Who has Constitutional “Rights”?

September 9, 2016 Frank Kuchar

In the debate over immigration, those advocating for open borders and legalization of those who enter our country illegally are often heard to assert that these individuals have “constitutional rights”, but do they? To answer this question we must return to the understanding of exactly what a constitution is and why they are created.

A constitution is a compact – a contract if you will – between members of a society in which they agree with one another as to what authority they will cede to a government that will rule over them in order that society might be orderly, and the rights and property of the citizens be protected.

However, not all constitutions are of this exact nature; it all depends upon who drafts the constitution for the society. For example, the old Soviet Union had a constitution, but it was created by those in power to secure their power over their citizens, not for the benefit of the people.

Our constitution is different. All you need do is read the opening words of the Preamble – “We the people of the United States…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” In our constitution we see the definition of a constitution that I stated above. We – the citizens of the United States – agreed (and each generation continues to agree amongst ourselves) that the powers contained within the Constitution are those, and only those, which the government may exercise over us, and all those not granted to it reserved, ultimately, to us, the people (Amendments IX and X). Within the first eight amendments certain of our rights are enumerated and guaranteed to be protected from government encroachment.

However, again, to whom are these guarantees given? Remember, these are part of a contract that “We the People” made and continue to agree to as belonging to us, American citizens. Those who come to our country illegally have never entered into this agreement; they are not part of our society, though they live among our society. They have no allegiance to our principles of government and society, and have not assimilated into our culture, learned our language (English), nor come to an understanding and appreciation for our history and the sacrifices of those before who made our country the greatest on earth.

This being the case, therefore, they do not have “constitutional rights” or guarantees as they have not become a part of “us” who agreed to continue that contract established over 200 years ago. They have inalienable rights granted to them by our Creator, but constitutional rights, no. You see, rights are those things that no one has the authority to give or take; they come from our Creator. A constitution cannot grant rights, only protect or restrict them as agreed to by those who created and perpetuate it, and illegal aliens living among us are not of us nor parties to our contract known as our Constitution.

-September 9, 2016

Federal Overreach into State Territory

September 2, 2016September 2, 2016 Frank Kuchar

On August 26, 2016, President Obama created the largest ocean reserve in the world off the Hawaiian Islands. He did this without the consent of Congress, but simply with the flourish of his signature on a presidential proclamation. His proclamation expanded the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument by over 400,000 square miles (that’s right, miles), increasing the total size of the preserve to 582,578 square miles! This means that this region is now off-limits to commercial fishermen and mineral exploration, which will, in a statement released by the White House, “allow scientists to monitor and explore the impacts of climate change on these fragile ecosystems.”

This action will adversely affect those whose livelihood depends upon fishing or exploring that part of the ocean as well as prices for their products, all in the name of the bogus concept of “climate change”. Furthermore, American citizens who violate this “protection” will be subject to prosecution; but how will this be enforced against foreign fishermen and companies? 582,578 square miles of ocean is a lot of ocean to “rope off!”

The bigger question, though, is does the general government have the constitutional power to make such a land grab (or in this case, ocean grab)? The answer would be a definite ‘NO’! I realize the argument is made utilizing the “Property Clause” in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution that Congress has the authority to do as it wishes with federal territory:

“The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

However, this does not address the issue as to whether or not the federal government has the right to this property in the first place. Turning to our Constitution and reading what properties it authorizes the general government to “own” we see that it strictly limits the kinds of property it may constitutionally acquire. Article I Section 8 lists the “enumerated powers” of the general government, and within those powers are given the kinds of properties it may possess: (1) Post offices and post roads, (2) the District of the seat of the government, (3) Forts, (4) Magazines, (5) Arsenals, (6) Dockyards, and (7) other “needful” buildings. All of these properties were to be purchased by the general government upon the consent of legislature of the state from which the property was to be acquired. The Union of the States did acquire property by other means, namely purchasing land from foreign countries (e.g., the “Louisiana Purchase”, Alaska) or as a result of war (Arizona, New Mexico, California, etc). However, once these territories were divided into states, those states became as much a sovereign entity as the original thirteen.

Nowhere in those enumerated properties will you find national parks, preserves, etc authorized. So for President Obama to annex such a huge swath of ocean to the control of the general government is an act outside the bounds of his constitutional authority. As former Hawaiian governor George Ariyoshi (a Democrat by the way) stated in July at a rally regarding ownership of the ocean, “The ocean belongs to us. We ought to be the ones who decide what kind of use to make of the ocean” – a statement echoing the words of the ninth and tenth amendments:

“ The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

“ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

So remember – if a president or group of legislators can with the stroke of a pen or passage of a piece of legislation seize control of 400,000 square miles of ocean that it has no constitutional right to, what can they do regarding your and my property? This is precisely why we have a constitution to limit the power of government; it’s time we returned to it.

-September 2, 2016

This Land’s NOT Your Land, This Land’s NOT My Land…

August 31, 2016August 31, 2016 Frank Kuchar

I remember singing “This land is your land, this land is my land” in elementary music classes, but my how the sentiment has changed from “is” to “not”! We have witnessed some startling developments as related to our Constitutional rights this past week in the confrontation between rancher Cliven Bundy and the Federal Department of the Bureau of Land Management. You can read the news stories and blog essays about what happened there but I want to take a few paragraphs to delve below the surface of these events.

(As an aside, in the standoff between armed citizens and those armed members of this government agency, we have witnessed the precise reason why we have the second amendment right to bear arms – to resist the tyrannical overreach of the central government as well as the further trampling upon our Constitutional right of free speech when these government agents limited such speech to only certain restricted areas.)

There are some basic Constitutionally-related issues that need to be addressed. First, who controls the land that is in dispute, and the corollary to it, who should control that land, Nevada or Washington DC? Second, should any government entity control the land to begin with? Third, if the land is “owned” by the state of Nevada, under what Constitutional authority does the federal government have in interfering with how the land is used?

Let us begin by turning to our Constitution and reading what properties it authorizes the general government to “own”. Article I Section 8 lists the “enumerated powers” of the general government, and within those powers are given the kinds of properties it may possess: (1) Post offices and post roads, (2) the District of the seat of the government, (3) Forts, (4) Magazines, (5) Arsenals, (6) Dockyards, and (7) other “needful” buildings. All of these properties were to be purchased by the general government upon the consent of legislature of the state from which the property was to be acquired. The Union of the States did acquire property by other means, namely purchasing land from foreign countries (e.g., the “Louisiana Purchase”, Alaska) or as a result of war (Arizona, New Mexico, California, etc). However, once these territories were divided into states, those states became as much a sovereign entity as the original thirteen. Further, Article IV, Section 3 states that Congress shall have the power to either dispose of its territory or property as well as “make all needful Rules and Regulations” regarding said territory.

The general government owns approximately 85% of the state of Nevada, which pretty much destroys any notion of state sovereignty as far as the citizens of Nevada are concerned. There is a dispute in this case as to whether or not the grazing range used by Mr. Bundy is federal or, as he alleges, land properly belonging to Nevada. It appears that the property is technically federal land. So the question is, does the property in Nevada at the heart of the dispute fall into any of those seven categories of property listed in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, and if not, then even though Nevada may have at some point ceded the land to the general government, such would be an unconstitutional exchange. The federal government has no business being in possession of that land. It should belong to the citizens of Nevada to either sell to private individuals/companies or lease to ranchers such as Mr. Bundy.

Therefore, since the “federal” government has no constitutional right to own that land, the land should revert back to the state of Nevada, and as Nevada is a sovereign entity, the “federal” government has no right to interfere in how the land is used. This is why I advocate for the return of all lands and property currently owned by the general government that do not fall within those above listed categories of the Constitution back to the states wherein such property is located.

-April 23, 2014

America’s Greatness – Who and How?

August 19, 2016 Frank Kuchar

As I set forth in my previous essay (America’s Greatness – Past, Present or Future), a case can be made that our greatness as a country has slipped a few notches and is in need of being “made great again.” So who will effect this resurgence and how will it be achieved? To answer that question we must turn to our past and answer the underlying question of “Who made America great to begin with and how did they do it?’

Some might argue that it was our “founding fathers” who made us great by giving us the greatest system of government ever devised to procure and protect the freedom and liberty of a country’s citizenry. As great as these men were and the fact that never again in history have such a gathering of political genius been assembled, they did not make us great – they only provided the opportunity to make America great. Nor did the Constitution, as great as that document is, make us great – it merely provided the framework for a government that would allow greatness to flourish.

Someone else might point to our past military prowess and submit that as the source and means of our greatness. Yet that has been the means by which oppressive empires of history have achieved so-called greatness. We were established to be a free people, intent on pursing life, liberty and happiness and not the conquest and subjugation of others. Another might point to our economic engine, or our technology or any other of a number of our achievements as a people. However, none of these provide the real answer.

To find the answer we need look no further than our own reflections in our mirrors. It was “We the People of the United States,” who set out “to form a more perfect Union.” It was the farmers and merchants who left their farms and businesses to shoulder a musket to fight for the principle of liberty in our War of Independence. It was the hardy men and women who braved the hardships of the ever-expanding western frontier from the original thirteen states to the Pacific Ocean to settle and tame a continent. It was those who went to war, brother against brother, to fight for the ideals of our Declaration of Independence. It was those souls who came to our shores, those tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to be free, who left behind their ancient ancestral ties to forge a new identity as “Americans.” It was our parents and grandparents, those of “the greatest generation”, who came through the multiple adversities of economic depression and world wars. All of these who came before us are who forged the idea of American exceptionalism and elevated America to a status above all other nations in history.

So what happened? I remember as a boy such phrases as “American ‘Can-Do’ attitude”, “American rugged individualism”, “American ingenuity”, “the American Spirit”, and so forth. I remember the attitude manifested in us that the surest way to get an American to accomplish something was to tell him/her that it couldn’t be done, because such a challenge would immediately be met with the retort “Oh yeah? Well watch this!”, and the task would quickly be mastered. In short, we’ve forgotten who we are (or better, were). We’ve allowed these traits that were passed on and instilled within each generation to die away. We’ve lost the passion to be a free and independent people. Our rich history has been watered down and not taught to our children and grandchildren who are no longer challenged to shoot for the moon as President Kennedy challenged us in 1961.

If America is to be made great again, even greater than it was before, it is up to you and me. We must look back at our ancestors, follow their example, believe in the principles of individual responsibility, self-determination and respect for life, liberty and property. In short, we must become one people, bound together by a common language, a common purpose, a common belief in ourselves as a people and a common passion for freedom. Only then will America be great again.

-August 19, 2016

America’s Greatness – Past, Present or Future?

August 12, 2016 Frank Kuchar

In this election cycle, Donald Trump’s campaign slogan has been “Make America Great Again” – an implication which portrays an America that was great but is no longer. Countering that, Hillary Clinton has proclaimed that “America is Great”, meaning there has been no loss of America’s “greatness”.

So the question posed to voters in this upcoming election is, “Who’s vision of America is accurate?” The answer lies in the follow up question, “What do you mean by ‘greatness’?” To resolve this issue, all we need do is examine our present condition and ask if that condition fits how you would define “greatness.”

In approaching this matter I was drawn back to the Roman Empire, which by all accounts possessed “greatness.” What were some of the things that Rome was noted for that amounted to its “greatness”? There was the Pax Romana, paved stone roads that linked all parts of the empire together, a common language for government (Latin), emphasis on architectural achievements and engineering feats, literature and the advancement of the sciences, a strong army and navy, a high price placed upon citizenship and much more. In looking at our past, we could say that America also possessed these same qualities as well; the debate is whether or not we still do.

If you believe that a government should give you cradle-to-grave care at the expense of the whole of society, then you might think we are presently “great.” If you believe that leaders are exempt from the same judgment under the law that other citizens would be, then you might think we are presently “great.” If you believe that the government should set the educational standards and water them down so that all students “pass” whether or not they learn the material, then you might think we are presently “great.” If you believe we should not project a strong military presence on the world stage so that the other nations will “like” us better, then you might think we are presently “great.” If you believe we should not insist that those who come to our shores learn our historical tongue and assimilate into becoming “American”, but instead maintain the language of and allegiance to their mother country instead of America, you might think we are presently “great.” If you believe the loss of individual freedom and liberties to an ever-growing centralized government is a good pathway, then you might think we are presently “great.”

On the other hand, if you believe that we have ceased to be a land where all are equal under the law and that the powerful and influential should not be given special treatment, then you might think America needs to be made “great again.” If you believe that we have lost our competitive edge in science and technology and must import skilled and knowledgeable people from other countries because our educational system has become a dismal failure, then you might think America needs to be made “great again.” If you believe that the reduction of our military to a mere shadow of what it was when America was respected by its allies and feared by its enemies, then you might think America needs to be made “great again.” If you believe our open border and non-assimilation policies have destroyed what it means to “be American”, then you might think America needs to be made “great again.” And if you believe that our individual freedom and liberties are being stripped from us so that we can no longer live a life of self-determination, then you might think America needs to be made “great again.”

There’s many more of these “Jeff Foxworthy” type of questions we could play, but I think these sum up the two pictures well enough. I happen to believe America falls into that second category, and so the obvious follow up is, “Who made America great to begin with, and how do we get back to that position of greatness?” I’ll broach this topic in a follow up essay.

United States of America?

July 31, 2016 Frank Kuchar

These past two weeks we have heard much on the topic of “unity” as the two major political parties strove to convince their delegates on the need for them to be “united.” In the Republican convention they went further and stressed the need to “make America one again” as the theme of one of their evenings.

It is unfortunate that such an emphasis should be deemed necessary, but today we are indeed in dire need of being “one” again. We as a country are more divided than any time in my lifetime since the 1960s’. I could never have imagined Americans reverting back to the horrendous divisiveness of that decade, and yet we have. However, as one studies our history unity has always been rather tenuous, from the debates over how to form a “United States” to a war between the states through the turbulent decades of social unrest and change of the last century.

Unity is achieved when individuals or groups join together based upon a commonality. In the case of our political parties, that common ground appears to be the defeat of the opposing party. Yet for true unity to be realized, that common bond must be of a positive nature. So we are led to ask, “What common force brought together those original thirteen diverse colonies who often had more things at odds with each other than not?” The answer can be found in the speeches and writings of our founders, culminating in the words of our Declaration of Independence – Liberty! It is (or was) the same common ground that drew so many to our shores over the past two centuries, as echoed in the poem on the base of the Statue of Liberty: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

Yet today, is this the common thread among us? It strikes me that there is more of a desire to fracture ourselves into different groups and to obtain benefits for our group at the expense of the others and that we are being flooded with people from other countries who desire the freebies available to them and not to become united as part of the American fabric. Unity and freedom will never be achieved from such seeds. Only when we acknowledge that to achieve true individual freedom we must come together based upon common grounds will freedom and unity be realized.

In this conclusion to Part I of his exposition of his insights into the United States of the 1830s’, Alexis de Tocqueville opined:

“If this process of assimilation draws foreign peoples closer together, it is all the more true that the branches of the same people cannot stay strangers to each other.

Therefore, a time will come when we shall be able to see in North America one hundred and fifty million people all equal to one another, all belonging to the same family, sharing the same beginnings, the same civilization, the same language, the same religion, the same ways, the same customs and among whom thought will circulate in similar forms, depicted in the same colors. All else is uncertain but this is certain.”

Or, as he could have said, E Pluribus Unum: “Out of many, one.” Hopefully, when this election season is over we can once again be united as one.

-July 29, 2016

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

July 15, 2016 Frank Kuchar

Aretha Franklin had a hit in the 60s’ in which she called for her significant other to give her a little R-E-S-P-E-C-T. A community and a country that is bound together in peace and harmony is what we term a “civil society.” However, in order to be civil a society must be driven by R-E-S-P-E-C-T, for when this trait is absent from its citizens, civility breaks down and anarchy reigns. Such is precisely what we are witnessing in our society today, especially within just the last two weeks with the war being waged against police departments across our land.

A civil society is one that is based upon the rule of law. In our society this is not just any law, but laws that comport to the inalienable rights granted us by our Creator and are in made in pursuance to the Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2). However, when there is no respect for laws that meet these two criteria, we reap the lawlessness running rampart in our streets. Such is why we have “loaned” the government the power to police those who, by their lack of respect for law, threaten the inalienable rights of the rest of society. A lack of respect for law reveals itself in a lack of respect for the inalienable rights of others to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. This is precisely what unfolded in Dallas, Texas last week.

The question, then, is what causes this loss of respect for law and the rights of others? Those who are acting so wantonly will point to alleged injustices they feel they have experienced, and in some cases there may be grounds for such allegations. However, in the first amendment to our Constitution it guarantees us the proper avenue to address such injustices. Citizens have the guaranteed right to peacefully assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. It is our representatives in Congress whom we elect that are to serve as the conduit for these grievances, and if they fail to respond, to replace them with others who will. Such was the approach of Martin Luther King, Jr in his peaceful approach to securing civil rights for all Americans in the 1960s’.

Going one step further, though, if an individual does not respect himself, then he is incapable of respecting any laws, be they man’s or God’s, nor other fellow members of the society. Over the past fifty years, thanks to LBJ’s so-called “Great Society” initiatives, government put in motion programs that have robbed citizens of their self-respect and today we are reaping their bitter fruit.

Perhaps those who are part of the BLM movement should, instead of filling their minds with the vile garbage of so many of the modern-day rap singers, go back to another hit of the 60s’ by the Staple Singers – “Respect Yourself”:

You disrespect anybody

That you run in to

How in the world do you think

Anybody’s s’posed to respect you

If you don’t give a heck ’bout the man

With the Bible in his hand

Just get out the way

And let the gentle man do his thing

You the kind of gentleman

That want everything your way

Take the sheet off your face, boy

It’s a brand new day

Respect yourself, respect yourself

If you don’t respect yourself

Ain’t nobody gonna give a good cahoot, na na na na

Respect yourself, respect yourself

If you’re walking ’round

Think’n that the world

Owes you something

‘Cause you’re here

You goin’ out

The world backwards

Like you did

When you first come here

Keep talkin’ ’bout the president

Won’t stop evolution

Put your hand on your mouth

When you cough, that’ll help the solution

Oh, you cuss around women

And you don’t even know their names

And you dumb enough to think

That’ll make you a big ol man

Respect yourself, respect yourself

If you don’t respect yourself

Ain’t nobody gonna give a good cahoot, na na na na

Yep, these lyrics from almost 50 years ago pretty much sums up what’s wrong in society today.

-July 15, 2016

The Flip Side to Church/State

July 8, 2016 Frank Kuchar

Today, at every turn we hear the wail that any expression of Christian/Jewish religious belief in connection with any public event or on public property is a violation of the constitutional principle of “the separation of church and state.” However, this is not a constitutional principle; it is based upon a misapplication of the phrase lifted from Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists who had written him of their concerns about the state establishing one particular Christian denomination over all others.

Second, the first amendment is applicable only to the federal government, not to the state governments, and it states that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” For over 150 years, every time a challenge was made on any religious issue based upon Jefferson’s phrase, the courts struck it down as not being what the founders intended. As far back as 1853, a group petitioned Congress to forbid the presence of chaplains in the military and elsewhere, using this argument. After a year of deliberation by both the House and Senate judiciary committees, the House issued the following statement:

“Had the people [the Founding Fathers], during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, but not any one sect [denomination]….

It wasn’t until the case of Everson v. Board of Education in 1947 that Justice Hugo Black, writing for the majority on the Supreme Court applied this phrase as it is currently misused.

There is a lawsuit being brought in Iowa by a church against the Iowa Civil Rights Commission which, in a brochure it published, states that any church which opens its doors to the public for any reason – worship or otherwise – must comply with sexual orientation and gender laws. This includes the recent issue regarding transgenders and restrooms. Hiram Sasser, the director of litigation of the firm representing the church in this suit stated “It [the commission’s regulations] further compels our client to use specific pronouns when referring to certain ‘gender identities’ and prohibits our client from even teaching its religious beliefs.”

So here’s the flip side of the “separation of church and state” coin for you liberals. If the church cannot inject itself into the public arena because there is a so-called “wall” between them, then that wall works both ways – the government has no right to inject itself into the beliefs of the church. Liberals are quick to seize on idea of an establishment of religion (erroneously, I might add), but they are blind to the second part of the phrase, namely that “Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” If the government regulates matters relating to the practicing of the beliefs of a church or of individuals, then it is “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” and is in violation of this principle. Of course, this is applicable only at the federal level, not the state, but what is happening in Iowa will most likely soon become the rule at the federal level as well, and then we will have a constitutional issue at stake.

-July 8, 2016

Proclaiming Liberty versus Attaining Liberty

July 1, 2016 Frank Kuchar

This Monday, July 4, we will celebrate the signing of our country’s Declaration of Independence in 1776, which proclaimed America’s right to liberty from Great Britain. However, our forefathers learned that it is one thing to proclaim liberty, but quite another to attain it. It would be a long, hard six years before that proclamation would become a reality.

As we gather in backyards, parks and other places to enjoy barbeque, cool drinks and sweet deserts, I want to remind us all of what it took to give us cause to celebrate. In December of 1777, General George Washington moved his 12,000 man army to winter encampment at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. That winter was to prove to be one of the harshest on record and one which caused the deaths of 2,500 men of the beleaguered army. On February 16, 1778, Washington wrote the following to Governor George Clinton from the harsh encampment of Valley Forge:

“Dear Sir: It is with great reluctance, I trouble you on a subject, which does not fall within your province; but it is a subject that occasions me more distress, than I have felt, since the commencement of the war; and which loudly demands the most zealous exertions of every person of weight and authority, who is interested in the success of our affairs. I mean the present dreadful situation of the army for want of provisions, and the miserable prospects before us, with respect to futurity. It is more alarming than you will probably conceive, for, to form a just idea, it were necessary to be on the spot. For some days past, there has been little less, than a famine in camp. A part of the army has been a week, without any kind of flesh, and the rest for three or four days. Naked and starving as they are, we cannot enough admire the incomparable patience and fidelity of the soldiery, that they have not been ere this excited by their sufferings, to a general mutiny or dispersion. Strong symptoms, however, discontent have appeared in particular instances; and nothing but the most active efforts every where can long avert so shocking a catastrophe.

Our present sufferings are not all. There is no foundation laid for any adequate relief hereafter.”

A few weeks later, still suffering from lack of food and clothing, he penned the following words in his General Orders issued on March 1:

“Contingencies of weather and other temporary impediments have subjected and may again subject us to a deficiency for a few days,1 but soldiers! American soldiers! will despise the meaness of repining at such trifling strokes of Adversity, trifling indeed when compared to the transcendent Prize which will undoubtedly crown their Patience and Perseverence, Glory and Freedom, Peace and Plenty to themselves and the Community; The Admiration of the World, the Love of their Country and the Gratitude of Posterity!”[emphasis added]

So, as you enjoy the plentiful bounty afforded us in America and revel in watching the firework displays along with stirring, patriotic music, pause and reflect upon the sacrifices of those brave men in the freezing cold for whom we, their posterity, owe an immeasurable amount of gratitude. On this July 4th, may we all resolve to not let their suffering be in vain but determine to reclaim the liberty being wrested from us by our own government.

-July 1, 2016

The Devaluation of Citizenship

June 23, 2016 Frank Kuchar

Today there is much talk about countries devaluing their currencies in an attempt to make their exports cheaper and thereby boost their economies. Here in our country we have another serious devaluation going on, that of citizenship.

Citizenship does not entail “rights” properly understood. Rights are those things which every individual possesses by virtue of being a part of the human race as they come, as Jefferson stated, from our Creator and are therefore inalienable. Government, therefore, can neither grant nor take away rights (although tyrannical governments can and do restrict them).

Citizenship is an honor that governments bestow upon those individuals who meet the requirements that the civil society has set forth. Civil societies, according to John Locke, are formed when individuals band together and agree to defer some of their natural rights to the group (i.e., government) so that they may exist in an orderly and peaceful fashion.

Becoming a citizen, then, carries with it certain privileges and responsibilities. Some responsibilities, for example, fall upon both citizen and non-citizen alike. For example, paying taxes to the government is a responsibility of both classes of individuals within a society as both groups benefit from the actions of government (protection from invasion, personal injury, etc). However, privileges are those things reserved for citizens alone.

As we approach the upcoming pivotal election this fall it is important to bear in mind that one such privilege is that of voting. Contrary to what many may believe, there is no such thing as “the right to vote” because voting is an act granted by government, not by our Creator. Therefore, voting is a privilege that comes with the honor of citizenship and if one has not met the stipulations for earning citizenship they have no claim on being allowed to vote.

In a free society, voting is the means by which those who have banded together to form that civil society determine how they, as a society, wish to be governed. Those who are not yet citizens have no allegiance to the group and are, in effect, loyal only to themselves. Consequently they should have no say in how those who do should be governed or to what they should be obligated. Such is the reason why it is critical that the integrity of the vote be upheld and that proof of citizenship be mandated for those who go to the polls to cast their ballots.

However, those on the left have completely misunderstood this basic concept of the nature of citizenship and are pushing for open elections – i.e., granting all inhabitants within the boundaries of our land this privilege. California has recently passed legislation that will permit illegals (non-citizens) access to the voting booth. Such action devalues citizenship, for if this privilege is not restrictive, then of what use is citizenship? If citizenship is not something to be valued and held to be a distinctive identifier of those within a country, then how can a civil society be maintained? The answer is there is no value and civil society will eventually splinter into sundry parts, each vying for their own special benefits rather than the good of all society. In such a circumstance America (or any country) will cease to be a country.

Finally, voting is one of the privileges of citizenship that also falls into the realm of responsibility. If citizens fail to live up to this responsibility, then eventually the time will come when this failure will result in a government that deems such privileges are no longer to be granted, and all of society falls under the dark cloud of tyranny where our Creator-granted rights are restricted.

– June 24, 2016