"To get Obama out of Office"

"To get Obama out of Office" is what I hear from some of my friends when they justify voting for Mitt Romney.  For some, this is their main reasoning of supporting Romney.  The first time I heard this reasoning, I thought it was a loose excuse for ignorance.  I have continued to hear this reasoning, and I have thought of ways how this reasoning is invaluable and weak.

To effectively remove President Obama out of office, his policies should be effectively reversed too.  It's the policies that people dislike about him the most, so remove the policies, not the man.  However, the only possible way to remove policies is to remove the man also, and replace him with another that would have courage to reverse at least the super-majority of President Obama's policies, and institute beneficial policies.  It seems that with my friends, they lack the point of reversing Pres. Obama's policies.  They support Romney without telling me that is policies are better than President Obama.  A couple of them have somewhat stated that it doesn't matter what Romney's policies are, just as long as President Obama is out of office.  This is fallible, because I highlight to them some of Romney's views that coincide with President Obama, and they just brush it off.  To effectively eliminate President Obama from office,  the super-majority of his policies, if not all, would need to be reversed to make a proper logical impact of "To get Obama out of Office".  The main discussion points to evaluate a presidential candidate should not be one man over another, but their expressed viewpoints and policies.


In Oh, No! Not Another Mormon Blog!, Kearney writes "Let me tell you this: you don't win anything by standing against something; you win by standing for something!" (Kearney).  I completely agree with what Kearney has said.  A person can obtain a firm foundation, if they are for something and defending it.  If you stand against a horrible politician, that just opens up the way for many other bad candidates to replace the horrible politician.  One must stand for a candidate and defend the candidate to compete against the horrible politician.


Voting on the reasoning "To get Obama out of office" is similar to voting on "the lesser of two evils," because it insinuates no care what any other candidate stands for and no one is standing for anything.  Don't choose one "evil" to replace another "evil"!  It will not be beneficial, and it's near close to insanity!  One must stand for what they want to accomplish.

If President Obama wins this oncoming election, it will be the fault of the GOP and Republicans for not putting up a better contrasting candidate to Obama.

In conclusion, to properly remove President Obama from office, his policies must be reversed too.  One person must stand for a cause to replace another cause.  That one person must evaluate what candidates will effectively reverse all of President Obama's policies.  I hope that people will choose what they believe is right after properly evaluating the situation.


Sources:
Kearney, D. Rolling. "Why Mormons should NOT Vote for Romney." Oh, No! Not Another Mormon Blog!. 11 April 2012. <http://notanothermormonblog.blogspot.com/2012/04/why-mormons-should-not-vote-for-romney.html>

A Christian Document

The Constitution is a remarkable momentous philosophical document that has influenced much of mankind.  The constitutions of many countries follow the same pattern of the U.S. Constitution.  Some people argue that the reason why the U.S. Constitution is so special is because it is a Christian document.  So since it is a Christian document, what obligations does it place upon the government and citizens?  One thing it would entail is to direct the government to protect the right to practice religion freely.  Some would justify Christianity exercising dominance over another religion because the Constitution is a Christian document, but to exercise dominance is not a Christian value.  The Constitution is a Christian document, because it allows men to practice their freedom and liberty; one of those freedoms is the right to practice religion.

I have heard a lot of people comment about how the Constitution to the United States is a Christian document, so Christianity should be the established religion to affect governance and so on and forth.  Dominance over another fellow human being has never been a Christian trait.  So to allow Christianity to be favored over another religion, is not a Christian trait.  Christianity would be exercising dominance, so the Christians would be committing hypocrisy while the Christians are politically favored over another person's belief.  Christian hypocrisy can also be seen when some Christians wanted the slave trade and when Christians exercised superiority over the Africans, for example.

Despite the hypocrisy of some Christians, the Constitution is a Christian document.  I will explain.  In Christianity and Judeo-Christian belief, it is preached that all men have agency (or some form) so that they may choose right or wrong choices.  Men must choose the right choices in order to be saved.  So, the Constitution is a Christian document because the Constitution was designed to allow all men to be free and to exercise their inalienable rights.  To make Christianity a favored religion, would increase contention and dominance which may prevent some people from exercising their freedom.  Allowing men to practice what they want coincides with Christian belief.

From my LDS point-of-view, Article of Faith 11 states "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."  So my LDS beliefs coincide with my reasoning that the Constitution is a Christian document because it sets up a government to protect the exercise of freedom and rights, specifically practice of religion.  All men have the privilege to follow their beliefs and choose to strengthen or weaken their relationship with God and so forth.

As Christians, the Constitution should be upheld and protected because it fulfills what Christians believe.  Under the Constitution, the government protects the right to freely practice religion.  Freedom and Liberty must be preserved.  Christians should not be framing the Constitution to promote Christianity to be favored over another religion.  I hope to see the citizens of the United States vote for the candidate that will uphold and protect the Constitution, and welcome men to practice their freedom.

How sweet I roam'd from field to field

I read this poem in World Literature, and I thought it was a cool poem.  Please enjoy...


"How sweet I roam'd from field to fields" by William Blake

How sweet I roam'd from field to field,

         And tasted all the summer's pride,

'Till I the prince of love beheld,

         Who in the sunny beams did glide!

He shew'd me lilies for my hair,

         And blushing roses for my brow;

He led me through his gardens fair,

         Where all his golden pleasures grow.

With sweet May dews my wings were wet,

         And Phoebus fir'd my vocal rage;

He caught me in his silken net,

         And shut me in his golden cage.

He loves to sit and hear me sing,

         Then, laughing, sports and plays with me;

Then stretches out my golden wing,

         And mocks my loss of liberty.

The Proclamation of the Declaration of Independence

The Declaration of Independence contains great philosophical content on the matter of human nature and government. The core of the Declaration is described in this quote; "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"*. This is a true statment! All men have the ability to practice Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. It is fact that people have the ability to control  their own lives and learn for themselves. This premise has to be accepted in order for the message of the Declaration to be effective. To protect the people's inalienable rights, Jefferson states, in the document, is the only role of government. If the people are so concerned about infringement of their rights, they have the right to institute a government to protect their rights. Since the people instituted a government to protect their rights, it is the only responsibility of the government to protect the rights of the people, and nothing else.

The message of the Declaration is centered around what the governed has the right to do if the practice of their rights is being abused. "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"*. The previous quote is the message of the Declaration. If the government is resorting to despotism and exercising tyrannical power over the people, then it is the right of the governed to abolish or to reform that government because the government derives its consent from the governed. This is what the Patriots of the Revolutionary War fought for. To separate themselves from the despotic king and government of Britain and to establish a new government.
        
The current government is abusing the rights of the people.  Just look at the Patriot Act and the indefinite detention of citizens in the National-Defense Authorization Act.  There are many more abusive acts that the federal government has done.  "Accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed"*.  The current citizens of the U.S.A. have suffered infringements of their rights from their federal government for quite some time.  Only time will tell when a portion of the people of the United States of America will stand up for their freedom.


*All quotes are taken from The Declaration of Independence.

Title of Liberty

               An important principle that The Book of Mormon teaches and emphasizes is personal liberty against government regulation.  With personal liberty, people may act for themselves and they ultimately learn from their actions.  Without personal liberty, people could not have knowledge from learning consequences of actions.  Three examples of The Book of Mormon teaching liberty is with King Mosiah, Captain Moroni, and Chief Judge Pahoran.


               King Mosiah addressed the Nephites expressing his desire for the people to not have a King.  King Mosiah feared that his successor would start to oppress the people and restrict the people's liberties. So, King Mosiah convinced the Nephites to start a government of judges. The government of judges allowed a system of checks and balances and would be more effective protecting the liberty of the Nephites. One popular emphasis on liberty was Captain Moroni, who called the Nephites to fight against the invading army of the Lamanites and from oppression of Amalickiah. Captain Moroni motivated the Nephites to fight while waving the Title of Liberty. The Title of Liberty states, "In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children” (Alma 46:12).  Pahoran was the Chief Judge in the Nephite government during the Lamanite war at the end of Alma.  Part of the war was the usurpation of Pahoran's judgement seat by a rebellion in the capital city, Zarahemla.  In a letter to Captain Moroni to seek aid against the rebellion, Pahoran states, "I Pahoran, do not seek for power, save only to retain my judgement-seat that I may preserve the rights and liberty of my people.  My soul standeth fast in that liberty in the which God hath made us free" (Alma 61:9).   Pahoran recognized that liberty was endowed upon the people from God, and since he realized this he worked to preserve liberty.  All of the righteous leaders of The Book of Mormon has worked to preserve the liberty of the Nephites, because they knew it was essential for the Plan of Happiness that individuals learn and experience for themselves.


              King Mosiah was well aware that a king can restrict the liberty of the people, and King Mosiah believed in the people's right to liberty.  Captain Moroni called the people to defend their land against oppression, so that the people may keep their liberty.  Pahoran was a righteous leader that worked to preserve the liberty of the Nephites.  Each of these men realized the importance of a soul to experience liberty, happiness, and knowledge, because the Plan of Happiness needs an individual to learn.  The government can not make a person happy; only an individual may choose to be happy by exercising their liberty.

A More Perfect Union

James Madison said, “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.” Therefore, the Constitution established a Republic, not a Democracy. Madison and the other framers knew that the new government they had set up was still not perfect and would have problems associated with a democracy. Therefore, the States ratified the Bill of Rights and a process to amend the Constitution whenever the people felt the need. Before 1868, southern states were not protecting political rights and equality, so the Reconstruction Amendments were ratified to protect African American’s political rights. Within these amendments, the Congress can enforce them when it seemed needed. The Reconstruction Amendments answered perennial equality questions and gave Congress the power to enforce them.

            The 13^th, 14^th, and 15^th amendments addressed issues concerning equality, protection of political rights, and slavery in America. Before the passing of these amendments, African Americans in the south had less protected rights, so it was hard for them to express what they wanted in the government. They were humans and as intelligent as anyone else, so they should have protected political rights. Advocates of civil rights have long asked why the foundation of the U.S. was on individual rights yet not have everyone’s political rights protected.

The Reconstruction Amendments contributed to “A more perfect Union” by insuring protection of African American’s political rights as they were freed from the Civil war. The framers of these amendments worked in a tough political atmosphere, because the country was still in turmoil after the Civil War. These amendments insured African Americans' freedom, suffrage, citizenship, equal protection, due process, and equal protection. The U.S. government granted citizenship to slaves since they were born under the U.S. jurisdiction. Slaves were now able to express their opinion and their voice to the union.

The Congressional Power of Enforcement has been a key tool for the enforcement of the Reconstruction Amendments. When these Amendments passed, only half of the country really wanted to enforce them. Opposition came and freed African Americans had their political rights restricted. Southern states passed Jim Crow laws that made the process to be a registered voter hard and permitted persecution and segregation of the African Americans. Therefore, the amendments provided the Congress “to enforce the amendments by appropriate legislation.” After approximately 100 years of attempted enforcement, Brown v. Board and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 finally outlawed Jim Crow laws and protected African American’s rights.

The fourteenth amendment has had an incredible impact to the union. The fourteenth amendment allowed enforcement of protecting political rights from state governments. Gitlow vs. New York established the incorporation of the Bill of Rights, which overturned the precedent of Barron vs. Baltimore. Incorporation allowed the Congress to enforce the Bill of Rights. Benjamin Gitlow helped to incorporate freedom of speech. Thanks to incorporation, people may have their rights protected by the state governments.

Even though the incorporation of the Bill of Rights seems rightly justified because citizens are now protected against state government infringement, the assumed power of incorporation was not the best thing to do for the protection of an individual's liberty. The assumed power of incorporation gave the federal government more authority, and the states lost some of their sovereignty with the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. In order to preserve the states' rights the incorporation cases should never have gone to federal courts, and those cases should have gone to state courts, which could have yielded the same results if the case was in federal courts. But since probably most of the time the state courts would rule with the precedent or law, then a movement in that particular state would probably occur to pressure the state government to protect a particular right that has been violated. If the state at this point still does not pass a law to protect the violated right, I would assume that the federal government can sue the state for violating the privileges and (or) immunities clause in the Constitution of the United States. When a state government finally decides to protect a violated right, then the state government would still retain their sovereignty and the citizens of that state will have their protected right.

Even though Congress's enforcement power has been influential, the US Supreme Court has ruled on a couple cases describing what the Congress does not have the power to enforce. In one case, Oregon v. Mitchell, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress may only set the age requirement for federal elections and states can set the age limit for state elections. The powers that Congress can not enforce would seem to be reserved for the state governments to enforce because it would be an obvious state power.

The framers knew that the Constitution was imperfect and could not foresee the problems to come. They did not foresee the end of slavery in their lifetime, but did foresee that problems would arise because not all people had their rights protected. Therefore, the Reconstruction amendments answered and enforced the question of equality in the U.S. The Bill of Rights now applies to everybody in every state, due to legal precedent. The amendment process of the United States Constitution provided and will continue to provide a critical aspect of forming “a more perfect Union.” 

Red Herring

What is it with the argument to vote for a candidate that “can beat Obama” that the media has been publicizing? That argument has been used to justify someone voting for Mitt Romney and various other candidates. The “beat Obama” argument has been loosely and generally used without reason to try and convince people that a candidate can beat Obama.

If there is any reasoning behind the “beat Obama” argument, then the reasoning would be to have a candidate that can debate Obama efficiently and appeal to the most voters of any party. To debate Obama and appeal to the most voters, a candidate must have a strong political character and a solid history. That is very logical. So how is it be possible that Romney is gaining support under the “beat Obama” argument? In this race, he is a flip-flopping politician whose views are built on a loose foundation. His history in government will tear himself apart if he is the nominee. He has had a very questionable career and since he has flip-flopped he has no solid political character. He will not appeal to most voters, because he has expressed strict establishment Republican viewpoints. Sure, Romney is a smooth talker, but that will not help him when Obama will grab Romney's past history and shut Romney down in the debates. Since Romney would probably only appeal to established Republicans and he has a questionable history, then he would torn apart facing Obama.

The only candidate that is consistent and can potentially appeal to voters of any party is Ron Paul. It is well known that Ron Paul's career is very solid, and Ron Paul's campaign have claimed to attract independents and even democrats. Ron Paul's solid history, viewpoints, and supporters will be a humongous challenge for Obama, if Paul is to be the GOP nominee.

Do not vote for a candidate solely based on loose reasoning of “they can beat Obama.” Voters must be smart and evaluate every candidate that would lead the USA. Americans must be smart voters and have solid reasoning to vote for a candidate that will best represent their own views.