In Defense of Our Nation

Secretary of State James Madison, who won Marb...

Image via Wikipedia

A great nation is dependent upon its people.  A great nation is a nation of laws, prowess and great leaders.

In times of crisis America has been that nation.  We have along history of greatness, devotion, strength, and most importantly a sense of who we are.

We move from the 20th Century into this new century and much has changed. But yet much has remained the same.  The challenge is to look at what we have accomplished in our short history, the creation of a Democracy, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, a Civil War, the American Industrial Revolution to becoming a World Leader and  a beacon for liberty.  The past came with sacrifice and pain which in all likelihood must count as something toward our greatness.

Today, we appear to suffer from a lack of knowledge on what made us who we are. We, as a people suffer from false interpretations of history, or a thorough incompetence of history. We require relearning American History and the importance of knowing and understanding it so that we can maintain our nation of laws and a sense of who we are.
Relearning history does not require recreating history to meet our expectations or biases, it requires a clear understanding of our past without political correctness, bias, or even factional interpretation. So much of our present is tied up in factionalism, (ex.Tea Party) political correctness, and just plain old poor education that our current and future leaders lack;  the overall preparedness for leadership

Today, we have business people who are more concerned about money then the good of the economy or government.  Business leaders and government leaders have no concept of “Noblesse Oblige”  and it shows in our current state of affairs.  The Congress     and the office of the Presidency lack the will to conduct themselves as the standard bearers of democracy.  The political infighting in this country has drained us of strength necessary to solve the many problems we face.  Our leaders are weak, our public is caught up in factionalism which is destructive to the very purpose of our founding.  And while all this is going on, corporations and large financial powerhouses are eroding the voting of the average American. Individual voters cannot compete against super political  action committees (PAC’s) or groups, and of course the 2 party system uses its power to sway and confuse the public.  Another aspect of our history and political system is that the parties control the political process even as they rotate power between each other.

The media of the 21st Century is no different then it was in the 19th. Their biases and choices are forever present, they select vocabulary, confuse issues, rewrite or slant positions for or against a candidate or the issue.  Of course politics is about election or re-election and thus the media must comply or be without news. The media is so complicit in the machinery of politics that when new ideas, new election processes (ex: Americans Elect) or political candidates from 3rd parties compete the process is stacked against the newcomer.

But then, our democracy is ugly and full of the public with their individual concepts and precepts of how each of us should live.  That is why the public was a concern for James Madison, he knew that the public had many biases and operated from factions. According to Madison the public was dangerous and needed to be controlled or led by those in Congress. What we got was the public in Congress with its biases and factions.

In Defense of our Nation we must not shrink from our role as the world’s leader, but we must have the strength and conviction to know what must be done at home. As the world’s leader we must regain the political, economic, and social strengths of our greatness. Wars of intrusion, national interests, oil, or the perception that we must intervene in the internal affairs of others whatever the reason must be weighed carefully.
A nations leadership on the world stage is both internal and external.

The sovereignty of this nation also dictates that the suspension of any rights under the Constitution due to war, terrorism, fear, politics or religious view is a slippery slope that this nation cannot allow or endure.  The rights of the people are paramount. We must not return to the parts of American History that are disgraceful, violated law, or were just plain bad. We cannot on the other hand forget the impact of the past for it is what made us.

In Defense of Our Nation the voters must screen out factions, biases, political ideologies, and demand accountability, integrity, and less ugliness from the public. We need a government that we can respect and one the world respects.


Biblical Law and Justice Antonin Scalia

photograph of the justices, cropped to show Ju...

Does Religion Motivate Justice Scalia? Or is it his view that Democracy is the Antithesis of Religious Law?

Justice Antonin Scalia has an extremely narrow and personal view of the US Constitution, he is misinterpreting his role as a Justice of the Supreme Court to presume that his moral judgements were and are in preference to the Law of the Land.  Perhaps in reading the Federalist Papers, the Papers of Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton and those who supported the Constitution understood the value of separation of Church and State Justice Scalia may have had a preconceived idea that Democracy and the Constitution were invalid substitutes for religious law.

Justice Scalia is the person who could have the greatest impact in helping the Religious Right establish its sovereignty. President Bush has talked about Scalia as the justice he admires the most.Supreme Court J

In an article published in First Things, a journal of religion and public life, in May, 2002, Scalia quotes St. Paul:

“…Government…derives its moral authority from God. It is the minister of God with powers to “avenge” to “execute wrath” including even wrath by the sword (which is unmistakenly a reference to the death penalty).”

Scalia appears hostile to Democracy: The “consensus” [that government is the minister of God]

“has been upset, I think by the emergence of democracy…It is much more difficult to see the hand of God…behind the fools and rogues…we ourselves elect of our own free will.”

He sees democracy as obscuring the divine authority:

“the reaction of people of faith to this tendency of democracy to obscure divine authority…should [be] the resolution to combat it as effectively as possible.”

Scalia views the United States Constitution as “dead” rather than as a living document that evolves along with society.

“…the Constitution that I interpret is not living but dead…It means today not what current society (much less the Court) thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted.”

This view of the US Constitution as “dead” could become the basis of a strategy to dismantle the separation of church and state. In a speech on January 12, 2003, at a Religious Freedom Day event, Scalia said that the principle was not imbedded in the constitution and therefore should be added democratically, which means through a constitutional amendment. An amendment to the Constitution on church-state separation would be impossible to achieve in the current political climate, so the argument is disingenuous.

Scalia, speaking to a crowd of about 150 in Fredericksburg to mark a “Religious Freedom Day,” asserted that America’s Founding Fathers never meant to “exclude God from the public forums and from political life.”

“Scalia sounds like a TV preacher, not a Supreme Court justice,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “His job is to uphold the Constitution, not promote religiosity.”

via Biblical Law.

“We were not founded on the Christian Religion”: John Adams on Religion

John Adams

Image via Wikipedia

John Adams: “Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?” Just six years after the First Amendment became an official part of the Constitution, the U.S. Senate read (in the English language) and ratified a treaty with Tripoli which included in Article 11 the following assertion: “The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion” (John Adams, 1797, Hunter Miller, ed., Treaties and other International Acts, 2:365). via Thomas Jefferson.

The New Progressive

America was created not as a traditional nation, but as a nation of fundamental beliefs.  It was our belief in man’s natural rights, the equality of all persons, and a strong belief in republicanism. These core beliefs are what make America the country she is.  James Madison was concerned and rightly so about the structure of a republic so large and diverse as ours would be. No other nation in the 1700’s or in the past had attempted such a feat.

The creation of a federal government,with so much power, seemed to be a threat to some, and yet it was thought to be to some the solution to the passions, special interests, and unjust actions of the states.  This is what the Federalist and Anti-Federalist debates were about. The Federalist Papers clearly define for us the role of government. It should be understood that originally there was apprehension if not fear of “Democracy” by Madison and a number of founding fathers.

Over the past 200 years and counting, We as a country and a people have been changing and and redefining who we are within the scope of our beginnings and in the idea of Federalism.

It is now the 21st Century, and time and history is changing quickly.  It appears however, that as a country we still maintain that nation of fundamental beliefs, that they are in danger of  of being swept aside. If our beliefs and our republicanism is somehow changed then we may face a slow demise  that is similar to the republics of the past.  A change is needed in our political processes that returns us toward the ideals of our founding fathers.

The New Progressive is not liberal. It is a process by which the elements of the Constitution  are discussed and debated within the merits of a proposed bill. The proposed bills should be for the good of the nation. There will be on occasion proposals by state for specific assistance and those need to be treated in the same manner. Compromise is the name of the game; it is about addressing the needs of the country.

The idea that “Republicanism and Democracy”  are one in the same is indisputable. However, the “Republicanism” of Madison and the Federalists could return us to a more representative form  of government. The individual American in the era of “Democracy” may be getting lost in the political process of party mechanics and special interest.

This is a process where Americans can look at the political parties, Democratic Party  or Republican Party and determine the role of the party in question and if it is meeting the needs of the people.  The guise of big government is your enemy is not the problem, it is “special interests” and the political parties themselves.  The American Voter, is a fickle lot who does not trust politicians, but does not vote regularly.  It is essential that the citizens of America vote.

The idea of dismantling the federal government goes against the concepts and and ideas that make this nation. This notion that the states some can better manage many of the agencies or programs is beyond scope. It is also important to remember that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and our structure as a nation requires clearly defined roles spelled out for Republic to work. We are after all the United States of America.