Friday, July 4, 2008

Ladies and gentlemen of the Nation:

I come before you as a man, a man who has gained conscience, and consciousness, of a problem that, by its magnitude, may be utterly destructive of both the ends, and means of our country. Were I to hold back my opinion at this time, for fear of the consequences, I would have to live with myself, and the knowledge of my failure, for the rest of my life.

So I speak, as I must, with a heavy heart. We are a nation of people, a nation of greatness, brought to life in a burst of idealism and with all of the best intentions. Our rights were, and are preserved and enshrined within the Constitution, as well as within the Bill of rights. As a representative democracy, and as a republic, it is one of the greatest experiments of all time in society.

But, as with all things, experiments often go awry, and, with observation of both the intent of the constitution, and the separation of the current usage from that intent, I must advance the possibility that our nation has fallen into error.

This is not an error of comission, but an error of omission. It is an error rooted in all the best intentions, the intention of protecting the people. But at what point do men, and women, bear responsibility for their own actions, and at what point does the government overstep its bounds, when seeking to protect?

Our government appears to grow more and more distant from the people. Political maneuvering is rife, and deals are struck to simply pass necessary laws, so other laws can be implemented that are not always so necessary. Our congress and senate appear to abrogate their duty to the constitution, in the pursuit of other goals.

Our nation is built upon the Constitution. It is the ultimate law, and by extension with the Fourteenth Amendment, it is a law which also governs the states dealings with the people themselves. We grant the government the powers it needs, as well as those we feel it should have within the framework of the Constitution.

But we forget, often, that those rights come from us. And we raise them up on the altar of necessity to sacrifice them, often not realizing what is lost. Our forefathers felt those rights were inalienable, that no man could be deprived of them, save by the due process of law, and individual trial.

We stand on the threshold of a precipice. Unless our course is averted, there is no choice but to fall therein. We, the people of the United States, have a duty, and a right to vote, and a right to have those votes counted accurately. This right may have given way to the electronic count, in order to promote efficiency, but it also makes the tracking and chain of custody of the vote nigh impossible.

We pass laws demanding more protection, and give up specific rights in order to gain that protection, but at the same point, the Supreme Court has decided that we have no individual right to protection. At the same time, Congress and the courts seem to deny our individual rights to protect ourselves, via lawsuits and the attempts at disarming the public.

At this point who is protected? Nobody, save the government, via grant of further powers from the people, and the criminals.

In this world, we seek for hope, we seek for something greater than ourselves, and in the Bill of Rights, the guarantees are given for powers the government shall not seize, and by law cannot seize.

But we, in our ignorance, refuse to look upon the laws themselves, and to determine if those rights are seized, and thus, lose them. Only one law allows for attainder.. and that is treason itself. Aiding and abetting the enemies of the United States of America.

But yet, we pass laws that effect attainder, denying criminals their rights,denying them both rehabilitation and ultimate reintegration. We pass harsher and harsher punishments until we have a system of punishment that contains the largest population of prisoners anywhere in the world, and the largest per capita prisoner population.

Is this wisdom? Is it just, or good, to create minimum mandatory sentences that force the hands of judges and prosecutors, and pervert and distort the rule of law? If the jury cannot decide upon the punishments appropriate, is this not removing the role of the jury, and of due process?

And to deny the criminal the right to rehabilitation, the right to redemption, is this not simply perpetuating the criminal act? When it is us versus them, is it not going to remain so, until we realize that in truth it is us... versus us?

Have we truly lost the realization that it is our duty to protect our families, our states, and our government ourselves? What has happened to us? Have we gotten so complacent that we feel that it is better for someone else to make the decision? Have we gotten so lazy that we forget that we are the arbiters of our future?

And have we already handed over enough of that power to the government, to make it unsustainable for us to make an effort to regain it?

Think upon it. Think deeply upon what you believe, what you trust, what you know. Look at the histories involved, look at the reasons for the institution of government, and look into your hearts and consciences, and the reasons behind this.

Look at our falling standards of education, the failures of companies, look at the way that our economy goes downhill... and then look at yourselves. Can you allow it to continue?

The purpose of the Congress is to legislate, making laws that are necessary and proper, and in line with the Constitution itself. The purpose of the President is to execute those laws, insofar as they are within the framework of that same constitution. The purpose of the Judiciary, the Supreme Court, is to simply determine if those actions are within the framework of the constitution, as it was implemented.

No contract, no constitution, can be unilaterally reinterpreted once implemented. It can only be looked upon by the light of intent of the law, and if a standard exists, wherein the intent of the law and the letter of the law fall to changing standards... then it is no constitution.

It is, at that point, at best a ruse, a tool for the illusion of choice and the illusion of hope.

While the identifiers are important, can we remain stalwart in our ignorance? Can we not accept that both sides can be in error, and both sides can be correct? If the Democrats and Republicans have fallen away from both the purpose, and the meaning of the Constitution, is it not our duty to correct them in their thinking, and to bring them back into the fold of the society from which they derive their power?

At what point does the imposition of the government into the lives of the people cease to be reasonable?

I would state, that when it starts attaining the power to seize rights in the name of security, when it has the ability to detain without due process, and without recourse, and when there is no judicial process, it has exceeded its limits. When it believes its own people to be the enemy, and to require defense against those who grant its powers, it has become far more.

It is time to look to our government, and demand back what is ours. For this purpose, I believe a new party must be instituted.. the party of the Democratic Republic. The power should be placed back into the hands of the people, and moreover, guaranteed in such a way that never again can any government trample its own people in the pursuit of power.

Thus, a statement of beliefs.

We believe that the government is instituted by the people, for the people, and of the people, and that the people are the ultimate guarantors of their own safety, property, and ability.

We believe the states retain the right to legislate where the federal government cannot, and it is the duty of the states, wherein the people have a direct vote, to legislate necessary and proper laws, regulations, and institutions, to safeguard and protect the rights of the people from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

We believe that this right is ultimately the right, not only to self-rule, but self-realization. We believe that the rights of the people cannot be taken away, only given away, and that the government itself is the servant of the people.

We believe that an armed populace are necessary to the security of the borders, of their homes, and towns, and that training for the use of those arms is necessary for both responsibility in their use, and for effective use and prosecution for crime.

We believe that judges and juries should be returned to their position as the arbiters of justice, and mercy, and that all cases should be judged on their individual merits, and that there should be no minimum sentence, nor should there be attainder following the full execution of the sentence, and in proportion to this, the records of the criminal should not be open to the public after the execution of said sentence, and that their full rights should be restored.

While we believe in mercy, we also believe in justice. If continuing criminality occurs, then the judges and juries have the obligation to separate them from our societies from punishment, in a fair trial. We also believe that the defense offered should be the best possible for the case, even when the attourneys provided are from the jurisdiction, in order that justice might be served in full, but again, the separation and imprisonment is the punishment, and that the persons should be given every opportunity for rehabilitation and redemption. If they fail in this, it is on their own heads... but the opportunity was granted.

We believe that mercy, justice, and redemption must be balanced.

We believe that human rights cannot be denied for any reason, and that civil rights can only be removed for a time.

We believe in the right to self-defense, self-protection, and self-determination.

We believe that there is no fundamental difference between races, peoples, and genders.

No comments: