Zealots Against US Constitution & Free Speech Must BeShamed From Public Life

[Sandra]

Will American Liberals Now Destroy Our Constitution & Rule ofLaw?

Zealots Against US Constitution & Free Speech Must BeShamed From Public Life

 By KellyO'Connell  Sunday, January 9, 2011

An amazing phenomenon is transpiring in American, circa 2011: Politiciansinsist Free Speech must be censured, while pundits claim the USConstitution is outdated! Advocates of “The Constitution Has Expired”club are invariably modern liberals, aka socialists. Therefore, no betterillustration exists for their utter lack of intellectual vitality, andblatant ignorance of US history. These progressives pose extraordinarydanger to America and ought to be forced from public life. Because theonly hedge America has between civilization and anarchy is our preciousConstitution.

Properly understood, an American suggesting the Constitution is not ourunbreakable legal foundation is the biblical equivalent of turning theTen Commandments into “Ten Suggestions.” It is a hallmark of Marxistideology no law exists above human law (ie Natural Law). Yet, underminingour Constitution would dissolve the foundation for our entire Republic.Therefore, those attacking Free Speech and the Constitution are traitorsto America and must be chastened before this antinomian plague spreads.This is the subject of this article.

I. Our Outdated Constitution: A Bold Liberal Theme

A. Anti-Free Speech Nattering Nabobs: Let’s Not OffendAnyone!

What kind of American politician orcelebrity suggests Free Speech needs pruning? And why does the Americanpublic refuses to rise up against such ridiculously unpatriotic drivel?Recently, sniffy and imperiousSen Jay Rockefeller (Dem, WV)stated about cable news:

There’s a little bug inside of me which wants the FCC to say to Foxand to MSNBC, ‘Out. Off. End. Good-bye.’ It’d be a big favor to politicaldiscourse, our ability to do our work here in Congress and to theAmerican people…”

In other words, Rockefeller believes government is thebest judge of the merit of content of broadcast media. Apparently,Rockefeller­the very embodiment of silver-spoon tycoon, bred-in-the-bone,East Coast elitism­has no commitment to ourFirst Amendment:

Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise thereof; orabridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

And, remember infamous Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (Dem, TX),caught on tapetalking on her cell phone while a constituent asked how Obamacare wouldaffect treatment of her cancer? Now shedemands we revisit the“Fairness Doctrine” allowing the government to decide content forbroadcasts.

Many leftist celebrities want censorship of various AM radio talk hosts.“Rev”Al Sharpton demands theFCC shut down RushLimbaugh for using radio waves to disseminate “racist” commentary.Many liberals have called for censorship of FOX News and Limbaugh, suchas: MSNBC’s Ed“I Know Nussing”Schultz; Rep.Maurice Hinchey (Dem. NY);Sen Tom Harkin (Dem IA), etc.

Apparently, once you become an elite media figure or politician, you’vegrown smart enough to know what everyone else needs to say, or avoidsaying.

B. Constitution Rejecters: Smarter Than theFounders!

Upon being informed theUS Constitution would be publicly read by the entering 2011 GOP Housemajority, liberals acted as if Armageddon were upon them. It’sinteresting Ezra Klein, who startedJournolist, whichdisseminates anti-intuitive leftist talking points, likedemanding censorship, claims the Constitution is unintelligible sinceit’s a century old. (Perhaps Klein will next turn his genius toShakespeare?)

Hesaid,

The issue of the Constitution is that the text is confusing becauseit was written more than 100 years ago and what people believe it saysdiffers from person to person and differs depending on what they want toget done.

Other leftists like EJ Dionclaim the Tea Party is wrong­the Constitution is not holy writ, anotionseconded by Michael Lind. Porcine Jer Naddler (Democrat NY) weighedin on the topic, with the Post describinghis response:

“They are reading it like a sacred text” Nadler called the“ritualistic reading” on the floor “total nonsense” and “propaganda”intended to claim the document for Republicans. Nadler argued theFounders were not “demigods”...

Don’t forget bizarrely smug Rep Pete Stark (Dem. CA), who during anObamacare townhall, claimed there areno constitutional limits on government, saying “The federalgovernment can do most anything in this country.”

It seems liberals overlooked one important thing­that anyone could tellsimply by their actions they have no belief or respect for the non-holy,indecipherable Constitution. But liberal coordinated effort leaves nodoubt they are making a concerted assault against our foundationaldocuments.

II. History of Constitution & Free Speech

A. Constitutional History

Americahas the first written Constitution in history. The history ofconstitutionalism is prefaced by many sources, such as the unwrittenconstitutions of ancient Rome and England.

But what is a “constitution”? It’s a foundational, secular writestablishing the unchallengeable precepts which all other laws of therealm must follow. In the case of America, our Constitution is anexplicit statement of fundamental law, drawn from the Natural Lawtradition. It asserts proper government is fundamentally circumscribed inscope and power. Our Constitution is such a covenant, outlining thestructure of the government and the powers held therein. It is a claim oftimeless truth for how properly to limit the might and authority of anyone person or group, in a social compact, so as best to protect societyas a whole, in this fallen world.

InCrown Under Law: Richard Hooker, John Locke and the Ascent of ModernConstitutionalism, Alexander Rosenthal describes how Richard Hooker tookthe ideas of Thomas Aquinas on the necessity of the consent of thegoverned as the central idea of his civil political theory. Hooker notedEngland’s ancient method of ruling through consensus. John Locke thenused Hooker’s ideas for his own government theory.

As alreadynoted, the broad outlines of US constitutional theory are based uponbiblical antecedents:

According to Daniel Elazar, in his“Covenant and Constitutionalism,” America‚Äôs political formula wasself-consciously modeled upon the biblical covenant model, albeit asecular version…Nearly every incipient American town or settlement wasfounded by a formal covenant agreement. Writes Lutz, “Local government incolonial America was the seedbed of American constitutionalism…” Lutzgoes on to explain how the American covenant tradition was used toexplicitly create communities founded upon belief in God, the commongood, and the popular will. And these covenants eventually morphed fromreligious to secular without losing their essential format.

B. Free Speech

England

There was no right to FreeSpeech in antiquity, asSocrates’ punishment illustrates, writes Leonard W. Levy inEmergence of a Free Press. The phrase “Free Speech” comes from theBritish parliament where a right to debate openly with impunity becameentrenched over time. Puritan radicalWilliamWalwyn, of theLevellers, extolledFreedom of Discourse; whereas Puritan poetJohn Milton called for Freedom of Speech in a civil, as opposed to aParliamentary setting, expressed inAreopagitica. The1689 Bill ofRight protected Parliament’s Free Speech, but not the common man’s.Yet, despite the threat from the printing press, much free politicaldiscourse occurred in Britain, notwithstanding the occasional prosecutionfor seditious libel.

American Colonies

There were alsolibel restraints upon the Free Speech of the Colonies, but theZenger trial opened the gate to a Free Press. Zenger’s NY paper wasthe first truly free American newspaper to publish weekly attacks againstthe resident political power. When Zenger was acquitted, a new day dawnedfor Free Press.

James Madison discussed the topic of a Bill of Rights with ThomasJefferson, who’d already written the Declaration of Independence.Jefferson wanted a constitutional Bill of Rights, just like the State’shad, and persuaded Madison to add one.

Madisonstated before the ratification:

We mean nothing more than this, that the people have a right toexpress and communicate their sentiments and wishes, we have provided forit already. The right of freedom of speech is secured; the liberty of thepress is expressly decl ared to be beyond the reach of thisgovernment…

III. Why the Constitution Cannot BeUpdated

The US Constitution cannot be “updated”because it is generally accurate­built from true facts about human natureand our universe, based on Natural Law logic. Proof of its veracity isdemonstrated by its unmitigated success in building a better society forall persons. Further, to dismantle or ignore the Constitution meansliberals cannot admit this is a uniquely good and effective politicalcompact. And what does that say about their powers of logic orobservation?

The Constitution carries a world-view that presumes man has a sinfulnature, cannot be perfected, and must not be given unchecked power,claims Douglas Kelly inThe Emergence of Liberty In The Modern World. Or as the greatCatholic political writerLord Acton stated, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute powercorrupts absolutely. ” John Locke is the intellectual father of ourConstitution. His writings distill civil religion, being timelessly trueprecepts about man and society drawn from various sources, but especiallythe Bible, says Ellis Sandoz inA Government Of Laws: Political Theory, Religion and the AmericanFounding.

When liberals demand we stop seeing the Constitution as a “holy writ,”they badly show their progressive roots, while strangely overlooking thecentrality of a Constitution in a secular society. Consider­ChristianAmerica is not a theocracy. Because we aspire to have a secular societyorganized on generally non-religious grounds, we must have a source ofauthority outside the Bible. This is the purpose of theConstitution.

Thoughtless commentators like Klein fail to realize the Constitutionrepresents the preeminence of the Rule of Law in America, without whichthe weak and poor have no hope of fair treatment. Further, corruptionspreads like wildfire where all men are not under the same rules.Shockingly, Klein seems totally unaware Jews were made illegal by Hitlerbecause there was no German Bill of Rights to protect all men equally.But what makes leftists think mankind, outside of any fair and clearrules, will still choose to do the right thing? Especially when there isno consensus on what “right” is, anymore?

Those suggesting we delegitimize the Constitution tacitly crave tojettison the Rule of Law. Yet, without a clearly outlined legalfoundation, how can every other law in America be judged? Then alldecisions will inevitably become the arbitrary choice of despots andpetty bureaucrats. Lawlessness and chaos will reign. Then, Marxists canuse this to justify a police state where human and civil rights cease toexist.

IV. Driving Anti Freedom Progressives Out of PublicLife

Is it not outrageous our elected politicianssuggest, once they assume office, that they know better than we what wecan, and cannot discuss? Pundits are equally bad, using freedom theyinherited under the Bill of Rights to preach our 1st AmendmentFreedom of Speech causes more harm than good!

Just as serious, elected officials and celebrities raise a chorus againstthe Constitution. Doesn’t this seem surreal? But what would actuallyhappen if we did remove the Constitution? In a nutshell, we’d have noimpartial arbiter to decide legal and political disagreements. This wouldcause not just anarchy, but the dissolution of the United States ofAmerica because it was by the Constitution we were formally created,formed our government, and judge all subsequent laws.

The question we must ask ourselves is­who will be the judge of our wordswhen wholesale Freedom of Speech is ended? Further, once our Constitutionis pushed aside by progressives­who will decide on the protection ofthose who disagree with their establishment? Of course, the same peoplewho believe they are wise enough to reconfigure our Constitution, willalso be those who will stand in judgment of their opponents. And if theyare wrong, who will stop our liberal judges, without Free Speech and aConstitution? God help us!

Therefore, to suggest we look down upon or ignore our Constitution orFree Speech means to attack the rights, freedoms, and protections ofevery single citizen. Anyone who does this abominable, traitorous actshould be driven out of public life, permanently­as an anti-Americanscoundrel.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/31939