« Freedom Question of the Day | Main | Re: Eric Holder -- "I Can See a Race War" »

What to Do With Enemies of the Constitution

"Maybe it's time for us to lock them up," suggests Joseph Farah. Named suspects currently at large: Mr. Bill Press and Sen. Debbie Stabenow.

The immediate concern? The Orwellian-tagged "Fairness Doctrine," in obedience to which Congress would enact a law abridging the freedom of the press. A direct contradiction to the 1st Amendment.

The concern for tomorrow? "We have so many people running around Washington, and elsewhere, including elected officials, who are openly and actively subverting the very foundation of our country's liberties," Farah writes. (italics added)

The point: If you uproot the tree of liberty from the soil of liberty, the tree dies.

It may retain its beauty for a while. The attendant PR about diversity and liberation from dirt may be cool, smooth, and with no sudden moves. Maybe Obamagirl will dance on YouTube.

But the tree per se is effectively dead. So it goes with liberty. And say hello to post-America America. The country you love may no longer exist. Geography does not equal destiny.  

Would such a punishment be fitting? I'm kind of partial to tar and feathers myself (see O Brother, Where Art Thou? for pointers on the technique applied to a KKK politician).

But one mustn't be closed-minded: Jail may well be the ticket. But not without throwing in a copy of the Constitution. Particularly hard cases might be forced to read the Declaration, especially the scary parts about the Creator.   


Interestingly enough, the obvious purpose of the First Ammendment is to provide protection for three specific groups to speak out against the government without fear of recrimination: the church, the press and the public. If we allow this to be eroded with the "fairness doctrine," then you can guarantee that religious speech will be the next thing to be sanctioned, with assembly and speech next on the chopping block.

These protected groups -- the church, the press, the public -- are also to critique the state in order to limit its power and protect citizens from arbitrary rule by political elites or by regular folk who gain power and then might be tempted to abuse it.

It seems to me that constitutional respect for extra-governmental spheres of authority is all part of what is intended by "checks and balances."

Biblical information from the Creator gives us -- and gave the Founders -- wisdom on living in a broken world with less than perfect people who nevertheless still need to find a way to live together in community.

Alastair Cooke once noted that America was the only nation founded on a creed.

I wish that those who disagreed with the Declaration of Independence would just leave -- and certainly not be allowed to vote.

That is radical, but there are already other countries with the sort of government that those opposed to that Declaration desire. It is a pity that they can't let us live in peace and try our experiment in liberty.

Post a comment