American Government is Exceptional, But We've Made It Like Australia

Australia has same-sex marriage now, because their Parliament passed it. America has no Parliament, we have citizens.

Australia's parliament voted to implement same-sex marriage in that country. First, they conducted a postal survey to see how people felt--they were in favor. Then they passed a law in both houses of their Parliament. And it's done.

We should not forget that America has an exceptional form of government, with a federal balance of power and state control of everything not specifically delegated to Washington, D.C. We should not forget about the 10th Amendment.

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.

Over the years, our government, and the people, have grown accustomed to European-style Parliamentary rule, because we've failed to push back when the federal government overreaches. In America, 31 states have constitutional definitions of marriage, yet nine black-robed judges struck down the will of those people in the name of judicial supremacy, and the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution giving "rights" to people versus "powers" to government.

We have ignored the basic principles our Founders used to lay out this government. The people already possess rights, and delegate powers to the government. In Parliamentary systems, the government already possesses power, and extends rights to the people.

America has dumbed down our exceptional (and superior, I believe) form of government so we can look more like Europe.

Now the House of Representatives has passed a bill mandating reciprocity on concealed carry permits. I guarantee, if this passes the Senate and is signed into law, liberals will haul out the 10th Amendment to seek redress. They haul out the 10th Amendment when they set up sanctuary cities. The Constitution specifically grants to the federal government the power to control immigration. The 2nd Amendment specifically prohibits government--at all levels--from infringing on the right of the people to bear arms.

Nowhere in the Constitution does the Supreme Court have the power to override the will of the people, expressed in their state Constitutions, without direct support by the U.S. Constitution.

Otherwise, why did we bother to have Congress and the states ratify the 13th and 14th Amendments? Why couldn't the Supreme Court and Congress have simply declared slavery illegal and struck it down in the slave states? Maybe because back then we took our government more seriously--seriously enough that slave states would fight a war over the issue. After the war, we amended the Constitution.

Today, we have a federal "right" to kill unborn babies, that cannot be overturned by states or the will of the people. We have a federal "right" to same-sex marriage. We have placed in the hands of a single black-robed justice, Anthony Kennedy, the fate of Christians right of conscience. The U.S. government has no Constitutional power to override the God-given right of conscience, but in Europe (and Canada), the governments have all the power.

In Australia, a postal survey and a vote in Parliament granted a right. In America, we've given our rights away and assigned power to the federal courts, the Supreme Court, Congress and the executive branch they were never intended to have.

If liberal Americans want national gun control, let them try to repeal the 2nd Amendment (good luck). If liberal Americans want unlimited abortion, let them amend the Constitution. If liberal Americans want same-sex marriage to be "the law of the land," let them amend the Constitution. We've taken shortcuts instead, and now we've made ourselves very much like Australia. But instead of Parliament, we have nine black-robed justices who function as monarchs and regents.

We do have an exceptional form of government. It's time we went back to using it correctly.

On the flip side, if left to the whims of the state legislatures there would be no right-to-bear arms and free speech would be severely imperiled in about half the country.

And if we take the privileges & immunities clause of the 14th seriously (which, in a sop to the South shortly after the civil war, we decided not-to- via Slaughterhouse), it does provide for sufficient Constitutional support for the federal government (And thus the Supreme Court) acting to force states to respect the constitutional rights of US Citizens...

The view may be different from down south, but up north the Supreme Court is all that stands between state legislatures and the wholesale erasure of the 1st and 2nd Amendments from the lives of those state citizens.

false