Wednesday, 9 January 2013

A Major Injustice

I ventured into enemy territory yesterday, trying to make the case that a major national injustice has been committed and needs to be rectified, and the hail of buckshot I got in reply was a message that said No it doesn't. 

I need to be fair, here.  That 'buckshot' metaphor was simply shorthand for what actually took place, which was that there were in fact a couple of legitimate responses.  (The rest were simply variations on the theme of 'stupid bigoted birther'.)  Which led me to the reply that I made to the one I posted late last night, as a P.P.S. to that blog.  But in general, my position to those libtards on Huffington Post would, if the 'debate' had continued down its road a bit further, ended up at the following impasse; with my saying (the likes of): 'You're going to lose this debate, on the grounds of legal merit.  We might as well cut to the bottom line of this matter.  Which is that you will - apparently, given your illogical stubbornness so far - say: 'You know what? My reply to your argument is: So what.  Obama is in the White House.  The People put him in there.  You can't do anything about it, now.  It's a done deal.'  And my answer to you, if you indeed employed the 'argument' of a fait accompli, would be: 'Never in a million years.  For that would be the knell of the birth of tyranny in America; and I for one will not stand for it.  America is a constitutional republic.  It is not a pure democracy, where the majority can ride roughshod over the individual.  The law must be upheld.  Or there is but arbitrary law in the nation.  Another word for which is law-less-ness.  Another word for which is despotism.  And I say to you, Not in my country, you won't.'  And we would take the matter from there. 

And I hope that the right decision is made, come to.  For, either we live by the rule of law or we do not.  Now granted, 'the law' is sometimes a bit vague.  Personally, I wish that the Right - conservatives/constitutionalists - had done a better job of fighting off the muddying of the waters that has taken place over the years, the incursions into a constitutional la-la land that (mostly) the Left has made, in insidiously applying the idea - no 'principle' to it; except the perverted 'principle' of expediency - that the  Constitution is 'a living document', subject to 'modern' (read: liberal) interpretation by (mostly) liberal members of the judicial fraternity, rather than what it in true fact is: the equivalent of a contract, to be held to the logical requirement of ''original intent' - to the intention of the wordings when they were ratified by the requisite number of states, the other parties to the agreement.  And if 'you' want to change the contract, there is an amending process allowed for just such a contingency, that keeps the national compact alive to the reality of national life 'on the ground'.  Not an easy process - on purpose; so that any changes were not to be for light and transient reasons, given the seriousness of the nation-building nature of the matter - but possible.  

So, in sum: there is some leeway in the wording, some 'play', that has been employed over the years, in the political give-and-take process.  But anything of a substantive nature - like, say, the definition of a 'natural born citizen', as a qualification to run for the office of the presidency - would have to be taken to the level of the amending process.  Which condition, as I pointed out in my post, WAS KNOWN to both sides of the political aisle, by virtue of the fact that both Democrats and Republicans (mostly Democrats; as if they knew that something was coming up for them on the issue) tried eight times between 2003 and 2008 to get a constitutional amendment on this very matter going through Congress.  Which they failed to do - each time even to get it out of committee.  So - what did they do??

As I put it in my post: They decided to try an end-around of the American people; and, given the control of the mainstream media between them, and of their party members, and of the judicial branch of government, figured on success.

And they got it.

So far.

And no further.  If an awful lot of citizens - patriots to the constitutional cause of the Republic - have anything to say to the matter.  Which they have been doing, on the Internet.  

In the spirit of one of their Founding Fathers.  To wit:    

"Cherish therefore the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention.  Do not be too severe on their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and assemblies, judges, and governors shall all become wolves."

That was Thomas Jefferson speaking, to his compatriots.  Who also said, in his Second Inaugural Address, these words, to his time, and down through time:

"I fear not that any motives of interest may lead me astray; I am sensible of no passion which could seduce me knowingly from the path of justice, but the weaknesses of human nature and the limits of my own understanding will produce errors of judgment sometimes injurious to your interests.

"I shall need, therefore, all the indulgences which I have heretofore experienced from my constituents; the want of it will certainly not lessen with increasing years…"

I came across these words in a novel by Glenn Beck, titled 'The Overton Window'.  He had the character who was reading them think thusly:

"What struck Noah as he read these words was a fundamental difference in tone from the political discourse of later times.  Here was one of the founders of the nation, maybe the greatest thinker among them, and yet he spoke with a quality that was so rare today as to be almost extinct among modern public servants.  It was a profound humility, as though nothing were more important to express than the honor he felt in being chosen again as a guardian of the people's precious liberties…"  

I speak of the path of justice, and of the people's precious liberties, when I speak to the current resident of the White House:

'Mr Obama: Vacate that  dishonored office.'

And to those who are supporting him in his usurpation of that formerly hallowed and honorable office,* I say:

Shame on you.  You are selling out your birthright for a mess of pottage.

An inglorious, and unfitting, end to the Republic.



* I accept that the office has not been honored recently, by a number of presidents.  But that doesn't  make up for what is going on now, in our time.  Something that we can do something about. 

No comments: