Common Ground cover art

Common Ground

Common Ground

Listen for free

View show details
Common GroundOver the past two weeks, we have examined a simple question.If the Constitution limits government, what happens when government crosses that line?Judging from your comments, many of us recognize the problem.If government can encroach upon a right or freedom today, while you must spend years and thousands of dollars seeking relief, what practical value does that right have when you need it most?A right without a timely and effective remedy can become practically meaningless.But the comments have exposed another problem.We have difficulty talking to one another.I use the word “citizen.”Someone says, “I’m not a citizen. I’m one of the People.”I speak of human nature.Someone objects to the terminology.Before the thought is even completed, a word has triggered an assumption, and the assumption becomes the argument.That gets us nowhere.Ask the question.“What do you mean?”“How are you using that word?”“What is the proposition you’re asking me to consider?”We all bring prejudgments into a conversation—about words, government, law, and each other.But if I substitute my meaning for yours before understanding what you are saying, I’m no longer listening to you.I’m arguing with myself.And there is another distraction.Mention government exceeding its authority and someone immediately says:“Government is a corporation.”Someone else says:“It’s all commerce.”Then come the UCC, maritime law, legal fictions, birth certificates, capitalization of names, and any number of theories offered to explain government.But none of that is necessary to answer the question before us:Did government possess the authority to do what it did?And if not:What stops it?I’m not asking anyone to abandon what they believe.I’m asking them to distinguish between what they personally believe and what we collectively need to establish.Because we are looking for something Americans of vastly different backgrounds can understand and hopefully accept.And perhaps it is this simple:Government has limited powers.The People possess rights and freedoms that government does not create.When government exceeds its lawful authority and encroaches upon those rights and freedoms, there must be an effective remedy.Can we agree upon that much?Because consider what happens when government acts against you tomorrow.It takes your property.Closes your business.Freezes your money.Or takes your freedom.You object.Government says:“You have a remedy. Go to court.”How long?Years.How much?Perhaps a fortune.And what happens in the meantime?The governmental action continues.Justice years from now doesn’t protect you today.So the issue isn’t simply whether a remedy theoretically exists.The question is whether the remedy is available when the right or freedom requires protection.And that brings us to the practical objective of this discussion.The Sheriff.If we expect an elected Sheriff to protect the People of his county within the lawful authority of his office, we cannot first require him to accept someone’s theory about corporations, commerce, citizenship, maritime law, or anything else.Nor should we.The message must be simpler than that.Government has boundaries.The People have rights and freedoms.And public officials possess delegated authority, not unlimited power.That message can belong to everyone.Rich or poor.Educated or uneducated.Left or right.Whatever words we use to describe ourselves.That is why we must learn to ask questions before rejecting one another’s words.Not because definitions don’t matter.They do.But because understanding must come before disagreement can be meaningful.And if a particular theory isn’t necessary to establish the common principle, don’t allow it to destroy the conversation.Free people are going to disagree.They should.But disagreement over secondary questions cannot prevent agreement upon the fundamental one.Because while we argue about terminology and theories, government continues to act.So reduce the issue to its essence.Did government cross the boundary of its lawful authority?If it did:Where is the timely and effective remedy?And now we have a question that can be placed before an elected Sheriff without requiring either the Sheriff or the People to subscribe to anyone’s ideology:Sheriff, government has limits.When government crosses those limits and threatens the rights and freedoms of the People in your county, what can you lawfully do about it?That is the conversation we need to have.Not about labels.Not about theories.Not about who possesses the superior vocabulary.About a boundary.A remedy.And an elected official close enough to the People to be asked one simple question:When government crosses the line, who stands in the gap?If Americans can come together around that question, we have something we desperately need.Common ground.And finally, some people say:“This is all talk. Where’s the action?”This is part of the action.Before people can act ...
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
No reviews yet
In the spirit of reconciliation, Audible acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of country throughout Australia and their connections to land, sea and community. We pay our respect to their elders past and present and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples today.