The Unalienable Rights of the People Are Most Likely to Be Preserved If the Principles of Government Are Set Forth in a Written Constitution

Habakkuk 2:2 “Then the Lord replied: ‘Write down the revelation and make it plain on tablets so that a herald may run with it.’”

The principles of the common law were known among the Anglo Saxons but they did not see the necessity of writing them down. However, when their most treasured rights disappeared in the Norman Conquest that took place, this taught the Anglo-Saxons a lesson. Slowly these rights were written down over a long period of time and we know from history that in A.D. 1215 King John was threatened to sign the Magna Carta. It was during this time that the principle of no taxation without representation came into being.

It was also in the 17^th century that Charles I was pressured into signing the people’s “Petition of Rights” and later William and Mary signed the English “Bill of Rights.” Through the centuries the British had tried to manage their political affairs without any written Constitution and our American Founding Fathers learning from this felt that a written code was necessary to build a strong government.

The first written charter in America was the Mayflower Compact that later evolved into a more comprehensive type of Constitution when Thomas Hooker adopted what was known as the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut in 1639. Montesquieu, in writing about the Constitution, said that “the wisdom of many is better than a single person.” Founding Fathers felt that the Constitution would be a better fit as it was brought through the wisdom of many delegates instead of leaving it to the genius of some individual. It was James Madison who mentioned that in ancient history the framing of the government was done not through the assembly of many but through an individual of approved wisdom and integrity.

It is never easy to operate through a committee like our Founding Fathers did, but the product – our Constitution – was far stronger than what any one individual could have written.

Just as a side note, in his book Democracy of America, Tocqueville mentioned how impressed he was that the American people were readers. He mentioned of how he could go into the most rugged log cabin and would find the Bible, perhaps a Shakespeare play, but above all he would find newspapers. I thought how different it is today in the 21^st century when out of our schools we are graduating young people who can barely read, let alone enjoy reading books.

Our Constitution has stood the test of time and it is the law of our land. We see today how it is under attack by “political correctness” and is being transformed into something that our Founding Fathers did not envision.

Efficiency and Dispatch Require Government To Operate According to the Will of the Majority, but Constitutional Provisions Must Be Made to Protect the Rights of the Minority.

Proverbs 12:26 “The righteous man is a guide to his friend, but the path of the wicked leads them astray.” (TEV version)

During the Revolutionary War some vital changes needed to be made in the Articles of Confederation, but it was also discovered that a single state could prevent the change from happening. What was discovered was that unanimity is ideal, but can be disastrous in a time of calamity, and in those circumstances majority rule becomes a necessity.

John Locke brought out how it was almost impossible to continually have “unanimous consent,” because of a number of factors – like health, family matters, business, etc. which could keep some away from the assembly where decisions are made. In times of crisis this could be disastrous.

Therefore, in the Constitution provision was incorporated in the text where it would take two thirds of the majority for a decision to be made – such as overriding a Presidential veto – but it would be considered dangerous when applied to the routine business of Congress. In other words, a small minority could seek to control the opinion of the majority by tying everything up in tedious delays, continual negotiation and end up being detrimental to the public good.

However, the Founding Fathers knew what tyrannical conduct of a Parliament can do to the rights of minorities. In his first inaugural address Thomas Jefferson said: “All, who, will bear in mind this sacred principle – that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail – that will be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possesses the equal rights, equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”

When we stop and think about it that every ethnic group in America was once a minority. We are literally a nation of minorities. It is the responsibility of the minorities themselves to learn the language, seek education and become self-sustaining in order to be an asset to the community. Those who are already well-established can help. The reputation of the United States, perhaps more than any other nation, has been generous and helpful to newcomers.

The body of Christ, especially in the Western world, has a tremendous opportunity as well as responsibility to help those who are coming into our Western civilization to adapt and become an asset to our nation. We also have the opportunity to present the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The inscription on the Statue of Liberty says: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” I believe that many who are wanting to come in want to be able to breathe free!

Only Limited and Carefully Defined Powers Should Be Delegated to Government, All Others Be Retained in the People

This goes along with the 10^th 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.

Proverbs 28:4-5 “Those who abandon God’s teachings praise wicked people, but those who follow God’s teachings oppose wicked people. Evil people do not understand justice.” (from GOD’S WORD)

This was one principle that our Founding Fathers felt was very important and that was to prohibit the federal government from having too much power. This principle was to help balance the powers between the federal government and the states. The federal government could keep the states in check and the states could do likewise with the federal government.

The Founding Fathers knew from their study of history that the tendency was always to move towards absolute control to where governments would become corrupt and abusive, this principle was designed to keep the power between the states and the federal government in check with one another. It was designed to reinforce the principle of limited government.

The Founders knew that unless there was a healthy relationship between the federal government and the states that each would begin to deteriorate and one or the other would begin to dominate. In other words, if one or the other began to dominate it would either mean the end of local self-government and the security of the individual or the federal government becoming so weak that the structure of the nation would begin to deteriorate.

The Founders knew – by keeping a strict balance between the state and the federal government – that it would give the individual recourse if abuse came by one or the other. For example, if the states encroached upon the rights of the individual the federal government was there to overcome and if the federal government encroached upon the rights of the individual, the states were there for recourse.

Alexander Hamilton says: “Power being almost always a rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government.”

One problem that has arisen is the election of our U.S. Senators. What would our Founding Fathers think (according to the 17^th amendment) when our senators are elected by popular vote rather than appointed by the state legislatures? If the House of Representatives passed something the U.S. Senate could always block it, but because the U.S. Senate has been appointed by popular vote they often are kept in power by what they can ‘bring home’ to the state or constituents.

For example, I read an article in our last elections that one of the reasons why a voter in the state of Nevada voted for Harry Reid is not because he thought he was the best representative for the state, but because he was able to ‘bring home’ what is known as “pork.” Because of this the question does arise: Are the states able to stop the might of the federal government if the Congress began legislating against state’s rights? At the moment it seems doubtful.

Another danger that is lurking in the back-ground is what is known as “Executive Orders” that while a president is in office He can initiate. Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu¹ said:  “There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person.” Todd F. Gaziano Director, Center for Legal & Judicial Studies Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies remarked: “A President who abuses his executive order authority undermines the constitutional separation of powers and may even violate it.”

Thomas Sowell in his book THE VISION OF THE ANOINTED made the comment that government expansion comes through crises. They can be real, created or imaginary but the results are the same. The solution to the crises is more government offices (expansion) in order to fix the problem. When Rahm Emanuel (now the mayor of Chicago) was Obama’s chief of staff he made this famous statement: “We cannot allow a crisis to go to waste.”

Outside the archive building in Washington DC is a monument that declares: “ETERNAL VIGILANCE IS THE PRICE OF LIBERTY.”

Are we losing our freedom (liberty) because of a lack of vigilance???

A System of Checks and Balances should be Adopted to Prevent the Abuse of Power

In the early days of our Constitution many people wanted the separation of powers to be absolute, but in his Federalist Papers (numbers 47 to 51) James Madison explained the separation of powers between the executive, legislative and the judicial. In other words, he did not want something that was absolute, but for each to hold all in “check and balance.” He said that “the trick was to separate the powers and then delicately lace them back together again as a balanced unit.”

Christopher Demuth Sr. of the Hudson Institute said: “The struggle for power and advantage is a constant of human society.” Our Founding Fathers knew the frailty of human nature and the checks and balances that they came up with in the three branches of government has provided a very stable government for over two centuries. However, looking at what is happening today we see the abuse taking place as one branch tries to take precedent over the others in order to get its way.

The idea in back of the three branches of government is that none of them ought to possess or have an overruling influence on the others. Madison went on to say: “It will not be denied power if of an encroaching nature and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.”

In second Corinthians 10:13 the apostle Paul said: “We, however, will not boast beyond proper limits, but will confine our boasting to the sphere of service God himself has assigned to us, a sphere that also includes you.” Paul did not want to go beyond the limits that God had assigned to him. In the same way this applies to the three branches of our government. They should not go beyond the limit that has been assigned to them. However, as I mentioned before we see how the executive is trying to override the legislative by issuing executive orders, and the judicial going beyond what the Constitution provides by creating ‘new’ laws (called judicial legislation) by pretending to be merely interpreting old ones. We see the legislative branch imposing taxes that were never contemplated by the Constitution.

The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance. And because in our Republic, we the people, have not been vigilant to keep a close watch on our representatives to make sure that they are operating within constitutional boundaries, we now find our freedoms slowly, but surely, eroding.

The checks and balances set up by the Founding Fathers were  to protect the people, but how do we now protect ourselves? When Framers put together the Constitution they made the three branches of our government separate as to their “assigned” function, but also made them dependent upon one another. Undersecretary of state, J. Reuben Clark, Jr said: “the Framers had no direct guide in this work, no historical governmental precedent upon which to rely. As I see it, it was here that the divine inspiration came. It was truly a miracle.”

We see the checks and balances set up between the three branches of government at the same time the people have a check on their congressman every two years; on their president every four years; and on their senators every six years. The problem in our Republic that we have today is that we have become lazy, ignorant and careless when it comes to voting (or have not voted) and have put in people that should not have been put in places of power. President Washington said “the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution entrusted with its administration”, but so often, we, the people have not taken the time to really ‘vet’ those that we vote for to see what their true intentions are. Just like the apostle Paul said that when he departs that there will be many false teachers, false Christs coming in like the real thing, but having their own agenda. So it is with our government today.

For over two centuries that this Constitution has been in operation it has carried this nation through a number of crises. Other countries that copied our Constitution, but did not put in the checks and balances found that their presidents have suspended the Constitution and have used the Army to stay in power.

A good example of this here in our own country is the “Watergate” where a president went beyond his authority and under the threat of impeachment, although he was the commander in chief of the Armed Forces, resigned and made no attempt to keep himself in power. The transfer of powers took place quietly and in order.

Over the last 55 years I have had the privilege of traveling and visiting many countries, and often I have seen the turmoil, confusion and mass killing that has taken place because of a lack of adequate government with proper checks and balances to restrain the frailty of human nature.