Here is something I wrote in response to an article published in 2005.  Strangely enough it seems even more relevant today.

 
In response to “The Immoral Majority” by Susan J. Douglas, http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2243/

 
I am not one of those "so-called originalists (sic) when it comes to interpreting the Constitution", rather I am one of those privately educated people who is actually literate.  The plain meaning of the Constitution is hard to miss if you have been simply taught to read.  Phrases like "shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed" are unambiguous and not open to interpretation.  If the Constitution needs to be changed to reflect a changing political perspective, a process to do so is in place.  They call it an "Amendment" and made it intentionally difficult to pass one so that a fickle majority could not trample the rights of the minority.

"Washington also warned against the U.S. getting caught in the vicissitudes of other nations. Does that mean we should not have been involved in Vietnam and Iraq? Most conservatives would believe otherwise."

I am in total agreement with Washington.  I do not believe we should have been involved in Vietnam or Iraq.  But not for the reasons you might think.  Once again, I defer to the Constitution, which places the President as the Commander in Chief, but clearly places the power to declare war in the hands of Congress.  The Congress has abdicated that power to the President on several occasions illegally.  It has no authority to transfer that decision to another branch of government thereby upsetting the checks and balances put in place by our founders.  By transferring this power illegally, they have shown themselves to be the spineless, self-serving, vermin that they are.  This tactic allows them to be on both sides of the issue instead of clearly on one side or the other and thus directly accountable to the People.  Instead we have the, “I voted for it, before I voted against it” syndrome.  Or, to paraphrase, “I voted for the use of force but I wouldn’t have done it that way.  The President is doing it all wrong.  He rushed to war”, etc. 

If we need to go to war, then Congress needs to declare it and be held accountable to the People for their decision as opposed to one man who will spend 8 years at most in office.

“Do you concur with the viewpoint of James Madison that political parties are a danger to the democratic process?” 

They certainly have proven to be a danger.  Just look at McCain-Feingold; an obvious flagrant violation of the First Amendment designed by incumbents of the two major parties to stifle political speech thus securing their reelection.  Look at the ballot access and campaign finance laws designed to make it nearly impossible for a third party to compete in the same arena on equal footing.  And what have the two parties given us?  Excessive taxation without representation.  Our elected “representatives” tax us but do not represent us any longer.  They represent paid lobbyists and special interest groups; powerful unions like the NEA who are perfectly happy to keep our nations children ignorant rather than release us from their vicious monopoly.

“My point is that those comments were made in a certain historical era and not in a vacuum. Those comments are not absolutes, but rather reflect the amalgamation of particular events that affected the thinking of certain founding fathers.”

Freedom is an absolute.  You either are free or you are not.  Freedom means you have choice in the matter.  That you will not be thrown into prison for deciding you want to be a stingy and keep your money.  The left love to talk about “choice” when it comes to killing unborn children in the womb.  But ask about a “choice” as to whether or not my tax dollars should fund something I consider to be on par with cannibalism and suddenly “choice” is taken off the table.  Stem cell research, Education, Social Security?  I’m all for these as long as they are funded privately.  There is no authority for such funding in the Constitution. 

If you don’t like it, amend it. 

These quotes from our Founders have just as much relevance now, if not more, today then they did then.  They revolted over a 3% tax on tea.  I have over 40% of my income confiscated from me every two weeks against my will with the threat of imprisonment.  I ask you sir, if that is not the definition of tyranny, than what it?  God almighty only asks for 10%, but Uncle Sam demands 12.7% through a payroll tax and another 30% in income tax.  Then when I take the crumbs he has left me and go to the gas station or the grocery store, he taxes once again my already taxed dollars.  When I have finished providing for my basic needs and I have a few crumbs left, I decide to invest these already taxed dollars.  Should my investment prove profitable he will tax that profit funded by dollars already taxed.  Is this freedom or servitude?  And what are my twice taxed dollars used for?  Billions in foreign aid, abortions world wide, parking lots in Alaska, rain forests in Iowa.  Come on.  How can you look yourself in the mirror and call yourself free? Because you agree with these causes?  What if you did not?
 
As I said, freedom is an absolute and so is tyranny.  Tyranny sugarcoated, spun, and processed through the liberal media machine and placed on the Republicrat agenda is still tyranny. 

 
“Social spending constitutes at least two-thirds of federal expenditures -- spending for Medicare, Medicaid, school lunches, farm and business handouts, job training, education, and Social Security. It's great to want to help people, but our Constitution does not authorize Congress to do so. Its spending authority is itemized in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. A dimwitted congressman might say, ‘We do have authority for those spending programs under the welfare clause.’ Balderdash! James Madison, the father of our Constitution, said, ‘I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article in the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the object of benevolence, the money of their constituents.’"

- Walter Williams in The Washington Times, May 28, 1997.