Quote:
Originally Posted by DZ
It's great to play with word meanings but this is a real issue.
|
Which is exactly why we shouldn't "play" with word meanings. "Real" issues require real words, not play words. Falling back on mushy bromides such as "let's compromise" when foundational principles are at stake is not just about fixing a problem. It is, in regard to the Constitution in this case, about reversing the constitutional relation between citizen and government.
It is no big secret what progressive tinkering with constitutional rights over the past hundred years has been about. It is no secret that what progressives have been trying to achieve with incremental "compromises" is the elimination of the Constitution and its structural guarantee of individual rights. And replacing that with an all-powerful administrative central government which decides and dictates what rights the citizen has.
It is no secret that among the "vast residuum" of constitutional rights that progressive government has already vanquished, a few obstinate ones remain to be destroyed. The Second Amendment being at the top of the list.
It is no secret that a cherished goal of progressives is to abolish the Second Amendment. And it is no secret, that the ultimate goal of never-ending gun control "compromises" is to eliminate private gun ownership.
Of course, the ruse is that it is about fixing the problem of gun violence. In actuality, it is about fixing the central government's problem of its inability to convince the voters that they must not have guns.
And the propaganda which progressives have convinced even themselves of as being the "truth," is that they are trying to make our lives free "from" the eternal slings and arrows which life casts our way, such as fear, or want (poverty), or violence. But the real truth is that government cannot give us the "right" not to be plagued by nature's evils so long as we, as individuals, have inherent rights "to" or "of" some basic freedoms. Those pesky basic freedoms get in the way of government giving us the "right" to be free "from" bad stuff. Free people get in each other's way. They do unacceptable, offensive, stuff to each other.
The only way the government can give us the "right" to "freedom" from bad stuff, including violence to each other (or lack of health care, or catastrophic global climate change, etc.), is to have full control of us. It must have the power to give us that "right," and not to be limited by various individual "unalienable" rights.
Ultimately, it is not only the control of our natural impulses that progressive government must have in order to provide us the panacea for a trouble free life, but it requires the control of nature itself. The burden such a government imposes on itself is so great that it cannot truly "compromise" with irritating factions and splinter groups, with "extremists" or "kooks." With "clingers" to old things or silly notions. Not yet having the total power it wants, it must still play at little compromises which will eventually lead to its promised land.
So when the government raises a "real issue," beware of how it plays with words, and the meaning of those words. It's probably true that generations have gradually been conditioned to accept the pre-eminent role of the Federal Government in every aspect of our lives. So it's only natural to most that Presidents can willy-nilly make executive orders about whatever the President wants. Or that Federal Regulatory Agencies can do just about the same. And the rationale, or excuse, is that if the Congress fails to do what the President wants, then he can just go ahead and do it himself.
But note what such logic, such playing with the meaning of words, leads to. If we accept such governance, what is the meaning of the words in the Constitution? What is the meaning of the words of any law or statute? What is the meaning or necessity of Congress? Of what use are various competing localities such as States? They, and much more, including the "rights" you think you own, are all subject to the whim and pen of one person.
And that is what you wind up with when "compromise" overrules principle.