Stalin consider themselves “Progressive” i.e. today’s “Liberal”? Answer is YES to both.
Can’t believe I’m responding to Aaron but reading his BS it’s like viewing a train wreck.
Don’t know much about Nazis, do you Aaron? The Nazis didn’t deport much of anybody — the imprisoned, enslaved or liquidated those they didn’t like or didn’t want around.
Kinda like Lenin, Stalin and Mao.
Socialists all.
Enjoy the Maddow show.
The progressive party likes to believe that working Americans owe their earned incomes to those who choose to remain indolent. I have not been able to find that as constitutional. Has anyone found this to be lawful?
Yeah, Tad – go back to the video game…
Liberals are totalitarians. All of them.
They think they have every answer to every problem and that they can fix everything. No kidding. They think they can fix the weather. No amount of data, no amount of failures, no amount of proof that they lie cheat and steal to prove their point can even begin to deter them from their beliefs.
For a liberal, the only answer to any problem is more power to implement their will. That’s why little lenin didn’t care about the details of Obamacare. It gives him more power; that’s enough for him to love it. And the Constitution is a document designed to thwart power grabs. That’s the entire reason leftists hate it with a blind passion.
And just by chance, total power involves taking from you what you have earned by the sweat of your brow and giving it to other people who “decided” to do something with their lives other than work. Coincidentally, the other people happen to be themselves. Sweet how that works out, isn’t it?
Hey, Pete Stark says government can do anything it wants.
If that’s true, liberals are the next Soylent Green.
As long as it’s Newman’s Own Fair Trade Soylent Green processed in environmentally sustainable union factories, I am sure the liberal’s won’t mind.
So; The people will be a product of what they eat! Glad I won’t be around for that!
No way. Soylent Green is people !!!
You are talking about liberals here.
Do you suppose if we DID ship all the hippies off to Antarctica, they could be bait for a great Aliens vs. Predator cage match?
Ship all hippies (liberals) off to the Arctic, thereby providing a new food source to help the polar bears recover in this period of horrible global warming. Al Gore could lead the way- plenty of fat on them thar bones.
It’d make more sense to send the liberals to North Korea, and have ‘em stay there long enough to get a clue about how their ideology inevitably plays out in real life.
Extreme Conservative Republicans are everything wrong with this country. Rather than ship us liberals (who are not communists, just FYI) to Antartica, why not corral all of you gun-toting nutcases in middle America where you can kill animals to your hearts content and maybe, acidentally, shoot a few of your own kind. By the way, this article is anything but funny.
There are no more liberals. You are progressives. Didn’t you get the memo?
BTW, what is a liberal mining hippie? Do you mine liberals, or is that a description of someone who rapes the earth?
Hm, more eliminationist rhetoric. What was that about conservatives being the violent ones? Can you not make a reasoned argument against conservative views without wishing for someone to be shot?
I’m not sure it’s possible. As with the “10:10″ campaign’s “No Pressure” ad where anyone who didn’t sign on to the “green agenda” was immediately (and messily) liquidated by the Big Red Button, most members of the self-anointed “enlightened elite” seem to operate on the principle, “We could make the world perfect if we didn’t have to contend with all these grotty groundlings who just refuse to become enlightened”.
The trouble with that mindset is that, historically, such self-imagined “philosopher-kings”, when in positions of power, tend to commit unspeakable atrocities in the name of their brand of “enlightenment”.
And they always believe that “the ends justify the means”. As long as they are the ones deciding who gets the chop, that is.
clear ether
eon
Hey LiberalMiningHippie, “Extreme Conservatives” believe in the Constitution “and” the Ten Commandments. Please explain which of these are all that extreme, and which items in these two documents concerns you the most. Just curious.
“why not corral all of you gun-toting nutcases in middle America”
You mean like your great hero, Roosevelt, did to Japanese-American citizens in 1942?
Well, for one thing, as you noted, we have lots and lots of guns, so any liberal who tried to corral us would probably get his head blown off.
This editorial is wicked funny, based on your reaction.
The very crux of the scenario is established in the title of the article – “Liberals” are anything but liberal – they are fascists and tyrants
I like your comment Lberty Ship, You have them pegged.
They hate the Ten Commandments, too.
Connection? You decide.
Of course there’s a connection: they can’t stand the First Commandment or the Constitution because they both demand submission to powers higher than themselves- the former to the Creator, and the latter to the government He raised up. Their blasphemous rejection of all authority and insistence upon setting themselves up as gods is the source and summit of their wickedness, and it is the reason they reject every precept of both the Bible and the Constitution that stands in their way.
Oh, I get it. If you hold the Constitution up in front of a Liberal it would be like holding a Christian cross up in front of a vampire.
Keep the masses in the dark,take over the education system and turn the schools into liberal indoctrination centers and after decades of dumbing-down generations of Americans….. you have the 21st century.
America is in trouble,more than most either know or will admit. There are dangerous people with evil intentions pulling the strings of our so-called “leaders”…. pray and forever stay vigilant. God bless
They want it living so they can abort it.
“28Th Amendment:”much better served by having a twelve-year-old with basic reading comprehension as a justice.”
The solution to getting liberals to go to Antarctica without violating or amending the Constitution. Get Jon Stewart to hold a rally there and provide one-way transportation.
It seems that some people here (eon) have a misunderstanding about Godwin’s Law. If you’re having an argument about something unrelated to Nazism, let’s say Empire vs. Jedi, and you call your opponent a Nazi, you’ve lost the argument due to Godwin’s Law.
However, in cases where the Nazi relationship is obvious, it’s ok to bring that up. If you’re arguing about mustaches with someone who has a Hitler mustache, you can tell them that they look like Hitler, and your point isn’t damaged by Godwin’s Law.
If, like this article’s author, you’re talking about rounding up a segment of the population and shipping them to a horrible place to do forced labor, I’d say that’s pretty close to what the Nazis did. A person who references Nazism in this circumstance might not be picking up on the satirical nature of the article, but he is not losing the argument because of Godwin’s Law.
Wrong again. The Nazis didn’t just round up people for forced labor; they sent them to gas chambers. Perhaps you’re thinking of your Communist heroes, like Mao, Stalin, Castro, etc.
I’m not sure what you think I’m wrong about. The Nazis used forced labor extensively, and they didn’t exterminate everyone they subjected to forced labor. There’s a whole wikipedia page about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor_in_Germany_during_World_War_II
A couple side notes:
1. I probably shouldn’t have used Empire vs. Jedi as an example since the Empire itself was somewhat modeled after the third reich. If this site had an edit feature I would probably change it to bar soap vs. body wash or something like that (bar soap rules!).
2. If you’re arguing on behalf of Jedi and your opponent violates Godwin’s law, you still lose because Ewoks suck. It’s a pretty big loophole, I’m surprised nobody caught it.
I’ll try to explain this slowly.
If the Nazis did nothing more than round up people into forced-labor camps, then that would make them no different than the Communists, whom folks like you adore (because, after all, they were trying to create the perfect society – and hey, you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few, or a few tens of thousands, eggs).
What makes the Nazis different is that they ran a program of state-sponsored murder, using gas chambers, mobile death squads, etc.
Now, nowhere in this article is there any suggestion of that. (I’ll pass on the fact that the article is satirical, anyway, since that seems to have gone way over your head.) So if you want to say that Frank is suggesting that conservatives are like the Communists – then that, at least, would be a sensible point to make. (Though of course, if that were the case – why, then, you should be cheering them on!)
But you’ve got absolutely no basis – not from this article, and not from anywhere else – to make comparisons with Nazis. So yes, eon (upthread) is correct: you have Godwinized yourself and lost the argument.
Alex, I think I see where you’re going with this, but you’re still wrong.
Nazis are most notorious for horrible acts unleashed upon subsets of their populous. Widespread use of forced labor is not the worst thing they did, but it’s definitely something for which they’re very well-known.
Communists are most famous for their doomed economic theories. Yes, they definitely engaged in forced labor and mass executions, sometimes on an obscene scale, but the Nazis are more well-known for these things.
In the context of the subject at hand — rounding people up, shipping them somewhere horrible, and making them do forced labor — the communists would need to be a lot more well-known for this than the Nazis in order for me to lose the argument based on Godwin’s law.
For example, some people are aware that Michael Jordan once sported a Hitler mustache:
http://bit.ly/gN3GEg
We both know that Michael Jordan is a very famous guy, but no one says that Hitler had a Michael Jordan mustache.
“Aaron
In total seriousness: all conservatives are Nazis. It’s been proven.”
By your own definition.
You make the comparison, and have nothing to justify it.
The only one around here who does not understand Godwin’s Law- is yourself.
Do you ever bother to read your own posts?
clear ether
eon
(Having to put this here, since Aaron’s last comment is embedded too deep for me to be able to reply directly to it.)
Aaron, do you know _why_ the communists are not well-known for rounding people up and sending them to forced-labor camps? It’s because people like you, apologists for them, have done their very best to deny, obfuscate, and make excuses for them, that after all they were just trying to implement “economic theories.”
So you’re trying to have it both ways. You and your fellow travelers want to minimize what the Communists did, so that you can accuse your political opponents of the same thing – while comparing them to the Nazis who did far worse. That, dear sir, is an intellectually dishonest, indeed obscene, way of arguing.
Hmmm, mining in Antarctica. Fits with the commerce clause. Rangle wants a draft. Sounds like a plan!
I honestly believe that (some? many? most?) liberals simply cannot grasp the concept of “rights”. They keep wanting to use the definition of “privileges” instead.
It’s really very simple, Malclave. You see, there are positive rights, like the right to health, or social justice, or a living wage, or the right not to be offended. Then there are those pesky negative rights that get in the way of things. They are the ones that start like “Congress shall make no law…” or contain phrases like “…shall not be infringed.” The One explained all of this about positive and negative rights to us. Didn’t you get the memo?
Great article, very astute.
Watching Breyer and his convoluted logic attempting to convince us the second amendment meant exactly the opposite of how it read, made me realize that we conservatives, place too much respect and importance on the justices of the Supreme Court. After all, they are just lawyers. Some don’t have any principles, and will do or say anything to achieve their goals. Most the liberals fit in this category. Words mean something, so we need to INSIST, the simple words in the constitution MEAN EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAY AND ARE NOT OPEN TO INTERPRETATION.
You know that between the rehab clinics, STDs, lack of work ethic and general all around uselessness, we would get less productive labor out of Antartica than we do today. But, on the positive side, at least all the American hating leftists would finally be out of the country which they despise and we wouldn’t have to listen to their insults about how stupid, insensitive, and hateful we are. Sounds like a win-win even if we don’t get a nickels worth of gold from the mines.
Have an Evil day
I have just started “Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution..” and found it fascinating that in 1786 delegates which had met in Philadelphia to discuss giving Congress the power to regulate commerce and trade in the United States, were the ones who actually called for the Constitutional Convention.
TTT, the roots of the Commerce Clause go very deep, eh?
Maier says that she will not use the term “anti-Federalist” because it was usually invoked as a perjorative. Also, there was no Federalist Party yet in existence.
“by a strict constructionist interpretation of the American Constitution, there is no support for being able to deport liberals to a mining camp.”
Unless that liberal is also a Negro slave.
Why do conservatives hate the original constitution and tolerate the perversion of the document by amendments and subject it to judicial interpretation?
Why did not conservatives read the entirety of the original document?
However, I do admire the liberal constitution haters in Congress who took part in the public reading of the document aloud. One of those ended up sacrificing her life in Arizona recently as a result of her support for the Second Amendment. These liberals are a sneaky bunch indeed.
Has anyone who commented gone to law school or actually studied Supreme Court cases? Boy, you are angry at liberals.
…and you, madam, have just posted an appeal for respect for the “enlightened, educated” folk to be our betters and leaders. Betcha you think you’re one of them.
They read the whole thing? Wow. That’s impressive.
Did they leave any bits out? Any at all?
The article serves to heighten, in bas-relief, the “I don’t get it” mentality of some conservatives. Here, the Conservative commentator is continually making jokes about killing, imprisoning and enslaving liberals for their false beliefs, all under the guise of being a “constituionalist,” and, “it’s all in fun.” Right. Your naked instigation of feelings of superiority and concurrent desire to imprison and enslave your enemies is all we need to know about your sense of humor. The fact that you STILL don’t get that your words could and clearly WILL in some cases cause actual violence to occur is the most stymying so far in the new political discourse, and, most likely, because you and your ilk are pushing this envelope we WILL have laws outlawing certain speech, because writers such as the this one will simply not shut up, and demand that humans, who, as the writer himself must agree (with the Founding Fathers) are “Ambitious, rapacious, and VINDICTIVE,” and they will not take kindly to violence inciting speech, nor have they ever in any society. The result will be either increasing violence or, more likely in our society, RESTRICTIONS ON SPEECH BECAUSE FOOLS SUCH AS YOURSELF CONTINUE TO MAKE JOKES ABOUT KILLING ME AND MINE!
I thought that the Owl was supposed to be a wise bird. Boy, was I wrong…
Please find me anywhere in this article where there’s anything about killing anyone. That you jump to such a conclusion says more about your predilections than the author’s.
“…The result will be either increasing violence or, more likely in our society, RESTRICTIONS ON SPEECH…”
No doubt. Liberal Democrats have definitely thrown lots of folks into dungeons over the years for saying things liberals didn’t like.
Er … liberals?.
By that standard, can I claim that conservatives implemented the holocaust?
By what standard?
I disagree with Dave’s formulation – the Communists were anything but “Liberal Democrats,” and to pretend that they’re the same is, frankly, slanderous.
With that said: you _can_ find a certain admiration for Communism among liberals – consider the popularity of the Che t-shirt. Where, except in your imagination, can you find similar admiration for Nazism among conservatives?
If I meant communists, I would have said communists. I wasn’t talking about communists putting people in jail, I was talking about (so-called) liberal Democrats putting people in jail.
IOW, I meant exactly what I said.
Examples, please? You do us conservatives no favor by caricaturing our opponents. (Also, “dungeons” is a deliberately inflammatory term that isn’t really applicable to prisons in the Western world.)
Americans (particularly those claiming to be Christians) need to figure out that according to the Bible there is no such thing as God-given unalienable rights (including Second Amendment rights), but only God-given immutable responsibilities. Children clamor for their rights, adults look to fulfill their responsibilities.
Until then, Congress will continue to use such isolated shootings (individual irresponsible firearms use)as Loughner’s to whittle away the Second Amendment “rights” of responsible users.
Instead, Christians need to recognize that their inalienable commission to bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, and their neighbors comes, not from the Second Amendment, but from Yahweh and His perfect laws and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-9). See “Firearms: Scripturally Defended” at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/firearm-right.php and “Amendment 2: Self-Defense: Constitutional or Biblical” at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt12.php.
I may try to live my life according to the Bible, but my right to do so in this country is granted by and protected by the Constitution of these United States. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This famous sentence is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, yet both were written by the founders of this great nation. I haven’t heard anyone try to make the argument that this comes directly from the Bible, and for the purposes of this discussion, it doesn’t matter. What it is is the documented belief of the men who declared this country to be unique, free, and independent. Yet they were careful, those rights that they considered most precious, which they wanted all Americans to have, they protected the best way they could. They did this by stating in plain language in the governing document of our nation that our leaders do NOT have the right to take them away from us.
My right to bear arms is not a God given right; it is an American right, granted to me by the second amendment to the Constitution that I swore to support and defend against all enemies. Ever notice that there is no “until such a time as” in that oath? When you take it, you take it for life. I am grateful that I can live my life according to my faith without fear of government persecution. I chose to serve, to give my time and effort, with full understanding of the possibility of giving even the fullest measure, I did this because of the value I place on my country. I was a normal kid. I knew next to nothing about the Constitution when I swore to defend it. But I resolved to learn. Now I serve my country in a different way, as a civilian citizen. I believe it to be a patriotic duty to engage in political discourse, to be an active member of the political process, and to VOTE. I find vitriol from both sides to be offensive, but I don’t believe that being offensive is a crime, mostly just inefficient communication.
As to a “commission to bear arms in defense of…” from the Bible, please remember that the Bible does not constitute the laws of the land. And while the rules and laws of the Bible have bearing on the condition of your soul, the rules and laws of the land have bearing on the condition of your body (in jail or not in jail). It bears remembering. And while there are circumstances where these laws might be in conflict, as per say in most of Europe some 60-odd years ago, many who chose to follow the spiritual laws rather than the physical, still bore the physical penalties. I believe that the spiritual penalties would be far worse, and I pray that I would have the courage to make that choice if it came to it, but I pray even harder that I never have to, that my children and my children’s children’s children never have to.
One of the greatest gifts that our founders gave us was the ability to overthrow our government, without violence. And that’s pretty much what we saw this November past. The fact remains that if this new 112th congress acts just like the old congress then we’ll do it again. The only bright spot is that most of these freshmen seem to realize just that. One of the little gems in the new “rules package” passed on Jan. 5th is that “a Member of Congress may not introduce a bill or joint resolution unless the sponsor also submits a statement citing as specifically as practicable the power or powers under the Constitution authorizing the enactment of that bill or joint resolution.” (here’s a great link: http://www.pobletetamargo.com/uncategorized/congress-adopts-new-rules-package) So it would kind of make sense, after passing a rule that says that you have to constitutionally justify anything you submit, to READ the Constitution that you have to use and that you just swore to support, defend, bear true faith and allegiance to the same, etc. You might think that such a rule might not be necessary, but then you might think “how could anyone object to the reading of the Constitution?”
Anyway…
Don’t just read the Constitution like by it
Um… do you mean “live by it”?
the constitution is the cornerstone to how we as a people live our lives in this country.it’s what seperates us from the over lords of the third world powers.unfortunitly,the left has been doing everything it can to usurp it.our goverment officials want to re-wright and amend to the will of the bankers and the dictators.make slaves of the people of this nation.