First and foremost, the United States Constitution, the greatest political accomplishment of the modern world, does not need to be replaced and is not outdated. The previous link comes from a right of center institution; the left often draws the same conclusion: less freedom, less representation, more centralization and concentration of power in smaller hands. We should feel lucky this document has lasted as long as it has and we should do as much as we can to preserve it. However, slight alterations at times that preserve freedom and limited government, rather than radical changes that diminish freedom and diminish legislative bodies, is what best reflects the outcome of the movements we have experienced over the last decade or so. The founders gave us the amendment process to expand liberty and to protect the rights of the individual over the mob or the state, not do the opposite.
Over the past decade there have been a series of movements by the people of various ideological backgrounds and factions to take back government and return it to the people. Notable movements such as the Tea Party Movement, the Contract for America (the outcome of the Republican take over of Congress in 1994), and Donald Trump’s Make America Great Again movement all aim to put government back in its rightful, subservient place. Despite these movements, and others, there never seems to be the sweeping reform America needs to truly reflect the change the people desire. The only true way to secure the change the people currently demand is to etch in stone a series of amendments that secure the blessings of liberty and respect for the rule of law within the framework of limited government. Therefore, this author argues that the following amendments should be proposed to our national constitution:
The Clarity Amendments and Liberty Amendments:
These will be a series of amendments that either through new language altogether or through slight modification of existing amendments will bring about more freedom (not less) for individuals and the family unit. For example, some argue that the original meaning of the word “militia” in the second amendment does not mean the individual and only pertains to law enforcement or military members. Further, some would suggest there are weapons the public should not have altogether. To settle this, we should amend the second amendment to leave no doubt what we, citizens today, understand the militia to be, the individual; and arms shall be defined as any weapon available to the general public used for defensive purposes.
Beyond clarity, it is time to write new language into the constitution expanding our freedoms and right to defend ourselves. The people shall have the right to defend their property and livelihood against assailants aiming to threaten the peace and security of one’s domicile. Many states have passed what is known as Castle Doctrine. Yet some protest this idea thinking it is a dangerous abdication of power from central authorities to individuals. It is unacceptable to live in a world where people have to doubt whether or not they can defend themselves, their family or their property should violent criminals present themselves on one’s property. A Castle Law amendment would go a long way in showing the world America is a place that defends life and respects the concept of private property. Government has a responsibility to defend its citizens and that responsibility starts with unshackling the people to defend their homes and livelihood.
Continue reading “A Call for Constitutional Amendments”
There are many problems with the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on CIA Enhanced Interrogations (EITs). Many of these problems have been duly noted in various periodicals over the past several months or so. These problems being, but not limited to, the lack of bipartisan effort to flesh out the truth behind EITs, the lack of investigative measures taken by the committee, most notably not interviewing key CIA leaders, and many other problematic issues.
As many have come forward with their concerns, from former intelligence officials, to political leaders, to pundits, all seem to miss the main problem with the report; that it focuses on the wrong question: Were EITs an effective and a useful means of obtaining information? Not only does the committee’s report fail to objectively dissect this question, it grossly frames the debate away from the real question the public should consider: Do EITs uphold moral, legal, and ethical standards as a means to an end? This SHOULD be the main question when parsing this subject. Why is the public allowing itself to be distracted by a subordinate question that misframes the debate, and why are certain leaders instigating partisan smoke and mirror tactics when considering the topic of EITs from a legal and ethical perspective?
The main reason is because humans struggle to weigh certain lives against others, (at least societies that tend to uphold moral and ethical standards do). If given the decision to save 10 lives in exchange for one, humans will most always struggle to decide on the best course of action when confronted with such a conundrum. Senate leaders do not want to tackle such ethical dilemmas, because they view it as a political loser, and would rather mislead and frame the debate in a manner that is convulted clouded in false reporting absent of the facts members of the IC would prefer to put forward professionaly and responsibly.
Continue reading “Off Target: The Senate’s Report on Torture Failed Americans”
How many people did Stalin kill? If you ask most educated people they struggle with a credible response. The answer is hotly debated, but we can ballpark it between 20 and 60 million people. Stalin quite possibly killed more people than the entire world did in World War II. Think about that for a minute. Okay, now put your latte down and think about it again. Pretty horrific isn’t it? Now add in the atrocities of Hitler, Mussolini, the Japanese Imperial Army, etc. Now ask yourself this question: what would have all of those people invented, innovated, created, cured, built, loved, painted, healed (the list goes on) had they not been executed, murdered, or simply dehumanized and dumped off into some abhorred concentration camp?
Let us come together and agree on what the lesson of the 20th Century SHOULD be. You cannot let the Beast go unchecked. Folks, it really is that simple.
When I joined the Army in the winter of 2005 I was but a young man searching for my place in the world. The country was deeply divided over what the right course of action should be in the Middle East following the deadliest attack on American soil. I joined because I wanted to gain leadership skills, experience comradery, and to serve this country that I love so much. As the years passed I found out there was more to being a soldier than what I just listed. At every major training event and deployment my belief in America grew. Each event that reinforced my beliefs can be simply enumerated:
Continue reading “The Beast Cannot Go Unchecked”