Wow! Considering the number of comments last week's column ("Why legalizing pot is a good thing") engendered, you'd have thought I wrote a piece on guns. I fully expected the pro-pot people to jump down my throat and I wasn't disappointed. ("Pro-" in this case has two meanings).
I was a little disappointed, however, to see so many supposedly pro-Constitutional conservatives who don't like that our government was created with Constitutionally defined federal limits, including the legalization of marijuana. Far too often, those on the right scream about their Constitutional Rights being violated and complain about the Constitution being ignored or twisted in ways the framers never intended, and then they gripe when their own ox is gored by those same limitations.
One of the posters opined: "The government is charged with defending our nation from all threats, foreign and domestic. Most drugs are from foreign nations, but even those made here are domestic threats to our society."
Uh ... that's not correct. Nowhere in the Constitution is the government so charged. There is language of that nature in the oath of office for the Congress and the vice president; however it doesn't require those folks to defend the nation, but to defend the Constitution:
TRENDING: 'Art of the Deal': How Trump turns COVID issue into 'win-win'
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Another commenter says my stance on legalized pot being a state issue means I've ignored the legitimate uses of the "(general) welfare clause." He's quite correct, but only because there is no such thing as a "general welfare clause" and as such it has no legitimate uses.
"No general welfare clause?" you may be shouting. "What!!!?? Of course there is! Politicians use it all the time to justify their actions!"
Sorry, no.
One of the principle authors of the Constitution, James Madison, wrote:
Now whether the phrases in question be construed to authorise every measure relating to the common defence and general welfare, as contended by some; or every measure only in which there might be an application of money, as suggested by the caution of others, the effect must substantially be the same, in destroying the import and force of the particular enumeration of powers, which follow these general phrases in the Constitution. For it is evident that there is not a single power whatever, which may not have some reference to the common defence, or the general welfare; nor a power of any magnitude which in its exercise does not involve or admit an application of money. The government therefore which possesses power in either one or other of these extents, is a government without the limitations formed by a particular enumeration of powers; and consequently the meaning and effect of this particular enumeration, is destroyed by the exposition given to these general phrases.
He also wrote (a bit more plainly):
With respect to the two words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.
Madison's language is pretty flowery by our modern standards, and therefore hard to read and understand without concentrating; but in a nut shell, Mr. Madison is saying that if action, no matter how odious, can be determined by someone in power to be a matter of the general welfare, then the specifically enumerated powers and limitations would have no meaning, and the Constitution would be null and void.
So why am I going on about all of this boring Constitution stuff when I should be writing about prepping? Or as one of the commenters said, "What does the (state) legalization of pot have to do with prepping? What does the Bundy case have to do with prepping? Mr. McLene has become political!"
Well, here's a news flash. Prepping IS political, and Mr. McLene is very political. He's always been political and he always will be. I'm kind of surprised this particular (several meanings of the word here) long-time reader has just noticed. You see, we prep for fire, flood and famine. We prep for earthquakes, job loss and the pure joy of being self-dependent. But we also prep for political reasons.
When I tell you to buy a gun, it's not just for defense against burglars or bears. Within the last century, tens of millions have died at the hands of their own governments for want of a means of self-defense. Millions have also died because of government-created famines. And land-grabbing wars launched by political elites in quests for power have killed millions more.
"Oh but Pat!" you might say. "That can't happen here! We have the Constitu..."
Yeah, we've heard that before … most famously when a Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."
Keeping that Republic is only possible if we all protect and defend the Constitution. And while I wish those 23 states (so far) hadn't legalized weed, nevertheless – due to states' rights and the people who reside there, and delineated by the 9th and 10th Amendments – they did so legally. The Constitution cannot gainsay them.
Want to change that? Amend the Constitution. It's been done before to ban a drug. However, you might want to check out the 18th and 21st Amendments first to see how well that worked out the last time.
But at your peril, don't ignore the Constitution or "twist" it by providing the federal government-du-jour the license to ignore its specifically enumerated limitations.
As far as the Bundy situation goes (another series of comments from last week's column), better read up on it a bit more before you tell me it doesn't have anything to do with the rights of "the states respectively, or ... the people."
Prepping means having the ability to defend yourself, even from your own government. It means having the food and water and power you'll need when the government decides to use the availability of those resources as a tool of tyranny. And it means acquiring information and understanding what your Rights are and from where they derive. (Hint: God)
So when do I get to the promised column on common mistakes and often-overlooked considerations for the prepper? See above. Preppers always have to know their Rights and be prepared to defend them. The Constitution is the supreme law of America, and you must study it and the Founders' writings. And – I'm sorry to tell you this – but you must also accept that the same freedoms you enjoy in our Constitutional Republic are also the same being enjoyed by others … even if you disagree with their choices.
If you don't like Constitutionally protected choices made by the states and their citizens, work to change the laws in that state. Or move.
You have that Right.
|