Quick thoughts (Duck Dynasty)

This Duck Dynasty issue is NOT a Freedom of Speech issue. Freedom of Speech means you can say whatever you wish without fear of prosecution or reprisal from GOVERNMENT, it does not mean you can speak without consequence. They are not in fear of persecution from Government, they were free to say what they did. The Duck Dynasty guys are employees, and just like any employee at any place of work has terms of employment and an almost universal one is when you speak in a manner for your employer, you must follow their wishes. The Duck Dynasty guy was giving an interview about life, but also the show, meaning he was acting as a voice for A&E. He must then abide by the terms the employer sets, and if they do not follow them the employment can be rightfully terminated or suspended. In order to have order in a society, these are things that must occur, you cannot have employees screaming at bosses or not doing their job expecting no consequence under the guise of freedom of speech, that is not how it works. They signed a contract as employee-employer, it was violated by the employee, pure and simple.

You most certainly do not have to agree with the Duck Dynasty Guys or A&E, but it is not a suppression of Freedom of Speech. He was able to speak as he wished and is not in fear of prosecution. It is a matter of how A&E is wishing to protect its name on the conduct of one of its employees, that is the real issue, not Freedom of Speech.

Quick Thoughts: Do not desire power you do not want your opponents to use against you

These past couple weeks, Washington has been rocked by numerous reports of potential improper use of power by the Government at the IRS targeting certain political ideologies, Department of Justice seizing records of the Press, the admittance that drone strikes have killed US Citizens without due process or were accidental and accusations of false reports to the People and Congress in regards to these and others events.

I am working on a couple of these and how they relate to the Constitution so I will not go into detail about them at this time, rather I do want to make a quick point about one other troubling aspect to me. It is those who are defending the accusations themselves as being "legitimate", not denying that they occurred. In other words it is "okay" for Government to target certain political positions it does not agree with or government sees as a threat, it is "okay" for government to seize records with out the required due process the press is safeguarded under by the First and Fourth Amendments because of "National Security". It is "okay" for Government to deceive or mislead the people to protect information, regardless if the revealing of that information has any actual effect in policy or safety.

My question to those who contend it IS "okay" for Government to do this, would you feel confortable to have the opposing side in power and use those same powers tactics or methods against those it opposes, being you? For me this is the simplest and most effective way to determine what the limit of ANY government power should be. Would you feel at ease, or under duress if those who oppose you had that power to use against you? If you cannot answer yes, then it is a power NO GOVERNMENT must ever have. If the power is available to Government, those in power may not use it today against the people or its adversaries, but history has proven someday someone will come along who will. The goal for a free people should be, to NEVER let government have that power in the first place, and when it tries to seize it, NOT defend those actions, but even if you oppose who it is being used against, speak out against those who wield it. Because if you do not, one day you will be on the other side of the table and by not speaking when it first happened, you have already condoned not only the power, but that acts to come at your expense.

What is the Constitution? What does it do and what does it not do?

The United States Constitution is a basic framework of government, primarily at the national level but also with requirements or prohibitions at the state level.

The initial premise of the Constitution is that of defining and limiting Federal Government power, that is to say if an act does not fall within the limits of the Constitution, the Federal Government does not possess that power. This is reaffirmed by the Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Tenth Amendment in clear and conscience terms layout the Constitution is a limiting document, the power not specifically granted to it are reserved to the two powers who created the Constitution, the States (who created it in the Convention of 1787) and the People (who ratified it causing it to go into effect on March 4, 1789).

 

The focus here will be on the Constitution as it was in 1788 chiefly. Amendments will be cited when it has changed aspects of the text or provisions of the Constitution and how it has changed those provisions, but the Amendments themselves are not a focus topic in this article.

2012 Election Poll

Who are you voting for President and Vice President?
	Barack Obama and Joe Biden (Democrat)
	Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan (Republican)
	Gary Johnson and James Gray (Libertarian)
	Jill Stein and Howie Hawkins (Green)
	Another ticket not listed
	Will not Vote in the 2012 General Election
	Still not decided
pollcode.com free polls

This is a non-scientific poll to let readers here have their vote heard.

A More Powerful Government (Quick Thoughts)

This is an article I plan on diving much more deeply into in the future. In many of my discussions I have with people about the Founding Principles of the Constitution, one of the most common things I hear is something along these lines,

“The Founders wanted a strong central government because the Article of Confederation proved a weak one can’t work”.

With the exception of one word in this context, I happen to fully agree with the statement, the word “strong” instead of '”stronger”. No matter how you word it or state it, it is this concept and the difference between Strong and Stronger in this context that makes the World’s difference in the discussion. To often in my opinion, many who favor a very strong Federal Authority are the ones who use the word strong and use it with the Founder’s in this context to justify their position of a more absolute Federal power.