For the Strength of our Nation

    Both sides too often consider that they have the corner on the for good ideas. They don't see their own holes in their arguments and plans and when they get the opportunity they try to cram weak, foolish, and near tyrannical legislation. Is this the way that things should be?

    The answer to the above question is a resounding no! Yet who is to blame for so low a state that we are in? The answer us the American people we are the ones to blame for so poor a job we have done in governing ourselves. For too long we have been content with what was. We became complacent and we failed to examine out lives and ourselves. We took material goods as a sign that we are a favored people. However once those goods were taken from us we became a straw man.

   It is time for the American people to wake up and ask the big questions on government. They should ask what they can do for this country not what this country can do for them.

    America rise up and shake of the chains that bind you. Today my readers look back on the history of America. Look back to our patriots and remember there sacrifice. Consecrate this day to that sacrifice. Dedicate your lives today to changing the political sphere in your community and your nation. It is only through active and engaged citizenry that a nation can be changed. Today is our time middle of the road Americans. Today is the only time we have for tomorrow is as yet unknown and yesterday has passed us by. The coming storm can be abated if we act united in our purpose.

    We are the nation!

Religion and Politics

    All through history we have seen several reasons why church and state are two thing that should never become a cohesive singular whole. The evidence of this is found in the crusades, the Inquisitions, Witch Burnings, and now Jihadism. Surely the combination of religion and governmental authority is a bad combination but what about eh lack of religion?

    In more recent times we have seen also that a lack of religion can be just as dangerous as extremist religious thought. I am referencing of course Maoist/Stalinist Communism and Nazism as espoused by Hitler. These three modern iterations of hatred and violence have killed millions and has been the cause of multiple wars. So it is apparent that vehement lack of religion is deadly as well.

   So what is the solution obviously it is a blend of some kind where religions, all religions, have a place in the political discourse dealing with what they deem moral issues. Where the churches should be limited is in using their, shall we say, metaphysical influence to influence votes. Now what I mean is that a religion in good faith should never say vote this way or that way otherwise your eternal salvation is at stake. That would be a gross misuse of power and against a commandment given by Christ in his Sermon on the Mount. However what they can do is weigh in on questions of morality and human rights. For the scope of all religions that are "mainstream" tend to be increasing the freedom is to allow for good living environments for the people of the world.

    This ideal however seems to not be enough for certain segments of society. I am of course referencing the hardline evangelical communities. Where it seems to be common practice to spread discord in politics by bringing in their staunch religious influence. Now why is it I say this because you can see their influence within the Republican party. Their party lines are becoming more and more harsh and rigid. In fact if one were to examine most of their social planks in their platform you will see that the religious rights opinions and the planks are one in the same. While the control is indirect it is still a danger. Why? Because it is causing extremism. Now the right considers themselves the political party that God himself has brought forth. This is ridiculous.

    Why though is this ridiculous for one simple reason God does not get involved in political squabblings. What He cares about is freedom to choose. That is one of his greatest gifts that he has given to man. I warn at this time that if this course of action is followed then the religious will see to it to further break this nation. Not because of their religion necessarily but because their religious zealotry will not yield when it is time to yield and cause for this nation to stagnate. The overly religious right must be brought to heel by the Republican party if they want to survive!

Constituional Originalism

    For those of you don't follow politics, which if you're reading this is probably about 3% of the group, what I term Constitutional Originalism is the idea that we as a nation must "return to the original meaning of the Constitution." Which sounds great as a slogan but what about in practice? As I have thought about it I don't think that it works out quite as well as one could hope. For what does that phrase mean? Should we not allow women to vote, or only property holding men can vote. Does going back to the original Constitution mean the reinstitution slavery. Perhaps what this phrase means is that we should throw out over two hundred years of jurisprudence. As one can see there is an issue.
 
    However what I have found associated with this term is the phrase "liberal judges" or "judicial activists." These two phrases are used to deride judges that supposedly overstep their bounds as judges. So I think that what the Originalists are really trying to say is they do not like judges who interpret the language and meaning of the Constitution to apply those principles to the modern era. The Originalists want to stop this practice because they disagree with the Supreme Courts decisions. Such disagreement is all well and good but I am here to say that their argument fails to hold water. To illustrate this let's go and look at the Fourth Amendment.

    The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Now I ask you to at this time take an Originalists position and use strictly the words found in this amendment and apply this to wire taps. A phone communication is not a paper, nor an effect. Executing a wiretap is also not an invasion of the person's home seeing that such can be executed via other means. So using an Originalist position I ask should the government be able place a wiretap on your home without a search warrant? If you take only the words found in this amendment then the answer has to be yes. Yet I ask why is this not the case. For that we have to turn and thank an activist Supreme Court.

    The Court case that decided this issue was Katz v US (1967). The Supreme Court ruled that a search warrant must be granted where a person should expect a reasonable amount of privacy. Where does this phrase show up in the Constitution? That's right it doesn't. Now I think that we all can agree that a phone conversation should be kept private and therefore subject to a search warrant. So here is a case where we see Originalism fail.

I conclude by saying that we need to remember the principles behind the amendments more so than the actual words. Once we remember those timeless treasures then we can have an opportunity to make correct decisions. I urge all Originalists to study Constitutional case law and discover just how much judges protect your vaunted rights.

Calming the Storm

As stated in my previous post entitled "The Rage of Nations" I lamented that the people of the United States are so divided that chaos and insanity seems to be reging. (As an aside I would like to apoligize for that more emotionally charged and likely incoherent post. It was an emotional reaction to an emotional topic for me.) Anywho today I will approach the same topic with a bit more logic behind the writing.

I think that we can all agree that, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." In my lifetime I have observed a shifting in the way political hot topics are discussed among the people and among their representatives. The trend has been disturbing. From what I can remember, and from my elders tell me, there was a time when political discourse, while lively and often heated, was still cordial and the seperate groups could reconcile their differences and put the needs of the country above political points. Now however it seems political points are the only motivators for the leaders of our nation. Yet the worst part about this is not that they are making political points with the average American but with the more extreme views of the convention/caucus goers. The result is an obvious one and the more extreme candidates are put up for general election. This therefore leaves most middle of the road Americans out of the process and thereby alienates this group into apathy. The cycle then continues to perpetuate dangerous rhetoric and creates greater divisions within the population of the United States.

To end this dangerous cycle is simple in that it requires only a new political party to emerge which uses reason and sound argumentation rather than emotion and mindless rhetoric to drive its platform. Yet the difficulty lies in the actual implementation of this. It seems that there are far too many politicians who are cowards and would not risk their political careers to better the nation. No, in the years to come we must have the people of this nation arise and become the leaders this nation desperately craves. Middle America should unite and with reason and compromise become a new political power based on toleration and thought. It is time to end our apathy and make this nation not what it once was but what it could be.