For Americans, what is the cause, the desired effect of this awareness, practice, and protection of the ‘Spirit of the Union?’ Why does Abraham Lincoln bring our attention unto the Declaration of Independence more so beyond bringing our thoughts unto the Constitution itself? Is not ‘the Constitution,’ rather than that Declaration of Independence, the document that has been chosen as the guide of the law of the land? When the founding fathers who created and founded the specific functions of government offices, the powers that each of these would wield, how the three branches of said government (legislative, judicial, executive) would work with one another, and in what ways they would balance each other, did they not first unite the country with a founding agreement to immediately bring together the different people of the American colonies, replete with their diverse ethnicities, religions, as one people?
How was this achieved? Was it the Constitution of 1787 with its preamble (introductionary proclamation), and its description of government function amongst the branches, and expected duties for the personnel of different offices?
No.
The ‘Spirit of the Union’ is the original spirit of liberty that was most closely referenced on the document known as the Declaration of Independence. A writing that was not in its most important priority, a letter to a ruling monarch, but a once and for all intellectual reasoning of the individual rights of mankind, of humanity, of the ordinary person. It was a rebuttal of a balance that had the individual serve the interest of a national government, towards a new balance, wherein the government had (1) to serve the interest of the individual, according to the specific declaration that a person’s right were unalienable, universal, God-endowed, and naturally always in existence. That those individual rights proclaimed that (2) we are created equal, with (3) the right to individual life and individual liberty, (4) that we may be genuinely safe and happy, with the guarantee clause, (5) that we may alter or abolish a government not in alignment with these proclaimed rights of the individual human being.
It is not then for the personnel in the highest office of the judicial branch to choose what the spirit and written word of the law of the land sais, nor for them to choose the word, and not the spirit of the law, for that would lead to a self-prescribed power to their idealogical desires for legal aggrandizement that would create extra-constitutional powers not written in the Constitution (1787), nor agreed upon in the founding document of the nation (1776), or lastly, upon that Bill of Rights, that has garnered its additions since the founding of our American republic.
 |
| Battle of Bunker Hill, American Revolutionary War |
We simply cannot ignore, nor dismiss the ‘spirit of the union’ because it is what keeps such a different people together. The spirit of the union; that spirit of individual liberty, with its proclamations of our individual rights is most clearly written only in our Declaration of Independence.
To ignore, dismiss, forget, obfuscate, disparage, displace, and/ or oppress that ‘spirit of the union;’ that spirit of liberty, is to destroy the solvent that maintains our union as one people out of many nations, therein creating a people wholly in opposition to the original intention of the American life, a life of safety and happiness, because we maintain a clarity of understanding of our individual rights.
We start with the fact that we do not gift our individual rights unto each other; they are ours already. The ‘government, nor the people working in the offices of that government,’ give us our individual rights, they are ours already. The beginning of the union begins there; with that first stipulation that these individual rights of the person have always been ours. From there we immediately place the second cornerstone; that we are created equal. And when does creation start? The faux-controversy of that question is connected to politics, ideology, and an industry that generates great sums of money on one side, and on the other, it is a simple understanding: a person’s individual creation starts a the time that their body starts its life, and in effect, is conception. Conception is the initial stage function of a person’s formation within the womb of a woman, after the man has placed his seed within her and that seed has successfully entered the woman’s ovary, and within that, the egg.
A fast, simple, and clear resolution to once again protect and defend the individual rights of the American person, as proclaimed in the initial national agreement, our Declaration of Independence, should be easy to rectify, if it were not for the existence of government personnel who agree with the abortion industry’s ideological perspective that a person is not a person as they form in the women’s womb, nor are they a person one day before being born, nor, as some in the abortion industry propose, a person is not a person until the woman and her doctor decide that the infant can be allowed its life. In our U.S. Supreme Court, many judges, including those serving today, have ignored the focus of a conversation around the unalienable rights of the individual person: universal, God-endowed, natural and unalienable rights to life and liberty as a created equal person, and conveniently chosen to focus on the framing a discussion around what time a person in the womb can feel pain. This officer of the court has, in effect, chosen what they will talk about and not talk about. It is a tactical ploy that makes an approach to a national topic of discussion, but then changes the title of the topic, and the basic points of discussion, with the intended finish that the discussion can be narrowed into the points of interest that best serve the final desired conclusion that is wanted.
Instead of talking about how the practice of abortion of a person in the womb disregards the spirit of liberty and the word of liberty as first proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence; wherein the document starts with the first position that our rights are fundamental, universal, God-endowed, and unalienable; not partial to the changing discernment's of a federal judge, the judge enters into a side discussion that leaps beyond the Declaration of Independence, invokes the 1803 Marbury v. Madison Supreme Court written opinions that created the unconstitutional powers of judicial activism and judicial review, and begins the points of discussion on the degree of physical pain a person can feel in the woman’s womb.
That trickery from some of the personnel in our U.S. Supreme Court purposefully slants the conversation in order to foreclose discussion on the true topic of conversation: that the basic freedoms of the right to life and liberty, that we are created equal, and that these rights are no open to discernment, but are in fact, universal, God-endowed, unalienable rights.
These same personnel on the U.S. Supreme Court whom continuously seek to control how the conversation topic is titled, and what tenets of discussion are spoken on when specifically speaking about the right to life and liberty of a person in the womb, attempt to become the distractive focus that supplants the clear understanding of the Declaration of Independence; its supremacy as the natural law of the land, and the first agreement amongst the American people to form a union. This is a grave error on behalf of some of the personnel on the U.S. Supreme Court because they supplant that agreement, and place themselves as the supreme authority of law. A supreme authority of law that accumulates precedents set forth in each of their opinions. The precedents, opinions that they have discerned as their ‘constitutional adaptations,’ or additions to the Constitution, make it increasingly difficult for ordinary Americans to hold them accountable.
How will the ‘spirit of the union’ withstand a U.S. Supreme Court that accumulates greater power above the legislative and executive branches of our federal government, with its continual, silent invoking of the 1803 Marbury v. Madison unconstitutional precedents disregarding our universal, fundamental, God-endowed rights?
Were does the laying of additional written precedents to the constitution law end? It would not, and the ordinary American would, with the passage of time, have to be a legal scholar with great amounts of time to do their solemn duty to protect the original spirit of liberty; the spirit of the American union; tracing and painstakingly reading and discerning how the Supreme Court opinions have placed new constitutional precedents of law since 1803.
As it regards the God-endowed, foundational, unalienable right to life; as it regards the proclamation that we are created equal with the right to liberty; as it regards the declaration that our rights are not given to us, but have always been ours as individuals; this being the core instrument for the cause of the American Revolutionary War, it remains that the federal American judiciary branch of government must be altered from its present deviation that opens the door to ideological aggrandizement that stems from the political policy preferences of factions, and restored as a branch of government without the 1803 unconstitutional inventions that Chief Justice John Marshall cloaked into existence to make the job easier: those inventions of bringing an arbitrary, abstract, and activist approach to statutory interpretation of our fundamental laws, placing emphasis on the judges personal, ideological, arbitrary discernment of the word of the law, devoid of the original spirit, intention, and understanding, aside from the additional power upon (judicial review) the works of the office of the President and our U.S. Congress.
 |
| Continental Congress members on their way to Congress |
It is the solemn duty of Americans, of all ethnicities, religions, and skin tones, to defend the supremacy of natural law that is the Declaration of Independence, without discernment of those same natural laws. For they are clear enough to understand, having been written with such precision of words and with a spirit of protection of and for the American individual, that we may all be safe, at peace, and happy.
Comments