AMERICA vs The Constitution
AMERICA vs The Constitution
What’s “Right” vs What’s “Best”
There was a prime example of the conflict between what is right and what is best which occurred during a covert incursion by an elite team of Navy Seals in Afghanistan in advance of the U.S. invasion. They came across an Afghan boy and were confronted with the only choices available to them. Leave him be or kill him. The team member who had to make that choice chose to do what’s right instead of what’s best. He let him live. The boy ran home, alerted the men in the area who then came and attacked the Seal Team with the result that they succeeded in killing one of them. So it turned out that what was best would have been to kill the boy.
President Truman, after assuming the office of the President, was informed for the first time that the United States had successful built a bomb that could release the power of the atom and create the greatest explosion ever known by man. Before long it was his choice to either use that weapon or spared the lives of a hundred thousand civilians in a targeted Japanese city by not allowing its use. His choice was: should he do “what’s right” or do “what’s best”. He made the right choice and gave orders to do what’s best. And so Hiroshima was vaporized off the face of the earth even though it was no direct threat to America. Was that “right”?
The Imperial Japanese Military still would not surrender, and so a second bomb was dropped. At that point the Emperor alone made the decision to surrender, even though that night a mutiny of younger officers tried to depose him and block the surrender. So the use of the bombs was the only factor that led to the decision of the Emperor to end the war. The ending of the war prevented many hundreds of thousands of deaths that would have resulted from an invasion of the Japanese homeland. The invasion of just the southern island of Okinawa resulted in a horrific level of casualties, both military and civilian, so it is clear that the choice to do what was “best” was preferable to doing what was “right”.
When you serve on a jury, the judge will instruct you to not do any research regarding the case, not do any experiments, not seek any opinions, not research the law. You are ordered to only consider what you hear in court and nothing else. That may prevent all sorts of mischief, but it may also allow all sorts of injustice because the men who prosecute and defend the defendent are not perfect and are not geniuses nor Sherlock Holmes and so they make mistakes and omissions that might cost a defendent his life or his freedom, or allow the guilty to walk.
If you were on such a jury, would you chose to do what the court orders, therefore doing “what’s right”, or would you privately seek an answer to some simply question that was crucial but never addressed? Doing that would be what’s best because it would serve the purpose of justice, rather than the overall goal of the justice system. But it wouldn’t be “right”. What if the defendent was an O.J. Simpson and you were sure he would walk if some important issue was not raised, addressed and answered, and you could do that? Would your silence serve the purpose of justice, even though it would mean that a double murderer would walk free?
These situations reflect the conundrum of the conflict between what is right and what is best. That conflict is at the heart of the difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals want what’s best, while constitutional conservatives want what’s right. It’s not right to violate the Constitution, but sometimes it’s what’s best and what’s best sometimes trumps what’s right. Perhaps the first major example of that in America was the Louisiana Purchase. When the King of France offer the President the chance to buy it cheaply, the President had to decide whether to do what’s right and not violate the limitations of the Constitution, or do what’s best and purchase it while the offer was on the table. He chose to do what’s best and thereby nearly doubled the size of the United States.
The situation that he faced was quite unlike the bastardly conceived violations that have occurred since. His choice did not have any impact on the rights of a single U.S. citizen, nor did it have an unlimited time window in which to contemplate the choice, -not so with the social engineering acts of Congress, the federal agencies, and the courts. Their conceived purposes are to promote the General Welfare but that is a task with no definable limitations. It’s dependent on the self-restraint of those who are embued with power but they have no concept that they need to exercise any restraint. Hence the conflict between the Constitutionist and the Liberal.
The Constitutionist seeks to block intrusions on personal liberty that are not specifically endorsed by the Constitution. That is an approach that seeks to do what’s right. The Liberal chooses do pass requirements and benefits that promote what they view to be that which is best, as in what’s best for people today, -the future be damned. Like the command economy of China, the practice of following a 5 or 10 year plan is unthinkable because, like a public company’s latest quarterly performance, all that matter is what you’ve done for me lately.
These attitudes extend deeply into the political realm and how elected officials perform their duties. National elections result in the election of citizens who must then swear to do their duty of service properly and honestly. But that is not what their oath demands. Rather, it demands that they preserve, protect, and defend the United States of America from all enemies both foreign and domestic. At least that is how it appears in the distorted minds of liberal law-makers.
The oath of office does not require any elected official to defend and protect America, nor to protect its citizens, nor its government. It requires them to protect one thing and one thing only, and that thing is The Constitution of the United States of America.
So they each have a choice to make before swearing that oath. Do they swear a false oath with no intention of being true to it, or do they instead substitute in their own mind their own meaning and oath, -one that pledges allegiance and fidelity to the nation, but not its Constitution, which is just too limiting and a hinderance to “doing what’s best” for the country? -Be a patriot to the Constitution? -or be a patriot to one’s own sense of what’s best for the people? Should one ignore honestly, honor, duty, and fidelity, and instead embrace false sincerity, dishonestly, patronization, and infidelity to the Constitution for the sake of one’s own backers, (and one’s self) and a goal of doing what’s best?
With each decision they face, every elected official is forced which way to choose in how to vote for the measures put before them, many of which are flat-out corruption or so massive in scope that no one can know what they contain. Confronting such a choice, why is it that those who want “what’s best” do not care to follow the law of the land by submitting their transformative system “overhauls” to the vote of the people who pay their salary? Why has the constitutional amendment process become an arcane thing of a by-gone era and no longer the law that all national elected officials must obey? Where in the Constitution is Congress granted the authority to tell the people of America that they are required by their elected government to purchase something that they do not want to purchase? Nowhere.
Where in the Constitution is Congress granted the authority to prohibit all Americans from ingesting beverages that contain alcohol? Nowhere. That’s why the Prohibition amendment was required before it could become the land of the land. In the past America’s Congress respected the Constitution, -today they treat it like toilet paper. How can they justify that? Simple, -just doing what’s best.
That over-rides everything, -including the Constitution and their oath of fidelity to it. And so they have become disengenuous charlatans, pretending to be something that they are not. Pretending to be preservers of…something, -the government programs? -the jobs of its employees? -the unions that depend on those jobs? -the financial backers that help elect those who preserve the status quo? Take your pick.
But what they are not defending or protecting is the one thing that they’ve sworn to preserve, protect and defend, -namely that fundamental law that our forefathers would have, and did, die for in order to keep our nation a nation of Law, and not a nation of self-appointed saviors who only care about what in their view is best, -and “what’s right” be damned.
In their eyes, the era of fidelity to your word is dead, and infidelity has replaced it. So now one’s actions and choices can always be justified, after all, they are just doing what’s best for everyone. And we should be grateful to them, -our millionaire Big Brother saviors are only looking out for us, -or for somebody, -whoever they think is important.
But they are certainly not looking out for that glue that holds us together, -which our forefathers wisely limited with the requirement of a three-quarters agreement of the people in order to change. By abandoning fidelity to that glue, they have abandoned what will hold us together through all the trials that await, and preserve our nation throughout all the generations to come, no matter how dangerous or uncertain the future may turn out to be. Instead they have embraced the tyranny of the majority, and a national consensus is now banished to the dusty pages of history.
by a.r. nash Feb. 1, 2012 http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com