We Have Forgotten
That We Are A Nation Of Laws
Monday, January 5, 2009
By Neal Ross
On July 4, 1776, the thirteen original colonies agreed upon the passage of the Declaration of Independence, declaring, “That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States…”.
It was only after serious deliberation that the fifty-six signers of that document came to the agreement that the abuses of power by Britain had reached the point where no other alternative remained other than to declare their independence from the crown.
Prior to listing the abuses perpetrated against the colonies, Thomas Jefferson wrote these famous words, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed… ”
The importance of this decision was made clear in a letter John Adams wrote to his wife Abigail, “Yesterday, the greatest question was decided which ever was debated in America, and a greater perhaps never was nor will be decided among men. A resolution was passed without one dissenting colony, ‘that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states.’ “
Prior to the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, George Mason wrote the Virginia Declaration of Rights, in which he said, “That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot by any compact deprive or divest their posterity; namely the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursing and obtaining happiness and safety.”
The reason that our Constitution was written was to hold together the union by creating a centralized government with specifically defined powers, while adhering to the concept that all men retain their unalienable rights and individual liberty.
Some may ask how far our liberties were to extend, especially today when they have become accustomed to obtaining a permit from their government for almost anything they wish to do, which has had the effect of limiting individual freedom to do as you please.
Thomas Jefferson described liberty as, “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”
Pay attention to the word unobstructed. As originally established, our government was to leave us free to do as we chose as long as those choices did not interfere with the rights of others. However, as George Bernard Shaw once said, “Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.”
Nevertheless, our individual liberty was of the utmost concern when drafting the Constitution. George Washington even went so far as to say, “It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition that he may abuse it.”
As we were to be a free people, we also were to be shouldered with the responsibility of being held accountable for our decisions. If we squandered our talents and our lives, it was not the place of the government to care for us because of our mistakes.
As per Article 6 of the Constitution, it is the supreme law of the land. It is law, not merely a set of guidelines to be followed whenever it is convenient. Yet our government routinely breaks the law by its actions, and we the people remain silent about it because those infractions are supposedly in our best interests.
Our government recently approved a measure that would grant billions of dollars to bail out numerous financial institutions. The financial bail out has now found its way to the American automakers as well.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it authorized the government to do this. In 1794, James Madison stood on the floor of the House of Representatives and made the following statement, I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. Even as recently as 1854 President Franklin Pierce said, “I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.” Has the Constitution changed in the 150 years since President Pierce made that statement?
Now our Constitution is being threatened by the coronation, I mean inauguration of Barack Obama as our 44th President. Senator Obama has yet to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he meets the Constitutional requirement to hold the office of President as stated in Article II, Section 1, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President…”
While the question of Senator Obama’s eligibility is of great importance, what is even more important is his total disregard for the Constitution. He is about to take an oath of office in which he will swear, I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Yet he refuses to provide proof that he meets the Constitutional requirement to even take that oath.
It matters not that a majority of the people of this country voted for Barack Obama if he does not meet the qualifications to hold that office. As James Madison said in a letter to James Monroe, There is no maxim in my opinion which is more liable to be misapplied, and which therefore needs elucidation than the current one that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong… In fact it is only reestablishing under another name and a more specious form, force as the measure of right…
Even if Barack Obama received 90% of the popular vote, if he does not meet the requirement of being a natural born citizen, he is ineligible to hold that office. By allowing him to hold that office because the people said so, is to give in to mob rule and ignore the Constitution. If that is the case, then why do we even acknowledge any authority our government claims to have, as it is only because of the Constitution that it exists?
We accept that our government has power over us as granted them by the Constitution, but we do not hold them accountable for governing strictly according to what it says. In a letter to Andrew Stevenson, James Madison wrote the following, As the people of the United States enjoy the great merit of having established a system of Government on the basis of human rights, and of giving it a form without example, which, as they believe, unites the greatest national strength with the best security for public order and individual liberty, they owe to themselves, to their posterity and to the world, a preservation of the system in its purity, its symmetry, and its authenticity. In its purity, symmetry and authenticity…” Can we say that we have held our government to that principle?
Our government blatantly ignores the limitations imposed upon it by the Constitution. Still, their abuse of power is only the tip of a more sinister plan, to deprive us of our inalienable rights.
As I previously state, one of the primary purposes in drafting our Constitution in the manner it was drafted, was the protection of our rights. At the time it was offered to the colonies for consideration there was a certain amount of concern that it did not do enough to protect those rights. Therefore the founders put together the first ten amendments, which became known as the Bill of Rights, the Preamble to which states, THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.
These rights were ones which, under no circumstance, could our government enact legislation to infringe upon. It is unfortunate, but people, when discussing our government, neglect to include the Supreme Court as part of that government. Yet nevertheless, they are bound by oath to uphold the Constitution, just as are our President and elected representatives in the House and the Senate.
Our founders were particularly wary of the power that an overzealous Court might wield. Even Thomas Jefferson, who sought a limited government, and Alexander Hamilton, who favored a stronger central government, agreed upon this most important issue.
Jefferson once said, To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.
Hamilton, who was author to numerous of the Federalist Papers, the definitive writings concerning the intent of the Constitution, had this to say about the Supreme Court, In the first place, there is not a syllable in the plan under consideration which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State.
Yet it is the Supreme Court which has allowed our rights to be infringed upon due to their interpretation of the law, rather than their upholding it as written. Nowhere is this assault upon our rights more evident than it the attempt to stifle our ability to profess our religious belief as we deem fit.
The first amendment to the Constitution clearly gives us the right to freely practice our religion, as it states, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
If Congress, being the legislative authority, has no power to enact a law restricting our ability to freely worship, then neither does the Supreme Court. Thomas Jefferson had this to say about the sanctity of the first amendment, One of the amendments to the Constitution… expressly declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,’ thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others.
Yet today, we have various organizations, such as the ACLU, which actively pursue an agenda to deny us of this right. Then there are those, such as Michael Newdow, who are on a crusade to have any reference to God removed from public view. The actions of these people go against the spirit and intent of the first amendment, as explained by Jefferson in the following quote, The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
Whether the ACLU, or Michael Newdow like it or not, this nation was founded upon Christian beliefs, as Patrick Henry so clearly declared, It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.
As our government was designed to protect our rights, we ought to pay heed to what Noah Webster once said, No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.
The right to freely worship was so important that it was the first of the amendments which comprise the Bill of Rights. It is why Jefferson wrote the following, The rights [to religious freedom] are of the natural rights of mankind, and… if any act shall be… passed to repeal [an act granting those rights] or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.
Although many other rights have been infringed upon by legislation, or decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, I am focusing on the first amendment for a reason. The majority of the people who founded this nation were Christian, our nation was founded upon Christian beliefs. Yet as a majority, Christians have remained silent while their Constitutional right to freely worship has been stripped away from them.
The German monk, Martin Luther once said, You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. I repeat this quote because not only are we a nation whose government is founded upon the principle of law, as per the Constitution, we are also a nation of Christians who also follow a higher law, that being the law given to us by God.
In the Book of Romans, Paul wrote, Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. Just as ignorance of our Constitution is no excuse for our allowing our government to abuse its power and authority, neither is ignorance of Gods law an excuse, as we will all be judged according to His law, And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. Revelation 20:12
I often wonder how those of us who claim to be Christians can remain silent, or support candidates who promote legislation that goes against the teachings found in the Bible? Are we that afraid of offending someone that we would rather remain silent, than to act upon our beliefs? Johann Wolfgang Goethe once said, and this most certainly applies to those of us who proclaim to be Christian, Knowing is not enough; we must apply!
Ignorance of the law, whether it be in regards to the Constitution, or in the law as handed down to us by God, shall be no excuse, as we will all be held accountable for our obedience, or lack thereof, to it. Elbert Hubbard, an American writer once said, The recipe for perpetual ignorance is: Be satisfied with your opinions and content with your knowledge.
Unfortunately, as English author Samuel Johnson wrote in Boswells Life of Johnson, Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant than would take even a little trouble to acquire it. Or as Ben Franklin once said, Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.
Therefore, would it not seem to your benefit to seek knowledge, rather than remain ignorant? In Proverbs, 15:14, we read, The heart of him that hath understanding seeketh knowledge: but the mouth of fools feedeth on foolishness. Think about that the next time you turn on your television instead of picking up a copy of the Constitution, or your Bible. Which benefits you more, the mindless drivel that fills your TV screens, or the words that will lead to your eternal salvation? In the Book of Hosea we read, My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge: because thou has rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee…
We have rejected knowledge, and we are paying the price for it now. Our nation is corrupted, the principles upon which it was founded have been tossed aside to be replaced by our desire for self gratification and greed.
In his diary, John Adams once wrote, The foundation of national morality must be laid in private families…. How is it possible that Children can have any just Sense of the sacred Obligations of Morality or Religion if, from their earliest Infancy, they learn their Mothers live in habitual Infidelity to their fathers, and their fathers in as constant Infidelity to their Mothers? Does that not sound like the society in which we live now where infidelity is common and the family unit broken apart because of it?
Our nation has undergone many changes since the writing of our Constitution, many of them for the betterment of society. However, many of them are for the worse, and Thomas Jefferson warned us of this type change in the following statement, Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it? Or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the path of destruction.
Our nation is certainly on the path to destruction, as the framework upon which our government was established has been trampled upon by those sworn to protect it. We have fallen prey to those we were warned about in the Scriptures, when Paul said the following, Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Ephesians 5:6
Political correctness is the tool by which sin has been taken out of our vocabulary. We are afraid to speak out against what the Bible defines as sin, because we might offend someone. Yet should we not emulate Christ in His condemnation of evil? Should we be more fearful of what might befall us in this life than in the life thereafter? Did not Christ say, Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:10
Were we not also warned, Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. Mark 8:38
Even when Christ called out to the scribes and the Pharisees, calling them hypocrites, He knew that He was sealing His fate, that they would conspire to put Him to death. However, even then, He was willing to speak out against iniquity.
What about the early Christians who faced the lions in the Roman Coliseum, they stood up for their beliefs under the threat of a gruesome death. Therefore, how much worse are we who are afraid of a little verbal persecution? Should we not instead be speaking out loudly against unrighteousness wherever we see it, even to include the halls of our nations capital?
Or instead, are we as Christ spoke of in the Book of Matthew, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
Our nation is suffering because of our lack of obedience to the law, both temporal and spiritual. It is only if we once again choose to obey both sets of law that our nation was founded upon, that we have any hope for survival.
Neal Ross works for a major fruit packaging facility in CA. He is married with a 15-year-old son. He served 13 years in the U.S. Air Force and another ten as a military contractor before losing his job due to military downsizing.
He has traveled the world, living in Kuwait, Oman, Italy, Germany, Korea, the Philippines and Spain. He believes strongly in government according to the strict guidelines of the Constitution, and feels that a good portion of the fault for the problems of this country lies in the apathy of the American people.
My New Blog
http://www.zombie-slayer.com/neal/
My archives
http://www.neals-soapbox.blogspot.com/
E-mail: bonsai@syix.com.
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For further information please refer to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|
