By Curtis W. Caine, Sr., M.D.
In a business or organization an industrious person with ability and ambition may, by hard work and ingenuity, rightfully gain a position of authority over others who voluntarily submit.
But in this world, throughout history, there have been and are those who have an insatiable, inordinate desire to have Power over and control of others, without their permission. Such a person may resort to direct, one-on-one violence to gain his goal. Of course, in this situation there is the risk that the intended victim may be the victor! Or, the aggressor may increase his odds by forming a gang to satisfy his lust. Tyrants throughout history have resorted to this tactic. However, in many areas of the globe laws forbidding plunder stand in the way.
In the(se) United States, our Republic was forged under the tenent of the Declaration of Independence that: “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. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.”
And the U.S. Constitution under the Bill of Rights (Amendment V) declares: “[No person shall be] deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Other countries have not been so fortunate and their governments have perverted the law to institutionalize legal plunder, the taking of property of individuals and redistributing it to politically powerful groups.
In post-revolutionary France, patriot Fredric Bastiat (1801-1850) warned about the dangers of socialism and helped his country avoid collectivism for over a century.
Bastiat pointed out in The Law (1848), the slickest way to overlord others is to get elected to the legislature (by hook or crook) and get a law passed (by means fair or foul) that makes plunder “legal.” Then the armed force of the government imposes the tyranny that the lone bad guy was unable to accomplish.
Bastiat wrote:
It is not true that the legislator has absolute power over our persons and property. The existence of persons and property preceded the existence of the legislator, and his function is only to guarantee their safety.
It is not true that the function of law is to regulate our consciences, our ideas, our wills, our education, our opinions, our work, our trade, our talents, or our pleasures. The function of law is to protect the free exercise of these rights, and to prevent any person from interfering with the free exercise of these same rights by any other person.
Since law necessarily requires the support of force, its lawful domain is only in the areas where the use of force is necessary. This is justice…
Law is solely the organization of the individual right of self-defense, which existed before law was formalized. Law is justice.
The mission of the law is not to oppress persons and plunder them of their property, even though the law may be acting in a philanthropic spirit. Its mission is to protect persons and property.(1)
But that is not where we are in the(se) United States today. Eighty percent of what the central government imposes on us is forbidden to it by the “Supreme Law of the Land” — the U.S. Constitution. Our representatives in Congress, both in the U.S. House and Senate, vote for unconstitutional measures that violate the Constitution and curtail our freedom because we do not hold their feet to the fire. That is why this column is presented. To point out that the States delegated to the Union at its founding NO authority via the Constitution to be engaged in health, education, welfare, banking, power, et cetera. All federal activities in the forbidden areas are “usurpations,” “abuses,” and “injuries” inflicted by the very entity whose basic raison d’ être is the exact opposite — to see that such never happens.(2)
References
1. Bastiat F. The Law. (1848) Irvington-on-Hudson, NY, Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., 1998, pp. 68-69. Copies of The Law are available through Hacienda Publishing, Inc., 1-478-757-9873. Single copies, $3.95 each; discounts available for multiple copies.
2. The reader is also advised to peruse the U.S. Constitution and re-read the previous columns on The Constitution – Plain and Simple in particular “General Welfare,” Medical Sentinel 1997;2(4):144-146 and “Foreign to Our Constitution,” Medical Sentinel 1998;3(4):145, 148.
——————————————
Chip Pickering, MC
427 Cannon House Office Bldg
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chip,
Thanks for your [letter] of 2/2/01 regarding TRIM in which you admit “…the oath I took to uphold the Constitution of the United States…” and maintain “Throughout my tenure…I…have striven to uphold my commitment…to the Constitution…”
That “commitment” is stipulated “…bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…” (Article VI, paragraph 3). So, you are under oath at all times. Thus, each vote you cast, each program you favor or disapprove, must be in consonance with the Constitution. Otherwise your OATH has been breached. To violate that oath dishonors you. Not incidentally, it breaks U.S. law. It is perjury (swearing falsely). Perjury is an impeachable offence. Serious business.
To add “So help me, God” compounds the felony. God’s third commandment (Exodus 20:7) reads “Thou shalt not take the name at the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.” To break an oath sworn in God’s name is taking God’s Name in vain. Exponentially serious business.
Ergo — every vote you cast has to obey the Constitution.
The TRIM bulletin measures by the Constitution yard stick. A star is 36 inches. An X doesn’t meet the standard.
Chip, your report card must show all stars for your oath to be upheld.
And, finally, your “I will keep your views in mind” also misses the mark. My views are inconsequential. So are yours. The only views that count are God’s and the U.S. Constitution’s!
Constituent Horatio Bunce correctly told his Congressman Davey Crockett (1786-1836), when our Republic was just a few decades old, that Colonel Crockett could give any amount of his own money to victims of fire in Georgetown, but members of Congress were forbidden by the Constitution to vote one penny of public tax money for charity because it is “not yours to give.”
Dead serious,
Curtis
(If only every one of us would write a letter like this to our Representative and Senators every time they vote for unconstitutional measures – imagine that! -Ed.)
Dr. Caine is an anesthesiologist in Jackson, Mississippi, and a member of the Editorial Board of the Medical Sentinel. His e-mail is [email protected].
Originally published in the Medical Sentinel 2002;7(2):60-61. Copyright©2002 Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)
(This column on the Constitution appears in the Medical Sentinel to remind us that it is the unConstitutional (and thus illegal) activities in medicine and all other facets of our lives that have trampled on and outlawed our God-endowed freedom and liberty.)
