SJCLP
Beacon 
A forum for
essays, editorials, and information by our San Juan County
Libertarians
Read the latest issue of New Mexico Liberty newsletter right here online!
2008 Presidential
Election
Very interesting
interview with Ron Paul on NPR! Click here!
Includes audio excerpts
on : Social Security, Abortion, Legalizing Marijuana, Health Care
and more!
UPON MY OATH
"I do solemnly swear that I will
faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,
and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend
the Constitution of the United States."
This is the oath of office of the president of
the United States, as specified in the Constitution.
Of other officials - including members of
Congress - the Constitution itself says only that they
"shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this
constitution."
The original oath used by those "other
officials" was simply "I do solemnly swear (or affirm)
that I will support the Constitution of the United States."
During the Civil War, the oath was revised,
made more emphatic: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I
will support and defend the Constitution of the United States
against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true
faith and allegiance to the same; - that is to the Constitution -
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and
faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which 1 am about
to enter: So help me God."
Today's culture has a tendency to be flippant
toward nearly everything even remotely solemn - including oaths
or vows -- the divorce rate, for example, shows how lightly
marriage vows are often taken.
Modern political thinking seems to regard the
oath of office as a mere ceremonial exercise, but it was taken
very seriously by the founding generation ... and constitutional
law takes it VERY seriously.
Justice Joseph Story - he was nominated by
James Madison himself, and served from 1812 to 1845 - justified
use of the oath "from the plain right of society to require
some guaranty from every officer, that he will be conscientious
in the discharge of his duty."
In 1899, law professor John Randolph Tucker
wrote of the presidential oath, "This [oath] is a very
emphatic obligation on the President by positive and negative
action to keep the Constitution, in all its integrity, secure
from his own violation, and against that of all others in so far
as his power can do so; to preserve from his own acts; to protect
from outside influence, and to defend against all invasion."
Let's back up a bit - it was 1787, after
independence was won for the fledgling United States of America,
that the founders gathered to draw up a plan for governing this
new nation.
The Constitution was inspired by the need to
limit those government abuses that were outlined in the
Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration recognized the
"self-evident truth" that the rights of man derive from
a universal law of right and wrong - a higher law than those of
mere men - and the Constitution set forth a plan to secure these
rights - a plan based on moral law - not on the political whim of
men - rights that we each have by virtue of merely being born a
human being.
Governments are instituted, the Declaration
says, to secure these rights.
Most of us have become so accustomed to our
Bill of Rights - and other written LEGAL limitations on political
power - that we fail to appreciate how fragile our constitutional
system really is.
But we must always remember, the Constitution
cannot defend itself.
There is - perhaps regrettably - no
constitutional police force able to deter potential offenders and
bring the guilty to book.
The primary "check" we have on the
unconstitutional conduct of government officials is, of course,
the electoral process.
That check has, unfortunately, too often
become a battle among whoever has the most money to spend,
whoever can think up the dirtiest tricks, whoever is owed the
most favors or can promise the most favors - or simply that
person with the most charming personality.
It is evident that the electoral process has
ceased to have very little to do with electing someone with good
sense...someone who has the will to diligently support and defend
the Constitution.
And there is the problem that BETWEEN
elections people can and do lose their liberty, their businesses,
and their personal possessions in a very short period of time.
Indeed, the PATRIOT ACT permits all of
these abuses without even pretending to honor the principles
required by the Constitution.
And what assurance does our legal system give
to those who have NOT won an election whether it be one of the
two major parties, or smaller or newer parties who want a voice
in their governance?
What assurance do they have that they will not
be abused by the majority party, once it grabs the reins of
power?
What assurance do minority parties have that
the president will not use police-state tactics to intimidate his
political rivals?
Our forefathers grappled with those questions
and tried to design legal mechanisms that would guard against as
many such dangers as possible.
They tried to discourage the election of those
Mr. Jefferson called the "corrupt and mischievous"
officials by a series of eligibility requirements and procedural
hurdles.
Once in office, however, officials are
essentially "on their honor" to respect their
constitutional responsibilities.
The Framers of the Constitution were keenly
aware of this, and that is why they required the president-elect
to publicly and explicitly bind himself to the Constitution
"before he enters on the Execution of his Office."
The primary purpose of the oath of office is
to provide some measure of assurance to those not elected - those
who, ironically, just did their best to keep the newly elected
away from the seats of power.
To provide assurance that the executive power
would not be wielded outside the framework established by the
Constitution.
The Constitution expects the chief executive
of the nation to effect change cautiously...and the Constitution
expects the chief executive of the nation to respect
constitutional procedures and the limitations on his office.
The Founders intended the doctrine of
enumerated powers to be our principal defense against an arrogant
government.
If government had no power to do something,
government could not abuse that power.
So power was divided between national and
state governments, and among the three branches of government.
The Bill of rights was added in 1791, for even
greater caution, to make even more specific what government MUST
NOT DO.
Because no bill could list all of our rights,
the Ninth Amendment states: "The enumeration in the
Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or
disparage others retained by the people."
{Wiki} Initially drafted by James
Madison in 1789, the Bill of Rights was written at a time when
ideological conflict between Federalists and anti-Federalists,
dating from the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, seriously
threatened ratification of the Constitution.
The Bill was influenced by George Mason's 1776
Virginia Declaration of Rights, and goes back to the 1689 English
Bill of Rights, to works of the Age of Enlightenment pertaining
to natural rights, and to earlier English political documents
such as the Magna Carta in 1215.
The Bill of Rights - the first ten amendments
to the United States Constitution - limits the powers of the
federal government, protecting the rights of the people by
preventing Congress from abridging freedom of speech, freedom of
the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of religious worship, and
the freedom to petition, preventing unreasonable search and
seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, and self-incrimination,
and guaranteeing due process of law and a speedy public trial
with an impartial jury.
And the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights
reserves all powers not granted to the Federal government to the
citizens - US, you and me - or to the States.
These amendments came into effect on December
15, 1791, when ratified by three fourths of the States. {Wiki}
Why am I giving you this much background on
this celebration of Bill of Rights Day?
First, the Bill of Rights has to be understood
against the background of the Constitution itself.
Which brings us back to the oath of office
taken by government officials.
How did that go again?
"I do solemnly swear that I will
faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,
and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend
the Constitution of the United States."
Please note the oath does not include
supporting or defending any individual, any political party, any
religious belief - not even any flag.
The oath is to support or defend THE
CONSTITUTION of THE UNITED STATES.
And it's important to note that the oath as
revised during the Civil War, made more rigorous...and still
taken by our elected officials, including congressmen and
senators and judges, includes supporting and defending the
Constitution against enemies "foreign and domestic."
The Bill of Rights was largely a response to
the Constitution's influential opponents, including prominent
Founding Fathers, who argued that the Constitution failed to
protect the basic principles of human liberty.
In his first inaugural address, Grover
Cleveland - how many of us ever think of him today? He was
president from 1893 to 1897, not too long after the Civil War.
Grover Cleveland observed that if the American
people wanted to preserve the Constitution, they were obliged to
keep a close watch on government officials and to remind them
constantly of their constitutional responsibilities.
He said: "He who takes the oath ... to
preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States only assumes the solemn obligation which every patriotic
citizen on the farm, in the workshop, in the busy marts of trade,
and everywhere - should share with him. The Constitution which
prescribes his oath, my countrymen, is yours; the government you
have chosen him to administer for a time is yours. ... Every
citizen owes to the country a vigilant watch and close scrutiny
of its public servants and a fair and reasonable estimate of
their fidelity and usefulness."
In other words, unless and until elected
officials - from the president down - take their oath of office
with the seriousness - the honesty - the integrity it deserves -
the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not worth the
parchment they are printed on.
So I'm issuing a challenge ---- when you vote
for anyone for anything, do some research. Check their record. I
f they are incumbents, see how well they lived up to their oath,
how their votes affected our Constitution.
If they are "new kids on the block,"
question them, pin them down on exactly where the stand on
Constitutional and the people's guaranteed rights.
If they demonstrate lack of integrity, write
to them to let them know they're getting out of line. Write
letters to the editor telling the world how they're doing.
Make them aware that you are going to keep a
very close watch on them.
And then do it.
Margaret
Mathers resides in
Farmington, NM. She is the founder of the San Juan County New
Mexico Libertarian Party and is active to this day in the SJCLP.
This speech was written and presented
by Margaret for Bill of Rights Day, Dec.
15, 2006, She presented it again at the LPNM State Convention
April 14, 2007 in Farmington.
WHAT ROLE FOR GOVERNMENT OF THE
FREE?
Joseph
E. Knight
OK, so just what is a "libertarian" and what do they
beleive the proper role of government should be in a
free society?
To answer this question, we must first understand what
is meant by "government".
Government is force
George Washington said "Government is not reason.
Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like
fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
Government is the use of force. To govern means to
control. The use of force is implicit in the
definition of control. Otherwise, it would be
"influence" rather than control. Even the good things
that governments do involve the use of force
somewhere, somehow. Sometimes government uses force
directly to control behavior. Other times, government
uses money taken by force to fund activities which
would otherwise not involve the use of force.
Understanding that government is the use of force, the
question then becomes:
What is the proper use of force in a free society?
To answer this question, let's look at three types of
force:
1. Initial Force. In any group of people, from 2 to 20
billion, there is no use of force until someone uses
it first. Initial force is aggression or coercion.
2. Defensive Force. Defensive force is the use of
force to defend your safety, rights, or property. You
have the right to defend yourself, and the right to
authorize others, such as those in government, to use
defensive force in your behalf. Defensive force is
survival.
3. Retaliatory Force. Retaliatory force is punishment
of someone who has initiated force. If someone
assaults you, you have the right to authorize
government to punish those responsible in your behalf.
Retaliatory force is justice.
Some people have suggested a fourth category of
preemptive force but most examples of preemptive
force, upon analysis, can be placed in one of the
other three categories.
The nonaggression principle
Libertarians, by definition, oppose the initiation of
force. Some libertarians are also pacifists and
decline the use of any force. Some libertarians are
militants and have no qualms about defensive and/or
retaliatory force. The common factor is the opposition
to the initiation of force.
Opposition to the initiation of force (the
nonaggression principle) is the essence of
libertarian philosophy.
What is freedom?
Freedom is the absence of the initiation of force.
A robber cannot be "free" to steal your property, nor
can a bully be "free" to strike you. The robber and
bully have initiated force. The condition of freedom
doesn't exist unless there is an absence of the
initiation of force.
Consequently, a "right" cannot be something which must
be had at the expense of others. You have the right to
earn a living, but not to compel others to provide
your living. You have a right to free speech, but not
to compel others to provide your forum.
Libertarians apply the non-aggression principle to ALL
human behavior. It doesn't matter if the initiators of
force are in or out of government. Government doesn't
confer some mystical right on some to violate the
rights of others. If it is wrong for a person to
commit assault as an individual, it must be equally
wrong for a person to commit assault as an agent of
government. If somebody takes your property without
your permission, it is theft (an initiation of force).
It's theft regardless of whether the loot is used to
buy drugs or to feed the poor. It is theft regardless
of whether there is one thief or 200 million thieves.
It is theft regardless of whether the gang calls
itself "The Bloods" the "Crips" or "The
Internal
Revenue Service".
Government's role
Where government exists in a free society, its role
should be limited to defending and/or retaliating
against those who initiate force. Government in a free
society should not be the initiator of force. Some
laws, such as those prohibiting murder, assault, rape,
robbery and fraud, are laws against the initiation of
force. Enforcement of such laws is the application of
defensive and/or retaliatory force, and is appropriate
for government in a free society.
Other laws constitute an initiation of force.
Government should not initiate force to seize the
property of individuals. Government should not
initiate force to compel service to the state.
Government should not initiate force to impose
lifestyles or moral codes.
Government should not initiate force - commit
aggression - even when "it's for your own good".
Life as a free person
In a free society, you have property rights. You can
use honestly acquired property in any way that does
not constitute initiation of force or fraud, trespass
on the property of others, or violate agreements you
have voluntarily entered into. You decide which
charities to support, and don't have to sacrifice your
property against your will for purposes that others
decide on rather than you.
In a free society, you have personal rights. You can
live however you want to, so long as you don't
initiate force or fraud against others or their
property. You decide what risks to take, what to
believe in, and how to entertain yourself.
Property rights and personal rights are really the
same. Personal rights are based on property rights
because you own your own life, your body, and your
mind.
Ownership and use of honestly acquired property is
not, in and of itself, an initiation of force and
therefore does not violate the rights of others. If
someone owns an "assault rifle" and uses it to murder
someone, it is the murder that is the initiation of
force, not the ownership of the rifle. Murder should
be prohibited and punished regardless of the weapon
used.
If someone owns and uses drugs, and then steals to buy
more drugs, it is the theft that is the initiation of
force. Theft should be prohibited regardless of what
the loot is spent on. The use of drugs is not the
initiation of force.
If you own or rent a sexually explicit video and
commit a sexual assault after viewing it, it is the
sexual assault that is the initiation of force, not
the viewing of the video. Rape should be prohibited
whether "obscenity" is involved or not. Most people
who view sexually explicit films do not commit sexual
assaults.
In the old days, people sometimes had to answer to the
church for their crimes. Some thought they could
lessen the gravity of their offenses by claiming
possession. "Your Holiness, the devil made me do it."
What we often hear today is "Your Honor, the drugs
made me do it" or "Your Honor, the pornography made me
do it" or "Your Honor, my unhappy childhood made me do
it."
With freedom comes responsibility. If you initiate
force, you should be held fully accountable. No
cop-outs, no devils, no shifting the blame to others
or to inanimate objects. If you do not initiate force
or fraud (a subtle form of force), you should be left
alone and force should not be initiated against you by
government or anybody else.
It's that simple.
------------------------------------------------------
Joseph
Knight resides in Flora Vista, NM. He
is a lifelong advocate for liberty and is a former state
chairman of the Libertarian Party of New Mexico. He remains a
tireless activist for the cause.
Originally published in Farmington (NM) Daily
Times
Thursday, December 9, 2004
Printed here with the author's permission.
Submissions for this page are welcomed. Please
submit your original text to the Webmaster for consideration
This page was updated on 03/02/2008