As of late I haven’t found it in me to write. My “condition” is probably due to the distractions of living. However, there are external conditions that also dictate one’s desire to write. In my case, I need things to be simple and straightforward, coming at me one subject at a time (never said I was mentally ambidextrous). But since the beginning of this year the frustration of our political evolution has been .. overwhelming. Another issue that leads me to frustration and depression is that I have to be careful what I say about my Commander-in-Chief due to my active duty status. It’s frustrating because all the important stories of betrayal have an Obama connection. With that said …
These past many months have been quite interesting from a political scientist’s perspective. But I am an involved and specific-philosophy oriented patriot, meaning I am not immune to the feelings caused by seeing our republic deteriorate even before my eyes; I suppose it’s constitutional repression causing my depression and ensuing writer’s block.
Notwithsanding, when I am facing an issue pressed upon me by direct contact, I am ready to defend my beliefs. Through secondary connections on Facebook, a progressive became entangled with me and he has sparked my need to political expression. The following is an excerpt from that exchange:
“Hunting and picking for an argument? Selective hearing? Pulling presumptuous accusations out of thin air? I will try to hang a little longer. I’m not sure where the question about “where (does) the Preamble mentions right to property” came from, so I am going to presume it is a loaded question as I made no such conclusion. Secondly, based on experience, it looks to me like your mentioning of my “CATO Institute suggested readings,” while there are other sources noted, suggests this particular reference is made for a specific impact/accusation. The CATO Institute is well known as a Libertarian connected think tank and making this an issue suggests partisan politics. However, I seek truth from wherever it may be found; the CATO Institute’s philosophy is more-than-not correct and on point, although in my opinion the Libertarian message has some significant hurdles they cannot overcome (as does any “hard” belief). I often compare and integrate CATO’s ideals with The Heritage Foundation’s philosophy; within that welding is often where I find what I believe to be the premier position.
(Just for argument’s sake- if a professor asked me as a student to find the right to property in the Preamble I would suggest it could be found within the argument in favor of “secur(ing) the Blessings of Liberty. Possessing Liberty would only be possible if one had the will and ability to secure private property. Another point in this subject, Gouverneur Morris’ mentioning of “Blessings” is quite suggestive of the Constitution’s Christian legacy [see “Blessing” in Webster’s 1828 dictionary; most smart progressives stay away from this particular passage.)
I agree with your general argument about why there are enumerated amendments and that the Constitution, in inner-stated amendable condition, is a kind of living document. Further, I wholeheartedly agree that, in a general sense, it is a living document: LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION! Although, today its virility is at least in question.
However, in keeping with the progressive’s use of the term “living” (dynamic) document, the concept has been stretched to include “amendment” by way of redefining what is already there; as noted to me by a liberal Democrat Representative as I addressed California’s Legislature in the 1990’s, “The Constitution is a living, breathing document, to be kneaded, stretched and contracted like a rubber band to meet the needs of the day.” It is with this disgusting, elitist concept that the progressive Courts found the right to abortion and the separation of God from public schools/institutions, and many other bastardized between-the-lines readings, making it effectively a sterile document only to be showboated and relegated to an asterisk in legal rulings.
I agree, the evolution (should not be) organic and that it should be changed only through the amendment process. We are arguing over semantics and unknown pretexts of the definition of “living.” The general use for progressives is the quote I noted above from a state rep; in this context I do not buy into its application. It is difficult to follow your logic as on the one hand you seem to support enumerated modifications, but on the other hand you seem to support change by way of, precedent? An unconstitutional statute today will still be unconstitutional in 100 years, even if it stays on the books the whole time. You have faith in the Courts – so much so that you would allow for a lawyer in a black robe to evolve some new meaning to meet our progressive culture? Dred Scott comes to mind.
Wow- “The Rule of Law” stands in direct contrast to “The Rule of Man.” Are you sure you want to go there? If you like precedent and The Rule of Law, then you must be fervently against Roe v Wade, particularly at the time it was “decreed” law by the Supreme Court.
Your question about the 2nd Amendment is presumptuous in that you try to begin the argument mid-stream. Further, this question is a classic conundrum for libertarian-minded people; your seemingly mocking mentioning of the CATO Institute is reinforced by your framing of this 2nd amendment problem. My answer is quite long and not so simple as you hope it to be, posed from my perspective. If you ask it in good faith, please look to my blog’s CONTENTS and you will find my breakdown of the 2nd Amendment. But in short, the Constitution did not create any rights for the individual. Our Constitution “lives” upon the common law and should be viewed in its entirety, not picked at out of context. The soul of the Constitution is the Declaration of Independence, and the 9th and 10th Amendments are very clear; naturally held inalienable rights are innumerable as they are into infinity. What is restrictive is social and/or civil rights, imposed by man-made institutions; institutions empowered by limited and enumerated, delegated (not surrendered) authorities.
“A regulated militia” is A purpose, not THE purpose. If we cannot individually defend personal property, then there is no private property and our pursuit of it is hollow. Progressives know this and it is why they support Popper’s concept of an “open society.” It’s why they have given largess to the nationalized education department, continuing to absorb our children into the “system” minimizing a parent’s possessiveness (accountability/responsibility) of their children, i.e. “It Takes a Village,” and it’s why they need to take our weapons.
The problem in outlawing the right to self-defense is that someone/thing has to be responsible for a wrong; even progressive liberalism cannot change this natural law. If the progressive system takes the individual’s right to protect themselves (their property, etc) then the state would then hold that responsibility, which means municipalities would have to be vulnerable to suits for personal injuries, murders, break-ins, etc. Don’t get me wrong- you and I will live to see this issue evolve – guns will be outlawed and a whole new can of worms will be opened. Progressivism has been unleashed from the back rooms of the Congress and all proclaimed and future proclaimed civil rights shall be enumeracably addressed and integrated into a massive convolution of Big Brother. But it will also evolve now at a compounding rate of speed; you and I may also live to see it totally collapse through its own voracious appetite."