On the Constitutionality of Religious Expression in the United States

For many years I was opposed to any kind of public sponsored religious display because I thought of myself as a strict Constitutionalist and accepted as fact the commonly held assumption that such displays are unconstitutional.  I’ve subsequently discovered by actually reading the Constitution and studying the history of early America that contrary to what I once believed, and to the stand taken by our federal government, the ACLU, and most American liberals, the Constitution has very little to say about religion or “Separation of Church and State”.  The main body of The U.S. Constitution only mentions religion once at the end of Article VI where we find, “… no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”  Then the First Amendment includes the simple statement: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  The first of these statements means that one needn’t be of any particular religion to hold public office or a government job; the second could be interpreted as supporting religion in public forums as much as the contrary view because what it says is that the federal government will keep its nose out of religion, and be neither prohibitive nor supportive. 

More importantly, nothing in the U.S. Constitution affects the rights of State or local governments regarding religion.  The term “Congress” in the context “Congress shall make no law…” refers to the legislative branch of the Central Government in this and in every such passage in the Constitution. The First Amendment has no authority over State or local governments.  We know this because for more than forty years after ratification of the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, Massachusetts, in its constitution made provisions for Protestant Christian worship and teachers at public expense. In addition to this specific, official doctrine in the Massachusetts Constitution*, virtually every classroom in America engaged in prayer and other displays of religion as did virtually every community.

It’s well established that Thomas Jefferson was strongly opposed to State sponsored religion.  To cite just one example, he wrote in The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom:  “Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”

Yet for eight years as President, sworn to uphold the Constitution, Jefferson did not invoke the First Amendment or any other part of the Constitution to enforce a separation of church and State in Massachusetts or anywhere else in the United States.

Jefferson’s Act for Establishing Religious Freedom did not pass in the Virginia legislature when he introduced it in 1779. It had to wait to be championed by James Madison in 1786 while Jefferson was serving as ambassador to France. Madison blew the dust off of Jefferson’s Act after he led the fight to defeat a bill sponsored by Patrick Henry to levy religious taxes.  Madison was no less opposed to State sponsored religion than Jefferson.  It’s also worth noting that Madison was considered the foremost authority on the Constitution that he was so involved in creating, and was the author of The First Amendment that is so widely invoked in modern times to challenge any hint of religious activity in public forums in the United States.

Yet for eight years as President, sworn to uphold the Constitution, Madison did not invoke the First Amendment or any other part of the Constitution to enforce a separation of church and State in Massachusetts or anywhere else in the United States.

Why did these two Presidents who were so opposed to state sponsored religion and so dedicated to the United States Constitution suffer to allow so much intermingling of church and State during their Presidencies if the First Amendment forbade it and gave them not only the authority but the duty to put an end to it?  The answer is that the First Amendment did no such thing; they recognized that the central government had no authority to oppose State sponsored religion at the State or local level. 

This seems to have been understood by every President for at least the first hundred years of American history.  All of these Presidents were sworn to uphold the Constitution; none saw a duty to oppose religious expression at the State or local level based on that Constitution.

Moderns who invoke the Constitution to oppose all displays of religious expression in the public forum are either ignorant of our history or contemptuous of it.  Knowledge and respect of the Constitution, our early history, and the men involved eliminates any notion that there exists in the U.S. Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, anything that prohibits any expression of religion by State or local governments.  The central government has acquired the power to prohibit the States from allowing religion in schools and other public places by taxing the citizens and then doling the money back to the States with massive stipulations, and by backdoor Constitutional Amendment in the courts. 

Following the Civil War the Fourteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution; its obvious purpose being to guarantee the rights of newly freed slaves within the States where they resided.  One sentence from Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment** states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.“ 

This statement, known as the “due process” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, sounds pretty reasonable and straightforward, but somehow, through a series of Supreme Court decisions beginning in 1925, these simple straightforward words were twisted and  distorted to mean that all of the limitations placed on the central government by the Bill of Rights and Constitution in general also apply to the States.  These decisions provided finality in the process of eliminating the sovereignty of the individual States in the United States of America; by such methods the federal government has usurped the sovereignty of the States on every front, including freedom of religion. 

I’m not a religious person and I’m glad that I’m not forced to pay taxes to support a church that I wouldn’t attend.  I’m glad that I’m not compelled by government to support or send my children to schools that teach a religious creed that I or my neighbor might disagree with.  But I now understand that the United States Constitution was not meant to give the Federal Government jurisdiction over these issues; that by the nature of The Constitution, our Federal Republican System, the obvious intentions of the Framers, and as assured by the Tenth Amendment***, the power to control these things should be held by the States and ought to be addressed in the State Constitutions or by State and local legislatures.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel05.html
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/vaact.html
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/Nationalization_Bill.pdf

* From Article III of “Part the First” of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:

As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of the public instructions in piety, religion, and morality: Therefore, To promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic or religious societies to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.

**Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:  All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

***Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Natural Rights, Social Rights, and Social Privileges

 

Natural Rights:

As I've written elsewhere, Inalienable rights are rights that cannot be taken away. They may be violated, but they cannot be morally eliminated.  A criminal person or despotic government might imprison an individual or even kill the person, but that does not diminish the person’s right to freedom or to life, even if death renders that right to the past tense.  Inalienable rights are perpetual except when forfeited due to criminal activity – violating the Natural Rights of another.  A religious person might say that such rights are a gift from God and only God can take them away; a secular person might think of them as rights that every person has by nature of being human. 

Thomas Jefferson stated in the Declaration of Independence that “Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness” are among the inalienable rights.  Going back to John Locke who was the inspiration for that famous passage we read of “Natural Rights” including “Life, Liberty, and Property”, with property in its broader sense including the other two – that is, each of us owns his or her life and liberty as well as our possessions and land.  “Natural Rights”, “God given rights” and “inalienable rights” are synonymous and they exist in what Locke called a “State of Nature” as well as in society.

 

Imagine a person alone on an island; that person possesses his Natural Rights no more or less than in the middle of New York City.  That person has the right to his life and the fruits of his labor.  If he gathers coconuts from wild trees and stores them away, he owns those coconuts and has a right to them.  If other people show up on the island they do not have the right to take his coconuts; he has the right to protect them and to defend his life, even at the extreme of taking theirs.  By attempting to steal coconuts or kill the owner of them, an aggressor puts himself and his intended victim into a “State of War”.  The aggressor in a State of War forfeits his inalienable right to life.   It may seem harsh that a person forfeits his right to life for attempting to steal coconuts, but such is life in the State of Nature where it is impractical for an individual to imprison an aggressor, and unfair for him to live under constant threat of aggression.  Of course in a State of Nature the victim is in danger of being overwhelmed or even killed and his coconuts stolen.  Mutual protection is one reason why people band together in society; another is that humans are naturally social and are likely to be willing to share coconuts along with the labor required to gather more.

In the second of his “Two Treatises of Civil Government” Locke discusses how societies form when people in a State of Nature voluntarily transfer their political power to a government in exchange for protection of their Natural Rights.  Along with Thomas Hobbes, his contemporary, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau who followed in the next century, Locke referred to this arrangement as a “Social Contract” (sometimes referred to as “Social Compact”).  Hobbes* published his “Leviathan” almost forty years before Locke’s “Two Treatises of Civil Government” and is sometimes given credit for Social Contract theory in western philosophy, but the concept was not new, it dates back at least as far as Socrates.  In any case it was Locke’s writings on Natural Rights and The Social Contract that provided the moral justification for the American Revolution and inspired its leaders in the founding of a great nation. Yet when modern scholars think of the State of Nature and Social Contract, they are more likely to be thinking of Rousseau because his version was a wonderfully idealist and romantic one that appeals to most modern academics.  **

Social Rights:

Social rights are not natural, not inalienable – these are rights provided by government and are derived from a Natural Right.  The most obvious example of a Social Right is the equal right to police protection held by every citizen who adheres to the Social Contract of a society.  On the island each person has the Natural Right to defend himself as best he can, in society each person has the Social Right to police protection.  If attacked and in immediate danger a person in society retains the right to self defense or defense of his property and other persons, because waiting for society’s police to provide protection might mean irreparable loss of life or property.  But other than such cases of immediate danger people in society turn their Natural Right to self defense over to a law enforcement organization and receive in return the Social Right of police protection. 

Natural Rights exist on our island that lacks government; Social Rights do not.  Consider the examples in what are called Miranda Rights: “You have the right to remain silent… You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you…”  What could be more fundamental and natural than the right to remain silent – that is, the right to not incriminate oneself?  Certainly a person isolated on an island has the right to remain silent.  However, the right to speak to an attorney is not a Natural Right, for there are no guarantees of an attorney being available on the island, or if there is one that the attorney will choose to cooperate, but our society has established rules such that even those accused of the most heinous of crimes has guaranteed access to representation by an attorney.  The right to speak to an attorney is a right given by society based on the right of every accused person to have his side of the story heard, this derived from the Natural Right to defend oneself.  In effect Americans include in their Social Contract the agreement that each individual will give up his right to physically defend himself when accused in return for society providing him with a fair hearing.

Suppose I own some coconuts on the island and some other people show up.  They need food.   I’m a nice fellow, and am happy to see other people, so I show them where coconuts grow and even help them gather some, perhaps taking a fair share for myself.  That night they camp near my camp and the next morning I discover that my coconuts are gone, and I suspect one particularly nasty, ugly fellow of stealing them, so I accuse him.  What are my Natural Rights, and what are his?  I have the right to recover my coconuts and punish the perpetrator, but when we analyze the Natural Rights of accused and accuser we can assume neither guilt nor innocence.  I do not have the Natural Right to assume his guilt or to exercise my Natural Rights meant to be exercised against a perpetrator on one only suspected.  He on the other hand clearly has the Natural Right to defend himself, verbally if possible, physically if I initiate the use of force.

In giving the Social Right to speak to an attorney society is saying in effect, “The Natural Right of an accused person to defend himself in a fair hearing is paramount, and in modern society it’s necessary that the accused have access to an attorney to receive a fair hearing. Therefore we will give the accused a Social Right to an attorney by arranging a legal system such that there will always be a willing attorney available in order to preserve that natural right.” As demonstrated in this example, valid Social Rights are not rights on their own merit; they are derived from Natural Rights and exist to fulfill the society’s obligation under the Social Contract to protect the Natural Rights of its citizens.

What about the provision of an attorney at public expense if the accused cannot afford one?  This is obviously not a Natural Right, because no one can have a natural right to something that must be provided by someone else; that someone else may not exist on the island, and it cannot be considered a Social Right because someone must pay for the attorney which is in conflict with the Natural Right to property, and a valid Social Right cannot be in conflict with a Natural Right.  No one can have the “right” to something that must be provided by someone else.  Provision of an attorney at public expense might be called a “Social Privilege”. 

Social Privileges: 

The Department of Motor Vehicles makes the point that driving is not a right; it’s a privilege.  Of course this refers to driving on public roads because one certainly has the Natural Right to drive his own car on his own road, but the point is that many of the services provided to citizens by government and thought of as ours by rights, are actually privileges – gifts given by society for the good of the whole and justifiable to the degree that the whole of society benefits.  Another example is education.  Society may choose to invest in its future by educating its youth.  In The United States society has determined that it benefits society as a whole for young people to be educated at public expense through what we commonly call high school, and society also provides institutions of higher education though attendance is not usually free.  Cutting off free education at twelfth grade is arbitrary and someday the privilege of free education might be extended by society to include a college degree, but whatever the level, this is a social investment that provides the student with a privilege, not a right to education.  On our island one has the Natural Right to educate oneself with whatever means available, but not the right to teachers, classrooms, and study materials.  Further, education cannot be considered a Social Right because there is no Natural Right from which it can be derived and because it would be in conflict with the Natural Right to property; it is a socially sponsored privilege.

However, when an adult decides to include himself or herself in a Social Contract and be part of a given society, which each adult does in a free society whether we think about it or not, it’s done with the implied understanding of full rights and privileges of citizenship.  Therefore, while no citizen has a right to a free education, each citizen has the Social Right, derived from his Natural Right to choose a society to live in and therefore full citizenship in the one chosen, of having the privilege of education be applied equally to his children along with the children of all citizens of that society.  For the Social Contract that binds people together in a society to be valid, all laws, rights and privileges must be applied equally.  Unfortunately, not all societies meet this criterion nor do all societies allow choice regarding belonging or not belonging to the society; not all societies apply a valid Social Contract.  To the degree that a society does not apply a valid Social Contract its citizens are in a state of slavery.

Being a Social Privilege and not a right, society may disperse the gift of free education as it sees fit as long as the child of each citizen is given equal treatment, but that might mean that each child is given the same entrance exam, not that each child is included regardless of capability.  Perhaps the example of driving privileges better illustrates this concept: Every citizen has the Social Right to equal application of the requirements for driving on public roads, but not every citizen will qualify.  The visually impaired will not qualify; the habitual drunk driver will hopefully lose his qualification.  Both are treated equally with their fellow citizens, but neither meets the criteria required by society for the privilege of driving on public roads.  (Each retains the Natural Right to drive his own car on his own road.)

In a just society Social Privileges are applied equally to all citizens regardless of social standing.  Returning to the example of the Social Privilege of public education, one might argue that Mr. Smith’s child has a greater right to the privilege of education than Mr. Johnson’s because Mr. Smith pays more taxes than Mr. Johnson, but while Mr. Smith may have a legitimate beef against the tax code, he has no greater claim to the privilege of education for his children.  Both choose to be citizens of a society that has decided to invest in educating its youth. Even Mr. Jones, who has no children at all, must help to pay the price of education if he chooses to be part of a society that has determined that it benefits from educating youth at public expense.

So Natural Rights exist in society and also in a state of nature; Social Rights exist only in society and are derivatives of Natural Rights, they exist to fulfill society’s obligation to protect its citizens’ Natural Rights; and Social Privileges are not rights, but gifts given by society ostensibly for the good of the whole of that society.  Natural Rights are as eternal as humankind; Social Rights are at the mercy of society but an existing one should exist as long as the social condition that makes it necessary to fulfill the society’s obligation to protect a Natural Right exists; Social Privileges are at the mercy of society’s whim but an existing one is likely to exist as long as society as a whole perceives its benefits.  The line between Social Privileges and Social Rights may sometimes be hazy, but the test between either of these and Natural Rights is very clear. 

No philosopher has attempted to compile a complete list of Natural Rights, but we have a definition so that any proposed Natural Right can be tested for validity.  Simply put, if a right cannot exist on our island without a society to provide it, then it is not a Natural Right.  Further, a Natural Right can never be in conflict with another; that would be, well… unnatural.  If a conflict exists between two concepts considered to be rights then one or both of them is not a Natural Right and if there’s a conflict between a Natural Right and a Social Right, then the Social Right is invalid as a right, but may still exist as a Social Privilege.

The Natural Right to Life:

Philosophers that think in terms of Natural Rights agree that one of them is the right to one’s life, but what does that mean?  Obviously it doesn’t mean that we all have the right to live forever.  It’s not a valid argument against a death penalty; virtually every philosopher that ever wrote of Natural Rights also wrote of forfeiture of an individual’s right to life for acts against other humans.  It’s not an argument for the Natural or Social Right to free universal healthcare – that obviously couldn’t exist on our island, and forcing society to pay the cost of healthcare for everyone is clearly in conflict with the Natural Right to property that philosophers also agree upon.  Universal healthcare, if provided by society, would be a Social Privilege – a gift given for the good of the whole of society, and it would be justified only if the whole of society benefitted.

It becomes clear when reading the philosophers that they consider the Natural Right to one’s life as the right to live it as one sees fit; to pursue happiness as one sees fit; to labor at obtaining the necessities of life as one desires, to own the fruits of that labor because a piece of one’s life was spent in the laboring – all of these as long as the rights of others are not diminished.  The Natural Right to life includes the right to property and the Natural Right to property includes the right to own one’s life.  Perhaps this Yin and Yang of Natural Rights is in fact THE INALIENABLE NATURAL RIGHT and all others derive from it.

* Hobbes wrote “Leviathan” during the turmoil of the British Civil war at least partially in support of the monarchy.  In his vision the State of Nature was a perpetual State of War with every human at war with every other and every one in a constant state of fear. He tells of a Social Contract based on the theory that men just naturally kill each other unless there’s a powerful government to prevent it, and then men settle down and enjoy being both restrained from killing and protected from being killed.  He wrote of the evils of a monarchy, but justifies it because it’s better than the alternative. He ridiculed religion and drew accusations of atheism.  He managed to anger everyone.

**These philosophers thought and wrote before Darwin suggested, and science for all practical purposes demonstrated, that humans evolved from a series of less sophisticated species.  This concept must certainly affect ones thinking about the State of Nature and especially the Social Contract, making it likely that human society evolved along with the species and virtually no thought processes or deal making was involved, but the theory continues to be a valid tool for analyzing humans in society just as the Conservation of Energy theory continues to be used by physicists in appropriate situations in spite of its absolute truth being disproven by Einstein.

Our Paternal Government

Unrest in England and friction between King Charles I and Parliament that culminated in the English Civil War in mid seventeenth century inspired Sir Robert Filmer, a supporter of the King and member of England’s “Divine Right” party, to write a book defending the Divine Right of Kings based on Christian scriptures.  The book titled “Patriarcha, or the Natural Power of Kings” was based on the Biblical account of Adam being given dominion over the lands and inhabitants of earth by God.  Filmer argued that this absolute power of Adam was derived from his position as the father of all men and passed down through Adam’s heirs generation after generation giving existing kings absolute, unquestioned authority over the lives of their subjects. He argued that the king’s power was patriarchal, and that his relationship to his subjects was like that of a father over his children.

Patriarcha was published in 1680, long after Filmer’s death and it sparked a number of rebuttals.  The best known of these was “Two Treatises on Government” written by John Locke and published anonymously in 1689.  In the first treatise Locke effectively destroys Filmer’s Biblical arguments with what appears to be superior knowledge of the scriptures, and then he employs the obvious arguments regarding the impossibility of identifying Adam’s true heirs in the seventeenth century to demolish any bits of credibility left to the Biblical derivation or justification of the Divine Right of Kings.  In the second treatise Locke goes on to define the origins and purposes of government and eliminate any similarity between government and paternity. 

Now, more than three hundred years later, many are attempting to reverse Locke’s arguments and once again equate government with paternity – or rather its gender neutral version, parenthood.  These people want to be taken care of by government as a child by its parents and even in adulthood have the inalienable rights of a child to the care and nutriment owed to an infant.  Thousands of people of this mindset are currently engaged in demonstrations in Europe and America.  Here in the United States these demonstrations originated in New York City and are called “Occupy Wall Street”.

Like spoiled teenagers the Occupy Wall Street crowd refuses to respect their parental figure, the government they make demands upon.  They refuse to abide by its rules, yet demand that it provide for them not only the necessities of life but also many of the luxuries.  They claim these demands as their “rights” as if it were not contrary to logic that any adult could have a right to something that someone else must provide, when in fact such a claim can only be made by a dependent child claiming the necessities of life from its parents.

If confronted by the question of payment for the goods and services demanded as their rightful due, the demanders shrug off the question like a boy demanding new designer jeans from his parents who always seem to have money even if they claim poverty. The money will come from “someplace”.  It always has, it always will. 

The “someplace” for our Occupy Wall Street mob is from the “Rich”.  As long as there is anyone that has more money than required for survival there is a source of funds that can be confiscated by the government to satisfy the needs and desires of its children.  No one seems to think beyond that; they believe that for some reason the rich will continue to sow while others reap; and for a delusional few, the answer is to eliminate the concept of money altogether and just have everyone share everything produced by the producers who will continue to produce for the benefit of the non-producers for some unknown and unknowable reason. 

But these childlike demands on government are not unique to the Wall Street occupiers, and they are not a new phenomenon. These protesters are merely naive enough or blatant enough to state their demands explicitly; they are merely expressing out loud what they’ve been taught by parents, professors, and politicians for decades.  For more than a century American citizens and corporations have become increasingly dependent on government and have been willing to trade liberty for a secure place in its parental lap.  Increasingly we depend on the government to educate us, to nurture us, to coddle us, and to protect us from ourselves.  Increasingly we have turned our lives over to government to escape the responsibilities of providing for ourselves and thinking for ourselves. Yet, like adolescents, we rebel when asked to control our desires or contribute to the family.

Ironically, the nominal cause of the Occupy Wall Street protests is the same as the original spark that fired the Tea Party Movement – the bailout of massive corporations with taxpayer dollars.  Both groups are incensed by corporate welfare, but the Tea Party Movement, perhaps with a more mature view of history, sees a return to constitutionally limited government as the answer, while the Occupy Wall Street protesters prefer to destroy the corporations, or tax them to the brink of insolvency, leaving a powerful government to take care of its children. 

A government as envisioned and created by the Founders and Framers of the United States of America, as inspired by John Locke among others, is not powerful enough to hold all of society against its breast and provide security and insurance from failure.  The government defined by our Constitution is not parental; its functions are limited; its entanglements few; its maintenance minimal; its citizens, and corporations of citizens, free – free to succeed and free to fail.

In Response to Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts is on the campaign trail with the Senate seat once virtually owned by Ted Kennedy and currently occupied by Scott Brown as her goal.  She’s a good speaker, and knows her liberal audience well.  Recent comments in support of higher taxes for the wealthy have gone viral on the internet and are quoted here for purposes of rebuttal:

“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.

“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

All good propaganda falls into one of two categories. One is the lie so big and bold that it’s difficult to imagine someone making such a claim if it weren’t true. An example might be, “The Tea Party is a direct spinoff of the KKK.” This type of propaganda is mostly meant to inspire those that already believe or want to believe rather than to convince skeptics.  It might be thought of as inspirational preaching to the choir.

The second type of propaganda is based on enough truth to sound believable and is designed to convince those unaccustomed to critical thinking.  Ms. Warren’s comments are a very nice example of this type, but they also contain an element of the first type with the implied Big Lie that her audience wants to believe, “The rich pay no taxes”.  She delivers the lie not explicitly, but by repeating over and over that “the rest of us” pay, implying that the evil rich being addressed do not. This double approach propaganda is very effective and was well delivered and has liberals posting her comments all over the internet. An informed response is needed.

It’s true that no industrialist or rich business tycoon did his or her work in a vacuum; since earliest times societies have advanced together and have established and paid for governments meant to protect citizens from violence, and provide essential services that are impractical for private entities to provide.  But it’s also true that in every era there have been a small minority that stood out as doing more, creating more, inventing more, pulling harder on the cart of progress than their fellows.  There have also been those that hindered progress – clinging to the status quo and throwing obstacles into the path of the innovators.


During centuries of western civilization clearly drawn class lines made education and opportunity available only to the aristocracy intermingled with the clergy. With rare exceptions both the innovators and the hinderers were members of these elite estates while common society was simply along for the ride, but was never-the-less important as workers, consumers, and taxpayers – in some countries practically the only taxpayers. Those class lines were blurred in England by the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution in the seventeenth century, and virtually eliminated on this continent by the founding of The United States of America a hundred years later, but Ms. Warren seems to think she’s in pre-revolutionary France where clergy and nobility were exempt from most taxes. She seems to stand shoulder to shoulder with Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the left’s favorite advocate of the “Social Contract” that she mentions, but Rousseau had valid reason to oppose hereditary aristocracy; Ms. Warren has no such reasons and no aristocracy to oppose, yet chastises an imagined one to impress her audience.  

Do factory owners use government provided services?  Of course they do - we all do; but while they pay at least their fair share toward the cost of such services, we can’t all say we share in that part of the equation.  Except for the implied Big Lie which she is smart enough to not state explicitly, Ms. Warren’s statements are meaningless bits of truth – she points out that industrialists use government provided services – OK, stipulated.  She demands that they pay a “hunk” of their profits in taxes – OK, what’s the point?  They already are.  

We all use government services; we don’t all “pay forward for the next kid that comes along”, but the “rich” people that Ms. Warren addresses so caustically for the benefit of her liberal audience certainly do, and much more so than most of that audience, the choir to whom she preaches.

"Liberty" - A Speech

On March 23rd, 1775 a tall, awkward looking gentleman stood to address Colonial Virginia’s legislative body, the House of Burgesses.  His topic was treason.  His goal was to convince his fellow delegates to vote for his resolution calling for a militia to oppose British tyranny; to persuade them to join him, if things went wrong, in hanging by the neck until DEAD.

But what could possibly go wrong?  He was only proposing war against the most powerful military in the world…

He spoke in a famously clear, resonant voice that rose toward the end of his speech, “Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace, but there is no peace.  The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms!  Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? …”

There was, in fact, much friction, but no fighting going on when Patrick Henry spoke these words, no “clash of resounding arms”, but he spoke as if somehow he knew that four weeks later American and British blood would be spilled at Lexington and Concord in the colony of Massachusetts, triggering the American Revolutionary War.

Nearly shouting, he concluded with the famous lines, “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?  Forbid it, Almighty God!  I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”

Patrick Henry’s resolution passed that day, narrowly, and he became known as “The Voice of the Revolution”.  One young gentleman who voted “Aye” would be called “The Pen of the Revolution”.  His name was Thomas Jefferson and a year later he was asked to draft a Declaration explaining to the world why those thirteen colonies were declaring themselves to be free and independent. 

The most memorable passage from that most famous document from “The Pen of the Revolution” states, “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.”

There’s that word again, “Liberty”… Why not “Freedom”?  “Life, Freedom, and the pursuit of happiness”.  Why not “Give me Freedom, or give me death”? 

Why did Sam Adams and the other troublemakers in Boston call themselves “The Sons of Liberty” Why not……  ”The Fathers of Freedom”? 

The “Voice of the Revolution” and the “Pen of the Revolution”, and other Founders understood the importance of words, of precise meanings.  Freedom is a vaguely defined word; had Jefferson written that freedom was among the inalienable rights there are people today who would insist that that includes freedom from having to get up and go to work in the morning.  Some might argue that Thomas Jefferson himself said that they have the inalienable right to freedom from the obligations of every self sufficient adult. 

Consider how for a government to deliver on such distorted “rights” and “freedoms”, it must actually erode the liberties of responsible, productive citizens. 

Consider how, since September 11, 2001, freedom from fear has become more important to many of us than the United States Constitution that protects our liberties.  Terrorism crashed upon our shores and we began clamoring to trade our liberties for safety – for freedom from fear.

Well uncontrolled government was what our Founding Fathers feared.  They didn’t all agree on the best way to control government, but they agreed on the need to do so.  That’s why we have defining documents like the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution – to define the purpose, powers, and limitations of our government and prevent it from trampling on our liberties.

Our Founders repeatedly and, I think deliberately, chose a word that describes a specific and critical kind of freedom.  According to The Random House Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, liberty means, “Freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.”  Webster defines it as, “Freedom from government control, interference, or restriction”.

It’s time modern Americans learned the importance of words, of precise definitions.  It’s time we learned the meaning of “inalienable rights”, the meaning and value of liberty, and the meaningless of life without it.  It’s time we learned the amazing history of our exceptional country and how a man can truly mean it when he stands and shouts, “Give me Liberty, or give me death.”

The Intermountain Club

The Intermountain Club is an American conservation group dedicated to promoting responsible commercial and recreational use of public lands and a common sense approach to environmental regulation.  We are lovers of the earth and of nature, but not haters of humans.  We understand that humans have not always been good stewards of the earth, but do not recognize a fundamental conflict between nature and mankind.

We believe in responsible use of public lands, and that those using public lands must be held accountable to leave the land in its previous condition to the degree practical.

We believe that humans can manipulate nature and make use of its abundance to human benefit without detriment to nature or to future generations of humans.

We believe that publicly owned renewable and natural resources can be harvested or extracted in a manner non-harmful to the environment and landscape while allowing profit to the individuals or corporations engaged in harvesting or extracting.  Further, such rational use of public lands can benefit the owners of those resources, the citizens of the United States of America, providing an extremely valuable economic boon to nearby communities and to the nation at large.  Therefore such harvesting and extracting should be encouraged by government entities that control public lands and those agencies should have the authority and responsibility to supervise the commercial use of the land and the good neighbor practices of the temporary occupants, as well as the reclamation of the land as the final act and responsibility of occupation according to established, reasonable guidelines.

We believe that publicly owned land should be controlled by the most local government entity practical and that redundant, multi agency control is wasteful and counterproductive.

We believe that recreational use of public lands can also be accommodated in an environmentally responsible way. We support open use of most public lands and good neighbor practices of the users.

We believe that property rights are fundamental to a free society; we advocate extremely limited use of Eminent Domain and then only when clear and unavoidable public necessity can be established.

We believe that land use rights such as grazing rights and water rights are, in fact, property rights and not subject to whimsical government prerogative.

We believe that evidence is lacking to support the theory of man-made “global warming” or “climate change” and that the American people should be subject to no hardships, taxes, or inconveniences in regard to this issue until such evidence exists along with a scientific evaluation of ramifications.  

We believe that carbon dioxide is a natural, essential gas and that the living earth is an extremely stable ecosystem capable of self correcting perturbations, and that such perturbations and corrections have occurred throughout the history of the earth.

We believe that scientific research that by the nature of its funding is biased toward a presumed result is not scientific at all.

Thinking Pragmatically in 2012

 

To win a Presidential election in the United States a candidate must accomplish two things: inspire a good voter turnout of his party, and gain a majority of independent votes.  These two goals are contradictory no matter which party is observed because in order to please the core of the party one must be too “radical” to please independents, but since both parties have this problem and someone has to win, the winner will typically be the party and candidate that best thread the needle.

The primary election process introduces yet another contradictory situation, usually for only the non-incumbent party.  In the primary elections a candidate must appeal only to his party, and needn’t woo independents.  This tends to bring a more extreme candidate of the non-incumbent party to the forefront to face, in the general election, an incumbent that has already successfully pleased both his party’s base and enough independents to win the previous election.  This helps explain why a previously elected incumbent President was defeated only three times in the twentieth century, except when challenged by his own party.

So President Obama should be enjoying a comfortable advantage, but currently his base is uninspired because he hasn’t ushered in world peace or made the world a socialistic utopia, and independents are disappointed in the economy and mostly negative on his legislative agenda.  A historically more typical Progressive President would have passed the stimulus bill and waited for results before rocking the economic boat with unprecedented spending, the Healthcare Bill, and threats of Cap-n-Trade; but President Obama was elected to create change and he charged forward to do so.  If the election were held today there’s little doubt that there would be lackluster turnout by the Democratic base, and a Republican landside among independents.

This gives Republicans an advantage in an election that should find them the underdog. They can dethrone Barack Obama with the right candidate, but while the President is unable to rouse his base, the Republican Party has it within its power to do so by nominating a candidate that is repugnant to them.  Such a candidate would also swing Independents toward the President.  If she were running, Sarah Palin is a perfect example of a candidate that would erase the Republican advantage and probably hand the election to the Democrats.  Millions of disillusioned Democrats that wouldn’t bother to leave the house to vote for Obama would walk naked through fire to vote against Palin.  Millions of Independents that might vote against President Obama’s handling of the economy would not vote for any candidate as socially conservative as Sarah Palin.  Conversely, Mitt Romney might not spark enthusiasm among the far right but Republicans have ample reason to flock to the polls no matter their candidate.  I’m not endorsing Mitt Romney, in fact he would not be my first choice; I’m simply using him and Ms. Palin as examples to point out a political reality.

When standing in slippery, slimy mud at the edge of a precipice, one must take tiny steps away from it.  The choice of candidate is more important in this upcoming election than in any within memory, and the best choice to defeat the President is probably not the best choice from a fiscally or socially conservative viewpoint.  It’s just an unfortunate fact that in the 2012 primaries, each of us much ask ourselves, “Which candidate can win?” rather than, “Which candidate best represents my philosophy?”, because we cannot afford to squander the historically unusual advantage that President Obama’s incompetence has given us. 

Giant steps are difficult in politics because they scare and arouse the opposition and the moderate, but small steps can have giant consequences.  Replacing President Obama with a moderate Republican might seem like a disappointingly small step, but preventing Barack Obama from continuing his Progressive policies and preventing him from appointing one or more additional Supreme Court Justices is a giant consequence.  If at the same time conservative turnout results in conservative majorities in the House and Senate, then this small step is actually huge.

Founder's Forum - A Short Play

Five podiums in a semicircle numbered from audience left.

Narrator: The eighteenth century was called the “Age of Enlightenment” when thinkers and philosophers throughout the western world challenged political systems that had been in place for centuries. The royalty, nobility, and clergy of Europe were too firmly entrenched in government to be successfully challenged, but in the British Colonies of North America, where liberty was considered a sacred birthright, many were strongly influenced by those Enlightenment thinkers, and an exceptional few could be counted among them.

Here, in their own words, we present the story of how those exceptional few created the nation that would become the hope and light of the world.

 Stepping to Podium 1, Samuel Adams: Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can. Sam Adams

Narrator: Resentment in the Thirteen British colonies in North America, especially Massachusetts, over lack of representation in Parliament, unfair taxation, and disrespect of American liberties broke into battle when more than 800 British soldiers marched out of Boston to arrest patriots Samuel Adams and John Hancock rumored to be in nearby Lexington, and to confiscate arms stored by the militia in neighboring Concord. Virtually all adult male citizens in the colonies were armed members of local militia made up of citizens organized to protect their homes and farms. A small group of these men challenged the British column in Lexington. A shot was fired; then the British fired a volley killing several Americans. As the British continued on to Concord, militiamen gathered from the surrounding countryside vastly outnumbering the British who began a sixteen mile retreat back to Boston, constantly under attack. Seventy-three British regulars and forty-nine colonists were killed that day in April 1775.

In June the “Battle of Bunker Hill” left the British in Boston and the Rebels in control of the surrounding countryside. Citizen soldiers from all over the colonies made their way to Massachusetts. The Continental Congress was called into session in Philadelphia and appointed George Washington of Virginia as Commander of what became known as The Continental Army.

When word of the uprising reached London, many in Parliament were sympathetic to the Colonies, but King George III decided that the rebellion must be crushed.

Stepping to Podium 3, King George III: "Those who have long too successfully labored to inflame my people in America by gross misrepresentations, and to infuse into their minds a system of opinions repugnant to the true constitution of the colonies and to their subordinate relation to Great-Britain, now openly avow their revolt. They have raised troops, and are collecting a naval force… King George III

Stepping to Podium 5, Thomas Paine:  O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the old world is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round the globe. Europe regards her like a stranger, and England hath given her warning to depart. O! Receive the fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for mankind. Thomas Paine

Podium 3, King George III: The rebellious war now levied is become more general, and is carried on for the purpose of establishing an independent empire. I need not dwell upon the fatal effects of the success of such a plan. King George III

Podium 5, Thomas Paine:  The sun never shined on a cause of greater worth. 'Tis not the affair of a city, a country, a province, or a kingdom, but of a continent. 'Tis not the concern of a day, a year, or an age; posterity are virtually involved in the contest, and will be affected, to the end of time. Thomas Paine

Podium 3, King George III: "It is now become the part of wisdom to put a speedy end to these disorders. For this purpose, I have increased my naval establishment, and greatly augmented my land forces… King George III Withdraws from podium

Stepping to Podium 3, Washington: If nothing else can satisfy a tyrant and his diabolical ministry we are determined to shake off all connections with a state so unjust and unnatural. General George Washington

Podium 1, Samuel Adams: If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude more than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!  Sam Adams Withdraws from podium

Podium 3, Washington: The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves. General George Washington

Patrick Henry steps to Podium 4: Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace, but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? …  Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!  Patrick Henry Withdraws from podium

Podium 5, Thomas Paine: If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace. Thomas Paine Withdraws from podium

Steps to Podium 2, Continental soldier: [On the way to join the army at Boston] they asked me where I was going, and when I told them I was going to fight for my country, they were astonished such a small boy, and alone, should have such courage. Thus by the help of my fife I lived, on what is usually called free quarters nearly upon the entire route. Withdraws from podium

Podium 4, Continental Officer: We have suffered prodigiously for want of wood. Many regiments have been obliged to eat their provisions raw for want of firing to cook, and notwithstanding we have burned up all the fences and cut down all the trees for a mile around the camp, our suffering has been inconceivable…. We have never been so weak as we shall be tomorrow. Withdraws from podium

Podium 3, Washington: Discipline is the soul of an army. It makes small numbers formidable; procures success to the weak, and esteem to all. General George Washington Withdraws from podium

Narrator: So the Revolutionary War began long before July 4, 1776, and Congress remained in Philadelphia to debate the next steps – whether the proper course would be to search for a means of reconciliation with England, or Independence. Among the most adamant advocates for independence were Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, John Adams of Massachusetts, and Thomas Jefferson of Virginia.

Jefferson, John Adams, and Franklin step to podiums 2, 3, and 4 respectively

Podium 4, Franklin: Whereas whenever kings, instead of protecting the lives and properties of their subjects, as is their bound duty, perpetrate the destruction of either, they thereby cease to be kings, [and] become tyrants. Benjamin Franklin

Podium 3, John Adams: Resolved, That it be recommended to the respective assemblies and conventions of the United Colonies, to adopt such government as shall, in the opinion of the representatives of the people, best conduce to the happiness and safety of their constituents in particular, and America in general. John Adams

Pause……  Podium 2, Jefferson: 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 entitle 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 sacred and undeniable, that all men are ……  

Podium 4, Franklin (interrupting):  Mr. Jefferson sir, please forgive the interruption but, the word “sacred” – it smacks of the pulpit. Might I suggest, “… we hold these truths to be… SELF-EVIDENT”

Adams nods, Jefferson nods and shrugs (not quite believing that anyone would attempt to improve on his prose)

Podium 2, Jefferson: 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, government is instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed… Pause…

Narrator: And so they declared the grievances of the American colonists against Parliament and the King and stated to the world their reasons for separation, and in doing so every man of the Continental Congress was guilty of Treason against the British Crown and subject to the most horrible of executions.

Jefferson Continues: … We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved.

All characters except King George III approach podiums; All in Unison: And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor. Heads bow

Podium 4, Franklin: We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately. Benjamin Franklin

All withdraw from podiums

Washington to Podium 3: … the hour is fast approaching, on which the Honor and Success of this army and the safety of our bleeding Country depend. Remember officers and Soldiers, that you are free men, fighting for the blessings of Liberty--that slavery will be your portion, and that of your posterity, if you do not acquit yourselves like men: Remember how your Courage and Spirit have been despised by your cruel invaders; though they have found by dear experience at Boston, Charlestown and other places, what a few brave men contending in their own land, and in the best of causes can do, against base hirelings and mercenaries General George Washington

To Podium 1, Continental soldier: Over the river we then went in a flat bottomed scow and we had to wait for the rest and so began to pull down fences and make fires to warm ourselves, for the storm was increasing rapidly. After a while it rained, hailed, snowed, and froze, and at the same time blew a perfect hurricane.

Podium 3, Washington: To see men without clothes to cover their nakedness, without blankets to lay on, without shoes, by which their marches might be traced by the blood from their feet… the men have borne their distress on general with a firmness and patience never exceeded, and every commendation is due to the officers for encouraging them to it by exhortation and example. They have suffered equally with the men… General George Washington

To Podium 5, Continental Officer: ...so cold that the ink freezes on my pen while I am sitting close to the fire. The roads are piled with snow until, at some places they are elevated twelve feet above their ordinary level.

Podium 1, Continental soldier: We are absolutely, literally starved. I do solemnly declare that I did not put a single morsel of [food] into my mouth for four days except for a little black birch bark which I gnawed off a stick of wood. I saw several men roast their old shoes and eat them, and I was afterward informed by one of the officer's waiters, that some of the officers killed a favorite little dog that belonged to one of them.

Thomas Paine to Podium 4: These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country but he that stands it NOW deserves the love and thanks of man and woman… Thomas Paine Withdraws from Podium


Narrator: So for more than five years following the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Army struggled through cold, hunger, and many defeats, with only rare victories. The freezing, hungry winter at Valley Forge was only one of several winters of deprivation, and not the worst of them. This little army lacking food, clothing, weapons, and nearly all necessities of war except valor had no business challenging the British war machine. General Washington was forced to conduct a war of defense until 1781 when France sent an army and navy to help fight the British, their historic enemy. In September 1781 the French navy defeated the British in a battle to control Chesapeake Bay leaving a British army of 9,000 stranded at Yorktown, Virginia. After a fierce battle, the British with no escape and no source of supplies were forced to surrender. An observer recorded his observations of the surrender ceremony:

Podium 5, Continental Officer: At about 12 o’clock the combined army was drawn up in two lines more than a mile in length, the Americans on the right side of the road, the French on the left. The French troops, in complete uniform made a brilliant appearance. The Americans, all in garments much the worse for wear, yet had a spirited, soldier-like air.

About two o’clock the British garrison sallied forth slow and solemn with drums beating a British march. They were all well clad, having been furnished with new suits prior to the capitulation. In passing through the line formed by the allied army, their march was careless and irregular, and their aspect sullen, the order to “ground arms” was given by their platoon officers with a tone of deep chagrin, and many of the soldiers threw down their muskets with a violence sufficient to break them. 

Narrator: The victory at Yorktown did not immediately end the war - the Continental Army with Washington in command remained in the field for two more years - but it destroyed Parliament’s resolve and led to peace negotiations and final independence.

Continental Soldier and Continental Officer withdraw from Podiums

Stepping to Podium 2, King George III: If General Washington resists placing the crown of America on his head, he will be the greatest man in the world! King George III  Withdraws from Podium

Podium 3, Washington: The great events on which my resignation depended, having at length taken place, I have now the honor of offering my sincere congratulations to Congress, and of presenting myself before them to surrender into their hands the trust committed to me, and to request permission to retire from the service of my country. General George Washington Withdraws from Podium

 Narrator: For more than 4 years following the peace, the 13 former colonies were 13 independent and sovereign countries, bound together in a loose Confederation for mutual protection, but each independent and with almost no central government. Near chaos and the very real possibility of war among the States became, for many, a fear greater than the fear of central government. A convention was called in Philadelphia in the same place as the signing of the Declaration of Independence eleven years earlier. This effort and the debates to have the resulting Constitution ratified by the States was lead by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. Legitimacy of the process in the view of the American people was achieved largely by the participation of an aging Benjamin Franklin, and especially George Washington.   

To Podiums 1, 2, 3 and 4: George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison respectively

Hamilton: There is a certain enthusiasm in liberty that makes human nature rise above itself in acts of bravery and heroism. The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased. Alexander Hamilton

Washington: The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. George Washington

Madison: …democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence, have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. James Madison

Hamilton: We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of democracy Alexander Hamilton

Madison: If men were angels, no government would be necessary….In Republics, the great danger is that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority… James Madison

Washington: It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it. George Washington

Madison: Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. James Madison

Franklin: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin Slowly Withdraws

Hamilton: In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself. Alexander Hamilton  Slowly Withdraws

Madison: I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. James Madison

Narrator: (During the narration, John Adams to Podium 2; Jefferson to Podium 3)

The Constitution became the Law of the Land, and shortly after the new Federal government was formed with George Washington as its first President, ten amendments were added known as The Bill of Rights, specifically guaranteeing those liberties considered the most precious and critical for maintaining a free society, among them: freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of peaceful assembly, and the right to bear arms.

The ninth and tenth amendments were meant to preserve the integrity of the Constitution for all future generations of Americans:

Madison: Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People.

Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Washington: The Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon. President George Washington Slowly Withdraws

Adams: The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.

Adams and Jefferson turn toward each other as if in conversation:

Adams: What do we mean by the revolution? The war? … The revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected from 1760 to 1775, before a drop of blood was shed at Lexington. John Adams

Jefferson: I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. Thomas Jefferson

Adams and Jefferson withdraw together…
After a brief pause, Madison withdraws

Narrator: Eighty-Seven years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, in the midst of a tragic war that threatened the existence of our nation, Abraham Lincoln described the government created by the United States Constitution, unique among governments of the world, as being “of the people, by the people, and for the people”, and suggested that if our nation did not endure, hopes for such government would perish on earth. That was nearly 150 years ago, but the truth of his words has not diminished.