2012 Presidential Hopefuls vs. Equality, Justice and Humanity

by Rev. "Doc" Lowrey

It continually amazes me how out of touch with the creature that is "The United States of America" the Republican Party has been.

IMO they have created themselves as the most active threat to LIBERTY and the LEGALLY INVIOLABLE principles of America's founding.

Only one candidate, Senator Ron Paul, seems to have any familiarity with the actual Constitution and Bill of Rights that they seek office (supposedly) to defend!  Sadly, the senator too often misconceives or fails to recognise the need to nourish (or display, which is anathema to the current right-wing fringe) the spirit that drove the "Law's" creation.

At the heart of the matters that these contenders and many of their supporters, have no consideration for, and unbelievable as it seems perhaps no understanding of, the basics of the Constitution or the incontestability (inviolable and self-evident truths) and desirability of the concepts of Equality, Liberty or Humanity/Morality.

"The Basics" of the Constitution is still explained I think extremely well, and this should give Mitt Romney pause, by a former President and Prophet of his Mormon Church and two term U.S. Secretary of  Agriculture, Ezra T. Benson, which I recommend to all.

Benson, then an Apostle of the LDS Church, gave this as a 10 minute sermon in the church's annual General Conference, the published version of words there (from the top 15 leaders) spoken mandated by Church Law to have to members (such as Mitt) status equal to "scripture".

Why don't you get what your prophet said Mitt?

I posted the entire short and excellent essay titled The Proper Role of Government here.  Please read it!

Basically, however (If I can say it in less than 10 pages!) here is the crux of the matter.

The creature is not and cannot become greater than it's creator.

Any such attempts otherwise lack the essential foundation and are ultimately doomed.

Consider for example our current worldwide example of "what a mess"!

Government is a creature of "the people" designed to strictly, justly and humanely enforce the Constitution and to some degree nurture it's appreciation and to strictly prevent it's infringement.

The Government cannot possess or express any power not held by a single individual.  This is analogous to the idea that man cannot dictate to God or the Universe that created him (also being the foundation for the 1st amendment, though no one seems to want to notice it).

So, since (here comes the humanity part - social service) many individuals are not up to the task of "defending their own rights to be secure in their Constitutional Guarantees to determine their own thoughts and pursuits", short of infringing on others EQUAL RIGHTS, the group embarks on a joint venture and CREATES "Government" which includes all elements requisite (police, army, legislatures, judges, etc.) elements to enforce for ALL equally, the protection of their INDIVIDUAL rights.

The Government cannot act without the express consent of the Governed.

That is the Law and the reason why is just this, that a group of people, or their representative(s) cannot claim powers greater than any individual in the group possesses.

You cannot have more than 100% of something!  The powers of government are expressly derived from the powers of the individual and cannot be greater due to acting in concert,  temptation toward excess is curtailed by natural and legal limits.

The Government has no authority to do EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what it was created to do by claiming authority to violate, circumvent or even to offer extreme and over-reaching  extrapolations/misconceptions of - or simply, as it pleases them, ignore, the Constitution.

So, the group of people together with their chosen Representatives, ensure that they, their personal freedom, property, personal, religious and civil rights are protected.

EQUALITY, means pretty much that everyone is protected just the same and is - not allowed, but protected in  INALIENABLE RIGHTS to pursue their interests and as long as they do not violate the same privileges in others.

This is simple!

So, in the case of race-mixing or gay marriage, gun control, etc., all persons not under restriction due to previous violation of the rights of others, are free to practice any behavior, such as marriage, in such manner as pleases them as long as...(see above).

So, we may yodel in the yard at the top of our lungs during daytime hours, but are restricted from violating our neighbors right to a peaceful nights sleep by yodeling outdoors at night, unless our behavior due to whatever factor, would not disturb others.

Using reason is implicit in our understanding of the Constitution, but we are supposed to be safe in the understanding that the INTERPRETATION of the Constitution is to be PLAIN, according to the obvious (as opposed to "narrow") reading and according to the definition of terms of the time in which they were declared and made binding on every citizen and guest.

The Constitution is supposed to be able to be "commonly" understood, that is Plain to the reasoning of the common man.  One is not supposed to be required to be an attorney to understand and operate within the Law.

Recently, Senator Rick Santorum, also a Presidential hopeful, railed against President Kennedy's defense of the "Separation of Church and State" as if he had never read the LAW in the 1st Amendment where it clearly states that Congress shall pass NO law respecting the free exercise of conscience.

No Means No!  Has anyone ever heard that?

There is no provision for Congress (or the States, Municipalities, etc. or any of their organs) to make exception to that RULE OF NO!

Exception is often made, very often - which is all UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ILLEGAL and should, except for an often equally corrupt Judiciary be impossible to impose or maintain/enforce and which citizens (as a Constitutional Right) are not obligated to obey.

And finally, Humanity.

In the spirit of our Nation's founding, we find that there is a need for us to step up and be our brother's keeper when the need arises.

We support with labor, love and other resources, the right of our neighbor to enjoy the fruits of the Constitution; Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness - especially those experiencing hardship.

If we claim, as many do, to espouse the teachings of Jesus, we would do well to recall the foundation of his teaching, which also is the foundation of the United States of America and it's Constitution.

This teaching in the New Testament, Matthew 7:12,  is none other than the so called "Golden Rule" taught by all major religions, what James (Jesus' brother) called the "Royal Law" and which is nothing but that we must LOVE and REVERE ALL CREATION and generally express that LOVE by treating all other people with the same regard we would wish for ourselves.

All Governance, especially in the U.S.A. should spring only from that foundation and should clearly reveal that aim in it's expression.

No Republicans are offering that and our Professor of Constitutional Law President, Mr. Obama, offers - but apparently intentionally - consistently fails to deliver!

There is only one clear path to a reliable and sane future and no party that I can tell of is offering it, and one of our two major parties (or one of the two demonic heads of our "one" party) is energetically fighting against God and Country.

Shame on their intentional irresponsibility.

Shame on those who fail to recognize it for what it is.

United We Stand.

Divided We Fall.

Where does Party Politics figure in that idea?

1 comment:

  1. First, the first ammendent say nothing about conscience although it may be implied. The actual wording is congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor preventing the free excercise thereof. If you read Kennedy's speech you will realize he took it further then the constitution mandates. Further, where does the term seperation of church and state come from. It was dug out of a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists (also note Jefferson was not there at the writing of the constitution) where if you take it in context says essentially that the government will not interfere in religion. Also at the time several States had a state religion which many kept for several decades, as the constitution did not address this to the states (at least in the beginning). This seperation was dug out by Hugo Black during a supreme court decision, and was mainly aimed at the Catholic Church Schools (as Mr. Black was an anti-catholic bigot and a klan member). So the fact that Presidential hopefull Santorum questions Kenndy (whos family has a long history of treason by the way) and a supreme court justice who was a bigot and a klan member, this somehow makes him anti-constitution.. Sorry I don't get it.