Baby-Faced Soldier

I traveled through the Dallas-Fort Worth (Texas) airport recently.  Because it is a major hub, there are lots of people moving through the airport.  Still, I noticed that a number of the travelers were servicemen and women.  I've seen them before in my travels, but what struck me this time was how incredibly young they all appear.

The obvious youth of one young airman in particular, really grabbed my attention.  He looked like a child, not old enough to shave, certainly not old enough to be in the military.  As I watched him walk past, I realized that he probably isn't more than a year or two older than my teenaged son.  Are we really sending babies off to defend our country?

According to the Defense Manpower Data Center, of the nearly 1.4 million serving in the US armed forces, almost 1 in 5 are between the ages of 18 and 21. Barely old enough to vote and not old enough to buy a beer, these kids have sworn to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”.

Enemies come in all shapes, sizes, ethnicities, and religious backgrounds.  It seems not too long ago, an enemy was easy to identify.  In war, he wore a uniform and was a member of the adversary’s armed forces.  But I wonder who today’s serviceman’s biggest enemy is; the one who holds the bullets or the one who controls the budgets?

After the First World War, the size of the US military dwindled through budget cuts and isolationist foreign policies that assumed diplomacy and negotiation would solve all grievances and avoid armed conflict.  Such policies allowed aggressors such as Germany, Italy, and Japan to violate standing treaties and invade Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, and Manchuria without fear of armed conflict.

When Germany invaded Poland in 1939, the US military ranked behind Bulgaria’s and Romania’s militaries in size.  When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, the US forces in the Philippines were still armed and supplied with World War I-era equipment.   Thanks in large part to the industrial might of America and the American armed forces, the Allies triumphed over the Axis powers.  But the cost was an average of 416 American lives lost per day during the nearly four years of combat.

The invasion of South Korea by the North Korean army in June, 1950 caught the US by surprise and by August, 1950, US and South Korean forces had nearly been pushed into the sea at Pusan by North Korean forces.  Chinese intervention in October, 1950 again caught US and United Nations (UN) forces by surprise.    US and UN forces were nearly overwhelmed and President Truman declared a national emergency, resulting in the activation of National Guard and military reserve units to fight in Korea.  After two years of stalemate fighting along and around the 38^th parallel, North and South Korea agreed to an armistice.  Taking three years to fight-to-a-draw cost US forces 45 lives per day.

The Vietnam War experience, for servicemen, could best be summed up by the quote,” We the Unwilling, Led by the Unqualified, Are doing the Impossible, For the Ungrateful”.  President Johnson escalated the US involvement in Vietnam, aided by a Congress willing to give him unilateral power to conduct full-scale war based on an alleged second attack on US warships in the Gulf of Tonkin.  Unclear objectives, underestimation of the enemy, loss of public support at home, and military decisions made by politicians in Washington instead of military commanders on scene led to over 58,000 deaths.  In spite of the scores who served in Vietnam, the North Vietnamese captured Saigon in April 1975 and the South Vietnamese government collapsed.  The US policy of containing communism in Indochina failed because of poor leadership at the highest levels.

 In response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the US, we have been involved in a global war on terror.  Although our troops are no longer actively engaged in combat in Iraq, we still have troops in combat in Afghanistan.  Since 2011, we lost over 6,000 lives and nearly 42,000 were wounded.  Yet, The Heritage Foundation reports that, because of decisions by Congress and Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama, much of the equipment used by military personnel, such as armored personnel carriers, helicopters, and tactical aircraft, are older than the servicemen and women who use them.

In September, 2012, the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked and four members of the diplomatic mission were killed.  An investigation report on the attack declared "Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department ... resulted in a special mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place."

As part of the debt ceiling crisis fiasco in 2011, the White House suggested a compulsory set of budget cuts that would go into effect if Congress failed to produce deficit reduction legislation totaling $1.2 trillion in cuts.  These cuts, known as the “sequester” and scheduled to begin on March 1, 2013, reduce the federal budget by $85 billion.  Half of the reduction comes from cuts in defense spending and half comes from cuts in nondefense, discretionary spending.

The Wall Street Journal points out the defense budget is less than 20% of the federal budget, but absorbs half the sequester cuts.  The Journal also points out that from 2008-2013, defense spending increased 11%, but over the same time period, total nondefense discretionary spending increased by 16.6 %.  That 16.6% includes an increase in Department of Transportation, for example, spending by 66.8% over the same time period.

Many presidents in US history have sent soldiers into battle and political decisions have cost soldiers’ lives.  We should know better.  Yet, it appears that Obama is more than willing to play politics with the military to try and force Republicans to raise taxes.  As The Wall Street Journal, says, “This fits Mr. Obama's evident plan to raid the military to pay for social programs like ObamaCare.”

While this round of cuts will not affect the number of troop deployments or troop paychecks, there is no certainty that the President and Congress won’t do so in the future.  But upgrades to military hardware and research and development of new technologies will be cut—those technologies intended to protect our soldiers in the field.   If we are willing to send baby-faced soldiers to defend the United States, we should not allow leaders to play politics with the support and welfare of our armed forces.  Nor should we elect officials who are willing to do so.  Our servicemen and women deserve so much better.

Be Nice Today

Another post from John Galt.  I'd like to thank John for trying to make the world a nicer place.

I’m hopeful for the future of this country.  She has weathered a lot.  When reading the history of this country, it hasn’t always been pretty and at times it has been downright ugly.  A snapshot of today isn’t very pretty either.  We have high crime.  The epidemic of murders in Chicago comes to mind.  This is the type of violence we thought we were above and would only see in news shots from foreign countries where we thought they valued human life less than we do.  We have over 46 million Americans living in poverty and over 31 million children qualify for the school lunch programs.  In this country of the American dream where we grow millionaires on every block (according to our movies), people are hungry and homeless.  In my snapshot of today, I see the threat of unemployment, stores closing, empty restaurants, and in general, little hope for change.  Has it always been this way, or does it seem to be worse now than in the past because technology makes it possible for us to hear about it more?   

On my drive home every day, I see panhandlers on every corner of the intersections.  One in particular has his dog tied on a very short leash to a signpost, all day.  I mention this because the first time I saw them, the dog was just a puppy.  This sight makes me so mad every time I see it.  I don’t know of the situation that put this man on the corner. This puppy’s experience with life is spent tied to a signpost in a busy intersection in the South’s scalding heat of summer and the damp drizzle of winter.  Is this the world we have created for all of God’s creatures?  Please don’t assume that I put an animal before people; I only use this as an example of where we are as a society today.  No matter how hard you try to look away, turn up the music and pray for the light to change, you can’t avoid the truth and the truth is ugly and tossing a few coins isn’t going to fix it.

What can you do?  First, as an individual, you must want to do something; desire to make a change.  This will require you to admit that there is a problem.  This will be a challenge for many, maybe for all of us.  By our omission, the country has become what it is.  As Thomas Jefferson said, ““All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”  Our country didn’t get into this state of disrepair from any one event and it didn’t happen overnight.  We are where we are as a country because of lot of poor choices, discourteous actions, political posturing, illness, gluttony, greed and sadness.  All of those single events--minor in consequence taken individually, but when taken collectively and then influencing the chain of events that result, create a world often unfit for a puppy tied to a signpost at a busy intersection.

 You’ve probably heard about some of the strategies to make this country better—something we can do as individuals such as paying forward a good deed, do just one nice thing for a stranger, willingly lend a hand, be more courteous than usual, smile and mean it, volunteer—the list of possibilities is endless.  Most of these strategies involve putting another before yourself and maybe pushing you out of your comfort zone.  Easier said than done in this world saturated with technology, over-scheduled and self-centered.  But, don’t wait to be nice.  When you have lunch with someone, put down your phone and have a real conversation with the person with you.  Don’t text while you drive and instead concentrate on driving safely—for your safety and for those around you.  Hold the elevator for the person running across the lobby.  Donate pet supplies to the local shelter.  Make eye contact with someone you pass and smile.  There is plenty of time for regret and all of the “I should have…”  Set an example for others and do the right thing, the kind thing, even if no one is watching.  Do one nice thing today.  Maybe tomorrow you will do two.

Check Your Premise

Another thought-provoking post from John Galt.  

I was asked yesterday if I thought the Liberal-left cared more about “people” issues than the Conservative-right.  First, I understand that this is a trap and there is no right answer, so whether you agree or disagree is immaterial.  But think a bit about the group dynamics in play.  From my view, the Left tends to be more focused on the trendy issues of the time like sexuality, immigration, or social programs.  I see these issues as entitlements for the individual.  These are self-centered causes that compete against one another for a larger piece of the entitlement pie.  Entitlements may be in the form of more press, larger headlines, new laws, or more funding.  It is all about the squeaky wheel of the moment.  But, when the individuals, screaming for support of their top 10, top five or top causes, are in a collective group each screaming for their top causes, it is every man for himself and every woman for herself.  It is never for the greater good, it creates division. 

Let me dispel with the notion that there is such thing as a social norm, or average on the value of social issues in this country, much less the world.  If you lined up each individual’s top ten values, it is highly unlikely that a majority of the country would have the same ten in the same order.  So, no matter how loud you scream for your issue, few are going to scream just as loud for your number one issue.  So, it is a competition for which there will be winners and losers, be it funding, legislation, or public support, for your cause.  And, screaming so much about it becomes badgering at some point; your voice is no longer effective because people have tuned you out. 

I, as a conservative, am tolerant of other’s top causes, but I don’t have to embrace them or adopt them as my own.  My willingness to be tolerant gains me nothing in the media or by the groups.  But, because I will not embrace or adopt the cause as my own and champion it, it is inferred that I am against it.  There are different degrees of support between for or against.  In this land of the free, as I recall, I don’t have to love what you love.  I prefer not to be bludgeoned about the head by it.  I’ve done my homework, assessed the impacts of the issue on the country and on my own life, and determined my position on the matter.  I’d appreciate it if you would agree to disagree with me.  It will save us both a lot of time.

So before you take in that breath, are you really asking, or demanding, change for the betterment of the country or is it about you?  If it puts more in your treasure trove than another’s or moves your cause higher up the flag pole, maybe you aren’t the champion of humankind you thought you were.  The Left has long been labeled the “bleeding heart” Liberals, so ask yourself if you are bleeding for everyone or for yourself and your interests first and foremost. 

Before I leave the Left, there are also a lot of posers that fill your ranks, but won’t bleed for your cause.  They are the people that don’t really have a dog in the fight, but think they achieve social cool by association.  They hop from topic to topic with the flow of media interest, but never are willing to do more than wear the t-shirt under safe conditions.  They won’t march in your parade, sign a petition, or discuss the cause outside their circle of like-minded friends.  The Left is lucky for these groupies, however, because they are the uninformed voters that vote for a president for his stand on social issues, like gay rights, when he has no authority under the law over these issues.

In history, the Conservatives have been characterized as the money makers that generate wealth on the backs of the workers and reap all of the benefit.  But, don’t they also create jobs?  I believe, as a conservative, that the opportunities are there for the taking, but you have to put forth the effort--there are no handouts.  It is up to the individual; it is their responsibility to take advantage of the opportunity.   For this, Conservatives prefer less laws that bound the possibilities or that limit opportunities.  Maybe this appears to be every man for himself.  But by creating wealth, they also have the wealth to give to charity, to create jobs, and to invest.  This creates an economy that thrives, produces tangible products and innovation.  Through this, we have better schools, better crops, safe water, ample food, more efficient cars, and research that continues to push the boundaries. 

So, in the end, who cares more about the people in this country?  It is hard to say.  I bet both would say they are more concerned about individual rights and opportunities.  This country is supposed to be all about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Every person has a different measure of success of those rights.  Each approaches it a different way, but anything that helps the greater good, helps us all by definition.  So before you hit me over the head with your protest sign, I ask you to think about your cause and if it really will make this country better if you get a bigger piece of the American pie than your neighbor.  So take a minute and check your premise. 

Moral Dilemma

Since I am an Eagle Scout and a Scoutmaster, I’ve been asked by several people about my thoughts on the Boy Scout’s ban on gay members and leaders.  And to be honest, I haven’t decided.  What I want to know is this; what policy is best for the boys served by the Scouting program and the future generations in which these boys will be leaders and role models?

After numerous court cases, particularly BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA et al. v. DALE, in which the US Supreme Court affirmed the Boy Scouts’ First Amendment right of freedom of association, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) adopted a new youth leadership policy that stated, “Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed.  Scouting’s position with respect to homosexual conduct accords with the moral positions of many millions of Americans and with religious denominations to which a majority of Americans belong. Because of these views, Boy Scouts of America believes that a known or avowed homosexual is not an appropriate role model of the Scout Oath and Law for adolescent boys.”

This policy was a sore point for many.  Many organizations that had supported BSA in the past distanced themselves from the organization because of the policy. Many chartering organizations were no longer willing to sponsor troops and packs. Steven Spielberg, an Eagle Scout himself, resigned his position as an advisory board member of the BSA over what he described as discriminatory practices.   

As recent as July, 2012, the BSA reaffirmed its ban on gay members and leaders.  However, on January 28^th, the Boy Scouts of America released a media statement that said, in part, “Currently, the BSA is discussing potentially removing the national membership restriction regarding sexual orientation. This would mean there would no longer be any national policy regarding sexual orientation, and the chartered organizations that oversee and deliver Scouting would accept membership and select leaders consistent with each organization’s mission, principles, or religious beliefs. BSA members and parents would be able to choose a local unit that best meets the needs of their families.”

What is the purpose of the Boy Scouts?  The BSA website says, “The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical choices over their lifetime by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law.”

For over 100 years, scouts have been pledging, “On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.”  The Scout Law, unchanged since 1911, says, “A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.”

BSA banned gay leaders and youth because it viewed homosexuality as immoral, therefore a homosexual could not be morally straight.  But what does BSA consider as morally straight?

My first Boy Scout Handbook, the eighth edition, published in 1976, explains morally straight as, “You live and act and speak in ways that mark you as a boy who will grow up to be a man of good character. You are honest, clean in speech and actions, thoughtful of the rights of others, and faithful to your religious beliefs.”  The 12^th, and most recent edition, explains it this way, “Your relationships with others should be honest and open.  Respect and defend the rights of all people. Be clean in your speech and actions and faithful in your religious beliefs. Values you practice as a Scout will help you shape a life of virtue and self-reliance.”

Does homosexuality disqualify a person as being morally straight?  Some people think so.  I know heterosexuality is not an automatic qualification for morally straight.

What I do know is this, Scout leaders have a responsibility to teach self-reliance and instill moral code in youth that allows them to make ethical choices.  This occurs through active teaching and serving as role models. Scouting should not be a bully pulpit for a Scout leader’s sexual orientation and lifestyle, nor should it be a platform to push for acceptance of alternative lifestyles.  Any discussions about sexuality should be on the subject of sexual responsibility.  As the Scout Handbook says, “Sex is not the most important or grown-up part of a relationship. Having sex is never a test of manliness.  True maturity comes from acting ethically…”  It talks about responsibility to women, enjoying a healthy relationship that is supportive and equal; responsibility to yourself by having an understanding of wholesome sexual behavior and avoiding irresponsible and risky behavior; and responsibility to your religious beliefs.

Regardless of the decision, I caution the decision-makers on how they implement any changes. Usually, I am not a big believer in one-size-fits-all policies.  However, passing the buck down to the local councils and charter organizations seems like a recipe for a mish-mash of policies that weaken the program. In this case, I think BSA needs a consistent national policy so that the Scouting experience is the same for scouts across the country. Regardless of the outcome, not everyone will be happy and I am afraid the reaction of parents and organizations is likely to hobble the program, much to the detriment of the youth.

As I’ve written before, the moral compass of the Boy Scouts, the Scout Oath and Scout Law, sets a standard of conduct that is conspicuously absent in many in our society.  Scouting builds self-reliance, sets a moral code and finds purpose in our young people.  More than ever, this country needs a program that sets standards of conduct and trains youth to be leaders.  If Scouting can accommodate homosexual leaders and youth into the program without compromising its mission and allow more youth a chance to participate in the program and exposure to positive adult role models, especially positive male role models, then perhaps Scouting should move in that direction.  But, let’s not undermine the mission of the program just for the sake of political correctness.

Better Off?

On January 20^th, 2009, Barack Obama took the oath of office, becoming the 43^rd American to hold the office of President of the United States.  Running on a theme of Hope and Change, Obama’s first inaugural address, echoed that theme.  He said in that speech:

“Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real, they are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this America: They will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.”

Later on, he spoke of the greatness of this country and acknowledged how it became great by saying:

“In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less.

It has not been the path for the faint-hearted, for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame.

Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things -- some celebrated, but more often men and women obscure in their labor -- who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.”

Wonderful words to start off his presidency, but four years later, unemployment is still 7.8% (same as 2009), the median household income is down 4%, almost 3 million more Americans are living below the poverty level, there are still just as many people without health insurance, 13 million more people on food stamps, and the debt has increased by $6,000,000,000,000.

In addition to the increase in taxes that will affect 77% of taxpayers, the Obama administration has added so many new rules and regulations during his first term that the cost to comply with these new rules and regulations is estimated to be more than $500 billion (http://americanactionforum.org/). 

After four years, I am concerned about the direction the United States is heading.  Congress and the President seem more interested in political gamesmanship than doing anything for the good of the country. Obama’s first term policies seemed geared towards expanding the size of the government and increasing its role in the day-to-day lives of Americans. Given some of his policies and appointments in his first term, it seems more than a simple coincidence that his slogan for his 2012 campaign, Forward, has long been associated with European Marxism (The Washington Times, April 30, 2012). 

During his second inaugural address, Obama failed to mention anything about reigning in government spending, instead advocated that global warming, gun control, and gay rights are some of the most important issues facing the country.  He didn’t mention about working with Republicans to solve the debt ceiling, the sequestration, or the expiring continuing resolution.  He said collective action is required to preserve individual freedoms and stated “For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future. Or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores.”

The President doesn’t get it.  Personal liberties are preserved by limiting the power and authority of the government not by collective action.  Sure, no single person can do all those things.  But the sum of individual actions can, and does these things.  No matter how much government intervention, the government cannot “protect its people from life’s worst hazards and misfortune.” Furthermore, not only can the government not protect us from hazards and misfortunes, that’s not the responsibility of government.

I don’t agree with the President and I don’t want more government.  A lot of others feel the same way, but I’ve heard more than one person admit that, now Obama is in office for a second term, they don’t know what to do.  That’s a good question, what can we do?

We can get involved.  Nice sentiment, but what does that mean?  The first step of getting involved is educating yourself.  Learn how Congress works and how laws are made and enacted (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/lawsmade.toc.html and http://thomas.loc.gov/home/enactment/enactlawtoc.html ).  Learn who your elected representatives are (www.senate.gov and www.house.gov).  Don’t rely on the media to provide you accurate or unbiased news, research the issues yourself.  Read the bills under consideration in Congress (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php).Talk to your friends, coworkers, neighbors, and family members, find out their views on the issues. 

The second step of getting involved is take action. Contact your elected representatives. Letters, phone calls, and emails are effective ways to communicate with them and the President (www.whitehouse.gov).  Attend town hall meetings and candidate events or debates in your community.  Monitor Congressional voting records and let elected officials know how you want them to vote.  If you think they voted wrongly on a bill or issue, let them know.  If you think the voted correctly, thank them.

Finally, get involved in grassroots organizations. Whether it’s Citizens United, Tea Party Patriots, the National Right to Work Committee or some other organization, get involved.  By joining with others of mutual concern in your community, you create a group of concerned citizens that politicians can’t ignore.

Thomas Jefferson, in his first inaugural address, stated, “a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”  We must get involved to limit the size and extension of the federal government.  Otherwise, there is nothing to hold it in check.  As Thomas Jefferson said, “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold, is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”  We can no longer afford to be silent.

Know the Bounds

I read a recent opinion piece in the New York Times titled, Let’s Give Up on the Constitution.  In the article, the author advances the idea that the root of the problem with the American government is “our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic, and downright evil provisions.”  The author, Louis Michael Seidman, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, wrote, “Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse.“ 

I strongly disagree with Mr. Seidman.  Mr. Seidman and, I fear, many in America don’t get it.  The purpose of the US Constitution is not to define the rights of Americans; its purpose is to limit the power of the US government. 

The delegates that drafted the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention had reason to fear powerful national government; they had declared independence from a British government they believed to be abusive and tyrannical the previous decade and fought a war to retain that independence.  The Treaty of Paris which ended the American Revolution was signed only four years before the Constitutional Convention.  Because the new constitution, which replaced the weak and ineffectual Articles of Confederation, provided more power for the federal government, many people were against its ratification.  In order to sway public opinion, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison wrote a series of 85 essays, known as The Federalist Papers, which explained the various provisions of the Constitution and the rationale behind them.

In the 45^th essay of the Federalist Papers, titled "The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered", James Madison wrote, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.  Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” This sentiment is reflected in the 10^th 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.”  In other words, the US Constitution limits the power of the federal government to only those defined; all other powers belong to the states and the people.

It is not our obsession with the Constitution that has resulted in a dysfunctional political system.  It is our willingness to elect and re-elect leaders that disobey or ignore the Constitution and adhere to party politics instead doing what is good for the country that has caused the problem.  We, the people, are the problem. 

Mr. Seidman wrote, “Even without constitutional fealty, the president would still be checked by Congress and by the states.”  Really?  Congress passed President Obama’s Affordable Care Act without reading it and then the Supreme Court upheld the government’s power to force Americans to buy health insurance as constitutional.  The people we elected created and passed that legislation aided by justices appointed and consented by people we elected.

The US government derives its power from the people it governs. We must ensure that “government of the people, by the people, for the people” continues.  In order to do that, we must exercise our power as voters and elect officials that operate within the bounds of the Constitution.  

The republican form of government, as defined by the US Constitution with its emphasis on separation of powers, limited government, checks and balances, and the rule of law, is essential to protect individual liberties.  Absolute power corrupts just as much today as it did in 1787, and we need the Constitution to limit the power of the government.  Without a written constitution, there is nothing to keep the authority of Congress or the President in check.  If we choose to throw out the Constitution, then what happens to our rights and freedoms?  If we, the people, don’t hold on to our power by being educated, informed, and engaged, then we’ll surely lose that power, just as if we had thrown out the Constitution.

Educate yourself on the Constitution and the limits of government.  Be aware of when it is misinterpreted or misapplied and speak up.  Contact your elected officials and let them know that you understand the Constitution and expect them to abide by it.  

Laws

A month after the Connecticut school shootings, the debate over gun control continues.  In response, many want tougher gun control laws; some want an outright ban on weapons; and others are resisting change to gun control laws.  Many people are purchasing firearms to protect themselves while others are protesting that the right to bear arms, codified in 2^nd Amendment, is outdated and no longer applicable. President Obama established a gun violence task force, led by Vice President Biden, to address gun violence.

Biden has said that there is no single to control gun violence.  At the same time, he has indicated that the task force’s recommendations may include a ban on assault weapons.  CNN is predicting a battle in Congress over a weapons ban.  Gun-rights advocates say a ban violates the 2^nd Amendment while others say a ban is needed to make us safer.  Will a law banning assault weapons make us safer?

As I’ve written before, the shooter in the Connecticut tragedy broke multiple laws before firing the first shot at the school.  For instance, by law, schools are gun-free zones, and the shooter stole legally-purchased guns and illegally transported them.  This incident demonstrates that laws themselves do not make us safer.  If laws don’t ensure our safety, then what is their purpose?

Laws are a collection of rules and instructions which are enforced through social institutions to govern public and corporate behavior.  Many laws define limitations or rules of behavior.  The legal philosopher H.L.A. Hart acknowledged that for laws to work, people must voluntarily accept the authority of those laws.  Without acceptance of the authority and the willingness to obey the laws, what is left is the authority to administer punishment for disobedience.

One could argue that laws make us safer, using traffic laws as an example.  But, it isn’t the law that makes us safer; it’s the obedience to the laws that keep us safe.  Laws themselves cannot force drivers to drive safely.  Posted speed limit signs don’t deter many drivers from speeding.  If caught speeding, the driver expects the consequence to be a ticket and a fine.  The traffic laws provide the limitations of behavior and the framework upon which to penalize the drivers who disobey.  Nevertheless, annually, tens of thousands of injuries and fatalities result when drivers exceed the speed limits.  The traffic laws haven’t eliminated auto accidents nor ensured the safety of the public.

I am not advocating the repeal or suspension of laws.  Laws are necessary; providing not only rules and instructions for the public, but also limitations on authority.  Laws set boundaries for behavior and as long as a person acts within those boundaries, those who hold authority are restrained from penalizing or punishing the person.  Legal authority cannot simply fine us or incarcerate us simply because they do not like our actions or behavior unless we break the law. 

My point is that we should be cautious when creating new laws.  Before a new law is passed, we must understand both the intended and unintended consequences.  And we should be aware of the burdens of having too many laws.  Over 2000 years ago, the Roman statesman Cicero wrote, “The more laws, the less justice.” The more laws created the more restraints on our behavior and the closer boundaries are set. 

As with many things, having too much of something is not a good solution either.  When the number of laws is large, both the enforcer and the citizen cannot remain aware of all of them and how they apply.  So, it is hard to avoid crossing the lines on lawful behavior if you aren’t aware of where the lines are drawn.  This allows disobedience through ignorance to be commonplace. James Madison wrote, “It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what is will be tomorrow."

When local and national leaders advocate new or stricter laws, contact them and urge restraint.  Request that they study and thoroughly understand the consequences of the proposed statutes and all that already exist.  Take the time yourself to learn what restraints these laws place upon your liberties and freedoms and make your voice heard.