US Constitution - Fourth Amendment

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I don't think there is a lot of debate on this subject. The 4th amendment, like many of the others, was very similar to laws which were in the English law books. The intent was for the American people to have the freedom to conduct business, and live their lives, without having to worry about unwarranted searches of their homes and belongings. This also limited what could be searched, if there was probable cause for search. They could not just come in, and take everything you owned. The ability of those performing the search to seize items, documents, property, etc, was limited to items pertaining to the investigation. If they were searching your home for evidence of a murder, they could not confiscate your music collection, unless there was reason to believe it was somehow involved in the murder.

We take this freedom; and if we are not careful, it, like so many others, will be lost. We have the freedom to live our lives as we see fit, as long as it is within the confines of the law, without fear. If you do not speed, you don't have to worry about a speeding ticket. If you obey the law, then you, generally, have no reason to fear the law. I would like to illustrate this point with a couple of verses from the book of Romans, in the Bible.

Romans 13:3-5 NASB - "For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake."

The law is there, not to constrain the righteous, but the wicked. If you are obeying the law, then you have no reason to fear the law. This, however, illuminates a big flaw in the concept of this large government which we see growing up around us. When you have a 1,000-page piece of legislation, it becomes almost impossible to know what the law is. If you don't know what the law is, or it is so detailed or so vague as to be too difficult to understand, then you don't know if you are, or are not, obeying the law. This leads to a life of doubt, and fear, as you never know, truly, if you are living within the confines of the law. It also allows the government the ability to prosecute, or maybe persecute is better, whomever they choose, as they can interpret the "law" in whatever way they deem necessary.

What this all comes down to is... "Wake up! Otherwise you will find yourself with no freedoms at all."

My apologies

Wow, I am ashamed to say I dropped the ball on this. I got back from vacation, and things went crazy. We were trying to settle back into the swing of things, then I got sick. So, for any of you who might have actually been reading these, which, unfortunately, appears to be no one, I am sorry. I am back on it, now, starting with tonight's post on the Fourth Amendment.

US Constitution - Third Amendment

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

This is, again, a fairly straight forward issue. The government wrote this, specifically, in response to what had happened before, and during, the war for independence. The government was limiting the ability of the military to control, by force, the people. Thereby, limiting it's own power.

This is, in many ways, a further limitation of the government, in the same venue as the second amendment. If the government can put their troops into the homes of the citizenry, then they can control that citizenry by an ever-present show of government force. The only reason American citizens can view our national military without fear, is because we know that there are very strict restrictions on the governments ability to utilize them, in a domestic situation. We saw a major break-down of this, during the aftermath of Katrina, when good, law-abiding citizens were forced to turn over their legally owned firearms, or face detention and/or criminal prosecution. This was completely unconstitutional, and never should have taken place. This amendment clearly defines two specific situations. One is in peacetime, and the other is in war. Katrina was not a "war." Even the sometimes violent riots, such as the recent outbursts at the G20 meetings in Pittsburgh, PA, are not times of "war."

Our Congressional representatives in the House and the Senate need to go back, and re-read, or in some cases read for the first time, our Constitution. This document was sufficient for the governance of the country for over a hundred years, now, in the last fifty years, or so, we are seeing a noteable effort to dramatically change the very nature of who we are, as a nation.

I do not believe that Congress was ever intended to make a plethora of laws, as they seem to want to do. Congress was there, to act as a buffer to confirm, and guide the nation as a whole, while the states themselves would work out the details of how they wanted to live. On a more "current events" note, our leaders are making a big show of wanting to be fiscally conservative, and cut costs. Well, maybe, instead of expanding an already gluttonous beast of a government, it should go on a diet. Perhaps, instead of expanding the numerous programs and departments, we ought to cut them back, or, "heaven forbid," entirely. There's an idea. Instead of having a huge, wasteful department, like the Department of Education; which somehow is SO intelligent, that they can make decisions that are best for EVERYONE, even though we have a population of over 300 million in a massive variety of cultural, economical, and geographical backgrounds. How about we leave that money in the hands of the states, and let them figure out how to best educate their residents. Hmm, kind of like how it was done for the first hundred years, or more, of our nation. So, maybe that would be a pretty good system. Nah, we, here in the individual states, must be too stupid to figure it all out. Obviously, we need the uber-intelligent in the Department of Education, to tell us dunces how it's done. OK, I got a bit long-winded on that, but quite frankly, the argument carries over to all the other massive government "departments" which have grown into a massive gluttonous drain on our economy.

That's it, I'm done. Any more, and I would probably really start to get frustrated. Enjoy.

US Constitution - Second Amendment

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This is fairly simple, to my way of thinking. The colonists had just gained their independence from the harsh regime of the British. One of the main reasons the British were able to maintain control, over the colonists, was their military. The British had an extensive military presence in America. When the seeds of rebellion began to spring up, it was used to try and bring the colonials back into submission.

The founding fathers knew that the only true security the people could ever hope to have, was through the arming of it's citizens. This was not only security from foreign invaders, but also from a tyrannical government. The government, especially in the earlier days, always had the memory of what happened to the last tyrannical government they sat under. They knew that they could only go so far, before the people would revolt. The "well regulated Militia" was not just to maintain the "security of a free State" from foreign invaders. A well-armed citizenry ensured the security of our freedoms, from an overbearing government. This is as true today, as it was 200 years ago.

Our founding fathers knew that the only hope this nation had to stay free from it's enemies, both foreign and domestic, the people had to be willing to take up arms, when necessary, in it's defense. The only reason we have the liberties we enjoy today is because brave men and women were willing to take up arms against an oppressive government. They were willing to risk not only their own lives, but the lives of their families. Where has this kind of commitment gone? We have become a nation full of pansies, constantly looking for a handout. What happened to the days when men stood up, and earned their keep? Why is it men no longer take pride in their work? No matter how menial it may seem. There was a time, not that long ago, when men were gentlemen, and it's considered an honorific term. But, I digress.

Ultimately, it comes down to this. The government ought to be subsidizing gun ownership, not limiting it. The U.S. Code states that "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard." So, if they want to provide training for the citizenry, fine. Take a look at a country like Switzerland. They can be neutral, because noone has any desire to invade them. Every citizen is required to own a gun, and be able and ready to use it. What nation is going to mess with that. Also, the government knows it cannot do too much, without the consent of the people, or else the people will use those same guns to regain their freedom.

US Constitution - First Amendment

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

OK, let's go through this step by step.

"Congress shall make no law..." is pretty self-explanatory, so let's move on to the meat.

"..establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free speech thereof;" This is NOT the separation of church and state. That phrase is NOWHERE in the US Constitution, or Declaration of Independence. It was never the intent of our founders to separate government and religion. What they were saying was that the government could not establish one religion as more important than another. They would not OFFICIALLY endorse one denomination/religion. The idea of separation of church and state is not to protect the government from the church. It is supposed to protect the church from the government.

"or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;" This means the government will NOT pass a law, which will limit people's abilities to speak their minds. The government cannot do this, either by limiting all, limiting some, or giving advantage to some, over others. This would be an abridgment of the press' ability to "speak," in that it would limit their ability to compete in an open market. The government cannot do this by "bailing out" struggling news agencies. They also cannot put higher restrictions on some "press," where the intent is to limit their ability to publish.

"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." We have a right to peaceably assemble. This does not mean that local governments cannot pass local ordinances in order to ensure a peaceful assembly. It is completely understandable, to request some permissions, or permits, for this purpose. Now, they should deny a permit to a person/group who wishes one, because they do not agree with the intent of the person/group, as long as it intends to be peaceful.

I think it is important to point something out here. This Amendment clearly states that Congress will not pass any laws. It does not necessarily carry over to state, county, town, etc. Does a town have a right to infringe on free speech, and most other areas? Maybe. I know that comes as a shock, for me to say. But, the fact of the matter is, that, as I am finding, so far, the US Constitution does not necessarily prevent this. So, what does? Well, we do. We have the right, no, no... privilege. Nay, the obligation, to vote! We can vote out of office the crooked politicians who would limit free speech, or any other freedoms. The key is, we need to vote in accordance to what is best for our community and, ultimately, our nation. NOT OUR WALLETS!

A pastor friend of mine told me once that we, as Christians are obligated to vote for the individuals who are most likely to do the will of God. Romans 13 is very clear in regards to the role and authority of rulers. All rulers are in place, at God's pleasure. If He did not want them in, they wouldn't be. Now, I know some of you would say, what? How can God "ordain" an evil ruler? Well, perhaps He is simply allowing us to receive a ruler who is the direct result of apathy and neglect on the part of Christians and the disbelief of the unsaved. We need to pray for our rulers, as they are there, at the will of God, until He decides it is time for another. We need to be obedient to our rulers, as long as they do not demand us to do that which is wrong, in the sight of God. This is why we, as Christians, have a double responsibility to take part in voting, to promote those who are most likely to do the will of God. This, unfortunately, may not always mean a person who "claims" the name of Christ. We have to be "fruit-inspectors" and compare their life with Scripture. There are some who claim to be Christians, and yet their decisions are regularly at odds with the clear teachings of the Word of God. Then, there are others who may not be what we consider to be fundamental Christians, and yet their lives, and values are much more in line with the Word of God. We need to vote for those who are most likely to do the will fo God, NOT those who are most likely "fill our pockets."

The Constitution

OK, I have been bothered, for some time, by what seems to be a major level of ignorance, on the part of the American people, in regards to the United States Constitution. I feel it necessary to be that specific, because it seems, sometimes, like there is a major portion of our population, which does not realize what country they live in. When did we stop teaching Constitution to our young people? How can we hope to continue to enjoy the freedoms we take for granted, if we do not teach our next generations how we came to have those freedoms. It reminds me of the movie "Time Changers." The concept was that some Christian professors wanted to promote the morality of Christ, but without the sometimes "offensive" aspect of the person of Christ. However, it became pretty clear that without the authority of the speaker, the words have little, to no, power. This is true, in a secular reference, in regards to the freedoms of the United States. Unless we go back, and look at the original authors of our Constitution, and the circumstances of it's design, we limit our ability to properly interpret the meaning of it's words. Common sense will only get us so far. If we don't even read it, then we have absolutley NO right to claim to know what it says, about anything. If you have read the Constitution, congratulations. You are among what seems to be an increasingly smaller group. I applaud you, and urge you to re-read it. Encourage others to read it. Discuss it. It is only through this that we can hope to pass the freedoms we enjoy, down to our children. If you have not read the Constitution, then you need to. You can find it online, through a very simple web search, or by clicking on this link, http://www.usconstitution.net/

The first, hopefully of many

OK, so, this is going to be a short, simple posting. It is going to be my intent to post at least once a week. The topics will vary. Some of it will just be my own musings, but much of it will be my views and opinions on current political, economic, and societal events. As well as some of my insights into the Word of God. Bear with me, as I begin this, and please feel free to share your thoughts. Enjoy.