Posts Tagged ‘jon fournier’

This past Sunday marked the 236th anniversary of the signing of the United States Constitution.  Most unfortunately for everyone living in the United States, the Federal Government has not followed the original meaning of the Constitution for many decades.  This has caused tremendous harm to the freedom and prosperity of every American. 

Few Americans understand just how far the Federal Government has strayed from the original understanding of the Constitution because they have been inundated with a mountain of misinformation about that particular document.  This is quite dangerous because the American people are the ultimate final barrier that is supposed to ensure that the Federal Government lives under the restraints placed on it by the Constitution.  The only way to reestablish the restraints is to bust the progressives myths that have kept the American people ignorant of true meaning and purpose of the Constitution.

Myth number 1 – The Constitution is a living document who’s meaning changes with the political and cultural climate.

This myth is very much false.  These three quotes are proof of just how wrong that point of view really is.

The Constitution on which our Union rests, shall be administered by me (as President) according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States at the time of its adoption – a meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated, not those who opposed it, and who opposed it merely lest the construction should be applied which they denounced as possible.” – Thomas Jefferson Letter to Messrs. Eddy, Russel, Thurber, Wheaton and Smith, March 27, 1801

On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, let us recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.    From Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense.     From James Madison to Henry Lee, 25 June 1824

Myth 2 and 3– The Federal Government was granted complete control over the States and The Supreme Court is the only and final absolute arbiter of all things constitutional.

Thomas Jefferson set the record straight on both of these myths when he wrote the Kentucky Resolutions in 1798

Resolved_, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

Myth 4—The Constitution granted the Federal Government unlimited powers to regulate all aspects of life inside the borders of the States.

As you can see from this quote from Federalist 45 by James Madison, that myth is false.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negociation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The Wrath of Kahn has always been my favorite Star Trek movie.  I’ve enjoyed everything about that movie, except for that one scene where Spock states emphatically that “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of few”

That quote has always bothered me, even the first time I saw the movie back in the early 1980s.  This was well before my political enlightenment that led me to becoming a Libertarian.  I had read enough history then to know that totalitarian regimes always sacrificed the few and the individual, all in the name of the common good of the majority.

After my great political awakening, which consisted of reading a couple hundred books on all types of political philosophies, I now understand the evils and horrors of collectivism.  I know Spock’s quote reeks of collectivism.  That is not surprising since Gene Roddenberry was very much to the left politically.  Mr. Roddenberry should have read Ayn Rand, especially these two quotes about collectivism:

“Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group—whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called “the common good.”

I got the idea [for Anthem’s theme] in my school days, in Soviet Russia, when I heard all the vicious attacks on individualism, and asked myself what the world would be like if men lost the word ‘I.’

If Mr. Roddenberry had encountered this Ayn Rand quote, maybe Spock’s quote would not have marred an otherwise fantastic movie.

Individualism regards man – every man – as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful co-existence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights – and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members.

Progressivism, like all other collectivist ideologies, is all about elites controlling every aspect of the lives of the common folk, who the elites believe are too stupid to decide for themselves.  Once you understand this, everything about these collectivist ideologies becomes clear, including these new alcohol consumption guidelines, just released by the Director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

Americans could be urged by officials to drink no more than two beers a week as part of strict new alcohol guidelines.

Biden’s health czar told DailyMail.com the USDA could revise its alcohol advice to match Canada‘s, where people are advised to have just two drinks per week.

Right now, these are just suggestions made by a member of the Biden Regime.  How long will they remain just suggestions?  Given the track record of the Federal Government during the Wuhan Flu Pandemic, and the long history of progressivism in general, I believe it will not be long before an attempt is made to make this guideline mandatory.

Progressives were responsible for the disastrous Prohibition of the 1920s and 1930s.  They have been responsible for countless attempts of banning substances they believe are harmful. Just look at how Progressives handles the Wuhan Flu.  They are now attempting to bring back forces masking and vaccine passports.

The Daily Mail article I got the quote from goes on and on about the negative health effects of alcohol.  None of that matters at all when it comes to the Federal Government banning or limiting consumption of any substance.  The Federal Government does not have the Constitutional authority to ban or limit the consumption of anything.  The plain meaning of the Interstate Commerce Clause has been distorted since the 1940s to make it seem like the Federal Government has that authority.  Life would be better off for everyone in the United States if we returned to the original understanding of that clause.

Over the past two months I’ve been struggling with a couple of medical issues.  Neither issue is serious.   These are issues that in the past were resolved quickly.  Not anymore.  It took weeks to figure what the cause was of one of my issues, and I had to do that myself.

I remember in the good old days, if you had issues that were at the level of issues I was experiencing they would check you into the hospital for a couple of days.  There they would run a lot of tests and consult specialists.  A diagnosis usually came quick along with the treatments.

Today it is much harder to get admitted to the hospital.  At the Emergency Room they run you through a standard battery of tests.  If the results are not life threatening they send you home, even if you are in bad shape. 

Instead of a quick diagnosis and treatment you are given referrals to specialists on an outpatient basis.  The waiting time to get to see a specialist for the first time is usually several weeks.  It usually takes a couple of visits with a specialist to get a diagnosis and treatment pinned down.  If you are suffering like I was, that delay can seem like an eternity. 

One condition I am suffering from is painful.  In the good old days, they prescribed a pain medication that actually worked.  Thanks to war on opiates, the vast majority of pain medications they prescribe now don’t really work and have a long list of side effects.  I have been informed by more than one doctor that the reason they no longer prescribe opiate pain medications to patients that need them is because if they did, they would be arrested. 

The opiate crisis was not caused by patients that really needed opiate pain medication.  It was caused by open borders and an abundant supply of illegal narcotics.  Politicians panicked.  They stepped in between doctors and patients.  Now patients are suffering,

Thankfully I am on the mend.  The pain I’m suffering with now can be treated with over-the-counter pain medications.  I feal sorry for all of the countless individuals that are suffering and cannot get the pain medication they need.