Tuesday, June 30, 2015

The answer is both.  It is inconceivable that Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is unaware that the Founding Fathers had studied and been influenced by the great minds of the Age of Enlightenment. 

The fact Scalia has found himself reduced to insults and sarcasm to defend the indefensible, in my mind proves he cannot argue historical evidence to support his view of government.  He is dangerous.  He believes our rights come from the government.  This is so, so wrong.  Our Rights are inherent.  It does not matter whose theory of the Social Contract you read, they all agree until people came together in contract to organize society for the betterment of all, man ran free to do as he willed.

This is the basis of "Ordered Liberty."  We as absolutely free men to do as we pleased, surrendered this inherent right to be governed by a group and later a nation of laws, instituted by the people and accountable to the people.  But within the concept of Ordered Liberty is the idea that the laws which govern us are not random and arbitrary and in fact promote Ordered Liberty, and not discrimination.  The very purpose of Ordered Liberty was to make us all safer and equal, and not to allow a majority to subjugate a minority to their will.
Below if you read just the first sentence of the first full paragraph you will begin to learn the genius of our Founding Fathers in creating State Governments separate from the Federal Government, but still bound by the constitution.
Colorado because of this genius is experimenting with the legalization of marijuana.  Based on their experiment other states will follow, or use the failed Colorado experiment to end the debate.  Without this ability of the 50 states to experiment with social policy, we would be bound by Washington.  This power of the individual states is key to our freedom.  It makes me mad when I hear people say - down with the electoral college. [They actually elect the President based on the number of electoral votes assigned to each state.  Did you know had New Hampshire voted for Gore, Bush never would have been president?]  The electoral college is another road block to tyranny of the many over the few.  Without the electoral college, California and New York would have a disproportionate influence on who is elected president, while small states would have no voice.  Think about it, the decision of New Hampshire to vote Bush over Gore, gave Bush the election.  This simple mechanism in our Constitution protects the few from the many.  It insures all voices have a voice.  It is proof our Founding Fathers did not intend for the many to control the few.
In this second page the quote from John Locke is the Social Trust.  The Social Contract is the decision between the people to institute government for mutual protection.  The Social Trust is the relationship between the people and the government.  As Locke says, and Thomas Jefferson made clear in the Declaration of Independence, government is instituted among the people, and can be terminated by the people.  This is the difference between a contract and a trust.  In a contract both parties are equal.  In a trust, the trustee [the government] serves at the  discretion of the creator of the trust - the people.  The trust is the Constitution.

If you can learn and understand these two pages from the Arizona redistricting case, you will understand all there is to know about American Government.  Every American Government and History teacher should be using these two pages as handouts in their classes.  They say it all.  What is sad is Associate Justice Scalia does not see it this way.  His bias for government control over the people prevents him from ever seeing the brilliance in the Founding Fathers seeing the relationship between the people and the government.  The people instituted government to serve at the leisure of the people, and not the other way around. 
All Liberty is inherent to every man, unless through the course of Ordered Liberty the government through laws can justify the limitation of any given liberty in order to accomplish the primary end of government - "Ordered Liberty."
This is how you know the fake conservatives are anything but conservatives.  Does not logic tell us that a true conservative would argue
All Liberty is inherent to every man, unless through the course of Ordered Liberty the government through laws can justify the limitation of any given liberty in order to accomplish the primary end of government - "Ordered Liberty."


In historical literature some commenters claim the Magna Carta of 1215 was in fact not a Great Charter of Freedom because it really only protected the Feudal Lords. The problem with their analysis is they view the Magna Carta in the context of today, versus the period. 

During this time frame real organized government through much of Europe had collapsed.  There were endless wars between feudal lords for control.  In time for group protection the feudal lords looked to one as King, in exchange for unified protection.  It is no different than an alliance today. If one feudal lord was attacked the power of the King allowed for the other feudal lords to come to the protection of the one being attacked.

The feudal lords who true enough kept the people as serfs - in effect a form of slavery - they also provided protection from random attacks by those not under the control of the feudal system.  The feudal lords provided protection in exchange for the serfs working the land.  Without this very rudimentary form of government the serfs as free men would have been subject to murder at will.  Their villages were subject to destruction and their woman and children subject to rape.

For its time, it worked.  But as towns and villages developed - and specialties developed such as mass production of clothe, shoes etc the serfs wanted more.  So things changed.  This is known as the dialectic.  The dialectic contrary to the ramblings of the fake conservatives on the radio was not a Marx creation.  Marx just used the theory to explain the nature of economic and political change. 

As society changed, the social construct on how we saw and treated one another changed.  So while the Magna Carta served its purpose at the time, and better allowed the feudal lords to protect the serfs, in time its application to the people changed as the social construct changed. 

This is not new - it is exactly how the Constitution is being viewed.  If Scalia had his way, the Magna Carta as a document only really protecting the feudal lords would have remained the same, and only revolution would have ended the feudal state.  Well it sort of did - but not in an out right war.

The concepts embedded in the Magna Carta came by the Kings Bench [UK Supreme Court]  form modern ideas of freedom.  According to the likes of Scalia this is wrong, because it moved the liberties from being available to the feudal lords to the people.  It was not the original intent of the drafters of the Magna Carta.

No comments: