We’re at war with the most dangerous enemy that has faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars. And it’s been said if we lose that war and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose, did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think its time to ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended to us by the Founding Fathers. — Ronald Reagan
Last week, our nation was fixated on a debate surrounding the idea of defunding Obamacare through a Continuing Resolution (CR) process. As most of you know, Senator Ted Cruz and other conservative Senators took the floor for twenty-one hours and put on a spectacle. I watched the entire speech and I was euphoric to hear the words of James Madison in the Federalist reign on the Senate floor at 2:00 a.m. among many more examples of Constitutional rhetoric; a quite rare and beautiful flower which we seldom get to observe in these modern times.
The following day, Cruz’s time was up and he yielded the floor to a vote for Cloture on the CR. Essentially a NAY vote for Cloture was a vote against ObamaCare and would require a supermajority threshold to strip the defunding language from ObamaCare. A YEA vote on Cloture meant that the amendment to strip the defunding language from the CR would require only a simple majority threshold.
The vote for Cloture was 79 YEAS to 19 NAYS.
The vote to pass the CR without the defunding of Obama Care was 54 YEAS to 44 NAYS.
This vote clearly personifies why the federal government is broken and why We the People need proper recourse. How could you vote NAY on the final CR is you voted YEA for cloture? The RINOs have fled and surrendered to the ever-grasping leviathan we have come to know as the DC Establishment. If the 44 Republicans who voted NAY on the final CR voted NAY on Cloture, then the 60 vote threshold would not have been met, and the final CR could not have passed without further deliberation and bipartisan support.
Rather then simply diagnosing the obvious, “The Constitution is under assault,” “Liberals are wrong because X,Y,Z,” “Obamacare leads to single payer system,” and “The President is imperial,” I will also provide a cure, or recourse, in which We the People can utilize to combat this federal chimera.
Re-thinking the political spectrum
Ronald Reagan states thunderously in his Time for Choosing speech, “You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There’s only an up or down.”
Although statists often malign those interested in liberty and the Constitution, this shouldn’t be so. On the political spectrum, it would only make sense that the Declaration which established our freedom and the Constitution which ordains our freedom be thought to rest at the center of the political spectrum. Any views that are relatively close to beliefs of our founding should be considered centered and moderate.
Now that we have a more accurate perspective of the political spectrum, it amazes me that the media, the president, and members of Congress have the audacity to label people who align their ideology with the Constitution as radicals. Those who criticize followers of the Constitution are either one of two things:
- They are ignorant of the political spectrum due to their skewed point of reference, ultimately making them ignorant of reality.
- Or, they are implicitly rejecting the Founders’ notion of good governance.
So to square this circle, the federal government is a complete mess. The partisan gridlock is not a matter of right or left it is a matter of up or down — following the Founders or heading toward an ever more authoritative state.
Despite the monetary corruption and entrenchment of Washington’s career politicians, few brave statesman can rarely rise the helm and articulate an effective conservative plan, but fall short only to find themselves betrayed by the media and ruling elites who are either ignorant or implicitly reject the Constitution.
Ladies and gentleman, Washington is not going to fix itself. We have a Congress that is ruled by career politicians who can’t even decide on a budget. We have a President who claims he will “fundamentally transform America” while having the ability to unilaterally rewrite laws. And lastly, we have a Supreme Court that subjects us to the edge of our seats every June while we have to abide to an activist 5-4 ruling that will forever affect our lives. All of this is supported by an ignorant media who assaults Constitutionalism, and special interest groups that lay down monetary volley after volley at any politician willing to put their reelection above their constituents.
Despite the cynical reality of our broken federal government, we can examine a letter written in 1830 by a weltering James Madison to a Massachusetts statesman, who previously contacted Madison seeking his advise regarding the practice of nullification. In the letter, Madison addresses his disposition with the “nullification doctrine” and suggests instead a Constitutional avenue for the Massachusetts gentleman’s to follow:
Should the provisions of the Constitution as here reviewed be found not secure the Government and rights of the States against the usurpations and abuses on the part of the United States, the final resort within the purview of the Constitution lies in an amendment of the Constitution according to a process applicable by the states.
To further Madison’s argument, in regards to curing an overbearing federal government, Alexander Hamilton states in the Federalist No. 85:
We may safely rely on the disposition of the State Legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.
We have recourse for the mess in Washington. Not only recourse, but a Constitutional recourse stated in Article V of the Constitution itself:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or not by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
To close, Reagan concluded his Time for Choosing” speech with this:
Winston Churchill once said, ‘the destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in this world we learn that we are spirits not animals. And there is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which whether we like it or not, spells duty.’ You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this the last best hope for man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.
We have a duty as Americans to vindicate the language of our founding and use the very tool the Founders gave us to preserve and protect liberty. This duty not only serves those currently alive, but secures the beauty of America for the unborn millions to come. We get to live in such a time where the fate of the Republic rests in our hands. Are we worthy of it?
Content published on the Young Americans for Liberty blog is only representative of the opinions and research of the individual authors. It does not necessarily reflect the views, goals, or membership of YAL.Published in