The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America"

Establish Justice - Is not Justice a measure of the fairness of actions between individuals and redressing an imbalance? If someone makes huge profit out of your labor by taking more to himself than was agreed or, that is considered to be fair, then that would be an injustice. 
If a person committed you to perform an action that you did not agree to be necessary, that too would be an injustice. 

Insure Domestic tranquility: 
Riots are bad for business as well for your personal safety. Life is an adventure, but it does not have to be personaly dangerous.

Provide for the Common Defence.
This is a toughy in the present as the terrorist is positioned as a danger to the USA. It might be argued that wire-tapping of private conversation would be justified to provide for the common defence. Hmm, more thought needed on this one.
02/12/2012 Had a bit more thought on this. The government is the servant of the people. Servants if caught spying on their master are usually fired. If the master wants the servant know what is going on, then he would direct the communication to the servant. Ergo n wire-tapping unless there is probable cause for suspicion of a crime being planned or committed. Now, a crime is not a line in a bill passed through the houses in a bill which has nothing to do with the area of the crime. A crime is an act that is planned or was committed that results or resulted in the theft of something that belongs to another. Talking about a fire in a theatre is not a crime. Calling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire is a crime to the degree of damage caused by that outburst. At the least it would be theft of the right to a peaceful enjoyment of the show.

Promote the general Welfare.
NOT promote general warfare. Seems someone has been misreading this part. Government should step in where there is a problem in commerce, education, infrastructure and/or survival. The citizen should take care of himself and then his fellows. But where the actions of one group infringe on the rights of another, government has to step in so that all can benefit from peaceful and safe living and working conditions. However, there are many levels of government between the individual and the people in Washington, DC. In the case of a school, there is the school board, district education board, county board, state board etc. In the case of Education there is no need of a USA department of education, and I am not sure if a State one is needed either.

and secure the Blessings of Liberty
What is liberty? Would it not include freedom (ie no consttraint) to live where you like, as you like, without encroaching on the freedom of another? You can not have your freedom bought at the cost of the freedom of another. 

to ourselves and our Posterity
So we do not just look at the here and now. Our actions should also benefit our children and their children from here on out.

The above are just the beginning as the matter of "What is Liberty" needs to be fully established. I will tackle that on the next post!

Dear Reader,

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourelves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.

This is the preamble to the Constitution of the United States. It lays the framwork for the entire Constitution and also lays the premise, or stable data for what follows. Anything that follows issues from the ideals above. Therefore it makes sense to determine what the above means in terms of the time that it was written. Not in terms of today. Once we know what the intention was for that time period, we should be able to see how that tanslates to the present.

On October 1 I went over some of the preamble, and basicaly left out the first line. So I am here putting in my 2 cents worth on this.

We, the people of the United States... At that time was the 13(?) colonial states, inhabited by immigrants from England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales. There were some other nationalities too such as Germans, and Africans. The Constitution was written for the political leaders by one man and was approved by them after not a few rounds of disagreements etc. So it was not the original idea, but they agreed on one based on the politial climate. That is not my area of expertise, but I would venture that the idea was that people would be translated to mean responsible citizens. Not the slaves, nor the indentured servants.

In order to form a more perfect Union..... The states were somewhat insular and non-cooperative. It required quite some work to get the representatives assembled and then to agree on the Constitution. But it was done as it was evident that the might of Britain could only be thwarted by the combined efforts of the colonies. Together they could survive. Separately they were at the mercy of the British Army and Navy. A perfect union would be one with no disunity, no self interested separateness.

The rest of the preamble is covered in the 10 October 2006 blog.

The question of what freedom really means, I will have to handle in another blog. At this time, I find it rather daunting. But address it I must, and see what response it evokes!

Friday, March 02, 2007 What does "Freedom" really mean?

Freedom seems to be a concept that we all have but have no concept enough of what it really is, in order to clearly communicate it to others as people have their individual ideas of what feedom is.

Looking up Websters found definition 15 " the right to enjoy all the priveledges or special rights of citizenship, membership etc, in a community or the like."

This is a definition that fits into the milieu of the state and a constitution. The other definitions are to do with personal freedom and such. These are applicable too, but as a consequence of the above definition as applied to the constitution.

So, what priviledges and special rights does a citizen have?

This is my list:

The right to vote so that you have a means to make change in government
The right to have a place to live for which you agree to make a fair payment.
The right to procure food so you can eat in the style to which your industry entitles you
The right to clean water at the cost to provide it.
The right to have and hold your own property, however you come by it as long as it was fairly and honestly come by.
The right to say whatever you like to whomever you like
the right to disagree with anyone with no fear of physical harm
The right to live in the pursuit of your own goals
the right to worship whichever God you wish in the manner you wish provided that practice does not impinge on the rights of another. This implies worship in a private and not a public place.
The right to travel freely where you wish with no need to report to or require permission from any authority


Each of the above is an essay in itself and I might set that as a project. But for right now it seems pertinent to compare those rights above with the rights we currently have. There is talk of the eroding of civil rights with no concrete specific provided although it is implied. For right now I can see that there is an erosion of the right to say whatever you like. There is a censorship on religion as evidenced by the removal of prayer in schools, of religious symbols from public buildings. This is rediculous. This country was founded on Christian principles, on the belief in one God and the sign of the cross used to symbolize Christ and his Dying for our sins. That is the historical basis for those symbols being on out public buildings. Why have them removed because someone who does not recognise Jesus as a symbol, objects. These are public buildings in a Christian nation. So there had better be some symbols of Christianity on these buildings and prayers should be offered in the schools. If a person wishes to object to this, then they can state the objection and then remove themselves from the activity, to rejoin the group after the prayer is over, or to quietly stand by as a measure of respect for the rights of others. or engage in their own form of worship in private, or without interruption of others, as they carry out their own worship. To create a fuss is disrespectful of the rights of others.

Perhaps this analogy might help.

When you go to a Classical Concert you expect to see an orchestra on the stage conducted by a person in a tuxedo or suit, with the orchestra members all dressed up, playing classical music. You do not expect the performance to make way for a scruffily dressed person playing a mouth organ to have his bit because he objects to Classical Music. He is asked to go elsewhere to make his statement as he is impinging on the rights of the Classical Music lover. However the classical music lover would agree that the mouth organ player have his own place to be heard. But not in the Classical Concert hall.

Now, carry that over to religious observance. The Muslim can observe his practice in some other place without interfering with the Christian Observance. He can build his own temple somewhere where he can place all the symbols he likes in a public display of his religion. It must be on his own land as by being able to purchase the land and materials to build his mosque affirm the seriousness with which he holds his faith.

The basic concept is tolerance. But at no restriction on your right to make your own way. Yes, there is impingement on the lives of others. However, part of living in society is making accomodation for the other without restricting the other. There is always a solution even if it is to share the resources on a turn about basis. Each individual has an innate sense of fairness and that arises in any social situation to propose a fair solution to any problem. The route to the solution is through an exchange of data between the parties until both sides have the same data, recognize an equitable solution, and work together to implement it.

In the example of the Classical Concert, the mouth organ player can appear at the concert only as a respectful member of the audience or as an honoured guest. There is no right to demand a solo on the mouth organ as this is not his realm.

Now we have people arriving in the USA from other countries. The basic rules of the USA are to be law-abiding citizens in the pursuit of happiness. If you arrive in the country without securing permission to arrive, you can not expect anything except to be returned to whence you came. The mouth organ player may not play in the classical concert as he does not have permission to do so. This immigrant, wishing to work in the USA first needs to obtain permission as he is coming from outside the USA. He has the rights of his native country, but absolutely no rights in the USA until officially welcomed.

Part of liberty and freedom is the insistence that the other fellow be the author and creator of his own existence. It can not be imposed from the outside as that is slavery, tyranny, and refusing the other fellow the right to follow his own path. You may object to the other fellow, but you can not strike him until he has struck you.

Sorry, time for me to go to bed. There is more that can be said, but the basic concepts are here and it is very plain to see. Of course it can be obscured and confused by clever people. But the trick is to take it back to the simplicity, and use the simplicity as the model for the lesson on the new situation. Your own concept of fairness will guide you.

stephan

http://www.squidoo.com/scholar      This link goes to a web page which has more on the subject.


What is Freedom, and why should we have it?Freedom. What it is "the right to enjoy all the privileges or special rights of citizenship, membership, etc in a community or the like" websters new universal dictionary.

There is an idea of not being restricted, and being able to do as you like.

So how free is free? If you do anything you want at the expense of another, you might be free, but the other is not. But why are you impacting the freedom of another ? If he was free to impact your existence, would you want him to? Of course not. So how do we resolve this as this is a curb on your freedom.I want to be able to walk on someone's property, but they send dogs to see me off. Hmmm. I am not free to wander his land. But then he is not free to wander my land. OK, so we have a proviso that freedom applies to your actions in your own sphere of influence. So, if you want to wander your property with no clothes on, you should be able to as long as nobody can easily see you. And surely in a land of the free, a person would not complain if he saw another wandering naked on their own property. It is not the on-lookers area of influence. But if the naked wanderer decided to wander over the boundary into his neighbors cabbage patch to help himself to a cabbage, then the rightful owner is in his right to get the interloper to leave, but without impacting that person's right to life and liberty, even though he has been impolite in crossing the boundary. The aggrieved party should be recompensed in some way by an apology, or the offer of assistance in a project. Amends should be made so that the infraction is countered by a balancing act of contrition.

What a person does in his own home should not be governed by any ruling authority. However, Human rights would be upheld as even in your own home, you may not molest a child, or commit murder (unless the victim was a trespasser who was a threat and refused to leave). Human rights are the fundamental agreement, a common decency that all people share, which preserve the dignity of the individual. Only where your actions impinge on another individual can the authorities intervene. But action in a public place would be under the laws of the country/city.

Say I want to swear. I can do so with impunity in my home. But in the street I can be asked to be silent, then ushered elsewhere, then imprisoned as a gradient increase in severity of action against me to preserve the public moral code. And then assigned a project of contrition to make up for my misdeed as a condition of me being allowed to travel the streets again without escort perhaps?

Say I want to smoke on your property. If you object, I would have to put out my cigarette. After all, it is your property and I am a guest. The host could indulge my habit, but must specifically say so as his or her word is the rule of law in their domain.

This is but an idea, but can it be made to work?

I think it can, as it is how the West was before the rapacious business man arrived to cheat the native American Indian of his property. (I have done insufficient research into this and am willing to be corrected) Trust broke down amongst the people and military force moved the Indian away to the reservation. The land should have been bought from the Indians, fairly. However, someone saw fit to use deadly force to remove the weaker party to another, less fertile, area. Clearly there was a violation of Human Rights in this case. There was also a violation of rule of law. The perpetrators should have been brought to justice. It is too long ago to put it to rights now, but guard against it in the future! This piece of history on a grand scale can yet be played out on a smaller more personal level under the cloak of "eminent domain", and who knows what other strategems to deprive one of their property.

Another point. What is the code of people living together. At one end you have a ship's captain who has full law over the crew. At the other you have the hippy commune where someone was in charge only because he or she was permitted to by the rest. But the basic human rights were upheld.. It seems to be a common point for human society. Even the sea captain would agree that each crew member had a right to life and the right to do his job. My earlier example of the naked owner might not fit in the case of the ship or the commune as it is usually not an agreed mode of conduct. So the naked owner might declare his right is being infringed upon.
Think on it. I will. And come back with more.
http://www.squidoo.com/scholar

Saturday, July 28, 2007 

It is often said that politics and religion should not be mixed, and similarly, that Church and State should not mix. And the constitution bears this out with the right of people to follow whatever religion they may choose.

But what about State and Business? They are not quite so separable. After all, congress makes laws that impact business (but do not impact religion or Church). So what are the ground rules on what State and Business can do? Is it right that corporations can influence Congress over some matter because it will result in a big cash flow for them? They are protecting their own best interests after all and it is not wise to sit on the side-lines hoping the legislation will go your way when you know you could influence to go your way and thus increase your kudos.

So, is it appropriate for a congressman to be swayed by a big Corporation when the Congressman is charged with protecting and forwarding the Constitution? The Corporation is only looking out for itself and its shareholders. The Congressman is looking out for his constituents as well as the Constitution. Could there be a conflict of interests? Indeed yes!

There is a movement to have the election funds for candidates for the Senate and Congress to be drawn from Public funds and to refuse funds from Corporations. This will put an arms length distance between Corporations and Congress. But I fear it would not be a complete handling as the Congressman is already prejudiced toward his own constituency so he remains in power. How would his costituents regard it if he votes something down on the grounds of it not being good for his country when it would be a nice piece of pork for his area?

Here is where we encounter the principle of the greatest good for all. One wonders if our politicians can handle the pressure to do the right thing!

Quite rightly a Corporate Exec is charged with increasing the wealth of his stockholders with increased dividend and increased share value. His first concern is to the corporation. Not the state. Not the Church either.

A Politician is charged with looking out for the interests of his/her constituents. But also to uphold the constitution. Oh dear! He is in trouble before he begins!

To ease the burden, what should a government be doing? it should provide funds and guiding principles for the defence of the country, It should control the money supply and thereby the inflation, it should make trade agreements with other countries, and agree common laws that will promote peace and create trade amongst countries. The US has the extra duty of being the guiding light and example of individual freedom for all mankind.

Currently the USA is engaged in an illegal conflict in Iraq. Going in on the basis of freeing the people from the ravages of Saddam Hussain and creating a democratic country instead, the US has done quite the opposite as apparently the infrastructure is not re-constructed, and the oil is still in the ground and being coveted by the US oil corps, who do not seem to want the US troops to leave.


It seems that oil is a vital commodity for the US and is worth going to war over. But here is my take on this. If it became necessary the individuals in the USA are bright and creative enough to create an alternative without abrogating the property and rights of another nation. If the US did its proper job of being an example of freedom and republicanism (not democracy currently) for all, then it would garnish support from the grateful nations of the world. Fat chance of that now!

The corporations if allowed to operate on their own steam as dealmakers all around the world could turn the scene around as there is nothing like the the club of wealthy individuals working with each other to broker deals that help all involved. Dubai is building up a finacial hub as it knows it is running out of oil. Well in Iraq a deal could be done with the Oil Corps to provide real aid in exchange for the oil. Perhaps the Sunnis will destroy the new structures, but that would have to be reckoned in with the deal. But the power of the promise of personal wealth and the prospect of a prosperous peace would look very welcome to both sides. The way it stands now it would be extremely difficult to bring this about. But it would be a huge business opportunity.

Monday, January 21, 2008

 There is cause for concern over the upholding of the constitution. Especially when President Bush declares "It is only a piece of paper". Now, he does not say that on the below video, but the constitutional lawyer does bring up interesting points.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wmc60JmaLbE

Very well worth watching.

Thursday, August 14, 2008 Preserving the original intent of the constitutionHow can the original intent be preserved. Over time, words get re-defined, populations change their ideas of what their society wants, and pressure is applied to license criminality despite the altruistic intent of the authors.

Words redefined: Being aware of this, the writers of the constitution would specify the dictionary used to check the definitions. reference could be made to treatises that explain the background of the constitution although there would then be argument to include that in the document!

Changing of ideas: There are core values that a society hold that should not change. The constitution should only be addressing core, unchangeable values. But if the ground rock of society does change, the constitution would have to stand as a guide to those who have made the change and act as a reference point. Anything that is wholly wrong would be obvious against the truth of the constitution

practicing License: People should be courageous enough and of a strong will enough to counter the criminal intent. If the people who are of the constitution of mind enough to protect their integrity, then the criminal will have a hard time of it and hopefully be shunned and ignored ever-after as the blackguard they are for forwarding their own self-interest.



# posted by Stephan Hokke @ 12:01 AM 0 comments Tuesday, August 12, 2008 

How do you preserve the original intent? Is there some guideline to do this or a means to get there? Who determines if an action is off the line of intention for the constitution? How can you tell? Is it the job of the President? The Judiciary? The legislature?

To a degree you can view the preamble to the constitution as the touchstone from which all should follow. What other way is there?


# posted by Stephan Hokke @ 11:09 PM 0 comments Monday, August 11, 2008 

It is often useful to go back to the basics. To contact the fundamentals on which the later parts are built. Here I am referring to the need of having a constitution at all. After all, there is an unwritten one which seems to have worked well for the UK although the Magna Carta is the written document that puts in a lot of basic premises.

It seems that the rule of law is important as that is the application of force that is needed to ensure that civil behaviour continues. But the rule of law operates on the written law and precedent. And that is the achilles heel as the law can then be altered and changed by a process of redefinition of the terms in the law so as to make it a mockery of the original intention.

How do you preserve the original intent?


# posted by Stephan Hokke @ 9:15 PM 0 comments Sunday, August 10, 2008 

Is it right to give someone immunity to prosecution if they are caught spying on you? Or if it is found the drug they developed and marketed was known to have bad side-effects?

There is ethical behaviour based on: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Ergo, we should insist on being able to view the emails and listen to phone calls of the telecom execs who approved the tapping of our phones and viewing of our emails, and also make them feed the dangerous medicines to their kids and themselves. But that would be immoral of us because we threaten the lives of innocent children. But the perpetrator is morally obliged to take his own medicine ..... and should be pressured to do so to see what their reaction is.

How can this be arranged?

Saturday, October 25, 2008 

The 2nd amendment has been bolstered by a Supreme Court ruling which as of June 26, 2008 has gone in the direction of allowing people to posses firearms. In a country where freedom is a given in the constitution and where the expectation is that you go out and make your own life by your own efforts, this is expected. If you have to rely on the ppolice for protection, then you are in real trouble. Yes, there should be police who back up the rule of law. Yes, a citizen should be able to defend himself against any normal force another citizen can bring to bear. So if he chooses to bear arms, he can. But in so doing he has added responsibility along the lines of safety and in assisting others who need his additional force. 

I saw the movie "Dragonheart" where the code of a knight plays an important part in the movie. There is mention of the sword being used to protect the weak against the strong. Thus the firearm would be used to the same purpose.

Here is a video on the subject of the 2nd amendment and the DC gun ban:

Friday, December 26, 2008 

Isn't it amazing that the Constitution is a document only a few pages long while new laws legislated onto the books are thousands of pages long. Simplicity is the key to the Constitution, and simplicity should be the key to new laws. Perhaps instead of enacting a new law, congress should be obliged to withdraw an old one and rewrite another in a simpler way so as to achieve the aims of the desired new law.

The lawyers need not fear losing work, there is plenty to go around re-wording the old legislation!


Saturday, February 28, 2009 

Obama is now in power. He has indicated that Guantanamo Bay prisoner facility is to be closed, not immediately but over a period of time. However, the military seem to be procrastinating! So the Jury is out on this one.

There is much work to be done in dismantling the Patriot Act.

So what is the aim here? Can we expect that all oppressive acts will be dismantled and thus we will have a new era of freedom? I fear this will not happen as there is pork tied up in some acts that have to be cancelled. Imagine the problems that that will create amongst the politicians.

Did you realize that laws that enact a certain minority get special treatment is also counter to the spirit of the constitution? Say there is a law that enables that women get placed in a position so as to meet a quota of women. Isn't this a discriminatory action when you are wanting to place the best person for the job in that job? It should devolve into the person with the best qualifications filling the position. This would be a strictly per the market place activity.

How about illegal immigrants? This is a case where you have to look at the big picture. If the person broke the law to get into this country, then they should suffer the consequences as the rule of law should prevail. However, what about their kids. If they were born in the USA, then they did not break the law. Their parents did, but they did not. If they are over the age of majority, then they should stay. If not, then they could be advised to go with their parents but not forced to do so.

Why is this? Each person is an individual and is responsible for their own actions.These actions are expected to not break the law, and so if the law is not broken, they are free to do as they wish. However, breaking the law abrogates the right to their freedom, it is forfeit until the sentence is carried out.

Government officials can only carry out what the law says. That is the rule of law. There is no right to enter arbitrary sentences. It should all be very predictable.

Friday, April 24, 2009 

The concept of nullification in Federal Powers vs State Powers

Here is an interesting article which goes over what power Federal has over State. I bet you were taught differently in school! Well find out what the deal really is here.

Link to the article    http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=57

So, how does that seem to you now?



And now, THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Saturday, March 27, 2010 

This video seems to put forward the intent of the Constitution and puts into video form a powerful speech that might have been delivered by Thomas Paine.



If you see no YouTube video below, click here to see a great speech 

It can not be said that this re-enactor does not have a point!