http://blogs.albawaba.com/kramfoknad/1539/2009/07/09/148785-israel-s-agenda-of-control-and-death-in-gaza-coming-soon-to-an-american-neighborhood-near-you

Limited Government In Relation to Some Fields of Power Prohibited to the Federal Government
The Constitution’s enumeration of powers granted to the Federal government is summed up by Madison in The Federalist number 45, as we have seen, as being: “. . . few and defined . . . will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negociation, and foreign commerce . . .” It is of interest to note briefly some principal examples of fields of power which are prohibited to the Federal government by the Constitution, as amended to the present writing.

In The Federalist number 17, Hamilton decried the idea that the new Federal government–to be created under the Constitution, then in process of ratification–would not respect the strict limits on its powers as prescribed in this fundamental law but would usurp the reserved powers of the States; as was being asserted by those who were extremely fearful of any central government with substantial powers and were arguing in favor of stricter and clearer limits on Federal power. Chief among these were Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee and Samuel Adams. Hamilton here mentioned commerce, finance, negotiation, and war as being the principal fields of power properly delegated to the Federal government but he expressly made it clear that agriculture is excluded. He classified agriculture as a field belonging to the reserved powers of the States–as one which could never properly be under the control of the central government:

“The administration of private justice between the citizens of the same state, the supervision of agriculture and of other concerns of a similar nature, all those things in short which are proper to be provided for by local legislation, can never be desireable cares of a general jurisdiction.”

By “general jurisdiction” he meant the Federal government. The field of agriculture was no doubt chosen by Hamilton for specific mention here because it was common knowledge–not only among those who had framed the Constitution but among all other leaders as well as the people at large—that nothing would have been considered more unarguably and absurdly false than any claim that the activities of people engaged in agriculture would be subject to Federal regulation or control, directly or indirectly, under the Constitution’s wording as understood by The Framers and Adopters and everyone else.

Several other illustrations of prohibited power were provided by President Jefferson in his Second Inaugural Address. He discussed the constructive uses of any possible surplus revenues of the Federal government and mentioned some which he stated are outside of the scope of power of this government under the Constitution, expressly noting that an amendment of the fundamental law would be necessary before such use could be made of any surplus of tax monies:

“. . . by a just repartition among the states, and a corresponding amendment of the constitution, be applied, in time of peace, to rivers, canals, roads, arts, manufactures, education, and other great objects within each state.” (Emphasis added, except “in time of peace” emphasized in the original.)

In other words, Federal spending for these specified purposes was not authorized by the Constitution–these fields of activity being excluded from the scope of the Federal government’s power under the Constitution; so an amendment would be necessary in order to give any such spending the necessary sanction through the properly expressed consent of the people. In his sixth annual Message to the Congress in 1806, Jefferson again discussed possible surplus revenues and their use in such fields requiring a constitutional amendment:

“. . . application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers . . . I suppose an amendment to the constitution, by consent of the States, necessary, because the objects now recommended are not among those enumerated in the constitution, and to which it permits the public moneys to be applied.” (Emphasis added.)

It is particularly interesting to note that Jefferson here soundly distinguished between using Federal monies to aid education (mentioning particularly a national institution of scientific learning )–which he stated is unauthorized, unless and until an amendment to the Constitution would be adopted authorizing it; and, on the other hand, aiding education by making land-grants from the colossal holdings of virgin and unsettled land already owned by the Federal government (by occupation, purchase or conquest from the Indians and foreign governments), which he stated the Congress “now have it in their power” so to use. Such aid to education by Federal land-grants was already customary; it had been commenced under the Confederation and was generally considered to be within the powers of the Federal government under the Constitution–but not so as to tax-monies in the Federal treasury.

Special emphasis is needed with regard to the basis of this distinction between such Federal land-grants and money-grants, as to constitutionality: the Federal government has the power to dispose of land and other property it owns (Art. IV, Sec. 3) and, furthermore, single-transaction land-grants could not possibly accomplish the unconstitutional objective of permitting it to obtain, in effect, any control over the recipients. On the other hand, the Constitution did not specify aid to education as one of the purposes for which the Federal government (specifically the Congress) might tax and spend; and furthermore periodic, or regular, grants of money could not but have the practical effect of giving this government–perhaps indirectly, gradually and subtly but nevertheless inescapably–substantially controlling influence over the recipient institutions, or persons. This is due partly to the reason cited by Hamilton in The Federalist number 79: “In the general course of human nature, a power over a man’s subsistence amounts to a power over his will.” (Emphasis Hamilton’s.) In other words, “he who pays the piper calls the tune.” Such control can even be effectively manifested negatively, by creating inhibitions on the part of the recipient of the subsidy or grant of funds, rather than through control affirmatively and outrightly. For example, those who would hope for a Federal grant in the future–such as a scholar, or a college–would be strongly inclined to refrain from criticism of this government regarding things which would otherwise be freely and vigorously condemned as unsound.

This is why Hamilton, as Secretary of the Treasury, carefully restricted his contention in 1791 so as to exclude Federal control, when he first argued in favor of the idea that the Taxing Clause gives the Federal government a separate and substantive power for the “application of money,” within the limits of what would serve the general welfare. He also stated, in another document, that it would not “. . . imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the general welfare” and continued:

“A power to appropriate money with this latitude, which is granted, too, in express terms, would not carry a power to do any other thing not authorized in the Constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.” (1791 “Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States”; and 1791 Report on “Manufactures.”)

The Taxing Clause, using the words “general Welfare,” (Art. I, Sec. states: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States . . .”

Hamilton always denied that this clause gives Congress a general legislative authority–to legislate regarding, and so as to achieve, whatever Congress might consider to be for the common good. He never varied from his assertion in The Federalist number 83, regarding the plan of the Framing Convention expressed in the Constitution, with regard to such authority, as follows:

“The plan of the convention declares that the power of congress or in other words of the national legislature, shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority; because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless, if a general authority was intended.” (Emphasis per original.)

Hamilton never contended for–indeed, he evidently would have opposed strenuously–use of the Federal power to tax and spend so as in effect to give the Federal government indirectly any control over anything, or anybody, which is not directly and openly authorized by the Constitution and its amendments through enumeration of the powers granted to it by the people. He would undoubtedly have agreed with the distinction which Jefferson drew–in the above-mentioned addresses made after Hamilton’s death–with regard to Federal aid to Education: that land-grants in aid of education are constitutional, partly because they could not possibly produce any degree of control over the recipient institutions due to such grants being a single-transaction measure as to each of the recipient institutions.

The opposite would be true as to Federal grants of monies periodically, because they could not possibly avoid producing the effect of substantial control over the recipient–however gradual, or subtle, or indirect, or negative (by creating inhibitions) and regardless of how arranged so as to conceal the element of control. In the 1936 Butler case, the Supreme Court truly stated (pages 70-71 of opinion): “The power to confer or withhold unlimited benefits is the power to coerce or destroy;” and it restated (pages 73-74) and applied the cardinal, constitutional principle that what the Constitution does not specifically empower the Federal government to do directly, so as to be able to exercise control, “. . . it may not indirectly accomplish those ends by taxing and spending to purchase compliance.” In other words, a power granted by the Constitution may not be misused by this government so as in effect to enable it indirectly to exercise a power which has not been so granted and therefore has been prohibited to it. While in the related Wickard case (1942) the Court asserted [correctly, but only if it be true that the particular subsidy is authorized by the Constitution] that: “It is hardly lack of due process for the Government to regulate that which it subsidizes.” (Page 131 of opinion; here “regulate” means control.) Judged by his writings, including his 1791 assertions noted above, Hamilton would have agreed and would have disapproved, as unconstitutional, any and all subsidy-and-control schemes of the Federal government except such as might be directly and clearly authorized by the people, by a constitutional amendment, empowering this government so to control openly and directly the persons, or institutions, subsidized. Madison and all of the other Framers and Adopters of the Constitution also would have agreed–Jefferson, too.

The fields of power denied to the Federal government by the Constitution, according to both Hamilton and Jefferson–agriculture, education and so on, as noted above—could be multiplied by citing other writings by them and other Founders; but this is unnecessary for present purposes and would not take into account any additions to Federal power authorized by subsequent amendments. It is desirable, therefore, to quote here a modern writing which correctly reflects the views of The Framers and Adopters as to the initial instrument’s exclusion of fields of power from Federal control and, in addition, takes into account all amendments to the present period.

A 1930 writing which fills this need is available; and, in addition, it is an excellent and concise discussion of the traditional American philosophy and system of government regarding especially the nature and importance of decentralization of power (“States Rights”) as a mainstay of the security of the people’s liberties. The Constitution has not been amended since 1930 to increase Federal power, so this writing in effect speaks as of today with regard to the extent of Federal powers; indeed, they have since been decreased by repeal of the 18th (“Prohibition”) Amendment by adoption in 1933 of the 21st Amendment. This 1930 writing is cited for the further reason that it is couched in simple terms and presents only ideas which were then common knowledge and accepted truths among the American people–even among Youth with a normal high-school education for that period–as well as among the people through all generations from 1787 to 1930. The writing is cited not because it expressed anything new, or any original thinking of its author but, on the contrary, because it did not do so. Its special usefulness and value stem from the fact that it merely re-stated the traditional view as always understood and supported up to 1930 by all competent scholars and authorities–including the three Branches of the Federal government, especially the Supreme Court–as well as by leaders and the American people in general. This widespread understanding was such in 1930 that, if the valedictorian of a graduating class of a college, or even of a high school, had then made this address as the one usual on such an occasion, the audience would justly have applauded on the ground that there was nothing in it but long-accepted truths so well known that it merely evidenced the young orator’s being soundly and reasonably well-informed regarding the elementary simplicities of the traditional American philosophy and system of constitutionally limited and decentralized power and its fundamental importance to the safety of the American people’s God-given, unalienable rights.

This writing referred to is the March 2, 1930 “States Rights” address of Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt of New York–the full text of which, for the foregoing reasons, is set forth in the Appendix to this study-guide. This Address–made as an appeal to the American people for support of his plan to be elected President and presenting some of the basic principles which, he impliedly assured them, he would if elected faithfully support–was in criticism of any concentration of power in Washington in violation of the Constitution’s limits on Federal power.

The entire address merits careful study for the reasons previously noted; but, at this point in the present discussion of fields of power prohibited to the Federal government by the Constitution as amended, the following short quotation will suffice:

“As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely, people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social wel[are and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere.” (Emphasis added.)

To repeat, the Constitution has never been amended since 1930 so as to increase the Federal government’s power. Since then, no amendment has granted it any power to control any of the prohibited fields of power specified by Hamilton, Jefferson and Roosevelt as mentioned above. It is of unusual interest to note that agriculture—expressly listed by Hamilton in 1787 and by Roosevelt as of 1930 as being among the fields of power prohibited to the Federal government by the Constitution–was the subject of the above-mentioned Butler case (1936): There the Supreme Court confirmed the fact of such prohibition, in deciding that the Federal law under consideration–seeking to subsidize and control agriculture–violated the Constitution’s limits on Federal power and therefore was null and void, judged by this instrument’s original meaning which the Court correctly ruled is controlling unless and until the people change these limits by due amendment of this basic law.

It is a fundamental principle of the American philosophy that the people themselves, as well as their public servants who are sworn to support the Constitution faithfully, must respect the existing limits on the Federal government’s power under the Constitution, as amended; which can be changed by the people only by its amendment. Referring to the amending process as a “solemn and authoritative act,” Hamilton stated the principle (previously noted) in The Federalist number 78 as follows: “Until the people have by some solemn and authoritative act annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act.” (Here “sentiments” refers to public opinion in favor of some measure not authorized by the Constitution.) The reason why this principle is so basically important was stressed in Washington’s Farewell Address as follows:

“If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.”

This highlights the tremendous importance of the American people’s being always soundly informed with respect to the limits on the Federal government’s power under the Constitution; as amended, in order to be able to perform adequately the duties inherent in Individual Liberty-Responsibility and thus make possible the enduring safety of their God-given, unalienable rights and Posterity’s just heritage of Individual Liberty and its supporting system.

“Vindiciamus”

“Vindiciamus”

I did mention how to change unconstitutional legislation and their arbitors. The VERY first thing we must do is educate ourselves on those that wish to be elected.This is ALL our own fault.WQe the people do not do the work required in order to obtain and maintain “just” self-governance.

The Traditional American Philosophy
A Definite, Unique, American Philosophy of Government Does Exist–Composed of a Set of Specific, Fundamental, Traditional Principles

When the Declaration of Independence was proclaimed in 1776, and the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted in 1787-1788, the American people and their leaders firmly believed in, and acted upon the basis of, a definite set of principles–ideas made American principles by being applied governmentally. Some of them were stated in the following words of the Declaration:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” (Text exactly per the original.)

There are those who deny and deplore the idea that there exists a definite group, or set, of fundamental principles–uniquely American as a whole–which constitute the traditional American philosophy of government. Yet there are voluminous historical records which amply prove their existence and definition, the chief source in brief form being this 1776 Declaration–especially the profound sentences quoted above. It was with the gift of foresight–anticipating those in the future who would scoff at the above-mentioned idea and seek to belittle the sincerity and ideals of the generation of Americans of the Revolutionary period–that the town-meeting of Braintree, Massachusetts, adopted on October 14, 1765, a set of “Instructions,” drafted by John Adams, to their representatives in the legislature of Massachusetts regarding opposition to the Stamp Act, stating in part as follows:

“We further recommend the most clear and explicit assertion and vindication of our rights and liberties to be entered on the public records, that the world may know, in the present and all future generations, that we have a clear knowledge and a just sense of them, and, with submission to Divine Providence, that we never can be slaves . . .”

This indicates what Adams meant when he stated long afterward (letter to Jefferson, 1815) that: “The revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected from 1760 to 1775, in the course of fifteen years, before a drop of blood was shed at Lexington.”

The above-quoted statement in the Declaration of Independence, of high-minded principles and idealistic goals, is unsurpassed in all the world’s writings about Mankind’s tortuous struggle throughout history toward the ever-beckoning Light of Individual Liberty. This statement sought to express succinctly the essence of the philosophical basis of the reconciliation of Man’s longing for Individual Liberty with the inescapable need for an orderly society, through Government, in order that Man’s Liberty may exist. This contemplates the existence of Government adequate for the people’s prescribed purposes, for the nation’s security and sound functioning, but limited in power so as to make and keep their liberties secure against abuse, or usurpation, of power by public officials as public trustees.

The successful reconciliation of this longing for Individual Liberty with this need for Government makes possible the desired result: Man’s Liberty against Government-over-Man. This means Freedom of Man from Government-over-Man. This goal and ideal proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence in 1776 were later translated into governmental reality through adoption of the United States Constitution in 1787-1788, which accomplished this reconciliation in a degree never before attained by any people in all human history. This successful application in the Constitution of the principles of the Declaration was the subject of comment by James Wilson in the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention. After reading to the members the first few sentences of the Declaration, including those quoted above, he noted their relationship to the constitutional system:

“This is the broad basis on which our independence was placed: on the same certain and solid foundation this system is erected.”

This relationship of the Constitution to the Declaration was also commented on in his April 30, 1839 “Jubilee” address by former President John Quincy Adams.

This relationship–this successful application in the Constitution of the Declaration’s principles–is a major factor supporting the soundness of the conclusion that a definite, unique, American philosophy of government does exist–composed of a set of specific, fundamental, traditional principles. The governmental realities, created by the constitutional system, gave substance to these principles.

“Vindiciamus”

For sure there is no quick fix for Americans to correct unconstitutionality. But the constitution tells Americans in “writing” exactly how and by what “force” they can control government.

Doesn’t Article I, Section 2, of the constitution mean anything to you?

As far as correcting government it means everything to me. Americans, only Americans, hire (elect) every Congressman (Lawmaker) in the House of Congress and do so every two years since 1787. The House controls, or can control, the purse of the federal government; all Bills for raising federal revenue must start in the House.

I see absolutely no other “constitutional” way Americans can “forcibly” do anything at all about unconstitutionality. Do you?

You talk about education and you are correct except you do not mention educate about correcting unconstitutionality. Educating about what is going on, or what has gone on and what someone said, or religion, by all appearances is not going to make a dent in unconstitutionality.

Americans “constitutionally” reform government by voting to not reelect known criminals to legislate. There simply is no other “constitutional” way for Americans to reform government. Well, Americans can nullify any legislation and or any Amendment they feel unconstitutional and or unjustly applied when serving as a Juror simply by voting not guilty. But that’s a force against “legislation” and not directly against any criminal Lawmaker. Criminal Lawmakers must be voted out of office and forced to live under the infringing legislation they enacted until that legislation is repealed by Oath honoring Lawmakers.

Allan

There also and most important be an educational system that deals only with governance of the Representative Republic verity.The young must be taut proper in regards to our form of governance.This system of education must be in place for generations in order that coming generations understand how to self-govern.We in our life time may not experience the benefit of what we initiate,but what we do is for the benefit of our children.There is a term known as “practice by participation”,this must become commonplace within our local societies.The best thing we can do for our young is to be able to hand them a “just” government in order that they too are to self-govern.Education is the strength of a nation,this is also true of education in preparation to self-governance.

As for the corrupt representatives we have now?Use that ground swell of indignation to remove the cancer.I would advise groups of “get out the vote” and these groups use of a recurrence to the principles of Constitutional governance,Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness as their mantra.
“Vindiciamus”

A 1765/2009 Call to Action–”Educate Young and Old: For Liberty”

As Timely Today as When Originally Made
If only a single idea could be said to have been held in common by all of The Founders, none would have a better claim to this distinction than the idea that sound information and education constitute the essential and best foundation upon which to build securely and enduringly–for The Individual and for the people as a whole, for the nation. The writings of The Founders are filled with appeals and admonitions to make sure of a fair future for Liberty in America through widest possible use of sound information and education; and John Adams was second to none in this regard. An especially impressive appeal of this character was made by him as part of a 1765 writing: “A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law” which was first published as a series of essays in the Boston Gazette. Its value lies, in part, in its enduring quality–valuable in every year and generation and as pertinent today as when first published. This is so true, and its message is so important to the well-being of Man’s Freedom from Government-over-Man in America today and in the future, that an extended quotation is believed to be justified. First he assumed to be true then a favorable situation which, it must be admitted, does not exist in America today:

“Let us presume, what is in fact true, that the spirit of liberty is as ardent as ever among the body of the nation, though a few individuals may be corrupted. . . .”

True today as to independence from foreign rule, it is not true today regarding Individual Liberty: Freedom from Government-over-Man. This melancholy fact of deterioration of the situation of Free Man in America only serves to make more important the main part of his message:

“Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write. Let every order and degree among the people rouse their attention and animate their resolution. Let them all become attentive to the grounds and principles of government . . .”

After thus expressing the key idea, he continued by directing attention to one of the main areas of knowledge which should be fostered and inculcated:

“Let us read and recollect and impress upon our souls the views and ends of our own more immediate forefathers, in exchanging their native country for a dreary, inhospitable wilderness. Let us examine into the nature of that power, and the cruelty of that oppression, which drove them from their homes. Recollect their amazing fortitude, their bitter sufferings,–the hunger, the nakedness, the cold, which they patiently endured–the severe labors of clearing their grounds, building their houses, raising their provisions, amidst dangers from wild beasts and savage men, before they had time or money or materials for commerce. Recollect the civil and religious principles and hopes and expectations which constantly supported and carried them through all hardships with patience and resignation.”

After this invitation to relive the harsh realities of those days in our imaginations, with emphasis however upon the sustaining things of the mind and heart and soul, he reached the key word, “liberty”:

“Let us recollect it was liberty, the hope of liberty for themselves and us and ours, which conquered all discouragements, dangers, and trials. In such researches as these, let us all in our several departments cheerfully engage,–but especially the proper patrons and supporters of law, learning, and religion!”

By “learning” he referred not only to formal education but to all knowledge-gaining, in all its facets by all possible means. Then he focused attention upon the group which, in New England especially, was in that time–as before and later–so potently influential in helping to develop, nurture and propagate the ideas of “Liberty and Independence”: Independence from foreign rule and Liberty of Man against Government-over-Man. This was the clergy. He appealed to them as follows:

“Let the pulpit resound with the doctrines and sentiments of religious liberty. Let us hear the danger of thraldom to our consciences from ignorance, extreme poverty, and dependence, in short, from civil and political slavery. Let us see delineated before us the true map of man. Let us hear the dignity of his nature, and the noble rank he holds among the works of God,–that consenting to slavery is a sacrilegious breach of trust, as offensive in the sight of God as it is derogatory from our own honor or interest or happiness –and that God Almighty has promulgated from heaven, liberty, peace, and good-will to man!”

By “slavery” he of course meant, in part, subjection to tyrannous rule by a British king and Parliament. Here Adams was not urging the clergy to do something new for their group–some of them had been doing this for generations in America. Instead, he was emphasizing the need of more of the clergy to participate in this educational program in support of “Liberty and Independence” and all of them to give more attention to this cause, so crucially important to freedom of religion. He then called upon the Bar–the profession which was expected to take the lead actively in the fight and which, in every generation, is obligated to do so morally as well as otherwise; partly today because every member of the Bar–like every judge and other public official–is sworn to support the Constitution–necessarily in its true and original meaning (per page 194, ante) as intended by those who framed and adopted the initial instrument and later each of its amendments. He continued:

“Let the bar proclaim, ‘the laws, the rights, the generous plan of power’ delivered down from remote antiquity,–inform the world of the mighty struggles and numberless sacrifices made by our ancestors in defence of freedom . . .”

Next he came to the leading group in the realm of formal education, the colleges:

“Let the colleges join their harmony in the same delightful concert. Let every declamation turn upon the beauty of liberty and virtue, and the deformity, turpitude, and malignity, of slavery and vice [meaning mainly governmental evils from the standpoint of Free Man]. Let the public disputations become researches into the grounds and nature and ends of government, and the means of preserving the good and demolishing the evil. Let the dialogues, and all the exercises, become the instruments of impressing on the tender mind, and of spreading and distributing far and wide, the ideas of right and the sensations of freedom. In a word, let every sluice of knowledge be opened and set a-flowing.”

He continued by warning of Britain’s plan to enslave American colonists through the Stamp Act and other such measures; then continued:

“These are not the vapors of a melancholy mind, nor the effusions of envy, disappointed ambition, nor of a spirit of opposition to government, but the emanations of a heart that burns for its country’s welfare. No one of any feeling, born and educated in this once happy country, can consider the numerous distresses, the gross indignities, the barbarous ignorance, the haughty usurpations, that we have reason to fear are meditating for ourselves, our children, our neighbors, in short, for all our countrymen and all their posterity, without the utmost agonies of heart and many tears.”

The distinguished clergyman, Jonathan Mayhew, was mentioned expressly by Adams with praise for his valuable writings in support of the cause of Man’s freedom in America.

This message has great significance today for all parts of American society because of the pressing need at present for sound information and education, to the end that Individual Liberty may be made and kept secure under constitutionally limited government–respected in practice and preserved in full integrity for the sake of the present generation as well as for the benefit of Posterity, for whom the present generation is merely temporary trustee.

It is only through living the principles which The Founders lived, and serving the ideals which they served, that in each generation any and every American can, in truth, render all honor to The Founders.

Could they return to the American scene now and speak a word of warning in behalf of the cause of Individual Liberty, they would perhaps be satisfied to repeat the remark of Dr. Joseph Warren–President of the Massachusetts Congress and a Major General, killed in action at Bunker Hill on June 17, 1775–in his oration in Boston on March 5, 1775 (the anniversary of the “Boston Massacre” by British troops). His words were in effect addressed to every American of every generation, faced with the never-ending need for Friends of Liberty to be faithful, vigilant and active in support of the institutions and principles which are essential to Liberty’s well-being:

“Our country is in danger, but not to be despaired of . . . On you depend the fortunes of America. You are to decide the important question, on which rest the happiness and liberty of millions yet unborn. Act worthy of yourselves.”

“Vindiciamus”

What do you want Americans to do about their corrupt government?

Allan

These ARE NOT rights,granted under the bill of rights.These are duties,obligations.Voting/suffrage is not a right and jury duty is not a right they are duties as Individual-responsibilities. Civil rights are NOT rights granted under the Constitution .

I am not sure where you are coming from here.I can tell you are frustrated with the system but it is not the fault of the system if it has been usurped.

We as Americans through generations of bad education have been separated from our true form of governance.We must re-teach ourselves in correct fashion back to Traditional Principles. This will never happen if we educate ourselves with speculation and assumptions. We must first understand our form of governance and why it was formed.Simply read the Declaration of Independence which our Constitution is predicated upon.Do not discount the intent of the spiritual nature of the founding fathers,even if you wish not to allow spirituality to influence how we govern ourselves today.Just take in the education as it is written and adjust it to apply to the here and now. I can tell you one thing that most do not understand and that is that there is no constitutional mandate that separates the practice of religion in regards to our governance.The separation of church and state is only implied. There is no dictate in the constitution that makes illegal for government to become involved in helping religion to be freely practiced,it only states that the congress shall make no laws to establish a church and that is all.

The Constitution was designed to translate into enduring, governmental reality the ideals, goals and principles of the Declaration of Independence. This is made clear by the inspiring words of the Constitution’s Preamble. It provides the connection between these two documents–the chief link being the word “Liberty” in both–with regard especially to the expressly stated religious considerations underlying the traditional American philosophy as defined in the Declaration, notably the concept of God-given, unalienable rights.
Belief in God as the Creator of Man and the giver of his unalienable rights–unalienable because God-given–is the basis of this philosophy; which is an indivisible whole and must be accepted, or rejected, as such. The Constitution’s primary role, or function, was intended to be the safeguarding of these rights of every Individual–partly through so limiting the power of the Federal government that it could never interfere with the religious life and practices of the people of the separate States (the people in each State being in complete control of pertinent policy for themselves), always involving implicitly recognition of belief in God as the only basis of the unalienable character of these rights.

The traditional American philosophy’s first and fundamental principle is that “The Spiritual Is Supreme,” that Man is of Divine origin and his spiritual, or religious, nature is of supreme value and importance compared with things material. This principle was the basis of the assertion in the Declaration of Independence that “. . . all men are created . . . endowed by their Creator . . .” This philosophy teaches that belief in God is the fundamental link which unites the adherents of all religions in a spiritual brotherhood under the common fatherhood of God; and it allows for no differentiation between them as to this unifying conviction.

This applies not only to those who adhere to some one of the organized religions but also to The Individual holding a strictly personal, but genuinely religious, belief–however unorthodox or strange it may seem to others. Belief in God is the common denominator here; but no element of required, religious conformity is involved.

America was colonized originally by adherents of the Christian religion, in the main, and the vast majority of them were Protestants of various denominations. The Founding Fathers nevertheless adhered faithfully to the all-embracing character of the approach of the American philosophy to religion, as indicated by the affirmative and express statement in the Declaration, quoted above. This approach was also indicated, negatively, in the Constitution by way of its denying to the Federal government any power pertaining to religion–no such power was included among the few powers which were delegated to this government by the people. This denial of such power was confirmed by the later addition of the First Amendment, which expressly prohibits the Federal government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .” (Here “an establishment of religion” was intended to mean only an official church organization–one controlled, supported and preferred by the government–such as the Church of England organization which then existed in some of the States.) America is, in fact, a haven for all religions and their adherents; her traditional philosophy in this regard is actually practiced.

This aspect of the American philosophy was emphasized strikingly when discussion was in progress in the legislature of Virginia regarding the Bill to establish religious freedom–finally adopted in 1786. As Jefferson observed in his “Autobiography,” it was proposed during the long-continued discussion of the Bill that the reference to “the holy author of our religion” (meaning God) be changed so as to refer to Jesus Christ; but the proposal was rejected by vote of “a great majority,” as Jefferson (the author of the first draft) stated:

“. . . in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.” (“Mahometans” means Moslems, also called “Musselmen.” Here “Infidel” means any religious believer although a non-Christian.)

The foregoing comment about America’s being a haven for all religions is sound even though in some early colonial communities of a strongly religious character, such as the initial ones in Massachusetts, there was extreme intolerance on the part of the governing group which impelled some dissenters, such as Roger Williams, to leave and found settlements elsewhere. By the time of the Declaration of Independence, however, insofar as government was concerned, religious toleration was widespread in America; although it was some decades before every “establishment of religion” (to use the term of the First Amendment), as defined above, had been abolished by all of the States which had one in 1791 when the First Amendment was adopted.

It is true that the traditional American philosophy is basically religious and that America and Americans in general are a religious country and people. It is equally true that the American people are predominantly Christian in their beliefs. It is, however, unsound to characterize the Constitution of the United States government as being either religious, or Christian. The Constitution is a charter adopted by the people for defining the framework of the federated system of government composed of the central Republic and the State Republics. No such charter, in and of itself, can properly be classified as being religious; just as a government, in and of itself, cannot be so classified. This truth was the basis of the statement in the Treaty of Peace and Friendship entered into by President John Adams, a devoutly religious man and a steadfast Christian, in 1797, between the United States and Tripoli of Barbary, that:

“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,–as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of Musselmen . . .” [Moslems]

The non-religious character of government becomes more obvious when it is considered that, under the American philosophy, the sovereign people create their governments as their tools; and no tool can be called religious. To continue with this metaphor, the government, as a tool, is created by the people according to the “blueprint” (the Constitution) which they design in order to help define the characteristics and operating limits of this tool; and no “blueprint” can be classified as religious. As a further illustration, consider the architect’s “blueprints” (drawings) for a church building; the edifice will be for religious purposes but the “blueprints” cannot properly be labelled religious in nature, in and of themselves.

This would be true even if it were possible for certain purposes to classify as “religious” a government which is completely dominated by, and an official reflection of, the hierarchy of some church or denomination. Nothing could be more antithetical to the American philosophy than to consider the United States government in any such category. As President Jefferson observed in his Second Inaugural Address (1805):

“In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of state or church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.”

By “state” authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies, Jefferson referred to those States in which the previously-mentioned, official, church organizations, or establishments–”establishments of religion”–still existed; some of which continued to exist thereafter for a number of years, in Massachusetts until 1834.

No Constitution or government, Federal or State, in America can soundly be called “religious”; and it is equally unsound, of course, to classify any of them as being Christian. This applies also to the Declaration of Independence because it is a political statement; which is true despite the fact that it expresses, in part, the fundamentally religious nature of the American-philosophy. To confuse the religious with the political in this connection impedes clear thinking and sound comprehension of the real values in both of these fields.

The infinite greatness of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as political documents, and their supreme and timeless value to all Americans–and as guidelights to all peoples–do not depend on mistaken adulation due to confused thinking on the basis of the erroneous assumption that they are religious in nature.

The foregoing conclusions do not, of course, conflict with the idea held by many people that the men who framed the Constitution were religiously inspired in performing this great task. This view is the basis, for example, of one of the tenets of two religious sects–the Church of Christ, Scientist (Christian Scientists) and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons)–whose members are admonished, if not obligated, by the teachings of their respective founders, as a matter of religious duty, to be loyal to the Constitution. There is striking and express support for the belief in such religious inspiration on the part of The Framers in a statement by Benjamin Franklin–not ardently affiliated with any organized religion, with any “establishment of religion,” but ever a firm believer in God; though he is erroneously assumed by some to have been a skeptic, a non-believer in God, because of his fame as a scientific-minded person. This statement was published by him during the period of ratification of the Constitution, in The Federal Gazette & the Philadelphia Evening Post of April 8, 1788, in part as follows:

“To conclude, I beg I may not be understood to infer, that our general convention was divinely inspired when it formed the new federal constitution, merely because that constitution has been unreasonably and vehemently opposed; yet I must own, I have so much faith in the general government of the world by PROVIDENCE, that I can hardly conceive a transaction of such momentous importance to the welfare of millions now existing, and to exist in the posterity of a great nation, should be suffered to pass without being in some degree influenced, guided and governed by that omnipotent, omnipresent and beneficent Ruler, in whom all inferior spirits live and move and have their being.” (Text per newspaper original.)

In the preceding year, during the debates in the Framing Convention, Franklin had recommended the invocation of Divine guidance of the deliberations of that body, partly in these words:

“The small progress we have made after 4 or five weeks . . . is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding . . . how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings?”

(The Franklin quotations on page 5, ante, are of particular interest here.) That Divine Providence–Man’s Creator, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence–was influential in guiding The Framers in their work in the 1787 Convention is a belief shared by others, too. Note, for example, the assertion by Charles Pinckney, one of this group, in 1788 that he was skeptical at the outset as to the prospect of success of the undertaking due to the conflicting interests involved, and was amazed at the final result, believing that:

“Nothing less than that superintending hand of Providence, that so miraculously carried us through the war (in my humble opinion), could have brought it [the Constitution] about so complete, upon the whole.”

Hamilton expressed a similar view soon after the Framing Convention adjourned, in a published essay commenting on the proposed Constitution’s system of government:

“For my own part, I sincerely esteem it a system, which, without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests.” (Emphasis Hamilton’s.)

Madison agreed, as he made expressly clear in The Federalist (no. 37). One more illustration is the resolution adopted by the U.S. House of Representatives on September 25, 1789 recommending that the President proclaim a day of Thanksgiving to God and prayer by the people of the entire nation:

“acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a Constitution of government for their safety and happiness.”

It is sometimes mistakenly asserted that the words of the original Constitution contain no recognition of the existence of God. Besides a formal reference in the closing (execution) clause: “the year of our Lord 1787,” Article VI requires an oath, or affirmation, of office by all officials, Federal and State, to support the Constitution. This is in the same sentence prohibiting any religious test for Federal office; which makes it clear that such an oath of office was not considered by The Framers and Adopters of the Constitution to be such a prohibited test. As understood by them, as well as their fellow leaders and the people in general, such an oath (or affirmation, in the alternative, by those whose religious convictions bar their “swearing”) is fundamentally religious–in effect and impliedly acknowledging belief in, and invoking punishment by, a Supreme Being (as the oath-taker conceives such a Being, without any degree of enforced, religious conformity) for any failure to tell the truth or other falsification, as the case may be. The reference by The Framers in this document in this indirect way to religion, evidencing recognition of God, was emphasized by John Quincy Adams in his previously quoted “Jubilee” address on April 30, 1839:

“The constitution had provided that all the public functionaries of the Union, not only of the general but of all the state governments, should be under oath or affirmation for its support. The homage of religious faith was thus superadded to all the obligations of temporal law, to give it strength; and this confirmation of an appeal to the responsibilities of a future omnipotent judge, was in exact conformity with the whole tenor of the Declaration of Independence–guarded against abusive extension by a further provision . . .” [against a religious test for Federal office].

To repeat, the Constitution cannot soundly be classified as a religious document; but in the foregoing respects, for example, it is intimately bound up with recognition of the existence of God and with an assumption of the profound connection of this recognition with sound self-government. Furthermore, as the pertinent quotations presented in the first portion of this study-guide indicate, it was the firm conviction of The Founders that religion is the basis of morality and that firm religious conviction and faith are, therefore, essential to sound morality among a people; just as sound morality was considered by them to be essential to sound character of Individuals and of the people of a country, as the only firm basis upon which successful self-government could be created and endure.

It is also of special interest to note in this connection that the philosophy of the American people, through the generations preceding the period of the Declaration of Independence and the framing of the Constitution as well as during this period, was characterized in the main by a dominant element of the religious. This philosophy, underlying these two instruments as discussed previously, was as we have seen actively and substantially influenced by religious leaders–chief of all clergymen of New England in the long course of their own gradually developing struggle toward “Liberty and Independence” within the realm of religion as well as with regard to their role as citizens in the field of government: that is, independence of country from foreign control accompanied by Individual Liberty, especially in the realm of conscience and all things religious–freedom of conscience and freedom of The Individual to reason and to decide religious questions himself without interference by any superintending, earthly Authority. These developments within the realm of religious thinking strongly influenced and fostered the kindred developments, in the governmental realm, which culminated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Various sound volumes devoted to this subject–especially the role of the New England clergy in the development of the philosophy leading up to 1776, make inspiring and enlightening reading for any student of the fundamentals of the traditional American philosophy. They participated in governmental activities, moreover–notably in Town-meetings–during consideration of fundamental matters; and, for instance, thirteen clergymen were members of the Constitutional Convention of 1779-1780 in Massachusetts which framed this State’s first Constitution.

There is an important consideration which needs to be kept in mind by every generation, including especially the Clergy and all others particularly interested in preserving religious liberty–freedom of conscience–in America, with fullest protection under the Constitution. This is that freedom of conscience and religion is only one aspect of the indivisible whole of Individual Liberty and must stand or fall with the other parts; it cannot be treated separately and preserved, as observed in 1776 by the Reverend John Witherspoon–president of Princeton College and a signer of the Declaration of Independence:

“There is not a single instance in history in which civil liberty was lost, and religious liberty preserved entire. If therefore we yield up our temporal property, we at the same time deliver the conscience into bondage.”

Samuel Adams asserted the same conclusion as to civil and religious liberty in 1774: “they rise and fall together.” Hamilton also observed in the same year in this regard that: “if the foundation of the one be sapped, the other will fall of course.” In the 1785 document drafted by Madison: “A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments”–opposing a tax in Virginia to support “teachers of the Christian religion,” it was stated in conclusion:

“Because, finally, ‘the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his Religion according to the dictates of conscience’ is held by the same tenure with all our other rights.”

An impressive expression of a similar view was contained in a letter written by the General Association of Congregational Ministers of Connecticut, in their Annual Meeting on June 22, 1774, to the clergy of beseiged Boston, stating:

“We consider you as suffering in the common cause of America–in the cause of civil liberty; which, if taken away, we fear would involve the ruin of religious liberty also . . .”

In other words, religious liberty and all other liberties stand, or fall, together; they can be secure only to the extent that their governmental foundation is preserved in its full integrity, only to the extent that the Constitution is respected in its original, true and only meaning–as intended by those who framed and adopted the initial instrument and each amendment–subject only to the people’s exclusive power to change it, which can be done solely by amendment.

“Vindiciamus”

It is not a spirit or spiritual or spirituality that “infringes” on our Rights, that infringing demon is “GOVERNMENT”. It is “Americans”, not God’s, duty to control their government. Americans’ government operates outside the Constitution by Officials dishonoring their Oath of Office.

You are incorrect that all our Rights came from God; the Right, power, and authority to hire (elect) government Officials and “judge” crime, criminals, and dispense justice to fellow Americans when serving on a jury did not come from God but came from the point of a gun, or weapon.

Allan

It is “We the People” that elect our representative to government.It is we the people that need to make sure we elect the most virtues among us to do so.I am NOT preaching God here and I am NOT implying any specific religion.Even an atheist can have a good moral spirit and is capable of making good decisions in governance.We the people are not doing our job correctly.We are not to elect anyone that does not have the Protection of our Constitution first and foremost as they are oathed to do.We are not supposed to elect those that make promises of free hand outs and governmental nanny care.Anain I am NOT preaching here about religion,heck I don’t even go to church,but I do understand the importance of religion/spirituality in regards to governance,especially our form of governance.If we as a people adhere to the fact that our unalienable rights are bestowed upon/to us by a higher power or being then we cannot discount this one of the most important principles.It enables us to consider and elect those that will do the best job and have our Constitutions protection foremost in their concerns.

The Traditional American Philosophy
3. Unalienable Rights – From God

“. . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . .” (Declaration of Independence)

The Principle

1. The traditional American philosophy teaches that Man, The Individual, is endowed at birth with rights which are unalienable because given by his Creator.

The Only Moral Basis

2. This governmental philosophy is uniquely American. The concept of Man’s rights being unalienable is based solely upon the belief in their Divine origin. Lacking this belief, there is no moral basis for any claim that they are unalienable or for any claim to the great benefits flowing from this concept. God-given rights are sometimes called Natural Rights–those possessed by Man under the Laws of Nature, meaning under the laws of God’s creation and therefore by gift of God. Man has no power to alienate–to dispose of, by surrender, barter or gift–his God-given rights, according to the American philosophy. This is the meaning of “unalienable.”

One underlying consideration is that for every such right there is a correlative, inseparable duty–for every aspect of freedom there is a corresponding responsibility; so that it is always Right-Duty and Freedom-Responsibility, or Liberty-Responsibility. There is a duty, or responsibility, to God as the giver of these unalienable rights: a moral duty–to keep secure and use soundly these gifts, with due respect for the equal rights of others and for the right of Posterity to their just heritage of liberty. Since this moral duty cannot be surrendered, bartered, given away, abandoned, delegated or otherwise alienated, so is the inseparable right likewise unalienable. This concept of rights being unalienable is thus dependent upon belief in God as the giver. This indicates the basis and the soundness of Jefferson’s statement (1796 letter to John Adams): “If ever the morals of a people could be made the basis of their own government it is our case . . .”

Right, Reason, and Capacity to Be Self-governing

3. For the security and enjoyment by Man of his Divinely created rights, it follows implicitly that Man is endowed by his Creator not only with the right to be self-governing but also with the capacity to reason and, therefore, with the capacity to be self-governing. This is implicit in the philosophy proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. Otherwise, Man’s unalienable rights would be of little or no use or benefit to him. Faith in Man–in his capacity to be self-governing–is thus related to faith in God as his Creator, as the giver of these unalienable rights and this capacity.

Rights–as Prohibitions Against Government

4. Certain specific rights of The Individual are protected in the original Constitution but this is by way of statements “in reverse”–by way of express prohibitions against government. The word “right” does not appear in the original instrument. This is because it was designed to express the grant by the people of specific, limited powers to the central government–created by them through this basic law–as well as certain specific limitations on its powers, and on the preexisting powers of the State governments, expressed as prohibitions of things forbidden. Every provision in it pertains to power.

The Constitution’s first eight (Bill of Rights) amendments list certain rights of The Individual and prohibit the doing of certain things by the central, or Federal, government which, if done, would violate these rights. These amendments were intended by their Framers and Adopters merely to make express a few of the already-existing, implied prohibitions against the Federal government only–supplementing the prohibitions previously specified expressly in the original Constitution and supplementing and confirming its general, over-all, implied, prohibition as to all things concerning which it withheld power from this government. Merely confirming expressly some of the already-existing, implied prohibitions, these amendments did not create any new ones. They are, therefore, more properly referred to as a partial list of limitations–or a partial Bill of Prohibitions–as was indicated by Hamilton in The Federalist number 84. This hinges upon the uniquely American concepts stated in the Declaration of Independence: that Men, created of God, in turn create their governments and grant to them only “just” (limited) powers–primarily to make and keep secure their God-given, unalienable rights including, in part, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. As Hamilton stated, under the American philosophy and system of constitutionally limited government, “the people surrender nothing;” instead, they merely delegate to government–to public servants as public trustees–limited powers and therefore, he added, “they have no need of particular reservations” (in a Bill of Rights). This is the basic reason why the Framing Convention omitted from the Constitution anything in the nature of a separate Bill of Rights, as being unnecessary.

An Endless List of Rights

5. To attempt to name all of these rights–starting with “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence–would be to start an endless list which would add up to the whole of Man’s Freedom (Freedom from Government-over-Man). They would add up to the entirety of Individual Liberty (Liberty against Government-over-Man). Innumerable rights of The Individual are embraced in the Ninth Amendment, which states: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” (Here “Constitution” includes the amendments.) Some idea of how vast the list would be is indicated by just one general freedom which leads into almost all of Free Man’s activities of daily living throughout life: freedom of choice. This term stands for the right to do–and equally not to do–this or that, as conscience, whim or judgement, taste or desire, of The Individual may prompt from moment to moment, day by day, for as long as life lasts; but always, of course, with due regard for the equal rights of others and for the just laws expressive of the above-mentioned “just powers” of government designed to help safeguard the equal rights of all Individuals. Spelled out in detail, this single freedom–freedom of choice–is almost all-embracing.

Right To Be Let Alone

6. In one sense, such freedom to choose involves Man’s right to be let alone, which is possessed by The Individual in keeping with the Declaration and Constitution as against government: in enjoyment of his unalienable rights, while respecting the equal rights of others and just laws (as defined in Paragraph 5 above). This right to be let alone is the most comprehensive of rights and the right of most prized by civilized men. This right is, of course, also possessed as against all other Individuals, all obligated to act strictly within the limits of their own equal rights. Consequently any infringement of any Individual’s rights is precluded.

Rights Inviolable by Government or by Others

7. Neither government nor any Individuals–acting singly, or in groups, or in organizations–could possibly possess any “just power” (to use again the significant term of the Declaration) to violate any Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights or the supporting rights. No government can abolish or destroy–nor can it rightfully, or constitutionally, violate–Man’s God-given rights. Government cannot justly interfere with Man’s deserved enjoyment of any of these rights. No public official, nor all such officials combined, could possibly have any such power morally. Government can, to be sure, unjustly and unconstitutionally interfere by force with the deserved enjoyment of Man’s unalienable rights. It is, however, completely powerless to abolish or destroy them. It is in defense of these rights of all Individuals, in last analysis, that the self-governing people–acting in accordance with, and in support of, the Constitution–oppose any and all violators, whether public officials or usurpers, or others (par. 9 below).

Each Individual Consents to Some Limitations

8. In creating governments as their tools, or instruments, and equally in continuing to maintain them–for the purpose primarily of making and keeping their unalienable rights–all Individuals composing the self-governing people impliedly and in effect consent to some degree of limitation of their freedom to exercise some of their rights. This does not involve the surrender, or the alienation, of any of these rights but only the partial, conditional and limited relinquishment of freedom to exercise a few of them and solely for the purpose of insuring the greater security and enjoyment of all of them; and, moreover, such relinquishment is always upon condition that public officials, as public servants and trustees, faithfully use the limited powers delegated to government strictly in keeping with their prescribed limits and with this limited purpose at all times. It was in this sense that George Washington, as President of the Framing Convention in September, 1787, wrote to the Congress of the Confederation–in transmitting to it, for consideration, the draft of the proposed Constitution: “. . . Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest.” Here he meant merely conditional relinquishment of liberty of action in the exercise of certain aspects of unalienable rights–not the surrender of any unalienable rights, which would be impossible because a nullity, a void act.

An Offender’s Just Punishment

9. Whenever Man violates either the equal rights of others or the above-mentioned just laws, he thereby forfeits his immunity in this regard; by his misconduct, he destroys the moral and legal basis for his immunity and opens the door to just reprisal against himself, by government. This means that any person, as such offender, may justly be punished by the people’s proper instrumentality–the government, including the courts–under a sound system of equal justice under equal laws; that is, under Rule-by-Law (basically the people’s fundamental law, the Constitution). Such punishment is justified morally because of the duty of all Individuals–in keeping with Individual Liberty-Responsibility–to cooperate, through their instrumentality, government, for the mutual protection of the unalienable rights of all Individuals. The offender is also justly answerable to the aggrieved Individual, acting properly through duly-established machinery of government, including courts, designed for the protection of the equal rights of all Individuals.

It is the offender’s breach of the duty aspect of Individual Liberty-Responsibility which makes just, proper and necessary government’s punitive action and deprives him of any moral basis for protest. By such breach he forfeits his moral claim to the inviolability of his rights and makes himself vulnerable to reprisal by the people, through government, in defense of their own unalienable rights. By this lack of self-discipline required by that duty, he invites and makes necessary his being disciplined by government.

The Conclusion

10. Man’s unalienable rights are sacred for the same reason that they are unalienable–because of their Divine origin, according to the traditional American philosophy.

“Vindiciamus”