Tag Archives: moderates

The U.S. Constitution in Plain Language

Constitution650In response to the New York Times editorial “Let’s Give Up on the Constitution,” written by esteemed scholar Louis Michael Seidman, it seems like an appropriate time to revisit the U.S. Constitution.

Unfortunately, since the language of the Constitution can be technical and outdated, republishing something as brilliant as The Federalist Papers simply wouldn’t convince many people that so-called “progressives” are actually on the wrong side of history.

Most people do not understand that “progressives” are authoritarians fighting to undo the American political system, which was put into place to keep power-hungry politicians from doing whatever they want with other people’s lives.

Instead of forming another complicated defense of the law of the land, let’s put the U.S. Constitution in terms everyone can understand:

We run this country. Politicians are there to do their jobs and that’s it. Don’t start nothing, won’t be nothing. (See The Declaration of Independence.)

The House of Representatives and Senate pass the laws. This is so we don’t feel stupid for electing dictators who can do whatever they want. Putting more jerks in office makes it harder for them to work together to pass harmful laws. Since they are egomaniacs, they will fight for power and hopefully cancel each others’ idiocy out.

Not just any fool can be a Representative. Just fools of a certain age and citizenship status. Senators have to be a bit older, but certainly no wiser that Representatives.

The Congress has to actually meet once in a while. This is not a problem for career politicians. If you act like a douchebag, we can kick you out. We probably won’t, but don’t push it. No double-dipping.

Spending bills start in the House, even though some political parties act like they don’t. The House decides what stuff and how much of it the government buys. It decides what countries to invade. Don’t go trampling on people’s civil liberties. States aren’t separate countries, and shouldn’t act like them.

If you’re a thirty-five year old citizen with no real record of accomplishment, you too can be an American president! The president has to take an oath to the Constitution. Contrary to popular belief, he doesn’t get elected to rule over other Americans. He gets to make treaties and pick bureaucrats.

Every year, the president makes a nice speech to Congress. He should take care not to insult members of the other branches. Believe it or not, the president can be kicked out of office.

There’s a bunch of judges who decide tough cases called the Supreme Court. They too can be kicked out, but they can generally stay on the court as long as they want to. The Supreme Court gets to rule on certain cases of importance.

It’s possible to commit treason against one’s country, but since most of the founders of the country were called traitors, it’s almost impossible.

We have a republican form of government, not a democracy. That means we have a bunch of somewhat independent states that are supposed to work together, help each other out, and follow the rules.

Don’t like something in the Constitution? We actually have a way to change it built in! That means none of you who don’t like the Constitution gets to say, “hey, why don’t we just forget about the Constitution?” If you have a bright idea, let’s see how much the public agrees with you.

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It gives the government all of its legitimate powers, and also limits what the government can do to people. Politicians are nothing but citizens who are equal to other citizens and hold office only by the people’s consent. If politicians start bossing people around, and break their oaths of office, then the Constitution is nullified, and the authority of the government is voided.

In that worst case scenario, Washington politicians would be just a collection of 537 guys trying to order around more than 300 million Americans, but they would have no more legitimate authority than anyone else. “Giving up on the Constitution” means we should all forget about what Washington politicians say and why we should listen to them at all.

All of the states whose spokesmen sign this document agree to form a federal government on these conditions only. Without this binding agreement, there is no federal government.

Bonus: The Bill of Rights

1st Amendment — We can say whatever we want and believe whatever we want, and the government has no say in it.

2nd Amendment — We have the right to defend ourselves from the government and criminals using firearms.

3rd Amendment — Soldiers and policemen can’t just bust into your house like they own the joint and crash there.

4th Amendment — Police can’t just search people randomly, go through their stuff, ask for their papers, and all that business.

5th Amendment — The government can’t just take stuff or lock people up without a trial.

6th Amendment — Trials have to be speedy and fair.

7th Amendment — People have a right to be judged by other folks who can understand them.

8th Amendment — Judges can’t just straight up rip people off or do cruel and unusual stuff to them.

9th Amendment — Just because it isn’t written down here, doesn’t mean people don’t have other rights.

10th Amendment — If the Constitution doesn’t say that the government can do something, it can’t do it. The people and the states have all the powers not otherwise given to the federal government.

As Obama redefines everything .. the right whiffs at the plate

Some “Constitutionalists” say that “social issues” are not for election years – as if social issues were absent Constitutional basis.

Listening as a Democrat pundit said Thursday that sixty-something percent of Americans “support marriage” but saying so in a way that was intended to purport that the same majority supported gay marriage, the goal of redefining what marriage actually means felt eerily near to coming to fruition. The guest also mentioned that Obama’s recent evolution on gay marriage was a show of support for “marriage”.  Whoever rejects Obama’s push to redefine marriage is now effectively against marriage according to the interviewee.

Semanticism is the tool of the left – redefining terms in a way that is socially, although illogically, acceptable in the hopes of diminishing an institution or idea that is an obstacle to realizing the unicorn-trodden, rainbow-emblazoned progressive stomping ground known as Utopia.

Marriage is the foundation of family. Family is what comes together in times of hardship to weather the storm. If the progressives can dismantle strong families they can create an entirely government dependent culture – one that could never, ever vote them out for the fear of having no one left to take care of them. As the Washington Post printed today.. why bother getting married at all? And if you do, getting divorced may not be as bad as you used to think.

Then there is the contracteption mandate in Obamacare. Obama’s regulatory agency has made an exception that defines who or what is or is not a religious institution when considering the requirement for employers to provide reproductive coverage (a.k.a. contraception) to employees. It dictates which institutions are or are not a church based on how they are ministered to. The definition is narrow, narrow-minded and built to destroy the current understanding of the wall between church and state. It is, as progressives are fond to admit, a nudge – a nudge intended to end another non-governmental safety-net: the church.

Those who would say that this election is not about these issues, but instead about the Constitution confuse me. Marriage is not a power enumerated in the Constitution and is therefor the States’ to handle – so says the tenth amendment. Why wouldn’t staunch Constitutionalists step-up to say that the federal government cannot decide who may or may not get married? The separation of church and state (1st amendment), although bastardized by the left, was intended to prevent exactly the kind of oppressive activity that the Obama administration is undertaking against the Catholic church. Those who purport a firm understanding of our founding document can’t be found to argue these important issues. They are after all “social issues” that they cannot be bothered with. What will happens when those disenfranchised by this nudge are not there to protect the strict Consitutionalists when a different amendment is under attack? Nothing, they’ll simply be the next domino to fall in the progression of liberal oppression.

If this nudge simply redefines what a church is or what is the definition of marriage, what will the next one bring?

These may seem like small things when viewed in a 30-second television sound bite, but they are nibbles – small bites out of the basis of American society intended to bring about a new one – without families, churches, opportunity or freedom.

The real test of a Constitutionalist is not what they do when their own rights are being threatened – but what they do when the rights of someone with whom they disagree are in peril. The redefinitions of marriage and church are exactly those tests by which Conservatives will be judged.

Moderate Schizophrenia

Does the middle see themselves as center-right or center-left? According to a recent Rasmussen Reports poll, it’s both.

The poll found that 56% of voters feel that the average Democrat is more liberal than they are but only 46% find that the average Republican is to their right. That would indicate a closer relationship to Republican values than to Democrat values.

The same poll then asked whose agenda they found more extreme. 52% said that the Republican congressional agenda is too extreme while only 46% of respondents said the same of the Democrats’ plan for the country. That would indicate closer alignment with the left.

It’s not until the underlying demographic breakdown from the survey is analyzed that the reason for the confused overall result becomes obvious – well.. kinda.

61% of moderates said that the average Congressional Republican was more conservative than they while only 6% of moderates felt that Democrats were more liberal than they were.

On the question of whose agenda was considered extreme, 22% of moderates said that the Republican agenda is extreme while 45% of the moderate crowd responded that the Democrat agenda is extreme.

Among respondents that self-identified as moderates – their appears to be a pandemic of schizophrenia. How else can one explain to find Democrats’s agenda as extreme, but feel that Republicans are further away from them – unless moderates are saying that  they prefer an extreme liberal agenda.

This may be an interested election year indeed.