Tag: politics

It Seems to Me

By Bob Beanblossom

This series of essays was originally published one per day for fifty days on Facebook in the Spring of 2021 as our government was making unprecedented inroads into replacing the freedoms guaranteed under our constitutional democratic republic with socialism. Essay 51 concludes the series with some observations of my own. Each essay is based upon a published statement by one or more of the Founding Fathers, other Patriots, some not so patriotic, or a relevant passage from Scripture. It has been modified by grouping them under the principal author.

AUTHOR INDEX

Bible 2, 5, 28
John Adams 12, 15, 38, 49, 50
Samuel Adams 29
Aaron Burr 47
Winston Churchill 50
Rahm Emanuel 29
Benjamin Franklin 8, 22, 28, 35, 37, 40
Sara Gideon 50
Alexander Hamilton 3, 21, 24
John Hancock 27
John Jay 3
Thomas Jefferson 2, 11, 17, 18, 20, 26, 31, 34, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50
Samuel Langdon 46
Abraham Lincoln 13
James Madison 3, 23, 32, 41
James Monroe 25
Wendell Phillips 11
Charles Pinckney 43
Mark Twain 50
George Washington 1, 3, 6, 16, 19, 30, 33, 36, 51
Daniel Webster 7, 9, 10
Noah Webster 14
M.F. Weiner 29
John Witherspoon 45

Biblical Perspective

Perspective on the Constitution #5

It seems to me that the Bible and the Constitution have one significant factor in common: many of the people who have strong opinions about them have never really read them. We live in a world increasingly dominated by opinion rather than fact. We would rather hear what someone says about a subject than to delve into the subject for ourselves. We are sheep being led to slaughter. Do you study to show yourself approved (2 Timothy 2:15) or are you content to let others lead you?

Like the relationship of a Christian to God, democracy requires intentional participation by each citizen to assure that the attraction of power and profit for unscrupulous who would rule and rob is offset by the vigilance of an informed electorate. Carrying the analogy forward, a free and honest press informs the populace as does the Word of God the Christian. Both are essential in their setting. We will see in the quotations below that the Founding Fathers considered both essential, with the Bible as the only moral foundation that will guarantee the success of the great American experiment. For them this was not arbitrary. Even as a state religion was prohibited to assure the rule of the People instead of the rule of some church elite, the biblical values of each citizen was deemed essential for this participative government to function.

–John Adams

Perspective on the Constitution #12

These United States of America exist because the brave citizens of a loose confederation of independent colonies determined not to allow the political horrors of the Europe that they had fled overtake their new homeland. These staunchly independent settlers voluntarily ceded part (but never all) of their own freedoms to a united constitutional republic that promised to be “Of the People, By the People, and For the People,” a radical departure from the age-old notion of rule by self-appointed elites of one sort or another. Unlike the passive lifestyle that allowed the ruler to dictate life’s parameters, the new system relies upon the active participation of the governed.

This was done with serious deliberation and some contention by brilliant but practical men to formulate a limited government meant to serve the people, not the ruling elite. Unlike modern government, theirs was not a My Way or No Way, but a series of compromises and innovations to solve problems and establish a just and workable system that benefited the whole,

• Where Justice was defined;
• Where peace on the home-front—called “domestic Tranquility”—was an ongoing process of integrating ideals and the harsh realities of life in the New World;
• Where the national sovereignty was jealously guarded and actively protected;
• Where the “general Welfare” of all citizens was to be protected; and,
• Where the “Blessings of Liberty,” were earned by an informed citizenry intent upon self-rule.

It would never be perfect, but would improve in fits and spurts as its citizens continually strive to improve a rich balance of individual and corporate rights and responsibilities.

John Adams described the value that Americans of his time and since—at least until recently—have placed upon the document that prescribes and limits the duties and powers of government. If faithfully upheld, it would not allow the American republic to degenerate into either a self-indulgent “divinely ordained” monarchy, or the ruthless Committee of Public Safety of the French Revolution—again, if its citizens remained informed and performed the duties required of them. Adams found the Constitution intellectually and morally satisfying, worthy of the commitment of its constituents:

“I first saw the Constitution of the United States in a foreign country…. I read it with great satisfaction, as the result of good heads prompted by good hearts…. I have repeatedly laid myself under the most serious obligation to support the Constitution …. What other form of government, indeed, can so well deserve our esteem and love?”

Duty and honor are recurring themes among the Founding Fathers, themes that seem to be lost to both the electorate and public servants today.

–John Adams, second President of the United States

Perspective on the Constitution #15

John Adams, the first vice-president of the United States and second President, came to public notice when he wrote a response to the British Stamp Act that helped foment the American Revolution. Even as a staunch patriot, he represented the best qualities of statesmanship, believing that biblical principles not only were foundational to American government, but overshadowed it as well. It seems to me that this is best illustrated by his being chosen to represent British soldiers accused of killing five Colonists in the infamous Boston Massacre. He held that justice must be just and evenhanded, based upon facts, not emotions or political correctness. Today we would also add that trials must be conducted in the courts, not in the popular media as further expressed in demonstrations and riots on the streets.

Integrity and moral values are necessary for the American constitutional government to function. Adams said:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Today we see the truth of that position as public figures represent the worst moral values rather than biblical values. Formerly a determinant in public service, the concept of “moral turpitude,” a phrase used in criminal law to describe conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty, or good morals. Rather than standing above the norm in moral values, public servants seem today to represent the basest of moral behavior, both in official duties and in their personal lives. Before one gets too incensed about that behavior, however, remember that each elected official is elected and periodically reelected by We the People.

–John Adams

Perspective on the Constitution #38

In “Perspective on the Constitution #32” we looked at the importance that the Founding Fathers placed on basic universal education. We learned that James Madison believed that, “A well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people.” Our government cannot function Of, By, and For a silent or lethargic populace. Silence is here a verb, an action word— or more correctly, an inaction word. It is the opposite of an informed and active electorate that participates in the operation of its government from the ballot box through the enactment of new legislation and repeal of old. It is active in the selection of officials and monitoring of the actions of each branch of government. It is not a populace content with one-line catch phrases and speech attacking the currently favored protagonist, an electorate who shuns their own ballot box but would control the goings-on in some far-away district—and who doesn’t even know the names of those who serve in their own.

Scripture commands that each Christian study as one means of showing approval of his heavenly Father. The idea is that one is a bit challenged to obey God when one’s knowledge of God is second or third hand at best, and sketchy and impersonal at worst. John Adams warned the same, from the same source, but added a specific dimension for the great experiment that is our constitutional republic. He challenged: “Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.” His challenge was for every citizen to engage the entirety of our minds, our entire beings, in building our core knowledge of our Constitution, a working knowledge of current events here and abroad; then to engage our minds in developing effective and timely solutions to maintain the functionality and responsiveness of government to its constituency by speaking and writing about those subjects. His mandate was not a My Way or No Way as the building of the Constitution proved, but a corporate solution of developed by finding consensus from manifold possibilities.

Anathema to the workings of the legislative arm of government is the current situation where, instead of sharing and discussing ideas and proposed solutions, each faction issues only ultimatums. The word “compromise” has come to represent a sin against government and one’s belief system. The history of American government as well as its very structure shows that compromise leading to consensus is the only working solution as representatives from all districts come together to formulate working solutions to real problems. A willingness to compromise as the path to progress is the sign of a statesman intent upon maintaining constitutional procedures. Consensus building requires moral values and confidence in the workings of the Constitutional system of government and its practitioners.

This is not to support the compromise of principles. Adams provided the solution for that problem as he told each of us to “read, think, speak, and write;” that is, to educate our opponents to the wisdom and benefits of our position rather than to attack them for being mindless brutes or worse. Compromise is, then, the result of each of us sharing our knowledge and wisdom, such as it may be, with friend and foe persuasively, and being willing to produce an amalgam of all opinions in order to make incremental improvements in the outworking of those ideas.

“Read, think, speak, and write,” said Adams. Seek knowledge and wisdom first, discuss the issues with others next, and as the ideas mature, share them with an ever-broadening circle as one educates others on the values of your solution—always open to new and better ideas from others. Adam’s solution is not passive, even in reading and thinking, for those activities are intensively active. Neither does his system end with the beginning, for it requires an outreach intended to win converts, not commit those who disagree with us to political Hell. Each of us is, after all, but one voice among the many, each with the same constitutionally guaranteed access to government as our own.

–John Adams

Perspective on the Constitution #49

It seems to me that the Founding Fathers would not recognize the America of 2021. As their awe at the amazing growth in population, infrastructure, and commerce wore off, they would be grieved to notice that We are not the People united, but are divided—even splintered—into all sorts of groups and factions unheard of, even in the recent past, each clamoring for special position, power, and benefits. They would find activists instead of patriots, with each faction capitalizing on polarizing differences while the power structure crafts rival ideologies into a favorable voting bloc in the background.
As the Colonies were experiencing the difficult and divisive machinations of preparing to replace an absentee king and his government with a confederacy of all the Colonies, the Council of Massachusetts Bay considered the very reasons that government should even exist. After some deeply soul-searching deliberation, John Adams proposed the following ground-breaking proclamation that the Council adopted in 1774:
“As the happiness of the people is the sole end of government, so the consent of the people is the only foundation of it, in reason, morality, and the natural fitness of things.”
Government, for the Council of Massachusetts, was Of the People, By the People, and For the People. The importance of this sentiment can be realized when the year is noted. In December, 1773, an important event took place that triggered events leading to the wholesale secession of the Colonies from Continental rule: the Boston Tea Party. The British Crown and Parliament did not take too kindly to this act of insurrection, and instituted harsh punitive laws properly called the Coercive Acts, but known in the colonies as the Intolerable Acts. American farmers and town folk actively revolted against British tyranny beginning with the first shots fired at Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775, and ending with the Treaty of Paris on September 3, 1783: British rule of Americans was crushed.

Thomas Jefferson, affirmed the position of the Massachusetts Patriots and broadened the scope to all thirteen Colonies in the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. The principle is clear:

“Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

A British loyalist in Massachusetts lamented, “Government has now devolved upon the people; and they seem to be for using it.” George Washington warned: “Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by individuals.” This includes judges who would legislate and Presidents who would make “law” by executive order. Returning to the opening premise of this essay: The Founding Fathers would be confused and probably distraught to learn that the government they so carefully crafted Of, By, and For the People to provide peace and security now operates from the top down, using tools that would be completely familiar to Joseph Goebbels (see Perspective on the Constitution #47).

They would see the government and its marketing arm, the “news” media, carefully indoctrinate popular opinion using carefully selected marketing tools to achieve and maintain power and wealth. Power flows from the top down—the desires of a very few ultra-rich manipulators and the politicians they “support” through various means. The government of the Constitution has been turned upside down. It would be difficult to argue persuasively today that our federal and many state governments represent the will of the majority. No longer does government govern, instead, it rules.
–John Adams, Proclamation adopted by the Council of Massachusetts Bay, 1774
–George Washington
–Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

Perspective on the Constitution #50

The government of these United States is like none in the history of the world. Even the ambitious but short-lived Roman Republic cannot compare—except in the apparent similarity in its rise and fall. Other nations have modeled—to some extent—their constitutions and governments after America, but ours remains unique. Though far from perfect, the real history of America is one of ongoing confrontation of evil followed by attempts to correct those failures that allowed those evils to exist. One of the unique aspects of this government is the built-in process for orderly change. Another is the bottom-up authority where government exists to serve the People, not the other way around. All of this is codified in the Preamble to our Constitution:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.”

Although profound in its depth and breadth, it is very simple. The essential separation of powers that provides for balance and counter-balance is listed in Section 1 of each of the first three Articles:

Article 1, Section 1: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

Article 2, Section 1: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. . . .”

Article 3, Section 1: “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their Offices (for life) during good Behavior. . . .”

Thomas Jefferson explained the rationale behind the separation of powers: “It is not by the consolidation or concentration of powers, but by their distribution that good government is effected.” He continued: “The execution of the laws is more important than the making of them.” The founding fathers did not intend that a new social class consisting of government officials would develop. John Adams explains that the intent was to have “A government of laws, and not of men.” George Washington recognized the danger of reverting to an effective monarchy and limited his own service to two terms. Others have discussed term limits:

1. “In the age of term limits, unfortunately, you see power not in the people who are elected by the people, but instead more in the hands of the people who are working behind the scenes.” – Sara Gideon of Maine
2. “Even good men in office, in time, imperceptibly lose sight of the people, and gradually fall into measures prejudicial to them.” -The Federal Farmer
3. “Politicians are like diapers, they need to be changed often, and for the same reasons.” -Mark Twain
4. “After a time, civil servants tend to become no longer servants and no longer civil.” -Former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill
5. “Asking an incumbent member of Congress to vote for term limits is a bit like asking a chicken to vote for Colonel Sanders.” -Former US Representative Bob Inglis (R-SC)
The factional divisions in our country, as manifested in convoluted rules (often not founded in law) to benefit specific groups at the expense of the majority, is dangerous beyond our understanding. The majority will not indefinitely continue to support policies that subjugate them and deplete their resources. At some time there will be a correction. Washington saw hope in responsible participative liberty: “Your love of liberty—your respect for the laws—your habits of industry—and your practice of the moral and religious obligations, are the strongest claims to national and individual happiness.”

He also warned his fellow citizens of the fledgling United States that, “We are either a United people, or we are not. If the former, let us, in all matters of general concern act as a nation, which have national objects to promote, and a national character to support. If we are not, let us no longer act a farce by pretending to it.”

It seems to me that we are close to “acting a farce.”

–John Adams, Novanglus Papers, 1774
–Winston Churchill, former British Prime Minister
–Sara Gideon, former Maine Representative (D-Maine)
— Bob Inglis, former US Representative (R-SC)
–Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Abbé Arnoux, July 19, 1789
— Mark Twain

Samuel Adams

Perspective on the Constitution #29

I was privileged to grow up in a small Ohio town where churches outnumbered gas stations and where the whole community helped to “raise” us children as it had since it was settled in 1801. I learned from dedicated career teachers who were part of our community that we lived in a Constitutional republic that required my participation to function properly. Duty was not to be construed as I preferred, but was based upon biblical principles of morality and loyalty—duty was to God and Country (in that order) and was symbolized by the American Flag, sacred, almost, as the Bible itself. The earliest immigrants into this area had been given their land by a cash poor Continental Congress as payment for their service in the American Revolution. Our grandfathers and fathers had fought in the great World Wars, our older brothers in Korea. We, in turn, ended up in Vietnam, and were followed by others who served in the Sand Pit. Although I moved away long ago, those values remain ingrained. I watched the somewhat idyllic 50s turn into the tumultuous 60s and 70s, where personal and national core values were questioned and wrong practices began to be corrected even as new ones began: violating the law was still illegal behavior. Through it all, the rule of law prevailed as the norm, even as Watts and draft cards burned. Perhaps somewhat unnoticed, biblical values of morality and duty began to erode, to be replaced with personal feel-good freedom above freedom for all. “We the People” was becoming “Me First and Foremost.” Feelings were replacing biblical standards of morality. Rather than duty and service to the whole, beginning with the needs of our neighbor, individual “rights” became the measuring stick. The giant oxymoron was born and stands tall: “I will not tolerate your intolerance to My Way.” Beatniks gave way to hippies as suits and ties were replaced by the uniform “individualism” expressed by the new dress codes of the flower power movement on one side and the militants on the other—both appropriately dressed in matching garb and grooming. This has been extended today to social media where faceless labels allow individuals to identify with the group of their choice as they raise their victimized voices in protest of the oppressive behavior of the majority.

Today lawlessness (My Way or No Way) is the model and divisiveness is the prime tool of political and financial manipulators. Marketing has been honed to a fine art to influence behavior for profit. Political control through marketing techniques is epitomized by the famous, “Never let a good crisis go to waste,” misappropriated by Obama adviser Rahm Emanuel as an opportunity for using fear as a tool to manipulation. It had been penned in 1976 by M.F. Weiner in a medical paper encouraging doctors to learn from the unique problems of each patient.

The new tack that Americans are taking places our Constitutional republic in jeopardy. With distinct overtones of the Enlightenment, relativism and amorality devalue order and a biblical foundation that finds absolutes in acceptable and unacceptable behavior as citizens. Founding Father Samuel Adams warned:

“The sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy the gift of heaven, let us become a virtuous people; then shall we both deserve and enjoy it. While, on the other hand, if we are universally vicious and debauched in our manners, though the form of our Constitution carries the face of the most exalted freedom, we shall in reality be the most abject slaves.”

It is to our shame to note that even as I wrote this, an online “dictionary” announced that its editors have removed the word “slave” from its dictionary as if ignoring slavery would eliminate human trafficking or erase history. The not-always-pretty history that God gives in the Bible of the struggles of national Israel reminds us of the real world we live in. Ignoring sin or its cause is no cure, but the route to another failed Utopia. The choice is ours, but the cost will also be upon us.

–Samuel Adams
— Rahm Emanuel
— M.F. Weiner

Benjamin Franklin

Perspective on the Constitution #8

Faith today is considered the remnant of outdated religious beliefs unsupported by scientific evidence; a drug for the uninformed masses: one to be surgically removed by carefully crafted education. It is informative that the socialist Karl Marx is credited with the famous political maxim that, “religion is the opium of the people,” since religion, especially Christianity and Judaism is under direct and increasing attack by our government today as is seen in the unequal treatment of churches and synagogues during the “COVID Crisis” when compared with other gatherings and events, a government increasingly openly embracing socialist policies and practices.

It seems to me that faith isn’t being removed, but just redirected from that in God to that in Self as a servant of Science: from that developed through a personal relationship with God through the saving power of Jesus Christ in the action of the Holy Spirit, to humanistic faith in the triumph of science over human nature; defined and regulated, always, by a few select wise and benevolent overseers.
Although modern sages teach that Benjamin Franklin was a faithless realist, his actual writings show that he had the utmost faith in the power of God working in this world. Here is his own testimony, one of several similar ones he left for us:

“I have so much faith in the general government of this world by Providence, that I can hardly conceive a transaction of such momentous importance to the welfare of … should be suffered to pass without in some degree influenced, guided and governed by that omnipotent, omnipresent and beneficent Ruler.”

As other Founding Fathers, Franklin here clearly placed the universal government of God above all human government. Today the opposite is true among many who would rule us: Science will solve all the problems caused by the failure of human nature; education will correct all human deficiencies. Despite trying since the Enlightenment, the results are less than encouraging. God provided an answer that humanists necessarily reject since to them there is no god: “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you” (Matthew 6:33). His warning: “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 6:23).

–Benjamin Franklin

Perspective on the Constitution #22

The Founding Fathers were consistent in their belief that the success of the great American experiment in a government Of, By, and For the People required a moral citizenry, both in the electorate and in government service. Greed, avarice, the quest for power, and other corrupt behavior were understood to be fatal to the democratic republic that they worked so hard to form. Ben Franklin warned:

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

The growing size of police forces and their range of tools, as they attempt to keep up with criminal activities in all areas of life and in all neighborhoods, exemplifies this precept. No place or person is isolated from crime. Even as liberal activists and politicians would have these police departments gutted and law-abiding citizens disarmed, criminals control many neighborhoods, terrorizing those who only want to live quiet and peaceful lives. These same liberals are quick to call for police protection or private security when their lives and property are threatened. It is easy to see that it is not that Franklin thought that the masters of a corrupt people are less corrupt, for the opposite becomes quickly evident. It is simply that the more corrupt a society, the more force is required and less freedom can be experienced. In a complete inversion of common sense and reality, the liberal crowd vilifies law enforcement as it excuses the criminal.

The continuum ranges from freedom to slavery. Freedom requires responsible moral behavior while slavery only requires submission to the current reigning power. Markers are clear that we are in a decline to totalitarian rule: we are experiencing increasing restrictions and even censorship of our speech and expression, upon open and unregulated exercise of religion and assembly, upon our freedom of movement and travel, freedom to bear arms, and more. All freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. Sound familiar? The answer falls in our informed participation in government to eliminate anti-American officials and replace them with those who hold the Constitution as the law of the land.

–Benjamin Franklin

Perspective on the Constitution #28

Benjamin Franklin was the elder statesman among the Founding Fathers. He stood out even in that constellation of bright stars, recognized for his knowledge, intelligence, and wisdom in many disparate fields. He was called the “First American,” both in the Colonies, and in England and France where he served as an emissary of colonial unity and ultimately an agent in the birthing of the new nation. Like the other Founding Fathers, though holding his own opinions about what the new nation should look like, and powerfully influential, he was an unwavering advocate of Freedom, intent upon helping to jointly formulate a new type of government Of, By, and For the People that would make possible responsible freedom for generations to come.

Franklin believed in the God who was always present, able to exercise His will upon events to assure that His followers would prosper on earth even as they did in Heaven. Modern historians often paint a different picture of Franklin, but rather than taking the word of these latter-day revisionists, here are his own words to the Constitutional Convention in September of 1787:

“I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God Governs the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?”

Franklin’s foundation for life and the new nation was God.

This understanding has stood the test of 234 years, but today the secular humanism that plagued Europe since the Enlightenment, that the Founding Fathers rejected, is eroding it. A very real question begs: Can we reject this God and expect the nation to prosper for another 234 years without His blessings? The prophet Daniel reminded a wayward Israel many years ago that God was in charge: “And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding:” (Daniel 2:21). This prophecy has been fulfilled many times over, both in the Jewish nation, and others who reject Him throughout the world. The United States of America was founded to replace the tyranny of the greedy and unjust rulers that the colonists left behind when they came to the New World. They did bring with them the God of Creation and His Bible, never bowing to an earthly power, but never failing to acknowledge the sovereignty of Him. The government they established was based upon biblical principles to conform, not with a religion, but with His moral precepts. They would not risk the ire of God. Jesus summed it up: “It is written again, thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God” (Matthew 4:7).

–Benjamin Franklin, Constitutional Convention, September 1787

Perspective on the Constitution #35

The call of Freedom brought the Pilgrims and other colonists to the New World. This same call is bringing uncounted immigrants—legal and illegal—across our borders daily. Few places in the world can offer freedom that approaches ours. The degree of freedom we have in America is seldom appreciated or understood by those who have never experienced life in other countries. This is one reason our military personnel who have served overseas, missionaries who have lived in foreign nations, and travelers who have left the beaten path to experience the real world have a perspective on life that others cannot comprehend.

Maybe this explains why we participate in the erosion of our own freedom as we allow our government to dictate how we think, and act to meet current ideas of political correctness founded in Enlightenment and Marxist principles. Freedom from hearing, from offending some groups, but not others, by one’s speech (spoken or written) is the “new” social norm. Pro-control politicians have even created a new category to exercise control: hate speech. Again, this is based upon the controlling “freedom from hearing” rather than the Constitutionally protected freedom of speech.

The First Amendment is clear and to the point:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

That’s it: the whole First Amendment, written so that every citizen can understand it. Here we will only consider the clause that prohibits the Federal government from “abridging” the freedom of speech of all citizens. Abridging means to limit or prohibit the item under discussion, so abridging free speech is limiting or eliminating it in any way at all. This prohibition is for the Federal government, not State and local governments, private businesses, or your favorite antagonist on social media or at your child’s ball game—or even your ex-spouse. This is not exclusive or limited, but is comprehensive, protecting the speech of all citizens. Freedom from hearing the exercise of free speech is nowhere enumerated in our Constitutional freedoms. There can be no federal “protected hearing,” or penalty for “hate speech.” The Founding Fathers believed that responsible citizens should engage differing viewpoints and make informed decisions, not avoid them. Benjamin Franklin called this “Freedom of Thought,” and considered it an essential part of wisdom and public liberty.

The beginning of restrictions on our freedom may go unnoticed—at first. Or, the restriction may be intentional, enacted with the best of intentions. The erosion of free speech began many years ago when well-intentioned moralists successfully petitioned the Federal Communications Commission to limit the exercise of what they considered offensive speech on radio and television. This was soon broadened to include certain images as well, and the unelected bureaucrats of the FCC became the official and absolute watchdog of morality for the American citizen, replacing individual informed decision-making. The problem was—and is—that the list of prohibitions is fluid: it is based upon current moral values as defined by the current power structure. The drastic value shifts possible in short time spans is highly visible as we compare those of the Trump and Biden administrations. Today freedom from hearing is the predominate theory as all sorts of speech is prohibited as being” offensive,” and even harmful, to the current norm. We opened the door and will find it very difficult to close.

The regulation of speech has displaced freedom of speech. Without free speech, the free interchange of ideas is impossible. Benjamin Franklin understood these issues and their ultimate outcomes. In his “Letter from Silence,” printed in 1722, he wrote:

“Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without Freedom of Speech.”

–Benjamin Franklin, Letter from Silence Dogood, printed in The New England Courant, July 9, 1722

Perspective on the Constitution #37

The curtailment of free speech common today in America is something my parents would never have believed possible. Don’t pray in school. Don’t express your biblical principles in public. Don’t argue that the theory of evolution is flawed. Don’t post truth on social media that contradicts the current accepted norm. Universities founded on principles of the free interchange of ideas are now dominated by gaggles of what are appropriately called “snowflakes,” faculty and students who will “melt” when truth assaults their fragile ivory towers built on the shifting sands of relativity that makes up their worldviews. You might confuse and offend someone and cause irreparable psychological damage. Well, folks, it seems to me that the damage has been done: finding truth is becoming exceedingly difficult, and appears to be dangerous in some sense to the truth-seeker. Expected, and experienced, in Communist countries, we find American citizens in the peaceful pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness harassed, assaulted, and even jailed for expressing their personal religious beliefs. Contrary to the First Amendment, liberal politicians even question and attempt to disqualify presidential nominees for federal positions based upon the exercise of their religious liberty—without any censure at all for their clearly illegal grandstanding posed as questions.

Benjamin Franklin, an outspoken critic of tyranny, called places that limit the freedom of speech “wretched countries.” He warned that the muzzle on the expression of thoughts of the people was the precursor of impending tyranny where the masses were held in lockstep to dictated standards of thought and behavior.

Franklin said, “In those wretched countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything his own. Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”

“The subduing of the freeness of speech” is in full swing. Mind what Franklin said comes next.

–Benjamin Franklin, Dogwood Papers, written by Franklin in 1722, at the age of sixteen

Perspective on the Constitution #40

Today’s perspective is intimately related to the information We the People receive from the news media. News is, by definition, is a necessarily excerpted but intentionally accurate reporting of the facts of an event, presented with the best available information at the time of publication without editorial comment or bias. This is the ideal, and has always been problematic for a variety of reasons, but it is still the goal. I’ve had a couple of memorable managing editors who were strict on style, but even more concerned with truth. I learned valuable lessons under both. This was back in the late 60s when small and independent news sources—newspapers, news magazines, radio, and the emerging power of TV news—were still largely independent. Movement was already underway for large corporations to buy out these independents, or run them out of business.

That is where we are today. Small independent newspapers, radio, and TV stations have been assimilated into a very few corporate giants with political and financial agendas that outweigh their moral obligation to present news as unbiased facts. Internet media was born into this latter environment, and with gleeful impunity presents every “news” story with obvious bias, limiting the facts to those favorable to their position; also openly limiting the free speech of those who disagree with their position. At one time, editors felt a moral obligation to publish letters expressing contrary points of view, but today all moral attachment to truth and honesty has disappeared from the news desk and editorial office.

An amazing culture has been created by the American secular educational system and fed by the news media. It is the Snowflake Syndrome: the presentation of stories carefully crafted and edited so as not to offend the highly offendable sheep who live the liberal party line. These “Snowflakes” are fragile as individuals and collectively, for they believe that the new socialism promised by their humanistic teachers will bring an increasingly utopian world into being for their experiential well-being. This is, really, nothing new. Not much research is necessary to find these teachings in the Enlightenment and acted-out in the failed experiment of the French Revolution. Benjamin Franklin addressed the same problem with the news media. In his time, it was more of a financial issue, as some small newspapers didn’t want to offend the patrons who kept them in business by buying their product. Franklin said, “If all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed.” Today the effect has been reversed as the media owners use their wealth to shape public opinion by producing “news” that propagates their humanistic worldviews.

If Franklin were to evaluate the presentation of truth and the free expression of thought through the press today, he might come to a different conclusion. He might suggest that these purveyors of treachery would better serve the People by remaining silent.

A third issue falls back on the People themselves—that’s us, folks. Instead of pursuing truth with vigorous determination, and holding the news media to strict standards of objective truthfulness, we instead isolate ourselves into factions with competing equally biased sources of “news.” Beyond that we often don’t proclaim verified facts in our own contributions in social media but follow the lead of the despised news outlets by mimicking their vitriolic attacks and baseless claims. This is no solution to the problem. In this time of information overload, we should be intent upon sorting fact from fiction, calling out false and overtly biased reporting with the presentation of facts, and refusing to support those who make their living by lying to the public.

Social media platforms are currently protected, under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, from liability for “unlawful content” posted by independent users. Congress and the most powerful platforms are discussing modifications that would force these platforms to implement systems to detect and eliminate such “unlawful content.” Two problems emerge: small competitors to Google and Facebook, for instance, would be heavily taxed to produce and supervise such robust subsystems within their framework. A more important consideration for We the People is the constitutional basis for such actions. A sitting President of the United States was barred from presenting his viewpoint on a social media platform because it was deemed inappropriate, banned based upon the personal bias of the folks with the money. The Constitution bans the federal government from making any “law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . .” A public social media platform is arguably “the press” when used by American citizens to exercise their freedom of speech, and any rule or pattern of bias limiting this is should be considered a clear breach of the First Amendment. This Constitutional argument is certainly far from settled, but the most direct solution is not: simply do not support businesses that restrict personal freedoms of speech, assembly, and religion.

Freedom of speech, and freedom of an honest and forthright press, are First Amendment issues—those defined as inalienable rights by our Founding Fathers. We should be intent upon protecting those rights and assuring that currently imposed limitations are removed. When Hitler came to power in 1933, the German constitution provided for the freedom of speech. Beginning in 1934 it had already become illegal to criticize the Nazi government. Control of the people grew rapidly from that point as certain groups were segregated and eventually lawfully exterminated as part of a rapidly expanding measure to improve the “quality” of the population. These same tactics are being used quite successfully in totalitarian states around the world today: limit freedom of speech and the press (including radio, TV, and the internet), create groups to be hated and considered dangerous, and loudly proclaim that the government will solve all the problems of the people. We are not there, but we should remember that it all began with government control of information and freedom of speech and press.

–Benjamin Franklin

Alexander Hamilton

Perspective on the Constitution #21

Alexander Hamilton believed that the “conduct and example” of the first citizens of the new American constitutional republic would demonstrate whether the common man could establish and maintain his own government, rather than relying on the whims of whatever elitist group was most powerful. Our forefathers clearly demonstrated that this was not only possible but was a stable and beneficial result of cooperative efforts that resulted in a written constitution.

They were wise enough to understand that this was, however, not a one-time proposition, sealed and settled, but was to be an ongoing challenge to each new generation of citizens of these United States. The long life of America (in terms of the life-spans of most governments) has seen adjustments to the original laws of our Founding Fathers, but not the principles that they incorporated into the Constitution and Bill of Rights—until now. Presidential candidate Barak Obama promised to “fundamentally change” these United States, and he and his successors and backers, are doing an effective job of accomplishing that promise. The rule of law established in the Constitution, modified by a bicameral legislature, interpreted by the judiciary, and enforced by the executive branch, is being replaced by a helter-skelter set of inactivity in the legislature, law making in the judiciary and executive branch, and a failure to enforce the law as written. The rule of law has become the rule of whim. Hamilton was correct in his assessment of the import of the experiment, but we find today that the experiment is ongoing and vital:

“It seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.”

Good government was clearly defined as Of, By, and For the People. It required the responsible participation of every citizen. These Founding Fathers carefully crafted a system complete with checks and balances to avoid the exercise of controlling power by any branch of the federal government. Presidential executive orders that purport to carry the weight of law, court rulings that ignore law enacted by Congress, and a legislature that acts with impunity contrary to the will of the constituents who elected them, are all violations of the very principles of the Founding Fathers, destructive to constitutional law, and harmful to the citizens of these United States. Control, however, remains in the ballot box for those interested enough to exercise their rights.

–Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 1, October 27, 1787

Perspective on the Constitution #24

I enjoy reading history. But I have found that modern history books often tend to be more like historical novels than presentations and evaluations of empirical evidence, of actual events as recorded by eyewitness accounts and contemporary documents. Revisionism goes hand in glove with relativism: “facts” are merely personal opinions, subject to frequent revision, and require little if any grounding in reality.

Alexander Hamilton recognized the germ of this problem as the secularist Enlightenment was revising the precepts and practices of religion and politics throughout Europe. He watched secular humanism completely revise American academia, as administrators transformed schools founded as training grounds for the clergy into liberal arts colleges.
Bishop Samuel Seabury was the first American Episcopal bishop in the Colonies. He was an ardent loyalist—that is, he supported England and its right to exercise whatever remote control of the Colonies and colonists that it wanted. Seabury wrote his pro-England views as “A.W. Farmer.” He believed that the monarchy was the best and most orderly system of government possible, one that, unlike the proposed American system of self-determination, allowed the king to issue undisputed laws and decisions that filtered through decreasing levels of elites to peons. Equality and freedom in this striated society were not issues, or even considerations. Order and structure were paramount.

Hamilton’s replied to Seabury in “The Farmer Refuted” in 1755. His contention was that “A. W. Farmer’s” position of tradition above freedom was untenable and unbiblical. This principle has not changed in the least:

“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. they are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”

Hamilton is not casting aside the truth to be found in historical records, but pointed to the Source of Truth as the milestone against which all truth (and actions) must be measured. The outcome of such a quest would always point to freedom over slavery under any guise. While it took almost 100 years (1848) for the 19th Amendment to be enacted that gave women the same right to vote as men, and over a hundred years for American slaves to be freed, the system established by the Founding Fathers continues to show incremental improvements in fulfilling its promise of Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness.

–Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, February 5, 1775.

John Hancock

Perspective on the Constitution #27

Tyranny was real to our Founding Fathers who determined not accept it in any form from any source. Tyranny anchors the dark end of a continuum with the bright and clear light of Freedom shining at the other. Tyranny rejected was a driving force that brought those first European settlers to the New World in search of Freedom. They were refugees from governments that ruled with an iron fist under the theory of Divine Right, where absolute authority came directly from God and could not be questioned. Tyranny seems like such an archaic word today in a nation where we routinely elect representatives to administer government on our behalf. Oppression is the current word, invoked for ills real and imagined that draw rash comments on social media and demonstrations in the street, but little else that would constructively address the problem at hand. Still, tyranny exists, measured by degrees rather than by absolutes; it is measured in terms of departure from Constitutional standards. Americans, to their shame, remain indifferent to the large portion of Earth’s population that still lives under the despotic tyranny .

Merriam-Webster defines tyranny as “oppressive power; especially oppressive power exercised by government.” It exists in our land when Constitutional protections afforded citizens and limiting governmental authority are willfully and systematically violated. We find all levels of government trampling Constitutionally protected rights today. This tyranny is thinly masked in trappings of the goodwill of the benevolent Government for the citizens it “rules.” The current excuse is the protection of the health of the nation during a COVID pandemic painted as devastating. The free exercise of life was essentially shut down by government in the name of public safety. Alarming stats with no comparables in other health issues topped the daily news. Churches and public worship were shut down the name of public safety, masks and “social distancing” were mandated, and businesses were forced to close their doors as employees found themselves effectively unemployed. A chink in this theory rapidly surfaced as some public (and private for those exercising power) gatherings were allowed. That verifiable data did not support the need for these actions is a subject for another day. Some courts are finding that these violations of Constitutional protection are unconstitutional examples of tyranny; violation of Constitutional law is illegal no matter what the stated good might be. These United States exist because the Colonies united under the Constitution voluntarily, not under the duress of some universal authority or pressure of deep pockets. As the statements of the Founding Fathers contained in these essays clearly show, the theory of a self-governing nation rested upon the good judgment of the people, not the “benevolence” of the government.

Less clear-cut is the restriction of free speech by social media owners. These are private companies that, in the absence of criminal or civil violations, are largely free to operate as they see fit. The marketplace is expected to make necessary corrections. A serious problem arises when these platforms become common, or universal, marketplaces of public expression without equivalent alternatives, and those companies exercise discriminatory policies that selectively restrict speech and access. This series of essays is an example, as the platform limits distribution and access; where it promises access: a selection of “public access” that it defines as “anyone on or off “xxx” is intentionally restricted. The “open” media platform is actively partisan as it restricts public communication contrary to its own agenda. The source is then no longer a universal social media outlet, but a propaganda wing of its owner as tyrannical control is exercised restricting freedom of speech and access. This is particularly problematic where no equivalent social platform exists where free discourse among various viewpoints is not limited or prohibited. The principle of the First Amendment is, after all, freedom of speech, not freedom from hearing. Legal precedent exists in abundance to prohibit such action, but has not been exercised against social media that supports the progressive viewpoint.

John Hancock was the first to sign the Declaration of Independence. His flamboyant signature is familiar to all who have seen that document. He justified that bold signature by saying that he wanted to be sure that the King knew that he completely supported the freedom of the Colonies from all European rule. Hancock believed in Divine Right, but found it vested in the People, not a king. John Hancock believed that resistance to tyranny was a duty of each citizen:

“Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. … Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us.”

As Americans wait impatiently for the next unearned “Stimulus” check, it is not likely that even the most staunch Constitutionalist will actively defend those rights that Hancock and the other Founding Fathers believed derived solely from God. That failure will support the historical pattern of great nations failing from within.

–John Hancock

Thomas Jefferson

Perspective on the Constitution #2

Humanistic relativism eliminates the sometimes uncomfortable standard of behavior based upon truth and justice. As President Bill Clinton famously said regarding charges of moral turpitude, “It depends upon what the meaning of the word “is” is.” It came as a surprise for many that relativism had largely replaced absolute values among so many Americans.

It seems to me that this is a handy worldview for those who find expediency more useful than the rule of law as defined by the plain reading of the Constitution. Applied to our government, the rule of law is replaced by meaningless terms such as “social justice” that are nowhere found in the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson had some interesting thoughts on Constitutional interpretation as he addressed the problem of “creative reading” of our foundational principles:

“On every question of construction (let us) carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

This precept was the foundation of judicial interpretation until recently when the Constitutional intent of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” has been replaced with the unwritten and unfounded theory of social justice that holds that the role of government is to assure the “fair treatment of all people in a society, including the respect for the rights of minorities and equitable distribution of resources of a community.” This results in two distinct thrusts of governmental activity: 1) the ongoing everchanging definition and redefinition of minority groups; and, 2) the seizing of resources from those who create it and redistribution to those who do not. Social justice as a concept of government, known as Socialism, is not only oppressive and regressive, but is unsustainable. Oppressive socialistic governments do not historically have a long lifespan as they only breed divisiveness and greed.

The tenth commandment prohibits the unearned “redistribution of wealth:” “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s” (Exodus 20:17).

–Bible
–Thomas Jefferson

Perspective on the Constitution #11

When “We the People” exercise due diligence and carefully select wise and honest patriots to represent the will of the “People” we still open the possibility of becoming addicted to the exercise of power and the control of vast sums of money. Due diligence then is an ongoing process that includes monitoring the activities of the officials elected and appointed to government positions. Although mid-term sanctions are available, they are generally difficult to use. Until the next election cycle, then, We the People must learn to rely, not so much on the presumed character of those representatives, but on the carefully crafted constraints of the Constitution to assure that the promise to serve is not usurped by human nature into the will to rule. Some wise patriot said, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; power is every stealing from the many to the few.” The most likely source is Wendell Phillips in a speech on January 28, 1852. Thomas Jefferson, himself a powerful personality in the framing of our Constitution, warned:

“In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

When the plain reading of the Constitution is replaced by flexible and relativistic worldviews such as social justice, the practitioner is no longer bound from mischief. The chains of the Constitution have been replaced by a container of Silly Putty™.

–Thomas Jefferson
–Wendell Phillips, speech to the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society on January 28, 1852

Perspective on the Constitution #17

Today’s Perspective on the Constitution comes from Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and third President of the United States. He is remembered as a statesman rather than a politician. The distinction is important. We are all too familiar with politicians, accurately characterized as self-serving individuals who would rule their constituents even as they profit from their position. Today—perhaps throughout our history—statesmen are far rarer: these are those individuals who intentionally and truly represent and serve those who elected them, always within the framework of law.

Jefferson, with the other framers of the Declaration and our Constitution, believed that certain “inalienable rights” derived, not from government, but directly from God. As such, they can neither be granted nor removed by any government. These Founding Fathers were determined to craft a Constitution that limited federal powers while:

“Forming a more perfect Union,
Establishing Justice,
Insuring domestic Tranquility,
Providing for the common defense,
Promoting the general welfare, and
Securing the Blessings of Liberty.”

These they established, not just for their own generation or that of their own children, but for those generations to come: for us today, and our children tomorrow. He understood that the best intentions of the Founding Fathers could only be realized when American citizens maintained Godly values and exercised shared responsibilities that supported shared freedoms as they daily sought “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Jefferson clearly understood that a national disregard for Christian moral values would result not only in the loss of the nation, but bring judgment upon this nation. He said:

“(The) God (who) gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event.”

–Thomas Jefferson

Perspective on the Constitution #18

The Constitution was written to contain and limit the powers of the federal government. The Founding Fathers feared an exponentially expanding national debt. They realized that, like individual citizens, the nation must live within its means. They also realized that the temptation to be cavalier with the resources of the People would be an ongoing temptation for government officials. The desire to limit the powers of the federal government resulted in a complex set of rules to regulate governmental fiscal appropriations and spending. Thomas Jefferson placed the responsibility to control government spending directly upon the shoulders of the People, even as he gave us the ability to do that.

The ballot box is the primary control of the People over the administration and administrators of government. Today we often forget that the voter box represents the corporate will of the voter base, not simply my will. The Founding Fathers realized that no citizen was informed or intelligent, or honest enough to rule this country of freemen. However, when the voter is uninformed; or chooses to continually reelect candidates who fail to uphold constitutional law; or who act contrary to the best interests of the citizens who elected them, government will fail. The burden is not on the inept or corrupt politician, but on the voter. The politicians spending the money of the People are those whom those People elected. Jefferson said:
“I, however, place economy among the first and most important republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt …. I am for a government rigorously frugal and simple.”

–Thomas Jefferson

Perspective on the Constitution #20

The great American experiment was the establishment of a government intended to be Of, By, and For the good of the People rather than to elevate an elite ruling aristocracy. One concern of the framers of the Constitution was the ability (or inability) of the electorate to make sound decisions about their own government. Although universal education was a dream and priority of the Founding Fathers, the truth of the matter at that time was that, in terms of formal education, the average citizen was lacking. The home and church were the centers of education for many years, and the text was the Bible. This, and the American printing press bringing American writing to the public, succeeded in producing what Thomas Jefferson called an “enlightened” electorate.

One might compare the electorate of early America, the world wars and those following, the Great Depression, and the intervening years of peace and prosperity, with ourselves. While our forefathers read the Bible and the Constitution, today we read about them. While our forefathers made their own decisions based upon direct knowledge, today opinion is generated by the will of others. The state of the nation demonstrates the fear of Thomas Jefferson: we have become a nation of unenlightened citizens reacting to cries of wolf instead of an enlightened electorate blazing trails of freedom and justice. Jefferson said:

“I know of no safe depositor of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion (freedom of choice), the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”

–Thomas Jefferson

Perspective on the Constitution #26

Electing men and women to represent us in our federal, state, and local governments to limited terms of service and limited powers is one of the blessings bestowed on American citizens by our Constitution. We the People are responsible to understand the issues and the positions of the various candidates and then to cast our vote in the elections. While the Constitution establishes law regarding qualifications for federal office, term length, timing of federal elections, and a few more details, the conduct of elections is largely left to the several states. The Constitution retains the authority to override state laws that affect federal positions (see U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 5514 U.S. 779, 808—09, 115 S.Ct.1842, 131 L.Ed.2d 881(1995)). States then coordinate federal, state and local elections. Federal responsibilities and limits of reach are found in Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution and in case law. The whole electorate comes together across the country on one day to elect federal officials to minimize the influence of votes already cast. While local corruption has tainted the results of elections, the overall integrity has never been questioned.

The last election cycle was groundbreaking for its mid-stream changes in voting procedures without attendant changes in law, and for hundreds of lawsuits charging fraud, very few of which were upheld. New to our vocabulary were “fake news,” and the select use of “fact checking” that resulted in the clear censorship of free speech. An honestly informed voter base was impossible.

Functioning since 1788, the system degenerated into a partisan free-for-all where the safety, security, and wellbeing of the majority were replaced by a whole plethora of “oppressed” minorities concocted by power-mongering machines to divide and splinter unsuspecting voters. Oppression is never acceptable, even the oppression of the majority.

Heroes and villains alike were raised up and cut down with little regard for facts, so long as the “right” candidates were elected. Billions of private dollars from wealthy individuals poured into select local races to influence the vote, with no regard for the needs and desires of the local districts and their constituents. Money is power and the power was being exercised. The voters have been compromised by the dollar: all sides of the political spectrum salivate heavily as they wait for their next unmerited, unearned government handout: the Stimulus Check. It will come with a high price.

The election process itself was compromised as administrative changes in procedure were made on the fly, some clearly contrary to existing law. New federal law, represented by HR1, would initiate sweeping changes that eliminate safeguards enacted by States to positively identify voters at the time of registration and at the polls and remove dead or otherwise ineligible voters from their rolls. The reader is encouraged to read the bill ( Text – H.R.1 – 117th Congress (2021-2022): For the People Act of 2021 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress).

Changes made during the election made a mockery of the rule of law: winning by any means is the new morality. Chicanery, if not outright corruption, has been shown to be effective. Those holding to constitutional law found (find?) themselves surprised to learn that they are impotent to stem the growing tsunami of revolution that is replacing the letter and intent of law with the ebb and flow of expediency, constantly changing and never able to be settled, but always supporting the most powerful.

America’s Founding Fathers anticipated that the law would need updating over time, and devised orderly methods to assure that the Constitution would not become outdated. This country survived a great civil war, world wars, social upheavals, and other tests of time by adhering to the provisions of the rule of law. Personalities and parties clashed but then came together for the common good. But not today. The new working mode is “My way or no way!” Personal rights and gain have replaced the common good. The law is relative to My desires.

Thomas Jefferson helped to place those safeguards into place to assure orderly elections and changes in law as deemed appropriate by our elected representatives (not “leaders”). He understood that power can be corrosive to the moral character. Jefferson said:“In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

The “chains of the Constitution” are being thrown aside by sworn to defend and uphold it lead the charge against it. Jefferson, as did the other Founding Fathers, believed that the solution to governmental overreach could only be found in a free press. Unknown today, the ideal is that the media abounds in unbiased news reporting with minimal editorial comment. New ways must be found by the citizenry to access unbiased news and to find commonly accessible platforms for free and open discussion. Jefferson warned: “Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error.” The “error” today stems in large part from misinformation and carefully crafted political marketing supported by the wealth of the few who would rule YOUR world.

–Thomas Jefferson

Perspective on the Constitution #31

We in the United States have many choices. We can choose to honor God or dishonor and even dispute His existence, for there is no national church or requirement to participate in religious exercises of any type. We are free to participate in our government as responsible citizens or to simply add to the noise of useless complaining. We are free to choose our occupation and education. All come with costs and require work, all open us to the possibility of failure, but there are no governmental regulations to prohibit the legal free pursuit any dreams we are willing to work hard for. Success is not guaranteed, but the right to follow the dream is.

Some of those choices involve the way we interact with our government and how it in turn serves us. The simple truth is that American government Of, By, and For the People only serves those who participate. This includes responsible behavior, informed voting, and serving in elected office if talent and passion suggest. To do nothing leads to those who love power and glory rising to leadership and imposing their will upon We the People as we passively watch from a distance and complain. I might remind that complaining on social media does little or nothing to maintain a representative government.

Neither does the continual disregard of the membership of a political party that casts a blind eye to the actual doings of their party in conflict with their stated platform and election promises. In the end, behavior counts, not rhetoric. When the behavior, especially the voting records, of Republicans and Democrats are indistinguishable, and both are trampling the Constitution, then it is time for those who elected the offending servants to exercise their constitutional control. The only effective response begins with the membership regaining control of their party or creating a new one and abandoning the old. New candidates must be found and trained, introduced to the electorate, and moved up through the ranks of elected offices. Grassroot efforts like this takes time, effort, and cooperation of like-minded citizens with similar values. This effort will, of course, be countered by big politics backed by big money. The opposition will go through a period of incredulity that anyone would dare challenge them, followed by a marshalling of attacks from both parties as they cooperatively fight for their existence. But that is a long way off.
We recently considered John Hancock’s ill regard for Tyranny. It is worth another viewpoint from the Founding Fathers as we see continuing erosion of constitutional law as we allow our elected and appointed officials to revise the law, history, our vocabulary, and our society with complete impunity, opposed only by a few muted voices on social media. Here is a warning from Thomas Jefferson:

“We in America do not have government by the majority—we have government by the majority who participate …. All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain quiet.”

–Thomas Jefferson

Perspective on the Constitution #34

“Power to the People” was the catch-phrase of the Black Panther Party in the 1960s and 1970s. If their constituency was self-limiting, the slogan was “right-on.” Our Founding Fathers were intent upon assuring that the power of government was explicitly the power of the People; the Constitution they wrote strictly required those elected to administer that government Of, By, and For the People. Elected officials were to “serve” the will of their constituents, not “rule” them. This sort of government necessarily responds to the will of the majority of citizens who participate in the elections and offices of that government. Non-participating by-standers forfeit their representative voice, while retaining their rather ineffectual right to complain.

Except in the bicameral Legislative branch and the Electoral College, the Constitution serves the expressed will of the majority: it recognizes no special groups. Thomas Jefferson calls it the “whole mass of people.” Minority groups are represented as individuals according to their population. The will of the majority is usurped when politicians “adopt” various sub-groups to support and promote for whatever reasons they may have. This often gives disproportionate weight to these groups, thus undercutting the effectiveness of Constitutional processes. This sort of group might include the alphabet rich LGB etc.; illegal immigrants who by definition are neither citizens nor have any legal expectation to the benefits of citizens; and those who have had specific rights or privileges removed or limited by legislation due to crimes against our society. This does not remove or limit their constitutional rights and protections, but maintains a balanced society.

We see the problems caused by elevating one group over another in the concept of “special interest groups.” It is (was) considered especially bad to kill a police officer who was legally exercising his/her duty. Law has been enacted to add a “multiplier” to the charge of murder to exact extra punishment upon such an offender. Intentionally killing another human being is a crime without degrees regarding the victim. All murdered victims are equally valuable on the scales of justice and by biblical principles; the murderer in each case deserves equal punishment established by law for the circumstances involved. Justice is portrayed as blind for a reason. This, of course, goes for crimes of all sorts. Each should be weighed on its own merits in the courtroom under the watchful eye of applicable laws.

The exponential growth of special interest groups may be more a function of self-serving power plays than a quest for social and economic justice for the identified members. Today the number of special interest groups is growing as fast as legislators can identify another voting block they want to capture. The problem begins with the very concept of special interest groups. This is another case of conservative conscience opening the door and liberal opinion battering it down.

This essay started off with a catch-phrase from the Black Panthers that reflected the highest desires of our Founding Fathers. That is where it ended, however. That group, as are many today, was not interested in Constitutional justice, but perceived justice on its own terms. Rather than bringing their grievances to the table of public opinion, the courtroom, and the halls of Congress, revolution was their answer. That answer is never acceptable under our Constitutional republic. Thomas Jefferson found the answer in the education of the people. If the media is tainted and unevenly represents a position contrary to yours, find a way to educate the people to your point of view. If you represent a large enough constituency, the resources should be available to establish and carry out an effective program to educate the populace. Jefferson said:

“Say … whether peace is best preserved by giving energy to the government, or information to the people. This last is the most certain and the most legitimate engine of government. Educate and inform the whole mass of people. Enable them to see that it is in their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve them. And it requires no very high degree of education to convince them of this. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.”

–Thomas Jefferson

Perspective on the Constitution #39

A recurring theme in these essays, each taken from a specific statement by one of America’s Founding Fathers, us that ideas must flow freely through speech and in print. The advent of modern electronic modes of communication have not changed that necessity. John Adams’ admonition, discussed in #37, to “read, think, speak and write,” flows directly into a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to Colonel Charles Yancey on January 6, 1816:

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. The functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents. There is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves; nor can they be safe with them without information. Where the press is free … all is safe.”

Jefferson warned that We the People deceive ourselves if we expect this or any government to be responsive to the needs and desires of the People while that People remain ignorant—uninformed—and passive. Those elected and appointed to office are but humans with human failings, and each has “propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents.”

This is quite obvious today where a virus was sufficient cause for a benevolent government to revoke personal liberties guaranteed by the Constitution as it decreed what was “best” for the American citizen; and where, after creating an economic emergency through unlawful control of private business and the lives of its citizens, sprang to “rescue” them through direct cash payments to individual taxpayer accounts. Nowhere does the Constitution allow any of this, but all branches of government participated willingly in the disregard or Constitutional law in this manufactured “emergency.” This is the demonstration of the “propensities” of governments to “command at will” actions not enumerated in the Constitution resulting in its commanding “at will the liberty and property” of the People.

Aiding and abetting this grand usurpation of power was what Jefferson saw as a necessary component of a free people in this constitutional republic: the “free” press. Since WWII small newspapers and radio stations have been swallowed up by conglomerates that dictate editorial policy and effectively control the flow of information to the public. Social media platforms are monopolies that admittedly restrict free speech. University campuses, once the bastions of free speech, regulate speech and thought instead of encouraging the free exchange of ideas.

This is not the United States of the Founding Fathers, and cannot be without the free exchange of untainted information to a People intent upon maintaining the government Of, By, and For the People. The opportunity to be heard will continue to slip away without an informed and active electorate.

–Thomas Jefferson

Perspective on the Constitution #41

The Founding Fathers created a government for these United States—independent Colonies at that time—that specifically limited the powers of that government with all other governmental authority resting with the several States. James Madison explained the explicit way that these federal powers were limited:

“The powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.”

Madison went on to explain why the Founding Fathers worked so hard to develop a system of government limited by a Constitution that contained a series of interlocking checks and balances:

“All power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people.”

Each constitutionally established branch of government has specific duties that do not conflict with the other branches. Each is to confine itself to its own designated role by clearly stated constitutional law. George Washington, in his Farewell Address on 17 September 1796, said,

“It is most important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free Country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective Constitutional Spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the Powers of one department to encroach upon another.”

The Founding Fathers adopted the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution as a separate and distinct set of laws to regulate government, not the People. Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison in December, 1787, clearly stated the importance of this set of amendments:

“A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth.”

The clear enumeration of powers is specifically designed to limit government, not the People. The 9th and 10th Amendments are clear to the average reader, if not to those public servants seeking to rule their constituents rather than serve them:

Amendment IX, The U.S. Constitution

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Amendment IX, The U.S. Constitution

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

As you read this, the elected and appointed officials of your American government are grossly violating the provisions of the Constitution that each has sworn to obey and uphold. So-called Progressive activists in all branches are issuing “rules” and “orders” that usurp the clear meaning of the Constitution. The cure certain lies in the ballot box, but only when it is seen as a duty, and not a ticket to a “free” lunch. Governmental handouts, “benefits,” are preliminary carrots that will one day be replaced by the stick on which the carrot hangs today. Elected officials are in office because the secured the required number of votes in their districts. Until the voters in each political district decide to vote into office only those who support the rule of Constitutional law, the outcome can only follow the path leading to the growth of government power on the backs of productive citizens. One final note: every dollar your government spends comes from us, the taxpayers.

–Thomas Jefferson

Perspective on the Constitution #42

It might surprise many older Americans to discover how the current generation perceives our government and its history. Our educational system and media-filled world is steeped in anti-God, anti-American propaganda that, for many, is the source of their worldviews. For them, America is not the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, but is, instead, the despicable home of oppressors and slave-holders, white-supremacists and police thugs. This begs the question, “Why are so many folks coming to America from all over the world?” Our failure as parents and grandparents is reaping a bountiful harvest of functional agnostics who believe that Science as implemented by an overarching benevolent government will provide for their needs. These young citizens (and apparently many of their parents) don’t understand that the American constitutional republic is a bottom-up multi-layered structure by design and by law. Power rests with all the People, to be exercised specifically at the ballot box, but as interest and passion dictates, in service as an elected official.

Thomas Jefferson explained the path of governmental power that begins with the individual citizen, rises through local and state governments, and finally ascends to the federal government. It intentionally eliminates the hereditary royalty that the Colonists left behind in the Old Country. Unlike the Government-will-save-you-with-money-and-stuff (that same government that creates the crisis from which we need to be saved), the national government was not intended to be a panacea for all of man’s needs, but to provide an umbrella of peace and safety under which the States could provide additional protections and services as needed. None of these governments were to rule, but instead serve, its constituents. To assure that, each element of government under the Constitution has limitations on its power over the people from whom it derives its limited authority.

Jefferson expressed this in a letter to Joseph Cabell on 2 February 1816:

“The way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one; but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to. Let the National government be entrusted with the defence of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police and administration of what concerns the states generally; the Counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each Ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great National one down thro’ all its subordinates, until it ends in the administration of every man’s farm and affairs by himself; by placing under everyone what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best.”

This is the American government that the Founding Fathers so carefully crafted. Government was to be minimal, with all activities remanded to the lowest possible level, where the government was most intimately in touch with the needs and desires of those governed. Rule by Executive Order, extra-legal judicial rule-making, and legislative default were not envisioned and are not supported by the Constitution. Control of individuals (“wear masks”), restricting free assembly (closing churches), and interfering with commerce (closing businesses) are not authorized for either the Legislative Branch by enacting restrictive laws, or by the Executive Branch by executive order.

The Founding Fathers placed complete trust in the ability of the common man to run his government without any need for self-proclaimed or hereditary elites to be kings by any name. The common citizen was deemed capable and responsible enough to manage their affairs whatever the situation that might arise. Theirs was not a blind faith, for they foresaw the will of the people to be more like the trail of a hunting dog searching back and forth across the trail, but always returning to center. Jefferson likened the will of the electorate—he called it the “good sense of the people”—to be like a great army that overcomes all challenges to its power: “The good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army. They may be led astray for a moment, but will soon correct themselves.” We are at a critical point in American history. We will soon know if Jefferson was right.

–Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, February 2, 1816

Perspective on the Constitution #44

Thomas Jefferson made an interesting comment in a letter to politician and Revolutionary War hero Light Horse Henry Lee dated August 10, 1824. Lee is one of many heroes of the American Revolution. We will start with Jefferson’s remark:

“Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depository of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist; and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves.”

The party that Jefferson spoke of struck me as I considered the seven-foot tall fence, barbed wire, soldiers, and police behind which President Biden isolated himself in the White House. It certainly appears that the President of these United States is afraid of his constituents. I realize that the events of January 6 at the Capitol must haunt a man who conducted his Presidential campaign from his own basement. But that is not the issue. January 6 is past. If our President is afraid of the American Voter, he might consider using some of the freely-flowing illegal immigrants as a mercenary private guard. He must trust them since they seem to have freedom of movement as Americans have been locked down by government decree. Four years of his Presidency stand ahead.

While safely locked down, he was not inactive. His fear did not stop him from following the lead of previous Presidents in issuing Executive Orders. Now, we must understand that Executive Orders are how the Executive Branch, of which he is the CEO, is administered. Some Executive Orders transcend that purpose, though. For instance, George Washington issued eight executive orders. Lincoln issued 48, while U.S. Grant issued 217, more than six times more than any previous President, and not to be exceeded until Theodore Roosevelt (1,081) and Woodrow Wilson (1,803), and Calvin Coolidge (1,203). But these pale comparted with Franklin Roosevelt, who issued 3,721. Media reports say that President Trump issued 220 Executive Orders, but the Federal register only lists 69. Surely the media wouldn’t invent and inflate data against Trump—would they? The big problem with the misuse of Executive Orders is that the Congress is bypassed (or let off the hook) as the President effectively decrees law by his signature. Disregarding Orders directly related to the operation of the Executive Branch that are clearly legal, Congress and the Judicial Branch have done little to exercise Constitutional safeguards to limit government by Presidential Order. In addition, Congress is covertly complicit as it approves funding for these Orders. Without funding enacted by Congress, Executive Orders are simply public relations releases. In other words, the appearance of a two-party system is a sham.

Jefferson’s second group represents what the Founding Fathers had in mind for servants of the public will. These are reasonably called Statesmen (and women) and are today a rare breed. But if America is to regain its equilibrium as the Founders believed it always would, candidates with great respect for and faith in the Constitution need to be found, educated, supported, and elected. That process must be ongoing, and encompass every level of government as it provides avenues of growth and movement from local service to national. This must be a united effort, for we see that divisions only lead to defeat. If Jefferson’s second party does exist, it is past time for it to coalesce and expand, for the next election cycle has begun.

–Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Henry Lee, August 10, 1824

Perspective on the Constitution #45

Today we will look at two perspectives on service as an elected official. Tench Coxe was a Colonist and delegate to the Continental Congress who would have been fit well into modern politics. He was not-so-fondly known as “Mr. Facing Both Ways.” He supported whomever was in power, be it the Crown, the Whigs, Federalists, Democratic-Republicans, and so on. Thomas Jefferson wrote him a letter in 1799, stating: “When once a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct.” Coxe is obviously the type who gives politicians a well-deserved name. We can find many examples today.

Not all who serve in public office are of Coxe’s stripe. John Witherspoon, a Presbyterian minister and Founding Father of our nation, described the ideal, the statesman, in a sermon on May 17. 1776:

“It is in the man of piety and inward principle, that we may expect to find the uncorrupted patriot, the useful citizen, and the invincible soldier. God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that the unjust attempts to destroy the one, may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both.”

Witherspoon echoed the opinion of the Founding Fathers that the ideal citizen and the ideal public servant had the same characteristics, both founded securely in “piety and inward principle,” both derived from God. Witherspoon found “religion and civil liberty inseparable” I a time when Enlightenment philosophers were calling for freedom without God, and discovering in the process that without God there is no foundation for freedom. That lesson, however, cannot be admitted to by the relativistic humanist, for it acknowledges that his foundation is but shifting sand.

Witherspoon understood that challenges would come and come often. His prayer was that an attack on either God and man’s relationship with Him (“true religion”) or civil liberty would result in a strengthening of both as the powers of Heaven itself would answer the call to battle by the brave and the free.

Our national leaders and apparently much of our nation has discarded the foundation in God that our Founding Fathers worked so diligently to maintain while distancing the operation of the state from that of the church. The result is the same as it was during the Enlightenment: when there is no foundation but opinion upon which to anchor any value at all, there is no foundation at all. The degree to which this is problematic is seen in the fact that in America there are 330 million individual opinions. Many more when you consider how often most of us change our minds. This allows an unscrupulous person intent upon personal gain to succeed quite easily at the expense of the confused. Continual vigilance is required.

–Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Tench Coxe, 1799
–John Witherspoon, From his sermon on May 17, 1776

Perspective on the Constitution #47

Aaron Burr, the third vice-president of the United States, is remembered by some as the man who killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel, but is probably best remembered for being a traitor to America for various schemes to subvert our borders, territory, and national security. As a career politician, he would fit well in the liberal camp today. Never holding closely to the Constitution, or law and order on any level that affected his personal ambitions, his philosophy was: ““Law is whatever is boldly asserted and plausibly maintained.”

Law, said Burr, was what was expedient for him. His marketing plan was simple: repeat a lie to achieve anything you want until it is accepted as truth. How up-to-date his plan is! Truth is any lie that you can convince people believe. Today that might be the lie of border crossings: President Biden says most aliens who enter the country illegally are being “sent back” to their homelands while actual data shows that border detention facilities are being overfilled at record rates. Both can’t be true. The mainstream media, as has been discussed in previous essays of this series, is useless as a source of truth; it objectifies the Burr system of relativism. Biden told reporters ahead of his first press conference on Thursday, March 25, 2021, that he had delegated border security activities to VP Kamala Harris: “I asked her, the VP, today, because she’s the most qualified person to do it, to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle, and the countries that can help, need help in stemming the movement of so many folks, stemming from the migration to our southern border.” Harris is, the President said, in charge of Border control.

Contradicting her boss, the President, Harris’s senior advisor Symone Sanders released this statement on Friday, March 26, 2021: “the vice president is not doing the border.” The American public is left to decide which is truth and which is the lie as border patrol officers struggle to deal with the horde crossing our borders, as politicians post photographs of overcrowding that the President says does not exist, and as the problem is compounded by words without appropriate action. Say it often enough and loud enough (including the repetition of conflicting statements) and the people will believe it; a recipe for success for the unscrupulous, for failure for the unwary.

Edward Carrington was a Revolutionary War soldier and American statesman from Virginia. He was a delegate to the Continental Congress. He was also foreman of the jury at Aaron Burr’s trial for treason. Carrington was present at Patrick Henry’s “Give me Liberty or Give me Death” speech in 1775. Thomas Jefferson frequently communicated with him. In a letter dated January 16, 1787, Jefferson reported that the conduct of the American government in the Burr treason investigation and trial were viewed favorably by conservatives in Europe:

“The tumults in America, I expected would have produced in Europe an unfavorable opinion of our political state. But it has not. On the contrary, the small effect of those tumults seems to have given more confidence in the firmness of our governments.”

Those who valued the truth and the rule of law in Europe were pleased to see the new American government following its own laws in the orderly prosecution of Burr’s high-profile case, trying it in the courtroom rather than in the press. In the same letter, Jefferson spoke of the misleading reporting or the anti-American British press that reminds us of the current state of news reporting today. The British press, he said,

“make it generally believed that there is nothing but distress, disorder and discontent in America. Their lies have been so often told, that they are believed now by themselves, and there is no question that some of the most able men in England, are fully persuaded that America would be glad at this moment to throw herself back into the arms of Britain.”

Jefferson understood that the freedom of the press was essential to provide truth of current events to the American voter: “But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.” He did not believe that government By the People was a utopian solution, but he did believe that error would be self-correcting process as long as truth is published by a free and responsible press: “Cherish therefore the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them.” Jefferson warned that whenever the public lost interest in the operation of its own government, that politicians would become wolves, “the only animal which devours his own kind.” Freedom comes with responsibility. Freedom of the press comes with the responsibility to objectively report the truth despite the political interests of owners and editors. Failure to meet this standard is as treasonous as Burr’s actions.

Early newspapers were not necessarily objective since those involved in the emerging two-party system soon realized the power of the press. Still, the sheer number of newspapers published allowed readers to sift through various reports to determine the truth. As wealthy influence groups swallowed up independent newspapers, the independents still raised the voice of truth. The news media today has been consolidated into a tightly knit confederacy of just a few controlling individuals. One credible report says that in 1983 the U.S. press was dominated by some 50 corporations, a number that has shrunk to less than 10 today.

In the process, the “news” media has become a tool of influence rather than a source of truth. The safety and security of America and her citizens depends upon a free press, according to Jefferson and others. Without that, the false narratives of politicians and power mongers will, as Burr attempted, continue to influence voters and work toward the disintegration of this constitutional republic as socialistic policies are put in place, one after another, until the Constitution is only a vague memory spoken of by the “old timers,” but not found in the history books. This is Cancel Culture at work, a tool of suppression of the enemies of socialistic ideology.

The solution is for conservatives to replace these sources of lies. Eliminate all patronage and support of the advertisers who support them. Support new sources of real news by patronizing them and promoting them to like-minded friends and acquaintances. Don’t utilize them, don’t quote them—Cancel them. It works both ways.

George Washington said: “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to a slaughter.” It seems to me that impotent murmuring on social media is equivalent of being “dumb and silent,” if that is all that we do.

–Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
–Aaron Burr

Perspective on the Constitution #48

We have little concept of what our Constitution cost the men and women who made it possible. During the period of growing discontent with British absentee rule Patriots suffered persecution and even prosecution as traitors to the British Crown. Although the Patriots originally only wanted a just representative government under the Crown, they soon decided that this was not going to happen. Colonial royalists—those who supported British rule–made life miserable for Patriots, imposing restrictions on commerce and religion. The ensuing war with England cost about 25 thousand American lives, including eight thousand in combat and 17 thousand from related causes. It is estimated that another 25 thousand Revolutionary soldiers suffered wounds—often a death sentence itself in those days, but certainly limiting their ability to earn a livelihood.

The American Congress was established to combat British rule, but had only limited ability to raise money. Both it and the Colonies printed money, but with little resources to back their scrip, the value of the Continental dollar and the colonial versions quickly declined. French assistance helped, but did not cover expenses. In essence, there was no money to pay the soldiers who then had no money to “send home” to replace the essential income lost by their service. Leaders often pulled from their personal resources just to equip and feed the troops assigned to them. Many were paid after the conflict by the new American government in land grants on the frontier west of the Appalachian Mountains.

Despite the challenges faced by an undermanned, underfunded upstart confederacy taking on the empire upon which the “sun never set,” independence was won. The new nation conceived in idealism and forged in sacrifice, was actualized in the ratification of a constitution pledged to the establishment of a “more perfect Union.” Its limited goal was to provide a safe environment for its citizens to pursue their dreams through hard work where success was not guaranteed and failure not rewarded. The federal government was to be and remain as small as possible and operate at the minimum cost to the citizen. The success of this government rested upon the morality of its people. As John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Thomas Jefferson described this government as:

“A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”

This has been replaced by a new ideal, one based upon the basest desires in man rather than his best. Our national government is big and getting bigger. It imposes limits upon those whom the Constitution considers “free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement,” as it mediates commerce, communication, common morality, and much more. Through a variety of taxes and fees, the politicians enthroned in the federal government now freely “take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned” to support the many activities they find necessary even though not among the enumerated powers allowed, spending more than comes in. Elected officials characteristically exhibit little constraint, restraint, or fiscal responsibility for the taxpayer dollars they spend with impunity around the world. These same politicians vote themselves pay and benefits far in excess of those whose taxes pay the bills, while limiting benefits paid for by those citizens such as Social Security. Federal employees make up 47% of the U.S. workforce. This does not include contract, state, and local government workers. These 1.3 million Federal employees in 375 agencies are paid an average annual salary of $69,422. For the rest of America, the average median household income—the combined income of mom and dad—was $68,703 in 2019, a new high, but still less than one average federal employee is paid. Remember that government and government employees do not produce income, but are instead an expense to the American taxpayer.

Big government means big control. The Federal Register is the “official daily publication for rules, proposed rules, and notices of federal agencies and organizations, as well as executive orders and other presidential documents.” The Federal Register reports that some 75 thousand pages of fine print are issued each year, including five thousand “significant” sets of rules, which between 1975 and 2018 took up 800 thousand printed pages. The tax code is one of the simpler sets of regulations published, taking some 70 thousand pages, with 2.6 thousand reporting actual law and the rest dedicated to trying to describe what the law means. There are about 200 thousand pages of “major” regulations. The Obama Affordable Care Act, that Congress was “directed” to pass without reading by then President Obama, was a mere 2.7 thousand pages as passed—each copy. The initial regulations developed by appointed government bureaucrats prescribing process and procedure to implement and operate that law—took another 33 thousand pages. Initial government estimates were that this one bill—unread but approved by Congress—will cost taxpayers over $940 billion. That takes a big hunk out of the promised benefits of Obamacare. Enough of that. The numbers are so massive as to be meaningless.

Here’s the point: As many of the quotes in this series show, the Founding Fathers left little to chance. The Constitution is the law of the land and the first place federal judges are to look when deciding a case. Judges look first at the written law and, when questions arise, look at the original intent of the lawmakers at the time of passage. Case law, or legal decisions by appropriate courts that have dealt with the same or very similar issues, develop over time as decisions by appropriate courts show the developing interpretation of law. Big government was born when the Legislative Branch overstepped the Constitution and the Judicial Branch became creative in interpreting laws. Roe v. Wade is a prime example. The Supreme Court found that the Constitution protects the “right” of a pregnant woman to kill her unborn baby because of her “right to privacy. This same “right to privacy” does not extend to a person who kills another post-birth person. The inconsistency of this decision is apparent when in other cases this Court has declared that one who unlawfully kills a pregnant woman and her unborn baby can be charged with killing two individuals. One would be hard pressed to find this “right to privacy” anywhere in the Constitution or the writings of the Founding Fathers. In fact, it took the Supreme Court almost 200 years (1886 to 1973) to “discover” this “right.”

The problem compounds as We the People continue to elect legislators who ignore the Constitution as they approve judicial appointees who feel free to extend the limits of law to promote their personal worldviews.

A correction is due. It cannot begin until those who still hold the Constitution to be the basis for American government become active in developing, promoting, and supporting appropriate candidates, and in educating their fellow citizens of the benefits of our constitutional republic. Concurrently, this group must also educate the electorate of the dangers of socialism/Marxism as the idealism of that political position is extolled and most of its adherents do not know who Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong, Saloth Sar (Pol Pot), Che Guevara or Fidel Castro is and what they did to their countries and their people. The same with Karl Marx as their chief modern theorist and Bernie Sanders as a leading proponent. Joseph Goebbels, as Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany, used many techniques to eliminate resistance to Hitler and his teachings that are familiar today, such as coopting the press, repeating lies until they became fact, limiting free speech, dividing (and conquering) by defining and eliminating specific groups, and so on.

Cancel Culture, the Snowflake mentality, and the rise of socialism in America all rest on the shoulders of We the People in this constitutional republic. Our responsibility to educate our children begins in the family, extends to the church, and extends to the public school system. When we abdicated control of that duty, we transferred the development of our children’s worldviews to those whose worldviews are far different from our own. In this case, a biblical worldview has been replaced by relativistic humanism whose god is Self. This worldview replaces biblical morality with relativistic Science and Government. History is rewritten to vilify that which is good and normalize that which is evil. The Snowflake mentality is just an outworking of this process. Maya Angelou, a social activist who is definitely not a conservative, holds the minority opinion of the liberal crowd where history is concerned. She correctly states: “History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage, need not be lived again.”

Painful days are ahead for those who hold Judeo-Christian views. Moral decay has been nationalized. As I write this, I am reading an announcement that President Biden has declared a Trans(gender) Day of Visibility. While the moral decay of our society can be traced to abdication of responsibilities in the home, church, and education, the solution is not within the intelligence and wisdom of man, but rests completely in the relation of each citizen to God. Jesus said, “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you” (Matthew 6:33). This is where the Founding Fathers started, and this is where we must be.

–Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

Samuel Langdon

Perspective on the Constitution #46

Samuel Langdon was a scholar and theologian, was a delegate to the New Hampshire convention in 1788 that adopted the U.S. Constitution. He warned that elections have consequences; that those selected for public office by the vote of the People will affect the voter and the republic. Elected officials may misbehave once elected, but they must first be elected. To continue, they must be re-elected. He wrote:

“On the people, therefore, of these United States, it depends whether wise men, or fools, good or bad men, shall govern…. Therefore, I will now lift up my voice and cry aloud to the people….

From year to year be careful in the choice of your representatives and the higher powers [offices] of government. Fix your eyes upon men of good understanding and known honesty; men of knowledge, improved by experience; men who fear God and hate covetousness; who love truth and righteousness, and sincerely wish for the public welfare….

Let not men openly irreligious and immoral become your legislators…. If the legislative body are corrupt, you will soon have bad men for counselors, corrupt judges, unqualified justices, and officers in every department who will dishonor their stations…. Never give countenance to turbulent men, who wish to distinguish themselves and rise to power by forming combinations and exciting insurrections against government…. I call upon you also to support schools in your towns…. It is a debt you owe to your children.”

These words pinpoint the problems we are now experiencing within our government. We the People have elect—and reelect—unscrupulous men and women to the highest offices. Their machinations are readily visible to those interested enough to get beyond the lies that are represented as news today.
• Bad Counsellors: Can we look at the Corona fiasco and not think that the counsel that we have received has been contradictory and flawed at best? Or the invasion at the Border with its immense consequences for citizens and local governments in the area that daily deal with the reality of bad policy? Or the millions of children killed in the womb in the name of women’s rights?

• Corrupt Judges: Some judges today make law instead of interpreting it, taking upon themselves functions given to the Legislative Branch by the Constitution. Clear examples include areas of “social justice,” abortion, and the extension of civil rights laws to newly formulated classes not included in legislation.

• Unqualified Justices and Officers: This included those appointed officials who have their jobs simply because of cronyism—the appointment of individuals as payment for political or other favors—instead of on morality and merit. The news reported (briefly) the appointment of the wife of a Democratic holdout against President Biden’s gun control bills to a high federal position. President Trump, like many recent presidents, surrounded himself with relatives, and Biden’s highly unqualified son (and other relatives) just happened to be appointed to the boards of foreign multi-national corporations, positions with significant paychecks. Included in this category are “public servants” who openly and actively try to destroy the character and policies of the President (which President is not important—he is the duly elected and certified holder of that office until lawfully removed. This series of essays is about principles, not personalities).

The problems Langdon warned of in 1788 are the realities in 2021. Conservative cries for term-limits are as off-mark as liberal efforts to eliminate crimes by removing tools of crime prevention from law-abiding citizens. Term-limits attempt to impose the will of outsiders on the voters of districts who continually re-elect their representatives: the problem is that this is their Constitutional right. Much ado was made of big money and big names attempting to influence elections this past election season, yet term limits have the same result, removing the will of local districts to elect the person they consider to be the best candidate. Gun control would run something like Prohibition did, criminalizing formerly law-abiding citizens and enriching savvy entrepreneurs. There is no good reason to believe the fantasy that criminals will change their ways and turn in the tools of their trade any more than we should suppose that North Korea or Iran will, out of the goodness of their hearts and concern for the welfare of our world, dismantle their nuclear weapons research and production. Disarmament—personal or national—like elections, has consequences.

Langdon’s solution is valid today: “From year to year be careful in the choice of your representatives and the higher powers of government. Fix your eyes upon men of good understanding and known honesty; men of knowledge, improved by experience; men who fear God and hate covetousness; who love truth and righteousness, and sincerely wish for the public welfare….”

One does wonder why a qualified sane, honorable person would run for public office after the debacles of confirmation hearings under the Trump presidency where character assassination was the modus operandi of the Democratic minority. Yet we must find those moral individuals who are qualified and willing to serve, and take the initiative to preempt attempts at character assassination with truth on propagated on a large scale to all Americans. Fred Thompson comes to mind as a citizen who promised to serve briefly, work to fully implement the promises he made, and retire from public service. This is an example of the people we need to put forward for office.

Good government is a process, not an event. It requires that thoughtful honest patriots expend time and energy to maintain. It takes more time and energy to repair. The return to constitutional government is still viable—it is time for consensus building and the development of an intentional and workable plan for all levels of government; to launch a consistent educational effort, and to make next-election’s most credible candidates highly visible, presenting issues and solutions rather than personalities and character assassination. It is time for action.

–Samuel Langdon, 1788

Abraham Lincoln

Perspective on the Constitution #13

It seems to me that both We the People and those we elect have forgotten two basic tenants of our Constitution: 1) the electorate has the opportunity, duty, and responsibility to select and oversee those whom it elects to serve; and, 2) those elected to serve are representatives of those who elected them, servants of the People.

Today, We the People feel the need to vent and complain on social media as we castigate both politicians and citizens who disagree with us, but fail to engage the political process through the ballot box that controls, by majority, who sits as our representatives, and through constructive measures to achieve our desires—a process that requires education, deliberation, and a willing to compromise to achieve incremental improvements according to our judgement. After all, each of us is but one vote in a system that guarantees every qualifying citizen one vote.

Our elected representatives, directly because of our votes, have become career politicians who each term become more entrenched in the Washington fantasy world and less in tune with those who mindlessly repeatedly vote for them despite an unfavorable voting record or personal alliances that somehow allow them to amass significant fortunes out of step with their salaries.

Abraham Lincoln, probably more than any other American president, understood the use and abuse of power. He broke new ground in the exercise of presidential and federal power as he prosecuted the Civil War, yet remained vitally cognizant of his roots and those of those who elected him. We will never know how he would have conducted the aftermath of that great and divisive war, but can get some feeling from these words, poignantly significant in today’s political climate of hate and divisiveness:

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”

–Abraham Lincoln

James Madison

Perspective on the Constitution #3

Here is some wisdom shared by Founding Fathers John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison in The Federalist, Number 51. It seems to me to be as valid today as when first penned.

“If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

–Alexander Hamiltom
–John Jay
–James Madison

Perspective on the Constitution #23

Contrary to current wisdom on social media, politicians are not the sole source of the woes we face as a nation. The problem was recognized and debated heatedly among the Founding Fathers as they melded their several ideas into an organic whole that would serve the need for government and the desire for personal liberties. That problem was the moral foundation of the citizenry. Although the Colonies were populated by Christian men and women, many who had fled from oppressive governments in Europe, the Founding Fathers were well aware that as the natural wealth of North America was transferred to personal wealth, that Christian values tended to fall behind the idea of personal freedom and gain. Paul warned Timothy: “For the love of money is the root of all evil; which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows” (1 Timothy 6:10). Government brings opportunities for increasing the power and wealth, and too often the best intentioned fall victim to the trap of greed and covetousness.

As this section began, though, this problem is not all centered on the politician, although they are visible examples. These temptations also fall upon the rank and file citizenry, where success brings increasing desire for more and more, at the expense of God, family, and nation. James Madison, fourth President of the U.S., restates Matthew in 6:33: “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.” He said it this way:

“A watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest while we are building ideal monuments of Renown and Bliss here we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven.”

–James Madison

Perspective on the Constitution #32

America’s Founding Fathers believed that the general education of the citizenry was necessary to maintain the health of the republic. Massachusetts Colony, as early as 1647, mandated that communities of 50 families provide a paid teacher to teach elementary, or “petty,” school. Rural Southern states practiced a more personal style with early education provided by mother, while the boys graduated to the fields with their father and the girls continued their education as homemakers—today we would call it homeschooling. Revolutionary soldiers were often paid in land, and in Ohio these grants included requirements for a school in ever township as well as provisions for “land grant” colleges. Various plans existed throughout the growing United States, but the common factor was that the teachers—professional or lay—used the Bible as the primary text, not to make Baptists or Methodists or Congregationalists of their charges, but as long-proven sources of knowledge and wisdom. From Colonial times and beyond the Civil War, the New England Primer was used. Though small, the Primer taught basic language and arithmetic plus citizenship, all founded upon the Bible which it often quoted. Primary education had three goals: teach basic reading, writing, and arithmetic; develop a moral work ethic; and promote good citizenship: all rooted in the moral values of the Bible. Higher education was established to provide ministers of the Gospel. These institutions broadened their offerings as the needs of the nation grew.

James Madison represented the Founding Fathers: “A well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people.”

We would do well to consider how our educational system is succeeding in these areas. One would think that the increased access to fountains of knowledge through new technology, improved teacher education, and compulsory education would yield improved literacy in the basic skills, provide a highly skilled workforce, and brought citizenship to new levels. This does not appear to be the case. It appears that education has lost its focus. We find functional illiterates at all levels even as formal education starts earlier, and far more pupils can attend through the 12th grade without being called to field or factory. The basics have given way to specialized training in Political Correctness with all of its facets. Among the fatalities are those values and skills that Madison considered essential for a “permanently free people.”

It is incumbent upon every parent and grandparent to be intimately involved in the education of their children. Instead of a free exchange of ideas, censorship is being exercised by an “enlightened” elite who has the best interest of the masses at heart, although the results usually seem to benefit their power structure and pocketbooks more than the wellbeing of the nation. Banning books and removing words from dictionaries, enacting tyrannical “laws” to limit the free exercise of speech and create “protected classes” of people whose rights outweigh the equality provided by the Constitution are prevalent and increasing today. And will continue to increase until the citizenry decides to reassert the rule of law under the Constitution of the United States of America by the legal exercise of the power given the majority under that document.

Vestiges of the old Southern homeschooling remain, and are a hope for America as parents with core biblical values pass those on to their children. My 9-year-old homeschooled granddaughter, Bella, is an example. Her assignment was to pick a specific American flag and write a paragraph about what that flag saw. Here is her paper:

“Inside Emmanuel Baptist Church, I stand proudly in the sanctuary. Freely displayed, my stars and stripes can be seen by all. I am the American flag. Standing before me, I observe a group of believers. As Pastor James reads the Bible, I hear God’s Word being proclaimed. Songs of worship fill the air. With hearts full of reverence, this church family is grateful for their freedom. I gaze at the dedicated faces, which I see regularly, as they fellowship with one another.”

America, take note. When we return to God, He will return to us: the promise begins with a big “If.” (2 Chronicles 7:14).

–James Madison

James Monroe

Perspective on the Constitution #25

The United States is unparalleled in the many freedoms enjoyed by its citizens. One example is travel, where movement into and through the fifty states is unhindered; something the traveler in the European Union cannot enjoy. James Monroe saw the source of these freedoms not the result of human effort and intelligence, but the blessings bestowed by a benevolent God who smiled upon a nation that honored Him.

America is getting a bad rap today from our own citizens who are quick to find fault but slow to bring viable solutions to the table. Charges of oppression on every hand seems to be strongly contradicted by the ongoing assault on our borders by illegals and the overflowing rolls of legal immigrants desiring to reap the benefits of our Constitutional republic. Despite many imperfections throughout our history and continuing today (in a diminishing sense where the rule of law is allowed to function), every citizen can pursue legitimate goals and ambitions—never without challenges and bumps in the road. Success, however, is like freedom itself: it is a work in progress against sometimes daunting obstacles.

The socio-political machine today aggressively markets a myriad of We-They groups to divide and control the behavior of Americans as we allow our attention to be drawn away from essential issues. These divisions breed open animosity where healing progress had been taking place. Each group vies for a prime place in the pecking order as new militant leaders emerge, often representing themselves as oppressed minorities even as they enjoy the many blessings of liberty, such as the freedom of speech that they would deny others. Lost in the fray is the understanding that success is fundamentally personal. Coordinated group effort is necessary for success on the battlefield or the ballfield, and even in the corporate environment and government, but that success is built upon the work of individuals: it cannot be mandated and is not achieved equally among the members of any group. Success by one individual necessarily limits the success of another. A game or season can only have one MVP. Yet the whole team is blessed by the group and individual efforts that led to that recognition.

Success, according to Monroe, the fifth president of the United States, is the result of more than just effort; it is the blessing of a gracious God upon those who serve Him. Monroe understood that God’s blessings transfer to the community which, in turn, is bestowed upon the society. It is imperative for us, then, to acknowledge the God from whom all blessings flow, says Monroe:

“When we view the blessings with which our country has been favored, those which we now enjoy, and the means which we possess of handing them down unimpaired to our latest posterity, our attention is irresistibly drawn to the source from whence they flow. Let us then, unite in offering our most grateful acknowledgments for these blessings to the Divine Author of All Good.”

–James Monroe, 5th President of the United States

Charles Pinckney

Perspective on the Constitution #43

Charles Pinckney was a member of the South Carolina Lowcountry elite, a landed gentleman. He was also an American patriot who valued freedom above heritage. He sacrificed social and business ties with England by signing the Constitution. This largely unremembered man was instrumental in developing this new type of government Of, By, and For the People. In his “Plan for a Government for America,” presented to the Constitutional Convention on June 25, 1787, Pinckney said:
“No position appears to me more true than this; that the General Govt. cannot effectually exist without reserving to the States the possession of their local rights. They are the instruments upon which the Union must frequently depend for the support and execution of their powers, however immediately operating upon the people, and not upon the States.”
He, like the other framers of our Constitution, believed in a minimal central government constrained by written rules. The basic government of the Union was to rest in State and local governments, each attuned to the specific needs and desires of its own constituents. This is known as States Rights, a term not heard much these days. Though an ideal, it was also pragmatic, for the Colonies would never surrender any more of their independence to a central government than was necessary for the well-being of the whole. These limitations were enumerated in the Constitution: “establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. . . .” The national government was to assure a framework of justice for all citizens; protect its national borders from invasion and illegal incursion; and to provide an atmosphere in which peace and prosperity would protect “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The federal government was not to rule the States and their citizens, but to serve them.
The stated limitations have been severely overstepped by the federal government since the Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788. Like interest in a savings account, each seemingly minor escalation of federal power into those rights reserved for the States has compounded to produce the dysfunctional and expensive bureaucracy we have today. The small central government has exploded into a system of over 2 million full-time employees (not counting USPS). This number swells exponentially when 9 million part-time and contract workers are included. Too many departments exist simply to exist, with budgets swelling annually as useful activities diminish. The fiasco within the Justice Department during the last administration demonstrated how out of control and dangerous these agencies can be as infighting and character assignation seemed to be their reason for existence rather than to “establish Justice,” and “insure domestic tranquility” as mandated by the Constitution. Elected officials seem impotent to control the actions of these career bureaucrats or to limit (or eliminate, as appropriate) this ongoing grab for petty-power and increasing hemorrhage of taxpayer dollars. In FY 2019, IRS managed to spend some $11.8 billion while supporting a staff of 73,554 “full-time equivalent” employees. Notice the government-speak. It is no wonder that taxpayer questions to IRS—if you can reach a “real” person—get different answers from different IRS “expert” customer service personnel. The structure and operation of the federal government is a shamble, isolated from and independent of the will of the People.
The solution is to be found at your ballot box. Current office-holders can be influenced when grassroots consensus building results in a significant number of likeminded citizens addressing specific issues with specific solutions. But this requires consensus building, focus, and out-lobbying the deep pockets of professional lobbying. Outraged individuals on social media accomplish little. Coalition building and organized action to achieve specific goals is needed. As countries with parliamentary governments well know, coalitions do not consist of your best buddies, but of all-but-incompatible individuals and smaller groups that come together to achieve specific objectives. They often dissolve after these objectives are achieved, and that is OK. But they must come together to overcome the status quo. My friend Walt lamented that emails to his representatives generally go unanswered. This is one place to apply this principle: recruit, educate, and mobilize as many people as you can to send emails on any given issues—praises and condemnations. I guarantee that even if they don’t answer, their staff counts and reports. The ballot box is always coming around again. But the key here is numbers. Big percentages of their district electorate. Here one voice calling in the wilderness is easy to ignore. But numbers count.
–Charles Pinckney, “Plan for a Government for America,” Constitutional Convention, June 25, 1787

George Washington

Perspective on the Constitution #1

It seems to me that this is worth considering these many years after George Washington wrote them:

“The power under the Constitution will always be in the people. It is entrusted for certain defined purposes, and for a certain limited period, to representatives of their own choosing; and whenever it is executed contrary to their interest, or not agreeable to their wishes, their servants can and undoubtedly will be recalled.”

It seems to me that the birthing of a radically new form of government that would efficiently govern, yet not rule over, its constituency, and that could endure, was foremost in the very diverse minds of those we call our Founding Fathers. George Washington addressed these men at the Constitutional Convention:

“If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterwards defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair. The event is in the hand of God.”

In addition to writing the Constitution, the Founding Fathers faced the challenges involved in having it adopted by the individual Colonies. It seems to me that this comment by George Washington about that process has some relevance for our recent elections.

“The federal Constitution (adoption process should) . . . proceed with harmony and consent according to our actual wishes and expectations . . . Will demonstrate as visibly the finger of Providence. As any possible event in the course of human affairs can ever designate it.”

American government, as established by the Constitution, is a carefully balanced blend of the rights of the individual and the corporate will of the people. It includes prescriptions and proscriptions—things allowed and required, and things prohibited—that regulate the ebb and flow of daily life and within the government. Knowing that the document was not perfect, and that needs change over time, the Founding Fathers provided for orderly methods to enact new laws, rescind outdated laws, and keep the government operating as designed Of, By, and For the People it serves. A primary principle, then, is that current law stands until it is modified or repealed by proper procedure.

These days, however, both politicians and the citizenry seem intent upon deconstructing the Constitution to allow rule by whim by whomever holds the “upper hand.” This is in distinct contrast to the letter of the law, the Constitution, the intent of the Founding Fathers, and the principles adopted by the original Colonies. George Washington warned:

“The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution, which at any time exists, ‘till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. … If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

–George Washington, First President of the United States

Perspective on the Constitution #3

The highest calling of man, the greatest necessity of civilization, is not the pursuit of freedom and independence, but the pursuit of God. When we acknowledge the proper relationship between God and self, all else will fall into place. The correct order of our lives is given in Matthew 6:33: “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.”

We do need government: God established it to maintain order among a contentious mankind. Our government is in many ways exemplary in a world of turmoil and oppression. We the People of the United States have been blessed as a nation on many fronts: each blessing is bestowed by God through His grace, not because we are a select or special nation, and certainly because of our behavior.

Americans, like the citizens of other nations, have traditional symbols that both represent who we are and where we have come from. Many of us older folks think of the Minuteman when we think of the American patriot. Other images include Washington and Lincoln, our American Flag, and the bald eagle. For many, these images include rows of standing stones lined up like well-trained soldiers at our national cemeteries, each representing an individual and a family that paid the ultimate human cost for my liberty and yours.

But liberty and freedom are only by-products of America; the product, the primary role of American government as it was designed, is law and order, peace and safety. Liberty and freedom come with a price: the lives of those who died for you and I; but also the commitment of the living to uphold and protect the law of the land, the Constitution, and to place others above self, and all under God. George Washington said:

“While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.”

–George Washington

Perspective on the Constitution #6

The Founding Fathers believed that a democratic government required the dedicated participation of a moral citizenry in order to succeed. The Constitution contains both “thou shall” and “thou shall not” laws to support an orderly government that serves the people. Much of it describes and limits the roles of the three branches of government—the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial—and establishes a rigorous set of checks and balances to assure that no branch exceeded its authority. This government is designed to serve the People, not rule them. Elected officials are to represent their constituency, not to lead them. Similar checks and balances exist within the branches, such as the bi-cameral Legislative branch that includes the House of Representatives and the Senate, with specific duties and operating parameters for each. The goal is not ever-expanding control and dominance, but to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty,” both to the current generation and those to follow. Nowhere does the Constitution provide for career politicians, self-generated pay raises and other benefits, and the right or responsibility to control the lawful behavior of Americans.

This lawful behavior was established on the foundation of biblical moral principles. Specifically prohibiting a specific religion from becoming this foundation, it nevertheless intentionally incorporated the moral teachings of the Bible as the model for the productive citizen. Immoral behavior addressed is universal among civilized people: prohibited is murder, sexual crimes, theft, and so on. Pro-social behavior included a moral pattern of behavior, a good work ethic, and allegiance to the government that provided the many benefits that each of us enjoy.

Parenthetically, of particular note is that under the American Constitution, provisions are made for the People, the common defence, the general welfare, and so on: each addressed to the whole body of citizens. Individual rights are protected, but specific benefits are not promised for any individual. “Success” is not promised to any individual citizen, only opportunity.

George Washington, as the first President of the United States, himself limited the power of the presidency. His concern was not only for that esteemed office, but for all elected officials whom he called “mere politician(s).” This is quite a difference from today when career politicians getting rich in office flaunt their power, and a few ultra-rich individuals do their best to buy control of politicians and the nation. Washington warned against those who would “labor to subvert” the foundations of the nation as they reject religion, biblical morality, and the pursuit of political prosperity—that is, the legitimate prosperity of the nation, not of individuals including themselves. Washington said:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them …. Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of moral and religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?”

–George Washington

Perspective on the Constitution #16

We are no longer a people fiercely proud of our nation with its history built upon the toil and sacrifice of those who came before us. Our desire to share our freedom and wealth with the world has degenerated into a belief that simply spreading dollars around the country and around the world will solve all problems. Imperfect in its implementation, but ideal in concept, our federal government was designed to allow orderly improvement. Revisionist scholars have produced histories of America that grotesquely distort our history so that students—and their teachers brought up under the same relativistic educational culture—only know facets of our history that emphasizes weaknesses and failures, some real and some fabricated, while ignoring the very heart of America that makes it attractive to oppressed people around the world. Native Americans, imported African slaves and their descendants, those who labored in industrial sweat shops, and others suffered unjustly. But no living American—white or otherwise—has ever killed or displaced Native Americans, owned slaves, or operated Industrial Revolution sweat shops. None of us are responsible for the sins of our forefathers—we will answer for our own. Social media suggests that many Americans who post their thoughts have little understanding of the operation of their government or what their Constitution says. Nor do they seem to understand that the freedoms they expect and exercise are accompanied by responsibilities.

The ongoing heavy influx of immigrants clearly shows that life in these United States is far superior to the lands they are fleeing. Immigration is a popular issue where feelings refuse to recognize the pragmatic reasons for long-standing US immigration laws. We are told that people from other countries have a right to enter America at will, and to receive all the benefits of citizenship. We are to welcome all, with no regard for what they can or intend to contribute to American society, or to take from it. No allegiance to this country is asked or expected. Come one, come all, and the American working person will foot the bill by government decree.

Our immigration and naturalization process is designed to allow foreign citizens who wish to become Americans to learn about the history and government of our nation, and to prove through living here for some time and passing suitable tests, that they are worthy to become American. This is not an attempt to remove their heritage, but to assure that they were willing to become assimilated into their new homeland, honest and productive citizens. This is reasonable, and is very similar to national policies around the world. It is designed to assure that America remains American, something that is not politically correct today.

In both native-born and naturalized citizens, knowledge of and participation in government is essential for its success. George Washington, the first President of the United States, firmly believed that education should produce practical results, and part of that practical education had to include an understanding of the government that we have been blessed to inherit:

“A primary object … should be the education of our youth in the science of government. In a republic, what species of knowledge can be equally important? And what duty more pressing … than communicating it to those who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of the country?”

–George Washington

Perspective on the Constitution #19

Freedom! Some 1.2 Million American men and women have died in combat in the service of their country. This represents 1.2 million American families who have lost loved ones. This does not include many other war-related casualties that have devastated lives and families. Until the Vietnam era, those who served and sacrificed were considered heroes as they gave so much to protect the freedom that the rest of us enjoy. Others who stayed home engaged in tireless support to assure that the troops had the best tools possible to defeat the enemy and come home safely and quickly. All made sacrifices. (See link for further thoughts: https.//bobbeanblossom.com/fallen-heroes/. The sacrifices of these great Americans are being erased from memory as revisionist history and political correctness blunder through hallowed halls that the practitioners cannot begin to understand or appreciate. Sacrifice today means that someone in a “protected class” has had their feelings hurt by the real or imagined slights of a member of an “unprotected” majority. I’m not sure what happens when a member of a protected class slights a member of a different protected class. I guess it depends upon the current pecking order.
George Washington warned that intellect and reason alone cannot provide solutions to the problems of a society that prohibits freedom of expression. In days long ago news outlets reserved “editorial comments” for the Editorial pages while reasonably unbiased details of a story were published as news. Not so today, where every story is poorly written propaganda. The volume of information is overwhelming, but verifiable facts are scarce. Technology and high costs are forcing the end of printed newspapers while their online versions generally fail to fill that gap. Radio news has been replaced by TV news with talking heads who have no real-world skills but make millions of dollars, give us carefully orchestrated sound and video bites to mold our opinions to conform with current PC.
The inside-out application of the First Amendment that seeks to promote freedom from hearing rather than freedom of speech as written is an increasingly broad roadway to the “serious and alarming consequences” foretold by Washington. He likened the uninformed citizenry to sheep being passively led to slaughter. Had he lived during or after WWII, he would most certainly have likened it to the intentional slaughter of millions of Jews by Hitler’s war machine as the German people—convinced that they were the elite and the Jews and others were sub-human—passively watched. Evil governments throughout history have effectively used divisive We-They tactics to overcome obstacles and conquer troublesome dissenters. Hitler’s Germany is a prime example as the Jews were considered inferior and needed to be eradicated to prevent contaminating the preferred race—that is, the one in power.
Freedom of speech is not a luxury for a free people: it is an absolute necessity. Where free people allow the freedom of expression to be swept away, other freedoms follow quickly. Washington warned:
“For if Men are to be precluded from offering their Sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences, that can invite the consideration of Mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of Speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter.”
–George Washington, “Address to the Officers of the Army,” March 15, 1783

Perspective on the Constitution #30

The Founding Fathers believed that a democratic government required the dedicated participation of a moral citizenry in order to succeed. The Constitution contains both “thou shall” and “thou shall not” laws to support an orderly government that serves the people. Much of it describes and limits the roles of the three branches of government—the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial—and establishes a rigorous set of checks and balances to assure that no branch exceeded its authority. This government is designed to serve the People, not rule them. Elected officials are to represent their constituency, not to lead them. Similar checks and balances exist within the branches, such as the bi-cameral Legislative branch that includes the House of Representatives and the Senate, with specific duties and operating parameters for each. The goal is not ever-expanding control and dominance, but to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty,” both to the current generation and those to follow. Nowhere does the Constitution provide for career politicians, self-generated pay raises and other benefits, and the right or responsibility to control the lawful behavior of Americans.

This lawful behavior was established on the foundation of biblical moral principles. Specifically prohibiting a specific religion from becoming this foundation, it nevertheless intentionally incorporated the moral teachings of the Bible as the model for the productive citizen. Immoral behavior addressed is universal among civilized people: prohibited is murder, sexual crimes, theft, and so on. Pro-social behavior included a moral pattern of behavior, a good work ethic, and allegiance to the government that provided the many benefits that each of us enjoy.

Parenthetically, of particular note is that under the American Constitution, provisions are made for the People, the common defence, the general welfare, and so on: each addressed to the whole body of citizens. Individual rights are protected, but specific benefits are not promised for any individual. “Success” is not promised to any individual citizen, only opportunity.

George Washington, as the first President of the United States, himself limited the power of the presidency. His concern was not only for that esteemed office, but for all elected officials whom he called “mere politician(s).” This is quite a difference from today when career politicians getting rich in office flaunt their power, and a few ultra-rich individuals do their best to buy control of politicians and the nation. Washington warned against those who would “labor to subvert” the foundations of the nation as they reject religion, biblical morality, and the pursuit of political prosperity—that is, the legitimate prosperity of the nation, not of individuals including themselves. Washington said:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them …. Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of moral and religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?”

–George Washington

Perspective on the Constitution #33

We are no longer a people fiercely proud of our nation with its history built upon the toil and sacrifice of those who came before us. Our desire to share our freedom and wealth with the world has degenerated into a belief that simply spreading dollars around the country and around the world will solve all problems. Imperfect in its implementation, but ideal in concept, our federal government was designed to allow orderly improvement. Revisionist scholars have produced histories of America that grotesquely distort our history so that students—and their teachers brought up under the same relativistic educational culture—only know facets of our history that emphasizes weaknesses and failures, some real and some fabricated, while ignoring the very heart of America that makes it attractive to oppressed people around the world. Native Americans, imported African slaves and their descendants, those who labored in industrial sweat shops, and others suffered unjustly. But no living American—white or otherwise—has ever killed or displaced Native Americans, owned slaves, or operated Industrial Revolution sweat shops. None of us are responsible for the sins of our forefathers—we will answer for our own. Social media suggests that many Americans who post their thoughts have little understanding of the operation of their government or what their Constitution says. Nor do they seem to understand that the freedoms they expect and exercise are accompanied by responsibilities.

The ongoing heavy influx of immigrants clearly shows that life in these United States is far superior to the lands they are fleeing. Immigration is a popular issue where feelings refuse to recognize the pragmatic reasons for long-standing US immigration laws. We are told that people from other countries have a right to enter America at will, and to receive all the benefits of citizenship. We are to welcome all, with no regard for what they can or intend to contribute to American society, or to take from it. No allegiance to this country is asked or expected. Come one, come all, and the American working person will foot the bill by government decree.

Our immigration and naturalization process is designed to allow foreign citizens who wish to become Americans to learn about the history and government of our nation, and to prove through living here for some time and passing suitable tests, that they are worthy to become American. This is not an attempt to remove their heritage, but to assure that they were willing to become assimilated into their new homeland, honest and productive citizens. This is reasonable, and is very similar to national policies around the world. It is designed to assure that America remains American, something that is not politically correct today.

In both native-born and naturalized citizens, knowledge of and participation in government is essential for its success. George Washington, the first President of the United States, firmly believed that education should produce practical results, and part of that practical education had to include an understanding of the government that we have been blessed to inherit:

“A primary object … should be the education of our youth in the science of government. In a republic, what species of knowledge can be equally important? And what duty more pressing … than communicating it to those who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of the country?”

–George Washington

Perspective on the Constitution #36

Freedom! Some 1.2 Million American men and women have died in combat in the service of their country. This represents 1.2 million American families who have lost loved ones. This does not include many other war-related casualties that have devastated lives and families. Until the Vietnam era, those who served and sacrificed were considered heroes as they gave so much to protect the freedom that the rest of us enjoy. Others who stayed home engaged in tireless support to assure that the troops had the best tools possible to defeat the enemy and come home safely and quickly. All made sacrifices. (See link for further thoughts: https.//bobbeanblossom.com/fallen-heroes/. The sacrifices of these great Americans are being erased from memory as revisionist history and political correctness blunder through hallowed halls that the practitioners cannot begin to understand or appreciate. Sacrifice today means that someone in a “protected class” has had their feelings hurt by the real or imagined slights of a member of an “unprotected” majority. I’m not sure what happens when a member of a protected class slights a member of a different protected class. I guess it depends upon the current pecking order.
George Washington warned that intellect and reason alone cannot provide solutions to the problems of a society that prohibits freedom of expression. In days long ago news outlets reserved “editorial comments” for the Editorial pages while reasonably unbiased details of a story were published as news. Not so today, where every story is poorly written propaganda. The volume of information is overwhelming, but verifiable facts are scarce. Technology and high costs are forcing the end of printed newspapers while their online versions generally fail to fill that gap. Radio news has been replaced by TV news with talking heads who have no real-world skills but make millions of dollars, give us carefully orchestrated sound and video bites to mold our opinions to conform with current PC.
The inside-out application of the First Amendment that seeks to promote freedom from hearing rather than freedom of speech as written is an increasingly broad roadway to the “serious and alarming consequences” foretold by Washington. He likened the uninformed citizenry to sheep being passively led to slaughter. Had he lived during or after WWII, he would most certainly have likened it to the intentional slaughter of millions of Jews by Hitler’s war machine as the German people—convinced that they were the elite and the Jews and others were sub-human—passively watched. Evil governments throughout history have effectively used divisive We-They tactics to overcome obstacles and conquer troublesome dissenters. Hitler’s Germany is a prime example as the Jews were considered inferior and needed to be eradicated to prevent contaminating the preferred race—that is, the one in power.
Freedom of speech is not a luxury for a free people: it is an absolute necessity. Where free people allow the freedom of expression to be swept away, other freedoms follow quickly. Washington warned:
“For if Men are to be precluded from offering their Sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences, that can invite the consideration of Mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of Speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter.”
–George Washington, “Address to the Officers of the Army,” March 15, 1783

Daniel Webster
Perspective on the Constitution #7

It seems to me that we of 21st Century America might profit from the words of Daniel Webster. He came along too late to be a Founding Father. But his staunch lifelong support of the concepts and the writings themselves. In private life as an attorney and in public life as an elected and appointed governmental service is informative of what citizenship is all about. He won and lost cases, but never lost his love of the constitutional republic he served.

“(Concerning) my devotion to the Constitution . . ., I regard it as the work of the purest patriots and wisest statesmen that ever existed, aided by the smiles of a benignant Providence. . .; it almost appears a divine interposition in our behalf.”

–Daniel Webster

Perspective on the Constitution #9

Living in a constitutional republic requires the commitment of the governed to their government to assure the effectual ongoing delivery of its charter. It seems to me that the Founding Fathers included so many checks and balances because they were well aware of human nature. For this government to succeed, each of these checks and balances must be honored by all branches of the government. Abuse by any branch cannot be tolerated by the other branches, or by the citizenry. Protecting the integrity of the Constitution is essential for the life of the country as founded. Daniel Webster said:

“I am committed . . . to the Constitution of the country . . . And I am committed against everything, which, in my judgment, may weaken, endanger, or destroy it . . .; and especially against all extension of Executive power; and I am committed against any attempt to rule the free people of this country by the power and the patronage of the government itself . . . .”

–Daniel Webster

Perspective on the Constitution #10

British politician Lord John Acton, synthesizing the thoughts of others, famously said: “power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The American Constitution declares a separation of powers that provides for an Executive branch to administer the government; a bi-cameral legislative branch to enact and repeal laws; and a Judicial branch to assure that both adhere to Constitutional law. Each is directed and empowered to oversee specific areas of the other two branches. In today’s relativistic society we often see the Executive enacting “law” through Presidential edict—Executive Orders; the Judicial branch enacting “law” through “modern” readings of the Constitution and judicially enacted laws; and the Legislative branch increasingly exercising judicial and executive roles in investigative and prosecutorial roles. All without censure from the other branches as is constitutionally mandated.

It seems to me that this is, in large part, due to the abdication by the American Citizen of his oversight of the political system to an increasingly divisive partisan political system where party and personality replace honor and responsibility. The American Statesman has been replaced by bigger-than-life career political figures who promise what cannot be delivered; who know little of the Constitution that they are sworn to uphold; and whose loyalty is given to the power structure that orchestrated and funded their media-based elections. Daniel Webster warned:

“It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions …. There are men, in all ages … who mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind masters; but they mean to be masters …They think there need to be but little restraint upon themselves …. The love of power may sink too deep in their own hearts.”

Every election cycle, the ability of the Citizen to correct this, the error of their own making, slips further away. The problem is not “it” or “they,” but “we.”

–Daniel Webster

Noah Webster

Perspective on the Constitution #14

Noah Webster, who has been called the “Father of American Scholarship and Education, is probably best known for what is now the Webster’s Dictionary. As a schoolteacher at the time of the American Revolution, he was keenly aware of the lasting influence that textbooks have on the students who use them, and replaced English texts with his own. Staunch and conservative in his outspoken political views, he founded them on biblical principles that included duty and responsibility within a moral framework. He said:

“If the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted . . . . If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws.”

–Noah Webster

Retrospective

Perspective on the Constitution #51

This is essay number 51, the last in a series of essays built around the words of America’s Founding Fathers plus some comments that I thought pertinent. Each is intended to educate the reader about a particular aspect of the Constitution. They are not singly or wholly comprehensive, but highlight issues that are pertinent in the sphere of today’s political events. They are not pro-conservative or liberal, not pro-Republican or Democrat, but they are decidedly pro-America and pro-Constitution arguing that this is as essential for the survival of America today as it was when ratified in 1788. It provides the stable basis of these United States. It established and maintains—when properly applied—the rule of law where Justice is truly blind to the individuals involved in any case, acting rather on the merits of the case in light of established law. It is not a stagnant document, outdated as some contend, but is as current as Congress choses to make it. Change is not the momentary whim of a judge or some other public figure, but is the result of a process carefully laid out in that document. The courts exist to interpret disputed areas of law, and the Executive branch is charged with enforcing all provisions as adopted and revised.

I admit that this series of essays has been something of an experiment on my part. I was interested in seeing what sort of response I would get to a serious and timely subject presented with a somewhat leading heading, and no other fanfare. Anticipated strikes against a significant readership were threefold:

1. Although I posted to “Public,” Facebook determines who sees any posts. In this case, “Public” did not extend even to all my “Friends.”
2. Starting out short on the first essays, I quickly added body, making them unattractive to most Facebook folks.
3. None of the posts were made to be attractive to the modern “reader” who can only relate to one-line slogans presented with lots of color, emojis, and pictures meant to strike some emotional chord. In other words, to access the contents of these essays one had to intentionally decide to read the essay. The 49 essays contain almost 24 thousand words; far more than most Facebook patrons are willing to take the time to read and consider. This is sad, considering that this in large part represents the American Voter.

I did hope to engage someone—anyone—in a discussion of something I wrote, but no one challenged any of the facts or opinions. Comments I did receive were relative to calls for action rather than responses to the call for open discussion and compromise to achieve incremental improvements. This may be due in part to the limited distribution to viewers selected by Facebook: a certain isolation of ideas occurred that limited access to those who might consider some points controversial. I suspect that it is also because some, if not most, of those who “liked” or did post comments “skimmed” rather than read them, thus minimizing their ability to comment on what they had not actually read. Thanks to all who “liked” or shared some of these essays.

None of this is unexpected. In fact, the essays did receive several “likes” and brief comments from folks I know to be sympathetic with, or even ardent supporters of, the cause of law and order. Some are even active in party politics, attempting to stabilize the erosion of individual and states rights with the intent of reversing the incursion of socialism and reinstatement of the tenants of the Constitution.

Primary emphasis of these essays was the position of the Founding Fathers on the issues presented in the Preamble and the First Amendment, and their adamant discussion throughout the Revolution through the ratification of the Constitution and forward that this grand experiment could only succeed when the majority acknowledged the absolute sovereignty of God and the subsequent necessity of the citizenry to embrace His law as their moral foundation.

Alexander Hamilton, in The Farmer Refuted, February 5, 1775, believed that, while human governments come and go, that God’s rule was undefeatable:

“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. they are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”
There must be a balance: Freedom of speech is necessary in a free society, as the Founding Fathers unanimously affirmed, but it does not include the freedom to subvert. The balance is difficult and tenuous as we saw in an earlier essay where good intentions to “protect” certain portions of our citizenry from the exercise of free speech found offensive led directly to our current problem where censorship is an accepted mode of “communication.” Consider this: a balance requires equal weight on both scales. This is, I am certain, untenable to many today. The mediator is the needle that points to zero when the pans of the scale are in balance. In this context the needle represents the whole of participating (voting) citizens. Zero is locked down by our Constitution.

Here is a parting shot from George Washington: “Government is not reason and it is not eloquence. It is a force! Like a fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”

–Alexander Hamilton
–George Washington