|
The power to express patriotism is contained in the substance of natural law, which embodies every right conferred upon American citizens by the Bill of Rights. Patriotism is a defensive means of asserting protections for the essence of republican government. Jefferson so fluently wrote in the Declaration of Independence the active defensive basis for patriotism.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are enowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consengt of the governed. That when any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall see most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
The first essential part of patriotism is to have and hold the rights which lead to an expression of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This constitutes knowing, understanding, and practicing those rights, which includes realizing when those rights are in danger of being extinguished by either congressionional legislation, traditionally illegal executive order, or judicial interpretation of law by the U.S. Supreme Court. For instance, in 1913, Congress divested itself of its constitutional obligation, under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, of determining the value of the currency produced and circulated by the U.S. Treasury, or the value of money, by passing the Federal Reserve System Act. In one fail swoop, the U.S. Congress turned over to a private group of bankers, the Federal Reserve Board, its responsibility for determining the value of money. In other words, the order of the U.S. Constitution was changed without going through the amendment process, to allow private bankers, seeking maximum profit for their labors, to regulate the value of money in the American republic. This was totally opposed to the Framers intent in 1789, but very few Americans realized that it was happening, and, moreover, when they finally did, they did nothing to oppose and repeal the Federal Reserve Act. It's a paradox to consider that Prohibition, an attempt to undermine the life and liberty of the majority of individuals in the United States by a small minority of influential Bible-toting women, was promptly repealed when the majority realized that their rights were being denied. But when America discovers that Congress has altered the the U.S. Constitution without their consent, they do nothing to repeal the law.
When the United States was small and homogenious in population composition, patriotism was much more uniform in its expression. There weren't as many competing minorities and coalitions fighting each other for public attention. More citizens are today unaware of laws which are passed to abridge their basic inalienable rights. One basic piece of legislation, brought to the public attention in Congress, may have five to ten "riders" on the bill, totally unknown to the public, which are passed into law when the President signs the bill. Some of these riders have been, and are, threatening to the inalienable rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Defensive patriotism involves recognizing and opposing laws which are passed without the consent of the people. Another example of how the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights was changed without the express permission of the electorate was in the Supreme Court Decision "Terry v. Ohio", which altered the 4th Amendment under the near unanimous decision of the Earl Warren Court in 1968. This decision gave all police officers, local, state and federal, the power to ignore the probable cause rule of the 4th Amendment and to stop and frisk anyone on the street based upon a "reasonable suspicion" that they were committing a crime or in the process of committing a crime. The only dissenting vote in "Terry v. Ohio" was from the great William O. Douglas, who stated in his dissenting opinion that "changing the Constitution to allow police officers to have the power of judges, without going through the amendment process, is taking the stairway to totalitarianism." Sadly, very few Americans challenged that court decision as "destructive of the ends of proper government."
Now neoconservatism has made the stairway to totalitarian government glitteringly appealing, in the name of national security. Draped in the American flag, the totally unpatriotic minority segment of the population, that proclaims that the subjugation of liberty and freedom is alright, that's it's okay to lock someone up for expressing political differences, is presently having its sway over the rights of the many. It seems horrendous for someone, seeking to be truly patriotic, to be virtually bound and gagged when they attempt to exercise their God-given right to petition government. It's not a matter of being a Democrat that makes a difference in a conflict of justice, but, rather, of being an American seeking the good and the right for the sake of Constitutional government.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
