Independence Day Presidential Passings Marked by Divine Providence

by: Brent Smith at the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

There were five Founding Fathers who became president. Some would say that no – in fact there were six. What about John Quincy Adams? Was he not a founder? No – no he wasn’t. He was the son of second President John Adams, but was only a child of the Revolution.

The five, in order, where of course George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe.

It was Divine Providence that brought all these great men together at this exact place and this exact time in history. It was through acts of Divine Providence that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were crafted and signed. It was Divine Providence that assisted in the founding of our nation. And it was Divine Providence that God put his final stamp on the founding of the United States, with the passing of three of the five Founder Presidents on the day of America’s declared Independence. And, save for just six days, it could have been four. Actually, I suppose, it wouldn’t be a stretch to really say it was four. read more

Why Did Jefferson Own a Koran?

by: Brent Smith at the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

I read an article yesterday from the Daily Wire which I was just going to reprint. Then I read it and thought, rather than just post the article, I should set the record straight by adding some context.

The article is simply about newly elected Muslim Congresswoman, Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), who decided to take the oath of office using, not the Bible, but the Koran. And not just any Koran, but Thomas Jefferson’s Koran.

I encourage you to first read the Daily Wire piece, which gives an accounting, without commentary, of the swearing in and why she used Jefferson’s Koran.

Then come back and read the actual historical accounting of why Thomas Jefferson owned a Koran.

For more than a century and a half prior to America declaring its independence from Great Britain, the Muslim pirates of the Barbary Coast (North Africa) had been invading European settlements, villages and capturing merchant vessels from the Mediterranean Sea, to the Atlantic coast of Europe and the English Channel. Thousands upon thousands of Europeans were sold into slavery as laborers and concubines throughout the Islamic world. Most would never be seen again. read more

The American Experiment is One of Balance

by: Brent Smith at the Common Constitutionalist

No Audio Version

Yes, Thanksgiving is almost upon us. A day when families all get together and give thanks for blessings afforded us as Americans.

I personally have much to be thankful for, but that’s not what I mean about giving thanks.

Although it is often overused by we on the right – I’m thankful to be an American. It sounds cheesy and jingoistic. It may be, but that doesn’t make it any less true, particularly when you know American history and what our forefathers had to go through to achieve it. And no, this will not be a history lesson. Not much of one anyway.

I wish I could travel back in time, not to change anything, but just to thank the founders for what they did – thank them for their foresight. Assure them that they did the right thing – that they didn’t go through all that for nothing. That hundreds of years later we are still talking about it, still quoting them and trying to live their ideal.

I would assure them that all the crap they had to endure was not in vain – that they made a profound difference – and not just for us, but for the entire world. If it wasn’t for them, Earth would be awash in anarchy, despotism and dictatorships. read more

Video Podcast – The American Balancing Act Between Mob Rule and Despotism

As Thanksgiving is almost upon us, my Thanksgiving wish is travel back in time and thank the founders for giving us America. I’d let them know that their efforts were not in vain – that they did make a difference.

Sadly, despite their efforts, America as they envisioned can not be sustained for ever. Eventually even America will succumb to anarchy or totalitarian rule. Their goal was to maintain that delicate balance between the two.

But they knew, and as Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, that eventually it will be our right, our duty, to throw off our Government and reset the system.
read more

A Living Constitution Provides No Stability

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

I’ve written a lot regarding the Constitution over the years – although not usually two days in row. Most times the topic boils down to a choice between the stability of originalism or the chaos of the co-called “living document.” This has been a great debate since the dawn of the progressive era.

In 2006 Elliott Mincberg, the vice president of the ultra lefty group “People for the American Way” said: “It was the framers intent that the Constitution would adapt to changing circumstances.” In other words, a living Constitution.

Most would be surprised that, in my opinion, the founders would agree with Mr. Mincberg – although I guarantee they would not agree with his method of change.

That same year Todd Gaziono of the Heritage Foundation said: “Original intent is the only legitimate means of interpretation under our written Constitution and all other philosophies are illegitimate.” Mr. Gaziono is also correct.

Okay, both can’t be correct. Obviously the “living Constitution” crowd is wrong because, as we all know, the left has no desire to amend the Constitution. They instead see fit to usurp the Constitution by means of laws, court precedents and presidential decrees.  read more

The Left is Fast Losing Its Mind

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

A few days ago a video was posted of a Texas woman tossing her young son to the curb with a suitcase she had packed for him. The reason, as most are already aware, was that the little kid, probably no more than seven or eight years, voted for Donald Trump in mock election at school.

The answer he gave to his loving, sainted Mother was that he saw Trump on TV several times and recognized him. The so-called mother, who in my opinion, is typical of a brain dead democrat, told the poor little kid: “Since you voted for Donald Trump. You can get your sh** and get out. Get your suitcase and get out! We don’t do Donald Trump here.”

Ah yes – another representative of the tolerant left shows her true colors. Not unlike the many spoiled Hollywood wienies who threatened to leave the country and emigrate to Canada should Trump prevail. Of course, that’s when they were sure Hillary would win. How courageous of them. We’re still waiting for them to “get their sh** and get out.”

Of course this won’t happen, as they have no courage, nor any real conviction. I find it similar to the leftists who protest the many “injustices” throughout the world, but choose only to do so within the safety of our borders, where they know no harm will come to them. read more

Ted Cruz – The 21st Century Thomas Jefferson

by: the Common Constitutionalist

I think it was the late Sen. Arlen Specter who said, I didn’t leave the Republican Party – the Republican Party left me. Well, Arlen was wrong – he abandoned his principles and left the Republican Party. And that’s saying something, considering the state of the Republican Party.

Anyway, after Ted Cruz proposed retention elections for the Supreme Court, some big-time lawyers have come out against him, effectively saying that Cruz has gone off the reservation. To this I say, Ted Cruz didn’t leave the Supreme Court – the Supreme Court left him – and all of us.

That well-known right-wing journal, Salon.com , writes that, “Conservative attorney and prominent gay rights activist Ted Olson took a swipe at Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz, saying the freshman senator had abandoned a fundamental understanding of the Constitution suggested a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage in the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision in favor of marriage equality.”

First: How can anyone be a “conservative attorney” and a “gay rights activist” at the same time? Second: how is proposing an amendment “abandoning a fundamental understanding of the Constitution?” Isn’t that what the amendment process is for? Is that not supposed to be one of only two ways to modify the Constitution?

Meanwhile, the Washington Post weighed in saying that Cruz should know better, being that, “Sen. Ted Cruz spent his years at Harvard Law school working to secure a Supreme Court clerkship and then made his name as a lawyer by arguing in front of the body nine times.”

They go on to accuse Cruz of suggesting such a thing is just a way of “seeking support from the right wing of his party.” Well that’s funny, because Ted Cruz is the right wing of the party! read more

Podcast – The Runaway Supreme Court – Everything Confederate Must Go

In this episode I discuss the ultimate authority of a runaway judiciary – the Supreme Court and how they now believe they have the full authority to legislate from the bench – rewrite laws. It all goes back to Marbury v Madison – judicial review. Thomas Jefferson had a few choice words on that. And everything Confederate must go. It’s a Confederate moving sale and it’s all being moved to dustbin of history. read more

The Individual Right To Keep and Bear Arms

by: the Common Constitutionalist

In Texas, 1999, a U.S. District Judge, Sam Cummings ruled in a domestic abuse case that the second amendment guaranteed an individual the right to keep and bear Arms.

There was naturally blowback from this decision. His detractors claimed he neglected to follow usual judicial practice. You see, his sin was not citing supremelegal precedent to support his decision.

That one sentence clearly defines a major problem in this country, run by pinhead lawyers – so full of arrogance that they think themselves and their court decisions superior to the Constitution and the founders. By citing only court precedent instead of original intent one bad decision leads to another and so on.

Some legal pinheads might cite the Supreme Court case U.S. v Miller (1939) wherein the court ruled the Second Amendment’s “obvious purpose… Was to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of the state militia” (the National Guard). In the early 1980s, the Illinois Supreme Court as well as the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that there was no right for individuals to keep and bear Arms in the second amendment.

Now I’m not a constitutional scholar or great jurist with an army of researchers, but I can read. read more

Syria: Should We or Shouldn’t We: American Neutrality is Not Isolationism

by: the Common Constitutionalist

 

Syria is neither a friend nor ally. The conflict in Syria is a civil war, an internal struggle, not a war of international aggression or imperial colonization. Yet those of the “we must do something” crowd are insistent of our entanglement and brand all others as “Isolationists”.

 

Once again, our governmental brain trust would be well served to consult our own history. More often than not, the answer can be found.

 

As The Heritage Foundation asserts, it is helpful to define what is meant by “isolationist.” The term isolationism applies to a policy of abstaining from economic and political relations with other countries. By this definition, the best examples of isolationist foreign policies are offered by 17th century China, 18th century Japan, 19th century Korea, or 20th century North Korea.

 

Let’s not confuse or commingle military abstinence with economic and political isolationism.

 

During an Independence Day speech, John Quincy Adams fervently argued that America had no inherent responsibility to intervene abroad (emphasis added):

Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.”

 

Policies set forth by the founders were born of affection for republican self-government and their desire to preserve the country’s sovereign independence.

 

Washington advocated for a foreign policy that would allow America to, “choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.”

 

During Thomas Jefferson’s Administration, the United States, acting in our interest chose war, joining forces with Sweden and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies during the Tripolitan War against the Barbary Pirates. Such foreign military cooperation was essential in defeating the Muslim privateers (terrorists), loosely associated with the Ottoman Empire (surprise; present day Iran). It was the new nations first foreign war.

 

From the beginning, the primary purpose of U.S. foreign policy has been to defend the American constitutional system and the interests of the American people.

 

Jefferson summed it up in his First Inaugural Address as “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations—entangling alliances with none.”

 

And thus was a difficult decision to be made by our first president. The rebellion during the French revolution solicited Americas help as a military and political ally. The Marquis de Lafayette, who had been George Washington’s aide-de-camp during the American Revolution and had become a close personal friend, had personally requested the assistance of Washington and the Americans. Yet Washington knew that supporting France would likely drag America into a disastrous war against her will.

 

So in April, 1793, George Washington signed a proclamation declaring America’s neutrality, although the word neutrality is found nowhere in the declaration. In short Washington, like Jefferson feared an entangled alliance. He also did not wish to involve America in another nations internal struggle.

 

In 1822, President Monroe officially recognized the independence of Argentina, Peru, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico. The United States was the first established nation to welcome these new republics into the community of nations. Thus was the Monroe Doctrine.

 

President Monroe stated of the Monroe Doctrine, “The occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.”

 

The Monroe Doctrine would hardly be considered isolationist and it was the last major declaration blessed by both James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Must have been nice and quite convenient to be able to seek direct council from the Authors of the both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. How cool is that?!

 

With the Monroe Doctrine, the U.S. attempted to ban imperial ambition from one-third of the globe’s surface, thereby delegitimizing the accepted system of imperialism and attempting to fundamentally alter the international order – hardly an isolationist policy.

 

So how does all this “history” equate or relate to the upheaval in the Middle East? What would the founders have advised us to do?

 

That’s easy; stay out of it. We had our chances long ago to support freedom and liberty and we sat back and did nothing. Now all these uprisings have been high jacked by one terrorist group or another. There are no good guys, no freedom or liberty to support.

 

This is also an internal struggle. If Washington was able to say no his dear friend, The Marquis de Lafayette, during France’s bloody revolution, we sure as heck can say no to Syria, who are neither friend nor ally.