Words with Meanings

Let’s quote a few from the Declaration of Independence to begin this essay.

“ . . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . . That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Please note the words, “Governments are instituted among men”.   By whom?

That question is answered by the following clause, “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Fairly clear, wouldn’t you say?

Governments are created (instituted) by men and receive their powers from the consent of those intended to be governed by whatever compact is negotiated.   All governments are man made.  They are not natural.  As a result, they must be judged in relation to natural law or existence.

Nothing is said about God granting a government to “certain individuals or groups”.  Nor is any other entity indicated as having the power or right to “institute a government” among men.  Only those who comprise the citizenry of whatever the “union” is can grant the powers to a central authority to govern their actions. More importantly, as noted in that same document, a government was instituted “to secure those rights” which were described as unalienable.

Therefore, if we pursue a logical explanation of government, no group or group of individuals has a right to dictate to the rest of the citizens, who have agreed to the compact, or to perform any functions, services or extract any tributes other than those prescribed by the compact itself.  The government was strictly limited to the terms of the compact.

The Founders never envisaged a government of career politicians or a ruling elite.  They expected citizens elected to or appointed to a government position to serve relatively short terms ( 2 years for Representatives and  6 for Senators) and then return to civilian life and gainful employment of whatever form. 

Man is borne free!  Slavery, in any form, is always an imposed condition, not a natural one, and is most often external in terms of source.  It is extremely doubtful that any individual would willingly submit themselves to a slave status.  Yet, that appears to be what can happen when the citizens, knowingly or unknowingly vote powers above, beyond or outside those originally established in the compact by which the union was created.  By incremental steps, the government becomes all powerful and the citizens become subjects.  History keeps showing us what happens when this occurs and the plight of the citizens residing in such a state.  As Jefferson said early on, “a government powerful enough to give a citizen everything he wants is powerful enough to take everything he has!”

Regardless of how a government comes into being, there is a basic truism, “governments have nothing of their own.  They must first take whatever it is from the citizens (ne subjects!).”  This seems to be forgotten too often in today’s politically correct onslaught as the elected officials continue to spend and spend, tax and tax, elect and elect, exempting themselves from the more onerous conditions of any legislation they pass.

The Founding Fathers sought in every way possible to “preserve, protect and defend” the individual rights of the citizens they represented.  They consequently created a Constitution to restrain and restrict the federal government to only those basic powers considered necessary and appropriate.  Limited government?  Absolutely!  Because the government was founded by the citizens, it must be responsive to them, not responsible for them!

That’s my view.  What’s yours.  Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com Hillard W. Welch

©Copyright 2012

Why all the fuss?

Almost on a daily basis you can find an article or speech by someone seeking to eliminate the cherished 2^nd Amendment to the US Constitution.  Whenever such items appear it is a foregone conclusion that no valid statistics are presented that would support the repeated desire to control gun ownership by private citizens.

The words of the Constitution if read as originally written are not difficult to understand.  However, the misinterpretations are legion.  Most often the claim is made that guns should only be available to a state’s militia.  While the militia may have been considered a “first line of defense” during colonial times, that is a misunderstanding of the actual nature of a militia.

Historically, a militia is a group of citizens assembled, either hastily or previously planned due to an impending emergency, for the purposes of defending the homes, property and lives of the citizens.  It was never considered and thought to be a “standing army”.  In fact, the colonials had an inherent distrust of a standing army, having witnessed the problems encountered with the British soldiers stationed and quartered among them.

Any review of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution reveals the primary concern with protecting the understood rights of the individual and an absolute minimum of government interference.  Both the 2^nd and 4^th Amendments establish this position.  The 2^nd by acknowledging the “right to keep and bear arms” and the 4^th  the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, . . . etc.”

We will not argue the point that today is different than colonial times but the potential for harm and commission of a crime remain pretty much the same.  The need to be able to protect one’s self and/or property, family or others still exists, albeit the means and/or methods of so doing have changed.

Would anyone seriously contend that the average law abiding citizen purchases a weapon for the express purpose of committing mayhem or any crime?  That goes beyond reason and logic.

Yet, there are those who believe crime can be prevented by making the average citizen incapable of defending themselves, their family or their property.  That, on the face of it, would leave the criminal (defined as one who does not abide by or adhere to the law) free to acquire and use whatever means would be considered effective in either subduing the person from whom the criminal wishes to take property or life.  It’s a little late when such a situation arises to call 911!  And, there is no excuse for blaming the police under such circumstances since they can only react when they become aware of such a situation.  No police force, regardless of how well trained and/or armed is capable of anticipating events or the actions of a criminal.

It appears that the importance of the individual citizen is often ignored or swept aside in the political and legislative environment as laws are written to restrict or control the means of self-defense.

History repeatedly reports on the ultimate subjugation of the citizens of a country who have had their weapons of self-defense confiscated.  The Founding Fathers must have anticipated such a possibility when they included the 2^nd Amendment.

The right of self-defense is not something granted by government.  It comes with you as a natural right at the time of birth.  It is an unalienable right and should be guaranteed and protected by government.

That’s my view.  What’s yours?  Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com

©Copyright 2012 Hillard W. Welch

Principles?

By definition, a principle is “a fundamental or general truth upon which others are founded” or “a natural law by which something operates.”

Using those definitions, it is of no minor significance that the Founding Fathers believed they were dealing in “principles” when they created the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Principles are important because they provide a solid and stable foundation.  They can be relied upon to be the same today as they were yesterday and will be the same tomorrow!

At the time of the founding of the United States, such stability was an important consideration.  The colonies had survived the Revolutionary War and had struggled through the era of the Articles of Confederation.  Throughout there had been a good deal of turmoil and conflict despite having pulled together when fighting the British.  Inflation was rampant as a consequence of the colonies issuing paper (printed) money to attempt to finance the war’s cost.

Perhaps the concept and impact of a principle can best be appreciated if one reflects on the fact that “gravity” is a natural principle.  It makes no difference what man or beast attempts, gravity remains in force.  Oh, yes, man has been able to “get beyond the reach of gravity” to send a man to the moon, but that does not negate the fact that gravity remains as an operating principle.

In their efforts to establish a sound government, the Founding Fathers worked diligently to put in place a number of basic points which they believed would serve as the foundation for the present and future.  This included such “principles” as “freedom of speech” which is not license to slander or defame anyone.  Add to that the principle of “freedom of worship”.  Nothing in that principle prohibits the display of religious symbols whether in public buildings or private homes.  Nor does it prohibit the teaching of religious subjects or the study of theology; quite the contrary, when the freedom of speech and worship are combined.

Another principle was “freedom of the press”.  Again, the printed word should not be slanderous nor defamatory.  To protect against such distortions by anyone, Congress passed laws specifically addressing such destructive behavior.

“Freedom of assembly” has been abused by the “occupiers” who have seen fit to desecrate the property where they assembled.  That is not freedom. It is criminal for it makes no difference whether the property is public or private, no one is granted a right to destroy or damage property.

Too often, we do not think of these as “principles” and yet the importance of their being the same day-in and day-out cannot be gainsaid.

The Founding Fathers obviously had a strong and unshakeable belief in the Golden Rule.  Even a cursory examination of the specifics delineated in the Constitution show an approach of consistent fairness and equitable distribution of power and authority.  They were more concerned with being sure that all citizens, not just themselves, be treated fairly, honestly and with understanding.

Thus, we can see the importance of the “principles” which they believed were founded on “natural law”.  As noted in the Declaration of Independence, “natural law” stated that “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Too often misconstrued today, the “pursuit of happiness” was intended to mean each individual being free to achieve his or her maximum potential whether it be in the arts, sciences, manufacturing, philosophy or any labor.  It carried with it the principle of “entitlement to the fruits of their labors”, regardless of what their labors might be, property often being the result of such individual effort.  The entire fabric of the Constitution is structured to ensure the protection of the rights so recognized.

That’s my view.  What’s yours?  Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com

©Copyright 2012 Hillard W. Welch

“Money isn’t funny!”

U.S. money has changed a great deal since first defined in 1792.  The Constitution only gave Congress the power to coin money, not print it!

“The Congress shall have Power . . . ‘To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures’”.  (Art. I, Sec. 8 §5).  Simple language but it required enabling legislation to fulfill.

Thus, in 1792, the U.s. Congress passed just such a law.  US money was defined as “dollars or units”, the word “dollar” coming directly from the Spanish milled “dollar” commonly known as a “piece of eight”.  A standard dollar contained 371-4/16^th parts of a grain of pure silver.  The gold “Eagles” were equivalent in value to 10 silver dollars and contained 257-4/8ths of a grain of pure gold (equal to 3,712-1/2 grains of fine silver).

According to the Constitution, “No State shall . . . make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts  . . .”  (Art. 1, Sec. 10, §1)

That definition of the dollar has never been changed!

Because the colonies had “printed” money during the Revolution and immediately thereafter in order to finance the war, such paper became more a “promissory note” than a medium of exchange and their value sunk disastrously.  The devastating inflation that existed at that time influenced the founders to the point they wanted nothing to do with “paper money”.  Thus, the establishment of the gold and silver standard as the foundation for US currency.  This standard has never been repealed!

The Founding Fathers intended that there be uniform standards for the currency and the weights and measures to be used in commerce.  That way, all citizens regardless of where they lived  could rely on the fact that a foot or a dollar always had the same value in every state, east or west, wherever encountered or employed.

Ever since Lyndon Johnson’s administration, the coinage minted has been bi-metallic and thus should really be called counterfeit.  They violate the Constitution and law establishing the content and value of a “dollar”.  From 1913 with the creation of the Federal Reserve System, there has been a steady movement to eliminate all references to actual money from the paper currency issued by that system.  Please look at any paper money you have in your wallets or purses.  The heading is Federal Reserve Note.  You can search every corner and never find that it is “redeemable” in anything, other than more worthless paper!

In 1913, the Federal Reserve issued paper money (certificates) which were fully redeemable in gold (until 1934) or silver (until 1968).  These were known as Silver or Gold Certificates and stated that there was on deposit in the Treasury of the United States the equivalent amount of the metal stated which could be delivered to the “bearer on demand”.

Ultimately in 1963, the notation printed on the Federal Reserve Notes (no longer called “certificates”) was changed to read: “Legal tender for all debts, public or private.”  No longer redeemable in anything.

The banner which now reads, “Federal Reserve Note”! must be recognized, in legal parlance, to mean it is a promise to pay.  It is not money in the true sense since it is not “convertible” into cash!  Try taking any Federal Reserve Note into a bank and asking for the equivalent amount in silver for it.

This is why many now say we only have “funny (fiat) money”!  The move from silver and gold to printing press money has left every citizen with nothing solid or tangible.  But it isn’t funny.  It’s tragic!

That’s my view.  What’s yours?  Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com

©Copyright 2012  Hillard W. Welch

Applied or Interpreted?

One has to wonder whether the Founding Fathers believed the Constitution should be applied or interpreted with respect to the management of the country.

Human nature is such that man always tries to “see beyond” what is written or even what the facts may be in his insatiable thirst for growth and expansion.  It’s considered a part of life and ambition plays a strong part in a politician’s life.

Reading and contemplating what the Framers wrote and the view they had of the individuals they expected to serve in the various government functions, it appears they anticipated that the large majority of decisions would result from applying the principles they had so carefully crafted into the Constitution.

As written, each of the three branches, executive, legislative and judicial, had reasonably well defined areas of responsibility and authority.  Only the legislature could propose laws.  The executive was charged with seeing that properly executed laws were adhered to.  The judiciary was to apply the Constitution whenever a question arose as to the constitutionality of a law.  Note that the word was “apply”, not interpret.

To interpret anything is to inject an individual’s idea of what the point is rather than what the facts might be.  In the past 100 years, we have seen more “interpretation” than “application” of the constitution with respect to the operation of the federal government.

Today we have Supreme Court Justices (Ginsburg in particular, Breyer in part) openly stating that we should incorporate in our constitutional “interpretation” what exists in international law or laws in other countries.  That is, to a certain extent, a total disregard for the oath taken upon assuming the position of a Supreme Court Justice (to preserve, protect and defend).  The softest name for the individuals who do so is hypocrite but perhaps more pointed, “intellectually dishonest”.  

For those who wish to point to the Declaration of Independence and its clause, “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation”, please note that it does not say “subject our decision or incorporate their thinking” in the action being taken.  When Jefferson wrote that part, it seems obvious that he was “selling” the point of view that the colonies were justified in their action since the King sought “the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.”

If we apply the Constitution to a given situation, the question of “compliance” becomes clearer.  It is not clouded by the introduction of extraneous ideas or a personal desire or interpretation of the situation at hand.  It rules out the possibility of future deviations from the intended purpose of that part of the document being applied.  As an example, consider the “separation of church and state” so evident in today’s discussions.  Nowhere in the document do such words exist yet they have been incorporated by interpreting the actual words.  Amendment I states: ”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .”

By interpretation, we are no longer allowed to “worship openly”, start a school game on the playing field with a prayer, utter a word of approval of God in public discourse, or in some situations speak harshly since it might be classified as “hate speech”.  Hardly an accurate application of what was written.  On the very face of it, all this is a violation of the First Amendment’s opening sentence: “Congress shall make no law restricting freedom of speech, etc. . . .”

The Constitution should be applied while the laws enacted by Congress should be interpreted to determine compliance with the Constitution.

While imagination is a wonderful thing, it deserves no part in applying the Constitution.

That’s my view.  What’s yours?  Reach me at constitionviews.com © Copyright 2012 Hillard W. Welch