Our Declaration of Independence and our founders were both clear and emphatic that the first purpose of government is to protect the basic human rights. In spite of this fact, however, the New Federal Curriculum takes a different, and radical, position. The National Standards for Civics and Government say:
Explain that the purposes of government in the United States are to protect the rights of individuals and to promote the common good. [p. 17] [The national standards (Federal Curriculum) make this same point several other places. These are not careless statements.]Now government supposedly has two primary purposes, not just one. Now the common good has been elevated to a position equal to that of protection of the basic rights (often described as the internationalist position).
Explain that the purposes of government in the United States are to protect the rights of individuals and to promote the common good. [p. 17] [The national standards (Federal Curriculum) make this same point several other places. These are not careless statements.]Now government supposedly has two primary purposes, not just one. Now the common good has been elevated to a position equal to that of protection of the basic rights (often described as the internationalist position).
Placing the ( Common good ) or ( Collective good ) and protection of the basic rights on the same level is like mixing oil and water. One or the other must rise to the top. Government cannot have two primary purposes. It can only have one. Government can, of course, have many secondary functions, but it can only have one primary function and guiding principle. As the Declaration of Independence so clearly states, that one guiding principle in the United States must be protection of our unalienable rights.
How does the National Standards for Civics and Government attempt to defend its false position? It does so by saying that, yes, protecting the basic human rights is stated in the Declaration of Independence, but promoting the common good is stated in the Preamble to the Constitution. This supposedly makes the two purposes equal.
This argument, however, has no merit. The Declaration is speaking of the overall purpose of government. The Preamble to the Constitution, in contrast, is speaking only of the reasons for adopting this Constitution. The purpose of a particular constitution is a lesser question than the purpose of government. A nation can have a government without having a constitution. It would not be wise, of course; but it can be done.
Specifically the Preamble to our Constitution mentions six reasons for supporting the Constitution. Those six reasons are:
"[1.] form a more perfect Union,
[2.] establish Justice,
[3.] insure domestic Tranquility,
[4.] provide for the common defense,
[5.] promote the general Welfare, and
[6.] secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
It is obvious from this list that the reasons given are those in favor of adopting this Constitution as opposed to a continuation of the Articles of Confederation. The preamble does not presume to be a statement of the overall purpose of government.
[2.] establish Justice,
[3.] insure domestic Tranquility,
[4.] provide for the common defense,
[5.] promote the general Welfare, and
[6.] secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
It is obvious from this list that the reasons given are those in favor of adopting this Constitution as opposed to a continuation of the Articles of Confederation. The preamble does not presume to be a statement of the overall purpose of government.
It should also be observed that if the Preamble to the Constitution actually did elevate the common good to the same level as protection of the unalienable rights, then it also elevates national defense and the other goals to the same level.
Darioush Radmanesh
The absolute remedy to the many over steppings and the rapid increase of the powers and size of our government, lies not in the amending, altering, or even the adhering to our nations current document!..Which is effectively nothing more then a highly centralised/Collectivist/Corporate entity...But rather the solution lies explicitly.. at its complete and total eradication and removal...And thus in its stead...The reinstating of our nation's first true document the Articles....The true defender of the inalienable natural rights of the individual.
The very essence of Individualism is the pivoting symbol of all that is the inalienable or natural rights of man....Whereas Collectivism is the absolute embodiment of all that is indirect contrast to those rights, and thus is by nature totalitarian and suppressive.
"Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."
Patrick Henry
No comments:
Post a Comment