Its surprising how much you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit
So… you think you’ve got the answers? "It's that other guy’s issues that aren’t as important as mine. If everyone would just listen to ME, we can fix this thing!" YOUR issue is our MOST important issue --
And on, and on.
But those are not issues, they are symptoms. IMHO, we are all missing the true source, and therefore the soluition, to the one underlying source of ALL our "problems."
So many, many people simply do not understand the purpose of government. At least one third believe that government is there to provide its citizens with a fair share of the country’s wealth. Another third believes the government should be the final arbiter of the equal and appropriate measure of justice and that rules should be followed and order should be maintained. The remaining third are those who are so focused on their own lives or are resigned to the fact that government acts regardless of their input, that they ignore it, refuse to participate in it, and yield to it only when circumstances dictate.
Those three groups have been around (in varying percentages of distribution) since before there were kings and remain today.
However, in the mid 18th century, as the book “The 5000 Year Leap” points out, there were perhaps a couple hundred men (ladies, please take a breath) whose experiences and circumstances lead them to a relatively new adaptation of government. They studied history, they shared understanding, they debated concepts, and they eventually arrived at conclusions that produced the Great Experiment called America. They agreed that “government is best when government is least.” They determined that limiting a federal government to an absolute minimum of authority and power was paramount. And, they determined that such a government could only be ordained and established by those willing to allow its existence. Most important of all, they knew that the singular purpose of a government of, by, and for The People was to PROTECT THE GOD GIVEN RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL. Nothing more, nothing less.
Using that as the blueprint, those couple hundred convinced about 3% (less than 50,000 people) to support the creation of just such a limited federal government. In turn, those 50,000 people convinced about 1/3 of the total population (about ½ million people) who had experienced the rewards of self-reliance with minimal government interference, to take a chance on such an unheard of form of government. Thus, with 1/3 ignoring the struggle, 1/3 opposing the idea, the final 1/3 (with a small voting majority) were willing to take the risk. A brand new country was created and its federal government was defined in the Constitution for the united States of America.
You can see that, even in the days of ratification of that Constitution, there was NO unification regarding what the government could or could not do, nor how it was to go about doing it. It is not in the nature of mankind (throughout history) to agree on what or how things get done. Remarkably, as the number of people affected by collective reasoning increases, the closer the number of people in each 1/3 of political society tends to equalize or balance.
That means there was never a 100% agreement on the Constitution and there is never likely to be one. It also means that from time to time, there have been changes, misinterpretations, and outright ignoring the Constitution to gain an advantage for one group over another. Those errors continue to be committed and perpetuated by all three of the socio-political groups. Whether it is a party advantage, a source of benefits, an entity of control, or just a necessary evil that can (or cannot) be ignored, we have grown to accept these deviations. In fact, if the continued application of the error supports our position or, at least, does not jeopardize our position we will happily ignore its existence or contra-Constitutional impact. Of course, we also tend to accept the futility of “you can’t fight city hall.”
Now, I want you, the reader, to ask yourself a couple of questions. As indicated by the tenor of this article, and where it is published, I am going to assume that you believe that you are some level of Capitalist, Republican, Conservative, Constitutionalist, etc. as opposed to Socialist, Democrat, Kumbaya, Liberal, etc. In addition, these questions refer to “the Constitution for the united States of America,” as amended by the Bill of Rights in 1791 (Amendments I through X), but nothing after that.
Question ONE: Do you believe that there are laws or government actions that are in direct contradiction to the Constitution?
Question TWO: Are you willing to sacrifice any and ALL misuses or abuses of the Constitution that benefit you or those you care about?
If you answered “Yes” to both questions, you truly are a member of the 3% who should lead the Conservative political group.
If your responses include a “No” or even a “but” or “however,” perhaps you should reconsider your political association. To me, it makes you a Liberal. If you are just a “little-bit” Liberal, isn’t it the same as being a “little-bit” pregnant? If “Conservatism” allows YOUR little exception(s) how can it exclude anyone else’s? And shouldn’t including anyone else’s be extended to include everyone else’s? Conservatives with exceptions are nothing less than Liberals-Lite. We become those may throw up our hands, but who still allow abortion, and we permit same-sex marriage with only a token of resistance. And on, and on…
So, am I suggesting that those of you who did not reply a pure “Yes” to both questions should just “Get the #&%@ out” of the Conservative third?
I am only pointing out that the authority and actions of the Federal Government have FAR exceeded its lawful authority as defined by the Constitution. If we were to collectively impose the limits of that abusive, tyrannical Federal Government to the enumerated powers permitted by the Constitution, we could argue and come to an agreement to your “buts” and “howevers” at the state, if not local levels. Decisions such as “Do we want the corner of John Smith’s cotton field to be a public access park? Do we really need more lite-rail? Should we allow non-prescription marijuana to be smoked privately and in public?” belong at home, NOT in Washington. I don’t care what Colorado wants or what Massachusetts doesn’t want. I want to decide what WE want with my neighbors.
Perhaps next time we can discuss how can we make that happen. Meanwhile, we must come together and subjugate the Constitution for the united States of America to the will (and permission) of The People and their States in every way possible -- elections, lawsuits, public opinion, and… ?
Remember, 1/3 don't care, 1/3 want a BIG, invasive, tyrannical, and controlling government. The rest of us want to fix something. That ain't going to happen until we can agree on what needs fixing and how.