BLOG POST 1 - Process

The Democrats have repeatedly decried the ‘electoral college’ and issued their pleas and plans for the abolishing that Constitutional Process and move to ‘popular vote’ on presidential elections.  That is only one of their ploys, and yes, I said ploy.  The founding fathers and the framers of our American Constitution considered ‘democracy’ or ‘majority rule’ anathema to the Republic they envisioned and established.  Yet, today’s Democrats believe that is what we must move to.  The question is not if it is part of their agenda but why.

In a Republic, it is recognized that we have certain inalienable rights that come from God not government.  In a Republic, the government is not allowed to strip the citizens of those rights.  In a Republic, the government is mandated to protect and defend the Constitution.  In a Republic, there are safeguards and stopgaps which prevent a knee-jerk majority decision and helps to maintain our status as the Free Constitutional Republic established through the Revolutionary War and the Constitutional Convention.

In a ‘majority rule’ democracy the majority, a simple plurality would determine what rights we have and what rights are stripped from us.  In Congress, there is the provision where both Houses of Congress must approve legislation for it to be passed on to the President for signature to make it a law.  If the president vetoes that piece of legislation it then requires a two-thirds majority (290 Representatives and 67 Senators) to override that veto.  That is a daunting task and a pathway that is seldom achieved.

The founders and framers saw that as a means to preserve the integrity and operation of the Republic.  President Franklin D. Roosevelt vetoed 635 bills and only 9 of them were overturned.  President Grover Cleveland vetoed 584 bills and only 7 were overturned.  That reflects how difficult it is for Congress to arbitrarily impose its will on the Executive Branch.  It also provides a safeguard for Congress to hold the President in check on various issues.  It should present a basis for both branches of government to work together.  It does not, because in today’s political climate everything is done on a partisan basis, most usually.

The desire of the Democrats to transform our system of electing presidents into a ‘simple majority rule’ process and eliminate the ‘electoral college’ suggests they might other sinister motives and plans.  Would they also seek to remove the required two-thirds requirement for overriding a presidential veto and make it a simple majority vote?  I would hope that either party pushing for that would realize the imminent danger of that action biting them in the proverbial behind in the future and restrain themselves.  But, alas, politicians and restraint are hardly compatible words.  The Democrats have shown a propensity to “damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead, “in their push to get what they want.  A case in point would be Obamacare but it is not the only example.

For those of us who are Christians, regardless of party affiliation, there are some things that we should consider in every election.  We should consider the faith of the candidates.  No, I am not saying that is the only consideration, but it is a consideration.  I readily acknowledge that it is sometimes impossible to truly discern or know the reality of a candidate’s profession of faith.  I am not God, so I leave that to God.  However, it is possible to look at their track record and stance on Religious Liberties and other matters pertaining to the Bible.  The fruit defines the root and will either validate the words or negate them.

Another thing must be considered for believers, in my view, is the Traditional Family and how the candidates stand on government-mandated acceptance of same-sex marriages and how they have voted on family-focused legislation.  By that, I mean how they voted on legislation that either enhanced the two-parent families of one man and one woman or helped create a negative environment for that objective.  Some legislation makes it more profitable for a woman to remain unmarried and have children than marry and raise those children in a traditional family home.  Making a career out of welfare and having children out of wedlock is not a biblically endorsed position and any politician that advances that pathway is not deserving of a Christian’s vote.

Abortion issues and the Right to Life cannot be excluded.  If we believe, and I do, that we are created by God then I have to believe that that life begins at conception.  Jeremiah 1:5 declares, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.”  Isaiah 44:24 speaks of God forming us in the womb.  Galatians 1:15 speaks of God setting us apart from our mother’s womb.  In Psalm 139:13-15, we read, “You brought my inner parts into being; You wove me in my mother’s womb.  I will praise you, for You made me with fear and wonder; marvelous are Your works, and You know me completely.  My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in secret and intricately put together in the lowest parts of the earth.  Your eyes saw me unformed, yet in Your book, all my days were written, before any of them came in to being.”

There are those who insist that the argument of the right to have an abortion is about a woman’s right to choose and women’s health, but I must ask, what about the rights of that unborn baby?  Who defends that life and right to life that our Declaration and Constitution identifies as inalienable?  If we believe that Life is Sacred and the right to Life is inalienable, how do we determine that the unborn have no rights?  They are the most defenseless among us.  Women have the right to not engage in unprotected sex.  Before you argue, that if she was raped or it was incest she should have the right to abort.  When did two wrongs make a right?  She should be showered with our love and compassion, but abortion is not the only pathway to relieving herself of the responsibility of that new life in her womb.  There is the pathway of adoption, is there not?

Also, the believer, in my view, must consider how the candidates stand on religious liberty, self-defense and more.  If the candidate votes to mandate believers violate their religious convictions to accommodate someone with an opposing view, that is to be noted.  You have a right to believe what you believe, but you have no right to force me to participate, assist, or even agree with your choice.   Your rights must end where mine being and according to the First Amendment we are to be free to worship according to our faith, not the whims of government or activist groups. If the candidate seeks to touch our inalienable rights and strip us of our constitutional liberties, that should be noted. I believe if we used a litmus test of that nature it would be very easy to determine which candidate we would vote for.

God bless you and God bless America.  Remember 2020 is just two short years away!