Guest Commentary
by Eric Andersen
The Freedom Index for the 113th Congress is now available and I have found something disturbing.
Freedom and prosperity are directly correlated to how closely we adhere to our founding principles.
Here is what I discovered. If you think this is the voting record of a patriot I have ocean front property in Arizona for you.
Feb 2011 – Restricted our First Amendment rights with H.R. 347
Mar 2011 – Told Fox News military can attack without a Congressional declaration of war
Dec 2011 – Voted for indefinite detention of American citizens
Jul 2012 – Voted 1.6B in funding for the U.N. in violation of our national sovereignty, H.R. 6018
Jan 2013 – Voted for the Sandy Relief wealth redistribution bill, H.R. 152
Jan 2013 – Voted to kick the debt can down the road, H.R. 325
Mar 2013 – Voted to fully fund Obama Care, H.R. 933
Apr 2013 – Voted to CISPA internet sharing with government, H.R. 624
Jul 2013 – Voted against Amendment to end NSA surveillance of phone conversations
Jul 2013 – Voted to strike words “not to exceed” from the funding of the Office of Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response.
House Amendment 418 (Gallego) to H.R. 2610 – Issa, McClintock and Rohrabacher vote “No”.
Congressman Duncan D. Hunter (R-52) is presently voting with the Constitution 70 percent of the time. It’s the 30 percent that hurts. What is just as concerning is the negative trending. The congressman had an 80 percent rating after the first half of the 112th Congress, slipped to 73 percent by its end and now sits at 70 percent.
I am not questioning the Congressman’s intentions. I believe him to be doing that which he thinks is right, but freedom, prosperity and reform respond to our adherence to natural law and principle, not our best intentions.
Comments 15
Mr. Andersen, were Congress to adhere to the “natural law and principle” of the Constitution as originally drawn, there would have been no need for the twenty-seven amendments that followed…slavery would still be the law of the land, women would not be allowed to vote and voters would not be able to elect their Federal Senate representatives.
Congress and Washington overstep on myriad occasions, but good judgment is still required. If all that was needed was blind, rote obedience to the Constitution to lead us…a document that was written by men who could not have possibly imagined the kind of world of today but who understood the need for flexibility…we wouldn’t have a Congress, we would have a pope.
Kirk, if you think the Constitution is outdated, then follow the law of the land, and change it. Add your “thinking” as the 28th Amendment. That’s what the clearly defined amendment process is for, and it’s been put to good use many times!
To say we should pretty much ignore the Constitution when it’s inconvenient (which IS what you are in fact saying.) is a nonstarter (except, of course, in progressive circles).
Kirk, the Constitution is clear on the subjects of updates. Like you pointed out, it took an amendment to get rid of slavery. If Mr. Hunter would like to change the Constitution, shouldn’t he go about it the same way Lincoln had to?
Yes, adhere to the Constitution, including the part where it talks about how to change it.
Current Congressman Duncan Hunter once told me that he doesn’t worry about the Constitution; he just does what is “right”. I don’t believe you have to choose. My opinions are both right and Constitutional. It seems like a man who swore to support and defend the Constitution both as a Marine and as a congressman could also mesh “right” with “Constitutional”.
“there would have been no need for the twenty-seven amendments that followed”
Straw Man fallacy. Andersen is arguing that Hunter should follow the constitution, which includes the amendments. For what it’s worth, the transgressions Andersen cites are mostly violations of amendments.
“Congress and Washington overstep on myriad occasions, but good judgment is still required.”
Now who is making the argument to empower a Representative in the same way Catholics empower the Vicar of Christ?
The 13th (women suffrage) and 19th Amendments (abolishing slavery) brought the Constitution more closely in line with natural law.
Kirk E, I think the founding fathers did imagine what the world would look like in the future, that’s why the Constitution is basically solid.
“Freedom and prosperity are directly correlated to how closely we adhere to our founding principles.” I’ll go along with that…but I would argue that taking votes on bills out of context and questioning someone’s patriotism as a result is nothing less than fear-mongering.
For instance, the Sandy Relief Bill was not a good bill as written, but under the circumstances the people of that region were living with and the political reality in a screwed up Washington, it’s hard to see how they were going to get the help they needed, when they needed it, any other way.
If you want to talk about adhering to “adhering to founding principles”, they men who WROTE the Constitution had a hard time with it. Remember John Adams and the Aliens and Sedition Act?
If you have a hard time with whether Congress is adhering to the Constitution, try to remember that this same document provides for a Supreme Court to decide what is constitutional and what is not. If you have a hard time with THAT, well, gosh…maybe there’s something wrong with the Constitution?
“Freedom and prosperity are directly correlated to how closely we adhere to our founding principles.” Yep, I can pretty much agree with that. And that’s why we have three branches of government to sort things out. Or is the Supreme Court just a useless appendage?
As far as those “founding principles” go, even the guys who WROTE the Constitution had difficulty with that one. Anyone remember John Adams and the “Aliens and Sedition Act”?
I never said ignore the Constitution. Stop implying that I did, and stop inferring that just because I don’t subscribe to an absurd unreality of “Constitutional purity” I am…heaven forfend…not a patriot.
Oh that’s rich, Kirk. You are complaining about our accusations that you don’t much care what the Constitution says (how unfair of us!), and then you turn around and talk about slavery as if we favor it, because it was in the original Constitution. Have you no shame?
Short answer: NOPE.
NO ONE here says the Constitution should not be amended from time to time. That’s the PROPER way to deal with our evolving society. You sir, think the Constitution should be followed, except when you disagree with it. Stop denying it.
“it’s hard to see how they were going to get the help they needed, when they needed it, any other way.”
Another straw man. Have you considered how the folks in Tennessee fared in 2010? They were given federal aid but plenty of private donations flowed in as well…and they didn’t have to demagogue Congress when it asked them to be accountable either.
“If you have a hard time with whether Congress is adhering to the Constitution, try to remember that this same document provides for a Supreme Court to decide what is constitutional and what is not.”
This tells me that you’re not a conservative which is okay. A conservative understands that Congress is restrained by the People through the Constitution, not the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court acts as the “last arbiter” to protect the People when it’s Congress disobeys the constraints placed upon it.
It’s okay that you don’t comprehend the concept of a limited government–many do not. You may not even LIKE a limited government and that’s okay, too. Simply follow the constitution, through the amendatory process, or write a new one to grant Congress broader powers
Kirk, Richard is right about your slavery “point”.
Eric made a very reasonable observation that Hunter’s voting is trending away from a traditional and more literal view of how the country should view the Constitution.
When Duncan was hired to do his job he acted one way and now he is starting to act another. It’s important information for the people who hired him to know. Should voters ignore his record for some reason?
Kirk E, I personally appreciate the solid foundation from the Constitution-nothing is perfect and I did not claim it was perfect. I just wish people who think the USA is so bad they want to change it would go to a country that suits them better.
Ms. Right,
If I modified your statement by substituting California and state or San Diego and city for USA and country, would you still want everyone who wanted change to simply move to somewhere else that “suits them better.”
I am fully aware of the fact that the Supreme Court acts as the final arbiter on what is constitutional and what is not…that’s the point. As to whether I am a “conservative”, I really don’t care whether I fit your definition or not.
I do believe in a limited government, but I also am not naive enough to believe we can function today as if it’s 1776.
We are over-regulated, over-taxed, and over-burdened with federal, state and local mandates that have little or nothing to do with the primary role of government. However, if anyone truly believes we would be better off without ANY of the regulation or protections that have been brought about in the past 250 years or so, you are sadly misinformed.
“I do believe in a limited government, but I also am not naive enough to believe we can function today as if it’s 1776”
Another straw man fallacy. Which one of us suggested that this government should function as if it were 1776?
Again, I don’t care if you’re a conservative or not but please acknowledge the conservative argument in your comments.