Light Brings Salt
Volume 3, Issue 27 July 3, 2005
Dedicated to the Systematic Exposition of the Word of God
The Founders' Cornerstones
In this modern age, when we
commemorate the 229th birthday of these United States, we may recite the
rightness of our Declaration of Independence from Great Britain: "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,
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles
and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their Safety and Happiness."
Less often, though, do we ponder
how the Founders of our nation came to this understanding of legitimacy in government.
The magnificent document from
which the above passage is taken defines the basis of our Republic, but whence
arose the ideas that impelled the Founders to set our nation off on the path of
separation from rule by the kings of
John Winthrop, aboard the ship Arabella lying off the
Consider Roger Williams,
repeatedly hounded out of the Massachusetts Bay Colony during the mid-1600s,
and who then founded
Hence, the colonists felt the
profound injustice of the British king's deviation from adherence to the laws
underpinning his reign, which led to the break in 1776. As the Founders noted,
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is
their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new
Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these
Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former
Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a
history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the
establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."
A major portion of the Declaration
of Independence then lists the bill of particulars, 27 indictments of King
George's faithlessness toward British laws. Reading these charges today,
especially in light of the Supreme Court's assault in recent weeks on the U.S.
Constitution -- the document that implements the Declaration's principles in
practical government -- we should wonder, are we indeed the heirs of our
Founding generation? For at least seven of the indictments are suspiciously
aligned with allegations we could, and perhaps should, lay against our
The Founders wrote, "He has
refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public
good." And: "He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate
and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent
should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend
to them." Could these charges not as readily apply to
The Founders further criticized
the King, noting, "He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for
opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people."
Although more subtle and insidious, our courts have "repeatedly
dissolved" the actions of our "Representative Houses" in
"opposing with manly firmness" the judiciary's "invasions on the
rights of the people."
Consider this charge: "He has
erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to
harass our people, and eat out their substance." Could this not as easily describe the Supreme
Court's decision permitting governments to take the private property of one
citizen and bestow it on another who is expected to pay more taxes?
Our Supreme Court justices have
even cited foreign law in support of their recent rulings. The British king did
likewise: "He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction
foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent
to their Acts of pretended Legislation...." Does it not follow that when
our judges import foreign laws to bind us, we have little recourse to resist?
Add this: "For taking away
our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the
Forms of our Governments...." This past week's Supreme Court decisions in
regard to
Are these parallels remarkable? Or
does growing tyranny present the same face wherever it appears? Founder John
Adams made an eloquent case for both private property ownership and public
religious observance: "The moment the idea is admitted into society that
property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of
law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If 'Thou shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt
not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable
precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free."
Far too many members of the
Note: This article was excerpted from The Federalist
Patriot of