“Who has the higher authority, the Constitution or the Divine Entity who inspired the men who wrote it?”
Our creator endowed us with unalienable rights. Our Constitution is the instrument thru which our Divine Creator seeks to protect those rights. Don’t mess with it.
“...where should I place my allegiance when some one wishes to use The Constitution in asking me to abdicate my responsibility to God.”
I find that incredible. You’re gonna have to link me to that one.
I find no fault with your order: God, family, then country. However, I also recognize that without this country and it’s Constitution, and the Americans who have sacrificed their lives for this country and it’s Constitution, there’s no telling which religion my family and I might be forced to worship.
In the interim, in this land, men have decided upon a rule of law known as the Constitution. I believe as you, that it was inspired by the Divine Creator. That’s another reason to disallow liberally progressive socialists from messin’ with it...ie passing legislation in defiance of it.
Only one man in congress today holds true to our Constitution, that even you admit was inspired by our Divine Creator. Yet you spend hours here trashing him.
In some circles, that sort of indulgence is considered the embodiment of hypocrisy.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t trash a congressman who stands firmly upon the Constitution, and then try to argue you really do support the Constitution.
I think you may find were are not so far a part except on one major issue. Of course it is a big one.
Now as the the issue of defending family vs the Constitution. I would, in the circumstances of even just a few years ago, agree with you. Indeed the history of our military efforts are almost elusively reactionary. In the days when we could see an enemy coming and defend ourselves reactively, that worked well.
Now we have just exited an interesting age, and age where there were weapons that could essitinally kill millions with little warning. We had one thing working in our favor even then as a preventative measure, the idea of Mutual Assured Destruction. Both sides, the Soviets and the US, were willing to die for their respective countries. Willing, but not wanting, neither side had anyone wanting to die for their cause.
That is the big difference verses what we have in the 21st century. We now face an enemy either with or getting close to the very same weapons that hung over our heads in the last 50 years. Except this enemy wants to die for its cause. Retaliation means nothing to them, they welcome it. Mutual Assured Destruction will no longer be effective.
This dynamic change in warfare is something that was beyond the wildest dreams of many just a few decades ago, and certainly beyond the dreams of our Founders. This change leaves us with few choices. We can withdraw into our borders, do our our best to develop defenses against an aerial attack and do our best to secure our borders against a determined foe. Both of these are acceptable and need to be done, however in my opinion, as well as others even more knowledgeable than I, it is not enough. The best missile defense is to make sure it is never launched. It also follows that the best way to see who may want to enter our country to do harm is to be where they want to venture from. I know some are here, and that is part of the internal operation that is on going as well. It takes a combination of things in this day and age to defend our nation.
This is where I also take my stance as it pertains to the Constitution and defending my family. I will quote you than give my answer;
“...where should I place my allegiance when some one wishes to use The Constitution in asking me to abdicate my responsibility to God.”
I find that incredible. You’re gonna have to link me to that one.
I have no link because there is nothing to link to, it comes from me directly, as well as others, who want a more active defense. In being more concerned with what is and isn't Constitutional than taking a proactive stance against our modern 21st Century enemies, you yourself and those who take your position are the ones who indeed are asking me to make that very choice, my family or the Constitution. I support my countries current efforts and indeed wish them expanded to other rouge states. My God, Iran just tested a 4000 km range missile and has made another break through in enrichment.
I know that many will tell us that Paul is strong on defense and that when it comes down to it he will respond with force and do it in respect to the Constitution. Well there is the problem, respond. Respond to what, the gaping hole that was once Wall Street or the Washington Monument? What about the thousands, and perhaps millions dead, what is their response? When looking back at such a disaster, how kind will history judge us when it is obvious that we could have prevented such an attack simply by playing against the rules laid out over 200 years ago in antoher time and another world? What do we say to the dead, what do we say to their survivors, we could not act because of the Constitution? I can only imagine their response.
We are blessed that by the very nature of our Country's rules and laws that a man need rarely if ever have to choose between between Earthly powers and the King of Heaven, but there comes a point a man may have to decide. I choose the Higher authority.