Tag: liberty

The Emancipation Proclamation

Post author By David
Post date July 14, 2009
No Comments on The Emancipation Proclamation

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

After 17 months of what had been expected to be a short war, Lincoln issued The Emancipation Proclamation and gave a 100 day grace period before it was to be effective. I remember being taught that this was a publicity stunt with no effectiveness because it only applied to states that were in rebellion. I think that is too simple a view of what Lincoln was trying to accomplish. I think it would be more accurate to say that it was a threat – with possibly a small hope that it might convince some in rebellion to end their fight against the union in order to keep their slaves before the proclamation took effect.

The goal was not to start armed rebellions within the South. In fact, what Lincoln said to those who would be freed was:

And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.

I believe that the proclamation could be summed up as “things will be worse for rebels who refuse to come back and rejoin the nation within 100 days.” The effort was to end the war more than to free the slaves.

Tags documents, history, liberty

culture life

Independence Day Observations

Post author By David
Post date July 6, 2009
2 Comments on Independence Day Observations

I attended the Freedom Festival parade in Provo with my family on Saturday and I found it very interesting to watch. I was proud to notice that there seemed to be more people who actually knew what to do whent he flag passed by. Unlike some years there was no hesitation in the crowd as the flag approached and people stood and placed hands over their hearts. I also took note that when Senator Bennett approached in his car the crowd got silent – I heard one person supporting Bennett but everyone else acted as if the parade suddenly became invisible. When Senator Hatch rode by there was no reaction from the crowd, but everybody began cheering very loudly for the high school band that followed him. I take that as yet another sign that it’s time for both of them to retire – I’ll help in any way that I can.

Overall it was a good parade except for the fact that the first entry was a band which was followed by the many fire engines blaring their horns. The parade organizers really should not place a band in front or behind the fire engines – save those slots for floats that are not displaying their musical skill.

Later in the evening as we were watching fireworks I got talking to my wife and mentioned that I found it somewhat ironic that many people celebrate their liberty and living in a free land by breaking the law – buying fireworks that are clearly illegal in our state. I know the arguments that some people will make that the state should not be regulating our fireworks as much as they do. I stand against the nanny-state as much as anyone else, but I believe in obeying the law even when you are actively trying to change it (so long as its possible to do both). Laura commented that in some ways it might be fitting that people wuld celebrate their freedom by exercising it in defiance of laws they don’t care for – I can see the logic of what she says.

Tags Bob Bennett, holidays, liberty, Orrin Hatch

culture

The Star Spangled Banner

Francis Scott Key witnessed a battle in 1814 during the War of 1812 as a captive on a British naval ship. He was so inspired by what he witnessed that he wrote the Star Spangled Banner which was eventually be adopted as our national anthem.

Today the song is often sung as an artistic piece in ways that ignore any patriotic meaning associated with it. It makes me wonder how many people still recognize the feelings of love for his country that Key was capturing in his poem. As I was looking at this I realized that I had never noticed the third verse – I don’t think I’ve ever heard it sung.

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wiped out their foul footstep’s pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

I suspect that Key had heard British sailors boasting that they would wipe America out of existence during that war before they began the attack. Considering the power of the British navy at that time he might well have expected them to succeed – no wonder then that he was so moved when he saw that the flag still flew over Fort McHenry after the bombardment. Personally I think that anyone who cannot recognize the power of that song and the love of country that it conveys should not bother to participate in the political process because without that love of country we are certain to make poor political decisions.

Tags documents, history, liberty, patriotism, war

General

Constitutional Amendment V

Post author By David
Post date May 20, 2009
No Comments on Constitutional Amendment V

We’ve all heard the concept of taking or pleading “the fifth {Amendment}” in court but there is more to that amendment than simply not testifying against yourself.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Grand Jury which must indict for capital crimes in in addition to, not in place of, a jury of peers that all other criminal cases receive. The only exception in this grand jury is military courts in time of actual service. This amendment also contains the provision against double jeopardy (I wonder if that ever worried the game show hosts) although that protection only extends to criminal cases – civil cases may be brought multiple times for the same offense. (I guess that would also cover the game show. 😉 ) It also appears that a person might be compelled to witness against themselves in a civil case. The statement that we cannot be deprived of life liberty or property nor have property taken for public use without compensation seem to stand as a second bulwark against unreasonable seizure as protected in the fourth amendment.

Tags Bill of Rights, Constitution, documents, history, laws, liberty

General

Constitutional Amendment IV

Post author By David
Post date May 19, 2009
6 Comments on Constitutional Amendment IV

Aside from any room for interpretation of the word “unreasonable” Amendment IV is pretty simple:

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.

Our government and its officers have no right or authority to seize our persons, houses, papers, or effects without cause supported by a claim of the particulars of who or what may be seized and where the seizure may occur.

Tags amendments, Bill of Rights, Constitution, documents, history, liberty

National

A Real American Hero

Lost in all the political bickering about the torture memos is are two significant questions. Does torture work? And is it compatible with American values? As an experienced interrogator who worked in Iraq Matthew Alexander has been speaking out on those two questions since at least November of 2008. I consider him a real hero because of his answers to those two questions and also because he is working so hard to advance this crucial debate so that our citizens may understand what is really at stake.

I really liked one quote from a Washington Post interview he did in November 2008:

My experiences have landed me in the middle of another war — one even more important than the Iraq conflict. The war after the war is a fight about who we are as Americans. Murderers like Zarqawi can kill us, but they can’t force us to change who we are. We can only do that to ourselves. One day, when my grandkids sit on my knee and ask me about the war, I’ll say to them, “Which one?”

By the way, his short answers to those two questions are “Not really” and “Absolutely not!” (My answers have always been “I have no experience with it but I suspect not” and “Absolutely not!”)

Tags Iraq, liberty, media, torture, values

culture

Constitutional Amendment III

Post author By David
Post date May 14, 2009
3 Comments on Constitutional Amendment III

Amendment III is very straightforward and needs no explanation:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

It does remind me however that we are very fortunate as a nation to have never had a war upon our own soil in living memory. As I think about that I am reminded that we should not allow our cold wars and our wars on terror to be used as excuses to infringe upon this right or any other right that has been guaranteed under our Constitution. It also reminds me that we need to be much more selective in the foreign wars we choose to engage in.

Tags Bill of Rights, documents, history, liberty, war

National

Constitutional Amendment II

Post author By David
Post date May 12, 2009
2 Comments on Constitutional Amendment II

Amendment 2 is worded as an absolute:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The prohibition on infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not limited to the Congress. Although I think that some regulations are acceptable (such as requiring registration of ownership for firearms) this simple wording does not seem to allow any room for the banning of handguns or automatic weapons. (Personally I don’t see any reason that people would have cause to own automatic weapons but that’s beside the point.) The only possible wiggle room I can see in the wording is the purpose of having a well regulated militia as the reason for the right. If the goal is for a well regulated militia it could be argued that the government (state or federal) could prohibit gun ownership for convicted felons or those diagnosed with some significant type of mental disability because gun ownership among such people would detract rather than advance the cause of a well regulated militia.

Tags amendments, Bill of Rights, Constitution, documents, history, liberty

National

Constitutional Amendment I

Post author By David
Post date May 11, 2009
2 Comments on Constitutional Amendment I

The beauty of the amendments in the Bill of Rights is that they are all short enough that I will be comfortable quoting each amendment in its entirety as I write about it. That may not hold as I get to the later amendments. Here is Amendment I:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I have heard people who are keen to remind their fellow citizens that the phrase “separation of church and state” does not exist anywhere in our legal foundation. That’s very true, but I would take that a step further and point out the implications of what is said.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

State governments are perfectly free to make laws respecting an establishment of religion – whether that be favoring one specific sect, or prohibiting a sect or a specific religious practice. The key is that the federal legislative branch cannot enshrine a position related to religion. Please keep this in mind (the distinction between the state and federal governments) as it will be a theme of many of my posts on the amendments.

For those who might fear that Utah might use that as an excuse to establish Mormonism as the religion of the state (officially) if they thought they could get away with it I would simply point out that doing so would run counter to the expressed tenets of the LDS church. (I should also point out that this prevents the use of the first amendment as an argument against the legality of the extermination order against Mormons given by Governor Boggs of Missouri in 1838.) The point here is that each state was meant to be free to determine the course that they felt would be the most conducive to the welfare of their residents.

Like the protection of religion, it is Congress, and not the states, which is prohibited from abridging the freedom of the press or of speech and Congress which cannot interfere with the right of the people to peaceably assemble or petition the government. The assumption was that although the states retain the rights to regulate any of those things they would be wise enough not to abuse that ability and that if they did begin to abuse those powers they would feel the negative consequences as other states would reap the benefits of the dissatisfaction generated by abusive states.

Sadly, it is now the states and municipalities which feel the burden of the restrictions in the first amendment (and others) much more than Congress. Congress does not abridge our freedom of religion, but it does abridge the freedom of our once-sovereign states (and communities).

Tags Bill of Rights, change congress, documents, history, liberty, religion

culture National

What Should We Do About It?

Post author By David
Post date April 3, 2009
16 Comments on What Should We Do About It?

Recently someone shared The Obama Deception with me (and others) asking for feedback. Normally I would not take two hours to watch such a video because these efforts rarely shed any real light on their subjects. Mostly, they just generate heat through friction. I decided that in the interest of giving an honest response and out of respect for the person who shared it I would take the time. I’m glad that I did so that I could know what I was responding to, and so that I could share the best 8 seconds of the video which come from nearly the end of the two hours.

My reaction to the whole video is to admit that there is an element of truth in it – as there usually is to reports of conspiracy theories. Also common among such reports is the fact that the reality is generally less sinister than the report would have you believe. It’s always helpful to refer back to Hanlon’s Razor:

Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence. (or similar variations)

I don’t mean to suggest that everyone in our government is incompetent – only that the assumption of malice in everything they do does nothing to help us act appropriately as we learn of poor or misguided actions.

My thought as I viewed the video was to ask myself, "what actions would they have people take?" Similarly, my thought whenever I am acquiring new information is to ask myself "what should I do about it?" The reason that I liked those 8 seconds of video is that they addressed that question. (After two hours I was surprised that they did address my question.)

My experience in asking that question has been that no matter how varied the problems in government, the answer to that question is generally some variation on the same theme. Study the Constitution and promote a culture of individual liberty in our own actions and within our government. In order to do that we have to understand what a culture of individual liberty is. For one thing, it means that we have to let go of the assumption that the government can or should solve many of our social problems. The role of government is not to make sure that the playing field is level – it is to ensure that nobody cheats.

Government cannot ensure a level playing field because each individual is different and not equal. No matter how much I might try to imagine otherwise the fact is that I can’t compete with Alex Rodriguez in baseball, LeBron James in basketball, or Tiger Woods in golf. The government is only there to enforce the rules of fairness. No matter how sophisticated a handicapping system they devise I will never be able to beat Tiger at a fair golf game. The rules are not to make sure that I score somewhere close to my competitor, they are to make sure that Tiger does not choose to take a mulligan or sign an inaccurate scorecard and that I don’t do those things either. On the other hand, the rules do not prevent Tiger from spotting me a shot or two (per hole) in the interest of keeping the game interesting.

In case anyone is wondering, individual liberty does not mean that the course owners can’t enforce a dress code despite the fact that my breaking the dress code does not give me any advantage in the game. In other words, the argument that "I’m not hurting anyone but myself" is not sufficient reason to strike down a law (contrary to what many libertarians might argue). It is acceptable for us to codify into law the values that we want to promote within our society.

Tags Constitution, liberty, questions, sports, values