When Words Cease to Have Meaning

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God" (emphasis mine). Congressional Oath of Office www.senate.gov

I am one of those people that think words mean something. I spend a great deal of my day with words. As a college professor, I love meeting new ones, sorting through my brain to recall old ones, searching the dictionary for a precise meaning of a specific one. I hang my hat on words. I depend on them. I respect them.

Which is why I am so troubled with the careless and reckless disregard for the meaning of words in our Congress and by this President. Joe Wilson took a lot of heat for shouting "you lie" during President Obama's health care speech. Decorum aside I didn't really see what all the fuss was about. We don't live in a monarchy or a dictatorship. Disagreement, discourse--these are givens in a free society. One has to merely watch a few minutes of floor debate in the British Parliament to appreciate the relative benignity of Wilson's comment. I am not justifying his outburst, I am merely reflecting on his right to do so. I encourage you to listen to the speech and determine for yourself if the President spoke the truth or Congressman Wilson did.

In Federalist 51, James Madison writes: If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

Our government is out of control. In the last year and a half our President has repeatedly overreached the bounds of his office. Congress has passed thousands of pages of new legislation without reading it and without demonstrating a sound understanding of the very Constitution that provides their job description. The one that they have sworn to uphold. Their lack of respect for the Constitution may come from a lack of familiarity with same. House Judiciary Committee Chairman, Representative Jon Conyers referred to the "good and welfare" clause as his justification of the health care bill's constitutionality. There is no "good and welfare" clause. Representative Phil Hare cited Americans' right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as his constitutional justification for voting for the health care bill. The phrase life, liberty and pursuit of happiness comes from the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution.

When our representatives in Washington--our congressman and senators and president--swear to uphold the Constitution and then don't, we have more than a problem on our hands, we have a crisis.

Next to monitoring the excesses of the regime under which we are suffering, this is my favorite current subject.
Although I learned civics and history before the age of "political correctness," and the invasion of "progressivism," I am aware that there was so much to cover it was impossible to get access to the nasty details of history, the twists and turns and the conflicts and debates.

I chose to remedy that through reading books written before 1960, or histories of The U.S. written by foreign nationals (e.g. Winston Churchill).
In addition to that Amazon has the amazing ability to help us find really old books relevant to the discussion which may be found at reasonable prices. I have yet failed to find an original title or a reprint of them. My only limitation in a very few instances is price.

As luck would have it (thank you, First Amendment) many excellent recent references are available today that were not available 15 years ago. Two of them are my most recent books read, and if they had been available 30 years ago, I would enjoy a firmer grasp of the civic disasters we are currently facing and their underpinnings.

The first book is this one, and by chance it prepared me perfectly for the second, which is presented later :

This book is only 296 pages, including 46 pages of notes and references. It is 99% facts and 1% opinion (nobody's perfect) so any "progressive" argument about its contents is spurious. As far as relevance is concerned, the same political dynamics that is destroying us today is identical to those described in these pages. We have been "there" before.
The main lesson in this book is that "States' Rights" is just as essential today as it was then. The helplessness of the ordinary citizen in "setting things right," and insisting on balance of powers between the three branches of government is made clear.
What are the States? A political division of a defined number of citizens. Who then has the most effective means of addressing abuses at the federal level? Individual citizens with their individual votes? Or States with more immediate and meaningful access to attack central abuses?

I'll let the readers figure that one out.

The second book is this one :

This one is not just a single meal, but a month's worth of educational nourishment. It is huge. Like the first book, it is 99% fact and a few opinions with which I often personally disagree. But the minutiae of the events overide everything, and the educational value is immense. The devil is in the details in historical events and, if this book doesn't provide them all, the included notes and references make it possible for the interested to find more.

This book has one major flaw : Its title. The value of its contents merits a more universal phrasing which will not turn off the truly ignorant, who view "Patriotism" as a flaw rather than as a virtue; a threat to the "common man," or as the progressives prefer, "The New Man.".

A more useful and neutral title should have been A Citizen's History of the United States
This may have made it at least mildly attractive to those who need the education most; those with huge, loud opinions and corresponding almost total state of ignorance.

This book is 932 pages, including 102 pages of notes and references.
As with all books, in the 213 pages I have read there have been a few typos and errors (which will provide the losers with infinite amusement) but it is 99.9% facts and 0.1% opinion or editorializing, with which most rational persons will have no complaint.

The issues presented describe the unique form of our government and the resulting problems, since it is unique, never tried before. It's central feature being divided 'final' authority, the States' and the Central Government. This was not viewed as unworkable, since the duties and obligations and rights of each was ultimately clearly defined, and were not intended to overlap. Or not so clearly.

Therein lies the historical discussion or debate, as well as our contemporary one.

It is obvious, and historical fact that over the last 117 years the lists of understood rights and obligations of the Feds vs the States have changed. One has expanded dramatically, the other shrunk to virtual uselessness. All changes, presumably, legal and Constitutional. NOT!

And here we are. With a chief executive as ignorant of history as his supporters, oblivious to common words and their meanings, and totally and arrogantly doing his thing as if none of history matters.

Redefining the United States to his private, ignorant vision, and indifferent to the magnitue of the negative change.

The best hope of reversal is challenges by the states. A continual barrage of justified demands for explanations and justifications from the Central government. We never intented to exchange one monarch for another, whether it be a single insane individual or a collection of them in a bureaucracy.

The second weapon in the arsenal of Freedom's defense is nullification. When all else fails, short of a shooting war. A noble historical tool used effectively many times by the central government. the States and even groups of ordinary citizens. The only prerequisite is courage and conviction (right or wrong).

Yes, words mean things, but it's impossible to pursue that avenue for change without a working grasp of the historical contexts, and the identifying of the most effective ways to kill the monster, short of Civil War 2.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.