The Government Should Be Separated into Three Branches Legislative, Executive, and Judicial

Isaiah 33:22 “For the Lord is our judge (judicial), the Lord is our lawgiver (legislative), the Lord is our king (executive); it is He who will save us.”

It is interesting that in ancient times political writers often debated on what is the best form of government. Some thought of the monarchy with a single powerful leader; some gravitated towards aristocracy where the best families of the nation would rule. Some preferred democracy where all the population would make the decisions. However, all of these were deficient in being able to provide the security and the justice which was needed.

Polybius was a Greek who lived 204 to 122 B.C. He felt that there was something good in all three types of government described above. For example, the monarchy had the executive strength needed to direct the government, the aristocracy represented the interest of wealth and the developing of resources for the nation, and the democracy represented the masses of the population. However, monarchy could easily become a tyranny, aristocracy could sink into an oppressive government by a few rich families, and democracy could turn into mob rule. Polybius saw the possibility of combining all three ingredients for an established government. It was called a mixed Constitution, but the idea died with Polybius.

In the 18th century Baron Charles de Montesquieu resurrected the idea of Polybius and documented the thought of the possibility of a government based on separation of powers. This illuminated the mind of our Founding Fathers of the possibility of a government based on separated but coordinated powers.

A government based upon the separation of power did not come overnight. It was John Adams, who practically stood alone, advocating a government based on the separation of powers and eventually he was able to establish this into the State Constitution of Massachusetts. Later Adams was successful in getting his ideas incorporated into the U.S. Constitution.

Benjamin Franklin acknowledged “that the Constitution of the United States with the separation of powers was as perfect as man could be expected to produce and he urged all the members of the convention to sign it so that it would have unanimous support.”

We should always keep in mind that we live in a fallen world. When we think of the Constitution with its separation of powers we do find a balance that brings in protection, security and justice that is needed in a government within this fallen world and we see that this Constitution has stood the test of time. When taking office every Senator, Congressman, Judge and President pledges to uphold the Constitution. However, we find today among some of the progressive political leaders that they look upon the Constitution as a “living document.” What this means is that it needs to change according to the culture changing. In other words, it was okay for the agricultural culture of our Founding Fathers, but for this information age there needs to be the adjustments to the times that we live in.

What they forget is that human nature never changes except through the Gospel of Jesus Christ and unless that takes place in men man will always be moving away from and not towards God. With its separation of powers, the Constitution brings this into focus with its checks and balances, but today, although our Constitution is often treated with reverence, is not seen any longer for much practical use. Therefore, we are losing the reasonable balance of power among the three constitutional branches and have seen power dramatically shifted away from Congress primarily to the executive but also to the judiciary.

Whether Congress can regain its legislative authority is something that will be seen in the next 2016 election and in the years to come.

The Highest Level of Prosperity Occurs When There Is a Free Market Economy And a Minimum of Government Regulations

This is a question the Founding Fathers had: “Are there natural laws for the marketplace?” They saw that there was a possibility of a political and social structure based on natural law, but what about the marketplace?

A book called Wealth of Nations was written about that time (1776) by a college professor in Scotland named Adam Smith.

Thomas Jefferson said about this book: “In political economy, I think Smith’s Wealth of Nations is the best book extant (surviving or in existence),” and the United States was the first country to base the whole national economy on natural law and the free market concept described by Adam Smith.

This brought in the first six things that our Founding Fathers followed:

-Specialized production – let each person or corporation of persons do what they do best.

-Exchange of goods to take place in a free market environment without governmental interference in production, prices, or wages.

-The free market provides the needs of the people on the basis of supply and demand, with no government imposed monopolies.

-Prices are regulated by competition on the basis of supply and demand.

-Profits are looked upon as the means by which production of goods and services is made worthwhile.

-Competition is looked upon as the means by which quality is improved, quantity is increased, and prices are reduced.

Perhaps I should insert here that America became wealthy not by conquering other nations and taking their wealth (like many other nations have done), but by putting the principles outlined above into practice and creating wealth.

Founding Fathers knew that prosperity would depend on proper laws to protect the economy and they came up with the four laws: the freedom to try, the freedom to buy, the freedom to sell, and the freedom to fail. It is said that in 1905 the United States had become the richest industrial nation in the world and only having 5% of the earth’s continental land area and 6% of the world’s population the American people were producing over half of almost everything: clothes, food, houses, transportation, communication, even luxuries.

It seems to me that one of the problems that we face today in the 21^st century is the proper role of government, especially in the area of economics? Adam Smith knew that the greatest threat to economic prosperity would be government intervention, and that through fixing prices, wages, controlling production, controlling distribution, etc.

However, the Founding Fathers knew that there were areas of legitimate responsibilities for the government. What are they?

-Illegal force in the marketplace to compel to purchase or to sell the products.

-Fraud in misrepresenting the quality, location, or ownership of the item being sold or bought.

-Monopoly which eliminates competition and results in restraint of trade.

-Debauchery of the cultural standards and moral fiber of society by commercial exploitation of vice – pornography, obscenity, drugs, liquor, prostitution, or commercial gambling.

I look at these four things and I see how far we, in the 21^st century, have drifted from the foundation of what our Founding Fathers laid down. Hebrews 2:1 comes to mind: “We must pay the most careful attention therefore to what we’ve heard so that we do not drift away.” The easiest thing in the world to do is to “drift.” In order to drift all we have to do is nothing, and, because we, the citizenry have not been vigilant – we are losing our freedoms slowly but surely.

At the turn of the 20^th century we saw many prominent and influential leaders losing confidence in the system and thinking that the economic system needed some adjustments and fine-tuning and in so doing they were getting ready to throw the entire system overboard, or like we would say in the English language: “Throw the baby out with the bathwater.” It is true with any system that often there is a need for fine-tuning, but there was a new movement starting among different labor groups demanding that the government get involved in the redistribution of the wealth.

It was in the early part of the 20^th century that Adam Smith was seen as being “archaic” and Karl Marx was ‘the new kid on the block.’ It was the 1929 depression that began to separate the new age from the old. Up until Franklin Delano Roosevelt we had the checks and balances, limited government, and the inalienable rights to liberty and prosperity, but after 1933 we began to get the centralized state and the controls of industry by the government.

In the division of powers – Congress was given the responsibility for the issuing of money. In the Constitution the Founders stated that Congress would have the power “to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin,” and all money was to be coined in precious metal and paper notes were to be promises to pay in gold and silver, not legal tender as such.”

However, what happened was that the issuing of money was turned over to a private consortium of bankers who set up a privately owned bank called the Bank of the United States and today we have a similar arrangement that exists under the Federal Reserve System. (A good book to read is called The Creature from Jekyll Island which talks about the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank.)

This in turn has brought in “fractional banking” which allows a bank to loan out three or four times more paper notes than it has in assets and now we have become an economy of debt instead of wealth. In seeing what was happening and in the latter part of his life Thomas Jefferson said: “We are completely saddled and bridled, and the bank is so firmly mounted on us that we must go where it will guide.”

The writer of the Hebrews challenges us: “We must pay close attention…”

Life and Liberty Are Secure Only so Long As the Right to Property Is Secure

Leviticus 25:13 “In this year of Jubilee everyone is to return to their own property.

Psalm 115:16 “The highest heavens belong to the Lord, but the earth he has given to mankind.”

The one unalienable right that our Founding Fathers told us to be aware of was the right to property, because all other rights are related to it. Just a superficial reading of Scripture shows the importance that God has placed on private property ownership. Under English common law the earth was considered a gift from God, as we see from Psalm 115:16. John Locke pointed out that this was a common gift and it was the responsibility of mankind to improve it.

This goes along with the Cultural Mandate that the Creator gave us to “subdue the earth and have dominion over it.” (Genesis 1:28) In one sense, dominion brings in the idea of control which also brings in what the Founding Fathers called “exclusiveness” meaning that private property became a necessity in order to subdue the earth and have dominion over it.

If we did not have what is known as “private rights” to develop and improve property then it would be perfectly lawful for a lazy, covetous person to move in as soon as improvements were made and take possession of the land. Even then the lazy, covetous neighbor would not be secure because someone stronger than him could come in and take over.

In the book, The 5000 Year Leap, we read that without property rights four things would occur that would completely frustrate the Creator’s command to multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it and bring it under dominion. What are they?

1. “If another person could come in and take possession of the property once it is improved it would completely destroy the incentive of an industrious person to develop and improve any more property.”
2. “The industrious individual would also be deprived of the fruits of his labor.”
3. “Marauding bands would even be tempted to go about the country confiscating by force and violence the good things which others had frugally and painstakingly provided.”
4. “Mankind would be impelled to remain on the bare subsistence level of hand to mouth survival because the accumulation of anything would invite attack.”

In other words, and like Locke and our Founding Fathers brought out, property is an extension of a person’s life and energy as well as ingenuity. The reason that they bring this out is that every man has a ‘property’ in his own person. So the labor of his body and the work of his hands are properly his.

A question does come that since everything originally was common with the rest of humanity how then does one require ownership? John Locke answers the question: “It is the taking any part of what is common, and removing it out of the state that Nature leaves it in, which begins the property, without which the common (gift from God) is of no use.” John Locke goes on to say: “Thus this law of reason makes the deer the property of the Indian who has killed it; it is allowed to be his goods who had bestowed his labor upon it, though before, it was the common right of everyone.” In other words, property becomes the owner of those who put the labor into it. For example, in the early days of our Union property was allotted to those who would take possession and put labor into it. It was Justice George Sutherland of the U.S. Supreme Court that mentioned that property, per se, has no rights; “but the individual – the man – has three great rights, equally sacred from arbitrary interference: the right to his Life, the right to his liberty, the right to his property.” It was Abraham Lincoln who said, “Property is the fruit of labor.”

On the basis of all of this, one of the primary purposes of government is to protect property. The early American colonists realized the importance of this and it is one of the things that led to the Revolutionary War, because it was the royal crown trying to take away property through various kinds of taxation without their consent. Our Founding Fathers realized the foundational stone for human liberty and human happiness is private property.

This is why government should not take from the ‘haves’ and give to the ‘have-nots,’ as the redistribution of the wealth is unconstitutional. However, we see today how the government has slowly but surely began to redistribute, out of concern (supposedly), for the poor and needy. The question does arise who will take care of the poor? The answer according to our Founding Fathers was “anybody but the federal government.” Up until the present time, help was given almost exclusively by the private sector or on the community or state level.

It would seem to me that if we lose our right to own private property we also will soon lose all our other rights.

“United States Of America Shall Be a Republic.”

Exodus 18:21 “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:”

When we repeat the Pledge of Allegiance we highlight this principle: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.”

Democracy requires the full anticipation of most of the population in the legislative or decision-making process of government. In a country like America with 300 million people that would be impossible to come to any type of decision. You take the masses of people in a country, like the United States of America, and most are busy in their everyday affairs and would not have the time to sit down in different hearings and to do the daily task that would be necessary. Our Founding Fathers knew that there would be an explosion of our population and so they worked towards building a Republic.

Looking back in history we see that the Greeks tried the Democratic method of mass participation in their states and cities and each time it ended in tyranny.

A Republic is governed through elected representatives and can be expanded indefinitely as the population grows in a country. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

James Madison said: “democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and having general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. A Republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”

Madison, like the other Founding Fathers knew that the United States would be pushing West and expanding said: “in a democracy the people meet and exercise the government in person; and a Republic they assemble and administered by the representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, must be confined to a small spot. A Republic may be extended over large regions.”

He went on to give a very good definition of a Republic: “we may define a Republic could be a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favorite class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercise and their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank Republicans claim for their government audible title of Republic.”

Here in the states we would do well to remember the words of Madison, Benjamin Franklin and the other Founding Fathers.

Today we hear the word democracy that the average American uses to describe America’s constitutional Republic. We need to have a clear and distinct understanding between a democracy and a Republic.

In the early part of the last century some people came together and organized the ISS – The Intercollegiate Socialist Society. The idea in back of this was to throw light on a worldwide movement known as socialism. This new movement – socialism – is defined as government ownership or control of all things of production and distribution and all that that entails. The slogan that was adopted for this new movement was “production for use, not for profit,” which caught on and we see the results of this in the Western world.

But because of the violence that was associated with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) the term socialism was looked upon in a bad way and so it was renamed to “the league for Industrial Democracy.”

This was bringing in the idea that the word “democracy” would begin to convey the nationalization of production and distribution as well as the nation’s resources which then would become the property of all the people – hence a democracy and through that America could enjoy “production for use, not for profit.” We see this idea coming out with some of our politicians about the equal distribution of wealth which basically goes back to take from ‘the haves’ to give to ‘the have-nots’.

Some of the brilliant young leaders at the turn of the 20th century of ISS were now in some of the most prestigious positions in politics, the press, universities, etc., and became the opinion makers of our society. We see this still being played out through the radicals of the 60s who are now in places of influence.

Actually to all of this what we have is really an attack upon the Constitution of the United States. In other words their thought was that the Constitution was outdated and perhaps totally obsolete.

We hear this argument today among so-called “progressives” who want to change the Constitution. Basically with many of our politicians today it would seem that they are paying little mind to the Constitution, although upon taking the oath of the office is to protect the Constitution which is the law of the land.