The Ramblings of a Fool, or the Foundation of the Law?

I apologize in advance if this post sounds as though I am trying to lecture anyone.  That is not my intention.  At the same time, I don’t “think” I am correct about what I am about to say: I know I am.  What I hope to do is explain why I know this to be true.   At the same time, I want you to understand that, unless something changes, what I know of history tells me that I will likely be killed for believing what I am about to write.  What’s more, I’ll be killed by my own countrymen because they think me a traitor.

I have often been told that I focus too much on philosophy and not enough on reality.  Many have gone so far as to call me a fool for doing so.  I consider it one of my greatest failings in life that I’ve been unable to explain to these people that their words apply more to them than to me.  Philosophy is everything in life: at least, in must be if our life is to have any meaning past our death.  Your philosophy is your moral compass.  It is the standard by which everything you do should be measured.  If you have a shifting standard, an inconsistent philosophy, then everything you do in life will be inconsistent and contradictory.  A lyric from a country song comes to mind: “You’ve got to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything.”

The philosophy that dominated the thinking of our founding fathers was founded on the notion of Natural Rights, Natural Law and the Social Contract in the Lockian sense of these theories.  This means they could trace their roots directly to the Judea/Christian ethic from which they were derived: directly to Moses and the first recorded constitutional, representative republic in history.  Their philosophy was set forth in the Declaration of Independence.  That document declares the “what” and the “why” of the nation they founded.  It also proclaims by what authority they claimed the right to establish that nation.  They used the ideals and principles declared in the D of I in writing the Constitution, but the Constitution was only the “how” of this nation.  It is not and was never intended to be the soul of our nation, but rather, the means by which we protect and preserve that soul.  But this brings me to the crux of the reason for writing this post.

Many accuse me of asserting my opinion as fact.  I suppose, were this true, then the accusations that I am a fool would be correct, and you should dismiss what I have to say as just that: the ramblings of a fool.  But I am a trained philosopher.  I take that seriously.  As such, I seek the truth, and I seek to master the use of logic and right reason in helping me seek the truth – as best it can be understood by the mind of man.  This is why I know I am correct when I say that the Declaration of Independence is our founding document, that it was intended to guide our application of the Constitution and that the two documents were never intended to be severed from each other.  I know I am correct not because I believe this is what the founders meant, but because the last of the original founders to die said this was the case:

“Before the formation of this Constitution…[t]his Declaration of Independence was received and ratified by all the States in the Union and has never been disannulled.”

–John Quincy Adams

John Quincy Adams speaks with a greater authority than most scholars care to give him.  We should never forget that he was not just a thirteen year old child when the Revolution started; he was a diplomat in service to this nation.  He was also present at many of the meetings between his father and the other leaders of the revolution, and he remained a leader in the founding of this nation until he died.  If this does not qualify him as an authority on this subject – a far greater authority than anyone living today – then what does?  So, for me, this is a definitive declaration of our founders’ intentions, and the key to understanding where and how this nation lost its way.

Now, for the rule of law to work, the law must be known, understood and unchanging.  If any of these three things are missing, then there is no rule of law, but a rule of men – those men who are in charge of determining what the law is.  Our founders designed the Constitution as the best means they could design for implementing and governing according to the principles and ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence.  They provided two means by which the Constitution can be changed, and neither of them was by “interpretation.”  They wrote prolifically, and even admitted to each other that their words should be recorded and collected so they could act as a guide to their intentions for future generations.  Jefferson was very clear on this point and, thanks largely to his foresight, the founders left us ample evidence of their thinking and intentions.  Therefore, we have no excuse for not looking to this record to determine what the founders intended.  The same applies to all laws written prior to our times.  If we want to, we can know what was intended and why – we just don’t look to that historic record because it too often prohibits what we’re trying to do.

You see, we no longer care about the Declaration of Independence, or even the ConstitutionThe Declaration has been discarded, and along with it, our founding philosophy.  And the Constitution is little more than an idol to which we make emotional appeals for what we want or want to prevent.  But the Constitution is no longer set in stone.  We have accepted that it means whatever the ‘experts’ tell us it means, which leads us to fight over who gets to ‘interpret’ the Constitution.  In essence, these ‘experts’ (judges and ‘constitutional scholars’) have become the ‘priests’ in what is – essentially – a cult of the Constitutional idol.  But remember what we said: in order for the rule of law to prevail, the law must be known, understood and constant, which means, if we must rely on ‘experts’ to tell us what the law means, there is no rule of law but of men.  Yet, today, we defend this new cult of Constitution as though it is the rule of law.  All we care about today is asserting our will over others, and we look to subvert the law to that purpose by any means we can achieve.

The law is supposed to be a tool we command to preserve our individual rights and liberty, not a tool by which we enslave those whom we wish to control.  The moment the law ceases to serve everyone equally, and to be applied to everyone impartially, it ceases to be law and becomes tyranny.  At that point, the people lose their control over the law and, consequently, their government.  That is the point where tyranny begins: when the law falls into the hands of those who use it to control the people and reward their friends.  We crossed that line long ago and, so long as we continue to insist that we keep to what passes for the law today, we accept our serfdom.

Free men control the law; slaves are controlled by it.  If you and I cannot read and understand the laws and know that they will remain constant and not be changed by ‘interpretation,’ then we do not control the law, it controls us.  If recognizing this makes me a fool, then I’ll be a fool in the eyes of this world, but I know this: the law does not change.  It is today what it was in the beginning and as it will be until the end.  So, until I die, I will do my best to hold to the Natural Law of this universe rather than the passions of whatever man or group manages to wrest control of the law from its rightful master: the People of the United States.

20 thoughts on “The Ramblings of a Fool, or the Foundation of the Law?

  1. Joe, well said ! Joe just articulated why began writing my “constitution” posts. So that everyone would realize, OUR founding documents were written for “the People” to be able to understand, articulate, live by, and use.

    Anything worth saying once, is worth saying again, so here goes.

    “… for the rule of law to work, the law must be known, understood and unchanging.

    If any of these three things are missing, then there is no rule of law, but a rule of men – those men who are in charge of determining what the law is.

    Our founders designed the Constitution as the best means they could design for implementing and governing according to the principles and ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence. They provided two means by which the Constitution can be changed, and neither of them was by “interpretation.”

    …we no longer care about the Declaration of Independence, or even the Constitution. The Declaration has been discarded, and along with it, our founding philosophy.

    the Constitution is little more than an idol to which we make emotional appeals for what we want or want to prevent.

    the Constitution is no longer set in stone.

    We have accepted that it means whatever the ‘experts’ tell us it means, which leads us to fight over who gets to ‘interpret’ the Constitution. In essence, these ‘experts’ (judges and ‘constitutional scholars’) have become the ‘priests’ in what is – essentially – a cult of the Constitutional idol. But remember what we said: in order for the rule of law to prevail, the law must be known, understood and constant, which means, if we must rely on ‘experts’ to tell us what the law means, there is no rule of law but of men. Yet, today, we defend this new cult of Constitution as though it is the rule of law.

    All we care about today is asserting our will over others, and we look to subvert the law to that purpose by any means we can achieve.”

    • Those who seek to exercise their will over “the people” will call us fools for “not going along to get along.”

    • The two Constitutionally legitimate means of Constitutional change are the Amendment process and a Constitutional Convention ??

      • Don,

        Those are the only two CONSTITUTIONAL means they gave us. There is a third, but it is NOT Constitutional. It is the Jefferson option: the option of LAST resort.

      • Both ways are contained in Article 5,
        “One more time: Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution, How to modify “the written and adopted contract”:

        2/3 of both houses deem it necessary to propose amendments, or
        2/3 of the State’s legislatures call a convention for amendment, to propose amendments
        Amendments SHALL be for all intents and purposes part of the Constitution
        when RATIFIED by:

        3/4 of the State’s legislatures, or
        3/4 of State’s conventions called for ratification of the proposed amendments…

        I explained them at the bottom of the post here:
        https://therionorteline.com/2013/06/10/constitution-reason-for-the-bill-of-rights/

      • U.S. Constitution adopted in 1789
        “Article. V.

        The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

  2. Reblogged this on aurorawatcherak and commented:
    The administrative state now interprets the law instead of being defined by it. An example?

    Alaska was founded as a state in 1959 with a constitutional provision that gives ALL Alaskans, regardless of where we live or the color of our skin, equal access to the resources of Alaska. This primarily means that I have the same right to fish the Copper River for salmon as does a Ahtna Native living in Chitina does. Clearly, we have unequal ease of access — I have to drive 300 miles and they don’t — but Alaskan law says I can put my net in the water when I get there.

    But a federal regulatory law instituted less than 20 years ago says that there is a rural preference for hunting, which means that that Ahtna Native has a greater right to the fish than I do. Forget about the CONSTITUTIONAL provision that protects my pre-existing right to life (need food to eat), liberty (what is more free than using your own labor to harvest a natural resource), and the pursuit of happiness (dipnetting is not actually fun, but it’s the greatest feeling of accomplishment when you’re done). No, we’re told that our state constitution (which was accepted by majority vote of the US Congress) cannot violate a federal regulation and therefore, we must change it or the feds will take over fish and game management on State lands because obviously, we’re renegades.

    The administrative state defines the rule of law in America today and the vast majority of Americans have no idea it’s happening.

  3. In 100% agreement with the above.

    We know the agenda of those that oppose and it leads, if left unchecked, to tyranny and ultimately a country not worth living in. There will be a lot of company in the “be killed” (martyred) department for those that push back against the system Obama and kind are trying ram down our throats.

    History repeats itself again however, it is my belief this will be the last time.

  4. All People Focus on their “Philosophy” in going about their daily lives. Even if they think they don’t. And it absolutely DOES define their moral compass.

    Even repobates …. they just apply the “Reprobative Philosophy” of Me-firstness.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.