Throwing A Constitutional Warning to Sarah Palin and the Tea Party Nation!
Okay, from 17m;24s to 18m:41s into the CSPAN video that I downloaded to transcribe Sarah Palin’s keynote speech I noticed a politically sensitive omission in Sarah Palins use of a Barry Goldwater quotation. I noticed because I searched Google Books to verify the quotation. The omission is indicated by … .
TRANSCRIPT – SARAH PALIN:
The lesson of the last year is this: Foreign policy can’t be managed through the politics of personality. And our president would do well to take note of an observation John F. Kennedy had made once he was in office: That all the world’s problems aren’t his predecessor’s faults. [Applause] The problems that we face in the real world require real solutions, and we better get to it, because the risks that they pose are great, and they’re grave.
However, as Barry Goldwater said, “We can be conquered by bombs[.]” … “[B]ut we can also be conquered by neglect—by ignoring the Constitution and disregarding the principles of limited government.”[MY FOOTNOTE]
[MY FOOTNOTE]: CC Goldwater, Ed., Barry M. Goldwater: The Conscience of a Conservative, (1960 by Victor Publishing Co., Inc.), Published by Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (2007), Chapter 2, The Perils of Power, pp. 13-15. The appropriate full quote reads:
… There are occasions when we have elevated men and political parties to power that promised to restore limited government and then proceeded, after their election, to expand the activities of government. But let us be honest with ourselves. Broken promises are not the major causes of our trouble. Kept promises are. All too often we have put men in office who have suggested spending a little more on this, a little more on that, who have proposed a new welfare program, who have thought of another variety of “security.” We have taken the bait, preferring to put off to another day the recapture of freedom and the restoration of our constitutional system. We have gone the way of many a democratic society that has lost its freedom by persuading itself that if “the people” rule, all is well.
The Frenchman, Alexis de Tocqueville, probably the most clairvoyant political observer of modern times, saw the danger when he visited this country in the 1830’s. Even then he foresaw decay for a society that tended to put more emphasis on its democracy than on its republicanism. He predicted that America would produce, not tyrants but “guardians.” And that the American people would “console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be put in lead‑strings, because he sees that it is not a person nor a class of persons, but the people at large that hold the end of his chain.”
Our tendency to concentrate power in the hands of a few men deeply concerns me. We can be conquered by bombs or by subversion; but we can also be conquered by neglect—by ignoring the Constitution and disregarding the principles of limited government. Our defenses against the accumulation of unlimited power in Washington are in poorer shape, I fear, than our defenses against the aggressive designs of Moscow. Like so many other nations before us, we may succumb through internal weakness rather than fall before a foreign foe.
I am convinced that most Americans now want to reverse the trend. I think that concern for our vanishing freedoms is genuine. I think that the people’s uneasiness in the stifling omnipresence of government has turned into something approaching alarm. But bemoaning the evil will not drive it back, and accusing fingers will not shrink government.
The turn will come when we entrust the conduct of our affairs to men who understand that their first duty as public officials is to divest themselves of the power they have been given. [Italics in original] It will come when Americans, in hundreds of communities throughout the nation, decide to put the man in office who is pledged to enforce the Const4itution and restore the Republic. Who will proclaim in a campaign speech: “I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And it I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ ‘interests,’ I shall reply that I was informed of their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”
Why did Sarah Palin omit “or by subversion“? Isn’t President Obama subverting our Guarantee of a Republican form of Government with his Socialist and Progressive Movement agenda as can be construed by the last sentence in the same paragraph of the quotation that Sarah Palin used?: “Like so many other nations before us, we may succumb through internal weakness rather than fall before a foreign foe.”
Isn’t it time to view the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms through the prism of the Common Defence Clause of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States with an eye to repealing excessive federal and state gun control laws that weaken our Common Defence internally?
The Tea Party candidates would do well to restore the Second Amendment to its original function as a mechanism for the Common Defence, thereby restoring the Ninth Amendment right and the Tenth Amendment power reserved to the People themselves their right and their duty as individual citizens and as the militia, be it organized by the county or the State; or unorganized as their natural right of autonomy and self-determination in the interest of a more perfect Union, Justice, domestic Tranquility, the common defence, the general Welfare, and the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. These goals mean more to the People than to the bureaucrats in the federal government.