The Preamble

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

The proverb goes something along the lines that a journey of a thousand miles begins with but the first step. The rancor and idiocy emanating from the political class and their media sycophants seem to blather on about the nature of what is and what is not constitutional, depending on interpretation and political expediency.

The Madison Conservative has decided to provide a primer on the stated purpose of the Constitution, what the framers and founders clearly, concisely and specifically had in mind when they began the great experiment in democratic self-rule.

To wit:

We the People, of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Consider the line by line intent – the founders and framers had very specific ideas when they created the greatest document of freedom the world has ever known.

In that context, and with that understanding, here is the preamble explained:

We the people of the United States...

The framers were a privileged group of men —among the best and brightest America had to offer at the time. However, they knew that they were trying to forge a nation made up not of a select elite but of the common man. Without the approval of the common man, they feared revolution. This first part of the preamble speaks to that common man. It puts into writing the notion that the people were creating this Constitution. It was not handed down by any deity or by a king—it was created by the people.

...in order to form a more perfect union...

The framers were dissatisfied with the United States under the Articles of Confederation, but they felt that what they had was the best document they could get up to that time. They strove for something better. The Articles of Confederation had been a grand experiment that had worked well up to a point, but less than ten years into that experiment, flaws were showing. The new United States, under this new Constitution, would be more perfect. Not perfect, but more perfect.

...establish justice...

Injustice, unfairness in laws and in trade, was of great concern to the people in 1787. The people looked forward to a nation with a level playing field, where courts were established with uniformity and where trade within and outside the borders of the country would be fair.

Today, we enjoy a system of justice that is one of the fairest in the world. Only after great struggle can we now say that every citizen has the opportunity for a fair trial and for equal treatment, and even today discrimination still exists. We still strive for justice.

...insure domestic tranquility...

One of the events that caused the convention to be held was the revolt of Massachusetts farmers known as Shays’ Rebellion. The taking up of arms by war veterans revolting against the state government was a shock to the framers. Keeping the peace was on everyone’s mind, and the maintenance of tranquility at home was an important concern. The framers hoped that the new powers given the federal government would prevent future rebellions.

...provide for the common defence...

The new nation was fearful of attack from all sides. No single state was capable to defend itself. With a wary eye on Britain and Spain, the individual states needed each other to survive the harsh international politics of the 18th century.

...promote the general welfare...

This, and the subsequent part of the preamble, are the culmination of everything that came before it—the whole point of having tranquility, justice and defense was to allow every state and every citizen to benefit from what the government could provide. The framers looked forward to the expansion of land holdings, industry and investment and knew that a strong national government would be the beginning of that.

...and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...

Hand in hand with the general welfare, the framers looked forward to the blessings of liberty—something they had all fought for just a decade before. They wanted to create a nation that would resemble something of a paradise for liberty as opposed to the tyranny of a monarchy: a place where citizens could look forward to being free as opposed to looking out for the interests of a king.

...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The final clause of the preamble is almost anti-climactic, but it is important for a few reasons. First it finishes the ‘‘We, the people” thought, saying what the people are actually doing. It gives a name for the document and it restates the name of the nation. That the Constitution is ‘‘ordained” reminds those reading the preamble of the higher power involved—not just of a single person or a king.

That is it ‘‘established” reminds us that it replaces that which came before—the United States under the Articles of Confederation, a point lost on us today, but quite relevant at the time.

This primer was but the first step on the thousand mile  journey of democracy that we must continue to travel today if America is to remain free.

God Bless America!

The Madison Conservative will return in two weeks to accommodate the July 4^th holiday.

           

Incompetence Reigns... June 16th, 2013

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

It has been noted by many that in certain instances, a minimal amount of information provides the greatest total sum of insight into a situation.

It is with that perspective that the Madison Conservative offers the following snippet of the interaction this past Thursday at a congressional hearing with testimony, under oath, offered by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The issues at the time were the details of the IRS investigation into the tax agency’s targeting of Tea Party and conservative groups.

The President and Attorney General had all proffered assurances that the FBI would doggedly pursue the issue, so that ‘those responsible will be held to account for their actions’.

The FBI after all is the investigative arm of the government, and with images of Eliot Ness & the Untouchables planted firmly into the national psyche, surely the nation can rest assured of quality professionalism from such an august institution.

However, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, seemed to rattle FBI Director Robert Mueller for not knowing the specifics surrounding the IRS probe.

The following transcription is courtesy of the Associated Press:

“You’ve had a month now to investigate,” Jordan said. “This has been the biggest story in the country and you can’t even tell me who the lead investigator is. You can’t tell me the actions the inspector general took which are not typically how investigations are done. You can’t tell me if that’s appropriate or not. This is not speculation. This is what happened.”

Mueller repeatedly declined to answer Jordan’s questions, saying he couldn’t because the investigation was ongoing or that he’d have to get back to the lawmakers with answers.

When Jordan asked again,” Can you tell me who the lead investigator is?” Mueller responded, “Off the top of my head, no.”

Consider the chilling reality of this exchange – the Director of the FBI has no information as to who is handling the investigation into the single greatest abuse of a government agency upon the America people in recent memory. It is inconceivable this is true, yet it is allowed to stand as factual, sworn to under oath testimony.

The political class and their media hacks are continually spouting off as to their confusion to the American people having less and less confidence in all aspects of the government, given how the government is doing all these wonderful things providing comfort and fairness to the people. They may be trampling the Constitution of the United States, lying and exhibiting the worse type of cowardice in the process, but surely such details do not matter in pursuit of a more beneficent autocracy. Their rationale apparently goes something like – “the people don’t really care about lying under oath and the suspension of their fundamental constitutional rights, especially because they’re getting free health care and we are keeping them safe from those nasty terrorists”.

With the presentation of the above congressional transcription, the Madison Conservative responds to the aforementioned confusion thusly:

Enough said.

The Fourth Amendment - Again. 6-9-2013

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

Sadly, this issue has again come to the forefront of the body politic, with even more dangerous imbecility by the political class and their cowardly media hacks.

Those who claim that the Constitution is a relic, a vestigial remnant of a different time and hence no longer viable, as well those who claim that it is conversely a living document and thus may be changed at will to fit the current needs of society are both ignorant and should be shunned by all who are within earshot. The Constitution is the culmination of mankind's dream of self-rule, millennia of people who could only dream of living free.

It is difficult to amend for a reason, for its precepts have withstood the test of time.

To that point, and in defense of freedom:

Here is, again for many in the current administration, in it’s totality of 54 words, the Fourth Amendment to our governing document, the Constitution of the United States:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Merely for comparative use, the Affordable Care Act, a/k/a Obamacare, is currently at just over 2,400 PAGES, though the legislation is incomplete with the accompanying regulations, most of which have yet to be published.

The Patriot Act, which is at the heart of the latest debate, stands at 342 PAGES.

The disclosure this week that the NSA has been collecting phone records of American citizens is an affront and an abomination to the Constitution.

To support that point of view, the Madison Conservative will now address the claims, from all sides, who attempt to provide intellectual legerdemain and political cover.

Consider the comments from the political right, who claim that this is a necessary part in waging the war on terror. Their premise hinges on the belief that such actions will help deter another 9/11 attack. These are the same folks who believe that removing our shoes at the airport will keep us safe. They assert that there are legal protections in place, that the information cannot be investigated unless authorized by a federal judge. They assure the American people there is nothing to fear.

It seems they are forgetting that the Attorney General of the United States provided sworn testimony to a federal judge to obtain a warrant to investigate a reporter, claiming he was potentially a ‘co-conspirator’ in compromising national security. When pressed on the issue under oath, the Attorney General first claimed ignorance of such actions, despite having personally signed the authorization. He then further asserted that he had simply made that claim to gain the warrant, that his office never had any intention of pursuing prosecution against the reporter.

Consider that fact for a moment – and then consider the assurances given relative to the phone records safety’

It is chilling, and a warning to those who hold freedom and liberty dear.

The tired claims by the political left are so imbecilic as to warrant being ignored, but they will be addressed.

Their defense comes down to two major points – it is all George Bush’s fault, since he authorized the Patriot Act, and more alarming is their assertion that the ‘American people understand there needs to be a sacrifice of some freedom for some security’, or as the President so alarmingly stated –

“I think it’s important to understand that you can’t have 100 percent security and then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. We’re going to have to make some choices as a society,”

In a statement attributed to Benjamin Franklin, Americans have actually accepted the axiom that “’those who sacrifice a little freedom for a little security are deserving of neither freedom nor security”

The march towards tyranny begins with comments such as the Presidents’. This is not hyperbole. What the President is saying is that the government needs to inject itself into every aspect of American society in order to ‘keep us safe’. There is no guarantee of safety in the world, and any pretexts to the contrary are lies. We are a free and open society, and while we may accept certain inconveniences in accessing privileges – air travel, for example, is not a right, remember – we as a nation, as a people, a society, must never accede to the proposition that the government will keep us ‘safe’ if we surrender our rights, for what in essence is ‘our own good’.

History has repeatedly shown us that tyrants and despotism begin with the seeds of providing security for the downtrodden and helpless.

America must stand together, as a people, for the people, to be governed solely by the people, not those who ask for freedom in exchange for security.

Syria - 6-2-2013

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

The single greatest fighting force for freedom in the history of the planet is the United States military. It is the defender of democracy, an example of a free people willing to give their all to defend liberty.

It must never be used as a chip in an inane political argument on foreign policy.

Yet that is exactly what is happening in the debate on what the United States should do with respect to the ongoing civil war and accompanying atrocities in Syria.

Our elected are playing fast and loose with both history and the truth, hoping to garner short term political advantage when they discuss the options available, from the absurdity of President Obamas’ ‘red line’ comments, to Senator McCain’s urging for military intervention.

It is obvious that there is a human tragedy unfolding at the hands of a sadistic dictator, a man willing to sacrifice his people in horrific ways in an effort to maintain his control over the nation.

It may be the most glaring current example of a people in distress, but it is not the only one.

The United States is not the world’s policeman –we should not and must not impose our views of political governance on the world.

We can lead by example, demonstrating that self rule democracy is the optimal way for a society to grow and flourish but once we become the arbiters of other nations form of government by injecting the United States military into any given conflict we are continuing down the road to our ruin.

It is not an issue of isolationism; that is impossible in the interconnected world in which we live.

It is an issue that our military is a defensive organization: if the United States is attacked, we will surely unleash the powerful swift sword to the aggressor and vanquish them in short order.

The idea that somehow America should send troops to intervene in struggles around the world should be anathema to this nation. We lead by example, not by coercion.

For any who might demand that we cannot sit ‘idly’ by while Syria continues to spiral downward, the question then becomes given the scope of the American military’s abilities, why do we not simply put into place worldwide democratic self-rule? The power of our armed forces far surpasses any other in the world, so could we not impose planetary peace by sheer force?

There would be no need for a United Nations, an organization currently so inept at anything it boggles the mind.

Specifically as to Syria, where exactly is the unified outrage in the United Nations, voices condemning the actions of the Assad government and calling for United Nations forces to intervene?

The military of this nation was conceived to be under civilian leadership precisely to keep it as a defensive organization, not as an offensive tool for societal dominance of this or any other sovereign nation.

Once America heeds the ignorant calls for intervention in places such as Syria we will cease to be a beacon of hope and transform ourselves into yet another empire doomed to fall under its own hubris into the forgotten passages of time.

The United States of America is not an occupying force.

There is unimaginable pain in the world. We will best serve those who suffer by remaining true to our Constitution, to preserving the belief that freedom is the true solution to the woes of our world.

Memorial Day 2013 - The Wounded Warrior Project

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

As the nation turns it attention to the summer season this Memorial Day, it is time again for The Madison Conservative to repost an earlier blog about a subject near and dear to us. We must honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of democracy, to protect the citizens and ideals of the United States of America. There are many ways to honor our fallen heroes, but perhaps the greatest way to do so is to help provide for their fellow surviving soldiers, seamen, airmen and marines.

To that point, here is the re-post:

http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/

At a time when the body politic is abuzz over peripheral issue nonsense it is perhaps a fitting time to turn our attention to a matter of true national importance.

To wit:

There are many worthy charities that need to be supported by the public at large. There is currently running a series of commercials promoting the cause of the Wounded Warrior Project. The one that created the impetus for this blog post featured Trace Adkins.

http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/

The charity is focused solely on helping returning disabled veterans and their families cope with the adjustments inherent with a disability coupled with the stresses related to the rigors of war inflicted upon the mind and body of our returning veterans.

The website address is being repeated throughout this blog to show support and solidarity with their intended mission.

That being said, and speaking as a United States Navy veteran, the fact that this organization was created out of a need to fill a void should be an embarrassment upon the military bureaucracy specifically entrusted with the care of our veterans, and should be an outrage to the electorate at large.

It is a disgrace that in the United Sates of America our veterans need to have an organization outside of the military ask for funds to help with their transition back to civilian life, to say nothing of asking for financial support to aid in their adaptive needs for a war inflicted disability.

http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/

There is constant dialogue throughout the nation that we must “support the troops even if we disagree with the mission”, one of the hard learned lessons at the expense of our Vietnam War veterans: a true national disgrace whose wounds we are hopefully beginning to heal by acknowledging the treatment of those particular veterans and doing all we can to guarantee that such treatment of our military is never repeated.

It is crucial to understand that there is absolutely not one infinitesimal bit of daylight between the Madison Conservative and the wonderful folks at the Wounded Warrior Project.

The issue here is that there should never be a need for the private sector to provide anything of substantive necessity for our veterans and their needs when they return from battle. The men and women of our all voluntary military provide the protection and safety that allows us to become enraptured with the absurdities of any number of inconsequential matters, such as the current national political electoral theater.

The members of our armed forces choose to fill the role of protector, and their families bear the emotional and financial burdens of that decision. They should never be placed in the position of having to ask  any private enterprise for help in providing whatever support – physical, emotional or financial – the veteran and their family may need as they acclimate back to a civilian life  while coping with a injury suffered in defense of American liberty and freedom.

http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/

If we break the explicit and implicit social contract with our soldiers, seamen, marines and airmen, America will no longer be the home of the brave and land of the free.

We will be too busy having telethons to raise money for guns, and asking corporations to help with a ‘buy a bullet’ campaign.

The Wounded Warrior Project is truly a charity that speaks to our higher ideals; but it should fall onto the American people through the military bureaucracy to insure that no veteran should ever need to ask a private entity for help.

We as a people are better than that.

http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/

An Open Letter to Attorney General Eric Holder

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

Mr. Attorney General,

It has been an eventful week for the administration, and for you specifically.

Given the range of issues and the responses from yourself and the spokespeople for the administration, there is a groundswell of opinion that the president must either fire you, or that you must resign.

The Madison Conservative urges you to resist these cries for your dismissal and provide the American people with true leadership.

The four major issues at hand can be addressed by you in a voice that carries substantial weight. We are a nation of laws, and you are the chief law enforcement of this nation.

As such, you can provide legal clarity to the following:

Benghazi – Please determine who first included the notion of a video no one had ever seen as being the impetus for the assassination of four Americans. Inquire as to exactly where the President of the United States was during the critical hours of the assault on the diplomatic compound. Please provide former Secretary Clinton with the answer to her question – “what difference does it make now?”. I am sure you understand the need to school Mrs. Clinton on the realities of her question and the answer. Lastly, who gave the order for the troops who might have made a difference to stand down?

The HHS Secretary – Please investigate why Secretary Sebelius is soliciting funds from the organizations most directly affected by the Affordable Care Act to promote said legislation. Initial answers that there is nothing illegal about it do not seem sufficient and the ethics of such actions must be properly adjudicated.

The IRS – Given the ability of the IRS to intimidate, harass and harangue the American people on a whim, surely in this instance laws were broken. Please investigate why the President was not aware of anything until, as he has stated publicly, he saw it on the news. This strains credibility to the breaking point. You must stand against the tide and pursue this matter. The American people cannot be allowed to be in fear of a government that was established for, by and of the people. The claim by the political left that the IRS is somehow an autonomous entity is obfuscation at its best – are they unaware that the IRS is under the Department of the Treasury? You must pursue this to wherever it leads, and if you do so, I guarantee the American people will have your back.

The AP – Please explain to the American people two critical points on this matter. First, exactly why was it necessary to illegally obtain phone records from a media source? Surely, the freedoms of speech and of the press were infringed upon, and those responsible must be held accountable. Secondly, why exactly did you recuse yourself? Placing responsibility on an underling is inappropriate. You must take the reins of the investigation and present to the American people the facts, however and wherever you find them.

In short, Mr. Attorney General, DO YOUR JOB!

Given the cowardly assaults on personal freedoms by this administration, and your decision to acquiesce to such choices, you cannot expect to be taken seriously.

I am aware that some taxpayer funded lowlife will find this letter to you and attempt to take retribution.

No need. As an American, you know where to find me.

I dare you.

The Immigration Debate - part 3 - The Constitutional Perspective

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

Given the lapse between blog posts, it is perhaps instructive to repeat the comments made by Attorney General Eric Holder during an April 24th speech to the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund with respect to what is being proffered as the Obama administrations’ perspective on the immigration debate:

"Creating a pathway to earned citizenship for the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in this country is essential. The way we treat our friends and neighbors who are undocumented – by creating a mechanism for them to earn citizenship and move out of the shadows – transcends the issue of immigration status. This is a matter of civil and human rights. It is about who we are as a nation. And it goes to the core of our treasured American principle of equal opportunity."

With equal parts frustration, exasperation and incredulity, it is difficult to decide where to begin with such an idiotic and ignorant statement, but the Madison Conservative will attempt to do just that.

“A pathway to earned citizenship” – There already exists a pathway to citizenship – it is the immigration law of the United States. The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement official in the government – perhaps he should familiarize himself with the laws already on the books to deal with immigration.

“Unauthorized immigrants”. As previously noted, the language of the debate is critical. ‘Immigrant’ is a legal status – it is impossible to be an ‘unauthorized’ anything and retain legal status.

“The way we treat our friends and neighbors who are undocumented”. We should treat them with respect surely, but by using euphemisms such as 'undocumented’ attempts to convey that they are simply returning a gift without a proper receipt. There is a legal process to attain status under the law in this nation. Breaking that law should not be shrouded in colorful and sympathetic language. People who have broken the law should be referred to by their true legal status – ‘defendants’, and treated as such. By all means, if the administration wishes to change the law for future peoples, that is surely their right – under the law. In the same way a law cannot be enforced retroactively, so then a privilege cannot be conferred retroactively.

“By creating a mechanism for them to earn citizenship and move out of the shadows”. It must be noted here that it was a choice of these individuals to break the law, thus forcing them into ‘the shadows’. Few criminals flaunt their location to the authorities. If they choose to accept responsibility for their choices, there exists a ‘mechanism’ for them to earn citizenship – the immigration laws of the United States. It is troubling that the Attorney General seems oblivious to this reality.

“This is a matter of civil and human rights.” Actually, it is not, in any fashion or form. If one was to accept this idiotic statement, the next question must be answered. Why have any borders? If it is a matter of ‘civil and human rights’, then we should allow any person who wishes to live here to be allowed in. There is thus then no need for immigration policy, border agents and border security – any and all aspects of sovereignty for a nation no longer exists. Surely the billions of people around the world who are not enjoying the fruits of democracy should be allowed immediate entrance to then what was once the United States of America, a nation which would cease to exist , given the abolition of borders, all in the name of ‘civil and human rights’. This is a classic lie foisted by the political left. To prove this point, the Madison Conservative would ask the Attorney General if he would accept this proposition. Allow all the current illegal aliens some manner of legal status, save for forbidding them to vote for the next thirty years.

Exactly. No one of the political left would accept that concept. The question is why not? If this is about human and civil rights, fine, just omit the option for them to vote. The hypocrisy and cynicism of the Administration is thus revealed to the American people, who must enjoin the immigration debate with that understanding.

“It is about who we are as a nation.” The accepted political mantra from the left is always “we are a nation of laws”, a phrase invoked at every opportunity to castigate and chastise their opposition. Fine, we are indeed a nation of laws. Perhaps the Attorney General of the United States should start enforcing them on people who flaunt them.

“And it goes to the core of our treasured American principle of equal opportunity.” Yes, Mr. Attorney General, equal opportunity for the citizens of the greatest nation the world has ever known, but not for those who attempt to circumvent the due legal process, processes enacted to "support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”.

That was part of the oath you swore to when you accepted the position of Attorney General. The American people would only ask that you honor your oath, instead of playing cynical political games and exhibiting political cowardice for simple political expediency.

The American people deserve better.