Tag / America

by Greg

The Year of Jubilee

Police badgeI had a run-in with the law this week.

Well, it was not specifically I who did, and, it was more of a “walk-in” as opposed to a “run-in”.

But that statement was generally true.

If you are a regular reader of this website, you are aware that our oldest son is running a lemonade stand this week in our town in order to raise funds for his hockey season and additionally to raise funds for a friend of his whose family gives their time to help people in Tanzania. It’s really makes my heart smile to see him make this happen. Good on ya, Ian!

Apparently, it does not make every heart smile.

The Palmyra police department received a complaint (through which channels I am not completely certain) in regards to a presumably unlicensed vendor selling bottled water on the streets of Palmyra. A direct accusation was aimed at our son’s lemonade stand for perpetrating this offense. (Although he is neither selling bottled water, nor is he selling on the streets of Palmyra, if one were to be technical.) A police officer then followed up on this with Ian directly, politely (according to Ian) informing him that he must obtain a “peddler’s permit” immediately, or he would have to be shut down.

And this is where the fun began.

The Story Unfolds

Now stick with me. This obviously could be a very long and involved diatribe rant post, I have a very specific thought I’d like to present today. I do need to present a bit of background here, though.

When I was informed of this requirement that the office communicated to Ian, my first response was to double-check the regulations of the Village of Palmyra, just to be sure what was required of a temporary vendor, such as Ian.

I browsed section (§) 139, and found that Ian didn’t fit this “Peddler’s Permit” license requirement at all. That was odd, but I kept reading just to be sure. (AND, as I read, I discovered that there are very strict requirements on anyone seeking one of these “Peddler’s Permits”, including submitting to finger printing and criminal background checks. For a 14-year-old’s lemonade stand??? I thought, This can’t be true!! Thankfully, it was not.)

As I continued to read, I discovered that indeed there was a section (§139.17, Article II) pertaining to Ian’s lemonade stand, and his usage of the “sidewalk”, that portion of land between the curb and the sidewalk.

Ian and I reviewed the code, we discussed options—including fighting what we deemed a silly twenty-five dollar license fee—and figured with likely a vast majority of public support in his favor, we could probably bring attention to a pretty obvious case of over-regulation.

But, without much thought given to a “fight”, we decided the next thing to do was for me to go discuss what I had learned with the officer who had approached Ian about obtaining the license.

A brief stroll across the street (at the crosswalk, of course…) to our police station, and I was speaking with the same officer that had spoken with Ian. He was very gracious, understanding, and even fairly knowledgeable of the codes which I had just looked up and studied (impressive!). We spoke a bit about the complaint, the code/regulations, and both decided that it would be best to get a license, especially because, since Ian is raising money for a charity, there would be less cost involved.

OK, thanks for sticking with me this far. Now we’re to the point I really wanted to make.

Big fat book!I walked next door to the Village Clerk’s office, which was then being manned (womanned?) by a friend of ours. She had heard of the alleged infraction, and knew of the license requirement, but like the officer and myself, shook her head at the enforcement of it in the case of a teenager’s lemonade stand.

I showed her the papers in my hand: seven pages of §139 of the Village of Palmyra, NY codes, and we both laughed. But not a fun, that’s-so-funny-it-makes-me-happy kind of laugh. She later showed me the full book of the Village codes, laws, and regulations.

It was a large book. For a tiny town.

It’s really sad! And our little village is not alone. The laws in our towns, states, and our country are way, way beyond out of control.

A Year of Julbilee

And so, I propose something like you find in the book of Leviticus. Chapters twenty-five through twenty-seven.

God introduced to the Israelite people the idea of a Sabbath Year of Rest every seventh year. No planting or harvesting of crops, and some other cyclical downtimes for his people and their land.

In conjunction with this, after seven cycles of this six years on, six years off, the people would celebrate a Year of Jubilee. Every fiftieth year would be a reset. It meant the return of property to owners who had to sell it, freeing people from debts of servitude, and generally canceling any preexisting debt amongst the Israelite people—resetting to zero.

Fascinating, huh?

Thomas Jefferson Was a Smart Man

Thomas JeffersonIf this worked for the Israelites (and it was God’s idea in the first place) then why wouldn’t it work for us, too?

Thomas Jefferson thought we should do something like this regularly, revisit our laws and constitutions. He really thought it. You can find quotes pertaining to this “reset” in many of his correspondences with different people.

For instance:

Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years.1

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security.2

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.3

There are more. Many more. Jefferson firmly believed that laws should not continue past one generation, which he determined to be nineteen years. He likened each generation of people to a sovereign nation. One nation can not impose its laws and government on another, neither should one generation bind another with laws which are not their own. (Please see the links at the end of this post.)

Bottom line: Sometimes you need to clear the books!

Think about crazy stuff like Michigan representative, John Conyers wondering aloud why he should have to read a thousand-page bill before passing it into law. (That bill was the now-passed Affordable Care Act.) Are we really OK with passing 1,000 more pages of regulations and codes and laws WITHOUT reading them? (Recall, too, that Senator Nancy Pelosi said that we’d have to pass the bill so that we could find out what was in it. Yikers!)

Could This Work Now?

My Palmyra neighbor, who is in a position of some authority here, cordially scoffed at the codes currently in place—primarily at the volume of codes in place. I think most of our other neighbors would agree.

Generally, I think most Americans could agree that our government is far too big and invasive. There are some who think the government should be providing many services to all Americans, paid for by monies collected through taxes, but even those people know that the red tape bureaucracy is out of control. No one can figure out how to pay their taxes, or can possibly know in advance all of the laws, codes, regulations, etc that are on our local, state, and federal “books”.

Maybe it’s time for a Year of Jubilee?

It’s way past time.

What Jefferson was referencing in his “tree of liberty” comment was a defense of a rebellion in the United States as an understandable occurrence. (Note: he was not calling for people to overthrow their own governments here.) Those rebelling were uninformed (or under-informed) and the government in place had taken too much authority over its people. Jefferson saw this as a natural course of events, necessary to preserving liberty—from both sides: the people and the government. Had the people not rebelled, it would have revealed a lethargy in the people (both to seek out information, and then to act upon it) which would signify the death of liberty among them.4

The biggest obstacle to this is what Jefferson also stated in our own Declaration:

“…all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

We are reticent to make change. And those in power are often actively hindering it, usually for their own benefit, not that of the general population.

So it may be very out of the ordinary—it might even be next to impossible—but Jefferson nearly insisted that it must be done.

And I wholeheartedly agree.

Resources for further study: (Please do!)

  1. From a letter to James Madison, sent September 6th, 1789. ↩
  2. The Declaration of Independence. ↩
  3. Thomas Jefferson, letter to William S. Smith Paris, November 13th, 1787. ↩
  4. Please read more of this letter. The whole thing in fact. It’s here. ↩
by Greg

Independence Day

declaration-of-independenceIt’s hard to appreciate independence as an American in the 21st century.

We are still benefitting today—July 4th, 2013—from the courage and bravery of a people whose chosen leaders pledged their “lives, [their] fortunes, and [their] sacred honor” two hundred and thirty-seven years ago. Well over two centuries of time has passed since that particular July 4th.

(Actually, it was July 2nd, but that’s not really the point here…)

Today we live in the freedom that they fought for, and were successful in gaining.

The founders knew the value of freedom, even though they all had grown up in a culture where human slavery was an open practice for two centuries before their birth! Many of them opposed it strongly and spoke out often against it, including Thomas Jefferson, who tried to introduce a bill into the Virginia legislature to abolish slavery.

(Please read this article, The Founding Fathers and Slavery. It’s full of information that is frequently omitted from discussions about the country’s founding and the obvious paradox of the institution of slavery continuing for nearly another century more.)

They knew and understood that freedom—for all—was an essential, foundational right, given to every individual person created by God.

That is worth fighting for. And it’s worth preserving.

Listen to this, from John Quincy Adams (known as the “hell-hound” of abolition):

The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself [Jefferson]. No charge of insincerity or hypocrisy can be fairly laid to their charge. Never from their lips was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country [Great Britain] and they saw that before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery, in common with every other mode of oppression, was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth. Such was the undoubting conviction of Jefferson to his dying day. In the Memoir of His Life, written at the age of seventy-seven, he gave to his countrymen the solemn and emphatic warning that the day was not distant when they must hear and adopt the general emancipation of their slaves.

Wow. That’s pretty clear. (I added the emphasis you saw above.) Adams said they were “universally” against it, with Jefferson being foremost in that “undoubting conviction”.

Because they knew freedom was so essential.

We the People of the Unites States of America have been traveling down a path towards much LESS freedom for generations now. It’s a pattern in human history; certainly we should be no different. Or maybe we should?

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitles them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly, all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security.

Today, the Campbells will be reading the Declaration together, again. (It has become a family tradition to celebrate the Fourth of July.) And we will discuss the courage of the founders to stand against those who tried to suppress their inalienable rights, beginning with freedom.

(We also plan to read today from a book called For You They Signed, detailing the lives of all the signers of the Declaration.)

The 4th of July is not about fireworks. The meaning behind our holidays often are lost after only a short time of the annual commemorations.

We must not lose this one.

We are created free, and equal, and are meant to have the unconstrained rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Celebrate today what those men stood for, fought for, and many did die for: your freedom.

And thank God today that you were born here, when we were free. Not all can say that.

Happy Independence Day!

If you’d like to read more about slavery and the attempts in the 18th century to do away with it, I so highly recommend starting here (and then here), and then reading the book about William Wilberforce that that post is in reference too.

by Greg

DOMA Arigato

Defense of Marriage Act, section 3 ruled unconstitutionalJust about a week ago, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) was in the news for two rulings in regards to same-sex marriages. One was specific to California (Proposition 8), and I won’t address that here, but the first was regarding a case challenging the constitutionality of section three (§3) of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

In a 5-4 decision, the SCOTUS ruled that §3 of DOMA was indeed unconstitutional, based on the protections guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. (The Full Faith and Credit clause.)

And so, what began as a not very good idea continues to crumble.

Background

In 1996, Congress rushed through (with great approval, based on the votes) the Defense of Marriage Act. It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton—who at that time personally, publicly opposed gay marriage, in addition to his belief that it should not be sanctioned by the Federal government—and ever since then, DOMA has been challenged by one court case after another, slowly eroding its frail constitutional structure.

And really, I agree with this ruling.

I do not agree with same-sex marriage. I think God was pretty clear (stick with me here) speaking strictly anatomically, that there is a proper “match” between a man and a woman. The physical is obvious. And then there is the story of Adam & Eve: when God made a partner for Adam, he made Eve. (Not “Steve”.. haha!! Good one!!!) 🙂

And, the other obvious reason for a marriage to be between one man and one woman for life is procreation. You can’t actually have kids without both sexes being involved. Are you with me?

Now, I know there are seemingly a billion nuances to this. There’s one side yelling, “Homosexuality is a SIN! God hates fags!!!” And then the other side—properly and rightly offended—begins to hate the God whom these “Righteous Ones” claim to represent. And the former dig deep into the scriptures to sling judgmental condemnations straight from the Mouth of God upon these forlorn, wayward, despicable sinners! (Meanwhile ignoring their own filthy rags, and/or logs in their eyes, etc.)

The debate about what is right and what is wrong will never, ever get us anywhere.

So, if we’re arguing from the Bible, let’s take a look at Jesus. He is the final, fullest revelation of the Father, right? So, Jesus must have said plenty of times that he hated homosexuality (and then, it stands to reason, he hated homosexuals too, right?)—AND he hated, opposed, campaigned against gay marriage. Of course.

Right?

But… I don’t think Jesus ever addressed homosexuality? Weird.

Does that mean it is not a “sin”? No. Does it mean it’s “right”? Still, no. (In fact, logically you can’t presume something is “right” from the absence of a declaration of it being “wrong”, can you?)

Liberty is Paramount

What I think it does show us is the first way that we can deal with this issue.

Back off. Love people. “He who is without sin cast the first stone.”

We are not the police of anyone. (Unless of course you are a police officer, and then, well, we thank you for your service.)

It’s not my job to tell you—or as is the pattern of some—to make you do what I think you should do. If you want to marry someone who has the same body parts as you, well, I personally can not “sanction” that, but, I do sanction your right to choose differently than me.

And I expect you to do the same for me.

This is the crux of the whole thing for me: Liberty. It’s not a moral issue, though of course underneath the minutia of all these cases, and legal and political battles it has moral implications.

It’s an issue of liberty. And not only that of the people wanting to legalize same-sex unions.

I may strongly disagree with you, but inherent in my understanding of liberty is your liberty. You are entitled to live your life however you please, so long as no one else is hurt (without their full, willing consent) in the process. We are all guaranteed these inalienable rights: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Even if it’s “wrong”, or even if it might hurt us. (Larger portions at fast food restaurants? Smoking? Drinking? Marijuana? Driving without seat belts? Riding bikes without helmets?)

We have become a people who no longer celebrate diversity, and we are increasing the pace toward total control over everyone’s lives.

Equality? Or Victory?

The cry from those who want to legalize same-sex marriages at the Federal level—thus requiring all States to abide by this legal status, whether or not they sanction such unions—is that of “equal rights”. But what is happening is really just an attempt to gain control, and force others to do what you think they should do. One group telling another how they can and will act. Bakeries have to make wedding cakes, and churches will be forced to perform same-sex marriages1.

The bottom line is: if you want freedom, then you must also give freedom.

You can have freedom, and the consequences of freedom, and you must concurrently and equally allow others to think and live differently than you. There are obviously places where these freedoms intersect, and at that point a society must decide how to resolve such disputes. That is what our Constitution (and the government it created) allow for.

I am opposed to gay marriage. But I am even more opposed to legislating any bit of this. In fact, I’m all for unlegislating marriage altogether. I love being married to Jen—it’s maybe the most important piece of who I am after being a child of God. Do I care that New York State “recognizes” my marriage? Not really at all.

Much of this fight is because of tax penalties (including the case that brought about last Wednesday’s ruling) and legalization of immigrants, and other financial/taxation concerns. So drop them, as much as possible. Don’t tax money bequeathed to a loved one. Don’t provide financial benefits to married couples.2

Just leave me be.

Legislating Morality

I agree with the Supreme Court that defining marriage is unconstitutional, but not because it violates the constitution as much as because the federal government has no place defining marriage in the first place. Traditional marriage, or same-sex marriage, or multiple concurrent marriages, or polygamy, etc, etc.

Some seem to see government as the protector of morality, but is that really our government’s role? I heard a statement in regards to this subject on a podcast just this morning:

“It’s the government’s job to treat [marriage with] equal[ity], it’s not the government’s job to make moral choices for people.”3

Spot on.

Stop thinking that you can pass laws and make people into what you want them to be.

Laws do not shape people’s minds and hearts. Education, the Holy Spirit, and in general, a caring instructor will do that. (As well as common sense and life experience; those can be the best teachers sometimes.)

You can’t say “Gay marriage is legal and approved!” and change people’s beliefs by that statement. Nor do we conform people to “right thinking” by saying, “Gay marriage is abhorrent and banned!!!”

It just doesn’t work that way. The morality of our laws and government reflect who we are, the do not make us who we are. In addition, our laws are about blind justice (not preferential prejudice) and equality, for all.

God made us free. Our Founders recognized that. We are born with the right to choose, and our government is We the People, protecting each other’s inalienable rights. I’m still going to disagree on the specifics regarding gay marriage, but that’s my inalienable right. And yours.

And that is what we most need to protect here.

It’s not “hate” to say that homosexuality is a sin. (Nor is it usually very helpful, in a public setting.) It is encroaching on freedom to say that someone can’t think that, or even express that.

(Again, it may not be helpful, but let truth be truth. If you say homosexuality is not a choice, but as natural as different skin or hair colors, then let that be true. Don’t force it on someone who strongly disagrees.)

But that’s where we fall sadly short. We are supposed to be the Land of the Free, but we really want to be free to make other people like me.

How sad. We’re meant to be more.

Love mercy, do justly, walk humbly with your God

So let’s be. Love your neighbor—whatever they believe. Find common ground, even if there’s barely any to be found. Stop trying to make other people think like you do!

And most of all, pray. Not for God to change other people, but so your eyes will be opened to what he is doing. First in you, and then around you.

I think it’s good that DOMA is being questioned. DOMA arigato, SCOTUS. Hopefully that means there is a semblance of constitutuional liberty still present in our bloated, overreaching federal government.

And now we proceed with liberty our goal. And justice for all.

True justice, not petty political victory.

May God help us as we do.

sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf

  1. Note, I realize this is in Denmark, but this mentality is being championed here in the US. When we make the gay view the “right” view, the same errors in how we treat each other will inevitably be carried out, just in the reverse. ↩
  2. I’m sure there is much more here than I even have time to consider, but the general principle makes sense to me. Less government is better government! ↩
  3. Wayne Jacobsen, The God Journey Podcast – Sexuality & Transformation (6/28/13) ↩
by Greg

Question With Boldness

Thomas JeffersonThough most people nowadays can conceive of no better poster child for agnosticism (or, at the very least, deism), Jefferson himself may have had a bone to pick with such people.

In a letter to his nephew, on the topic of forming his own views on religion (a topic which he labeled “important”), Thomas Jefferson wrote the following, now reasonably well-known words:

Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.

(Somewhat of an aside: My favorite quote from Thomas Jefferson’s autobiography regarding his own faith, “…I am a REAL CHRISTIAN…”. Well that about says it.) 🙂

There are (many) times when I think my being appropriately labeled a “Christian” might be questioned by those who determine such things. I believe I’ve written about my borderline-heretical thinking at least once or twice.

In fact, just the other day I was reading through the Old Testament book of Ezekiel and wondering things like, “Wow, this voice of God does not seem to be the same as even the book of Jeremiah, one book before—and he seemed pretty peeved in that book, too! I wonder if some of the books in what we call the Bible are even supposed to be in there? Who says that council got it right?”

Now, proceed with caution here. I am NOT SAYING that I unequivocally, irrevocably believe and hold to be fact that such questions even might be “true” (in the black-and-white sense of “true”) …

But perhaps my reason for such an emphasized statement above is that, in dealing with things of God, it’s sometimes considered heresy merely to question.

And, folks, that is plain wrong. Really, really wrong.

So, I may be a heretic, but I’m going to keep questioning.

Turns out, by the end of Ezekiel there was some really neat stuff in there kinda flipping the “rules and regulations” voice of God (being interpreted through Ezekiel) on its head. Chapter forty-seven has a really neat image of God abiding in a temple from which living water flows, giving life to everything it touches, including dead things. Hmm… the Living Water… giving Life… where have I heard those things before…?

I believe Thomas Jefferson had it right when he urged his nephew to throw away all bias and personal opinion and really dig into the facts, evidences, truths, and his own reason. Think. Don’t be afraid of the truth (or that it might not be the truth). Find, and know what is true. This is important! To know and understand the Creator is much more important than anything else.

I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. —John 10:10

I am the way, the truth, and the life. —John 14:6

And this is the way to have eternal life—to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, the one you sent to earth. —John 17:3

We believe in education in this home. Not school, or curriculum—although those can have their place.

Real education. Seek out original sources; find people who are not only knowledgeable but passionate about a subject and learn from them (whether in person, or through recorded words); then, find someone else and hear other voices. Putting all of these pieces together, along with your God-given intellect (reason), and asking the Spirit to guide the entire process. (He is the one who teaches us, after all.)

Question with boldness, even the very existence of God.

And the world—starting with you—will be better for it.

If you wondered about that “I am a REAL CHRISTIAN” quote from Thomas Jefferson, here’s the full text of his introduction to what some call the “Jefferson Bible” (but he titled otherwise). It should give an even more convincing context to that quote!

I have made a wee little book from the Gospels which I call the Philosophy of Jesus. It is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen. It is a document in proof that I am a REAL CHRISTIAN, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call ME the infidel and THEMSELVES Christians and preachers of the Gospel, while they draw all of their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw. They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognize one feature. (Thomas Jefferson: In His Own Words, Maureen Harrison & Steve Gilbert, editors. ©1993 Excellent Books, New York, NY.)

by Greg

Regarding Liberty

Edward Snowden - NSA WhistleblowerWe’re being monitored. At least, we’re being recorded. Straight out of the storyline in George Orwell’s novel 1984, technology has gotten to the point that anyone who wants to, and has the resources to—like, the US Federal Government—can monitor and store all electronic communications.

That really is astounding.

This past week, Edwards Snowden, a former National Security Agency (NSA) employee revealed many things about the clandestine agency’s daily operations, apparently because his conscience would not allow him to remain silent regarding the obvious overreaching. (Read more.)

Reactions to his revelations vary, but one certain result of his actions is that we as a nation (and perhaps the entire globe) are considering what is just, and necessary, and maybe even ethical, in regards to security versus liberty.

That reminds me of the words of Benjamin Franklin:

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

It’s pretty amazing that we have the capacity to collect and store every email, phone conversation, video or audio chat, web browser session, and so on. And with indexing and cataloging software, as well as analytical algorithms, it’s incredibly easy to discover critical facts and piece them together to thwart nefarious plots. Truly remarkable how our technology has come.

But at what point is it too much? Do we really need to collect—and store—all of this information… especially when there is no evidence or even suspicion of wrongdoing? What about “innocent until proven guilty”? What about the right to liberty, established in our founding document, the Declaration of Independence?

With all of these thoughts fresh in our minds, I thought it might be a good time to revisit a draft post I started and saved shortly after finishing a book by Ron Paul titled, Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom.

I asked Jen if she would type out the last couple pages of Ron Paul’s book, because I thought it was just an excellent summary of his book, his thoughts on liberty, and the current culture of our country. (AND, because she really does love doing things like that! Anyone need a secretary?) 🙂

I’m not sure of the copyright usage permissions here, but if Mr. Paul or his people contact me and request I remove this post, I will.

Until then, please read his words, and consider what Liberty means to you. (And what you can do about that.)

Please comment below, too, if you’d like to do so. This is not a “no comment” subject, to be sure.

Also, if you have the time, click the Related Posts links at the end of this post, too. They are all worthwhile reads regarding liberty.

Excerpt from Liberty Defined by Ron Paul


Many people are deeply discouraged at the state of affairs in America. They look at goings-on in Washington and see graft, power grabs, senseless regulation and spending, and a government completely out of control, having grown far beyond the size and scope that a free people should ever permit. They are confused about ongoing wars around the world. They are puzzled by the dampening of economic opportunity. People are worried about the future.

These people are right. Some are active in politics and trying to make a change. Others are discouraged to the point of utter cynicism. There is a third path here that I highly recommend, and that is the path of winning hearts and minds through education, first of the individual, and then of others through every way possible.

We must recapture what it means to be free. By this I do not mean that we should all become policy wonks or waste our time studying the details of this or that political initiative or sector of life. I mean that we need to form a new approach to thinking about society and government, one that imagines that we can get along without such central management. We need to become more tolerant of the imperfections that come with freedom, and we need to give up the illusion that somehow putting government in charge of anything is going to improve its workings, much less bring utopia.

To embrace the idea of liberty is not a natural condition of mankind. In fact, we are disposed to tolerate far more impositions on liberty than we should. To love liberty requires an act of the intellect, I believe. It involves coming to understand how all the things we love in this world were given to us under conditions of liberty.

We need to come to see government as it is, not as we wish it to be and not as the civics books describe it. And we need to surrender our attachments to government in every aspect of life. This goes for the right and the left. We need to give up our dependencies on the state, materially and spiritually. We should not look to the state to provide for us financially or psychologically.

Let us give up our longing for welfare, our love of war, and our desire to see the government control and shape our fellow citizens. Let us understand that it is far better to live in an imperfect world than it is to live in a despotic world ruled by people who lord it over us through force and intimidation. We need a new understanding of what it means to be a great nation; it should mean, as George Washington said, that our nation is a beacon unto the world, not that we conquer the world militarily, impose our will on everyone, or even remain number one in the GDP rankings. Our sense of what it means to be great must be defined first by morality.

We must come to imagine liberty again, and believe that it can be a reality. In order to do this, we do not need songs, slogans, rallies, programs, or even a political party. All we need is access to good ideas, some degree of idealism, and the courage to embrace the liberty that so many great people of the past have embraced.

Liberty built civilization. It can rebuild civilization. And when the tides turn and the culture again celebrates what it means to be free, our battle will be won. It could happen in our time. It might happen after we are gone from this earth. But it will happen. Our job in this generation is to prepare the way.

(Emphases mine)

by Greg

The Real Value of Stuff

Closer view of lots of stuff, things, and junkI love visual truth. Even though I am a person who loves words, and communicating thoughts, emotions, questions, and experiences through just the right word or phrase chosen to build a vivid picture of truth in one’s mind, there is nothing quite like a visual “object lesson”.

Tonight mine came in the form of a neglected electronic relic.

For a few years we have lamented the condition in which we often find most all of our material possessions—generally that would be broken—because of the lack of value placed on those items by our children. It does not matter that we’ve instructed and admonished them using words, nor does our example of how we care for our own things seem to connect this one lesson with their young hearts and minds.

Nothing we do seems to help them value their stuff.

This evening, as dusk set upon the landscape of our little backyard, I decided to do some post-winter clean up. We got rid of the plastic liner from the ice rink today (whose water had already slowly leaked out the previous many weeks thanks to a hole sliced in it late-winter by a submerged skate), and I was also removing and preparing to store the pieces of wood that form the frame of our frozen playground.

As I was picking up the pieces from the rink deconstruction, I spotted a few other items throughout our yard. (To be clear, that is a gross understatement!) I decided that I would gather up the articles of clothing this evening before it was too dark.

I picked up a small fuzzy jacket which had been left by the campfire pit; and there was a glove or two nearby; a wool knitted hat was left in lonely isolation for untold months of winter.

Then I spotted the walkie talkie.

Lots of stuff, things, and junk

See, this is a working, real, usable (with a battery replacement) walkie talkie. It’s mine. I purchased it, for a decent sum of money. I used it, and it was valuable to me. All of these thoughts raced quickly through my mind as I unburied it from the sand in the kids’ sandbox. (Along with a few more unpaired gloves.)

I grumbled more than a bit as I brushed off the dusty layers of sand and thought, “Why do these kids just not care about our stuff? What in the world can I do to help them know the real value of all of our stuff?!”

Ah. Clarity. Mental and spiritual clarity. Lightbulb. Smile.

I suppose that all of this time, I’ve mostly had it backwards. I am the one who has the “wrong” value on our stuff, and the kids are the ones who actually understand the “real” value of it—

Enjoy it. Use it. And don’t give it a second thought.

Now there’s certainly something to be said for what many refer to as “stewardship”. Our “stuff” does cost us something. (Perhaps the amount of stuff we have in this home is fodder for a future post on the “value of stuff”?) If you’ve spent money to own something, it’s still a good idea to take good care of it. That’s not wrong.

But being all ruffled up over a broken walkie talkie (that you haven’t needed for many years now…) is almost certainly a misplaced, misunderstood value.

And so this night, though the lesson was unintentionally given, my sloppy, careless (fantastically imaginative and fun-loving) offspring reminded me—through my discovering a neglected and most likely ruined possession—the real value of stuff.

by Greg

Millard Fillmore: Underappreciated

Millard Fillmore - 13th President of the United StatesThis will probably surprise you, but … no one cares much about President Millard Fillmore. At least, not according to this article.

Since we’re just a week past President’s Day, I figure it’s still appropriate to honor one of the men who served in that capacity for this great nation of ours.

Did you know that Millard Fillmore is somewhat revered in Buffalo, one of his and my “hometowns”. President Fillmore was born in Moravia, NY—and I in Springfield, OH—but we both spent many years of our lives near the home of the Buffalo Bills. (Hmm… not sure if they were around when he lived there, though…)

His name can be frequently found around Buffalo. My wife was born at Millard Fillmore hospital! He helped to found the University at Buffalo! (One of the universities to which I matriculated!) There’s even a statue at City Hall! (Along with fellow former President—and Mayor of Buffalo!—Grover Cleveland.)

Millard Fillmore died at his home in Buffalo, NY on March 8, 1874. (I haven’t done that yet, either… the similarities keep dwindling…)

And the hits keep coming… He was the last President from the Whig party, though not elected to that position. (He assumed office upon the death of Zachary Taylor, with whom he served as Vice President.)

He was the only president to have the same double letters in both his first, and last name. (Fellow Whig party member, and 9th president of the US, William Harrison, is the only other to have double letters in both names, but as you can see, they don’t match.)

🙂

Actually, I did enjoy reading about this president. He had some very interesting accomplishments in foreign affairs, and sounds like a pretty decent fellow. He is least-remembered and often ranked as one of the worst presidents in US history, partly (or mostly) as a function of the time in which he served. He was president during the decade prior to the Civil War. Things in our Union were at a boiling point, and thus, I don’t think many of his accomplishments are remembered. (Well, I know they are not.)

History is so fascinating in this way. Fillmore fell out of favor with the public, and his party (and his party also fell out of favor to the point of dissolution shortly thereafter) and so he was unsuccessful in his bid for election following his first and only term as president. And with all of the massive changes in our Union that followed his presidency, much about him is forgotten.

History is written by the victors.

Thankfully, there are still records, and there is still history to be read and learned.

He may not have been the greatest, but he was lucky number 13!

Next time you’re in Buffalo, look him up, and you might be surprised by what you find.

Read more about Millard Fillmore at this Wikipedia page. It’s the shortest article written about any US President. Figures, right?

by Greg

Constitutionally Speaking: The States Have It (as do the People)

Thomas JeffersonIf you are a fan of history, and perhaps also an American citizen—both of which I am—then I hope you’ve enjoyed this look at our Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, as seen through the eyes, words, and actions of the people who constructed it. It’s very interesting to see where we’ve come from, how it began, and even the direction we are going.

I am certainly no authority on this subject, but I’ve spent a good amount of time (even as I wrote these articles) studying original sources and commentaries upon those. I would definitely encourage you to do the same if you are made curious by what I’ve written, or find that you wholeheartedly disagree!

Regarding the pursuit of truth, even in regards to theology and religion, Thomas Jefferson advised:

“Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.”

It’s up to each of us to learn what we believe, and why we believe it. And never be afraid to question it.

In this series, we’ve looked at the initial question—whether or not the federal government has the authority to limit what laws an individual State can or can not pass—as well, we have considered whether the Bill of Rights grants rights, or protects them.

And now we come to the conclusion.

The central point to the current Constitutionally Speaking series (I, II, III) has been to understand the original intent of the Constitution. When it was written, the framers hoped to grant very limited powers to the federal government, while the states would each retain “numerous and indefinite” powers.

James Madison said as much in Federalist No. 45:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” [ref]

In the first part of this series, I quoted Thomas Jefferson several times as I feel that he was a great example of this strong conviction that the Federal government should not have powers over the States, other than any specifically granted to it. Jefferson was an anti-federalist: he was opposed to a strong central government. The Federalists were the framers of the Constitution (thus the Federalist Papers, explaining the reasoning behind the Constitution) but one of the hallmarks of the document was that all members of the Constitutional Convention made every effort to come to complete agreement—Federalist and Anti-Federalist alike; consensus, rather than just a majority vote. Thus was born a limited, central (Federal, general) government, designed to function as the representative of all the states in four areas: common defense, preservation of peace (domestic and foreign), regulation of domestic (interstate) and foreign commerce, and diplomacy with other nations. [ref]

In this last edition of this series, I have one last Jefferson quote for you. This one is from The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, when Kentucky successfully brought a grievance against the General Government for overstepping its authority:

That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress. [ref]

And all of that is to say: the States, and the People, still hold ultimate, final, and also primary power.

The Constitution was written to bring together several autonomous states under one “general government”. It’s purpose was to spell out the compact between those states, and those people, to be one entity—one people.

Somewhere along the way (many places, actually) we moved from a place where we were many states joined as one (e pluribis unum?) to one very large “state”, commanding and governing from the central head: Washington.

That’s not what we were designed to be. The Constitution allows for, or more accurately, attempts to preserve a government closer to the people. Local and state governments, comprised of neighbors. True representatives. (We are not a democracy. The United States federal government is a federal republic. It is a group of representatives from other states/entities.)

This was fundamentally lost during the Civil War. It was, in fact, the primary cause and reason for the Civil War. The south, as wrong as they were about slavery, believed strongly in states rights and autonomy. The north believed more closely what the Federalists believed: a strong central government was essential to a strong Union. The north was victorious (which was good for preserving our union, and of course for finally abolishing slavery) and thus was cemented the United States of America in its current form.

Prior the the Civil War, the country was refered to in the plural: “The United States are…” Following the War, that phrase became, “The United States is…” [ref] Hear the difference? We are no longer one from many, we are just one.

When one examines the way our country was first established, and the intended separation of powers, it’s rather fascinating to see how much we’ve changed over time. It seems now rather commonplace to think that Washington or the federal government is our supreme authority. As we’ve seen, power was originally supposed to be remain more with the state and local governments—and of course, the People. This allows for a much more diverse—and free?—people overall.

But, as the saying goes, “Give an inch, and they’ll take a mile.”

When we first saw the need as a nation to cede some of our autonomy to a central government in order to exist and survive as a society or a nation, we allowed for the possibility of ceding more and more power to that created entity. Our Constitution provides amazing checks and balances, and separations of power, and multiple devices for ensuring, as best as possible, that the power remains first with the People. And yet today, the People generally operate as though the government has primary power and authority, which it then grants to the People (generally bypassing the States entirely).

This has occurred, in my opinion, simply as a result of that first “foot in the door” of drafting and ratifying the Constitution—great as that document may be. But it has progressed thanks to the desire within Man’s spirit to be led, to have a King. (See here, and here for more on that.)

Also helping us toward a view of our federal government as the more centralized authority are several Supreme Court decisions as well as constitutional amendments throughout the generations.

The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) of the Constitution has often been interpreted to grant primacy to Federal law (power) when any conflict with State law might exist. The First Amendment has often triggered the use of this Clause to determine where the authority lies, as far back as cases in 1803. Subsequent cases and rulings [example], as well as the Fourteenth Amendment, followed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal [ref], have all led us to a place where we see the Federal government as supreme, and continue to move it towards greater power, primacy and supremacy.

At some point we might discover that we have ceded too much power.

For now, we Americans are definitely one of the most free people and civilizations of all time. Our Constitution is still the basis for preserving and protecting that freedom. We are a people governed by Rule of Law, not a privileged class or other type of nobility. This ensures the opportunity of fairness and equal justice for all.

Many attempts are made to undermine that. (Lust for power is a strong force, as is the desire for comfort and safety.) Benjamin Franklin was asked, “Well Doctor what have we got—a republic or a monarchy?” His reply? “A republic, if you can keep it.” He is also credited with saying, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Freedom is our God-given right; unalienable. However, to coexist with others as a nation, as a republic—the United States of America—we must work to preserve that freedom. Knowledge of the original intent is essential, as well as a foundation in the understanding that neither we nor any government, whether of our own construct or forced upon us are ultimately in authority over us. God the Creator is our supreme authority, and one reason that our republic has survived is that He and the ways of his Kingdom were central to the worldview of the Framers.

But that’s for another series… 🙂

I encourage you to find the original sources mentioned or linked here. Own a copy if possible. Read, understand, and pass along.

And in that way, you can be part of perserving our liberties, from generation to generation.

by Greg

Constitutionally Speaking: Freedom of Religion (not FROM religion)

Freedom From Religion? Or, Freedom OF ReligionToday we often think of the First Amendment as restricting all forms of any religion in the public forum; it being essential to our freedom of religion—that all may worship, or not worship, as they see fit, without being forced to do so by any government hand.

A simple reading of the actual amendment will clearly show that this was not its intent; rather it was included in the founding documents to allow unrestricted practice of any and all religion. So, the federal government can not say you can’t pray in schools. That’s the part we have backwards… it’s meant to allow greater freedom, not provide more restriction.

Let’s look at the Amendment again, focusing on the first sentence:

Amendment I

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.

Now, to the point of yesterday’s initial question: while a state would almost certainly never propose a bill mandating prayer in schools, a local, smaller community might? And the First Amendment protects them in that, at least, as I read it.

The words, “Congress shall establish no religion” do not prevent any religious symbol or words or ceremony from being present in any federal or state (or local) government event or edifice. So much the opposite. If the People want to express a religious belief or sentiment, they are protected in doing so by this First Amendment.

The biggest thing that so many of us have completely backwards in our general opinion of government today is where the power rests: with the People.

The federal government is granted very specific and limited powers by the Constitution. When the framers of the Constitution were determining the structure of our government, it was entirely without any “rights” specifically assigned to the People. That’s because, the government can not grant rights to the people.

Some argued that putting any rights in such a document implies that they do originate with the government, but in the end, the majority wanted to ensure that they were present in our foundational documents. The first ten amendments were added in 1791—two years after the ratification of the original Constitution in 1789. [ref]

James Madison warned against the idea of including a Bill of Rights in the Constitution thusly:

It has been accurately noted that bills of rights began as an agreement between a king and his subjects that limited the king’s powers in favor of privileges of his subjects; or in other words, they were a defense of the rights which had not been surrendered to the prince…

In this country the People surrender nothing, and since they retain everything, they have no need for a Bill of Rights. ‘We the People of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America’: this is a better recognition of popular rights than all the many truths which represent the bulk of our state bills of rights… Federalist No. 84

Again, the Constitution which established the US Federal government can not grant rights to its citizens, since it is the People in the first place who hold the rights, and grant any power at all to their federal representatives.

Each state and local community should be free to establish their own laws (or, to have fewer laws) without the federal constitution limiting that.

It is really very interesting—so fascinating—how our thinking about government has changed over the two hundred plus years since our founding, and yet, the Constitution is still in place, and still holds us together; protecting all of our rights, at least for now.

We’ve all heard and seen the stories about guns. One side wants to eliminate senseless killing by removing the weapon (through legislation and even, in some cases, by government force), while another fights to protect a right which was spelled out by these amendments. (Maybe the framers were on to something with this hesitation to list specific rights?) Often the anti-gun people will allow for gun ownership for hunting, but the Second Amendment was written—as was most all of the entire Constitution—to greatly limit the powers granted to the Federal government, and ensure that it remained with the People.

That really can’t be stated too often, nor too strongly.

An interesting side note here involves a post-Civil War amendment to the constitution, which has been the grounds for many Supreme Court ruling which would seem to reverse the initial intent of Madison and the other framers of the Constitution. I will discuss more of the States vs. Federal powers application tomorrow, including how much of that was greatly—perhaps “officially”—shifted following the Civil War.

It is essential to remember that the Bill of Rights does not establish rights of the People; rather, it calls out some specific rights which are not to be abridged, abrogated, or breached. The emphasis was and must always be on the rights being inherent to We the People, not granted by any government or authority other than our Creator.

Also, proper context is always important. From our modern perspective, we must reconsider the definition of “religion”.

Today we hear that word and think of world religions like Christianity (in all of its forms, as one), Islam, Buddhism, etc. However, at the time of its writing, the first amendment was speaking more toward the various Christian denominations present in the individual States of the Union. (Though, not to the exclusion of any religions other than Christianity.) The amendment states that Congress (federal) was prohibited from establishing any one religion, thereby restricting in any way the “free exercise” of religion by the peoples of the States, whom were of many different “religions”; meaning, denominations.

Today we are quick to sound the alarm if any government representative does or suggests anything that smells like religion. However, it’s probably more of an affront to the Constitution to restrict such things, including prayer in schools.

Mandating is definitely a step beyond allowing, and, fourteenth amendment precedent would probably rule in favor of individual States not having the authority to mandate school prayer on the grounds that it might appear to be “establishing” one “religion” over any others.

Such was not the original intent of the Constitution.

Tomorrow will conclude this series, looking more in-depth at the separation of powers between State and Federal governments, and how it has changed over the two centuries of our existence. It’s quite a striking contrast, and very interesting to see what factors have pushed us more toward a centralized, more powerful federal government, and one that grants rights to People, rather than the other way around, and how that affects the way we view and interact with our government today.

A straightforward reading of the First Amendment should lead one to conclude only one thing: it exists to preserve the extant, natural rights of the People; rights that were never, and are never to be breached by the government established by the Constitution: the US Federal Government.

Note: The modernized version of the quote from Federalist No. 84 was taken from The Original Argument: The Federalists’ Case for the Constitution Adapted for the 21st Century., a book we highly recommend!

by Greg

Constitutionally Speaking: We’ve Got It All Wrong!

Bill of RightsOK, I admit. That’s just a fun, “grab-your-attention” kind of headline.

But it’s not far from the real truth. At least for many of us U. S. Americans.

The first amendment protection of free speech, and more specifically the part about freedom of religion was the central part of an interesting discussion the other day.

It began innocently enough with me overhearing a conversation about how the Constitution might be applied in a case regarding State versus Federal powers. The Constitution was written to limit the Federal government’s power over the People, and also over the individual States’ governments.

That’s not very well understood today, by my reckoning.

Back to the scenario that was unfolding. One party was trying to suppose what outlandish bill might be passed by a state legislation, which, in context might have had something to do with religious activities, perhaps in schools. The other party suggested that perhaps the bill might try to instate mandatory school prayer. At this, the first party scoffed, rigidly stating that the Constitution would clearly prohibit such a thing. To which the second party responded—though backing off, slightly—that it might be possible at the state level. Party One maintained his unyielding stance that it was a definite violation of the Constitution to require prayer in a public school.

So, I thought, Actually, the second guy is kind of right—though, no state would ever require such a thing—that the states are free to pass such bills and laws, if they so choose. The federal government can not interfere with this if a state would choose to do so.

This is where I decided to join the conversation.

At first, Party One stuck to the, uh, “party line” of zero allowance for anything which could be seen as religious being mandated by the states, because the Constitution prohibits such a possibility. I maintained that while I thought that was an awful idea that would never even be attempted, it was not unconstitutional.

Let’s examine the First Amendment:

Amendment I

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.

That’s it. Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof. The only other mention of religion in the Constitution is that there would be no “religious test” for becoming a congressman.

Today we interpret that one sentence above to mean that any public institution, office, official, or representative—any entity with any connection to any level of government—can not in any way espouse, promote, endorse, or engage in any activity which might be construed as “religious”.

But that’s not what it says at all, really.

I’m getting off track here. We can revisit the First Amendment in tomorrow’s post. Let’s stick to the topic: Federal vs. State powers.

Specifically, can the Federal government overrule a State government’s law or proclamation, or any such legislation intended for its citizens?

Thomas Jefferson is an interesting example here. When he was Governor of the State of Virginia, he called for a day of thanksgiving and prayer on December 9, 1779, saying:

“I do therefore by authority from the General Assembly issue this my proclamation, hereby appointing Thursday the 9th of December next, a day of publick and solemn Thanksgiving and Prayer to Almighty God, earnestly recommending that all the good people of this commonwealth, to set apart the day for those said purposes… (signed) Thomas Jefferson” [ref]

But as the third President of the United States, he said the following on the same (similar) subject:

“I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises…Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. …But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting and prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the United States an authority over religious exercises, which the Constitution has directly precluded them from…civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.” [ref]

Fascinating, huh? Doesn’t this seem to be two different ideas? Was Jefferson under duress when, as Governor, he wrote and signed that very religious-sounding proclamation of a day of Thanksgiving and Prayer for his state (the Commonwealth of Virginia)? Or did he just change his mind? I should think not the latter because he was the author of the Statute of Virginia for religious freedom, which is one of the three lifetime achievements he wanted inscribed on his gravestone at Monticello. (A list which conspicuously does not include being President of the United States.)

Well, as it turns out, that’s not all there was to it.

I dug a bit more, and read a bit more, and found the full text for that response to Samuel Miller, quoted incompletely on the Monticello website (and above). It would seem that context would give us a much more clear picture of why Mr. Jefferson did not think it was his place (nor that of the “General Government”) to be “intermeddling with religious institutions”.

I know this is a bit long already, but I’d really like for you to read the following in its entirety.

Washington, Jan. 23, 08
Sir,

—I have duly received your favor of the 18th and am thankful to you for having written it, because it is more agreeable to prevent than to refuse what I do not think myself authorized to comply with. I consider the government of the US. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U. S. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority. But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting & prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the U. S. an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant too that this recommendation is to carry some authority, and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription perhaps in public opinion. And does the change in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation the less a law of conduct for those to whom it is directed? I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct it’s exercises, it’s discipline, or it’s doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting & prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, & the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the constitution has deposited it.

I am aware that the practice of my predecessors may be quoted. But I have ever believed that the example of state executives led to the assumption of that authority by the general government, without due examination, which would have discovered that what might be a right in a state government, was a violation of that right when assumed by another. Be this as it may, every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, & mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the US. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.

I again express my satisfaction that you have been so good as to give me an opportunity of explaining myself in a private letter, in which I could give my reasons more in detail than might have been done in a public answer: and I pray you to accept the assurances of my high esteem & respect. (Emphasis mine.)

Jefferson very clearly stated that (1) religious freedom, and the power to hold that, belonged with the people (and religious institutions) and the Constitution “deposited it” there, (2) that states “might” have the right to declare a public day of thanksgiving and prayer, but that (3) the general (federal) government, most certainly does not. So says the Constitution. (As well as one of the most ardent supporters of religious liberty.)

The main point for this first installment of Constitutionally Speaking is that the Constitution does not grant the Federal government supreme power. That is not and never was the intent. The intent of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was to grant some limited power to a federal governement that represented all the individual States as the United States of America. It was a compact created by the People, and the authority remained with the People and their State governments and representatives.

We have lost that today, in my opinion. It seems more that we view the power residing in Washington, and doled out as those in charge from there see fit.

That’s not how our government is supposed to function, however:

James Madison said as much in Federalist No. 45:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” [ref]

That does not sound like a government over the People, does it?

No. And that’s where we came from, and who we still are.

It’s essential that we have a proper understanding of our founding documents, but too often we just think we do. It is more common to find that someone has a second- or third-hand understanding of American governement, learned through a long-ago high school history course, or perhaps (and far worse) learned from some partisan commentator on talk radio or the internet. (And even worse than that… on TV!)

Original sources are the only way we can truly know history. Thankfully, we have those original sources very readily available to us. It may take more time and effort, but it’s definitely worth it, and will preserve the freedoms we have going forward, generation to generation.

Tomorrow I want to explore the First Amendment more in-depth. I hope you’ll join me! And please do add your thoughts in the comments below.

AND, lastly, and paramount: please find, purchase, own, and read the original documents! (Many of them are free in digital version!)

See you here tomorrow!