A Free Society Cannot Survive as a Republic Without a Broad Program of General Education.
Notice this is 'general education' not technical education. For some reason we have walked away from broad programs of general education in the belief that for the US to be 'ahead' of everyone else, we should cram as much technical jargon into a young person's head as we can possibly get into their before they're too old to learn anymore. Obviously, this takes so much time that children and young adults don't have time to think for themselves anymore, they only have time to meet the demands of their teachers and testing. And then they are expected to move off into various automated employment leaving them again with no time to think for themselves or to study.
Compare this with the founding fathers of this nation. Many were not learned in the way we might think today, having not attended any secondary schooling or even much elementary schooling. What they did receive was enough education in the three 'R's (Reading, wRiting, aRithmetic) to be able to read, study, and understand classics. They recognized the need for a great education, the need to ponder the great questions of mankind and to seek answers. They knew of natural laws or principles of right living, and they knew how to extract those principles from classics. They focused on their education with a sense of mission (so it seems) and became, in my opinion, possibly the greatest generation of men that ever lived.
We can only affect change by focusing on our circle of influence, and we can only increase our circle of influence by focusing directly in the center of that circle. Most of us don't have the influence to affect our school board's decisions, or to influence policies of the National Education Association, or the Department of Education. All of us DO have the influence to increase our own education, thus setting an example for our children. We do have the influence to teach our children enough 'Reading, wRiting, and aRithmetic' to get them started on a path of self-education, a path of learning and wisdom so that when they are called upon to do something great, they will be ready.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Sunday, July 5, 2009
22nd Principle of Freedom
A Free People Should be Governed by Law and Not by the Whims of Men.
We have (or had) a republic based on a written Constitution which states that it shall be considered the 'supreme law of the land' as well as any laws passed by Congress in accordance with it. Any legislation, executive orders, or legal precedents in violation of this constitution is done simply by the will of men. John Adams said, "No man will contend that a nation can be free that is not governed by fixed laws. ALL other government than that of permament known laws is the government of mere will and pleasure." (Quoted in The 5000 Year Leap, pg. 244. emphasis added)
We see this 'government of mere will and pleasure' in the United States today. When a supposedly free people in the state of California vote to protect marriage with proposition 22 in 2000 (in accordance with the 26th Principle of Freedom in The 5000 Year Leap which states, "The Core Unit Which Determines the Strength of Any Society is the Family; Therefore, the Government Should Foster and Protect Its Integrity) and the courts 8 years later suddenly decide (because of the judges mood that day) that the law is no longer constitutional, they are being governed by the whims of men, and are no longer free.
(By the way, it was struck down as unconstitutional because it violated the "equal protection" clause of their constitution. It does NOT violate the 'equal protection' clause because both homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same right, to marry on person of the opposite sex. I don't know why we don't see counter law-suits with this claim.)
Congratulations to the people of California, for they fought back. Since the law was deemed unconstitutional, they amended their constitution with the same wording as the law, so it is written in their constitution. (I have seen that several lawsuits are suing on the grounds that it is unconstitutional...but since it IS a part of their constitution now, I don't see how it can be unconstitutional, unless they can convince the courts that it is in violation of the US Constitution.) I don't know how to get back to rule of law. How do we get the governments to operate within their bounds once again? How do we make law important to people again?
We have (or had) a republic based on a written Constitution which states that it shall be considered the 'supreme law of the land' as well as any laws passed by Congress in accordance with it. Any legislation, executive orders, or legal precedents in violation of this constitution is done simply by the will of men. John Adams said, "No man will contend that a nation can be free that is not governed by fixed laws. ALL other government than that of permament known laws is the government of mere will and pleasure." (Quoted in The 5000 Year Leap, pg. 244. emphasis added)
We see this 'government of mere will and pleasure' in the United States today. When a supposedly free people in the state of California vote to protect marriage with proposition 22 in 2000 (in accordance with the 26th Principle of Freedom in The 5000 Year Leap which states, "The Core Unit Which Determines the Strength of Any Society is the Family; Therefore, the Government Should Foster and Protect Its Integrity) and the courts 8 years later suddenly decide (because of the judges mood that day) that the law is no longer constitutional, they are being governed by the whims of men, and are no longer free.
(By the way, it was struck down as unconstitutional because it violated the "equal protection" clause of their constitution. It does NOT violate the 'equal protection' clause because both homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same right, to marry on person of the opposite sex. I don't know why we don't see counter law-suits with this claim.)
Congratulations to the people of California, for they fought back. Since the law was deemed unconstitutional, they amended their constitution with the same wording as the law, so it is written in their constitution. (I have seen that several lawsuits are suing on the grounds that it is unconstitutional...but since it IS a part of their constitution now, I don't see how it can be unconstitutional, unless they can convince the courts that it is in violation of the US Constitution.) I don't know how to get back to rule of law. How do we get the governments to operate within their bounds once again? How do we make law important to people again?
Saturday, July 4, 2009
21st Principle of Freedom
Strong Local Self-government is the Keystone to Preserving Human Freedom.
Keystone: 1.) the central wedge-shaped stone that supports all the others. 2.) The central supporting element of a whole. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/keystone
I've often wondered why the early citizens of the several states were so interested in liberty and freedom. After reading this chapter I believe that it's because they were so far away from British rule that they had to institute some form of self-government which then awakened within each citizen this desire to have a say in their government. It awakened a longing for freedom, they were in line with 'Natural Law' or principles and they saw the success of that. Once they tasted freedom, any attacks on that freedom were seen with disdain. Many were led to study principles of freedom, which led to our government set up according to Natural Law and limited to basic governmental functions with checks to prevent usurpation.
Since this is a keystone of preserving freedom, how can we institute strong local self-government again? How do we assert our right to self-governance when a central government is encroaching on that right, without causing civil war?
Keystone: 1.) the central wedge-shaped stone that supports all the others. 2.) The central supporting element of a whole. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/keystone
I've often wondered why the early citizens of the several states were so interested in liberty and freedom. After reading this chapter I believe that it's because they were so far away from British rule that they had to institute some form of self-government which then awakened within each citizen this desire to have a say in their government. It awakened a longing for freedom, they were in line with 'Natural Law' or principles and they saw the success of that. Once they tasted freedom, any attacks on that freedom were seen with disdain. Many were led to study principles of freedom, which led to our government set up according to Natural Law and limited to basic governmental functions with checks to prevent usurpation.
Since this is a keystone of preserving freedom, how can we institute strong local self-government again? How do we assert our right to self-governance when a central government is encroaching on that right, without causing civil war?
20th Principle of Freedom
Efficiency and Dispatch Require Government to Operate According to the Will of the Majority, but Constitutional Provisions Must be Made to Protect the Rights of the Minority.
I have been known to think that requiring unanimity in congress would have been a great idea because then they couldn't accomplish anything, they would be mired in trying to get 100% support for an idea, and that would severely limit an erosion of the protection of the rights of the people. However, I can see why this wouldn't work now. If unanimity were required, then a radical, small portion of congress could stop all progress on any bill. Because there are certain matters that must be addressed by law, the majority of congress would seek to appease the radical minorities. These radical minorities would ask for small changes to the bill, or support for their bill. The mainstream majority would do a little evil to do a lot of good (in their eyes). This kind of give and take over time, would lead to more destruction of the limits of governmental powers than the current system I think.
I have been known to think that requiring unanimity in congress would have been a great idea because then they couldn't accomplish anything, they would be mired in trying to get 100% support for an idea, and that would severely limit an erosion of the protection of the rights of the people. However, I can see why this wouldn't work now. If unanimity were required, then a radical, small portion of congress could stop all progress on any bill. Because there are certain matters that must be addressed by law, the majority of congress would seek to appease the radical minorities. These radical minorities would ask for small changes to the bill, or support for their bill. The mainstream majority would do a little evil to do a lot of good (in their eyes). This kind of give and take over time, would lead to more destruction of the limits of governmental powers than the current system I think.
19th Principle of Freedom
Only Limited and Carefully Defined Powers Should be Delegated to Government, All Others Being Retained in the People.
The 'Bill of Rights' is improperly named. Those first ten amendments do not grant unto the people certain rights. They merely limit the government's ability to trample those rights. The first amendment does not grant unto us the right of free speech, the second does not grant unto us the right to keep and bear arms, they limit the government from being able to encroach upon those rights. It should be named the 'Bill of Limitations' or something similar. The same thing with the Constitution before the amendments, it does not grant unto the people any rights, neither does the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution merely grants and limits governmental powers and the Declaration merely states some of the God-given rights of man.
One miracle of this idea of strong states and a strong central government is that a state cannot trample on our rights either. If it wasn't for the constant power struggle between the federal and state governments, any state could quickly fall into anarchy or tyranny. These two powers are a check on each other, not just a check on federal government.
Do you think the founding fathers were clear enough in their wording in limiting federal power? Do you think they could have done more in limiting state power?
The 'Bill of Rights' is improperly named. Those first ten amendments do not grant unto the people certain rights. They merely limit the government's ability to trample those rights. The first amendment does not grant unto us the right of free speech, the second does not grant unto us the right to keep and bear arms, they limit the government from being able to encroach upon those rights. It should be named the 'Bill of Limitations' or something similar. The same thing with the Constitution before the amendments, it does not grant unto the people any rights, neither does the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution merely grants and limits governmental powers and the Declaration merely states some of the God-given rights of man.
One miracle of this idea of strong states and a strong central government is that a state cannot trample on our rights either. If it wasn't for the constant power struggle between the federal and state governments, any state could quickly fall into anarchy or tyranny. These two powers are a check on each other, not just a check on federal government.
Do you think the founding fathers were clear enough in their wording in limiting federal power? Do you think they could have done more in limiting state power?
Thursday, July 2, 2009
18th Principle of Freedom
The Unalienable Rights of the People are Most Likely to be Preserved if the Principles of Government are Set Forth in a Written Constitution.
And the rights of the people are most likely to be preserved if that Constitution represents the wisdom and input of many individuals rather than just one or two people.
One thing that is mentioned in this chapter that I wasn't familiar with before was the 'Fundamental Orders of Connecticut' established in 1639 (Gregorian Calander). This document states that, "where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Government established according to God..."(http://www.constitution.org/bcp/fo_1639.htm).
They referred to God as their highest power and directly involved with them. They did not place 'the crown' or anything else between them and their Creator. I know why the founders did not reference God, but I think it would have prevented God from being removed from government, schools, and society in general. And if our society hadn't forgotten God, and placed him as the highest authority, a lot of our current ills would have never been realized.
And the rights of the people are most likely to be preserved if that Constitution represents the wisdom and input of many individuals rather than just one or two people.
One thing that is mentioned in this chapter that I wasn't familiar with before was the 'Fundamental Orders of Connecticut' established in 1639 (Gregorian Calander). This document states that, "where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Government established according to God..."(http://www.constitution.org/bcp/fo_1639.htm).
They referred to God as their highest power and directly involved with them. They did not place 'the crown' or anything else between them and their Creator. I know why the founders did not reference God, but I think it would have prevented God from being removed from government, schools, and society in general. And if our society hadn't forgotten God, and placed him as the highest authority, a lot of our current ills would have never been realized.
17th Principle of Freedom
A System of Checks and Balances Should be Adopted to Prevent the Abuse of Power.
This principle seems obvious, that someone should have the ability to check those in power. This power ultimately lies in the people. However, our founding fathers recognized (in their own 'checking' of power) that leaving check and balance solely in the people can result in bloodshed when tyrants are overthrown, which can often lead to anarchy, which leads people to seek a dictator to establish peace, who becomes a tyrant, thus starting the cycle over.
Another important part of this check and balance system instituted by the Constitution is that the different branches of government are prohibited from usurping the responsibilites and powers of the other branches. Judges are prohibited from legislating from the bench (interpreting old laws in new ways), the Executive officer (President) is prohibited from legislating from the white house (Executive Orders). The legislature can't execute their laws, they can only pass them.
It seems to me as I think about the usurping of authority that the Executive Branch is usurping legislative authority from the Legislative Branch. The Judicial Branch is usurping legislative authority and executive authority from the other two branches. Since power is being usurped from the legislative branch, they are in turn usurping power from the people. I'm sure there are ways that the legislative is usurping power from the judicial and executive, and ways that the executive is usurping power from the judicial branch, but I don't recognize them clearly like I do the other's mentioned. Can you think of some ways? Can you think of a better system of checks and balances? The other important thing to remember is that if we leave the federal government alone to check itself, even if they are divided into three branches, they won't always check themselves. What can we do to check government?
This principle seems obvious, that someone should have the ability to check those in power. This power ultimately lies in the people. However, our founding fathers recognized (in their own 'checking' of power) that leaving check and balance solely in the people can result in bloodshed when tyrants are overthrown, which can often lead to anarchy, which leads people to seek a dictator to establish peace, who becomes a tyrant, thus starting the cycle over.
Another important part of this check and balance system instituted by the Constitution is that the different branches of government are prohibited from usurping the responsibilites and powers of the other branches. Judges are prohibited from legislating from the bench (interpreting old laws in new ways), the Executive officer (President) is prohibited from legislating from the white house (Executive Orders). The legislature can't execute their laws, they can only pass them.
It seems to me as I think about the usurping of authority that the Executive Branch is usurping legislative authority from the Legislative Branch. The Judicial Branch is usurping legislative authority and executive authority from the other two branches. Since power is being usurped from the legislative branch, they are in turn usurping power from the people. I'm sure there are ways that the legislative is usurping power from the judicial and executive, and ways that the executive is usurping power from the judicial branch, but I don't recognize them clearly like I do the other's mentioned. Can you think of some ways? Can you think of a better system of checks and balances? The other important thing to remember is that if we leave the federal government alone to check itself, even if they are divided into three branches, they won't always check themselves. What can we do to check government?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)