“LET FREEDOM RING!”

Though Memorial Day is officially over, I cannot help but post this timeless message from a friend of mine: Mark Shurtleff, Utah Attorney General. *



In the solemn oath, “I will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United Sates against all enemies foreign and domestic”- LET FREEDOM RING!

In the proud “Off we go into the wild, blue yonder;” “Anchors away my boys;” “Over hill, over dale;” and “From the Halls of Montezuma;” and in every “Oo-rah” “Hu-ah” “Atta-boy” and “Semper Fi”- LET FREEDOM RING!

In the wail and warble of the sirens of emergency responders rushing to protect and to serve; (and the heavy breathing of firefighters and police officers running up hundreds of stairs on Sept 11 as everyone else was running down) - LET FREEDOM RING!

In the halls of justice with the rap of the gavel and with every “objection,” “if it please the court,” and “we find the defendant….” - LET FREEDOM RING!

In the “voice of the people” rolling off of Capitol Hill with every “will the representative yield?” “point of order,” and “all in favor say AYE, opposed, NAY”- LET FREEDOM RING!

With every “Dear editor, I am appalled!;” “Thanks for taking my call;” and “In my opinion;” and in every phone call, email and letter to an elected official - LET FREEDOM RING!

In classrooms across this nation with the squeak of chalk on the board, the swish of pages turned in lesson books, and children proudly declaring, “I pledge allegiance to the flag…” - LET FREEDOM RING!

In every “play ball!’ Crack of the bat, and “Take me out to the Ball Game!” Every “Da-da-da-da-ta-da, CHARGE!” and “Boooooozerrrr!” Every “GOOOOOALLLL!” Every “Let’s get ready to rrrrrrumbllllllle!” Every “Touchdown [pick your team]!”- LET FREEDOM RING!

In the most quiet and solemn place of all, the voting booth – LET FREEDOM RING!

In the buzzing of the bedside alarm that roles us out of bed and sends us to work every day to create, innovate, improve and provide products and services that enhance the quality of life - LET FREEDOM RING!

In the roar of the combines and harvesting machines, the zip, zip, zoom of the Interstate, the hum of the turbines, the cacophony of the assembly line, the ring of the bell followed by the din of the stock exchange, and the lonely echo of the night train delivering goods from sea to shining sea - LET FREEDOM RING!

Through whispering pines in the woods and templed hills; the sssshhh of amber waving grain; from the babbling of small brooks to the roar of mighty rivers; in the call of the wild, the nocturnal hoot of an owl and screech of a bald eagle - LET FREEDOM RING!

As the sun settles out over the Great Salt Lake, and families gather around the dinner table, with the saying of “Grace,” and in every clink of glass, “please pass the salt,” smack of the lips, and every story and joke and tease - LET FREEDOM RING!

In every newborn baby’s cry – LET FREEDOM RING!

Every time someone mentors an at-risk youth or young single mother, coaches a little league team, or serves on a soup line - LET FREEDOM RING!

With every “rip” as a charitable donation is torn from the checkbook, and in every “plink” of a coin dropped in the Salvation Army bucket in unison with the clapper of the bell - LET FREEDOM RING!

In each “On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to help other people at all times - LET FREEDOM RING!

In the scent of fresh baked bread or cookies as they are offered in welcome to new neighbors, a hand extended in friendship - LET FREEDOM RING!

In every smile, hug, hand-up; with all arms extended in fellowship and brotherhood, and every shoulder made wet from tears of the comforted - LET FREEDOM RING!

In the sizzle from the backyard BBQ, the splash in the pool, the metallic tunes from the circling ice-cream truck, and the crackle of fireworks, all intermingled with the laughter of children - LET FREEDOM RING!

And as music swells the breeze from the sweet string of the twilight concert in the park; the proud cymbal, fife and drum of the marching band; by every voice raised in harmony, “My country ‘tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrims pride, From every mountainside - LET FREEDOM RING!

As mortal tongues awake in conversation, and with every “I’m sorry,” “I forgive you,” “I’m proud of you,” “I love you!” - LET FREEDOM RING!

From each pew, pulpit and sanctuary in every church, temple, mosque and synagogue across this blessed land - LET FREEDOM RING!

In solitary, humble prayer on bended knee, with bowed head in gratitude and supplication to that great Author of Liberty - LET FREEDOM RING!

And last - though foremost on this Memorial Day - in the muffled hooves of the horse-drawn caisson baring the body of one who paid the ultimate sacrifice; the proud and powerful report of 21 guns; the grateful piping of “Amazing Grace;” and the mournful hum of taps - LET FREEDOM RING!

Mark Shurtleff, Utah Attorney General, is one of 20 State AG's across America engaged in the current battle against the decay of State Sovereignty that is given through the U.S. Constitution. A lawsuit presently before the Court, declares the unconstitutionality of the health care bill just passed by Congress and signed by the President.

*(Posted verbatim, less any spelling errors from the original text.)

Arizona’s Illegal Immigration Law, Natural Law, and the Constitution: How do they fit together…or do they?

This article is in response to a number of questions I’ve been asked concerning Arizona’s new illegal immigration law and what affect the Doctrine of Natural Law has upon it; whether the Constitution provides for border protection and what the relationship is between Natural Law and the Constitution.

Believe it or not, this article was edited down and revised three times, in order to make it as short as possible, but contain enough basic understanding of Natural Law with relationship to this issue that it be beneficial. It is not comprehensive and I recommend the reader make it a matter of thorough study to refer directly to the original documents.

Natural Law: Its Definitions And History

One definition of natural law is that everything on the earth is subject to the natural laws of science, having been created by the laws of such. This approach does not mean science and a belief in Deity are opposing. Rather, its emphasis is upon respect for the earth upon which all things were created, irrespective of the beholder’s belief that God is the founder of such laws of creation. It is simply the idea of acknowledging the natural order of things under the universe.

The other definition is a doctrine of philosophy that is based upon the idea that all creations, being of divine origin, are thus subject to and under the protection of that same creator for their existence. “Natural Law” is that law which governs the right to exist by virtue of being created by a being of Deity, whose power and authority to give life are beyond those of nature and mankind. In observance of nature and God, one can determine the law upon which mankind should be governed. It is, in a nutshell, the practice of pure equality.

Many philosophers touched upon the ideology of equality somewhat. But, not until Richard Hooker, emphatically, taught from the pen and the pulpit, did the idea that all persons deserved equal respect, irrespective of their religious affiliation. Hooker’s doctrine was provocative for an Anglican Priest, in the 1500’s, whose church and its strict observance in the culture/state were uniformly tied to observance and piety of a specific religion, as most societies were from ancient Rome forward.

(For your reference and study of the origins and evolution of Natural Law, here is a basic list of those philosophers who expounded, to some degree or another the philosophy of Natural Law: Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suarez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel Von Pufendorf, John Locke, and Emmerich de Vattel. The Founding Fathers were familiar with the treatise of these men and others.)

Hooker’s teachings were nearly diametrically opposed to the words of his contemporary, Machiavelli, who’s philosophy was based solely upon expediency to benefit the head of government without thought to the value of the individual’s—except in the role as servant-builder to the leader. And most of the grander empires espoused something short of Hooker and more in line with Machiavelli. But while Hooker’s words were attributed to modifying religious attitudes, and gained a measure of acceptance over time, it was not he who expounded upon the idea of Natural Law in the context of practicable civil law or societies, or to the measure it is now extolled. It was John Locke.

Locke was born nearly 200 years after Hooker. Taking from Hookers words about equality, Locke observed that laws are created to preserve and defend the existence of each person, equally in similitude of what was found in nature and scriptures, since God created all creatures and left a pattern of respect for mankind to follow. While Hooker advanced thought by influencing the Church’s view, Locke took those ideas and applied them to every conceivable circumstance, regardless of religious affiliation, but with acclamation to God for the law.

His premise for Natural Law explained that the main purpose of societies was not for the power, extravagance, preservation of a government or church, or individuals in power—or any other reason that can be thought, except to preserve the life of each individual in that society. Natural Law condemns a practice that allows one will to do completely as he/she pleases. (Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government, Ch.1-2; 7)

How Natural Law Works In The Context Of Societies

So, what does this mean to civil governments? And how does it work? How is it applied to those of one country who want to be part of another country, or even simply enter another country?

“Natural Man” is the term used by Locke to explain one’s right to existence. As a person created by Deity, he/she has the right to those things that will preserve their own life without interference. Locke explains that only God can take a life, as He is the only one that grants it. Thus, it is the natural state of all persons to desire to live and act for themselves. (Ch.1-2)

Since there are a multitude of conflicts from one person’s rights interfering with another, in order to “observe their own rights” societies are established to regulate and keep in balance rights of one individual over another. Laws were thus created to protect the cumulative good rather than just one person at a time.

In other words, putting this into context, let us use this analogy:

One man owns property, which is his duly given right by Natural Law. But his trees are growing to extend into his neighbor’s yard. Whose rights supersede, the man who has a right to grow what he wants on his own property? Or, is it the neighbor, who also has a right to do with his property as he wishes? Under Natural Law, the man with the trees does not have the right to encroach upon his neighbor’s property. To do so reduces his neighbor’s right to his own property to do with as he wishes because part of his property is now under control of the man with the trees. Under the doctrine of Natural Law, one has the right to himself so long as it does not interfere with the rights of another. He is not free to take any part of another person’s rights. That is not the doctrine of Natural Law. To use the first part of the equation and ignore the section part is to abuse the doctrine of Natural Law—wittingly or unwittingly.

So how does Natural Law apply punishments to those who break the law? Does one who has taken a life, clearly in violation of Natural Law, have the right to keep his own, avoiding capital punishment? Does anyone violating a law, regardless of how minor it may seem have a right to live, according to Natural Law Doctrine? The answer is no. Any crime of robbing another of his/her right to life or livelihood is punishable to that degree that would safeguard the rest of mankind from the same loss. Hence, death as a punishment/deterrent is absolutely considered in Natural Law, if that is the measure that will keep one person from taking another’s right to life and living in any degree (Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government, ch. 2). Locke expounds:

Sec. 3. POLITICAL POWER, then, I take to be a RIGHT of making laws with
penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties, for the regulating and
preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community, in the
execution of such laws, and in the defence [sic.] of the common-wealth from
foreign injury.

Locke further explains:

…there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses…Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station willfully [sic.], by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.

Note here, the use of the word “competition” above is another way of saying “threat.” Locke explains that under Natural Law, one is not bound to observe the rights of another over one’s own. If there is a threat to his/her own life, one has the right to preserve it by stopping the threat. He continues:

And that all men may be restrained from invading others rights, and from doing
hurt to one another, and the law of nature be observed, which willeth (sic.) the peace
and preservation of all mankind, the execution of the law of nature is, in that
state, put into every man's hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the
transgressors of that law to such a degree, as may hinder its violation: for the
law of nature would, as all other laws that concern men in this world 'be in
vain [sic.].

Understanding the premise under which the Natural Law exists, then educates us that there is no excuse for ignoring the law. Correct laws are those that support Natural Law whereby all share an equal portion under their laws. If one in a society breaks the laws, and goes without punishment, the society is then broken.

Are there bad laws, then? Yes, there are bad laws. Not all laws are designed with respect to Natural Law. Laws intended to benefit one over another in their natural state or preservation within their own society, are certainly bad, already explained, quite simply, above. And Natural Law includes the respect for differences in governments--societies--like one ecosystem respects another. The fish in the sea, whose natural state is in water, and a specific region of it, certainly have no power or right to run like the horse. The elephant, try, as it might, cannot swim like a dolphin. The fish would dry up and vanish on what surely it would consider a parched environment. The elephant would not only lack the grace of the dolphin, it would drown in what the dolphin would consider the shallow end of the sea! Even among similar forms, the rights of one are limited to its sphere: the south deserts of Utah, home to Mustang horse, would not be amiable territory for the bread Quarter horse of Kentucky. No matter how alike the two are in species, their natural states are vastly different. Indeed, the quarter horse would not flourish in an environment that does not, by nature, welcome it.

Likewise it is with cultures, civilizations, and governments. One has no authority to trespass on the other, lest peril come. The premise behind the laws of nature is justifiable reasoning in governments, civilizations, and countries. One, who tries to enter an area foreign to his/her birth, must oblige the laws of the new area. If the person cannot—irrespective of why—he/she will not thrive and is not welcome. The bottom line is that unless they can adapt to the laws of the new society, they have no natural right to it. (Locke, ch. 2) They must either adapt, or stay to their natural area.

Hence, members of one society, on the simple grounds of being a creature of a different natural state, are in violation of Natural Law because the territory they covet is not their natural state.

But societies are not a natural state, but an organization that people agree together to join, vesting authority to legislate on their behalf to protect their natural state as a group. They band together for the sole purpose of protecting their natural rights against others who would take them. Locke:

Those who have the supreme power of making laws in England, France or Holland,
are to an Indian, but like the rest of the world, men without authority: and
therefore, if by the law of nature every man hath not a power to punish offences
against it, as he soberly judges the case to require, I see not how the
magistrates of any community can punish an alien of another country; since, in
reference to him, they can have no more power than what every man naturally may
have over another. [Locke, ch. 2:9].

Because of this “innocence standard” it is imperative to include in the laws of any country rules of citizenship and a border policy prohibiting violation of trespass. Mayhem would exist with out them. Note that Locke clearly connotes a difference between countries that have a power and those that do not. If power is given to the government to punish a foreigner, i.e.: laws are created, then that foreigner has no right to ignore the authority. At that moment, the alien is no longer innocent and unable to reason trespassing, without penalty of the laws of the foreign country. While there are many laws, in many lands with such a standard, the only country that was designed to use the doctrine of Natural Law to its fullest capacity is the United States of America.

As a premise to what was coming, the Declaration of Independence uses the terminology, nearly verbatim, from Locke’s Treatise of Civil Government, lists ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as the three endearing qualities of a truly free society.+ It must be noted here, that “pursuit of happiness” was originally written as “pursuit of property” but in discussion and debate, the term was broadened to happiness as the definition of property ownership, whether in fee simple (meaning purchased without restraint) or by leasehold (renting which still gives full right to use, so long as the landlord’s right to preserve his/her property are not diminished).



Natural Law Applied To Illegal Immigration And Arizona SB 1070

From an understanding of Natural Law we can state the following with respect to the illegal immigration issue:

Firstly, illegal aliens cannot justify crossing into either the property of an individual citizen of the United States, or onto federal lands, (as the collective individuals of the nation own those). In both circumstances, Natural Law stipulates that the illegal alien is taking away the rights of the owner to do with the property as he/she wishes.

Secondly, border laws, and laws of naturalization provide duty to the alien to oblige the new culture’s laws. If there were no border policy, and no law concerning immigration, the alien would have a right to cross the border at will, (if he/she could somehow find a place to cross that was not violating the first precept, above), because there would be no power to enforce. Once laws are authorized (vested power), the illegal party must respect the law, according to Natural Law. The Constitution, following these premises, vests power.

Thirdly, those who are not here by obliging our laws, and consequently are still under the auspices of their own natural state—not ours, cannot lay a claim to any rights of this country as it is not theirs to possess. It would be like the elephant’s mother getting mad at the fish in the sea, because her elephant son drowned trying to live in a state that was not his naturally. Were the elephant and his mother able to adapt by following the rules of the new environment, (which would require, at a minimum, sprouting gills and loosing some weight), then the elephant would be welcome in the new environment. And only at that point would the mother, perhaps have reason to believe her elephant son should have survived. This has been done: we call it selective evolution, and it takes sometimes centuries, even millenia to accomplish. Likewise, an individual from outside one country cannot use that countries laws for rights it does not possess. The act and idea is as ridiculous as an elephant going after the fish because the second echo system did not oblige the invader of it. The term “naturalization” is derived from Natural Law. The Constitution uses it where someone born to another country, thereby another natural state, is properly vested rights to our society.


Additionally, since the Founders were quite aware of how Natural Law works and had concerns if non-citizens were allowed to cross into the country unaccounted and unregulated, Article I, Sec. 8, clauses xiv-xv and xviii, respectively, state that the Congress is responsible for protecting the states from invasion. It reads that the Congress is:

To make Rules for the government and Regulations for the land and naval Forces

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

To make all Laws which
shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,
and All other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United
States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Invasion is not classified by degree, where a certain number entering without permission is expressed. Invasion is invasion, whether by one or 10,000,000. The degree of invasion is more an indication that Natural Law is not being observed and the laws regarding those crossing illegally are being ignored; or, that the punishment is not equal to the violation sufficient to “hinder it”, thereby protecting the rights possessed by the U.S. Citizenry, as required under the Constitution and, thereby, Natural Law.

Note above that within the Article is the precise wording of powers with respect to making laws. The Founders knew that the Constitution must vest powers else Natural Law would allow crossing the borders, or any other act by a non-citizen. Chaos would rein, which, as stated above, would render Natural Law void, as well as the membership of the country.

Understanding Natural Law And The Constitution

Terms such as “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness,” “inalienable rights,” “vested powers,” “naturalization,” and so forth all came by way of Natural Law as found in the Second Treatise of Civil Government, by John Locke. There was a day and time in our country’s history that the citizens knew and understood their Constitution. In fact, the Constitution itself states that all public offices must require of its servants to take an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution. Note in the following from the Constitution, the clear determination to uphold Natural Law as Locke, Hooker, and others prescribed:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Member of the several State Legislatures, and all executive Officers, both of the Untied States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to
any Office or public Trust under the United States. (Art. VI, Sec 3)

There is much to be studied and understood with respect to the doctrine of Natural Law—more than can be reasonably tackled in one discussion. We have only scratched the surface with a discourse on how Natural Law affects the Constitution. Suffice to say that Natural Law is profusely used in the Constitution as a prevailing ideal and directive equal to the Bible, since the paradigm of Natural Law is from the “ two greatest commandments” found in the New Testament.

It would be incumbent upon all citizens of these Untied States to make it a matter of in-depth study, using the The Federalist Papers (Madison Hamilton & Jay), The Law, (Bastiat), and refer back and forth with both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence in that study.
It is an American imperative. Something, if we understood thoroughly, would eliminate the issue of Illegal immigration and the insult to such states as Arizona* in preserving their naturally rising rights. **+

*The latest law, AZ SB 1070, under attach by those who would wish to ignore America’s rights, is not exclusive the Arizona. The current Federal border and immigration laws are nearly identical to those just enacted in Arizona, (except that they are actually stricter). California has the same laws on its books as well (CA Penal Code 834b).

** See this link: http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/may/15/audio-interview-la-city-councilman-attacks-ariz-la/ for an interview article on this subject. It will indicate the level of education about the laws of the land and the state of the Constitution and observance of Natural Law.

+ The good student of the Constitution should also read The Law, by Bastiat. It is found, or can be ordered, from among the Classics division in any bookstore or online at a nominal cost. Additionally, The Constitution Kit, a published DVD including over 50,000 documents about the Constitution is available and should be in every American’s library, for ready reference and study of their American heritage. Tha author of this post is not in any way connected with royalies or any payment in lieu of promoting the work.

Sources for this article include Second Treatise of Civil Government, Locke; US Constitution; The Law, Bastiat.

IS IT CONSTITUTIONAL? What Every State and Citizen Must Understand about Arizona's New Border/Illegal Immigration Law

The following is a reply to a question I was recently asked of, "What do you say to Libertarians who say Arizona's new Border/Illegal Immigration bill (SB 1070) is unconstitutional?".

Here is my answer:

Not only is it very constitutional, Arizona and the other states can and should be suing the Federal Government for non-performance and breach of contract.

There are several supportive clauses in the Constitution that allow Arizona to enact this legislation (and sue):

Article IV, Sec. 4 specifically guarantees the States a Republican form of government--not a Democratic, or Socialistic, etc. , but a Republican one, meaning representational. The states are promised to be heard.

Secondly, the same Article and Section also provides protection to all the states from invasion as well. The Federal Government is specifically bound by the Constitution to provide that protection.

Thirdly, NO WHERE in the Constitution does it prohibit or forbid the respective States themselves from protecting themselves from invasion. In fact, one could argue that because the Constitution expressly states in the 10th Amendment that everything and anything not expressly forbidden the States is a right belonging to them. That also means that those responsibilities laid to the Federal Government are not necessarily prohibited to the states from also doing at their option.

In fact, the rumor that the Fed is going to sue Arizona for enacting this law would be a ridiculous endeavor that would fail on the grounds above and only serve to move forward more rapidly, a suit by the states to counter, as a response.

Fourthly, in support of all the above, Article I, Section 8, clause xv, specifically states that the Federal Government call forth the militia (refer also to the 2nd Amendment also for greater understanding of how this works), to protect the states from insurrections and invasions. The states have a right to protection under the Constitution.

The largest problem is the total ignorance and failure of the US Citizens to know and understand their own constitution. If the people knew it their leaders, coming from among them, could not and would not get away with either ignoring the Federal responsibilities for the sake of doing things it is not supposed to be doing (and interfering in), but instead be focused upon doing those few things it was specifically designed to do.

There are only two remedies that I see:

One is the wholesale education of the US Citizenry in order to secure our domestic tranquility and promote our general welfare, (as stated in the preamble of the Constitution, as the motive and premise for forming a new union in the first place). The illegal immigration problem Arizona and every state is attempting or should be attempting to solve is the precise concern of James Madison and the other Founding Fathers and when he declared the three fold mission of the New Union (as stated above and including providing a national defense).

The other is prayer.

America the Story of Us: Trailer

The CONSTITUENT'S OATH OF OFFICE

The first three words of the Declaration of Independence are "We the People". It is incumbent upon all citizens, not just elected officials and candidates, to take responsibility for the affairs of America. Additionally, as there is so much negativity among candidates and their supporters alike, a creed of Christian duty toward all Americans should be expected.

Therefore:

As an American Constituent, I pledge to understand the U.S. Constitution in order to live and abide by it's precepts and principles. Moreover, I pledge to find candidates to office with a working knowledge of the U.S. Constitution whereby they may be able to oblige their oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

Furthermore, in as much as this nation was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles, and as such a Constituent, I expect all those I support for office and their staff to refrain from belittling, derogatory comments, defamation of character of their opponents, or misrepresenting their opponents' records of fact. So to do constitutes removal of my support.

In the name of all for which America has and should stand.

UTAH SENATE BILL 0011: A Triumphant March Toward State Sovereignty Worth Fighting (& Writing) For

Times are getting interesting. Many states are finally standing up for their rights--a long overdue action! In Utah, the legislature has proposed at least two bills protecting their rights independent of the Federal Government. In fact, a not even close examination of the bills would bring many to think that perhaps Utah (and other states) is posturing itself for a possible succession if push came to shove. No matter: the state has a right, under several Constitutional fronts to stand up to Federal domination and overbearance (which some would call abuse). Two of those are addressed in bills: to opt out of any Federal attempt at mandatory health management (which they are calling health care); and to protect sales of firearms produced and sold in Utah from any Federal infringement or restriction. There are problems with both attempts. Not because they are latent with unconstitutionality or poorly written--to the contrary. I have read the bills. They are clean, simple, and straight forward. (Perhaps that is part of the problem: that kind of legislation is hard for any Federal "somebody" to understand!)

The reality is that this legislation relinquishes control to the states and individuals where the Constitution says it should lay. And that frightens Federal folks. The truth is, however, that is where the power really is and where it was designed to be. Ironically, Obama was elected with that power. (He can also be taken out with it.) There never has been a more critical time in the age of American history, save the Colonial Period, where standing for personal and state's rights--their independent sovereignty--than now. Included below is a message that was sent to the Governor and is shared here with the challenge to use it as a template to copy and paste, or as guide for your own ideas to write the Utah State Governor about SB11, the Utah Firearms Protection Act. If you live outside of Utah, it is suggested that you contact your legislators to create legislation equal to this and use this letter to address your elected officials.

You can read the entire SB11 by going to this link: http://le.ut.gov/~2010/bills/sbillint/sb0011.htm

To The Honorable Governor Gary Herbert:

It has come to the understanding of the citizens of the great State of Utah that you are heavily considering a veto of SB11, known as the Utah Firearms Freedom Act. Please consider HEAVILY the reprehensible damage a veto will cause the state of Utah to its sovereignty!

With all do respect, any concern you may have to the constitutionality, as was reported, should be quieted. It is not unconstitutional. Indeed, it is to the contrary, as a highly constitutionally strengthening bill. Critics may suppose the bill in conflict with the Commerce Clause. It is not. The Commerce Clause specifically involves intrastate trade. This bill was careful to omit intrastate trade to enforce its constitutionality. It involves only firearms trade within the State of Utah. Hence the Commerce Clause is unaffected.

Additionally, the Act supports the State's rights to do as it deems right for its people as promised under Article 4 and Amendments 9 & 10 of the Constitution. Senator Dayton states as part of the Facts and Findings of the bill that the Constitution is a contract. She is correct: The Constitution is a contract. Furthermore, as a contract, its intent goes to that of the date of signing. (Which she also states in the Facts and Findings.) Contract content and context DO NOT change with time or they become void at best, and fraud at worst. The very nature of the binding contract is to create a time capsule agreement, suspending the view and understanding at that moment and through the duration of the contract--even indefinitely.

Governor Herbert, it is incumbent upon you to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States, and the people of Utah. This bill goes to that effort. I plead with you to do right by the people to support this fine and brilliant legislation as appropriate in our day and time to defend the citizens against unlawful and especially unfair forbiddings to protect themselves and members of their families. WE have gone too long and too far ignoring our personal and state rights. Please assist with this important Constitutional endeavor.

Yours Truly,

(Your Name)
CONSTITUENT

Representative Chaffetz Throws Off Learning Curve with 11 Bills

Initial First Term Progress Report:

Shortly after Jason Chaffetz took office as Utah's Third Congressional District Congressman I told him I would be fair. I said I would be direct and tell him when he did poorly, BUT I would also say when he did well.

I am keeping my promise, albeit long overdue. What that means is that this article will have more to report than an earlier one, at least. I have been pleasantly surprised by this once arrogant upstart candidate turned Congressman who seems stuck in a time warp on his campaign heroism. Enough said about the bad...there is much to be said about what Chaffetz is doing right to focus our attention to let that go into history and I wish he would because for a first term Congressman, Chaffetz is speaking out, with engagements, radio, news and other spots, along with briefs that this writer does not recall a "newbie" aggressively scheduling before. But in addition, he is writing legislation--lots of it and some of no small significance.

Chaffetz presently has eleven pieces of legislation before Congress. One of the most note-worthy of them all is H.R. 2200, the WBI--that is, Whole Body Imaging, Bill. It sailed through the House and has been sitting in the Senate since. This bill has had two amendments added to it, H.R. 2027 and H.AMT 172.

Other legislation Chaffetz proposes include the arguably controversial idea of using postal workers to carry out the census. Two pieces of legislation, H.R. 3167 and 3373 deal with this issue.

One bill, H.R. 2265 is of interest to note. This is typical of a bill that would usually be seen in an omnibus bill. While omnibus--which means literally, "miscellaneous"--bills are actually unconstitutional, violating Article I, Sec. 9 (except that Amendment 16 kind of makes it constitutional--sort of...), that restricts the Legislature from creating any tax that is not specific to a cause before the tax is prescribed, it has unfortunately become the viable solution for over abundance of bureaucratic entanglements that have made smooth organizational function an obsolete word in the government's handbook on budgetary priorities. In other words, the smaller the state, the less likely anything would ever get budgeted through the committee that handles a specific bureau's budget. This is what makes this bill so fascinating. Watching to see if this bill actually gets funding will be entertaining, to say nothing of a small miracle because it is a request for the "Secretary of the Interior to participate in the Magna Water District water reuse and groundwater recharge project, and for other purposes". Hmm.

A number of Chaffetz's bills, specifically H.R. 2914, 2915, and 2916 deal with prohibitions of money grants from a department to fund specific projects. The first, terminates loans and other assistance for mohair producers, one prohibits the United States from aiding Ireland through the International Fund, and the other restricts the Water Conservation Fund from providing grants for recreation, respectively.

One bill, H.R. 2193 was Chaffetz's bold attempt to stop the Obama administration from prohibiting the sale of spent ammunition shell casings to domestic manufacturers. This one brings a broad smile to my face. In case you don't understand what this means, let me briefly explain: Since the Obama administration has said they will not "tax" or "prohibit" guns, they have found another more severe way to limit the American public from their right to bear arms: tax and prohibit bullets. So the casings that are used become very important. This bill is Chaffetz's way of saying "not on my watch", to Mr. Obama. Utilizing spent shell casings allows the American public to exercise their 2ND Amendment rights. Period.

There is a saying: the only legislator anyone will ever completely agree with is oneself. That is a true statement. Any other endorsement stating 100% agreement is a lie. It is just not possible in my view--and I think any sane person's view--to agree with anyone else on this planet 100%. (Just ask anyone who is married.) Additionally, while the bills may appear to be noble on their face, this article makes no claim to review their content. That is saved for another day. The focus here is on the mere fact that Chaffetz has attempted to do so much, and hopefully with accuracy and excellence in each case, in so little time with so little a learning curve.

But one can measure the quality of a legislator by a multi-faceted prism. First: Communication: Is it consistent in that he/she does what he/said; and, can they move people beyond being touched to being motivated? Second: Action speaks louder than words: Would you know their walk if they never talked? Third: How do they treat others? Are they the kind of people whose mark in life is more than the sum total of their candidacy/elected office? At the end of the day, do they still know who they are after their congressional hat is hung up and the lights are off them and the clatter and thunder of applause is silenced. Would they still be happy? These are the people who we want in office because these are the ones who know who they are, who will NEVER care about money, fame, applause, prestige, bargain, being bought in office or collusion down the road. Can they throw arrogance away for the power only humility brings? Can they learn? Can they be inspired? And can they inspire?

Much of this is too early to detect in Congressman Chaffetz, because time is the window by which we will see the verity of who he is long term. But while the jury always run from term to term in Congressional careers, he shows surprising promise, I admit. He is showing that he can throw off the learning curve with the agility of Babe Ruth batting averages: The more you try, you may make more mistakes, but you also have a higher batting average. It is the uncommon attitude I share and practice, so I'm prone to liking. When I first met Jason Chaffetz, he was ignorant of many of the processes of government, yet arrogantly talked as if he knew them all. He spewed venomous barbs at his opponent like weapons of war, and drooled arrogance like sap dripping from a maple tree. But I have seen him become tempered. While attending the last Utah Tea Party at the Capitol Rotunda a number of months ago, I heard a humble Jason Chaffetz talk of how only one person can make a difference. Using the analogy of how his opportunity to become a placekicker at BYU all started because he was the only one in high school who even tried out for the position years earlier, as an example of how getting involved in the process to be a delegate could be just like that experience. You never know where a seemingly simple and singular experience--one that may appear quite humble--may develop into something quite bigger than one's self later, was his message. He spoke simply and humbly. Whether that was the message left in everyone else's mind, it was the projection left in mine. It was impressive.

Additionally, he cautioned the audience, as they gear up for the election season to be gentle and kind. Words I cannot echo enough! I said those words over and over myself during his election--not to him--but there were so many on both sides of the proverbial isle that spewed contentious gastric poison at the other side it made looking forward to the end of the primary election seem like awaiting the end of a prison sentence. It couldn't have come soon enough. Hearing Chaffetz say these words was sweet music. I couldn't agree more. Would that everyone would listen and follow the advice!

So, to Jason Chaffetz I have kept my promise: I will continue to say when something is not right. But I will give credit when credit is due. While Chaffetz has much to learn, if he continues to learn from his constituency as he has, gains and maintains the humility of the historical King Benjamin, and defends the Constitution, he will do well. He has done well--all in all. This article could include weaknesses, would that be the object. But it is not. It is obvious he it trying, writing numerous legislative pieces, speaking out constantly, and fighting for constitutional rights (80% consistently defending the Constitution, according to one source).

As I used to say to my children: Rather than seeing ourselves as striving for perfection, let us strive for excellence! While we have admitted our weaknesses, true enough: Let us strive to do our very best despite knowing they are with us.

Indeed.