Posts Tagged ‘natural rights’

The U.S. Constitution Explained!

December 14, 2011

Part 1

Intro & The Preamble

By Gary Hardee

Why attempt to explain something that changes from day-to-day or year over year? Seems rather difficult and is temporarily correct at best!  When, for instance, does the word “car” mean one thing one year and something else in another. Advancements and improvements are made as knowledge, technology, manufacturing processes and consumer preferences change. But a car is still a car, isn’t it? Let’s try “apple”.  Not the computer but the fruit. It really never changes and cannot be confused with a banana.

The wonderful thing about the US Constitution is that it is fixed and determined. Absolute, firm and precise! At the same time, its authors provided for ways to change it but under a very strict and precise process. This if used wisely, is a good thing too! But it is not arbitrary or random nor subject to interpretations different from its words and intent.

Limits and predictability are things of virtue and reliance; things upon which we need worry little about. We understand and appreciate anything that serves us well. But when someone twists a washing machine into a lawnmower it would be the height of idiocy to expect it to wash our clothes any longer and cannot be viewed as a washing machine.

The Constitution of the United States has a design and a purpose. What is that purpose? It is to promote the general welfare! Do you doubt that? Have you ever asked yourself: What is a Preamble? Here is the definition followed by the Preamble of the US Constitution itself.

Preamble: “1. a preliminary or introductory statement, esp. attached to a statute or constitution setting forth its purpose(s)”.

The Preamble of the U S Constitution

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

There are six goals of the Constitution. Each of the goals are noble and support the best interests of the general welfare of the people of these United States. It is very important to note the word “general” as opposed to “specific” or ‘targeted”.  It would be totally illogical to say you are for the general welfare of a people and at the same time allow for the specific welfare of one over another.

One thing is for sure; government is force. There are two types of force; justified and unjustified. Any use of force, by a government or individual, needs justification to be considered ethical and moral. The only justification in the use of force by government must be in agreement with the Preamble.

  1. To improve upon the Articles of Confederation. (n/a)
  2. Establish Justice
  3. Insure domestic Tranquility
  4. Provide for the Common Defense
  5. Promote the General Welfare
  6. Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

As they clearly said; it is for these reasons and purposes that it is ordained and established. Is there any remaining doubt about the founders’ intent? Is it proper to take any clause, statement or paragraph, contained within its text, to mean something that is damaging to these stated goals? Is it not also equally logical to conclude that if we abide and adhere to the specific terms within the Constitution itself, that the goals in the preamble will be best attained?

To allow for necessary changes to expand and enhance these goals the founders included the process and provisions to amend the text.  Is it then proper to adopt amendments that hurt or diminish the goals laid out in the Preamble?

Amendments have come and gone. Old amendments revoked or modified while entire new ones have been added. If the voting citizens understand why it is important to stay true to the Constitution, our elected officials would as well and we would once again reap the Blessings of Liberty.

Advertisements

Just Principles and the Discussion of Issues

December 14, 2011

By Gary Hardee

It is impossible to argue that government has not grown larger and more comprehensive in its cost and control over people and businesses. Anyone who has even a modicum of historical knowledge must at least admit that. Debates can be had all day long about why, its purported justifications and whether this growth contributes to the general welfare of its citizens.

News and commentary abound on this subject and with the advent of the internet, the “global human community” with its disparate knowledge serves as the greatest opportunity for mankind to share and converse on the pros and cons of the smallest minutia of government action or inaction, policies or laws.

While emotional, logical and even ugly at times, it should not stop one from participation in these discussions. Failure to participate and learn along the way leaves the outcome to others, as popular opinions on issues are worked out on this grand internet stage.

History has clearly shown also that a majority of humans do not participate in this exercise, but that may be changing as we begin to examine more openly  the connections between our challenges to live in peace and prosper as free human beings on this awesome planet and the always shifting and increasing government controls and costs.

As with any discussion over command and control of our lives and society, some fundamental agreements must be arrived at and serve as the guiding foundation. Failure to agree on the most basic of human principles also ends any possible further agreements wherein we seek to improve the general welfare of all.

With that in mind, the first principle we should agree on is: “You don’t own any part of me and I don’t own any part of you”.

The second principle we should agree on is: “I cannot force my will on you and you cannot force your will on me”.

The third principle we should agree on is: “Each individual is free to make their own choices in life, with or without the advice or permission of any other”.

The fourth principle we should agree on is: “Each individual is free to use their time in any manner they wish to achieve or live according to their own goals and standards”.

The fifth principle we should agree on is: “No human being has the power to compel another through force to be deprived of their time, labor, production, or any other real or imagined skill or byproduct thereof, that was obtained of free will during honest and ethical agreements, contracts, or commerce.”

The last one for now we should agree on is: “These principles will henceforth be referred to as “Just Principles” as they acknowledge the inherent freedoms each human has for their general welfare and therefore society as a whole and that any “laws” or governmental systems that may be considered for implementation must not violate in whole or in part any of these Just Principles and any such additional agreements should have as their direct object the protection, expansion and enhancement of these just principles without compromise.

While you might think of some others on your own, the main point is that we can now begin to look at the larger issues that are debated or that plague our world and the various societies and cultures that have been organized or practiced. This would necessarily include religious doctrine, philosophy, political systems, economics, education, reproduction, health and medical services, drugs, drug usage, the drug industry, corporatism, government-private partnerships and their operations and efficacy and any other issue wherein a person’s Just Principles are involved.

I look forward to a healthy and adult conversation on this subject and welcome your comments and suggestions below.


%d bloggers like this: