BLOG POST 4 - Shore of Sanity

I told someone recently, that as long as I could remember I have known people who would vote Democrat regardless of the character or position of the candidate.  The candidate’s character, propensity to tell lies, bread campaign promises, and engage in actions that were harmful to the economy, our freedom, and America, had no bearing and they still VOTED DEMOCRAT.  I have known a few Republicans of that ilk but not nearly as many as those who identify as Democrat.  I have long wondered why that is and believe that I have a partial explanation that will get to momentarily.

My parents, especially my mother, liked to say, “I vote for the man, not the party.”  That is a noble expression and her intent was genuine but I do not believe that it is always a sound philosophy.  WHY?  Because the party’s political platform is very important.  Not just for the individual candidate but the governing ideological philosophy that will likely be followed in Washington if that party gains power.  The Democrats, for the most part, are Party Loyalist to the end.  They will check their principles, scruples, and often brains, at the door of the Party Caucus and however the leadership instructs, vote.  The Republicans, do not follow that pathway as much and I believe that one of the reasons is they are more individualistic and independent in their thinking and approach to governing.  That has proven problematic at times when faced with a unified liberal bloc in the Democrats.  I have talked to Democrat Politicians who have confessed their displeasure with the overall direction of their party but when asked why they go along they always say, “I HAVE TO DEFEND THE PARTY’S PLATFORM.”  Democrats toe the line like good soldiers and loyal sheep and the Republicans are offended when someone suggests there is a line to toe.

There was a time, in my lifetime, when politicians, at least a larger percentage than today, voted according to their belief in the Constitutionality of a bill and how it affected their constituents.  Today, there is the prevalent idea, by the Left, that the Constitution is an ever, evolving living document that changes with current public attitudes.  Those of us who are adherents and proponents of Original Intent and Textualism in interpreting the Constitution are deemed to be archaic dinosaurs politically, socially, and morally.  We are labeled as haters, bigots, laden with some phobia that somehow negates our views and beliefs.  We become the enemy, or their enemy, and are considered more dangerous than Islamic jihadist and terrorist.

James Madison, America’s fourth president said, “I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation.  In that sense alone it is the legitimate constitution and if that be not the guide in expounding it there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful, exercise on its powers… what a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense.” (Barton, Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, and Religion, (Wall Builders, P.O. Box 397; Aledo, Texas, 76008), p. 22)

Justice Joseph Story, founder of the Harvard Law school and nominated to the Supreme Court by President James Madison argued, “The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments [documents] is to construe them according to the sense of the terms in the intention of the parties.” (Barton, Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, and Religion, (Wall Builders, P.O. Box 397; Aledo, Texas, 76008), p. 23)

Justice James Wilson, one of six people who signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, a law professor and nominated by President George Washington as the original justice on the Supreme Court said, “The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.”(Barton, Original Intent: the Courts, the Constitution, and Religion, (Wall Builders, P.O. Box 397; Aledo, Texas, 76008), p. 22)

If we allow those who were there and hammered out the agreements, compromises, and formulated our system of government to identify HOW we should interpret the constitution we will arrive at no other conclusion than ORIGINALISM.  If we return to that philosophy and restrict Congress from violating its guidelines, hold any President accountable to the Constitutional allowances afforded the Executive Branch, and only place jurist on the Supreme Court who will interpret not legislate we can salvage the Republic.  We have drifted far from the shore of sanity, left public morality in the shadows, and ignored virtually every warning our founders gave making “keeping the republic” almost impossible.  WHO IS TO BLAME?  If we cut to the chase, it is YOU AND ME, the American voting public.  Yes, the politicians have violated our trust, abandoned the constitution, and become party parasites but who put them there?  Who failed to send them home after it became apparent they would not adhere to the constitution?  Are they culpable and to blame?  Of course, but UNTIL we revoke their credit cards, rescind their memberships, and allow them to experience living under the rules and laws they enact, as the rest of society we will not solve the problem.

Can we return to the shore of sanity?  I believe we can otherwise I would go into hiding and become a recluse.  I would be in such despair that I would be weary of life.  I have confidence in God and believe that prayer works and is a powerful and valuable weapon we can use.  I also believe in the Constitution and its Original Intent.  Additionally, I believe in America and the American people.  NO, I do not think everyone in America is willing to return to that place and I do not believe that everyone realizes the damage and danger of our current path.  WHAT CAN WE DO?  You and I must educate as many as possible by continually reporting the truth, exposing the lies, and demonstrating the civility that is essential to achieving that objective.  We must adopt the directive of 2 Chronicles 7:14 and Pray, seek God and acknowledge our error and sin.  At that point, the promise of God is that He will HEAR us and HEAL our land.  I applaud independent thinking but caution everyone to remember that we are a nation, one nation, and if we are to be indivisible we must become unified and that will mean engaging in some give and take. NO, do not abandon your core convictions but do not let preference become your interpretation of principle.

God, bless you and God bless America!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s