No Abridging of Privileges or Immunities

                The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday comes from the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:  “… No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States….”  This provision simply states that all citizens of the United States have the right to enjoy the privileges and protections of citizenship.

                W. Cleon Skousen explained, “It will be observed that this merely repeats what the Constitution had already stated in Article IV, section 2:  `The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.’

                “In both instances the Constitution refers only to the privileges and immunities belonging to a person as a citizen of the United States.  It does not prohibit the states form altering, regulating, or restricting privileges and immunities related to state citizenship.

                “Examples of privileges and immunities on the state level would be such things as working hours, labor laws affecting women and children, size of a jury, voting in city, county, or state election, and so forth."  (See The Making of America – The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, p. 722.)

                Patrick Kelly of The Heritage Foundation explained, “The historical context of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment would have been known to the contemporary members of the amendment’s intended audience and would no doubt have influenced greatly their understanding of its meaning.  Congress drafted the Fourteenth Amendment and sent it to the states for approval in 1866, after the required supermajority of Congress had voted to overturn President Andrew Johnson’s veto of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.  In his veto message, President Johnson had questioned the constitutionality of that act.  Sections 1 and 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment together were obviously intended to provide a solid constitutional base for the act, and Section 1 was intended to embed the essential proscriptions of the act in the Constitution itself, safe form subsequent repeal by mere legislative action.  Congress had drafted the act to overturn the effects of the infamous `Black Codes’ enacted by the reconstituted Southern state governments on 1865 and 1866 under President Johnson’s Reconstruction policies.  Those codes limited in important ways the basic civil rights of the freed slaves to contract, to own property, and to sue….”  (See The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, pp. 386-387.)            

Our Savior

                Why do we celebrate Christmas?  Is it because a child was born or is it because that Child became our Savior by His atoning sacrifice?  I believe it is the latter.  Billions, even trillions, of babies have been born on earth, but only one of those children was the Son of God.  The Son of God became the Savior of all mankind.

                Each person on earth once lived with Heavenly Father.  We attended a Grand Council in our pre-earth life where Heavenly Father laid out His plan of salvation for His children.  We shouted for joy because we were so happy.  (See Job 38:7.)

                We understood that part of our Father’s plan was for us to leave our home in heaven for a while and leave the presence of our heavenly parents.  Heavenly Father planned to send His children to earth to gain physical bodies and to gain knowledge and experience. 

                Heavenly Father knew that we would sin and need help to return to His presence; therefore, He planned for a Savior.  Heavenly Father asked in that Grand Council, “Whom shall I send?”  (Abraham 3:27).  Two of our brothers offered to help.  Our oldest brother, then known as Jehovah, said, “Here am I, send me” (Abraham 3:27).  He came to earth as a Baby and is known as Jesus Christ.

                Jesus Christ was willing to come to earth, to give His life for His brothers and sisters, and to take upon Him our sins.  Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ wanted us to choose to obey their commandments.  They knew that we must be free to choose in order to work out our salvation.  Jesus said, “Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever” (Moses 4:2).  Lucifer, now known as Satan, also made an offer:  “Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor” (Moses 4:1).

                In other words, Jesus Christ wanted us to exercise our agency and free will to choose to be obedient; Satan on the other hand was willing to take away our agency and force us into obedience.  In addition to his forcing all of us to be obedient, he wanted to be our God.

Heavenly Father listened while each of His older sons presented their plans and then said, “I will send the first” (Abraham 3:27).  He chose Jesus Christ to be our Savior, and Jesus Christ accepted the responsibility.

                Satan was angry because Father chose Jesus Christ and rejected him.  He rebelled and led his followers in a war against Jesus and those who chose to follow Him.  Satan and his army were defeated and then sent away from the presence of God.  A third part of the heavenly hosts were cast down from heaven.  They were punished for their rebellion by being denied the right to receive physical bodies.  They are here on earth as spirit beings without physical bodies.  They have not forgotten who we are and that we fought against them.  They spend their time tempting us and trying to convince us that they have a better plan.  Their attempts seem rather silly, but they are successful with far too many people.

                We know that we are here on earth and have mortal bodies of flesh and blood.  We have physical bodies because we chose to follow Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father.  We stood with them when Satan rebelled.  We made the right choice in heaven and have the agency to continue to make right choices here on earth.

                The gospel of Jesus Christ reveals all that we must do to follow Jesus and return to our Heavenly Father.  Jesus Christ taught the plan of salvation and exaltation by His words and by His example.  He established His church on earth before His death and resurrection.  He established it again in our day and restored his priesthood authority.  His teachings are in the scriptures.  Through His atoning sacrifice, He made it possible for us to repent of our sins and become worthy to return to live with Him and Heavenly Father for all eternity.

                I know that we can return to live with our heavenly parents and Jesus Christ if we will follow our Savior.  He made it possible for us to live with Him forever and then gave us the opportunity to choose if we wanted to do it.  I love Heavenly Father and His willingness to send His Son to earth to die for me.  I love my Savior for His willingness to suffer, bleed and die for me.  I know they live and love me too.

Parental Influence

                Families, communities, and nations are strengthened when parents influence their children for good.  It goes without saying that the exact opposite is also true.  Parents carry a great responsibility to teach their children correct behavior by precept and example.  If parents are good people, they will usually have children who are good people – and vice versa.  There are of course exceptions to this rule:  The very best parent – Heavenly Father – lost a third part of all His spirit children.  If parents are living good lives and doing all they can to teach their children proper behavior and their children choose the dark side, the fault does not lie with the parents.

                Michael Brown, a young black man who once lived in Ferguson, Missouri, has been in the news – a lot – during the past few months.  This man – often called a teenager and sometimes called a “gentle giant” robbed a local store and then picked a fight with Darrin Wilson, a white policeman, instead of moving over to the sidewalk as he was asked or told.  Fearing for his life, Wilson shot Brown in a case that a grand jury decided a “no bill” or not to indict Wilson.  Riots and then unrest took place in the Ferguson area for the past four months.  After the grand jury decision was announced, rioters again took over Ferguson.  Buildings were burned, stores were ransacked, and cop cars were destroyed.  Protests took place from coast to coast.

                The question is why did this eighteen-year-old man – legally considered an adult – behave as he did?  Was he taught better behavior and went against his parents’ guidance or was there improper teaching taking place by precept or example?

                Breitbart.com reported that Brown’s mother and stepfather “are under investigation in Ferguson, Missouri, for an alleged late October violent incident with other Brown family members, a fight that erupted over `Justice For Mike Brown’ merchandise.

                “`The probe of the October 18 attack remains an “active investigation,” according to Stephanie Karr, city attorney in Ferguson, Missouri….’”

                Blogger M. Catherine Evans claims that Brown’s parents were not good influences.  “Take a listen to Mama McSpadden and Michael Brown’s convicted felon stepdad, Louis Head.  Yes, the same pair, along with twenty others who allegedly tried to crack a few skulls after they caught granny and a cousin selling Michael Brown merchandise in Ferguson a month ago.  Both could be charged with felony assault for that little temper tantrum.

                “McSpadden and Head are two peas living in one messed up pod.  Imagine little Michael trying to grow up with a mom who’s got a foul mouth and likes to hang with felons.  Head was recently paroled on federal firearms charges related to the manufacture, sale, and distribution of narcotics.  Head’s also a former Bloods gang leader out of St. Louis.

                “Michael Brown, Sr. is somebody else who’s culpable.  The dead 18-year-old’s real father moved on to another baby mama after McSpadden.  What kind of values did he instill in a guy who walked into a convenience store, took what he wanted, and proceeded to rough up an innocent clerk?”

                There may also be charges against Brown’s parents for igniting a rioting as they were apparently on the scene encouraging the destruction of private property.  Head allegedly ordered someone to “burn” something down.

                Contrast Michael Brown and his parents with 21-year-old Alan Williams, an outstanding black basketball player at University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB).  Williams and his parents were in Alaska for the Great Alaska Shootout, and all of them made the newspaper.

                Coach Bob Williams claims that his star player is “not only the best player in this league, he’s one of the best players in the region....”  He said that Williams is the unquestioned leader of the team.  “He does everything.  He’s the vocal leader; he takes responsibility on his own shoulders.  `Big Al’ is a great example of what a college athlete should be.”

                Coach Williams added, “He’s a fun-loving guy, big personality, he likes laughing, he likes joking, he loves being around his teammates.  He’s just a regular guy around his teammates, but when he gets on the floor he’s a leader.”

                Williams is not only outstanding on the basketball floor, but he excels in the classroom.  He was an honor roll student at his high school and chose Santa Barbara for its academics.  Santa Barbara boasts six Nobel laureates on its faculty.  William’s said, “UCSB’s academic pedigree is second to none when it comes to public universities in the United States.”  Hoping to play pro basketball after college, Williams wants to eventually become a broadcaster.  He is fluent in Spanish and does not “get in a lot of trouble.”

                Who are his parents?  He is the “son of two of the Phoenix area’s most prominent law enforcement professionals.  His mom, Jeri, was the highest ranking African-American woman in Arizona law enforcement before becoming both the first black and first female chief of police for Oxnard, California, in 2011.  His father, Cody, is a justice of the peace in Phoenix where he also served eight years on the city council.”

                According to Chief Williams, she and her husband “tried to instill a strong sense of right and wrong in their two sons” and taught their sons to understand “the dynamics of consequences” by “always [giving] them choices.”  According to Judge Williams, they also taught their sons to work hard; they insisted that their son completed his work before playing basketball.  They always “had high expectations for him in the classroom and to be a better person…. We were blessed that he was athletically gifted as well.”

                The two black young men had vastly different upbringing.  One set of parents buried their son because he made stupid choices; another set of parents speak about how “blessed” they are that their son is “a kind person.”

                What made the difference?  Why did one black family rear a thug while the other black family reared a kind son who is preparing to take his proper place in the world?  It cannot be the color of their skin!  As we can see from these two stark examples, parental influence is very important.  With good influence, parents can strengthen their families, communities, and nations.

Freedom from Riots

                The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday is the simple fact that we as Americans have the right to be free from riots.  We have the right to feel secure in our homes.  We have the right to insist that our government fulfill its responsibility to keep Americans safe and to protect our property.

                The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States plainly states that we have the right to “peaceably” “assemble” and to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” but there is no mention of the right to riot.  Our nation would be much further ahead if we could use common sense and work together rather than attacking each other.  We must live by the rule of law or we will be destroyed by the rule of man.

                I believe that we will not enjoy freedom from this type of violence until rioters - and especially those who incite other people to riot - are held accountable for their words and actions.  I believe that Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the “trainers” and other “community organizers” should be held accountable for the riots that took place in Ferguson, Missouri, and other cities in our nation.  These so-called “leaders” did nothing but agitate and encourage the riots.  If they had stood for the rule of law from the beginning of the problems in August, I do not believe the people would have rioted.

                I believe the average black person is being used by their “leaders.”  These so-called “leaders” claim to be helping the people but are actually making things worse for them.  The “leaders” are getting rich from their efforts while the people are burning down their own communities.  Everyone wants justice, but true justice will never take place as long as the “leaders” want to keep blacks on the “government plantation” and under their control.  It is the “leaders” who have created the “great divide” in our nation and who refuse to let our nation heal.

                I am sorry that this kind of behavior is taking place in the United States.  I wish we could get along and show proper respect for everyone without considering national origin or color of skin.  As far as I am concerned, we are all the children of a loving Heavenly Father who wants us to get along and help each other.

Obama on Immigration

                Mr. Barack Obama promised to do an Executive Order on immigration, and he did.  The fact that Democrats were soundly thumped on November 4 did not seem to matter to him.  He is tired of waiting for Congress to take action and decided to move forward on his own.

                As Speaker of the House John Boehner  said before the speech, “Instead of working together to fix our broken immigration system, the president says he’s acting on his own.  That’s just not how our democracy works.  The president has said before that `he’s not king’ and he’s `not an emperor,’ but he’s sure acting like one.  And he’s doing it [at] a time when the American people want nothing more than for us to work together.”

                        I listened to Mr.Obama announce his immigration policy on the radio, in fact, I listened to his entire speech because I happened to be listening to the radio when he came on.  This is probably the first time I have actually heard him speak.  I cannot stand to look at him because he looks evil to me, pure evil; I never listen to him when he is on television!

                I listened to his words, but I also listened to his tone of voice and presentation.  I think he sounded good, and I admit that I might have been persuaded that he had a good plan – if I did not distrust him so much.  I heard his words, but I was also listening between his words in attempt to discern his real meanings.

                I noticed that he spoke about the nobleness of the illegal immigrants who broke the law to enter our country, but I did not hear anything about the nobleness of Americans who built the country and who continue to defend and support it.   I heard him say that we are not a nation that tears babies from their mother’s arms, but I did not hear him say anything about sending the mother AND baby back across the border.  I heard him claim that he was not giving amnesty to the illegal aliens in our nation, but I never heard him state they would never become citizens.  I noticed that he said nothing about the law or the Constitution, but I heard him give numerous reasons why he thought he needed to take this action.

                Several people in the conservative media are calling Mr. Obama a “rogue president.”  One definition of rogue  is “a dishonest or unprincipled man.”   Another definition is “an unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person; a scoundrel or rascal;  … a scamp….”  

                Please keep these definitions in mind as you read the following quote from Patrick J. Buchanan:  “Our rogue president has crossed an historic line, and so has the republic.  Future presidents will cite the `Obama precedent’ when they declare they will henceforth not enforce this or that law, because of a prior commitment to some noisy constituency.”

                If Mr. Obama is allowed to “get away” with this action, he will be taking us deeper into uncharted waters as a nation.  I believe that he sounds more and more like he believes he is a king or a dictator;  I do not think he sounds much like a President of the United States should sound.

                Hans von Spakovsky of The Heritage Foundation posted the following statement:  “According to the Associated Press, as well as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Reps. Luis Gutierre, D-Ill., and Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., President Barack Obama’s plan to provide executive amnesty to more than 5 million illegal immigrants is no different than unilateral actions that were taken by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. 

                “However, this claim plays a bit fast and loose with history and fails to explain the significant difference between Obama going against the will of Congress, which considered and rejected the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors [DREAM] Act on several occasions, including when both houses of Congress were controlled by the president’s party, and Reagan and Bush, who made administrative corrections designed to carry out congressional intent.

                “Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to `establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization….’  And it is the president’s constitutional duty, under Article II, Section 3, to `take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed….’”

                After explaining why Mr. Obama is wrong in giving amnesty to 5 million people who entered our country illegally, Mr. von Spakovsky concluded:  “In short, while Reagan and Bush worked closely with Congress to implement the comprehensive legislation that Congress had passed (in the case of Reagan) or would pass shortly thereafter (in the case of Bush), Obama is bypassing Congress entirely.  He is unconstitutionally revising existing law and, without congressional approval, imposing new ones that have been explicitly rejected by Congress time and time again, thereby setting himself up as a kingmaker (or king) on immigration policy.

                “By doing so, the president is establishing a dangerous precedent that violates fundamental principles of separation of powers that serve as a bulwark to protect our liberties and that established a government of laws and not of men.”

                I too believe that we have a rogue president setting dangerous precedents for our nation.  I hope Congress takes immediate and powerful steps to rein Mr. Obama in and stop him in his tracks – preferably before he damages our nation beyond repair.  The big question is, will Congress stop him or simply give him another pass?

Obama or Biden

                I knew at least five years ago that impeachment of Mr. Obama was probably off the table no matter what he did.  Why?  I took one good look at our Vice President!  No one in their right mind would want Joe Biden as the President of the United States.  If impeachment of Mr. Obama takes place, impeachment for Mr. Biden would have to also take place.  The first should be impeached for incompetence, and the latter for plain stupidity.

                Anyway, other people have come to the same realization.  Stan McHugh at Canada Free Press explained,  “… When Joe Biden was selected as Mr. Obama’s running mate in 2008, that selection without a doubt, cost the ticket votes all across the country.  With the possible exception of the people of Delaware, most American voters, even Democrats, knew well what a complete buffoon Mr. Biden was and had always been.  No one with any sense of concern for this country would ever want to see him as president.  Why, then, was he selected to be Mr. Obama’s vice presidential running mate?

                “It is certainly not known by the American public who, exactly, was making decisions for the Obama campaign back in 2008, but it should be very obvious that someone knew exactly what was planned for an Obama presidency should he be elected.  It should also be obvious that the same decision maker(s) knew at the time that the majority of American people were going to oppose virtually all of what was planned. Therefore he (or they) planned ahead by purchasing `Anti-Impeachment Insurance’ for Mr. Obama in the person of Joe Biden as his running mate.  As anyone can see, their plan has worked!”

                Representative Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said that he does not support the idea of impeaching Mr. Obama because the result would be elevating Mr. Biden to the Oval Office.  “Have you met Joe Biden?”  Mr. Gowdy obviously does not want Mr. Biden in the White House!

                Almost no one wants Mr. Biden in the office of President of the United States.  Still the question remains, “What can we do to rein in Mr. Obama who has a history of unconstitutional actions and has promised to do more?”  Somebody better make a decision and soon!

Ralph Waldo Emerson

                Ralph Waldo Emerson was born on May 25, 1803, in Boston, Massachusetts, to Ruth Haskins and the Rev. William Emerson, a minister for the Unitarian Church.  He was named Ralph after his mother’s brother and Waldo after his father’s great-grandmother Rebecca Waldo. He was the second of five sons who survived to be adults; the others were William, Edward, Robert Bulkeley, and Charles.  Three other siblings  died in childhood:  Phebe, John Clarke, and Mary Caroline.

                Young Ralph was only seven years old when his father died from stomach cancer on May 12, 1811, less than two weeks before Ralph turned eight years old.  Ralph was raised by his mother, who was assisted by other women in the family – particularly an Aunt Mary Moody Emerson.  Aunt Mary lived with the family off and on and corresponded with Ralph until her death in 1863.

                Emerson was nine years old when he began his formal schooling at the Boston Latin School in 1812.  Three years later, in October 1817, fourteen-year-old Emerson entered Harvard College; there he was appointed to be freshman messenger for the president and required to “fetch” delinquent students and carry messages to faculty members. 

                About halfway through his junior year, Emerson started a list of books he had read and began keeping a journal.  He covered his school expenses by working as a waiter and occasionally as a teacher.  By the time he was a senior in college, Emerson dropped his first name and started going by his middle name of Waldo.  He served as Class Poet and followed the tradition of presenting an original poem on Harvard’s Class Day.  He was eighteen years old on August 29, 1821, when he presented the poem approximately a month before he graduated.  He was not an outstanding student, graduating in the exact middle of his class of 59 people.

                Five years later in 1826, Emerson was quite ill and sought warmer climates.  He went to Charleston, South Carolina, and then moved further south to St. Augustine, Florida.  There he took long walks on the beach, began writing poetry, and met Prince Achille Murat, the nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte.  The Prince was a couple of years older than Emerson, but the two young men became good friends and “engaged in enlightening discussions on religion, society, philosophy, and government.”  Emerson “considered Murat an important figure in his intellectual education.”  There in St. Augustine, Emerson came face to face with slavery when he saw a slave auction taking place in the yard outside a meeting of the Bible Society.

                Emerson became a famous essayist, lecturer, and poet.  He “led the Transcendentalist movement of the mid-nineteenth century” and was “seen as a champion of individualism and a prescient critic of the countervailing pressures of society.”  He “disseminated his thoughts through dozens of published essays and more than 1,500 public lectures across the United States.”  He “remains among the linchpins of the American romantic movement, and his work has greatly influenced the thinkers, writers, and poets that have followed him…. “He was “well known as a mentor and friend of … Henry David Thoreau.”

                On Christmas Day, 1827, Emerson met Ellen Louisa Tucker in Concord, New Hampshire; they married when she turned 18 years old.  The couple moved to Boston, taking Emerson’s mother with them to care for Ellen, who was sick with tuberculosis.  Less than two years later, Ellen passed away at age 20, on February 8, 1831.  Emerson took her death hard.

                On January 24, 1835, Emerson wrote a letter containing a marriage proposal to Lydia Jackson and received her acceptance letter on the 28^th.  He purchased a house in July 1835 on the Cambridge and Concord Turnpike in Concord, Massachusetts.  He named his new home “Bush” – and it is now open to the public as the Ralph Waldo Emerson House.  Emerson became one of the leading citizens of his new town.  On September 12, 1835, Emerson gave a lecture to commemorate the 200^th anniversary of the town of Concord.  He married Lydia Jackson two days later in her home town of Plymouth, Massachusetts.  The couple moved to their new home in Concord on September 15, taking Emerson’s mother with them.

                Emerson changed Lydia’s name to Lidian and called her Queenie or Asia; she called him Mr. Emerson.  They became the parents of Waldo, Ellen, Edith, and Edward Waldo Emerson.  Ellen was named after Emerson’s first wife at Lidian’s suggestion.

                Emerson began suffering with ill health in 1867 and losing his memory in 1871-1872.  He was so embarrassed about his memory problems that he stopped appearing in public in 1879.  He was diagnosed with pneumonia on April 21, 1882, and died on April 27, 1882.  He was buried in Sleepy Hollow Cemetery, Concord, Massachusetts.