Posts

Alaska Republican Party On Shaky Ground in Disregarding Democratic Elections

The Alaska Republican Party entered untrodden ground Jan. 31 when the outgoing state party leadership chose not to accept the legitimately elected state chair, but instead staged a coup against him just hours before his term was set to begin. In doing so, these party leaders have unwittingly laid siege to the very sacred fabric that our Republic was founded on —respect for the succession of political power by popular vote.

Before we are so quick to give up this foundational right that was purchased on bloodstained battlefields by our ancestors, consider the oath you took the last time you pledged allegiance to the flag: “… and to the Republic, for which it stands.” What does it stand for? It stands for the freedom to choose your own leaders by popular vote and have that vote respected by both the winner and the loser. The state party just violated that sacred principle for internal political or personality differences.

You see, our soldiers didn’t purchase this right with their own blood just for individual politicians or political party bosses who come and go like the change in seasons. They gave their lives for an ideal, a principle, a dream. They died for our Constitution, our law, our right to choose. Don’t dishonor their memories by casting aside this sacred principle of freely choosing the succession of our elected leadership by popular vote — right here, right now, right under our noses.

We chose a new leadership team at the 2012 state convention by means of a free and fair election. Just because the past administration didn’t like who was elected, it is no excuse to circumvent the election results. Doing so places cracks in the foundation of the very institution that placed them in power in the first place.

It does not matter whether or not you personally like Russ Millette. His qualities for leadership were determined and voted on by a majority of our state delegates at the 2012 Republican State Convention and therefore are not subject for debate. The issue here for debate is our adherence to our own party rules and the sacred tradition of honoring the succession of political power by majority vote. If we are too morally weak to challenge this evil, our party will be hopelessly corrupted. You may argue that the old administration was just too powerful, too connected and too indispensable to be replaced by a free election. Charles de Gaulle once said, “The graveyards are full of indispensable men.”

Read more from this story HERE.

Property, Rule of Law & Freedom

photo credit: ‘caveman chuck’ coker

While in the midst of a wholesale reevaluation of the right to private property, it is timely to reexamine the history of US property rights. What exactly caused America’s unparallelled level of prosperity and freedom? Certainly our economic success then created unparallelled global influence and military might. But what factors allowed America’s stunning growth in economic power in such a short period of time? This economic success was driven by a firm Rule of Law regime which supported the Constitution’s unique defense of private property.

What is the relationship between property, Rule of Law and prosperity? In a nutshell, history shows that unless private property is protected by a firm, unyielding and unbiased Rule of Law, markets will not flourish. Therefore, wealth will not grow and all the other things associated with a prosperous society will also fall by the wayside. The reasons for this are ultimately based in human nature. People are not automatons who simply go about doing “what we are supposed to do.” Instead, human motivation and productivity are very much tied into the rewards and risks found in any undertaking. Yet, if the government takes away the rewards of ambition, leaving behind only the risks, then productivity will fall precipitously.

It is one of the hallmarks of Marxist-influenced thinking to insist human nature does not exist. This single presumption has caused more chaos than probably any other leftist idea. It’s a direct result of assuming God is a fiction, ie religion as the Opiate of the Masses. But, if there is no God, then mankind cannot be made in His likeness—Imago Dei. Further, if humans evolved from a random series of directionless events, and there is no inherent core in people, then anything goes and nothing is out of bounds for ethics, morality, or any other human undertaking. Or, as Dostoevsky believed—Without God, everything is possible. So, the presumption mankind is just a soulless, material being is the single most destructive element in the progressive worldview, and the root cause of all subsequent economic failure.

I. History & Importance of Rule of Law

The Rule of Law as a concept is tied historically to such thinkers as Aristotle, and legal developments such as the Ten Commandments, a foundational legal code. The American Constitution is a concrete example of Rule of Law theorizing, creating a bedrock set of precepts. As a concept, the Rule of Law is a necessary addendum to the Natural Law theory of jurisprudence. It was Scottish divine and university professor Samuel Rutherford who most eloquently described the concept of the Rule of Law in his Lex Rex, or The Law is King. This work influenced the Founders, as well as philosopher John Locke’s writings on constitutionalism and property rights. Locke’s contribution to a Rule of Law republic can be seen in his chapter Section 202 of Chap. XVIII “Of Tyranny” in Book II of the Two Treatises of Government :

“Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another’s harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command, to compass that upon the subject, which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate; and, acting without authority, may be opposed, as any other man, who by force invades the right of another. This is acknowledged in subordinate magistrates. He that hath authority to seize my person in the street, may be opposed as a thief and a robber, if he endeavours to break into my house to execute a writ, notwithstanding that I know he has such a warrant, and such a legal authority, as will impower him to arrest me abroad. And why this should not hold in the highest, as well as in the most inferior magistrate, I would gladly be informed.”

Read more from this article HERE.

Constitutional Expert: Obama has “Profound Disdain for the Constitution”

President Barack Obama is running roughshod over the Constitution, legal scholars say, by disregarding it, changing laws outside the legislative process, and extending federal power in unprecedented ways.

The president has “profound disdain for the Constitution,” said David Rivkin, a lawyer at the BakerHostetler law firm in Washington, DC.

“Across a whole host of policy areas, President Obama and other high officials in his administration have pushed the envelope of anything attempted before,” said Ilya Shapiro, a constitutional expert at the Cato Institute.

Under the president’s judicial philosophy, legislation ideally “streamlines government action” so it can “grow and experiment,” all while overcoming barriers like the checks and balances built into the Constitution, said Charles Kesler, a professor of government and constitutional scholar at Claremont McKenna College.

A pending lawsuit against the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act exemplifies several aspects of the complaints legal scholars have against the president’s treatment of the Constitution.

Read more from this story HERE.