Constant Conservative

Many of us are aware of a famous line from Patrick Henry. However, the context of that famous line allows us to see the inner workings of a man for his time–and one whose love for freedom serves to stir us out of the apathy into which many are sunk.

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope that it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.

This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?

For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth — to know the worst and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House?

Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation — the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motives for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies?

No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer on the subject? Nothing.

We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer.

Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament.

Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope.

If we wish to be free — if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending — if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak — unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.

The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable — and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, “Peace! Peace!” — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

HT: Confederate Yankee

I’ve been thinking  way too much about starting and finishing over the last few days–how simple it is to start a task and how hard it often is to finish. I’ve begun more things than I could easily call to mind, but I could count on a couple of hands the large endeavors which I’ve hammered on to proper completion.

I understand that I am hardly alone in this regard–though being found in the company of others who do less than they ought hardly gives me cause for joy. That aside, I’m reminded that many of the things which you and I are given to do are not begun by us, merely carried forward for some while before being handed over to the next generation. In particular, we have this republic. As citizens, we are the heirs of those old dead white guys who wrote things like:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

There is little question that if the bill(s) currently considered by our Senate and House of Representatives with regard to health care are passed into law that we will no longer be holding those truths to be self-evident or securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

Instead, we will have traded a large portion of our current liberty for the promise of future security–a promise which those who make will be unable to keep without further throttling our liberties until the differences between our country and those European nations from which my ancestors came will amount to little more than geography.

You may say that I’m overstating matters; speaking in hyperbole to make a point. I wish I were. I really do. But I’m not.

It is incumbent on us, therefore, to ensure that no matter what other things we’ve left undone we do not fail to let our senators and representatives (yes and President Obama as well) know exactly what will be their lot should they ignore the sacrifices made by millions to keep this country the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Last time, we covered most of Paine’s Common Sense understanding of the need for/origin of basic government. We shall now continue with his conclusions in that vein:

Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz. Freedom and security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with show, or our ears deceived by sound; however prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and reason will say, ’tis right.

Ahh, “freedom and security.” The “design and end of government.” One could do worse than to see this as the dynamic tension provided by a properly limited government. Of course, Paine defers to “nature and reason” but we can forgive him that since history has shown us that reason, in particular, is insufficient to trump the lust for power intrinsic to the human heart.

I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature which no art can overturn, viz. that the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered; and with this maxim in view I offer a few remarks on the so much boasted constitution of England. That it was noble for the dark and slavish times in which it was erected, is granted. When the world was overrun with tyranny the least remove therefrom was a glorious rescue. But that it is imperfect, subject to convulsions, and incapable of producing what it seems to promise is easily demonstrated.

Though he does not put it in quite so many words, Paine is subscribing to the KISS rule of government. He realizes that there was benefit to the constitution of England, but that it has suffered over time and as he puts it “subject to convulsions.”  I find it interesting to draw parallels here, not with the US Constitution as such, but with the body of law which has been built upon it (and in many cases, along side it). Those laws tend to more and more complexity.

Absolute governments, (tho’ the disgrace of human nature) have this advantage with them, they are simple; if the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs; know likewise the remedy; and are not bewildered by a variety of causes and cures. But the constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies; some will say in one and some in another, and every political physician will advise a different medicine.

This part rings remarkably true with regard to the recent economic difficulties. The laws governing financial institutions, transactions and taxation thereof have become so complicated that every “political physician” advises a different medicine for the current economic ailments, with some advocating bleeding and others feeding. It would seem as though the troubles which existed in Paine’s time were not confined to that time, at least in regard to the nature of a government to increase its complexity beyond any practical usefulness.

I know it is difficult to get over local or long standing prejudices, yet if we will suffer ourselves to examine the component parts of the English Constitution, we shall find them to be the base remains of two ancient tyrannies, compounded with some new Republican materials.

First. — The remains of Monarchical tyranny in the person of the King.

Secondly. — The remains of Aristocratical tyranny in the persons of the Peers.

Thirdly. — The new Republican materials, in the persons of the Commons, on whose virtue depends the freedom of England.

The two first, by being hereditary, are independent of the People; wherefore in a CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE they contribute nothing towards the freedom of the State.

It is likely that Paine himself was one of those who needed to get over “long standing prejudices” with respect to the flaws in the structure of the English government. He, with many others, would have been taught the supremacy of the English way of doing things from his childhood. After all, this was still during the time when people were imprisoned or killed for objecting to the actions of monarchs–regardless of how accurate those objections might have been.

To say that the constitution of England is an UNION of three powers, reciprocally CHECKING each other, is farcical; either the words have no meaning, or they are flat contradictions.

First. — That the King it not to be trusted without being looked after; or in other words, that a thirst for absolute power is the natural disease of monarchy.

Secondly. — That the Commons, by being appointed for that purpose, are either wiser or more worthy of confidence than the Crown.

But as the same constitution which gives the Commons a power to check the King by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards the King a power to check the Commons, by empowering him to reject their other bills; it again supposes that the King is wiser than those whom it has already supposed to be wiser than him. A mere absurdity!

Paine is stating that power corrupts–and that this weakness (or as he puts it, “disease”) is natural to a monarchy. It would seem that England had tried a system of checks and balances, as we understand the terms today, but Paine is putting forth the argument that while such might have been the goal–the reality a rather different thing.

Previously

Thoughts on Paine’s Common Sense: Part 1, Part 2

More than one hundred years ago, a small town was planted on the the South Dakota prairie. It was named Warrington (after whom I cannot recall, but he was probably one of those invested in the town). Some years later, a discussion arose about the town and some thought that it was too evocative of war (as the story goes). So, whoever had the power to do so changed the name of the town to Monroe.

Now, whether Monroe was named after the former president by that name or some other person (or a town in another state, etc) I cannot recall. But this is all prelude. It is interesting to me because I live in that little town, but you are probably wondering when I’m going to get to the point of this post.

The Last Founding Father: James Monroe and a Nation’s Call to Greatness by Harlow Giles Unger is the first biography I can recall reading of President James Monroe. From the book, he sounds as though he were someone who would have been a fine friend and a kind opponent.

The book is well written (not dry, as can be the case with biographies) and the author is quite obviously appreciative of James Monroe the man. If I have one complaint about the book, it is that it seems to depart into hagiography from time to time–though given the amount of time and effort which the biography appears to have spent working on the topic, that does not come as a surprise.

Both Monroe’s early life (as a soldier and lawyer, among other things) as well as his later years as representative, diplomat, president and elder statesman are covered in good detail. His personal life is brought into focus as it often conflicted with his public life, especially his constant struggle to remain financially afloat. The joys and sorrows of his time as husband and father are also laid out in detail. The book does well, I believe, in balancing the James Monroe that the public knew with the one known to friends and family.

If you are at all familiar with the period in US history covered by the book, you will be unsurprised to find many, many familiar faces, from Washington and Jefferson to Madison and Lafayette. The last mentioned comes into the story several times and would seem to have a been a particular friend of Monroe. Of course, since the author has also written a biography of that individual, it makes sense that he would have quite a bit of detail about the intersections of Lafayette’s life with Monroe’s.

The Monroe Doctrine, which was to define foreign policy in the Western Hemisphere for a century or more is addressed in detail, as is Monroe’s participation in the events which led to the Louisiana Purchase (a book about which topic  I reviewed earlier).

All in all, a thoughtful and detailed examination of a contributor to this nation’s founding and early years who is given short shrift by comparison with the better known members of our founding fathers. At about 350 pages plus end-notes, it is a comfortable size. As all good books do, it has triggered a desire to learn more about the topics which were covered.

South Dakota’s Senator Thune has proposed a law which would make inter-state vacation travel easier for concealed carry holders:

“South Dakota is one of many states with reasonable measures in place allowing citizens to protect themselves with concealed weapons,” the South Dakota Republican said in an e-mailed statement. “Law-abiding South Dakotans should be able to exercise the right to bear arms in states with similar regulations on concealed firearms. My legislation enables citizens to protect themselves while respecting individual state firearms laws.”

As it now stands, this has been offered as an amendment on a defense spending bill (which has no connection whatsoever outside of the word “defense”).

While, on the surface, this approach might seem to run afoul of federalism, I do not think it does as such a move would support both a historical understanding of the Second Amendment and a future, seemingly probable, incorporation of the same against the states.

Sometimes, when I’m here and there on the interwebs, I find something which is so simple that I should have known it years ago (or maybe I did and just forgot it). At any rate, Mrs. Peel channels Chesterton beautifully:

There’s a Chesterton quotation I discovered recently (via the Anchoress):

The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog.

I’m heartbroken and appalled at how few people, especially in my birth cohort, understand that quotation.  Someone who doesn’t understand what Chesterton means, who doesn’t understand the meaning of freedom, from either a philosophical or a theological standpoint, is someone who is, for all intents and purposes, aiding in the destruction of what remains of Western civilization.  “Fascism with a smiley face,” as Jonah Goldberg calls it.

While the penultimate freedom is of the heart (and so can exist when the body has been completely immobilized and placed into a sensory deprivation tank), proper personal freedom does allow one sufficient rope to hang oneself, as it were, but insufficient rope to hang anyone else without penalty.

I count myself among those individuals who believe the Bible to be far more than a book of storied ancients. Robert Higgs of the Independent Institute finds that it includes sound economic thinking with regards to personal property and ownership:

Perhaps the most important proposition in the economics of property rights is that people will not care for a resource they do not own as well as they will care for a resource they do own. It is amazing how much fashionable economic belief — for example, nearly everything ever advanced in support of socialism, as well as the bulk of what passes for environmentalist policy proposals — fails to take adequate account of this virtually axiomatic proposition.

[...]

In the tenth chapter of the Gospel According to John, Jesus is trying to make a point, but his listeners are not getting it, so he finally gives them a parable he can be sure they will understand (verses 11-13):

The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. The hired hand, who is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and runs away — and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. The hired hand runs away because a hired hand does not care for the sheep. I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me.

There you have it–wisdom from Jesus the Carpenter which is apparently beyond the grasp of many a well-studied but ignorant socialist of today.

HT: There’s My Two Cents

It is relatively common today for loyal supporters of the US Constitution to be informed that we are living in the past and basing our ideology on a document which was written by a bunch of white men who have been dead for about 200 years. Of course, this reasoning presupposes that thoughts by people who are not alive today (or in the very recent past) are not germane to our country or its laws. Without going into all the reasons which I find this thinking flawed, let me simply say that such statements are, at the very least, inconsistent.

This inconsistency may be easily discovered by considering another list of other dead white men whom those who would castigate the first group (men who who wrote the Constitution) find to be marvelously enlightened.

I do not know whether others would place M’sieu Jean-Jacques Rousseau at the top of this list, but based on the influence which his life and thought have had on Western educational and societal structures and teaching, I believe he would definitely be a contender. Modern public education in the United States owes him more than a small debt of gratitude. Because of him we like children to be self-directed (and not forced to learn things), we seek to remove children from the direct influence of parents at a very young age, and otherwise buy into the belief that the main problem with children is adults.

So, let’s hear it for ignoring the ancient writings of dead white guys. Of course, like those who would disagree with me, I only want to repudiate the writings of some dead white guys–not all of them. Let’s be honest with ourselves and with history and admit that we wouldn’t be where we are today without those who have gone before us. To discount someone’s thoughts because of the color of his skin and the age in which he lived (or died) is unhelpful at best.

In a country which still pays lip service to the rule of law, precedent is critical. Legal precedent is essential for equality, continuity and stability under the law. However, judges are increasingly willing to cite precedents from courts which neither have jurisdiction in this country nor yet a legal basis in common. Justices Scalia and Breyer debated whether the courts should indeed cite law from outside the country (full transcript of the debate here). Among other things, Justice Scalia had the following to say on the matter:

I don’t know what it means to express confidence that judges will do what they ought to do, after having read the foreign law. My problem is I don’t know what they ought to do. What is it that they ought to do? You have to ask yourselves, Why is it that foreign law would be relevant to what an American judge does when he interprets — interprets, not writes — I mean, the Founders used a lot of foreign law. If you read the Federalist Papers, it’s full of discussions of the Swiss system, German system. It’s full of that. It is very useful in devising a constitution. But why is it useful in interpreting one?

Now, my theory of what I do when I interpret the American Constitution is I try to understand what it meant, what was understood by the society to mean when it was adopted. And I don’t think it changes since then.

Now, obviously if you have that philosophy — which, by the way, used to be orthodoxy until about 60 years ago — every judge would tell you that’s what we do. If you have that philosophy, obviously foreign law is irrelevant with one exception: Old English law, because phrases like “due process,” the “right of confrontation” and things of that sort were all taken from English law. So the reality is I use foreign law more than anybody on the Court. But it’s all old English law.

All right, if you have that theory, you can understand why foreign law is irrelevant.

The problem with using legal precedents from other countries is very simple: No other country, including modern-day Great Britain, has the same foundation in law as do we. No other country has our constitution. No other country has our 200+ years of legal history.

If one considers the various foundations for law in countries around the world, it becomes apparent rather quickly that one could find a precedent for just about anything, no matter how strange. For instance, by looking at the legal precedents set in North Korea, once could justify summary execution for making international phone calls. Of course, most would see this as a very poor precedent, which should not be followed, but that is beside the point. The point is that it makes no sense to weave in precedent from a non-congruent body of law.

Good laws, like people themselves, have ancestors. Much as I can trace my ancestors back hundreds of years, through generation after generation, every law in our country should be able to trace its way back to a state constitution or the the US Constitution, then what Scalia calls “old English law,”  all the way back to natural law.

In short, no good law can exist without the support of all its precedents. That’s why, when we pass laws or interpret laws so as to make new law–without grafting them onto precedent which is firmly based in our country’s own foundational legal documents and known antecedents, we are truly on dangerous ground.

One difficulty with precedent which we have today is that we have established a number of precedents which themselves rest on nothingness. These might be properly termed illegitimate precedents, as they are not descended from the “family” of laws, as it were, which was previously in place. When these unsteady precedents are cited in new decisions, we are making a further mockery of the rule of law.

Only God is able to create ex nihilo–the rest of us ought to be absolutely certain we are basing our legal creations on solid foundations.

Whether we are looking at much bluster, or the beginning of states reasserting their powers under the 10 Amendment of the US Constitution is yet to be known. However, for the present, I would like to think that our representatives (and senators) at the state level here in South Dakota are truly concerned with the Federal government getting out of much of our business.

HCR 1013 was a step in the right direction. It states that:

A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION,  Reasserting sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over certain powers and serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates.

WHEREAS,  the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

“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.”; and

WHEREAS,  the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more and the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and

WHEREAS,  today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government and many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS,  the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

WHEREAS,  any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America, or Judicial Order by the judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of the United States of America by the Constitution of the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of any of the several states or their citizens constitutes a nullification of the Constitution of the United States of America by the government of the United States of America; and

WHEREAS,  a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,  by the House of Representatives of the Eighty-fourth Legislature of the State of South Dakota, the Senate concurring therein, that the State of South Dakota hereby reasserts sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,  that all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this concurrent resolution serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

Sadly, there were a number of people who do not believe that the state of South Dakota is able to govern itself. In the House of Representatives, we have the following 18 who do not believe in states’ rights.

• Blake
• Burg
• Dennert
• Elliott
• Fargen
• Feickert
• Feinstein
• Frerichs
• Hunhoff (Bernie)
• Killer
• Kirschman
• Lucas
• Nygaard
• Schrempp
• Solberg
• Sorenson
• Thompson
• Vanderlinde

In the Senate, we have the following 14 who also do not believe in states’ rights:

• Ahlers
• Bartling
• Bradford
• Dempster
• Hanson (Gary)
• Heidepriem
• Hundstad
• Jerstad
• Kloucek
• Merchant
• Miles
• Nesselhuf
• Peterson
• Turbak Berry

These senators and representatives have done South Dakota (and her people) a grave wrong. At a time when the federal government is expanding fasting than a lottery winner’s circle of close friends, we need state legislators who hold back that tide–and not those who would simply ignore or even approve of the unconstitutional overreaching on the part of the federal government.

If these members of South Dakota’s House and Senate represent you, please let them know that this vote is absolutely the wrong thing for South Dakota.

And for those others not listed here, because they voted “Yea” in sufficient numbers to actually see that the resolution passed both chambers, please thank them for standing up for what is right.

You’ve no doubt heard of the bill which would give Washington DC a voting representative in the US House of Representatives. It is patently unconstitutional since DC is not a state. Law professor Joerg Knipprath has an excellent, detailed explanation of why this bill does not pass constitutional muster. Here’s an excerpt, but you should read it all (it’s much better than the stuff I put together):

Further, when the residents in the District were granted the power to participate in the election of presidents, the 23rd Amendment’s language made it crystal clear that the District is not a state. The amendment refers to the “District” that is to be entitled to electors equal to the number of Representatives and Senators it would have “if it were a State.” Moreover, “they shall be considered, for the purposes [of such election] to be electors appointed by a State.” That is not language that recognizes the District to be a state. Of course, the whole amendment would have been unnecessary if the District were a state.

It is noteworthy that it was considered necessary to have a formal constitutional amendment to give District residents the right to vote in presidential elections. A mere Congressional statute would not have been enough. Further still, the 23rd Amendment only gives the District votes in the electoral college. It does not give the District the right to participate, as states do, in voting pursuant to the 12th Amendment in the House of Representatives if no presidential candidate receives a majority of the electoral vote.

When a government (at any level) shows that it is unable to protect its citizens, then people come to the realization that things really are left up to them:

Paulette Bouyer is a member of a peculiar little sorority in this city; a church lady who keeps a loaded pistol.

Once a rabid booster of living in Detroit, Bouyer’s home was broken into in broad daylight two weeks ago. The interlopers even made it through the iron gate that covers the door. Now, Bouyer says, she is so afraid, she is prepared to break the Sixth Commandment — thou shall not kill — by virtue of her Second Amendment right to bear arms.

“If I could get a covered wagon and a mule and a piggybank, I’d get up and ride out of here tonight,” she said. “Because if somebody walks through my door uninvited, somebody else is going to have to carry him out. Is that any way to live?”

[...]

Bouyer committed her life to Detroit, preferring to see the glass half-full. She endured the bad times: the riot of 1967, the murder of her husband in 1977, the crack epidemic of the ’80s and ’90s, the blight of the abandoned nursing home in 2002, the drug addicts who moved into the foreclosed house next to hers in the middle of the night along with their children.

I would add that the 6th commandment is properly “thou shalt do no murder.” Protecting her person within her own home does not qualify as murder (though juxtaposing the Sixth Commandment and the Second Amendment as the writer does makes for a more exciting lede).

This is truly sad. Many of you reading this are probably thinking “Nah, that can’t happen here, were too ______.” Unfortunately, all that is necessary for this to happen is for people to lose all respect for other’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness within the constraints of a country which believes in the rule of law (and not the rule of arbitrary hope and change).