Seth Hollist for Public Office.

Check out Seth's Latest News and Opinion editorials as the Collin County Independent Examiner.

---

Some day I hope to to run for office as a Moderately Conservative candidate that's more interested in doing what's right for his constituents, rather then selling out to special interest groups, behind closed doors dealings and a power hungry freedom grabs. Instead I find myself with a deep desire to defend the U.S. Constitution as it was originally intended, instead of trying to re-interpret based on what happens to be trendy for the day. I also don't find myself being particularly strong towards one party or another as they all seem to think they same type of government is good at all levels, as apposed to me, who believes that government has different rolls at different levels: for example, a Federal/National/World Government is there to set standards that insure the States work together as a single unified nation while protecting the nation as a whole from destructive outside influences; beyond this any Federal government should be very limited as to it's influences upon the States. The States should be more moderate in providing social services to it's people, and enabling the local and county governments to organize community efforts to look after each other.

This is in contrast to the Republicans who tend to like big government (even under Ronald Regan the size of the federal government grew in some ways) so long as it benefits free enterprise and their own "conservative" views of socially acceptable behaviors and morality. While I certainly think that a moral nation will be more prosperous with less social unrest, I believe more strongly in one's ability to chose for one's self, and do not believe any amount of government controls or laws can ultimately keep a society moral but should rather be focused on protecting life liberty and the pursuit of happiness (but providing no guarantees to any).

My ideas also contrast the Democrats in that I do not believe it's the Federal governments roll to protect the individual, nor provide anything for them. Rather I believe these should provided on a limited basis by the States, and to a greater degree by local governments and communities. After all, it's not truly charity if you are forced into it, and I believe we would all be more generous, giving, and moral as a society if we had a bigger stake in taking care of our fellow neighbors, rather then paying someone else to do it for us.

If I could, I would be a member of the Constitution Party (they certainly think I am), on a national level if they didn't seem so self righteous about certain aspects of their party platform. However, on a State and local level, I would probably differ from them to some degree.

Libertarians have some good ideas, but they often take them too far and ignore the importance of some of the things that Federal government does to provide standards and order to the nation as a whole. They also ignore the importance of the Federal government being at least moderately involved in international affairs as part of it's efforts to promote world peace and protect the nation from destructive out-side forces.

The Green party is focused on things that I believe have been overly exaggerated. While I agree that having clean air and a clean environment improves quality of life for everyone, it has to be balanced with reality and a sense that Man is also a part of nature as the dominate creature on this earth. I believe we are meant to take care of this earth, and use it to our benefit while maintaining those uses and it's resources for the future.

Other parties just don't have enough of a presence in the political spectrum to have gotten my attention.

---

Check out some of my other posts on this blog:

The Clean Slate Amendment

Bad Gun Laws

Affirmative Action Abolished

Separation Church and State

The Importance of Self Governance

The Problem with Politics

Who's Rich Enough to Be Taxed

Bailouts R us vs. Inflation

My commentary on the 2009 Presidential Inauguration

Seth.Hollist.org Moves to Spaldam's Rants

- Posted by Seth Hollist

The Clean Slate Amendment

Pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution, stating:

". . . on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments . . . by Conventions in three fourths thereof . . . of Ratification may be proposed . . . and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

I call upon the Legislative bodies of the many States to demand a constitutional convention for the sole purpose of nullifying the following constitutional Amendments:

AMENDMENT XVII which states:

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislatures. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the Legislature of any State may empower the Executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the Legislature may direct. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution."

AMENDMENT XXII SECTION 1. which states:

"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term."

And replace them with the following:

• Allow the members the Senate to be appointed by their respective State Legislatures, or elected at large by the citizens of the respective state, as to be determined threw passage of law by the respective state legislators.
• Disallowing the funds from any state, or citizen of one state, or entity of any state from funding or interfering with an election of any other state. Also preventing any Party, Faction, or Organization of any kind from one state from effecting the elections of another state threw funding, advertising, campaigning, or any other means to help insure those elected are elected solely by the efforts and funding of those they represent. It will be left up to the individual States to determine if such actions are also needed within their respective districts.
  
• Increasing the number of Representatives in the House of Representatives for the United States congress to at least double it's current number, of not more, so that the people they represent will have increased access to and familiarity with their representatives.
• Allow members of a Start Party to also be members of an unassociated National Party of their choosing without recourse or disadvantage.
  

Also, due to these constitutional changes, we must assume any and all laws passed in the last hundred years have not been done under a Congress with appropriate authority to represent the people of the United States that the Constitution clearly states are the true stewards of the government. Thus any Federal laws in affect or passed by congress, including bureaucratically created regulations and executive orders, before the passage of this amendment must be nullified four years following the ratification of this amendment, as would be demanded within the amendment (however, the enforcement of said laws shall not be affected for crimes committed while they were in affect). Also, said amendment must require that any new laws passed from that point forward must follow these guidelines:

• Each Bill must reference the specific clause(s) of the United States Constitution that grants the power of the Federal government to enact it into law.
• Each bill, and every amendment, must be read in its entirety before a quorum in both the House and Senate.
• Every member of the House and Senate who votes in the affirmative for any bill will committed perjury if he or she has not attentively either personally read, or heard read, the complete bill to be voted on.
• Every bill to be voted on must be published for public display at least 7 days before a vote, and Congress must give public notice of the date when a vote will be held on that bill. Exceptions must approved by both the Senate and House by a three fourths vote, and only in cases deemed a matter of national security.
• No Bill or Joint Resolution shall embrace more than one subject at a time, and that shall be clearly and descriptively expressed in the Title.
• A Bill amending or revising a statute shall identify the statute to be amended by its Title or Number of Public Law, or Chapter or Section of the United States Code, and shall set forth completely each section or subsection as it would read if the amendment or revision to that section or subsection were adopted, noting clearly the proposed insertions or deletions to the existing statutory text.
• If an Act appropriating funds contains a provision outside of the jurisdiction of the relevant subcommittee of the House and Senate Appropriations committee, and therefore outside the subject of the bill, then such provision shall be void.
• All executive orders given by the President shall only be applicable to matters of national security, the armed forces, and the cabinet members of the President.
• Regulations produced by a regulatory body shall have no basis for criminal action if such regulations are not followed, unless they have been voted on an approved by the members of congress to make them official law.
  
• Passage of a bill, regulation, or executive order, that does not abide by these provisions will render the measure null and void, and establish grounds for the law to be challenged in court. Any person aggrieved by the enforcement of, or attempt or threat of enforcement of, an Act passed without having complied, or any member of Congress aggrieved by the failure of the house of which he is a member to comply with these requirements, shall, regardless of the amount in controversy, have a cause of action against the United States to seek appropriate relief, including an injunction against the enforcement of any law, the passage of which did not conform.

To insure judges are also held accountable to the people, congress shall have the authority to impeach Federal judges by the same manner and requirements for which they would impeach the president; on the basis as set forth in the constitution of "Good Behavior".

Not Commanded to Save the Constitution?

"Should it be of concern to us when the mouthpiece of the Lord keeps constantly and consistently raising his voice of warning about the loss of our freedom as he has over the years? There are two unrighteous ways to deal with his prophetic words of warning: you can fight them or you can ignore them. Either course will bring you disaster in the long run.

Hear his words: “No greater immediate responsibility rests upon members of the Church, upon all citizens of this Republic and of neighboring Republics than to protect the freedom vouchsafed by the Constitution of the United States.” (Cited in Jerreld L. Newquist, Prophets, Principles and National Survival [SLC: Publishers Press, 1964], p. 157.) As important as are all other principles of the gospel, it was the freedom issue which determined whether you received a body. To have been on the wrong side of the freedom issue during the war in heaven meant eternal damnation. How then can Latter-day Saints expect to be on the wrong side in this life and escape the eternal consequences? The war in heaven is raging on earth today. The issues are the same: “Shall men be compelled to do what others claim is for their best welfare” or will they heed the counsel of the prophet and preserve their freedom?

Satan argued that men given their freedom would not choose correctly therefore he would compel them to do right and save us all. Today Satan argues that men given their freedom do not choose wisely; therefore a so-called brilliant, benevolent few must establish the welfare government and force us into a greater socialistic society. We are assured of being led into the promised land as long as we let them put a golden ring in our nose. In the end we lose our freedom and the promised land also. No matter what you call it—communism, socialism, or the welfare state—our freedom is sacrificed. We believe the gospel is the greatest thing in the world; why then do we not force people to join the Church if they are not smart enough to see it on their own? Because this is Satan's way not the Lord's plan. The Lord uses persuasion and love."

. . .

The devil knows that if the elders of Israel should ever wake up, they could step forth and help preserve freedom and extend the gospel. Therefore the devil has concentrated, and to a large extent successfully, in neutralizing much of the priesthood. He has reduced them to sleeping giants. His arguments are clever.

Here are a few samples:

First: “We really haven't received much instruction about freedom,” the devil says . . .

Second: “You're too involved in other church work,” says the devil . . .

Third: “You want to be loved by everyone,” says the devil, “and this freedom battle is so controversial you might be accused of engaging in politics.” . . .

Fourth: “Wait until it becomes popular to do,” says the devil, “or, at least until everybody in the Church agrees on what should be done.” . . .

Fifth: “It might hurt your business or your family,” says the devil . . .

Sixth: “Don't worry,” says the devil “the Lord will protect you, and besides the world is so corrupt and heading toward destruction at such a pace that you can't stop it, so why try.” . . .

And now as to the last neutralizer that the devil uses most effectively—it is simply this: “Don't do anything in the fight for freedom until the Church sets up its own specific program to save the Constitution.” This brings us right back to the scripture I opened with today—to those slothful servants who will not do anything until they are “compelled in all things.” [D&C 58:26] Maybe the Lord will never set up a specific church program for the purpose of saving the Constitution. Perhaps if he set one up at this time it might split the Church asunder, and perhaps he does not want that to happen yet for not all the wheat and tares are fully ripe.

The Prophet Joseph Smith declared it will be the elders of Israel who will step forward to help save the Constitution, not the Church. And have we elders been warned? Yes, we have. And have we elders been given the guide lines? Yes indeed, we have. And besides, if the Church should ever inaugurate a program, who do you think would be in the forefront to get it moving? It would not be those who were sitting on the sidelines prior to that time or those who were appeasing the enemy. It would be those choice spirits who, not waiting to be “commanded in all things,” [D&C 58:26] used their own free will, the counsel of the prophets and the Spirit of the Lord as guidelines and who entered the battle “in a good cause” [D&C 58:27] and brought to pass much righteousness in freedom's cause.

. . .

Brethren, if we had done our homework and were faithful, we could step forward at this time and help save this country. The fact that most of us are unprepared to do it is an indictment we will have to bear. The longer we wait, the heavier the chains, the deeper the blood, the more the persecution and the less we can carry out our God-given mandate and world-wide mission. The war in heaven is raging on earth today. Are you being neutralized in the battle?"

- Ezra Taft Benson (Not Commanded in All Things; General Conference, Tuesday Afternoon Session, April 1965)


- From Keith

A Forgotten Holiday

Did you know that today is U.S. Constitution Day? Most people don't. No banks or government offices will be closed today, and most of us will spend nearly half our time laboring to pay taxes to the various levels of government. Even our politicians likely won't take notice of the day. Shouldn't we do something meaningful with this day?

We should be mindful of the role the U.S. Constitution has played in the success of our own lives. We live the freest and most affluent lives of any people on the planet, and possibly in history. The U.S. Constitution is now the oldest governing document in continuous use anywhere, and has been crucial to the success of the U.S.

The U.S. Constitution gives us a system of government with divided and explicitly defined powers. It allowed for a Bill of Rights with strong limits on government action. The politicians have waged a continuous and largely successful assault on these attributes of our Constitution, but even so, the Constitution has continued to protect us often enough to make it a very important, if unappreciated, contributor to our daily lives and personal well-being.

Most importantly it helped solidify the religious freedoms that the original anglo settlers came to the great land to find. This religious freedom allow many Christian religions to flourish that had otherwise been persecuted and oppressed by government sponsored and intolerant religious sects, and eventually provided a spring board for them to reach back into the rest of the world.

Wherever governments have less power, and the people more freedom, affluence, security, and peace reign. And wherever governments have more power, and the people less freedom, misery flourishes. The scriptures are full of examples of God blessing those who able to freely worship him. In the U.S. even our poorest citizens live as kings compared to much of the rest of the world. A strong case can be made that only the Constitution has very much to do with this.

The Supreme Court has many times declared some act of Congress or the President as un-constitutional, preserving our freedom and prosperity. A number of times Presidents have vetoed some over-reaching act of Congress, or when Congress has acted to curtail the power of the Executive. Likewise, the Senate has often blocked actions of the House, and vice versa. In this we see not only the genius of the separation of powers, but also the continuing efficacy of the Bill of Rights.

The separation of powers works. The Bill of Rights works. The Constitution works.

What doesn't work is a Federal government that has far overstepped it constitutional foundation. A house that ignores it's original design, without updating or re-enforcing it's foundation, will not stand when the rain descended, and the floods come, and the winds blow, and beat upon that house; and great will the fall of it be.

Ask not what the Constitution can do for you, for its gifts have already been conferred upon you in great abundance. Instead, ask what you can do for the Constitution. Speak up strongly on behalf of the Constitution's preservation and adherence. Please remind your Congressional representative that today is Constitution Day, and that they swore an oath to serve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

A stimulating letter to Senator John Cornyn

I got an e-mail from one of my Senators this week asking me to reply to the question, "How do you think the "stimulus" package has fallen short?" Here was my reply:

Senator Cornyn,

Thank you for you're question about the so called "stimulus bill and other failed initiatives that have passed threw congress recently. I hope you will take the time to personally read my thorough response.

It seems to me that you voted for a "stimulus" bill late last year. I urged you not to. Not because I didn't think there was a problem (there obviously was/is), not because I didn't think something needed to be done (I still think something does need to be done that isn't even being considered currently), but because I know it isn't wise to give people billions of dollars who mishandled a great deal of money in the first place. As we have since seen the money has not even gone to the very purpose it was meant to, but instead as gone to fill to coffers of those who came asking for the handout in the first place!

Now you've sent this request for comments, I can't help but say "I told you so", but you didn't listen. Apparently you are listening now, so let me tell you what should be happening. And I hope you can see it as I do, not as an opinion, but as a matter of constitutional law and authority.

I believe every single member of congress has violated his or her oath of office to uphold and defend The Constitution. I would love to get elected to congress myself so that I could start presenting cases as to why all of you (including President Obama, all of his zars, and at least half of the supreme court justices) should be removed from office, but as it is right now, I'm too busy working hard to do the right thing, and support my family; including my two 10 month old twins. Not to mention that the current election laws just make it too time consuming, expensive, and right down impossible to do so with out an army of bureaucrats and lobbyists assisting you. Perhaps you could pass a new "stimulus" bill to help "stimulate" more direct participation in government from you're constituents that employ you.

I would exhort you to spend some time reading and studying The Constitution as I have and especially pay attention to the 9th and 10th amendments. They used to be a valued part of the constitution, but today they might as well not exist. Also, try to find anything in The Constitution that authorizes federal bailouts or social programs of any kind.

I understand there are a lot of tough battles to be fought in Washington right now, which is all the more reason why we need strong people who will stand up to those who are violating our constitutional and God given rights (see the Declaration of Independence while you're at it, and pay attention to the part about our "Creator" and the rights he gave us). People of the highest integirty who will NOT compromise on doing what is best for their constituents, within the bounds set forth by The Constitution. Keep in mind, we are not a Democracy, and the majority cannot do anything they want just because they have the largest voice, rather they must follow the rules and laws as they are, and the foundation of those laws in this contry is The Constitution.

Please start fighting for a return to our core Constitutional foundations an give the people of this country and opportunity to make us a great nation once again.

- Seth Hollist

Obama for King

H. J. Res. 5, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President

According to OpenCongress.org: ". . . Over the past six congressional sessions, several members of Congress have introduced similar legislation, including Sen. Harry Reid in 1989 ( S.J.Res. 36). As is likely the case in the 111th Congress, the resolutions have never proceeded out of committee. Furthermore, given its past history, it is not likely that such resolutions have been or are currently tied to any specific presidential session."

But now that all the Obama Loving Liberals are in control of congress, will this bill actually get passed? This is typically one of the first steps for any dictator to take over a republic or democracy: Get the laws out of the way that will keep him from becoming all powerful...

Montana Challenging Fed on Gun Laws

According to WorldNetDaily.com "The state of Montana has drawn a line in the sand, challenging the federal government to decide whether to follow the U.S. Constitution with a new gun law that exempts from federal regulations any gun, gun accessory or ammunition made in the state and intended for use there."

This goes far beyond gun control. If this gets approved by the courts that would mean any regulation by Federal Law that a is not outlined in the Constitution that a state does not like they do not have to abide in that law. For example 8 hours days, Minimum wage and on. Pretty much undoing what progressives have done since FDR.

- Alex

---

Glenn Beck also mentioned it on his talk show and compared it to the movie The Matrix of all things:

"The independents of this country are growing by leaps and bounds. They are growing faster than the Republicans are going down and faster than the Democrats are going down. But you combine how many people are dissatisfied with the Democrats with the number of people who are dissatisfied with the Republicans and you have the going up number of independents. It is like take the red pill or the blue pill. Do you want to live in the matrix? Do you want to keep playing this game, or do you want to wake up knowing that once you wake up, it's going to be a tough battle and it is going to be a battle to the end."

Explanation of Fourms of government

I always considered myself a Moderate, but when I first got involved in Politics, I was surprised to have so many people say I was a conservative. How could this be? Had the spectrum of liberal vs. conservative shifted so much that I was now a conservative? So I though for a while until my friend posted this on his blog:

The most important point this video makes is the one of Democracy vs. Republic. When I was in grade school I was told that our government was a Democratic-Republic. These days you hear everyone talking about the U.S,. is a Democracy. They're both wrong.

I've alway felt that we have the freedom to do as we please so long as it doesn't interfere with other people's rights.  Government is a way to help define were the line is between one person's rights and anthers.  Were those lines are draw are typically determined by the governors, who in turn are typically elected by the people.  What the constitution does for us is setup rules for the governors to follow; regardless of what the people may want.  These are what we call representation and rule of law, and they are the essence of what a Republic is.

In a Democracy majority rules, that includes mob mentality and inevitably a government doing things its people don't have the right to authorize the government to do; such as unjust imprisonment of "undesirable" people, etc.  This is a big part of what the Bill of Rights are about. Making sure the U.S. Government, that is "Of the People",  does not pretend to be given authority from the People for which the People do not have to give to it in the first place.

In other words, if  I shouldn't do something that violates your rights, because I don't have just cause for doing so, then how can I authorize my government to do it for me?  Since the U.S. government is "Of the People" it cannot gain any authority or take away any rights, that it's people do not have the ability to give away themselves.

For example, I cannot take your money from you and give it to a poor person, no matter how worthy I feel the cause is.  Therefor I cannot authorize the government to forcefully take money from you and give it to some government "Charity" or bailout program.  I may give the money myself if I so chose, but you cannot. We may decide that in order for our government to function for the common good, we need to have a certain level of taxation, but beyond that does the government really have the right to use those taxes to benefit special interests, specific groups or even private entities?  Is it really even charity if it is forced upon you?

I say no, because charity isn't the act of giving alone, it's also requires a desire to give.

My letter to Obama

Although I do worry about some of the things Obama has on his agenda, that most Democrats (who now have majority control of congress) will likely support, I actually have found myself felling better about him then Mr. McCain. I never liked McCain (even being a moderately-conservative republican-leaning voter) as a presidential Candidate and never thought he had a chance at wining.

I actually ended up doing a protest vote for Baldwin (Constitution party) to express my dislike for the options (and wish more people would do this instead of voting out of "fear of the other guy" or simply not voting) as I fell my voice is heard more clearly this way.

I think Obama will actually turn out to be more moderate then some are painting him to be, but I'm also sure I'll find plenty to disagree with him on.

My suggestion is to all of you is to go to his website http://change.gov/page/s/yourstory and tell him your story. Be polite and honest, and you may be surprised at the kind of influence you can have towards affecting the kind of change you want to see. You likely won’t get exactly what you want but you’ll be much closer to it then what you'll get just sitting around and complaining about it.

Here is the letter I wrote:

---

I've always believed that life is hard. By this I don't mean malicious, but rather challenging. I've also learned that the things that are most worth living for are the things we must work hardest to archive, or that require the most work; such as faith, family, good friendships, and a prosperous career (yes in order of importance). For this nation to be great, the people in it need to be great, and that means a willingness to work hard to earn the things that are most worth having. Our society today feels too entitled to things they need to learn to work harder for, and then get rewarded generously for their hard work. The greatest generation in the country (40's & 60s), came out of the hardest times this country has ever seen; because they learned to work hard for what they had.

The roll I'd like my federal government to play in this, is simple yet effective regulation to insure that not only corporations are prevented from taking advantage and usurping power from the people, but that governments are also prevented from interfering with our ability to work hard to earn and keep the tings we work for.

I'd also like my government to focus more on the nations infrastructure, national defense (not necessarily foreign defense) and basic standards related to commerce and business; in such a way that it enables the individual to do a better job at archiving the goals they see best for themselves. I believe that as our government steps back, leaving behind opportunity, the people of this nation will find their ability to stand up and fill those opportunities; while having minimal government assistance to insure the people can take those opportunities they are not taken advantage of, through simple but affective regulations.

I believe the constitution of this great country has enabled this country to be great, so long as the people in it are willing to be great; however, it has been walked all over in the last few decades by both sides of the isle, judges who misinterpret it based on their own agendas, and the people who have willingly accepted laws that aspire to regulate and control our freedoms. From this has come some of the biggest problems this country faces today. Basically I see the main problem as an oversize federal government controlled by bureaucrats, special interests, and over-sized monopolistic corporations, that usurps powers that according to the 10th amendment belong to the individual states and the people. I believe our gun regulations and criminal laws are already stricter then is necessary to discourage criminal activity and may even contribute to the delinquency of otherwise law abiding people. This not to diminish the federal governments responsibility towards oversight, but certainly this oversight needs to not be so overly intrusive. The real answer to our social problems is not more regulations and laws, but to untie our hands and enable the people to step up and do what's right for their families and their communities.

Fiscal responsibility is also a big concern of mine, and I strongly disagree with the "Bailout" loans that have been given over the last few months; especially because it's causing a nearly 1 trillion dollar spending deficit - the highest in history - even when accounting for inflation. If there's one thing that I believe will dis-stabilize an economy and cause increasingly larger fluctuations in inflation/deflation and prosperity/poverty it is an economy fueled by debt with the unreasonable expectation of consistent future inflation; usually forced upon us by huge increases in the money supply through deficit spending, international borrowing, and printing of new money. This benefits the rich and the large corporations, but tends to only hurts the people this government is supposed to protect.

I must admit, President-Elect Obama, I did not vote for you, but I also did not vote for McCain, as I feel both parties have lost touch with the "average Joe". I truly hope that the change you endeavor to bring to this country will help enable an improvement in the life and livelihood of the "average Joe".

- Posted By Seth Hollist

California Votes Dismissed by Court

In the year 2000 California Voters overwhelmingly supported a definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. It was then brought up before the California Supreme Court as to whether that law was in violation of the California State Constitution that protects equality and fundamental rights.

The text of the court’s Opinion can be found here:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF

The decision was a 4-3 vote to strike down the decision of the voters and declare it as a violation of the State’s Constitution.

Interestingly enough Six of the seven justices were appointed by Republican governors whom most would expect to be supporters of traditional marriage.
The next likely step in this battle will be a push for a constitutional amendment to the California State Constitution.

The Family Research Council reacted in their May 16th FRC Action e-mailed news letter saying:

"It took just four activist judges to overturn the historical definition of marriage, not to mention the vote of more than four and a half million Californians, as the state supreme court issued a much-anticipated ruling on the question of same-sex "marriage." By a 4-3 margin, the justices struck down a law, adopted by 61 percent of voters in 2000, which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. By imposing same-sex "marriage" on voters, the California Supreme Court knowingly usurped the right of the people to effect change in public policy . . . We trust that the voters of California will act in November to correct this exercise in judicial activism and to permanently enshrine the traditional definition of marriage in the state constitution."

What I agree with even more came a day latter in their May 16th FRC Action e-mailed news letter saying:

"Ultimately we must realize that our problems as a nation are not political, they are spiritual."

For more information see:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/us/15cnd-marriage.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ei=5087&em&en=5d922aa6fa2307e3&ex=1210996800&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1211158843-LyjPEvGj0sUxrWaNL5sVzg

- Posted by SJ Hollist

Separation of Church and State

When people think of the First Amendment to The Constitution of the United States of America they often think of words such as, “separation of church and state”, or “Freedom of Speech”, or of the press, or of religion; however one of these phrases doesn't actually show up on the First Amendment, or anywhere else in The Constitution. What it does say is:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

You can only find one other statement regarding religion within The U.S. Constitution, in Article Six, Third Clause:

“ . . . no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Does all of this really equate to a “separation of church and state?”

On the one hand, we have a statement basically saying we cannot allow religion to be a qualifier for becoming a public servant. On the other hand, we have a statement saying we have to allow people to exercise their religion freely. They can almost be seen as contradictory to each other, but if we really look at them in context, we find that they are in fact completely unrelated.

The one that was part of the original constitution, in Article Six, is actually only in relation to the election of public officers; which it clearly says in the beginning of the Third clause, saying it relates to:

“. . . Senators and Representatives . . . Members of the several State Legislatures . . . all executive and judicial Officers . . . of the United States and of the several States . . . “

This means this clause has no relation or influence upon what goes on in our public schools, or even local city governments. In fact it is only meant to protect the election of State and Federal officers from exclusion from office due to religious understanding, religious knowledge, or even religious affiliations. It also protects them from having to prove an absence of religious beliefs, and does nothing to bar them from allowing their religious beliefs from influencing the way they deal with their position as a public officer. This is actually were The Bill of Rights comes in.

When it comes to The Bill of Rights, people often like to interpret it by quoting the “founding fathers”; however, this is inappropriate because the Bill of Rights was actually passed many years after the founding fathers had written The U.S. Constitution and established The United States of America. In fact many of the founding fathers were in opposition to the Bill of Rights because they didn’t like how it limited the powers of the federal government. That’s right, some of the founding fathers wanted a stronger federal government with weaker states rights; however the Bill of Rights won out to become a protection for the rights of the States and the people (see Amendment 9 and 10 specifically).

As part of this protection of state and personally freedoms, we were actually guaranteed (or at least we should be) protection from the Federal government from passing any laws that would either favor or discourage any specific religion. It also insures the individual the free exercise of their religious beliefs. Just as important, in this same amendment, you’ll find the insurance of our freedom to speak; including about our religious beliefs, so if someone says they are offended by what you are saying, I suggest telling them you are offended by their lack of respect for your right to speech. After all, your right to speech is protected, and you actually have no constitutional protection from being offended.

In fact your rights to free speech only ends when it starts to endanger the life or livelihood of another, so before you go off and start yelling and screaming threw the streets all kind of profanities in the middle of the night, keep in mind that the ability to speak does not require yelling and screaming or even offensive language. It also doesn’t mean you have a right to disturbed the peace, say things that prevent others from exercising their rights, nor does it give you a free pass to cause panic or tyranny within or towards others.

The real question at this point is were did the words “separation of church and state” come from in the first place, and why it is becoming so easily used today to prevent our kids from having a religious influence on them within our public schools; while at the same time it’s becoming so much harder to keep kids in public schools in line and under control. That phrase has been used to prevent praying in schools, talking about the social and historical significance of many religious influences and texts within our schools, from exploring alternate theories to many scientific ideas, and even to prevent our kids from taking part in reciting a pledge that helps instill a sense of national unity and pride.

So where did it actually come from? It’s not in The Constitution, it’s not in any laws that I’m aware of, and if it were, I would consider it to be an unconstitutional law. The truth is that those words were actually derived from, though not actually a part of, of a United States Supreme Court ruling made in 1947 In the case of Everson v. Board of Education. As part of the ruling, Justice Hugo Black gave his interpretation of the First Amendment, saying:

“The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.”

Although this statement is very strongly worded, much more so then I can agree with, the actual ruling was only meant to prevent any aid or benefit to a religion from governmental actions, a sentiment that I actually agree with; unless the benefit is equally and easily available to all religions, such as allowing tax exemption for religious establishments based on their non-profit status.

Unfortunately this statement has since been abbreviated into the phrase “Separation of Church and State” and taken to also mean that government cannot get any aid or benefit from any religious actions; which is something I completely disagree with, and for which there is no supporting evidence of within The Constitution. In fact I believe the constitution says just the opposite, as preventing a religious action from taking place within government would actually be preventing the free exercise of religion; something very specifically protected within the First Amendment.

Please note, I said “religious action”, not “religious organization”. While I see no problem with personal religious actions within government, and have shown how those actions are constitutionally protected, there however is no place for any organization, religious or otherwise, to be taking actions within the government. Such actions are the soul responsibility of the officials who were elected by the people they represent, and relinquishing those responsibilities to any organization or unelected persons, I would see as being a treasonous act.

If religion truly was not allowed to be involved in government, then why have so many presidents sworn the oath of office, to protect The Constitution, while laying their hand on a copy of The Bible? Why then does The Constitution actually have references to religious beliefs? The Constitution even acknowledges Sunday as a day of rest in the Article One, Section Seven:

"If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law . . .”

The Constitution also has a reference to the Lord Jesus Christ as found in Article Seven just prior to the signatures:

“ . . . in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven . . ."

The Declaration of Independence is even more obvious in it’s declaration of a God, especially in the first and second paragraphs where it says:

“ . . . to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them. . .”
“ . . . [men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. . .”

[For full text see: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters.html]

Certainly without the declaration of independence there would be no Constitution, and as such it is vitally important to acknowledge The Declaration of Independence as a sort of moral code of The United States of America. It is in fact the very justification for the very existence of The United States of America.

While it is important that we do not allow our government to get involved in our religions, it is important that we acknowledge the roll God should have within our government. It certainly shouldn’t be an overbearing roll, but we are a nation based on Judeo-Christian beliefs, with many laws based on the ten commandments, and the further we get away from those values, the closer we get to a divided and dysfunctional nation.

We do, however, need to be fair in our public dealing with religion. As such I do not believe it is appropriate for any organization, including religious, to be heavily involved in a public school system. On the other hand I certainly wouldn’t turn down any charitable donations meant to help enhance the educational experience, such as a donation of supplies or equipment, but I would probably turn down a truckload of books or manuals that were specific only to religious teachings. I wouldn’t turn down volunteers just because of their religious affiliations, and would allow students to take a regularly designated class period off for religious reasons.

More importantly, however, is that students should be allowed to pray, mediate, or recite their favorite list of beliefs while in school if they choose to do so at appropriate times; such expressions are after all protected by the First Amendments “Freedom of Speech” clause. What I wouldn’t allow is for such practices to interfere with the classroom instruction, but I would like to see public schools teaching theories of Creationism when theories of Evolution are presented; as well as seeing Social Studies and History classes including factual information on all major religions and their roles in society and history.

I would like to see Congress and other governing bodies, offering a prayer before every meeting so that they may lead in ways that will best benefit us the people, allow us to prosper, along with helping other nations to do the same. But most importantly I would like to see the increasing pattern of religious bigotry and hatred stopped. If you are offended by it, then I suggest you try remembering that the Constitution does not protect you from offense, but it does protect your right to talk about it, just as it protects the right of those offensive words to be said.

- Posted By Seth Hollist

Seth.Hollist.org Moves to Spaldam's Rants

I've found myself unable to keep my seth.hollist.org web-page up to date, so I've decided to re-direct it here and help contribute to "Spaldam's Rants". If I find anything special that I want to draw particular attention to, I'll try to add a link to it on the side-bar from the main page; but be sure to check out all of the great information on this blog. I also have a couple of items I'll be keeping on my web-page that you can see listed bellow. What is bellow is a similitude as to what my web-pages home page used to look like. I chose to publish this post as September of 2005 because that's probably the last time I really updated my main web-page.

---

The best government is self-government or in other words, freedom to chose for ourselves, and understanding the natural laws that God has set forth. I regularly check up on my elected officials to see what they're doing with our freedoms, and write them letters regularly. I'm a very big support of The Constitution, and strongly believe to fully understand it one must study our forefathers and understand the language and word meanings used at the time. I also believe the Declaration of Independence is the moral foundation for the Constitution, and to understand The Constitution, one must understand this declaration. These two documents are the foundation of our country, and if we allow it to be left open to interpretation it will only serve to make for an unstable foundation. Any house built on an unstable foundation is doomed to fall.

One Mormon's View of World history

My dissertation on the United States Constitution.

Will I ever run for public office? Very much probably. As for now I have a young family to provide for and enjoy as I watch my kids grow up. Maybe once the kids are old enough to be on their own, and I get frustrated enough with the state of our government (sometimes I think I'm there) then I will. In the mean time I'll do what I can to learn about and watch history unfold while helping others, through this blog, to understand how our governments meddling affects our lives in ways I know I'd much rather not have.

---

Check out some of my other posts on this blog:

Seth Hollist for Public Office

Bad Gun Laws

Affirmative Action Abolished

Separation Church and State

The Importance of Self Governance

The Problem with Politics

Who's Rich Enough to Be Taxed

Bailouts R us vs. Inflation

My commentary on the 2009 Presidential Inauguration

- Posted by Seth Hollist