[pullquote]the three branches are still one government[\/pullquote]We are familiar with our tripartite form of government, wherein each of three branches acts to check the impulses and balance the actions of the other two. \u00a0There is another level at work here, and I find it clarifying to recall that the three branches are all still subdivisions of one entity, the government. \u00a0The other trinity here is a set of relationships between God, Man, and government, and this is made explicit in the Declaration of Independence.<\/p>\n
As a rule of thumb, I find that where Constitutionality comes into play, I prefer whichever course brings the status of things in closer accord with the Declaration. \u00a0This sort of action is typically undertaken by the Supreme Court, but is not limited to there, as when a President calls out the National Guard to enforce the ideas present in the Declaration whether they conform to current laws or Court precedent or not.<\/p>\n
[pullquote]The rights of Man come from God and may not be set upon by any man or government.\u00a0[\/pullquote]So I view the Declaration as the highest document for understanding the structure of our government, and a necessary reference when Constitutionality is in question. \u00a0And it is in the Declaration that our rights, the source of those rights, the limited role of government, the people’s power over government, and several articles in this vein are spelled out. \u00a0The rights of Man come from God and may not be set upon by any man or government. \u00a0Governments exist to preserve those rights and should not outlast their usefulness in that regard. \u00a0Sovereignty depends upon the consent of the governed, while consent relies upon information and freedom.<\/p>\n
I am myself agnostic, but from a process point of view, it is harder to come up with a cleaner definition of “not yours” than “God’s alone”, and that is whose power it is to alienate man from his inherent rights. \u00a0Neither men nor governments of men may rightly usurp the rights of others; not because the Constitution says so, but because the rights are a gift from God like life itself.<\/p>\n
[pullquote]judicial precedent which explains away the rights of man[\/pullquote]The reason I bring this up now is partly to clarify a point I forwarded earlier, that the Supreme Court itself is on trial<\/a> with the ObamaCare decision. \u00a0Looking at the interplay of forces between the branches of government, we see a fascinating tale full of intrigue and actors, etc. \u00a0The problem is that seen in the larger context, the government is a single entity quoting itself as it argues with itself. \u00a0I do not care one whit for judicial precedent which explains away the rights of man while reinforcing the power of government. \u00a0Albert Einstein was right when he said something to the effect that the idiots who got us stuck in the first place are wholly incapable of getting us unstuck. \u00a0By allowing our government to trample on the rights of man, we have begun to cede ground which is not ours to give. \u00a0At the end of the day, we need more than stare decisis<\/em>\u00a0if we are to make it through the night.<\/p>\n [pullquote]the last line of defense for the legitimacy of our government itself[\/pullquote]I not only see a day coming, but I enthusiastically demand a day when we pick our noses up from the dust of politics and stand to face our oppressor–government itself in size and scope. \u00a0No matter how noble and Constitutional the aspiration of the Supreme Court, they cannot generate the restorative force required to re-establish the rule of law in this country. \u00a0It is in this sense that they are on trial–not as the Court, but as the last line of defense for the legitimacy of our government itself. \u00a0 Whether they pass or fail the test, they will not be to blame for the failure at large. \u00a0Regardless of the decision they reach, it is not in their power to set things right that have been corrupted and perverted over decades and generations.<\/p>\n Lincoln felt that the Declaration was the proper tool for interpreting the Constitution, and that the failure of the American people to run our government with a sufficient respect for the rights of man had provoked the wrath of an angry God. \u00a0It is a cogent, consistent view of the ultimate system of Checks and Balances; all spelled out in the preamble to the Declaration.<\/p>\n [pullquote]the three branches are still one government[\/pullquote]We are familiar with our tripartite form of government, wherein each of three branches acts to check the impulses and balance the actions of the other two. \u00a0There is another level at work here, and I find it clarifying to recall that the three branches are all still subdivisions of one entity, the government. \u00a0The other trinity here is a set of relationships between God, Man, and government, and this is made explicit in the Declaration of Independence.<\/p>\n As a rule of thumb, I find that where Constitutionality comes into play, I prefer whichever course brings the status of things in closer accord with the Declaration. \u00a0This sort of action is typically undertaken by the Supreme Court, but is not limited to … Continue reading