Thursday, February 08, 2007
That Pesky Little Document Called the Constitution
Every time the bureaucrats pass a bill that restricts our rights to life, liberty, or property, the water carriers jump to make this point: "We're not diminishing the Constitution, we're upholding Democracy. If the people vote for the representatives and the representatives vote on a bill, that bill cannot be subject to anything"
They say this like it was what the Founding Fathers wanted, when the truth couldn't be farther away. The Founders knew there is a problem with Democracy, and it's that popular opinion isn't always right, or moral. No matter how much support it gets, there is no justification for a bill that infringes on one's natural rights.
This is why we have a Constitution, and one that is not living and breathing, but set in stone as the supreme law of the land. It exists to prevent Democracy from killing itself a la Fascism.
Now, people voting for representatives and representatives voting for bills is a great system that our country runs on, but it can only be effective if all proposed bills are in accordance to the Constitution. Because the Constitution is the only document holding this country back from a bleak future where freedom and liberty are absent.
The most unfortunate thing is that the Constitution isn't holding bureaucrats back from destroying your freedom anymore, and most of the people of our country are too brainwashed by the RNC and DNC party lines to care.
This country is not and should not be a land of Democracy, but a land of liberty. It must be understood that you are meant to have many freedoms, but one of them is not the freedom to pass laws that restrict the freedoms of others, no matter what the majority consensus is.
Would you party hacks find it justified if the bureaucrats voted for no separation of powers, or no presidential term limits just because the majority think it's okay?
And though these examples are clearly rhetorical hyperboles, it is still safe to say that politicians are passing bills that are clearly unconstitutional.
For downloading a $1 song illegally, you can get a $750 fine. Sounds like excessive punishment to me, which is against the eight amendment.
Senator McCain wants to pass a bill that fines people $300,000 to people who don't snitch out child pornographers. Not only is that an excessive fine, but it is also coercion and involuntary servitude, which is against the thirteenth amendment.
What happened to the right to bear arms in California?
How about those warrant-less wiretaps by the NSA. That undoubtedly breaks the fourth.
Are these laws justified just because the majority supports them? Of course not. And I must add that this is only scratching the surface of a mountain of unconstitutional laws.
We're living in a world where liberty is no longer important to people. And I don't care if "the majority" is against me on this one, because guess what? That doesn't make them right.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever shot a gun? I notice that many people who share your opinion haven't, so I'm just wondering.
It's still not legal to shoot someone, so what is the purpose of carrying a weapon? I see no reason that anyone needs to carry a gun with them, unless they are hunting. In your home? Maybe, if it's properly stored and impossible for a child to reach. But the need to carry a gun with you is something I really don't understand.
To defend yourself from people who want to shoot you.
People should not be able to put their agendas into the constitution. Restricting gay marraige or gun rights are partisan issues that do nothing but restrict your liberties. The constitution is to be ammended to secure your freedoms, not regulate them.
And again, guns make the streets safer. The statistics prove that. When someone pulls a gun on a mugger, the mugger is not going to try and mug the guy anymore. As a consequence, neither the man getting mugged, nor the mugger need get hurt.
"He who is willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither"
And if that is the case, Cody, we need to re-examine the liberties we have sacrificed since 9/11.
There's a handgun motto, "I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it." Again, how can you argue with the statistics proving that gun control increases violent crime?
Oh and both Cody and I disagree with almost every big government program Bush put in, so that line of argument won't work.
I don't think that gun owners are bad people, I know quite a few people who own guns and I don't have a problem with that. But I don't think it's at all necessary to carry a weapon on a regular basis, and I don't think the average person thinks they need a gun with them on a regular basis.
It is not insignificant, but it is in comparison to the total population. How often do you see someone with a gun in public? It is illegal in the state I live in to carry a concealed weapon and all efforts to make it legal have been rejected. Pretty much because there is no need in Wisconsin to carry a concealed weapon. Besides in movies, I cannot think of a single time I can remember seeing someone carrying a handgun, with the expection of police officers. I don't know about you, but I never want my children to think it's normal to carry a gun with you, because frankly that is not the norm.
I know as a libertarian I'm supposed to be half-and-half, or the beak to go with the two wings, but God, Liberals are so much more annoying than Conservatives.
Yeah Cody, I know. I can't change the minds of liberal debators, but if moderates read this, they could be persuaded one way or the other. That's why I do this.
By the way, we'll be discussing this gun control issue in tonight's podcast if anyone wants to listen. We should outline it much better than we do here.
I can disagree with your "statistics" because they're untrue. As usual, the only way the Right can produce "facts" which support their postions is to fabricate them.
What about "Carl Langbehn"? Does he have anything to say to me?
I hope you are still in this frame of mind! I shouldn't even have to tell you that Ron Paul should be your presidential candidate choice!
I hope I'm correct. I appreciate your article.