Posts Tagged ‘preamble of constitution’

Ishtarmuz’s Rebuttal to: Consent Vs. Compliance


Ishtarmuz’s Rebuttal to: Consent Vs. Compliance

Consent Vs. Compliance was written By BOJIDAR MARINOV | Published: JULY 7, 2010. Be sure to let them know exactly what you think too!

Before I talk about the article let me say  that I agree with the premise wholeheartedly.  We the people need to consent to the laws and who is to govern.  To that end I would suggest we immediately dismantle the electoral college and move to popular vote across the country.  Also to that end let us reconsider two Senators per State and the general ability of those with big money or big mouths to consider they speak for the country.  My father used to say that a paper would lay down and take anything.  Well, thankfully, not all people will do the same. As for consent of the governed, well, we vote with our dollars.  Where do you live, work, and eat?


“Now you have socialized healthcare too,” said a European friend of mine.

“Yeah?” I replied. “What makes you think that?”

First off, if you didn’t say, “No we don’t have anything of kind.” then you have no clue about what socialized healthcare means.  If you didn’t say that, “No we still have those no product middle men called insurance companies to suck us dry right after the government,” then you have no idea what the fear mongering Right has cost this country by preventing universal health care.

“Well,” he seemed confused, “Didn’t the U.S. Congress pass Obamacare into a law?”

My reply only increased his confusion: “The Congress did. But the American people didn’t. The law still needs their consent to become valid.”

Which bring me to a number of other points. I thought that once a bill was passed and signed into law by our corporate sponsored government and went successfully unchallenged in the Supreme Court, that it was law, but maybe I am confused. Oh, you mean if 2/3 of the States vote to nullify the law?  Yeah, like that is going to happen. You watch too much Fox News. Granted this law is not really supported by either the progressives or the conservative right. The progressives know without true universal health care that this law only delays our inevitable bankruptcy and the right have their own corporate reasons.  The progressives already see the moral bankruptcy.  So maybe we should just run this out to its inevitable conclusion.  If you want any law to have the consent of the governed, then you must follow a European example and have complete election reform disallowing any private funding of candidates whatsoever and kick out all those lobbyists. Let me see anyone talking about the consent of the governed take on that cause.

Explaining the American social and political system to Europeans can be a tiresome experience. Europeans just don’t seem to be able to climb out of their boxes of digesting everything in terms of the centralized almighty state and its decrees….

I think you must be blind to European politics if you think they blindly follow anything. Take a look here or here or here or here. To listen to some conservatives talk about the founding fathers, one might wonder how much they read of them.  What I hear them talk about blindly follows much of the European thought of three hundred years ago minus all the caveats expressed by our founding fathers.  First and foremost was their warning about corporations removing our liberty.

But the federalism of the political institutions is the smaller problem for the European mind. The bigger problem is the individual vs. the State. Europeans, whether they are aware of it or not, whether they admit it or not, are genuinely terrified of the way Americans view their relation to their own government.

When a law is passed by a Parliament in a European nation, the average European automatically accepts that the law is valid for the very reason that it is passed by a proper parliamentary procedure. … The consent of the governed is never a factor in the European thinking, and the average European never even allows for such a factor to play any part in his dealings with his government.

This quite odd, since Europe being the birthplace of capitalism, thrives due to its diversity. We are a baby. Much of our thought and culture is European and that might be why we are still the ugly Americans to much of the world. In our multicultural world we are in the minority, except in our abuse of the world’s resources.  Europe is in the throes of our history in reverse.  They seek a union of states and argue it much as you would, the union is taking away the rights of the individual states to treat their populations any way they see fit.

Compliance is the key word that describes the relationship between the individual and the State in the European setting. The European citizen is not allowed nor expected to exercise discernment once a bill is codified into law. There is no option for the citizen to exercise any active opposition to it, only passive compliance. …

Civil disobedience exists everywhere in the free world. To deny it is to be blind. Although one of the European Union’s (EU) biggest disagreement was to deny Turkey entry into their EU Christian club.

Such is the attitude of the European mind. When it relates to the law, its first thought is “compliance.” There is no higher lawgiver than the national legislature, no higher court than the Supreme Court, and no higher executor than the government. Therefore whatever civil law is, must be right and must be obeyed. A law cannot be opposed except through the same legal and political process that produced it –… There is certainly no higher moral law to give the ideological basis for any opposition, no divine law, and no God to …

Nor will there be anything like this in the United States either.  If we want a theocracy, then maybe we should consider Sharia law? The legal history of law in Europe actually has some deep ecclesiastical roots which is completely absent from our system on purpose and excluded explicitly by law. Try to get that nullified, why don’t you?

A powerful example of this European mentality is the recent decision of a European court against the display of crucifixes in public buildings in Italy. Even though the decision was made by a court far away from Italy, by judges who know next to nothing about Italian traditions and history – or care nothing about it –…

Oh, you mean like you do. Your European mentality nonsense sounds like outright bigotry on its face. It reminds me of the ethnic national characters of the last two centuries.  I bet without much prodding you could expound on the German, the French, the Italian and the Irish spirit. There is an interesting point in this.  It is the authoritarian personality.

We in America very often make the mistake to believe that just because in the last 60 years most governments in Western Europe – and in Eastern Europe in the last 20 years – never used force against their own people, Europe is somehow free, and the rights of the individuals are safe and protected. We assume that because European nations have experienced the “the rule of law” that the Founders of these United States envisioned, therefore Europeans are free and their rights are protected. Nothing could be further from the truth. …

Yes, nothing could be further from the truth. You totally miss the point that almost all our rule of law comes from Europe and it is the United Sates that is still a babe in the woods.

In stark contrast to this stands the political ideology of the original American Republic. One of the things that made – and still makes – America unique as a political setting is that little phrase in the Declaration of Independence: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

Yes, we are unique. Outside our borders lie great barbarian hordes.  We allow just about anyone to get on their soapbox and preach to the great burnt over regions of our country.  Sometimes we even listen.

Consent is the key word here. In this foundational document of our American liberty, governments are declared to be secondary and derivative, rather than a primary source of law and power. A true American doesn’t consider his government to be the source of its own powers; its “just powers” are derived from his consent to acknowledge the government as legitimate and just. Furthermore, government is not an end in itself; it serves a purpose: “To secure these rights.” …

Yes, to secure the rights. So we have another would-be constitutional scholar. Check out my link to why universal health care is a constitutional right.

True, a European might be able to relate to the principle of the consent of the governed, but they would do it in a very limited way: That the governed exercise their “consent” by appearing regularly at the ballot box. Outside of that ritual of confirming their “consent” the governed can use different means of protest against specific government measures or laws. But compliance with the laws is non-negotiable…

In a parliamentary system the whole government can be dissolved due to lack of confidence.  Let’s try that.

A true American must disagree with such a limited view of the value of his political consent or non-consent. The value of the consent of the governed is not limited merely to a general recognition of the political system as a whole at the time of voting. Such an approach would have seemed irresponsible to the early colonists. A responsible and freedom-loving citizen must exercise his consent or disagreement concerning every single law or act of the government, not just in relation to the general political and legal system. …

I thought this was worked out in the Whiskey Rebellion? Certain forms of disagreements are just not allowed.

The history of America is replete with examples of active resistance of citizens against immoral, unjust, or stupid laws. The early colonists were smugglers at sea, rebels at home, and evaded paying taxes when they disagreed with them. They also disobeyed the Proclamation of 1763 and moved to settle new lands west of the Appalachians. They kept their guns when the British governors tried to confiscate them, and they obstructed the King’s tax-collectors. And of course, the event that started the Revolution, the Boston Tea Party, was a display of defiance against the ability of the British government to impose laws on a people against their consent. The American Revolution was only a logical outcome of a political ideology that had been developed in the colonies that no government and no law can have just power without the consent of the governed.

There you go.  I want to forcibly remove certain states from any commerce with the rest.  How about a fence starting from north of Arizona and going right straight across?

Admittedly, this healthy political ideology for the legitimacy of government has been in retreat for the last 200 years, but even in the 20th century we see it at work in America. Even today, there are hundreds of federal and state laws that have failed to become reality because the governed refuse to comply with them. Federal gun-control laws are the best example, being defied by state governments and individuals alike, but they are not the only example. Back in the 60’s there were hundreds of heroic Christian fathers and mothers who defied the law of the State and took their kids back home to educate them, very often facing persecution and jail sentences. The infamous “anti-hate-speech” laws, designed specifically to kill any Christian testimony in the public square, have only produced the opposite result, encouraging many individual Christians and Christian leaders to speak publicly about their beliefs. True patriotic America may have been in retreat for quite a while but she is far from defeated, and in fact, she is getting prepared to strike back at the new tyranny of the centralized State, learning from its Founding Fathers. Amazingly enough, even the Left in America, with its worship of the State …

The Right has no idea of the Left, not the real Left.  We have no leaders save thought and heart.  We have no structure save creativity.  We have no backing save freedom. We do not worship authority.  So now you make me angry.  You are speaking about something I know well.  I too home schooled my child, and not as many in the sixties, not for a bogus religious reason masking bigotry.  I home schooled her because I equated socialization with domestication.  As for you madam, I will have none of your slop either because what you condone is nothing less than murder.

And that’s why it is still not sure if we have socialized total Federal healthcare in America. The American people haven’t spoken yet. And therefore the healthcare law is far from valid.

Yes, let the people speak.  I will be out there speaking loud and clear with them.

What is amazing is that this confuses my European friends. It is obvious that in contrast to the European political ideology, the American ideology is the one that fosters and encourages political liberty; it is the system that imposes truly realistic checks on the expansion of government power. In fact, it is so obvious that one wonders what is it that makes Europeans unable to see it….

Maybe, just maybe, it is you that does not see.

The reasons for their blindness are religious. After the French Revolution, European nations have based their entire political and moral thinking on a rejection of the Triune God and His revelation in the Bible. … The individual lost any right to appeal to anyone higher than the State because there was none higher than the State, the State becoming god on earth. In such a religious system any thought of considering consent before compliance would be tantamount to sacrilege, a blasphemous act, an affront against the god.

You, my friend, are a zealot.  Yes, it is a spiritual matter, and yes, the truth is one.  You are, however, blind to the truth. Jesus wept.

There is no way to understand the history of Europe after the 18th century without understanding this major religious change in Europe’s political and moral philosophy. The rise of the nation-states, the two world wars, Marx, Hitler, the national liberation movements, the rise of Communism, the founding of the European Union, and the beginning of its demise in the last one year – none of those events in history make any sense unless we understand the paradigm shift caused by the abandonment of the Christian religion in Europe…

I understand fascist dictators very well. They are made from the likes of your thought. Constantine would be proud that Hitler was able to move a Christian nation.

In contrast, our American system was based from the very beginning on the belief of our Founding Fathers that it was not the State, but God Who rules over the affairs of men. This denied the civil government any role of being divine or declaring the divine will. The individual and the State in such a political ideology are equal before God, they both have equal rights and responsibilities to search and interpret God’s will for their society. Therefore the consent of the governed is the pivot of the political system, it is the practical application of the verse in Proverbs 11:14, “Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.” ….

You do go on. I see nothing that you have said that David Koresh could fault.

Therefore, my European friend won’t be able to understand our political system unless he understands its religious foundation first. As long as Europeans reject Jesus Christ as their Lawgiver, they will have political false messiahs for ultimate lawgivers, and will have no recourse against their immoral and foolish laws. Passive compliance with tyranny and oppression is the fate of a godless people. Only a God-fearing nation can force …

Only a god fearing self-righteous fool could write such drivel. The last time a God-fearing anything tried to force me to do anything, I told him to got to hell.


To All Those Would-be Constitutional Scholars of Health Care Reform


An honest reading of the preamble of our constitution says all that needs to be said about our right to health care in this country.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We the People of the United States?  This is an expression that all the people as one voice declare what is to follow. In Order to form a more perfect Union?  This expresses the intention to come together as a single community.  Establish Justice?  To equitably do what is right for all. Insure domestic Tranquility?  To keep the peace amongst ourselves. Provide for the common defence?  To defend ourselves against common enemies. To promote the general Welfare?  To see to the needs of the citizenry that which they cannot do themselves. To secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity? To ensure that our freedoms are not taken away from us or our descendants. Do ordain and establish this constitution of the United States of America?  What is ordained and established in these words is the intent of all that follows.

The intent is clear. The intent is that all the people unite as a community in a just, peaceful manner under a government that would protect them, their freedoms and promote their welfare.  This is why we still have a country.  On the one hand you could say that the federal government is only there to promote these ideas and it is up to the states to carry them out, but then if it can’t or won’t do so, then what is a federal government to do? On the other hand the federal government is to establish justice? Is it just to let the helpless die? It is to insure domestic tranquility?  Is it insured if we allow inequities to fester to the point of domestic violence? It is to provide for the common defense? Not all our enemies carry a gun from without.  Some live in gated communities and have a sense that they are more entitled than others. It is to promote the general welfare?  This is a clear statement of providing those things that states and individuals cannot. Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity?  Is there anything that endangers your liberty and your posterity more than illness or threat of illness? Among the many things that it has been decided appropriate that the federal government needed to intervene to provide, the provision of health insurance (read care) will go down in history as the one that made the most sense.  The one that had the most documented need.  The one that was covered in every phrase of the preamble of our constitution.

It is only a twisted libertarianism that would suggest that we should let people die that cannot provide for themselves. It is only a self-absorbed selfishness that cannot see beyond their own strength to what others might take as weakness.  It is only a perverse sense of entitlement that suggests the fruits of your labor should not be shared with the community even though it was the community that allowed you to reap those fruits. No man is an island, Entire of itself. Each is a piece of the continent. No one does it alone.

We don’t succeed by ourselves, but also we don’t fail by ourselves either. If the public option fails, then we all fail as a country.  The fiscal conservative Representatives have failed this country. They have failed on moral and economic grounds.  They are oath breakers, liars and have sold out their constituency.  A little math will suffice to show you the degree of the lie. Between fourteen to twenty percent of this country works in government depending on how you count.  Most have taxpayer provided insurance.  To expand the public option would lower that cost to the taxpayer of this insurance adding to the bottom line  every cash strapped state.  If all government employees were added to public option ( or asked to pay extra cost for private insurance) that could  save $600,000, 000.  This could end stalled union contracts across the country by taking health insurance off the table.  What might this do for other sectors of the economy? What might this do put people back to work? What could this do to end the recession? When are we going to see the conservatives for what they are, fascists?

Oh wait, maybe it is unconstitutional because the government can’t force you to pay for insurance.  Their is nothing in the constitution that allows that to happen and the Supreme Court would never let it stand.  OK, suspend all social security deductions and programs. Or maybe, pass the law and take it to court, if you are so sure.

The way I see it, this health care debate will become a moot point in the coming years.  I see two-thirds of the States passing a form of universal health care of necessity.  When that happens, it will be a short step to making it a federal constitutional amendment beyond the reach of the Supreme Court, even though the Court would never have overturned a universal health insurance law anyway.  Sometimes you just have to say stick a sock in it.

%d bloggers like this: