Monday, November 23rd, 2009 | Author: markross
“The man who would choose security over freedom deserves neither.” - Thomas Jefferson
Category: Thomas Jefferson
“The man who would choose security over freedom deserves neither.” - Thomas Jefferson
Follow or subscribe to the comments for this entry through The RSS 2.0 feed.
Post a comment below, or trackback from your own site.
4 Comments
Such wise words!
I believe Jefferson is saying, you must attempt to have a balance between your individual freedom, and the natural desire to seek security…
Indeed, if you become beholden to government for everything in life, they can certainly dictate the terms of your entire life.
Conversely, if you have total freedom from government, then you would have no protection from hostile forces that may surround us, as citizens.
Therefore, our founder’s solution really made sense… to have a limited government that will provide for the most basic of needs for the general population, while maintaining maximum freedom in the choices that you make in life, as citizens of The United States.
I believe, our founders, so wisely, and thankfully, understood the delicate balance between security and freedom.
Our dialogue has piqued my interest in the Founders. There is much detail still to cover. But some things are becoming very clear: The Constitution was deliberately drafted with clauses that the judiciary could interpret very broadly.
“We honor Jefferson, but live in Hamilton’s country, a mighty industrial nation with a strong central government.” – George F. Will
More to come…
That is great to hear… I think! : )
Prior to reading The Constitution, and reading more into our founder’s intents, when drafting The Constitution, I use to believe the federal government could make any laws they felt necessary. Certainly they have a presumption that they can; but that is not in accordance with the initial intents of our founders when creating our federal government.
The independent states existed prior to the federal government; and by consensus of the states, the federal government was created, and given limited powers – if we didn’t read back, or get educated on that fact, that would be hard to determine by the way our federal government has evolved overtime.
I agree with you 100% , and have said similar things about The Constitution being very open to interpretation; however, there is plenty to find and read from Madison, and some of our other founders, that explained, explicitly, what “their intentions” were when drafting the document. Sadly, over the last 100 years, too many judges have (mis) interpreted The Constitution out of political expediency, rather then truly trying to align their interpretations with the intents of our founders. And legislatures, today, do not even refer to The Constitution when creating laws.
That is a great quote, and so totally true! Hamilton started The Federalist party, which was the first political party in our system of government. The Federalists believed in a stronger central government; and sadly, Hamilton, as The first Treasury Secretary, convinced Washington that we needed a Central Bank– which became The Bank of America, and is the ancestor of today’s Federal Reserve.
A year after the formation of The Federalist Party, Jefferson formed The (anti-Federalists) Democrat-Republican Party, and they espoused the limited government, states rights etc., which was the intention when The Constitution was drafted and ratified.
Today, philosophically, it seems The Democrats are today’s Federalists, and The Republicans, The anti-Federalists.
Another good, modern example, that would fit well with the above quote, would be the issue of illegal immigration…
In Article 1, Section 8 of The United States Constitution, Congress was given the power, and duty, to create laws of citizenship for The United States:
“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, …”
While the great majority of American citizens, appreciate the tradition of immigrants that have come to our country over the years, and who have made great contributions to our nation; all too often, the people who want the immigration laws enforced the most, are often criticized as not being compassionate people.
Consider this…
When people migrate to our country, legally, they learn (civics) some of our history, our system of governance, and need to read, write and speak basic English; all which certainly would help them to better assimilate into our nation; but even more importantly, after being granted citizenship, they have all of the same rights, under the law, as any other citizen.
Now, consider this…
If people come here illegally, and begin to work for someone, what is to stop the person who is employing them from treating them however they like? I am sure there are many decent people who treat their employees well, legal or not; however, there is certainly the potential, and reality, that many illegal immigrants are treated very badly…
–
(e.g. very poor working conditions; working ungodly hours; being paid as little as the person who employs them, wants to pay them for their work; and potentially, much worse crimes, and injustices, to them and their families)
–
If a person is here illegally, and are afraid that any moment, they could be reported to the federal government, and “potentially” thrown in jail, what recourse do they have, other then to meet the demands of their employers?
I can understand why people would want to come to a wealthier nation to provide better for their families…etc… and while there are certainly a plethora of reasons why these laws should be strictly enforced… on the issue of human rights alone, from my point of view, the compassionate person is the one who insists that these laws be properly enforced.
All people who migrate to The United States need to have the same rights as the rest of us naturally born citizens; therefore, need to go through the proper and lawful procedures to obtain those rights and “privileges” of citizenship. At which point, they too would have “security and freedom.”