Big Dogs House

How Much Of The Constitution Should They Have Read?

Jan 7, 2011 Political

The US Constitution is a contract between the government and those governed. It delineates the powers that We the People allow our government to have. It is the law of the land and it is unique in the history of the world.

The House of Representatives opened with a reading of the US Constitution. The Republicans chose to have read the current document leaving out the items that had been changed. This upset liberals and among them was Jesse Jackson, Jr. who believes that reading the current, amended Constitution, glossed over history, particularly the part that dealt with slavery.

While the Constitution does not mention slavery (in the original document) there is no doubt it was addressed. Article 1, Section 2 discusses representation and how people are counted. In it, there is the three-fifths clause. The document says that the number of people will be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons.

Notice that it does not say slaves but there is no doubt, and history supports the fact, that the three-fifths applied to them. This part was changed by Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

According to Jackson, not reading this clause shows that the Republicans glossed over the racist part of the document where slaves were only considered to be three-fifths of a human.

Of course the clause does not make slaves three-fifths of a person. It was a method to count the census and determine how Representatives would be apportioned. It was made this way as a method to end slavery and not to mark slaves as less than a full human.

Slave owners wanted all slaves counted so that they would have greater representation in Congress. If all the slaves were counted, the southern slave owners would have many more members in the House and any efforts to end slavery would have been defeated based on the numbers. By reducing the population, the Founders were able to reduce the number of Representatives from the slave states. This was a balance between those who wanted no slaves counted (because they could not vote) and those who wanted all of them counted so they would have greater numbers of Representatives.

It is important to note that the three-fifths number is from an earlier attempt to organize when the Articles of Confederation were being revised. The slave owners did not want any of their slaves counted when it came to taxing because they would have had to pay more taxes. At that time the three-fifths rule was a compromise agreed upon though the measure eventually failed.

When it came time to compromise on the population used to determine representation, the three-fifths rule was a method that had previously been agreed to so it was inserted to gain passage of the Constitution and to limit the number of Representatives from slave owning states.

Glenn Beck has mentioned that our Constitution is a great document because the Founders gave us a way to change or add to it. This allows us to correct injustices and to add things necessary to run our country. The beauty is that we leave the changed parts in the document so that anyone reading it at anytime can see what we did and how we changed. The three-fifths clause changed because of the Fourteenth Amendment just like the Twenty-First Amendment changed the Eighteenth. The beauty is that both of the changed parts remain but are superseded by newer parts.

Beck thinks that the entire document should have been read to show our scars and how we advanced. Jackson thinks we should have read it in its entirety as well though his reason is to show the racist part of the Constitution. The reality though, is that Jackson is incorrect because Article 1, Section 2 was not racist. It was merely a method to count people or representation and to limit the power of slave owners. If he took the time to learn he would see that this was a brilliant move to eventually end slavery.

I do not disagree with Beck or Jackson about reading the entire thing if the purpose of the exercise was an educational one. Then each section could be read and people could see why we did what we did and how it was changed.

But the reading in the House was designed to present the document in its current form, the form in which we must apply it. The Republicans were simply reading the rules as they now apply.

The Founders wanted to end slavery and they worked on that. Yes, it is true some of them were slave owners but about 70% of those who signed the Declaration of Independence were not slave owners and most of our Founders released their slaves.

George Washington’s will freed his slaves upon the death of his wife, Martha, and provided for the care and education of their children until the age of 25 out of funds from his estate.

As an educational tool the Constitution should be read in its entirety so that people can understand our history.

But for the exercise that took place in the House the only parts that needed to be read are those that currently apply because it is those to which we will hold our members of Congress accountable.

UPDATE: The usual suspects are upset. Seems they want to take the country back to slavery.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: constitution, glenn beck, jesse jackson jr, slavery

Back to work, Slave!

Dec 1, 2010 Political

Ah, winter arrives throughout North America, and once again, citizens are turned into slaves. Slave: “One bound in servitude.”

You see, many governments in the winter, require work from people. No, you have no option. You either serve the government and do it’s bidding, including physical labor, or you are jailed. I’m not sure how anyone can say that it is not slavery.

Pretend I’m standing next to you, on a deserted island. I demand that you dig a hole. You either dig a hole, or I will take you and put you in a cage for some amount of time. Then, when I decide to release you from the cage, I again demand that you dig a hole. If you refuse, I might invite a few of my friends over, who beat you in an attempt to get you to dig the hole. If you continue to refuse, it’s back into the cage for you. If I cage you enough times, I’ll just take your property from you, too. And if you get too bothersome, I might have my friends shoot you so I can get someone else to come dig the hole I demand. If you dig the hole I demand, when and where I demand, I’ll leave you alone. And no, there are no “authorities” for you to call and save you. If you attempt to run, my friends will chase you down and capture you and place you in a cage. Is there any way you can say that you’re not a slave under those circumstances?

Sadly, that’s what various governments in the US do when they demand that you shovel snow. Oh sure, it’s for the “common good.” It’s to “help everyone.” But does my hole-digging situation make it all okay if I just say that I’m forcing you to dig a hole to “help people?”

Go ahead, claim government won’t do that because many (like Denver) claim it’s an “administrative citation.” Then watch what happens if you don’t dig their hole or pay their money. They will beat you, arrest you, and jail you. Oh, how I yearn for freedom.

Tags: shovel, slavery, snow

It Will Take Less Time To Make Us Slaves

Oct 2, 2010 Political

Barack Obama is out trying to whip his base into a frenzy so they will come out in November and vote. He is trying everything because he knows that he and his party are in real trouble. Obama is out lying about the Republican party and telling us that they want to go back to the policies of the last eight years, the ones that got us in trouble. This trouble has been brewing for longer than eight years and Democrats were in charge for most of the time the trouble brewed though both parties share the blame.

Regardless, Obama has already shown he will say anything to get what he wants. He has been caught saying different things at different times depending on who he is trying to appeal to. He is a con man, we are the mark and the sting is on the way.

Unless we can stop him by taking away his majority.

The funny thing is, Obama has to pump up his base after they came out in huge numbers (most of them being legal voters) in 2008. They are so displeased with him and what he has done that they are apathetic. They just do not care so Obama is out trying to get them to stay the course. He is telling his base that things take time so they need to be patient. He told them that it took time to end slavery and that the slaves patiently waited for it to end.

I fail to see a valid comparison here. The end of slavery came as a result of the Civil War, a war that was waged over state’s rights and which cost over 600,000 lives. The Obama Agenda is a war being waged over the rights of individuals and it has cost over 7 million jobs.

In the past 18 months Barack Obama has enslaved us to government. He has taken over auto companies, taken over health care, taken over the financial sector and he is trying to take over the very air we breathe by taxing the air we exhale.

The Obama base might not be happy that he has not done as much as he said and Massa Obama might like to tell them that ending slavery took a long time but the reality is it only took 18 months to make us all slaves.

If we do not stop this Socialist from fulfilling his agenda we will have even more trouble in this country.

It took 600,000 lives to end slavery the first time. How many will it take this time?

Related:
WSJ: Noonan

Cave Canem?
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: election, lies, marxist, november, Obama, slavery, socialist

Supreme Court Decides What We Already Knew

Jun 29, 2010 Political

The fact that the Second Amendment is an individual right is indisputable except to lefties who have trouble understanding what the words “The People” and “shall not be infringed” mean. These are the same folks who refuse to believe in individual rights even though the Founders clearly stated such in their writings.

The issue changed to one of applicability to the states once the left lost its battle against individual rights. Then the issue became, well sure it applied in DC but that is not a state. It does not apply to the states.

The SCOTUS cleared that all up today with a decision that overturned a lower court ruling and remanded the issue back. The SCOTUS, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that the Second Amendment applies to the states and that is because of the Fourteenth Amendment. For a long time the Fourteenth was not considered to apply to the states but that changed a half century or so ago and decisions have been reached that made the Bill of Rights (with exceptions to some portions) apply to the states. This idea is what allowed abortion to become legal and forced the states to comply. If the rights spelled out in the Constitution did not apply to the states then the Court could not have ruled that abortion was legal because it would be a federal, and only a federal, issue. This ignore the fact that abortion is not a right and is indicated only because it is “settled” law where the right was somehow found.

The Second was never considered though thinking people knew that it was included in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth; “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” Which, as an aside, means the Arizona cannot violate Due Process since illegals are NOT citizens of the United States. But that is an issue for another time.

Interestingly but not surprising, gun grabbers are vowing to basically ignore the ruling issued today. Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago has vowed that his city will enact a new law soon that will prevent people from getting guns. This amounts to ignoring the law and is typical for Alinsky progressives. If the courts don’t rule your way then just ignore them. After all, this is what the Obama regime is doing with the drilling moratorium. They have vowed to ignore the court and issue a new moratorium.

How long will they do this before WE THE PEOPLE, decide to ignore the rules they come up with?

As for Daley, he is a first class slug and a hypocrite. While Daley does not believe that the people should be allowed to have guns, his aldermen are allowed to carry them. Richard Daley has about a dozen body guards on his detail and all of them are armed. Why is it that a person who works for the people of Chicago can have armed guards to protect him but will not allow the people to be armed to protect themselves.

No politician is any more important than the lowest in our society because even that person is the employer of the politician. I have little problem with presidents having armed security. Our enemies would love to attack a president and kill him. Other politicians are not that important and their demise would not cause turmoil in this country.

Think about it. If Richard Daley was killed by a would be criminal, would Chicago be in turmoil? No, they would replace him with another corrupt politician and keep on going. But Daley does not have to worry about that because he deems himself more important than the people who pay his salary. He is so against the people for whom he works that he will enact a law to keep people from getting guns because he knows better than our Founders, our Supreme Court and YOU.

Daley has no worries because his armed guards go with him even when he travels out of state. One of Daley’s armed guards caught an escaped criminal near the family vacation spot in Michigan while Hizzoner and the family were there. If you or I had been there we might well have been victims of the criminal.

I have a real problem with people like Daley, politicians who feel they are more important than the average folks and who deserve more protection. And the people are not even asking for taxpayer funded security. All we want is the ability to defend ourselves. This goes for people like Barack Obama who would love to ban guns and put more people in danger because average citizens are much more likely to be victims of crime than most politicians, particularly a president.

The Supreme Court put an end to the idea that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states today and it should be as sacrosanct to liberals as the issue of abortion. If it is settled law then let it be settled and let the people have their guns.

The opinion is a good read and in it Justice Scalia excoriates Justice Stevens as well he should. Stevens (and Breyer) ignore US history and the words of the Founders in their opinion and rely on the actions of other nations as well as their liberal views. Even though the facts are completely spelled out with historical references as to what keeping and bearing arms meant (and still means), these two ignored the facts and presented the progressive view. Justices should provide a legal view, not a political one.

How nice for the dress down of Stevens to be in the record for all time and to be issued on his last day on the Court. As Scalia put it (after destroying Stevens’ arguments):

In a vibrant democracy, usurpation should have to be accomplished in the dark. It is JUSTICE STEVENS’ approach, not the Court’s, that puts democracy in peril.

While today marks a victory for Americans and for freedom one thing is overshadowed. There are four Justices who voted against the Constitution and against the long history of this matter. They voted with the legacy of the Democrats in the south who made gun control laws that applied to blacks in order to control them.

These progressive liberals perpetuate that desire to enslave the citizenry in this nation. And this time they want to enslave all of us, regardless of color.

One last note. Any politician who is in favor of gun control and/or denies people the right to keep and bear arms should not be allowed to own or carry a gun and should NOT receive armed guards.

If you believe that there should be NO guns then there can be none for you. That goes for Obama, Daley and all the other hypocrites who think they are more important than we who employ them.

UPDATE: After the Heller decision Mayor Daley predicted all hell would break loose. That has not happened and gun crime in DC has dropped to pre gun ban levels.

Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: blacks, gun control, Obama, scalia, Second Amendment, slavery, stevens, supreme court, thomas

Republicans Must Save Country From Slavery, Again

Dec 7, 2009 Political

It looks like Harry Reid is cracking up under all the pressure being put on him to get a health care bill passed. Combine that pressure with his diminishing chance for reelection and it all adds up to a crack-up. Today, Reid compared Republicans’ resistance to the health care legislation to those who opposed the ending of slavery in this country.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took his GOP-blasting rhetoric to a new level Monday, comparing Republicans who oppose health care reform to lawmakers who clung to the institution of slavery more than a century ago.

The Nevada Democrat, in a sweeping set of accusations on the Senate floor, also compared health care foes to those who opposed women’s suffrage and the civil rights movement — even though it was Sen. Strom Thurmond, then a Democrat, who unsuccessfully tried to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and it was Republicans who led the charge against slavery. Fox News

It was indeed the Republican party that ended slavery in this country and the Democrats were the ones opposed to it. Republicans were the movers and shakers in the ending of the suffrage of women and in getting civil rights legislation passed. The Democrats were the ones who opposed all those things so at least Reid has his party’s history to look at when making the comparison.

The Democrats still espouse slavery in this country and they work hard to keep minorities, particularly blacks, on their plantation. Democrats do not work for equality and support plans that view minorities and women as second class citizens who need a helping hand because they are unable to make it on their own. The Democrats keep select groups enslaved in order to ensure votes. They are aware that as long as they keep promising to make things better they will keep people in chains, beholden to the Democrats who look down upon them.

The health care plan being pushed along will make every American, except the very wealthy and the political elite, slaves to the government. We will depend on government for one of the most important and personal items in our lives, our medical care. The Democrats know that if they can take over health care they will hold people hostage and will use this advantage to ensure wins in future elections.

Look at how the elderly are held hostage over Medicare and Social Security. The Democrats, at election time, always talk about Social Security and how it will be lost under Republicans. The Democrats use the threat of decreased SS or Medicare benefits as a weapon to keep the elderly in line. Fear of losing these benefits is what the Democrats want.

This will happen if we are all forced to be at the mercy of government. The government can justify anything it wants if it holds the keys to the health care mansion. They will regulate what you eat, how much exercise you get, what your kids do, and will increase taxes all under the threat of health care expense and in the name of the common good. It is a dangerous game and it is up to Republicans to stop it.

Republicans ended slavery in this country at the cost of a lot of lives all because Democrats wanted to keep blacks on a leash as servants.

After bondage ended the Democrats worked to enslave blacks and other minorities with social programs that keep the downtrodden at the bottom of the social ladder and always looking up for a hand.

“Please sir, I want some more.”

Republicans have traditionally believed that people who need a helping hand get one but that it is temporary and that the help one gets should be in helping him to improve his lot in life. We believe that you cannot make the poor wealth by making the wealthy poor and that making people dependent will not miraculously lead them to independence. Democrats don’t actually believe it either, they know that making the wealthy poor makes everyone poor and that the best way to control people is to make them dependent. This is their goal.

Once people are hooked they will always do what their masters say because they are afraid of losing what meager things they get.

One only needs to look at how people in New Orleans were unable to care for themselves after Hurricane Katrina to see the harm of dependence on government.

Republicans must rise up and defeat this health care legislation so that we maintain our independence.

I never want to have to tell my grandchildren that they are servants of the government because I stood silently and allowed it to take away our freedom.

Tags: democrat, dependence, health care, Obama, Reid, republican, Senate, slavery