Who Speaks For The People?

by Christopher G. Adamo

Upon reading the text of the Preamble to the Constitution, as well as the remainder of that document, certain foundational principles of the American experiment become altogether undeniably. The Founders clearly understood that those things which would, to the greatest degree, advance the cause of the individual, also would redound to the utmost long-term benefit of the nation.

Such a concept was a dramatic departure from the typical mindset of governing bodies throughout times past. Even to this day, most nation states operate under an opposing ideology, in which the presumption is that those things working to the best advantage of the state somehow will reverberate to the greatest profit of the individual. This latter concept prevails solely because those in power prefer it for their own sakes. Yet history lacks any evidence to support it.

As Americans have, in recent years, become continually less knowledgeable regarding the reasons for the success and greatness of their country, the underlying principle of the Constitution has been increasingly subordinated to its antithetical counterpart. Under the dubious auspices of “the compelling interest of the state,” a plethora of detestable decisions have been codified into law in recent years. Clearly the Founders, being of a noble caliber unknown among political circles in the present day, instead recognized as paramount the “compelling interest” of the individual, who by himself could not otherwise prevail against the enormous power of the state.

Wednesday's “campaign finance” decision by the Supreme Court stands as the latest abomination to the rights and liberties of the American people. And as with all such decisions handed down by America's nine-member board of royalty, it bears no association whatsoever to the principles on which this nation was founded, and within which its government is supposed to operate.

It is noteworthy to briefly consider just what manner of state this court perceives America to be, wherein its “compelling interests” are somehow served by “rights” of child-pornographers and the “right” to engage in sodomy (both having been supported by recent Supreme Court decisions), but which is threatened by free political speech. Is it not more likely that the Court's own hegemony on power is threatened by such speech, and therefore must be protected by the systematic suppression of those unworthy masses?

As one horrendous outrage after another against the Constitution (and ultimately therefore against the people) proceeds from this nation's high courts, it becomes ever more obvious that the “unalienable rights,” so long taken for granted by Americans, are no longer guaranteed to any degree. Americans retain only those freedoms the courts decide, on a case-by-case basis, that they have. And to an ever increasing degree, the particular “rights” being promoted are only those advocated by the lowest elements of this country's “counterculture,” which has labored diligently during the past four decades to irreversibly alter the fabric of society.

Sounding eerily similar to the standard diatribe accompanying each ensuing gun law, the Court's majority asserted that campaign finance “reform” law, while plainly abridging the rights of citizens to engage in political speech, would not be sufficient to “clean up the political process,” as it ostensibly was enacted to do.

According to the five justices upholding the law: “We are under no illusion that [this campaign finance law] will be the last congressional statement on the matter. Money, like water, will always find an outlet. What problems arise, and how Congress will respond, are concerns for another day.” Thus, the court gives its blessing to the notion that, in order to purge itself of corruption, a corrupt Congress must possess the authority to restrict the political activity of the people.

Of particular significance is the fact that, in the aftermath of the decision, “movers and shakers” across the political spectrum are weighing its effects almost entirely as to its expected positive or negative impact on their own political fortunes, with scant concern for the devastating blow it dealt to the rights of common citizens. And this appalling situation will only worsen until the people commit to doing whatever is required to regain their lost power in the American political system.

Growing up during the turbulent decades of the ‘60's and ‘70's, Christopher  Adamo saw, to his dismay, the nation's moral foundations being destroyed  before his very eyes. But even then he was a staunch Conservative at heart,  and rejected outright the tenets of America's counterculture revolution.

 After a hitch in the Air Force, where he specialized in airborne  electro- optical systems, he pursued a career in the field of aerospace,  working for major defense contractors in California, Florida, and Colorado. But his career plans abruptly changed during the industry-wide downsizing that followed the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster.

Presently he is working in the field of industrial instrumentation in the state of Wyoming. Concurrently, he has become involved in that state's political process, attending state GOP conventions as a delegate, and serving as a member of the Wyoming Republican Central Committee. He has also aided in the candidacies of local legislators and state senators, as well as a U.S. Senator and Congresswoman.

From 1993 to 1996, he edited and wrote for “The Wyoming Christian”, the state newsletter for Christian Coalition of Wyoming. During that period, he developed an acute awareness of the harm being done to Conservatism by liberal activists within the Republican Party as well as the Democrats. This remains a favorite theme of his articles, which now appear as a regular feature on GOPUSA.