.gif)
From The Heritage Foundation:
The Fourteenth Amendment Is No Blank Check for Debt Increases
Published on July 11, 2011 by Andrew GrossmanLegal Memorandum #68
Print PDF
Download PDF
Share
Facebook
Twitter
Email
More
Abstract: A clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, “The validity of the public debt of the United States…shall not be questioned.” Far from authorizing the President to incur more debt—a power vested solely in Congress—this clause bars Congress from repudiating debt that it has already incurred. Whether a default would amount to repudiation is an open question, but one that need not be answered at a time when tax revenues are sufficient to service current debt. Not only is the debt limit consistent with the Constitution’s separation of powers, but there is a colorable argument that it, or something like it, is constitutionally mandated.
Liberal legalists and pundits are abuzz with the idea that an obscure constitutional clause empowers the President to burst through the debt limit if Congress declines to raise it. While their focus on the constitutional text is welcome, their theory as to what it means would be merely laughable if some politicians had not begun to embrace it as a way out of a difficult negotiation.
The President has no more unilateral power to issue new debt on the credit of the United States than he has to collect taxes or make expenditures that have not been enacted by Congress. To claim such a power would be unprecedented, unconstitutional, and absurd. Moreover, the affront to the Congress’s rightful prerogatives would be serious, even for those seeking to avoid the hard work of putting the federal budget in order.
Section Four
Section four of the Fourteenth Amendment provides, “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” It also declares “illegal and void” “any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave.”
This clause simply means that Congress and the President cannot question the validity of debt that is already incurred, but it in no way requires the nation to incur more debt. Even if it precludes temporary default—which is far from clear—it could not authorize the President to incur additional debt.
The Fourteenth Amendment was among those proposed and ratified during Reconstruction, and section four was its least-debated provision. During the Civil War, the Union had taken on massive debt to fund the war effort and had promised pensions to wounded soldiers and soldiers’ widows and orphans. The Confederate states had done about the same. Members of the 39th Congress, which excluded representatives of the Confederate states, feared that a future Congress dominated by Southern Democrats would wipe out Union debt and possibly seek to have the federal government guarantee the Confederate debt—an appalling possibility that would reward those who had financed an insurrection and risk political disruption for years to come.[1]
Their solution was to amend the Constitution to declare Confederate debt unenforceable while barring subsequent Congresses from “question[ing]” “the public debt of the United States.” This formulation was somewhat narrower than that of earlier proposals, which stated that federal “obligations”—potentially a more expansive category than debts—would be “inviolable.”[2] But it was also broader than the specific question at hand: the vitality of Civil War debts. This was deliberate. Senator Benjamin Wade, a proponent of the amendment, set forth the rationale:
I believe that to do this will give great confidence to capitalists and will be of incalculable pecuniary benefit to the United States, for I have no doubt that every man who has property in the public funds will feel safer when he sees that the national debt is withdrawn from the power of a Congress to repudiate it and placed under the guardianship of the Constitution….[3]
The Supreme Court’s sole opportunity to interpret and apply section four was in a 1935 case, Perry v. United States, which challenged Congress’s attempt to pay off bonds subject to a gold clause in devalued legal tender. The Court stated:
In authorizing the Congress to borrow money, the Constitution empowers the Congress to fix the amount to be borrowed and the terms of payment. By virtue of the power to borrow money “on the credit of the United States,” the Congress is authorized to pledge that credit as an assurance of payment as stipulated, as the highest assurance the government can give, its plighted faith. To say that the Congress may withdraw or ignore that pledge is to assume that the Constitution contemplates a vain promise…. This Court has given no sanction to such a conception of the obligations of our government.[4]
This principle, said the Court, “applies [] to the government bonds in question, and to others duly authorized by the Congress.”[5]
Constitutionality of the Statutory Debt Limit
Article I of the Constitution vests the power in Congress “to borrow money on the credit of the United States” and the power “to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” From 1789–1917, Congress authorized nearly all federal debt directly by approving specific loans or issuances of debt instruments to finance specific projects or activities. That changed with the nation’s entry into World War I, which immediately strained the federal budget and led Congress to take a different approach: authorizing the Treasury to issue debt of varying terms in response to market conditions and need while capping aggregate debt.[6] This is, in its essential features, the system in place today.
In this way, the federal government could incur debt at a lower cost without Congress abdicating its constitutionally assigned power and responsibility to authorize and oversee the amount. The debt limit also serves to force Congress “to consider the interests of the general public and future generations…to step back and consider the consequences of its deficit-spending decisions.”[7]
The Constitution vests exclusive power in Congress to raise revenue to fund the government’s obligations, whether by taxes or loans.[8] Congress could not entirely delegate that power to the President, even if it wanted to do so.
Thus, not only is the debt limit consistent with the Constitution’s separation of powers, but there is a colorable argument that it, or something like it, is constitutionally mandated.
An Unconstitutional Usurpation
The Constitution vests in Congress, and withholds from the Executive, the power to commit to spending, to raise revenue by enacting taxes, and to incur public debt. The Fourteenth Amendment does not alter this. Congressional control of borrowing, through the debt limit, and section four of the amendment are in unison, not tension.
First, debt limits do not repudiate existing debt. To “question” “the validity” of a debt is to cast doubt on the obligation itself, not other factors involving repayment. This is true as a matter of common law as well. Insolvency, in itself, does not impugn the validity of a debt, but only the debtor’s present ability to pay. Under federal bankruptcy law, repudiation occurs only with discharge of the bankruptcy petition—the “clean start” that bankruptcy promises. Indeed, a debtor may “affirm” a debt and commit to paying it despite a bankruptcy discharge; in that case, even where payments have lapsed for a time, the debt’s validity has never been questioned.
Second, the Fourteenth Amendment has no bearing at all on most federal spending, because most federal spending is not in service of a debt obligation and is not necessary to pay back existing debt. The Supreme Court has held specifically that Congress can alter government promises, as opposed to vested rights, at any time.[9] It has also held that even “entitlement” programs such as Social Security do not establish property or other rights that the government is constitutionally obliged to observe.[10] While the federal government is obliged to make good on its debts and contractual obligations that it has already incurred, it is not constitutionally committed to carry out other spending.
Even if additional borrowing were curtailed, the government’s revenues are more than sufficient to satisfy current debt payments and avoid a default. At present, debt repayment comprises only a small proportion of total federal spending. Less than 10 percent of total federal spending in the President’s 2012 budget would go to satisfying net interest on the national debt, and some additional percentage would go to satisfying other accrued debts.[11] Looked at another way, deficit spending constitutes about 43 cents of every dollar of federal spending. Thus, even with no deal to raise the debt ceiling, 57 cents of spending on the dollar could continue unimpeded—including all debt payments.[12]
Third, the Fourteenth Amendment does not specify any particular manner by which the obligation to honor the nation’s debt may be met. Congress may, for example, raise taxes, cut spending, or redirect funds to satisfy “public debt.” There is no constitutional requirement that it borrow. So if the President had the unilateral power to issue debt, why would he not also possess the power to raise taxes unilaterally or to sell off government assets?
The answer, as with borrowing, is that these powers are vested in Congress, not the President. No one seriously contends that the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment intended to place the taxing or selling powers in the President’s hands, which would be a fundamental reorganization of the branches of government and demolish essential checks and balances. So it is with the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States.
Constitutional and Unconstitutional Options
Even if Congress and the President are unable to reach agreement on raising the debt ceiling, the result need not, and probably would not, be default. Revenues are more than sufficient to service the national debt, and history suggests that, even in a revenue-constrained environment, the Treasury would act to avoid default and thereby preserve the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.[13]
In no case does either the Constitution or statutory law afford the President discretion to borrow sums unauthorized by Congress—a point belatedly conceded by the General Counsel of the Treasury Department.[14] To do so would be an unconstitutional usurpation of the legislative power and upend the separation of powers. The result would be a serious separation-of-powers violation by the President, with either Congress taking steps to correct and the courts being asked to resolve on behalf of third parties affected by the impasse. (Whether the courts would or even could act is uncertain, but it is predictable that litigation would cause uncertainty for months or even years.)
No Blank Check
Section four of the Fourteenth Amendment is a limit on Congress’s power to repudiate the nation’s debt and not (almost literally) a blank check for the President. Fair-weather constitutionalists take note: The Constitution was not made for political expedience but to make and keep a Republic.
—Andrew M. Grossman is a Visiting Legal Fellow in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Show references in this report
[1]Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan memorably declaimed: “I do not believe in paying traitors, nor do I believe in indemnifying men abroad who, with their eyes open and a malignity in their heart beyond all parallel, gave them aid and comfort. Nor do I see the propriety of keeping this question open before the country, and enabling the foreign holders of cotton bonds to keep the political atmosphere of this country in a turmoil for the future with a view ultimately of getting their pay from somebody. It is time for us to put our hands upon this whole thing and to extinguish all hope.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2768 (May 23, 1866) (statement of Senator Jacob Howard).
[2] See id. at 2769 (statement of Senator Benjamin Wade).
[3] Id.
[4]294 U.S. 330, 351 (1935).
[5] Id. at 354. See also Bowen v. Public Agencies Opposed to Social Security Entrapment, 477 U.S. 41, 55 (1986) (section four applies only to property rights and vested contractual rights).
[6]D. Andrew Austin and Mindy Levit, The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases, Congressional Research Service Report No. RL31967, Jan. 6, 2011, at 4–5.
[7]Anita Kirshnakumar, In Defense of the Debt Limit Statute, 42 Harv. J. on Legis. 135, 137 (2005). For a period, however, Congress did turn its back on this power through a procedural mechanism known as the “Gephardt Rule” that purported to allow the House of Representatives to raise the debt limit without having to vote directly on the issue. While politically expedient, this procedure was irresponsible and constitutionally dubious.
[8]U.S. Const. art. I, § 7, cl. 1.
[9]“[C]ontractual arrangements, including those to which a sovereign itself is party, remain subject to subsequent legislation by the sovereign.” Id.
[10] Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960).
[11]Heritage calculations using Congressional Budget Office, “The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2011 to 2021,” January 2011, at http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/01-26_FY2011Outlook.pdf (July 8, 2011).
[12]J. D. Foster, Ph.D., “Congress Has Time and Options on Debt Limit,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2511, January 27, 2011, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/01/Congress-Has-Time-and-Options-on-Debt-Limit.
[13] See id.
[14]Letter from George Madison, General Counsel, U.S. Department of the Treasury, to the New York Times, July 8, 2011, available at http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Pages/FACT-CHECK-Treasury-General-Counsel-George-Madison-Responds-to-New-York-Times-Op-Ed-on-14th-Amendment.aspx.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Is Our Government Actively Re-Writing History?
From Vicki Goes To Washington:
BREAKING NEWS: Is Our Government Rewriting History?
Posted on July 12, 2011 by Victoria Jackson
Is our Government Re-writing History?
During the Capital Building tour, our elderly doyen rattled off a lot of facts about the sculpture and paintings in the beautiful rotunda. He “forgot” to mention two of the eight paintings displayed in front of us. He “forgot” to mention, ”Exportation of the Pilgrims,” so I asked him about it. I asked him if the Bible was the book in the painting. He said yes and that he would “get back to it.” He never did.
Embarkation of the Pilgrims by Robert W. Weir
(The painting shows William Brewster, holding the Bible, and pastor John Robinson leading Governor Carver, William Bradford, Miles Standish, and their families in prayer.)
"We'll come back to that..."
He quickly mentioned the other omitted one, “The Baptism of Pocahontas” by John Gadsby Chapman and moved on. The other six paintings were thoroughly described.
We later confronted the doyen and asked him why he had omitted Christian references from the tour. He mumbled something about being in seminary, looked at the ground and walked away.
Washington Monument
Next, we visited the Washington Monument. This was the 4th of July weekend. At the foot of the monument, we waited in a long, roped off line listening to Mexican (not American) music being played nearby.
The Park Rangers told us to divide up into groups of eight. They told us where to wait for the elevator. The stairs where you can see Bible verses carved into the stone blocks are not open to the public anymore. The rangers rattled off many facts about how tall and wide the monument was, what the stones were made of and why they were different colors, but nothing about George Washington, for whom the edifice was erected, and no mention of the Bible verses that we are not able to see anymore; the stone blocks that we cannot see say; “Holiness to the Lord” (Exodus 28), “Search the Scriptures” (John 5:39), “The memory of the just is blessed” (Proverbs 10:7) — and such invocations as, “May Heaven to this Union continue its Benefice.”
There were 3 things I wanted to learn. I got an email a year ago about the Latin phrase “Laus Deo” that was supposedly engraved on top of the Washington Monument. I wanted to know if that was true. I also wanted to know if it was true that George Washington’s Bible, a newspaper, some money of the time, and the Constitution were buried in the cornerstone of the monument. Nick, our paid bus tour guide had told us this information. I also wanted to see for myself if D.C. tour guides were purposefully erasing our Christian heritage, if history was being rewritten.
(This montage is slightly out of order. The blonde ranger is seen here for the first time commenting on our earlier encounter which you see right after). My Flip Camera ran out of time (60 minute limit) right when the blonde ranger started to talk to me the second time. I grabbed my cameraperson, Jan, “Do you have your camera? Get it out! Get it out!” By the time she got it out of its case and hooked up the mike wire, etc., the blonde ranger had finished telling us -
“We’re told to be neutral. If I mention God, I have to mention Allah, Mohammed, Buddha…”
I regaled, “What does Allah have to do with historical fact?! “Laus Deo” is either there or it’s not! It’s history! Fact! It has nothing to do with religious tolerance!” I was waiting for someone to say that stupid phrase “separation of church and state” because I’d just read a David Barton book explaining how that phrase is not in any of our documents, but was plucked from a private Jefferson letter to the Connecticut Baptists assuring them that the new government would not prevent them from preaching the gospel. I wanted to show off my new knowledge. To my surprise the Park Rangers did not use that ACLU phrase – they just “played dumb.”
I was getting very angry and not at the rangers but at Jan, my video cameraperson who was still fiddling with the video camera. I was furious at myself for not bringing an extra Flip camera or at least learning to work her camera. I wanted to yank it out of her hands.
Citizen Journalism is hard work. It is a necessity now that the media is propaganda. You and me are the journalists. We have cameras, eyes, and ears. We will record the truth because NBC, CBS, ABC, and especially CNN, HLN and MSNBC are not telling the truth. Every stranger I interviewed agreed to that. (montage to come)
So, we took the elevator back down and I asked to speak with the “boss” of the Park Rangers. As I was pushed aside to a holding area to make room for the tourists rushing in, I again urged Jan to get her camera ready. She was fiddling with the wires and the fancy microphone that slides on top. Finally, an intense red-faced man in a ranger uniform and hat with a pony tail sticking out approached me and started to shout at me for about 15 minutes. I asked him why none of his rangers could answer my simple questions about the buried Bible and the engraved, aluminum cap stone. He changed the subject several times, going off on nonsensical tangents. He then said his employees were new and didn’t know all the facts. I brought up the 25 year ranger.
Boss replied, “The people who work here aren’t the brightest bulb in the drawer,” something to that effect.
I insisted, “But…the information is right there, why can’t they say it?”
Boss shouted, “Are you saying you don’t trust the government?!”
“Yes!” I shouted back. “I don’t trust the government!” They are re-writing history like George Orwell predicted in his book “1984!”
He didn’t get the reference.
I sighed, “Why don’t you instruct them to say, ‘I’m sorry ma’am, I’m not allowed to answer that question’ – at least, that would be honest.” (Be honest about your dishonesty.)
Knowing I was spent, his voice calmed a bit and he said, “Is that what you want us to say?”
I mumbled “yes”. I was sad. My suspicions were true. Whether or not I got the video to prove it, my America is being destroyed from within.
As Jan and I briskly walked away, knowing our tour group was mad at us for lagging behind, again, I desperately inquired, “You got it, I hope. Did you get it? Oh my goodness, I hope you got that…” Jan said, “I couldn’t hear it.”
“What?!” My face twisted into rage. I took the camera out of her hands and stuttered, “Hhh…hhow do you rewind?”
Long story short, she did get it, although the microphone cord was plugged into the wrong hole, the camera’s built in mike got it, however, desperate rewinding and forgetting to take the tape out….it was taped over. Yeah. I’ll never be a Breitbart.
“Stuff” happens.
Yes, we are still friends. I held in my anger for five hours. I did not cuss. I did not swear. I was on a bus full of Christians. I could not pray, I was too mad. By evening, I told myself that life would go on and that next time I was a citizen journalist I would bring an expert cameraperson, or just do it myself.
Where’s James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles when you need them? Hey, their cameraman was so good Hannah married him! For real!
*To comment to the National Park Service, you can e-mail the NPS or the White House, or write: Director, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20240.
****************************************
For extra reading on “Laus Deo” at Free Republic http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/1062177/posts
A prayer of George Washington:
“Almighty God; We make our earnest prayer that Thou wilt keep the United States in Thy holy protection; that Thou wilt incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government; and entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another and for their fellow citizens of the United states at large. And finally that Thou wilt most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without a humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation. Grant our supplication, we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.”
Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchmen stand guard in vain. (Psalm 127: 1)
This entry was posted in Christianity, Video. Bookmark the permalink.
BREAKING NEWS: Is Our Government Rewriting History?
Posted on July 12, 2011 by Victoria Jackson
Is our Government Re-writing History?
During the Capital Building tour, our elderly doyen rattled off a lot of facts about the sculpture and paintings in the beautiful rotunda. He “forgot” to mention two of the eight paintings displayed in front of us. He “forgot” to mention, ”Exportation of the Pilgrims,” so I asked him about it. I asked him if the Bible was the book in the painting. He said yes and that he would “get back to it.” He never did.
Embarkation of the Pilgrims by Robert W. Weir
(The painting shows William Brewster, holding the Bible, and pastor John Robinson leading Governor Carver, William Bradford, Miles Standish, and their families in prayer.)
"We'll come back to that..."
He quickly mentioned the other omitted one, “The Baptism of Pocahontas” by John Gadsby Chapman and moved on. The other six paintings were thoroughly described.
We later confronted the doyen and asked him why he had omitted Christian references from the tour. He mumbled something about being in seminary, looked at the ground and walked away.
Washington Monument
Next, we visited the Washington Monument. This was the 4th of July weekend. At the foot of the monument, we waited in a long, roped off line listening to Mexican (not American) music being played nearby.The Park Rangers told us to divide up into groups of eight. They told us where to wait for the elevator. The stairs where you can see Bible verses carved into the stone blocks are not open to the public anymore. The rangers rattled off many facts about how tall and wide the monument was, what the stones were made of and why they were different colors, but nothing about George Washington, for whom the edifice was erected, and no mention of the Bible verses that we are not able to see anymore; the stone blocks that we cannot see say; “Holiness to the Lord” (Exodus 28), “Search the Scriptures” (John 5:39), “The memory of the just is blessed” (Proverbs 10:7) — and such invocations as, “May Heaven to this Union continue its Benefice.”
There were 3 things I wanted to learn. I got an email a year ago about the Latin phrase “Laus Deo” that was supposedly engraved on top of the Washington Monument. I wanted to know if that was true. I also wanted to know if it was true that George Washington’s Bible, a newspaper, some money of the time, and the Constitution were buried in the cornerstone of the monument. Nick, our paid bus tour guide had told us this information. I also wanted to see for myself if D.C. tour guides were purposefully erasing our Christian heritage, if history was being rewritten.
(This montage is slightly out of order. The blonde ranger is seen here for the first time commenting on our earlier encounter which you see right after). My Flip Camera ran out of time (60 minute limit) right when the blonde ranger started to talk to me the second time. I grabbed my cameraperson, Jan, “Do you have your camera? Get it out! Get it out!” By the time she got it out of its case and hooked up the mike wire, etc., the blonde ranger had finished telling us -
“We’re told to be neutral. If I mention God, I have to mention Allah, Mohammed, Buddha…”
I regaled, “What does Allah have to do with historical fact?! “Laus Deo” is either there or it’s not! It’s history! Fact! It has nothing to do with religious tolerance!” I was waiting for someone to say that stupid phrase “separation of church and state” because I’d just read a David Barton book explaining how that phrase is not in any of our documents, but was plucked from a private Jefferson letter to the Connecticut Baptists assuring them that the new government would not prevent them from preaching the gospel. I wanted to show off my new knowledge. To my surprise the Park Rangers did not use that ACLU phrase – they just “played dumb.”
I was getting very angry and not at the rangers but at Jan, my video cameraperson who was still fiddling with the video camera. I was furious at myself for not bringing an extra Flip camera or at least learning to work her camera. I wanted to yank it out of her hands.
Citizen Journalism is hard work. It is a necessity now that the media is propaganda. You and me are the journalists. We have cameras, eyes, and ears. We will record the truth because NBC, CBS, ABC, and especially CNN, HLN and MSNBC are not telling the truth. Every stranger I interviewed agreed to that. (montage to come)
So, we took the elevator back down and I asked to speak with the “boss” of the Park Rangers. As I was pushed aside to a holding area to make room for the tourists rushing in, I again urged Jan to get her camera ready. She was fiddling with the wires and the fancy microphone that slides on top. Finally, an intense red-faced man in a ranger uniform and hat with a pony tail sticking out approached me and started to shout at me for about 15 minutes. I asked him why none of his rangers could answer my simple questions about the buried Bible and the engraved, aluminum cap stone. He changed the subject several times, going off on nonsensical tangents. He then said his employees were new and didn’t know all the facts. I brought up the 25 year ranger.
Boss replied, “The people who work here aren’t the brightest bulb in the drawer,” something to that effect.
I insisted, “But…the information is right there, why can’t they say it?”
Boss shouted, “Are you saying you don’t trust the government?!”
“Yes!” I shouted back. “I don’t trust the government!” They are re-writing history like George Orwell predicted in his book “1984!”
He didn’t get the reference.
I sighed, “Why don’t you instruct them to say, ‘I’m sorry ma’am, I’m not allowed to answer that question’ – at least, that would be honest.” (Be honest about your dishonesty.)
Knowing I was spent, his voice calmed a bit and he said, “Is that what you want us to say?”
I mumbled “yes”. I was sad. My suspicions were true. Whether or not I got the video to prove it, my America is being destroyed from within.
As Jan and I briskly walked away, knowing our tour group was mad at us for lagging behind, again, I desperately inquired, “You got it, I hope. Did you get it? Oh my goodness, I hope you got that…” Jan said, “I couldn’t hear it.”
“What?!” My face twisted into rage. I took the camera out of her hands and stuttered, “Hhh…hhow do you rewind?”
Long story short, she did get it, although the microphone cord was plugged into the wrong hole, the camera’s built in mike got it, however, desperate rewinding and forgetting to take the tape out….it was taped over. Yeah. I’ll never be a Breitbart.
“Stuff” happens.
Yes, we are still friends. I held in my anger for five hours. I did not cuss. I did not swear. I was on a bus full of Christians. I could not pray, I was too mad. By evening, I told myself that life would go on and that next time I was a citizen journalist I would bring an expert cameraperson, or just do it myself.
Where’s James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles when you need them? Hey, their cameraman was so good Hannah married him! For real!
*To comment to the National Park Service, you can e-mail the NPS or the White House, or write: Director, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20240.
****************************************
For extra reading on “Laus Deo” at Free Republic http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/1062177/posts
A prayer of George Washington:
“Almighty God; We make our earnest prayer that Thou wilt keep the United States in Thy holy protection; that Thou wilt incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government; and entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another and for their fellow citizens of the United states at large. And finally that Thou wilt most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without a humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation. Grant our supplication, we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.”
Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchmen stand guard in vain. (Psalm 127: 1)
This entry was posted in Christianity, Video. Bookmark the permalink.
Obama Executive Orders Impose New Gun Rules
From The Blaze:
Obama Executive Orders Impose New Gun Rules
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 6:51am by Buck Sexton
A few days ago, the Blaze reported on the low-key plans of the Obama administration to increase the penalties for certain gun law violations, and add steps to the background checks for legal gun ownership.
Today the administration’s plans are beginning to come into effect. Through an Executive Order, the Obama administration is implementing new restrictions on the sale of certain weapons in border states, and increasing the penalties for violating certain firearms laws.
Fox News is reporting on the purpose of the gun control executive orders:
“In an effort to stem the illicit flow of weapons into Mexico, the Justice Department announced Monday that all gun shops in four Southwest border states will be required to alert the federal government to frequent buyers of high-powered rifles.
Under the new policy, federal firearms licensees in Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico must report purchases of two or more of some types of rifles by the same person in a five-day span. The requirement applies to purchases of semi-automatic rifles that have detachable magazines and a caliber of greater than .22.
ATF estimates it will generate 18,000 reports a year. ATF will retain the information and if no investigative leads have been realized after two years, it will be purged.”
The Daily Beast seems to have the inside track on more Executive Orders, however, claiming recent conversations with administration officials. TDB says the upcoming Executive Orders will have more impact than what Fox outlines above, including:
“A national electronic system designed to make background checks for handgun buyers simpler and faster, leaving an electronic paper trail. [And] Tougher sentencing guidelines for straw buyers that Holder’s department pushed through procedural hoops at the U.S. Sentencing Commission earlier this year.”
The Executive Orders come in the middle of the “Fast and Furious” scandal currently plaguing the administration. Already, there is talk on Capitol Hill of a cover-up at the highest levels of government, and it appears to some that the administration was feeding the lethal problem of firearms trafficking it ostensibly intended to address with “Fast and Furious.”
The question remains- if these Executive Orders are ‘common sense’ measures as the administration claims, why not let Congress enact them as laws? And if they are minor tweaks to existing law as others claim, are they necessary at all?
As background, here is a short clip of then-candidate Obama in 2008 on gun control. He agrees that the second amendment means…something, but beyond that, the details get hazy.
Obama Executive Orders Impose New Gun Rules
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 6:51am by Buck Sexton
A few days ago, the Blaze reported on the low-key plans of the Obama administration to increase the penalties for certain gun law violations, and add steps to the background checks for legal gun ownership.
Today the administration’s plans are beginning to come into effect. Through an Executive Order, the Obama administration is implementing new restrictions on the sale of certain weapons in border states, and increasing the penalties for violating certain firearms laws.
Fox News is reporting on the purpose of the gun control executive orders:
“In an effort to stem the illicit flow of weapons into Mexico, the Justice Department announced Monday that all gun shops in four Southwest border states will be required to alert the federal government to frequent buyers of high-powered rifles.
Under the new policy, federal firearms licensees in Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico must report purchases of two or more of some types of rifles by the same person in a five-day span. The requirement applies to purchases of semi-automatic rifles that have detachable magazines and a caliber of greater than .22.
ATF estimates it will generate 18,000 reports a year. ATF will retain the information and if no investigative leads have been realized after two years, it will be purged.”
The Daily Beast seems to have the inside track on more Executive Orders, however, claiming recent conversations with administration officials. TDB says the upcoming Executive Orders will have more impact than what Fox outlines above, including:
“A national electronic system designed to make background checks for handgun buyers simpler and faster, leaving an electronic paper trail. [And] Tougher sentencing guidelines for straw buyers that Holder’s department pushed through procedural hoops at the U.S. Sentencing Commission earlier this year.”
The Executive Orders come in the middle of the “Fast and Furious” scandal currently plaguing the administration. Already, there is talk on Capitol Hill of a cover-up at the highest levels of government, and it appears to some that the administration was feeding the lethal problem of firearms trafficking it ostensibly intended to address with “Fast and Furious.”
The question remains- if these Executive Orders are ‘common sense’ measures as the administration claims, why not let Congress enact them as laws? And if they are minor tweaks to existing law as others claim, are they necessary at all?
As background, here is a short clip of then-candidate Obama in 2008 on gun control. He agrees that the second amendment means…something, but beyond that, the details get hazy.
Senator McConnell Proposes Giving President Obama Sweeping New Powers On Debt Limit
From Newsmax:
McConnell: Give Obama New Powers on Debt Limit
Tuesday, 12 Jul 2011 04:05 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) — The top Republican in the Senate proposed on Tuesday giving President Barack Obama sweeping new power to, in effect, unilaterally increase the nation's debt limit to avoid a first-ever default on U.S. obligations.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., offered a new plan to allow the president to demand up to $2.4 trillion in new borrowing authority by the summer of next year in three separate submissions. Those increases in the so-called debt limit would automatically take effect unless both the Republican House and the Democratic Senate enact legislation specifically disapproving it.
Obama would be able to veto such legislation.
The GOP plan would require that Obama submit spending cuts along with his borrowing requests. But unlike the increase in the debt limit, they wouldn't automatically take effect.
The new mechanism would take the place of the White House debt negotiations between congressional leaders and Obama. Those talks over spending cuts and tax increases have grown increasingly acrimonious.
McConnell offered the plan just a couple of hours before he was scheduled to go to the White House for the third round of budget talks in as many days. The two sides were increasingly at odds over Democratic demands for revenue increases to accompany the $4 trillion-plus in spending cuts demanded by Republicans as the price for maintaining the government's ability to borrow to meet its obligations.
McConnell said he reluctantly offered the unusual proposal because it has become clear the negotiations with Obama aren't going anywhere.
"I had hoped all year long that the opportunity presented by his request of us to raises the debt ceiling would generate a bipartisan agreement that would begin to get our house in order," McConnell said. "I still hope it will. But we're certainly not going to send a signal to the markets and the American people that default is an option."
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and other market experts have issued dire warnings of the effect a potential default would have on the still-struggling economy, including a downgrade in the government's AAA bond rating, higher interest rates and panic in the markets.
Obama himself warned in a CBS News interview that he couldn't guarantee that Social Security payments would go out as scheduled on Aug. 3.
An aide to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Boehner shares McConnell's concerns about the lack of progress in the talks. A spokesman for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., said Cantor feels that the McConnell proposal could be helpful.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he had spoken briefly to McConnell about the idea and said he would consider it.
The sweeping new power would only be in effect through the remainder of Obama's term.
McConnell's plan would permit an immediate increase in the debt limit of $100 billion while Congress debates whether to disapprove of it.
____
Associated Press writers Ben Feller, Julie Pace and Erica Werner contributed to this report.
© Copyright 2011 The Associated Press.
Read more on Newsmax.com: McConnell: Give Obama New Powers on Debt Limit
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
McConnell: Give Obama New Powers on Debt Limit
Tuesday, 12 Jul 2011 04:05 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) — The top Republican in the Senate proposed on Tuesday giving President Barack Obama sweeping new power to, in effect, unilaterally increase the nation's debt limit to avoid a first-ever default on U.S. obligations.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., offered a new plan to allow the president to demand up to $2.4 trillion in new borrowing authority by the summer of next year in three separate submissions. Those increases in the so-called debt limit would automatically take effect unless both the Republican House and the Democratic Senate enact legislation specifically disapproving it.
Obama would be able to veto such legislation.
The GOP plan would require that Obama submit spending cuts along with his borrowing requests. But unlike the increase in the debt limit, they wouldn't automatically take effect.
The new mechanism would take the place of the White House debt negotiations between congressional leaders and Obama. Those talks over spending cuts and tax increases have grown increasingly acrimonious.
McConnell offered the plan just a couple of hours before he was scheduled to go to the White House for the third round of budget talks in as many days. The two sides were increasingly at odds over Democratic demands for revenue increases to accompany the $4 trillion-plus in spending cuts demanded by Republicans as the price for maintaining the government's ability to borrow to meet its obligations.
McConnell said he reluctantly offered the unusual proposal because it has become clear the negotiations with Obama aren't going anywhere.
"I had hoped all year long that the opportunity presented by his request of us to raises the debt ceiling would generate a bipartisan agreement that would begin to get our house in order," McConnell said. "I still hope it will. But we're certainly not going to send a signal to the markets and the American people that default is an option."
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and other market experts have issued dire warnings of the effect a potential default would have on the still-struggling economy, including a downgrade in the government's AAA bond rating, higher interest rates and panic in the markets.
Obama himself warned in a CBS News interview that he couldn't guarantee that Social Security payments would go out as scheduled on Aug. 3.
An aide to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Boehner shares McConnell's concerns about the lack of progress in the talks. A spokesman for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., said Cantor feels that the McConnell proposal could be helpful.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he had spoken briefly to McConnell about the idea and said he would consider it.
The sweeping new power would only be in effect through the remainder of Obama's term.
McConnell's plan would permit an immediate increase in the debt limit of $100 billion while Congress debates whether to disapprove of it.
____
Associated Press writers Ben Feller, Julie Pace and Erica Werner contributed to this report.
© Copyright 2011 The Associated Press.
Read more on Newsmax.com: McConnell: Give Obama New Powers on Debt Limit
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
Friday, July 1, 2011
Independence Forever: Why America Celebrates The Fourth Of July
From The Heritage Foundation:
Independence Forever: Why America Celebrates the Fourth of July
Published on June 28, 2007 by Matthew Spalding, Ph.D. First Principles Series Report #11
The Fourth of July is a great opportunity to renew our dedication to the principles of liberty and equality enshrined in what Thomas Jefferson called "the declaratory charter of our rights."
As a practical matter, the Declaration of Independence publicly announced to the world the unanimous decision of the American colonies to declare themselves free and independent states, absolved from any allegiance to Great Britain. But its greater meaning-then as well as now-is as a statement of the conditions of legitimate political authority and the proper ends of government, and its proclamation of a new ground of political rule in the sovereignty of the people. "If the American Revolution had produced nothing but the Declaration of Independence," wrote the great historian Samuel Eliot Morrison, "it would have been worthwhile."
Although Congress had appointed a distinguished committee-including John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert Livingston-the Declaration of Independence is chiefly the work of Thomas Jefferson. By his own account, Jefferson was neither aiming at originality nor taking from any particular writings but was expressing the "harmonizing sentiments of the day," as expressed in conversation, letters, essays, or "the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, etc." Jefferson intended the Declaration to be "an expression of the American mind," and wrote so as to "place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent."
The structure of the Declaration of Independence is that of a common law legal document. The ringing phrases of the document's famous second paragraph are a powerful synthesis of American constitutional and republican government theories. All men have a right to liberty only in so far as they are by nature equal, which is to say none are naturally superior, and deserve to rule, or inferior, and deserve to be ruled. Because men are endowed with these rights, the rights are unalienable, which means that they cannot be given up or taken away. And because individuals equally possess these rights, governments derive their just powers from the consent of those governed. The purpose of government is to secure these fundamental rights and, although prudence tells us that governments should not be changed for trivial reasons, the people retain the right to alter or abolish government when it becomes destructive of these ends.
The remainder of the document is a bill of indictment accusing King George III of some 30 offenses, some constitutional, some legal, and some matters of policy. The combined charges against the king were intended to demonstrate a history of repeated injuries, all having the object of establishing "an absolute tyranny" over America. Although the colonists were "disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable," the time had come to end the relationship: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government."
One charge that Jefferson had included, but Congress removed, was that the king had "waged cruel war against human nature" by introducing slavery and allowing the slave trade into the American colonies. A few delegates were unwilling to acknowledge that slavery violated the "most sacred rights of life and liberty," and the passage was dropped for the sake of unanimity. Thus was foreshadowed the central debate of the American Civil War, which Abraham Lincoln saw as a test to determine whether a nation "conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal" could long endure.
The Declaration of Independence and the liberties recognized in it are grounded in a higher law to which all human laws are answerable. This higher law can be understood to derive from reason-the truths of the Declaration are held to be "self-evident"-but also revelation. There are four references to God in the document: to "the laws of nature and nature's God"; to all men being "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"; to "the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions"; and to "the protection of Divine Providence." The first term suggests a deity that is knowable by human reason, but the others-God as creator, as judge, and as providence-are more biblical, and add a theological context to the document. "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 a gift of God?" Jefferson asked in his Notes on the State of Virginia.
The true significance of the Declaration lies in its trans-historical meaning. Its appeal was not to any conventional law or political contract but to the equal rights possessed by all men and "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and nature's God" entitled them. What is revolutionary about the Declaration of Independence is not that a particular group of Americans declared their independence under particular circumstances but that they did so by appealing to-and promising to base their particular government on-a universal standard of justice. It is in this sense that Abraham Lincoln praised "the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times."
The ringing phrases of the Declaration of Independence speak to all those who strive for liberty and seek to vindicate the principles of self-government. But it was an aged John Adams who, when he was asked to prepare a statement on the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, delivered two words that still convey our great hope every Fourth of July: "Independence Forever."
Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., is Director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
QUOTATIONS ON THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
I am well aware of the toil, and blood, and treasure, that it will cost us to maintain this declaration, and support and defend these states. Yet, through all the gloom, I can see the rays of light and glory; I can see that the end is more than worth all the means, and that posterity will triumph.
John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, July 3, 1776
There! His Majesty can now read my name without glasses. And he can double the reward on my head!
John Hancock (attributed), upon signing the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.
Benjamin Franklin (attributed), at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
The flames kindled on the 4th of July 1776, have spread over too much of the globe to be extinguished by the feeble engines of despotism; on the contrary, they will consume these engines and all who work them.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, September 12, 1821
With respect to our rights, and the acts of the British government contravening those rights, there was but one opinion on this side of the water. All American whigs thought alike on these subjects. When forced, therefore, to resort to arms for redress, an appeal to the tribunal of the world was deemed proper for our justification. This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion. All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Henry Lee, May 8, 1825
Independence Forever.
John Adams, toast for the 50th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1826
I have said that the Declaration of Independence is the ring-bolt to the chain of your nation's destiny; so, indeed, I regard it. The principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost.
Frederick Douglass, "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?" July 5, 1852
The assertion that "all men are created equal" was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain; and it was placed in the Declaration, not for that, but for future use. Its authors meant it to be, thank God, it is now proving itself, a stumbling block to those who in after times might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism. They knew the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and they meant when such should re-appear in this fair land and commence their vocation they should find left for them at least one hard nut to crack.
Abraham Lincoln, speech on the Dred Scott Decision, June 26, 1857
We have besides these men-descended by blood from our ancestors-among us perhaps half our people who are not descendants at all of these men, they are men who have come from Europe-German, Irish, French and Scandinavian-men that have come from Europe themselves, or whose ancestors have come hither and settled here, finding themselves our equals in all things. If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us, but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world.
Abraham Lincoln, speech at Chicago, Illinois, July 10, 1858
We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren sceptre in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame, the altar fires before which they worshiped.
Calvin Coolidge, speech on the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 5, 1926
Today, 186 years later, that Declaration whose yellowing parchment and fading, almost illegible lines I saw in the past week in the National Archives in Washington is still a revolutionary document. To read it today is to hear a trumpet call. For that Declaration unleashed not merely a revolution against the British, but a revolution in human affairs. . . . The theory of independence is as old as man himself, and it was not invented in this hall. But it was in this hall that the theory became a practice; that the word went out to all, in Thomas Jefferson's phrase, that "the God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time." And today this Nation-conceived in revolution, nurtured in liberty, maturing in independence-has no intention of abdicating its leadership in that worldwide movement for independence to any nation or society committed to systematic human oppression.
John F. Kennedy, address at Independence Hall, July 4, 1962
When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. . . . I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."
Martin Luther King, "I Have A Dream," August 28, 1963
Our Declaration of Independence has been copied by emerging nations around the globe, its themes adopted in places many of us have never heard of. Here in this land, for the first time, it was decided that man is born with certain God-given rights. We the people declared that government is created by the people for their own convenience. Government has no power except those voluntarily granted it by the people. There have been revolutions before and since ours, revolutions that simply exchanged one set of rulers for another. Ours was a philosophical revolution that changed the very concept of government.
Ronald Reagan, address at Yorktown, October 19, 1981
A NOTE ON THE SIGNERS OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
"...we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
(Each year information about those who signed the Declaration of Independence is circulated, not all of which is accurate. The following note is based on research in several established sources, which are noted below.)
Fifty-six individuals from each of the original 13 colonies participated in the Second Continental Congress and signed the Declaration of Independence. Pennsylvania sent nine delegates to the congress, followed by Virginia with seven and Massachusetts and New Jersey with five. Connecticut, Maryland, New York, and South Carolina each sent four delegates. Delaware, Georgia, New Hampshire, and North Carolina each sent three. Rhode Island, the smallest colony, sent only two delegates to Philadelphia.
Eight of the signers were immigrants, two were brothers, two were cousins, and one was an orphan. The average age of a signer was 45. The oldest delegate was Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, who was 70 when he signed the Declaration. The youngest was Thomas Lynch, Jr., of South Carolina, who was 27.
Eighteen of the signers were merchants or businessmen, 14 were farmers, and four were doctors. Forty-two signers had served in their colonial legislatures. Twenty-two were lawyers-although William Hooper of North Carolina was "disbarred" when he spoke out against the Crown-and nine were judges. Stephen Hopkins had been Governor of Rhode Island.
Although two others had been clergy previously, John Witherspoon of New Jersey was the only active clergyman to attend-he wore his pontificals to the sessions. Almost all were Protestant Christians; Charles Carroll of Maryland was the only Roman Catholic signer.
Seven of the signers were educated at Harvard, four each at Yale and William & Mary, and three at Princeton. John Witherspoon was the president of Princeton and George Wythe was a professor at William & Mary, where his students included the author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson.
Seventeen of the signers served in the military during the American Revolution. Thomas Nelson was a colonel in the Second Virginia Regiment and then commanded Virginia military forces at the Battle of Yorktown. William Whipple served with the New Hampshire militia and was one of the commanding officers in the decisive Saratoga campaign. Oliver Wolcott led the Connecticut regiments sent for the defense of New York and commanded a brigade of militia that took part in the defeat of General Burgoyne. Caesar Rodney was a Major General in the Delaware militia and John Hancock was the same in the Massachusetts militia.
Five of the signers were captured by the British during the war. Captains Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, and Arthur Middleton (South Carolina) were all captured at the Battle of Charleston in 1780; Colonel George Walton was wounded and captured at the Battle of Savannah. Richard Stockton of New Jersey never recovered from his incarceration at the hands of British Loyalists and died in 1781.
Colonel Thomas McKean of Delaware wrote John Adams that he was "hunted like a fox by the enemy-compelled to remove my family five times in a few months, and at last fixed them in a little log house on the banks of the Susquehanna . . . and they were soon obliged to move again on account of the incursions of the Indians." Abraham Clark of New Jersey had two of his sons captured by the British during the war. The son of John Witherspoon, a major in the New Jersey Brigade, was killed at the Battle of Germantown.
Eleven signers had their homes and property destroyed. Francis Lewis's New York home was destroyed and his wife was taken prisoner. John Hart's farm and mills were destroyed when the British invaded New Jersey and he died while fleeing capture. Carter Braxton and Thomas Nelson (both of Virginia) lent large sums of their personal fortunes to support the war effort, but were never repaid.
Fifteen of the signers participated in their states' constitutional conventions, and six-Roger Sherman, Robert Morris, Benjamin Franklin, George Clymer, James Wilson, and George Reed-signed the United States Constitution. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts attended the federal convention and, though he later supported the document, refused to sign the Constitution.
After the Revolution, 13 of the signers went on to become governors, and 18 served in their state legislatures. Sixteen became state and federal judges. Seven became members of the United States House of Representatives, and six became United States Senators. James Wilson and Samuel Chase became Justices of the United States Supreme Court.
Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Elbridge Gerry each became Vice President, and John Adams and Thomas Jefferson became President. The sons of signers John Adams and Benjamin Harrison also became Presidents.
Five signers played major roles in the establishment of colleges and universities: Benjamin Franklin and the University of Pennsylvania; Thomas Jefferson and the University of Virginia; Benjamin Rush and Dickinson College; Lewis Morris and New York University; and George Walton and the University of Georgia.
John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Charles Carroll were the longest surviving signers. Adams and Jefferson both died on July 4, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Charles Carroll of Maryland was the last signer to die-in 1832 at the age of 95.
Sources: Robert Lincoln, Lives of the Presidents of the United States, with Biographical Notices of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence (Brattleboro Typographical Company, 1839); John and Katherine Bakeless, Signers of the Declaration (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1969); Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, 1774-1989 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989).
This essay was published June 28, 2007. Originally published as Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1451 on June 19, 2001.
Send this report to a friendYour Information Yes, I'd like to receive news about Heritage via email Your Friend's Information Your Message
Print PDF Download PDF ShareFacebook Twitter Email More Send this report to a friendYour Information Yes, I'd like to receive news about Heritage via email Your Friend's Information Your Message
About the Author Matthew Spalding, Ph.D.
Vice President, American Studies and Director, B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics
Independence Forever: Why America Celebrates the Fourth of July
Published on June 28, 2007 by Matthew Spalding, Ph.D. First Principles Series Report #11
The Fourth of July is a great opportunity to renew our dedication to the principles of liberty and equality enshrined in what Thomas Jefferson called "the declaratory charter of our rights."
As a practical matter, the Declaration of Independence publicly announced to the world the unanimous decision of the American colonies to declare themselves free and independent states, absolved from any allegiance to Great Britain. But its greater meaning-then as well as now-is as a statement of the conditions of legitimate political authority and the proper ends of government, and its proclamation of a new ground of political rule in the sovereignty of the people. "If the American Revolution had produced nothing but the Declaration of Independence," wrote the great historian Samuel Eliot Morrison, "it would have been worthwhile."
Although Congress had appointed a distinguished committee-including John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert Livingston-the Declaration of Independence is chiefly the work of Thomas Jefferson. By his own account, Jefferson was neither aiming at originality nor taking from any particular writings but was expressing the "harmonizing sentiments of the day," as expressed in conversation, letters, essays, or "the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, etc." Jefferson intended the Declaration to be "an expression of the American mind," and wrote so as to "place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent."
The structure of the Declaration of Independence is that of a common law legal document. The ringing phrases of the document's famous second paragraph are a powerful synthesis of American constitutional and republican government theories. All men have a right to liberty only in so far as they are by nature equal, which is to say none are naturally superior, and deserve to rule, or inferior, and deserve to be ruled. Because men are endowed with these rights, the rights are unalienable, which means that they cannot be given up or taken away. And because individuals equally possess these rights, governments derive their just powers from the consent of those governed. The purpose of government is to secure these fundamental rights and, although prudence tells us that governments should not be changed for trivial reasons, the people retain the right to alter or abolish government when it becomes destructive of these ends.
The remainder of the document is a bill of indictment accusing King George III of some 30 offenses, some constitutional, some legal, and some matters of policy. The combined charges against the king were intended to demonstrate a history of repeated injuries, all having the object of establishing "an absolute tyranny" over America. Although the colonists were "disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable," the time had come to end the relationship: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government."
One charge that Jefferson had included, but Congress removed, was that the king had "waged cruel war against human nature" by introducing slavery and allowing the slave trade into the American colonies. A few delegates were unwilling to acknowledge that slavery violated the "most sacred rights of life and liberty," and the passage was dropped for the sake of unanimity. Thus was foreshadowed the central debate of the American Civil War, which Abraham Lincoln saw as a test to determine whether a nation "conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal" could long endure.
The Declaration of Independence and the liberties recognized in it are grounded in a higher law to which all human laws are answerable. This higher law can be understood to derive from reason-the truths of the Declaration are held to be "self-evident"-but also revelation. There are four references to God in the document: to "the laws of nature and nature's God"; to all men being "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"; to "the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions"; and to "the protection of Divine Providence." The first term suggests a deity that is knowable by human reason, but the others-God as creator, as judge, and as providence-are more biblical, and add a theological context to the document. "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 a gift of God?" Jefferson asked in his Notes on the State of Virginia.
The true significance of the Declaration lies in its trans-historical meaning. Its appeal was not to any conventional law or political contract but to the equal rights possessed by all men and "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and nature's God" entitled them. What is revolutionary about the Declaration of Independence is not that a particular group of Americans declared their independence under particular circumstances but that they did so by appealing to-and promising to base their particular government on-a universal standard of justice. It is in this sense that Abraham Lincoln praised "the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times."
The ringing phrases of the Declaration of Independence speak to all those who strive for liberty and seek to vindicate the principles of self-government. But it was an aged John Adams who, when he was asked to prepare a statement on the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, delivered two words that still convey our great hope every Fourth of July: "Independence Forever."
Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., is Director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
QUOTATIONS ON THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
I am well aware of the toil, and blood, and treasure, that it will cost us to maintain this declaration, and support and defend these states. Yet, through all the gloom, I can see the rays of light and glory; I can see that the end is more than worth all the means, and that posterity will triumph.
John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, July 3, 1776
There! His Majesty can now read my name without glasses. And he can double the reward on my head!
John Hancock (attributed), upon signing the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.
Benjamin Franklin (attributed), at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
The flames kindled on the 4th of July 1776, have spread over too much of the globe to be extinguished by the feeble engines of despotism; on the contrary, they will consume these engines and all who work them.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, September 12, 1821
With respect to our rights, and the acts of the British government contravening those rights, there was but one opinion on this side of the water. All American whigs thought alike on these subjects. When forced, therefore, to resort to arms for redress, an appeal to the tribunal of the world was deemed proper for our justification. This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion. All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Henry Lee, May 8, 1825
Independence Forever.
John Adams, toast for the 50th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1826
I have said that the Declaration of Independence is the ring-bolt to the chain of your nation's destiny; so, indeed, I regard it. The principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost.
Frederick Douglass, "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?" July 5, 1852
The assertion that "all men are created equal" was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain; and it was placed in the Declaration, not for that, but for future use. Its authors meant it to be, thank God, it is now proving itself, a stumbling block to those who in after times might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism. They knew the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and they meant when such should re-appear in this fair land and commence their vocation they should find left for them at least one hard nut to crack.
Abraham Lincoln, speech on the Dred Scott Decision, June 26, 1857
We have besides these men-descended by blood from our ancestors-among us perhaps half our people who are not descendants at all of these men, they are men who have come from Europe-German, Irish, French and Scandinavian-men that have come from Europe themselves, or whose ancestors have come hither and settled here, finding themselves our equals in all things. If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us, but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world.
Abraham Lincoln, speech at Chicago, Illinois, July 10, 1858
We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren sceptre in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame, the altar fires before which they worshiped.
Calvin Coolidge, speech on the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 5, 1926
Today, 186 years later, that Declaration whose yellowing parchment and fading, almost illegible lines I saw in the past week in the National Archives in Washington is still a revolutionary document. To read it today is to hear a trumpet call. For that Declaration unleashed not merely a revolution against the British, but a revolution in human affairs. . . . The theory of independence is as old as man himself, and it was not invented in this hall. But it was in this hall that the theory became a practice; that the word went out to all, in Thomas Jefferson's phrase, that "the God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time." And today this Nation-conceived in revolution, nurtured in liberty, maturing in independence-has no intention of abdicating its leadership in that worldwide movement for independence to any nation or society committed to systematic human oppression.
John F. Kennedy, address at Independence Hall, July 4, 1962
When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. . . . I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."
Martin Luther King, "I Have A Dream," August 28, 1963
Our Declaration of Independence has been copied by emerging nations around the globe, its themes adopted in places many of us have never heard of. Here in this land, for the first time, it was decided that man is born with certain God-given rights. We the people declared that government is created by the people for their own convenience. Government has no power except those voluntarily granted it by the people. There have been revolutions before and since ours, revolutions that simply exchanged one set of rulers for another. Ours was a philosophical revolution that changed the very concept of government.
Ronald Reagan, address at Yorktown, October 19, 1981
A NOTE ON THE SIGNERS OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
"...we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
(Each year information about those who signed the Declaration of Independence is circulated, not all of which is accurate. The following note is based on research in several established sources, which are noted below.)
Fifty-six individuals from each of the original 13 colonies participated in the Second Continental Congress and signed the Declaration of Independence. Pennsylvania sent nine delegates to the congress, followed by Virginia with seven and Massachusetts and New Jersey with five. Connecticut, Maryland, New York, and South Carolina each sent four delegates. Delaware, Georgia, New Hampshire, and North Carolina each sent three. Rhode Island, the smallest colony, sent only two delegates to Philadelphia.
Eight of the signers were immigrants, two were brothers, two were cousins, and one was an orphan. The average age of a signer was 45. The oldest delegate was Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, who was 70 when he signed the Declaration. The youngest was Thomas Lynch, Jr., of South Carolina, who was 27.
Eighteen of the signers were merchants or businessmen, 14 were farmers, and four were doctors. Forty-two signers had served in their colonial legislatures. Twenty-two were lawyers-although William Hooper of North Carolina was "disbarred" when he spoke out against the Crown-and nine were judges. Stephen Hopkins had been Governor of Rhode Island.
Although two others had been clergy previously, John Witherspoon of New Jersey was the only active clergyman to attend-he wore his pontificals to the sessions. Almost all were Protestant Christians; Charles Carroll of Maryland was the only Roman Catholic signer.
Seven of the signers were educated at Harvard, four each at Yale and William & Mary, and three at Princeton. John Witherspoon was the president of Princeton and George Wythe was a professor at William & Mary, where his students included the author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson.
Seventeen of the signers served in the military during the American Revolution. Thomas Nelson was a colonel in the Second Virginia Regiment and then commanded Virginia military forces at the Battle of Yorktown. William Whipple served with the New Hampshire militia and was one of the commanding officers in the decisive Saratoga campaign. Oliver Wolcott led the Connecticut regiments sent for the defense of New York and commanded a brigade of militia that took part in the defeat of General Burgoyne. Caesar Rodney was a Major General in the Delaware militia and John Hancock was the same in the Massachusetts militia.
Five of the signers were captured by the British during the war. Captains Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, and Arthur Middleton (South Carolina) were all captured at the Battle of Charleston in 1780; Colonel George Walton was wounded and captured at the Battle of Savannah. Richard Stockton of New Jersey never recovered from his incarceration at the hands of British Loyalists and died in 1781.
Colonel Thomas McKean of Delaware wrote John Adams that he was "hunted like a fox by the enemy-compelled to remove my family five times in a few months, and at last fixed them in a little log house on the banks of the Susquehanna . . . and they were soon obliged to move again on account of the incursions of the Indians." Abraham Clark of New Jersey had two of his sons captured by the British during the war. The son of John Witherspoon, a major in the New Jersey Brigade, was killed at the Battle of Germantown.
Eleven signers had their homes and property destroyed. Francis Lewis's New York home was destroyed and his wife was taken prisoner. John Hart's farm and mills were destroyed when the British invaded New Jersey and he died while fleeing capture. Carter Braxton and Thomas Nelson (both of Virginia) lent large sums of their personal fortunes to support the war effort, but were never repaid.
Fifteen of the signers participated in their states' constitutional conventions, and six-Roger Sherman, Robert Morris, Benjamin Franklin, George Clymer, James Wilson, and George Reed-signed the United States Constitution. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts attended the federal convention and, though he later supported the document, refused to sign the Constitution.
After the Revolution, 13 of the signers went on to become governors, and 18 served in their state legislatures. Sixteen became state and federal judges. Seven became members of the United States House of Representatives, and six became United States Senators. James Wilson and Samuel Chase became Justices of the United States Supreme Court.
Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Elbridge Gerry each became Vice President, and John Adams and Thomas Jefferson became President. The sons of signers John Adams and Benjamin Harrison also became Presidents.
Five signers played major roles in the establishment of colleges and universities: Benjamin Franklin and the University of Pennsylvania; Thomas Jefferson and the University of Virginia; Benjamin Rush and Dickinson College; Lewis Morris and New York University; and George Walton and the University of Georgia.
John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Charles Carroll were the longest surviving signers. Adams and Jefferson both died on July 4, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Charles Carroll of Maryland was the last signer to die-in 1832 at the age of 95.
Sources: Robert Lincoln, Lives of the Presidents of the United States, with Biographical Notices of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence (Brattleboro Typographical Company, 1839); John and Katherine Bakeless, Signers of the Declaration (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1969); Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, 1774-1989 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989).
This essay was published June 28, 2007. Originally published as Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1451 on June 19, 2001.
Send this report to a friendYour Information Yes, I'd like to receive news about Heritage via email Your Friend's Information Your Message
Print PDF Download PDF ShareFacebook Twitter Email More Send this report to a friendYour Information Yes, I'd like to receive news about Heritage via email Your Friend's Information Your Message
About the Author Matthew Spalding, Ph.D.
Vice President, American Studies and Director, B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics
Harvard: July 4th Parades Are Right Wing
From ADF and U.S. News And World Report:
Harvard: July 4th Parades Are Right-Wing
By Paul Bedard
Posted: June 30, 2011
Print
385retweetTOP1K
Share This
Democratic political candidates can skip this weekend's July 4th parades. A new Harvard University study finds that July 4th parades energize only Republicans, turn kids into Republicans, and help to boost the GOP turnout of adults on Election Day.
"Fourth of July celebrations in the United States shape the nation's political landscape by forming beliefs and increasing participation, primarily in favor of the Republican Party," said the report from Harvard. [See political cartoons about the 2012 GOP field.]
"The political right has been more successful in appropriating American patriotism and its symbols during the 20th century. Survey evidence also confirms that Republicans consider themselves more patriotic than Democrats. According to this interpretation, there is a political congruence between the patriotism promoted on Fourth of July and the values associated with the Republican party. Fourth of July celebrations in Republican dominated counties may thus be more politically biased events that socialize children into Republicans," write Harvard Kennedy School Assistant Professor David Yanagizawa-Drott and Bocconi University Assistant Professor Andreas Madestam. [Enjoy political cartoons about President Obama.]
Their findings also suggest that Democrats gain nothing from July 4th parades, likely a shocking result for all the Democratic politicians who march in them. [Check out editorial cartoons about the Democrats.]
"There is no evidence of an increased likelihood of identifying as a Democrat, indicating that Fourth of July shifts preferences to the right rather than increasing political polarization," the two wrote.
The three key findings of those attending July 4th celebrations:
•When done before the age of 18, it increases the likelihood of a youth identifying as a Republican by at least 2 percent.
•It raises the likelihood that parade watchers will vote for a Republican candidate by 4 percent.
•It boosts the likelihood a reveler will vote by about 1 percent and increases the chances they'll make a political contribution by 3 percent.
What's more, the impact isn't fleeting. "Surprisingly, the estimates show that the impact on political preferences is permanent, with no evidence of the effects depreciating as individuals become older,"said the Harvard report.
Finally, the report suggests that if people are looking for a super-patriotic July 4th, though should head to Republican towns. "Republican adults celebrate Fourth of July more intensively in the first place."
Harvard: July 4th Parades Are Right-Wing
By Paul Bedard
Posted: June 30, 2011
385retweetTOP1K
Share This
Democratic political candidates can skip this weekend's July 4th parades. A new Harvard University study finds that July 4th parades energize only Republicans, turn kids into Republicans, and help to boost the GOP turnout of adults on Election Day.
"Fourth of July celebrations in the United States shape the nation's political landscape by forming beliefs and increasing participation, primarily in favor of the Republican Party," said the report from Harvard. [See political cartoons about the 2012 GOP field.]
"The political right has been more successful in appropriating American patriotism and its symbols during the 20th century. Survey evidence also confirms that Republicans consider themselves more patriotic than Democrats. According to this interpretation, there is a political congruence between the patriotism promoted on Fourth of July and the values associated with the Republican party. Fourth of July celebrations in Republican dominated counties may thus be more politically biased events that socialize children into Republicans," write Harvard Kennedy School Assistant Professor David Yanagizawa-Drott and Bocconi University Assistant Professor Andreas Madestam. [Enjoy political cartoons about President Obama.]
Their findings also suggest that Democrats gain nothing from July 4th parades, likely a shocking result for all the Democratic politicians who march in them. [Check out editorial cartoons about the Democrats.]
"There is no evidence of an increased likelihood of identifying as a Democrat, indicating that Fourth of July shifts preferences to the right rather than increasing political polarization," the two wrote.
The three key findings of those attending July 4th celebrations:
•When done before the age of 18, it increases the likelihood of a youth identifying as a Republican by at least 2 percent.
•It raises the likelihood that parade watchers will vote for a Republican candidate by 4 percent.
•It boosts the likelihood a reveler will vote by about 1 percent and increases the chances they'll make a political contribution by 3 percent.
What's more, the impact isn't fleeting. "Surprisingly, the estimates show that the impact on political preferences is permanent, with no evidence of the effects depreciating as individuals become older,"said the Harvard report.
Finally, the report suggests that if people are looking for a super-patriotic July 4th, though should head to Republican towns. "Republican adults celebrate Fourth of July more intensively in the first place."
Something Missing From Our Fourth Of July Celebrations
From Town Hall:
Alan Sears
Something Missing From Our Fourth of July Celebrations
6/28/2011
Email Alan Sears
Columnist's Archive
Share
0digg
Sign-Up
It was such a curious omission. Last September, in a speech at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute in Washington, D.C., President Barack Obama was taking his audience on a quick tour of early U.S. history when he referenced a line from the Declaration of Independence, whose 135th anniversary we will celebrate next week.
“Long before America was even an idea,” he said, “this land of plenty was home to many peoples – to British and French, to Dutch and Spanish, to Mexican, to countless Indian tribes. We all shared the same land. We didn’t always get along. But over the centuries, what eventually bound us together – what made us all Americans – was not a matter of blood. It wasn’t a matter of birth. It was faith and fidelity to the shared values that we all hold so dear.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,’ endowed with certain inalienable rights: life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That’s what makes us unique,” he said. “That’s what makes us strong. The ability to recognize our common humanity.”
Notice anything missing? The actual Declaration reads, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
As I said, it’s a curious omission. And a troubling one, especially since it seems to be a pattern. Whether out of philosophical conviction or oratorical abbreviation – the president separated our “creation” from the idea of a Creator, and the “unalienable” rights we’re endowed with from the One who endowed them. The problem: our lives, our freedom, and our rights and privileges as free men and women have no real significance or lasting meaning apart from that Creator, from that Endower … from God.
Without God, there is no life beyond this. Without God, there’s no basis for morality. What difference does it make if I treat others with respect, if I fight for their freedom, if I promote peace or seek truth or even pursue happiness? My life hangs by the slimmest of threads, and when the thread breaks: nothing. No reward for good choices, no transformation for having embraced truth … for what is truth, as Pontius Pilate asked, if God does not exist to affirm one “value” as better or more worthy than another?
Without God, truth and justice and goodness mean nothing, compared to finding power and enjoying a few bright diversions and satiating my appetites and squashing anyone who interrupts or impedes the quenching of my desires.
Without God, the president’s entire assertion is wrong: being American is absolutely and entirely a matter of blood and birth … and the faith and fidelity of our forefathers was not to “shared values” but to common interests: mutual economic benefit and physical security. How can we share “values,” in any enduring, moral sense, if we remove the God whose words and character alone persuade us that there is value in generosity, humility, service, and self-sacrifice?
No, despite what the president said, it’s not the “rights” that “make us strong.” It’s the Creator on whose character those rights are founded who makes life worth living, makes liberty a reality for the soul as well as the body, makes happiness something deeper and more lasting than a moment’s gratification. The rights were endowed so that we might better know the One who endowed them; the gifts must inevitably point us to the Giver.
No man gives the woman he loves an engagement ring so that she will forget him. Indeed, the ring’s ultimate value is not the size of the diamond but wonder at the love that gave it … and the depth of the mutual commitment that gift symbolizes.
The Fourth of July, like a wedding, is and should be a celebration – not just of life and freedom shared and so many happinesses found and cherished, but of the mutual commitment that makes all these possible. To leave God out of the equation, out of the history, out of the celebration, is like celebrating a marriage with only half of a couple.
Without Him, the “glorious Fourth” is considerably less glorious – just a hollow, tinny ruckus about … nothing. And a recognition not of our “common humanity,” but of our increasing inability to fathom what life and freedom and happiness are really all about.
Tags: Media and Culture , United States of America , Barack Obama , Independence Day
Alan Sears
Alan Sears, a former federal prosecutor in the Reagan Administration, is president and CEO of the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal alliance employing a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.
Alan Sears
Something Missing From Our Fourth of July Celebrations
6/28/2011
Email Alan Sears
Columnist's Archive
Share
0digg
Sign-Up
It was such a curious omission. Last September, in a speech at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute in Washington, D.C., President Barack Obama was taking his audience on a quick tour of early U.S. history when he referenced a line from the Declaration of Independence, whose 135th anniversary we will celebrate next week.
“Long before America was even an idea,” he said, “this land of plenty was home to many peoples – to British and French, to Dutch and Spanish, to Mexican, to countless Indian tribes. We all shared the same land. We didn’t always get along. But over the centuries, what eventually bound us together – what made us all Americans – was not a matter of blood. It wasn’t a matter of birth. It was faith and fidelity to the shared values that we all hold so dear.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,’ endowed with certain inalienable rights: life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That’s what makes us unique,” he said. “That’s what makes us strong. The ability to recognize our common humanity.”
Notice anything missing? The actual Declaration reads, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
As I said, it’s a curious omission. And a troubling one, especially since it seems to be a pattern. Whether out of philosophical conviction or oratorical abbreviation – the president separated our “creation” from the idea of a Creator, and the “unalienable” rights we’re endowed with from the One who endowed them. The problem: our lives, our freedom, and our rights and privileges as free men and women have no real significance or lasting meaning apart from that Creator, from that Endower … from God.
Without God, there is no life beyond this. Without God, there’s no basis for morality. What difference does it make if I treat others with respect, if I fight for their freedom, if I promote peace or seek truth or even pursue happiness? My life hangs by the slimmest of threads, and when the thread breaks: nothing. No reward for good choices, no transformation for having embraced truth … for what is truth, as Pontius Pilate asked, if God does not exist to affirm one “value” as better or more worthy than another?
Without God, truth and justice and goodness mean nothing, compared to finding power and enjoying a few bright diversions and satiating my appetites and squashing anyone who interrupts or impedes the quenching of my desires.
Without God, the president’s entire assertion is wrong: being American is absolutely and entirely a matter of blood and birth … and the faith and fidelity of our forefathers was not to “shared values” but to common interests: mutual economic benefit and physical security. How can we share “values,” in any enduring, moral sense, if we remove the God whose words and character alone persuade us that there is value in generosity, humility, service, and self-sacrifice?
No, despite what the president said, it’s not the “rights” that “make us strong.” It’s the Creator on whose character those rights are founded who makes life worth living, makes liberty a reality for the soul as well as the body, makes happiness something deeper and more lasting than a moment’s gratification. The rights were endowed so that we might better know the One who endowed them; the gifts must inevitably point us to the Giver.
No man gives the woman he loves an engagement ring so that she will forget him. Indeed, the ring’s ultimate value is not the size of the diamond but wonder at the love that gave it … and the depth of the mutual commitment that gift symbolizes.
The Fourth of July, like a wedding, is and should be a celebration – not just of life and freedom shared and so many happinesses found and cherished, but of the mutual commitment that makes all these possible. To leave God out of the equation, out of the history, out of the celebration, is like celebrating a marriage with only half of a couple.
Without Him, the “glorious Fourth” is considerably less glorious – just a hollow, tinny ruckus about … nothing. And a recognition not of our “common humanity,” but of our increasing inability to fathom what life and freedom and happiness are really all about.
Tags: Media and Culture , United States of America , Barack Obama , Independence Day
Alan Sears
Alan Sears, a former federal prosecutor in the Reagan Administration, is president and CEO of the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal alliance employing a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.
Pajamas Media Sues Pentagon For Details On Travel To "Climate Change Conference"
From Judicial Watch:
Pajamas Media Sues Pentagon for Details on Travel to “Climate Change Conference”
It’s a simple request. OSM Media (Or Pajamas Media/PJM, as it is commonly known) just wants to know how much money the United States Air Force spent to transport United States government officials, congressional elected officials, staff, families and guests to Copenhagen, Denmark, for the United Nations Climate Change Conference in December 2009.
So why has the Obama administration failed to release the documents now, more than one year after they were first requested? That’s what we’d like to know. And so last week we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit on behalf of PJM against the Department of Defense (DOD) seeking records (and an explanation).
Our client is asking the court to order the Air Force to conduct a search for “any and all responsive records;” set a specific date that Pajamas Media is to receive the requested documents; and provide OSM Media with a Vaughn index describing the records that are being withheld under claims of exemption.
Now, here’s a bit of the back-story. (For a full review, click here to read a report on PJM. It is a perfect example of what JW goes through on a daily basis as the Obama administration stonewalls our every request for information.)
On December 23, 2009, Pajamas Media sent a FOIA request to the Air Force. On June 28, 2010, the Air Force notified PJM that part of their FOIA request had been forwarded to the Office of the Secretary. Nearly one year later, on May 17, 2011, the Office of the Secretary produced four pages of almost entirely redacted material and informed Pajamas Media that it referred the withheld material to the U.S. Secret Service.
That’s fifteen months and four blacked-out pages.
Obviously, the Air Force has failed to adequately respond to this request. The Air Force has also failed to demonstrate that the withheld material is legally exempt from production or even say whether or when it will produce or identify the requested records.
Here’s Pajamas Media CEO Roger Simon’s response to this obfuscation: “What happened to the transparency that candidate Obama promised? It has taken almost a year for this administration to turn over a flight manifest and then that document was heavily redacted. The Obama administration has proven itself to be one of the most secretive administrations in history.”
Indeed, the Obama administration consistently refuses to release any documents that are potentially incriminating — or embarrassing. And perhaps that is why these documents are being held so tightly.
No wonder PJM can’t get anything out of the administration about that disastrous conference. The December 2009 United Nations “climate change” conference in Copenhagen was a complete embarrassment for global warming activists and their associates in Washington. The Conference not only failed to enact worldwide “climate” action, but the airlift of President Obama and other government officials must have resulted in huge, wasteful costs for the American people.
Pajamas Media Sues Pentagon for Details on Travel to “Climate Change Conference”
It’s a simple request. OSM Media (Or Pajamas Media/PJM, as it is commonly known) just wants to know how much money the United States Air Force spent to transport United States government officials, congressional elected officials, staff, families and guests to Copenhagen, Denmark, for the United Nations Climate Change Conference in December 2009.
So why has the Obama administration failed to release the documents now, more than one year after they were first requested? That’s what we’d like to know. And so last week we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit on behalf of PJM against the Department of Defense (DOD) seeking records (and an explanation).
Our client is asking the court to order the Air Force to conduct a search for “any and all responsive records;” set a specific date that Pajamas Media is to receive the requested documents; and provide OSM Media with a Vaughn index describing the records that are being withheld under claims of exemption.
Now, here’s a bit of the back-story. (For a full review, click here to read a report on PJM. It is a perfect example of what JW goes through on a daily basis as the Obama administration stonewalls our every request for information.)
On December 23, 2009, Pajamas Media sent a FOIA request to the Air Force. On June 28, 2010, the Air Force notified PJM that part of their FOIA request had been forwarded to the Office of the Secretary. Nearly one year later, on May 17, 2011, the Office of the Secretary produced four pages of almost entirely redacted material and informed Pajamas Media that it referred the withheld material to the U.S. Secret Service.
That’s fifteen months and four blacked-out pages.
Obviously, the Air Force has failed to adequately respond to this request. The Air Force has also failed to demonstrate that the withheld material is legally exempt from production or even say whether or when it will produce or identify the requested records.
Here’s Pajamas Media CEO Roger Simon’s response to this obfuscation: “What happened to the transparency that candidate Obama promised? It has taken almost a year for this administration to turn over a flight manifest and then that document was heavily redacted. The Obama administration has proven itself to be one of the most secretive administrations in history.”
Indeed, the Obama administration consistently refuses to release any documents that are potentially incriminating — or embarrassing. And perhaps that is why these documents are being held so tightly.
No wonder PJM can’t get anything out of the administration about that disastrous conference. The December 2009 United Nations “climate change” conference in Copenhagen was a complete embarrassment for global warming activists and their associates in Washington. The Conference not only failed to enact worldwide “climate” action, but the airlift of President Obama and other government officials must have resulted in huge, wasteful costs for the American people.
More Political Decision-Making At Department Of Justice
From Judicial Watch:
More Political Decision-Making at Justice?
Did the Obama Justice Department refuse to prosecute a radical Muslim with alleged terrorist ties for political reasons? That question is at the center of a new Judicial Watch investigation.
Last week we filed a lawsuit against the DOJ for failing to respond to our request for public records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The documents relate to a decision by the DOJ not to prosecute the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its co-founder Omar Ahmad, who has been linked by federal investigators to the terrorist group Hamas.
Importantly, the decision not to prosecute reportedly was made over the objections of special agents of the FBI and prosecutors at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Dallas, Texas.
On May 9, 2011, we sent a FOIA request to the DOJ’s Office of Information Policy (OIP) and here’s what we’re after:
•“The March 31, 2010 memorandum entitled ‘Declination of Prosecution of Omar Ahmad’ from Attorney General David Kris to Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary Grindler.”
•“Any and all communications, contacts, or correspondence between the Office of the Attorney General (AG), the Office of Deputy Attorney General (DAG), or the Office of the Associate Attorney General (Assoc. AG) and the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) or any CAIR groups concerning, regarding, or relating to the prosecution or declination of prosecution of Omar Ahmad.”
•“Any all communications, contacts, or correspondence between the Office of the AG, the Office of the DAG, or the Office of the Assoc. AG and the U.S. Congress concerning, regarding, or relating to the prosecution or declination of prosecution of Omar Ahmad”
•“Any and all communications, contacts, or correspondence between the office of the AG, the office of the DAG, or the office of the Assoc. AG and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas concerning, regarding, or relating to the prosecution or declination of prosecution of Omar Ahmad.”
On May 9, 2011, Judicial Watch also filed a similar request with the DOJ’s National Security Division (NSD) seeking access to contacts and correspondence between the NSD and CAIR, Congress, and the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Northern District of Texas regarding the decision not to prosecute. (The time frame for these requests is January 20, 2009 to May 1, 2011.)
Both DOJ divisions have acknowledged receipt of Judicial Watch’s request and were required to respond by June 14 and June 13, 2011, respectively. However, to date, both have failed to produce responsive documents or indicate when a response is forthcoming.
And who is Omar Ahmad?
Ahmad served as senior executive on the Palestine Committee, an umbrella organization of U.S.-based Hamas support groups. Moreover, according to sworn testimony by an FBI agent during the prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, which was convicted in 2008 of funneling millions of dollars to Hamas, Ahmad moderated a conference in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in October 1993, during which participants discussed ways to support Hamas
A ruling by U.S. District Judge Jorge Solis in the Holy Land Foundation lawsuit referenced the specific purpose of the Philadelphia meeting:
The Philadelphia conference essentially laid out the path that the Palestine Committee would take to accomplish its goal of supporting Hamas in the future. Wiretaps from the Philadelphia conference reflect that Ahmad participated…in a number of meetings related to the goals, strategies, and American perception of the Muslim Brotherhood. Topics discussed included redefining the perception of the suborganizations due to their work for the Palestinian cause, and the legal hurdles…faced when raising funds for Hamas and other Palestinian causes or when taking orders from overseas leaders.
Judge Solis also declined an attempt by CAIR to remove the organization’s designation as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the Holy Land Foundation lawsuit, ruling that the government “has produced ample evidence to establish the associations” of CAIR with Hamas.
The American people have a right to know why the Obama DOJ decided against prosecuting a terrorist-connected Muslim extremist over the objections of federal investigators
The case against Ahmad and CAIR is substantial and it certainly appears they were let off the hook in order to appease radical Muslims. Given the politicization of the DOJ under Eric Holder, should we expect anything different?
The Obama DOJ is ignoring illegal immigration laws to curry favor with the illegal immigration lobby. The Obama DOJ dropped its substantial voter intimidation case against the New Black Panthers to curry favor with the NAACP and its constituents. The Obama DOJ announced it will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act to curry favor with the gay lobby (as Politico recently pointed out). All are considered key voter demographics for the Obama campaign in 2012.
So why not ignore the connections of a terrorist sympathizer if it’ll earn support from Muslim voters (and appease our enemies abroad, such as the Muslim Brotherhood)?
Regarding our fight for documents, the pattern of this DOJ is to stonewall even the most basic requests for information under the law. The cover-up and secrecy in this administration is, frankly, like nothing we’ve ever seen.
For more information on CAIR and other Islamic terrorist-front groups, click here to read a Judicial Watch special report entitled Muslim Charities: Moderate Non-Profits or Elaborate Deceptions? You’ll see that Ahmad is referenced, along with CAIR.
More Political Decision-Making at Justice?
Did the Obama Justice Department refuse to prosecute a radical Muslim with alleged terrorist ties for political reasons? That question is at the center of a new Judicial Watch investigation.
Last week we filed a lawsuit against the DOJ for failing to respond to our request for public records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The documents relate to a decision by the DOJ not to prosecute the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its co-founder Omar Ahmad, who has been linked by federal investigators to the terrorist group Hamas.
Importantly, the decision not to prosecute reportedly was made over the objections of special agents of the FBI and prosecutors at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Dallas, Texas.
On May 9, 2011, we sent a FOIA request to the DOJ’s Office of Information Policy (OIP) and here’s what we’re after:
•“The March 31, 2010 memorandum entitled ‘Declination of Prosecution of Omar Ahmad’ from Attorney General David Kris to Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary Grindler.”
•“Any and all communications, contacts, or correspondence between the Office of the Attorney General (AG), the Office of Deputy Attorney General (DAG), or the Office of the Associate Attorney General (Assoc. AG) and the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) or any CAIR groups concerning, regarding, or relating to the prosecution or declination of prosecution of Omar Ahmad.”
•“Any all communications, contacts, or correspondence between the Office of the AG, the Office of the DAG, or the Office of the Assoc. AG and the U.S. Congress concerning, regarding, or relating to the prosecution or declination of prosecution of Omar Ahmad”
•“Any and all communications, contacts, or correspondence between the office of the AG, the office of the DAG, or the office of the Assoc. AG and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas concerning, regarding, or relating to the prosecution or declination of prosecution of Omar Ahmad.”
On May 9, 2011, Judicial Watch also filed a similar request with the DOJ’s National Security Division (NSD) seeking access to contacts and correspondence between the NSD and CAIR, Congress, and the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Northern District of Texas regarding the decision not to prosecute. (The time frame for these requests is January 20, 2009 to May 1, 2011.)
Both DOJ divisions have acknowledged receipt of Judicial Watch’s request and were required to respond by June 14 and June 13, 2011, respectively. However, to date, both have failed to produce responsive documents or indicate when a response is forthcoming.
And who is Omar Ahmad?
Ahmad served as senior executive on the Palestine Committee, an umbrella organization of U.S.-based Hamas support groups. Moreover, according to sworn testimony by an FBI agent during the prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, which was convicted in 2008 of funneling millions of dollars to Hamas, Ahmad moderated a conference in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in October 1993, during which participants discussed ways to support Hamas
A ruling by U.S. District Judge Jorge Solis in the Holy Land Foundation lawsuit referenced the specific purpose of the Philadelphia meeting:
The Philadelphia conference essentially laid out the path that the Palestine Committee would take to accomplish its goal of supporting Hamas in the future. Wiretaps from the Philadelphia conference reflect that Ahmad participated…in a number of meetings related to the goals, strategies, and American perception of the Muslim Brotherhood. Topics discussed included redefining the perception of the suborganizations due to their work for the Palestinian cause, and the legal hurdles…faced when raising funds for Hamas and other Palestinian causes or when taking orders from overseas leaders.
Judge Solis also declined an attempt by CAIR to remove the organization’s designation as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the Holy Land Foundation lawsuit, ruling that the government “has produced ample evidence to establish the associations” of CAIR with Hamas.
The American people have a right to know why the Obama DOJ decided against prosecuting a terrorist-connected Muslim extremist over the objections of federal investigators
The case against Ahmad and CAIR is substantial and it certainly appears they were let off the hook in order to appease radical Muslims. Given the politicization of the DOJ under Eric Holder, should we expect anything different?
The Obama DOJ is ignoring illegal immigration laws to curry favor with the illegal immigration lobby. The Obama DOJ dropped its substantial voter intimidation case against the New Black Panthers to curry favor with the NAACP and its constituents. The Obama DOJ announced it will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act to curry favor with the gay lobby (as Politico recently pointed out). All are considered key voter demographics for the Obama campaign in 2012.
So why not ignore the connections of a terrorist sympathizer if it’ll earn support from Muslim voters (and appease our enemies abroad, such as the Muslim Brotherhood)?
Regarding our fight for documents, the pattern of this DOJ is to stonewall even the most basic requests for information under the law. The cover-up and secrecy in this administration is, frankly, like nothing we’ve ever seen.
For more information on CAIR and other Islamic terrorist-front groups, click here to read a Judicial Watch special report entitled Muslim Charities: Moderate Non-Profits or Elaborate Deceptions? You’ll see that Ahmad is referenced, along with CAIR.
Congress Urges Review Of Kagan ObamaCare Role In Response To JW Disclosures
From Judicial Watch:
Congress Urges Review of Kagan Obamacare Role in Response to JW Disclosures
Back in May I told you that JW had uncovered explosive documents from the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) indicating Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan was heavily involved in crafting a defense for Obamacare while she served as Solicitor General. The documents appear to contradict Kagan’s contention that she was merely an uninvolved bystander. Well, now Congress has joined the effort to get to the truth in the matter, calling for a full investigation.
According to today’s The Washington Times:
Forty-nine Republican members of Congress have asked the House Judiciary Committee to “promptly investigate” Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan’s role in preparing a legal defense for President Obama’s health care law when she served as solicitor general.
In a letter to committee Chairman Lamar Smith, Texas Republican, and the panel’s ranking Democrat, John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, the lawmakers said that “contradictory to her 2010 confirmation testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee,” recently released Justice Department documents show that Justice Kagan “actively participated with her Obama administration colleagues in formulating a defense” for the law.
Here’s a copy of the letter that was issued from the congressional office of Rep. John Fleming, who is also a physician, by the way. The letter states: “This revelation raises serious questions about Justice Kagan’s ability to exercise objectivity in any case relevant to [Obamacare] that comes before the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Of course, the “Justice Department documents” referenced in the Washington Times report and in a release issued by Rep. Fleming’s office announcing the letter were disclosed through Judicial Watch. We are very glad to have played a role in helping to focus congressional attention on this crucial issue.
How crucial?
In one of the new emails, Kagan’s Deputy Solicitor General urged her to attend a healthcare litigation meeting, calling the legal fight over Obamacare, “litigation of singular importance.”
(Judicial Watch’s lawsuit has been consolidated with a similar FOIA lawsuit that had been first filed against the DOJ by the Media Research Center. The lawsuits are now both before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The documents were first produced in the Media Research litigation.)
The U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately settle the issue regarding whether or not Obama’s socialist healthcare overhaul will be the law of the land. Everyone knows it. And if Elena Kagan is forced to recuse herself from hearing the case that will be one fewer dependably liberal vote on the Supreme Court for Obamacare.
Since I covered our document discovery in May, I won’t re-publish all of the document excerpts we discovered. For a complete review, please click here.
This action by 49 members of Congress is further testament to the importance of Judicial Watch’s work and is a prime example of your Judicial Watch’s leading watchdog role. When it comes to uncovering the truth and holding our Washington public officials (on the courts and in elected office) accountable to the rule of law, it often wouldn’t get done but for Judicial Watch.
Congress Urges Review of Kagan Obamacare Role in Response to JW Disclosures
Back in May I told you that JW had uncovered explosive documents from the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) indicating Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan was heavily involved in crafting a defense for Obamacare while she served as Solicitor General. The documents appear to contradict Kagan’s contention that she was merely an uninvolved bystander. Well, now Congress has joined the effort to get to the truth in the matter, calling for a full investigation.
According to today’s The Washington Times:
Forty-nine Republican members of Congress have asked the House Judiciary Committee to “promptly investigate” Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan’s role in preparing a legal defense for President Obama’s health care law when she served as solicitor general.
In a letter to committee Chairman Lamar Smith, Texas Republican, and the panel’s ranking Democrat, John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, the lawmakers said that “contradictory to her 2010 confirmation testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee,” recently released Justice Department documents show that Justice Kagan “actively participated with her Obama administration colleagues in formulating a defense” for the law.
Here’s a copy of the letter that was issued from the congressional office of Rep. John Fleming, who is also a physician, by the way. The letter states: “This revelation raises serious questions about Justice Kagan’s ability to exercise objectivity in any case relevant to [Obamacare] that comes before the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Of course, the “Justice Department documents” referenced in the Washington Times report and in a release issued by Rep. Fleming’s office announcing the letter were disclosed through Judicial Watch. We are very glad to have played a role in helping to focus congressional attention on this crucial issue.
How crucial?
In one of the new emails, Kagan’s Deputy Solicitor General urged her to attend a healthcare litigation meeting, calling the legal fight over Obamacare, “litigation of singular importance.”
(Judicial Watch’s lawsuit has been consolidated with a similar FOIA lawsuit that had been first filed against the DOJ by the Media Research Center. The lawsuits are now both before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The documents were first produced in the Media Research litigation.)
The U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately settle the issue regarding whether or not Obama’s socialist healthcare overhaul will be the law of the land. Everyone knows it. And if Elena Kagan is forced to recuse herself from hearing the case that will be one fewer dependably liberal vote on the Supreme Court for Obamacare.
Since I covered our document discovery in May, I won’t re-publish all of the document excerpts we discovered. For a complete review, please click here.
This action by 49 members of Congress is further testament to the importance of Judicial Watch’s work and is a prime example of your Judicial Watch’s leading watchdog role. When it comes to uncovering the truth and holding our Washington public officials (on the courts and in elected office) accountable to the rule of law, it often wouldn’t get done but for Judicial Watch.
Is The Constitution Really Inimical To States' Rights?, Part Twelve
From League of the South:
Is the Constitution Really Inimical To States Rights? - Part Twelve
Al Benson, Jr.
Another prominent Virginian that had problems with the Constitution was Richard Henry Lee. He wrote a letter to Governor Edmund Randolph which was intended for the Virginia Gazette which, for some reason, they could not print. It ended up being printed in the New-York Journal in December of 1787. Mr. Lee seems to have had the new constitution fairly well figured out. He wrote: "The establishment of the new plan of government, in its present form, is a question that involves such immense consequences to the present times, and to posterity, that it calls for the deepest attention of the best and wisest friends of their country and of mankind; if it be found good after mature deliberation, adopt it, if wrong, amend it at all events, for to say (as many do) that a bad government must be established for fear of anarchy, is really saying, that we must kill ourselves for fear of dying...If with infinite ease a convention was obtained to prepare a system, why may not another with equal ease be procured to make proper and necessary amendments? Good government is not the work of a short time, or of sudden thought."
In other words, let us not rush into this thing. Let us take our time and if we are going to do it, then do it right.
We've noticed in the recent mid-term elections that the Republicans definitely gained enough in House seats that they could impede the Marxist agenda o the present Democratic administration. Yet they seem reluctant to do so, especially at the leadership level. The Republican House leadership is more than willing to compromise with the Democrats so as not to impede their Marxist agenda, and we are forced to conclude that, at root, both parties have the same collectivist mindset regardless of Republican rhetoric to the contrary. Our uninformed, and mostly public school-educated electorate has yet to be able to discern the difference between what the politicians do and what they say. The concept of checking voting records against political verbiage has yet to occur to most. Hence the charade will continue no matter who is in office.
But Lee saw problems with the way the new government had been set up. He wrote: "In the new constitution, the president and senate have all the executive, and two thirds of the legislative power. In some weighty instances (as making all kinds of treaties which are to be the laws of the land) they have the whole legislative and executive powers. They jointly appoint all officers civil and military, and they (the senate) try all impeachments either of their own members or of the officers appointed by themselves." Does anyone remember the impeachment proceedings against William Jefferson Clinton, also known as "Slick Willy?" The House did its duty and found him guilty on two counts if I recall correctly.
When the impeachment process moved over to the Senate, they refused to do their duty and began to come up with all manner of reasons why they could not vote to impeach Clinton. In his interesting book Sellout--The Inside Story of President Clinton's Impeachment author David Schippers noted the attitude of the Senate leadership when Rep. Henry Hyde sought to pass the impeachment proceeding along to the Senate. Schippers stated: "(Trent) Lott leaned back in his chair with a power lean that said 'I'm in charge.' I'll never forget the very first words out of his mouth: Henry, you're not going to dump that garbage on us." So much for senate backbone when it came to doing the right thing (something Mr. Lott was never noted for anyway). They, from the leadership on down were not about to "get their hands dirty" by doing what was right. This is exactly the sort of thing that Richard Henry Lee was concerned about, and, all amendments to the contrary, this situation has remained unchanged from day one!
Lee accurately observed that: "It cannot be denied with truth that this new constitution is, in its first principles, highly and dangerously oligarchic; and it is a point agreed that a government of the few, is, of all governments, the worst. The only check to be found in favour of the democratic principle in this system is, the house of representatives; which I believe may justly be called a mere shread or rag of representation: It being obvious to the least examination that smallness of number and great comparative disparity of power, renders that house of little effect to promote good, or restrain bad government."
In other words, the House, all by its lonesome, is no match for the combined power of the president and the Senate. I think our present situation in Washington more than bears this out. The current Marxist administration, through its flunkies in the Senate, manages to stop any meaningful reform presented by the House to curtail the leftward impetus of this government.
Moreover, as previously mentioned, the House is beset with a group of Republicans whose worldview is little different from that of the socialist Democrats. Both of these political parties have been infiltrated by a coterie of individuals with power and influence in many areas and which is, in effect, an oligarchy. This oligarchy controls both houses of Congress, much of the media, our "educational" system, and the office of president-and no one will get close to the White House without their tacit approval.
Real representation for the average man is a myth. All we get are a lot of "conservative" rhetoric, coupled with lots of socialist action, which we are told by the managed media is "good for us." Actually, it's much better for the politicians and their corporate fascist friends in big business than it is for us. However, we are then told by the so-called conservatives that if we just "get back to the Constitution" all will be well. Seems to me that if we do that, we are just starting the cycle all over again with no remedy for the problems.
It's quite revelatory that Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry, and a host of others all told us at the beginning that if this constitution was enacted this is exactly what we would get. No one listened. How do you like it?
History has vindicated the Anti-Federalists and their position and made prevaricators out of those who told us how wonderful the new constitution would be. Maybe we need to begin to wake up and smell the coffee--if they haven't outlawed it before we get the message!
Is the Constitution Really Inimical To States Rights? - Part Twelve
Al Benson, Jr.
Another prominent Virginian that had problems with the Constitution was Richard Henry Lee. He wrote a letter to Governor Edmund Randolph which was intended for the Virginia Gazette which, for some reason, they could not print. It ended up being printed in the New-York Journal in December of 1787. Mr. Lee seems to have had the new constitution fairly well figured out. He wrote: "The establishment of the new plan of government, in its present form, is a question that involves such immense consequences to the present times, and to posterity, that it calls for the deepest attention of the best and wisest friends of their country and of mankind; if it be found good after mature deliberation, adopt it, if wrong, amend it at all events, for to say (as many do) that a bad government must be established for fear of anarchy, is really saying, that we must kill ourselves for fear of dying...If with infinite ease a convention was obtained to prepare a system, why may not another with equal ease be procured to make proper and necessary amendments? Good government is not the work of a short time, or of sudden thought."
In other words, let us not rush into this thing. Let us take our time and if we are going to do it, then do it right.
We've noticed in the recent mid-term elections that the Republicans definitely gained enough in House seats that they could impede the Marxist agenda o the present Democratic administration. Yet they seem reluctant to do so, especially at the leadership level. The Republican House leadership is more than willing to compromise with the Democrats so as not to impede their Marxist agenda, and we are forced to conclude that, at root, both parties have the same collectivist mindset regardless of Republican rhetoric to the contrary. Our uninformed, and mostly public school-educated electorate has yet to be able to discern the difference between what the politicians do and what they say. The concept of checking voting records against political verbiage has yet to occur to most. Hence the charade will continue no matter who is in office.
But Lee saw problems with the way the new government had been set up. He wrote: "In the new constitution, the president and senate have all the executive, and two thirds of the legislative power. In some weighty instances (as making all kinds of treaties which are to be the laws of the land) they have the whole legislative and executive powers. They jointly appoint all officers civil and military, and they (the senate) try all impeachments either of their own members or of the officers appointed by themselves." Does anyone remember the impeachment proceedings against William Jefferson Clinton, also known as "Slick Willy?" The House did its duty and found him guilty on two counts if I recall correctly.
When the impeachment process moved over to the Senate, they refused to do their duty and began to come up with all manner of reasons why they could not vote to impeach Clinton. In his interesting book Sellout--The Inside Story of President Clinton's Impeachment author David Schippers noted the attitude of the Senate leadership when Rep. Henry Hyde sought to pass the impeachment proceeding along to the Senate. Schippers stated: "(Trent) Lott leaned back in his chair with a power lean that said 'I'm in charge.' I'll never forget the very first words out of his mouth: Henry, you're not going to dump that garbage on us." So much for senate backbone when it came to doing the right thing (something Mr. Lott was never noted for anyway). They, from the leadership on down were not about to "get their hands dirty" by doing what was right. This is exactly the sort of thing that Richard Henry Lee was concerned about, and, all amendments to the contrary, this situation has remained unchanged from day one!
Lee accurately observed that: "It cannot be denied with truth that this new constitution is, in its first principles, highly and dangerously oligarchic; and it is a point agreed that a government of the few, is, of all governments, the worst. The only check to be found in favour of the democratic principle in this system is, the house of representatives; which I believe may justly be called a mere shread or rag of representation: It being obvious to the least examination that smallness of number and great comparative disparity of power, renders that house of little effect to promote good, or restrain bad government."
In other words, the House, all by its lonesome, is no match for the combined power of the president and the Senate. I think our present situation in Washington more than bears this out. The current Marxist administration, through its flunkies in the Senate, manages to stop any meaningful reform presented by the House to curtail the leftward impetus of this government.
Moreover, as previously mentioned, the House is beset with a group of Republicans whose worldview is little different from that of the socialist Democrats. Both of these political parties have been infiltrated by a coterie of individuals with power and influence in many areas and which is, in effect, an oligarchy. This oligarchy controls both houses of Congress, much of the media, our "educational" system, and the office of president-and no one will get close to the White House without their tacit approval.
Real representation for the average man is a myth. All we get are a lot of "conservative" rhetoric, coupled with lots of socialist action, which we are told by the managed media is "good for us." Actually, it's much better for the politicians and their corporate fascist friends in big business than it is for us. However, we are then told by the so-called conservatives that if we just "get back to the Constitution" all will be well. Seems to me that if we do that, we are just starting the cycle all over again with no remedy for the problems.
It's quite revelatory that Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry, and a host of others all told us at the beginning that if this constitution was enacted this is exactly what we would get. No one listened. How do you like it?
History has vindicated the Anti-Federalists and their position and made prevaricators out of those who told us how wonderful the new constitution would be. Maybe we need to begin to wake up and smell the coffee--if they haven't outlawed it before we get the message!
Is The Constitution Really Inimical To States' Rights?, Part Eleven
From League of the South:
Is the Constitution Really Inimical To States Rights? - Part Eleven
Al Benson, Jr.
In Letter 3, Mr. Smith expressed concern over the power of taxation that would be allotted to a consolidated government. He observed: "Should the general government think it politic, as some administration (if not all) probably will, to look for support in a system of influence, the government will take every occasion to multiply laws and officers to execute them, considering these as so many necessary props for its own support. Should this system of policy be adopted, taxes more productive than the impost duties will, probably, be wanted to support the government, and to discharge foreign demands, without leaving anything for the domestic creditors. The internal sources of taxation must then be called into operation, and internal tax laws and federal assessors and collectors spread over this immense country. All these circumstances considered, is it wise, prudent, or safe, to vest the powers of laying and collecting internal taxes in the general government, while imperfectly organized and inadequate; and to trust to amending it hereafter, and making it adequate to this purpose? It is not only unsafe but absurd to lodge power in a government before it is fitted to receive it? It is confessed that power and representation ought to go together. Why give the power first?" Very good question! What some of these folks seemed to want to do was to give the central government the power that all central governments love to have, and then, afterward, make amendments to restrain that power (supposedly).
It was Patrick Henry, I believe, who once said that if you give too little power to get a job done you can always give more later on, but if you give too much power, the day for getting it back never comes. We live with proof of that today. Anyone ever heard of the "Patriot Act?"
In a later letter, Smith informed his readers that full representation in the various state governments was the only force that would protect the rights of the people (states rights). But, under this new constitution, the states would be unable to prevent federal encroachments on these rights. In other words, from the beginning, the states were not to have the rights they needed to protect their states from federal usurpation. The states rights they should have had weren't.
So, looking at history, what does this say to us today?
In 1861 the governments of the Confederate States sought to regain those rights for their states which they felt had been gradually lost with increasing federal control. What they probably didn't fully realize was that their states had been denied those rights right from the very beginning, as had all the states across the country.
Were the Confederate States wrong to seek to exercise their rights as states? By no means! The overriding idea from the old Articles of Confederation was that these states ought to be free, sovereign, and independent, and not mere appendages to a centralized national government. Their desire for the rights and liberties of their states was a legitimate one, right from the beginning, whether those rights had been denied them in 1860 or in 1787.
Smith's obvious concern for the lack of states rights is shown in his comments when he said: "We ought to enquire if the convention have made the proper use of these essential parts; the state governments then we are told will stand between the arbitrary exercise of power and the people; true they may, but armless and helpless, perhaps with the privilege of making a noise when hurt--this is no more than individuals may do. Does the Constitution provide a single check for a single measure, by which the state governments can constitutionally and regularly check the arbitrary measures of congress? Congress may immediately raise fifty thousand men, and twenty millions of dollars in taxes, build a navy, model the militia &c, and all this constitutionally. Congress may arm on every point, and the state governments can do no more than an individual, by petition to congress, suggest their measures are alarming and not right." In other words, what the states really have is the prerogative of negotiating with the master of the house for "house privileges". And if the master be not so disposed--then tough luck baby!
This concern over the central government's power to tax is a genuine and heart-felt one for Smith. He observes: "Two taxing powers may be inconvenient; but the point is, congress, like the Senate of Rome, will have taxing powers, and the people no check--when the power is abused, the people may complain and grow angry, so may the state governments; they may remonstrate and counteract, by passing laws to prohibit the collection of congressional taxes;" but he seems to feel all this will do little good. Their actions will be frustrated actions of resistance against nationalist tyranny.
Does any of this sound familiar today? What chance do states or individuals have in resisting the federal taxing power? The current administration in Washington is piling up debts that are designed to keep our great, great grandchildren and their children in financial bondage and our leftist congress loves to have it so.
The current resident of the White House (or those in power behind his throne) propose more and more taxes and restrictions on the American people and congress can't get these blatant intrusions into our God-given rights passing as "legislation" enacted fast enough to suit them.
They have to meet behind closed doors at midnight to pass bills they are ashamed to pass in the daylight and then they have the gall to come back and tell us all how wonderful this will be for us. The Scriptures talk of people who prefer to work in the darkness rather than in the light. Check what the Gospels have to say about such.
And where, pray tell, our our constitutional "remedies" for all of this? Let's don't kid ourselves--they don't exist! Mr. Smith has convincingly observed that: "In fact the Constitution provides for the states no check, properly speaking, on the measures of Congress--Congress can immediately enlist soldiers, and apply to the pockets of the people." Congress already has enlisted an "army" to "apply" to the pockets of the people. It's called the Internal Revenue Service, although I must really wonder who gets any "service" out of it, because it surely isn't the average taxpayer.
All of the concerns the Anti-Federalists had about the congressional power to tax have come home to roost, and what have the "checks and balances" in the Constitution accomplished to protect either the average citizens or the states? All they seem to have done is to allow the various branches of the federal government to conspire with each other against the average citizen and against his state of residence as his financial bones are picked clean and his pockets are emptied of any spare change he might have left.
We have replaced King and Parliament with President and Congress. Are we any better off?
To be continued.
Is the Constitution Really Inimical To States Rights? - Part Eleven
Al Benson, Jr.
In Letter 3, Mr. Smith expressed concern over the power of taxation that would be allotted to a consolidated government. He observed: "Should the general government think it politic, as some administration (if not all) probably will, to look for support in a system of influence, the government will take every occasion to multiply laws and officers to execute them, considering these as so many necessary props for its own support. Should this system of policy be adopted, taxes more productive than the impost duties will, probably, be wanted to support the government, and to discharge foreign demands, without leaving anything for the domestic creditors. The internal sources of taxation must then be called into operation, and internal tax laws and federal assessors and collectors spread over this immense country. All these circumstances considered, is it wise, prudent, or safe, to vest the powers of laying and collecting internal taxes in the general government, while imperfectly organized and inadequate; and to trust to amending it hereafter, and making it adequate to this purpose? It is not only unsafe but absurd to lodge power in a government before it is fitted to receive it? It is confessed that power and representation ought to go together. Why give the power first?" Very good question! What some of these folks seemed to want to do was to give the central government the power that all central governments love to have, and then, afterward, make amendments to restrain that power (supposedly).
It was Patrick Henry, I believe, who once said that if you give too little power to get a job done you can always give more later on, but if you give too much power, the day for getting it back never comes. We live with proof of that today. Anyone ever heard of the "Patriot Act?"
In a later letter, Smith informed his readers that full representation in the various state governments was the only force that would protect the rights of the people (states rights). But, under this new constitution, the states would be unable to prevent federal encroachments on these rights. In other words, from the beginning, the states were not to have the rights they needed to protect their states from federal usurpation. The states rights they should have had weren't.
So, looking at history, what does this say to us today?
In 1861 the governments of the Confederate States sought to regain those rights for their states which they felt had been gradually lost with increasing federal control. What they probably didn't fully realize was that their states had been denied those rights right from the very beginning, as had all the states across the country.
Were the Confederate States wrong to seek to exercise their rights as states? By no means! The overriding idea from the old Articles of Confederation was that these states ought to be free, sovereign, and independent, and not mere appendages to a centralized national government. Their desire for the rights and liberties of their states was a legitimate one, right from the beginning, whether those rights had been denied them in 1860 or in 1787.
Smith's obvious concern for the lack of states rights is shown in his comments when he said: "We ought to enquire if the convention have made the proper use of these essential parts; the state governments then we are told will stand between the arbitrary exercise of power and the people; true they may, but armless and helpless, perhaps with the privilege of making a noise when hurt--this is no more than individuals may do. Does the Constitution provide a single check for a single measure, by which the state governments can constitutionally and regularly check the arbitrary measures of congress? Congress may immediately raise fifty thousand men, and twenty millions of dollars in taxes, build a navy, model the militia &c, and all this constitutionally. Congress may arm on every point, and the state governments can do no more than an individual, by petition to congress, suggest their measures are alarming and not right." In other words, what the states really have is the prerogative of negotiating with the master of the house for "house privileges". And if the master be not so disposed--then tough luck baby!
This concern over the central government's power to tax is a genuine and heart-felt one for Smith. He observes: "Two taxing powers may be inconvenient; but the point is, congress, like the Senate of Rome, will have taxing powers, and the people no check--when the power is abused, the people may complain and grow angry, so may the state governments; they may remonstrate and counteract, by passing laws to prohibit the collection of congressional taxes;" but he seems to feel all this will do little good. Their actions will be frustrated actions of resistance against nationalist tyranny.
Does any of this sound familiar today? What chance do states or individuals have in resisting the federal taxing power? The current administration in Washington is piling up debts that are designed to keep our great, great grandchildren and their children in financial bondage and our leftist congress loves to have it so.
The current resident of the White House (or those in power behind his throne) propose more and more taxes and restrictions on the American people and congress can't get these blatant intrusions into our God-given rights passing as "legislation" enacted fast enough to suit them.
They have to meet behind closed doors at midnight to pass bills they are ashamed to pass in the daylight and then they have the gall to come back and tell us all how wonderful this will be for us. The Scriptures talk of people who prefer to work in the darkness rather than in the light. Check what the Gospels have to say about such.
And where, pray tell, our our constitutional "remedies" for all of this? Let's don't kid ourselves--they don't exist! Mr. Smith has convincingly observed that: "In fact the Constitution provides for the states no check, properly speaking, on the measures of Congress--Congress can immediately enlist soldiers, and apply to the pockets of the people." Congress already has enlisted an "army" to "apply" to the pockets of the people. It's called the Internal Revenue Service, although I must really wonder who gets any "service" out of it, because it surely isn't the average taxpayer.
All of the concerns the Anti-Federalists had about the congressional power to tax have come home to roost, and what have the "checks and balances" in the Constitution accomplished to protect either the average citizens or the states? All they seem to have done is to allow the various branches of the federal government to conspire with each other against the average citizen and against his state of residence as his financial bones are picked clean and his pockets are emptied of any spare change he might have left.
We have replaced King and Parliament with President and Congress. Are we any better off?
To be continued.
Is The Constitution Really Inimical To States' Rights?, Part Nine
From League of the South:
Is the Constitution Really Inimical To States Rights? - Part Nine
Al Benson, Jr.
George Mason, as well as Patrick Henry, had a little more jaundiced view of the proposed Constitution than did Madison, Hamilton, and company. Mason wrote to Thomas Jefferson in May of 1788 saying: "Upon the most mature Consideration I was capable of, and from Motives of sincere Patriotism, I was under the Necessity of refusing my signature, as one of the Virginia Delegates; and drew up some general Objections; which I intended to offer, by Way of Protest; but was discouraged from doing so...Delaware--Pennsylvania--Jersey--Connecticut--Georgia, and Maryland have ratified the new Government (for surely it is not a Confederation) without Amendments..."
Mason wanted amendments to offset the potential for tyranny he saw in the document before it was ratified. Even Jefferson disagreed with this and wanted to ratify it first and then add amendments as needed. Looking over Mason's comments, I had to wonder who it was that "discouraged" him from presenting his list of objections, and his comment about the new government--"for surely it is not a Confederation" is really revelatory. Most of us have been told that it was a confederation of sorts, and that's why so many have bought into it over the years. Now George Mason, who was on the scene and can therefore be considered a primary source, has told us it wasn't what we've been told it was. No wonder Gary North titled his book about the Constitutional Convention Conspiracy In Philadelphia. The American public has been sold a gigantic snow job as to what the Constitution was and is for 200 years now and thanks to our government school mis-educations we've still not figured it out--nor are we likely to do so in my lifetime.
Jon Bruning and James Best wrote an informative article about George Mason and his refusal to partake of the Constitutional Convention madness. They observed: "In the end, George Mason did not believe the Constitution established a wise and just government. He was one of only three delegates present in the final days of the convention who didn't sign the document. The other two refused to sign due to their personalities. Elbridge Gerry was mercurial and cantankerous by nature, and Edmond Randolph was afraid to be associated with something that might fail. George Mason, on the other hand, refused to sign based on his principles...George Mason's primary objection to the Constitution was the absence of a bill of rights. He not only refused to sign the document at the convention, he hotly fought against it during Virginia ratification, despite promises by James Madison and others to add a bill of rights in the first congress. Although he believed a bill of rights was mandatory, he had additional objections to the Constitution. Among his other concerns, he believed the convention was giving the executive branch (president) too much power." Gee, what would Mr. Obama (or whatever his real name is) and his "czars" have to say about the president having too much power? They don't think he has nearly enough. They think he should have it all. All you have to do is look at today's insane national situation and you can well understand why George Mason was worried!
One thing George Mason argued for was a "three-person executive." He felt a one-person presidency was bordering on the concept of a British monarchy which the colonists had just fought a war of independence against.
As an aside, the other two non-signers at the convention were different cases. Gerry eventually bounced all over the political spectrum, from ardent Federalist to Jeffersonian Republican. It didn't take too much to turn Edmond Randolph. All George Washington had to do was promise him the position of Attorney General and almost overnight he suddenly became an ardent supporter of the Constitution he had formerly refused to sign. I guess at that point, it looked more like a winner to him than it did earlier. Some folks just always want to be identified with the winner--right or wrong.
George Mason eventually did write down some of his objections to the Constitution, which are listed on http://gothinkblog.com and they are worthy of our consideration.
Mr. Mason wrote: "There is no Declaration of Rights, and the laws of the general Government being paramount to the Laws & Constitutions of the several States, the Declarations of Rights in the separate States are no security. Nor are the People secured even in the Enjoyment of the Benefits of the common law."
He continued: "In the House of Representatives, there is not the Substance, but the Shadow only of Representation; which can never produce proper information in the Legislature, or inspire Confidence in the People; the Laws, therefore, will be generally made by men little concerned in, and unacquainted with their Effects and Consequences." You have to admit, that's pretty much where we are today. How many laws do we have on the books in our day that have turned honest citizens into criminals by the mere stroke of the legislative pen? More than you probably want to know about.
Mr. Mason also took a shot at the judiciary--not that they didn't, and don't, have it coming. He said: "The Judiciary of the United States is so constructed & extended, as to destroy the Judiciaries of the several States; thereby rendering Law as tedious, intricate, and expensive, & Justice as unattainable, by a great part of the Community, as in England, and enabling the Rich to oppress and ruin the Poor." Sound familiar? In this country, under the present system, you get as much justice as you can afford.
There was much more that Mason wrote down, but it's difficult to cover all of it. However, what I have tried to cover shows you that Mason had a pretty fair idea of where the country was headed under the present Constitution. He did make a comment at the end of his dissertation that was almost prescient. He noted: "This Government will set out a moderate Aristocracy; it is at present impossible to foresee whether it will, in the operation, produce a Monarchy, or a corrupt, tyrannical Aristocracy; it will most probably vibrate some years between the two, and then terminate in the one or the other." Actually, you might say we have been on the verge of a dictatorship ever since "King Lincoln" a dictatorship ruled by a behind-the-scenes oligarchy.
There were originally seventy four people selected to attend the convention that was to reform the Articles of Confederation. Only fifty five of them managed to get there, and some of those left early--some because of illness or other personal reasons--but some left in protest over what they saw going on. From Maryland, Luther Martin and John Mercer left in protest. From New York, Robert Yates and John Lansing left in protest. From Virginia Patrick Henry "smelled a rat" and flat out refused to go.
As we go back and reflect on George Mason's comments it becomes more and more clear that the national (not confederated) government was going to be the one that ended up riding roughshod over the states. In everything the national government was "supreme" and the states subservient, the 9th and 10th Amendments notwithstanding. They took away our States Rights in the summer of 1787. Now we need to get them back.
To be continued.
Is the Constitution Really Inimical To States Rights? - Part Nine
Al Benson, Jr.
George Mason, as well as Patrick Henry, had a little more jaundiced view of the proposed Constitution than did Madison, Hamilton, and company. Mason wrote to Thomas Jefferson in May of 1788 saying: "Upon the most mature Consideration I was capable of, and from Motives of sincere Patriotism, I was under the Necessity of refusing my signature, as one of the Virginia Delegates; and drew up some general Objections; which I intended to offer, by Way of Protest; but was discouraged from doing so...Delaware--Pennsylvania--Jersey--Connecticut--Georgia, and Maryland have ratified the new Government (for surely it is not a Confederation) without Amendments..."
Mason wanted amendments to offset the potential for tyranny he saw in the document before it was ratified. Even Jefferson disagreed with this and wanted to ratify it first and then add amendments as needed. Looking over Mason's comments, I had to wonder who it was that "discouraged" him from presenting his list of objections, and his comment about the new government--"for surely it is not a Confederation" is really revelatory. Most of us have been told that it was a confederation of sorts, and that's why so many have bought into it over the years. Now George Mason, who was on the scene and can therefore be considered a primary source, has told us it wasn't what we've been told it was. No wonder Gary North titled his book about the Constitutional Convention Conspiracy In Philadelphia. The American public has been sold a gigantic snow job as to what the Constitution was and is for 200 years now and thanks to our government school mis-educations we've still not figured it out--nor are we likely to do so in my lifetime.
Jon Bruning and James Best wrote an informative article about George Mason and his refusal to partake of the Constitutional Convention madness. They observed: "In the end, George Mason did not believe the Constitution established a wise and just government. He was one of only three delegates present in the final days of the convention who didn't sign the document. The other two refused to sign due to their personalities. Elbridge Gerry was mercurial and cantankerous by nature, and Edmond Randolph was afraid to be associated with something that might fail. George Mason, on the other hand, refused to sign based on his principles...George Mason's primary objection to the Constitution was the absence of a bill of rights. He not only refused to sign the document at the convention, he hotly fought against it during Virginia ratification, despite promises by James Madison and others to add a bill of rights in the first congress. Although he believed a bill of rights was mandatory, he had additional objections to the Constitution. Among his other concerns, he believed the convention was giving the executive branch (president) too much power." Gee, what would Mr. Obama (or whatever his real name is) and his "czars" have to say about the president having too much power? They don't think he has nearly enough. They think he should have it all. All you have to do is look at today's insane national situation and you can well understand why George Mason was worried!
One thing George Mason argued for was a "three-person executive." He felt a one-person presidency was bordering on the concept of a British monarchy which the colonists had just fought a war of independence against.
As an aside, the other two non-signers at the convention were different cases. Gerry eventually bounced all over the political spectrum, from ardent Federalist to Jeffersonian Republican. It didn't take too much to turn Edmond Randolph. All George Washington had to do was promise him the position of Attorney General and almost overnight he suddenly became an ardent supporter of the Constitution he had formerly refused to sign. I guess at that point, it looked more like a winner to him than it did earlier. Some folks just always want to be identified with the winner--right or wrong.
George Mason eventually did write down some of his objections to the Constitution, which are listed on http://gothinkblog.com and they are worthy of our consideration.
Mr. Mason wrote: "There is no Declaration of Rights, and the laws of the general Government being paramount to the Laws & Constitutions of the several States, the Declarations of Rights in the separate States are no security. Nor are the People secured even in the Enjoyment of the Benefits of the common law."
He continued: "In the House of Representatives, there is not the Substance, but the Shadow only of Representation; which can never produce proper information in the Legislature, or inspire Confidence in the People; the Laws, therefore, will be generally made by men little concerned in, and unacquainted with their Effects and Consequences." You have to admit, that's pretty much where we are today. How many laws do we have on the books in our day that have turned honest citizens into criminals by the mere stroke of the legislative pen? More than you probably want to know about.
Mr. Mason also took a shot at the judiciary--not that they didn't, and don't, have it coming. He said: "The Judiciary of the United States is so constructed & extended, as to destroy the Judiciaries of the several States; thereby rendering Law as tedious, intricate, and expensive, & Justice as unattainable, by a great part of the Community, as in England, and enabling the Rich to oppress and ruin the Poor." Sound familiar? In this country, under the present system, you get as much justice as you can afford.
There was much more that Mason wrote down, but it's difficult to cover all of it. However, what I have tried to cover shows you that Mason had a pretty fair idea of where the country was headed under the present Constitution. He did make a comment at the end of his dissertation that was almost prescient. He noted: "This Government will set out a moderate Aristocracy; it is at present impossible to foresee whether it will, in the operation, produce a Monarchy, or a corrupt, tyrannical Aristocracy; it will most probably vibrate some years between the two, and then terminate in the one or the other." Actually, you might say we have been on the verge of a dictatorship ever since "King Lincoln" a dictatorship ruled by a behind-the-scenes oligarchy.
There were originally seventy four people selected to attend the convention that was to reform the Articles of Confederation. Only fifty five of them managed to get there, and some of those left early--some because of illness or other personal reasons--but some left in protest over what they saw going on. From Maryland, Luther Martin and John Mercer left in protest. From New York, Robert Yates and John Lansing left in protest. From Virginia Patrick Henry "smelled a rat" and flat out refused to go.
As we go back and reflect on George Mason's comments it becomes more and more clear that the national (not confederated) government was going to be the one that ended up riding roughshod over the states. In everything the national government was "supreme" and the states subservient, the 9th and 10th Amendments notwithstanding. They took away our States Rights in the summer of 1787. Now we need to get them back.
To be continued.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
