The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection —Federalist No.10

For Americans of all strata, individual freedoms are important.  Our freedoms assure us the right  to free speech, to practice our religion, to protect ourselves, to exercise our political rights by vote, and even to dissent and bring up grievances against the government.  Moreover, while some of our individual and states’ freedoms are “enumerated,” many of them are implicitly understood, and so they are not listed in these first 10 Amendments or the Bill of Rights.  However, just because they are not listed does not mean that they are unimportant. But they should not be looked upon in the distorted fashion that Libertarians make in that the founding fathers intended for individual’s rights to overcome the rights of others.  More importantly, nor should they be looked upon as the only important standard in our life.  Our natural rights in the Constitution emanated from an idea that our nation and laws were built around the notion that we are a community whose principle goal is unity and the preservation of the Union.

As Jefferson argued in the Declaration of Independence, our liberties are endowed to us by our creator so the saying goes.  Other liberties are stated specifically in the U.S. Constitution. However, Jefferson also drew from Rousseau, the idea that any form of community would “corrupt” the innocent  “noble savage” who roamed freely in a “total state of freedom.”  Essentially, for Jefferson, any religious principles or government that brings “man”  into a community would result into a corrupted society. Hence, Jefferson ardently opposed a centralized strong government that could violate man’s right to roam free or infringe on the rights of states.  But unlike the purist Rousseaunean views of Jefferson, Madison (like Locke) believed on the concepts of  a community, made up of religious groups, and a community of legal states—colonies, with a Constitution as the guiding document for unity, by a community and for a community, which in this case is the United States.  Therefore, the notion that Libertarians individual rights are to be more important than those of the United States, or the community, is a clear misinterpretation of our political and legal rights “enumerated” and ‘implied” in the Constitution.

But none of these liberties, enumerated and implied,” teach us the basics of how to treat each other nor do they speak to us about societal inclusion.  These are values that are taught to us by family, religion, social interaction.  Without these basics understandings and applications an individual is not able to be included in the everyday of life we call society.  These rules and regulations are stated already in the Constitution and are a guide as to how we are to include groups and people into our society.

Libertarians view things as a micro perception looking around to see only themselves and looking to protect only their rights.  While this is the epitome of what Libertarians believe, it should not be misconstrued to mean that is what a Constitutionalist really means. Constitutionalism means to protect the liberties a community ideal that will built a strong America.  A constitutionalist believes in those amendments that seek to protect the voice of America which includes the liberties attributed to the Bill of Rights.  A constitutionalist sees the fabric of America and does not seek to contain our freedoms so as to benefit the rights of just one because to do so would create a state of chaos.

For example, the 14^th Amendment and the “due process” clause seeks to protect and defend those liberties and rights that are not spelled out specifically.  Out of this specific clause, “due process” the Supreme Court was able to carve out important legislation that would protect the rights of Groups to have the ability to have a voice in our society.  It was not meant to replace the rights of others, but to include the rights and integrate those who were separated as not having rights in the United States.

Subsequently, a Constitutionalist believes in a small and cohesive government.  A Constitutionalist believes that those who are in the government should be guided by the U.S. Constitution.  This would include the right to free speech, the right to own property, the rights to vote and the right to practice religion.  Libertarians rarely talk about the practice of religion and instead speak to the “leave alone” policy for everyone to do their own practice.  Again, not only does this alienate groups of society it also begins to unravel the cohesive glue that the 14 amendment seeks to mend and that is to help integrate groups into the American society.

Libertarians seek to protect the rights of the individual at all cost.  A Constitutionalist will look toward the U.S. Constitution to develop the protection as it is in the best interest of the country.  So then why are Ron Paul supporters confused about whether he is a Libertarian or a Constitutionalist?  Ron Paul himself has stated that he is a Constitutionalist who believes that the U.S. should be governed by the Supreme Law of the land, the U.S. Constitution except that the individual liberties should not be infringed upon by the greater group.

A Libertarian and a Constitutionalist differ on basic and important principles.  A libertarian’s view does not include the rights of a Constitutionalist who acts on behalf of the best interest of America.  So before we back an individual and his philosophy, let’s listen to his terms and understand their definitions.

Originally published on Cafe Con Leche Republicans blog

You hear it all the time, Libertarians and Ron Paul people demanding people to pay attention to their new man for president, Gary Johnson. They argue that he is one of the most credible Libertarian candidates, because he not only served as a two term governor but he was the “King of Vetoes”. Moreover, his supporters tend to bring up the fact that Johnson won his elections in a Democrat majority state. At first glance, Johnson seems to boast an impressive track record, and besides this, he is probably the candidate with the best views on the issue of immigration reform.

While Johnson may talk the talk and may even have the policies to back it up, is it likely that he can do what needs to be done? Can Johnson actually win the election, eliminate the budget deficit and pass immigration reform?

The answer is doubtful. First, Governor Johnson is not running in New Mexico where the popular vote was the deciding factor. Instead, Governor Johnson is running to obtain 270 Electoral College votes. Furthermore, Johnson’s defenders forget that when Johnson won the 1994 and 1998 elections in New Mexico, he was running as the Republican candidate, and not as a Libertarian. If one takes these factors into consideration, Johnson’s chances of winning this election are slim to none.

But let’s say by some miracle he does win the election; will Governor Johnson be the best man for the job? Again this is doubtful. He is an ideologue and because of that, he won’t be able to pass legislation that will bring about the important reforms that our nation desperately needs. Washington does not work like New Mexico or any other state. The congress and the senate won’t play along with Mr. Veto, but instead they could simply ignore the President all together. For instance, the senate has refused to pass a budget during the last three years. If Harry Reid’s senate would not vote on bills with Obama as president, it is unlikely they will change if Johnson is inaugurated.

To pass major reform bills, we do not need a veto machine driven by ideology. We need legislators, both men and women, who will be brave and draw up these much needed reforms. These bills will be written by Democrats and Republicans. What we need in America is a president who is able to work with the leadership of both parties to get the major reform bills passed. Gary Johnson is not that man.

In conclusion, the President must have the ability to do more than just veto legislations and pass executive orders.  Rather, the President needs to be a leader who can take control and deal with the important issues of the day. Thus, for those who dream of immigration reform and balanced budgets, I would not look to Gary Johnson. He is not your man, besides the fact that it is impossible for him to win the Electoral College. Therefore, in November you can vote for Gary Johnson because he fits your ideological mold (knowing that he will lose), or you can sacrifice your pride and vote for a leader who can work across party lines to set our nation back on track.

Editors note: as with all blog postings that appear with a by-line, the opinions presented are the author’s and not necessarily the positions of Cafe Con Leche Republicans.

Thomas Martin Salazar is an Arizona leader of the Café con Leche Republicans. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in History from Grand Canyon University, and is currently in working on obtaining his MDiv in Biblical Communication from Phoenix Seminary. Thomas has also served as the Grand Canyon University College Republicans Vice President and interim President (February 2007-April 2008), and as a Maricopa County Republican Precinct committeeman from August 2009 – August 2012.

Of the four, only Newt Gingrich seemed to fully grasp that the root cause of our problem with illegal immigration is our broken legal immigration system, mentioning that Congress did not follow-up the 1986 immigration laws with sensible guest worker program reforms. Historically, whenever our immigration laws are in conflict with free market capitalism the result has been illegal immigration.

Mitt Romney claims Arizona’s e-verify law reduced undocumented workers, when in fact undocumented workers regularly circumvent e-verify by borrowing a real person’s name and social security number, rendering Romney’s statistics dubious. Romney and Santorum both praised the Joe Arpaio policing model, embodied as Arizona’s SB1070 law, introduced shortly after Arpaio was stripped of 287(g) street immigration enforcement authority due to pervasive racial profiling and not following program guidelines.

Arpaio’s policing model is a proven failure. Crime, particularly violent crime, has skyrocketed in areas patrolled by Arpaio due to massive diversion of resources to immigration enforcement, while crime rates fell everywhere else in Arizona. In one community alone, 432 sex crimes went uninvestigated due to lack of resources and leadership. The federal government already has the 287(g) program to empower state and local police to enforce immigration laws, and 287(g) is problem plagued, according to ICE’s Inspector General.

A recent DOJ investigation, using Arpaio’s own traffic stop records, found Latinos are 4-9 times more likely to be stopped by Sheriff’s deputies, and 20% of the stops lacked probable cause, in other words ‘driving while brown.’ Now Arpaio wants the rest of Arizona and nation to follow his failed policing model, throwing the civil rights of 50 million Hispanics ‘under the bus.’

The candidates claim Obama isn’t enforcing immigration laws, when in fact immigration law enforcement and deportations have dramatically stepped up, and our ‘deporter-in-chief’ sets new records for deportations. The immigration court system and detention facilities are already straining at capacity, so more immigration enforcement without addressing other aspects just worsens the problem, and damages whole sectors of our economy such as agriculture.

Ron Paul claims illegal immigration happens due to the welfare state, yet undocumented immigrants have been barred for decades from welfare, and numerous audits in multiple states consistantly failed to find a problem with undocumented immigrants collecting welfare. You’d think as a libertarian Paul would grasp that our current immigration system is a failed progressive solution, and free markets largely determine immigration levels, not government quotas. Ron Paul is clearly a ‘crypto-libertarian’ when it comes to immigration.

The best way to stop immigrants from crossing our borders seeking work in the U.S. is to provide them a line to stand in for visas. For most immigrants, there never was ‘a line to stand in’, but there are jobs here that most Americans don’t want. Newt Gingrich is the only one of the four who fully grasps the problem.

original

Joe Arpaio and Ron Paul have something in common. Neither seems to remember some ugly racist things written in their own publications.

Ron Paul claims he hadn’t written, read, or know who authored over a decade of newsletters with extremely racist and homophobic content that went out under his own name, though he owned the newsletters, promoted them, and received millions in newsletter subscriptions. You can find 50 scans of actual Ron Paul newsletters with racist or homophobic remarks here. Ron Paul now admits writing some of his newsletters, but now Ron Paul claimss there were only 8-10 sentences of “bad stuff”. Strangely he was never aware of those sections that showed such bigotry.

Now it turns out Joe Arpaio has severe selective amnesia too, especially when it comes to embarrassing bigotry published in his own name. Ever read “Joe’s Law: America’s Toughest Sheriff Takes on Illegal Immigration, Drugs and Everything Else That Threatens America“? If you haven’t read Joe’s book you are not alone! Joe Arpaio admitted under oath he hadn’t read his own book!

BODNEY: You were at least, according to the cover, listed as the lead author?
ARPAIO: Yes.
BODNEY: Does the book reflect yours views?
ARPAIO: Uhhh…I’m not sure to the best of my knowledge. I haven’t reviewed the book recently. In fact, I haven’t even read the book. [...]
BODNEY: In Joe’s Law you refer to the illegal immigration problem and about the Mexicans who want to take back Arizona and parts of the United States. A “reconquista.” Do you remember that?
ARPAIO: Once again, I’m going to say my co-author did a lot of research and many parts of the book was attributed to him…this is something injected by the co-author and I’m not familiar with that whole situation.

Original