Lock box
Your Freedom in a Lockbox

Suppose all of your freedoms could be contained in a little locked box. To whom would you give the key to this treasure? Congress? The President? The Supreme Court? Some folks trusted the government to keep its retirement hopes in such a box. The swipers took not only the box, but all of its contents. The Social Security rainy day fund was raided long before there was even a cloud in the sky. Speaking of raids, abortionists raid the homes of millions of little babies without any earthly repercussions. Gun cabinets aren’t safe either.

Now the City of Cedar Falls, Iowa wants to require every business property owner to allow access to the keys to his or her business, including all apartments and all rental property owners. This is ostensibly to allow quicker access to a building in case of a fire or emergency. The keys will be in a lock box at each business site and the city will have the only key to unlock those lock boxes.

Once the Supreme Court began to regularly ignore the original intent of The Constitution and allow foolishly contemplated laws to remain on the books, or worse yet, create laws from the bench, it was only a matter of time before the mindset would trickle down to the lawmakers, whether at the federal level, state level, or even city councils as the video below shows.

Watch how city council member John Runchey responds to a patriotic citizen who suggests that the Cedar Falls ordinance would be unconstitutional (at 1:35 mark): “That is something that will be decided by a higher authority than you or I.” The Fire Chief John Schilling adds this gem (2:12) that it “has never been decided by the judicial branch that it is unconstitutional to mandate this.” Mandates, yes! Some people like mandates, they do.

I have received the exact same reaction from the offices of Congressmen upon inquiries about Cash for Clunkers, TARP or Obamacare. The view is nearly universal: “I have no limits on what laws I can pass, as long as the Supreme Courts says it is okay. And I will pass first, and ask questions later. Forget the oath I took that I would personally uphold the Constitution. That’s not my problem. The buck picks up speed with me. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments mean no more to me than the right to life, the right to own fire arms, or the right to keep your property if some city finds a better owner. Like Nancy Pelosi, I say about Constitutionality, ‘You’re kidding aren’t you?’”

Republicans aren’t much better than Democrats. President George Bush signed the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance bill under the pretense that the Supreme Court would fix any problems with it. (Thankfully, most of it was struck down, but no thanks to George Bush or John McCain on that one.

The primary purpose of the Constitution was to guarantee the rule of law, not the rule of lawless lawmakers. It was a Republic, if we could keep it. It’s going to take a lot more than a lock box to protect what’s left of that treasure.

HT: Americans For Freedom

5 comments
  1. “I have received the exact same reaction from the offices of Congressmen
    upon inquiries about Cash for Clunkers, TARP or Obamacare. The view is
    nearly universal: “I have no limits on what laws I can pass, as long as
    the Supreme Courts says it is okay. And I will pass first, and ask
    questions later.”

    The reason it’s “universal” is that this is the operating model of the THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT.

    Wow, don’t know much about gov’t, huh??? You should’ve paid more attention in civics class. The legislature passes resolutions. The Executive branch(mayor, governor or president) either either vetoes or signs these resolutions into laws.  If someone objects or challenges the law, it goes to through the court system for a ruling on its constitutionality(not the other way around). And yes, if the Supreme Court says it is legal—–SURPRISE, IT’S LEGAL.

    I thought everybody knew this—I guess that explains the rest of your ramblings.

    1. You assume a law being passed and upheld in court makes it constitutional. It doesn’t, because that would assume the three branches always get it right. They don’t.

    2. You assume a law being passed and upheld in court makes it constitutional. It doesn’t, because that would assume the three branches always get it right. They don’t.

    3. You assume a law being passed and upheld in court makes it constitutional. It doesn’t, because that would assume the three branches always get it right. They don’t.

    4. @a758fa653ecebc4b5de51fd6391b63ab:disqus 
      Thanks for contributing Bob.  I know government enough to know that government officials at all levels swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, not just the judiciary.  I know that the three branches of the federal government are co-equal and that the SC does not have the final say in matters of law, let alone the first say.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Expected Behavior From Wisconsin Union Protestors After Assembly GOP Passes Labor Bill

After the budget repair bill (that eliminates collective bargaining for public employees)…

Verses of the Day: Romans 5:6-11

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died…

A Contagious Community (Part 4)

One Sunday a visitor showed up in a more formal, liturgical church…

17 Ways To Be A Good Liberal

I had a friend send me this list via e-mail this morning,…