Do Our Rights Come from God, the Constitution, the Supreme Court, or Congress?

By Publius Huldah.

The future of our Posterity depends on a proper understanding of the Source of our Rights.  I will explain four views;  show you which one is True, and why the other three are False and lead inexorably to the destruction of any country which embraces them.

 

1.    Let us begin with what is True:   Our Declaration of Independence says our Rights come from God.   Our rights thus pre-date & pre-exist the U.S. Constitution.    The Declaration of Independence says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

 

So these, then, are the foundational principles of our Constitutional Republic:

 

· Our Rights are unalienable and come from God;
· The purpose of civil government is to protect our God-given Rights;
· Civil government is legitimate only when it operates with our consent;  &
· Since the US Constitution is the formal expression of the Will of the People, the federal government operates with our consent only when it obeys the Constitution.

 

Because the Declaration of Independence identifies The Creator as Grantor of Rights, we look to The Bible – or the Natural Law – to see what those rights are.   The Bible – or the Natural Law – reveals many rights,  such as the rights to Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness;  to inherit, earn, and keep property;  the right of self-defense;  the right and duty to demand that the civil authorities obey the Law;  the right to speak;  the right to live our lives free from interference from civil government;  the rights of parents to raise their children free from interference from civil government;  the right to worship God;  etc.

 

The distinguishing characteristics of all God-given or Natural Rights 1 are:

 

· Each one may be held and enjoyed at NO expense or loss to any other person; and

· We can look them up for ourselves! They are not subject to someone else’s interpretations.

 

2.    But many conservatives mistakenly believe that our rights come from the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution.    So they speak of  “our constitutional rights”,  “the bill of rights”,  our  “First Amendment right to free speech”;   “our Second Amendment right to bear arms”,  and so forth.  But it is a dreadful mistake to think that our rights come from the Constitution.  I’ll show you two reasons why this is such a pernicious error:

 

a)   It is logically incoherent to say that our Rights come from the Constitution: Let us read the Preamble to the US Constitution:

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

 

WE THE PEOPLE established and ordained the Constitution.   WE are the ones who created the federal government with its three branches:  legislative, executive, and judicial.  WE are the ones who gave the federal government permission to exist and told it exactly what it had permission to do, when WE assigned enumerated powers to each branch.

 

WE are the “creator” – the federal government is merely our “creature”. (Federalist No. 33 ( 6th para), A. Hamilton.)

 

So!  The Constitution is about the Powers which WE THE PEOPLE delegated to the federal government.  The Constitution is NOT about Our Rights,  which come from God and thus pre-date & pre-exist the Constitution!

 

b)   Now look at Article III,  Sec. 2,  clause 1,  U.S. Constitution:

“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases…arising under this Constitution…”.

 

Think carefully, for this is the hook:  If our rights come from the first Ten Amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution,  then they “arise under the Constitution”; and that clause is what gives federal judges power over our rights!

When judges have power to determine our Rights,  our Rights are no longer unalienable – we hold them at the pleasure of five judges on the supreme Court.  But because so many of us,  for so long,  have believed and said that our rights come from the “bill of rights”, those judges have seized on Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 1, to claim the power to determine the scope & extent of our rights!

So! Federal judges claim the power to regulate our political speech and religious speech.  They claim the power to determine & regulate our property rights in the fruits of our own labors.  They claim the power to control our retirements by forcing us to participate in social security!  They even claim the power to take Life away from unborn babies.

Thus, when we say our Rights come from the Constitution, we are, in effect, agreeing to the submission of our Rights to the tender mercies of federal judges,  because Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 1,  gives them power over all cases “arising under the Constitution.”

 

This is why we must always insist that our Rights have a source – Almighty God , the Natural Law – which transcends the Constitution! 2

And furthermore, why would the Creator of The Constitution (that’s us) grant to our “creature” (the judicial branch of the federal government), the power to determine the scope & extent of OUR Rights?   It makes no sense at all!

 

c)   You might well ask, “Why did our Founders add the first Ten Amendments if they were such a bad idea?”

There was controversy over this! Alexander Hamilton warned in Federalist No. 84 (9th para) that a bill of rights would give a pretext for regulating to those inclined to usurp powers.   And he was right!   The supreme Court has used the first amendment to regulate political speech and to ban Christian speech in the public square:  no prayers at football games,  no nativity scenes on county courthouse lawns, and Judge Roy Moore is ordered to take down the Ten Commandments.

But some States refused to ratify the Constitution without them.

 

So, the proper way to look at the first Ten Amendments is this:  They are not the source of our Rights since our Rights come from God, and thus TRANSCEND the Constitution.  The first Ten Amendments is merely a partial list of things the federal government may not do (they can’t take away our guns),  and some things they must do (give accused persons a fair trial).

 

3. Judges on the supreme Court have claimed, in recent decades, that the source of our “rights” is the Constitution, as such “rights” are defined and discovered, from time to time, . . . . . . BY THEM!

 

I’ll show you how they did it:    The original intent of the 14th Amendment (one of the “civil war” amendments) was to protect freed slaves from southern Black Codes which denied them basic rights of citizenship.

But judges on the supreme Court have perverted the 14th Amendment to fabricate so-called “rights” which negate Rights God gave us and undermine the Moral Order!

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads in part:

“…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”

 

The original intent of that clause was that States couldn’t go around lynching freed slaves and taking away their freedom and property.

But not so long ago, a handful of supreme court judges looked at the word, “liberty” in that clause, and claimed to have “discovered” underneath that word,  a “constitutional right” to kill unborn babies ;  and another “constitutional right” to engage in homosexual contact.

 

We will soon see whether the supreme Court also “discovers” underneath that word, a “constitutional right” to same-sex marriage.

 

When we substitute federal judges for God as the source of our rights, the entire concept of “rights” becomes perverted.   Literally.

 

4.   The “liberal/progressives” say our Rights come from “government”.   They say a “right” is an entitlement to goods or services produced, or paid for, by somebody else:   So, they speak of the “right” to medical care;  the “right” to a free public school education;  the “right” to housing;  the “right” to food stamps;  etc.

But it is a contradiction in terms to speak of  “rights”  to stuff that is produced or paid for, by other people!  This is because it undermines our God-given or Natural Rights to private property,  to the fruits of our own labors,  and to liberty.  To hold that people who produce exist to be plundered by civil government for the ostensible benefit of others, is slavery.  Just as no one has the right to own another human being;  so no one has the “right” to own the fruits of another man’s labors.

 

To sum this up:

REMEMBER that clause in Our Declaration of Independence which states that our rights come from God, are unalienable, and that the purpose of civil government – the federal government – is to secure the Rights GOD gave us.

Our right do not come from the first Ten Amendments;  they do not come from the Constitution as interpreted by federal judges;  and they do not come from Congress which purports to give to their parasitic constituency the “right” to live at other peoples’ expense.

Our Rights were bestowed by God, and as such, they transcend,  pre-date & pre-exist the Constitution.

End notes:

1   “Natural Law” refers to that body of Law which is woven into the Fabric of Reality:  The laws of physics,  economics,  logic,  morality,  etc.   Non-theists, such as the brilliant philosopher, Ayn Rand,  saw Rights as inherent to the nature of man.  Either way, one comes up with essentially the same set of Rights.  And if you listen carefully to “liberals/progressives” as they speak on any topic,  you will see that their war is against Reality itself – they reject altogether the concept of transcendent Law.  This is because they know no “law” but their own Wills.

2   Re the “tender mercies” of federal judges:  During Senator Tom Coburn’s questioning of Elena Kagan during her confirmation hearings,  she refused to acknowledge the fundamental Principle stated in Our Declaration of Independence that our Rights pre-date & pre-exist the Constitution.  Kagan in effect claims to sit on God’s Throne and to decide what “rights” you have and what “rights” you don’t have.

The only Document   The Hard Left  hates as much as the Bible is Our Declaration of Independence.  PH

October 31, 2010

God’s Gift of Unalienable Rights & Article VI of the Constitution: The Sword & Shield to stop the islamization of America.

By Publius Huldah.

This is an encouraging paper, because it explains the moral and constitutional justifications to stop the islamization of our country.

We face a grave threat – the Muslims are infiltrating our country and taking over.  We seem powerless to resist:  Our governments won’t acknowledge the threat; we are told Muslims have “constitutional rights” to come here,  proselytize everywhere, build mosques, and implement shariah in their communities and in the public square; and our governments are letting them do it.

The Muslims seek to replace our Constitution with shariah – their totalitarian political, economic, military, social & legal system – with the goal of incorporating our Country into a global Islamic caliphate.

They are making progress in islamicizing our Country because we are not resisting.

And the dreadful message we are getting from all sources is that our Constitution renders us powerless to resist islamization.

But read on, and I will show you how our Constitution & Declaration of Independence – properly understood – actually give our federal, State & local governments justification and authority to stop the islamization of our Country.  Once we understand two things, it becomes clear what we may – and must – do:

One:  Islam is not a “religion” in the sense we understand religion.  Islam is about TOTAL POWER.  It is a system which controls every aspect of the lives of those who have the misfortune to be subjected to it.  It masquerades as a religion, but once we understand that it is just another totalitarian system – like soviet communism, we can deal with it and defeat it.

Once in place, Islam is enforced with stone-age barbarism. It masquerades as a religion to recruit gullible fools who become suicide bombers, and to provide “cover” for officials in the Western countries who, indoctrinated with the Lies of multiculturalism & political correctness, look for an excuse to do nothing.

Two:  We must understand Our Founding Principles – these are our Sword & Shield – that (1) Rights come from God alone, (2) Muslims do not have the right to divest us of our Rights, and (3) the purpose of civil government is to secure the Rights God gave us.

Now let us learn more of our Sword and Shield.

1.  Let us first consider Our Rights. What are our rights, and where do they come from?  The Constitution?  The First Ten Amendments?  NO! The Declaration of Independence says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, …

Those words are golden:  Our Rights come from God Who Created the Universe; and the purpose of civil government is to secure the Rights GOD gave us.

God gave us many Rights: Life! Liberty! Pursuit of Happiness!

To work and enjoy the fruits of our own labors.  To earn, inherit and keep private property.

To demand that the civil authorities obey the Law – and to hold them accountable when they don’t.

To have a civil government which protects our God given rights, protects us from invasion and criminals, but gives fair trials to accused persons.

Equal treatment under the law:  Courts are not to favor the rich, or the poor, or males or females.

God means for us to enjoy life!  Healthy food, wine and strong drink (in moderation); attractive dress for women, the marriage relation between man & woman, prosperity, and liberty!

As long as we obey the criminal laws (don’t murder, steal, bear false witness, and the like), we have the right to be left alone.

Liberty is the rule in God’s Model for civil government.  That is why our Liberty Bell quotes Leviticus 25:10  – “Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof.”

2.  Do Muslims respect the rights God gave us?

Life?  Theirs is a culture of death: murder, honor killings & suicide bombers.

Liberty?  Theirs is a culture where women are slaves and prisoners, little girls toys for old men, and conversion to Christianity a capital offense.

Pursuit of Happiness? Theirs is a culture of torture & sadism. Young Muslim girls in America who talked to non-Muslim boys were shot to death by their father in the back seat of his taxicab. Wife-beating is commonplace. Women who don’t cover their hair are lashed. Women are mutilated and maimed on the faces and even in their private places.

Freedom of Speech?  Theirs is a culture where criticizing Islam leads to a terrible death.

You can go down the list:  For every Right God gave us, the Muslims take it away.

Let’s look at just one God-given right – the Right to a fair trial:

Bearing false witness is condemned  (The Ten Commandments);  the evidence of two or more witnesses is required to prove a case (Deut 19:15 & Matthew 18:16);  public trials are required (Exodus 18:13); &  judges are required to be fair, impartial, & without favoritism.  (Deut. 1:16-17).

Do Muslims respect this God-given right to a fair trial?  NO!  In Iran, judges in “morals” cases (adultery) are allowed to make their own subjective determinations that a person is guilty even in the absence of any EVIDENCE!

Do Muslims have the “right” to impose in this Country a shariah system which takes away the rights GOD gave us? No!  God did not give Muslims the “right” to take away from us,  the rights He gave us!

3. We are told Muslims have a “First Amendment right” to build mosques, proselytize, and implement shariah here.  But is that what the First Amendment says?  No!  Let’s read it:

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

The First Amendment doesn’t grant any rights to anybody! All it does is prohibit CONGRESS from making laws about religion, speech, the press, or assembly!

So Muslims do not have a “First Amendment right” to build mosques, proselytize, and implement shariah here.

4. Not only do Muslims claim the “right” to impose shariah in the Muslim communities springing up throughout our Country, they also claim the “right” to impose shariah law in the public square:  They demand shariah compliant financial institutions, foot baths in public places, that wine, sausages, and the like be banned from their presence, that they be allowed to shut down public streets for “prayers”, etc.

Do Muslims have the “right” to apply their law here?  No! Art. VI, clause 2 of Our Constitution says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

OUR Constitution and laws authorized by OUR Constitution are the supreme law of this land – and anything to the contrary must fall.  It violates Our Constitution for Muslims to practice shariah here!   Muslims who thus seek to overthrow Our Constitution and replace it with shariah are guilty of criminal sedition.  The federal government has the duty to prosecute them for sedition – or deport them.

5. Can the federal or state or local governments properly extend to Muslims a “right” to build mosques & proselytize here?  No! Because The Declaration of Independence says the purpose of civil government is to secure the rights God gave us.  Muslims seek to take away our God-given Rights.  Civil government is supposed to protect us from those who seek to divest us of our Rights.

We must insist that our federal, State, and local governments STOP the islamization of Our Country.  We must insist that they live up to the one legitimate purpose of civil government: to protect our GOD-given rights.

6. WE are a Christian Country based on Judeo – Christian principles. Our Constitution is not a suicide pact.  It does not require us to permit Muslims to take Our Country over and destroy Our principles and impose their barbaric totalitarian system on us.

The Declaration of Independence recognizes God as Creator, supreme Judge and Regulator of the World, and as our Divine Protector.

Article VII of Our Constitution, just above the signatures, recognizes the Lordship of Jesus Christ. It says,

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven …

7.  So!  Let us summarize the above three Principles:

(1) Our Rights come from God – they predate & preexist the Constitution. Our Constitution doesn’t give “rights” to anybody.  So Muslims don’t have “constitutional rights” to come here, build mosques, proselytize, and impose shariah.

(2) All the Evidence shows that Muslims take away from People the Rights God gave them.  Since Our Declaration of Independence acknowledges that the purpose of civil governments is to secure the Rights GOD gave us, it is the duty and responsibility of civil governments at all levels to protect us from islamization.

(3) Article VI, clause 2, U.S. Constitution – the “Supremacy clause” – makes it unconstitutional for Muslims to practice shariah law ANYWHERE in Our Country.

8.  The Center for Security Policy recently issued a scholarly (but readable) report: “Shariah: The Threat to America”.  Important suggested policy changes are listed on pages 141-144.  Tell your tea party groups!  Take delegations to your local, state, and federal representatives and tell them about it.  Most of them are weak & ignorant, so you must educate them and demand that they do their job and defend your community from islamization.

9.  Dutch Member of Parliament Geert Wilders lists ten steps western countries must take to stop the islamization of their countries. All ten steps are mandated by our Declaration of Independence, and consistent with our Constitution:

(1)  Stop cultural relativism: We must formalize the Idea that we have one dominant culture that is based on Judaism & Christianity [Wilders adds "humanism"].

(2)  Stop pretending that Islam is a religion.

(3)  Show the true face of fundamentalist Islam. It is a brutal totalitarian ideology.

(4)  Stop all immigration from Muslim countries.  For Muslims who are already citizens, tell them that if they adhere to our values and our Constitution, they may stay as equals.  But if they deviate, we will expel them.

(5)  Outlaw shariah and deport practitioners.

(6)  Require Muslims to sign legally binding pledge of integration and allegiance.

(7)  Stop building mosques.

(8)  Seek reciprocity with Saudi Arabia for western churches & synagogues.

(9)  Close all Islamic schools – they are fascist institutions teaching hate.

(10) Remove our current weak leaders.

It is time to boldly stand up for Our God, OUR Declaration of Independence, and Our Constitution, and say, “No!” to those who are taking over Our Country. It is time to use Our God-given unalienable Rights and Our Constitution as the Sword & Shield they are meant to be.  We can and must use these to defeat Islamization.  PH

September 19, 2010

Post Script added July 22, 2011

Watch Melanie Phillips explain how the abandonment of the concepts of  Objective Truth and the embracing of moral relativism & multiculturalism is permitting the islamization of England:

Is Health Care a “Right”?

IS THERE A “RIGHT” TO MEDICAL CARE?

By Publius Huldah

What is the Source of “Rights”?

Do you have a “right” to medical care? Is medical care free? Does it grow on trees? If you don’t pay for your own medical care, do you have a “right” to get medical care at other peoples’ expense?  Do you have a “right” to have other people forced to pay for your medical care?

Let us walk through this important question to the clear answer.

What are “rights”?  Where do rights come from?  Are rights unalienable gifts from God?  Are rights inherent to our nature as humans?  Is the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution) or the 14th Amendment the source of our rights?  Or, are “rights” entitlements to stuff which other people are forced to pay for?

Let us examine these four views on the nature of “rights”.

1. Our Declaration of Independence says Rights are unalienable and come from God:

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…

Because our Declaration of Independence, one of our three founding documents, refers to The Creator God as The Grantor of Rights, let us look to The Bible to see what those rights are.  The Bible reveals many rights, such as the right to inherit, earn, and keep property; the right of self-defense; the right to work in one’s chosen trade or profession; the right and duty to demand that the “king” adhere to the Covenant of civil government; the right to travel; the right to speak; the right to marry and raise children free from interference; the right to worship God; and so forth. The distinguishing characteristic of all these God-given rights is that each and every one of them may be held and enjoyed at NO expense or loss to any other person.

2. The Philosopher Ayn Rand saw rights as inherent to the nature of man; but thought God had nothing to with it.   John Galt said in Atlas Shrugged:

The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival.  If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work.  If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational.  Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life.

Thus, Ayn Rand also saw “rights” as attributes which may be held and enjoyed at no expense or loss to any other person.

3. Others say our rights come from the Bill of Rights, or from the 14th Amendment. But these are grievous and pernicious errors.

For one thing, Art. III,  Sec. 2,  clause 1,  says, “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases…arising under this Constitution…”.   This means that if a “right” is seen to “arise under the Constitution”, then federal judges have judicial power over it!  Do you see that when judges have power over YOUR rights,  that your rights are no longer unalienable?  You now hold them only at the pleasure of five judges on the US Supreme Court!

Also, to say that the Bill of Rights “confers” our rights; or to discuss “the full scope” of any of the First Ten Amendments, constitutes a restriction on, and reduction of, the rights given by God. To say that the Bill of Rights is the source of our rights, diminishes them from their hallowed status as unalienable gifts from God, and transforms them into revocable privileges which we hold, or not, according to whether they are recognized in a document written by men; and according to the interpretations of judges!

Furthermore, Alexander Hamilton opposed adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution. He said they were unnecessary and dangerous because they contain exceptions to powers which are not granted.  They thus afford – to those disposed to usurp – a pretext to regulate those rights (The Federalist No. 84, 9^th Para).  Well, our Hamilton was a prophet as well as a genius in political philosophy, for it has been demonstrated elsewhere how judges on the U.S. Supreme Court exploited the First Amendment’s promise of “free speech” and “free exercise of religion” to actually ban religious speech in the public square!

Equally pernicious is this: Judges on that same Court have asserted that the source of our “rights” is the Constitution, as such “rights” are defined and discovered, from time to time, BY THEM! It has been explained elsewhere how judges on that Court evaded the constitutional limitations on their power to hear cases [the cases they may hear are enumerated at Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 1]  by fabricating  individual  “constitutional rights”. In this manner, a handful of judges “discovered” “constitutional privacy rights” to engage in practices (abortion and sodomy) which had been outlawed by the States!

When we substitute the Constitution for God as the source of our rights, the entire concept of “rights” becomes perverted.  Literally.

Furthermore, The Constitution is about the Powers which We the People delegated to the three Branches of the Federal Government. It is NOT about Our Rights, which come from God, are unalienable, & predate the Constitution! We created the Constitution & the federal government!  Why would the creator of The Constitution (that’s us) grant to our “creature” (the federal courts), the power to determine, “discover” and define OUR Rights?

4. The statists and their dupes assert that rights come from “the government”. The statists are not concerned with protecting Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness! They love death: abortion, infanticide!, assisted suicide, euthanasia, and government “death panels” who decide who gets medical care and who does not – who lives and who dies. They hate private property.  They hate Liberty (as it has traditionally been defined in western civilization).  Productive men exist, not to pursue their own Happiness or to serve God; but to be plundered by civil government.

To statists, a “right” is a claim for stuff produced by, or paid for, by somebody else:  The “right” to medical care, the “right” to a public school education; the “right” to housing; the “right” to food stamps; etc.  But it is a contradiction in terms  – it is a perversion – to speak of  “rights” to stuff that is produced by, or paid for, by others!  To hold that people who produce exist to be plundered by civil government for the ostensible benefit of others is slavery.  Just as no one has the right to own another human being; so no one has the right to own the fruits of another man’s labors.

Folks! We need to face Reality and acknowledge that statists are not people with “good intentions”.

As stated in Our Declaration of Independence, we must insist that our rights come from God, are unalienable, and pre-date and pre-exist Our Constitution. PH

October 11, 2009; revised July 24, 2010.

Where do “Rights” come from? What is “federalism”? Does our Constitution “evolve”? What’s a “Republic”? What is the function of a constitution?

BASIC CONCEPTS OF “GOVERNMENT”

By Publius Huldah

Think NOT that you must have a law degree to understand the Constitution of the United States; or that the lawyers, law professors and black robed judges are the ones who understand it best.  They are the ones who perverted it.  To restore constitutional government, We the People must learn the basic concepts of  “government”; and we must learn the Constitution, elect representatives who will honor their oaths to support it (Art VI, clause 3), and remove from office those who don’t.

The Constitution is a short document which anyone – who makes a reasonable effort – can understand quite well.  You need only  (1) The Declaration of Independence, (2) The Constitution, and (3) The Federalist Papers.   The latter is a collection of 85 essays written for the public by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, and published  during 1787 and 1788, in order to explain the proposed Constitution to the People and to induce them to ratify it. [1] Also, since word meanings can change drastically throughout time [2], if we are to understand the objective meaning of the Constitution – the original intent – we must understand the words the same way the founders understood them.  An American Dictionary of The English Language, Noah Webster (1828), published in facsimile edition, is readily available.

1.  The function of a Constitution is to restrict the power of civil government:

…In free states, the constitution is paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by the legislature, limiting and controlling its power; and in the United States, the legislature is created, and its powers designated, by the constitution. (Webster’s 1828)

2.  “Federal” refers to the form of our government:  An alliance of States with close cultural and economic ties associated together in a “federation” with a national government to which is delegated supremacy over the States in specifically defined areas. [3]

3.  A “republic” is “a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people…” (Webster’s 1828).   A “constitutional republic” is a state in which the representatives (and other officials) are limited and restricted by a constitution.  This country was established as a constitutional republic.

4.  A “democracy” is two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

5.  Decentralization:  In a free country, government is decentralized: there exist various kinds of government, each with their own sphere of operation.   Webster’s (1828) lists three: “self-government” – man’s control and restraint over his own temper, passions, and social actions; “family government” – parents’ authority over their children and other family matters; and civil government – the form of, and the rules and principles by which a nation or state is governed.

There is also government in religious associations (e.g., Mat 18:15-17); charities; professional, trade, and sports associations (in earlier times, these set the standards and handled the discipline for their members); and other voluntary organizations with their own rules and requirements.

But in a totalitarian country, the civil government eliminates the other forms of government so that its power is unchallenged in all spheres of life:

a) Our national government is eliminating self-government by taking away the responsibility of individuals to act morally and responsibly in the conduct of their own affairs.  Not only does it force individuals to participate in government retirement and medical programs – matters which in the past were considered to be individual and family responsibilities; it now, with respect to daily  expenses,  “bails out” the least responsible at the expense of the more responsible!  We are no longer required to govern ourselves: We may sit around, indulging in blame shifting, excuse-making and nursing grievances, and the government pays our living expenses!  As individuals, we have abandoned self-discipline altogether – we abuse our own health with our excesses and bad habits!

b) It is eliminating family government by dictating as to the discipline and education of children, and insisting that minor children may obtain abortions without their parents’ knowledge or consent!   Matters that were, in the past, treated as family responsibilities  (financial and other assistance to family members; education of children, care of aging parents, etc.)  have been taken over by civil government.   We no longer look to our families for assistance – we look to the civil government!  Is it any wonder we now consider the president as “the one” to “save” us?

c) Previously, churches were the moral authorities in our country.  But the national government has eliminated that moral authority!  Even though the modern “welfare” state is based on Coercion & Looting & Distribution of Plunder to favored groups – the legalization of Envy & Theft [4] – the Pastors dare not speak out against it – they have been silenced by the 501 c (3) tax exemption.   So we have been deprived of the benefit of their moral guidance on issues affecting our country – that’s what the national government demands!   So the churches are restricted to speaking on saving souls,  “escape” or “rescue” from this Earth, what happens when we’re dead, and other such matters that don’t challenge Caesar’s sovereignty on Earth.  For Caesar claims that the Earth and everything on it belongs to him!

d) Charity is properly the work of individuals, churches, and private associations.   Some, such as The Salvation Army, provide Christian instruction along with assistance.  But a totalitarian government will not tolerate this challenge to its total power; so it now speaks of reducing the tax deduction for charitable giving.   As economic conditions worsen, charitable giving will decline; private charities will diminish, but the national government seeks always to expand.

e) The state governments have taken over the licensing and disciplining of the trades and professions; and Congress conducts hearings on whether sports figures take steroids!

6.  Decentralization & Local Governments:  In a free country, civil government itself is decentralized – we have city governments, county governments, and state governments, as well as the federal government.  Each local government has its own constitution that defines its powers & duties.

When speaking of the national government, do not confuse its few powers – those enumerated in the U.S. Constitution – with the more extensive powers that may be granted to State and local governments in their constitutions.   James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers, No. 45 (9^th paragraph):

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those that are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.  The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people….

So, do you see?  The federal government isn’t supposed to have anything to do with our lives, liberties and properties except as follows:  Other than those in military service, it has no lawful criminal jurisdiction over us unless we are counterfeiters, pirates or traitors; it has no civil jurisdiction over us unless we file for bankruptcy; if we are inventors or writers, it secures for us the rights to patents & copyrights; it makes rules for naturalizing new citizens, and it delivers our mail!  (Art I, Sec 8 & Art III, Sec 3, U.S. Constitution)  That’s basically it, Folks!

So mortgage bailouts, medical care, pensions, family matters, education, housing, food stamps, tattoo removal, Nancy Pelosi’s mice, “community redevelopment”, light bulbs, and the like, are NONE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S BUSINESS!   The local governments, if the People have authorized such in the local constitution, may address such matters.  But the only areas in which the federal government may lawfully act are those enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.

7.  In a free country, civil government is restrained – it is limited by the constitution in what it is allowed to do. But in a tyranny, those who hold power do whatever they want – they know no law but their own ideas, whims, self-interest, self-glorification, and lust for power.  Webster (1828) defined “govern”:

To direct and control…either by established laws or by arbitrary will…Thus in free states, men are governed by the constitution and laws; in despotic states, men are governed by the edicts or commands of [a tyrant]…. [5]

WE the People created the national government when We, as  States, ratified the Constitution.  WE determined its powers and duties and enumerated those powers and duties in the written Constitution.   None of the three branches of the national government:  neither the Legislative, nor the Executive, nor the Judiciary, may do ANYTHING unless WE first gave it permission in the Constitution.   WE are the Creators; those in the national government, be they Senators, Representatives, federal judges, or the President, are mere creatures.  Alexander Hamilton said in The Federalist Papers, No. 33, (6th paragraph):

If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed [the Constitution], and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify. [emphasis added]

Our Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land (Art VI, cl.2); and anything contrary to our Constitution is lawlessness – no matter who in office or on the bench does it.

8.  How should we understand the Constitution?  Should we understand it the same way our founders did (“original intent”)?  Or, does its meaning “evolve” throughout time, so that it “means” whatever the gang in power (at any point in time) says it means?

a) One side – the “strict constructionists” or “originalists” – say the Constitution has a fixed meaning, and we must look at the original intent of the Constitution.   We easily learn this original intent by understanding the words the same way our founders understood them [e.g., Webster’s 1828 Dictionary] & by referring to The Federalist Papers. [6]

b) The other side (composed primarily of activist judges, totalitarian leftists and people who don’t think) say the Constitution has no fixed meaning.  They say it is an “evolving”, “living, breathing” thing that means whatever the judges, from time to time, say it means [7] or, like Congress and many of our presidents, ignore it altogether.

And just how do we learn what the judges say the Constitution means?  Well, you really have to go to law school and learn how to do legal research; how to read judicial writing (which is often intended to conceal the judges’ complete lack of intellectual honesty); and how to construe conflicting court decisions.  Then, you usually end up going with the court’s latest pronouncement (once you have located it) – knowing full well that it may change when a new gang gets on the bench. [8]

Obviously, under the second view – we don’t have constitutional government.  Instead, the judiciary, the Congress, and the Executive Branch impose their unfettered wills on us; and THIS is how we have been transformed from a “free state” where we were governed by the constitution and laws; into a despotic state, where we are governed by the edicts or commands of judges, congressmen & senators, presidents, and meddlesome federal agencies.

9. What are “Rights” and where do they come from?  Are rights unalienable gifts from God?  Are rights inherent to our nature as humans?   Is the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution) the source of our rights?  Are “rights” entitlements to stuff paid for by other people?

a) Our Declaration of Independence says our Rights are unalienable and come from God:

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… [9]

b) The Philosopher Ayn Rand correctly saw rights as inherent to the nature of man; although she thought God had nothing to with it.   In John Galt’s speech (Atlas Shrugged), he said:

The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival.  If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work.  If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational.  Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life.

c) Others say that our rights come from the Bill of Rights.  But this is a pernicious error.  To say that the Bill of Rights “confers” our rights; or to discuss “the full scope” of any of the First Ten Amendments, constitutes a restriction on, and reduction of, the rights given by God.  To say that the Bill of Rights is the source of our rights, diminishes them from their proper status as unalienable gifts from God, and transforms them into privileges which we hold, or not, according to whether they are recognized in a document written by men; and according to the interpretations of judges!

d) The statist view is that rights come from “the government”.   The statists are not concerned with Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness! [10] To them, a “right” is a claim for stuff paid for by somebody else:  The “right” to a public school education; the “right” to medical care; the “right” to housing; etc.  But it is a contradiction in terms  – it is a perversion – to speak of  “rights” to stuff that is produced by, or paid for, by others!  To hold that people who produce exist to be plundered by civil government for the ostensible benefit of others is nothing less than slavery.  Just as no one has the right to own another human being; so no one has the right to own the fruits of another man’s labors.

10. The U.S. Constitution is the document that created the national government. [11] When the People through their States ratified the Constitution, the People and the States did not lose their status as independent sovereigns who would be capable of corrective action if the national government were to exceed the powers granted to it.

Except for those few powers (primarily relating to national defense & other external objects) that the People and the States specifically delegated to the national government, the People and the States remain independent and sovereign.

Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor Prohibited by it to the States, [12] are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So when the “creature” usurps powers not granted in the Constitution, the “Creators” are not bound by the usurpations.  Those usurpations are, by definition, lawless.   When this happens, the States have the Right and the Duty to rein in their creation – for the creature has become Frankenstein.

Tenth Amendment Resolutions, nullification by States, Jury nullification, etc.  are lawful, consistent with our Constitution, and if properly implemented, can restore our Constitutional Republic with its federal form of government!  That, instead of a totalitarian dictatorship with a populace forever crushed with debt, is the Blessing we want to leave our Posterity.

PUBLIUS/HULDAH (revised June 20,  2009)

---

[1] The authors’ 18^th century style of writing might seem difficult at first; but if you stick with it, you will get used to it, and may come to find it delightful.

[2] E.g., “mean” used to mean “poor”; “nice” used to mean “precise, exact”; “gay” used to mean “jovial, merry”, etc.

“Welfare” as used in the Preamble & in Art I, Sec 8, cl 1, U.S. Constitution, meant “Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government” (Webster’s 1828).   But  The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1969), adds a new meaning:  “Public relief” – on welfare. Dependent on public relief”.  Do you see how our Constitution is perverted when 20th century meanings are substituted for the original meanings?

[3] As the national government usurps more & more of the powers retained by the States or the People, the form of our government becomes less & less “federal”, and more & more “national”.

[4] See Frederic Bastiat’s short & easily understood work, The Law (1848), which is without a doubt, the best thing to ever come out of France.  A magnificent refutation of socialism.   On-line English ed. at bastiat.org

[5] In the classic work on political philosophy,  Lex, Rex, or The Law And The Prince, Samuel Rutherford (1644), Rev. Rutherford sets forth the biblical model wherein the king is subject to the Law to the same extent as the citizens: e.g., Deut 17:18-20; 2 Kings 22:8-13; 23:1-3.   THIS is what “The Rule of Law” means – when the “king” is under the Law.   When the “king” claims that he is above the law, then we have “the Rule of Men” – i.e., tyranny.

Contrast Rutherford’s model, which the drafters of our Constitution followed, with that of the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), who glorified the state and saw it as superior to the people.  THAT is the political philosophy that gave rise to German statism, the Third Reich, and Hitler worship.

[6] It’s fast & easy:  With an annotated copy of the Constitution, you look up the Federalist Paper cited, skim through it until you get to the relevant passage, and in a few minutes, you usually can know the original intent.  You then know more than our judges know!  Congratulations!  [But sometimes we also have to refer to other contemporaneous works.]

[7] Thus, instead of the judges being subject to the Constitution; the Constitution is subject to the will of the judges.

[8] Franz Kafka’s novel, The Trial (1937), describes an arbitrary and incomprehensible legal system where the peoples’ access to The Law is cut off.   “Before the Law, stands a door keeper… “.  The hero of Kafka’s novel couldn’t get past the doorkeeper and so was denied access to The Law.   Folks, that’s what our courts – the doorkeepers – are doing to us.  The U.S. Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land (Art VI, cl. 2); but the Courts have taken it away from us and won’t give it back! The Trial is on-line in English translations from the German.

[9] The Bible reveals additional rights bestowed on us by God, such as the right to inherit, earn, & keep property; the right of self-defense; the right & duty to demand that the “king” adhere to the Covenant of civil government; etc.  The distinguishing characteristics of all these God-given rights are (1) they are necessary for man to exist as man and (2) they may be held and enjoyed at NO expense or loss to any other man. (Ayn Rand was 100% right on these points.)

[10] They love death: abortion, assisted suicide, and euthanasia.  They hate private property.  They hate Liberty.  Productive men exist, not to pursue their own Happiness or to serve God; but to be plundered by civil government.  Folks, we need to face Reality and acknowledge that these are not people whose “intentions” are “good”.

[11] It is important that you always keep at the front of your mind:  The national government is a creation of the People & their States.  The People & their States are the Creators – the national government is merely the creature.

[12] Art I, Sec 10 prohibits the States from exercising powers specifically delegated to the national government, and from passing those obnoxious laws which are inimical to a free country such as Bills of Attainder, ex post facto Laws, laws  impairing the Obligation of contracts, or granting Titles of Nobility.

June 20, 2009