That people have certain inalienable rights, including Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
That governments are instituted among the citizens and derive their powers from the consent of the governed.
That the people may alter or abolish the government and replace it with something new if it seems likely that the new system will ensure their safety and happiness.
That such changes should not be undertaken for trivial issues.
That when their government has failed them, the people have not only the right but the duty to throw off such a government and to replace it with one that will ensure their future security.
It's evident to me that when drafting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the Founding Fathers thought back to what led up to the Declaration of Independence and the reasoning behind breaking off from England in the first place. They seemed to have sat around and brainstormed about all the possible ways a government could corrupt itself or oppress its citizens and tried to enact safeguards against it, mainly through a series of checks and balances that force nearly every branch or function of government to be accountable to another one.
If I could go back in time, that's where I'd want to be. I'd sit in the gallery and observe the discussion and debate while they were writing our charter documents.
On Gun Nuts Radio the other night, the topic was what makes this a great country. I commented that although we had a disputed Presidental election in 2000 and didn't know who the winner was for a while, we more or less went on with business as usual. There were peaceful protests and demonstrations, but violence did not erupt in the streets. Martial law was not declared. No one stormed the White House, ousted the President, and forced him into exile somewhere. Some countries these days can't say that.
I can say what I want about my government without fear of reprisal. I can pretty much say what I want about whoever or whatever I want as long as I don't tell lies about someone, incite violence, or conspire to commit a criminal offense. Not only can I say what I want, I can generally read what I want: the government does not block access to material it may find subversive or contrary to the public good. Citizens of many nations today don't have that right.
I can freely travel among the several states and are not required to present my "papers".
Throughout most of the country (some states and cites excluded... you know who you are), I have the right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes and have the right to defend myself and others against those who would do me harm. Much of the world does not have that right. And we see what it's like for them, don't we? Think Iran. If the UN had its way, all of us would be disarmed.
The government generally cannot detain me or search or seize my property without my consent unless it has probable cause to do so. In most cases it must first swear out a complaint against me and plead its case for probable cause to a neutral third party, namely a court of competent jurisdiction, and receive permission in the form a warrant. Again, this is not the case everywhere in the world. It's not even the case everywhere in the U.S. - some localities have a "looser" definition of probable cause. New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina comes to mind.
Should the government accuse me of something, the principle of due process requires that it notify me of the accusations, argue its case against me in a public court, allow me to confront and challenge my accusers and the witnesses and evidence against me and present a defense with the assistance of counsel, and convince an impartial jury of my peers of my guilt, before depriving me of my rights, namely the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" thing. The various watch lists and no-fly lists and such as they apply to U.S. citizens and legal visitors of this country are an abominable exception to this rule. "May-issue" statutes as they apply to firearm permits are another one. In a may-issue state or locality, the applicant must prove to the government that he/she has a need for a firearm, is of good character, and is not otherwise disqualified from purchasing, possessing, and/or carrying one. In shall-issue (as in shall-acquit), the burden of proof is on the government to prove its case before denying a person this or any other constitutional right.
For those who say the United States of America is not a great place to live, I'll simply point out that it seems as though a lot more people are trying to move into the U.S. than are trying to move out. That ought to say something.
The title of this post is "We're straying from the founding principles." How is that?
One of those inalienable rights is the pursuit of Happiness. You are only guaranteed the right to pursue it, but there's no guarantee you'll find it. And as long as your pursuit does not infringe on someone else's rights, the government is supposed to stay out of the way.
Successful people - those who presumably have found Happiness - seem to be unduly penalized for it in the form of taxation. Not only do we have taxation without representation (because, for the most part, our "representatives" are only concerned about maintaining their status as an elected official), we also have representation without taxation: approximately 50% of the citizens of this nation pay no Federal income tax.
Taxes are a necessary evil in our society. It's the price we pay to maintain the infrastructure. Governments - local, state, and federal - need tax revenue to pay for things that would be impractical for individuals to procure or regulate on their own. One function of the federal government is to "provide for the common defense." Imagine if each of us contracted with a different vendor to provide arms and equipment for the standing army.
Imagine if there were no standards and every locality were free to set its own specifications for the Interstate highway system. It would be a bumpy ride.
We need regulatory agencies such as the FDA, USDA, FAA, and even the EPA. People here seldom die from unsafe or untested drugs, contaminated food, plane crashes, or poison in the water.
The government has gone past the point of collecting only enough revenue to maintain and regulate the infrastructure and are now at the point where they collect revenue for the purpose of "redistributing the wealth". Some politicians have a true socialistic philosophy and believe the redistribution of wealth is necessary to achieve economic equality among the population. I disagree with this philosophy, but can respect that these people are true in their beliefs.
Most politicians, however, are in it for themselves. To ensure their continued occupation of an elected office and the power and perks that go with it, these politicians endeavor to keep a certain number of the citizens dependent on the government and in fact do not wish for these people to achieve economic independence. In fact, these politicians don't give a rat's ass about the people they supposedly represent. However, by redistributing wealth, they are seen as the providers of some of the basic necessities for these people who, in order to maintain some standard of living and not "bite the hand that feeds them", will almost always vote to elect or re-elect representative who promises to keep the government assistance coming.
When political winds change, some politicians have been known to abandon their principles (assuming they had any in the first place) and change sides.
"A politician who tries to be all things to all people often becomes nothing to no one." - author unknown.
This is a great place to live. We just need to get the government and the politicians back on track.
Enjoy the day, and use your favorite beverage and hoist a toast to the Founding Fathers and thank them for putting their very lives on the line when signing our country's birth certificate.
