restraint

 When I was growing up you were concerned with the law. The long arm of the law would reach out and get you. The law was the law. Posted signs were enforced as well. An almost forgotten band, the Five Man Electrical Band, had a hit song about signs. Signs, signs, everywhere a sign, do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign. And at that time most people were obeying the signs. But it was the beginning of the "revolution" (1971) when that record was released. Not really, the hippies had been rebelling for a while, dropping out, tuning in, and living free. Freedom to do as you pleased, with who you pleased and how you pleased. Communes were formed and communes soon collapsed. Most communes collapsed for a very basic reason. There were a very few willing to work, while there were a lot willing to just "hang out." The "redistribution" of wealth, the concept that everyone owns an equal share quickly ran into issues. It wasn't cool man! 

 Today the most common thing I hear regarding the law, and signs, is, are they constitutional? In the city of Baltimore they have what are called squeegee kids. They gather at the street corners and wash windshields for tips. There is an actual ordinance against this practice. The Police do not enforce that ordinance. These "workers" as the news often call them are often aggressive, threatening and cause vehicle damage if you refuse to have them wash your window. When the authorities were questioned by the media about not enforcing the ordinance the response was, we need to ensure that it is constitutional. Well, the founding fathers didn't think about squeegee kids! 

 The Constitution establishes fundamental law. It does not, nor was it ever intended to delineate every action that is acceptable, or not acceptable. That is the very reason the Supreme Court issues an opinion on the constitutionality of legislation. In the case of squeegee kids, does the constitution grant them an absolute right to be on the street corners? Do these people have a right to solicit their services on public highways? You could argue that they do. You could also argue the motorist has an absolute right to be on those same highways and be unmolested. So, what is the answer? 

 The answer lies in setting a boundary. Yes, what we call legislation. We legislate by representation. Seems pretty obvious when put that way doesn't it? We elect, appoint, or otherwise hire people to represent our opinion on governance. Yes, the job of the government is to "govern" to restrict the actions of others in the interest of the common good. Do we really need the Supreme Court to issue an opinion on every piece of legislation written? It is estimated that every year 5000 cases are presented to the Supreme Court for consideration. The court will decide what ones will be heard. It takes a consensus of at least four judges for a case to be added to the docket. Remember the Supreme Court is the court of last resort. Their opinion is the final say! Their opinion cannot be appealed.

 When you set a boundary, you are establishing the limits. The limit on freedom to be exact. Yes, even freedom has to be limited. The evidence of that could be seen in those communes. There are those in the community that will not operate within the boundaries unless the boundaries are well defined and enforced. That is just a simple truth, a realty as old as the earth itself. 

 Our Constitution begins with the preamble, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." That is the purpose of the Constitution. 

 What is unique about it? We the People, the equal representation of every citizen in the governance of the nation. The power resides with the people, not with the "government." When the Supreme Court issues an opinion on the constitutionality of any piece of legislation it is weighed against those standards. The Constitution itself is mostly concerned with how the government operates. What the government can do and what it can't do.  The bottom line is simple enough though, We the People get to say what the government can do! 

 The only issue being self-governance. Yes, also called being responsible, mature, unselfish and concerned for the common good. It involves self-denial. It involves staying within the boundaries. It isn't simply hoisting a flag. It is defending that flag at the cost of your own life, if necessary. I see a lot of flags these days. Virtue signaling. But the flags change daily, there is no standard. And without a standard, one that is enforced, there can be no peace, and no freedom. Freedom is achieved by restraint.