A Martyr in Defense of Liberty


Periodically Justin Smith reviews the murder of LaVoy Finicum by the FBI (taking the lead). Finicum’s death resulted from rancher/farmer protests of intruding on their livelihood in relation to taking of their animal stock. Can you say intrusive-abusive fees and land restrictions in the name of eco-Marxists and greedy corporations?

 

The ironic union is motivated by protecting useless species and/or mining of metal ores often times enriching American Leftists selling out to foreign entities that offers risk rather than benefit to Americans.

 

The upset rancher/farmer often will cite U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 while the Leftist scoffs at the legal reasoning notably due unchallenged Congressional legislation and Judicial Activism. YET the rancher/farmer stand looks at the Constitution’s temporary stipulations of Federal control which SHOULD enable an individual State to reclaim Federally controlled land.

 

This is yet another dot connecting many Left-Right issues if connected to completion probably end in Civil War for a resolution.

 

JRH 1/12/20

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – 

OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee.

 

Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.

************************

A Martyr in Defense of Liberty

LaVoy Finicum’s Journey and His Destiny

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 1/11/2020 2:16 AM

 

Raised in the northwestern corner of Arizona Navajo territory, Robert LaVoy Finicum largely came to manhood in and around the sprawling area of Fredonia and Colorado City, Arizona, just off State Route 389, and Hildale, Utah, before his fateful death, his murder by law enforcement, near Burns, Oregon on January 26th 2016, just one day before his 55th birthday. His name is a hallowed one in the annals of the Patriot movement and the minds of most American Patriots, as a man who was willing to fight for those ideas of freedom and liberty and the Founding principles of America.

 

LaVoy led a small band of protesters, including Cliven Bundy’s sons, Ryan and Ammon, American Patriots who understood that the federal government and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) were consistently and constantly acquiring or simply taking water and grazing rights and land unconstitutionally, from farmers and ranchers across America. These men and women were standing firm for property rights under Our Bill of Rights, when they occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge on January 2nd 2016 and began a standoff with the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, that lasted forty-one days.

 

[Blog Editor: In using various search engines I was disappointed that most links turned were quite negative toward ranchers and farmers being weary of the Federal government utilizing land control to manage the increasingly rare individual rural land owner’s decisions of their own ranch or farm. The perspectives were Left-Wing by far in the majority. The search engines emphasized an element of White Supremacism and racism among ranchers and farmers really more angry about imposed land limitations than politics. Most Western ranchers and farmers are Caucasians so it’s a bit moronic to call them White Supremacists. HOWEVER when White Supremacist organizations seemingly appear to offer support to generational ranch/farm operations, WHO do you think these ranchers and farmers will gravitate toward? AT ANY RATE who are two perspectives of the Malheur Occupation that too me appear Leftist yet with some sympathy toward rancher/farmer plights. The perspective was written prior to Bundy Judicial exonerations and the Hammond pardons:

 

 

 

LaVoy and anyone else with a proper understanding of America’s Founding understood that the land is a gift of God to man to be individually commanded and cultivated to suit his purposes, and government officials do not have any right to interfere with this unalienable God-given right. In line with this same logic, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution clearly states that land within the boundaries of a state may only be acquired by the national government, if it has the consent of the state legislature; and then, it can only acquire it for the placement of military forts, arsenals, dock yards and other needful buildings. This procedure was created to ensure that the national government could not simply grab land and use the land as a means to coerce the states and people to do their bidding and to expand its power past the limitations of the Constitution. And, this same principle applies to water and grazing rights, especially those handed down to pioneers’ descendants from territorial grants preceding statehood.

 

It was from this point of view that LaVoy started his journey towards his destiny, in June 2015, as he wrote the following in two separate letters to the BLM, three days apart that read, in part: “At this time I feel compelled to stand (up for) the Constitution of our land and in doing so please do not feel I am attacking your character. This is not about cows and grass, access or resources, this is about freedom and defending our Constitution in its original intent … I am severing my association with the BLM.”

 

During this same time frame, LaVoy had expressed his displeasure over ranchers steadily being pushed out of grazing lands like the Grand Canyon-Pashant [Blog Editor: perhaps Parashant or Pesant?] and BLM tactics, after they called him and told him to remove 24 head of his cattle grazing on “BLM land”, on the Arizona Strip. LaVoy replied that he was “not asking permission”.

 

After the BLM drained one of his water storage tanks to fight a grass fire, he exclaimed: “[The water is] mine. It’s for my cows. I need it. Quit stealing.” He later took to Youtube where he asked, “You gonna come in there like You did with my friend, Clive?” He concluded: “Well, I’m telling you, leave me alone. Leave me alone, leave Cliven alone.”

 

[VIDEO: BLM Stealing Water

 

 

Posted by LaVoy Finicum

8.06K subscribers – Aug 7, 2015]

 

This set the stage for LaVoy’s trip to Harney County, Oregon to join Ammon and Ryan Bundy in the Malheur Refuge Occupation, after seeing so many other small ranchers treated unfairly by the BLM, with those truths previously mentioned solidified after standing alongside Cliven Bundy, during his standoff with the BLM. He and all the others were truly making a stand against the overreach of the federal government, and in the process, they hoped to get all America thinking more about liberty.

 

Just as our Federalist Founders didn’t want an all-powerful federal government, so too the people, who still hold the ideas espoused by LaVoy and others, such as Cliven Bundy, are simply wary and opposed to any heavy concentration of power in the hands of the federal government, since they have already witnessed, too often first hand, the manner that power is so easily abused, especially through the BLM. However, neither do they see government as evil, or even a necessary evil.

 

Far from the “white supremacists” and “domestic terrorists” that yellow journalists, such as Kevin Sullivan, and the establishment propaganda press, like the Washington Post, attempted to portray them as being, these men and women were simply strong advocates for a responsible, limited government that favored local solutions and a federalist system inhibiting the centralization of all government into the hands of the few, adhering to the full and proper use of the checks and balances and good government practices set forth in the Constitution.

 

Noted by B.J. Soper, head of the Pacific Patriots Network, in 2016, and by many patriots previous to and after him [ZeroHedge]: “We’ve let the government step over the line and rule us, and that was never the intent of this country.” And I would add, it was certainly never the intent of our nation’s Founders.

 

And given the dangerous assaults and violence exhibited by extremists in the protests of Black Lives Matter [the other BLM] and Occupy Wall Street, there isn’t any justification for the actions of law enforcement against LaVoy and his fellow protesters, who were protesting peacefully, even if they had “taken” Malheur. People were initially able to come and go freely, until the protesters started blocking entrance from fear of federal government infiltration aimed at arresting and removing them, before they achieved their goals. LaVoy certainly wasn’t so dangerous or violent a man that he had to be so sorely mistreated and ultimately executed.

 

Whether he was armed or not is irrelevant. We regularly see many militiamen at peaceful protests all over America, both socialists and conservatives, going armed with long guns and pistols. Going armed at a protest, as is Constitutionally protected from many legal perspectives, isn’t a death warrant, or at least it shouldn’t be. Our Constitution doesn’t state that anyone must allow themselves to be abused by government agents, or anyone else, and it doesn’t prevent any American from engaging in a proper and lawful act of self-defense, especially if one is defending themselves against government tyranny.

 

Passenger Shawna Cox captured the entire miserable and dastardly event on her cell phone, and I have watched the video with sound, that captured the moment of LaVoy’s death, so many numerous times, often choking back my own angry tears, to think that people sworn to protect and defend the Constitution could so casually ignore it in this or any case; and, each time, I can only conclude this was a planned execution.

 

[VIDEO: Video shows two camera angles of LaVoy Finicum shooting

 

 

Posted by The Oregonian

161K subscribers – Mar 8, 2016]

 

From the first roadblock stop and the shot that hit LaVoy’s driver side mirror to the second roadblock, it becomes well and beyond apparent that this was a planned execution. The bullets were flying at LaVoy’s vehicle before he could even come to a complete stop on the slippery snow-covered road, as the video does show, in fact, a bullet piercing the truck ceiling; and, as he exited the vehicle with hands raised, he was immediately hit in the side by a round, that caused him to flinch to that side — offering the assassins their excuse “he was reaching for a gun” — and multiple rounds then hit him and his life was ended.

 

Several FBI agents and Oregon Highway Patrol fired on LaVoy, but it was Casey Codding, of the Oregon Highway Patrol, who fired on the vehicle before it ever stopped. FBI agent Joseph Astarita fired the first shot after LaVoy jumped from the vehicle, to divert law enforcement’s attention away from his friends, and in the course of the execution, Codding shot LaVoy in the back twice, just like a coward, even though LaVoy was not brandishing a firearm or any other weapon — even though they knew that LaVoy was an innocent, peaceful rancher without any criminal history who had told them he was on his way to a meeting with the Sheriff of Grant County — even though they knew he had a large family of eleven children and was a good man who had never threatened anyone.

 

 

 

FBI Joseph-Astarita murdered LaVoy Finicum

 

Most good police officers go their entire career without ever having to kill anyone. Codding has killed three people, including a teenager, “in the line of duty”. He’s also one of LaVoy’s murderers.

 

Whatever happened to “protect and serve”? Who has police forces across the country so indoctrinated and so intensely concerned to the point they see ranchers and family men as the greatest enemy to their country?

 

There wasn’t even one attempt to peacefully negotiate with the Malheur group and LaVoy Finicum, even though all LaVoy did at the refuge was speak to authorities in a non-threatening manner. It should deeply trouble all Americans that law enforcement had so little conscience and lack of reservation, they could easily shoot LaVoy with his hands raised; equally troubling, they didn’t even check him for a pulse, until they had walked around his body for fifteen minutes, as they placed their lack of respect for human life on full display before the American people.

 

Far too many law enforcement don’t even understand what it really means to defend the Constitution and freedom, as they set about destroying the freedoms of the American people in an out-of-control display of power at the behest of mayors and governors using them to acquire greater influence and power, i.e. as we currently see unfolding in Virginia via Governor Northam and the Democrat majority in the Virginia legislature regarding proposed gun control measures. Wicked “leaders” could not so subvert our freedoms without willing murderers like Casey Codding.

 

CASEY CODDING another Finicum shooter

 

Today, all Americans must face the certain fact that our federal government is out-of-control and corrupt, nearly beyond the point of salvation. It will kill its own citizens if we try to live too freely, or so it does seem, of late. Who can ever remove the image from their mind, of Vicky Weaver being shot through the head, as she held her baby in her arms in the doorway of her husband’s cabin on Ruby Ridge? An innocent American shot dead by FBI sniper, Lon Horiuchi, on August 21st 1992; look at Waco, Texas in 1993 and the overreaction of the ATF; one incident after another, until the standoff at Cliven Bundy’s ranch, when armed patriots came to his defense and said “No More”.

 

What has happened to this America I love so well, that one can barely distinguish between the Bad Guys and the Good Guys, in the ranks of those charged to protect and defend society? This case and the recent soft coup against the President indicate a great evil courses through their ranks today.

 

Throughout the history of the FBI, how many times has anyone in America seen any rancher draw his firearm on an FBI agent, or any other law enforcement agent? These ranchers aren’t common low-down thugs. They are fine Americans, the salt of the earth.

 

Has there ever been an FBI agent who defended or aided or stood alongside a rancher, because it was the right thing to do and it kept with their oath to defend the Constitutional rights of those in their care? Has any FBI agent ever stepped outside his role as a government pawn protecting special interests, to actually protect the people he was supposedly hired to serve and protect?

 

LaVoy had stated, time and again, a desire to make sure that the standoff ended peacefully, and up until the day of the ambush, there wasn’t any reason to believe that it wouldn’t, since LaVoy had been in constant contact with Sheriff Glenn Palmer, who was quite sympathetic to the cowboy’s cause. These men weren’t “anti-government”; they were anti-tyranny. LaVoy would be alive and well at home, with his family today, acquitted of all wrong-doing, just as many other defendants associated with the standoff have been, if the FBI and the Oregon Highway Patrol had not escalated the situation.

 

Ironically, LaVoy wrote a book entitled “Only By Blood and Suffering”, originally published in 2015, that foreshadowed his own death. The protagonist, a cowboy, dies in a shootout with the federal government, just as LaVoy finally did.

 

Real American patriots, such as Robert LaVoy Finicum, are far and few between these days, especially in the ranks of our elected officials, since so many so-called conservatives claim to stand for the Constitution against the federal government’s overreach, as they stand by silent and meek, in the wake of its insistent and continuous assaults against ‘We the People’ and our rights to life, liberty, property and freedom from the restrictions of arbitrary force. The faux conservatives are far too willing to allow federal power grabs to go unopposed, as a large, meddlesome, intrusive state and its progressive operated institutions undermine our private economy, economic liberty and the freedom to own property and allocate our own resources, enervating the country’s civic character; but LaVoy Finicum was willing to go all the way, sacrificing himself and giving his life, in his fight against the Bureau of Land Management, in order to preserve those values that were established centuries ago that respect our God-given rights.

 

Twenty-one short months of LaVoy’s life passed, between the time he showed up alone at the Bundy Ranch in 2014 and the moment he died a leader of the Malheur occupation in 2016. He died as he had lived, trying to make a difference and protecting the ideas and people he loved; he died a martyr in defense of freedom and liberty.

 

By Justin O. Smith

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.

______________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text embraced by brackets and source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Intro to ‘We the People’


A Divided or Unified America

 

John R. Houk, Blog Editor

© November 21, 2018

 

This is one of the most thought provoking submissions from Justin Smith on the state of our U.S. Government platformed by the U.S. Constitution.

 

I am uncertain if it was Justin’s intention but this essay provides good reasoning to reform America’s Constitution. There is as much a divide between naysayers and pro-Constitution reformers for a new Constitutional Convention for American Governance.

 

The naysayers are concerned about the intrusion of abusive power (both Conservative and Leftists) in government. Constitutional Reformers believe that parameters can be imposed on Constitutional delegates in the framing of a new Constitution. Frankly, in this day and age there are elements of truth that are probably valid concerns from both the naysayers and reformers.

 

My biggest concern based on America’s last two election cycles, is that Americans are so divided on political ideology (Conservative vs. Leftist) the atmosphere for give and take deliberation in a convention may be impossible.

 

If you look at American history, Americans were not exactly unified in certainty in leaving the British Monarchy for complete independence. Many Americans considered themselves British citizens living in colonial America. While many other Americans were so upset with British governance exploiting colonial life relegating colonialists conquered subjects with no self-determination in practical local governing robbed of British privilege.

 

The former were loyal to the Crown but still displeased with socio-political governing. The latter were so displeased with British governing that the feeling of self-governing would provide a better socio-political life based on representation. Then there were a group of colonials that were ambivalent and just sought existence.

 

Of course the outcome favored the self-government by representation group of colonials; however, there was enough displeasure with British governance among Crown-favored Americans that remained after the Revolutionary War that a consensus could be deliberated upon in the formation of a national government of united former colonies.

 

On a personal level, I have doubts such a consensus via deliberation is possible in America’s current political divide. The political atmosphere today resembles the America of the Civil War than the Americans during the War of Independence.

 

I suspect America’s current divide may devolve into a war that would determine the political future of make-up of the United States. Lacking a Lincoln-like individual, that make-up may or may not be a Fractured States of America.

 

My prayer for America is for a Lincoln-like individual for a unified future. If not, I fear America’s future will fated to foreign domination by a more globalist-minded governance.

 

JRH 11/21/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks to keep my blogging habit flowing:

Please Support NCCR

********************

‘We the People’

Or A Nation of Sheep

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 11/20/2018 9:04 PM

Americans, by and large, have not kept themselves informed, and adhered to the limits the Constitution imposes upon our government, which has resulted in more than half the problems we face today as a country. And, because the voters themselves do not know, or care, what the Constitution says, they elect candidates who have no intention, or desire, to support and defend it — believing in “the end justifies the means”.  It is a vicious cycle that repeats itself every election cycle and won’t stop until the people take the time to learn what the drafters of the Constitution intended when they wrote it.

So, as Lysander Spooner so aptly said, “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorizes such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.” I could almost stop right there, saying that is how I feel about our system of government, and the document that established it…but I won’t.

Even though the Constitution outlined a fundamentally sound system of government, in theory, the problem is that it was the creation of a group of men who held differing views on what government should look like and what powers it should hold.

Ben Franklin explained it best when he said:

 

“For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another’s throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain partizans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received …” (Source: Franklin’s Final Address to the Constitutional Convention.

There were many concerns expressed by these patriots who opposed the Constitution, but the underlying theme that can be found in most of their writings is that the Constitution created a consolidation of the States into a Union under a strong centralized government.

In a more perfect union, a more perfect Republic, our sovereign and independent states would reassert the 9th and 10th Amendments more forcefully, since they have been abrogated out of existence by federal laws and judicial activism; the states should unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfill engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.

One of the primary concerns of the anti-Federalists was: Did the Constitution do away with the status quo and create a consolidation of the States into a single, indivisible Union; or Republic, or did the States still retain all powers which were not expressly given; allowing the government to intrude into and interfere with the lives and liberties of the people.

 

[Blog Editor: It is my humble opinion the concerns of the Anti-Federalists who opposed ratification of the Constitution is important thought relating to America’s current political divide. Here are posts with some perspective on Anti-Federalist thought:

 

 

 

 

 

On June 5, 1788 in a speech opposing ratification of the Constitution, Patrick Henry expressed those exact sentiments as follows:

“I rose yesterday to ask a question which arose in my own mind. When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious: The fate of this question and of America may depend on this: Have they said, we, the States? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation: It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, Sir, on that poor little thing-the expression, We, the people, instead of the States, of America.”

It should be obvious, that the people had already established republics by their having created their own State Legislatures, so they actually had no need to create another Republic for the purpose of governing them all. The purpose for which the delegates were sent to Philadelphia was to arrive at suggestions for amendments, in order to make the existing Confederation Government adequate for the needs of the country; not to toss the existing form of government in the trash heap and replace it with one of their creation.

If the powers given to this new form of government were to be exercised primarily upon the States, then why did the drafters of the Constitution demand that it be ratified by the voice of the people; as it was the States whose authority would be further restricted, or usurped, by the creation of this new form of government. However, if this new system of government was, in fact, a consolidation and a diminishing of the sovereignty of the States, then it would make sense that the people must give their consent to it.

Yet, in Federalist 45 James Madison attempted to ensure the people that the States would retain their authority over the lives and liberties of the people by saying:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

 

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

Most Americans believe the Bill of Rights protects certain rights against governmental interference. That is only partially true, since the Bill of Rights are amendments to the Constitution which created our federal government; not the constitutions which framed the various State governments. Therefore, technically they only apply to the federal government. However, an argument can also be made that, since the Constitution itself is the Supreme Law of the land, any amendment to it could be implied to apply to the States as well.

Keeping things simple, let’s just say that the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government. How is it then that the government can dictate what kind of guns private citizens may own; how is it that the Supreme Court — which is PART of the federal government — decides whether a State may display the Ten Commandments, or that children be prohibited from praying in school; how is it that the federal government can violate the 4th Amendment by spying upon the private conversations of every man, woman and child in this country, just to keep us safe from terrorism?

There exists a whole list of things the federal government has done which are not among the powers listed in Article 1, Section 8 as those powers given to Congress; which in case you have forgotten, is the lawmaking body of our government; not the President as so many seem to think.

This has all been done because of the concept of implied powers; something introduced while George Washington was President. That occurred because the Constitution itself did not provide specific enough limitations upon the powers it was granting government; leaving loopholes by which government has expanded its power well beyond those originally intended.

So, if that is true, then the Constitution itself failed the people as it did not provide sufficient means for the people to resist the encroaching powers of government and to ward off tyranny and oppression.

Not one individual can provide me with the Article and Clause that grants any of us the authority to arrest and charge any of our elected officials, for the crime of violating the Constitution, because such a clause simply does not exist. And, it is this oversight that has resulted in the Constitution’s failure, by not providing the means to oppose a government that no longer adheres to any kind of limits upon their power and authority.

I only care whether the party that is in control adheres to the Constitutional limitations imposed upon them and seeks to protect and defend my rights…that and nothing more, and both parties have failed miserably in this duty. If government does not do this, then I revoke my consent to being governed by it.

Why do Americans still support a government that no longer resembles or represents the ideas and beliefs which led our Founders to seek their independence from a tyrant? Why do they so meekly submit to tyranny and oppression today? Is there not a drop of patriotic blood left in their bodies?

One certainly must wonder what has kept Americans from marching on D.C, with rifles in hand and sixteen feet lengths of rope, so criminals like Hillary Clinton, Obama and Susan Rice and many others could be hung from the highest tree, or the balcony of the Capitol Building; especially in light of the current double standard of “law” applied in America.

All I see is a nation of sheep who meekly obey the commands of their masters. What has become of the land of the free and the home of the brave? LaVoy Finicum was brave and he was gunned down in cold blood; with the media and the people calling him an extremist.

I seek to restore America to Her Founding Principles and more of an Originalist approach towards the implementation of the U.S. Constitution, which has been bastardized far and away from anything ever intended by the Founding Fathers. If Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams and Thomas Jefferson were alive today they would either have fled the country, or they would be serving time, in Guantanamo Bay as domestic terrorists, because the people of this country no longer care about limited government or individual liberty; all they care about is comfort and security, whether it’s the Democrats or Republicans providing it.

And it makes me sick to death to watch.

~ Justin O Smith

______________________

Intro to ‘We the People’

A Divided or Unified America

 

John R. Houk, Blog Editor

© November 21, 2018

______________________

‘We the People’

Or A Nation of Sheep

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 11/20/2018 9:04 PM

 

Edited by John R. Houk

Most source links by Justin Smith. Some links are by the Editor. Text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

The Continuing Relevance of the Constitution


constitution-we-the-people

Most Conservatives (me included) voted for Trump primarily of the disaster a Crooked Hillary would present to the further depreciation of the U.S. Constitution corrupted incredibly by President Barack Hussein Obama. President-Elect Trump made a number of promises that I enjoyed hearing but kind of would like to see the proof of the promised pudding.

 

The Heritage Foundation is launching a back to the Constitution agenda which points to an article at the Daily Signal (a Heritage Foundation apparatus).

 

JRH 11/30/16

Please Support NCCR

*****************

The Continuing Relevance of the Constitution

 

By Larry Arnn

November 28, 2016

The Daily Signal

 

Public policy is often exciting and urgent. When a war begins or ends, when votes are counted in an election, or when a major bill is passed, everyone senses the magnitude of the event.

 

Some struggles end and new struggles begin. Consequences carry far into the future. Compared to this, and especially given the way we think today, the Constitution seems like a boring subject.

 

But how do we know whether the public policies we adopt are good? How do we know whether the results of the election will be happy? How even do we know if the war we have fought was worth it?

 

Those questions cannot be answered except by reference to things that are outside the immediate excitement and even our immediate needs.

 

These larger and more enduring things cannot be understood without understanding what we are, how we should live, how best over the long term we can achieve a good life and be free. Somehow, urgent things have to be judged in light of ultimate things.

 

The profoundest example of this is in our famous Declaration of Independence. The people of America decided to form their own country. It was an act of rebellion. It would carry a death sentence for many if the revolution failed, and it did carry that sentence for many in the subsequent war.

 

How remarkable that in this urgent moment, they would base what they did upon the “laws of nature and of nature’s God.” They were looking upward toward the eternal as they began their battle. That is one of the essential reasons why they succeeded.

 

How can we remember to do this kind of thinking, when so many urgent things press upon us and when hundreds of millions of us participate?

 

The answer is given best of all in history by the Constitution of the United States, the partner of the declaration, prefigured in its middle passages.

 

The purpose of the Constitution is to ground the government in the people’s authority. It is also to make both we and our government thoughtful. “It is our reason alone,” writes James Madison, “that must be placed in control of the government. Our passions must be controlled by it.”

 

Under the Constitution, it takes time to do big things: We must think before we act. The Constitution divides power across the land and between levels and branches of government; the people and the parts of the government must cooperate if anything is to be done.

 

To get a majority, they must give reasons—out loud and in front of millions. This encourages candor and discourages the rankest forms of partisanship.

 

Yes, it is still partisan, but at our best moments we are better than anywhere else. Moreover, the Constitution limits what we can do to each other, teaching us self-restraint and independence.

 

In recent decades, our country has suffered public policy disasters. We have fought many wars without decisive victory. We have spent many trillions without removing the problems they were designed to remove. We have become a great debtor nation with fewer reserves, even if our reserves are still great.

 

These facts are connected to the compromising of our constitutional practices. We have changed the way we make laws. The government is less accountable, and the laws are more numerous and impossible to understand.

 

We have made government more centralized, and so its proper central functions—especially defense—are starved for resources.

 

As the government gets bigger, the people get smaller. They are regulated in their private lives, obstructed when they strive, subsidized in many cases into failure. This is just what the Constitution was designed to prevent.

 

No institution has done more to describe and promote public policy from the conservative point of view than The Heritage Foundation. It was born decades ago for specifically this purpose. It has always had an interest in the Constitution.

 

Now, it is bringing together all of its efforts relating to that great document into the Institute for Constitutional Government, launching Nov. 29, to achieve better focus. As a friend of the Constitution and of Heritage, I am proud of this.

 

It can only be good. Our freedom is at stake. We will not save it without restoring our Constitution.

 

___________________

Larry Arnn is the president of Hillsdale College and a professor of politics and history, teaching courses on Aristotle, on Winston Churchill, and on the American Constitution. He is also a trustee at The Heritage Foundation.

 

Your donation will support The Daily Signal’s investigative journalism, groundbreaking reporting, and conservative policy analysis on today’s most critical issues. Donate to support us today.

 

About The Daily Signal

 

The Daily Signal delivers investigative and feature reporting and the most important political news and commentary. The team is committed to truth and unmatched in knowledge of Washington’s politics and policy debates. We tell these stories in formats that respect your time and intelligence.

 

 

The Daily Signal provides policy and political news as well as conservative commentary and policy analysis—in a fresh, visually rich, readable format for your desktop, tablet or phone.

 

 

We are committed to news coverage that is accurate, fair and trustworthy. As we surveyed the media landscape, it became clear to us that the need for honest, thorough, responsible reporting has never been more critical. That’s a challenge in today’s fast-moving world. And it’s a READ ENTIRETY