For me and the lion's share of my peers, it started when we took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. That oath defined and consumed the better part of my life with 31 years of military service. When I first took the oath though, I really didn't know much about the Constitution but soon felt that I should understand the oath I took. To my wonderment, learning made me appreciate the oath, but made me so much more awestruck with the simplicity, yet all encompassing intervention for man's need for freedom, and the document created by our founders which achieved this. None of these commitments have lessened upon the date of my retirement. On the contrary, they have been emboldened because the Constitution IS under attack today, and I'm still under oath.
Some have said that the writing of the Constitution of the United States was through divine inspiration. It’s existence though was and still is the result of millenniums of human attempts to define a more perfect union complete with justice, domestic tranquillity, common defense, and to promote the general welfare of, and to secure these liberties for the people of the United States. I can't help but feel that this is not being done today and this is my way of identifying what is important.
The writing of the Constitution was greatly influenced by politics as the founders brought conflicting political ambitions and objectives to the Constitutional Convention. The importance of this document is that it best accomplishes these ideas over anything else the human race has ever devised. It’s specific goals are accomplished by its adherence to the will of the people, and the peoples adherence to it by a representative government. It’s government is subjected to the limitations of power by the distribution of power into three branches to oversee its checks and balances process, and it’s flexibility is assured by the amending process which achieves this flexibility from the ambiguity of the Constitution. The Constitutions ability to maintain flexibility and produce amendments for the ever changing roles of it’s people and governments, while maintaining interpretation and implementation of it’s articles and amendments, are why it’s lasted so long.
The American Way as is the American Dream, as appreciated and perhaps as taken for granted as it is by some, is testament to the Constitutions impact on the American way of life and is the envy of the world.
States Rights verses National Supremacy (The primary basis for the Civil War)
To a large degree, this is still an issue!!!
• National Supremacy. An interpretation of federalism that holds that the national government’s laws should take precedents over state laws. It is based on the provisions in Article VI of the Constitution that the national government’s laws are the “supreme law of the land”.
• Doctrine of states’ rights. The interpretation of federalism that claimed that states possessed the right to accept or reject federal law. Advocates for states rights claimed that properly interpreted federalism made the states and not the federal government supreme.
While I disagree with the South's arguments on specific issues, (such as slavery) I agree with their initial interpretation of the Doctrine of States Rights, and the Constitution. That said, it a good thing that the Unions interpretation was solidified, for those times. Unfortunately, the current abuses of national supremacy, or Federal Jurisdiction over state law are evident for example in the Arizona enforcement of state and even Federal immigration laws, and the subsequent Justice Department law suits trying to undermine States Rights for, for current administration political agendas. That's another argument though.
Unfortunately though, the US is now finding itself being challenged internally, and externally over it's own definition of National Supremacy, by our current Government, and the UN. Almost as if our current national position, or the Constitution of the United States, was in need of being reinterpreted, as was that of the South's interpretation in 1861. The current Administration is trying to fullfill the goals of our past Cold War adversaries by rendering this country, and it's values, indeed our entire Contitutional basis for law and governance, mute. Without a round being fired. Indeed many people in this country would have no objection since they have no understanding, or appriciation for what they'd be siging away.
Regard the UN Bill being presented for ratification by the senate regarded as the UN International Criminal Court (ICC) Bill being brought before the senate, by Hillary Clinton on Obamas’ behalf.
An excerpt from the above links states:
In spite of their incessant prattling about dedication to
transparency, the globalists have been obdurately opaque about key features of
the ICC, such as:
No right to a trial by a jury of ones peers;No right to habeas corpus;
No right to bail;
No right to a speedy trial;
No protection against indefinite pre-trial detention;
No protection against being transported to foreign lands
If this bill is Ratified by a lame duck President and Senate, the United States will soon find itself on a world
stage defending its own national right and identity (which we just signed away) verses a worldwide UN
collective, with the US paying the bill. Our Constitution would no longer be worth the paper it's written on!
Does anyone really doubt this to be goal of our current leadership?
Does anyone really doubt this to be goal of our current leadership?
No comments:
Post a Comment