You can't get the Constitution back

People say they want their constitution back. That is fine. I hope they aren’t speaking literally. For if they are, then they don’t understand the constitution or what it is.

For they can’t get it back. Because it didn’t go anyplace. In fact it isn’t anyplace. It just isn’t.

Not today anyway.

The pseudo constitution under which we operate today in this country isn’t even a very good fake constitution. It doesn’t closely resemble the original.

So what does one do about it?

The first thing is to learn what the original constitution is. Learn how it works. You do that by going back to the documents written at that time about the constitution; read them, understand them, determine what the men meant by those words that were written down on that piece of parchment called the constitution.

And then you put the constitution into operation again.

The constitution is just words on a piece of parchment. That is all it is. That is all it can ever be. Those words can be nothing more by themselves. They need you to put life into them. The constitution must be within you and then you must put it into action in the physical universe. No one else can do it for you. Not a legislator. Not a president. Not a judge.

Only you.

No, you can’t get your constitution back. But you can put it there. For it is yours with which to so do.

What I am talking about is responsibility. What I am saying is that you can’t rely on someone else to do it. That’s what “getting it back” is saying. It is saying that someone else has it and you want them to give it back to you. It is saying that someone else must take responsibility for the situation.

I am saying you are responsible for the Constitution It is within you. And you must find it and know when you have found it. And then you must take that final step and give it life.

Start!

Commuter Rail Referendum

The County Board seems headed in the right direction regarding commuter rail. The referendum question proposed by the Board exposes the prime problem of consideration regarding commuter rail: how is it to be funded?

I took a libertarian argument to the board to hold the referendum. Here it is:

My comments tonight are in regard to the proposed advisory referendum and tradition.

We are all familiar with the words, “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

This is a statement of what is Tradition here in the United States. I don’t think there is a person in this room tonight that does not understand the importance and value of this tradition. It is part of all of us who live in these united States.

From this very same document is stated another tradition almost as important as the first one: “That to secure these rights Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

And that, dear members of this board, is your basic purpose as County Supervisors. To secure those rights.

It is not to laud over us, telling us what is the best thing for us to do. It is not to tell us how to live our lives, how to care for ourselves, how to care for our property, how we should travel, eat, sleep or drink.

In pursuit of your traditional purpose, to secure those rights, if there is an issue of great controversy, then it is your duty to consult the people from whence your powers were derived. And what better way to do this than by referendum.

I am not a great proponent of majority rule. When 51% of the people can tell the other 49% what to do, that is not Democracy. It is just a form of fascism.

But when just an elite few make the decision for the rest of us, that is worse. That is socialism.

In a True Democracy, a traditional democracy, someone cannot take from another person to give to a third person. I, for instance, cannot forcibly take money from Jim Kaplan (here), my County Supervisor, and give it to my friend County Supervisor Ken Hall—even when Ken and I say it is in Jim’s best interest to give us that money.

In a traditional democracy, Jim has the right to spend his money the way he sees fit without interference from Ken and me.

So this whole concept of taking money from one group that has no interest in investing an a rail system to give to another group that does, is anathema to democracy and the traditional role of government to secure our rights.

In pursuit of that traditional role of government, the least you can do is consult your constituency and hold a referendum on the issue.