With yet another mass shooting under America’s belt the citizens of the Unites States will once again look to their political leaders to do everything… to do nothing… while addressing this new terror on society. Arguments will focus on gun control laws and the failures of the mental health system; some will stray toward the violence in video games and the tv/movie industry. When it’s all said and done it will be the Constitution that should set the frame work for the solutions.
The 2nd Amendment will be recited religiously by those opposed to any new gun control laws, and while I am a great believer in our Constitution and the 2nd Amendment the circumstances in which it was written and the history of the time should not be ignored.
Adopted in 1791 with the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment was heavily influenced by the English Bill of Rights from 1689. The English Bill of Rights was in part to re-establish the rights of Protestants in England regarding bearing arms, many of which were disarmed during the reign of King James II (note that Catholics maintained this right under James II). Allowing all subject of English rule to bear arms was important as they were the means in England for “keeping watch and ward at night and to confront and capture suspicious persons”. Every Englishman had an obligation to “protect the Kings Peace and assist in the suppression of riots”.
These English duties didn’t stop at the English Channel but carried on to the new world and the English settlers in the colonies. Without the right to bear arms they would not have be able to create militias, participate in law enforcement, repel invasions, or provide self-defense along the vast colonial frontier.
As good students of American History we all know how the colonist militias held out against the professional armies under King George during the American Revolution (at least until the establishment of the Continental Army). The English army in the colonies both prior to and during the War of Independence created a fear in the colonist and framers of the Constitution that prevented the formation of a standing army in America until the late 19th early 20th centuries; during the War of 1812, War with Mexico and Civil War, armies were formed from state militias. For over a hundred years the survival of our nation, the ability to protect ourselves was based on the citizens having the right to bear arms. In 1903 militias were replaced with the formation of the United States National Guard.
Let’s also consider the weaponry of the times, flintlock muskets and rifles. Loading, aiming and firing these highly inaccurate guns would take anywhere from 5 to 20 seconds based on the skill (and volley tactics) of the shooter(s); if you were not quick enough to reload there was a real potential to be struck down by your opponents sabre, or other weapon of the day; a mass shooting by an individual was highly unlikely to next to impossible.
This important Amendment, while as sacred today as it was when it was written was without doubt written under circumstances that do not entirely apply today, we have a police force, an army and national guard, we no longer suffer attacks along a frontier, tyrant government – only exist when its ‘your party’ that didn’t win. So why do we recite the 2nd Amendment following mass shooting or during discussions in Washington regarding gun control? Why do we robotically chant the words of this Amendment when they do not address this new terror on society?
The 2nd Amendment should not be the discussion, the 2nd Amendment is what gave the right to the mass shooter to purchase the firearm, no the 2nd Amendment should not be the discussion but the Constitution in whole should be, because it’s the role of the Government to enact laws to protect the citizens, because the Constitution also protects unarmed citizens from those that exercise their right to bear arms; because while many in our society are concerned with their rights, the rest are concern with their lives and the lives of their loved ones. When the US government enacts laws to protect their citizens they are not operating as a tyrant, there is no hidden agenda to disarm American, this is not an us verse you topic, this is simply following the Constitution… protect the citizens; if we live in fear of our rights, if we live in fear of our Constitution then we have failed as a Nation.
Challenge of the Pledge of Allegiance… As Is
“A family has asked Massachusetts’ highest court to ban the daily practice of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, arguing that the words ‘under God’ in the pledge discriminate against atheists”
News of this latest challenge to the legality of the Pledge of Allegiance in our public schools has resulted in some rather arid post on the social networks. As you read through the various comments one can’t help but wonder if any of the writers of these post actually know the history to our Pledge of Allegiance? So here it is…. In a nutshell.
The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy. It was originally published in The Youth’s Companion on September 8, 1892. Although Bellamy is accepted widely as the author of the first pledge, James Upham, an employee of the Boston publishing firm that produced “The Youth’s Companion” has also been credited with penning our first Pledge.
On September 8, 1892 “The Youth’s Companion” published the 22-word recitation for school children to use during planned activities the following month to commemorate the 400th anniversary of Columbus’ discovery of America. It was first published under the title “The Pledge to the Flag”, the original form read as the following:
“I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
|
Bellamy’s intent was that the pledge could be used in any country by any citizen. After the Columbus Day celebration the Pledge to the Flag became a popular daily routine in America’s public schools. During the National Flag Conference on Flag Day – June 14, 1923, the Pledge received its first revision. The Conference agenda took note of the wording in the Pledge; concern grew with the number of immigrants now living in the United States, that there might be some confusion when the words “My Flag” were recited. To correct this the pledge was altered to read: “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” The Pledge of Allegiance continued to be recited daily by children in schools across America and gained heightened popularity during World War II. It was on June 22, 1942 when the United States Congress included the Pledge to the Flag in the United States Flag Code (Title 36). This was the first Official sanction given to the words that had been recited each day by children for almost fifty years. Congress also established the current practice of reciting the pledge with the right hand over the heart. One year after receiving this official sanction, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that school children could not be forced to recite the Pledge as part of their daily routine, “compulsory unification of opinion violates the First Amendment”, this was in response to the Jehovah Witnesses practices regarding idolatry. In 1945 the Pledge to the Flag received its official title – Pledge of Allegiance. The final revision came in 1954, in response to the Communist threat during the Cold War, President Eisenhower urged Congress to add the words “under God,” creating the 31-word pledge we say today. “In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country’s most powerful resource in peace and war.” Bellamy’s daughter objected to this alteration. So in a nut shell our Pledge was written by a socialist, written for any citizen of any country, revised the first time due to concerns of early 20th century immigrants, required reciting found to be a violation of the First Amendment, revised again to include “Under God” as a reaction to the Communist Red Scare of the early 1950s. It appears that the revisions over the years have been made in response to a fear of outsiders, a reaction to those less American than ourselves. Perhaps if we just had left well enough alone, preserved the original text we would have all blogged about something else today, in the end there are no shortage of topics. I think this Columbus Day I’ll recite the original text… as is “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
|
Hats Off to Westminster
On August 29th the British Parliament debated for hours on the subject of military intervention in Syria, a debate that may or may not end up as a footnote in the history books is surely seen as a shining example of democracy hard at work. The outcome of their vote, right or wrong can be further debated years from now by the historians of the time; for now, democracy has won in Britain. As for the United States… democracy has taken a vacation.
The US is on the brink of yet another entanglement with a nation in the Middle East and as the citizens of this country form their own opinions on the subject we can’t help but wonder where our leaders are at and when will they debate?
What is known as the War Power Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, gives Congress the power to declare war, and although this hasn’t always been the case regarding some of America’s recent wars it should be the case. In fact, Congress hasn’t voted to go to war since World War II; military intervention in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq were all conducted without any formal declaration of war.
And then we have the Wars Power Resolution which has led us to military conflicts in Lebanon, Bosnia, Kosovo and Libya, again military intervention without the approval of Congress. This is the resolution that is being cited to justify the US intervention in Syria.
The US is already divided on every topic that arises in Washington, if the President uses military intervention without consulting Congress the political division in this County will unquestionably reach a breaking point. The decision to use our military to intervene in another nation’s maters must be decided by Congress, right or wrong, whatever the outcome will be, it must be put to a vote, the vote is the legitimacy of our actions, the debate is the justification of our vote, and the Constitution is the reason for the debate. I beseech our Congress to debate, I beseech you to return to Washington and give us our democracy.
Substance… The Missing Ingredient
Although the next presidential election is a little more than 3 years away and the next mid-term more than a year we’re already experiencing what should turn out to be a promising bout of quips, zingers, banter, gotcha moments, winks, smirks, ill-advised statements followed by the occasional quirky mannerism and the rare but always exciting invasion of personal space strategy. Yes, it is finally here, only a mere nine months after the previous election we are at the start of the next round of campaigning and as always, I am left wanting more… certainly not more of the circus as described above, but more in terms of substance. And, without substance we are left with nothing more than mere talking points.
Talking points, what are they, well, they are exactly that… talking points, yet of late they have been the only requirement (in addition to completely trashing your opponent) for getting elected. If someone trying to obtain a business loan from a bank turned over a business plan simply stating that they will make money and thus be able to repay the loan they would be laughed out of the bank. Should we not react the same to candidates that give us nothing more than talking points? Until we demand more, demand an intellectual debate based on academics and facts, demand a candidate to follow up their platform with a detailed plan of action, demand more than just quips, zingers, banter, gotcha moments, winks, smirks, and ya know… talking points we really have no right to complain about the current state of affair in Washington, we elected our representatives and we’ve elected them without substance.
Even more frustrating or perhaps baffling is how each political partys’ base buys into this type of campaign behavior. I guess if you strictly vote your party line then none of this really matters, the campaign is just one long event in showmanship, a political theatre to entertain us between elections, where the circus is what draws the crowd, where quips, zingers, banter, gotcha moments, winks, smirks are the ingredients and where substance, well substance no longer has a role in todays campaign.
Talking points… it is the parlance of our times.
Being an Independent
With the ongoing gridlock in the federal government and the back and forth bickering between our elected officials, frustration for Independents is at an all-time high. For Democrats and Republicans the frustration lies with the opposing sides as well as within the fringes of their respective parties. As independents we are often on the outside looking in, and our frustration lies with the games played by both of the leading political parties. The current status in Washington, the inability of our political parties to govern, the representatives that have made it their political mission to thwart the ‘other side’ are just some of the very reasons that we are Independents.
As Independents we do not accept that our direct representatives make political allegiances/pledges to political parties or worse yet advocacy groups, advocacy groups that often exist outside of our State, that often threaten a primary challenge less your representative follow their agenda; the notion that our representatives do not represent us, their constituents, but answer to an advocacy group, sometimes thousands of miles away is not only un-American but was one of the very reasons we had a War of Independence. A representative’s only pledge should be the pledge they make to us, the people in their District/State and if they fail to represent us, then it is us that should replace them, not a party boss.
Being Independent means we have read the Constitution and believe that it was written to prevent factions from taking control of Government as described in the Federalist Papers 9 and 10 – this historical document though written to promote ratification has evolved to provide us with a greater understanding and appreciation of the Constitution. The concerns of factions taking control is further cautioned of in Washington’s farewell speech. We cannot ignore that the current status of our Government was forewarned by our founding fathers.
Being Independent means being free… free to make our own decision at the polls, without the guilt of crossing party lines, without the guilt of betraying our father’s Party, free to have a voice, to be able to disagree with a Democrat or Republican without the side effects of being labeled a liberal or conservative.
As Independents we have a voice, we have reason, but most of all we are political free…
The greatest gift our forefathers gave to us was our Independence… do not lose it… be an Independent!
independentthinker101 