If politics is truly a science, a divine science as Adams said, then it behooves those that practice this science, our elected officials, to fully comprehend and understand the foundational documents upon which America's freedoms were established - the Declaration of Independence, America's first, or founding document, and the Constitution, its governing document, and the 28 principles of sound government the Founding Fathers embedded into these two documents.

We need a revival of our revolutionary spirit. We need to know that "Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." (George Washington) We need to take back responsibility for our lives and future. We need to keep government as our servant, not our master.
We need to talk about the principles of the Constitution in our schools, our churches, our meeting halls and our homes.

Last month we discussed the Founder's preparation for the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and the miraculous results of that preparation. But it was not without effort. During that long hot summer, the delegates engaged in heated debates, saw tempers nearly out of control, sometimes expressing the thought that this just might not be possible to accomplish, and even saying they would just as soon go their own way rather than unionize.

Before considering specific aspects of the Constitution, perhaps we should establish its underlying philosophical base by reviewing a little American history and some basic principles.

When the Constitution was finalized and sent to the national congress and the states for adoption, some states were thought to be linchpin states. In other words, if any of them rejected it, the worry was that it would cause a stampede away from adoption. One of those states was New York.

“Our government is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to-wit: by consolidation first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence. The engine of consolidation will be the federal judiciary; the two other branches, the corrupting and corrupted instruments.”
“It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression,... that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body, (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow,) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed; because, when all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”

In making the following observations we are not arguing that the Supreme Court should apply “natural law” and therefore make decisions outside of the bounds of the written constitution. That argument is a two-edged sword depending on one’s view of “natural law.” Rather we prefer that the Supreme Court stick to the written constitution as we have earlier discussed. In this article Professor Lewis is attempting to educate the populace as to the context in which the constitution was adopted and the importance of both virtue and its guardian, religion, in maintaining the freedoms and liberties we now enjoy. Consistent with his prior articles, he argues that considerations of natural law should be made in democratic, rather than judicial, venues.

Now that we have set the basic groundwork, we should focus on how our constitutional form of government was changed so radically without any democratic input. To set the stage, however, we need to review the original intents behind the 1st Amendment and discuss the first U. S. Supreme Court case dealing with the Bill of Rights -- Barron v. Baltimore.

“In our complex system, presenting the rare and difficult scheme of one general government, whose action extends over the whole, but which possesses only certain enumerated powers, and of numerous state governments, which retain and exercise all powers not delegated to the Union, contests respecting power must arise.”

In John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government (1689), chapter five discusses property. He said “every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has a right to but himself. The labor of his body, and the works of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state of nature... [and] mixes his labor with...makes it his property.” “God, by commanding to subdue, gave authority so far to appropriate. And the condition of humane life, which requires labor and materials to work on, necessarily introduces private possessions.”

One of the characteristics of the great civilizations that have risen and fallen throughout history, is the fact that over time they departed from their basic founding principles. Drunken by the success caused by the principles established by their forebears, later generations became blinded to actual cause and effect relationships. They seemed to assume that prosperity was somehow their natural birthright regardless of what they themselves did and the principles they followed.

There are several words that carry instant credibility and which drive much of the political debate about what the law should or should not do. In the prior article I discussed one of these words, “justice.” Here I discuss a related word, “equality.”

As I explained in prior articles, there are certain words that are so impressive to us that we tend to use them regularly in arguments. However, the meaning of such terms is not static. Through widespread misuse, a word’s meaning can change radically. In the prior two articles I discussed the meaning of the words “justice” and “equality.” The purpose of this article is to consider another such word – “rights.”

As we celebrate the Declaration of Independence in July and the Constitution in September, let us once again reflect on the marvelous principles underlying these two documents.

To a constitutionalist, this question sounds almost blasphemous, but when one realizes the Constitution is not what it used to be, then certainly a discussion of the question has merit.

"No people can be found to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the affairs of men, more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of ‘Providential Agency'." (First Inaugural Address)

How the American Colonies really won the War for Independence.

Six Important Principles of the Declaration of Independence.

President Reagan said that the day of Soviet tyranny was passing, that freedom had a momentum which would not be halted. He gave this organization its mandate: to add to the momentum of freedom across the world. Your mandate was important 20 years ago; it is equally important today.

The most basic concept leading to the establishment of freedom in America is that, “Men are endowed with certain unalienable rights.” But immediately following is the recognition that declaring rights is one thing but preserving and protecting them is quite another. What good does it do, when one is face-to-face with a pistol-carrying thug, to declare, “I have an unalienable right to my life and property?” No thief or murderer will be deterred by that declaration. Hence, the Founders knew there must be a basic set of laws given to declare what actions are illegal and perhaps what the punishment will be for breaking those laws. In other words, without law there is no protection of rights.

The recall election now being carried out in California against Governor Davis should provide evidence to the whole nation that the Founders had a much better way to ensure good government. The whole recall procedure now being played out would be considered very objectionable and suggests that republican government of the people is very cumbersome, inefficient, and even laughable.

True freedom, the freedom that liberates, is grounded in truth and ordered to truth and, therefore, to virtue. A free person is enslaved neither to the sheer will of another nor to his own appetites and passions. A free person lives uprightly, fulfilling his obligations to family, community, nation and God. By contrast, a person given over to his appetites and passions, a person who scoffs at truth and chooses to live, whether openly or secretly, in defiance of the moral law is not free. He is simply a different kind of slave.

The recent Supreme Court decision to strike down a Texas law against sodomy has reminded constitutionalist Americans that our courts are literally out of control and no longer guided by the Constitution.

"It has always been a source of serious reflection and sincere regret with me that the youth of the United States should be sent to foreign countries for the purpose of education. Although there are doubtless many under these circumstances who escape the danger of contracting principles unfriendly to republican government, yet we ought to deprecate the hazard attending ardent and susceptible minds from being too strongly and too early prepossessed in favor of other political systems, before they are capable of appreciating their own." (The Real George Washington, p. 744)

Listed below are a few principles or ideals to which the Founders adhered. Given immediately following each one are passages showing Judeo-Christian roots of that principle and then passages reflecting the use of the principle in America's founding documents. This list is by no means meant to be exhaustive, but only to exemplify the concept that America's Founding ideals have their roots in Judeo-Christian tradition. It should not be surprising that the Bible is quoted often as the source of the Founders' thinking for studies have shown the Bible is by far the most often quoted source in all of the publications and speeches of the founding era.

All Americans have a deep interest in maintaining the Constitution. This might seem especially true of journalists, who owe their livelihoods to the founding document that frames our freedoms. Yet for some reason, American journalists in recent decades have assailed that document with startling vigor - and have seemed blissfully ignorant of their treachery. Fortunately, the Constitution itself supplies a cure for this malady.