Diary

Cultural Sanity: Incorporating The Bill of Rights Must Stop

Hello readers and welcome to the first of what I hope to be a multiple part blog.

The Crisis

The United States faces a Constitutional Crisis, I don’t believe any freedom loving, God Fearing American doubts that. However I see a disturbing trend among my fellow patriots where that the Constitution is suppose to be law even at the local level rather than just the Federal Level since it was designed to restrain the federal government.

What am I talking about you say? I’ll give two examples, the first is the controversy surrounding Kim Davis who was sued for simply refusing to sign off on “marriage” licenses for same-sex couples. Nevermind that she refused to sign off on all licenes for male/female couples, no the media instead focused on the grave sin that two men were denied the license.

Zachary, the law is the LAW and anyone who disobeys the law including public officials should be punished.

I agree, however what law exactly did she break? Was it state law? Was it federal law? After doing a little digging I happened upon the Kentucky State Constitution which section 5 of the Bill of Rights says:

No preference shall ever be given by law to any religious sect, society or denomination; nor to any particular creed, mode of worship or system of ecclesiastical polity; nor shall any person be compelled to attend any place of worship, to contribute to the erection or maintenance of any such place, or to the salary or support of any minister of religion; nor shall any man be compelled to send his child to any school to which he may be conscientiously opposed; and the civil rights, privileges or capacities of no person shall be taken away, or in anywise diminished or enlarged, on account of his belief or disbelief of any religious tenet, dogma or teaching. No human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.

And you will find similar clauses in every state constitution around the country. Regarding the Oregon and Colorado bakers:

Section 2. Freedom of worship. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.

Section 3. Freedom of religious opinion.No law shall in any case whatever control the free exercise, and enjoyment of religeous [sic] opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscienceOregon Bill of Rights

Section 4. Religious freedom. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever hereafter be guaranteed; and no person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege or capacity, on account of his opinions concerning religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be construed to dispense with oaths or affirmations, excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the good order, peace or safety of the state. No person shall be required to attend or support any ministry or place of worship, religious sect or denomination against his consent. Nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship. -Colorado Bill of Rights

Based on these three clauses alone, I am deeply concerned with the parading of the First Amendment in defense of these people. My concerns grow even more when dealing with the Second Amendment. A recent court case in California involving gun rights sought to apply the 2nd Amendment to the Golden State and did. The 9th Circuit ruled as such

The court concludes that California’s broad limits on both open and concealed carry of loaded guns — with no “shall-issue” licensing regime that assures law-abiding adults of a right to get licenses, but only a “good cause” regime under which no license need be given — “impermissibly infringe[] on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.

Like anyone who loves the right to self-defense, the ruling made me quite elated. My mind at the time was “finally! Some sanity here in California!” It wasn’t until the issue with the Houston Mayor attacking Christians that my views on the role of Government and the Constitution changed.

I detest the death by regulation atmosphere that is Sacramento Politics. California has no clause in its Constitution that guarentees the right to keep and bear arms and thus they are free to regulate themselves into oblivion. You know what the glorious thing is? I don’t have to live here in California. Why have 50 different states if they all fall in lockstep with eachother? Their existence is predicated on competition, each one employing laws that attract new people to come and live there.

You are anti-Constitution.

How exactly am I not being pro-Constitution? You don’t find anything wrong with inviting the Federal Government into State Boundaries and forcing them nullify their own Constitutions? States have provisions for just about every issue in place and per the 10th Amendment, we have a moral obligation to strengthen State Sovereignty not diminish it. The Founding Fathers never ever intended for the Federal Government to police the actions of an individual state. If you did not like the laws and practicies of the state you live in then you can one of two things:

1) Get those laws repealed

2) Move to a state friendlier to your views

The Bill of Rights do not in fact apply to the States, at least they were not suppose to.

Barron v Baltimore

In 1833 Balitmore resident John Barron sued the City of Baltimore for hindering revenue flow to his business. This was an eminent domain case where the city had adjusted water flow which ultimately prohibited ships docking in his area of the harbor. Barron ended up winning but the city appealed the decsion to the Supreme Court of the United States who ruled in favor of the city because the 5th amendment did not specifically outline provisions for states and only restrained the Federal Government.

Gitlow v Newyork

Back in 1925 a gentlemen by the name of Benjamin Gitlow was arrested for violating a speech law in New York when he was passing out literature that was believed to be promoting anarchy. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States and it was ruled that under the 14th amendment, Mr Gitlow was protected by the 1st amendment and the anti-anarchy law in New York was rendered void. This was the very first time that the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution had ever been applied to a state.

 

Here we are today. On one side we have the Left that believes the marriage liscences of one state should legal and valid in all of the states and territories. Now some on the Right believe this shrinks government because it lets people enter into a legal contract without government interference; now they would make sense except they are inviting the Federal Government to come in and essentially say to a state they have absolutely no right to regulate said legal contract within the confines of their law. Tell me how exactly is that advocating smaller government? I ask the same question for the 2nd Amendment, why is it advocating for smaller government when you are using the power of the Federal Government to tell a state that thy cannot enact their own regulations? I thought we were for States Rights. We’ve already established that the Bill of Rights was never suppose to be applied to the states, so why are we pushing for more centralized government in the name of liberty? Why are we doing the dirty work of the left?

My solution? Return power back to the states! Emphasize the 9th and 10th Amendments, defang the 14th Amendment and get back to states setting the tone for where and how people want to live! There never should be one size fits all laws, this is what the Federalists and Anti-Federalists argued about. I am not anti-2nd Amendment, I am not anti-1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and so on. I am saying that if a state is to fail because of the insane policies then let it fail and quit trying to make California recognize what Texas does. That was never suppose to happen and it’s high time we reverse the trend. Let’s stop kidding ourselves that everytime we invoke the Federal Constitution, which was designed to restrict the Federal Government, when punishing a stupid law in a left-leaning state we are advancing liberty and our founding principles because we are doing the opposite. If that’s how we are going to operate then what exactly is the purpose behind having 50 States? What is the purpose of each state having its own Constitution?

 

Let us continue fighting for Faith, for Family, and for Freedom. God bless you all and God bless the United States of America.