Seeking the Better Choice

by Jack

Once again we are approaching that decision time where we pick the nation’s leader for the next four years. Because of the controversy surrounding every candidate, including the incumbent, one might argue we don’t have any good choices.   Well, this has come up before and we made the best possible choice and guess what?  It all worked out.

See, the framers of the Constitution knew this would happen on occassion.   Humans are flawed creatures, so we needed something to compensate for our personal shortcomings.  That is exactly why they gave us a federal government with checks and balances, what a great idea!

232 years ago Alexander Hamilton said good government is derived from reflection and choice, not by accident or force. To simplify this even further, Hamilton realized that whatever would enhance freedom and consideration was good and anything that diminished it was bad.   The framers obviously concurred.  And to keep us from going off the rails, they prescribed strict limits to the power of each of the three branches of government, the Executive, Judicial and Legislative.  They felt that was necessary in order to avoid “elective despotism.”  And it’s been tested a time or too.  There’s been a few guys that tried pretty hard to point us in the wrong direction, but thanks to those original checks and balances, we’ve stayed on course despite them.

When you consider your next choice for president, ask yourself which candidate’s views will best enhance the freedoms detailed is in our Constitution and by our founding fathers?   If you can do just that much, you’ve done a lot and in turn your country will have a better chance to survive for another 4 years.



This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Seeking the Better Choice

  1. Chris says:

    Trump on the Constitution: “Then, I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president. But I don’t even talk about that.”

  2. Libby says:

    Well, then … you’d better quick-march somebody else up for the nomination, cause The Donald is in deep doo-doo. Now we’re hearing that McConnell has reviewed trial procedure with his fellow Senators … and that HE ALSO wants it done by years’ end.

    And then we have another leaked opening statement:

    All rats, abandon ship! But I shouldn’t be so mean. They are all saying they chose to work with this heinous administration to preserve this, that and the other, in the way of national assets … “but I ain’t going to jail for the imbecile”. Nope.

  3. cherokee jack says:

    Let’s see. Do I want a president who is a nice person, knows how to talk to people, and promises to finish turning the country into a socialist one world slum, or would I prefer a loud mouth apolitical klutz?
    Tough question. I guess the best way to do this is to take a look at what liberals have accomplished in trashing local, state, national and international entities, and then check the list of changes the klutz promised and then delivered on.

    • Chris says:

      Trump loves socialism for the “Great Patriot Farmers” (seriously, imagine this phrase on a Soviet-style propaganda poster) that have been hurt by his own trade wars. But you don’t mind those people getting help from the government. Which means you don’t, on principle, support free markets or oppose government handouts. So what are you really mad about?

    • cherokee jack says:

      Always glad to get your well thought out, academic point of view on my opinions. Please respond often.

  4. RHT447 says:

    The choice.

    “In one sense, Barr simply explained what President John Adams meant by a statement he made in a 1798 letter. He then showed the significance of that statement to American life today.

    “We have no Government armed with Power which is capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by … morality and religion,” Barr quoted from Adams’ letter. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”

    Within this context, Barr accurately described the cultural war raging in America today.

    “The challenge we face is precisely what the founding fathers foresaw would be the supreme test of a free society,” Barr told the Notre Dame law students.

    “They never thought that the main danger to the republic would come from an external foe,” he said. “The question was whether the citizens in such a free society could maintain the moral discipline and virtue necessary for the survival of free institutions.”

    “And this is really what they meant by self-government,” said Barr. “It did not mean primarily the mechanics by which we select a representative legislature. It referred to the capacity of each individual to restrain and govern themselves.”

    “But what was the source of this internal controlling power?” Barr asked. “In a free republic, those restraints could not be handed down from above by philosopher kings. Instead, social order must flow up from the people themselves freely obeying the dictates of inwardly possessed and commonly shared moral values.”

    “And to control willful human beings with an infinite capacity to rationalize, those moral values must rest on an authority independent of men’s wills,” he said. “They must flow from the transcendent Supreme Being. In short, in the framers’ view, free government was only suitable and sustainable for a religious people, a people who recognized that there was a transcendent moral order antecedent to both the state and to manmade laws and had the discipline to control themselves according to those enduring principles.””


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.