Friday, September 24, 2010

Taking the "Pledge"

To take the Republican's "Pledge" is to take the risk. It is an attempt at risk novation with an inferred consent of the governed.

It is a spurious political measure that yields an inflationary-deflationary economic detriment with a populist tone.

It is a reapplication of social contract theory like "The Contract With America."

The People need to make it perfectly clear: The Constitution of the United States is "The Contract." Its terms do not need to be renovated or renegotiated. The proposition, however, does indicate a critical deficiency--a dissonance between the ideal and the expectation of its attainment; and the expectation, We the People do declare, is not negotiable.

It is critical to understand that our Constitution categorically, with the strictest clarity, condemns and renders illegal a social contract that subjects The People to tyrannical forces. Extra-legal contractual arrangements are not only prohibited, their proposal indicates a clear intent to corrupt our God-given rights with the uncivil aspirations of tyrants.

"A Pledge to America" may seem to be just another political platform providing the base for the latest round of faux competition, but it also attempts to reshape the revanchist sentiment into a faux consent for a status quo ante that goes back to the reign of constitutional monarchs.

Constitutional plutocracy is not the ideal form we should pledge the empirical proof of a popular vote, binomially derived or otherwise, tricked and trapped into the detriments of an uncivil authority.

Reclaiming the foundation of our heritage is to reclaim The Revolution, rejecting pledges of loyalty that our Constitution strictly forbids in defense of the Rights of Man.

While few legislators may be analytically aware of an historical dialectic, policymakers do act to prevent a synthesis, keeping a negative progression back to the future. Even with over 200 years of resistance, however, the tendency to a commonwealth persists and continues to gain the support of a popular consent.

No comments: