This week we celebrate the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. I am going to quote what I wrote as an introduction to the Town of Selma’s ceremonial reading of the Declaration. Hopefully, some of you got to hear it and the Declaration read Wednesday night.
“The American Revolution against Great Britain began in 1775. On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia proposed a resolution to declare colonial independence in the Second Continental Congress. The vote on that resolution was delayed for several weeks. On June 11, 1776, the congress appointed a committee of five to draft a declaration of independence from Great Britain. One June 28th, a draft of that declaration was presented to Congress. On July 2nd, Lee’s Resolution was partially passed by Congress, declaring, “Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.” The declaration document was debated and revised, and on July 4th, the Second Continental Congress approved the final draft of the American Declaration of Independence”.
I consider July 2nd to be our actual Independence Day, not July 4th. This is not just because July 2nd is my birthday, but because the actual vote for American independence came on that day. John Adams thought much the same way. He wrote to his wife on July 3rd, 1776, “The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more”.
The Second Continental Congress voted for independence to escape the tyranny they had been experiencing, which was enumerated in the Declaration, point by point. Tyranny can come in various forms. The Founding Fathers were keenly aware of this. Samuel Adams, cousin to John Adams (and not just one of my favorite beers), said “How strangely will the tools of a tyrant pervert the plain meaning of words.” Never has this quote been as poignant as it is today.
North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue has vetoed the state budget so that she can look magnanimous in her stance for increased funding for public schools. This is nothing more than a ploy to build her legacy as someone who allegedly cares about children and education. However, discerning people realize that it’s nothing more than political showboating. The plain meaning of adequate funding is being perverted.
The recent decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States on both the State of Arizona’s immigration law (SB1070) and on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) show that the quote by Samuel Adams to be glaring accurate. To declare that states no longer have the ability to control immigration to their respective sovereign jurisdictions (as originally intended) is federal tyranny over states. The Arizona decision along with the Obama administration’s refusal to enforce immigration laws cause states to shoulder the burden of educating illegal immigrant children, requiring large state education budgets. The fact that Obamacare was ruled as constitutional as a form of taxation has forced the single largest tax increase in American history. It takes away your freedom of choice over whether or not to carry health care coverage, and requires you to participate in commerce, whether you choose to do so or not. That, my friends, is a form or tyranny.
The Supreme Court decision on Obamacare was a surprise to me, since I figured that even a high school civics student could have figured out that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was highly unconstitutional. Sure, there were some provisions I liked in the bill, but they were small ones. Sure, the health care laws could use revision, but this gigantic bureaucracy was not the way to go, nor is it the American way of doing things. If the law is an exercise in tyranny, limits freedom, and is a major financial burden, then the parts I like are irrelevant and not worth the government’s interference and tyrannical power.
In the first paragraph, I quoted the brief narrative on the Declaration of Independence for a reason. Folks, we started a revolution for far less than we are putting up with now. When will we have had enough?
Showing posts with label founding fathers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label founding fathers. Show all posts
Friday, July 06, 2012
Friday, May 29, 2009
Column for May 28, 2009
Should you be required to own property in order to vote in this nation? "Preposterous", you say, "not in America! That is totally against the fabric of our nation's founding!" Believe it or not, this is a long debated subject that goes back over 200 years.
The Founding Fathers had heated debates about whether or not to include requirements such as property (land) ownership in order to be able to cast a vote. Personally, I believe that to be of great benefit and merit to a nation. I believe it would especially benefit us here in North Carolina, in Johnston County, and in little old Selma.
In August of 1787, the Philadelphia Convention was meeting to discuss their first outline of the revised constitution. It was the middle of summer 212 years ago in a building with no air conditioning. The doors and windows were all shut and the drapes drawn closed. Men were hot in their temperature as well as demeanor. And representatives of the several states were debating the merits of various proposals line upon line, precept upon precept.
One of the principal architects of the Constitution, Gouverneur Morris (that was his name, not his title) of Pennsylvania argued strongly for land ownership as a requisite for suffrage. Benjamin Franklin argued against the concept, lauding the common man and the responsibilities for the elected to not limit the freedoms of the electors (voters).
Which view is correct? Is it legal to restrict who can vote? In the Constitution, we presently have provisions that one can not be denied the right to vote based upon race, sex, and failure to pay a poll tax for anyone over the age of 18. However, there is no provision that says you must own property. Nor is there the provision that you can not be denied the right to vote if you do not own property.
Here is the wisdom and how it applies to us. Here in Selma, the last statistic I heard was that 61% of the residents are renters. That means that only 39% of the potential voters directly feel the bite of property taxes for the town and county. Why should someone who does actually pay taxes in this town be able to vote for someone who is going to determine the level of taxes the minority of us property owners pay? Is that fair? I say not, since they do not have a reasonable self-interest in how residents are taxed.
I also feel the same way about income taxes. Should anyone who does not actually pay income taxes be able to elect those who will set the income tax rates and determine how tax dollars are spent?
People who receive public tax money for their livelihood are dependent upon the entity from which they receive their stipend. Therefore, if these same people are eligible to vote, they will elect those who will most likely continue to support them financially. This is the insidious plan that has been in place since the 1960's. Enslave people financially and they will vote against the interest of the masses for their own benefit. A suckling pig will not voluntarily diminish its food source.
The term disfranchisement was used even in 1787. The term was not invented in 2000 when some falsely accused George W. Bush of "stealing an election". The term was then used in regards to placing qualifications on the right to vote. The term of "taxation without representation" was a long used battle cry in the young nation and part of the reason for the revolution. Just as bad, however, is "representation without taxation".
That last concept was not lost on some of the states in the 1700's. There were indeed such restrictions or qualifications for people to be able to cast a ballot. Their reason was much the same as mine; that people who pay taxes actually have an interest in how the government that extracts such taxation uses said monies.
I am under no illusion that we will ever see such qualifications for the right to vote in this nation, state, county, or town. I would settle for having all who would cast a ballot considering the good of the whole population rather than their own dependencies. That sort of thinking has gotten us career politicians, higher taxes, insane government spending, massive debt, and corruption. Some of our Founding Fathers had great wisdom...but that wisdom is lost unless we are willing to learn from them.
The Founding Fathers had heated debates about whether or not to include requirements such as property (land) ownership in order to be able to cast a vote. Personally, I believe that to be of great benefit and merit to a nation. I believe it would especially benefit us here in North Carolina, in Johnston County, and in little old Selma.
In August of 1787, the Philadelphia Convention was meeting to discuss their first outline of the revised constitution. It was the middle of summer 212 years ago in a building with no air conditioning. The doors and windows were all shut and the drapes drawn closed. Men were hot in their temperature as well as demeanor. And representatives of the several states were debating the merits of various proposals line upon line, precept upon precept.
One of the principal architects of the Constitution, Gouverneur Morris (that was his name, not his title) of Pennsylvania argued strongly for land ownership as a requisite for suffrage. Benjamin Franklin argued against the concept, lauding the common man and the responsibilities for the elected to not limit the freedoms of the electors (voters).
Which view is correct? Is it legal to restrict who can vote? In the Constitution, we presently have provisions that one can not be denied the right to vote based upon race, sex, and failure to pay a poll tax for anyone over the age of 18. However, there is no provision that says you must own property. Nor is there the provision that you can not be denied the right to vote if you do not own property.
Here is the wisdom and how it applies to us. Here in Selma, the last statistic I heard was that 61% of the residents are renters. That means that only 39% of the potential voters directly feel the bite of property taxes for the town and county. Why should someone who does actually pay taxes in this town be able to vote for someone who is going to determine the level of taxes the minority of us property owners pay? Is that fair? I say not, since they do not have a reasonable self-interest in how residents are taxed.
I also feel the same way about income taxes. Should anyone who does not actually pay income taxes be able to elect those who will set the income tax rates and determine how tax dollars are spent?
People who receive public tax money for their livelihood are dependent upon the entity from which they receive their stipend. Therefore, if these same people are eligible to vote, they will elect those who will most likely continue to support them financially. This is the insidious plan that has been in place since the 1960's. Enslave people financially and they will vote against the interest of the masses for their own benefit. A suckling pig will not voluntarily diminish its food source.
The term disfranchisement was used even in 1787. The term was not invented in 2000 when some falsely accused George W. Bush of "stealing an election". The term was then used in regards to placing qualifications on the right to vote. The term of "taxation without representation" was a long used battle cry in the young nation and part of the reason for the revolution. Just as bad, however, is "representation without taxation".
That last concept was not lost on some of the states in the 1700's. There were indeed such restrictions or qualifications for people to be able to cast a ballot. Their reason was much the same as mine; that people who pay taxes actually have an interest in how the government that extracts such taxation uses said monies.
I am under no illusion that we will ever see such qualifications for the right to vote in this nation, state, county, or town. I would settle for having all who would cast a ballot considering the good of the whole population rather than their own dependencies. That sort of thinking has gotten us career politicians, higher taxes, insane government spending, massive debt, and corruption. Some of our Founding Fathers had great wisdom...but that wisdom is lost unless we are willing to learn from them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
