A More Perfect Union: What We the People Can Do to Reclaim Our Constitutional Liberties (6 page)

Although our Constitution is not perfect, it set up a good balance of power and has worked quite well so far, but it will do us no good if the American people don’t uphold it. The more perfect union has lasted, but today it is deteriorating. In one sense our union is too weak, as politicians squabble about details and can’t take action even as our nation heads toward disaster. In another sense the union is too strong, because the federal government has taken too much power from the states. Our goal today should be to follow the founders’ example. We must compromise for the sake of the big picture, and we must return power to the states. Only by doing that will we return to being a “more perfect Union.”

ESTABLISH JUSTICE AND ENSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILLITY

“Those who control their tongue will have a long life; opening your mouth can ruin everything.”

Proverbs 13:3

W
e live in a world in desperate need of justice and domestic tranquillity. In the summer of 2014 in Missouri, an eighteen-year-old black male was shot and killed by a white police officer. A local grand jury composed of mixed races decided not to indict the officer. Crowds disagreeing with the decision rioted. The riots spread throughout the country, causing incredible destruction, while Americans argued over what true justice was.

One group of citizens argued that the teenager seemed likely to have been involved in a recent strong-arm robbery and had attacked the police officer, attempting to take his gun with the intent to inflict great bodily harm upon the officer. Multiple eyewitnesses testified that the teenager had been rushing the officer at the time of the fatal shooting. Many Americans agreed that the officer had acted in self-defense.

However, many other Americans believed justice called for the police officer’s punishment. They refused to accept the accounts of the eyewitnesses who said that the young man had been rushing the police officer and instead believed witnesses who said that he had had his hands up in surrender and had been mercilessly executed by the police officer. It’s difficult to know what the truth is, but the only prudent course of action in such a case is to abide by the rule of law and have the matter settled in court, not by riots.

Historically, justice was defined by mob rule or by monarchical decrees. The founders of our nation had seen the results of this kind of “justice.” They wanted nothing to do with it and wanted to craft a legal system that would be consistent regardless of who was in power. They set up our Constitution to “establish Justice” and “insure domestic Tranquility.” Today we can uphold those aims by sticking to proper legal procedures, insisting that our law enforcement keep the people’s best interests in mind, applying the definition of marriage consistently instead of changing its meaning, and strengthening local government.

Justice can be perverted, even in the best of systems. However, it’s always best to address that injustice through the proper channels. It is true that slavery ended only through the bloodshed of the Civil War, but that tragic event became necessary only because Americans had not been diligent in addressing the evil of slavery properly. Since then, through the use of the system created by the Constitution, skillful jurists like Thurgood Marshall, who worked with the NAACP, were able to
overcome the evils of Jim Crow and its segregation. If there is injustice in our country today, we should follow Marshall’s example of persistent and legal pursuit of justice. If we try to take matters into our own hands, we run the risk of deluding ourselves and becoming the tyrants once we get our way.

The signers of the Constitution wanted a nation where people were treated equally regardless of their social status or ethnic origin. This could be achieved only if the leaders of the nation were willing to apply the laws equally to everyone and not pick and choose which laws they wanted to enforce. In recent decades we have seen significant deviation regarding the equal application of the laws, but again, it is not too late to rectify the situation if we the people of the United States take enough interest in our political situation to exercise our right as voters and put people in office who will uphold our Constitution.

Since the beginning of human history, men have been involved in wars and tremendous strife. It appears to be a part of the human condition. The founders understood that war would never be eliminated entirely, but they felt that we could maintain peace within our own borders. If they could form a nation where the people trusted the government to uphold justice, they believed, people would be much more likely to remain peaceful.

A key ingredient for upholding justice and keeping the peace is a well-trained police force under the control of a local government elected by the people. People tend to be much more comfortable with the forces of law and order when the
lawmakers are from their own area and the enforcers are people who understand local culture. This is the reason why we have local law-enforcement agencies rather than a national military presence to maintain domestic order.

Ensuring justice is a vital element of ensuring domestic tranquillity, because people who feel that they are being treated fairly are much more likely to be tranquil. A combination of fair laws and friendly and understanding agents of enforcement has a much higher chance of achieving peace and harmony than does dictatorial imposition of power.

As an elementary school pupil in Detroit, I saw the benefits of kindness and reason in authority figures. Like most of the other students, I rode the bus home from school at the end of the day. Some of the bus drivers were mean and seemed to take no interest in the children. Our bus driver, Pat, was kind and knew all the children by their names. He could frequently be seen comforting children who were distressed for one reason or another. He also knew that the children were thrilled whenever he pulled past one of the other buses, giving them a chance to cheer and make faces at the kids on the other bus. Although Pat didn’t speed, he was very good at anticipating the traffic signals, which made for many exciting rides home. Because Pat developed camaraderie with the students, he was regarded very differently from the other bus drivers, who seemed much more interested in exercising authority. Some of them felt that Pat was wrong to become friendly with the kids, but what they didn’t know was that the kids had the utmost respect for Pat: He never had any trouble on his bus. The kids saw him not only as an authority figure but also as a friend.

Local police forces could learn a lot from this story. If the
people in a neighborhood regularly have friendly encounters with the police, their children’s first impressions of officers will be as friends rather than enemies. Some police departments have developed athletic leagues and other mechanisms to foster relationships between the community and the police in an amicable way. There are far fewer problems when this is the case.

Fortunately, our country was designed in a way that allows the people to choose the type of leadership that they prefer. When we see government authorities abusing their power, we have the power to fire them. That power does not come through rioting. It comes through voting.

One of the most significant changes to our Constitution involved the emancipation of the slaves and the establishment of their rights as full citizens of the United States. The important civil rights amendments added to our Constitution are critical to the protection of justice and domestic tranquillity. However, it is essential that we do not misapply the amendments and so sabotage one of the mainstays of tranquillity: marriage.

I would be a vociferous opponent of anyone who was unwilling to apply our civil rights laws equally to all American citizens. Some would argue that my opposition to gay marriage is inconsistent with that statement. I would argue that marriage was established as a religious ceremony that officially recognizes the establishment of a family and creates an ideal environment for the raising of children. It also confers upon the man and woman civil privileges such as
hospital visitation and property transfer rights. I am not in favor of keeping from anyone the benefits of marriage; I just do not want to change the definition.

There is nothing in our Constitution that prevents any two consenting adults from establishing legal civil relationships that would allow them hospital visitation rights, property transfer rights, and a host of other civil rights. A gay couple need not be married in order to live together or love each other. But that is not marriage, at least as it is understood religiously.

The framers of our Constitution intended that these kinds of issues be handled by the states, where the input of the people could be most directly expressed. Citizens should be able to decide how they wish to handle the issue of marriage using voter referenda, and judges should not be able to overturn the decisions made by those citizens. Unless we are able to work through this issue at the state level, we risk ignoring the will of the people, misapplying the ideas of justice won by the civil rights movement, and damaging the domestic tranquillity created by solid marriages.

The issue of marriage is not the only one that should be decided at a local level. We are actually more likely to maintain justice and tranquillity if the majority of problems are dealt with locally. People are more likely to peacefully trust local authorities than federal. A local state judge is much more likely to pay attention to the will of the people than a federal judge who does not have to answer to those people. Local control means we can have states with a variety of positions, allowing people to seek happiness among others sharing their
views. Our country is very large and can accommodate a wide variety of living preferences, as long as those of one person do not infringe upon the rights of others. When politicians prioritize local rule instead of trying to force the whole country to agree with them, I think the pursuit of happiness will be within the reach of a far greater portion of our populace.

We will never achieve perfect justice on this earth. We will never have perfect peace. But the prescription for justice and domestic tranquillity provided in our Constitution is the best we will get. Following the patterns set out by the founders, let us fight injustice wherever we see it. Let us be disciplined in fighting it through the proper channels, being zealous in maintaining the peace. Let us keep our law enforcement accountable to the people, let us uphold marriage, and let us champion local rule. By doing all of these things, we give our children of every race a chance to enjoy an even more just and peaceful society than we have yet experienced.

PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE

“The horse is prepared for the last day of battle, but the victory belongs to the Lord.”

Proverbs 21:31

E
stablishing and preserving internal peace was a top priority for the founders. Just as pressing was the matter of defense against outsiders. Standing alone, any one state would have stood little chance in a fight against a foreign power. Imagine the state of New Hampshire taking on Great Britain without the backing of the other states—defeat would have been certain. Accordingly, the founders created a union to “provide for the common defence.” By combining their military forces and resources, the original thirteen colonies became a formidable opponent to anyone foolish enough to risk attacking them.

The founders also knew that every government system risks corruption, and they wanted to make sure Americans would be able to defend themselves should the nation’s leaders become tyrannical. To that end, they ratified the Second Amendment, guaranteeing the right of Americans to bear arms. An armed populace is a powerful deterrent to tyrants
both domestically and internationally, and we must defend this liberty as part of our common defense.

Today America faces dangers at home and abroad. In the spirit of the preamble, the country must meet threats like ISIS with strength and wit. We must uphold the rights of Americans to defend themselves. And we must ensure that the government doesn’t overstep its boundaries in the name of keeping us safe.

The maintenance of military forces is expensive, as George Washington quickly discovered in his efforts to resist the British. Today the cost of military readiness is huge, and there are many who wish to reduce those costs by decreasing American military presence throughout the world.

The advocates of a small military should remember, however, that strong defensive capabilities decrease the likelihood of attack. As the world becomes more complex, with threats from various places, it is imperative that we equip ourselves with a military force capable of facing multiple enemies simultaneously. This does not mean that we have to expend all of our resources on the military, but it does mean we must efficiently use resources adequate to “provide for the common defence.”

Our country, as well as the rest of the world, faces an enormous threat from ISIS and other radical Islamic terrorist organizations that aspire to achieve world domination. These were the same aspirations held by the followers of Adolf Hitler in the 1930s. Our government must recognize the importance of directly and vigorously confronting these forces of evil. We
must not make the mistake of avoiding necessary conflict; we did not get involved in World War I or World War II until we felt that American interests were directly threatened, and this proved to be the wrong choice, though we eventually were victorious.

If a vicious enemy that is willing to decapitate people, burn people alive, and even crucify children is allowed to grow with only minor to moderate resistance, it will only become a more formidable adversary in the future. If during this period of tepid responses to terrorist expansion the radical Islamists manage to acquire nuclear weapons, providing for the common defense will take on an entirely new different meaning. The longer we wait to eliminate the threat, the more difficult that task will become and the more dangerous the world will be for our children and grandchildren.

We must use all necessary resources to protect the lives of our people. Given the existence of enemies who have a stated goal of destroying our nation and our way of life, one way to provide for the common defense is to hide, which in our case would not be possible. A better option is to try to eliminate the threat, and the earlier the threat can be eliminated, the fewer lives will be lost in the conflict.

Unfortunately, these days our elected officials are slow to recognize the urgency of providing for the common defense. When the commander in chief has difficulty even publicly identifying the enemy, defending our people and territory is going to be exceedingly difficult. Our Constitution does not provide a mechanism to override poor defensive decisions by the president, perhaps because our founders could not imagine a situation where the people would be more desirous than the government of effective military action.

If the people are able to see the growing threat, but the government is resistant to acting, it is the right and responsibility of the people to peacefully protest and demand action. We are quite used to seeing protests against war, but a protest against an inadequate response to a threat that could destroy our nation may become one of the most difficult and important actions ever taken by the American people. I hope that before it is too late the government of the United States will realize that its duty to provide for the common defense includes the responsibility to implement a plan to thwart the goals of radical extremists who wish to destroy Western civilization. Our military forces are capable of achieving victory, especially when allowed to carry out their missions without micromanagement by government officials with little or no knowledge of military strategy. Unfortunately, our soldiers’ job is made doubly complex when those government officials threaten to prosecute them if, in the opinion of some, they violate certain rules of ethical warfare. In the unrealistic world of the ivory-tower elites, war is like a game that has rules to which you must adhere regardless of what the other side is doing. Most of these people have never been in a war or associated with people who have experienced the horrors of war. If they had, they would recognize that in a war you must do whatever you have to do in order to survive. You do not have time to consider the ramifications of every move you make; time-consuming analysis can cost lives. If one of our soldiers makes an honest mistake during combat, the last thing he should have to worry about is being prosecuted by his own country. If we are to be successful in combat, we cannot have a fearful and confused fighting force.

The progressive movement will scream bloody murder
and say I wish to abolish the rules of the Geneva Conventions and all vestiges of common decency. To that I respond that we have complex brains, and we are capable of observing common decency while simultaneously having the backs of our combatants. Providing for the common defense means protecting Americans from attack—and protecting those who lay down their lives to keep us safe. We can act both forcefully and ethically, and we must act boldly.