It is apparent to me that government leans to instill a high
level of responsibility upon the American individual, enough
to obtain a corresponding level of the security and "equality"
available by it. In other words, we consistently, over the many
years of our nation's history, have been litigating into an ever
increasing restrictive lifestyle by the growing number of laws
and rules of social conduct, be it financial, personal or other,
to serve the mass purpose of the insurance of equal fairness.
Any person capable of comparing the sheer number of laws between
then and now can come easily enough to that observation. New
laws are often required to contend with a growing and rapidly
advancing nation. But, like most things, there is a right way
and a wrong way.
|
In many ways, this very strive
of legally obtaining fairness amongst Americans has served to be
productive, humane and deserved. The abolishment of slavery and
other such monumental rights earned by the minorities of America
, of all sorts, serves as premier examples. What deserves great
notice, on the other hand, is the nature of these adjustments
and additions to the Bill of Rights: The forbiddance of slavery,
the right for women to vote and other such examples are
additional liberties, none of which came to be as a result of
abolished or reductive amendments. This is the right way.
|
These days it may seem to an
outsider that the buzz of politics often indicates that the U.S.
Bill of Rights is often not enough: too vague to be considered
suitable by its merits alone, requiring so-called refinements,
OR, is an element of times past: not forethought to contend
with modern technology and societal issues. On either level or
facet, the U.S. Bill of Rights is undoubtingly challenged on a
daily basis, along with particulars of the U.S. Constitution.
Everything from the electoral college, most notable to Hillary
Clinton's short-lived wishful sentiments during the infamous Gore/Bush
presidential election year, to the right of a speedy trial,
trivialized by R.I.C.O., to the challenge of the right to bear arms
under the banner of criminal alleviation, have all
been sought for some level
of eradication. This is the wrong way.
|
Politicians, as individuals or as a
whole body, are commonly seeking the wrong mindset of solutions to our own national
affairs; legally advancing non-liberating resolution.
If you're not on the same page, simply ask yourself this:
When, if ever, will we refrain from passing forbidding law
after forbidding law in the land of the free?
|
|
|
| The Free State Project |
| E-Mail |
|
