PREAMBLE to the state constitution:
We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness, do establish this Constitution for the better government of the state.
In order to assert our rights, acknowledge our duties, and proclaim the principles on which our government is founded, we declare:
Source: Bill of Rights, Const. of 1875, Art. II.
This is the opening sentence for the entire section in the Bill of Rights, or should it have been called the Government Restriction Amendments?
Section 1. Source of political power—origin, basis and aim of government.— That all political power is vested in and derived from the people; that all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.
Source: Const. of 1875, Art. II, Sec. 1.
So the political power is vested in the people, not certain people, not just those who’ve been elected, but the population as a whole, and government is instituted solely for the good of the whole, meaning once again not just certain people based on the uniform they may or may not wear, whether they drive a semi-truck or a farm tractor out in a field, work in an office or are part of the building trades. Be a multi-millionaire or Joe Sixpack at the local watering hole.
Section 2. Promotion of general welfare—natural rights of persons—equality under the law—purpose of government.—That all constitutional government is intended to promote the general welfare of the people; that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry; that all persons are created equal and are entitled to equal rights and opportunity under the law; that to give security to these things is the principal office of government, and that when government does not confer this security, it fails in its chief design.
Source: Const. of 1875, Art. II, Sec. 4.
So, all constitutional government is intended to PROMOTE the general welfare; nothing in that text can be proclaimed to make the case that PROMOTE and provide are the same. The phrase “general welfare” originally referred to the government’s duty to promote the health, peace, morality, safety, and prosperity of all citizens, rather than favoring specific individuals or factions.
That all persons have NATURAL RIGHTS, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry, equal rights because all men are created equal and have equal opportunity under the law.
So, in the promotion of natural rights, notice that it does NOT say “constitutional rights,” nor is a number attached to them. If we are ever going to regain the rights bestowed upon us in our DNA by the creator of man, we’ve got to stop referring to them as if they come from the government. Own the Amendments, proudly proclaim your right to free speech, to freedom of assembly, to the right of association, to print whatever you see fit as a journalist (which anyone can be a journalist), and lastly, your right to worship as you see fit.
In most of these scenarios, people elect individuals who let the rush of power in governance go to their heads. The next thing you know, they’re writing laws and ordinances that then violate the very rights the government is NOT to infringe upon. Why wouldn’t they grasp hold of that power and that misappropriated authority?
The government and those in it are generally standing on one side of the fence; meanwhile, the people who are being wronged are on the other side and saddled with legal fees, whereas the political subdivision uses the money appropriated within the taxing structure to attempt to crush you. You can be made an example of so that no one else will try to follow in your footsteps, and the people in government rarely, if ever, face any consequences for their violations. What I speak of here is why constitutionalism is of supreme importance for us and future generations, because if you’re going to make up the rules as you go along and ignore the well-established rules of governance, then you have a system designed with no barriers for containment. The Constitutions, after all, are printed on paper, and no piece of paper has ever self-enforced itself to be followed, which takes men and women of character. The great Zig Ziglar often attributes the following quote to his mom: “Your word is your bond; if your word is no good, then you as an individual are no good.”
Thanks to AI, it has attributed the following meaning to the quote in text.
The principle that “your word is your bond” underscores the deep connection between personal integrity and character, asserting that a person’s reliability is foundational to their worth. When someone consistently fails to keep their word, it reflects a lack of integrity, which can ultimately diminish their credibility and moral standing as an individual.This idea is rooted in both ancient traditions and religious teachings, in which a promise is treated as a sacred commitment and breaking it is seen as a failure of character.
So then, why do we seem to elect more people of little to no character than folks who will stand by their word, no matter the consequences? Oftentimes, people view the consequences of standing on their word to be very detrimental to future desires or actions, so they’ll make promises that they might have an intention to follow through on, but based on other decisions they’ve determined that breaking that promise or oath will benefit them at a later date.
Section 3. Powers of the people over internal affairs, constitution and form of government.—That the people of this state have the inherent, sole and exclusive right to regulate the internal government and police thereof, and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided such change be not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.
Source: Const. of 1875, Art. II, Sec. 2.
Are you starting to notice a trend in Article One of the very document, which is printed on paper, about *who* controls the government? It’s always the people, not the ones who are elected, but the people of the state. Why then are the folks who get elected given immunity when they violate the rights of the people? When I started writing this piece, it wasn’t going to be about anyone specific, but the further I get into it, the more I realize I should point to a specific example that isn’t about me. Now I talked about Vinzent Cooper on my KSGF time slot, and last year I had him on for two hours to discuss the issues of the Cameron School District and the pornographic school books in the library and in a specific teacher’s classroom, and how she was giving special credit to any student who would read these books.
Because of the formatting with commercials and hard breaks, getting the story across was more complicated than I thought. But to my surprise, David at HickChristian stepped in to cover most of the story in journalistic fashion, and he did a much better job than I could.
Vinzent, among many others in the state, became subject to the abuses of a governing force that believes that the authority to govern isn’t derived from the people. Still, they’ve been elected to control what the people do, in their opinion. From Sunshine Law violations to a county telling a police officer he is prohibited from setting up an RV on his own property when his house partially burnt down, a turf to flower ratio in St Peters where the city has rewritten the ordinance in an attempt to prevent a homeowner in the area from planting sunflowers on his property. A judge who sided with the city, even though the homeowner had data on his side showing he was not in violation of the ordinance.
What has caused all of this, you might ask? And I’ll respond with ignorance of the electorate and the tyranny of elected individuals who believe they are to govern a free people, controlling them instead of following the foundational document that governs their actions and what is required of them during their service to the people. We have a long way to go before we see a reversal of this trend. It is groups such as The Locke & Smith Foundation, Article Three Institute, and citizens across the state who file lawsuits to keep the folks in the government from usurping their authority, that are seen as the pediment to progress simply because we want the constitution followed as written instead of the progressive nature as to how it has been intrepreted over the past hundred years or so. Smokey the Bear is famous for the tagline “Only you can prevent forest fires.” Well, in a play on words, “only you can prevent unconstitutional governance.” It requires involvement and a knowledge of what the government is intended to do versus what YOU want to see the government do. Simply because you believe it should do something to benefit something you desire doesn’t make it a constitutional function of the government. Be better, hold the elected accountable to the documents that govern their actions, and educate yourself on those documents as well.
