Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
From an email I sent today to a black liberal democrat who follows my work:
You asked me if lying is freedom of speech. By your very question it tells me you don't understand the constitutional aspect regarding the freedom of speech. First of all, the protection of freedom of speech was designed to protect political and religious speech. Second, the mention of the freedom of speech in the First Amendment is regarding whether or not the federal government has an authority regarding the natural right. The First Amendment begins with the words, "Congress shall make no law." We are free to say as we wish. From a legal standpoint, we can add the caveat, "unless it is slander or places the public safety in danger." That's why we can't scream "bomb" in a theater or an airplane. As for your "lying" question, if lying was illegal, the entire Democratic Party, and liberal media would be in jail.
You are right, the police are not there to protect as much as they are for what happens once a crime is committed. To "protect" would be an anticipation of crime, which cannot be practiced because a crime is not a crime until it is committed. So, in truth, their job is not to prevent crime, but to take a report and investigate it after it is committed. If they believe a crime was committed, then they go into action. Usually, they are right because they operate on principles that requires probable cause, but sometimes charges are not necessarily based in fact or enough evidence. Hence, the reason we have courts, as well.
You state the Constitution was made up of many compromises. Is that a bad thing? If I was in court, would I not wish for a mediator to be involved talking to both sides attempting to achieve an agreement that, while not exactly what either side wants, is fair enough that both sides are willing to agree to it? That said, the Constitution is a social contract and the written law of the land. While people claim it to be flexible in a "living and breathing" manner, meaning they believe it changes based on the whims of society, language, and judicial interpretation, the reality is that as a social contract the black letter of the law must first be followed. It's like the law to stop at a stop sign. Just because everyone rolls through the stop sign it does not mean that it is automatically changed to allow the "California Stop," nor should a judge say that despite what the law says, it's legal to roll through it. If the need for it to be changed is strong enough, it should be adjusted or amended through the established process, which in the case of a stop sign, that process would be legislative. The Constitution's amendment process begins legislative, but ends with approval by the States through 3/4 ratification. That is the way to change the Constitution, there is no other legal way. So, flexible interpretation claiming it says something different than what was originally intended or that because of changing society the Constitution has changed is unconstitutional ... or I suppose you could say, "illegal."
I agree with you. The Patriot Act is indeed unconstitutional, and unnecessary. I have never argued that it is, and I am offended by the fact that you automatically assumed I supported such a thing because a "republican" was behind it. I am a Constitutionalist, first. As I said a moment ago, the Patriot Act is unnecessary, anyway. If we were to adhere to the 2nd Amendment and every American was carrying a firearm, there would be no fears of things like terrorism because no terrorist would dare set foot in our country for fear of being killed by our armed citizens.
Taxation is a constitutional action, but direct taxation was not originally intended. As Thomas Jefferson indicated, if the government can directly tax the people, there would be no limit to their taxation. The creation of direct taxation through the 16th Amendment, and ultimately the creation of the IRS and w-2 withholding is tyrannical. Progressive taxation rates is a Marxist strategy, which is listed as the second plank of the communist manifesto. The design is ultimately for destroying the middle class and the wealthy class so that in the end you only have government power and peasants. https://www.conservativeusa.net/10planksofcommunism.htm
The 17th Amendment was a continuation of the destruction of our country as a republic, in order to make it more like a democracy, and as you have heard me say, democracy is a dangerous thing. The check and balance mechanisms that gave the States certain powers was an important part of what our system was, and an important check against tyranny. The argument that the 17th Amendment eliminated corruption was a false argument designed by those seeking to insert more corruption into the Senate through democracy. A section in the book F.D.R. My Exploited Father-In-Law by Curtis B. Dall published in 1967 goes into great detail about the plans before 1913 to put into place the 16th and 17th Amendments, and the Federal Reserve, in order to better enable the international bankers and global wealthy more control over the American monetary system.
As for your statement that "without an aggressive, and progressive tax system we would soon become an oligarchy and be ruled by those with the most money," the reality is the opposite. An aggressive and progressive tax system is the tool of communism to destroy the bourgeoise and create a system ruled by those at the top in government, and a peasant class. Without those with the most money, the free market system crumbles, the production of goods moves into the hands of government control, and then we become no different than what happened in communist countries in history, or Venezuela of recent history ... a society starving to death with empty shelves in the stores as the government power structure enjoys what few riches remain in place.
You made a side comment about money equaling speech, and I think it was a reference to Citizens United. Interestingly enough, most of the big corporation money by those who want favors for their big money contributions happens on the left. Just ask Big Tech, the lefties on Wall Street, and the Labor Unions.
Doug
No comments:
Post a Comment