Just how much REFORM do you want?

2010 April 3
by ruleoflawrestoration

After nearly a year of testing this Rule of Law Revolution concept (without the proper funding, mind you!), I have been quite puzzled at how poorly it has been received.  Frankly, I’ve been so busy with other things, that I’ve just left this website “hanging” to see what would happen.  The results have been dismal, to put it bluntly.  It seems that the American people just don’t “get it”.

What no one has said, however, is that the ROLR is a bad idea.  Rather, they just seem not to be easily excited about it.  Perhaps it’s too radical a thought to form a voting bloc that utterly REFUSES to vote for candidates who won’t make it absolutely clear that they intend to follow the Constitution and the Constitution only?

Maybe so, but the irony gets hotter and hotter as more and more reformers appeal to the Constitution in their arguments.  Particularly with the recent “Health Care Reform” debacle, a great number of people are yelling “Unconstitutional!” as never before.  My question to those people is this:

Just how much reform do you want?

When you shout that the government has no authority to go beyond the Constitution, it SEEMS that what you really mean to say is that the government has not authority to go against the Constitution in THIS particular way.  Meanwhile, you are quite content to see it violated in other ways.

Do I have us all wrong here?  Isn’t it true that many of those yelling “Unconstitutional!” about health care reform are still quite in favor of the US Military being committed to fighting unconstitutional wars on behalf of large commercial interests in the US?  Aren’t they still supportive of the unconstitutional “USA Patriot Act”, and so many of the trappings that go with it—all ostensibly protecting the nation from the wilting pressure of terrorist attacks against us?  (Oh, wait, there haven’t been any terrorist attacks to speak of in a long time, yet our “security” keeps getting bolstered again and again at the expense of the human rights that are recognized in the Constitution.)

I submit that reforming the nation back to strict Constitutional obedience would require about as much turmoil as it would take to dismantle this government and to start over with a new constitution.  Indeed, the vast majority of the US Code would have to be repealed to bring us back into line with the Constitution.  Is this really what you want?

Or do you just want a temporary reprieve from the badness–such as “voting Republican” this fall might promise (but fail to keep)?

A great many of those who shout “Unconstitutional!” are nothing more than hypocrites, for they are quite willing to see it violated in certain ways.  They don’t want true reform; they simply want their party to be back in power.

The Rule of Law Revolution remains the only viable and peaceful plan that has any hope of restoring the nation to its Constitution.  I would think that all the “take our country back” folks would be quick to adopt it.  But alas, it seems that “take our country back” may actually be a euphemism for “let us decide how to violate the Constitution for a while!

This senseless and false two-party paradigm is a sure winner every time against any viable threat of reform.  Would-be reformers on either side pour all their energies into the “system”, and what they get out of it is a continual trip down the slippery slope of disobedience to the Constitution.  Why can so few seem to do this “math”?  Could it be that we’re too busy pouring our efforts into “reform” that we cannot see that it’s not getting us anywhere?

Let’s face it, folks.  The only chance of a substantive reform is a TOTAL reform.  It’s time to put our energies where they will not be wasted.

Meanwhile, however, millions are lulled into the promises of incremental change.  This idea of incremental reform is, well, stupid…..not in THEORY, mind you, but in REALITY.  Why do I call it stupid?  It’s because we can directly observe that it is not working!

Yes, it’s quote popular, but it’s not working.  I recently polled some liberty/Constitution folks and asked if “the movement” is “working”.  They strained to reply with a postiive “yes”, though the remainder of their answers contradicted that “yes”.  They said that we are:

  • Working on getting the message just right
  • Working on getting the message “out there”
  • Working on getting the right leaders into place

But when I asked for actual successes—-actual things that had changed in government, they could show no examples.  They were quick to point out how some states are adopting 10th Amendment resolutions, and how similar talk is permeating some circles. But they seem a bit stunned when forced to admit that talk is only talk.

Meanwhile, many cling to the hope that “the states” will set the Feds straight.  The states, however, are quite corrupt in their own right.  If they manage to eek out a spry resolution from time to time, that’s a far cry from meaningful reform—no matter how promising the resolution.  If you think I’m just too cynical here, then please answer me this:  What happens if the states are refused?  What will they do?

Someone will surely shout “Secession!”.  OK, let’s talk about that, for I find that idea truly exciting.  Just how do we suppose that Mr. Obama, who has fashioned himself a mixture of FDR and Lincoln, will respond to secession?  Won’t he merely whip out Lincoln’s “precedent”, claiming that states have no such right?  Won’t he go to war against them?  All the man has to do is to read Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address and then start shooting.  He has already set himself up for just such an event.  And if you think otherwise, I’d really like to have an opportunity to educate you some more on this topic.

Secession equals war.

So again, I ask what peaceful alternatives there are, and nothing but the Rule of Law Revolution comes to mind.

Now back to the liberty/Constitution folks I polled.  Some of them noted honestly that the bad guys are doubling our speed in their advances.  And that negates any accomplishment we may wish to claim.  It makes no sense to run a race when your opponent can take two steps to your one.  Yet we continue racing on, proud that we are doing more this year than last.  We fail to understand, however, that similarly-minded reformers have been failing since 1789 to get the nation to obey the Constitution.

So to all the non-hypocrites amongst the reform crowd, I say that it’s time to step it up.  If there is any hope at saving the nation before it kills itself, I cannot imagine a better remedy that to side-step this stupid two-party system altogether with a voting bloc that insist on Constitution-obeying candidates only.

If I am wrong in this, would someone please have the honor to explain it to me?  And if I am right, how can we justify inaction?

The Republican Party is clearly not the answer here.  Eight years of a Republican White House merely paved the way for Mr. Obama.  It did NOT move things in the opposite direction.

Unless we stop to “do some math”, we are doomed, for the popular “answers” and “solutions” are just as stupid as are the problems we face.  If we will not take a principled approach to saving ourselves, then we deserve the tyranny we are under, for we are no better than the brutes who have rule over us.

If anyone can explain to me why the Rule of Law Revolution is not the right answer, I’m all ears.

I have let it sit long enough, and now it is either time to get this website out of Beta, or to shut it down as a hopeless cause in an unprincipled nation—OR to do something better.  Again, if anyone can conceive a better plan, I’m all ears!

Jack Pelham

Share
One Response leave one →
  1. April 3, 2010

    You are spot on! I think the problem with your answers from the tea party folks comes from the co-opting of the tea party by the republican party. The more advances socialism and big govt. make in our society, the more people start to awaken or awaken more fully. Also republicans mingling with real constitutionalists has had a good influence overall.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.