Volume 4, Issue 42
Now advice and council for whom to vote is centered on this said standard set by the candidates. The compendium of analysis is the concept of the lesser of two evils, the least acceptable, and the attribution of flawed character impacting the personal needs of constituents. This is hardly an example of civics that we want to present to our children as a virtue of democracy.
In these reports over the past several months we have discussed the establishment of principles for the foundation of policy debate. We have attempted to change the dialogue and discussion in America away from personal attacks and policy division to timeless principles and transcendent values. We have discussed together the protocol of looking through the prism of principles in an effort to elect candidates that are most likely to protect and promote principles that we hold inviolate.
So at this time let me take my own advice and compare the candidates through the lens of principles, a decision I entrust to the ages.
I believe the Constitution of the United States is the most important document ever penned in the history of the world. It codifies into law individual rights of freedom. Steeped in the moral innocence that led to the demands of the Magna Carta and embodied by the inherent knowledge of inalienable rights, the Constitution set revolutionary precedent in its declaration that man is sovereign over government. Separation of powers is essential in diffusing and protecting society against tyrannical oppression. State’s rights were well defined in the tenth amendment of the Bill of Rights with this one simple clarion sentence,
“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.”
Further, fundamental to the constitutional governance of the United States was the doctrine of separation of powers. The executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government were to be separate in purpose and ruling authority. Checks and balances would limit the reach of their powers. The federal government has become too powerful in its taxation and funding capacity. The use of executive orders by President Obama has become abusive in his attempts to override congress and direct the courts. Hillary Clinton has endorsed these actions. Donald Trump has denounced them as unconstitutional.
And most importantly, every citizen of the United States deserves the same respect for first amendment rights. These individual rights include freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. Congress is to make no law prohibiting the free exercise of these rights. Religious beliefs and practices in the United States are sacrosanct. No one individual has a right through their secular beliefs, no matter how strongly they personally believe them, to limit, restrain, or restrict the religious practices of another individual. Religious beliefs are not to be limited to recitation behind closed doors in a church sanctuary. Every American has the right to carry their beliefs and act on them in the public marketplace and in their social precincts, where they live, work, and play. The United States is a country of small and family owned businesses, many do not distinguish between work and worship. A Christian practices his or her faith adhering to the biblical laws and guidelines to which their life is instructed. Whether they are an employee or the owner of a business their religion does not stop at the church door. Fostering an environment wherein a person can pursue their vocation or their call to build a business, without yielding to federal dictates that challenge the integrity of their faith is the responsibility of government. Hillary Clinton is for the restriction of political speech (contributions), standardized rules for small business regardless of faith, and has shown indifference for religious liberty as a paramount principle. Donald Trump, though not necessarily a religious man, has shown respect for the importance of first amendment citizenship rights. His creed appears to be: let each be whoever he or she may desire to be in a multifaceted society that includes tolerance for not only secular views, but also religious views.
Free enterprise as a principle for job creation is part of the formula for individuals finding their place economically in the world. Government’s purpose is to facilitate the freedom of a person to pursue his or her own destiny. Government’s purpose is not to manage the outcome of the marketplace through regulation. Hillary Clinton is for government regulations on payroll, parental leave, and minimum wage. Donald Trump’s policy position is based on the theory that small business should be regulated differently than large business so that they can grow into a big business. Regulation is required for fairness, but overregulation is the sport of kings exercised without compassion for the impact on individuals.
The last principle that must be reflected in the vision prism is a strong national defense. Reestablishing the resources of the US military must be a priority. Through proper definition of purpose the restoration of the morale of rank and file is not only critical to the security of the United States, but the stability of the world. America is not the world’s police force, but it is the deterrent to the aggression of rogue nations. US allies are losing confidence in our commitment. During her tenure as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton did not demonstrate the leadership needed to embellish our image as loyal alliance partners for freedom.
Some may conclude that not only are both candidates flawed, they are unacceptable by any moral standard, and therefore casting a vote for either is incomprehensible. The argument may have merit, but fails when aligned with the obligation of the citizen’s responsibility to vote. The world and our children are counting upon a weighted decision.
In this process of the comparison of candidates utilizing the prism of principles I come to the conclusion that Donald Trump is the best choice for President of the United States. The American public is concerned about jobs, security, and freedom. The advancement of these issues is secured and supported through first amendment citizenship, free enterprise, and a strong national defense. The constitution that guarantees our sovereignty over government is not to be diluted, overridden, or reevaluated. Individual sovereignty over government is timeless and eternal.
“On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
-Thomas Jefferson
There is little benefit in measuring the sin of these two candidates, but there is value in measuring the impact of potential policy decisions. Donald Trump’s vulgar locker room demeanor is reprehensible. Yet, when informed in 1993 that her health care initiative would destroy small and family owned businesses, Hillary Clinton, also caught unaware on a hot microphone, said, “I cannot be held responsible for every undercapitalized small business in America.” She was willing to proceed with a policy, with full knowledge that if enacted, it would have destroyed the way of life for millions of Americans. Donald Trump’s statement was offensive. Hillary Clinton’s statement indicated an attitude that her policy was more important than the lives of Americans.
Operatives in the inner circles of both campaigns have cast aspersions on those with whom they disagree. Certain campaign surrogates have practiced sophistry in explaining policy positions. They are poseurs with little respect and no devotion for the truth.
It is mandatory to vote. In making a decision for whom to vote, the measure of the sin is irrelevant. Only the denouement of the policy proposed matters. In other words, which candidate’s pronouncements and attitude indicate reliance upon the common interest of principles upon which one depends. It is in determining this perspective on the impact that each candidate’s policies have on one’s individual way of life that determines how one should vote.
In this exercise of looking through the prism of principles to project the desired result of policy, Donald Trump is the best hope for constitutional freedom and the recognition that as citizens we are sovereign over government.
My name is Marc Nuttle this is what I believe. What do you believe?