First Principles of our Nation's Founding

Fundamental beliefs lead to a great concept:  Government of the People, by the People, For the People.  Let’s keep it that way.

Source:  A Citizen’s Introduction to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution by Matthew Spalding, Ph.D. 2010 The Heritage Foundation

Our nation was founded on the concept that people are equally endowed with rights that come from nature or God.  Who is governed and who is to govern are not specified in a ‘free state.’  There is NO divine right of kings.  Nor are rights a matter of legal privilege or kindness from some ‘ruling class.’  Our rights exist by nature PRIOR to any government or law.  Only because these rights are left unsecured is a government necessary.  These concepts are universal and endless over all time and all peoples.

Therefore, the ultimate authority of a legitimate government depends upon the consent of a free people.  Consent is the means by which equality is made politically operable and where random (arbitrary) power is stopped.  The natural measurement for judging whether a government is legitimate is whether that government exists with the consent of the governed.  ANY political powers not coming out of the consent of the governed are, using the laws of nature, illegitimate and hence UNJUST.

The “consent of the governed” is in contrast to the “will of the majority.”  European Democracies tend towards the latter, whereby all decisions are ultimately political and therefore must be routed through the government.  The former concept of consent describes a situation where people are self-governing in the local regions, religions and social institutions all into which the government may only intrude if the people consent!

People consent through deliberation, debate, compromise and discussion.  They form a public consensus about what constitutes the public good.  This public consensus knits individuals into a community of citizens.  Our Constitution protects our liberty to determine “the public good” and restricts the government from intruding into our lives.  It is therefore essential that the government be quite limited because without limits and clear definition, the government can grow endlessly and then easily overpower the citizens, imposing the will of those governing over the general public good.

It is important that we vote for representatives that understand these basic principles and understand the restrictions of the government.  Our nation has a strong Constitution that limits federal government and it was created based upon principles that do not change.  Over the last 250 years the laws of nature are still the same.  They do not evolve or change.  We still must give consent.  Well, please give it carefully and thoughtfully or we may find we are no longer consenting.  Maybe we have reached that point already.

Constitutional Issues - Separation of Church and State: Origins of the Phrase

NOT SEPARATION OF GOD FROM STATE by Fr. Bill McCarthy, MSA

(edited for brevity by this blogger; source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/987191/posts,)

The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…" While most recognize the phrase "separation of church and state," few know its source; but it is important to understand the origins of that phrase.

The process of drafting the First Amendment made the intent of the Founders abundantly clear.  When reviewing extensive discussions —recorded in the Congressional Records from June 7 through September 25 of 1789— it is clear that the Founders were saying: "We do not want in America what we had in Great Britain: we don’t want one denomination running the nation. We will not all be Catholics, or Anglicans, or any other single denomination. We do want God’s principles, but we don’t want one denomination running the nation." Later court rulings supported this intent.  For example, a 1799 court declared: "By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing."

In 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, heard that the Congregationalist denomination was about to be made the national denomination. That rumor distressed the Danbury Baptists. Consequently, they sent a letter to President Thomas Jefferson. On January 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote back, assuring them that "the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state." His letter explained that they need not fear the establishment of a national denomination—and that while the wall of the First Amendment would protect the church from government control—there always would be open and free religious expression of all orthodox religious practices, for true religious expression of all orthodox religious practices would never threaten the purpose of government.

It was also agreed that the government would interfere with a religious activity that was a direct menace to the government or to the overall peace and good order of society. (Later Supreme Court identified potential "religious" activities in which the government might interfere: things like human sacrifice, bigamy or polygamy, the provocation of immorality or licentiousness, etc. If any of these activities were to occur in the name of "religion," then the government would interfere, for these were activities which threaten public peace and safety).

Today, all that is heard of Jefferson’s letter is the phrase, "a wall of separation between church and state," without either the context, or the explanation given in the letter, or its application by earlier courts. The clear understanding of the First Amendment for a century-and-a-half was that it prohibited the establishment of a single national denomination. National policies and rulings in that century-and-a-half always reflected that interpretation. For example, in 1853, a group petitioned Congress to separate Christian principles from government. They desired a so-called "separation of church and state" with chaplains being turned out of the congress, the military, etc. Their petition was referred to the House and the Senate Judiciary Committees, which investigated for almost a year to see if it would be possible to separate Christian principles from government.

Both the House and the Senate Judiciary Committees returned with their reports. The following are excerpts from the House report delivered on Mary 27, 1854 (the Senate report was very similar):  "Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, but not any one sect [denomination]…. In this age, there is no substitute for Christianity…. That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants." The Committees explained that they would not separate these principles, for it was these beliefs which had made us so successful—they had been our foundation, our basis.

During the 1870s, 1880s, and 1890s, another group challenged specific Christian principles in government before the Supreme Court. Jefferson’s letter had remained unused for years. But now—75 years later—in the case Reynolds v. United States, the plaintiffs resurrected Jefferson’s letter.  In that case, the Court printed a lengthy segment of Jefferson’s letter and then used his letter on "separation of church and state" to again prove that it was permissible to maintain Christian values, principles, and practices in official policy. For the next 15 years, the Supreme Court utilized Jefferson’s letter to ensure that Christian principles remained a part of government.

The original intent remained for the next 70 years until 1947.  In Everson v. Board of Education, the Court, for the first time, did not cite Jefferson’s entire letter, but selected only eight words from it. The Court announced: "The First Amendment has erected ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’ That wall must be kept high and impregnable." This was a new philosophy. Why would the Court take Jefferson’s letter completely out of context? In the years following, the Court began regularly to speak of a "separation of church and state," broadly explaining that, "This is what the Founders wanted—separation of church and state. This is their great intent." The Court failed to quote the Founders; it just generically asserted that this is what the Founders wanted.

The courts continued on this track so steadily that, in 1958, in a case called Baer v. Kolmorgen, one of the judges, tired of hearing the phrase, wrote a dissent warning that if the court did not stop talking about the "separation of church and state," people were going to start thinking it was part of the Constitution. That warning was in 1958! Nevertheless, the Court continued to talk about separation until June 25th, 1962, when, in the case Engle v. Vitale, the Court delivered the first ever ruling which completely separated Christian principles from education.

*********

Heaton the Spoiler?

Jeremiah Heaton is running for Congress as an Independent in VA’s 9^th district.  Recently a web article came out stating that he and Rick Boucher’s wife are business acquaintances.  Apparently her musical group is hired by Mr. Heaton to perform at their general store in Damascus occasionally.  It is a small world, is it not?

Well perhaps it is a small world, but someone with a suspicious mind might wonder about Mr. Heaton’s candidacy and how this issue fits into that effort.  First of all, Mr. Heaton did not make the relationship public.  It seems anyone interested in total honesty would have made it known that a business relationship existed between one congressional candidate and another candidate’s spouse.  Secondly, Mr. Heaton has spoken at a few area meetings and does not make much effort to disparage Mr. Boucher.  With 28 years in Congress, there is much fodder for Mr. Boucher’s opponents, yet I heard no complaints about Mr. Boucher’s voting record or his lifestyle from Mr. Heaton.  However, Mr. Heaton makes considerable effort to disparage Mr. Griffith’s record.  He complains about Mr. Griffith’s occupation (lawyer) and tries to make Mr. Griffith look strange because of his personal actions (Griffith re-enacts a war hero in costume.)  I have heard this from Mr. Heaton himself as well as some of his supporters.

Mr. Heaton is also suspect because he does not seem to be truly trying to energize a campaign.  He himself does not believe he can win.  I heard him say his wife thinks he might ‘screw up’ and win.  So, why is Mr. Heaton in this race?  When accused of simply splitting the vote, he becomes very defensive and falls back on the common man’s cry that apparently a common man can’t be elected if he isn’t in a party.  Yet, he pooh pooh’s the established parties and the fact that they are so organized.  Mr. Heaton doesn’t seem to appreciate that you need a substantial ground organization to get elected, regardless of party.  When asked how one can help Mr. Heaton, his answer is give money.  My answer would have been to recruit volunteers and get my name out there with the voters.  Money helps but so do volunteers.  Perhaps Mr. Tancredo, the Independent running in Colorado for Governor, might give Heaton some lessons.  Tancredo is within a few points of the leader in that race.

If Mr. Heaton’s idea of winning an election is to gain the attention of the press with travel around the globe, it’s not working.  He is still in low single digits in any polling.  So what is the purpose of his campaign?  He hasn’t been to many events and skipped the last forum.  His media efforts have been mostly out of the district.  A suspicious mind might say that his motive IS simply to split the vote.  Perhaps the Democrats and / or Mr. Boucher made sure there is an Independent candidate in the race to do just that.  Mr. Boucher knew he had a valid opponent in the Republican Party who might just win this time.  With the mood of the voters against the big spenders like Boucher in Washington, perhaps the strategy for the Democrat is to use a third party as the only way to stay in office.  Mr. Heaton’s campaign style seems to support that conclusion. 

I recommend we don’t waste our votes on a third party spoiler. 

Where's Rick?

Remember that game where you had to look at a picture of a huge crowd of people and try to find a funny looking guy in a striped hat?  Sometimes you could look and look and never find him.  You had to trust that he was there, somewhere, or they would not have had you looking at the picture to start with, right?

Well, I feel like the people in the 9th district are playing that game with our representative, Mr. Rick Boucher.  He has been invited to several events both local and regional.  I personally know several people who have visited or called his office and written him emails, including myself.  His staff is good.  They cover for him and say he is out, unreachable.  We get their form letter replies with his liberal explanation for why he continues to vote for Nancy Pelosi’s spending bills when we have no money to spend.  We even get his campaign letters telling about all the pork money he is spending in our region, more money we don’t have. 

But what we don’t get is Mr. Boucher.  He either declines or in some cases, the Boucher office has given no response at all.  The requests were ignored completely.  Many of these requests were for forums where local issues should be discussed between the candidates and the voters.  His opponents were willing to come and did so.  They faced tough questions and discussions about our issues, why won’t he?  

After all, the Congressional recess exists so Representatives can be in their districts to touch base with the people who live there.  So why isn’t he here?  Is that any way to treat your constituents?  Don’t the people who pay his salary and hired him to represent them deserve better.  Doesn’t Mr. Boucher owe his bosses the courtesy of a personal appearance?

Instead of a face to face with Mr. Boucher, we get the Where’s Waldo game.  I am sorry; we just can’t find him though we are told he is there.  Well, I guess it is time for a new representative.  We need someone who is responsive and who listens, not just appears when he feels like it.  On November 2^nd, we can have our say and we can vote out Mr. Boucher.  Though a different person may not be the perfect congressman, with the standards that Mr. Boucher sets, our new representative should have no where to go but up.

Forum for Congressional Candidates Last Night (Oct 14, 2010)

Well, it was not much of a debate.  Of our three candidates who had promised to come, only one followed through on his commitment to the forum sponsors, the 10th Amendment Foundation.  Morgan Griffith (R) came and faced many questions from an audience of about 200 people.

Mr. Jeremiah Heaton (I) and Mr. Rick Boucher (D) did not show up.  Apparently Mr. Boucher had promised in May he would come.  When contacted later about the date of the event, he changed his mind and said he could not make it because Congress would still be in session.  Of course, they are not in session so that excuse was removed but when contacted, Mr. Boucher said he already had a prior commitment.  Somehow he was able to commit to someone else even though he thought he'd be in session.  Mr. Heaton had said he would come but just didn't show up.  He did not contact the organizers to let them know but instead contacted a reporter for the local paper.  I guess he is practicing his Congressional behaviors ahead of time.

The 10th Amendment Foundation does not endorse any candidate.  They are a group that promotes the Constitution as the document that restricts our Federal government. (http://www.10thamendmentfoundation.org/)  One might think that a Congressman who swore to uphold that very document might want to share his views with such a group.  Mr. Heaton confirms he is a strong believer in that document also, but for whatever reason chose not to participate.  It bothers me that he could not be bothered to contact them personally to let them know.  Apparently there was not enough press coverage of the event to make it worth his while, so he made it a press topic by contacting the reporter himself and then not showing up.

It was a good forum at a great venue in the middle of our district.  I appreciate the efforts of the organizers and of Mr. Griffith who came to give his views.  I respect someone who makes a promise and then sticks to that promise.  Politics is a tough business and everyone wants a piece of the candidates' time.  However, avoiding the constituents is not the way to get my vote.  Does it work for you?  Feel free to email Mr. Boucher and Mr. Heaton and let them know.
www.boucher.house.gov
http://www.heatonforcongress.com/

Lets Start w/ the Basics: Republic versus Democracy

(souce:  www. albatrus.org)
In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy."

Democracy:

A government of the masses.

Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.

Results in mobocracy. 

Attitude toward property is communistic-negating property rights.

Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate; whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.

Results in demagoguism license, agitation, discontent, anarchy. 

Democracy is the "direct" rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success.

A certain Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, nearly two centuries ago, had this to say about Democracy: " A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of public treasury.  From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship."

A democracy is majority rule and is destructive of liberty because there is no law to prevent the majority from trampling on individual rights. Whatever the majority says goes! A lynch mob is an example of pure democracy in action. There is only one dissenting vote, and that is cast by the person at the end of the rope.

Republic:

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.

Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.

Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.

A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.

Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.

A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of:

1.      an executive and

2.      a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create

3.      a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize

4.      certain inherent individual rights.

Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.

Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They "made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic."

A republic is a government of law under a Constitution. The Constitution holds the government in check and prevents the majority (acting through their government) from violating the rights of the individual. Under this system of government a lynch mob is illegal. The suspected criminal cannot be denied his right to a fair trial even if a majority of the citizenry demands otherwise. 

Democracy and Republic are often taken as one of the same thing, but there is a fundamental difference.  Whilst in both cases the government is elected by the people, in Democracy the majority rules according to their whims, whilst in the Republic the Government rule according to law.  This law is framed in the Constitution to limit the power of Government and ensuring some rights and protection to Minorities and individuals.

---

Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority can not be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered.

Mobocracy: 1. Political control by a mob. 2. The mass of common people as the source of political control.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."  Thomas Jefferson, 1816.