Patriot Thought: Daily U.S. Constitution: The Preamble

Friday, August 2, 2013

Daily U.S. Constitution: The Preamble

"WE THE PEOPLE of the Unites States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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."

[spelling and capitalization are reproduced from the document] -U.S. Constitution

ANALYSIS
There we have it friends, the rationale for establishing our American government. Do you notice the source of sovereign power? It lies not with the federal government or with any of the state governments. We the people are sovereign in America, even if we've forgotten it.

Patriot Thought

1 comment:

AnonymousAugust 3, 2013 at 10:19 AM
But in a republican form of government, such as that of the United States, there is no difference between We the People and the government. We consent to hand certain authority, through our representatives, to the government. As long as that government acts within the boundaries of its authority, it is every bit as sovereign as the people who gave their consent.

The problem arises when the government usurps authority from the people, and uses it without their consent. Each time that occurs, it is an act of government devoid of authority, power without authority, unauthoritative power.

Within the framework established in the Declaration of Independence, it is the 'unauthoritative use of the power of government' that serves to define the term, 'tyranny' or, 'despotism.'

But in the United States of America, it even goes further than that. You see, even 'we the people' can commit unauthoritative acts, acts solely based on the opinions of the masses, purely democratic decisions, but which violate the conditions described withing the principles from which the people's authority originally derived. Those are the principles of the Declaration of Independence, according to our Founders, Laws of Nature, the same being Laws of God.

And so when even 'we the people' act in violation of the principles from which their sovereignty is derived, yes, even the people can act as tyrants.

Slavery is a grand example of an act of 'We the People' which violated the principles from which their authority derived. The Dred Scott decision was an act by the people, through their republican government, which agreed with certain popular opinions of the day, perhaps a majority, that plainly defied the principles from which the American people's authority derived, and was thereby unauthoritative and act of tyranny, by the people, ruling themselves through unprincipled democratic processes that resulted in the Dred Scott opinion.

So because even the Constitution defied the Principles of the Declaration, and the people defied them in approving its letter and intent, even the people are shown in this case to lack the fundamental standing to act with sovereign authority. That being the case, 'we the people' are not fundamentally sovereign. Because the people receive their authority, reasoned to exist through that certain rationale of principles enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, and because those principles are in actuality assumed, "Laws of God," then the only true, fundamental sovereign for the nation known by the name, "United States of America," is the one by Whose authority those laws were handed to men.

The true sovereign authority for the United States of American is therefore God.

-Hank
ReplyDelete
Replies

Add comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Visitor Comments

The dated links and statements below show interaction between the readers and makers of this blog to further the marketplace of ideas that enrich the education of patriots. Certain opinions made to posts are excerpted and re-posted here to highlight interesting discussions by fellow patriots.

Chris CJuly 28, 2013 at 12:31 PM [writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

I think it is absurd to draw a moral equivalence between innocent until proven guilty and guilty until proven innocent. It should be clear that one is far more protective and respectful of individual rights than the other. It's ironic that you attack the American system here, when it obviously takes more into account that someone could be falsely accused. Hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution rather than the defense.

DonaldJuly 28, 2013 at 8:27 AM[writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

It is interesting because the American Justice system goes from a innocent until proven guilty point of view. It definitely is no better in China where it is from a guilty until proven innocent point of view. Both are flawed because both lend themselves to being tainted with corruption as well as the norms of society.

Living the JourneyJuly 26, 2013 at 10:11 AM [writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

I found it interesting that Donald's perception of how America out to be was originally influenced by American fiction. This reminds me of when I arrived in China the first time expecting to see sword toting warriors running on the roofs of ancient temple like buildings. I was definitely surprised by reality.

DonaldJuly 26, 2013 at 9:09 AM [writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

Long before Zimmerman was pronounced innocent, people in my country were laughing at the thought of a white man (yes he is white Hispanic really) being found guilty of killing a black teenager. That will never happen they say. When things like that happen, it is the stuff of legend and stories and hollywood scripts. Look at some of the greatest literature found out there (to kill a mocking bird for example). It is the stand of the downtrodden black defendant who triumphs over the hard and brutal white man. This in itself is a tragedy as well because of the stereotypical vision people then have of the US as in the case of many of my country people as well as others from other countries in their view of America.

AnonymousDecember 28, 2012 12:13 PM [writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

I do believe in evil but I also believe that Adam Lanza had mental issues that weren't being addressed. Also, he had been abandoned by his father whom he hadn't seen in over 2 years and who had a second family which Adam was not a part of. Adam had been assigned a school psychologist but somewhere along the line he dropped through the cracks and didn't get the care he needed that could possibly have prevented this tragedy. We'll never know...

Living the JourneyDecember 31, 2012 7:16 AM[writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

How can evil be defined in a pluralistic society? Is morality something decided by vote? And then following that question, how can evil be "treated"? Jason, I think you're trying to open a door that very few want to walk through because if we do, we are forced to make choices about things many would like to leave "relative".

AnonymousDecember 31, 2012 7:36 AM[writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

I think we should stop offering up drug store psychology and focus on the one common denominator- GUNS. Psychotic people exist in all cultures, nations and religions. Look at the countries in the world with strict gun control laws; such as Japan, Australia, Canada to name a few, and they have far less violence involving guns. Are you blaming secularism? Science? The devil made him do it! Right? Simply, Adam Lanza and other mass murderers are mentally ill. So let's make it impossible for people like him to obtain guns of mass destruction.

Jason AldousDecember 31, 2012 10:56 AM[writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

Dear Living the Journey, We will always have tragedies so long as there is evil. Evil as such can not be cured through government policy. On the contrary, its work can only be limited through choices made by individuals.

Dear Anonymous, I do blame secular reasoning for making it difficult for us to address the problem. If you take good and evil out of your worldview, morally you can not say there is anything wrong with what Adam Lanza did. You may be horrified at what he did, but you can not judge it against any standards, if good and evil are removed as avenues of inquiry.

Jason AldousDecember 27, 2012 6:39 PM [writing in response to Wednesday, December 26, 2012: Gun Control Part 3: The Second Amendment (A Legal Analysis)]

Let's see, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Even if the wording implies that the populace must be armed when called up for militia service, it says "the right of the people shall not be infringed." Since the amendment states that bearing arms is a "right" and "not to be infringed" it is an open and shut case for anyone taking an objective reading of it. "Rights" are entitlements. Privileges can be taken away, but not rights. It matters not if this right was given with militia service in mind. Good work, Mr. Emma.

AnonymousDecember 17, 2012 3:46 PM [writing in response to Monday, December 17, 2012, Gun Control Part 2: Would Society Be Better Off If All Guns Were Made Illegal? (A Reasonable Treatment)]

On my part, I think that all guns should definitely be regulated and strictly controlled. Its interesting that almost all Americans point to the 2nd amendment. From my point of view, this 2nd Amendment was written in a time when there was 'trust' among people and their government. Today this trust has been flushed down the drain

AnonymousDecember 17, 2012 5:26 PM [writing in response to Monday, December 17, 2012, Gun Control Part 2: Would Society Be Better Off If All Guns Were Made Illegal? (A Reasonable Treatment)]

In 1959, 60% of the American public favored a ban on handguns. Today, the majority of the American people don't even support a ban on assault rifles. Why? Because since 1959, the argument that tighter gun control would reduce crime has been effectively refuted in the mind of the public. The change in attitude toward gun control is primarily due to fear of crime rather than distrust of government.

GeoDecember 8, 2012 2:11 PM [writing in response to Friday, December 7, 2012, Pearl Harbor: Was It Japan's Fault, or America's? (Conspiracy Theory vs. History)]

FDR campainged on keeping the US out of the war but when he wanted to get into the war he needed an excuse. He may very well have been tempted to withhold information from his top commanders at Pearl Harbor. They certainly suspected he did.

GeoDecember 8, 2012 at 1:28 PM[writing in response to Saturday, December 1, 2012, Voting In A Bad Economy, Recession Myths: De-Constructing Historical Falsification]

Can't argue with your observations, Jason, but even with the limited space no mention of the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs in any discussion of Hoover/Great Depression/FDR is to ignore an elephant in the room.

Chris CDecember 7, 2012 at 4:40 PM[writing in response to Tuesday, November 27, 2012, The Next Great American President: Who We Need To Look For In 2016]

One qualm: I don't think Suez can be regarded as a long-term success for Eisenhower. It bought us no credibility with the developing world and managed to alienate important Allies. As a result, we got no real help from Britain in Vietnam and plenty of hostility from France in the 1960's. France's desire to oppose or sabotage us on key issues has continued to this day.

Patriotic Solutions In Brief

What can we do about the Fiscal Cliff? The fiscal cliff is not a word game as some are suggesting. With a national debt of $17 trillion and poised to go much higher, it is a question of when -not if- we will financially go over the "cliff". To avoid this, real cuts must be made to entitlements, especially the most troublesome ones: Medicaid, rent subsidies, and food stamps. Instead of caving in to the president's demands for higher taxes, the House leadership should propose a 3:1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases. The cuts must be applied to the entitlements that are having the greatest impact on expenditures.

How can we solve outsourcing? First, we must recognize the root cause. It is not free-trade as Pat Buchanan and others claim. All roads do not lead back to NAFTA. Organized labor keeps wages artificially high and threatens strikes if wages and benefits do not climb higher still. Manufacturing has been hardest-hit by outsourcing and has had the longest relationship with organized labor. In desperation, businesses have moved overseas, to more business-friendly environments, to seek labor.

We can not punish companies that have already outsourced their labor force; to do so would be a vicious exercise of big government with no end in sight. Instead, we must lobby our representatives to embrace pro-growth policies. Energy independence through fracking and other North America-focused activities is the quickest way to create new domestic business and labor. But there must be a drastic easing of regulations and unionized power across the board. Wages must be allowed to move flexibly, according to the rhythms of supply and demand, not to the dictates of unions that keep wages high and cause the layoff's of untold thousands.

Recommended Books

American Creation: Triumphs and Tragedies at the Founding of the Republic (Knopf; 1 edition: 2007) by Joseph J. Ellis. Makes the most succinct argument about what the Founders actually "created" that was new and spectacular in the world. Among these creations are: the first colonial nation to win independence through a revolt; a constitution that has endured longer than any other; institutional legitimacy of dissent through political parties.
Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America (Threshold Editions: 2012) by Mark Levin. A guide through the intellectual underpinnings of utopian tyranny and personal freedom and a warning that America is approaching a crossroads where we will need to choose which direction we want to take our country in: an unfree utopia, or a free America.
Andrew Jackson: The Man and His Times (Doubleday; First Edition: 2005) by H.W. Brands. A demogogue of the type feared by the Founders, Jackson was America's first common man president. Whatever you think of him, any man who carries dueling pistols to defend his wife's honor makes for a page-turning biographical subject! Brands does a remarkable job of steering a fair and balanced course in this exploration of a hugely polarizing historical titan.
Benjamin Franklin: An American Life (Simon & Schuster; 1 Edition: 2003) by Walter Isaacson. A magisterial, readable, and inspirational book about the most democratic Founder. Isaacson places Franklin in both his time and our time!
Decision Points (Crown: 2010) by George W. Bush. Political memoir is always self-serving. Yet, this book is a sincere explanation of the how and why governing the choices made by President Bush. It fills key gaps of understanding about a turbulent decade.
Eisenhower In War and Peace (Random House: 2012) by Jean Edward Smith. Incorporates the latest scholarship and overturns many distortions about Ike's record in the military and in the presidency. It is an important reappraisal that places its subject high in the rankings of great leaders.
Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic 1789 - 1815 (Oxford University Press, USA: 2009) by Gordon S. Wood. A long overdue, in-depth treatment of the years following the revolution, when America rapidly became too democratic for the Founders' tastes. It was a time of great uncertainty and restlessness as America struggled to find a footing in a world dominated by a vengeful Great Britain and a turbulent France.
FDR (Random House; 1 edition: 2007) by Jean Edward Smith. Never a hero among conservatives and constitutionalists, FDR nonetheless contributed mightily to the power and prestige of America in the world. Smith's book makes this case in spades!
Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History 1585 - 1828 (Harper Collins: 2004) and Throes of Democracy: The American Civil War Era, 1829-1877 (Harper Collins: 2008) by Walter A. McDougall. A journey through American history that does not shy away from the tragedies that come along with the triumphs. The biggest tragedy is that Harper Collins would not let the author make the third book in the series!
His Excellency: George Washington (Knopf: 2004) by Joseph J. Ellis. Clocking in under 300 pages, this is perhaps the best short biography of the "indispensable man". Ellis answers all the controversial questions, especially Washington's relationship to the practice of slavery and how he attempted to right that wrong in his private life.
John Adams (Simon & Shuster: 2001) by David McCullough. A masterpiece that deserves its Pulitzer. McCullough has a tendency to be overawed by his subject, to the point of overlooking or minimizing his flaws, but the research, passion, and narrative flow make this work essential reading for anyone who wants to understand how much John Adams loved his country by learning what he and his generation endured to set America on an independent course.
Killing Kennedy: The End of Camelot (Henry Holt and Co; 1st edition: 2012) by Bill O'Reilly and Martin Dugard. A fun, engaging, fair-minded treatment without conjecture and outlandish or tedious theorizing, Killing Kennedy delivers superbly. The writers do not claim to have written the last word on the Kennedy assassination -and in fact- they are so fair minded, they admit there is more to the story than what the known facts tells us about the tragedy. This short book covers not just the assassination, but Kennedy's whole presidency as well!
Lincoln (Simon & Schuster; 1st Touchstone Ed:1996) by David Herbert Donald. A unique biography which aims to tell the story of Lincoln's life as he experienced it.
Modern Times: The World from the Twenties to the Nineties (Harper Perennial: 2001) by Paul Johnson. A boldy argued case for conservative solutions based on the world's experience with socialistic ones.
Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln (Simon & Shuster: 2006) by Doris Kearns Goodwin. A well-written, well-documented, and persuasively argued treatment that explains the qualities that made Abraham Lincoln an outstanding leader of his country.
The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House (Regnery Publishing: 2012) by Edward Klein. Based primarily on interviews, books like this one tend be gossipy. Yet, much of the harshest criticism from Klein's expose comes from the prominent people who have helped Barack Obama's rise at critical junctures in his political fortunes.
The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution: 1763 - 1789 (Oxford University Press, USA: 2 rev exp edition: 2005) by Robert Middlekauff. A classic portrait of the social, political, and military dimensions of America's long fight for independence. Middlekauff also gives us plenty of how and why to chew on.
Thomas Jefferson (Oxford University Press, USA; First Edition: 2003) by R. B. Bernstein. A magnificent short biography that synthesizes all the achievements, failings, controversies, and ambiguities of Thomas Jefferson's ideas and doings. Through it all, Bernstein presents the evidence as it is, neither condemning nor defending Jefferson. A wonderful essay in the epilogue surveys the way Jefferson has been seen through the ages and examines the evidence supporting the allegations that Jefferson fathered children with his slave, Sally Hemings. All this in 198 pages!
Tried by War: Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chief (Penguin Press; 1st Edition 2008) by James M. McPherson. In 271 pages, this author accomplishes something remarkable. He refutes the charges of Lincoln as an extra-constitutional leader who lightly cast civil liberties aside to prosecute his war. McPherson draws from the Constitution as the source providing for Lincoln's wartime policies as well as Lincoln's own words explaining himself to the public. McPherson also shows Lincoln knew from the start of the war what kind of generals he wanted and the aggressive strategy needed to win. It took a few years for Lincoln's most senior officers to catch up with their commander in chief's understanding.

Friday, August 2, 2013

Daily U.S. Constitution: The Preamble

1 comment:

Blog Archive

Visitor Comments