History Speaks Through the Monuments on our National Mall

jefferson-memorial-lit-up

by Diane Rufino, January 21, 2017

Yesterday I visited the Jefferson Memorial to commune with my favorite Founding Father. Jefferson is perhaps the single reason I am so very proud to be an American. The principles he articulated in the Declaration of Independence, which the Second Continental Congress adopted in 1776, laid the basis for our independence from Great Britain. It established the principles and government philosophy that defines us as a nation, and although it’s message is lost on most Americans, I am sure to remind my students how it laid the basis for government by proclaiming that power originates with the individual and that power can never be fully divested from them. The Declaration informed Britain and the rest of the world that the thirteen colonies were dedicated first and foremost to the recognition and preservation of individual liberty. To that end, they proclaimed “to a candid world” that individuals of those colonies have the natural right to a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. In other words, government serves the people and its primary role is, and should be, to protect their rights. Nowhere in our founding documents does it state that government is a permanent fixture. Nowhere does it provide that the government has the right to seeks its longevity or its permanence. Rather, it exists in form and organization just as long as it serves its legitimate ends. The people always have the right – even the duty – to alter or abolish it when it frustrates its purpose.  Jefferson and Madison, along with our other Founders, knew full well that power would corrupt if it was centralized enough in government, then government would eventually limit or even deny rights away to the people. And in many instances, we see that the fears of our Founders have come to fruition.

What I learned from Jefferson is that when it comes to citizenship, it is perhaps more important to represent an idea or an ideal than merely a physical location.

And so I sat inside the rotunda and gazed up for awhile at this under-appreciated Founding Father. I walked around the room and read some of his poignant quotes memorialized on the walls and reflected on their timeless message. Sadly, to some degree, our government has rejected his wisdom.  Then I went outside the rotunda and looked straight across the tidal basin towards the rest of the National Mall. I could easily see the Washington Monument.  And I could also see the White House.  What I couldn’t see was the Lincoln Memorial.  I thought about that for a moment. And then I began to  note its significance.

It’s true that the Jefferson Memorial and the Lincoln Memorial are not visible to one another. I think there is a reason for that, whether or not it was a conscious factor in the Mall’s design. Abraham Lincoln didn’t see eye to eye with Jefferson. In fact, his vision of government was quite different. While the Declaration of Independence clearly provides that individuals can alter or abolish their government, Lincoln adamantly proclaimed that the Union, and by extension the federal government, was to be perpetual. In fact, after he repeatedly ignored and even violated provisions of the Constitution, suspended habeas corpus, imprisoned journalists, publishers, newspaper owners, citizens and seized their property, waged war without a declaration, etc, he sought a resolution from Congress to excuse those violations. Such a resolution was proposed and it read: “For the preservation of the federal government,”…..  Congress would the actions of President Lincoln.  (The resolution was never voted upon because the session of Congress concluded for the year). Lincoln had to ignore the principles laid down in the Declaration if he was to use force to bring the South back into the Union and convince the North that he had the power to do so.

President Lincoln destroyed the notion of limited government and its relationship to the individual, as promised in the Declaration, and our country has never sought to reclaim those ideals. Why?  Because government had become so strong and no one, no state, and certainly no government official had the guts to challenge the creature that the government had become. States have cowered and caved. They have tacitly relinquished their independence and have become subjugated to the design and will of the federal government. Perhaps that is why, when the government designed the National Mall, it put the memorial to Abraham Lincoln at the most prestigious position. Its layout is spectacular; Lincoln sits on high, looking out over a long reflecting pool, to the strongest branch of government – Congress. Lincoln is rewarded and glorified because he is the president who achieved the most in transforming the government into one of great power and influence and coercion over its independent parts (the States). Lincoln, in a sense, destroyed the ideals that inspired our founding generation to fight for their independence.

The Jefferson Memorial directly faces the White House – the home of our President and Chief Executive. The White House does not face the Lincoln Memorial.  Could it be that this lay-out was intended to remind Presidents of Jefferson’s ideals and the principles of government outlined in the Declaration?  Could it be that the president of the United States should forever be reminded that government is not a tool of an ambitious president (as it was for Abraham Lincoln) but rather an institution which serves the people and their interests in life, liberty, and happiness.

Something to think about.

What I can say is that when I listened to Donald Trump’s inaugural address – and particularly the part when he announced: “Every four years we gather on these steps to carry out the orderly and peaceful transfer of power….  Today’s ceremony, however, has a very special meaning because today we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another or from one party to another, but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C., and giving it back to you, the people.”  — I couldn’t help but smile and think to myself how Jeffersonian he sounded.

Maybe, at least for the next few years, we can enjoy a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Maybe Trump, in fact, gets it.

inauguration-2017-in-front-of-jefferson-memorial-very-good

SAVE THE REPUBLIC! Rethinking the American Union of States for the Preservation of Republicanism

SECESSION - Separate or Die (head, the federal government, is chopped off)

by Diane Rufino (citing Donald Livingston in his book Rethinking the American Union for the Twenty-First Century), July 26, 2016

The purpose of this article is three-fold:  First, I want to be provocative and get readers thinking.  Second, I wish to educate the reader on our founding principles. And third, I hope to encourage the reader to read the book Rethinking the American Union for the Twenty-First Century, written in part and edited by Donald Livingston, founder and president of the Abbeville Institute.  I enjoyed the book immensely and wanted very much to help get the word out.

I think the best way to encourage one to read the book Rethinking the American Union for the Twenty-First Century is to hook him or her using one of the more thought-provoking themes of the book. And so, this article is composed in great part using selected portions from one of the chapters in that book which I found most interesting – “American Republicanism,” authored by Livingston), with a discussion of nullification, interposition, secession, and federalism by myself.  Credit, of course, goes first and foremost to Professor Livingston.

Article IV of the US Constitution guarantees to every State in the Union “a Republican form of government.”  It is known as the “Guarantee Clause.”  It has not been widely interpreted, but constitutional scholars think it ensures that each State be run as a representative democracy or a dictatorship, preventing any initiative to change a State constitution to provide such.  The Supreme Court has essentially acknowledged that it doesn’t have the slightest idea what it means, has been reluctant to specify exactly what a “republican form of government” means and has left the clause devoid of meaning.  Historically, however, republics have had distinct characteristics, namely that its citizens make the laws they are to live under, that there is a Rule of Law, and that the republic itself be relatively small with respect to population and territory, to ensure that representation is meaningful.

The American system of 1789 was not a republic. It was a federation of republics – each state itself a republic – but the Union itself was not a republic. “A federation of republics is not itself a republic, any more than a federation of country clubs is not in and of itself a country club.” Under the Constitution of 1787, the central government could rule over individuals but only under the powers delegated to it by the sovereign States. All other powers of sovereignty belong to the States, expressly reserved through the Tenth Amendment, by the natural law of sovereignty, and contractually by force of the compact theory characterizing the Constitution. Given this framework, the final safeguard for a truly republican form of government for the people in America was, and could only be, some form of lawful resistance to the concentration of coercion in the federal government, which includes state interposition, nullification, or secession. These remedies are included in the “reserved powers” belonging to the States.

Nullification is a legal theory that holds that a State has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that State has deemed unconstitutional. If the authority for the federal government only comes from the highly-contested and debated powers that the States agreed to delegate from their reservoir of sovereign powers, as listed in the Constitution, any federal law, policy, action, or court decision that exceeds such grants of power is “null and void” and lacks enforcement power. Since the federal government will always seek to support and enforce its laws and actions, it must be the States, as the parties to the Constitution and the ones which suffer the usurpation of powers with each unconstitutional action, which must rightfully declare “unconstitutionality” and prevent them from being enforced on a free people. Because the right of nullification is not prohibited by the Constitution (nor is it even addressed), it is reserved by the States under the Tenth Amendment.

Interposition is another claimed right belonging to the States. Interposition is the right of a State to oppose actions of the federal government that the state deems unconstitutional by in order to prevent their enforcement.  The very definition of a tyrannical government is one that imposes unconstitutional actions on its citizens. Tyranny is arbitrary rule. Interposition is the actual action, whether legislative or otherwise, to prevent an unconstitutional federal law or action from being enforced on its people. The most effective remedy against unconstitutional federal action, as emphasized by both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, is nullification together with interposition. Interposition finds its roots in the Supremacy Clause.  While the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance are considered the supreme law of the land, laws (and other actions) not grounded in rightful or legitimate Constitutional powers are not supreme and the States are well within their powers to prevent such usurpation of government power belonging to their sphere of authority.

Secession, like nullification and interposition, is not prohibited by the Constitution (or even addressed), and hence, is a reserved right of the States.

Nullification and interposition were invoked in 1798 by Kentucky and Virginia to identify the Alien & Sedition Acts as unconstitutional and to prevent citizens of those states from being imprisoned essentially for their exercise of free speech and press. Secession was threated in 1815 by Massachusetts after it characterized Jefferson’s embargo against Great Britain and his Louisiana Purchase and then Madison’s War of 1812 as a history of abuses against the North, with an intent to further the interests of the South. All three States’ Rights’ remedies were regularly invoked in the antebellum period, in every section of the Union, to assert State sovereignty and to constrain the central government. As of 1860, the central government was out of debt and imposed no inland taxes. It existed simply off a tariff on imports and land sales. The Supreme Court was tightly constrained in its exercise of judicial review. It challenged the constitutionality of acts of Congress only twice – in Marbury v. Madison (the Judiciary Act of 1789) and the Dred Scott decision (the right of a slave to challenge his status in a non-slave state when brought there by his master). States and localities in almost all States in the North refused to comply with the Fugitive Slave Act (nullification), either by statue or by civil acts of disobedience, and most strikingly, the Wisconsin legislature and the State Supreme Court in 1854 and 1859 outright challenged the constitutionality of the Act (citing coercion of the states and state officials). South Carolina nullified the Tariff of 1828, citing the improper nature of the tariff, changing it from an ordinary tariff (for revenue collection for the government) to a protectionist tariff (to provide direct funding of “improvements” for the North, as well as other enormous benefits), and claiming it was nothing more than a federal scheme to directly enrich the North at the great expense of the South.

Today, it is taught and it is believed that the “checks and balances” in the American system are only those between the president, Congress, and the Supreme Court. We know about the veto procedure, the ratification process for treaties, appointments (including federal court justices) and judicial review (this last check is not in the constitution actually but a creature of the Supreme Court itself!)  The purpose of our Separation of Powers and our series of checks and balances is to prevent the consolidation of power in any one branch of government and any one group of representatives.  But only a very limited number of Americans understand and appreciate that the greatest check on the consolidation of power comes from the unique design feature of our government established by the States and our Founding Fathers in the conventions and debates creating the Constitution – and that is Federalism.  Federalism is idea that real power is shared by the members of the “federation,” which are the States, with the creature they created (the federal government), which is the reservoir of powers expressly delegated to it by the US Constitution.  Federalism is a “sharing” or “division” of power among sovereigns in order to prevent concentration and tyranny.  The idea is that the government, as a sovereign with very limited and expressly delegated powers, and the States, as sovereigns retaining all other powers of government, will jealously guard their sphere of power and will watch, ever-so-vigilantly, the actions of one another.  What more effective check on government power could there be !!  Sovereign versus sovereign, which is what the term “dual sovereignty” refers to.  Or, as I like to refer to this design feature: “Titan versus Titan” (a reference to Greek mythology).  Alexander Hamilton, in a speech to the New York Ratifying Convention on June 17, 1788, explained it this way: “This balance between the National and State governments ought to be dwelt on with peculiar attention, as it is of the utmost importance. It forms a double security to the people. If one encroaches on their rights they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits by a certain rivalship, which will ever subsist between them.”

Sadly, this most effective check on consolidation of power in DC has been effectively eroded – mainly at the hands of the US Supreme Court.  The checks from the States on central authority in the form of nullification, interposition, and secession have now been ruled out.  And this is just another way of saying that the federal government can define the limits of its own powers. And that is what the American colonists and ratifiers of the Constitution drafted in Philadelphia in 1787 meant by “absolute monarchy.”

Ask yourself this:  Which branch of government ruled out the essential and natural remedies of nullification, interposition, and secession?  The answer is the US Supreme Court, supporting the ambitious plans of the federal government and improperly relying on Marbury v. Madison (1803) and the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution for authority. For a State to treat its decisions with less than full support would bring the full resources of the federal government into its backyard. It’s happened before. Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower. Rather than interpreting the Constitution, which pretty much is its sole task, the Supreme Court has redefined a new political and government system, one that is quite different from the one entrusted to us by our framers and founders.

When authority taken by the federal government falls outside of the enumerated powers, it makes no sense to ask the federal government to rule on whether the federal government has the power or not. The States, the ones which debated and ratified the Constitution for THEIR benefit, have no umpire on the bench.  As historian Tom Woods points out, if the federal government is allowed to hold a monopoly on determining the extent of its own powers, we have no right to be surprised when it keeps discovering new ones.

So, it is no surprise that the Supreme Court consistently and steadily handed down decision after decision to strip the States’ of their natural remedies against the Titan seeking to subjugate them – the federal government. Again, the Supreme Court is itself a branch of the very government that seeks to benefit from the consolidation of power it wants by weakening the States.  What better way to get the States to calm down and get in line?

Thomas Jefferson was skeptical of the federal judiciary and warned that they had the greatest potential to undermine republican government. In 1823, he wrote: “At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions nevertheless become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of the Constitution and working its change by construction before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account.”

If you believe, as most Americans seem to believe (because of government indoctrination), that States no longer have the rights of nullification, interposition, and secession because of the action of one man, a virtual dictator, Abraham Lincoln, then you must reconcile the fact that no State any longer enjoys a republican form of government, as guaranteed in Article IV. That is, they no longer enjoy a republican form of government under any historical understanding of what such a government is nor under the vision of our founders. That notion has now decayed into a legal fiction.

But if the States are not republics, what are they?  Donald Livingston argues that the answer was given by Alexis de Tocqueville in his assessment of the French Revolution. According to de Tocqueville, the French revolution was intended to overturn the monarchy and return power to the people by creating a republic but in reality, it fundamentally changed nothing. The coercive government of the monarchy was simply replaced by a different type of coercive government.  The monopoly over government and land created by Kings (Divine Right of Kings) is a doctrine that embodies two bodies of the king. This duality is symbolized by this famous phrase: “The King is dead! Long live the King!” The first body of the king was the flesh and blood; the mortal body.  The second body was the monopoly, or the artificial corporation, established by birth-right and familial ties. Both bodies are coercive in nature since they are not “of the people” and can never truly represent them. When de Tocqueville said that the French Revolution fundamentally changed nothing, he meant that all that it did was kill the first body of the king. It left the second body of the king intact, merely changing its name from the “Crown” to the “Republic.” The revolution merely replaced the person of the king with a fictitious “nation-person.” In other words, what was created after the French Revolution was an absolute monarchy without the monarch; a regime that had all the major defects of a monarchy but none of the benefits. The post-French Revolution era of “republics” would increase government centralization beyond the wildest dream of any monarch. The German economist, Hans Hoppe, estimates that before the mid-nineteenth century, monarchs, as bad as they might have been, were never able to extract more than 5-8 percent of the gross national product (GNP) from the people, whereas “republics” have been able to exploit over 60 percent.

In his war to prevent Southern independence, Lincoln and the perversely-named “Republican” Party destroyed the two American institutions that had made true republicanism possible in a region on our continental scale – State nullification and secession. Without these rights, there can be no practical check to centralization and oppression of government, and hence, no practical way to ensure that the People of the several States are guaranteed a republican form of government.

Is it possible to have an exceedingly large republic, such as the size of our current-day United States?  British philosopher David Hume once considered the question of a large republic. He proposed the first model of a large republic in his essay “Idea of a Perfect Commonwealth,” which was published in 1792.  Hume’s model did not physically seek to divide territory up physically into individual sovereigns but rather to decentralize government power so as to preserve the human scale demanded of republican self-government. The question is whether this can realistically be done.

Hume agrees with the republican tradition that “a small commonwealth is the happiest government in the world within itself.” But Hume’s model of a large republic, in contrast to the historically small republic, would be to order the large republic in such a way as to have all the advantages of a little republic. The question is whether Hume’s model is translatable to the real world: Can the size of a republic be expanded without destroying those values unique to republican government (self-government and the rule of law) that require a human scale.

Hume’s idea of a large republic is something of the size of Great Britain or France. (Remember his essay was written in 1792!)  As a comparison, Great Britain is approximately equivalent in size to Wyoming and France is approximately equivalent in size to Texas. In Hume’s model, the republic is divided into 100 small republics, but with a national capital. Each of these small republics is then divided into 100 parishes. The members of each parish meet annually to elect 1 representative. This yields 100 representatives in each small republic’s legislature. The legislature selects from among its members 10 magistrates to exercise the executive and judicial functions of the republic and 1 senator to represent the republic in the national capital. That yields 100 senators, from among which 10 are chosen to serve as the national executive and judiciary.

Laws would be proposed by the national senate and passed down to the provincial republics or ratification. Each republic has one vote regardless of population, and the majority rules. To free the provincial legislature from having to vote on every trivial law, a bill can be sent instead to the ten provincial magistrates in each republic for ratification.

How does Hume’s large republic compare to the “highly-centralized regime” that the United States has become today?  Hume’s republic has 100 senators in the national capital representing the individual States, as we do. But the legislative body representing the nation of individuals is located in the several capitals of the provincial republics. This provides three essential advantages.  First, it provides a better and more republican ratio of representation to population. Hume’s republic is the size of Britain, which in his time had some 9 million people; yet his regionally dispersed legislature jointly yields 10,000 representatives.  [100 x 100].  By contrast, the United States has 305 million people, which is 34 times as many inhabitants. Its representative body contains not 10,000 representatives but only 435 representatives – a number that Congress capped by law in 1911.  Hume’s large republic provides a ratio of 1 representative for every 900 people, and so it is of a republican scale.  This is very important !!  The United States’ system provides 1 representative for every 700,000 people, which is not even remotely within a republican scale.

And if you are thinking that this unrepublican character of the United States can be remedied by abolishing the law setting the cap at 435 and increasing the number of representatives in the US House, you will need to understand that judging by the size of legislatures around the world, 435 is just about the right size for a lawmaking body. Everything in nature has a proper size for optimum functionality. A cell can only grow to a certain size (a certain volume-to-cell-surface ratio) so that it can absorb nutrients, eliminate waste, and respire most efficiently. A jury of 12 is perfectly suited to determine the facts of a case; a jury of 120 would be dysfunctional.  When the first US Congress met in New York in 1789, there were 65 representatives. There was 1 representative for every 60,000 people. James Madison thought that was an inadequate ratio to adequately represent the people in a republic. When the number of representatives was capped at 435 in 1911, the population in the United States was 93,863,000. That means that there was 1 representative for every 215,777 inhabitants. If we were to use the same ratio that was used in 1789 – 1: 60,000 – there would be over 5,000 members in the House of Representatives. This would be impossibly large for a lawmaking body. Size does matter.

So, if the number of representatives in Washington DC cannot be increased as the population increases, then we have clearly reached the point where talk of republican self-government is utterly meaningless.  We are merely a republican in name only. In the not too distant future, the population of the United States will reach 435 million. This would yield one representative for every million persons.  Who could honestly believe a regime under this system could be described as a republic?

The point is that a country can literally become too large for self-government.  It becomes unresponsive to the people because its representatives cannot possibly represent the interests of all its constituents.

If the United States has indeed reached the point of political obesity, then the only remedy would be to downsize. The United States will need to be downsized either through peaceful secession movements or through a division into a number of federative units forming a voluntary commonwealth of American federations – an idea that Thomas Jefferson was fond of.

For the moment, let’s put peaceful secession aside (which would divide the Union into distinct territorial jurisdictions or would create individual, independent sovereigns).  Suppose that the United States adopts such a model as Hume’s large republic. This would require abolishing the House of Representatives in Washington DC (Yay!) and transforming the State legislatures into a joint national legislature. The Senate would propose legislation to be ratified by a majority of the States, each State having one vote.

Consider trying to enact the unpopular legislation passed in 2009 and then 2010 under such a model. Of course, I’m referring to the Bailout bills and the stimulus packages of 2009 and then the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (or grossly referred to simply as the “Affordable Care Act’; or aptly named “Obamacare”) of 2010. A strong majority of Americans opposed the bailouts for the monster banks whose corrupt and inept policies caused the financial meltdown in 2009, the economic stimulus packages that they knew wouldn’t work, and Barack Obama’s healthcare plan of some two thousand pages, rushed through after secret meetings and secret deals and with publicly-acknowledged privileges given to some states and not others, and admissions by its leading supporters (Democrats) that they hadn’t even read it.  To this should be added that many believe that Congress has no constitutional authority to bailout businesses, let alone arbitrarily choosing which ones to provide federal aid, nor to impose a national healthcare plan, regardless whether it is good or not and whether or not it would help certain citizens out. Now, had these bills been sent down to the State legislatures for debate and ratification, as required by Hume’s large republic model, their defeat would have been so certain that they probably would never have even been proposed in the first place.

The second advantage presented by Hume’s model is that by dispersing the national legislature among the provincial republics (the smaller republics), he has eliminated the corruption that inevitably comes from putting the House of Representatives and the Senate in the same place. The number of representatives in Washington is 435 in the House, and 100 in the Senate– for a grand total of 535 lawmakers. A majority of this number is only 269. This small number rules 305 million people. And the majority can be even less, since both houses can lawfully operate, and they often do, with a mere quorum. A quorum majority of both houses of Congress is only 135 !!

Consider also that the US Supreme Court, centered in DC, a branch of the federal government, with justices who are appointed according to political and ideological lines – and not for proven understanding and adherence to the Constitution – has usurped the traditional “police powers” of the States, which it exercises for the health, safety (including law enforcement), welfare, education, religion, and morality of its citizens. The police powers exercised by each individual State for the benefit of its own people is the very essence of republican life. Nine unelected Supreme Court justices with life tenure – by only a vote of 5-to-4 – make major social policy for 305 million people. Political issues that are reserved to the States, such as abortion, marriage, and voter integrity laws, have been taken out of the policy arena and magically transformed into “constitutional rights.” This means, in effect, that the Court can rewrite the Constitution at will, entirely by-passing the process specifically provided for in Article V (ratification of any alteration/amendment of the Constitution by a ratification by three-fourths of the States).  Again, to think that five members of a high court can usurp lawmaking authority from the legislature (popularly-elected), can usurp powers from the States, and can transform the meaning and intent of the Constitution from the bench rather than the lawful process specifically put in place for the People themselves to define the limits of their government and we are still a republic is ludicrous.

Dispersing the legislatures among provinces would not necessarily get rid of government corruption, which is one of the biggest problems with a consolidated government. However, it would not exist on the same scale and of the same intensity that we see in DC today. Hume’s national legislature sits jointly in the 100 provincial capitals.  That means that a lobbying interest must deploy a much greater number of lobbyists and over greater distances. In addition, it would be much more difficult for representatives to coordinate with each other to buy and sell votes, as is routinely done in Congress today. With such a large republic, representatives would be more cautious and frugal in spending taxpayer money. After all, the 10,000 dispersed representatives who live in the same neighborhood with their constituents would have to look them in the eye and would have to answer to them.

Third, Hume provides a number of checks to prevent a faction from dominating the whole. If the senate rejects a proposed law, only 10 senators out of 100 are needed to veto that decision and forward the bill to the republics for consideration. Laws thought to be trivial can be sent from the senate to the ten magistrates of the republic for ratification instead of calling on the whole legislature. But only 5 out of 100 provincial representatives are needed to veto this and call for a vote of their legislature. Each (small) republic can veto legislation of another republic and force a vote on the matter by all the republics.

Should the United States be divided up into provincial republics – into a “federation of republics” – in order to provide a true republican form of government to its people?  Thomas Jefferson thought so.  George Kennan, esteemed historian and American diplomat (crafted the US policy of containment with respect to the Soviet Union) also thought so. In his autobiography, Around the Cragged Hill, Kennan argued that the United States has become simply too large for the purposes of self-government. As he argued, the central government can rule 305 million people only by imposing one-size-fits-all rules that necessarily result in a “diminished sensitivity of its laws and regulations to the particular needs, traditions, ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and the like of individual localities and communities.”  Kennan passed away in 2005.  That the lives, property, income, and fortunes of 305 million Americans should be the playthings of an oligarchy in Washington that can act by a majority in Congress of only 269 (and 135 if acting by a quorum) and that the essence of republican life – religion, morals, education, marriage, voting rights, law enforcement, and social welfare – should be decided by nine unelected Supreme Court justices is something no free, liberty-minded people should tolerate.

Of course, there is the other option – secession and the formation of individual republics, not held together in federation form. It is said that secession should and must be ruled out because it causes war and it will necessarily involve bloodshed.  But that is not necessarily true. Of course it will depend on the ambitions of the administration in Washington DC, in particular, the president.  We would hope that we should never again suffer the likes of another Abraham Lincoln. But there are many examples of states that have seceded peacefully, including a number of Baltic states from the former Soviet Union. Norway peacefully seceded from Sweden in 1905 and Singapore did so from the Malaysian federation in 1965.  Eventually, if things don’t change and freedom’s flame is close to being extinguished, secession may be the remedy to save the American experiment. Additionally, it may be the only way to save the US Constitution – by putting it in the hands of a people who will take care of it and be much more vigilante with its limited powers and its checks and balances than Americans have been.  When 11 Southern States seceded from the Union in 1860-61 and formed the Confederate States of the American, they, as a Union, established a new constitution. This would be the third constitution that Americans made for themselves, and in most respects, it was far superior to the one of 1787 – they backed out of.  It included several provisions which would have made it much more difficult for the central government to concentrate and usurp power. Had Lincoln respected the States’ right of self-determination (as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence), we would have had the unique opportunity to compare, side-by-side, how each Union of States (North or South) fared under their constitutions.  The point is that secession gave the People (acting in State conventions) the opportunity to correct the defects in the Constitution that caused them to be oppressed by government. The question will be: when that time comes (and maybe it is already here), will we have the Will to Secede!!  Already, between 19-34% of Americans (ranked by State), now believe we would be better if States peacefully left the Union.

Donald Livingston closes his discussion of “American Republicanism” with this summary: “When a healthy cell grows too large, it divides into two cells. It is the cancerous cell that no longer knows how to stop growing. That artificial corporation, created by the individual States over two centuries ago, called the “United States” has, over time, metastasized into a cancerous growth on a federation of continental scale, sucking republican vitality out of States and local communities. The natural chemotherapy for this peculiar condition is and can only be some revived form of State interposition, nullification, or secession. If these are rejected out of hand as heresies (as our nationalist historians have taught since the late nineteenth century), then we can no longer, in good faith, describe ourselves as enjoying a republican style of government.

American secession

 

Again, I encourage everyone to read the entire book – Rethinking the American Union for the Twenty-First Century.  Aside from Donald Livingston, accomplished authors and academics Kent Masterson Brown, Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo, Dr. Marshall DeRosa, Yuri Maltsev, and Rob Williams also contributed chapters.

 

References:

Donald Livingston, ed., Rethinking the American Union for the Twenty-First Century, Pelican Publishing Company, 2013.

Poll:  One in Four of Americans Want Their State to Secede, but Why?  –   http://blogs.reuters.com/jamesrgaines/2014/09/19/one-in-four-americans-want-their-state-to-secede-from-the-u-s-but-why/

Poll: A Quarter of Americans Want Their State to Secede –   http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/poll-seccession

Poll:  One in Four of Americans Want Their State to Secede –   http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/19/poll-one-in-four-americans-want-their-state-to-secede/

About these ads

Occasionally, some of your visitors may see an a

Compact Theory: Security for American Liberty

CONSTITUTION - void

by Diane Rufino, July 18, 2016

A contract is a promise, or set of promises, between willing parties. The law of contracts is a body of law as old as the Anglo-American division of law and equity. When a contract is breached, law and equity provide remedies. In fact, the definition of contract includes the phrase “for the breach of which the law gives a remedy.”  Court of law provide monetary remedies for breach while courts of equity provide unique remedies designed to relieve the aggrieved party when monetary awards are inadequate, such as forcing performance by the defaulting party.  [This is where we get the words in Article III. Section 2, of the US Constitution: “The judicial power of the United States shall extend to all cases, in Law and Equity.”]  Synonymous with the term “contract” are “agreement” and “compact.”  Throughout Anglo-American history, people have organized their government through compacts or “social compacts.” The philosopher, John Locke, who our Founders leaned most heavily in founding our country and drafting our foundational documents, explained that individuals, when organized in societies, form their government by way of social compact.

Historical Anglo-American jurisprudence provided a party aggrieved by a breach of contract certain choices by law:  First, he could choose to proceed to a court of law and seek damages for the loss of money in reliance upon the contract being fulfilled. In such a court, the aggrieved party would seek from the party in breach such sums as would place him in as good a position as he would have been had the contract been fully performed.  Alternatively, a court of equity could enforce the contract for the aggrieved party by ordering “specific performance” by the defaulting party – that is, the court would force the party to fulfil his obligations under the contract. Finally, Anglo-American equity jurisprudence provided for another remedy for breach of contract – “rescission,” or the annulment of the contract. Since the end of the eighteenth century in England, rescission has often been used as a remedy in conjunction with “restitution.” The aggrieved party would ask the court to annul the contract and, at the same time, ask that he be made whole for his own performance, thereby placing him in the same position he occupied before he entered into the contract.

For a States to claim the right of secession from the Union, the Constitution must be construed to be an agreement created by the States as parties.

Unquestionably, the Constitution was created as a social compact. It had all the requisites of a contract. There were parties: thirteen States, to which were added those that similarly ratified the document in the years after 1781. There was mutuality: each State promised to give up some of its sovereignty in exchange for what the Union promised to deliver – for receiving a “common defense” and some regulation of commerce between the States where it was necessary to ensure free trade. The Constitution was created by the States and ratified by the States, each acting in Convention. It could only be amended by and between the States. And if there was any doubt about the fact that the Constitution was an agreement entered into by and between the States, Article VII states: “The ratification of the conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same.”  If, then, the Constitution is a compact, what is the remedy for a State or a group of States harmed by a breach of the Constitution by the federal government or other States? [Under Agency law, the “agent” (government) would be fired].  The only remedy, short of persuading the party or parties in breach to conform, is the equitable remedy of rescission.

As most people already know, several states posed obstacles to the adoption of the US Constitution and the formation of the new Union. The states of Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island proved to be battleground states.  Ratification by the State of Virginia was made possible only so long as the people of Virginia expressly and specifically retained the right of rescission. The Virginia resolution of ratification of June 26, 1788 read, in part: “We, the delegates of the people of Virginia do, in the name and on behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.”  The vote in favor of adoption was narrow, 89-79.  Virginia was only able to obtain this vote by linking ratification to amendments to be added for a Bill of Rights, which they recommended.

In New York, the battle was just as fierce. Like Virginia, the resolution of ratification was made expressly subject to its peoples’ right of rescission. It read, in part: “We, the delegates of the people of the State of New York do declare and make known that the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness.”  The vote in favor of adoption was 30-27. Also following Virginia’s lead, the delegates to the NY Ratifying Convention then presented a veritable catalogue of rights that they believed should be added to the Constitution by way of amendment (a Bill of Rights).

North Carolina and Rhode Island were particularly skeptical. They didn’t ratify the Constitution until after George Washington was already sworn in as the first president of the United States in 1789. They waited until the first US Congress presented a Bill of Rights, as the States has demanded. North Carolina finally ratified the Constitution on November 21, 1789 and Rhode Island ratified on May 29, 1790 (after refusing to consider ratification and joining the Union seven times!!).  Like Virginia and New York, Rhode Island adopted the Constitution subject to an express right to resume their delegated powers. It’s Resumption Clause read, in pertinent part:

      We the delegates of the people of the state of Rhode Island and Province Plantations, duly elected and met in Convention, do declare and make known

     I.  That there are certain natural rights of which men, when they form a social compact, cannot deprive or divest their posterity – among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety…..

   III.  That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness.

Because the adoption of the Constitution by Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island was accepted including their Resumption Clauses, those stipulations became part of the agreement or compact, thereby providing the same benefit to all the States of the Union.

The framers and ratifiers of the Constitution unquestionably understood the Constitution to be a “compact.” The voluminous records documenting the debates of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia of 1787 and the State Ratifying Conventions are replete with references to the Constitution as a “compact.” The Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Essays use the same language, arguing for and against the ratification of the Constitution, respectively.  Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the authors of our most important foundational documents, referred to the Constitution as such in their Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and 1799 and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, respectively and the Southern States, in their Ordinances of Secession did likewise. When Massachusetts attempted to secede from the Union in 1814-1815, it also referred to the Constitution as a compact from which it retained the right to rescind. James Madison declared long after the ratification of the Constitution that “Our governmental system is established by a compact, not between the Government of the United States and the State governments, but between the States as sovereign communities, stipulating each with the other a surrender of certain portions of their respective authorities to be exercised by a common government, and a reservation, for their own exercise, of all their other authorities.”

If the Constitution is a compact, and it could be rescinded or annulled upon a breach, what would be sufficient to constitute a breach?  Whatever would constitute a breach is left wholly to the States seeking the extraordinary remedy of rescission. Obviously, in the words of James Madison’s 1800 Report on the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, the offensive act would have to be “a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of power not granted by the compact.”

While the governments of monarchs and dictators that ravaged Europe for centuries were based on the “universal law” that governments are not created by instruments that provide a mechanism for their own dissolution, the American government system flips that system on its head. The Declaration of Independence, embracing Natural Law and rejecting the Divine Right of Kings, proclaims that governments are only temporary in nature and are instituted among the People, by the People, and for the People for the primary purposes of securing their inalienable rights and for effecting their happiness. “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”  The Constitution, drafted to embrace the principles proclaimed in the Declaration, is therefore a revolutionary document. It is a revolutionary instrument created by a revolutionary people at the end of a successful revolution fought to end the rule of a monarch on the American States and the American people and to guarantee fundamental liberties to all citizens. The government created by the Constitution is worth keeping only so long as it serves this end. Sadly, this fundamental understanding of the formation of the Union was completely lost on Lincoln (or he was willfully and ambitiously blind to this understanding). The War of 1861 and the lies perpetrated on the country by the “victors” (because the victors have the luxury of telling the story and vilifying the conquered) have obscured the truth of our Constitution and our history. The transformation of our country from a republic to one oppressed by an over-zealous central government in the consequence of these lies.

The Constitution’s text and history before the Civil War did NOT change as a result of the surrender at Appomattox. Contracts do not textually change by the use of brute force; contracts change ONLY by the agreement of the parties. The Constitution was still a “constitution between the States” after the war as it was before. It remains so now.

If the government created by the Constitution ceases to guarantee liberty, there must be a remedy available to those oppressed by it. It is not the courts; the citizens may not even have standing to challenge the actions of the federal government, and moreover, the courts are creatures of the very government that would be the oppressor. To be sure, courts are not competent to even address constitutional challenges to acts of Congress that allege that those acts undermine the liberties of citizens and invade the powers reserved to the States. Resorting to the ballot may be ineffectual; the votes of a few metropolitan areas may negate the votes of all other regions. More than that, fundamental liberties should never be subject vote. What remains to protect individual liberties are the States as parties to the Constitution. As parties, they must exercise their “duty” to protect their citizens from a federal government that has grown too powerful, too intrusive, too dictatorial. They do that by exercising the right that parties to agreements have exercised for literally hundreds of years: to stand up to actions that invade the liberties of citizens and the reserved powers of the States by, first, nullifying the unconstitutional acts and then, if the federal government persists, seceding. The framers and ratifiers would not have thought any differently. After all, although they were revolutionaries who created a revolutionary form of government, they were also the inheritors of an Anglo-American legal tradition that had been developed over hundreds of years, which defined contracts and remedies available to those injured by the breach thereof.

SECESSION - individual states.jpg

The conflicts that divide Americans today are certainly as profound as those in other periods of our history, including those that compelled the Colonies to separate from Great Britain, those that troubled Massachusetts in 1815, and those that troubled the Southern States from 1828 to 1860.  The numerous laws, voluminous regulations, and many illegitimate rulings by the Supreme Court have abused and usurped our rights and liberties and have, in effect, evidenced the design by the federal government to consolidate us into a one-size-fits all nation untethered to the States which used to be obligated to protect us. The reasons for the Constitution have been frustrated and now forgotten. Clearly, the grounds to rescind the compact are legitimate and numerous.

In the history of the world, principles have always been more important than geographical boundaries.  We have to ask ourselves what our alternatives are in order to preserve our traditional American principles. If we continue to believe they are being subverted and eroded, and if we continue to believe that our rights, our freedoms, and our liberty are being threatened and violated, then we have to ask ourselves what our rightful remedies are.

 

References:

Donald Livingston, ed. “Rethinking the American Union for the 21st Century,” Pelican Publishing Company, 2013.

Kent Masterson Brown, “Secession: A Constitutional Remedy,” in “Rethinking the American Union for the 21st Century,” Pelican Publishing Company, 2013.

Thomas DiLorenzo, “The Founding Fathers of Constitutional Subversion,” in “Rethinking the American Union for the 21st Century,” Pelican Publishing Company, 2013.

INDEPENDENCE DAY: The Story of Us

4th of JULY - red, white, and blue wall

by Diane Rufino, July 4, 2016

Independence Day – What it really means….

What does Independence Day – the 4th of July – mean to you?  Is it just a holiday to eat, drink, and light off fireworks?  Do you display and wave the flag of the United States out of habit – because everyone else on the block does it?  Do you cover your table with a plastic tablecloth of stars and stripes and decorate your yard with red, white, and blue because that’s what Target and Walmart remind you to do with its holiday displays and sales?   Do you actually understand what the 4th of July signifies?  Did you sleep through that lesson in American History Class? Was it even taught to you at all?

I just hope you aren’t one of those Americans who doesn’t think it matters.

When I was very young, I thought Independence Day marked the day when the 13 colonies defeated the British for our independence.  Then in middle school, I learned that it marked the date the Declaration of Independence was signed.  That was the extent of my understanding until I did my own reading.  Soon I learned that not only was the Declaration of Independence signed on July 4, 1776, but that it was an act of treason against the British Crown. It was an act of treason because while the colonies were fighting for their independence, the British were fighting to quash their rebellious nature for good. Rebellion against the Crown was high treason and it would not be tolerated.

But it wasn’t until I graduated law school that I was finally able to appreciate the real significance of the Declaration of Independence.  Simply put, as its author Thomas Jefferson explained: “The Declaration of Independence… is the declaratory charter of our rights, and of the rights of man.”  And in that magnificent document, Jefferson has laid out the natural order of our rights and the natural purpose and limits of government.

The document was almost forced on the colonies by history’s happenstance. It began with the colonies’ restlessness in the wake of an over-zealous King and Parliament which first sought to extract tax revenue from them (without representation) and then to oppress and subjugate them as a means of punishment. They were punished for daring to stand up for their rights as Englishmen, as Englishmen had done for over 500 years of their history.  Indeed, the history of England has been a history of repeated attempts, first by the barons and then by all subjects, to assert basic human rights and to demand from the King a promise (a charter) that he will respect such. Some of the attempts were successful and some only temporary, but all of England’s notable charters were signed and limited the reach of the King and Parliament, even if only for a very short time.

Some of these charters and other significant documents include: The Charter of Liberties of King Henry I (1100), the Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Right (1628), the Grand Remonstrance (1641), and the English Bill of Right of 1689.  This history is critical for the foundation for our country because all total, these documents establish the notion that government must respect boundaries on the individual, acknowledging that they have certain essential rights and liberties.  The rights and liberties asserted and re-asserted in these documents are the “rights of Englishmen” that the colonists most eagerly embraced and were most eager to protect.

Author Brion McClanahan explains the significance of England’s grand history in his article Rethinking the Declaration of Independence: “In 1100, King Henry I of England agreed to restrictions on his power through the Charter of Liberties. The English barons rejected absolute authority and sought to preserve traditional decentralized “government.” Just over one hundred years later, in 1215, King John was forced again by the English nobles to sign the Magna Charta. The “Great Charter,” as it is known in English, declared that the king was not above the law – making him essentially equal to the nobles – and it resisted the trend toward centralization in England. Though on the books, the Magna Charta was often ignored by more powerful English monarchs, but several of its provisions became the basis of English common law, most notably the writ of habeas corpus.” (See the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679).

In October 1214, King John returned to England in disgrace. His mission to reconquer his lost territory in northern France had failed and other military campaigns were unsuccessful as well. He taxed England’s barons heavily to finance these campaigns and they were not happy.  Upon his return, he found that a group of angry barons from across the country had formed an association and were prepared renounce him as king. Over the next eight months, they made repeated demands to the King, requesting that he give them a guarantee that he would observe their rights. But the negotiations amounted to nothing. And so, on May 5 of that year, the barons gathered and agreed to declare war on King John. On May 17, 1215 they captured London, the largest town in England, without a fight.  With London lost and ever more supporters flocking to the side of the barons, the King John realized he would have to address their concerns.

On June 8, he notified the barons of his willingness to negotiate. Over the next few days, the barons assembled in great numbers at Runnymede, a relatively obscure meadow just a few miles from Windsor castle, where King John was based. They arrived to repeat their demands and negotiate peace terms. On June 15, the barons presented their terms to the King and he signed the great document – The Great Charter (“Magna Carta”).

In Chapter 39 of Magna Carta, one of the document’s most important clauses, King John made the following promise:  “No freeman shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.”

Here, it was agreed that the Crown and his administration would not arrest, outlaw, banish, or incarcerate any free man, deprive him of his rights, possessions or legal standing, or otherwise take official and forceful action against him, except in accordance with the lawful judgement of his equals or in accordance with the laws of the Kingdom. This was, in embryonic form, the principle of due process of law: The government shall not deprive any person subject to its jurisdiction of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The Magna Carta provided that justice was to be guaranteed to every person in the Kingdom, that the right of justice would not be sold, delayed, or denied to any person. Thus, this critical, historic document provided that every freeman — i.e., every Englishmen who was not a serf — was to enjoy security and protection from illegal interference by the King (ie, government) in his person and property.   [See Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr. (Professor of Political Science), “The American System of Government….”]   The terms listed in the Magna Carta would later be referred to as “the ancient rights and liberties of Englishmen” in the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

King John, in giving his consent to Magna Carta, agreed that: (1) the Monarch was subject to the law of the Kingdom and (2) the law placed limits on royal authority. This reflected an early stage in the development of the central idea of English and American constitutionalism — the idea that the ruler was not above the law and therefore had to abide by the law and stay within the limits the law imposed on his power.  [See Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.]

Under Magna Carta, the King still governed England, but he had to share with the barons one important sphere of political authority — the power of taxation. All royal requests for extraordinary taxes had to be submitted to the Common Council for its consideration and decision. When it came to the King’s raising revenue by means other than collecting the feudal fees and aids in amounts due him by customary right, he had to share with the barons, the largest and most powerful bloc in the Common Council, the authority to make binding decisions. The requirement, stipulated in Magna Carta, that the King submit proposals for extraordinary taxation to an assembly of his leading subjects — the barons and the Church officers of high rank — was one small but significant step on the long road to firmly establishing as a constitutional guarantee, truly binding on the Monarch and all other officers of the government, the age old principle of English government that no subject could be taxed without his consent, given by the subject directly in person or indirectly through elected representatives in a legislative assembly.   [See Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.].

When Britain began taxing the colonies without allowing them representation in Parliament, particularly with the Stamp Tax, the colonists asserted this basic right from the Magna Carta in their protest slogan “No taxation without representation.”  The phrase actually originated with Massachusetts attorney James Otis about 1761, who proclaimed: “Taxation without representation is tyranny!”

After the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right of 1628, which was written by Parliament, was presented to King Charles I to re-assert the civil liberties of his subjects.  The Petition contained four main points: (1) No taxes could be levied without Parliament’s consent; (2) No English subject could be imprisoned without cause–thus reinforcing the right of habeas corpus; (3) No quartering of soldiers in citizens’ homes; and (4) No martial law may be used in peacetime. Each of these four points enumerated specific civil rights that Englishmen felt Charles I had breached throughout his reign. Although he’d never been that popular as the monarch, his abuse of power against the people escalated to an intolerable level after Parliament refused to increase taxation and finance his unpopular foreign policies. The purpose of the Petition was to seek redress for the serious grievances Charles had committed.

When Charles showed no sign of repenting, Parliament drafted an extensive list of grievances which it presented to him on December 1, 1641. The grievances included 204 instances of gross abuses of the King’s power and usurpations of the rights of the people.  Preceding this list of grievances were the following significant paragraphs:

For the preventing of those miserable effects which such malicious endeavours may produce, we have thought good to declare the root and the growth of these mischievous designs: the maturity and ripeness to which they have attained before the beginning of the Parliament: the effectual means which have been used for the extirpation of those dangerous evils, and the progress which hath therein been made by His Majesty’s goodness and the wisdom of the Parliament: the ways of obstruction and opposition by which that progress hath been interrupted: the courses to be taken for the removing those obstacles, and for the accomplishing of our most dutiful and faithful intentions and endeavours of restoring and establishing the ancient honour, greatness and security of this Crown and nation.

The root of all this mischief we find to be a malignant and pernicious design of subverting the fundamental laws and principles of government, upon which the religion and justice of this kingdom are firmly established.

The Grand Remonstrance would help precipitate a civil war in England and eventually lead Parliament to file official charges of high treason against Charles I.  He would be tried, convicted, and executed (beheaded) in 1649. His son Charles II was exiled and his other son James II was able to escape to France dressed as a girl.

When England erupted in this civil war, the Parliament asserted its authority and suspended the reign of the Monarch, and by 1688 had become the driving force behind English law and policy. From 1649 to 1660, England became a republic. At first it was ruled by Parliament, but in 1653, Oliver Cromwell, commander of the army, became Lord Protector of England and served until he died (1658; his son took over briefly). Eventually the blood line of Charles I was restored in 1660 first with Charles II (who sat on the throne at the time of the plague and the great fire of London) and then in 1665, with James II. He was terribly unpopular, and in fact, was widely hated by the people. Not only did he force his Roman Catholic faith on the British people, but he willingly allowed the persecution of Protestants. He was forced to give up the crown in the Glorious Revolution (the “Bloodless Revolution”) of 1688.

When King James II was expelled from England in 1688, Parliament invited King William III of Orange and his wife Mary II (daughter of James II), of the Netherlands, to assume the throne.  Parliament promised no resistance. The only requirement was that they sign the English Bill of Rights that Parliament had drawn up on behalf the people. It condemned James II for violating the rights of Englishmen, which the Parliament called the “laws and liberties of this kingdom,” and placed restrictions on the powers of the monarch. William and Mary “gladly accepted what was offered them” and signed the English Bill of Rights.

Those from England who settled the colonies, particularly Massachusetts, seeking freedom from religious persecution (Puritans and Pilgrims) and others, brought this history – and these rights – with them. After all, they were still Englishmen; they were living on a continent claimed by England and establishing settlements and communities pursuant to land patents issued by the King.

But the bond of affection would seem to be one-way only.  While the colonists sought to live as loyal subjects to the Crown, enjoying the same the rights and liberties as the citizens of England, England sought to exploit the colonies for raw materials, trade, and taxes.  For several years, things were good. No complaints.  But just as the British colonies were growing and expanding, there were French colonies growing and expanding as well – in the frontier region west of Virginia up to Canada. They were mainly fur-trappers. Eventually, Britain felt its American colonies and interests were being threatened and the two empires went to war. It lasted seven years (the French-Indian War, aka, the Seven Years War, 1754–1763), and eventually, the French were expelled and England secured greater territory. Believing the war was primarily for the benefit of the safety and security of the colonies, Parliament enacted a series of taxes on the colonies to recoup the money it had spent. [Note that around 1750, the plantations were established and against the wishes of the colonies, Britain pushed the slave trade on them to ensure that raw materials such as sugar, tobacco, indigo, cotton, and rice were produced plentifully and productively and shipped to England]

Accordingly, Parliament enacted the following taxes:  The Navigation Acts (1651, 1660, and 1663; duties on tobacco and molasses, to name a few), the Plantation Duty Act (1673; a duty on plantations), the Sugar Act (1764; a duty or tax on sugar), the Stamp Act (1765; a tax on all documents, including legal documents, calendars, cards, etc), and the Townshend Acts (1767; duties on items imported by the colonists, including glass, lead, paints, paper, and tea).  The colonists were outraged.  They weren’t outraged at the taxes themselves, but rather by the violation of their essential right to have representation in the legislative body that passes such tax measures.  “No Taxation Without Representation!”  They compared the current king, King George III, to Charles I for indiscriminately taxing the colonies without their consent. The Sons of Liberty organized at this time – originating in Massachusetts and New York and eventually having a presence in all thirteen colonies – and they were extremely effective at protesting these taxes and frustrating their enforcement.

Protests heightened with the passage of the Tea Act in 1673. The Tea Act allowed the British East India Company, which had a surplus of tea, to have a monopoly on import tea to the colonies. In passing this act, Parliament actually thought it was doing a favor to the colonies by providing tea at a reduced price (due to the surplus).  In fact, the cost of the tea, together with the new tax (“a mere 3 pence”), would be lower than the cost of the tea provided by other sources.  But Parliament didn’t get it.  The colonists didn’t think government had the right to force a monopoly on them and interfere with the trade of colonial tea merchants. Colonial merchants couldn’t compete with the less-expensive tea that the East India Tea Company provided so abundantly. And so, the colonists once again took matters in their own hands. In Pennsylvania and New York, colonists did not allow British tea ships to enter the large city ports. They sent ships out into the harbors to block the tea ships.  In Boston, they had a “party.”  On that evening of December 16, 1773, approximately 100 “radicals,” members of a secret organization of American Patriots called the Sons of Liberty, dressed up as Mohawk Indians, boarded three East India Company ships, broke open all 342 wooden chests of tea, and dumped them into the Boston Harbor.  The value of the tea destroyed, in today’s market, would amount to about $1 million.

Well, that particular act of protest was the one that the broke the camel’s back. At first King George III didn’t seem too perturbed at the incident, but soon, the tide of British public opinion would grow against the colonists, whom they regarded as rebellious and childish, and that rising sentiment would force Parliament and King George to punish the citizens of Boston for their recalcitrance. Parliament would no longer tolerate disobedience; the colonies’ “rebellious spirit” would finally have to be addressed and they would have be made to obey British laws. Parliament would no longer be soft when it came to obeying British laws. It would show the colonies what happens to those who happen to have a “rebellious spirit” and are disobedient, and in doing so, reinforce upon them the need to obey its laws.  What followed would be a series of laws called the “Coercive Acts” (also referred to as the “Intolerable Acts”).

On March 28, 1774, in response to the Boston Tea Party, Parliament passed four acts which together became known as the Coercive Acts. These individual acts included: (1) The Boston Port Act, which closed the port of Boston until damages from the Boston Tea Party were paid (no ship carrying colonial goods could enter or leave Boston Harbor until the Massachusetts Colony paid for all the tea that was destroyed);  (2) The Massachusetts Government Act, which effectively revoked Massachusetts Charter of the Province of Massachusetts Bay (1691), its colonial charter, prohibited democratic town meetings, and turned the royal governor’s council into an appointed body with wide-ranging powers (in other words, shifting government authority from Massachusetts colony to the royal governor);  (3) The Administration of Justice Act, which made British officials immune to criminal prosecution in Massachusetts; and  (4) The Quartering Act, which required colonists to house and quarter British troops on demand, including in their private homes as a last resort.

Indeed, the situation was intolerable. Parliament ordered the Royal Navy to blockade the Boston Harbor, preventing ships from entering and bringing in goods and supplies and blocking colonial merchant ships from leaving and selling their goods.  By fiat, the basic structure of colonial government was altered. England was now governing the colony. To add insult to injury, King George appointed General Thomas Gage, who had served as the head of the British Army in North America, as the new Governor of Massachusetts, and he brought troops with him.  On May 13, General Gage arrived in Boston with four regiments of troops. Aside from the fact that the colonists felt stripped them of their previously enjoyed rights, perhaps more unnerving was the presence of four thousand British soldiers in Boston. Under the Quartering Act, there would be guaranteed residence for the British Army and the citizens of Massachusetts would be required to quarter them, if necessary (otherwise they would have to remain on ships).  The Quartering Act required the colonies to house British soldiers in barracks provided by the colonies. If the barracks were too small to house all the soldiers, then localities were to accommodate the soldiers in local inns, stables, ale houses, and houses of sellers of wine. Should there still be soldiers without accommodation after all such public houses were filled, the colonies were then required to take, hire and make fit for the reception of his Majesty’s forces, such and so many uninhabited houses, outhouses, barns, or other buildings as shall be necessary.  Finally, British officials could abuse these acts and be free from prosecution in the colony.

In response, provincial militias started to gather munitions and store them in the countryside out of reach of the British regulars.

On May 26, Parliament dissolved Virginia’s colonial government – its Virginia House of Burgesses.  And on September 1, General Gage seized the Massachusetts Colony’s arsenal at Charlestown, located just across the Charles River from Boston – near Bunker Hill.

On Benjamin Franklin’s advice, the colonies decided to meet in a common body to address Britain’s treatment of the colonies, in particular the blockade of Boston Harbor and the Intolerable Acts on the Province of Massachusetts.  And so, on September 5, the First Continental Congress met with 56 delegates in Carpenters Hall in Philadelphia. Twelve out of the thirteen colonies sent delegates (Georgia did not send any). The Continental Congress, which would meet on two separate occasions, became the governing body of the “united” colonies during the time leading up to and then during the American Revolution.

On October 14, the First Continental Congress adopted a Declaration and Resolves against the blockade, the Coercive Acts, the Quartering of troops, and other objectionable British actions. These resolutions listed a series of grievances against Parliament (where have we seen that response before?) and appealed to the King to intercede on behalf of the colonies for proper respect for their rights as Englishmen. The Declaration and Resolves began as follows:

The good people of the several colonies of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts-Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Newcastle, Kent, and Sussex on Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North- Carolina and South-Carolina, justly alarmed at these arbitrary proceedings of parliament and administration, have severally elected, constituted, and appointed deputies to meet, and sit in general Congress, in the city of Philadelphia, in order to obtain such establishment, as that their religion, laws, and liberties, may not be subverted: Whereupon the deputies so appointed being now assembled, in a full and free representation of these colonies, taking into their most serious consideration, the best means of attaining the ends aforesaid, do, in the first place, as Englishmen, their ancestors in like cases have usually done, for asserting and vindicating their rights and liberties, DECLARE,

That the inhabitants of the English colonies in North-America, by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution, and the several charters or compacts, have the following RIGHTS:

Resolved, N.C.D. 1. That they are entitled to life, liberty and property: and they have never ceded to any foreign power whatever, a right to dispose of either without their consent.

Resolved, N.C.D. 2. That our ancestors, who first settled these colonies, were at the time of their emigration from the mother country, entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural- born subjects, within the realm of England.

Resolved, N.C.D. 3. That by such emigration they by no means forfeited, surrendered, or lost any of those rights, but that they were, and their descendants now are, entitled to the exercise and enjoyment of all such of them, as their local and other circumstances enable them to exercise and enjoy.

Resolved, 4. That the foundation of English liberty, and of all free government, is a right in the people to participate in their legislative council: and as the English colonists are not represented, and from their local and other circumstances, cannot properly be represented in the British parliament, they are entitled to a free and exclusive power of legislation in their several provincial legislatures, where their right of representation can alone be preserved.

The Declaration and Resolves was presented to the King and then to Parliament on January 19, 1775.  King George laughed and dismissed the document and the Parliament did not even address it.  King George, to whom the Declaration was addressed, never even offered a formal response, for in his mind, he did not have to submit to the demands of the colonists, whom he regarded as insolent children.  He famously said to the Prime Minister Lord North: “The die is now cast, the colonies must either submit or triumph.”  He would not negotiate with them. His tacit response made it clear that he meant to maintain political unity between the colonies and the United Kingdom even at the expense of the happiness of the colonists.

Word of the Intolerable Acts and the subjugation of the colonists in Boston began to spread to other colonies and they began to react. Perhaps the most famous response came from Virginia, and Patrick Henry!

Because England had dissolved Virginia’s colonial government, its Virginia House of Burgesses, the state’s colonial leaders were forced to meet in secret.  And so they did, on March 20, 1775, at a small church which is now called St. John’s Church, in Richmond, away from the Capitol in Williamsburg. Delegate Patrick Henry presented resolutions to raise a militia, and to put Virginia in a posture of defense. He believed that martial law would eventually come to Virginia. Henry’s opponents urged caution and patience, holding out hope that the King would eventually respond – and respond generously – to the Declarations and Resolves.  On the evening of the 23rd, Henry presented a proposal to organize a volunteer company of cavalry or infantry in every county of Virginia and delivered a fiery speech in support of it.  His final words “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!” would be a rallying cry for the cause of independence and indeed, his entire speech is probably the most stirring, most passionate case in defense of liberty in our American history.

The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the House? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free² if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending²if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable²and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace²but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Patrick Henry succeeded in convincing the body of delegates to pass his resolutions. Virginia would call up a militia.

On April 14, 1775, General Gage received orders from London to take decisive action against the rebel-rousers of Boston – the leaders of the Sons of Liberty, Samuel Adams and John Hancock. In the wee hours of the April 19, seven hundred British troops were dispatched to Lexington, where they would capture Adams and Hancock, and then to Concord, where they would seize a secret stockpile of colonial gunpowder (Gage had received intelligence about its location).  But spies and friends of the Sons of Liberty leaked word of Gage’s plan. One lantern hanging from Boston’s North Church informed the countryside that the British were going to attack by land and two lanterns if they were going to attack by sea. A series of horseback riders – Paul Revere, William Dawes and Dr. Samuel Prescott – galloped off to warn the countryside that British troops were coming.

Word spread from town to town, and militias prepared to confront the British and help their neighbors in Lexington and Concord. Colonial militias had originally been organized to defend settlers from civil unrest and attacks by French or Native Americans and selected members of the militia were called “minutemen” because they could be ready to fight in a minute’s time. Sure enough, when the advance guard of nearly 240 British soldiers arrived in Lexington during the early morning hours, they found about 70 minutemen waiting for them on Lexington Green. Both sides eyed each other not knowing what to expect or what to do. Suddenly, a bullet rang out. It would be known as “the shot heard round the world.”  Seven American militiamen were killed in that skirmish.  The British retreated to Concord, where they found an even larger, more organized group of militiamen. They then retreated back to Boston, and as they did so, new waves of Colonial militia intercepted them. Shooting from behind fences and trees, the militias inflicted over 125 casualties, including several officers.  The American Revolution had begun.  By happenstance…. not because of the blockade of Boston Harbor, not because of the Intolerable Acts, not because of the quartering of troops, not because of King George’s rejection of the pleas of the Colonies in the Declarations and Resolves, and not because of the other instances of mistreatment of the colonies. It was because the British had come for their ammunition.

Thus, the war for independence began over the colonists’ right to bear arms and store ammunition for their defense.

Not fully expecting the standoff in Massachusetts to explode into full-scale war, the thirteen colonies agreed to reconvene the Continental Congress in Philadelphia on May 10, 1775.  Samuel Adams, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington were some of the esteemed delegates.

By the time the Second Continental Congress met again, war was already underway, and so its purpose primarily became to conduct the war and manage the efforts.  Already, colonial militias had seized arsenals, driven out royal officials, and besieged the British army in the city of Boston. On June 14, the Congress voted to create the Continental Army out of the militia units around Boston and quickly appointed Congressman George Washington of Virginia as the Commanding General of the Continental Army.  On July 6, Congress approved a Declaration of Causes outlining the rationale and necessity for taking up arms in what had become the American Revolutionary War.  The original draft was written by Thomas Jefferson but the final was written by John Dickinson of Pennsylvania. Much of Jefferson’s language was retained in the final draft. The Declaration insisted that the colonists do not yet seek independence from the mother country but were forced to take up arms “in defense of the Freedom that is our Birthright and which we ever enjoyed until the late Violation of it”, and will “lay them down when Hostilities shall cease on the part of the Aggressors.’  [Interestingly, the very first sentence of the declaration includes a condemnation of the institution of slavery, which the Crown imposed on the colonies].

On July 8, 1775, the Second Continental Congress drafted what was called the Olive Branch Petition, which it sent to the British Crown as a final attempt at reconciliation.  In it, the colonies expressed their collective desire to remain loyal to the British crown. King George, however, refused to receive it.

Rather, on October 27, the King spoke before both houses of the British Parliament to discuss the growing concern about the rebellion in America, which he viewed as a traitorous action against himself and Great Britain. He began his speech by reading a “Proclamation of Rebellion” and urged Parliament to move quickly to end the revolt and bring order to the colonies.  He spoke of his belief that “many of these unhappy people may still retain their loyalty, and may be too wise not to see the fatal consequence of this usurpation, and wish to resist it, yet the torrent of violence has been strong enough to compel their acquiescence, till a sufficient force shall appear to support them.” With these words, the king gave Parliament his consent to dispatch troops to use against his own subjects, a notion that his colonists believed impossible.

At this point, note that just as the British continued to implore the King to respect their rights and liberties with their various charters and petitions and remonstrances, the colonists followed their same path. The colonies would have preferred to remain associated with Great Britain through bonds of affection and respect, sharing the history and bounded government that had been established for over 500 years, but for over 15 years, the actions and reactions by King and Parliament amounted to “a history of repeated injuries and usurpations” which were clearly designed to establish absolute rule over the colonies. We can see how England’s own history is providing the path – even the format and the words – for Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence.

Thomas Paine, who moved to the colonies from England at the end of 1774, published his pamphlet “Common Sense” in January 1776.  Common Sense advocated independence from Great Britain; Paine used moral and political arguments to encourage common people in the Colonies to fight for an independent government – one that suited their happiness; he appealed to their common sense. And it worked. The publication was wildly popular.

The two sides had once and for all reached a final political impasse and the bloody War for Independence would now be conducted in earnest.  The skirmish had now become a war for independence.

On April 12, the state of North Carolina authorized her delegates to the Continental Congress to vote for independence. This was the first official action by a colony calling for independence. The 83 delegates present in Halifax at the Fourth Provincial Congress unanimously adopted the Halifax Resolves.  The Resolves read:

The Select Committee taking into Consideration the usurpations and violences attempted and committed by the King and Parliament of Britain against America, and the further Measures to be taken for frustrating the same, and for the better defense of this province reported as follows, to wit,

It appears to your Committee that pursuant to the Plan concerted by the British Ministry for subjugating America, the King and Parliament of Great Britain have usurped a Power over the Persons and Properties of the People unlimited and uncontrolled; and disregarding their humble Petitions for Peace, Liberty and safety, have made divers Legislative Acts, denouncing War Famine and every Species of Calamity against the Continent in General…..

Resolved that the delegates for this Colony in the Continental Congress be empowered to concur with the delegates of the other Colonies in declaring Independency….

North Carolina’s state flag proudly displays this historic date.

Virginia followed suit. On May 15, 1776, the Virginia Convention passed a similar resolution. It read:

Resolved, unanimously, that the Delegates appointed to represent this Colony in General Congress be instructed to propose to that respectable body to declare the United Colonies free and independent States, absolved from all allegiance to, or dependence upon, the Crown or Parliament of Great Britain; and that they give the assent of this Colony to such declaration, and to whatever measures may be thought proper and necessary by the Congress for forming foreign alliances, and a Confederation of the Colonies, at such time and in the manner as to them shall seem best: Provided, That the power of forming Government for, and the regulations of the internal concerns of each Colony, be left to the respective Colonial Legislatures.

At that same Convention, Virginia decided to instruct its delegate in the Second Continental Congress to introduce a formal resolution to declare the colonies independent from Great Britain.  And so, on June 7, delegate Richard Henry Lee, introduced a resolution, termed the Lee Resolution or Resolution of Independence, which contained three parts: (1) to declare the united Colonies rightfully independent of the British Empire: (2) to establish a plan for establishing foreign relations with the Colonies; and (3) to establish a plan of a confederation to unite them officially.

The Lee Resolution simply read:

Resolved, that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved;

That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances;

That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their consideration and approbation.

On June 11, 1776, the Second Continental Congress appointed three concurrent committees in response to the Lee Resolution – one to draft a declaration of independence, a second to draw up a plan of treaties “for forming foreign alliances,” and a third to “prepare and digest the form of a confederation.”  A Committee of Five was assembled to draft a document to explain the reasons for independence and it included John Adams of Massachusetts, Roger Sherman of Connecticut, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, Robert Livingston of New York, and Thomas Jefferson of Virginia. According to Adams, Jefferson proposed that he, Adams, do the writing of the document, but he declined. Rather, Adams said, it should be Jefferson.  Jefferson was known for his writing skills. As Adams told him: “Reason first: you are a Virginian and a Virginian ought to appear at the head of this business. Reason second: I am obnoxious, suspected and unpopular. You are very much otherwise. Reason third: You can write ten times better than I can.”

Thomas Jefferson - clear pic

Jefferson completed his draft of the declaration in just a few days. He argued in his opening two paragraphs that individuals have inalienable rights, that governments are instituted by consent of the people primarily to secure those rights, and that people have the right to overthrow their government when it abuses their fundamental natural rights over a long period of time. Then, in a direct attack on King George (in like fashion to the Grand Remonstrance of 1641 and the English Bill of Rights of 1689), Jefferson listed 27 grievances against King George III – 27 instances when the king violated the “the ancient rights and liberties” of the American colonists. Having thoroughly laid out his proof that the king was a “tyrant” who was “unfit to be the ruler of a people,” Jefferson continued on to condemn the British Parliament and the British people.  “These unfeeling brethren,” he wrote, had reelected members of Parliament who had conspired with the king to destroy the rights of the colonists. Jefferson ended his draft by stating, “we do assert and declare these colonies to be free and independent states….. ”

When Jefferson submitted his draft to the Congress on June 28, the delegates left the first two paragraphs essentially unchanged.  Instead, they concentrated on Jefferson’s list of grievances against King George and the British people. On July 2, 1776, the Second Continental Congress voted to declare the independence of the American colonies from English rule.  And on the July 4 – the Fourth of July – it approved the final edited version of the Declaration of Independence.

News of the colonies’ independence rang out in all the colonies.

While the 4th of July is the date that we celebrate the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the 56 signers didn’t actually affix their signatures until August 2.  John Hancock, President of the Continental Congress, was the first to sign his name and he did so in big letters. The story goes that after he signed his name, he gazed upon it and said: “There! His Majesty can now read my name without his spectacles!”

In explaining the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote: “This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, etc.”

For most of my life, I marveled at the Declaration. Its words were stirring, its declarations were brilliant, its indictment of King George was compelling, and its conclusion was heroic.  I assumed the ideas, the words, and the flair were all the brainchild of Jefferson.  But after reviewing the historical documents he had studied all his life, and taking into account the various resolutions and declarations written and adopted by the various colonies at the time, it’s quite clear that the Declaration is a composite of several documents.  First of all, Jefferson essentially copied the form of the English Bill of Rights (and to some degree the Grand Remonstrance before it) as he sat down to compose his draft. Thus, Jefferson’s indictment of King George III was not a radical departure from accepted English practices.  He was following English tradition, which in turn he adapted to American circumstances.  I’ve seen signs and tee shirts calling our Founding Fathers “Our Founding Liberals,” but realizing that Jefferson, in writing the Declaration, followed established English tradition and re-asserted the “ancient rights and liberties” that for over 500 years have defined Englishmen, our Founders were actually quite conservative.

Winston Churchill commented on this tradition: “We must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world and which through Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and the English common law find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence.”

In addition to historic English documents, Jefferson also borrowed language from George Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Resolves in drafting the Declaration. Mason asserted that “all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights…namely the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and maintaining happiness and safety.” Jefferson altered – shortened – his language in his original draft to state: “We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”  In fact, Jefferson adopted his famous phrase from John Locke’s 1689 publication Two Treatises on Civil Government  –  “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Everyone at the time understood that Jefferson equated “happiness” with property and safety.  By “equal,” Jefferson meant that all citizens or freeholders are, as Mason wrote, born “equally free and independent” under the law.  Note that the barons of England asserted their legal equality with the king in 1100 and 1215.  So, Jefferson was not stating anything new.  [ See Brion McClanahan, “Rethinking the Declaration of Independence”]

By its very name, the Declaration of Independence was a bold assertion of independence. Because it was asserted in defiance of the King, it was a highly treasonous document.  Its signers were traitors. The outcome of the war would decide their fate.  On October 19, 1781, British General Cornwallis surrendered his troops at Yorktown, Virginia and the British were defeated.  After six years of fighting, the Colonies had won their independence.  And once the Colonies had become independent, the Declaration essentially ceased to have any legal force. That which it sought to accomplish had been accomplished.

But that’s not where the Declaration of Independence’s story ends.

The Declaration may lack legal force but nonetheless, it remains the source of all legitimate political authority here in the United States and it memorializes the principles on which our country is founded.  Abraham Lincoln once referred to the principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence as “the electric cord that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world.”  And Calvin Coolidge remarked that “the doctrine of the Declaration of Independence predicated upon the glory of man and the corresponding duty to society that the rights of citizens ought to be protected with every power and resource of the state, and a government that does any less is false to the teachings of that great document — false to the name American.”

Declaration of Independence - signatures

 

A review of the most famous paragraphs of the Declaration remind us of the essential principles that make up our political foundation and ground our precious liberties.

The first paragraph reads:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

The first paragraph characterizes the nature of the Declaration.  When Jefferson writes that it is time for the colonies “to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another” he is saying that the colonies intend to secede from Great Britain.  The Declaration, first and foremost, is a secessionist document.  What follows in the other paragraphs are the reasons and explanations for the decision to “dissolve their political bonds”; that is, to secede.

The phrase “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them” is a particularly significant one.  It means that our rights are not a gift from the State, but arise from our nature. This marks a paradigm shift from the system in England. English law was still dictated by the Divine Right of Kings. Even though charters, petitions, and a Bill of Rights put limitations on the Crown and to some extent, on government in general, they still acknowledged that the King and the State had power over the individual. Without such charters, petitions, and Bill of Rights, the King and government could treat the individual as it wanted, generously or oppressively.  Thomas Jefferson was making it clear that in the United States, rights are NOT a gift from the State, to be enjoyed at its benevolence, but rather that they arise from Nature and from God, separately and equally.  God and Nature go hand in hand. God who created the heavens and the Earth also created the laws of nature. For those who believe God to be the great author of Nature, then rights come from Him, as our Creator. For those who lack faith, they can rest assure that our Declaration equally recognizes that all individuals possess fundamental rights because they are natural rights – part of our very humanity from birth.  Even if you do not believe in a God Almighty, still you must respect the laws of nature.  In this way, Jefferson was laying out the concept of Individual Sovereignty in a way that its people could universally understand and agree, irrespective of the particulars of their individual and very diverse faiths.  Individual Sovereignty is the basis of our Rights in this country.

We may argue yet what are Nature’s Laws, but this much we can be certain:  All people must observe and ultimately obey it, just as the laws of nature apply equally to all human beings.  Since governments are merely fictional entities created by mankind and not by nature, rights supersede government. Saying that government is more important than the individual would be “unnatural.”

In the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence reads:

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, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.  Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

In this paragraph, Jefferson’s mighty pen goes into greater detail about the nature of the aforementioned natural rights. He tells us that our rights, which are endowed by our Creator (or Nature), are unalienable and although are numerous, the most obvious ones are “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  “Unalienable” (which is the same as “inalienable”) means that the individual can never been divested of these rights. They cannot be taken away or denied.  They remain with the individual and government cannot take them away.  “Life,” of course, is clear enough.  “Liberty,” according to Jefferson, was the degree to which an individual can exercise his rights, his freedom.  The rights which come under this umbrella would include the rights asserted in the Magna Carta, for example, or in the English Bill of Rights, or in Virginia’s Declaration of Rights. (Remember the time period that the Declaration was written).  “Pursuit of Happiness” includes property, but encompasses much more.  “Pursuit of Happiness” means an individual should be able to freely exercise all his rights in order to live his life to its full potential.  That “full potential” includes the ownership of property and the fruits of one’s labor, mind, and personality (all that which makes a person a unique “individual”).  “Property” was too narrow a term for Jefferson.  Now, just as the individual has the rights to Life, Liberty, and Property, he also has the equal right to protect them.  This right of self-protection and self-preservation is also a natural right. Samuel Adams summed it best: “Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.”

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” is another important principle.  It is a critical and basic tenet of our form of government. First it states unequivocally that the primary role of government is “to secure these rights.” In other words, in the grand scheme of things, individual rights are supreme over the authority of the State (ie, government). The primary role of government, and the motivating force behind the formation of government, is to secure the inalienable rights, endowed by our Creator (Nature), of each individual.  This means that government is to be ideally limited to the role of a policeman, a judge, a prison warden, and a military force.  Furthermore, this provision explains that government has no powers of its own, but only “derives” its powers from individuals consenting to transfer power to it.  This is where the doctrine of Individual Sovereignty comes from. In a state of Nature, man has full sovereign power to govern himself – to provide for himself, to protect himself, to think and act as he wants.  He is responsible for himself and his conduct.  What is especially critical about this principle of “deriving powers from the consent of the governed” is that power delegated by the people is always “temporary” in nature.  The people can always re-assume their sovereign power – their right to govern themselves.

Having told us the proper function of government, Jefferson then tells us what gives cause to changing it: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

The first thing to note is that governments are always “temporary.”  Government exists at the whim of the people and have no right in and of itself to its own existence or longevity. Government is a “creation.”  It is not a natural institution. Because is arises by the “consent of the governed,” it is a product of compact.  Compacts have elements of contract law and agency law. The second thing to note is the Declaration acknowledges that individuals have the RIGHT to establish their government to effect THEIR happiness and their safety. When government ceases to serve those purposes, then individuals are well within their natural right to abolish that government and establish another.

The Declaration goes one step further and challenges individuals to be vigilante of their rights and critical of their government.  “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

How will a people know for sure when it is time to “abolish” their government?  Or how will they know when it is time to dissolve political bonds that tie them to another; that is, how will they know when it is time to secede from another political body?  The Declaration, in that last sentence, tells us: “When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

And that line, as Jefferson will explain in the section that follows, sums up the position of the Colonies.  In that section, Jefferson sets out to make the case that the conduct of the King is a history of abuses and usurpations.  He lists 27 grievances against King George III – 27 instances where he violated the rights of the colonists – which he, Jefferson (and the Second Continental Congress, as evidenced by its adoption of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776) believe evidences a design to reduce them under an absolute Despotism (tyranny).  In the last paragraph of the Declaration, Jefferson will finally make the case that because of this evil design, the Colonies have a right and a duty to dissolve their political bonds with the King.

The last paragraph reads:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The Declaration of Independence ends with these powerful words: “For the support of this Declaration, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor.”  We can never forget that the Declaration was a treasonous document, which, if the British had won the war, would have sealed the fate of each of its signers and earned them a date with a hangman’s noose.  But they believed in their cause. They believed in the words they wrote in that document and they believed in their case against the King.  And they were willing to risk it all.

Signer Benjamin Rush (of Pennsylvania) wrote: “Do you recollect the pensive and awful silence which pervaded the house when we were called up, one after another, to the table of the President of Congress to subscribe what was believed by many at that time to be our own death warrants?”

After signing his name in a large flowing style, it is rumored that John Hancock’s full response was this: “There! His Majesty can now read my name without his spectacles. And he can double the reward on my head!”  Benjamin Franklin, insisting that every single delegate sign the Declaration of Independence, said: “We must all hang together or surely we shall all hang separately.”  The large, burly Virginian, Benjamin Harrison, turned to the pipsqueak from Massachusetts, Elbridge Gerry, and joked: “I will have a great advantage over you, Mr. Gerry, when we are all hung for what we are now doing. From the size and weight of my body I shall die in a few minutes, but from the lightness of your body, you will dance in the air an hour or two before you are dead.”

One day after the Declaration was adopted by the delegates to the Second Continental Congress, John Adams wrote home to his wife Abagail: “I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure, that it will cost us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the gloom I can see the rays of ravishing light and glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the means. And that posterity will triumph in that day’s transaction.”

In a speech he gave on the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (5 July 1926), Calvin Coolidge reflected:

Great ideas do not burst upon the world unannounced. They are reached by a gradual development over a length of time usually proportionate to their importance. This is especially true of the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence. Three very definite propositions were set out in its preamble regarding the nature of mankind and therefore of government. These were the doctrine that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that therefore the source of the just powers of government must be derived from the consent of the governed. If no one is to be accounted as born into a superior station, if there is to be no ruling class, and if all possess rights which can neither be bartered away nor taken from them by any earthly power, it follows as a matter of course that the practical authority of the Government has to rest on the consent of the governed. While these principles were not altogether new in political action, and were very far from new in political speculation, they had never been assembled before and declared in such a combination… In its main features the Declaration of Independence is a great spiritual document. It is a declaration not of material but of spiritual conceptions. Equality, liberty, popular sovereignty, the rights of man — these are not elements which we can see and touch. They are ideals. They have their source and their roots in the religious convictions. They belong to the unseen world. Unless the faith of the American people in these religious convictions is to endure, the principles of our Declaration will perish. We cannot continue to enjoy the result if we neglect and abandon the cause… If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final.”

By a stroke of remarkable coincidence, both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams died on the same day – the fiftieth anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1826.  Jefferson preceded Adams in death by five hours.

When I think about Independence Day, I think of our magnificent story.  I think about the uncompromising determination of people to live free and the eternal vigilance it took to finally secure lasting boundaries on government. I think about the ways the British and then the colonists expressed their discontent with the King and the many ways they sought to exert their rights, and how the many efforts culminated in their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence. I think about how our Founding Fathers brilliantly turned government on its head – transforming a system of government based on the Divine Right of Kings to a system predicated on Individual Sovereignty.  I think of a continuum of a story that began in 1215 with a stand-off on the meadow at Runnymede in order to secure a promise from an arrogant and ambitious king that ended with a document signed by 56 delegates assembled together from 13 separate states on July 4.  The continent may have changed, but man’s yearning to be free did not.

Now, as we all know, a country is a physical location inhabited by a body politic. Principles are embraced by people and not by geography, and so liberty and independence is a spirit that must live in all of us. If it doesn’t, then we suffer oppression together. As Machiavelli once said: “It is just as difficult and dangerous to try to free a people that wants to remain servile as it is to enslave a people that wants to remain free.”  The Declaration embraces our revolutionary spirit, and God help us when our country has the spirit of an aging grandmother. The key is to always keep that revolutionary spirit.  And maybe that’s what Independence Day is all about…. to reflect on our history and to rekindle that spirit every year.

In conclusion, I would like to implore that on this Independence Day and on every Independence Day, that we remember the advice that was once given to us by James Madison: “The people of the U.S. owe their Independence and their liberty to the wisdom of descrying in the minute tax of 3 pence on tea, the magnitude of the evil comprised in the precedent. Let them exert the same wisdom, in watching against every evil lurking under plausible disguises, and growing up from small beginnings.”

 

References:

Brion McClanahan, “Rethinking the Declaration of Independence,” Abbeville Institute, July 4, 2016.  Referenced at:  http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/rethinking-the-declaration-of-independence/

Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr. (Professor of Political Science), “The American System of Government: The American Constitutional System – English Origins (1066-1558),” Cyberland University of North Carolina.

Referenced at:  http://www.proconservative.net/CUNAPolSci201PartFourB.shtml  [In-depth study of the Magna Carta]

The Petition of Right of 1628 – http://study.com/academy/lesson/petition-of-right-of-1628-definition-summary.html

The English Bill of Rights of 1689 –  http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp

The Grand Remonstrance – http://www.constitution.org/eng/conpur043.htm

The Declaration and Resolves – http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/resolves.asp

Patrick Henry’s Speech of March 23, 1775 – https://www.history.org/almanack/life/politics/giveme.cfm

Halifax Resolves – http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-revolution/4328

Preamble and Resolution of the Virginia Convention of May 15, 1776  – http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/const02.asp

The Lee Resolutions –  http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/lee.asp

“Boiling It Down, This Is What You’ve Said,” Mark America, October 15, 2011.  Referenced at:  http://markamerica.com/2011/10/15/boiling-it-down-this-is-what-youve-said/

Winston Churchill, “The Sinews of Peace”, address at Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri (March 5, 1946); in Robert Rhodes James, ed., Winston S. Churchill: His Complete Speeches, 1897–1963 (1974), vol. 7, p. 7288.

Calvin Coolidge, speech on the Occasion of the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (July 5, 1926).

 

About these ads

Occasionally, some of your visitors may see an advertisement here
You can hide these ads completely by upgrading to one of our paid plans.

UPGRADE NOW DISMISS MESSAGE

 

 

Esteemed Ghosts From Our Past

LIBERTY - Sweet Land of Liberty

by Diane Rufino

If you are ever confused as to the order of things, the emphasis of individual rights with respect to government, the rights of States with respect to the federal government, and the states’ rights of nullification and disunion with respect to the government’s position, it helps to refresh oneself with the wisdom of the men who wrote our Founding documents and provided us with the bedrock on which our nation was established and grounded.

James Madison (the principle author of our Constitution) wrote to Thomas Jefferson (the author of our Declaration of Independence) that the Constitution was subordinate to the Principles and Rights enshrined in our Declaration. Madison noted, “On the distinctive principles of the Government … of the U. States, the best guides are to be found in … The Declaration of Independence, as the fundamental Act of Union of these States.” In other words, although the Articles of Confederation and its successor, the U.S. Constitution, were the contractual agreements binding the several states into one union – E Pluribus Unum – the innate Rights of Man identified in the Declaration are the overarching act of that union, and would never be negotiable by way of “collective agreement and compromise.”

Nor are those Rights negotiable today or tomorrow.

Similarly, the government as a political institution primarily tasked to protect the essential liberties of the people is the only grounds for allegiance by the people. Once that purpose becomes frustrated, abused, diluted, or convoluted, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish government.

Leftists and progressives refuse to acknowledge that the Rights of Man are non-negotiable, as we have seen in the debates over gun control. Leftists like Barack Obama do not believe that individuals have the inherent right to own guns. In other words, they don’t believe in the Second Amendment. Furthermore, if they don’t believe in the Second Amendment, then they fundamentally do not understand the Bill of Rights and the role of government. Rather, they subscribe to the errant notion of a “living breathing constitution” (“living breathing document”) – one which is subject to an at-will interpretation, and most conveniently, to the interpretation of the very government that the Constitution seeks to limit. A living, breathing constitution” is one that has no fixed meaning and therefore individual rights are subject to executive and legislative encroachment whenever it suits the government’s agenda. A “living breathing constitution” is one that can be judicially amendment by diktat, instead of its legally prescribed method of amendment in Article V. This enables them to undermine the Constitution’s fundamental protections of Human Rights and to transform government into whatever suits them.

Likewise, even though our Founding Fathers and indeed the drafters of our Declaration and Constitution acknowledged that the states have a right to check the power of the federal government and prevent it from encroaching on its sovereign powers and they have the right to voluntarily leave the union, and these rights supercede the Constitution, the federal government, through the voice of Presidents and the men (ie, puppets) they appoint to the Supreme Court, has attempted to deny that these rights do not exist. [seeTexas v. White (1868, decision written by Lincoln’s appointee as Chief Justice, his former cabinet member and right-hand man, Salmon Chase) and Cooper v. Aaron (1958)]

At North Carolina’s first Ratifying Convention in Hillsborough in July-August 1788, attorney James Iredell explained the status of the Constitution: “When Congress passes a law consistent with the Constitution, it is to be binding on the people. If Congress, under pretense of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp another, they will violate the Constitution.” In other words, if a law is passed by the US Congress that exceeds the authority granted at the time (1787-1788), that law is null and void and therefore is no law at all. The States must not enforce it. At that Hillsborough Convention, the NC delegates voted 184-84 not to adopt the Constitution. The anti-Federalist majority concurred with delegate William Gowdy of Guilford County, when he remarked: “Power belongs originally to the people, but if rulers be not well guarded, that power may be usurped from them.” It should be noted that the Hillsborough Convention is perhaps the most insightful convention regarding the original intent of the Constitution. The transcriber of the debates in that Convention was non-partisan.

Alexander Hamilton, who co-wrote The Federalist Papers, the series of essays assuring the States that the government created under the Constitution is one of very limited powers, wrote: “The Supreme Being gave existence to man …; and invested him with an inviolable right to personal liberty and personal safety … Hence, also, the origin of all civil government, justly established, must be a voluntary compact between the rulers and the ruled; and must be liable to- such limitations, as are necessary for the security of the absolute rights of the latter: for what original title can any man, or set of men, have to govern others, except their own consent? To usurp dominion over a people, in their own despite; or to grasp at a more extensive power than they are willing to entrust; is to violate that law of nature, which gives every man a right to his personal liberty; and can, therefore, confer no obligation to obedience.”

Although Presidents and Congressmen and justices (and all other government officials as well) swear a solemn oath to “to Support and Defend” our Constitution (with some taking the oath on the Koran, a document that demands allegiance to a system that must ignore the Constitution), most politicians on the Left and too many on the Right ignore that obligation, and have trampled on the notion established by the Constitution – The Rule of Law – with reckless abandon. The implications for Liberty are dire.

The debate between right and left, of progressives/liberals and conservatives, characterizes all fundamental historical debates regarding Liberty and tyranny and begs the core question: Who endows the Rights of Man? — God (as ordained in natural law) or government (as ordained by man)?

The Left’s position has been made plainly evident by Barack Hussein Obama, who has a history of deliberately and repeatedly omitting the words “endowed by their Creator” when citing in open constituent forums the Declaration’s reference to “Rights.” He intentionally compares himself to Abraham Lincoln for a reason. Lincoln himself ignored the intent and the letter of the Constitution perhaps more than any other president and enlarged government in a way that no Founder could have envisioned (although Hamilton had hoped, and maybe even Madison too for just a brief period in time).

“Obama and other contemporary leftist protagonists seek to substitute Liberty as ensured under the Rule of Law established by our Constitution, with the rule of men in their so-called ‘living breathing constitution.’ They do so because the former is predicated on the principle that Liberty is innately ‘endowed by our Creator,’ while the latter asserts that government is the sole arbiter and grantor of Liberty. Ignorance of the true and eternal source of the Rights of Man is fertile ground for the Left’s assertion that government endows such Rights. It is also perilous ground, soaked with the blood of generations of American Patriots defending Liberty at home and around the world. Indeed, as Jefferson wrote, ‘The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.’” [Mark Alexander, “The Inalienable Rights of Man”]

[These comments are based, in large part, on an article by Mark Alexander – See Mark Alexander, “The Inalienable Rights of Man: A Brief Civics Lesson on Liberty,”The Patriot Post, February 18, 2015. Referenced at: http://patriotpost.us/alexander/33261 ]

Impending Federal Gun Control Laws or Confiscation: States Don’t Fail Us Now !

NULLIFICATION - Gun Control (Clint Eastwood)

       by Diane Rufino, October 4, 2015

Obama Wants our Guns and It’s Time for the States to Make Clear: “We Will Not Comply…. We Will Nullify!”

Obama appears to be intent on burdening the second amendment – a fundamental and essential right of a free people.

The States need to decide where they stand: Either they will protect its people or the country is exactly what Abraham Lincoln envisioned – a country where the states are irrelevant and the federal government reigns absolutely supreme.

The States (and the local sheriffs) are the last line of defense between a rogue federal government and the People. The federal government appears to become more unhinged from the Constitution with each passing day and this should scare everyone. The need to erect lines of protection becomes ever more urgent. And this is where the States and sheriffs need to step in. They need to make clear that they will NULLIFY and INTERPOSE should the federal government attempt to infringe the right of the people to have and bear arms. We know what will be right around the corner should that happen… We only need to look at what happened to the unfortunate people of totalitarian regimes whose leaders confiscated guns. In this country, Patrick Henry explained it better than anyone else. A people who can’t defend themselves cannot assert their rights against the government and are therefore doomed to surrender them.

In 1775, after the British Crown and Parliament set out to punish the colonies for their “rebellious spirit” in frustrating its taxation schemes and its conduct in tossing tea overboard in Boston Harbor in protest of the monopoly established by the Tea Act by imposing the series of laws known as the Coercive Acts (unaffectionately referred to as the “Intolerable Acts” by the colonists), the colonies sought to appeal King George III to interpose on their behalf and end the arbitrary and oppressive treatment of them.

In September 1774, the First Continental Congress met in Philadelphia to address the colonies’ collective response to the Intolerable Acts. On October 25, it drafted a respectful response to the King, which would be known as the “Declarations and Resolves” and delegates were then dispatched to present them to him in person. Despite the anger that the colonies felt towards Great Britain after Parliament enacted the Coercive Acts, our first Congress was still willing to assert its loyalty to the king. In return for this loyalty, Congress asked the king to address and resolve the specific grievances of the colonies; in particular, it asked that the Acts be repealed. The petition, written by Continental Congressman John Dickinson, laid out what Congress felt was undo oppression of the colonies by the British Parliament. King George would ignore the Declarations and Resolves and rather, he would use them to mock the colonies. He laughed, claiming that while they publicly pledged their loyalty to him, they were probably preparing for armed revolution. He found them ingenuous and not very clever.

[Approximately eight months after the Declarations were presented to King George and without any response, on July 6, 1775, the Second Continental Congress adopted a resolution entitled “Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms.” On October 27, 1775 that King George appeared before both houses of the Parliament to address his concern about the increased rebellious nature of the colonies. He described the colonies as being in a state of rebellion, which he viewed as a traitorous action against himself and Britain. He began his speech by reading a “Proclamation of Rebellion” and urged Parliament to move quickly to end the revolt and bring order to the colonies. With that, he gave Parliament his consent to dispatch troops to use against his own subjects – the very people who looked to him for respect and protection].

On March 23, 1775, Patrick Henry attended a meeting of the Second Virginia Convention, with a very important issue he intended to address. It would be the second convention held after the Royal Governor of Virginia dissolved the colonial legislature, the House of Burgesses, for its solidarity with Massachusetts (after Parliament closed the port of Boston as punishment for the Boston Tea Party). The House of Burgesses would continue to meet, albeit in secret, but would operate in convention (These would serve as Virginia’s revolutionary provisional government).

While he knew the King had ignored the respectful petition by the First Continental Congress and had continued to treat them without the reserved rights afforded all English subjects, Henry could not know for sure that he would authorize military action against them. But he certainly saw it coming.

As tensions were mounting between Great Britain and the colonies, the Second Virginia Convention convened in secret at St. John’s Church in Richmond to discuss the Old Dominion’s strategy in negotiating with the Crown. The roughly 120 delegates who filed into Richmond’s St. John’s Church were a veritable “Who’s Who” of Virginia’s colonial leaders – George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Richard Henry Lee, and Patrick Henry, a well-respected lawyer and orator. Henry had long held a reputation as one of Virginia’s most vocal opponents of England’s oppressive taxation schemes. During the Stamp Act controversy in 1765, he bordered on treasonous activity when he delivered a speech in which he hinted that King George risked meeting the same fate as Julius Caesar if he maintained his oppressive policies. As a recent delegate to the Continental Congress, he resounded Ben Franklin’s call for colonial solidarity by proclaiming, “The distinctions between Virginians, Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers and New Englanders are no more. I am not a Virginian; I am an American.”

Henry was convinced that war was around the corner. And he arrived at the Virginia Convention determined to persuade his fellow delegates to adopt a defensive stance against Great Britain. On that fateful evening of March 23, he put forward a resolution proposing that Virginia’s counties raise militiamen “to secure our inestimable rights and liberties, from those further violations with which they are threatened.” The suggestion of forming a colonial militia was not shocking in itself. After all, other colonies had already passed similar resolutions and had begun forming militias. And Henry himself had already taken it upon himself to raise a volunteer outfit in his home county of Hanover. Nevertheless, his proposal was not met with the approval he had hoped for. Many in the audience were skeptical at approving any measure that might be viewed as combative. Britain, after all, was the strongest military power in the world. They still held out hope for a peaceful reconciliation.

After several delegates had spoken on the issue, Patrick Henry rose from his seat in the third pew and took the floor. A Baptist minister who was present that evening would later describe him as having “an unearthly fire burning in his eye.” Just what happened next has long been a subject of debate. Henry spoke without notes, and no transcripts of his exact words have survived to today. The only known version of his remarks was reconstructed in the early 1800s by William Wirt, a biographer who corresponded with several men that attended the Convention. According to this version, Henry began by stating his intention to “speak forth my sentiments freely” before launching into an eloquent warning against appeasing the Crown.

I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak and unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us……. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged!

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun…… Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Less than a month later, shots would be fired at Lexington and Concord. The war that Henry saw coming had finally begun.

Patrick Henry had the intuition to understand that a leader “whose character is thus marked by every act which defines a tyrant” cannot be trusted to allow his people to enjoy the freedom that they petition for. And when push comes to shove, the more they demand it, the more oppressive his response would be. And thus, since that leader, King George III, was considered to be unfit to be the ruler of a free people, in the mind of Patrick Henry, if he indeed decided to use force to subjugate the people of Virginia should be prepared with a force of their own to defend their liberty. Henry would later refer to Liberty as “that precious gem.”

A leader “whose character is thus marked by every act which defines a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

Americans still consider themselves a free people. And Americans still want to believe their government believes in their right to be so. But the one problem is that most Americans believe their “government” to be the federal government. A people who understand the foundations and underpinnings of liberty and freedom know that the federal government is not their government but rather their state government is their government. The federal government primarily serves the states, or at least, it was intended that way. Yet for limited objects, expressly defined in Article I, Section 8, its legislation can touch the people.

It is the state government, and not the federal government, that can protect an individual’s inalienable liberties. Which government in recent years has shown disregard for the fundamental rights of the People – federal or state? Which government has enacted the largest tax increase in our nation’s history? Which government has denied people the fundamental right to manage their healthcare? Which government has ignored immigration laws and attempted to fundamentally change the character of the nation illegally? Which government has demanded that marriage laws (based on natural criteria in place for thousands of years) be fundamentally altered? And which government has poised itself for years now to restrain the people in their right to have and bear arms? Again, a government “whose character is thus marked by every act which defines a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

The American states, after fighting and winning a costly war for their independence, had to decide on the best form of government to embrace the values they proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. They asserted the same rights that the British held dear and which they fought to defend, spanning hundreds of years, but their task was to secure them more firmly so that their posterity – “millions yet unborn and generations to come” (from the anti-Federalist paper, Brutus I) – would enjoy the same degree of freedom. They didn’t want Americans to endure the same tortured history as the British, who enjoyed freedom under benevolent kings but oppression and even death under tyrants. Freedom, according to Thomas Jefferson, including as alluded to in the Declaration of Independence, was the right to be free from an aggressive or oppressive government. To that end, the government established by the Constitution of 1787, with powers limited in DC and balanced by the bulk of powers retained by the states, with its separation of powers and elaborate system of checks and balances, with its week judicial branch, and with a Bill of Rights, was believed to provide the best system to preserve the rights they fought for. Furthermore, in America, rights are understood to be inalienable, endowed by our Creator. In Britain, on the other hand, rights are those generously granted by government. Rights were only those limitations on government that Kings recognized by a signature on a charter.

The US Bill of Rights, modeled after the English Bill of Rights of 1689, exists to protect the individual against the government. Included in our Bill of Rights are the rights to be free from a national religion, the right to the free exercise of one’s religion and the rights of conscience. It includes the right of free speech, the right of assembly, the right to a free press, the right to petition the government, the right to have and bear arms, the right to be free in one’s home, papers, and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to a jury trial, various rights of a person accused of a crime, the right not to have one’s property arbitrarily confiscated by the government, the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and others.

The second amendment is currently under unrelenting attack by our current administration, with Obama leading the charge. Just two days ago, he spoke not only about the need for gun control but hinted about possible confiscation. When Obama spoke in reaction to the heinous October 1 attack on Umpqua Community College, in Oregon, he went beyond his usual calls for more gun control and suggested instead that the United States consider following the path taken by Australia and Great Britain.

In the mid-1990s Australia and Great Britain both instituted complete bans on firearm possession. And Obama referenced those bans: “We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours – Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.”

What Obama didn’t clarify is that Australia has no constitution nor does it have a Bill of Rights. The rights of the people are not absolute. Great Britain, which also does not have a constitution, per se, does protect gun rights to some degree in its Bill of Rights of 1689. That document allowed for Protestant citizenry to “have Arms for their Defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law,” and restricted the right of the English Crown to have a standing army or to interfere with Protestants’ right to bear arms “when Papists were both armed and employed contrary to Law.” It also established that regulating the right to bear arms was one of the powers of Parliament and not of the monarch. Thus, the right was not absolute and it was clearly articulated as such. In fact, Sir William Blackstone wrote in his Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765) about the right to have arms being auxiliary to the “natural right of resistance and self-preservation,” but subject to suitability and allowance by law.

As Mark Levin explained: “The second amendment isn’t in the Bill of Rights to protect you in your hunting rights. The second amendment isn’t there to protect you in your sports-shooting rights. The second amendment was added to the Constitution to protect you against a centralized government. The militia part of the second amendment underscores this point. The point is that the states can maintain militias to protect the states from an oppressive tyrannical central government. I don’t mean to be provocative, but that’s just history. That’s why we have the second amendment.”

What is that history? Our Founding Fathers, having just broken away from Great Britain, understood the new federal government they were ratifying might one day become just as tyrannical. If it had the authority to control citizen access to firearms, then it could disarm them, just as the British attempted to do. This would make any attempts to restore liberties futile. The second amendment was specifically included in the Bill of Rights to prevent this.

James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said in 1789 that “A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” When the Founders wrote of a “well regulated” militia, they meant that militias needed to be well-regulated through training and drilling in order to be effective in battle. It was merely common sense. This could only happen if citizens had unrestricted access to firearms.

The Second Amendment’s guarantee of an individual’s right to have and bear arms is the right which secures all other rights. The First Amendment protects the other rights by permitting the speech and the expression, and the assembly and the petition and the use of the press to call out the government when it tramples on those rights, but the Second Amendment, with its force, is able to secure them, should the government ignore the former. In other words, when the First Amendment fails, the Second is there to preserve and secure the people in their liberty.

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights expresses the States’ intention in demanding a Bill of Rights as a condition to ratification. It reads: “The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, that in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, which shall extend the ground of public confidence in the Government, and will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution” According to the Preamble, the federal government is PROHIBITED from even contemplating the issue of abridging the rights guaranteed in the second amendment. The liberty rights contained in the Bill of Rights demand an ABSOLUTE BAN by the federal government action in those areas. Being that the Supreme Court has been in the business of enlarging the rights contained in those amendments (ie, privacy rights, for example, rights of criminals), we can assume that our right to have and bear arms is similarly enlarged.

Although the Bill of Rights was adopted after the Constitution was ratified, it was the absolute assurance by James Madison that he would draft a Bill of Rights and have it submitted and adopted by the First US Congress (June 8, 1788) that convinced several skeptical, and important, states to finally ratify. In other words, BUT FOR the fact that a Bill of Rights would be added to the Constitution to further protect the rights of the People and the States, the Constitution would never have been adopted and the Union, as we know it, would not have been formed. After the delegates concluded their convention in Philadelphia in September 1787, it was clear that the Constitution that had been written was not very popular (particularly with the anti-Federalists). Some very important delegates refused to even sign it and some promised to do all they could to prevent its ratification by the states. Edmund Randolph and George Mason (both of VA), Elbridge Gerry (of MA), John Lansing and Robert Yates (both of NY), and Martin Luther (of DE) all refused to sign because of a lack of Bill of Rights and a deep concern that the government created would endanger the rights of the States. Yates would go on to write some of the strongest anti-Federalist essays, under the pen name Brutus, and fellow New Yorker, Governor George Clinton, would write some as well (under the name Cato). Two of our most important Founding Fathers, Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, although asked to be delegates to the Convention, declined because they were suspicious of those running the Convention (namely Madison, whom they suspected to have ambitious plans for the meeting). They believed a government stronger than the Articles would compromise the sovereignty of the States.

Indeed, it was unclear whether the Constitution would be ratified by the States. The Constitution was in deep trouble in the conventions of four states – Virginia, New York, Massachusetts, and North Carolina. They were some of the biggest states. The first three were the most important and influential of the States. Without the guarantee of a Bill of Rights, those states were not going to ratify. The formation of a “more perfect union” appeared to be in jeopardy. Even with the guarantee, the votes for ratification were by a fairly slim margin. North Carolina had rejected the Constitution outright. It was not until a Bill of Rights was added that it called another ratifying convention to take another vote.

Does anyone believe that a constitution that expressly created a government as large, bloated, concentrated, oppressive, arrogant, monopolistic, and corrupt as the one in existence today would have been drafted and produced by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787? Does anyone believe that the delegates in attendance at that convention, the great leaders of our founding generation, knowing their concerns to respect the spirit of the Revolution and to protect their state sovereignty (and yield as little sovereign power as possible), would have drafted and signed such a document? And even if such a document would have been produced at the Convention, does anyone believe a single State would have ratified it and surrendered essentially all of its sovereignty? NO WAY !! There is no way that Virginia or New York or Massachusetts or North Carolina would have ratified it. NO WAY! None of them would have ratified it.

And yet we’ve allowed the government – what it’s become – to assert, unchallenged, that whatever it does and says is the supreme law of the land. Tyranny is defined as the action of an unjust and oppressive government. For a country that defines the boundaries of government on its people through a written constitution, tyranny occurs when unconstitutional laws are forced – enforced – on the people. After all, when a government assumes powers not delegated to it, it naturally has to usurp them from their rightful depository, which in the case of the United States is the States and the People.

Our government – all three branches – continue to act to mock individual liberty and states’ rights. Certainly our president does so at every given opportunity. Our government – all three branches – continues to act to ignore and frustrate the will of the People even though a democracy is their birthright. As Daniel Webster once wrote: “It is, Sir, the people’s government, made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people.” (note that this quote is the forerunner to Lincoln’s famous line in the Gettysburg Address).

The federal government, which was conceived as a “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” unfortunately now only rests on two of those legs. In has failed for many years now to be a government “for the people.”

Enough is enough.

Gun Rights mark a line in the sand. That line represents a tolerance of government that absolutely cannot be crossed. If government should attempt gun control that burdens or attempt confiscation, the line will have been crossed. The Supreme Court WOULD HAVE TO IMMEDIATELY STRIKE THAT ACTION DOWN. Hell, the Supreme Court has held over and over again that any action by government that should happen to burden even ever so lightly a woman’s right to have an abortion cannot be tolerated. And an abortion actually and absolutely KILLS another human being – an innocent and helpless one. The right to an abortion is NOT mentioned in the Constitution and certainly NOT in the Bill of Rights. The right to have and bear arms is. It is addressed plainly and without condition or pre-condition in the second amendment. By applying the same rational as the Court uses to ensure women their unfettered right and access to an abortion, the government MUST NOT in any way, shape, or form burden an individual’s right to have and bear arms. The right to bear arms is rooted in the natural rights of self-defense and self-preservation. The right to have an abortion is rooted in the selfish goal of convenience.

When the government crosses that line, the Declaration of Independence tells us what the Peoples’ rights are, under the theory of social compact (which the US Constitution is):

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, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Should the government attempt to burden or deny the American people of their gun rights, our natural right of self-defense (even from our own government) and self-preservation (to live free, as our Creator endowed us and as nature intended) allows us to dissolve our government – that is absolve us from allegiance to it – and establish a new government that is dedicated to the protection of our God-given liberties. Personally, I believe the Constitution is perfect; it just needs verbage that makes it absolutely clear that its very terms are its limitations, there are no elastic clauses or implied powers, there is no independent legislative power attached to the General Welfare or Necessary and Proper clauses, no object expressly delegated to the legislative branch is allowed to be delegated to an un-elected group of people, Congress is expressly forbidden to tax and spend for any reason other than what is listed expressly in Article I Section 8, a provision should be included to give the states the power to audit the spending budget of the government for strict constitutionality, a provision should be added to require Congress to balance its budget every year, the Supreme Court can only offer an opinion which is subject to an appeal to the State courts, the “Wall of Separation” is removed from federal court jurisprudence, the president’s powers must be severely limited by additional language in the Constitution, presidents will no longer be allowed to issue executive orders, the bar for impeachment of a president will be lowered and in certain cases Congress MUST issue articles of impeachment and seek to remove him, consequences will be provided for in the Constitution for representatives and officials who violate their oath of office, the 14th amendment must be clarified as not intending to include the incorporation doctrine (so that the Bill of Rights once again only applies to the actions of the federal government), the 16th and 17th amendments must be repealed, an outright prohibition and a provision should be added that states that when the federal government over-steps its authority that threatens the balance of power between federal government and the states, it shall be viewed as a fatal breach of the compact that binds the states and as such they have the option of dissolving their allegiance. However, if the Constitution cannot be amended to assure that a future government remains adherent to its limits, then James Madison has set the example for us. We don’t have to “amend” the Constitution if we believe it to be seriously flawed. We can simply start from scratch.

The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence continues:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security….”

Our government has been intent on enlarging and redefining its powers almost from the very beginning. It has done everything it has wanted to do to achieve the things it believed it needed to do or simply wanted to do (as in Barack Obama’s case). A government dependent on the separation of powers for proper functioning has become a government monopoly to ignore proper functioning in order to become what the British Kings used to be…. Supreme, domineering, coercive, and oppressive. The people’s government has been replaced by the government’s government. Liberty-loving Americans have been disposed to suffer long enough. Threats to take away our gun rights, however, would be the final straw.

Should Obama and his administration do more than simply talk about gun control and possible confiscation, it would be incumbent upon the states to NULLIFY any legislation or policy and then INTERPOSE for the protection and security of the People to have and bear arms. The next step, should the government fail to back down, would be to declare the federal action or actions to constitute a FATAL BREACH of the compact that brought the states together in the union and therefore the bonds of allegiance are severed and the Union creating the “United States” is thereby dissolved. The federal government would therefore have no jurisdiction except within the District of Columbia, I suppose.

The states need to act – NOW. Each state needs to adopt resolutions and enact legislation protecting the gun rights of its citizens. Those that respect the second amendment need to start attracting gun manufacturing and ammunition industry to their states. The states need to put the president and the administration, and including the federal courts, on notice of their intentions.

If the federal government intends to or attempts to violate the second amendment, the People need to know they can count on their government – that is, their state government. I hope their response will be clear and collective – WE WILL NOT COMPLY… WE WILL NULLIFY! Liberty will require such a response.

References:

Patrick Henry’s Speech, History.com. Referenced at: http://www.history.com/news/patrick-henrys-liberty-or-death-speech-240-years-ago

Congress Petitions English King to Address Grievances, History.com. Referenced at: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/congress-petitions-english-king-to-address-grievances

King George III Speaks to Parliament of American Rebellion, History.com. Referenced at: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/king-george-iii-speaks-to-parliament-of-american-rebellion

Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress. Referenced at: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/resolves.asp

“Obama Trashes the Constitution and No One Says a Damn Thing!”, Mark Levin Show. Referenced at: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mark+levin+obama+trashes+the+constitution+and+no+one+says+a+thing Also referenced at: http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-obama-trashes-the-constitution-and-nobody-says-a-damn-thing/

“Obama Goes Beyond Mere Gun Control; Hints at Confiscation,” Breitbart News, October 3, 2015. Referenced at: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/03/obama-goes-beyond-mere-gun-control-hints-confiscation/

“The Second Amendment: It’s Meaning and Purpose, The Tenth Amendment Center, September 22, 2014. Referenced at: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/09/22/2nd-amendment-original-meaning-and-purpose/

“Madison’s Introduction of the Bill of Rights,” usconstitution.net. Referenced at: http://www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html

Appendix:

The Intolerable Acts included the following:
(i) Boston Port Act, which closed the port of Boston to all colonists until damages from the Boston Tea Party were paid.
(ii) Massachusetts Government Act, which gave the British government total control of town meetings, taking all decisions out of the hands of the colonists.
(iii) Administration of Justice Act, which made British officials immune to criminal prosecution in America.
(iv) The Quartering Act, which required colonists to house and quarter British troops on demand, including in private homes as a last resort.

by Diane Rufino, October 4, 2015

Obama Wants our Guns and It’s Time for the States to Make Clear: “We Will Not Comply…. We Will Nullify!”

Obama appears to be intent on burdening the second amendment – a fundamental and essential right of a free people.

The States need to decide where they stand: Either they will protect its people or the country is exactly what Abraham Lincoln envisioned – a country where the states are irrelevant and the federal government reigns absolutely supreme.

The States (and the local sheriffs) are the last line of defense between a rogue federal government and the People. The federal government appears to become more unhinged from the Constitution with each passing day and this should scare everyone. The need to erect lines of protection becomes ever more urgent. And this is where the States and sheriffs need to step in. They need to make clear that they will NULLIFY and INTERPOSE should the federal government attempt to infringe the right of the people to have and bear arms. We know what will be right around the corner should that happen… We only need to look at what happened to the unfortunate people of totalitarian regimes whose leaders confiscated guns. In this country, Patrick Henry explained it better than anyone else. A people who can’t defend themselves cannot assert their rights against the government and are therefore doomed to surrender them.

In 1775, after the British Crown and Parliament set out to punish the colonies for their “rebellious spirit” in frustrating its taxation schemes and its conduct in tossing tea overboard in Boston Harbor in protest of the monopoly established by the Tea Act by imposing the series of laws known as the Coercive Acts (unaffectionately referred to as the “Intolerable Acts” by the colonists), the colonies sought to appeal King George III to interpose on their behalf and end the arbitrary and oppressive treatment of them.

In September 1774, the First Continental Congress met in Philadelphia to address the colonies’ collective response to the Intolerable Acts. On October 25, it drafted a respectful response to the King, which would be known as the “Declarations and Resolves” and delegates were then dispatched to present them to him in person. Despite the anger that the colonies felt towards Great Britain after Parliament enacted the Coercive Acts, our first Congress was still willing to assert its loyalty to the king. In return for this loyalty, Congress asked the king to address and resolve the specific grievances of the colonies; in particular, it asked that the Acts be repealed. The petition, written by Continental Congressman John Dickinson, laid out what Congress felt was undo oppression of the colonies by the British Parliament. King George would ignore the Declarations and Resolves and rather, he would use them to mock the colonies. He laughed, claiming that while they publicly pledged their loyalty to him, they were probably preparing for armed revolution. He found them ingenuous and not very clever.

[Approximately eight months after the Declarations were presented to King George and without any response, on July 6, 1775, the Second Continental Congress adopted a resolution entitled “Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms.” On October 27, 1775 that King George appeared before both houses of the Parliament to address his concern about the increased rebellious nature of the colonies. He described the colonies as being in a state of rebellion, which he viewed as a traitorous action against himself and Britain. He began his speech by reading a “Proclamation of Rebellion” and urged Parliament to move quickly to end the revolt and bring order to the colonies. With that, he gave Parliament his consent to dispatch troops to use against his own subjects – the very people who looked to him for respect and protection].

On March 23, 1775, Patrick Henry attended a meeting of the Second Virginia Convention, with a very important issue he intended to address. It would be the second convention held after the Royal Governor of Virginia dissolved the colonial legislature, the House of Burgesses, for its solidarity with Massachusetts (after Parliament closed the port of Boston as punishment for the Boston Tea Party). The House of Burgesses would continue to meet, albeit in secret, but would operate in convention (These would serve as Virginia’s revolutionary provisional government).

While he knew the King had ignored the respectful petition by the First Continental Congress and had continued to treat them without the reserved rights afforded all English subjects, Henry could not know for sure that he would authorize military action against them. But he certainly saw it coming.

As tensions were mounting between Great Britain and the colonies, the Second Virginia Convention convened in secret at St. John’s Church in Richmond to discuss the Old Dominion’s strategy in negotiating with the Crown. The roughly 120 delegates who filed into Richmond’s St. John’s Church were a veritable “Who’s Who” of Virginia’s colonial leaders – George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Richard Henry Lee, and Patrick Henry, a well-respected lawyer and orator. Henry had long held a reputation as one of Virginia’s most vocal opponents of England’s oppressive taxation schemes. During the Stamp Act controversy in 1765, he bordered on treasonous activity when he delivered a speech in which he hinted that King George risked meeting the same fate as Julius Caesar if he maintained his oppressive policies. As a recent delegate to the Continental Congress, he resounded Ben Franklin’s call for colonial solidarity by proclaiming, “The distinctions between Virginians, Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers and New Englanders are no more. I am not a Virginian; I am an American.”

Henry was convinced that war was around the corner. And he arrived at the Virginia Convention determined to persuade his fellow delegates to adopt a defensive stance against Great Britain. On that fateful evening of March 23, he put forward a resolution proposing that Virginia’s counties raise militiamen “to secure our inestimable rights and liberties, from those further violations with which they are threatened.” The suggestion of forming a colonial militia was not shocking in itself. After all, other colonies had already passed similar resolutions and had begun forming militias. And Henry himself had already taken it upon himself to raise a volunteer outfit in his home county of Hanover. Nevertheless, his proposal was not met with the approval he had hoped for. Many in the audience were skeptical at approving any measure that might be viewed as combative. Britain, after all, was the strongest military power in the world. They still held out hope for a peaceful reconciliation.

After several delegates had spoken on the issue, Patrick Henry rose from his seat in the third pew and took the floor. A Baptist minister who was present that evening would later describe him as having “an unearthly fire burning in his eye.” Just what happened next has long been a subject of debate. Henry spoke without notes, and no transcripts of his exact words have survived to today. The only known version of his remarks was reconstructed in the early 1800s by William Wirt, a biographer who corresponded with several men that attended the Convention. According to this version, Henry began by stating his intention to “speak forth my sentiments freely” before launching into an eloquent warning against appeasing the Crown.

I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak and unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us……. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged!

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun…… Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Less than a month later, shots would be fired at Lexington and Concord. The war that Henry saw coming had finally begun.

Patrick Henry had the intuition to understand that a leader “whose character is thus marked by every act which defines a tyrant” cannot be trusted to allow his people to enjoy the freedom that they petition for. And when push comes to shove, the more they demand it, the more oppressive his response would be. And thus, since that leader, King George III, was considered to be unfit to be the ruler of a free people, in the mind of Patrick Henry, if he indeed decided to use force to subjugate the people of Virginia should be prepared with a force of their own to defend their liberty. Henry would later refer to Liberty as “that precious gem.”

A leader “whose character is thus marked by every act which defines a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

Americans still consider themselves a free people. And Americans still want to believe their government believes in their right to be so. But the one problem is that most Americans believe their “government” to be the federal government. A people who understand the foundations and underpinnings of liberty and freedom know that the federal government is not their government but rather their state government is their government. The federal government primarily serves the states, or at least, it was intended that way. Yet for limited objects, expressly defined in Article I, Section 8, its legislation can touch the people.

It is the state government, and not the federal government, that can protect an individual’s inalienable liberties. Which government in recent years has shown disregard for the fundamental rights of the People – federal or state? Which government has enacted the largest tax increase in our nation’s history? Which government has denied people the fundamental right to manage their healthcare? Which government has ignored immigration laws and attempted to fundamentally change the character of the nation illegally? Which government has demanded that marriage laws (based on natural criteria in place for thousands of years) be fundamentally altered? And which government has poised itself for years now to restrain the people in their right to have and bear arms? Again, a government “whose character is thus marked by every act which defines a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

The American states, after fighting and winning a costly war for their independence, had to decide on the best form of government to embrace the values they proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. They asserted the same rights that the British held dear and which they fought to defend, spanning hundreds of years, but their task was to secure them more firmly so that their posterity – “millions yet unborn and generations to come” (from the anti-Federalist paper, Brutus I) – would enjoy the same degree of freedom. They didn’t want Americans to endure the same tortured history as the British, who enjoyed freedom under benevolent kings but oppression and even death under tyrants. Freedom, according to Thomas Jefferson, including as alluded to in the Declaration of Independence, was the right to be free from an aggressive or oppressive government. To that end, the government established by the Constitution of 1787, with powers limited in DC and balanced by the bulk of powers retained by the states, with its separation of powers and elaborate system of checks and balances, with its week judicial branch, and with a Bill of Rights, was believed to provide the best system to preserve the rights they fought for. Furthermore, in America, rights are understood to be inalienable, endowed by our Creator. In Britain, on the other hand, rights are those generously granted by government. Rights were only those limitations on government that Kings recognized by a signature on a charter.

The US Bill of Rights, modeled after the English Bill of Rights of 1689, exists to protect the individual against the government. Included in our Bill of Rights are the rights to be free from a national religion, the right to the free exercise of one’s religion and the rights of conscience. It includes the right of free speech, the right of assembly, the right to a free press, the right to petition the government, the right to have and bear arms, the right to be free in one’s home, papers, and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to a jury trial, various rights of a person accused of a crime, the right not to have one’s property arbitrarily confiscated by the government, the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and others.

The second amendment is currently under unrelenting attack by our current administration, with Obama leading the charge. Just two days ago, he spoke not only about the need for gun control but hinted about possible confiscation. When Obama spoke in reaction to the heinous October 1 attack on Umpqua Community College, in Oregon, he went beyond his usual calls for more gun control and suggested instead that the United States consider following the path taken by Australia and Great Britain.

In the mid-1990s Australia and Great Britain both instituted complete bans on firearm possession. And Obama referenced those bans: “We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours – Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.”

What Obama didn’t clarify is that Australia has no constitution nor does it have a Bill of Rights. The rights of the people are not absolute. Great Britain, which also does not have a constitution, per se, does protect gun rights to some degree in its Bill of Rights of 1689. That document allowed for Protestant citizenry to “have Arms for their Defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law,” and restricted the right of the English Crown to have a standing army or to interfere with Protestants’ right to bear arms “when Papists were both armed and employed contrary to Law.” It also established that regulating the right to bear arms was one of the powers of Parliament and not of the monarch. Thus, the right was not absolute and it was clearly articulated as such. In fact, Sir William Blackstone wrote in his Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765) about the right to have arms being auxiliary to the “natural right of resistance and self-preservation,” but subject to suitability and allowance by law.

As Mark Levin explained: “The second amendment isn’t in the Bill of Rights to protect you in your hunting rights. The second amendment isn’t there to protect you in your sports-shooting rights. The second amendment was added to the Constitution to protect you against a centralized government. The militia part of the second amendment underscores this point. The point is that the states can maintain militias to protect the states from an oppressive tyrannical central government. I don’t mean to be provocative, but that’s just history. That’s why we have the second amendment.”

What is that history? Our Founding Fathers, having just broken away from Great Britain, understood the new federal government they were ratifying might one day become just as tyrannical. If it had the authority to control citizen access to firearms, then it could disarm them, just as the British attempted to do. This would make any attempts to restore liberties futile. The second amendment was specifically included in the Bill of Rights to prevent this.

James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said in 1789 that “A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” When the Founders wrote of a “well regulated” militia, they meant that militias needed to be well-regulated through training and drilling in order to be effective in battle. It was merely common sense. This could only happen if citizens had unrestricted access to firearms.

The Second Amendment’s guarantee of an individual’s right to have and bear arms is the right which secures all other rights. The First Amendment protects the other rights by permitting the speech and the expression, and the assembly and the petition and the use of the press to call out the government when it tramples on those rights, but the Second Amendment, with its force, is able to secure them, should the government ignore the former. In other words, when the First Amendment fails, the Second is there to preserve and secure the people in their liberty.

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights expresses the States’ intention in demanding a Bill of Rights as a condition to ratification. It reads: “The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, that in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, which shall extend the ground of public confidence in the Government, and will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution” According to the Preamble, the federal government is PROHIBITED from even contemplating the issue of abridging the rights guaranteed in the second amendment. The liberty rights contained in the Bill of Rights demand an ABSOLUTE BAN by the federal government action in those areas. Being that the Supreme Court has been in the business of enlarging the rights contained in those amendments (ie, privacy rights, for example, rights of criminals), we can assume that our right to have and bear arms is similarly enlarged.

Although the Bill of Rights was adopted after the Constitution was ratified, it was the absolute assurance by James Madison that he would draft a Bill of Rights and have it submitted and adopted by the First US Congress (June 8, 1788) that convinced several skeptical, and important, states to finally ratify. In other words, BUT FOR the fact that a Bill of Rights would be added to the Constitution to further protect the rights of the People and the States, the Constitution would never have been adopted and the Union, as we know it, would not have been formed. After the delegates concluded their convention in Philadelphia in September 1787, it was clear that the Constitution that had been written was not very popular (particularly with the anti-Federalists). Some very important delegates refused to even sign it and some promised to do all they could to prevent its ratification by the states. Edmund Randolph and George Mason (both of VA), Elbridge Gerry (of MA), John Lansing and Robert Yates (both of NY), and Martin Luther (of DE) all refused to sign because of a lack of Bill of Rights and a deep concern that the government created would endanger the rights of the States. Yates would go on to write some of the strongest anti-Federalist essays, under the pen name Brutus, and fellow New Yorker, Governor George Clinton, would write some as well (under the name Cato). Two of our most important Founding Fathers, Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, although asked to be delegates to the Convention, declined because they were suspicious of those running the Convention (namely Madison, whom they suspected to have ambitious plans for the meeting). They believed a government stronger than the Articles would compromise the sovereignty of the States.

Indeed, it was unclear whether the Constitution would be ratified by the States. The Constitution was in deep trouble in the conventions of four states – Virginia, New York, Massachusetts, and North Carolina. They were some of the biggest states. The first three were the most important and influential of the States. Without the guarantee of a Bill of Rights, those states were not going to ratify. The formation of a “more perfect union” appeared to be in jeopardy. Even with the guarantee, the votes for ratification were by a fairly slim margin. North Carolina had rejected the Constitution outright. It was not until a Bill of Rights was added that it called another ratifying convention to take another vote.

Does anyone believe that a constitution that expressly created a government as large, bloated, concentrated, oppressive, arrogant, monopolistic, and corrupt as the one in existence today would have been drafted and produced by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787? Does anyone believe that the delegates in attendance at that convention, the great leaders of our founding generation, knowing their concerns to respect the spirit of the Revolution and to protect their state sovereignty (and yield as little sovereign power as possible), would have drafted and signed such a document? And even if such a document would have been produced at the Convention, does anyone believe a single State would have ratified it and surrendered essentially all of its sovereignty? NO WAY !! There is no way that Virginia or New York or Massachusetts or North Carolina would have ratified it. NO WAY! None of them would have ratified it.

And yet we’ve allowed the government – what it’s become – to assert, unchallenged, that whatever it does and says is the supreme law of the land. Tyranny is defined as the action of an unjust and oppressive government. For a country that defines the boundaries of government on its people through a written constitution, tyranny occurs when unconstitutional laws are forced – enforced – on the people. After all, when a government assumes powers not delegated to it, it naturally has to usurp them from their rightful depository, which in the case of the United States is the States and the People.

Our government – all three branches – continue to act to mock individual liberty and states’ rights. Certainly our president does so at every given opportunity. Our government – all three branches – continues to act to ignore and frustrate the will of the People even though a democracy is their birthright. As Daniel Webster once wrote: “It is, Sir, the people’s government, made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people.” (note that this quote is the forerunner to Lincoln’s famous line in the Gettysburg Address).

The federal government, which was conceived as a “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” unfortunately now only rests on two of those legs. In has failed for many years now to be a government “for the people.”

Enough is enough.

Gun Rights mark a line in the sand. That line represents a tolerance of government that absolutely cannot be crossed. If government should attempt gun control that burdens or attempt confiscation, the line will have been crossed. The Supreme Court WOULD HAVE TO IMMEDIATELY STRIKE THAT ACTION DOWN. Hell, the Supreme Court has held over and over again that any action by government that should happen to burden even ever so lightly a woman’s right to have an abortion cannot be tolerated. And an abortion actually and absolutely KILLS another human being – an innocent and helpless one. The right to an abortion is NOT mentioned in the Constitution and certainly NOT in the Bill of Rights. The right to have and bear arms is. It is addressed plainly and without condition or pre-condition in the second amendment. By applying the same rational as the Court uses to ensure women their unfettered right and access to an abortion, the government MUST NOT in any way, shape, or form burden an individual’s right to have and bear arms. The right to bear arms is rooted in the natural rights of self-defense and self-preservation. The right to have an abortion is rooted in the selfish goal of convenience.

When the government crosses that line, the Declaration of Independence tells us what the Peoples’ rights are, under the theory of social compact (which the US Constitution is):

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, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Should the government attempt to burden or deny the American people of their gun rights, our natural right of self-defense (even from our own government) and self-preservation (to live free, as our Creator endowed us and as nature intended) allows us to dissolve our government – that is absolve us from allegiance to it – and establish a new government that is dedicated to the protection of our God-given liberties. Personally, I believe the Constitution is perfect; it just needs verbage that makes it absolutely clear that its very terms are its limitations, there are no elastic clauses or implied powers, there is no independent legislative power attached to the General Welfare or Necessary and Proper clauses, no object expressly delegated to the legislative branch is allowed to be delegated to an un-elected group of people, Congress is expressly forbidden to tax and spend for any reason other than what is listed expressly in Article I Section 8, a provision should be included to give the states the power to audit the spending budget of the government for strict constitutionality, a provision should be added to require Congress to balance its budget every year, the Supreme Court can only offer an opinion which is subject to an appeal to the State courts, the “Wall of Separation” is removed from federal court jurisprudence, the president’s powers must be severely limited by additional language in the Constitution, presidents will no longer be allowed to issue executive orders, the bar for impeachment of a president will be lowered and in certain cases Congress MUST issue articles of impeachment and seek to remove him, consequences will be provided for in the Constitution for representatives and officials who violate their oath of office, the 14th amendment must be clarified as not intending to include the incorporation doctrine (so that the Bill of Rights once again only applies to the actions of the federal government), the 16th and 17th amendments must be repealed, an outright prohibition and a provision should be added that states that when the federal government over-steps its authority that threatens the balance of power between federal government and the states, it shall be viewed as a fatal breach of the compact that binds the states and as such they have the option of dissolving their allegiance. However, if the Constitution cannot be amended to assure that a future government remains adherent to its limits, then James Madison has set the example for us. We don’t have to “amend” the Constitution if we believe it to be seriously flawed. We can simply start from scratch.

The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence continues:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security….”

Our government has been intent on enlarging and redefining its powers almost from the very beginning. It has done everything it has wanted to do to achieve the things it believed it needed to do or simply wanted to do (as in Barack Obama’s case). A government dependent on the separation of powers for proper functioning has become a government monopoly to ignore proper functioning in order to become what the British Kings used to be…. Supreme, domineering, coercive, and oppressive. The people’s government has been replaced by the government’s government. Liberty-loving Americans have been disposed to suffer long enough. Threats to take away our gun rights, however, would be the final straw.

Should Obama and his administration do more than simply talk about gun control and possible confiscation, it would be incumbent upon the states to NULLIFY any legislation or policy and then INTERPOSE for the protection and security of the People to have and bear arms. The next step, should the government fail to back down, would be to declare the federal action or actions to constitute a FATAL BREACH of the compact that brought the states together in the union and therefore the bonds of allegiance are severed and the Union creating the “United States” is thereby dissolved. The federal government would therefore have no jurisdiction except within the District of Columbia, I suppose.

The states need to act – NOW. Each state needs to adopt resolutions and enact legislation protecting the gun rights of its citizens. Those that respect the second amendment need to start attracting gun manufacturing and ammunition industry to their states. The states need to put the president and the administration, and including the federal courts, on notice of their intentions.

If the federal government intends to or attempts to violate the second amendment, the People need to know they can count on their government – that is, their state government. I hope their response will be clear and collective – WE WILL NOT COMPLY… WE WILL NULLIFY! Liberty will require such a response.

References:

Patrick Henry’s Speech, History.com. Referenced at: http://www.history.com/news/patrick-henrys-liberty-or-death-speech-240-years-ago

Congress Petitions English King to Address Grievances, History.com. Referenced at: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/congress-petitions-english-king-to-address-grievances

King George III Speaks to Parliament of American Rebellion, History.com. Referenced at: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/king-george-iii-speaks-to-parliament-of-american-rebellion

Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress. Referenced at: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/resolves.asp

“Obama Trashes the Constitution and No One Says a Damn Thing!”, Mark Levin Show. Referenced at: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mark+levin+obama+trashes+the+constitution+and+no+one+says+a+thing Also referenced at: http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-obama-trashes-the-constitution-and-nobody-says-a-damn-thing/

“Obama Goes Beyond Mere Gun Control; Hints at Confiscation,” Breitbart News, October 3, 2015. Referenced at: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/03/obama-goes-beyond-mere-gun-control-hints-confiscation/

“The Second Amendment: It’s Meaning and Purpose, The Tenth Amendment Center, September 22, 2014. Referenced at: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/09/22/2nd-amendment-original-meaning-and-purpose/

“Madison’s Introduction of the Bill of Rights,” usconstitution.net. Referenced at: http://www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html

Appendix:

The Intolerable Acts included the following:
(i) Boston Port Act, which closed the port of Boston to all colonists until damages from the Boston Tea Party were paid.
(ii) Massachusetts Government Act, which gave the British government total control of town meetings, taking all decisions out of the hands of the colonists.
(iii) Administration of Justice Act, which made British officials immune to criminal prosecution in America.
(iv) The Quartering Act, which required colonists to house and quarter British troops on demand, including in private homes as a last resort.

Embracing Founding Principles to Solve the Social Security Problem

Social Security - BROKE    by Diane Rufino, August 20, 2015

Four years ago, in 2011, Social Security reached a critical tipping point. It paid out more in benefits than it took in through payroll (FICA) taxes. So, for four years, Social Security has been running a deficit.

In 1970, Social Security and Medicare made up 18.7% of the federal budget. In 2006, these two programs made up 33.3% of the federal budget. In 2010, the two programs made up 42.7% of federal budget spending. In that same year, defense spending comprised 19.7 % of the budget and welfare programs comprised 18%. Adding it all up, a full 60.7 % of the 2010 federal budget was designated to entitlement programs.

The recent economic downturn has led to a major decrease in payroll taxes and many people have opted to collect their benefits earlier. (People can retire at age 62, but payments are reduced until age 67). This has led to the Social Security system going into the red. At this point, Social Security is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme, robbing payrolls and future retirees to pay the benefits of current retirees. The enormity of the economic downturn has led to a giant decrease in revenues, and unless an immediate rebound occurs in the economy and revenues increase, benefits will have to be cut and the retirement age will be raised….. OR, Social Security will certainly go broke. Our very own president has even told us that economic recovery will take years. So, you do the math.

 

The point I’m try to make is that the federal government continues to force a failing system on citizens.  It continues to take payroll taxes out of everyone’s paycheck, including mine, every single pay period in order to cover Social Security benefits and Medicare. It also requires the employer to match those contributions at 6.8% (so if you are self-employed or are a small business owner, then the screwing is more intense). All the while, Social Security continues to run a deficit, continues to be in debt, and continues on the fast track to insolvency.

Social Security was signed into law by President Roosevelt in 1935, as the country was beginning to recover from the Great Depression and coming to the realization that there should be programs to provide for citizens when they can’t provide for themselves, such as the elderly, the disabled, those injured on the job, dependent mothers, etc.

Before the 1930s, support for the elderly was a matter of local, state and family rather than a Federal concern (except for veterans’ pensions). However, the widespread suffering caused by the Great Depression brought support for numerous proposals for a national old-age insurance system. On January 17, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt sent a message to Congress asking for “social security” legislation. The same day, Senator Robert Wagner of New York and Representative David Lewis of Maryland introduced bills reflecting the administration’s views. The bills were met with strong opposition from those who considered the program a governmental invasion of the private sphere.  Eventually the bill passed both houses, and on August 15, 1935, President Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law.

The act created a uniquely American solution to the problem of old-age pensions. Unlike many European nations, U.S. social security “insurance” was supported from “contributions” in the form of taxes (payroll taxes; FICA) on individuals’ wages and employers’ payrolls rather than from government funds. The act also provided funds to assist children, the blind, and the unemployed; to institute vocational training programs; and provide family health programs. As a result, enactment of Social Security brought into existence complex administrative challenges. The Social Security Act authorized the Social Security Board to register citizens for benefits, to administer the contributions received by the Federal Government, and to send payments to recipients. Prior to Social Security, the elderly routinely faced the prospect of poverty upon retirement.

Since its inception, workers have come to view their “targeted” payroll deductions (their “contributions”) to the Social Security program’s trust fund [the OASDI fund – “Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance”] as establishing a unique connection between those tax payments and future benefits, and thereby a true entitlement. They believe that because they have paid (been forced to pay) into the system, Social Security is an “earned right” and therefore they are entitled to retirement benefits, even if the government has a more pressing need for the funds and even if it claims financial insolvency. They believe the government has certainly encouraged that belief by referring to Social Security taxes as “contributions.”  They have come to view the entitlement in terms of morality, ethics, and a contracts.  The government, on the other hand, has come to view the “contributions” as anything other than that.  Social Security is simply another form of taxation and revenue – plundering – for the government.

In the case Flemming v. Nestor (1960), the Supreme Court declined to honor Americans rightful expectations in the program, holding that there is no property or contractual right in the contributions taken from their paychecks specifically for their retirement.  Justice Harlan wrote: “To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of ‘accrued property rights’ would deprive it [the government; Congress] of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever changing conditions which it demands.” The Court went on to say, “It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments.”

Perhaps the Court’s decision should not have been surprising. In an earlier case, Helvering v. Davis (1937), the Court had ruled that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program, saying, “The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way.”

As Michael Tanner put it: “Social Security is not an insurance program at all. It is simply a payroll tax on one side and a welfare program on the other. Your Social Security benefits are always subject to the whim of 535 politicians in Washington.”  Just as Congress has cut Social Security benefits in the past, it is more than likely to do so in the future. In fact, given Social Security’s financial crisis, the high unemployment rate, and the historic numbers of Americans claiming disability, benefit cuts are almost inevitable. As we all know, there are various proposals to cut benefits, from increasing the retirement age to means testing.  NJ Governor Chris Christie, realizing that workers have no right to the money religiously taken from their paychecks, has suggested that those who are well enough off in their elderly years should simply forfeit their benefits to others.

So, as a result of the Flemming case, workers have no legally binding contractual rights to their Social Security benefits.  Those benefits can be cut or even eliminated at any time.  You have worked hard all your life and have paid thousands of dollars in Social Security taxes.  Now it’s finally time to retire.  Your rightful expectation is that the government delivers on its promise.  But what can you honestly expect? The Supreme Court, as it has always – ALWAYS – does, has given the government (Congress, in this case) the flexibility it needs to use use and direct the funds as it sees fit.  Again, the individual is a mere pawn.  He is, above all else, a mere source of tax revenue.

One of the myths of our political system is that the Supreme Court has the last word on the scope and meaning of federal law.  Chief Justice John Marshall proclaimed that view in Marbury v. Madison (1803), despite commentary by our Founders to the contrary.  But there is one remedy that can correct “mistakes” by the Supreme Court and it lies with the Peoples’ House – the US Congress.  Under the original intent of our government, the branches were to be separate and were supposed to actively check each other in order that none of them should transgress the bounds of their authority.  The federal judiciary, as assured to the state ratifying conventions in the Federalist Papers, would be the weakest branch, only being able to offer an opinion to the other branches. “The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”  (Federalist No. 78, written by Alexander Hamilton).  The Supreme Court could offer its opinion as to the constitutionality of a law passed by Congress, but Congress (having the same capacity to read the words of the Constitution and its history), could act in accordance with that opinion or disregard it.  Since Marbury, whenever the Supreme Court reaches an opinion, any legislation that is “repugnant” to the Constitution MUST fall.  It’s their way or the highway.  And so, time and time again, Congress has dealt with the dissatisfaction of having the Supreme Court frustrate its legislative schemes. Sometimes it is for the better but sometimes not.  One way Congress has dealt with that dissatisfaction  is by amending or re-enacting the legislation to clarify its original intent and overrule a contrary Court construction.

While it’s true that Congress cannot really “overrule” its decisions on what a law means, Congress certainly has the power to pass a new or revised law that “changes” or “reverses” the meaning or scope of the law as interpreted by the Court, and the legislative history of the new law usually states that it was intended to “overrule” a specific Court decision.  The People, through their elected officials, and not at the mercy of unelected men and women in black robes, have the power to make the laws and set policy that they want to govern their country and their society.

With that in mind, I have come up with a proposal which, while not solving the debt crises that Social Security is in, will honor the reasonable and legitimate expectations of hard-working individuals who pay into the system, have paid into the system, and may not be able to enjoy its benefits when they retire. My solution addresses the frustration of individuals who know that the government has essentially stripped them of any legal right to their “contributions,” despite what the statute suggests, in order to use the funding scheme as an additional means of taxation to fund welfare and other unconstitutional programs.

Here is a Resolution proposing my solution:

RESOLUTION TO ENACT LEGISLATION TO DEFINE SOCIAL SECURITY FUNDS AS AN INDIVIDUAL’s PROPERTY/CONTRACTUAL RIGHT

    Whereas, the actions of our Founding generation proved their greater desire for freedom than for the security provided by its political association with England;

And Whereas, for that reason, the original thirteen states, acting together, adopted the Lee Resolution (or Resolution for Independence) on July 2, 1776, formally dissolving the bonds of allegiance with said country;

And Whereas, two days later, on July 4, the Second Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence, which was intended to proclaim “to a candid world” the reasons the American states sought to dissolve its political association with England

Whereas, the reason the American states felt compelled to seek their independence from the most powerful nation on earth at the time was because of the collective treatment – the “history of repeated injuries and usurpations” – they received at the hands of King George III and the English Parliament, “all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny” over them;

Whereas, leaders from our founding generation petitioned and pleaded with the King and Parliament to respect the inherent rights of its “subjects” in America, as addressed and protected by the various English charters of liberty, including the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right of 1628, and the English Bill of Rights of 1689, only to be ridiculed, punished, and oppressed further;

Whereas, the Declaration of Independence proclaims the principles of liberty that the “united” States of America collectively stand for, including the following:

• Individuals are the inherent depositories of government power. Individuals “assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.” When government oversteps its delegated powers and becomes destructive of liberty (denies them their freedom), power returns to the People. [First paragraph]

• People have the inherent right to dissolve their government and to assume their full rights to govern themselves (or to compact and establish another government). [First paragraph]

• All men are created equal (stemming from their equality in a state of nature) and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness… [Second paragraph]

• In order to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed… [Second paragraph]

• That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness….. [Second paragraph]

• Governments are the product of social compact – among those agreeing to be governed (“deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”) [Second paragraph]

Whereas, the author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, as well as the other members of the committee selected to draft the document (John Adams of MA, Benjamin Franklin of PA, Roger Sherman of CT, and Robert Livingston of NY) made the conscious decision to ground American government theory on the philosophy and teachings of John Locke. To be sure, each statement written in the first and second paragraphs are taken from the writings of John Locke (see the Two Treatises of Government);

Whereas, by their votes, each of the individual states adopted the position espoused in the Declaration on the origins, purpose, and limitations of government, thereby grounding individual liberty on the natural law doctrine of Individual Sovereignty;

Whereas, John Locke wrote about the “inalienable rights” of “Life, Liberty, and Property and emphasized that the primary role of government is to secure the individual’s right of Property;

Whereas, Thomas Jefferson was not only as strong a proponent of the natural origin, and thus the inalienable character, of a personal right to property as John Locke, but believed the right to property should be enlarged to include the right to accumulate wealth (and hence changed the word “property” to “pursuit of happiness”). “I believe that a right to property is founded in our natural wants, in the means with which we are endowed to satisfy these wants, and the right to what we acquire by those means without violating the similar rights of other sensible beings.” http://www.indytruth.org/library/journals/libertarianstudies/18/18_1_2.pdf

Whereas, Thomas Jefferson understood “property” to include not only real property, but also intellectual property (the product of one’s mind), and the property that results from an individual’s use of his or her talents, energy, personality, etc etc. He believed a person has the right to the benefits (wealth, security, happiness) that result (“the Pursuit of Happiness”);

Whereas, the 16th Amendment established the federal income tax by which the government, according to a progressive system, can plunder the property of Americans for the purpose of funding the its programs and obligations;

Whereas, in 1935, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act, as the country was finally beginning to recover from the Great Depression. Millions of people were still out of work, and there was alarming concern for the elderly and retired Americans who had lost everything. The Social Security program was intended to be – and is essentially still today – a social insurance program. It is a government-run program providing economic security to our elderly citizens. The 1935 Act, in great part, provided for “old age” or retirement benefits by having workers make contributions from their paychecks to a government-managed trust fund for the purpose of replacing lost earnings at retirement (in other words, to pay for their retirement and other benefits they might need in the further);

Whereas, the contribution by an American worker into the Social Security program’s trust fund through a dedicated payroll tax establishes a unique connection between those tax payments and future benefits;

Whereas, the design and intent of the Social Security program infers a reasonable and rightful expectation by that American worker to a “right” (an “earned right”) to the benefit at the age of retirement;

Whereas, the “earned right” to social security retirement benefits is a true entitlement in the moral and legal (contractual) sense;

Whereas, the government has encouraged that belief and expectation by referring to Social Security as a “contribution”;

Whereas, the forced contribution into the Social Security program denies individuals of using those funds – the funds they worked for and earned – to invest and save themselves, on their own terms, for their retirement;

Whereas, salary is a property right, derived from one’s employment contract which converts physical and mental skills that serve the employer into a monetary equivalent;

Whereas, salary can later be transformed into other types of property, including real and personal property, can be transformed into other types of investment, such as a college education, a business venture, or a retirement plan, and can be transformed or used for other objects all designed to enrich one’s life (“Pursuit of Happiness”);

Whereas, the social policy underlying employment is that every individual should be responsible for his or her life and his or her choices, particularly the costs involved. Everyone should be personally responsible to become educated or learn some sort of trade or skill. Everything costs money and if a person can’t pay for what he or she needs and the government is intent on providing services, that money necessarily come from the property rights of another;

Whereas, the Supreme Court, in the case Flemming v. Nestor [363 U.S. 603 (1960)], provided the federal government an additional avenue to plunder the finances of American citizens by denying them a rightful property interest in the amount deducted by the government for their retirement;

Whereas, in Flemming, the Court held that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right nor a property right. As Justice Harlan, who delivered the decision, wrote: “It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments.”

Whereas, indeed the Court in Flemming acknowledged the legislative intent when the law was passed. “The right to Social Security benefits is in one sense ‘earned,’ for the entire scheme rests on the legislative judgment that those who, in their productive years, were functioning members of the economy may justly call upon that economy, in their later years, for protection from ‘the rigors of the poor house as well as from the haunting fear that such a lot awaits them when journey’s end is near.” The decision then went on to state that “to engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of ‘accrued property rights’ would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever changing conditions which it demands.” The Court noted that as time has gone on and as the dynamics of the country has changed, the practicality of that “judgment” (the legislative judgment) has been questioned. As such the Court concluded that an individual who contributes to Social Security has no right (property or contractual) to his or her money or to benefit payments (as would be protected by the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment);

Whereas, despite the language used to sell the program to the American people, just like what happened with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, or “Obamacare”), the Supreme Court went on to characterize it in complete opposite terms;

Whereas, as a result of Flemming, Social Security is not an insurance program at all. It is simply a payroll tax on one side and a welfare program on the other. An individual’s Social Security benefits are always subject to the whim of 535 politicians in Washington;

Whereas, the American people believe that they have a rightful claim to the contributions they have made over the years into the Social Security trust fund, despite what the Supreme Court might say, and demand assurances that their money will be available to them when they retire;

Whereas, under the Separation of Powers doctrine, the wisdom of the scheme of retirement benefits set forth in the Social Security Act, as interpreted (ie, re-defined) by the Supreme Court in Fleming, must be addressed by Congress – the People’s House.

THEREFORE, the US Congress must – and should feel duty-bound – to supersede the Supreme Court’s characterization of Social Security (retirement) “contributions” and benefits in Flemming by defining said contributions legislatively as a “property” and a “contractual” right belonging to each American worker (that is, each employee who has a FICA payroll tax deducted from his or her paycheck). As such, each American worker cannot be deprived of his or her promised future benefit.

FURTHERMORE, characterization of Social Security retirement contributions and benefits in terms of a tangible property/contract right to the individual will force the federal government to control its spending. Of course, another option is to privatize Social Security. Under a privatized Social Security system, workers would have full property rights in their retirement accounts. They would own the money in them, the same way people own their IRAs or 401(k) plans. Congress would have no right to touch that money.

Diane - BLOG PIC (fall 2015) #2

References:

Michael D. Tanner, “Is There a Right to Social Security,” CATO Institute, November 25, 1998.  Referenced at:  http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/is-there-right-social-security

Social Security Act (1935) –  http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=68