“It’s about building an America that’s hopeful, inclusive, and big-hearted.”
– Hillary Clinton, Concession Speech, Nov. 9, 2016
I am not sure what it means for a regime to be “hopeful” or “big-hearted.” Does it mean individuals looking to work productively, improve their lives, and love the people close to them?
Or does it mean government taking by force what belongs to some and giving it to others?
Even the adjective “inclusive” is ambiguous in the way she uses it here. Does it mean welcoming everyone into the United States, even those who want to harm Americans? Or does it mean something less categorical and more qualified?
“Our Constitutional democracy enshrines…the rule of law, the principle that we are all equal in rights and dignity, freedom of worship and expression.”
– Hillary Clinton, Concession Speech, Nov. 9, 2016
Agreed, Mrs. Clinton. Fully. The rule of law and equal protection of the law for the equal natural freedom and private property of every individual citizen IS something that a regime can offer. It is a goal that is understandable, possible, and good.
Let us use that simple idea, that perfect goal, as the common ground toward which we direct our elected public servants. Here are three helpful pointers to get us started in that common purpose:
THE RULE OF REGULATIONS IS NOT THE RULE OF LAW
With one piece of paper, Congress with the signature of the President has the power to transform every regulatory agency into an advisory agency.
The federal regulatory agencies can become think-tanks of sorts, studying this problem or that, and then presenting their findings to the lawmakers in Congress. If elected members of Congress think a law is required, let THEM pass it and explain their reasons to American voters.
But let us have no more rule by unelected, unaccountable, unconstitutional regulatory agencies. No unelected bureau of crats should be able to dictate regulations that have the power of law over citizens. Because regulations are not law. They’re regulations.
While we’re at it, and on yet another single piece of paper, Congress can go so far as to eliminate any and even all regulatory agencies.
After all, every federal regulatory agency was created by an unconstitutional act of Congressional legislation. So too an act of legislation can dismantle them.
And in the absence of regulatory agencies and regulations, civic freedom happens. And the flourishing and innovation and prosperity that springs from freedom. Almost miraculously. It’s a beautiful thing as free people do what they want and improve their stations in life.
UNEQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW IS NOT EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW
Every law that divides Americans citizens into groups and treats some differently than others violates the principle of “equal protection of the law.”
So let us start repealing every law, every act, every public policy that transfers private wealth and private property from some Americans to others. Certainly any law that violates the property rights of one citizen and gives to another what does not belong to him cannot be described as offering equal protection.
The “progressive” income tax—taxing different citizens at different rates—has to go. Period.
In this context, the meanings of “progressive” and “equal protection” are diametrically opposed to one another. Government cannot take a bigger percentage from some than from others and claim to be providing equal protection of the law for everyone.
Further, every law that includes group labels based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual propensities, current income status, current victim status, current professional occupation, etc, is highly suspect when measured against the idea of the equal protection of the laws.
Get the groups out of our laws. No special rights for special groups. Do that, and what remains will be something approximating equal protection of the laws.
NOT MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL, BUT GETTING GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE WAY
Yes, we are all “equal in rights and dignity,” which includes the natural rights of “freedom of worship and expression” of every individual, just as Mrs. Clinton rightfully asserted.
The best way to protect those natural rights and natural freedoms of the individual is NOT to list them in bills and statutes, amendments and laws. And it’s not to add law upon law, regulation upon regulation, tax upon tax.
The best way is to make sure that government exercises no restrictive power over those natural rights and natural freedoms.
When, for example, government does not restrict or regulate how citizens worship, the result is: citizens worshipping freely. When government does not restrict or regulate how citizens speak, the result is: citizens speaking freely.
See a pattern?
And the best way to ensure that government does not restrict and regulate things it ought not restrict and regulate is: the rule of law.
Which means first and foremost those in government obeying and following the law.
Which means those in government obeying and following the Constitution.
Which means those in government exercising only the few powers that We The People delegated to them, through our Constitution, and no more, during the short Constitutional term of office for which they were elected.
Thank you, Mrs. Clinton, for offering these ideas as common ground upon which we Americans can start coming together after this tumultuous election cycle.