By Matthew Hayward The Census: From Counting People to Collecting Control The Constitution established the census as a straightforward tool for representation—nothing more, nothing less. Article I, Section 2 mandates an enumeration every ten years to determine how many representatives each state is allotted. That’s it. Simple. Effective. Proportional representation was the goal, and the census was designed to achieve it. So how did we end up here—with government agents asking about the number of bathrooms in our homes, our ethnic identities, and everything in between? This is the creeping hand of central planning at work. What began as a tool to empower individual representation has been twisted into a mechanism to empower bureaucrats, planners, and those who believe they know better than free individuals how to run their own lives. Central Planning: The False Promise of Data The justification for prying into the most intimate details of our lives is always the same: “We need the ...

By Matthew Hayward Gradualism, also known as incrementalism, is an approach in politics where policies or changes are implemented gradually, leading to significant transformations over time. Although this approach has merits in some contexts, it can pose a danger to a Republic when it undermines the constitutional amendment process. Drawing on the wisdom of George Washington and considering specific examples, this blog will emphasize the importance of adhering to the Constitution and its amendment process while examining the consequences of gradualism in politics. Gradualism and the Constitution The Constitution serves as the foundational document of the United States, providing a blueprint for governance and safeguarding citizens' rights. Gradualism, however, can threaten the Constitution's relevance, as it allows politicians to bypass its provisions to achieve their objectives. Through gradual policy changes, politicians can circumvent the constitutional amendment process and...

 By Matthew Hayward Dear Members of the Political Class, I hope this open letter finds you in good spirits and with an open mind, for the words I pen are crucial to our great nation's continuing strength and prosperity. It is with a deep sense of responsibility and an unwavering commitment to the liberties our founding fathers bequeathed to us that I address you today. The topic at hand is the Second Amendment and the concept of the militia, both of which are integral to safeguarding the freedoms we hold dear. When our forefathers crafted the Constitution, they had the wisdom and foresight to understand that a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. They recognized that every able-bodied and willing American plays a pivotal role in preserving and protecting the very fabric of our nation. In that spirit, I call upon you to acknowledge and support the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as enshrined in the Second Amendment. In today's world, t...

By Matthew Hayward Patriotism is often defined as love for one's country and a willingness to serve and defend it. However, when the government of that country is being run by people who ignore and disrespect the Constitution and founding documents and intentions laid down by the founders, the definition of patriotism becomes more complicated. In such situations, standing against one's own government can be seen as the most patriotic action. The founders wrote the Constitution and founding documents to establish a government that would protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens. They recognized that unchecked government power can lead to tyranny , and they designed a system of checks and balances to prevent such abuses of power. The Constitution outlines the government's structure, defines each branch's powers, and sets limits on what the government can and cannot do. It also includes the Bill of Rights, which is integral to the Constitution, specifically enumerate...

Who would put a political bumper sticker on their car that did not have knowledge about the candidate or issue represented? Who is motivated and willing enough to put a candidate’s bumper sticker on their car while at the same time being ignorant about what the candidate has done or has not done? I do not mean to use the word “ignorant” in a derogatory sense, but as it is defined: “lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact.” I’ve seen more and more Obama 2012 bumper stickers on cars lately. Every time I see one, I can’t help but think, WHY why would you put that sticker on your car? Though I did not vote for or support Obama in 2008, I do not blame people who did; I get it. (I voted 3rd party) I fail to understand how anyone who supported Obama in 2008 could support him in 2012. Looking at policy actions and taking into account political theater, it would logically follow that 2004 Bush supporters would be Obama’s 2012 base. The logic and reasoning beh...

Chairman Henry Hyde states that the Constitution is “Inappropriate and anachronistic.” "There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events (Did I miss an amendment?)  by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to modern society (Like the Constitution?) . Why declare war if you don't have to? (Good point) We are saying to the President, use your judgment. So, to demand that we declare war is to strengthen something to death. You have got a hammerlock on this situation, and it is not called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn't done anymore." --Chairman Henry Hyde, 10/3/2002, in a session of House of Representatives, during hearing on H.J. Res. 114, "AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ ," discussing Ron Paul's motion to declare war.