With increasing frequency I am finding it harder to sit behind this keyboard and scribble out these articles for people to read. It is not that there is a lack of things for me to write about; it is rather that I am coming to realize that whatever I say is not going to change the way people think.
I sometimes wonder if there is some kind of mass psychosis going on in America with this division between Republicans and Democrats; and anyone who attempts to shine a light on the truth is attacked and denounced by both sides for disrupting the status quo. I have also been wondering what it is about me, and people like me, that sets us apart so that we are not affected by this psychosis.
If you want my honest opinion I think there are 3 categories of people in this country. There are those to whom knowledge and the truth means everything. There are those who are content with whatever they think they know. And finally, there are those who don’t care one way or the other about knowledge or the truth.
I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I believe that I am among that small percentage of people to whom the acquisition of knowledge is a driving force in their life. Now I’m not saying I’m the brightest person, or the most knowledgeable; what I am saying is that I have made a conscious decision to expand my knowledge regarding the history of this country, how its system of government came into existence, and what purpose it was intended to serve by those who established it.
It is amazing what just a little bit of knowledge, a small dose of the truth, can do to a person’s perspective. Twenty years ago I was a staunch Republican and voted according to whoever ran for office with an (R) next to their name on the ballot. Now I rarely vote in national elections; confining my vote to local issues and candidates.
People tell me I’m wasting my vote, or allowing the enemy to win when I don’t vote for candidates like Trump. I say that the enemy is not the Republicans or the Democrats, the enemy is a government that no longer adheres to the limits the document that created government imposes upon them; that it does not matter who occupies the seats of power within government because government itself has become a monster that devours the freedom it was established to protect.
I’m sure I could find it if I searched, but off the top of my head I can’t recall the exact quote, or who said it, but during the debate over whether to ratify or reject the Constitution someone said something along the lines of, “Our country is too expansive to be governed effectively by a strong central government without that government becoming tyrannical.”
It was felt, back then, that for liberty to prevail the most effective form of government would be a Republic; a group of united entities under a centralized government which was established for certain limited and defined purposes with the remaining power to govern the lives of the people reserved to the States wherein they lived.
The limited scope and power of the federal government was so that it did not directly touch upon, or benefit the people directly. Rather the central government was to primarily affect the States as if they were individuals; meaning it was to pass laws to ensure that one State did not do something that affected the liberty and sovereignty of the other States.
I hear all these ideas regarding how we can fix all that is wrong in America and sometimes I just sit here shaking my head in disbelief at them. I have also been asked, from time to time, what I would suggest we do to fix all that is wrong in America. To tell you the truth, I don’t think America can be fixed; but if it could, two things would need to take place.
First, and foremost, the people of this country must come together as one and stop asking government to do things for them. If America ever hopes to fix itself then the people which comprise America must place liberty first and foremost on their list of priorities and stop asking government to pass laws that are designed to somehow help them in life. A free man does not need government for anything; they succeed or fail based upon their own merit and accept whatever hand life deals them without asking for any assistance from their government.
That alone, in my opinion, precludes any hope of ever fixing what is wrong in this country. If I were to ask you whether you would accept a proposal to abolish Social Security, how would you respond? Most would probably laugh at me; saying they are entitled to it; having paid into if all their lives. Well, what if it was abolished and you were allowed to keep that money and invest it as you saw fit; placing the obligation of managing your years in retirement where it belongs; upon you, the individual. That is the mentality of most though, that they shouldn’t be required to take care of themselves; that should be the job of their government.
Another example; how many people think that it is the job of the government, or more specifically, the police, to protect them? A free man should not have to pick up a phone and dial 911 and wait for law enforcement to come to their rescue. A free man should accept that responsibility, and if they exercise their natural right of self-defense, they should not be prosecuted for using excessive force.
You see, most people don’t understand the concept of rights. I have a right to life, liberty, and property, and whenever anyone seeks to encroach upon, or threaten any of them I have the natural right to defend all three with whatever force I deem necessary. For as John Locke said, “This makes it Lawful for a Man to Kill a Thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther then by the use of Force, so to get him in his Power, as to take away his Money, or what he pleases from him.: because using force, where he has no Right, to get me into his Power, let his pretense be what it will, I have no reason to purpose that he, who would take away my Liberty, would not when he had me in his Power, take away every thing else. And therefore it is Lawful for me to treat him, as one who has put himself into a State of War with me, I.e. kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a State of War, and is Aggressor in it.”
When we tolerate laws that criminalize the defense of our lives, liberty and property, we make ourselves slaves to those who dictate when and where can defend ourselves. To pass laws which require that a portion of society be required to subsidize the existence of another is also a violation of our right to enjoy the full benefit of the fruits of our labor; i.e. or income. Thomas Jefferson expressed that belief as follows, “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” (Source: Letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816)
Freedom, or liberty, is a two sided coin; you are free to do as you please as long as you don’t restrict others from doing the same. At the same time you and you alone are responsible for the consequences of your decisions and actions. People say they want freedom, but then they shun the consequences of their actions; seeking political candidates who will provide a safety net for them should they fail to achieve success or riches. That is NOT freedom that is slavery; for when you are dependent upon someone or something you are a slave to it.
And the other thing that people must do if they want to fix America is stop looking to Uncle Sam to do it for them. Uncle Sam isn’t going to do a damned thing that reduces the power they already hold over you; all you can do is put of some kind of barrier that blocks, or nullifies, their ability to exercise that power.
To do that people must stop focusing their attention on federal elections and focus all their attention upon local elections. I have heard it said that all politics is localized. I take that to mean that the closer a political unit is to those it represents the better it knows what is best for the people. Therefore a city government is more knowledgeable about the needs of its people than is the county government. The County government, on the other hand, is more knowledgeable about the needs of its people than is the State government. And the State government is far more knowledgeable about the needs of the State than is the federal government.
To express this better, my home State of California has a population of roughly 39.54 million people. There are 53 members in the House of Representatives for the State of California. That works out to one representative for every 746,037 people. How can that one person effectively represent so many people? What if one area of their Congressional District relies on tourism for its livelihood while another relies upon agriculture; how can they pass laws that ensure both are equally represented and that the rights of either aren’t violated? The simple answer is, they can’t.
It gets even worse when you discuss the Senate, with only 2 representatives regardless of the population. But then again the Senate was NEVER intended to represent the people, it was established to be the voice of the States in what laws are passed by the federal government…and that is an article unto itself.
The point is if you want to curb the influence of Uncle Sam in your State then you need to focus your attention not upon candidates to reduce the power wielded by Uncle Sam, but by focusing your attention upon candidates who will tell Uncle Sam that he has no jurisdiction in their State.
Let me ask you something. What do you think would happen if every employer in a State, any State, decided to stop withholding income taxes from the paychecks of their employees? Do you think Uncle Sam would, or could arrest all of them, or those who did not have taxes withheld from their pay? Uncle Sam derives its power by way of our consenting to it. If we simply withdrew that consent, saying I will NO LONGER COMPLY, and did it in a unified voice, there wouldn’t be a damned thing they could to about it.
What if the people, acting by the power given them as jurors, chose to stop enforcing the law by rendering innocent verdicts whenever someone was accused of violating a law the jury felt violates an individual’s rights, or oversteps the legitimate authority of their government? A person can always be re-tried if there is a mistrial, but if the jury renders an innocent verdict, then that basically nullifies the law. Imagine if jurors across the country began exercising their power to nullify federal laws they felt overstepped the legitimate powers of government. We could neuter Uncle Sam without a shot being fired.
But these steps require two things to take place; things that I don’t ever see happening. First the people must devote a serious amount of time to the studying of how our system of government came into existence, and what powers it was promised it would exercise. Not those powers people have become accustomed to it exercising, but what powers the ratification assemblies were promised it would exercise. I don’t see that ever happening.
Secondly, we must purge political party loyalty from our minds. Party loyalty is a cancer that divides us and keeps us distracted from the fact that government is overstepping its authority. It would be okay if partisan politics were confined to the national stage as long as the States were united in opposing unconstitutional laws. But partisan politics has found its way into the States and as long as that remains the case the States can never unite together on anything which threatens federal authority within their borders. As long as the parties dictate policy America will continue on its current path towards a despotic democracy; a country in which the mindless and emotionally reactive majority gets to decide how the rest of us live.
I hear a lot of people say we should hold a Constitutional Convention and propose amendments to limit federal authority, introduce a requirement for a balanced budget, and all manner of other solutions to all the problems our country faces. I see two problems with that.
First, who is to say that if such a convention were held, (with the current mindset in both the populace and government towards our rights) that the Bill of Rights might not be repealed altogether? Just look at how restrictive California and some other States are in regards to gun ownership; who’s to say that the delegates chosen by those States might not call for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment?
With all the fear of another terror attack we might also see the complete repealing of the 4th Amendment; although as it stands now it is utterly worthless in protecting us against searches and seizures without probable cause.
Secondly, even if we were to successfully limit our proposed amendments to improving government by limiting its authority, how would we enforce them upon a government that has proven time and time again that the existing restrictions mean nothing to them? Patrick Henry warned of this very danger when arguing against ratification of the original Constitution, “A standing army we shall have also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny: And how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your Mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?“
I think people believe that a standing army is one consisting of regular military troops who enforce the law upon the people. But my understanding of a standing army is one that believes that any agency, be it federal or local, that enforces federal law comprises a standing army. After all, if a law is unconstitutional from the get go does it matter whether it is being enforced by United States Marines or your local cops? I think not; therefore a standing army is anyone, or anything that enforces the law upon the people. How are we to enforce the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and any amendments we might propose to limit the power of the federal government when they have an army of law enforcers on their side?
That is why knowledge is key to all this; for getting back to my comments on jury nullification, if the people knew the law; knew the limits the Constitution imposes upon government; then they could act as local nullifiers by simply refusing to see people convicted for laws that are non-binding.
The 16th American Jurisprudence states:
“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since it’s unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Such an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follows that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it.
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”
Also, in 1969 the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held, “If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence…If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.”
Now I’m not saying that jurors should just start acquitting people simply because they don’t like the law. What I am saying is that if a law is unconstitutional then the only power the government has to enforce them are either in a court of law or at the end of a gun; which is how Abraham Lincoln enforced his vision of the law when he invaded the States of the Confederacy. But I devolve from the issue at hand.
I have come to the painful conclusion that no matter how well-intentioned people might be, America simply cannot be fixed. If liberty is the primary reason for which all governments should serve to protect, then the people need to place that first and foremost on their list of priorities and stop voting for any candidate who seeks to limit it, or will not defend it to their last dying breath.
There is a saying that goes something like this, “To first fix a problem you must first recognize that there is a problem.” The problem, as I see it, is that too many people don’t want to fact the fact that the problem in America today is not a Democrat or a Republican one, it is one in which the government we have no longer serves the limited purposes for which it was established, and one in which our rights are secondary, (if even given any thought at all to) when deciding what laws it passes.
Unless that changes, then nothing else will; our goose will continue to spin on the rotisserie until it is fully cooked. And with the current discord and heated animosity between the two extremes in American politics, I feel that time is nearer at hand than many want to admit.
~ The Author ~
Neal Ross, Student of history, politics, patriot and staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Send all comments to: bonsai@syix.com.
If you liked Neal’s latest column, maybe you’ll like his latest booklet: The Civil War: (The Truth You Have Not Been Told). Life continues to expand for this prolific writer and guardian of TRUE American history.