Tags: , , , , | Categories: The Science of Think by Chris on 11/24/2013 8:31 PM | Comments (0)


  Our system of government whose framework is the U.S. Constitution actually has a number of weaknesses. While it is obvious the founders struggled greatly to distill their ideas into a codified work of laws and mōrēs, their attempts to separate power were forced to make assumptions over which they ultimately knew they could not control. Their understanding of history and the nature of mankind poured heavily into the recipe as they forged a government necessary to create and maintain a national sovereignty for its future citizens. Based upon this understanding of "nefarious power in the hands of a few", they sought to balance this sovereign power by dividing government into three main branches and outlining the roles and responsibilities of each. That is where assumptions had to be made.

  Government cannot make you happy neither can it grant human rights. It has no power to do so. It can only recognize and then attempt to protect those rights. Our government has selectively taken “some” responsibility for protecting “some” human rights but those rights were declarative as the government was being constituted and did in fact pre-exist. Thomas Jefferson illustrated this truth when he penned our Declaration of Independence in saying, “…that they (mankind) are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”

  The canvas of human relationship was so vast and far reaching the constitutionalists attempted to address this protection and foresee in as much as was humanly possible the future outcomes of such interactions. Recognizing this was impossible the Judiciary was created as yet another check and balance to what otherwise could be accomplished legislatively. The assumption was men of character, maturity and wisdom, possessing no legislative power within their judicial station, would assume the semi-benign role of interpretation using a constitutional framework as a necessary point of origination and reference. Consequently, future generations would be left to grapple with linguistic and sociological drift in comprehending a constitutional framework in light of a progressive modernity. This is precisely where the now so called progressives/liberals have been chipping away at our constitutional foundation.

  What was once a national consciousness to protect the citizens from the tyranny of other people using government power has drifted through time in many cases to mean liberty by subjugation to the very government intended to protect us. In short, since they can’t change the words of the constitution they will just change the meaning of the words themselves, which is an insidious idea that appears to be rooted in malfeasance.

  The Judiciary was the natural place to launch this attack since its ONLY role is to interpret what is legislatively realized. However, for it to work the minds of the Judiciary had to be perverted away from the legislative banality of their role. We have no greater example of this perversion than in the Roe v. Wade decision where an idea is declared to be law for millions of people, depriving millions more of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, made by seven people without a single solitary legislative voice of any kind. In other words, there is no legislative voice of record either for or against this imposed case law. The Supreme Court failed to recognize the same right of privacy, life and liberty for the unborn that was given to the mother of the unborn mentioned in the majority decision.

  This technique has worked so well that leftism has grown addicted to the narcotic nature of its power. Like cocaine addiction, judicial activism is becoming unmanageable. Like any drug addict or alcoholic the substance of this idea promises to serve but all it ever actually does is enslave while the accompanying denial prevents the perpetrator from acknowledging the elephant in the room. The walls of their prison cells are lined with velvet denial.

“If a standard ever changes it ceases to exist…” ~ c.carter

  Using this perverted idea one can redefine the word “penalty”, which expresses punitive properties (i.e. punishment for wrong doing) and change it to mean “tax” which expresses the idea of revenue gathering for the greater good. This is precisely what Chief Justice Roberts did in his majority opinion concerning the ObamaCare litigation. We were one vote away from ending government takeover of healthcare but stopped short by what appears to be an act of judicial activism where one word was literally redefined from the bench.

Opinions, values and principles

Noted Christian Apologist Dennis Peacocke makes the following observations:

Firstly, opinions are preferences people usually come to based upon “feelings, “facts,” or unconscious life/environmental conditioning. Feelings, of course, are highly subjective and based largely on emotional preferences or intuitive opinions which evade rational or logical analysis. They can, in some cases, produce appropriate responses, but they virtually never produce informative policies unless their objective origins are translated into a more rational form.
Secondly, values are codified personal preferences that are seldom based upon principles as we shall shortly see. Values can claim to be “right” or virtuous, but they cannot or never should claim to be true for others or put upon others per se. We all have subjective values—preferences which are held either consciously or unconsciously. Values cannot claim universal status. They too remain in the category of subjectivity even if they are godly, well-intentioned values.
Thirdly, we have principles. What claim do principles make that neither opinions nor values can legitimately make? Precisely this: Principles create logical and empirical results. Principles operate in the realms of both scientific-mathematical logic and in the realm of social behavior and social constructs. Constitutions are, or should be, based on cause-effect principles rather than subjective values or opinions.- D. Peacocke

  A current example of this is the claim that health care is a right by Mr. Obama, a lawyer who has taught constitutional law at the collegiate level. How can you be the President of the United States and a constitutional lawyer and not know that the government cannot grant a right to health care? A proprietor cannot grant that which they themselves do not possess. Promoting the general welfare of citizens is not providing for them personally. The government can help you protect your right to life and liberty so you can pursue your own health care but that is all. This is not a small matter. Ideas do have consequences!

   Our emerging “Political Divide” is largely rooted in personal opinions and values. Be it government run healthcare, same sex marriage, abortion or habitually raising the debt ceiling, when following these ideas to their logical conclusion they fail miserably. The outcomes or means to the outcome so often fail to produce logical and empirical results. We are victims of our own selfishness and willingness to oppress each other using political subterfuge because of an opinion or personal value, twisting the constitution into a knot in the process.

  The recent Senate rule change from a 60 vote to 51 vote requirement is another shining example. Statesman would never have gone through with this. Only politicians would sink this low. What’s most frightening about this is that it is yet another step in a long slow series of steps to centralize power in Washington and deprive the people of their fundamental rights of self-determination. It doesn’t matter which political party is doing it, it’s a constitutional crime.

  If the men and women in Congress cannot moderate on both sides, our recourse is to vote them out. Republican/Democrat – Conservative/Liberal we are going to have to find some middle ground in order to turn our country around. Contrary to the liberal mantra, the American people are not limited in speaking to their government through elections. We know some politicians think otherwise because of their frequent referral to the fact they "won the election". The insinuation is, “therefore we can do whatever we want until the next election.” Well, it just isn’t so. The people can exert power 24/7/365. It will take a ground swell of American dissent raining down on Washington by every American speaking out, writing their congressman and senator and not letting up. If we could ever get organized and focused enough in that way we could bridge much of the Great Divide and get something done in Washington.

 Note: Flying the American Flag upside down is a military approved symbol of distress.