Attention

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent our advertisers

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Rule Of Law (Part 2)

"[W]here is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths...?" --George Washington

Publisher's Note: This essay is the second of a two-part seminal treatise on Constitutional Rule of Law in advance of Constitution Day, 17 September, the 222nd anniversary of our national Constitution. (Read part one, Rule of Law.) The combined essay is published as the forward to our new Constitution booklets. On Constitution Day, The Patriot will announce a major education initiative promoting the Right construction of our Constitution and Rule of Law.

A "Wall of Separation"?

George Washington wrote in his Farewell Address of 1796, "Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in the Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the opposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

Our Founders affirmed that the natural rights enumerated in our Declaration of Independence and, by extension, as codified in its subordinate guidance, our Constitution, are those endowed by our Creator.

Thomas Jefferson proclaimed, "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time. ... Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever."

Alexander Hamilton insisted, "The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power."

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..." These are natural rights -- gifts from God, not government.

Moreover, it was with firm regard to this fact that our Constitution was written and ratified "in order secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." As such, it established a constitutional republic ruled by laws based on natural rights, not rights allocated by governments or those occupying seats of power.

John Quincy Adams wrote, "Our political way of life is by the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, and of course presupposes the existence of God, the moral ruler of the universe, and a rule of right and wrong, of just and unjust, binding upon man, preceding all institutions of human society and government."

Notably, the conviction that our rights are innately bestowed by "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," is enumerated in the preambles of every state constitution of our Union.

But, for many decades, those who advocate a "living constitution" have used the "despotic branch" to remove faith from every public quarter, ironically and erroneously citing the "Wall of Separation" metaphor -- words that Jefferson wrote to denote the barrier between federal and state governments, not to erect a prohibition against faith expression in any and all public venues.

The intended consequence of this artificial barrier between church and state is to remove the unmistakable influence of our Creator from all public forums, particularly government education institutions, and thus, over time, to disabuse belief in a sovereign God and the notion of natural rights. This erosion of knowledge about the origin of our rights, the very foundation of our country and basis of our Constitution, has dire implications for the future of liberty.

A republic ... if you can keep it...

GO HERE to read more.

5 comments:

Orsonwells said...

The "go here" link needs a password. In the other post, same thing... but if I clicked "read Bill" then i found a what people are saying button that took me there

Anonymous said...

The U.S. Constitution established that all of us are "kings" as it were. Men bestowed upon themselves that which hitherto had been reserved for Kings.

One such Kingly right was to issue executive orders - Statutes.

Our Constitution establishes no Statutes. Nothing is illegal, just because. No person had dominon over another person. In the Olde Days a King may state: You may not wear blue shirts. And that was the law. It was statutory law. Blue shirts were instantly outlawed because the King said so. The King spoke it into being.

Our Constitution establishes 3 kinds of law: Admiralty Law (governing the oceans, whereby what the Captain said was the law). Also Contract Law (governing written and oral contracts) And Common Law (common sense - a body of your peers will hear arguments and then make a common sense judgement).

Under Common Law people were regarded as equal to Kings. Each person (persons only; remember certain humans were never considered to be persons under the Founding Fathers) had sovereignty over his home and person. No one person tried to tell another person how to live his life - as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's sovereignty.

Courts were created to hash out the conflicts over sovereignty. Your horses on my land, etc. If real crimes were committed (rare) then the courts also held trial and heard evidence. However, Common Law was always the jurisdiction.

There are no Common Law jurisdictions in America any more. There are only Statutory Law (military) jurisdictions. That's why the flag always has a golden edge - it is a military flag. The courts are military courts. Under the U.S. Constitution there are no jurisdictions for Statutory Law.

Anonymous said...

In 1966 I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United
States foreign or domestic. I
did the foreign gig in 1967 , so
it looks like I'll have to finish with the domestic now. You got to do what you got to do!

Anonymous said...

Oh my, the freely democratically elected president as well as the democratically elected representatives in congress are doing things we don't agree with. Stop crying and fight with you votes next go around.

Anonymous said...

748




we will



count on it