The Linton Village

Jesus is "the Supreme Ruler of the Universe"

2012-01-09T09:36:00.000-08:00

An excerpt from my speech to the Consent of the Governed Rally, January 4, 2012:

It is refreshing to read the preamble of the Missouri state constitution. It shows the wisdom of the men and women who formed our government. It provides their view of the justification for government. The preamble of the constitution reads as follows: “We the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness, do establish this constitution for the better government of the state.” The foundation for the government of the state of Missouri is reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe. Who is this Supreme Ruler? I would like to address that question, but before I do I would like to discuss one possible objection.

Someone may ask whether this preamble violates the separation of church and state. I suspect that most of you are aware that the language of separation of church and state is nowhere to be found in the constitution of the United States. That language was first applied to the federal government through the First Amendment in 1878 by the U.S. Supreme Court and later applied to the states in 1947 by that same august body. The language itself comes from Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. Jefferson was not even in the country during the debate of the First Amendment. It is a complete mystery to me how his words could be taken as an interpretation of the First Amendment when he was not present for the debate. To now allow that language to be used as a mantra to rid the nation of its Christian heritage is a travesty. And Missouri’s constitution is evidence of that travesty.

Rather than quoting someone who was not present during the debate on the First Amendment, I would prefer to quote someone who WAS there. This man said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” This command, we know as the Great Commission, is worthy of your reflection in this New Year. Consider it in this election year. What does it mean for our state and our nation?

I would like to make several points regarding this pronouncement. My comments will not be exhaustive. Many of you will have to flesh it out in the days to come. But I do have some preliminary comments. First, Jesus is the Supreme Ruler of the Universe. Note that he claims all authority in heaven and on earth has been given unto him. This is no hollow claim, and it is no hollow recognition by the framers of the Missouri Constitution that they hold reverence to the Supreme Ruler o f the Universe as the foundation of Missouri’s government. Therefore, the Missouri constitution is a covenant between God and the people to conduct themselves in accordance with that relationship, to be in subjection to him.

Second, and likely most importantly, Jesus came to make disciples of nations. Notice that he did not say, go and have people ask for me into their hearts. He did not say I have come to create a new philosophy for you. He commanded much more. He came to change the world by making disciples of all nations. He came to create a new world to follow him. The unfortunate thing about speaking of “Christianity” is that it can be portrayed as a philosophy, as simply a matter of the heart. If post-modern culture is successful in portraying the faith of Christ as simply a philosophy it may put Christianity on the shelf with all of the other post-modern philosophies and relegate it to irrelevancy. Jesus did not come to start a new philosophy. He came to change the world by changing nations.

Third, when Jesus pronounced this command, he made it to his eleven disciples. He made it to those who would found his new Church. He made it to the Church. The institutional Church has authority in this world to execute the change that Christ initiated. I am not claiming that the Church should exert some ruling authority over the state. But I am claiming that there is a place for the institutional Church to reassert its role in the dialogue of the proper authority of the church and of the state. For example, the state has no authority in providing charity to the poor. When the state takes responsibility for charity, it does so by law, and charity dies because it becomes legal obligation and no longer charity. The state exists to execute justice. When the state takes the property of some in order to redistribute it to others, it is doing the exact opposite of what it is supposed to do, execute justice. It is unjustly confiscating the lives of its people. Charity is the role of the church and the church should say so.

Likewise, the Church should reengage in its role in education. Education is the process whereby culture is transferred from one generation to the next. Education is by its very nature religious and cultural. It forms the way the next generation looks at the world. It forms the way we say Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays. It informs what we occupy, whether Wall Street, our own homes, jobs and churches. The Church has its very existence in cultural formation as Jesus claimed. And it is time for the Church to say so.

Fourth, YOU have an obligation as well. When you speak to your elected officials, you must remember that you are not seeking your will but the will of Jesus. This requires wisdom. You must keep several things in mind. You are not speaking for yourself. You are speaking for another. You must know his thoughts and desires.

You must also remember that your elected official is ordained by God to his or her position. It is a position of honor that God has given that elected official, and the position must be respected.

There is great honor in being an elected official in the state of Missouri, but there is also great obligation. Jesus expects the nations to bend the knee to his kingship. He expects them to be disciples. That is an awful position to be in as an elected official. How does an elected official carry out that responsibility? Certainly, there are consequences that flow from a proper or an improper execution of that task. Your job is to assist your elected official to fulfill that obligation if they so choose.

In closing, I say I am slow to speak of Christianity. What Christ gave us is not a philosophy. He gave us a culture. We must pass that culture on to the next generation. I prefer to speak of Christendom, the new culture Christ gave us. And I am optimistic about the role of Christendom in the future. Consider the Great Commission once again. Jesus claimed to have all authority in heaven and on earth. He also commanded his church to make disciples of all nations. If he commands us to so act and he has all authority to bring our actions to success, what can possibly keeping him from completing that task?

A Christmas Wish for Our Nation

2011-12-15T12:21:00.000-08:00

O. Palmer Robertson, in the fourteenth chapter of his book Christ of the Prophets, makes the point that the core theme of the Prophets of the Old Testament is the working of exile and restoration. Exile and restoration are never completely inseparable.

As we read the Old Testament Prophets, it is often hard to make specific applications to our lives. These prophets wrote to a community long ago, to a culture as foreign to ours as any can possibly be, separated by time and history. What we learn from the Old Testament Prophets is an understanding of how Yahweh thinks and acts, particularly how He acts through His covenant. If we read the prophets in the context of the entire Old Covenant, the concepts of exile and restoration are one particular aspect of the blessings and curses of His covenantal dealings with His people.

If we review the blessings and curses in Deuteronomy, we find that the blessings of the covenant are always given in conjunction with the curses of the covenant. Blessing and cursing virtually always work together. Genesis 1-3 provides a key understanding of how this works out in our labor. Labor or work is simultaneously a blessing and a curse. Ecclesiastes portrays this reality in poetic form.

In the Prophets, Yahweh, the covenant God, executes the blessings and curses in exile and restoration. In some cases, curses are the precursor to blessings. In some cases, the curses to one people are blessings to others. In all cases, curses bring about a radical reorientation in people, nations or the world that allow Yahweh to create something completely new.

The pinnacle of His working of His covenantal blessings and curses is the incarnation of His eternal Son in the person of the Lord Jesus. Jesus submitted to the covenantal curse of the cross and in doing so permitted His Father to create something new. The Father, through His Son, created a new reality, a God-man who was suitable to rule all of creation at the right hand of His Father. He is now seated there with all authority in heaven and earth.

This nation and the entire world have been going through a time of cursing. I am not going to speculate on the extent or length of this cursing. However, as we go through this Christmas season, let us remember that cursing is not without result. Cursing brings blessing in some shape or form, all under His care and supervision. The important thing to do is to remember that Yahweh is sovereign. While we work to change our nation for the better, remember not to give into despair. Be willing to submit to the workings of Yahweh. He is creating something new.

The Uniter vs. The Divider

2011-11-01T12:31:00.000-07:00

Peggy Noonan last week in her op ‘Ed “The Divider vs. the Thinker” in the Wall Street Journal, asked the question, what is the glue that has held America together for the past 200 years that now appears to be cracking, threatening to allow the many divisions in our nation to drive us to destruction? Ms. Noonan’s answer:

A love of country based on a shared knowledge of how and why it began; a broad feeling among our citizens that there was something providential in our beginnings; a gratitude that left us with a sense that we should comport ourselves in a way unlike the other nations of the world, that more was expected of us, and not unjustly— "To whom much is given much is expected"; a general understanding that we were something new in history, a nation founded on ideals and aspirations—liberty, equality—and not mere grunting tribal wants. We were from Europe but would not be European: No formal class structure here, no limits, from the time you touched ground all roads would lead forward. You would be treated not as your father was but as you deserved. That's from "The Killer Angels," a historical novel about the Civil War fought to right a wrong the Founders didn't right. We did in time, and at great cost. What a country.

Ms. Noonan is on to something, but what she is on to remains remotely hidden in the background, hidden behind the word “providential.” There is much good in Ms. Noonan’s piece, much worthy in the way of good advice. However, unless what remains in the background is brought forth, her proposition ironically will simply add to the decline. Ms. Noonan has adequately expressed in her piece the modern day, American secular gospel, something that has come to be known as American exceptionalism. But this secular gospel is a cheap, superficial imitation of the true source of social unity.

At the founding of our nation, there was a common consensus that the God of the Bible was the king of the universe. The world and the nation were ruled by a king that had given himself to die for the sins of all those who sought to subject themselves to him. This God of mercy and grace not only made a way for a sinner to obtain a right relationship with God and with his fellow man. He taught his subjects how to conduct themselves in society. Our founding fathers established this nation on the proposition that its people would act as Christians, in the same character of mercy and grace as their heavenly father. John Adams claimed that, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that, “The Americans combine the notions of religion and liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other.” Patrick Henry proclaimed, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians not on religionists, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity and freedom of worship here.”

Scripture is replete with declarations that a man or woman will take on the characteristics of his god. If we are being divided, it is only because we have taken on the characteristic of our god. The secular gospel, American exceptionalism, and the Federal Government have become our god. Who do we turn to for security in our employment? The Federal Government. Who do we turn to for security in our old age? The Federal Government. Who do we turn to for the security in our healthcare? The Federal Government. The Federal Government has become our god. Is it any wonder that we are being divided?

Government as god inculcates the character of litigation. In government, there is no room for mercy or compassion. There is only law. Law begets demands of right and obligation. When confiscation through tax policy becomes law, confiscation becomes justice, greed becomes institutionalized.

The core character of government today is divisiveness. White House advisors recommend that the victor in the White House should reap the spoils of his victory for his followers. The media echoes this refrain. Democrats seek to structure tax policy to take away blessings from the rich. Republicans seek to give tax benefits to select mercantile interests. If an interest can obtain 51% of the vote of the elected legislative body, government can legislate a solution and declare more rights and obligations. With each declaration of rights and obligations, we become more and more slaves to our governments.

Occupy Wall Street is a perfect example of how we have taken on the characteristic of our god the Federal Government. Those who occupy Wall Street have some apparent claim that they are entitled to some interest in Wall Street. However, they refuse to share what they have with the less privileged. They occupy but they do not bless. They claim and commit acts of violence. This attitude is far from the attitude embraced by our founders: “Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need. (Eph 4:28 ESV)”

America is exceptional. It is exceptional because it was founded upon two millennia of a growing and developing Christian heritage. To look to America without looking through America to that heritage will reinforce the American idolatry that is making us a divisive nation. It is better to look through America to the God that gave it liberty in the first place. Benjamin Franklin, no evangelical apologist, observed, “The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?” Better than depending on American exceptionalism is the praying the third verse of the old hymn of Henry Harbaugh:

Let our rulers ever be
Men that love and honor Thee;
Let the powers by Thee ordained
Be in righteousness maintained;
In the people's hearts increase
Love of piety and peace;
Thus united we shall stand
One wide, free, and happy land.

Using the Right Tool in America

2011-09-17T08:16:00.000-07:00

A confluence of events has come together that make it apparent that our governing officials do not know how to use the proper tools in the cultural tool belt. Is it useful to use a hammer on a bolt? Is it effective to drive in a nail with a screw driver? Our carpenters know what tools are useful to build a house but our legislators are not so astute.

Consider that the U.S. government is now in debt in excess of $14 trillion. Social Security is in a shambles. Hurricane relief in New Orleans was a fiasco. More recently, Senators Blunt and McCaskill have complained about relief funds being diverted from Joplin to the east coast. Finally, our state officials have debated whether millions of dollars of tax credits should be given to private enterprises to induce them to make a hub in St. Louis, commonly known as the China Hub or Aerotropolis. Our elected officials have determined that they can do all of these things and they are not doing any of them well.

Western Civilization has, at least until the last century, held a common consensus that there are three cultural tools in the world’s tool box: the family, the church and the magistrate. Each of these institutions has been identified with a recognizable symbol. The family is represented by the rod as described in Proverbs. The rod is a symbol for discipline, discipleship and education. The church has been given the symbol of the keys of the kingdom as Christ gave the keys of the kingdom to the disciples in Matthew 16:19. The keys of the kingdom symbolize spiritual, emotional and physical wellbeing. The magistrate or the state has been given the symbol of the sword as described in Romans 13. More particularly, in America, we have taken on the symbol of lady justice, blindfolded, holding the scales of justice. These two symbols communicate protection of the nation and an impartial judgment of right and wrong.

However, in the past century we have seen the federal government and now the states more and more taking the rod and the keys of the kingdom. Simultaneously, we have seen it and the states relinquish the sword and the scales of justice. What have these efforts obtained? In their taking up of the keys of the kingdom, our federal and state governments have created a social security system that is bankrupt. They have obtained our children’s children being saddled with $14 trillion of debt. They have produced low income housing at a cost in excess of $200,000 per unit. In their usurpation of the rod, our state officials have produced an educational system that is dysfunctional, bordering on a culture of crime. By proselytizing our young minds to be good workers for the state, they have enculturated good little wards of the state. All the while, our borders are breached, our defenses are compromised and our citizens must pay the price by invasions of privacy from laws such as the Patriot Act.

It is interesting to compare two recent events. First, both of Missouri’s U.S. Senators decry the recent diversion of relief funds from Joplin to the east coast to remedy disasters. Second, the Missouri Senate has debated the propriety of giving tax credits to private enterprise to induce the Chinese to create jobs in Missouri. The Senate debate is complex. On the one side, liberals decry the possible reduction in benefits to the needy for the benefit of the industrial class of our culture. In many ways, this is parallel to diversion of funds from Joplin to the east coast. Who is to say who is more deserving? On the other side of the Aerotropolis debate, you have some conservatives claiming that we need to make better investments with taxpayers’ money. But how can a government make investments with a sword and its eyes blindfolded? The common wisdom holds true. If you do that, someone will lose an eye.

In America today, governments love to throw money around to accomplish their social designs. Governments only obtain their money from taxation. Frederic Bastiat referred to taxation for such purposes as “legal plunder.” We, as a nation, have embraced such legal plunder. It is our life blood. Without it, even conservatives believe our culture will collapse. However, the flaw in legal plunder can be seen in the recent events of the east coast hurricane and Aerotropolis. Once you give in to “legal plunder” you must accept the directives that control the legal plunder. You may not like where the planners send your money, but having accepted it to begin with you must abide their decisions. If you accept legal plunder for Joplin, you must accept it when Joplin is plundered for the east coast. If you accept legal plunder for the poor, you must accept it when the poor are plundered for Chinese businessmen. Wouldn’t it be better to let the church and the local community attend to the truly needy and let business tend to itself?

A screw driven by a hammer is ineffective and usually destructive of quality workmanship. Compassion driven by law is messy and destructive of human dignity. It is time for our federal and state governments to reassess their roles and their function. It is time for our elected officials to seriously contemplate what they can do well with a sword and a blindfold on and quit pocking people in the eyes.

A Friendly Rebuke to the Missouri Chamber of Commerce

2011-08-25T11:07:00.001-07:00

I am a fan of the Missouri Chamber of Commerce. I am a proud member. However, on the issue of investing state money in an International Air Cargo Hub, they are simply wrong. In the most recent issue of the Chamber’s newsletter to its members, Daniel Mehan, Chamber President and CEO, urges “lawmakers to show true leadership and finally put the unproductive tax credit debate behind them, and allow opportunities like these to create jobs in Missouri.”

Mr. Mehan casts the issue for discussion as follows: “We are spending time debating the wrong issue. The question is not whether Missouri should invest funds in economic development initiatives. The real question that we should be asking: How can Missouri best invest these funds?” It is very simple to waive the hand and dismiss a question; it is more difficult to engage an issue and resolve it. The remainder of Mr. Mehan’s piece is devoted to a speculative agenda of how investing “these funds” will bring jobs to Missouri. I hope by asking a few simple questions I will bring Mr. Mehan back to the point of asking the first question of whether Missouri should invest the funds and answer it in the negative.

First, if it is so important to invest “these funds,” would the Chamber be willing to provide these funds in its budget to be funded by Chamber members? (Be clear: if so, I will allow my membership to laps. I do not want to be an investor in Aerotropolis, whether it is by Chamber agreement or governmental fiat.) Remember, government produces nothing. Government produces laws. Through law, government must take funds from its citizens in order to pay for its services. To invest “these funds” it must take “these funds” from others. Is this investment important enough that the Chamber would be willing to invest them directly? Or should the legislature confiscate the property of Mr. Mehan to make the investment? If not, why should I be expected to by paying higher taxes?

Second, if it is not appropriate to debate whether “these funds” should be invested, then in every case the ends justify the means. Suppose that I can put four men to work if I possess a backhoe but I cannot afford a backhoe. If my neighbor has a backhoe that he is not using, but refuses to allow me to take it from him, am I justified in stealing it? After all, I can put it to better use than he can. According to Mr. Mehan’s analysis, I should be able to confiscate the useless backhoe, for it is not appropriate to discuss “whether.”

If we are going to have true economic development, it must be an economic development which is based on justice, not coercion. Economic development that is based on governmental incentives is fleeting and counterproductive. If I have a thousand dollars in disposable income, I have the option to spend it as I see fit. I may buy a new television, a new camera, or new equipment for my business. Each of these economic transactions is an investment in economic development. It is an investment in a product or service which has value to not only me but the individuals that previously invested in and developed the product or service. If the government confiscates five hundred dollars, it has not only deprived me of the ability to invest my full thousand dollars, it has invested in an inherently less valuable investment. If the tax credits are required to induce the investment, it is clear that the investment would not have been made but for the economic bribe needed to increase the investment’s return. And once the incentive ceases, there is no expectation that the investment will continue without the incentive.

The fact that the confiscation is guised in the power of the government for most changes the debate. We live in a culture in which government routinely takes from some to give to others. So it is appropriate to do it in this case as well, correct? NO. This is a mindset that must change. This last year, the Missouri Chamber took positions on labor legislation that was designed to reduce government power exercised by unions over employers. I applaud the Chamber’s positions on such matters. Economic liberty means minimizing or eliminating governmental coercion in economic transactions. However, in urging government to use its legal authority to manipulate economic transactions, the Missouri Chamber is undercutting its own position. Socialism is the abuse of governmental power against some citizens for the benefit of other citizens. The Missouri Chamber’s position as framed Mr. Mehan’s article, while being a different type of socialism from the Obama type socialism, i.e. corporate welfare, it is still socialism. Mr. Mehan should not be using the Missouri Chamber as a mouthpiece for economic injustice. If he expects the legislature to provide economic liberty to Chamber members, he should expect them to provide economic liberty for all.

Substantive Due Process: Calder v. Bull 3 U.S. 386 (1798)

2011-07-20T19:36:00.000-07:00

This is a concept in Constitutional Law which must be reclaimed:

I cannot subscribe to the omnipotence of a state legislature, or that it is absolute and without control, although its authority should not be expressly restrained by the constitution or fundamental law of the state. The people of the United States erected their constitutions, or forms of government, to establish justice, to promote the general welfare, to secure the blessings of liberty, and to protect their persons and property from violence. The purposes for which men enter into society will determine the nature and terms of the social compact, and as they are the foundation of the legislative power, they will decide what are the proper objects of it. The nature and ends of legislative power will limit the exercise of it. This fundamental principle flows from the very nature of our free republican governments that no man should be compelled to do what the laws do not require nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit. There are acts which the federal or state legislature cannot do without exceeding their authority. There are certain vital principles in our free republican governments which will determine and overrule an apparent and flagrant abuse of legislative power, as to authorize manifest injustice by positive law or to take away that security for personal liberty or private property for the protection whereof of the government was established. An act of the legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority. The obligation of a law in governments established on express compact and on republican principles must be determined by the nature of the power on which it is founded.

A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean. A law that punished a citizen for an innocent action, or in other words for an act which when done was in violation of no existing law; a law that destroys or impairs the lawful private contracts of citizens; a law that makes a man a judge in his own cause, or a law that takes property from A. and gives it to B. It is against all reason and justice for a people to entrust a legislature with such powers, and therefore it cannot be presumed that it has done it. The genius, the nature, and the spirit of our state governments amount to a prohibition of such acts of legislation, and the general principles of law and reason forbid them. The legislature may enjoin, permit, forbid, and punish; It may declare new crimes and establish rules of conduct for all its citizens in future cases; it may command what is right and prohibit what is wrong, but it cannot change innocence into guilt or punish innocence as a crime or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private contract or the right of private property. To maintain that our federal or state legislature possesses such powers if it had not been expressly restrained would, in my opinion, be a political heresy altogether inadmissible in our free republican governments.

Clueless on Education

2011-07-08T05:36:00.000-07:00

In a recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Jeb Bush and Joel Kline penned their opinion to return the American educational system to excellence. In their initial paragraph they set forth the problem:

The success of today's students will determine our nation's destiny. America's economic strength and standing in the world economy are directly linked to our ability to equip students with the knowledge and skills to succeed in the 21st-century economy. Students are no longer competing with their peers in other cities—they are competing with students across the globe. Business leaders have become champions of education reform, recognizing the role that rigorous academic standards have on their success.

Their opinion proceeded to attribute the responsibility for education to the states and to champion the need for common core standards. They concluded with a hopeful eschatology:

It is the states' responsibility to foster an education system that leads to rising student achievement. State leaders, educators, teachers and parents are empowered to ensure every student has access to the best curriculum and learning environment. Governors and lawmakers across the country are acting to adopt bold education reform policies. This is the beauty of our federal system. It provides 50 testing sites for reform and innovation. The Common Core State Standards are an example of states recognizing a problem, then working together, sharing what works and what doesn't.

Unfortunately, Messrs. Bush and Kline’s analysis suffers from no less than three flaws. First, they misunderstand the goal of education, the need to make an economic engine out of our children. Second, they misidentify the institution responsible for education. Third, they misidentify the substance of education.

Common Core State Standards will not correct the woeful education in our government school system. Education is vastly more than a list of things to know. To their credit, they do pay lip service to the need for more when they write, “The literacy standards require students to make arguments with evidence rather than just restate their own opinions or experiences.” However, to truly understand the full import of educational reform, this simple statement is insufficient.

Education consists in teaching a person how to think and inculcating a love for learning. The ancient Greeks had the concept of making the ideal man, the paideia. The early Christian Church expanded upon this concept for the paideia of God. At the core of the paideia of God was inculcating in each person the love for learning. This classical approach to education recognized that children develop in their educational process through three phases: a grammar phase, a logical phase and a rhetorical phase, more commonly known as the trivium. Any parent can see these phases in his or her children. There is a phase during which a child enjoys and is good at simple memorization. As the child matures, he or she begins to think more abstractly and asks the question “why?” He or she begins to interrelate concepts in order to draw conclusions. An understanding of logic becomes critical at this phase. Finally, there is a stage at which a child revels in argument. The goal of education is to teach a child how to marshal all of the knowledge and logic of situation for the purpose of persuasion, to come to a conclusion for one’s self and for others. The ancient Hebrew would have referred to these characteristics as knowledge, understanding and wisdom.

This brings us to the second flaw in Bush’s and Kline’s analysis: the one responsible for education. The family is the God ordained institution for raising and educating children. This is inherent in the created order. When my wife and I brought our three daughters into the world, they were not immediately swept away to become wards of the state. They were given to my wife and me to love and care for, and to educate. My wife and I know our daughters better than anyone else in the world--at least until their marriage. They remain my responsibility to educate.

Although there has been over the course of the last century a progressive movement to make the state the caretaker of our children, it is this movement that has been the downfall of our culture. What is government? Government is an institution created to enforce rights and administer justice. Government acts through the execution of law. Law is a set of standards by which people must live. When government speaks of common core standards that is all it can speak of: “standards.” By its very nature, government is limited in its ability to provide education in that it can only speak to the grammar phase, the mere content of knowledge. It must truncate its education prior to the logic and rhetoric phase. It cannot teach the beauty of a good syllogism or a beautiful poem, because the student must meet certain “standards” of knowledge.

Some will respond that the government can and typically does go beyond teaching grammar. And I will readily admit that it does, but the question remains, can it appropriately do so. Our founding fathers, who were classically trained, understood that one primary goal of education is the inculcation of virtue in accordance with a standard of truth. An understanding of virtue and truth is critical to a right logic and a right rhetoric. However, today we live in a society of enforced relativism. Who defines virtue and truth? Can the state define virtue? Remember that there is a so called “separation of church and state” in this nation. Whose virtue and truth will the government teach? Either the government must truncate its education at the grammar phase or it must violate the separation of church and state it has so carefully built.

This brings us to the third and most significant flaw of Bush’s and Kline’s analysis. The flaw is that the purpose of education is to make our children servants of our economic machine. This concept is foreign to western civilization up until the last hundred years or so. Western civilization grew on the concept of the paideia. The Renaissance was the recovery in medieval western culture founded on classical thinking, founded on paideia. Classical learning, the Renaissance, produced the greatest works of art, literature, theology, and industry in the medieval age. Our founding fathers were great men who were classically educated in ancient philosophy as well as Christian ideas. Many of them were trained in multiple classical languages and read the original thinkers throughout history. We have rejected these characteristics in return for a smug attitude of technological, economic and utilitarian superiority.

The Missouri Constitution provides that, “A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the general assembly shall establish and maintain free public schools for the gratuitous instruction of all persons in this state within ages not in excess of twenty-one years as prescribed by law.” The first part of the above proposition provides the motivation for the provision of gratuitous instruction. The motivation of the state is to maintain the rights and liberties of the people. Unfortunately, our culture has lost the greater importance of an educated people, the paideia. What should be considered as a safety net for education for the state, has been made the pinnacle of education. What should be considered a last resort has become the paradigm of education.

The paradox of education is that when you design education to achieve a goal, you lose true education. The paradox is similar to the dog and his bone. Upon seeing a reflection of himself in the lake and thinking it was another dog with another bone, he drops his bone in order to obtain the bone of the other dog. In his efforts he loses his bone. As we turn our eyes to a goal of obtaining education for some purpose other than the love for learning, we lose the love for learning and seek only self advancement. By keeping our focus on inculcating a love for learning, we disciple people to love to think. People who love to think can teach themselves to engage in any economic endeavor.

Senator Kurt Schaefer has already expressed his priority for the legislature’s budget next year on the matter of education. Education will become an increasingly significant issue in the years to come. While money is not bad, it should be used in accordance with truly worthy goals and in accordance with appropriate methods. If we are to recover an education system that works, it must inculcate a love for learning, be controlled by parents and produce thinkers, not just those who know things.

Kill All the Lawyers

2011-06-30T06:36:00.000-07:00

The phrase "kill all the lawyers," often attributed to Shakespeare as expressing distaste for lawyers, is in reality a complement if the comment is taken in its context. The following is the text of a portion of Part 2 of King Henry the VI:

Drum. Enter CADE, DICK the Butcher, SMITH the Weaver, and a Sawyer, with infinite numbers

CADE

We John Cade, so termed of our supposed father,--

DICK

[Aside] Or rather, of stealing a cade of herrings.

CADE

For our enemies shall fall before us, inspired with
the spirit of putting down kings and princes,
--Command silence.

DICK

Silence!

CADE

My father was a Mortimer,--

DICK

[Aside] He was an honest man, and a good
bricklayer.

CADE

My mother a Plantagenet,--

DICK

[Aside] I knew her well; she was a midwife.

CADE

My wife descended of the Lacies,--

DICK

[Aside] She was, indeed, a pedler's daughter, and
sold many laces.

SMITH

[Aside] But now of late, notable to travel with her
furred pack, she washes bucks here at home.

CADE

Therefore am I of an honourable house.

DICK

[Aside] Ay, by my faith, the field is honourable;
and there was he borne, under a hedge, for his
father had never a house but the cage.

CADE

Valiant I am.

SMITH

[Aside] A' must needs; for beggary is valiant.

CADE

I am able to endure much.

DICK

[Aside] No question of that; for I have seen him
whipped three market-days together.

CADE

I fear neither sword nor fire.

SMITH

[Aside] He need not fear the sword; for his coat is of proof.

DICK

[Aside] But methinks he should stand in fear of
fire, being burnt i' the hand for stealing of sheep.

CADE

Be brave, then; for your captain is brave, and vows
reformation. There shall be in England seven
halfpenny loaves sold for a penny: the three-hooped
pot; shall have ten hoops and I will make it felony
to drink small beer: all the realm shall be in
common; and in Cheapside shall my palfrey go to
grass: and when I am king, as king I will be,--

ALL

God save your majesty!

CADE

I thank you, good people: there shall be no money;
all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will
apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree
like brothers and worship me their lord.

DICK

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

CADE

Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable
thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should
be made parchment? that parchment, being scribbled
o'er, should undo a man? Some say the bee stings:
but I say, 'tis the bee's wax; for I did but seal
once to a thing, and I was never mine own man
since. How now! who's there?

Freedom and not the Patriot Act

2011-06-02T12:47:00.000-07:00

For the past few weeks I have been dialoguing with many in the tea party movement about the Patriot Act. Many in the tea party object to a vote for the Patriot Act. They claim the Patriot Act violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a serious charge. My perspective has been “who cares?” Don’t get me wrong, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is critically important, but what is more important is the liberty of all citizens. Indeed, all of the U.S. Constitution is important. And that is the point. It is all of the U.S. Constitution that is important.

The improper expansion of rights granted by the U.S. Constitution can take away freedoms just as easily as the improper retraction of those rights. We know this from the so called right of privacy found within some specious penumbra of rights in the Bill of Rights. The creation of the right of privacy has given us the right of a mother to murder her unborn child. We must think critically about the Fourth Amendment. An inappropriate expansion of criminal rights can harm the rights of law abiding citizens as well as crime victims. The Fourth Amendment states as follows:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The citizens of this great nation are to be secure in their “persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Are our citizens being subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures? I will grant that they are. All you have to do is recall the many recent stories of the groping that goes on at our national airports.

However, the point I continually try to make to those who object to the Patriot Act is that you must distinguish between the law and the administration of the law. The law may be fine, but it may be abused. In that case, it is the abuse of the law and not the law itself that is at fault. It is the execution of the law and not the law that must be changed.

One fine patriot pointed me to a recent editorial by Bruce Fein: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=1439. This is an excellent article regarding the guarantees of liberty found in our Constitution. Unfortunately, it has very little substantive to say about the Patriot Act. The most substantive charges against the Patriot Act are contained in one brief paragraph toward the end of the piece:

Section 206 of the Patriot Act authorizing roving wiretaps to collect foreign intelligence; section 215 authorizing orders to seize any "tangible thing" like books or computer hard drives to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities; section 505 authorizing National Security Letters to seize customer records of financial institutions, credit bureaus, and telecommunications providers by the government's assertion of relevance to preventing international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities; and, section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 authorizing surveillance against hypothetical "lone wolf" international terrorists are all abusive of citizen liberty because they encroach on the right to be left alone without probable cause to believe the target is implicated in crime.

This is helpful in that it provides specific allegations on particular provisions. I could quibble over the fact that these provisions are primarily focused on foreign terrorism and not citizens. I could quibble over the fact that these provisions related to things that are outside of “persons, houses, papers, and effects” and relate primarily to open communications that people have no right to expect to be private. But I will not. I will grant they permit the conduct which violates the Fourth Amendment, thereby removing the distinction between the administration of the law and the law itself. I will assume that the evil conduct we observed is authorized by the law.

Having made these concessions about the law, I would make a different point. As I read the piece by Mr. Fein, I am reminded of a point that I have been making for some time. Our liberties have been under continuous and increasing harassment for almost a century from the federal tyrant. We are subjected to the straight jacket of regulated compassion in the form of the confiscation of our property for food stamps, employment security, social security, health care security. Our industry has been violated by environmental regulation. Our companies are told where they may locate. Our employees are told with whom they may associate. We are in bondage to our federal slave master. Why should they not also think they can wire tap and search our property?

Those within the tea party movement that quibble over one vote on the Patriot Act are making a point to small. They have lost or never seen the grand vision of the original tea party, liberty for the entire culture. This quibbling over one vote on the Patriot Act is beneath the vision of our founding. It is not the Patriot Act that is denying our people liberty; it is the many different failures and malfeasances of our federal government. It is the arrogance of the federal tyrant.

Government has a proper authority and it has areas beyond its authority. We lose liberty when government fails to fulfill its proper authority and attempts to usurp authority not granted to it. Some argue that certain breaches of the Fourth Amendment must be accommodated in light of 9/11. I do not make that argument. My argument is that when 9/11 occurred, we had already lost our liberty. Our liberty was lost when the federal government failed to fulfill its proper duty: defend our borders. Our liberty was lost when the federal tyrant, inebriated with its own power and agenda, failed to serve the people by protecting the borders. The Patriot Act is simply an attempt to cut our losses on liberty already lost. It is like a hockey goalie backing up into the net and kicking the puck out of the net after it is in the net. We can all agree that the puck needs to come out. We can quibble over how the puck should come out of the net, but at that point, the game is already lost. Those good patriots who want to quibble over a vote on the Patriot Act need to expand their vision.

Paul Lake wrote a wonderful little story, Cry Wolf. Cry Wolf, after the genre of Charlotte’s Web, describes a community of farm animals. Upon the death of the farmer, the farm animals enter into covenant to protect the community. However, one day, an injured deer happens to come upon the farm. A debate ensues as to whether the farm animals should give aid and comfort and ultimate membership to the injured deer. The owl advises that it is beneath the dignity of the community to deny the deer admittance. What follows are a number of circumstances which test the covenant and expand the list of animals permitted in the community, until, at last wolves are admitted. The story continues without one farm animal ever recognizing that their advice is coming from an owl, one who was never a member of the original covenant. The community is ultimately destroyed because it has lost sight of its original covenant.

We have a national covenant. It is found in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. We have lost our vision of our national covenant. Our national legislature is infested with those who flaunt our national covenant as of no consequence. There are advisors in our midst that deny that we are, “One nation under God.” We must oust those who are not committed to the covenant. The tea party should regain and champion the vision of the founding of the nation and quit quibbling over small matters such as votes over the Patriot Act. Our founders were radical thinkers. They sought liberty and they gave their blood for it. There is a memorable line in Mel Gibson’s movie Braveheart. After some disputation with the nobles regarding strategy in responding to the king Longshanks, William Wallace makes the following statement to the nobles: “You're so concerned with squabbling for the scraps from Longshank's table that you've missed your God given right to something better. There is a difference between us. You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom. And I go to make sure that they have it.” I call on the tea party to remember this admonition. Look beyond the one single vote and develop a strategy for freedom.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9AG3Z9Nyu0.

From Carol Bloomberg

2011-05-27T06:47:00.000-07:00

The only thing I will contest is that the whole thing started in 2010:

Thanksgiving 2020

"Winston, come into the dining room, it's time to eat", Julia yelled to her husband. "In a minute, honey, it's a tie score," he answered. Actually Winston wasn't very interested in the traditional holiday football game between Detroit and Washington. Ever since the government passed the Civility in Sports Statute of 2017, outlawing tackle football for its "unseemly violence" and the "bad example it sets for the rest of the world", Winston was far less of a football fan than he used to be. Two-hand touch wasn't nearly as exciting.

Yet it wasn't the game that Winston was uninterested in. It was more the thought of eating another Tofu Turkey.

Even though it was the best type of Veggie Meat available after the government revised the American Anti-Obesity Act of 2018, adding fowl to the list of federally-forbidden foods, (which already included potatoes, cranberry sauce and mince-meat pie), it wasn't anything like real turkey. And ever since the government officially changed the name of "Thanksgiving Day" to "A National Day of Atonement" in 2020 to officially acknowledge the Pilgrims historically brutal treatment of Native Americans, the holiday had lost a lot of its luster.

Eating in the dining room was also a bit daunting. The unearthly gleam of government-mandated fluorescent light bulbs made the Tofu Turkey look even weirder than it actually was, and the room was always cold. Ever since Congress passed the Power Conservation Act of 2016, mandating all thermostats "which were monitored and controlled by the electric company" be kept at 68 degrees, every room on the north side of the house was barely tolerable throughout the entire winter.

Still, it was good getting together with family. Or at least most of the family. Winston missed his mother, who passed on in October, when she had used up her legal allotment of life-saving medical treatment. He had had many heated conversations with the Regional Health Consortium, spawned when the private insurance market finally went bankrupt, and everyone was forced into the government health care program. And though he demanded she be kept on her treatment, it was a futile effort. The RHC's resources are limited, explained the government bureaucrat Winston spoke with on the phone. "Your mother received all the benefits to which she was entitled. I'm sorry for your loss".

Ed couldn't make it either. He had forgotten to plug in his electric car last night, the only kind available after the Anti-Fossil Fuel Bill of 2019 outlawed the use of the combustion engines for everyone but government officials. The fifty mile round trip was about ten miles too far, and Ed didn't want to spend a frosty night on the road somewhere between here and there.

Thankfully, Winston's brother, John, and his wife were flying in. Winston made sure that the dining room chairs had extra cushions for the occasion. No one complained more than John about the pain of sitting down so soon after the government-mandated cavity searches at airports, which severely aggravated his hemorrhoids. Ever since a terrorist successfully smuggled a cavity bomb onto a jetliner, the TSA told Americans the added "inconvenience" was an "absolute necessity" in order to stay "one step ahead of the terrorists". Winston's own body had grown accustomed to such probing ever since the government expanded their scope to just about anywhere a crowd gathered, via Anti-Profiling Act of 2017. That law made it a crime to single out any group or individual for "unequal scrutiny", even when probable cause was involved. Thus, cavity searches at malls, train stations, bus depots, etc., etc., had become almost routine. Almost.

The Supreme Court is reviewing the statute, but most Americans expect a Court composed of six progressives and three conservatives to leave the law intact. "A living Constitution is extremely flexible", said the Court's eldest member, Elena Kagan. "Europe has had laws like this one for years. We should learn from their example", she added.

Winston's thoughts turned to his own children. He got along fairly well with his 12-year-old daughter, Brittany, mostly because she ignored him. Winston had long ago surrendered to the idea that she could text anyone at any time, even during Atonement Dinner. Their only real confrontation had occurred when he limited her to 50,000 texts a month, explaining that was all he could afford. She whined for a week, but got over it.

His 16-year-old son, Jason, was another matter altogether. Perhaps it was the constant bombarding he got in public school that global warming, the bird flu, terrorism or any of a number of other calamities were "just around the corner", but Jason had developed a kind of nihilistic attitude that ranged between simmering surliness and outright hostility. It didn't help that Jason had reported his father to the police for smoking a cigarette in the house, an act made criminal by the Smoking Control Statute of 2018, which outlawed smoking anywhere within 500 feet of another human being. Winston paid the $5000 fine, which might have been considered excessive before the American dollar became virtually worthless as a result of QE13. The latest round of quantitative easing the federal government initiated was, once again, to "spur economic growth". This time they promised to push unemployment below its years-long rate of 18%, but Winston was not particularly hopeful.

Yet the family had a lot for which to be thankful, Winston thought, before remembering it was a Day of Atonement. At least he had his memories. He felt a twinge of sadness when he realized his children would never know what life was like in the Good Old Days, long before government promises to make life "fair for everyone" realized their full potential. Winston, like so many of his fellow Americans, never realized how much things could change when they didn't happen all at once, but little by little, so people could get used to them.

He wondered what might have happened if the public had stood up while there was still time, maybe back around 2010, when all the real nonsense began. Maybe we wouldn't be where we are today if we'd just said "enough is enough" when we had the chance, he thought.

Maybe so, Winston. Maybe so

Why I Support Todd Akin for U.S. Senate

2011-05-17T08:13:00.000-07:00

This is a piece that I have wanted to write for some time. However, it is hard to write. In some senses it is too simple. In others, it is too difficult. Simply put, Todd Akin is the right man for the United States Senate. His commitments to the U.S. Constitution are firm. His track record is faithful to his commitments. And he is a man of continuing faithfulness to his commitments. More complexly, well, where do I start . . . ?

There are certain men who seem to cut across popular culture who refuse to let popular culture affect them. Ronald Reagan was such a man. In a time when many spoke of an expansion of the federal government and appeasement of the Soviet Union, Reagan spoke against both. As to the latter, his policies brought the Soviet Union to an end. And as to the former, his philosophy still holds sway in a significant portion of our culture. The tea party’s philosophy of limited government finds its heritage in Reagan.

Todd Akin is such a man, quiet and unassuming, infinitely approachable, generous in his time and conversation. Todd has been a champion of principled government for as long as I have known him, which approaches thirty years now. His principled conservatism permeates his discourse, whether it is his humorous sparing with my father on who received the lowest ranking on the River Front Times legislative ranking to his challenging the U.S. military on its obligation to respect the institution of marriage.

Todd speaks the principles of the Founding Fathers in the language of the founding of the nation. His annual celebration of the nation’s birthday at his home is a celebration in our heritage in liberty. At such celebrations, he typically dresses in the uniform of a continental soldier and rehearses the history of our national founding, one based on the themes of “One nation under God” and “No king but King Jesus.” Congressman Akin spoke in the language of the tea party movement before there was a tea party movement.

Congressman Akin remains true to these founding principles against progressive forces within both the Republican and Democratic parties. When personally prompted by President Bush to vote in favor of the expansion of medicare, he voted against it because constitutionally it was the right thing to do. He has voted against federal bailouts under both Republican and Democratic administrations. He is a tireless advocate against the tyrannical usurpation of authority over our health care. Todd has drunk the water in Washington, D.C. and is unaffected.

Will there be times when principled constitutionalists will disagree with Senator Akin’s votes? Of course, even principled constitutionalists disagree on the priority of principles and method. This is to be expected. Will Senator Akin error? Of course, but we know from experience that it will not be due to a compromise in principle.

Do votes matter? Yes, they do. But are they the most important thing? No, they are not. We live in a world that is constrained by covenant. We live in a world built on relationship and community. We have lost this idea in our individualistic country. We live in a selfish culture where my so called “rights” are elevated even at the expense of future generations, my comforts enhanced at the burdening of my grandchildren. This is a trend that must be reversed. We must regain a community and discard the straight jacket of regulated compassion. The most important thing is to change our culture for the better and through liberty enable our people to be truly compassionate. It is critical that we change the national dialogue from a focus of selfishness to one of liberty and community. It is the message that matters. Senator Akin is equipped to communicate the message of liberty and is willing to do it, and he has the moral fiber to follow through.

Our founding fathers consistently warned against elevating a man who appears too eager to elevate himself. This is a warning well heeded. Such men, too eager for self promotion, often succumb to self interest. Todd, in typical fashion, has been measured in his response to requests to seek the U.S. Senate seat, seeking God’s will in the matter. This response too recommends him highly.

There are others out there who are qualified for the post for U.S. Senator. However, based on my view, few have the principles, the commitment to those principles, the proven track record proving those principles and the moral fiber to fulfill the duty of U.S. Senator as does Todd Akin. I pray for him in his decisions and in the campaign before him.

Reading Scripture

2011-05-14T15:45:00.001-07:00

It is hard to read the Prophets in the Old Testament with the question how do I apply this to my life. It is hard because the circumstances are so different from today. The messages are to a different people, not to me. As I read more about the Prophets, it strikes me that they should be read a bit differently. The Prophets foreshadowed Christ. They also reveal a dialogue between the prophet and Yahweh. Therefore, when we read the Prophets, we should be reflecting on the character of Yahweh and of His Christ. The next question is not how each passage apply to my life but how does the character of Yahweh that I find in the Prophets affect my life. This impacts directly what man is to believe concerning God but only indirectly what duty God requires of man. And then again, maybe this is not any different from the way I should read the rest of Scripture.

LOL at Dr. Berwick and Obamacare

2011-04-29T12:21:00.000-07:00

LOL is the only way that I can respond to Dr. Berwick’s recent editorial in the WSJ “The Right Way to Reform Medicare.” After observing that Medicare costs are growing, he summarily dismisses the Republican plan to have customers pay for their own insurance, eliminate guaranteed Medicare benefits and limit choices. He says the right way to bring down costs is to make care better and improve our healthcare system. This observation begs the very basic question he asks. He observes that we should use the automobile, computer, television and telephone industries as examples to follow in making health care better. What follows is a long list of unsupported promises, vacuous claims and socialist utopian platitudes as reasons why the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) is the solution to our health care problems. This vacant reasoning is the same reasoning supporting Obamacare in the first place, “we must pass the bill to find out what is in it.”

I will agree with one statement in Dr. Berwick’s analysis. We should look to private industry to find our solution to our health care problems. If Dr. Berwick had initiated a reasoned analysis on this proposition, he would have come to a completely different conclusion. What is it about these industries that has made them successful in making their products better and more efficient? It is the very thing that Obamacare is removing from the healthcare industry: freedom, competition and market forces.

When someone goes to buy a car, a television or a computer, he has a multitude of choices. Technology is changing dramatically in each of these industries. The technology is changing dramatically because the many competitors are motivated to make a better and cheaper product that is attractive to customers. This is particularly true in the telephone industry. It was only after the deregulation of AT&T decades ago, when companies were able to compete for customers, that the technology advanced to give us the technologies we have today.

Market forces impacting costs and prices drive producers and consumers to make commercial choices which they deem to be the most beneficial and efficient. Removing market forces and price signals removes the incentive to be efficient. One example should suffice. Anyone who has been the beneficiary of a good health insurance plan at work should recognize that when there is no cost to visiting an emergency room, there is no incentive to minimize the use of that valuable service. When emergency room treatment of a cold or flu or a splinter has no cost, there is no incentive to seek an appropriate alternative yet less costly form of treatment, such as chicken soup or a tweezers. Price causes customers to make efficient and cost effective decisions.

Obamacare, by removing market forces and price signals from the market place, will cause the healthcare system to operate in an increasingly inefficient manner. Dr. Berwick is correct to observe that Medicare costs continue to grow. However, a reasoned analysis would cause him to conclude that that very fact contradicts his conclusion that Obamacare will improve the health care system. Medicare is a federal program that has removed market forces from the health care industry. What Medicare does in a small way, Obamacare does in a big way. If Medicare costs are increasing, Obamacare costs will increase much more. Obamacare is a big problem designed to solve a small problem. The actual solution should be to eliminate the small problem. Government is the problem. Therefore, government should be removed from the system.

Dr. Berwick’s reasoning is also internally inconsistent. Consider the following paragraph:

Under President Obama's framework, we will hold down Medicare cost growth, improve the quality of care for seniors, and save an additional $340 billion for taxpayers in the next decade. These policies don't shift costs to seniors or deny care to people in nursing homes or people with disabilities. Instead, they focus on improving the quality of care and lowering costs by putting patients first.

Who is “we?” One can only conclude it is Dr. Berwick and the Obama framework. They will “hold down” Medicare cost growth compared to what? One can only conclude that these central planners will hold down Medicare costs compared to actual costs. However, artificially holding down costs compared to actual costs does shift cost. It also makes a service more attractive than it actually is, causing an increased demand on the service. If the demand exceeds the supply in a centrally planned system, care will be denied because there will be no market forces—due to the actual cost being artificially held down—to incent the expansion of the service. If you artificially hold down the price of a television that costs $1,000 to make to $500, there will be cost shifts, there will be a reduction in service, or there will be no service, i.e. bankruptcy.

Obamacare scared me in its inception and its final passage. I am even more frightened by this kind of reasoning behind its implementation. With this kind of reasoning, we have a government that will bankrupt us all if they don't kill us first.

Taken From Bubbles and Money, One of the Blogs I Follow

2011-04-29T08:52:00.000-07:00

How awesome is that day to me-
O day of hallowed history!
Set time in God’s determined plan
To sacrifice the Son of Man.
What famous work that day was done
By Jesus Christ, His Perfect Son!
The Second Adam, sent to save,
Humbly obeying to the grave!

How savage is that day to me-
O day of pure brutality!
When Christ, the Son of God Most High,
Was fiercely whipped and hung to die.
And O the horror of my sin,
Seen there in His appalling skin!
For God struck down- as meant for me-
The sinless One, at Calvary.

How precious is that day to me-
O day of purchased liberty!
In Him, a freeman now I live;
My sins, through death, did God forgive.
No wrath at length looms o’er my head,
But lovingkindness there instead.
His righteousness, my guilt replaced,
And Love, this ransomed soul embraced!

O awesome, savage, precious day-
‘Tis God the Savior on display!
What peerless, holy, gracious Mind
Would fashion such a Grand Design?

Kevin Hartnett works for NASA at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, overseeing the science operations activities of the mission. He was selected in 2003 from a thousand candidates as the “Poet of the Year” by the Fellowship of Christian Poets.

Doctors the New Cops on the Beat

2011-04-29T08:23:00.000-07:00

So what is the conservative reaction to HB 658, the so called Meth Lab Elimination Act? What the bill would do is require a doctor’s prescription for ephedrine, phenylpropanolamine, or pseudoephedrine. The rationale is that this would make it harder for meth labs to get the raw material for their product. It would make doctors the gate keepers (or cops) for the flow of the raw material for the illegal substance.

While I understand the motive for this act, it is going about finding a solution the wrong way. I find it ironic that when government is taking over so many areas of life for which it has no authority, it is forcing doctors to take on its responsibility and private citizens to give up liberty because it is failing in one of its primary responsibilities, to punish the evil doer. Government wants to take responsibility for my health, for my employment security, for how I view the arts, and how I raise my children. But it does not want to engage its primary responsibility to get the bad guy who makes the meth. Rather it wants to regulate the manufacture and commerce of a good product. Get the government out of all of those things it has no responsibility for and it will have the where-with-all to accomplish those things for which it has responsibility.

Time to Change Our Attitude

2011-04-02T08:46:00.000-07:00

There were two stories that emerged last week that portray the stark contrast in views of governmental power. One story told of state Senators Lembke, Nieves, Schaaf and Kraus filibustering the Missouri Senate so as to prevent Missouri from receiving federal funds to extend unemployment benefits from 79 to 99 weeks. The story continued that Senator Lembke wants to accomplish the same goal for federal funds earmarked for education. The other story told was of Governor Jay Nixon seeking one billion dollars of federal money to build a light rail line from St. Louis to Kansas City. Not only would the system improve transportation in the state, it would bring higher paying jobs to the state.

There are arguments pro and con for each issue. It is always “good” to help those in need. It is “good” to bring new jobs to the state. However, at what point should a culture stop facilitating unemployment and create a real felt incentive to get a job? And is a centrally planned transportation system better than one designed by the free market? I do not wish to get into any of these issues. My goal is to look beyond these to bigger arguments, arguments of attitude. My goal is to highlight how the trajectory of time has shown that our welfare state mentality will actually destroy us.

In his work The Law, Frederic Bastiat observes that,

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law—which may be an isolated case—is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.

In another place, he observes,

The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law becomes the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!

If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it.

Are Bastiat’s observations borne out in our government today? Consider, as Congressman Akin is often known to do, that the income of the federal government is roughly equivalent to the cost of the growing entitlement system and the interest on the debt. That leaves all other functions of our national government unfunded except through borrowing. The federal behemoth has now grown to such a state that the interest on the debt, which is not paid, continually adds to the national debt. Many have rightly commented that this is unsustainable. What this situation indicates is that the continued spending by the federal government, whether directly, or by bribes to the states, is putting the nation in deeper and deeper debt. This debt will be paid back in one form or another. If it does not bring the nation to a financial collapse, it will burden our children’s children for their repayment. We are enslaving our children with this debt. Indeed, Bastiat’s observations are borne out in our government. We are not satisfied with taking from some in this generation to satisfy our greed. We are willing to saddle the next generation with slavery for our greed.

The happy argument for those who want to take the money is that the federal government will spend it anyway. We might as well benefit from it rather than letting others use it to their advantage. This argument has some validity, but only in a culture in which greed has been institutionalized. Only by assuming that everyone else is as greedy as you are can such an argument work. Unfortunately, that assumption is valid in the United States of America at this time, at least among many in the ruling class.

What Senators Lembke, Nieves, Schaaf and Kraus are trying to do is change attitudes. Attitudes are hard to change, but changing attitudes has to start somewhere. Changing attitudes is also painful, particularly when you are invested in your attitude as we are today in the United States of America. Again, we are so invested in our attitude that we burden our children’s children for our convenience. Let us remember that the preamble of the U. S. Constitution declares that the purpose of the Union is to secures the “Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,” not just to ourselves. If for no other reason, we must listen to the good Senators because it is the purpose of government to protect our children.

Bastiat once more has a helpful insight: “When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor. It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.” Yes, stopping the plunder will be painful. But not to stop the plunder will be even more painful for the next generation. Thank you, Senators Lembke, Nieves, Schaaf and Kraus for your courage.

Theologians Need a Good Education in the Law

2011-03-07T15:27:00.000-08:00

It seems to me that our modern day PCA theologians could use a good healthy dose of legal education in the law of contracts. They should understand that for a contract to be binding, both sides to the contract must give what the law calls "consideration" in order for a contract to be binding, and for a contract to be fulfilled. "Consideration" is something of legal value, whether an act taken or a promise given in response to the consideration given by the other party. Consideration can include the forgoing of a legal right. Consideration has nothing to do with merit, but it is a condition necessary for the fulfillment of a contract, and nothing more.

I am not saying that the covenant God made with Adam was a contract. However, I do believe that many of our concepts of contract are acquired from God's character in extending covenants. If theologians were to understand the distinction between consideration, also recognized in the Westminster Standards as conditions, they might not get so agitated over the Federal Vision discussion.

OK, I will take off my rose colored glasses now.

Drill Already!

2011-03-04T08:48:00.000-08:00

A lot of folks can't understand how we came to have an oil shortage here in our country.
~~~
Well, there's a very simple answer.
~~~
Nobody bothered to check the oil.
~~~
We just didn't know we were getting low.
~~~
The reason for that is purely geographical.
~~~
Our OIL is located in:
~~~
ALASKA
~~~
California
~~~
Coastal Florida
~~
Coastal Louisiana
~~~
North Dakota
~~~
Wyoming
~~~
Colorado
~~~
Kansas
~~~
Oklahoma
~~~
Pennsylvania
And
Texas
~~~

Our dipsticks are located in DC

Time to return the regulation of land back to the states as intended by the framers of the U.S. Constitution.

Adopted from an email received this morning.

The Initiative Petition

2011-03-03T14:33:00.000-08:00

Much has been written in the Missouri Record in the recent past regarding the initiative petition process, and rightly so. This is an important issue. With the initiative petition process, Missourians have enacted into law certain requirements regarding utility rates, renewable energy, cloning, and puppy mills.

On Tuesday, February 22, the Missouri House Elections Committee heard testimony on HJR No. 16, a resolution that would propose to amend provisions of the Missouri Constitution relating to initiative petitions. Currently, in order for an initiative petition to be successful in proposing a change to the constitution of the state of Missouri, the proponents of the initiative must obtain signatures from eight percent of the legal voters in each of two-thirds of the congressional districts in the state. To propose a law, proponents must obtain the signatures of five percent of the legal voters in each of two-thirds of the congressional districts in the state. HJR No. 16 would require the same percentages of voter signatures, but from all congressional districts in the state.

The main objection to the proposal was that the change would increase the total number of signatures necessary to secure the initiative on the ballot and, therefore, make it more difficult to achieve a ballot proposal. This would give moneyed interests greater influence in the political process and diminish efforts by the typical citizen to affect change. While it may be a worthy goal to require proponents to obtain signatures from all congressional districts, the percentage of signatures should be reduced. The resolution was voted out of committee on March 1, and it is reported that the committee adopted an amendment reducing the percentage of signatures required in each Congressional district.

Clearly, this change would make it harder to secure an initiative petition on the ballot. Is this a bad thing? The answer to that question is not quite so clear. Audrey Spaulding has written in the Missouri Record that, “One of the greatest strengths of American government is that there are a number of checks and balances at the federal, state, and local levels that limit the ability of any one branch of government to abuse its power. The initiative petition process is one of those checks on power, and restricting it further will serve only to erode Missourians’ ability to limit legislators by initiating good — but politically difficult — policy change.” I agree with this statement in principle, but not in detail. I agree one the greatest strengths of the American government is the checks and balances designed into the U.S. Constitution. However, the initiative petition is nowhere addressed in the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution may be amended only by the actions of the states, sometimes at the prompting of the Congress. The initiative petition is a right of the people under the Missouri Constitution. Spaulding is right that the initiative process is a check on the abuse of power by the Missouri Legislature.

There is much confusion when it comes to issues surrounding the initiative petition process. The reason this issue is so confusing is that there is confusion regarding the source of governmental authority in our culture and even in our heritage. One theory propounds that the source of political power is the people. The very first section of the Constitution of Missouri supports this view when it declares that all political power is vested in and derived from the people and that all government of right originates in the people. This is clearly the popular “democratic” view of our nation, that we are a democracy. While the declarations of the Constitution of Missouri are of great weight in this discussion, the political philosophy expressed therein is not entirely supported in history or fact.

Generally, the original thirteen colonies received their governmental authority through royal charters issued by the sovereigns of Europe, whether kings or legislatures. No doubt this approach to granting governmental authority was consistent with the idea of the “divine right of kings” which held sway at the time. While the divine right of kings was greatly abused by the kings of Europe, its core principle was founded upon Scripture, particularly Romans 13, which held sway for most of the two thousand years of Western Civilization. Sir William Blackstone, the great English jurist of the early 1700s, recorded that English common law was subject to the law of God, specifically Scripture. Finally, the writings of the founding fathers almost universally express a fear of democracy. The will of a majority could impose tyranny on a minority just as devastatingly as any king. For that reason, they wrote into the U.S. Constitution a guarantee to every state in the Union for a Republican form of government.

The checks and balances Spaulding points out are inherent in a republican form of government and not in democracies. We see this in the legislative process. In the legislature in Missouri, a bill is submitted to a committee, and the committee holds a hearing. It hears the concerns expressed by opponents. Committee members are given an opportunity to amend the bill. If the bill makes it through the committee, the bill is debated on the floor of the House or Senate. Members have opportunities to amend the bill again. If the bill is passed in one chamber, it has to go to the other chamber and the entire process starts again. This process engenders compromise for the liberty of all. It also permits a consideration of issues unanticipated by those who initiate the law.

The democratic initiative petition process is not geared for the give and take of compromise. It is controlled by the initiative proponents. What is placed on the ballot can be as one sided as the proponents think they can get past the voters. The democratic process of the initiative does not lend itself to guarding the liberties of the minority. Neither is it geared toward a complete analysis of all issues. We have seen certain problems that have arisen from confusing language arising in the renewable energy standard and the puppy mill law, both passed by initiative.

So where does that leave the initiative petition? I agree that there is a place for the initiative petition in a free republic. Even though it is not entirely clear that all political power does actually come from the people, the Constitution of Missouri does vest the power there. The people should be allowed to express their radical displeassure with the state of the law. But isn’t that what elections are all about?

At this point, it is appropriate to make a radical distinction between amending the Constitution and passing a law. By way of analogy, I have argued in other places that amending the U.S. Constitution by use of a Constitutional Convention is a nuclear option when compared to simply utilizing the adequate tools already in the U.S. Constitution to reassert the rights of the states. Similarly, it should be difficult to amend the Constitution of the state of Missouri. The Constitution is the covenant agreement expressing the foundation upon which law is made. Covenants of this nature are the foundation upon which individuals enter into society. Covenants of this nature should not be lightly changed. It should be exceedingly hard to amend the Constitution of the state of Missouri.

With a law, on the other hand, the argument that the state legislature may not have the political incentive to change an unjust law has force. This is the unfortunate reality of living in a world ruled by sinful men and women. The goal, consistent with the principles of republican government, should be to permit the people to initiate the process and so direct a law to achieve the goal of liberty on a certain matter and still subject that process to the refining process of the legislature. Can such a mechanism be devised? Suitable suggestions might include an analogy to the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules. The Missouri Legislature has created a joint committee of both Representatives and Senators to which all administrative rules are submitted. The Joint Committee on Administrative Rules may propose to the Missouri Legislature that certain proposed rules not be permitted to go into effect. The Legislature may by resolution, signed by the Governor, so declare. Could a similar mechanism be designed to submit an initiative to a Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions, the purpose of which is to actually enact a law proposed by initiative petition but refined by the Legislature? I admit I do not have the answer.

With these principles in mind, I would prefer to rest on the side of a more consistent republican point of view and maintain that initiative petitions should be difficult to obtain. Many claim that making it more difficult to obtain a ballot measure through the initiative process will provide an advantage to moneyed interests. There is a bit of irony to this argument in that it is actually the initiative petition process by its very nature permits money to have a greater impact on a democratized government. Making it easier to obtain law through the democracy of the initiative petition will permit money to have an even greater influence on a democratized government. This is the advantage of money. It is an unfortunate circumstance of life. The appropriate response is to look to the Missouri Legislature to fulfill its God ordained responsibility of securing the liberty of the people. It is reviewing renewable energy standard and the new puppy mill law this year, which is a good sign.

All Earthly Rule is Overshadowed by Heaven

2011-02-18T10:03:00.000-08:00

"Christian capitulation to secular politics--more the rule than the exception in the modern church--is nothing less than apostasy, a denial of the gospel that announces Jesus as Lord. Solomon's residence in the temple complex [described in I Kings 6 and 7] stands as a scriptural figure indicating that all earthly rule, not only Israel's, is overshadowed by heaven and a reminder that the gospel we preach is good news about a king of all kings." Peter Leithart, 1 & 2 Kings, p. 64

.

CWIP and Economic Justice

2011-02-18T08:47:00.000-08:00

On Tuesday, February 15, the Utilities committee of the Missouri House of Representatives conducted a hearing on Representative Jeanie Riddle’s HB 124, a bill to allow an electrical corporation to recover from ratepayers the costs associated with early site development for certain electrical generation facilities. This is a good bill but it does not go far enough. It is a pared down version of what has been introduced in the Missouri Legislature during the past two years, a bill that would permit an electrical corporation to recover the cost of “construction work in progress,” or “CWIP,” in rates prior to the commercial operation of the an electric plant. It is a good idea to permit electric companies to recover CWIP in their rates. HB 124 should be amended to permit the recovery of CWIP and passed into law.

Perhaps a little history is in order. In 1976, the voters of Missouri passed an initiative petition that prohibited the Missouri Public Service Commission from permitting electrical companies to recover CWIP in rates. Ameren Missouri, previously Union Electric Company, proceeded to construct its Callaway I plant by borrowing the funds necessary to construct the plant. The construction of the plant took approximately a decade.

Whatever the motivations in 1976 to passing the so called anti-CWIP law, circumstances have clearly changed. During the hearing on Tuesday, all parties recognized the need for the development of nuclear power. They recognized the need for new generation facilities to provide the necessary expansion to an aging fleet of generating facilities. Concern for the devastation that cap and trade regulations will bring on the state clearly also encourages Ameren Missouri to investigate a return to nuclear power.

The primary arguments for passage of the bill were the need for new generation and the economic development the construction of a new nuclear plant will bring to the state of Missouri. HB 124 would eliminate a disincentive for an electrical corporation to build a nuclear plant. The primary argument against passage of the bill was a consumer protection concern. Permitting an electrical corporation to put costs in rates would permit the utility to obtain recovery before it had proven the project was prudent in concept and execution and prior to a point in time when completion was assured.

None of these arguments has a bearing on whether the Missouri Legislature should pass HB 124. All agree that there is a need for new electric generation. All agree that there is a need to explore nuclear generation as an option. However, electrical corporations have an obligation to construct adequate generation facilities to provide for the requirements of their customers. HB 124 would not significantly add to this incentive. Economic development claims are also of little impact on the debate. What drives the economy is the exchange of money for goods and services desired by customers. If I spend a hundred dollars on a new television or on a new camera, the transaction drives the economy to a greater or lesser extent, but both drive the economy. Ameren may spend billions on a nuclear plant or some other form of generation. Either of these expenditures will impact the economy of Missouri. An incentive toward one particular form of spending does not necessarily increase economic development. It simply dictates the winners and losers in any such economic development. About the only expenditure that does not expand the economy is a tax payment to a government, for a government does not produce goods and services. The consumer protection concern is likewise of very little consequence to this discussion. The state of Missouri already has a structure in place in the form of the Public Service Commission which is designed to guard against the consequences of a utility’s imprudence and abuse of its customers. The Public Service Commission is fully capable of disallowing imprudent costs as it did in setting rates after Ameren put its Callaway I unit in service. Finally, all of these arguments fail in that they are mercantile in their most basic philosophy. The focus on the government and what the government’s interest is misses the point entirely. Rather, the question should be how the state should execute justice in the marketplace in Missouri.

Electric companies were and are what have been referred to as natural monopolies. No one wants a dozen sets of wires running down the street to permit a dozen different companies to compete to provide electric service. Since the electric utility infrastructure is so capital intensive, common wisdom suggests that competition be limited. This common wisdom has lead over the last century to what has become known as the “regulatory compact.” Utilities submit to regulation of their service by the state in exchange for a defined exclusive service territory and the right to a regulated return on their investments. With the regulatory compact comes a subsidiary theory that regulation should be designed to take the place of competition. It is the regulation’s substitution for competition that should drive the conclusion on HB 124 and CWIP.

In a free market, the forces of supply and demand prompt the setting of prices. As supply decreases or demand increases, the value of a commodity and its uses increases. As the price increases, the price sends a signal to potential suppliers inducing them to risk additional investment in producing the commodity. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has recognized this principle in recent orders directing operators of wholesale electric markets to increase the caps on what suppliers can charge in the wholesale market to permit the price signals of electricity to incent additional construction.

The Missouri Public Service Commission should be permitted to take these same issues into consideration when determining the rates for an electrical utility that sells at retail. It should not be foreclosed from considering how competitive forces would impact rates. All interested parties recognize that there is a growing need for electric generation. As a result, prices should go up. In a free market place, the forces of supply and demand would permit a seller to increase its prices in order to expand its business so as to increase its production. How rates should be set to reflect the change in the market place should be left to the Public Service Commission. The Commission may do this in one of several ways, including allowing the recovery of CWIP or increasing the rate of return granted to the electrical corporation to reflect the increasing supply demand risk in the market place.

To arbitrarily deny the recovery of CWIP produces a distortion in the attempt to mirror a free marketplace. Denying an electrical corporation the option of recovering CWIP in rates forces the company to borrow the money necessary to construct the facility, causing a “pay me later” consequence. The electrical corporation is forced to incur a significant amount of debt to accomplish the construction. Not only is there a significant amount of debt, the debt is expensive due to the fact that it is extended over a significant period of time. This makes the investment more costly. The Missouri Public Service Commission, the agency designed to function as a surrogate for competition, should not be arbitrarily denied the ability to function in its proper role in setting prices as the free marketplace would do.

The comments contained in this editorial are the views of David Linton and do not necessarily reflect the views of his clients.

SJR No. 15: Removing the Shadows

2011-02-14T07:56:00.000-08:00

State Senator Brian Nieves introduced SJR No. 15 on February 8, 2011. Representative Curtman has filed a similar bill in the Missouri House. SJR No. 15, simply stated, relates to state sovereignty. If passed by the legislature, it would set before the voters of the state of Missouri a constitutional amendment to the state constitution that would declare that Missouri would enforce its constitutional authority.

One particular provision of the resolution declares that the State of Missouri shall:

(3) Interpret the Constitution of the United States of America based on its language and the intent of the signers of the Constitution at the time of its passage. The several amendments shall be interpreted by their language and the intent of the congressional sponsor and co-sponsors of the amendment. Any interpretation of the Constitution based on an emerging awareness, penumbras or shadows of the Constitution, a theory of the Constitution being a "living, breathing document", or any interpretation that expands federal authority beyond the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government, without an amendment to the Constitution, shall be deemed to exceed the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government.

This provision highlights the problem with the condition of our present Constitutional jurisprudence in almost comical terms. Why should the Constitution of the state of Missouri refer to “penumbras” and “shadows?” Why should it refer to “living, breathing documents?” These terms are necessary because these are the terms used by the highest court in our land to characterize their authority.

The “penumbras” terminology comes from Justice William O. Douglas in his majority opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the court found the right of “privacy” within a penumbra of rights contained in the Bill of Rights. It was upon this right of “privacy” that the Supreme Court eventually precluded states from prohibiting abortions in the case of Roe v. Wade. The “penumbra” language in Griswold is ironic for at least two reasons. First, the finding of new rights within a penumbra of other rights is in complete contradiction to the very character of the Constitution. The authors of the Constitution repeatedly referred to the federal government as a government of limited powers. They memorialized this understanding in the Tenth Amendment by providing therein that powers not delegated were reserved to the states. Second, the Bill of Rights itself was intended as an expression of the inherent liberties of the states and of the people. With adoption of the penumbra language, the Supreme Court took the language of liberty and used it as a weapon against a state’s legitimate liberty in protecting the life of the unborn child.

A second irony is the use of the phrase “living, breathing document.” Written documents are intended to have a fixed meaning. Written documents are forms of communication and therefore instruments of relationship. For that reason, written documents are unlike human beings, in that when they become “living” and “breathing,” i.e. subject to every whim of interpretation, they simultaneously mean everything and nothing. They cease to fulfill their primary function and die. And if the written document is destroyed, the relationship is destroyed. Hence, if the U.S. Constitution becomes a living, breathing document, the nation is destroyed. To treat the Constitution as a dead letter is the only way to make the Constitution truly live and fulfill its purpose.

This concept of a living, breathing Constitution has resulted in a vessel of justice which is so overgrown with barnacles and crust that it is incapable of being maneuvered. Over the course of two hundred years, the Supreme Court has subjected the U.S. Constitution to numerous tests and qualifications. Congressional preemption of law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution can be implied in two types, each with its own test. The Supreme Court has identified three broad categories of activity that Congress may regulate under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. One such category, those activities which “substantially affect” interstate commerce, has a four part consideration. The tediousness of these tests has gotten so bad that the recent opinion of Judge Roger Vinson in State of Florida v. United States Department of Health required several pages of discussion devoted to whether a person’s refusal to purchase health insurance was “activity.” The Commerce Clause of the Constitution simply allows Congress the power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” Does such a simple provision require a system of elaborate tests and conditions? No. The tests and conditions work to obfuscate the purpose of the Constitution. What typically happens is the various tests and conditions create the parameters under which the Congress must construct an elaborate maze of laws simply to satisfy the tests and conditions. It is time to scrape off the crust of all of these tests and conditions and start again. It is time for the Court to inquire again into the purpose of the Constitution.

Judge Vinson has highlighted and challenged our Supreme Court to reconsider one aspect of its Constitutional Jurisprudence.

I appreciate the difficult situation in which the states find themselves. It is a matter of historical fact that at the time the Constitution was drafted and ratified, the Founders did not expect that the federal government would be able to provide sizeable funding to the states and, consequently, be able to exert power over the states to the extent that it currently does. To the contrary, it was expected that the federal government would have limited sources of tax and tariff revenue, and might have to be supported by the states. This reversal of roles makes any state-federal partnership somewhat precarious given the federal government’s enormous economic advantage. Some have suggested that, in the interest of federalism, the Supreme Court should revisit and reconsider its Spending Clause cases. [Citation omitted] However, unless and until that happens, the states have little recourse to remaining the very junior partner in this partnership.

In this passage, Judge Vinson has challenged the Supreme Court to scrape off the crust from the Spending Clause and return to the clause’s original intent. I applaud the Judge.

I also applaud Senator Nieves and Representative Curtman for their initiative in introducing these bills. We saw last year that the citizens of Missouri are inclined to question and challenge the federal government’s usurpation of power in passing the Missouri Healthcare Freedom Act. Senator Nieves has heard the voice of the people and is taking the next step. If we want a strong and healthy Constitution and a strong and healthy nation, we must eliminate all of the shadows and penumbras, and we must return to the original meaning of the Constitution as the founders intended.

Education Plunder: Send the Money Back

2011-02-07T13:38:00.000-08:00

A proposed email to our state Representatives and Senators:

Dear Senator or Representative:

I respectfully request that you support Senators Lembke, Nieves and Crowell in their efforts to return the 189 million dollars in federal education money to the federal government.

Our federal government, created to execute justice among the states and provide liberty to the people, has become the very antithesis of what it was created to be. It takes from some to give to others. This is the very definition of injustice and tyranny. What is injustice has been redefined as justice. This corruption knows no bounds. My children’s children are in debt for the lust of the federal tyrant for power and control. Their seeking after control likewise knows no bounds. There is not one scintilla of authority in the U.S. Constitution for the federal government to become involved in education. Education is the role of the family and the church. If it must fall to the state, so be it, but it is never the role of the fed. Send the tax revenue usurped for unauthorized purposes back to where it belongs and instruct the federal tyrant to reduce the crushing burden of debt on this nation. Thank you.

Public Education and the Public

2011-02-02T12:12:00.000-08:00

Frederic Bastiat, in his treatise The Law, brilliantly outlined how socialism corrupts all things, including the judgments of the culture that embraces it. According to Bastiat, socialism, the imposition of law to take from some to give to others is “legal plunder.” Bastiat advises that you discover legal plunder by seeing “if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.” Bastiat warns:

The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.

Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. . . . The present day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.

This system becomes a delusion and a perversion of justice, causing a culture to confuse injustice with justice.

Bastiat brings this judgment to bear on public education:

You say: “There are persons who lack education” and you turn to the law. But the law is not, in itself, a torch of learning which shines its light abroad. The law extends over a society where some persons have knowledge and others do not; where some citizens need to learn, and others can teach. In this matter of education, the law has only two alternatives: It can permit this transaction of teaching-and-learning to operate freely and without the use of force, or it can force human wills in this matter by taking from some of them enough to pay the teachers who are appointed by government to instruct others, without charge. But in this second case, the law commits legal plunder by violating liberty and property.

It is not my purpose in this editorial to champion the elimination of the legal plunder of public education. The system is so engrained in our public consciousness that to do so would truly be quixotic. Indeed, it is engrained in the very Constitution of the state of Missouri. While it would be a worthy goal to change this system, it is a goal beyond my simple effort here. Rather, my purpose is to show how the system of legal plunder that is public education has caused a situation in which injustice is declared justice.

The Article IX, Section 1(a) of the Constitution of Missouri declares,

A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the general assembly shall establish and maintain free public schools for the gratuitous instruction of all persons in this state within ages not in excess of twenty-one years as prescribed by law.

Every taxpaying citizen pays for these “free public schools” through their taxes. I, as a land owner and producer of income, pay for the “gratuitous institution.” However, since I have home schooled and privately educated all three of my daughters, my children never directly benefitted from these “gratuitous institutions.” I have simply benefitted from the “general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence” within the culture. But do I not have a right to directly benefit from these “free public schools?” Should my decision to home school my children prevent my children from directly benefiting from such a “gratuitous institution?” The answer should be obvious on its face. The answer is no.

However, the actual practice is otherwise in Missouri. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, are a significant part of the free public school education, and we see home schooled and privately schooled children in Missouri systematically denied access to these programs. Why is that? Why is it you must be a student registered at the school to take part in the sports programs? Is it because, in order to access part of the “gratuitous institution,” you must take the whole of the “gratuitous institution?” Is this justice or is this discrimination? Is there something in home schooling or the private schooling that disqualifies a child from the “free” education of the state that I pay for but do not completely engage? If the system is truly “gratuitous” should it not be gratuitous to those who seek to take a part but not the whole? It appears that what was originally designed as a “gratuitous institution” has become an exclusive club to which others may not apply.

We have seen in the last decade that the state of Florida has provided some justice within this system of legal plunder. Tim Tebow, the 2007 Heisman Trophy winner from the University of Florida and NFL quarterback of the Denver Broncos, was home schooled during high school. Tebow had the opportunity to play football, at least in part, because Florida permitted him to participate in the public school football program at Nease High School in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. Tebow has become a spokesman and an excellent example of the value of home schooling and the justice provided in the state of Florida.

Other states have undertaken to rectify injustice within their states. Wikipedia reports that both Alabama and Kentucky have bills, referred to as the “Tim Tebow Bill” which would grant access now denied to home school athletes to play for their local high school teams just as Tebow did in Florida. Missouri has a similar bill that has been introduced by state Senator Jim Lembke. SB 37 is known as the “Students First Interscholastic Athletics Act.” SB 37 would provide equal access to public school sports programs to all children of high school age that meet certain health and academic qualifications, whether in public, private or home school.

This is now the third year that Senator Lembke has introduced his bill. There is no reason not to pass this bill into law. Justice requires that these “free” “gratuitous” institutions grant access to their programs to all citizens of the state without regard to the source of their other academic education.

The Law, by Frederic Bastiat

2011-01-27T11:50:00.000-08:00

The Law and Education

You say: “There are persons who lack education” and you
turn to the law. But the law is not, in itself, a torch of learning
which shines its light abroad. The law extends over a society
where some persons have knowledge and others do not; where
some citizens need to learn, and others can teach. In this matter
of education, the law has only two alternatives: It can permit this
transaction of teaching-and-learning to operate freely and without
the use of force, or it can force human wills in this matter by
taking from some of them enough to pay the teachers who are
appointed by government to instruct others, without charge. But
in this second case, the law commits legal plunder by violating
liberty and property.

The U.S. Constitution: Our National Covenant

2011-01-07T12:21:00.000-08:00

I made the following comments at the Consent of the Governed rally in the Missouri state capitol building prior to the opening of the 2011 General Assembly to a good response.

This morning I come to talk to you about federalism. I speak to you of federalism because this nation is at a cross roads. There are many in this nation who speak of bipartisanship and compromise. These are veiled terms for the relinquishment of your liberty. Indeed, there are many in this nation that propose that the states give in to any edict the federal government imposes. I come to speak against this idea.

I speak to you of federalism because we must recover the true meaning of federalism, a meaning of relationship and life under God. The meaning of the word “federal” comes from the Latin word for faith or trust. The 1828 Webster’s Dictionary defines federal as “Pertaining to a league or contract; derived from an agreement or covenant between parties, particularly between nations.” These definitions speak of relationship and faith and trust. Why is this understanding of the word important? It is important because we have forgotten this aspect of federalism. It is an understanding that our founding fathers had and drove their actions.

Our founding fathers were students of history and tradition. They were students of western civilization. They looked to the past for enlightenment on their authority to act. They studied history. They read Cicero. They read Locke. But they also read the Bible. And they found their source for the idea of covenant in the Bible and the covenant God who wrote the Bible.

Indeed, western tradition, Christendom as some have called it, took on the unique practice of writing covenants to govern themselves. They bound their kings to such charters. The founders studied these documents. They studied the Magna Charta, the great charter. They studied the Solemn League and Covenant. They knew the Mayflower Compact. These traditions informed them on how they understood their actions during the founding years of this country.

Consider the words of the Magna Charta and how they inform the meaning of our Declaration of Independence:

Henry by the grace of God King of England, . . . Know that we, at the prompting of God and for the health of our soul and the souls of our ancestors and successors, for the glory of holy Church and the improvement of our realm, freely and out of our good will have given and granted to . . . all of our realm these liberties written below to hold in our realm of England in perpetuity.

You should note two things. First, the great charter is a document of relationship. It sets forth the liberties of the people in relationship to the king. Second, the great charter is a document based on God’s authority and prompting. The charter recognized that the people had rights in their relationship to him because the king was prompted by God.

Many years later, those that settled Plymouth entered into the Mayflower Compact. The same themes can be heard in that covenant:

In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, . . . do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation . . .

They formed relationship in a Body Politic by the grace of God.

These two themes of relationship and reliance on God would forge the covenantal ideals of our founding fathers. You can hear these same ideals in our Declaration of Independence.

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

The Declaration of Independence is a covenantal law suit setting forth the grounds for which the Colonies would dissolve their relationships with Great Britain and do so in the presence of God. Their actions had profound and eternal consequences and they knew it. It ultimately took a bloody war to expel the invading forces of the tyrant King George, but it was not the war that severed the bands of relationship. It was the covenantal law suit found in the Declaration of Independence.

After securing their freedom from Great Britain, the 13 original independent colonies formed a weak relationship under the Articles of Confederation and struggled with that relationship for a dozen years. It was only with the Constitutional convention that the colonies formed a stronger relationship in these terms:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

With this statement the colonies established new political bonds, a new relationship, one with another. It would be a more perfect union, a strong relationship amongst the former colonies, now states.

Many are saying today that the states should give into the federal agent established by the U.S. Constitution. That is not what I see. I see a strong relationship among strong states written in the U.S. Constitution. A strong relationship does not depend on weak parties to the relationship. A strong relationship depends on strong parties giving faith, trust and exercising their best judgments in the relationship for the liberty of the people. I see strong states working together to guide their federal agent in the way it should go.

The state of Missouri joined that union in 1821. What is Missouri’s responsibility as it goes forth this year? The apostle Paul in Romans 13 declares that the civil magistrate is the servant of God. This term servant is the same word from which we get deacon. The service the civil magistrate is to provide to God is to punish the evil doer and defend the doer of good. A civil magistrate has no authority to make economic choices for a people. A civil magistrate must defend the right of all people to make their own economic choices. The state must execute justice and you cannot execute justice when you take from some simply to give to others.

The state of Missouri has one further obligation in these troubled times. When a party to a covenant is unfaithful to its covenant, it is the responsibility of the other party or parties to call the unfaithful one back to faithfulness. The federal agent in our national covenant has strayed from its commitment to the U.S. Constitution. It is time for Missouri, along with the other strong states in this union, to call the federal agent back to faithfulness to the U.S. Constitution.

In closing, I would like to commend my good friend state Senator Jim Lembke for his commitment to these principles. Senator Lembke has a practice in which he almost never fails to take a copy of the Missouri Constitution wherever he goes. He gives witness to the fact that the Missouri Constitution is his guidebook for his job. For that practice, I am grateful. Our Missouri state legislators should add one more practice to their daily routine. They should carry and study the U.S. Constitution. In the days to come, the federal agent will need their guidance on how to bring itself from unfaithfulness to faithfulness. The U.S. Congress will need the aid of the state of Missouri. This is aid we Missourians must provide. God bless America and God bless the state of Missouri. Thank you.

A More Perfect Union

2010-12-21T13:34:00.000-08:00

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Some claim that the U.S. Constitution is a grant of power to govern directly from the people to the national government. They claim that the phrase “we the people” reveals this intent in the framers. There are many reasons this is wrong, including the historical development behind the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Declaration of Independence and its proclamation that the states are of right independent entities. There is also the process by which the Constitution was ratified. It was ratified at state conventions or by state legislatures. It was not ratified by popular vote of all people in the nation.

There is an additional reason found in the very words of the preamble for understanding the Constitution as providing for an entity which serves the free and independent states. The reason is in the word “Union.” A reader must ask, “a union of what?” Is it possible that the preamble means a union of individuals? That idea is quite bizarre. The problem which brought the delegates from various states to a convention was the need for the states to work more closely together, a situation that the Articles of Confederation was powerless to accomplish. So it is in the words of the preamble that the “States” are “United,” not individuals.

Many will reply that in the union of the States there was a giving up their independent authority to the federal government. Is that what “union” means? When I married my wife and became united to her in the covenant of marriage, did I relinquish my identity? Did she? Certainly, we have to work together for each other’s good. Sometimes one of us will give up his or her rights for the good of the other. We do so for the other individual, not because we are a collective whole. A union only exists for the joining of distinct beings in a mutually beneficial relationship.

The states have for many years ignored their role in forming “a more perfect Union.” The federal government for decades has usurped the authority of the states and actually worked against this union for the goal of merging all things into it. This is not a union. The states in the years to come must engage together and work together to reestablish this more perfect Union.

From the Hon. Ed Emery: Wise Words

2010-12-21T10:19:00.000-08:00

“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” Benjamin Franklin

New TSA airport security rules have been frequently in the news. Perspectives vary from demands for increased security to concerns over invasion of privacy and assaults on modesty. The Christmas travel season plus my own recent venture to Washington DC make it timely to comment on the appropriateness and effectiveness of this latest government intrusion. I was also asked by a close friend to offer some comments. First, let me say that in my trip to DC, I didn’t set off any metal detectors so I was not forced to endure a pat-down or digital disrobing. Nevertheless, that this preposterous policy would be conceived in America, much less tolerated by Americans is a testimony to several cultural phenomena:

One-size-fits-all security – As Americans abandon independence and personal accountability, travelers have fallen to depending on for protection. Government might seem the appropriate institution except that fundamental principles of security are being ignored. Name a successful law enforcement agency or security company that does not profile for likely suspects. They rely on highly trained profiling experts to aid in protecting the innocent and apprehending the guilty. It works! I guarantee you that if airlines were in charge of security instead of our infamous Homeland Security Dept., profiling would be vital, not criminal. No intelligent person would choose random selection as the answer to airport security – only the federal government. Rejecting the truth makes one prey for foolishness.

Motivated by fear over reason – “Don’t panic” is the notable advice in every emergency. Panic may motivate lots of activity but seldom effective resolution. Panic makes us open to unreasonable and even harmful ideas that reason would reject. What thoughtful person really expects an airline to be hijacked with a 1 ½ inch fingernail file? A delegated function of our government is to make and enforce rules for the common good. A measure of its power over its citizens is the amount of absurd and futile rules we will endure. Panic empowers government, not people.

Panacea of a harmless society – Americans have been brainwashed that with enough power, government can produce a harmless environment. If that were true, there would be no crime or injury in China, Iran, or Illinois. Justice anticipates offense and provides for a response. For a free people to remain free, that society must accept that offenses will come and be prepared with just responses that range from fines to jail to the electric chair to stealth bombers.

Neglect of our national identity – Liberty will always be opposed by those who demand submission. America is the central planner’s worst nightmare because we prove daily that influence, prosperity, success, and fulfillment come from individual freedom, not central government control. Our commitment to personal freedom is both substance and proof of American Exceptionalism. America is anathema to elitists and dictators. But the abandonment of our rich national identity hinders our response to terrorist acts because we fail to treat acts that target citizens (instead of armies) as national offenses. President Reagan’s targeted bombing of Libya is a case in point of how to deal with terrorists. It has changed world politics and protected Americans for decades.

Part of American exceptionalism is that we have the government we chose (some would say we deserve). Walt Kelly, cartoonist, in his “Pogo” comic strip coined the phrase “we have met the enemy and he is us.” If we don’t like the path our government is choosing, we can change it, and it doesn’t take a revolution – it takes an election. The 2010 election proves we can still take charge, and it was another testimony to American exceptionalism. But is America falling victim to a thousand cuts, and are new TSA regulations one of those cuts? I think so. The question is not so much what will I do the next time I fly, but what will I do in 2012 when I vote.

A More Perfect Union

2010-12-16T14:24:00.000-08:00

Peter Leithart writes in his Intro to The Four: Survey of the Gospels: "To get it right, we need to distinguish between person and nature, know the difference between substance and subsistence, know that there can be union without mixture and distinction without seperation, and believe the Word is en-hypostatically related to an anhypostatice human nature." What a great beginning.

Socialism is Theft

2010-12-15T07:01:00.000-08:00

It is time to change the word “socialist” to “thief.” In recent days, after President Obama came forward with an agreement in principle to extend the so called “Bush Tax Cuts,” there has been no end to the harangue about the rich being “benefitted” at the expense of the poor. Have we really fallen so far as a nation that anyone would accept this characterization? Have we really fallen so far that any would accept the concept that money by its very nature is the government’s to be distributed at its sole discretion? Money belongs to people, not to governments.

The Declaration of Independence sets forth the core principles of this nation. In part, it states as follows:

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.

In today’s world, the words “pursuit of happiness” have lost their meaning. For John Locke, the word was “property.” In the words of the Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted in 1776, the entire phrase was “the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.” For Witherspoon, the words “pursuit of happiness” meant the “pursuit of public righteousness.” The founders understood that a people could not be truly free unless they were secure in their property. It is for this reason that the various taxes imposed by King George became the pivotal point around which the war for independence began. “No King but King Jesus” was spoken on the very same lips as the phrase “No taxation without representation.”

We now have a significant portion of our society that implicitly thinks that all property, including money, belongs to the federal government. Why else could anyone possibly imagine that a tax cut is a “benefit” to anyone? If it is the people’s money, a tax cut is simply reducing a confiscation of that property.

Let’s be clear: Socialism is not an economic theory. Socialism is theft. Capitalism is inherent in creation. Before the establishment of governmental structures, what economic structure was there? There was bartering. Bartering is capitalism. A free exchange of goods and services for the mutual benefit is the way that man naturally transacts with his fellow man. When nations deal, how do they deal? Even in the most socialistic of times, socialist nations barter as capitalists. China buys American debt for its own self interest. It does not do so for the sake of other nations. Unfettered capitalism is guaranteed in our founding documents in the protection of our property. Unfettered capitalism is the best and most effective way for assuring liberty and providing for economic growth.

Socialism is a top down imposition of governmental power for the taking of money from some for distribution to others. It is in its most basic identity theft. Frederic Bastiat, in his treatise “The Law” called it “legal plunder.” “Legal plunder” distorts the sensitivities of the public so that they are unable to discern justice any more. And if a culture is unable to discern justice, it is unlikely that it is able to discern mercy. Calling tax cuts “benefits” to the rich is the final conclusion to the corruption or our capability to discern justice and mercy.

Therefore, I propose that conservatives adopt the terminology that any tax over 10 percent of a person’s income be called theft. Scripture makes clear that taxation above 10 percent makes a people slaves. We, as a nation, need to radically rethink and talk our culture back to the way it was at its founding. We need to reclaim our liberty. Our constitutional system of government was designed for a moral and religious people according to John Adams. We must realign our thinking so that we can once again rightly discern justice and mercy. Words have meaning. Let us label confiscation of our property at the hands of the federal tyrant as what it is, theft.

Repeal Amendment Yes, Con Con No

2010-12-04T10:59:00.000-08:00

On November 29, Patrick Tuohey wrote in support of “The Repeal Amendment” in the Missouri Record. http://missourirecord.com/news/index.asp?article=10204. I applaud and support Patrick’s proposal of the repeal amendment. While Patrick distinguishes the repeal amendment from nullification, in actuality, the repeal amendment would explicitly insert the concept of nullification within the very terms of the U.S. Constitution itself. As quoted by Patrick, the repeal amendment would state as follows:

Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.

While I believe the right of nullification inherently resides within the sovereignty of the states, Patrick would make that right explicit within the Constitution. This would significantly clarify the situation.

There is one aspect of Patrick’s proposal that does give me great pause, however. The significant question that remains unanswered is how the amendment should be accomplished. The U.S. Constitution provides for two ways of amending it. As Patrick points out, the states may either ratify an amendment proposed by Congress or call for a constitutional convention. Many in the past have proposed that the states should call a Constitutional Convention (or a “Con Con”). Patrick implicitly supports the effort of calling for a Con Con in that he cites state action in this regard. While there is great potential benefit in adopting the repeal amendment, I believe there is greater potential risk in calling a Con Con.

Let us look at what we have. Patrick rightly points out that our Constitution is a marvelous document. The flaw in our culture today is not in the document itself but in the people who are the caretakers of the powers delegated by the document. The simplest of solutions is to find people who will be faithful to the trust that they have been given.

The real risk of a Con Con is that the Convention would be free to propose amendments to the Constitution. Presumably the Convention could propose as many changes as it wanted to the Constitution, including a complete rewrite of the Constitution itself. After all, such is the origin of our original Constitution, proposed in a convention called to amend the Articles of Confederation.

With this possibility at hand, I am forced to ask the question, would I prefer to live under a document written by the statesmen of the past or the politicians of today. Let us compare the two. Our founders, for the most part were classically trained men who read Cicero, Locke, and Blackstone. According to Patrick Henry, “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!” This means that they believed in certain absolutes, among these was the certainty of the law. According to Sir William Blackstone, the great legal commentator of the time, “This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other-It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.” Blackstone went on to recognize the source of all law as the Bible. “This has given manifold occasion for the benign interposition of divine providence; which, in compassion to the frailty, the imperfection, and the blindness of human reason, has been pleased, at sundry times and in diverse manners, to discover and enforce its laws by an immediate and direct revelation. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures.” What is significant is that our founders understood that what God gives man cannot take away. They were driven by a vision of liberty for all.

Our present generation of politicians does not understand even these most basic of concepts. Consider now that our culture's most recent fad principle is “Hope and Change.” Our leaders for the past two years have been guided by the proposition of spreading the wealth around, i.e. legislated theft. Have our leaders ever read Blackstone? Do they understand the moral underpinnings of liberty as John Adams did, Adams who said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” To post modern culture truth is relative. Political correctness is the overriding principle today. I would not chance the rewrite of our great national charter to times such as these.

However, there is a way to achieve the adoption of the repeal amendment with greatly reduced risk to our national charter: have Congress propose it. If as Patrick states, one can hope that it will gain traction with liberals as well as conservatives, it should be proposed in Congress. If Congress proposes the amendment, the states can ratify that one amendment and no others. One might also suggest an ancillary amendment to the constitution and that is to permit the states to propose specific amendments for consideration by the other states and the Congress. Such a dialogue among the states would be healthy.

How to Identify Legal Plunder

2010-11-24T09:01:00.000-08:00

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply.
See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them,
and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if
the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing
what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil
itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it
invites reprisals. If such a law—which may be an isolated case—
is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and
develop into a system.

The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly,
defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is
obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that
this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry
is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor
workingmen.

Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The
acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The presentday
delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of
everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of
organizing it.

Frederic Bastiat, The Law

The Purpose of the Law

2010-11-24T08:26:00.000-08:00

When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor. It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.

Frederic Bastiat, The Law

The Law Perverted

2010-11-24T08:10:00.000-08:00

The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law becom the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!

If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it.

Frederic Bastiat, The Law

Lukewarm (Truths About the Middle) by the Honorable Ed Emery

2010-11-15T11:16:00.000-08:00

The following is from Representative Ed Emery, and, as usual, he nails it:

I am sure we will be talking about the 2010 election for decades, but one phenomenon being misunderstood is the diminishing of “the middle” in both major parties. The electorate began to pay attention when they saw freedom - the core of American exceptionalism - being replaced by the failed model of czarism. This quickened attentiveness, inspired thought, and provoked citizen-action (not something big-government liberals welcome).

The 2010 election was not so much about party or even policy as it was about character. The voter was looking for someone he/she could trust, someone who would tell them the truth about Washington, D.C. and about America. The Tea Party embodied that sentiment, and career politicians were its antithesis. American voters questioned the country’s direction, and determined to do something about it; this may have been the first election the bulk of average Americans have taken seriously in decades.

There will be a different look to Congress and to the Missouri legislature in 2011. Candidates who won may be working for meaningful reform as their top priority instead looking first to their next position, election, or fundraiser. However, the statesman must be willing to swim upstream because the indoctrination of “majority” will have already begun both in Jeff City and in DC. They may be told that their priorities are first to win re-election in 2012, second to get other party members elected to ensure the majority, and finally, in the process appease their constituency. Newest members will be addressed as “Honorable” and be treated by special interests as kings and queens – intoxicating.

The good news is that more real people are paying attention, so the next election may become even more significant than 2010 because the next election will prove if voters were just angry or were actually awakened. Will we monitor those we elected, encourage their statesmanship, and be willing to vote them out if we discover we were wrong about their character and that they do not deserve out trust. Primary elections may again become instruments of reform if voters take their responsibility seriously. We can never again forget or neglect that in America we get the government we choose (elect).

I reject the notion that “moderates” lost because people weren’t thinking. Moderates lost because voters woke up to the truth that lukewarm does not protect personal liberties; it compromises them. Lukewarm protects the status quo, not constituents and the Constitution. Even the Bible confirms that lukewarm is nauseating. Notice that successful candidates are more reflective of party platforms after the 2010 election. The democrats are more liberal and the republicans more conservative because that is what the platforms say and the voters chose. Losing the middle is not the tragedy the news media claims, on the contrary it signals that voters largely rejected compromise-above-character or politics-above-principle. Voters want to trust their elected officials not serve them.

The Sacrament of Nullification

2010-11-06T08:19:00.000-07:00

“The conservatives took control of the House of Representatives, now what?” Whether you believe the statement to be true or not, this is the question that is consuming everyone with an interest in politics. What will the President do? Will he change direction? Will he moderate? What will Congress do? Will the Republicans compromise? These are all questions that the political pundits and private citizens are asking. All eyes are on Washington, D.C. to see what shift will occur as a result of the electoral sea change was produced on November 2.

The next step does not belong to the federal government in Washington, D.C. The next step belongs to the states. In a previous article “Nullification v. Revolution,” I suggested that the Declaration of Independence was the model and guide for the states in responding to the federal tyrant if it did not change its course. Now it appears that there is a possibility that there may be a change in course due to the election of November 2.

However, the change appears to be only in seed form. While there was a vast change in the makeup of the House of Representatives, those who orchestrated the reign of tyranny from the White House and U.S. Senate for the past two years are still ensconced on their thrones. The states also should remember that simply being controlled by Republican does not mean that the House will move the federal government to be faithful to its covenant obligations found in the U.S. Constitution. Lest we forget, the Republicans had much more control during the period from 1994 to 2004 and the Republicans failed to change the course of the federal tyrant. In fact, they fostered it.

If the Declaration of Independence is the model and guide on how the states should respond to tyranny, the U.S. Constitution is the guide on how the states should live together. The word “federal” in the phrase “federal government,” is defined in the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary as “Pertaining to a league or contract; derived from an agreement or covenant between parties, particularly between nations.” This is a significant and glorious meaning that most of our politicians have lost with their loss of the status of statesmen. A covenant has to do with a compact or trust between separate entities. The covenant of the states is the U.S. Constitution.

The key to understanding the U.S. Constitution at this point in our covenantal history is the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment is the only provision that attempts to set forth the manner in which the Constitution is to be interpreted. It clearly states that, “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.” The federal government is a government of limited powers. The U.S. Constitution must be read with this understanding in mind.

The federal government has clearly lost its way in constraining itself within the limits of the delegation of authority granted by the states. It taxes and spends money on frivolous projects. It places our children in debt for the sake of benefits to particular individuals. It fails to secure our boarders, one of its primary functions. There is little evidence that it can begin to do so unless an outside force is exerted on it. That source is the very entities that established it in the first place: the states.

If one studies ancient near east covenants, one finds that covenants incorporated a covenantal sign and seal. The sign was often a ritual meal. For the ancient Hebrew nation, there were at least three such covenants with covenantal signs: the rainbow, circumcision and the Sabbath. When exercised or recognized, these covenantal signs (we now call them sacraments) brought the covenant members long life and health, for they impressed a remembrance of the covenantal relationship on the people and encouraged them to be faithful to the covenant.

It is high time that the states adopt a sacrament in their covenantal lives with the federal government, a symbol to encourage the federal government to remain faithful to its covenantal obligation, and that sacrament is found in the Tenth Amendment. The states must remind the federal government of the limits of its authority. It can only do so by nullifying those laws which they find beyond the enumerated powers delegated to it.

Ed Lazarus has decried the use of nullification:

But nullification is a deeply pernicious idea. It strikes at the core of the constitutional bargain that was struck after the Revolution when the Articles of Confederation failed – the working principle that we are all in this together and that the purpose of the federal government, a government in which every state is represented, is to calibrate the shared sacrifices that all of us will have to bear to preserve the country's economic vitality and help it prosper.

See http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20090312.html. This is no way to describe the healthy relationship created by the U.S. Constitution: “to calibrate the shared sacrifices” that the federal tyrant will impose from on high, the sacrifices of liberty that burdening taxes impose on the citizens of these great fifty states and their children. A healthy relationship includes a give and take and a healthy rebuke from time to time and a consistent reminder to be faithful to the relationship.

In 2009, in addition to the Missouri Healthcare Freedom Act, the Missouri Legislature debated a resolution to instruct the Missouri Congressional delegation to vote against the cap and trade bill. One of the opposing arguments was that such debate was a waste of time. The resolution would not be worth the paper that it was written on. Should anyone be able to make such a statement about a communication made in a healthy relationship? The very argument emphasizes that the relationship the states created among themselves is terribly sick and must be cured.

There are good signs of change from the electorate of a healthy shift in their perception of the federal government. The states must now foster and support that change. New patriots in Congress will need that support to make the change due to tyrannical advisories and due to their own human weaknesses.

Change is in the offing, but we are still very sick as a nation. There is a cure to this national tyranny. The national relationship of the states, the national covenant, must be resurrected and respected. The cure is found in the development of a strong relationship among the states as expressed in the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The states must exercise that relationship by the consistent and faithful act of nullification.

The Morning After

2010-10-28T15:00:00.001-07:00

Cal Thomas writes in Townhall.com in a piece called “The Morning After”:

Republicans should begin with school choice. Every poor person in every city should be able to withdraw his or her children from failing public schools and place them either in charter or private schools with taxpayer money. More than any welfare program, school choice will free a generation of youngsters from repeating the cycle of poverty. Republicans should re-authorize the D.C. Scholarship Fund, which Democrats allowed to die, despite its popularity and success.

Cal should know better than this. The tea parties have been railing for more than a year now to stop the federal spending. However, it is apparently very easy for even conservatives to be seduced by the power of the federal government. I agree that it would be wonderful to help the poor in the inner city to have a good education, but the ends do not justify the means. We are putting our children’s children in debt for benefits to select groups of people chosen by our federal government. Cal in his proposal is doing exactly the same thing, just with a different chosen benefactor. Injustice in the form of socialism is injustice whether you are confiscating money from taxpayers for the benefit of Wall Street tycoons or any other group. While I may prefer this form of socialism, it is still socialism and unjust.

In addition, it is the power of the federal government that has made our citizens dependent on the power of the federal government. Making our children’s education dependent upon the federal dole continues that spiral into dependency. It is time for the Republicans to break that spiral of dependency.

Finally, Cal’s proposal is unconstitutional. The tea parties have been vocal on this point as well. The U.S. Constitution is silent on the federal government’s role in education. The federal government may only exercise such powers as are specifically listed in the Constitution. Therefore, Congress has no authority to tax its citizens in order to engineer a social outcome through education.

Cal should recognize that the primary source of education is the family and the church of Jesus Christ. If the Republicans are to be consistent with their own rhetoric, they should seek to encourage those two parts of society to reengage in the field of education. If they must act, at least do it in a manner which encourages private giving. If they must do it through a tax or incentive, a tax credit for any voluntary contribution to a private institution for educational purposes would be a far superior tactic.

A Response to Stephen Broden

2010-10-23T10:12:00.000-07:00

The Blaze (http://www.theblaze.com/) has reported that Texas Republican congressional candidate Stephen Broden renewed an observation that he has made in the past that a violent overthrow of the government is a viable option if America continues down its current path. According to the Blaze,

In 2009, Broden said that there is a solution to tyranny: “We have a constitutional remedy. And the Framers say if that don’t work, revolution.”

It was in response to a question regarding that statement that he said revolution is a viable option: “Our nation was founded on violence; the option is on the table. I don’t think that we should ever remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms. However, it is not the first option.”

“If the government is not producing the results or has become destructive to the ends of our liberties, we have a right to get rid of that government and to get rid of it by any means necessary,” Broden added.

While violence is always a possibility, it is not true that our nation was founded on violence. The Framers did not say, “If that don’t work, revolution.” That was the course of the French revolution. What the American Framers did say was, pursue a legal dissolution of the ties that bind the states to Great Britain. What the Framers did say is if violence comes from the tyrant, so be it.

The Declaration of Independence is a wonderfully crafted legal document, initiating a covenantal law suit against the crown in Great Britain. It begins by declaring the rights of the states to their sovereignty under God. It then sets forth a lengthy list of the rights of Englishmen which King George had violated. It concludes with the following declaration:

That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Violence did come, but the violence was initiated by the English tyrant, not the states. Yes, the states did defend themselves as was their right, but their defense was a response to an invasion by the English tyrant.

We are facing unprecedented times in these United States, times in which the tyranny of the federal government approaches, and may have even surpassed that of King George. Broden has rightly assessed the times, but he has not rightly assessed the proper response. The states retain their authority to this day to dissolve the legal ties that bind them to the federal government. That is the proper next step in responding to the federal tyrant.

Many argue that the states gave up their authority with the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. This is a fact that the Civil War confirmed. Nothing could be more patently absurd. If my friends and I resolve to start a business and create a corporation to conduct our business, there is nothing in the creation of that corporation that denies us the right to liquidate that business. Further, if anything, the Civil War confirmed that the states retain the authority to dissolve the relationship with the federal government. War by its very nature is recognition of competing sovereign authorities. One power being unable to achieve its goals with another power by legal means in this world may resort to violence to achieve its goals. We call it a war because it is a violent conflict between two sovereign powers.

If the November midterm elections change the course of our federal government, that is all well and good. If the November midterm elections do not change the tyrannical course of our federal government, the proper next steps belong to the states. The states must remain faithful to the U.S. Constitution if the federal tyrant will not. The states should consistently and faithfully declare in law where the federal tyrant exceeds it authority. They must nullify unconstitutional edicts.

The right of nullification is a muscle the states must exercise. The muscles of the states have atrophied after many years of lack of use. Federal mandates and incentives have induced the states to grow weak in their responsibilities to guard the freedoms of their people. Exercising their muscles will be hard at first. Bribes from the federal government will not be easy to withstand, but they must be.

To some extent, the states have already taken the first steps in their response to the federal tyrant. Various states have declared certain federal edicts null. Missouri exercised its God given authority to nullify the federal healthcare slavery with the adoption of the Missouri Healthcare Freedom Act. Other states are doing likewise. But they must do more. Only by regular and consistent exercise of the right to nullify federal tyranny will the states become strong again.

This is the proper next step. Consistent and faithful state action denying the federal tyrant its usurpation of power will bring the states in conflict with the federal tyrant. Such conflict may eventually lead to secession. Violence may come at the hands of the federal tyrant, but the violence should not be initiated by the states.

Vote Yes on Proposition B, Or Not

2010-10-09T13:10:00.000-07:00

Proposition B on the November 2nd ballot, the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, strikes me as a good idea. State law does provide that a person is guilty of animal abuse when a person:

(1) Intentionally or purposely kills an animal in any manner not allowed by or expressly [exempted by other statutes];
(2) Purposely or intentionally causes injury or suffering to an animal; or
(3) Having ownership or custody of an animal knowingly fails to provide adequate care or adequate control.

However, this simple law does not appear to go far enough. There are so many things left out. Consider the precise detail with which this new crime is crafted:

[A]ny person having custody or ownership of more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet shall provide each covered dog:
(1) Sufficient food and clean water;
(2) Necessary veterinary care;
(3) Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements;
(4) Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down, and fully extend his or her limbs;
(5) Regular exercise; and
(6) Adequate rest between breeding cycles.

It is very precise on how the crime is committed and by whom. This crime can only be committed by a puppy mill which meets certain specifications. The new law will not apply to pet stores, animal shelters, hobby or show breeders who have no more than ten female breeding dogs, and dog owners who do not breed their pets. It is helpful to understand in each instance how a crime is committed and by what means. The next step no doubt should be to enact the Pet Story Cruelty Prevention Act and the Animal Shelter Cruelty Prevention Act. After that, the next step will be the Hobby and Show Breeder Cruelty Prevention Act. Certainly, there needs to be a Dairy Cattle Cruelty Prevention Act. Each set of circumstances has its own critical considerations. The law must be able to adjust to the factors that drive each business. Only this way will the state be able to manage how each animal is treated.

As our society evolves, these standards can be reviewed and refined. My Shetland Sheepdog Frodo comes from a breeder that sets an excellent example. I now draft the next generation of the Dog Breeder Cruelty Prevention Act based on his example:

Any person having custody or ownership of more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet shall be guilty of the crime of dog breeder cruelty unless the person:
(1) complies with the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act;
(2) has a current knowledge of all illnesses impacting the particular breed;
(3) is competent in grooming the best of the particular breed;
(4) makes a site visit to the home of each prospective buyer; and
(5) at least annually, invites each buyer to a meeting of all owners of the particular breed in order to socialize the animals.

But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.

I thank State Rep. Ed Emery for his insights into this proposition.

Tom Bombadil and the Narcissism of the Federal Judiciary

2010-10-09T09:06:00.000-07:00

Have you ever been on a journey and lost your way in the forest, thinking you were going in one direction but finding eventually that you had gone in the wrong direction? As I read the Order of the Hon. George Caram Steeh in Thomas More Law Center v. Barack Hussein Obama, I could not help but think of Frodo Baggins in the classic Tolkien tale The Fellowship of the Ring and his companions Sam, Merry and Pippin lost in the Barrow-Downs. If you know the story, you know that Frodo and company head off from the Shire, running from the danger of dark riders, to the safe haven of Rivendell and the elves. On their journey they receive the help and blessing of the ancient and wise Tom Bombadil. After being refreshed by Tom’s hospitality, Tom set the Hobbits on a high place from whence they could see a great deal of the journey before them. Unfortunately, during their decent they come to the Barrow-Downs where a fog overtakes them and they lose their way. It is only after Tom Bombadil hears their cries and rescues for a second time that they are set right on their path again.

The analogy here is not to the order of the judge. The order is a classic example of constitutional jurisprudence. The order identifies the key components of the arguments of the parties and the key elements of the law that is being challenged. It then summarizes and explains the Supreme Court precedence on the issue at hand and applies the law to the facts. The order concludes that the Health Care Reform Act is constitutional. The plaintiff Thomas More Law Center claimed that the Individual Mandate, which provides that individual citizens must obtain a minimum coverage of health insurance or be subject to a penalty, is unconstitutional because it regulates a person’s mere existence or in the alternative his inactivity. Plaintiff claimed that this is not within the purview of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In the order, the court, consistent with Supreme Court precedent, sets forth the three alternative tests for determining whether the activity is within the realm of Congress’ scope of authority for regulating interstate commerce. The court determined that it is the third alternative that is at issue in this case, “those [local] activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.” After almost four pages of discourse on the limits the Supreme Court places on congress regarding how substantial the affect must be for the local activity to give Congress the authority to regulate it, the Court concludes that the failure to purchase medical insurance has a significant impact on interstate commerce. It does so for two reasons: first, the economic decisions that the Act regulates have direct and substantial impact on the interstate health care market and, second, the minimum coverage requirement is essential to the larger regulation of the interstate business of health insurance.

The analogy is to the state of our constitutional jurisprudence. In this twenty page order, an order which addresses the constitutionality of a massive federal takeover of the healthcare industry and subjugation of all citizens to the obligation of the Individual Mandate, the U.S. Constitution is not quoted once. Our constitutional jurisprudence has become so encrusted with court created irrelevancies that it has lost track of the real questions. The simple question, does the U.S. Congress have authority to regulate has become a narcissistic preoccupation which has distracted the court from fulfilling its real purpose. The court has become lost in the fog at Barrow-Downs.

Every law student learns from the case of Marbury v. Madison that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the meaning of the U.S. Constitution. The Court, true to this teaching, observed that, “The Supreme Court has expanded the reach of the Commerce Clause to reach purely local, non-commercial activity, simply because it is an integral part of a broader statutory scheme that permissibly regulates interstate commerce.” The focus has now become what the Supreme Court now permits and not what the Constitution provides. Every lower court looks to the high court and to itself to determine now what they permit. The fog of narcissism grows. If this order is permitted to stand, the fog will continue to grow.

It is time for a Tom Bombadil to disburse this narcissistic fog. The U.S. Constitution was and is a compact of the states. This compact created the federal government to serve the states. It did not recognize the federal government as the supreme arbiter. Rather, in the Declaration of Independence, a foundational precursor to the Constitution, the states recognized God as the supreme arbiter. Marbury v. Madison must be placed within this context. Marbury addressed a dispute regarding the internal operations of the federal government, whether a federal magistrate would be seated according to the appointment of the President. The court simply recognized the practical reality that in its position as the declarer of rights in the federal system it must be the final arbiter within that system. It did not address the extent to which the federal government may restrict the liberties of or impose obligations on the states or the people. The federal servant has no capability to judge its delegated authority.

If we are to disburse this narcissistic fog enveloping the nation, we must reevaluate the purposes of the U.S. Constitution. Jesus said, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.” The courts must take their eyes off of themselves and their tediousness in figuring out the riddles of what fact patterns meet what test in the Supreme Court’s criteria de jure for expanding the reach of the Commerce Clause and the federal government. They must look to the purpose of the U.S. Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The federal government and particularly the jurisdiction of the federal court system exist to insure domestic Tranquility, to provide for the common defense, and to secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. And, no, promoting the general welfare cannot be taken out of the context of these other purposes. Promoting the general welfare must be consistent with our liberty, tranquility and defense, not a justification for burdening the liberty, i.e. the taxing, of some for the benefit of others.

Where does Missouri go from here? The citizens of Missouri have spoken on the law of this state as it relates to the federal health care tyranny. The law of the state is that there shall be no Individual Mandate. The challenge for the Missouri judiciary is to cast off the narcissism of the federal judiciary. The challenge for the Missouri judiciary is to give the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution its rightful place again in the compact the states have made with each other and to secure the liberty of its citizens. “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.” Perhaps the Missouri judiciary will fill the role of Tom Bombadil.

A Delaware Lesson for Missouri

2010-09-21T09:47:00.000-07:00

Is there anything that the Missouri GOP can learn from the Delaware primary for the U.S. Senate last week? There is if it can get past the tangled web that its Delaware counterpart created. In the past several weeks, the establishment Delaware Republican Party has made itself irrelevant for any general election campaign in Delaware.

Within political parties, there is a classic debate between the “large tent” and the “small tent” strategy. The view of the large tent is that a political party must be inclusive of a wide divergence of positions in order to permit the group to coalesce around one banner for the sake of size and power. To exclude individuals based on their views limits the size of the party and its influence. The large tent view permits a party to select a candidate that can win the race for an office in keeping with the philosophy of the region where the election is held. The theory of the small tent, in reaction thereto, is that if the views permitted by the party become too broad, the party will lose its distinction and become meaningless in its message. The small tent view permits a party to maintain a consistent message and educate the nation based on a principled message, but risks the party becoming isolated (or so it is the theory).

It is into the dilemma of the large tent, small tent views of a political party that the Delaware Republican Party fell as it responded to the efforts of the tea party. During the primary, the Delaware Republican Party supported long time Congressman Mike Castle, a candidate considered by many in Delaware and in the rest of the nation to be too liberal. However, the Delaware Republican Party responded that only a moderate of his type was capable of winning an election in blue state Delaware. This is the classic large tent view of the political party. Only by the conservatives accommodating a more moderate view from Delaware may the party grow and win the election.

The tea parties, on the other hand, supported Christine O’Donnell, whom they believed to be the more conservative of the two and to hold views truer to the traditional Republican standard. They were not prepared to bend their principles for the sake of the large tent view. Their principles committed them to a small tent view of the party.

What happened in the primary was ironic. However, it is a classic example of what will invariably happen to a large tent disconnected from its moorings. In its rhetoric, it opposed Ms. O’Donnell, saying she could not win in Delaware. The establishment Republican Party shifted the focus of its message to value of the large tent at the expense of substance. In an attempt to obtain power, substance was lost to expedience. The small tent tea party attempted to persuade the citizens of Delaware to its point of view and ultimately became a bigger tent than the big tent Delaware Republican Party by winning the election. The Delaware Republican Party is now on record as claiming that its candidate cannot win the general election, a position indistinguishable from the position of the Democratic Party. A desire for expedience has made the Delaware Republican establishment obsolete.

What should Missouri Republicans learn from these events? They should learn that the ultimate outcome of a large tent view is eventually irrelevance. Irrelevance comes either in the form of being indistinguishable from those around you or in becoming isolated, seeking only power for power’s sake. The argument that a certain candidate cannot win with the views of the small tent is a self fulfilling prophesy; it is self defeating. As the small tent accommodates to the big tent, the message is lost. A perfect example of this is the recent montra of the media that any thought to eliminate the federal Department of Education is extreme. This is a proposition which has been championed as wise thinking within my lifetime. The message has been lost.

A small tent view is a significantly more difficult position to be in the short term. It may mean loss for a time. However, it has far greater long term value. A small tent view, that is principled, can become a big tent by persuading the culture to the small tent’s principles as was done in the Delaware Republican primary. Ronald Reagan, the champion of conservative values in the Republican Party decades ago, was elected as governor of the state of California, one of the bluest of blue states today. Ronald Reagan brought the nation to him through a reasoned, persuasive dialogue on conservatism. He did not capitulate to a broader view of his party. He brought Republicans and Democrats to him.

What do these events recommend to the Missouri Republican Party? I have several observations, and these observations go primarily to Congressman Roy Blunt. If elected to the U.S. Senate, he will be the primary standard bearer of the Missouri Republican Party. First, return to principle. The Republican Party has been called back to its roots by the tea parties. It has been called back to a conservative ideal of strict construction of the Constitution, to a limited federal government and free markets. I am deeply impressed with the practice of State Senator Jim Lembke. Jim carries the Missouri Constitution wherever he goes. It is dog eared, worn, written in and bent. He almost never fails to testify that it is his guide in his job. I suspect that he is following an old admonition of Scripture.

And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. 19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them, 20 that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left, so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel. Deuteronomy 17:18-20.

Roy, your practice should be the same with the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, when you have opportunity to vote once again on TARP, your vote should be no. When you speak of repealing nationalized healthcare, your reason should not be we cannot afford it. Your reason should be “IT IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.” Stay principled in keeping your commitment to the U.S. Constitution.

Second, eschew requests for bipartisanship. Our constitutional form of government was designed to protect the liberties of all. In our culture, bipartisanship has become a fraudulent catch phrase for surrender. Today bipartisanship is used by the majority party to induce the minority party to give up the rights of certain people for the legislated benefits of others. This should never be granted in a free republic. You have no right to give up the rights of the people you represent and subject them to tyranny, the confiscation of their property for another. By maintaining a small tent, you will create a large tent.

In closing, I recall a brief conversation I had with former state representative Roy Cagle. I met Mr. Cagle several years ago when he was the Minority Floor Leader of the Missouri House of Representatives. I introduced myself to him again after more than twenty years. He had no reason to remember me and he did not. By way of complement, I thanked him for his service to the state and told him he had served in the Legislature with my father, Bill Linton. At that his response changed appreciably. “Ah, Mr. Conservative, how is your father?” was his response. I told him he was doing well. He heartily thanked me for stopping him and for my kind words. My father’s commitment to principle had made an impression that had stuck. Commitment to principle always leaves a lasting impression. Capitulation does not. Thanks, Dad, for your commitment to principle.

Override the Governor's Veto of HB 1903 on September 15

2010-09-09T08:03:00.000-07:00

On July 14, Governor Jay Nixon vetoed House Bill No. 1903. His reasons for rejecting the bill, though several, revolved around his disagreement on the handling of federal funds transmitted to the states from the federal government. How are we to think of this turf war between the Governor and the General Assembly in the state of Missouri? The best way is to return to an understanding of the respective functions the legislative and executive branches of our government.

In 2009, the Missouri General Assembly passed and the Governor signed Senate Bill No. 313. SB 313 established two funds within the state treasury, which funds were virtually identical, except that one was for collecting federal budget stabilization funds and one was for collecting federal stimulus funds, both granted to the state due to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The bill directed the state treasurer to invest the money in the funds for the benefit of the funds. It also specified that the funds would not revert to the credit of the general revenue fund.

In 2010, the Missouri General Assembly passed House Bill No. 1903 which created two additional funds for subsequent gifts from the federal to the state government. These two funds, again, were virtually identical to the two funds created by SB 313, except that they were created for (1) subsequent federal appropriations to the states for extended budget stabilization or a temporary increase in the Medicaid Federal Medical Assistance Percentage and for (2) federal appropriations to the states as part of the federal race to the top program. The federal race to the top program is a race established by the federal government to provide financial incentives to states for complying with federal education standards. The key differences in these two funds are that the legislature required the commissioner of education to seek approval of the distribution of funds from a joint legislative committee and that moneys remaining in the fund at the end of a specified period would revert to the general revenue fund.

In his veto message, Governor Nixon cited three reasons for his rejection of HB 1903:
• The two additional funds are an unnecessary duplication of funds created by SB 313.
• The joint committee’s approval of the distribution of the race to the top funds is an improper intrusion by the legislature into the duties of the executive branch. And the process would unnecessarily delay distribution of funds to the schools of the state.
• By allowing the moneys to revert to the general revenue fund, the legislation violates several federal conditions on the race to the top money and subject the state to sanctions.

The first two stand or fall together with an understanding of the respective roles of the legislative and executive branches of the government. The third is far more complex and becomes an issue of wisdom. Article III, Section 1 of the Missouri Constitution declares that, “The legislative power shall be vested in a senate and house of representatives.” Simply put, the General Assembly has the duty to write law. Article IV, Section 2, more explicitly sets forth the duties of the Governor. “The governor shall take care that the laws are distributed and faithfully executed, and shall be the conservator of the peace throughout the state.” The duties of the Governor are to carry out the law written by the General Assembly.

The Constitution does not stop there. Section 36 of Article III provides that all money received by the state shall go into the treasury and none shall be withdrawn except in pursuance of appropriations made by law. Section 28 of Article IV makes this provision applicable to the Governor by specifying that now money shall be withdrawn from the treasury except by warrant drawn in accordance with an appropriation made by law. Therefore, it is the General Assembly’s obligation in the first place to appropriate moneys from the state treasury. Moneys received by the state from the federal government must first be appropriated by the General Assembly by law.

The real concern with the method of reviewing distributions proposed by the commissioner of education is not so much that it is an intrusion into the duties of the executive branch as it is whether the General Assembly may appropriate money via a joint committee and not an act of the entire General Assembly in passing a law. The General Assembly in HB 1903 undertook its Constitutional authority and created two new funds to collect additional distributions that it deemed SB 313 inadequate to address. And it did so for one fund that would give it additional oversight on how the moneys from a race to the top fund would be expended to safeguard the state. This is a legitimate role for the legislative function to fulfill. Certainly, the Governor has the authority to veto legislation, but it is not a reason for the veto of the legislation that it is an intrusion into the duties of executive branch.

While I accept the Governor’s third point and understand his reasoning, I confess that I find the General Assembly’s approach wiser. It is repeatedly and rightly claimed that the federal government is a government of enumerated and limited authority. The U.S. Supreme Court, some 16 years after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, declared in its opinion in Marbury v. Madison, that, “The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.” The U.S. Constitution makes no provision for the federal legislature to legislate on matters of education. Therefore, the race to the top is wholly outside of the purview of the federal government. I would argue that it is inappropriate for the federal government to take money from the citizens of these united State for the purpose of dangling carrots before states to get them to adopt federal education standards. However, I am practical enough to understand the coercive power of money to the state. In light of the fact that money is so coercive, I prefer that the General Assembly, as the elected legislative body over the people, maintain its oversight of the money so bounteously tied to us by the federal government.

Uphold the Constitution of the United States, Mr. Castle

2010-09-08T06:05:00.000-07:00

The following statements were attributed to Mike Castle, the U.S. Congressman from Delaware who is running in the republican primary for the U.S. Senate, yesterday morning in hotair.com:

“Some of the things [tea partiers] seem to advocate go beyond the norm,” says Castle. “I have trouble distinguishing sometimes between the factions out there that are in this ultra-conservative mode. You know—be it the patriots, or this Tea Party Express, or the different factions of the Tea Party. I’ve seen advocacy for eliminating the Department of Education, for example.”…
“There are a lot of things that the federal government does that, you know, might not be explicitly in the Constitution per se,” says Castle. “There are a lot of things that the states do, too. And they’ve been doing it in some cases since the 18th century.” He shrugs. “I do suppose it is a good question to ask.”

If these statements are true, Castle should be rejected summarily by republicans on his statement alone. My question is has Mr. Castle ever read the U.S. Constitution? He obviously understands that the power to address education is nowhere addressed in the Constitution. But does he realize the Constitution is a document which grants from States to the federal government only explicitly listed powers? Does he understand the Constitution does not address the authority of the States except in limited circumstances, such as the 14th Amendment? Does he understand the States are governments of general power and the federal government is a government of limited power? His comments do not indicate that he has the slightest clue about the meaning of the document which is the subject of the oath he took as a U.S. Congressman, the Constitution of the United States. How can he fulfill his oath in good conscience? How can he take the oath in good conscience? This attitude violates the oath he took to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Any candidate so woefully qualified to speak to the subject matter of the job he has and one he professes to seek should be summarily dismissed. And any official so callus to the meaning of the U.S. Constitution should also be summarily dismissed. Unfortunately, I think many of our federal elected officials are similarly qualified.

The State, the Advocate for the People and the Repeal of the 17th Amendment

2010-08-23T10:03:00.000-07:00

The past two years have seen an unprecedented acceleration of the usurpation of power and tyranny by the federal government. The people of these united States are appalled and frightened by the arrogance of the federal tyrant and the dismissive attitude our elected federal officials have toward our national compact, the U. S. Constitution. Each elected official takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of American, but many blindly ignore that great document as they seek to cultivate national power.

In 2010, while the federal Congress was voting to require all citizens of America to purchase health insurance, the Missouri Legislature was voting to declare the federal mandate null and void. The final version of the Missouri Health Care Freedom Act, Senate Substitute for HB 1764, championed by Senators Cunningham and Lembke and Representatives Jones and Nieves, was passed by the senate by a vote of 26-8 (76%) and by the House by a vote of 108-48 (69%). The Missouri Health Care Freedom Act was submitted to a vote of the people of Missouri and approved by a vast majority of 71% on August 3, 2010.

How should the people of Missouri respond to the oncoming tyranny of the federal government? How should the state of Missouri take the message of Missouri Health Care Freedom Act and foster the liberties of its people? Many things must be done to cure our nation of the evil of tyranny. One partial remedy is the repeal of the 17th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The 17th Amendment provides that United States Senators shall be elected by a popular vote of the people of each state. But this was not always the case in this great federal republic. The Constitution, before the adoption of the 17th Amendment, provided that two Senators from each state would be chosen by the Legislatures thereof. It is now time to repeal the 17th Amendment and return the authority to select U.S. Senators to the state Legislatures.

The 17th Amendment is defended via claims of democracy and giving power to the people. However, the people have been duped and disserved by such emotional arguments to the end that they exercise their power ineffectively. All governing power in these united States derives from the people. The Declaration of Independence emphatically announces that,

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

While recognizing that all authority comes from the people, the Declaration also asserts that the united colonies are free and independent states as is the state of Great Britain. The states have the right to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances and establish commerce as independent entities. The conviction of the founding fathers was that the states derive their authority from the people and the federal government derives its authority from the states through the U.S. Constitution.

So the question is not who has the authority but how the people may most effectively exercise their authority. Which method of selecting the U.S. Senate is most protective of the liberties of the citizens of Missouri? Since 1913, when the 17th Amendment was ratified, U.S. Senators have been selected by a direct vote of the people of each state. Since that time, this nation has seen a continual concentration of power in the federal government, through this last year when we have seen the federal government usurp the authority to make individual health care decisions. The attitude of Senator McCaskill is endemic and representative. McCaskill was asked by CNS News on December 22, 2009, “Specifically where in the Constitution does Congress get the authority to mandate that individuals buy health insurance?” McCaskill said, “Well the -- we have all kinds of places where the government has gotten involved with health care and mandating insurance. In most states, the government mandates the buying of car insurance, and I can assure everyone that if anything in this bill is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will weigh in.” As reported in Politico on January 20, 2010, Sen. McCaskill stated, "As I said to somebody last night: everybody needs to get the Washington wax out of their ears and listen and pay attention that people out there believe that we are going too far, too fast." On August 18, 2010, it is reported that McCaskill made the following comment on Proposition C, the Missouri Health Care Freedom Act: "Basically it's a referendum that doesn't have much legal impact. It was, I think, largely political, and I don't think it will have a large amount of impact on what actually happens with changes to health care in Missouri." Senator McCaskill did vote for the federal mandate on health care.

Taking these comments together, it is clear that McCaskill knew that the people of Missouri opposed the national health care legislation early on. After she got the Washington wax out of her ears and heard the opposition, she supported the national health care legislation and voted for it as the right thing to do. She voted for it even though she could not support her decision. Her response to the constitutionality question was a non-answer. Neither the past conduct of the federal government nor states’ actions has any bearing on the constitutionality of a proposition enacted by the federal government. While the Missouri Health Care Freedom Act passed with 71 % of the vote, its passage has not changed the tone of Sen. McCaskill’s rhetoric. In her assessment, it had very little impact.

As confirmed by the Declaration of Independence, the first and primary recipients of the governing authority of the people are the states. The states are the first line of defense against tyranny. Since the founding of the nation, the states have been the consistent advocate of liberty within this nation. Their authority must be respected. Unfortunately, the 17th Amendment has diminished the respect due the states.

If the U.S. Senate had been selected by the state legislatures in 2008, it is likely that the federal health care legislation would not have passed in 2010. In the 2010 Missouri legislative session, in addition to the Missouri Healthcare Freedom Act, there were a number of resolutions proposed recommending the Missouri Congressional Delegation take positions on particular matters, including the federal health care legislation, energy regulation, and a balanced budget. The common objection to each was that they were not worth the paper they were written on inasmuch as they could be freely disregarded by the representatives and senators. It should never be that Missouri’s Congressional Delegation should disregard the expressions of their state Legislature.

How different would it be if Missouri’s U.S. Senators were appointed by the Legislature? If each Senator were beholden to the Legislature for his or her appointment to the seat of service to the state, the situation would be drastically different. Imagine justifying your votes to 163 state representatives and 34 state senators rather than countless thousands of voters who may or may not show up to a particular election and who will make their decisions based on the quality of the public relation package presented to the public. The expressions of the state would be of paramount importance.

The state of Missouri will always be your first and best line of defense in thwarting federal tyranny. The natural lines of affinity and fidelity between local state representative and senators and the people will support Missouri as your best advocate of liberty. Remember that your state senators and representatives live close to you. They are more likely to share your interests. They are more assessable and easily replaced at your will. In addition, the state’s natural protection of its own interests and authority will encourage it to guard against a usurpation of power by the federal government.

As we have seen the federal tyrant increasingly usurp unauthorized and unwarranted power, the people must reclaim their authority to exercise their liberties. The most important question is how to bring the tyrant under the control of a free society. The answer is to bring more power back to the states. One way of doing that is to return the authority to select U.S. Senators to the Legislatures of the various states as was the original design of the founders. The people have their popularly elected advocate, their Congressman. The states must receive back their advocates for the people, the Senator.

Ethics Reform: A Return to Justice

2010-08-18T11:07:00.000-07:00

It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. . . . The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government.

So warns Federalist No. 51. Federalist No. 51, generally attributed to James Madison, was written according to its author, to "form a more correct judgment of the principles and structure of the government planned by the Constitutional Convention." The author observes that the best way to protect the rights of individuals in a federal republic is to distribute governing power amongst various sects and interests. When any particular group gains majority status in a republic, such group can wield power against the liberties of a minority.

We have seen in a dramatic fashion how political power concentrated in one political party has produced a loss of freedoms in this nation in recent years. Most recently, we have seen how the United States, controlled by one political party, i.e. a majority faction in political power, has brought about change at the expense of the liberties of the people. We have seen the usurpation of health care decisions, the takeover of large business interests, and the expansion of the federal deficit all at the cost of the American tax payer and their descendants. Such abuse of power is not limited to one political party. We should not forget that the TARP bailouts were supported by both of the last two administrations. The government, when controlled by both political parties, has overseen the subjugation of the people to massive federal debt. In light of these warnings from Madison, the citizens should be wary of any effort to concentrate power in political parties.

In 2010, the Missouri Legislature gave the state of Missouri an ethics reform law which will help concentrate political power in the two major political parties in the state. SB 844 is a wide ranging ethics and campaign disclosure bill. There are many things in SB 844 which are arguably improvements in the state’s laws regulating the conduct of political campaigns. (It is important to understand that ultimately no law can guard the integrity of the political and legislative process as can the electorate by electing honest individuals to office. Only by the voters seeking honest men and women of integrity to fill offices of power will liberty be secured. I will discuss these principles later in this editorial.) However, in many respects, the campaign reforms look to impose ethical standards on the wrong interests. Rather than addressing the standards and ethics of the candidates and elected officials themselves, it seeks to restrict the liberties of the citizens.

Take for examples a new restriction on the operation of political action committees, or PACs for short. PACs are private funds collected by groups of people with similar interests or philosophy. The new law prohibits PACs from receiving money from other PACs and other types of committees, such as a candidate’s own committee. The theory behind this restriction is that it prevents citizens from disguising the source of money contributed to a political campaign. By imposing such restrictions on PACs, we make it easier to assess what interest groups are influencing a particular official. In contrast, a candidate’s committee and political parties are not subject to such restrictions, and one committee for each political party for each chamber of the Missouri General Assembly as designated by the political party or official of the party is explicitly exempted from the restriction.

In our culture, political campaigns are most effectively conducted through the media outlets of television and radio. Media costs money. Therefore, money and political contributions are the facilitators of speech. Money is speech. The Constitution of the State of Missouri, no less than the U.S. Constitution, guarantees that now law will be made impairing the right of speech and that all people have the right to assemble together for their common good and apply to those invested with the power of government.

The practical effect of the new restrictions is to force PACs to either contribute their funds to a political party committee or to a candidate’s committee. Once money has been donated to a PAC, such money is unavailable to another PAC. The restriction prohibits PACs from combining their resources. While political parties may aggregate their resources and power, private assemblies of people may not. Such restrictions concentrate power in the political parties, and they deny speech to the people that they permit to political parties.

If we must regulate ethics, let us regulate the ethics of the subject under consideration. If I, as a lobbyist, were to approach a legislator with a bribe, the critical conduct of the transaction is whether the legislator accepts the bribe. It is the honesty and integrity of the legislator that is of paramount importance to the state. My conduct of offering the bribe is irrelevant to the legislative process if the bribe is rejected. Therefore, it is the ethics and the susceptibility to influence of the legislator that is the critical subject of ethical regulation.

Our constitutional principles clearly anticipate that citizens will influence elected officials. It is Section 9 of the Missouri Constitution which assures the people of the right to assemble and apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievance by petition or remonstrance. The problem, of course, is the exercise of improper influence. In the same paragraph quoted above, the author writes that, “Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.” Our problem is that we have lost sight of the true meaning of justice. Our legislative process is constantly pitting one interest against another. We legislate the taking of money from one group for the payment of benefits to another group simply because one group has money and another does not. Our nation is so completely in debt that the liberties of our children’s children will be infringed for the benefits doled out to the politically favored today. Is this justice? If our legislatures would return to their primary function and if our people would insist upon our legislatures protecting the liberty of all individuals, there would be less opportunity for the exercise of improper influence.

From Federalist No. 51, Always Worth Remembering

2010-08-17T13:52:00.000-07:00

Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government. This view of the subject must particularly recommend a proper federal system to all the sincere and considerate friends of republican government, since it shows that in exact proportion as the territory of the Union may be formed into more circumscribed Confederacies, or States oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated: the best security, under the republican forms, for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished: and consequently the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionately increased. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful. It can be little doubted that if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of rights under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of factious majorities that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it. In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good; whilst there being thus less danger to a minor from the will of a major party, there must be less pretext, also, to provide for the security of the former, by introducing into the government a will not dependent on the latter, or, in other words, a will independent of the society itself. It is no less certain than it is important, notwithstanding the contrary opinions which have been entertained, that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practical sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self-government. And happily for the REPUBLICAN CAUSE, the practicable sphere may be carried to a very great extent, by a judicious modification and mixture of the FEDERAL PRINCIPLE.

PUBLIUS.

First Thoughts in Constitutional Law?

2010-08-16T12:23:00.000-07:00

I just bought a Constitutional Law case book to brush up on my Constitutional Law. The first quote in the book was from Bishop Hoadly in a sermon to the King in 1717. "Whoever hath an absolute authority to interpret any written or spoken laws, it is he who is truly the lawgiver, to all intents and purposes, and not the person who first spoke or wrote them." While this may ultimately be a true prophesy, only a corrupt man would actually seek to fulfill this prophesy at the corruption of the original written or spoken word. It is a shame this is the first thought put before a law student on the matter of Constitutional Law.

It appears that the case under consideration in the case book, Marbury v. Madison, is in accord with my view.

From these, and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent, that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of the courts, as well as of the legislature.

Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!

Malfeasance as Justification for Preemption

2010-07-30T09:59:00.001-07:00

“Against the backdrop of rampant illegal immigration, escalating drug and human trafficking crimes, and serious public safety concerns, the Arizona legislature enacted a set of statutes and statutory amendments in the form of Senate Bill 1070, the ‘Support of our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.’” So begins Judge Susan Bolton’s order issuing a Preliminary Injunction against the enforcement of significant portions of SB 1070. In her order, Judge Bolton sustained four of the six challenges to the enforcement of SB 1070.

In setting forth her legal standards for her ruling, the Judge wrote, “The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive authority to regulate immigration, supported by both enumerated and implied constitutional powers.” She also rightly cited the Supremacy Clause which makes those laws for which the Constitution grants the federal government priority “the supreme law of the land.” Few could disagree with her basis for federal preemption on this subject. Indeed, it is unnecessary to rely on the ambiguous and arbitrary “implied constitutional powers” regarding this power since the historical evidence is so clear that the main purpose of the union was to provide for a central government to regulate our dealings with those outside of our borders. The Federalist Papers cite this interest as one of the most significant benefits of the union.

But more must be said. Indeed, the Congress has the Power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4. One may rightly ask to what purpose or goal does Congress have this Power. To answer that question, it is necessary to return to the Preamble. The purpose or goal of Congress’ Power is to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” In light of this purpose or goal, Judge Bolton’s introduction to her order speaks volumes. The federal government is failing miserably in the execution of its Power.

Judge Bolton rightly sets for the traditional analysis for federal implied preemption based on the Supremacy Clause. (Federal Courts must infer Congresses intention to preempt state law when it does not expressly describe the areas of preemption.) In this regard there are two types of implied preemption: field preemption and conflict preemption. Field preemption occurs when the congressional scheme occupies the whole legislative field on the matter. Conflict preemption occurs when both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility or where state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.

One could quibble with Judge Bolton's analysis. For example, Section 3 makes a person who violates federal law by willfully failing to complete or carry an alien registration document guilty of a misdemeanor under Arizona law. The Judge observed that Section 3 attempts to supplement or complement the uniform, national registration scheme. In her analysis she wrote, “While the Supreme Court rejected the possibility that the INA is so comprehensive that it leaves no room for state action that impacts aliens, the Supreme Court has also evaluated the impact of the comprehensive federal alien registration scheme and determined that the complete scheme of registration precludes states from conflicting with or complementing the federal law.” [Citations omitted] She then concludes that, “Section 3 stands as an obstacle to the uniform, federal registration scheme and is therefore an impermissible attempt by Arizona to regulate alien registration.” Well, which is it? Is this field preemption or conflict preemption? And how does the supplement or complement of the Arizona law create an “obstacle” to the federal registration scheme?

The most telling part of the order is her treatment of Section 2(B). The first sentence of the section provides that “any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.” The second sentence requires the detaining officer to make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of the person. The federal government’s challenge to both sentences was similar. They made two arguments. First, since such inquiries will ultimately come to federal officials, the requirements impermissibly burden and redirect federal resources away from federally-established priorities.

Mr. Palmatier states in his Declaration that LESC resources are currently dedicated in part to national security objectives such as requests for immigration status determination from the United States Secret Service, the FBI, and employment-related requests at “national security related locations that could be vulnerable to sabotage, attack, or exploitation.” (Palmatier Decl. ¶ 4.) Thus, an increase in the number of requests for determinations of immigration status, such as is likely to result from the mandatory requirement that Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies check the immigration status of any person who is arrested, will divert resources from the federal government’s other responsibilities and priorities.

Second, the mandatory detainment would impermissibly burden the liberties of lawfully-present aliens. Based on these two arguments, the Court found that Section 2 created an obstacle to the enforcement of federal law.

I have no criticism of Judge Bolton on her holding in this case. Judge Bolton is bound to follow precedent of superior courts. She clearly attempted to follow the precedents set down. But I do have a critique of the analytical structure. Perhaps it is that the nation has lost sight of the purpose of our U.S. Constitution. Perhaps it has to do with the narcissism of the federal government, but the scope of the analysis distorts what should be considered.

Regarding the federal government's first argument, Judge Bolton clearly established in the open statements of her order that the federal government is responsible for defending the borders of these united states. She also clearly established that it is woefully failing in that responsibility. In essence, the federal government’s first argument is an argument on misfeasance bordering on malfeasance. Its argument is that it is incapable of fulfilling its obligation to enforce immigration laws due to its commitment to “other priorities.” While Mr. Palmatier detailed his commitment to these other priorities, I submit that the Court’s analysis was not broad enough. Clearly, defending the borders is at the core of the federal government’s responsibilities. If so, that responsibility is of its highest priorities. To divert resources to any priority other than defending the borders is a misallocation of resources, i.e. malfeasance. If the Court were to expand the scope of her analysis to the scope of the federal government’s activities, what would she find? She would find the federal government buying favor of certain segments of the population by means of welfare, food stamps, unemployment benefits, socialized healthcare, buying auto manufacturers, and deals to obtain votes on Obamacare from the Senators from the states of Louisiana, Arkansas and Nebraska. None of these activities fall anywhere near the core of the responsibility of the federal government. Malfeasance based on a perverted sense of federal priorities is now justification for federal preemption.

Regarding the federal government’s second argument, again, malfeasance has become an argument justifying federal preemption. It is the failure of the king to do his duty that brings burdens on the liberty of the country’s citizens and not the proper execution of those duties. Again, expanding the scope of the analysis helps in the analysis. The Power of the federal government extends to securing the borders and providing for proper naturalization. If the federal government fulfilled that purpose as described in the Preamble of the Constitution by on the first occasion keeping illegals out of the country, there would be no need to detain any legally present individuals. When the king fails in his proper duty we all suffer. The government failed to secure the borders on September 11. As a result, all citizens are now subjected to delays and searches when traveling by air. The government is failing to secure the borders today. As a result, the citizens of Arizona are subjected to increased crime and drugs as Judge Bolton has stated.

Misfeasance should never be a justification for federal preemption. The federal government has not only committed misfeasance. Our federal government has abdicated its responsibility to do those things which it has been directed to do by the U.S. Constitution and usurped authority it was never intended to have. And such conduct is used to justify their failure. And the people suffer.

Classical Economics and Our Health Care Blindspot

2010-07-28T06:32:00.000-07:00

I have previously written that socialism, i.e. the usurpation of the individual’s initiative to be charitable by the government by means of legislation converts charity, mercy, compassion and love to obligation, duty and litigation. See “Healthcare: America’s Blind Spot.” In following a path of socialism in the form of socialized health care, the American government will, due to moral physics woven into the fabric of creation, inculcate in the following generation a failure to see these moral values. When government inhabits the field of charity by law and obligation, good deeds cease to be good and become obligation, subject only to claims of right through litigation. And as good ceases to be seen as good, the culture loses a vision of moral excellence. In the end, the compassion necessary for the proper administration of healthcare will become a blind spot for the American culture.

I expressed the moral physics propounded in Deuteronomy that a nation will be blessed to the extent that its people voluntarily give through church and other individual voluntary initiatives to the poor and needy. To the extent the resources to be morally good to the poor and needy are taken away through taxes, the less the people will be blessed. There is another way to view this blind spot, and that is through the lens of classical economics. Perhaps it is more accurate to claim that the theories of classical economics support the claim of moral physics which I have already described.

Guido Hulsmann in his lecture at the Ludwig von Mises Institute (at Mises.org) on “The Division of Labor and Social Order” describes how the division of labor permits human society to become more productive. In the presentation of some very simple case studies he portrays how two men capable of doing two separate tasks with differing degrees of effectiveness can increase production by allowing each to specialize in the task in which he excels. Even in the case where one is more effective in both tasks, both are benefited by permitting the superior performer to increase his specialization in the area where he is comparatively more superior. The only case in which there is no mutual benefit is when the two are equal in all respects. In all cases but this latter, the two are mutually benefitted by their cooperation. The division of labor encourages peace because even if the two were to have animosity toward each other, they understand the mutual benefit of their cooperation.

How then does this apply to the socialism of Obamacare? Socialism as government policy is a legally enforced equalization of the outcomes of all efforts. Socialism, contrary to popular belief, is not an economic theory. It is tyranny pure and simple, for it is based on the taking from the production of some for the purpose of distributing the fruits of that production to others. Socialism is legislated theft. The outcome of such legislated theft is the elimination of the benefits derived from a beneficial division of labor. The two in every respect are made equal in outcome. The benefits of cooperation which support a moral and well ordered society are eliminated. In the words of Hulsmann, only by an extraordinary measure of love can the cooperation be maintained.

Keep in mind that the equalization of status does not produce love; it only lessens the natural forces maintaining the cooperation of relationships. Love must come from inside an individual; it cannot be created by outside forces. Since, as I have already shown, the replacement of law for compassion will necessarily create a blind spot in our culture to what is morally laudable, the culture will lose its perspective of the beauty of love and compassion. Therefore, there will be less reason to love that which is beautiful in compassion and will in turn provide less support to the culture socialism will create.

Let us turn back this destruction which the federal government is forcing on the states. Let us enact the Healthcare Freedom Act.

C. S. Lewis on Barack Obama

2010-07-26T08:47:00.001-07:00

‎"Emergency regulations," said Feverstone. "You'll never get the powers we want at Edgestow until Government declares that a state of emergency exists there." C.S. Lewis, That Hideous Strength.

An American Parable

2010-07-14T05:48:00.000-07:00

There once were thirteen nations of men. These nations were small in comparison to those around them. They feared for their freedom since they had a vision unlike most nations. They had a vision of maintaining their individual freedoms under God. These thirteen nations were of one mind and heritage and one vision. Therefore, they band together and formed a treaty, a solemn league and covenant to support one another in their governance and future support.

This covenant was founded on the principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of public righteousness, for they knew that only through public righteousness could there be true happiness, and only through public righteousness could the true right of property be maintained. Their covenant espoused principles of justice and common defense. Their covenant promoted the general welfare in order to secure the blessings of liberty to their children.

In order to protect their blessings of liberty, they gave some limited powers to a group of people they called their covenant representatives. These covenant representatives were chosen from among them in order to bind them together in a common culture of liberty under God. But what happens if we have disputes among ourselves was their concern. “What shall prevent us from destroying ourselves with disputes?” Their answer was that their covenant representatives would mediate their disputes for the benefit of all. After all, since the covenant representatives came from amongst the nations with a common vision, they would maintain the same values and seek the same goals. This answer seemed good to the wise men of the covenant to which they agreed.

After a time, a question arose concerning who should interpret the great solemn league and covenant. Again, the wise men of the covenant determined that the covenant representatives should do so. Again, the covenant representatives were of a common vision among the thirteen. And so the covenant representatives took on this new task of interpreting this great covenant.

For many years their common vision of liberty under God brought them unparalleled blessings of liberty. Many came to join in the common vision of liberty under God. So vast did this covenant of men become that it grew to fifty great nations.
So great did this covenant of men become that the covenant representatives moved to a new nation. While the covenant representatives came out of the fifty nations, they soon became lazy and corrupt. Their interpretation of the great covenant gave to themselves more and more power, until their decisions began to take liberty from the people, their liberty under God. They spoke with the enemies of the fifty and sought to become like them. When they talked among themselves, they schemed and plotted to increase the power of their own nation. When they talked to the fifty they schemed and promised that they could provide things that the people could not provide for themselves.

Unfortunately, the fifty nations became complacent. With their ever increasing wealth they forgot their liberty under God. The listened to the promises of the representatives and capitulated. They lost the wisdom in the words, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” They lost the vision of the words of one of their great men of the covenant, “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!” They lost sight of their founding principle, spoken by the same men of the covenant, “We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come.”

Then one day, the representatives said, “Let us take control of the health of the fifty. We know better than they and we have the power to do it.” And so they took the health of the people. What now should the men of the covenant do? Should they keep their health? Should they keep their liberty? Or should they say, “No, we will never give up our liberty under God. Give us freedom under God.” More importantly, should they allow such men to retain the interpretation of such a great covenant? Or should they take the care of that document back unto themselves?

Healthcare: Our National Blind Spot

2010-07-13T07:11:00.001-07:00

Human culture is a complex thing. What is it that a culture believes? How do those beliefs affect how a culture acts? What does a community consider morally laudable? All of these questions are hard to answer, but they are important. They are hard to answer because the underlying principles are assumed and the underlying principles are presumed to be unassailable. They are important to answer if we are to make accurate judgments about ourselves as a nation and a culture. C. S. Lewis once wrote in regard to reading old books,

Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books. All contemporary writers share to some extent the contemporary outlook—even those, like myself, who seem most opposed to it. . . . . None of us can fully escape this blindness, but we shall certainly increase it, and weaken our guard against it, if we read only modern books. Where they are true they will give us truths which we half knew already. Where they are false they will aggravate the error with which we are already dangerously ill. The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds, and this can be done only by reading old books. . . . . Two heads are better than one, not because either is infallible, but because they are unlikely to go wrong in the same direction. To be sure, the books of the future would be just as good a corrective as the books of the past, but unfortunately we cannot get at them.

Introduction to On the Incarnation, by St. Athanasius.

In the twenty-first century we are especially susceptible to a characteristic blindness since we are bound to a popular media culture. We are trained in the government school system. We are trained to think by that system and reinforced in our thinking by television and other media. What old books?

I was recently at a conference exploring the implementation of what is called the “Smart Grid.” The Smart Grid, for those who do not know, is a vision of the future operation of the electric utility system which permits two way power flow and communication between customers and their electric company. The idea is based on providing a customer with enough information on how his home is using power so that he can at any point in time adjust his own electric usage and/or his power storage facilities, such as an electric car, in response to a time-of-use price. One of the participants suggested that what we must do as a culture is teach our children in the government school system of the value of the smart grid. He observed that all of us have been greatly affected by our instruction in the government school on smoking, the environment and many other issues. The speaker captured a valuable observation. How many of the foundational principles we now hold as true and unassailable came from our formative years in school? And how easy is it to challenge those foundational principles today?

This principle is a truth about creation: culture is a characteristic of the succession from one generation to the next. The principle is inescapable because it is in the very fabric of creation. Consider the Ten Commandments, particularly the fourth and fifth.

8 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. 12

Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you.

It is amazing to read these two commandments together to see the way they work together. Several things are worthy of note for these two commandments. First, they are the only two of the ten that are positive in nature and not prohibitions. Second, they are reciprocal in nature. The older commandment is to “remember” for the sake of the younger generation, and the younger is to obey the older generation as they remember. Third, these things are to be done because this is the way that God created the world. Fourth, blessings follow to the next generation based on how faithfully the commands are obeyed. It could almost be said that these two are more than commands; they are primary laws of moral physics. The younger generation will be affected by the conduct and policies established by the older generation. The older generation by its conduct will create the blind spots that Lewis wrote about for the younger generation.

Lewis observed that it is impossible to read future books, and his observation is true. However, I would like to engage in a thought experiment regarding the culture we are creating for our children in the area of health care. What will health care mean to our children with the passage of socialized medicine by the federal government?

To begin this thought experiment, we must first recognize that there are three institutions on earth which exercise binding authority over the individual: the civil magistrate, the family and the church. The first acts by the exercise of law, i.e. obligation. The latter two act by the exercise of love.

With the formation of this country, charity, the help for the poor and needy, was left to the church and family. Therefore, charity was left to the compassion of individuals within the family and the church. We can argue about how well charity was done by each. I would argue that it was generally done well. But my point is that regardless of how it was done, it was left to the voluntary love commitment of those two communities.

In this situation charity and compassion are morally laudable. We all react positively to a story in which someone gives selflessly to someone who is in need. A specific example is the Pujols Family Foundation. Go to pujolsfamilyfoundation.org and see if you are not moved by what Albert Pujols is doing in our world. Again, the Bible says a lot. The book of Deuteronomy says that you will be blessed to the extent you give to the poor and needy. Here, again, Deuteronomy is expressing a principle of moral physics. There will be consequences for the next generation depending on how this generation acts. Compassion is praised and exalted as laudable.

What we are doing by imposing government on the healthcare system is radically changing care, compassion and charity in this nation. Allow me to return to an observation regarding how government acts. The government acts by law. It can do no other. Statutes, rules and regulations are the means of communication of government, and such communications bind the government in how it acts. The government exists in order to execute justice, to punish evil doers and reward doers of good. The only remaining question for the government is whether it does this function properly and well.

Once a government enters an arena of society with law, conduct in conformance with the law ceases to become morally laudable and becomes obligation. Is it morally laudable to recycle or give to the food stamp program or the social security system? No, it is simply required. With these obligations, there are also concomitant rights. Certain individuals have the right to food stamps and social security. Compassion and charity are replaced with litigation and regulation. Is this what we want to teach our children, to be devoid of a sense of moral judgment regarding how we take care of the poor and needy and, instead, to teach them that everything is defined by right, obligation and litigation?

But there is more. Government only provides what it takes from some to give to others. Government cannot by law create wealth. It only acts by law. Therefore, the government must take through taxes everything it needs to provide healthcare. I recently took a trip to New Orleans to help in the cleanup after hurricane Katrina. As I was working to rehab a house, I thought to myself, how could government do this any better? I was paying my own way, providing my own meals and lodging and contributing my labor and some of the materials. If government were to do this, it would have to tax me in order to pay for government administration of the program. The government could only act after the right paper work was filled out. And by taxing me, the government would have destroyed my ability to aid the people of New Orleans. It would have prevented me from being a blessing to them as Deuteronomy encourages.

I do not want America to become a place where morally laudable acts are made legal obligations. I do not want my children to have a blind spot in which they do not recognize the laudable nature of a kind heart. Yes, our present system has problems, but those problems proceed from the blind spots we already have due to the present intrusion of law into the healthcare industry. In order to see this, we must try to remedy those blind spots and return true compassion to our healthcare industry rather than expanding the blind spot with more government obligation. One way we can do this now is vote for the Missouri Healthcare Freedom Act. One way we can continue to do it in the future is to reduce government involvement in areas of charity and compassion.

Observation From John Jay, Federalist No. 2

2010-06-04T10:22:00.000-07:00

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

Professing the same religion? Indeed!

So now, if we no longer are a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, what does that suggest?

Warning From Hamilton, Federalist Paper No. 1

2010-06-03T14:33:00.000-07:00

On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.

Getting Our State Priorities Right

2010-06-02T15:36:00.000-07:00

One good thing about having state budgetary problems is that it forces the government to rethink priorities and first principles. What is really important to the state? When a state is flush with cash it is easy to make everyone happy and dole out the money. I should be quick to add that this shouldn’t be the case, but what politician doesn’t want to make people happy? The benefit of times such as these is that politicians are forced to assess what is important and make appropriate judgments. They can politically hide behind the need to keep the state solvent. Hopefully, in the course of their assessment we can all learn something important as we move to regain control of our government.

So what is important? In order to answer this question we must ask a more basic question; what is the function of government? Isn’t the most basic function of government the execution of justice? The execution of justice is embodied in punishing the evil doer and rewarding the doer of good. And, in the most basic analysis, the best way to reward the doer of good is to get out of his way, give him freedom. The book of Romans captures this idea when it says,

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Romans 13:1-6.

If we postulate that the execution of justice is government’s core or primary goal and rewarding the good and punishing the evil is the essence of justice, the next logical question is does each expenditure further the cause of justice. Each individual may have laudable goals in spending money. To bring beauty to our community, to help the poor, and to help the sick are all laudable goals. But are these laudable goals justice? Just because a goal is laudable does not cause it to be just. Such expenditures do not necessarily punish the evil doer nor do they immediately reward the doer of good. In actuality, such expenditures may foster injustice. In these tough times we are forced to look beyond the superficial emotions of feeling good about helping those in need. The current under the surface that we see in these tough times is that we must impose taxes on people to accomplish these purposes. In order to accomplish these “good” deeds we must tax the doers of good to accomplish them, thereby reducing their ability to do good deeds.

Again, a little Scripture helps. Israel asked for a king. God, through Samuel, gave them a king. However, Samuels’s observations are instructive. “He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. 16 He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men and your donkeys, and put them to his work. 17 He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves.” I Sam 8:15-17. Taxation imposes slavery.

There is another problem with the government’s involvement with philanthropy. Philanthropy calls for the affecting of culture. If the core function of government is to execute justice, the government should give a blind eye to affecting culture. Remember, the symbol of justice is the woman with a blindfold holding the scales of justice. How can the scales be balanced when the woman is looking through the blindfold to affect culture?

There is nothing wrong with blessing culture. However, the culture must be blessed in the right way for there to be true blessing. There are two institutions in this fair creation which are designed for blessing culture: the Church and family. The problem with government usurping these natural roles of the Church and family is that it diminishes their capability to execute their natural roles. Mark my words: as healthcare becomes a right dispensed by the federal tyrant, the field of healthcare will become devoid of charitable motivation and filled with litigation. This is not the culture our founders wanted. They desired a culture with freedom of speech, assembly and religion where people could gather to benefit their fellow man, not a culture based on what could be secured from others through the use of federal power.

Another example of setting priorities is in the area of the arts. Art more than any other expression of man affects culture. Again, government has no role in affecting culture. Therefore, it is counter to the role of government to give to the arts. Culture should be affected by the free flow of ideas, including especially the arts, with the Church and the family engaging in the dialogue. To the extent government takes through taxes from some to elevate the artistic expression of others to affect culture, this is injustice and should be stopped.

In these tough times we must reassess our priorities in our own lives and in our governing institutions. Let us ask the basic questions: what is the primary role of our government. If we get the basic questions and answers right, we can get our culture back on track. God bless the State of Missouri and the United States of America.

What is the Authority of the States?

2010-06-02T11:11:00.001-07:00

What is the authority of the state in the United States of America? The Declaration of Independence has much to say in this regard. Toward the end of the Declaration, the Continental Congress declared,

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.

Notice the use of the word “state.” The Declaration affirms that the colonies ought to be free and independent states. It uses the same word to describe the nation of Great Britain. Therefore, in the Declaration, the Continental Congress declared each colony to be a free nation, with the same standing among the community of nations as the nation of Great Britain.

It is only with the adoption of the U.S. Constitution that these free and independent states covenanted and agreed to bind themselves into a covenantal relationship. Covenants are agreements; some may claim they are sacred agreements before God on which the right to govern is expressed and regulated. The U.S. Constitution is one such covenant. In the U.S. Constitution, the states bound themselves together for their mutual benefit, delegating limited power to a federal or covenantal authority. As the founding entities, it is the states that are the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of the U.S. Constitution.

The states, being the free and independent entities on which the authority of the U.S. Constitution was founded have the primary right and power to act as they see fit as long as such action does not contradict the sacred commitment. The tenth Amendment recognizes this truth and does not grant this truth in these words: “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.” Once again the authority is clear. The tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution declares that the states “delegate” certain powers to the United States and all other powers are “reserved” to the states or the people.

As we move into an era of increasing tyranny from the United States located in Washington, D.C., let us remember that it is the states which must act unless such action is specifically limited by the U.S. Constitution. The burden of proof is on the federal tyrant to show that its will is consistent with the limited authority granted by the states.

My Take on the Federal Vision Controversy 2

2010-06-01T10:01:00.000-07:00

In a previous post I opined that it is wrong to equate the order of salvation to the means of grace in a way that would call for either to be equivalent on the other. The order of salvation is within God’s purview. Faith, our response to God’s call, is in our purview. To insert our own conclusions into God’s election is highly presumptuous on our part, whether we are proponent or opponents of Federal Vision.

A case in point is our Lord himself. During His earthly life, Jesus refused to presume upon His Father. If any human being had the right to ever presume upon the electing purposes of the Father, it was His one and only Son. However, Jesus refused such presumption, following the course of obedience to the covenant instead. When asked when the end of the world would occur, he confessed that such knowledge was strictly within the purview of the Father. Before His crucifixion He requested that the cup of the curse be taken from Him, yet obediently He committed to the will of the Father. And He was commended for His obedience:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Philippians 2:5-11.

Indeed, in a very striking verse, we are told that Jesus was being taught obedience through what he suffered.

In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. 9 And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, 10 being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.

Hebrews 5:7-11.

Jesus, being God, did not grasp at the privilege of declaring those who were elect but submitted himself to circumcision, baptism and the Sabbath, the covenantal means of grace of His time. He fulfilled all holiness. He was obedient to the commands of His Father and relied on His promises. How much more should we?

If we are obedient to the commands of our Father, we will baptize our infants and we will take the Lord’s Supper as He prescribed through Jesus. If we rely on the promises made in baptism, we will confess that baptism now saves us in some fashion. If we rely on the promises made in the Lords Supper, we will confess that, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.” 1 Corinthians 11:26-27.

My Take on the Federal Vision Controversy

2010-05-13T04:22:00.000-07:00

I cannot understand the angst in the Federal Vision debate. Well, on second thought I think I can. What is the issue in the Federal Vision debate? It involves a relationship. Every relationship has at least two sides. Relationships are covenantal and have certain expectations and obligations associated with the covenant.

The problem is that the two sides of the Federal Vision debate are talking about opposite sides of the relationship and, at least from my point of view, those that attack the Federal Vision dialogue will not recognize that the Federal Vision thinkers are discussing the opposite side of the relationship.

All relationships are covenantal. Even gracious relationships have obligations. For a gift to be effective, the gift must be received. Calvinism opines that the irresistible grace of God works in the life of the elect so that the elect individual will irresistibly receive the gift of eternal life. Praise the Lord, and thank you. I wholeheartedly agree. Calvinism opines also that the saint must then preserver to the end of life, but that God’s grace assures such perseverance. Once again, praise the Lord, I agree.

It still remains that there are two sides to the relationship, however gracious the relationship is. I am a Calvinist. I glory in the Westminster Standards. I affirm the sequence of the order of salvation put forth in reformed thought. However, that order of salvation is a recitation of God’s thoughts and actions toward us. I believe it to be correct in theory and in reality. However, after many years of trying to put it into practice in my life, I find that I am on the opposite side of the relationship and must act accordingly.

My problem in using the order of salvation in my relationship with Yahweh is that these thoughts are His thoughts. As I try to apply the doctrine of His election to my life and those around me, the difficulty is determining who His elect are. But this is something I cannot do. These are His thoughts and judgments, not mine. Deut 29:29. While I may want to make the call on who is saved, I simply cannot. I do not know the mind of God as wisdom Scripture clearly shows. I have tried in the past as a mental exercise to figure out how to know. I have conversations with some who “know that they are not elect.” How does that work? It doesn’t. All of our efforts to ferret out the thoughts of God are futile.

Another thing that is difficult about applying this view to our everyday lives is that it tends to make us arrogant. Take it from one who is a recovering member of God’s “frozen chosen,” it is a heady experience knowing who are God’s elect. Do we know God’s thoughts better than He does? Knowing who God’s elect are gives you a special insight into all of life. Again, we are not seated with God. Only Jesus is seated with God. We may pray to Him, but He is all wisdom and all things have been placed under His feet, not ours. So I happily resign myself to trying to understand my side of the relationship.

Unfortunately, my side of the covenant relationship is not quite as clearly defined in the Westminster Standards. Scripture admonishes us to make our calling and election sure. 2 Peter 1:10. Knowing that God’s foreordaining judgments are sure and fixed, I happily engage in that effort. But I am immediately confronted with the fourth and fifth commandments. These two commandments, working together, make our covenantal responses generational, meaning they work from one generation to the next. How does that work?

This is where I find the Federal Vision exploration to be so helpful. I use “exploration” for a reason. No one has yet written a confession of Federal Vision, although there have been several reports and affirmations published. The precise question is still unresolved. Again, how do we respond in our relationship to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? The reformed tradition starts out correctly (and there is no implication here that it does not also finish so). We respond in receiving His gracious gift by utilizing the means of grace: the sacraments, the Word and prayer. At this point, the crux of at least this aspect of the Federal Vision debate has to do with the “saving relationship” brought about by Baptism. Is it proper to refer to Baptism as initiating a “saving relationship” without contradicting the Westminster Standards? I believe it is.

Scripture clearly teaches that something happens at baptism. At baptism, we are united to Christ. Rom. 6:3, 1 Cor. 12:13, Gal. 3:27. 1 Pet. 3:21. The most interesting is the last, claiming that baptism now saves you. I will quickly agree that this passage cannot mean that baptism effects God’s election. To do otherwise would put me right back where I was before in thinking God’s thoughts before Him. However, is it appropriate to claim that baptism effects a “saving relationship?” I believe so.

Assume that I see a man who cannot swim fall from a ship in the ocean. Now assume that I throw him a line and he takes hold. Is there a saving relationship between the man and me? Yes. Does it mean that God has foreordained that the man will be saved? In other words, does it mean that he was elect to be pulled from the sea safe and sound? No. He could let go and perish. Again, I do not know the thoughts of God. And yet, I have evidence on which to base a judgment that the man will be saved.

Consider another example. I am a St. Louis Cardinals fan. If my Cardinals are up by ten runs in the ninth inning, I can say the Cardinals will win. Will I be infallible in my prediction? No. But I have a pretty good basis to make that judgment considering their record in early 2010, their lineup and other factors. I have pretty good promises that they will succeed.

But we have better promises from the Lord that He will be faithful to our baptized babies. Why shouldn’t we, along with Scripture, say that baptism now saves you or at least that it establishes a saving relationship?

The problem with the anxt from those that oppose the Federal Vision exploration is that they utilize those portions of the Westminster Standards relating to the order of salvation to refute the thoughts of those that explore the other side of the relationship. It may be too much to say that the two have no relationship, since I have already argued that it is because of the certainty of God’s fixed foreordination of all things that we can with joy make our calling and election sure. And, after all, it is a relationship. However, in speaking of a relationship of offer and response, you do not define the response by speaking in terms of the offer. Again, the order of salvation is God’s thought. Our response is the means of grace. If Federal Vision is to be refined it must be refined by developing the thoughts of the Westminster Standards found in those sections relating to the means of grace.

Knowledge is Covenantal

2010-05-04T15:12:00.000-07:00

The following was posted on a rather popular blog Green Baggins (http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/determining-the-doctrine-of-the-church/):

One of the more disturbing trends I’ve seen recently is that people are more and more defining the church’s doctrine by what individuals within that church say or said.

Francis Turretin has a brilliant answer to this methodology. He is referring in this context to various accusations against the Reformed position on providence and the question of evil. The accusers were saying that the Reformed position makes God the author of sin. He says this about the accusers:

Hence they are accustomed to drawing nothing from public standards to prove their calumnies, but only from the writings of private divines from which they falsely weave consequences. (paragraph break, LK) Concerning the public and received opinion of any church, a judgment cannot and ought not to be formed from the writings of private persons…because we do not stand or fall with the judgment of each private divine, however illustrious (volume 1 of Institutes of Elenctic Theology, p. 529)
.

I must confess that this proposition confuses me. Try as I might I cannot separate Turretin’s argument from the main argument. Therefore, I must disagree with both. Words, communications and judgments are covenantal. That means that we derive them from other individuals. I know nothing except by what I am taught by other individuals. I do perceive certain things, but I understand those things by what individuals instruct me. From time to time I may have an original thought, but even in such instances my thoughts are built on a system of thought provided by others.

Even Scripture was written by individuals. Everything I know was provided by other individuals.

There is value in public confessions adopted by a church. Such expressions are a consensus of many individuals. And yet, the source of these statements is still individuals. It is also true of consensus documents that they compromise on matters of disagreement. Therefore, they accommodate the judgments of some individuals at the expense of the judgments of others. Consensus documents can be vague in order to accommodate many views.

So where does that leave us? Man is fallen. That means all of our words, communications and judgments are potentially flawed. Our communications are flawed and our understandings are flawed. The only exception to this rule is Scripture. And while the original communication of the message of Scripture is flawless, our understanding remains subject to the flaw.

The solution to this predicament is not in the restriction of opinion to some elite group but to the free expression of opinion. As was adeptly pointed out by another individual responding to the blog post, the author of the post embodied this principle by referencing an opinion of an individual to support his individual argument. The founders of our nation understood this principle and gave us the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They understood that in political discourse the free exchange of ideas was important to our covenant community. It is no less so in the covenant community of the church.

Our Relationship to the Law

2010-04-28T09:50:00.001-07:00

The praise of the saints in heaven is as follows in Revelation 5:10-11:
"Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, 10 and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth."

Paul wrote many things about man’s relationship with the law in the book of Romans that has confused the church for many years. Even today, the debates on the New Perspectives on Paul bring that confusion into high relief. Reading Paul in the context of this passage brings light on Paul and the law.

In the old covenant, man was under the law and the law was administered by angels. However, since the resurrection and ascension of Christ, the law is administered in heaven by a man. Christ, the God-man, rules over all creation. And as this passage makes clear, he has caused us to rule with Him on the earth.

If we are to rule, we are now judges. How does a judge relate to the law? This is a question that many Americans will understand. Is a judge above the law? While some may answer yes, the proper answer is no. If a judge fails to maintain the law, he is not worthy of the law and should be impeached. If a judge will not keep the law, he shows the law not to be the law. For law exists to formalize the proper customs of a society. See William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law of England.

Is a judge capable at all times to keep the law perfectly? Again, this is a question that Americans should understand. The answer is no. The American legal system is founded upon a principle of proper appellate courts and at the apex of that system is a Supreme Court. A trial judge may get a ruling wrong, but there is recourse to a higher appellate court and ultimately to the Supreme Court. The appellate court corrects and admonishes the trial court in his exercise of the law, and the trial court corrects his behavior accordingly. This is how we should act.

Christians have been called to rule with Christ on the earth, but they have not been called to rule as circuit riders with no superior authority. They have been called into Christ’s body, the Church. Ruling within Christ’s body is the only way in which the Christian may rule within a proper appellate system. When we sin, we are not rejected by God but admonished by our mother Church, Christ’s bride. We live our lives accordingly. Only by the Sabbath principle of six days labor and one day rest and worship and communion with God may we engage in this proper role.

Thank you, Ed.

2010-04-12T14:51:00.001-07:00

Missouri Capitol Report
Representative Ed Emery
District 126
April 12, 2010
Vision for Life
“Where there is no vision, the people perish…”
Ancient Hebrew proverb

Tuesday before Easter the Missouri House debated a major pro-life bill sponsored by Representatives Cynthia Davis and Bryan Pratt, HB 1327/2000. The bill passed overwhelmingly with 113 yes votes and only 37 voting no. The overwhelming vote followed lengthy and passionate debate – both for and against saving the lives of our most helpless and innocent. Some of you may have been watching or listening on that day which was Missouri Right to Life day at the Capitol.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, this nation has not recognized a right to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness for the lives in the womb. For 190+ years in America, mothers found it unthinkable to deliberately kill their own child. It is against Natural Law and against conscience, which explains why it was only done in secret. Not even the animal kingdom is guilty of such savagery.

Since that tragic and deadly court decision, 50 million Americans including thousands of Missourians have been killed either in or as they exited the womb. I cannot think about those censured lives without wondering how many Albert Einsteins, Thomas Edisons, George Washington Carvers, Andrew Carnegies, Booker T. Washingtons, or Madame Curries have been killed in that 50 million? How many solutions for today were never born or will be delayed for decades even if abortion stops? Policies can transform culture and morals, and morals have consequences for future generations.

Mothers once had great visions for the future of their children – visions of greatness and success. However, the demise of the family structure has shifted perspective from generational to contemporary; from character to achievement; from legacy to consumption; from inheritance to indebtedness. We have become the “now” generation, which results from a lack of vision; “Where there is no vision, the people perish…”

The Israelite king David described the absurdity of abortion when he explained certain governments of his day. He said they “…frame mischief by a law… and condemn the innocent blood.” One day (soon, I hope) America will come to its senses. In the meantime your legislature continues to legislate wherever we can to protect life and family. We must seek to remind young mothers of “…the laws of nature and of nature’s God…” We must help enlarge their vision for the important accomplishments of their yet-unborn children. Missouri can and must lead the way on behalf of future generations.

You may telephone me toll-free at (866) 410-8822. You may also email me at ed.emery@house.mo.gov . If you would like to receive the weekly Capitol Report by email, please send me your email address. Thank you for your interest in good government and a promising future in Missouri. Follow Me On Facebook

Give Us Liberty

2010-02-24T06:46:00.000-08:00

The national Republican Party continues to crow that this year is a great opportunity for them to obtain control of Congress as if they are the benefactor of political forces at work within the nation. This narcissistic attitude is further evidence that the national Republican Party just does not understand the purpose of their existence. Their self-centeredness betrays the attitude that they believe that they are the end and goal of all things and their power is their focus.

The preamble of the U.S. Constitution provides that, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The legislative power being granted to the Congress, Congress exists to fulfill the goal expressed in the preamble, and that goal is to provide justice, tranquility and the blessings of liberty on behalf of the people. When elected, a democrat does not function to represent the Democratic Party and a republican does not function to fulfill the glory of the Republican Party. Each exists to fulfill the prime goal of ensuring liberty through justice and defense of the nation.

To say that the circumstances in the nation today provide the Republican Party an opportunity truncates the goal with a disastrous result. The perversion of political parties that our founders abhorred has caused our elected officials to trade in their status as statesmen to establish liberty for a status of politicians to pledge allegiance to the party. The opportunity is for the Republicans to regain control. This is the furthest from the founders' desires.

This attitude has also fostered the horrendous idea that bipartisanship is a good thing. The concept of bipartisanship is that representatives compromise their principles to accomplish a goal. However, our representatives are called to stand on the principles of liberty and justice without compromise. If bipartisanship has any principled meaning at all, it is that the majority position must condescend to the liberty demands of the minority position. This is clearly not the understanding of our politicians today.

Until such time as those who work within our political parties recognize that they exist to serve the goals of liberty as the founders expressed them, their goal is a corrupt goal. The goal of our founders is for the United States government to establish liberty through justice as they envisioned it. May the circumstances within our nation cause that goal and no other to be achieved this year.

All Authority

2010-01-29T12:10:00.000-08:00

THIS has given manifold occafion for the benign interpofition of divine providence; which, in compaffion to the frailty, the imperfection, and the blindnefs of human reafon, hath been pleafed, at fundry times and in divers manners, to difcover and enforce it's laws by an immediate and direct revelation. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy fcriptures. Thefe precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparifon to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their confequences to man's felicity. But we are not from thence to conclude that the knowlege of thefe truths was attainable by reafon, in it's prefent corrupted ftate; fince we find that, until they were revealed, they were hid from the wifdom of ages. As then the moral precepts of this law are indeed of the fame original with thofe of the law of nature, fo their intrinfic obligation is of equal ftrength and perpetuity. Yet undoubtedly the revealed law is (humanly fpeaking) of infinitely more authority than what we generally call the natural law. Becaufe one is the law of nature, expreffly declared fo to be by God himfelf; the other is only what, by the affiftance of human reafon, we imagine to be that law. If we could be as certain of the latter as we are of the former, both would have an equal authority; but, till then, they can never be put in any competition together. (s appears as f in original manuscript) Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Vol. 1 Section 2.

Likewise, Jesus declared:

18 And Jesus came and said to them, a"All authority bin heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 aGo therefore and bmake disciples of call nations, abaptizing them fin1 dthe name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them ato observe all that bI have commanded you. And behold, cI am with you always, to dthe end of the age. Matt. 28:18-20.

Therefore, to the extent human governments contradict the Law of Christ, they at odds with the supreme soverign of the universe. Legislators may not like this and they may disagree with it. But they only do so at their own risk and detriment.

A Letter to the Senate

2009-08-25T12:54:00.001-07:00

August 25, 2009

Hon. Christopher Bond
274 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Hon. Claire McCaskill
Hart Senate Office Building, Suite SH-717
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senators Bond and McCaskill:

It is time for the U.S. Government and particularly the United States Senate to change its direction. The U.S. Congress is on a rampage of tyranny the likes of which our country has never seen before. King George’s “taxation without representation” took money from the American colonies to finance a war against France. The present U.S. Congress has far surpassed King George. For decades now the U.S. Government has taken money from Americans for the war to get reelected by providing benefits to the voting bloc de jure, whether welfare, food stamps, farm subsidies, etc. etc. etc.

The present rampage of tyranny accelerated rapidly last year with TARP and Son of Tarp. You have confiscated my property and mortgaged my children’s prosperity to buy clunkers. You seek to enslave me and the vast majority of this nation to your health care whims all for the sake of some campaign promise to buy someone else health care. You now are also proposing to ration our energy usage through capping and trading our carbon. These efforts, my worthy civil servants, violate the basic covenant the U.S. Government has with the American people.

No doubt you believe you have the authority to impose these shackles on the American people and American business. After all you have the right legislate the “general welfare.” However, the “general welfare” cannot be used to trump a person’s right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” It was King George’s taxes which caused the great Samuel Adams to compare King George to the Pharaoh of Egypt and the American people to the Israelites in their quest for freedom. It was this servitude which caused our founders and particularly Sam Adams to declare our right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and to indict King George for his breach of his covenant with the people in the Declaration of Independence. With this as the important foundation of our nation, the “general welfare” can never be used to justify infringing upon the individual’s freedoms.

My words have been strong. Senator McCaskill has exhorted civility in our public discourse. I agree with Senator McCaskill. However, strong threats require strong words. Sometimes strong words are required in order for the message to be heard. The question is whether the words are measured to achieve an appropriate result. I am particularly informed by the violent actions taken by those who are sent to intimidate those who have undertaken their right to discourse with their elected officials in town hall meetings. It was not those who protested the health care proposals but those who sought to intimidate such protests that caused the violence. Based on these observations, our words must be strong.

By your rampage of tyranny you are quickly abdicating your ability to govern. The U.S. Government exists to govern the states of this great land. Governing requires the ability to impartially determine in a righteous manner right from wrong. As you increasingly involve the U.S. Government in every industry and market in this nation, from cars to banks to health care, you decrease its capability to be impartial. A participant cannot be impartial in its judgment because it is always protecting its own self interest. By increasing your participation you are forever abdicating your right to govern.

Your job, should you decide to accept it, is to protect liberty. I realize that by fostering liberty you give up your ability to control people. You give up your ability to control the poor and the needy. However, by protecting a free people, you greatly increase this nation’s ability to care for the poor and needy. A free and righteous people can provide for the poor and needy. Slaves cannot.

Sincerely,

David C. Linton

I Just Got A Call

2009-08-13T08:44:00.000-07:00

I just got a call from the Missouri Veterans' Association requesting a contribution to assist in the medical care of our veterans. I want to help our veterans; I owe it to them. But I just had to ask why he was asking for help.

"Because the federal health benefits are not quite timely."

"But isn't the federal government best qualified to give medical help to all of this country's citizens?"

"Amen!"

"And yet you are asking for help to improve the medical care for veterans because the federal program is not adequate. Do you see a problem in the consistency in your positions?"

He hung up on me. Now, I wonder why that was.

Returning to Covenantal Thinking

2009-08-07T13:32:00.000-07:00

It is time for this nation to return to covenantal thinking. Just as Yahweh made a covenant with Abraham, saying I will be your God and you will be my people, the national government made a covenant with the people more than two hundred years ago. In that covenant, “We the People . . .” agreed, among other things, that each of us has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We have allowed that right to be infringed gradually over the years in return for a sense of “social security” or "entitlements" in one form or another. Now there is an expectation at the federal level that that national government can deny the people their right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness in return for managing their health. But the management of my health means the management of my life. This is tyranny of the highest order. If you want to understand how this all came about, I recommend a book, Cry Wolf , an insightful view of how a covenant community is tricked by those outside the covenant into accepting a breach of the covenant for their benefit. Once lost, a covenant is hard to recover.

I used to be a member of AARP. No more.

2009-08-07T06:04:00.000-07:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoMNDdQ1_h0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efacebook%2Ecom%2Ftos%2Ephp%3Fapi%5Fkey%3Dfa58d58c2209383348a9e1b1ef621579%26next%3Dhome%252F%253Furl%253D%252526tv2%25253DMTA2OTE5MzI3OCw2LDAsM&feature=player_embedded

This is Economic Obamanation.

2009-08-04T15:41:00.000-07:00

A Letter to the Senate

2009-07-17T05:46:00.000-07:00

From a Friend

2009-07-15T14:46:00.001-07:00

The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

Dr. Adrian Rogers 1931-2005

Smart Health Care Industry

2009-06-17T11:15:00.000-07:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUITFR5gA4I

What is good for the electric utility industry is good for the health care industry. As part of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the federal government has undertaken to encourage the development of what has been labeled the "Smart Grid." The Smart Grid is a euphemism for technology that will enable a utility to communicate its time of day price for electricity to its customers and thereby introduce price signals into the retail energy market. Presently, in most retail electricity markets, price does not vary depending on the time of use. Therefore, there is no disincentive to use electricity when prices are high. Smart Grid would allow a customer to see a utility's price that varies with the time of day and load demand. The theory is that it would allow a customer to see the price and to shift his use of electricity away from the system peak to a time when prices are cheaper. Price signals are good, to allow a customer to tailor his conduct based on the value of the service provided.

However, in the health care debate, the federal government is doing exactly the opposite. There are very few price signals in the health care industry today because of Federal Income Tax policy. Federal Income Tax policy encourages employers to provide health insurance to their employees. Broad health care policies to large groups of individuals mask price signals, thereby limiting a customer in his ability to make judgements about the value of the service provided. Pricing does not create a disincentive to use service when costs are high rather than when prices are low. The federal health care proposals would further these distortions. With federally subsidized (subsidized through federal taxes) there would be distorted price signals making them artificially low, further reducing the disincentive to use services when prices are high. You think health care costs are expensive now. Wait until health care is free.

Government Motors

2009-06-12T09:56:00.001-07:00

You thought the auto industry was in trouble. Just wait until GM becomes Government Motors. Robert Farago provides helpful insight into the running of GM in an editorial today in the Wall Street Journal.

There is an old adage that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This adage has typically been reserved for its application to government. There is nowhere where power and corruption can do so much damage as in the government. Government has the power of the sword and the power to imprison. No other institution on earth has been given this extreme power. Therefore, government must be limited in the exercise of its power. Only when tightly constrained to limits of executing minimum justice can government’s propensity to tyranny be constrained.

We have lost the sense of this warning in our culture. In our culture, government has become god, righting every wrong and capable of managing everything. Government Motors, as shown by Mr. Farago, reminds us that this is a flawed perspective. Remember, what government grants, government can take away.

There are two reasons why Government Motors will be more corrupt than General Motors. First, Government Motors will have more power than General Motors. In the hands of private industry, if General Motors commits a crime, a limited government has the ability to correct that crime. If Government Motors commits a crime, there is no earthly institution over Government Motors to correct that crime. Second, General Motors, in the hands of private industry is motivated by profit. This is a legitimate goal for a business. However, Government Motors will be motivated by competing desires for reelection as Mr. Farago has pointed out. Decisions are no longer made by what is most profitable or in the best economic interest of the business and the market but on which political campaign will receive the biggest boost.

This has serious implications for our economy. Just wait until government takes over all control of our health care.

Community

2009-05-20T14:22:00.001-07:00

A Sculpture, by Cassandra Linton

Some Thoughts on Marriage

2009-05-15T09:24:00.000-07:00

Carrie Prejean’s answer at the Miss USA pageant has certainly excited no little controversy. It has been interesting to watch. Her answer was gracious and from the heart. In that context it was an excellent answer, communicating compassion yet commitment to principle.

However, from a logical standpoint, she could have taken a more definitive position. This is not intended as a criticism but simply to highlight how compassionate her answer was. When addressing the issue of marriage, it is important to go back to first principles. In this case, it is impossible to address the issue of marriage without addressing it in its historical context. Marriage, in western civilization, cannot be divorced from the Bible. The western consensus has been from the middle ages and earlier that marriage was established by God in Genesis. “For a man shall leave his father and his mother and cleave unto his wife and the two shall become one flesh.” Genesis 2:24. There is no condemnation here, but if someone seeks to conform his or her conduct to an established norm, it is necessary to conform his or her conduct to the established norm. If you accept marriage as an institution, you must accept the institution as established and not only bits and pieces of it. If you want to be called a lawyer, you have to meet several historically established requirements. Marriage is no different.

It is also rather ironic that the Christian church is attacked for taking this position. Inherent in the institution of marriage is the portrayal of the relationship between Christ and His Church. Those who are attacking Ms. Prejean are attempting to confirm the institution of marriage. Although they confirm it for a different purpose than Ms. Prejean would, they confirm it nonetheless. In their confirmation of the institution, they confirm the institution that images the relationship between Christ and the Church at the same time they attack the Church for defending the image of its relationship. I find this curious.

You Can't Explain It Any Better Than This

2009-04-28T05:27:00.000-07:00

R.J. Rushdoony, The Foundations of Social Order: Every social order has an implicit creed, and this creed defines the order and informs it. When a social order begins to crumble, it is because the basic faith, its creed, has been undermined. But the political defense of that order is usually made the first line of defense: it becomes the conservative position. But, because the defense is politically rather than creedally informed, it is a superficial defense and crumbles steadily under a highly doctrinaire and creedal opposition… The conservatives attempt to retain the political forms of the Christian West with no belief in Biblical Christianity. Apart from vague affirmations of liberty, they cannot defend their position philosophically.

I heard this quote during Sunday School this week from Commander Jason Carter (retired). I had originally intended to comment on it. But I don't need to. You can't say it any better than this.

God Bless America

2009-04-27T11:15:00.000-07:00

President Barack Obama said in Turkey: "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."

It has recently become popular for conservative Christian academics to belittle the singing of “God Bless America.” I have been in a meeting recently and heard of other events in which, when explaining their participation in public forums, declare their refusal to sing the song. The basis for the objection is their perception of a sense of superiority on the part of American Christians when entering into mission activities as well as an allegation of the religious right worshipping the GOP. I recognize the validity of both complaints. I also, as a devotee of St. Augustine and his foundational book The City of God, recognize that the city of God is not constrained by the city of man. God does not need the USA to achieve His purposes.

Having said that, I am concerned that our Christian academia is being too shrewd for its own good. Christ did command us to make disciples of all nations. During the development of Western Civilization, the Church did make disciples of the west. Western Civilization, since Constantine, has been overwhelmingly influenced by Christianity, so much so that up until the French Revolution, the time period has been referred to as Christendom. America has been especially blessed in its place in history as having been overwhelmingly influence by Christendom. Our founders readily recognized that America was a Christian nation. U.S. Supreme Court opinions recognize the country’s Christian heritage.

What is wrong with singing “God bless America?” Can it be wrong to pray that God would protect our land? Can it be wrong to pray that God would maintain the success the Church has had in making America, at least in part, a disciple? If missions are the driving concern for Christian academia, it strikes me that Christian academia is like the greedy dog, which with a bone sees its reflection in a lake. Not being content with the bone it already has opens its mouth to take the bone from the dog it sees as its reflection. In doing so, it loses what it already has and does not gain anything new.

Certainly, God has all things in control. If He has told us that He has all authority in heaven and on earth and that we should make disciples of all nations, this will come about. It just seems to me that His people are not obeying His plan very well if we are willing to portray an attitude in which we do not encourage the keeping of what the Church has been given. Certainly, our leaders recognize our ambivalence.

Senior Show

2009-04-08T06:00:00.000-07:00

It is very rewarding when you see your children using the gifts God has given them. Cassie, I am very proud of you.

Thanks Mom, Education is a Covenantal Act

2009-03-02T14:31:00.000-08:00

And as you might expect, she saved the best for last.

1. In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a congress.
-- John Adams

2. If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.
-- Mark Twain

3.
Suppose you were an idiot.
And suppose you were a member of Congress.
But then I repeat myself.
-- Mark Twain

4. I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle ..
-- Winston Churchill

5. A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-- George Bernard Shaw

6. A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.
-- G. Gordon Liddy

7. Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
-- James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)

8. Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.
-- Douglas Casey, Classmate of Bill Clinton at Georgetown University

9. Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
-- P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian

10. Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.
-- Frederic Bastiat, French Economist (1801-1850)

11. Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases:
If it moves, tax it.
If it keeps moving, regulate it.
And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
-- Ronald Reagan (1986)

12. I don't make jokes.
I just watch the government and report the facts.
-- Will Rogers

13. If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free!
-- P.J. O'Rourke

14. In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other.
-- Voltaire (1764)

15. Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you!
-- Pericles (430 B.C.)

16. No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.
-- Mark Twain (1866)

17. Talk is cheap...
except when Congress does it.
-- Anonymous

18. The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other.
-- Ronald Reagan

19. The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings.
The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
-- Winston Churchill

20. The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin.
-- Mark Twain

21. The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
-- Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903)

22. There is no distinctly native American criminal class...
save Congress.
-- Mark Twain

23. What this country needs are more unemployed politicians.
-- Edward Langley, Artist (1928-1995)

24. A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-- Thomas Jefferson

The Linton Family is in for a Fun Summer

2009-02-19T10:54:00.000-08:00

We found out on Valentines Day that Peter Joslyn (Lynchburgh, Virginia) asked our Erin to be his wife. She accepted. They are planning to be married this summer. We are planning a party!

Good Qualities for a President

2009-02-16T05:32:00.001-08:00

"First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen, he was second to none in humble and enduring scenes of private life. Pious, just humane, temperate, and sincere; uniform dignified, and commanding; his example was as edifying to all around him as were the effects of that example lasting.... The purity of his private charter gave effulgence to his public virtues...."
--John Marshall, official eulogy of George Washington, delivered by Richard Henry Lee, 26 December 1799

Sobering Quote

2009-02-12T07:30:00.001-08:00

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stephens Smith, 13 November 1787

Something to Ponder

2009-02-10T05:58:00.000-08:00

"This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a ban of brethren, united to each other by the strongest of ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties."
--John Jay, Federalist No. 2

Debt and Slavery

2009-02-04T06:08:00.000-08:00

1My son, if you have put up security for your neighbor, have given your pledge for a stranger,2if you are snared in the words of your mouth, caught in the words of your mouth,3then do this, my son, and save yourself, for you have come into the hand of your neighbor: go, hasten, and plead urgently with your neighbor.4 Give your eyes no sleep and your eyelids no slumber;5save yourself like a gazelle from the hand of the hunter, like a bird from the hand of the fowler.
Proverbs 6:1-5

15 Whoever puts up security for a stranger will surely suffer harm, but he who hates striking hands in pledge is secure.
Proverbs 11:15

18One who lacks sense gives a pledge and puts up security in the presence of his neighbor.
Proverbs 17:18

"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Samuel Kercheval, 12 July 1816

"Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them if we basely entail hereditary bondage on them." --Thomas Jefferson

Wisdom literature is complex. Wisdom literature does not provide black and white rules. It provides wisdom. There is enough admonition in Proverbs to teach us that incurring debt is typically not a good thing. It is a binding of our future. It makes us slaves to our creditors. The U.S. Government is proposing through this massive bail out to impose on this nation trillions of dollars of debt. Whether we like it or not, that debt will fall on us, and not only us, our children as well. The U.S. Government is seeking to sell us and our children even more into slavery. The founding fathers, as statesmen, understood this principle. I just wish our modern politicians understood this concept.

Home of the free and the brave?

Proclaiming the Lord's Death to the Next Generation

2009-01-30T13:00:00.000-08:00

For as often as you eat the bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. I Corinthians 11:26.

What an interesting verse! I, for one, find it easy to overlook the very jarring concept of a dead man coming simply due to the passage’s familiarity and its easy explanation that Jesus has died for our sins. Therefore, we declare his death and resurrection and our justification until he comes again. This is the common understanding of the commentaries. The commentaries on I Corinthians typically conclude that there must be some sermon associated with the Lord’s Supper. I think there is more here.

A careful reading of I Corinthians 11:17-34 impresses one with the prevalence of legal terms in the passage. Words such as “covenant” and “judgment” are significant. In addition, this passage describes a “new covenant.” Further, “remembrance” of a covenant in old testament parlance indicated something more than mere intellectual reflection. It entailed a reconfirmation and affirmation through action of the covenantal obligations. N.T. Wright, in his book Jesus and the Victory of God, has hypothesized that Jesus, in the Gospels, is portayed as taking to himself the symbols of the temple and the Sabbath. This passage would seem to support that hypothesis.

I have previously opined that the fourth and fifth commandment set forth a dance between generations. The fourth and the fifth commandments are unique in that they are cast as the only two commandments with positive obligations. I don’t deny that all of the commandments hang on the positive obligations to love Yahweh and love your neighbor, but the other eight commandments are cast as prohibitions. Not only are the fourth and fifth commandments obligatory, they are also reciprocal. The fourth obliges the older generation to live out the cycle of labor and rest before the younger generation. The fifth commandment obliges the younger generation to obey the older generation as it does so.

As the history of the covenant progresses, this dance becomes more explicit. It is highlighted beautifully in Hosea 4. In this passage, it almost appears as if the fifth commandment takes on a new principle, no longer just a commandment to be obeyed, but a principle of life. It is almost as if there is an unalterable truth that the younger generation will follow after the older generation. Because the older generation commits idolatry, the younger generation will do likewise. Because the older generation commits adultery, the younger generation will do likewise.

Without pushing too hard, there is a sense of this in Romans 1. Because men exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images of mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles, God gave them over to impure lusts and dishonorable passions. While there is no explicit generational reference here, there is certainly an implicit understanding of a progression over time. There is an old adage that a church is only two generations away from apostocy. A true church can become cold in one generation and nonexistent in the next.

What Paul “received” and “delivered” (two more legal terms) to the Corinthians was the covenantal act of remembrance Jesus called his disciples to practice. He called them to enter into the dance of the generations through his body and blood. Just as the old covenant paradigmatic worship service in Exodus 24 ended in feasting before Yahweh, his disciples are to culminate their worship service in feasting on his body and blood. Just as the older generation was to remember the Sabbath before the younger generation, so the older generation is now to remember the body and blood of the Lord before the younger generation. By doing so, they are proclaiming or inculcating the feast of the Lord before the younger generation.

There is a principle of life aspect to this passage as well. The worthy participation in the sacrament has consequences. Life and health are the blessings of the sacrament. Sickness and death are the curses of the failure to observe the sacrament. And it is the failure to observe the sacrament that is the focus, because Paul makes very clear that they are not observing the sacrament at all in their feast.

The act of the participation in the body and blood of the Lord is a proclamation to our children of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is the primary means of discipleship of our children. Yes, there are other things that flow from our communion with Christ, such as educating our children in the nurture of the Lord. But it starts at the dinner table with Christ. No, this is not an automatic, magical event. It is better. It is conduct in a relationship with a faithful God, who always keeps his promises to His covenant people. God is faithful to his covenant promises. He wants us to be faithful to the covenant as well. He will remember us as we remember him.

Bipartisanship is Bad

2009-01-30T09:31:00.000-08:00

James Madison writes in Federalist No. 10, that the chief fear in a democratic government is the power of factions, particularly a faction that becomes a majority and is able to impose its passions on a minority. It was for this reason that the founders despised democracy. A republican government so diffuses people into factions so that one interest is frustrated in its efforts to impose its passions on a minority faction. Only through republican government could factions be hindered in becoming majorities. It is this same idea that caused them to despise political parties. Political parties seek to combine factions into majorities and minorities, making the republic more akin to a democracy. We now have a majority faction that is seeking bipartisanship from the minority in a bail out plan. But what would the founders say? How would they advise us to counter such an occurrence? It would not be to merge with the majority but to counter the majority and defend the rights of the minority, in this case the tax payer. I quote from Madison at length.

AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.
. . . . . .
No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.

It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.

The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

. . . . .

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,--is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.

Because It Works

2009-01-29T05:29:00.000-08:00

In the Wall Street Journal today, there is an article detailing China's complaining about the American system. The premier is quoted as blaming an "excessive expansion of financial institutions in blind pursuit of profit" as the cause of the world's financial crisis. Go to http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318934318826787.html to read the entire article.

One must wonder why China invested so much in U.S. investments in the first place. Could it be that the investments were an effort to make money? Could it be that the Chinese government wanted to participate in the "excessive expansion of financial institutions in blind pursuit of profit?" If they had been true to some socialistic principle, wouldn't they have rather kept their money at home in the land of socialism? Our system works and it works well. And the world sees it. Those free to make the choice flee from socialism. Even socialist leaders invest in free market systems. Yes there will be times of trouble, particularly when government policies, i.e. socialism, distort the natural market forces that drive free markets. But that is one of the risks that come from the opportunity for reward. With capitalism there are always risks and rewards. China needs to learn this lesson. But, maybe, they already have. It could be that they are simply looking for a bail out. That is my story and I am sticking to it.

Why is it that our leaders assume that only the government can fix the economy?

2009-01-24T06:57:00.000-08:00

This is a must watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9y7I5hwdM0U&eurl=http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/024967

Worship as Weapon in Cultural Change

2009-01-23T12:41:00.000-08:00

Here are some thoughts by Rev. Bart Martin sent to me by my daughter Erin. Rev. Martin is right on.

“When people accept futility and the absurd as normal, the culture is decadent.”
– Jacques Barzun[1]

When a young state senator from Illinois ascended the platform to give the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, many considered him a rising star in the Democratic Party. But even his zaniest fans could not have anticipated that, in four short years, Barack Obama would have made the leap from state senator to United States Senator, and from United States Senator to the President of the United States.

What does Barack Obama’s rise to power mean? For one thing, it means that the “absurd” has become “normal”: when a large proportion of younger “evangelicals” vote for a man who will help perpetuate the war against the unborn, decadence has obviously set it. For another thing, it means that modern conservatism—the conservatism of William Buckley and Russell Kirk, of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan—is dead. As a matter of fact, it has been dead for a number of years: Election Day 2008 simply provided us the coroner’s report.

For we who consider ourselves “conservative,” it will do us no good to pine away for the glory of days gone by. We can’t re-live the Barry Goldwater campaign; we can’t call Ronald Reagan back from the dead—nor would we want to if we could.

What we Christians in America need to do is to rediscover what our vocation is: we are salt and light; we are strangers and sojourners; we are a nation of priests. This does not mean, as the pietistic Christian might take it to mean, that we are to withdraw from the public square, and simply build our own little Christian ghettoes while clutching our Bibles and waiting for the end of the world. No: the Scriptures call on the people of God to take dominion by being salt and light, to take dominion by being strangers and sojourners, to take dominion by acting as priests on behalf of the world. We are not called to withdraw; rather, we are called to engage the world, ruling as God’s co-regents.

But we have forgotten what it means to rule. We have confused the biblical mandate to “rule” and “take dominion” with the hackneyed imperative to “win the next election.” So what should Christians do in the world of President Barack Obama? How can we better prepare ourselves to be the vice-regents that God wants us to be? I would suggest three things:

1. Pray like a Saint Augustine
2. Know the times like an Edmund Burke
3. Love the law of God like a King Josiah.

To read more, go to http://www.americanvision.org/article/what-to-do-in-an-obama-world/.

I would like to expand a bit on Rev. Martin’s comments as they pertain to loving the law of God like King Josiah. The first thing to note about King Josiah is that when he found the book of the covenant he re-established right worship. And that worship carried forth to destroy the pagan culture in the nation. Worship is our primary weapon in these absurd times. Therefore, change is a product of the effort to the Church community and not individuals.

It is abundantly clear from Scripture that people take on the characteristics of the thing that they worship. If we worship God, we become more like God. If we worship stone or wood, we become more like stone or wood. If we worship man or a human institution, we become more of the same.

To the extent we as individuals pin our hopes on a man or a political party, we worship them. We become more like them. In the past Christians have put their hopes for political change in political parties. This has not stopped the increasing shift to worshipping government. It has only increased it. Both Republicans and Democrats have continued in this shift. Can any now deny that there is a significant segment in our population that worships the president? You can’t if you have watched any of the media coverage of the recent election. It is time for the Church to become the Church and stop relegating itself to the position of a philosophy club intended to improve our own and save a few other souls, while allowing individual Christians to try to reclaim culture through their preferred political party. Christ came to create for himself a new worshipping body, one that would take dominion over creation.

In the early days of our yet unborn republic, the pulpits in the colonies resounded with sentiments of freedom and moral change for the people and their culture based on Scripture. They sent their people out to affect change in culture. The pulpits have lost that voice, fearing to lose their tax exempt status. The Church must find its voice once again. Only by the Church regaining its voice and heralding a message into the culture may we again find a rallying point worthy of our devotion. There is one man that we worship and His name is Jesus, the Christ. It is Christ who is head of his body the Church. We must look to him for change in our culture and the Church must herald that truth through its worship and especially in its benediction. Then the Church as a community must act in accordance with the benediction.

What Others Think of Socialism.

2009-01-23T10:25:00.001-08:00

"History affords us many instances of the ruin of states, by the prosecution of measures ill suited to the temper and genius of their people. The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy... These measures never fail to create great and violent jealousies and animosities between the people favored and the people oppressed; whence a total separation of affections, interests, political obligations, and all manner of connections, by which the whole state is weakened."
--Benjamin Franklin, Emblematical Representations

Blagojevich and US

2009-01-13T11:03:00.000-08:00

How many of you are appauled at Governor Rod Blagojevich’s attempt to sell Illinois’ U.S. Senate seat? I certainly am. There is nothing that so compromises our system of laws and the integrity of our government as giving it to men who would use it for gain. Justice in the final analysis goes to the one with the most money or the most power.

And yet I wonder, how would you look at our last election for U.S. President? What is it that we cast our votes for? If you listened to the campaigns at all, both candidates believe that you cast your vote for the one that will do the most for you. Who will bring you the best health care? Who will spread the wealth around the best? Who will provide the biggest tax cuts? We are used to this type of campaigning. What is it these candidates bring to us? Social security? Food stamps? Welfare? Entitlements? Did you sell your vote this year? What do we anticipate getting from our election this year? As for me, let the government bring me nothing and take from me nothing except what I deserve as punishment for my crimes and protection from those who would commit crimes against me.

Alexis De Tocqueville once wrote, “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” When our hard earned tax dollars become the trough for bribing the public, the wealth of the entire nation is at risk. How long will we endure?

Why Socialism?

2009-01-09T13:06:00.000-08:00

1Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?" 2And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" 4 But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. 5For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths. [Genesis 3]

1Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. 2And as people migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. 3And they said to one another, "Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly." And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. 4Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth." 5And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built. [Genesis 11]

Have you ever wondered why the U.S. government, having started small, continues to expand and usurp more and more authority and become increasingly socialistic? Here is the problem. Man, by his fallen nature wants to be God, controlling all things. Socialism, by its very nature, attempts to control all things. We can see this in the economic bailout. Our politicians, not content to allow us to have our own money, will bail out the economy by taking our money from us and spending it for us as they see fit. (Remember, government never produces anything. It can only take from those who produce.) Congress thinks that it can plan the economy better than we can. This is the theory of socialism. As the bailout continues, watch for the agenda that our economic planners will follow and ask yourselves, is what they spend our money on the most effective way to grow the economy for us.

While it is likely that socialism will increase in America for some time, it will not increase forever. There is an end to socialism.

6And the LORD said, "Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. 7Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another’s speech." 8So the LORD dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. 9Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of all the earth. And from there the LORD dispersed them over the face of all the earth. [Genesis 11]

This is how God works, bringing confusion to the self-seeking efforts of men. This is how He has worked throughout history. When the time comes, there will be confusion, but God will also put something in its place.

1Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. 2And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." [Genesis 12]

Notice how God promises to give Abraham what the nations wanted to take in Genesis 11. And this is how God will work out history today. Christ is the blessing to the nations promised to Abraham. His church, small and seemingly insignificant, is His remedy to socialism. My prayer is that it would engage that challenge today.

What is Worship

2009-01-08T09:36:00.000-08:00

How are we to worship? I ask this question a lot. And by this I mean what is the Sunday worship service to look like. The other six days of the week we are to worship the Triune God in what we do by acting so as to glorify him. How we conduct our lives in this day and age is directed by the calling of God and the circumstances in our lives. But when we gather together on the Lord’s Day, how should our worship look? Before we may answer this question there are several prior questions. Most people, in responding to the question how we are to worship start with the correct question, but, I believe, miss the foundational answer and so miss the ultimate purpose of worship. The first question is what worship is. Only by getting this question and answer right may we conform our conduct to the correct purpose and so answer how we are to worship. Most people answer the first question in one of two ways. Either it is an opportunity for us to praise God or it is an opportunity for us to be edified by the word of God. I will agree that both these answers are in part correct, but they fail to capture the overarching answer. Worship is a legal transaction.

What, you say, should we accept the proposition that worship is an legal formality? This is not my point at all. We should all agree that marriage is primarily a legal transaction in which two people, a man and a woman, become one. It is a legal transaction to joy and to a purpose. The consummation of that legal transaction is found in the marriage bed. What more intimate and emotional experience could there be than a loving couple consummating their covenant vows on their wedding night.

Exodus 19-24 describes this legal transaction for the nation of Israel in a paradigm worship service. In Exodus, God calls His people out of bondage, gives them His law, and vows to be their God. The people of God respond to His call in Exodus 24 and vow to be His people. God consummates the covenant with the “blood of the covenant,” and the people consummate that relationship by eating and drinking in His presence on the mountain of Sinai. They “remember” the covenant through “remembering” the Sabbath.

The Apostle Paul reminds the Corinthians that they too are entering into a legal transaction every time they gather together on the Sabbath:

17But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, 19for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 20When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. 21For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. 22What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.
23For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

This is legal rhetoric. It is founded on tradition. They are undertaking an act that, based on that tradition may be performed properly or improperly. And how they perform that act has significant consequences.

The gravity of the event should not cause us to shun its practice. It is the consummation of our relationship with our covenant God Yahweh. Note the language. The cup is the “new covenant in my blood.” We are to partake of the bread and the cup “in remembrance of me.” Both of these phrases echo Exodus 19 and 24. We proclaim Jesus death until he comes. (Now there is an interesting irony. One who is dead is coming. I must reflect on that some more.) As the people rejoiced in the presence of the Lord in Exodus 24, we are to do likewise. Yes, this is a legal transaction, but it is a transaction of love. James Torrance has captured this idea well in his little book Worship, Community and the Triune God of Grace. We have been created to commune as co-lovers with the Trinity.

So as we enter into worship, let us remember that we are consummating our relationship with our loving God. Yes, we are consummating a legal relationship, but also a loving relationship. It is a relationship of joy with a purpose. There is a progression in worship of leaving this sinful world, being cleansed and approaching Him. We consummate that relationship by hearing His law and feasting with and on Him and with each other. And in so doing, we are made proper vessels for discipling the nations in this world.

Religion in America is the Christian Faith and Practice

2008-12-23T08:31:00.000-08:00

"[R]eligion, or the duty which we owe to our creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and this is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other."
--Virginia Bill of Rights, Article 16

We Live in a Republic, Not a Democracy?

2008-12-17T06:11:00.000-08:00

"Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics. There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honour, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty: and this public passion must be superiour to all private passions."
--John Adams, letter to Mercy Warren, 16 April 1776

More Art from Cassie

2008-12-15T15:15:00.001-08:00

Santa Needs A Bailout

2008-12-11T12:26:00.000-08:00

This one is good, from the Wall Street Journal today: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122895773035096657.html.

What Others Think of the Bailout

2008-12-09T05:52:00.000-08:00

"The same prudence which in private life would forbid our paying our own money for unexplained projects, forbids it in the dispensation of the public moneys."

--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Shelton Gilliam, 19 June 1808

Baptism to Relationship

2008-12-08T14:49:00.000-08:00

1For I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3and all ate the same spiritual food, 4and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. 5Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. I Corinthians 10.
While I appreciate and even enjoy the debate on the “efficacy” of baptism, commonly referred to as Federal Vision, I have said before that I don’t think that this is the best way to cast the issue. It casts the issue in the same terms as we would discuss the efficacy of an aspirin to relieve a headache. Baptism is a sign of a relationship, much as a wedding ring would be. Shouldn’t we talk in terms of relationship?

Baptism establishes a new relationship, which begs the question a relationship unto what? This passage clearly ties the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper to the sacrament of baptism. We have a relationship unto communion with Jesus Christ. The two cannot be separated. They should be considered together. Participation in the former flows out of the event of the latter. Meredith Kline points out in his short book By Oath Consigned that the Red Sea crossing had the characteristics of an ancient trial by water, much as what we would think of as a “trial by fire.” In such an event, the innocent are rescued and the guilty are destroyed. And this is exactly what happened in the Red Sea crossing. We, like they, show our relationship established in baptism in our communion with Christ. We show the lack of our relationship established in baptism in our lack of communion with Christ.

Yahweh takes his signs of covenantal relationship very seriously. In Exodus 3, Yahweh threatened to kill Moses for Moses’ failure to circumcise his son. I Corinthians 10 refers to Israel’s failure to observe the sacrament of the Sabbath in the Exodus. Ezekiel 20 refers to Yahweh’s use of the Sabbath as a covenant curse against the nation of Israel for their rebellion against Him. We should take those signs of covenantal relationship seriously too. God has given us a pattern of life of six days work and one day rest. He has called us to “remember” one day in seven as a memorial to him. He has also called us to commemorate his Supper in “remembrance” of him. If we look at the efficacy of our baptism through our communion with Christ, we see the efficacy in a living relationship not a mere sign. Our understanding of our baptism depends on a promise made by our covenant God that he will bless us through baptism. This is not an automatic thing; its better because it is based on relationship.

Why a Christian Culture is the Only Foundation for a Free Society

2008-12-05T08:49:00.000-08:00

"No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffusd and virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauchd in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders." --Samuel Adams

More Wisdom from Lewis

2008-12-03T07:07:00.000-08:00

Naturally, since I myself am a writer, I do not wish the ordinary reader to read no modern books. But if he must read only the new or only the old, I would advise him to read the old. And I would give him this advice precisely because he is an amateur and therefore much less protected than the expert against the dangers of an exclusive contemporary diet. A new book is still on its trial and the amateur is not in a position to judge it. It has to be tested against the great body of Christian thought down the ages, and all its hidden implications (often unsuspected by the author himself) have to be brought to light. Often it cannot be fully understood without the knowledge of a good many other modern books. If you join at eleven o'clock a conversation which began at eight you will often not see the real bearing of what is said. Remarks which seem to you very ordinary will produce laughter or irritation and you will not see why—the reason, of course, being that the earlier stages of the conversation have given them a special point. In the same way sentences in a modern book which look quite ordinary may be directed at some other book; in this way you may be led to accept what you would have indignantly rejected if you knew its real significance. The only safety is to have a standard of plain, central Christianity ("mere Christianity" as Baxter called it) which puts the controversies of the moment in their proper perspective. Such a standard can be acquired only from the old books. It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones.

Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books. All contemporary writers share to some extent the contemporary outlook—even those, like myself, who seem most opposed to it. Nothing strikes me more when I read the controversies of past ages than the fact that both sides were usually assuming without question a good deal which we should now absolutely deny. They thought that they were as completely opposed as two sides could be, but in fact they were all the time secretly united—united with each other and against earlier and later ages—by a great mass of common assumptions. We may be sure that the characteristic blindness of the twentieth century—the blindness about which posterity will ask, "But how could they have thought that?"—lies where we have never suspected it, and concerns something about which there is untroubled agreement between Hitler and President Roosevelt or between Mr. H. G. Wells and Karl Barth. None of us can fully escape this blindness, but we shall certainly increase it, and weaken our guard against it, if we read only modern books. Where they are true they will give us truths which we half knew already. Where they are false they will aggravate the error with which we are already dangerously ill. The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds, and this can be done only by reading old books. Not, of course, that there is any magic about the past. People were no cleverer then than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the same mistakes. They will not flatter us in the errors we are already committing; and their own errors, being now open and palpable, will not endanger us. Two heads are better than one, not because either is infallible, but because they are unlikely to go wrong in the same direction. To be sure, the books of the future would be just as good a corrective as the books of the past, but unfortunately we cannot get at them.