Responsibility & Effectiveness of Government

The care of human life and happiness, not their destruction, is the legitimate responsibility of a good government.

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.

That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it? Or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the path of destruction.

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government

Right to Bare Arms

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. (quoting Cesare Beccaria)

Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who do not.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

Banks

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

Courts

One single object … [will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation.

Press

The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure.

Liberty

When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.

What county can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that its people preserve the spirit of resistance.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Prosperity

Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

Religion

No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example.

Livingston County, NY – Judge Robert Wiggins dealt a major setback to New York Governor Cuomo and Mayor Bloomberg in the lawsuit brought by Liberty Counsel against the same-sex marriage law (“Act”). In response to the flagrant violations of the New York state constitutional and legal procedures, Liberty Counsel filed suit in the New York Supreme Court against the Act, which was signed into law on June 24, 2011, by Gov. Cuomo. The state asked the court to dismiss the case, but yesterday afternoon, Judge Wiggins sided with Liberty Counsel on the Open Meetings complaint, ruling that the case may proceed to trial. Liberty Counsel represents New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms and several other plaintiffs.

New York law requires that a bill be printed and in its final form on the desks of the legislators three days prior to a vote, unless an emergency exists. Gov. Cuomo ignored the provision and declared an emergency, stating that waiting three days would deprive same-sex couples of marriage. Judge Wiggins wrote: “Logically and clearly this cite by the Governor is disingenuous. The review of such concept altering legislation for three days after generations of existing definitions would not so damage same-sex couples as to necessitate an avoidance of rules meant to ensure full review and discussion prior to any vote.” The judge then wrote that “although the disregard for the statute seems evident, the Court feels constrained to not rule on the Governor’s certification of necessity.”

However, on the Open Meetings complaint, Judge Wiggins wrote that “clear arm-twisting by the Executive on the Legislative permeates this entire process.” The Court noted that New York law requires every meeting of a public body to “be open to the general public,” with few exceptions, none of which apply here. On this significant aspect of the complaint, the court allowed the case to proceed to trial. Liberty Counsel will now pursue discovery on the Open Meetings violations, including the depositions of Cuomo, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and the President of the Senate.

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, commented: “This is a victory for the people of New York and a setback to the political arm-twisters who tried to thwart the open meetings process. Discovery will show that the arm-twisting and closed-room deals to force passage of this same-sex marriage law were defiant violations of the Open Meetings law. When government operates in secret and freezes out the very people it is supposed to represent, the entire system fails. The law should be set aside, and the process should begin again to allow the people a voice in the process.”

In a letter to Monsieur A. Coray, dated October 31, 1823, Thomas Jefferson wrote “At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account.”

Our third president was well aware of the problems posed by a renegade judiciary… a judiciary more concerned with precedents set by it’s own members than with legislation by representatives elected by the people. As he noted in his letter, this third branch of government was to be a helpless and harmless administrator of laws and regulations coming out of the other two branches. It just didn’t work out that way as the egos of these men and women in black robes pushed them to the point where they now sit in judgment on the other two branches as a mafia godfather ruling with an iron hand.

While he was in office as President, Jefferson was faced with an out of control judiciary actively working in directions harmful to the country at that time. Instead of throwing up his hands and waiting for the expiration of disruptive judges, his administration came up with a plan. It was a plan that worked for it’s time. If we are paying attention to history, we can learn from it.

At its’ core, the Judiciary Act of 1802, reorganized the circuit courts and abolished sixteen judgeships. Sure these grand high officials with lifetime appointments fussed and fumed, but the surviving judges did not object. Today, the judicial masters may try to fight such a common sense driven action. Then we would have what many would call a “constitutional crisis”. Something the ruling elites would never consciously trigger as it might put their own positions in jeopardy.

Yet, when we have judges using criteria other than the constitution, as it was written, and with legislation by elected representatives, we already have a constitutional crisis. We have judges today who rule by international law. Others accept sharia law as valid in some cases. Still other times, the judges resort to what they call, “evolving standards”. We are just not able to bring ourselves to deal with the problem. And we are being damaged by it, individually and as a country.

I don’t know if Mr. Gingrich would follow through on this idea, should he find himself in the White House, or if he could get congress to follow his leadership on this issue, but he is the first one to admit that we have a problem and propose a solution other than waiting for hundreds of judges to assume room temperature.

It’s a problem we have been aware of for years. Our elected representatives have generally just accepted that their best efforts could be shot down by a judiciary with a set of values foreign to most Americans. If they don’t stand up for us in this area, we are foolish to stand up for them. We don’t elect them to be fat and happy. We elect them to get the job done… and they haven’t.

Unless the problem is resolved, it could short circuit any kind of legislative effort to restore sanity our part of the world. To make matters worse, some courts, in Massachusetts, for example, have even taken it upon themselves to order legislatures to pass laws that meet their dictatorial demands.

We have even seen the courts overrule the will of the people after a referendum on homosexual marriage in California. Just recently, they have stuck their Pinocchio like proboscis into the efforts of Arizona and Alabama to make up for the national government’s failure to live up to it’s responsibility to protect the citizens against foreign invasion.

While there is a need to have a process to evaluate how legislation and regulation aligns with our constitution, the constitutional standard has long been abandoned in favor of a judge’s misconception of “fairness”, or idea of the way the constitution should have been written, or an amended interpretation of what the founders actually have written. Worse yet, some have even begun to evaluate our laws and society in terms of “international standards”… some even believing that shariah law may have a place in our country.

Until we stifle this internal subversion, the best efforts of a tea party inspired and elected congress could all be shot down by a band of superannuated radicals in black robes. Part of the problem is inertia… no one has stood up to the courts since Franklin Roosevelt attempted to pack the court with his own progressive puppets. Another part could well be the predominance of lawyers in the political system with their learned respect and subservience to the “honorable” judge.

After an enumeration of the powers of the Supreme Court, the constitution goes on to read, “In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” It may not return complete sanity to our judicial process but the constitution provides for some limitation on the judicial authority.

To my knowledge, no one in congress or on the presidential debate platform has discussed anything that would restore the balance of power between the three branches of government that the founders intended. The courts, and now, the outlaw executive, have all but reduced the legislature to the position of a neutered appendage to the real government.

While the courts provide a valuable service to our country, they never were intended to be the supreme arbiters of government policy. Lincoln wrote, “We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Before that, in 1825 Jefferson wrote, “One single object … [will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation.”

These men saw the potential for a dictatorship of the judiciary. We are witnessing it’s reality. Finding a way to peacefully restrain the rule from the bench would be far better than the violence in the streets that could result from increasingly ill-advised decisions. We need to remember the words of John F. Kennedy who told us, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

Whoever our new leader will be, they will have to figure out a solution to the problem of progressive judges imposing their will on our land before there is any possibility of our other problems being resolved.

Some, primarily libertarians, are scandalized that there was an operation carried out purposely targeting an American citizen. They said that because of this citizenship, al Awlaki should have been afforded the due process of our criminal justice system.

If the Muslim cleric had been shot by someone stepping out of the shadows as he entered his New York City apartment, or if he were gunned down as he enjoyed a night at the theater in our nation’s capitol, then it would really be a problem with our government just exterminating someone they determine to be an enemy of the state. It’s not that this sort of thing, assisted “suicides” and the like, have never taken place – justified or not. This case, on the other hand, is just very visibly public.

Al-Awlaki’s life was not terminated while he was innocently minding his own business. The uproar from our libertarian friends needs to be moderated when they consider their own ideals. The ideals of individual choices and personal responsibility… and acceptance of the consequences.

Unfortunately, Mr. al-Awlaki made some bad choices that ultimately led to his demise. Although he was born in this country, it is apparent that he did not consider it his home. He chose, instead, to align himself with its’ enemies. He chose to side with those who hate us, not just in spirit, but in action as well. If he had stayed at home and wrote an occasional diatribe against the infidels surrounding him, we would have just written him off as another trouble making psychotic in our midst.

He did not stay home. He traveled half way around the world and worked with this organization dedicated to doing harm to you and to me. He lived with them. He worked with them. He led them. He put himself in a very dangerous position – and he paid the price.

From time to time, even local police are put in the position of taking the life of a citizen without due process. A few years back a crazed man near my home took a young woman hostage and, using duct tape, fastened the barrel of a shotgun to her neck as the police surrounded the house they occupied. To save the innocent life, a police sniper shattered his skull and blew away half his brain to keep him from pulling the trigger and killing the girl. This young man put himself in a position where the only option was to terminate his life.

Through negative choices, Anwar al-Awlaki did the very same thing. To those who see the US as responsible for creating the hatred of us in the Arab world, it is understandable that they would want to deal less harshly with our enemies. However, if I were to choose to step out in front of a speed eighteen wheeler, I would be responsible for my violent end, not the truck and not the driver.

These middle eastern wars have already cost us for too much in the way of precious lives and dollars we don’t have. For myself, I would not be willing to risk more American soldiers in an operation to give this traitor to the country we love a public platform to spew his hatred as part of the due process many would want him to have.

Just as it was necessary to cut off the signal from the brain to the trigger finger of the hostage taker before he could kill his victim, it is also necessary to cut off the head of the beast that seeks to destroy us, no matter where that head was born. Al-Awlaki understood we were his enemy when he became ours. As a result, he was introduced to the fallacy of the 72 virgin reward.

Despite what some judges would have us believe, the constitution is the same as it was a hundred years ago, or for that matter, two hundred years ago. Of course there have been amendments, but for the most part, they have clarifications. Yet there were some that changed the philosophy of parts of the document. Allowing senators to be elected by the people rather than keeping them tethered to state governments was one instance. Permitting a graduated income tax was another. Not all change is for the better.

But why, recently, do people feel the need to emphasize that a study of the constitution is a non-partisan endeavor? Could it be that one political party takes offense at the idea of people – the common folks who made this country great – want to know the rules by which the governmental games are to be played? If the people know what the limits of governmental power are, then they are in a position to holler “FOUL” when those limits have been exceeded. This would put such a crimp in the unauthorized expansion of power both parties have pursued.

What we have in Washington, and through out the rest of our country, is the equivalent of the Philadelphia Eagles coming into Dallas to play the Cowboys on a field owned by the Cowboys with officials hired and paid for by the Cowboys. Everything may look nice and fair until the officials make some calls that show they have decided some of the NFL rules just don’t apply as written, or they just should not be there at all… especially when it benefits the home team who is writing their paychecks.

Philadelphia fans would be livid and do their best to see that there would be payback next time the blue and white team comes back to the City of Brotherly Love. But, suppose the NFL commissioner would agree with the Dallas officials – where would be their recourse?

I’m not sure what Andy Reid and company would do, but this is the situation we are facing with our government’s rule book (our constitution). One of the teams has made it a policy to disregard the old fashioned ideas for years. The other team gives lip service to constitutional limits, but also disregards it with regularity – just not as often or as blatantly.

This may be the reason for the non-partisan advertising. Democrats would take offense since they are the most obvious offenders. Republicans would feel the need to support it with their words while secretly hoping nothing much would come of it other than providing more useful idiots who could be convinced to follow the lesser of two evils song and dance. While we find it easy to measure the donkeys by constitutional standards, we find it harder to apply them to the elephants. This is a mistake.

The people who wrote our constitution had a pretty good idea of the difference between right and wrong – between good and evil. Many have lost this sense today… to the point where the definitions have been reversed.

The prophet Isaiah had this to say:

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. Woe to those who are wise in their own eye and clever in their own sight.

Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine and champions at mixing drinks, who acquit the guilty for a bribe, but deny justice to the innocent. (Is 5:20-23 NIV)

We see what our Creator thinks of such behavior. If we think differently, it’s at our own peril. If we really think of the United States as the shining city on a hill, and especially if we believe it came about as the result of divine providence to show what free, god-fearing people can do, it is our duty not only to study the constitution that our forefathers handed down to us, but to insist that our leaders of both parties submit to it’s limitations. They were there for a purpose.

Atlanta, GA – Today the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a 2-1 opinion that the individual mandate in Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ObamaCare”) exceeds the authority of Congress and is unconstitutional. The court also ruled that the remainder of the law could continue in effect. The Court ruled that Congress cannot “mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die.” The Eleventh Circuit case involved 26 states. Liberty Counsel’s case, Liberty University v. Geithner, was argued on May 10, 2011, at the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. A ruling on that case has not yet been issued.

There are three interwoven provisions of ObamaCare – the guaranteed issue which requires that all pre-existing conditions be covered, the removal of community rating which prevents insurance companies from balancing coverage risks, and the mandate for individuals and employers. The former two cannot work without the mandate. Without the mandate, the other two requirements of ObamaCare will collapse the insurance industry. Seven states have attempted the guaranteed issue and removal of community rating without the mandate and the attempts in all seven states failed because the insurance industry collapses under such a system. With the mandate gone and the rest of the law intact, ObamaCare will cause health insurance to collapse, thus necessitating a repeal of the law or a total government takeover of the health insurance market, which would be a Medicare or Medicaid on steroids.

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, said, “Today’s ruling striking down the individual mandate is welcome news. The federal government does not have the authority to force individuals to purchase health insurance. ObamaCare represents the biggest government intrusion into the private lives of every American. The Court of Appeals should have thrown out ObamaCare in its entirety. Without the individual mandate, the law will cause the insurance industry to implode. With or without the mandate, ObamaCare has been a catastrophe.”

People watched this like they watched a soap opera – loving some of the actors and hating some of the others. There was an emotional response to the tragic death of young child. As sad as this was, the idea behind a trial such as this is to deal in the facts of the case… not a thirst for revenge.

What was obvious from the reports that I could not miss was that the prosecution could not even tell the court how the poor child died, let alone when and at whose hands. What was also obvious was that the girl’s mother was what we, who have studied psychology and tend to use technical terms, would call a whack case. I am not aware of any Florida law against such a malady.

What happened in the courtroom was a failure to show that this young woman, whether intentionally or not, was responsible for the death of her daughter. It could have been for any reason from a momentary lack of attention to premeditated murder, but the state could not make the case to anyone’s satisfaction. This could be that the investigators did not do their job completely, or that the evidence was so sparse that not even Gil Grissom could have solved the case.

Too much is not known and our system simply is not established to convict anyone on the whims of public sentiment – although this has happened at times. We really don’t want it to function that way – do we?

What we saw was the system working as designed. Guilt was not established. Not even the occurrence a crime was established. For any of us facing the fury of our government – at any level – a verdict of this kind is to be desired rather than bemoaned.

What we also saw was that the law is sometimes incapable of handing out justice, either to an irresponsible mother or to a sweet little girl. If she was the victim of abuse or worse, it was not punished. This is something we don’t like to think about – that the law and justice do not always go hand in hand. The statue of blind justice does not take into account the innocence of the victim or the unorthodox lifestyle of the accused, nor should it! Blind justice looks to the facts, which were lacking in this case even though everyone knew something just didn’t smell right. I’m sure most everyone believes Casey Anthony is guilty of something, but we cannot be sure of what. That was the point of this verdict.

Before we run off an enthusiastically put a noose around her neck, we need to remember Proverbs 17:15 that says, “Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent—the LORD detests them both.” (NIV) Then we need to remember that Romans 12:19 that tells us “Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.” (NIV)

In the desire to see justice done for this little girl, we need to remember that, ultimately, justice will be done. We may not see it. It may not even be during the stay on earth of whoever is responsible for this horrible deed. But make no mistake, unless there is confession and repentance, the guilty party or parties will answer to a much higher authority than some judge in Florida. Now that would be something to fear!

Nashville, TN – The Tennessee State House of Representatives passed a resolution urging each county to permit the Ten Commandments to be posted in their respective courthouses. The resolution passed unanimously 98-0, with two abstaining from the vote. The resolution reminds Tennessee lawmakers of America’s rich history. Both citizens and their elected officials alike have respected the Ten Commandments, their profound influence on the formation of American legal thought, and their fundamental place in the history of law and government as a whole.

The resolution states that the United States Supreme Court “has even upheld Sunday closing laws, which originated in the Fourth Commandment’s exhortation to remember the Sabbath Day and keep it holy.” Throughout Washington D.C., there are countless depictions of the Ten Commandments that can be found as a testament to the undeniable role of the Decalogue in America’s legal tradition, including the displays adorning the Supreme Court Building, the Library of Congress, the National Archives, the Ronald Reagan Building, the federal courthouse, and the Chamber of the United States House of Representatives.

More than 90 percent of Tennessee counties have already adopted similar resolutions which acknowledge the historical significance of the Ten Commandments. Rep. Todd Watson, author of the state resolution, said: “It is imperative that these revered tablets continue to grace our public buildings, as reminders to this generation and the next of the vital role the Ten Commandments and its Author have played in shaping our great republic.”

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: “The Ten Commandments are part of the fabric of our country and helped shape our laws. They are as much at home in a display about the foundations of law as stars and stripes are in the American flag. The Founding Fathers would be outraged that we are even debating the constitutionality of the Ten Commandments.”

Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday [May 12, 2011] that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer’s entry.

Justice Robert Rucker and Justice Brent Dickson dissented from the ruling, saying the court’s decision violates the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution.

“In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally-that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances,” Rucker said.

The NW Indiana Times also reported, “This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week involving police entry into a home.

“On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge’s permission to enter without knocking.”

See the report.

Shortly after the ISC decision, Newton County Sheriff Donald Hartman, Sr. said he believes the ruling makes house-to-house searches possible. According to a report at Infowars.com, Sheriff Hartman “made it clear that he would use random house to house searches if he believed it was necessary.”

The Infowars.com report also correctly notes that it was years of illegal searches and seizures and seizures of the American colonists (along with the attempt to seize the colonists’ firearms) that led our forebears to resist the British government with force on April 19, 1775, at Lexington Green and Concord Bridge which ignited America’s War for Independence.

See the report.

It may be helpful at this point to rehearse the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

With this ruling, the ISC effectively told the citizens of the State of Indiana that the Fourth Amendment is null and void in their State. And Sheriff Donald Hartman has effectively said that he will treat the citizens of Newton County in much the same way that King George treated America’s colonists–or the way Stalin’s or Mao’s police treated the enslaved subjects of the former Soviet Union and Communist China.

And what is also disturbing is the way government, at every level, seems unwilling to police itself.

The reason the US Constitution limited the jurisdiction and authority of the federal government and left states with their own jurisdiction and (broader) authority was to serve as a check and balance against the tyrannical tendencies of the central government. Today, however, acts of tyranny seem to be taking place as frequently on the State and local levels as it is at the federal level. This story out of the Hoosier State is only the latest example.

Does anyone find it more than interesting (and even paradoxical) that while the US military is being used more and more as international policemen, local and State law enforcement personnel are often being used more and more like military troops (and taking on the appearance, procedures, and tactics of military troops)?

Traditionally, it was never the role of local and State law enforcement personnel to act like soldiers. Police officers have no “enemy” to seek out and destroy. Their job is to protect, not punish. The citizens of their State, county, or city are not the enemy.

I recently had a well-meaning police lieutenant tell me that his primary concern was that his officers were protected. That is all well and good, and I certainly understand his concern for his officers. However, when a man or woman puts on the uniform of a police officer (or sheriff’s deputy), he or she is saying that they are willing to sacrifice their lives in order to make sure that the citizens of their community stay protected. The “us versus them” attitude of many police officers today is very harmful to the principles of freedom and liberty.

In the above-mentioned story, it was the judiciary branch of the Indiana State government that was unwilling to hold the executive branch of the Indiana State government accountable to the principles of liberty and constitutional government. Once again, we see that government cannot be trusted to police itself.

If the State of Indiana had constitutionalist sheriffs (and surely there must be a few of them), they would have immediately renounced the ISC decision, and made it clear that they would never allow their deputies to operate in the tyrannical manner approved by the court’s dastardly decision. The same should have been true for Indiana’s police chiefs. Was there such a response? If there was, the media ignored it.

Furthermore, Indiana’s governor should have immediately renounced the ISC’s decision and issued an executive order forbidding State and local law enforcement personnel from complying with this unconstitutional decision. Again, if he did this, we didn’t hear about it, did we?

The propensity of government is not only to build and strengthen itself, but also to protect itself. This is true at every level of government. It is up to “We the People” to hold our civil magistrates accountable to constitutional government. And this is most efficiently done at the State level.

The citizens of Indiana can put a stop to this nonsense if they are of a mind to do so. They should rise as one in opposition to the court’s opinion; they should rise as one in demanding the resignations of the three justices who affirmed this draconian decision; they should rise as one in demanding the resignation of Newton County Sheriff Donald Hartman (and any other sheriff who expressed similar views); they should rise as one in demanding that the Indiana governor publicly repudiate this opinion and that he sign an EO countering it; and they should rise as one in making sure that every elected official in Indiana knows that the people of the Hoosier State will not sit back and allow their liberties to be trampled on in such an egregious fashion.

As I have said in past columns, liberty will be won or lost at the State level. All this talk about “saving America” is just that: talk. If we are serious about protecting and preserving our liberties, we will work to ensure that our individual State is the vanguard of freedom–not the instrument of its demise. If we cannot convince our State and local governments to protect our liberties, we are dreaming if we think we are going to convince Washington, D.C., to do the same.

The decision of the Indiana Supreme Court and the public statements of Sheriff Donald Hartman prove that George Washington was spot-on: government is a “fearful master.”

Freedom-loving Hoosiers need to stand up NOW!

For more by Chuck Baldwin, Click here.