How do you read the Constitution of the United States?

When asked why certain things I would find to be socialist policies are allowed under the Constitution of the United States, most Liberal Progressives always cite either the "Commerce Clause" or the "Necessary and Proper Clause" of Article 1, Section 8. Tonight, I spoke to someone who claimed both of those clauses in defense of the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as “Obamacare,” Social Security, Medicaid, and Public Education. This person happened to be a lawyer and wanted to cite case law to me.

This was my response:

Well, I'm not an attorney and I won't be citing any case law. I'm a simple man and a Soldier, who took an oath to 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 reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.

Because of that oath, I take time on occasion to read the Constitution of the United States. I believe upon reading it that it was written for the common people of the United States, and doesn't require a lot of interpretation for what is hidden between the lines.

I'm also an architect, husband and father, avid reader of the Bible and a child of God. I consider myself one of the common people of the United States of America.

So, here is what I see:

The Commerce Clause: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

Regulation of commerce is much different to the common man than directing you to buy something. Regulating something means you control how it is done when someone chooses to do it, but it doesn't mean you force them to do it. I also fail to see how this could apply to "Social Security. And Medicaid. And public education."

The Necessary and Proper Clause: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

The Laws must be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution powers which are actually delineated within the Constitution of the United States. According to a common man interpretation, Congress doesn't have the power to create "hoop-dee-do" Laws at will. The foregoing Powers fail to mention forcing an individual to purchase anything. They also fail to mention "Social Security. And Medicaid. And public education." Or Healthcare Insurance. "All other Powers vested by this Constitution" fail to mention those things either.

And then there is Amendment X: "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."

It seems pretty simple really. Well, until you involve those seeking power and attorneys; but I repeat myself. (Apologies to Mark Twain) I'll add that I doubt seriously anyone would have fought a war for independence from a single king only to establish a government with 545 potentates....

How Have I Made It This Far?

25 Years Ago Today: A quiet but enthusiastic young man of 17 raised his right hand to pledge the little he had in support and defense of the Constitution of the United States. It was an initial commitment of eight years which being half his life at the time felt like forever. He had no idea where it would take him or the adventure that awaited. Looking back, I can proudly say, "Through all the years, God has protected, sustained and blessed me with so much. I would not change a thing!"


For even young people tire and drop out, 
young folk in their prime stumble and fall.
But those who wait upon God get fresh strength.
They spread their wings and soar like eagles,
They run and don't get tired,
they walk and don't lag behind. - Isaiah 40:30-31 (MSG)


"EAGLES, MOUNT UP!"

If a Candidate Is Inevitable, Why Have a Primary?

If there was ever a doubt about how nerdy I am, then I am about to open my mouth and remove all. Apologies to Mark Twain.

I've heard from a few friends, "The GOP needs to coalesce around one candidate right now."

Of course the mainstream media will also try to sell you on that same notion. I do not remember that kind of reporting on the 2008 Democratic Primary though. I do not recall ever hearing the media or the Democratic Party talk about narrowing it down quickly to the one nominee. Do you remember the day it was estimated that Barack Obama had the delegate votes needed for a majority? June 3, 2008. Do you know what day Hillary Clinton suspended her campaign? June 7, 2008. Four days! It took her four days to accept the reality of her loss. Now, only four years later it seems we can't even wait four minutes for a candidate to state their position on a Constitutionally relevant topic.

I have heard, "The lengthy primary is hurting the Party's chances in the General Election."

In 2008, the Democratic Party never once stated, "We need to wrap this up now to avoid hurting our chances in the General Election." They did not say it in January, February, or March. JUNE, they settled on a nominee in June. You know what may have hurt the GOP in 2008? Wrapping it up too quickly. John McCain's two closest contenders were Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. Mitt, who finished second, suspended his campaign on February 7, 2008. Mike, who finished third, suspended his campaign on March 4, 2008. Senator McCain had plenty of time to coalesce the party, but it never happened.

I have heard, "The continued debate will only serve to weaken the eventual candidate."

If the eventual candidate cannot withstand a little GOP introspection, then how will they ever stand up to the heat imposed by a Democratic cross-examination. In 2008, the continued debate did not affect the Democratic Party's eventual candidate. In fact, it probably served to make him a little stronger and gain a little more appeal. Remember, their candidate won the General Election and the last opponent they faced in the primary became their Secretary of State. Somebody coalesced!

I have even heard a few people go so far to say, "We do not have a very good field from which to make our selection."

I do not believe the GOP has a weak field, but if what others posit is true, then the candidate selection process should be long, slow and tedious. The party is attempting to narrow down a selection of the most qualified from many qualified candidates who will best represent them against their opposition. If the GOP field is truly weak, then the GOP should have even more cause to pause, not rush to judgment, or make a choice without fully investigating each candidate. The GOP should be proud they DO investigate candidates and leave no stone unturned.

Here is a picture (click to enlarge) of what has transpired in the GOP Primary thus far with a few relevant or irrelevant "nerdy" statistics below:

• As of today, only 8 of 50 States have held their primary or caucus. That is only 16% of the 50 States. Of those eight, only one (Florida, 4) ranks in the top ten for population. Two of the states (Maine 41, New Hampshire, 42) are in the bottom ten for population.

• As of today, only 225 delegates have been awarded with 2061 still available. 90% of the total delegates are still available.

• Today, if the GOP were to select the front-runner as the inevitable nominee, Florida alone would account for 48% of the front-runners delegates and 59% of the total votes cast. Florida would single-handedly pick the GOP nominee.

• Today, if the GOP were to select the front-runner as the inevitable nominee, they would be selecting their nominee on the basis of having only won 10% of the required delegates. This would be equivalent to naming the winner of the Super Bowl after only six minutes had expired off the game clock.

• Each of the 4 remaining candidates still needs over 1,000 delegates to become the eventual nominee at the GOP Convention in August!

The primary season is exactly the time we need to allow the maximum number of Americans to voice their opinion through the primary ballot box. I believe we still have plenty of time. It is simply too early to crown a victor. After all, we haven't even reached Super Tuesday yet!

Why "under God" Must Remain!

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. - Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, 4 July 1776

This is the final line of our country's Declaration of Independence. The 56 men, who signed it, pledged everything they had in support of that Declaration. But, they did not do so alone. As it clearly states, they put their full faith and firm reliance on having the protection of divine Providence. Firm reliance indicates a level of trust that cannot be broken. Use of the term "divine Providence" can only refer to God. So, while stating their Independence from Great Britain, they were simultaneously stating their Dependence on God!

They pledged so much including their sacred Honor to start our country. Our Pledge of Allegiance is symbolic of this original pledge. Given the reliance on God to make the original pledge prevail, it only stands to reason that we would include "under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance. That phrase, placing our nation under the authority of God, may not have been there originally, but it was a logical addition.

It should never be removed!

It is a constant reminder of our nation's reliance on His protection and our submission to His authority. May neither ever leave us...God help us if they do!

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all."