A Wondful Start Reading The Constitution

For the first time in history the US Constitution was read aloud in Congress thanks to the take over by tea party Republicans.

The reading of the document skipped over parts that had been amended or repealed which has started a debate in the house on whether or not those parts should have been read.  Who would have guessed that the backlash Obama created would create such a wonderful thing as to actually have our government discussing the Constitution.

And what I consider an incredible honor, our own Congressman Frank Guinta had the privilege of reading the 2nd Amendment.

What shocks me is the lack of coverage by our media.  This was an historic event and there has been very little coverage.  One news woman even went so far as to ask if the tea party is going too far with it's love affair with the Constitution.

Have we really strayed so far that the very act of having Congress read aloud the document they take an oath to protect and uphold is controversial?  Thank goodness the 2010 elections have seemed to not just give the federal government a kick in the pants but seems to have gotten us back to a point we've long since strayed away from, following the very document that is meant to govern us.

I personally hope our NH state lawmakers follow the example set forth by the tea partiers and request that our state Constitution be read aloud to the House and Senate members here as well.  I suspect that is a far less recognizable text which I would be willing to bet some of our state lawmakers have never read at all.

Know Your Rights

There are two stories, one a news article and the other a letter to the editor, in the telegraph this week that highlight why it is important for everyday citizens to know their constitutional rights.  Touching on each in order of the Constitutional right they touch, the first is a mater of religion.

In the article a group calling themselves "The Freedom From Religion Foundation" attempted to take away others freedom OF religion by seeking to ban the Pledge of Allegiance in NH schools. 

A three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston on Friday affirmed a ruling by a federal judge who found that students can use the phrase "under God" when reciting the pledge.

If you have actually read the first amendment it's fairly clear in it's wording.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In other words the government cannot force members of "The Freedom From Religion Foundation" to say "under God" if they wish not to but likewise the government cannot stop others from saying it if they wish. 

The Constitution protects us from government established religion and protects our freedom of religion but there is no freedom FROM religion offered by the constitution.  Just because someone chooses not to believe in a God or gods does not mean they can use government to prevent others from openly discussing or worshiping whatever God or gods they so choose.

Now that case is fairly straight forward and is directly related to the first amendment but this second case is one I think many may not so easily see how it relates.

In this second example a woman writes a letter with the following details:

We recently took over the care of a 6-8 week old kitten who was found abandoned in a dumpster in Brookline. She was wet and sick and scared, but oh so loving.

We managed to keep her alive over the weekend but brought her to the animal hospital on Monday when we realized she needed more care than we could give her. They kept her for the day and managed to stabilize her.

Because they do not offer 24 hour care we picked her up that afternoon. We were up every hour during that night and the following day in our struggle to keep her alive. She died Tuesday afternoon and we buried her in our back yard filled with sorrow that her poor little life ended in such a way.

The hospital called the next day not to offer support or condolences but to insist we dig her up so she could be sent to Concord to be autopsied (beheaded) and checked for rabies. Apparently when the technician gave her a bath she nipped her out of fear.

...

The Amherst police showed up at my door Friday morning insisting that I give her to them.

Take a moment to read the facts and see if you can think of how this above issue relates to the Constitution before going on.

Ready?

When the hospital sent the police to confiscate the cat they violated the 4th Amendment.

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.

Many people take the Constitution and the rights granted within it for granted but these two stories are perfect examples of why it is important for each and every one of us to know our rights and poses the Constitutional knowledge to defend those rights.

Supreme Court Upholds Constitution, Democrats Cry Foul

In the 1976 Supreme Court case of Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court rules that giving money to influence a political campaign was a form of free speech and should be protected as such.

In the 1886 case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad it was interpreted that corporations were "persons" when it came to Constitutional rights.

So now in 2010 the Supreme Court was asked to consider whether or not corporations should be allowed to be limited in their political donations.  Is anyone who knows anything about US history shocked that they ruled in favor of allowing unlimited donations?

Of course there are those who do not know our history and they are suprised.

Blue Hampshire declared "The Doors to Hell are Now Open"

Fix campaign funding and do not worry so much about limiting speech.

Democracy For New Hampshire wrote "Breaking: US Supreme Court opens floodgates of corporate money for campaigns!"

The Citizens United case is reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. However, the affirmed part is only as to requiring disclosure by Citizens United, the reversal is much bigger and strikes down any right on the part of the government to regulate corporations like Citizens United in any campaign activity.

Thus, non-voters, non-citizens and non-human beings in the form of corporations, with foreign money, or mob money, or you name it, can take to the airwaves and contribute directly to candidates in an unlimited fashion. And, they are only about one vote away, perhaps two, from making these unlimited contributions SECRET so we the people don't even know WHO is talking at us so long and loud, or who's funding it...

The part in bold is an interesting statement considering that right now Democrats control all branches of NH State and the Federal governments.

Personally I look at candidates before I vote for them, perhaps they should to.  If a candidate is able to buy a millon dollars worth of ads for their campaign and refuse to tell where the money came from perhaps they should consider voting for different candidates.

Watchdog sites such as Open Secrets helps track candidate's funding so if you feel a candidate funded by perhaps pharmaceutical corporations... like Martha Coakley was... then you can avoid those candidates and support instead someone more in line with your own ideas.

This is nothing more then Democrats wanting to find ways to shut funding down to anyone they don't like while continuing to allow their own groups like Unions free reign and when they aren't allowed to get their way they cry foul and claim the sky is falling.

Laws That Say Follow The Law

It always amazes me when I see we've gotten to a point in our society that laws need to be written reminding the government that it too needs to follow the laws.  This is being done once again with one of the new bills submitted for 2010.

HB 1330
This bill restricts government action from burdening a person’s free exercise of religion.

Isn't this already a right guaranteed by our federal Constitution?

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

And guaranteed by our NH Constitution?

[Art.] 5. [Religious Freedom Recognized.] Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and reason; and no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his peers on, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession, sentiments, or persuasion; provided he doth not disturb the public peace or disturb others in their religious worship.

Its sad that our state and federal Constitutions are not respected enough to stand on their own.  What's even sadder is that only one single elected official has attached their name on this bill.  Rep Wendelboe is so far the sole sponsor on this bill.  You would think that any representative that respects their oath to honor and uphold the Constitution would quickly sign their name onto a bill that essentially reminds the government to follow their own rules.

This bill will be one worth watching and those reps who vote against it should be noted.

Democrats vs The Constitution

Democrats hate the US Constitution.  They don't follow it, they don't respect it and they don't want it.  If you need evidence of this have a discussion with a liberal Democrat and bring up the Constitution.  Watch as they get red in the face and begin making arguments against why it should be followed.

Just this week I had such a discussion online in the feedback to an article on the Nashua Telegraph's website.  The question was posed, how have we gotten to this point where the presidency is so disrespected and how do we recover.  I responded stating that we got to this point by having two parties with two very different views each trying to force others to follow their own views and by using the force of the government gun to impose their views on those who object or to force everyone to fund their ideas regardless of whether they wish to or not.  I pointed out that if we got back to actually following the verbiage of Article I Section 8 of the Constitution where the powers given to the federal government were actually spelled out we'd see far more respect because we would have a government that doesn't over step its bounds and puts its nose into areas it doesn't belong.

That comment kicked off a whole slew of feed back from the left wing liberals reading the site.  I'd like to share some of it with you to point out what kind of mentality the left has.

Hudsonite writes:

You do realize there's more to the constitution than that one clause right? You should perhaps read the whole thing, particularly the clause that allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce.

Now this is funny because it clearly demonstrates how little this person knows about the actual constitution while they attempt to show they do know something about it.  The clause they refer to is part of Article I Section 8 "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

What's even funnier (read as sad) is that two additional readers clicked "like" on his comment thinking he was "slamming" me with his superior knowledge when in fact Hudsonite was showing his complete utter ignorance of the Constitution.

SLRNashuan writes:

The Constitutional arguments are illogical. There was no way for the Founders to imagine Wall Street or the vast insurance empires or cyberspace or modern weaponry. The Founding Documents were written over 200 years ago. It should be used as a guide but unless the suggestion is that we all go back to horse and buggy days, we cannot strictly apply everything in the document.

By the way, where were all these new found friends of the Constitution during the last eight years when the Bush/Cheney administration ignored it and trampled on the rights of citizens in ways never before seen? Crickets.

Now this argument is interesting in that there are two key points.  First is the founders couldn't have envisioned everything and then the second is the claim that Bush/Chaney ignored it.

Regarding the first point, they are correct that the founders could not have envisioned everything which is why they gave two tools to allow for that within the Constitution.  The first is the ability to amend the Constitution which we have done 27 times with the latest being in 1992.  The second ability and perhaps the most powerful part of the Constitution is the 10th Amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

In other words anything the government is specifically not bared from doing (like banning free speech or taking away our guns) is allowed by state level governments.  The founders wanted each state to be free to make its own rules and implement many of the things like Health Care coverage if that is what the people wished.  This allowed smaller governments to wield this power so people have more direct control over it.  And those who strongly disagree with something can simply move to another state without having to leave the country.

Now the second argument this poster made is a smoke screen, don't look close at Obama because Bush broke the rules too.  Sorry but saying George did it too doesn't excuse you from doing wrong.  This argument also totally fails to understand my original point.  I acknowledge that both sides broke the rules and that is why we've gotten to a point where both sides hate each other so much.

Sajwert writes:

SLRNashuan, if we LITERALLY followed the Constitution, we would probably not have freed the slaves.

This is an interesting claim.  So if we literally follow the Constitution we would not have freed the slaves?  I'm not sure how they drive to this conclusion.  Slaves are mentioned in two parts of the Constitution, Article I Section 2 and Amendment 13.

"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

And

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

So the Amendment abolished it.  If we literally follow the Constitution then we will never have slavery.

Further bickering ensued about the Constitution until finally a poster going by AlexF posted the most telling question of all to those who believe the Constitution is outdated or should be viewed as a "Living" document to be re-interpreted over time, he asked that those with these views "flip through the Constitution and report back on which parts you'd like to throw out".  Of course there came no answer, only this follow up question by poster Tesha:

Alex, show me a section - not half a line or a snippet - show me a section where it says "There shall be no insurance offered to our citizens to deal with the complex state of health care in 2009"

Alex correctly responded:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If a power is NOT given to the government in Article I Section 8 or in an Amendment then it is a power the government does not have.  We cannot give the government every single power we dream up simply because the founding fathers did not specifically think to limit the government from having that power.  Why would they have listed a specific list of powers if the government was to have anything not specifically limited by the Constitution?

I'd encourage my readers to from time to time have discussions or at least start a discussion with liberals either on forums on the internet or in private and listen to them as they should their contempt and failure to understand the Constitution and remind yourself, these people vote.  This is what we're up against folks, people who do not understand nor wish to follow the Constitution of this country and in doing so they seek representatives who will impose their will over you with government force to get what they want.