Let’s talk Constitution

Let’s talk about our founding document for a minute, you know, that four page, 7,591 word document that some like to claim to defend under certain circumstances.

We currently have a group of armed individuals occupying a federal building in Oregon under that claim of defending the Constitutional rights of people.  Whether it is armed individuals, Oath Keepers, or Three Percenters, there have been numerous people and/or groups trying to claim the mantle of being the “Defender of the Constitution”.  The problem with that in my view is that the Constitution does not need defending.  These groups actually prove the Constitution is working perfectly fine as it stands.

There’s no government conspiracy to confiscate guns or squelch free speech.  If that were the case, then the Oregon occupation would have already been squashed with extreme prejudice to avoid any copycats.  Instead, the government basically let them do as they wish and only now is the FBI working with local authorities to find an end to the situation.

If these groups or individuals were serious about protecting the Constitution, where were they when John Crawford III was shot and killed by the police while holding an airsoft rifle in an open carry state?  When are they going to put out a statement on the killing of Tamir Rice in that same open carry state?

See, that’s the thing about protecting the Constitution.  If you’re going to do for one, then do for all.  If you can’t do for all, then let someone else handle the workload.  America isn’t just White and male.  America isn’t just Christian either.  The protected rights of one is the protected rights of all.  If you can’t see or agree to that, then the problem with the Constitution lies between your two ears and not with the government.

Just something to ponder while we see how things play out in Oregon…

Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code--FBI

Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code–FBI

This could be considered an act of domestic terrorism as it is defined in U.S. Code.  I seriously doubt we’ll ever see it classified as such, and I wouldn’t argue if it were not.  We do have the protected right to free speech and to petition the government.  I’d suggest that people watch themselves to avoid crossing the line of free speech and getting into threatening or intimidating behavior.  The latter is not protected by the Constitution.

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Let’s talk Constitution

  1. On the free speech bit…it has amazed me for YEARS how many people can’t seem to grasp that their freedom of speech does not insulate them from criticism of what they say!

    Like

    • That’s because the repercussions of exercising your free speech isn’t written into the 1st. If it’s not in black and white, some people have a hard time grasping it.

      Like

  2. Haven’t really followed this story. Whatever their grievance is, whether legitimate or not, they are going about it the wrong way.
    I think those of us east of the Mississippi don’t really understand about the scope of government land ownership out west. Nevada is like 82% owned by the Federal Gov’t and several other states are 50% or more. Living up here in the Hills, we deal with this on a smaller scale. About a third of my county (and most counties up here) are owned by the Federal or State government. This creates it’s own set of problems, for instance, it severely shrinks our tax base and this does put a hardship on the locals.
    I did read that a couple of guys out there did their time and then a judge ordered them back to jail for a longer sentence, which seems double jeopardy to me.
    So, I have no idea what their grievances are but they’ve chosen the wrong way to address them.

    Like

    • “which seems double jeopardy to me.”
      No, it’s not double-jeopardy. The judge determined their original sentence did not meet the minimum limits for the crime for which they were convicted. Double-jeopardy protects you from being TRIED for the same crime twice. Your sentence can be appealed, as this one was, and either decreased OR increased. This was a change of sentence, not a second trial for the crime.

      Like

    • I get the land ownership issue, and that is something that will have to be addressed at some point. At the same time, these farmers have been using the land and not paying for what they’ve used. In my view, they don’t have a pot to piss in when it comes to trying to discuss land ownership. If the government is going to own land, then there has to be some kind of way to ensure that all people have access to that land and the local government isn’t being hamstrung by not having that land on the tax rolls.

      As far as the guys that went to jail, I don’t think it’s as much as double jeopardy as it is the original judge screwed up. If the courts are going to be lenient on them and give them time served, then that same thing should apply equally across the board. i do know that, when it comes to federal sentencing, there’s very little give in cutting the sentences short. You generally have to do about 90-95% of your time.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s