An Informal and Unauthorized Proposition

By A. Hines

Our Constitution is a plan to build a limited government, guaranteeing that federal authorities never have the privilege of unlimited taxation, of invading other lands without cause, of removing the local traditions and cultures of its people, or of undermining their business and property.

Over the past 150 years, and the last 50 in particular, America's elect have eliminated the plain and common sense approach our forefathers established. Our Declaration of Independence reminds us that the people ever maintain the right to abolish or alter their form of government so as to assure their safety and happiness. James Madison concludes

It is therefore essential that such changes be instituted by some informal and unauthorized propositions, made by some patriotic and respectable citizen or number of citizens."

This book details such a plan.

• Language: English
• Publisher: AuthorHouse
• Release date: Mar 12, 2009
• ISBN: 9781467858335

A. Hines

The author believes Americans have the legal responsibility to be honest and helpful to one another, the right to know the laws to which we are held accountable, and the liberty to do and say those things which strengthen our constitutional republic.

Book preview

© 2009 A. Hines. All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means without the written permission of the author.

First published by AuthorHouse 3/6/2009

ISBN: 978-1-4678-5833-5 (ebk)

ISBN: 978-1-4389-4585-9 (sc)

Printed in the United States of America

Bloomington, Indiana

Contents

Chapter I - Background

Chapter 2 – The Constitution of the United States of America

Chapter 3 – Initial Amendments to our Constitution

Chapter 5 - The Constitution in Modern Language

Chapter 6 – A Critical Review of Our Constitution

Chapter 7 - Federalist versus Democratic-Republican

Chapter 8 –Our National Authority

Chapter 9 - A Christian Ideal for a Christian Nation

Chapter 10 - What Has History Taught?

Chapter 11 – A Recommended Version

Chapter 12 - In Closing

Preface

The words of James Madison:

In all great changes of established governments, forms [the letter of the law] ought to give way to substance [the spirit of the law]; that a rigid adherence in such cases to [the letter], would render nominal and nugatory the transcendent and precious right of the people to [as stated in our Declaration of Independence] abolish or alter their governments as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness, ... It is therefore essential that such changes be instituted by some informal and unauthorized propositions, made by some patriotic and respectable citizen or number of citizens. - James Madison, The Federalist Papers, #40.

I present a very condensed review that I believe will, at least in part, touch all essential aspects of the United States in relation to her Constitution, in a format short enough and non-technical enough to be read by almost all. I have made every effort to concentrate this study on the original document itself, with the references from our founding fathers and other pertinent sources of that day, such as the Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers were a series of articles published mainly by Alexander Hamilton with the intent of communicating to the American people the plans and activities of the politicians involved in the Constitutional Convention, which resulted in our Constitution. The Federalist Papers are considered the principle commentary by the revolutionaries, and the foremost source for determining original intent. References to modern, ancient, and non-American sources have been kept to a minimum, to avoid imitation of weaker and less free forms of rule.

While the goal is a text that is easily readable, it must be admitted that the topic is not only law, but our nation’s supreme law. As such, it is essential to avoid insomuch as is possible, vague or trendy language – that which will not be clear and readable in 100 years. And this can make reading more difficult. The author will make every effort to substitute common words for obscure whenever the proper sense allows. But in the event a substitution would negatively impact the meaning, a more archaic or unfamiliar word may have to suffice.

My goal is not only to critique our American Constitution and its historical interpretation, but also to submit for an open consideration by the American people, specific changes that might be made, so that the spirit of liberty and justice for which we stand might be more perfectly represented in our written law. In any case, let the reader acknowledge the dire necessity of correcting by legal and peaceable means, the serious flaws of the present course of our nation. An enumeration of these flaws would touch every financial, military, legislative, judicial, social, and educational branch of the United States. As there are numerous modern slants on politics, many will not be in accord with the propositions made here. And by all means, let them present some superior, comprehensive plan of renovation that would for generations to come, serve to secure freedom not only of thought, but of deed. For the goal of our written law is to increase the liberty of our people without sacrificing our security.

Initially, Americans demanded liberty, personal and corporate, even at the expense of national security. The Constitution was the vehicle through which that liberty was assured. But we have altered the spirit and letter of our Constitution. In greatest measure, the extraordinary waywardness of our national policy stems not from mutation of our laws, but more from a neglect of the plain and prominent truths already existing therein. In smaller measure, such modifications have come about through our federal government assuming control over liberties clearly intended, but not explicitly delegated to the states and to the people. But the Constitution of the United States is so extraordinary in its importance, let us before fielding any criticisms or recommendations, give unlimited credit to its many and great strengths, and the surprising success with which it has carried our nation for the past centuries, in spite of its (and our) flaws. Whatever shortcoming, adulteration, misinterpretation, or inconsistency may be found in her, we hold that any significant departure from her original form risks a decrease in freedom and/or security, and an increase in the inefficiency of our system of government. It must be therefore, with greatest trepidation and care that any changes be considered.

And in retrospect, it is likewise amazing that a collection of free and independent states should ever willingly donate from their sovereign powers a portion of them sufficient for permitting any greater authority to rise, even if to better protect and edify the general public. In James Madison’s words:

The real wonder [in our Constitution] is that so many difficulties should have been surmounted, and surmounted with a unanimity almost as unprecedented as it must have been unexpected. It is impossible for any man of candor to reflect on this circumstance without partaking of the astonishment. It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution. – The Federalist Papers

That being said, it cannot be expected that we, as creatures having a nature which continually longs to better our lives (and hopefully that of our fellow man), should neglect to seek the means of improving even further, those forms of government to which we are subjected. And it is precisely to this end that I have undertaken this book. It is my hope that I can first present an uncommonly objective look at America and her Constitution, with a view towards offering short and long-term improvements.

Introduction

So carefully planted, nurtured, and protected in our laws, American freedom - that independence from allegiance to distant and uncaring rulers - has given way to unbridled power vested in a political machine quite out of touch with either the American people or the American Constitution. Clearly, the political forces controlling our military and taxation will never willingly surrender their taproots into the American economy. But what force will be necessary to convince them? And to whom will it then be given?

History assures that opportunities to birth a caring and industrious community at the national level are exceedingly rare and probably cannot again appear in the near future. Nevertheless, we must be continually prepared, in short order, to establish a government that embraces both personal freedom and national security. America has since the early 1900’s fallen short on the first, and since the 1960’s on the second as well. We have lost almost all personal freedoms in order to purchase a military empire in the pursuit of absolute national security. But in rearing a military world domination, we have lost that very security on two counts. First, we have made ourselves an enemy to the other nations of the world. At the point of the sword, many nations profess alliance with America. In fact, international appreciation for our foreign policy and cultural influence has become rare to non-existent. And secondly, the wave of taxation and legislated personal control, for which we threw off British rule, assures that violence and insurrection are in the making.

Almost everything for which our forefathers pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor has been eliminated. Each of the remaining liberties is actively being dismantled as we speak – in the face of a free and lucid supreme law of the land to which we all render lip service:

• Freedom from all taxation without representation

• Immutability of our contracts and obligations

• Sovereignty of the state and community over their own legal and financial affairs

• Right to read and understand the law

• Right to speak, publish, and act on one’s beliefs, especially religious beliefs.

• Unlimited right to carry and wield lethal force in the protection of our person and property

• Right to a Republican form of government

• Trial by an impartial jury of one’s peers

These are now just vague dreams pondered askance from the yellowing pages of prudish old textbooks. Infractions by our leaders against such great and all-pervading issues drove our peaceful, agrarian society to a bloody revolution in the late 1700’s. Yet in addition to these, the more domestic personal rights of the people are being taken away in our day.

• Sovereignty over one’s life, liberty, and property

• Right to run an honest business, hire those we deem worthy, and pay them fair wages

• Sovereignty of parents over their own children

• Right to publish one’s beliefs publicly- in the schools, market, and media

• Right to support honest men and resist dishonest ones

The elders of our generation still remember these rights. However, these likewise are abolished from America, some by outright abrogation, others by opening to infinite litigation the path of freedom. Those who honor the Constitution in these matters are threatened with prison or seizure of their possessions.

Some speak of whether America will be judged or spared. In most respects, such judgment has long ago taken place. We need not wonder if the American way can endure. The American way is freedom from crime, freedom from baseless litigation, freedom from taxation without representation or without benefit to us directly, and freedom from government intervention in the legal, civil, and moral norms of our communities. We ignore that a free republic known as America endured less than a hundred years. Still, we have eternal optimism that the ideals pursued by our forefathers will yet be apprehended.

If that be that case, how is it that from long ago, our nation has entrusted its leadership to sometimes greedy, irreligious, argumentative, self seeking politicians rather than qualified and principled citizens? We have confused education, eloquence, and popularity with those eternal prerequisites essential to public officials at any level. Naturally, those whose interests run selfwardly are most eager to accept the offer to govern our lives and fortunes. Having no inner rule over their own desires, they are incapable of ever rightly ruling others, but rather expose us to brutality, licentiousness, and plunder. Yet even in the face of such despotic aggression, wisdom advocates not rebellion. And in so wicked a day when the shrewd become silent, we reserve our freedoms for the hope of our posterity. In such increments as may be made, we seek to dismantle the bureaucracy of tyranny line by line, vote by vote, dollar by dollar. We seek to erect again our American Republic.

Let us consider from a bird's eye view what the basic forms of such a republic look like. First of all, just what is a republic? Alexander Hamilton quoting Montesquieu, defines a confederate republic:

The definition of a confederate republic seems simply to be an assemblage of societies, or an association of two or more states into one state. The extent, modifications, and objects of the federal authority are mere matters of discretion. So long as the separate organization of the members be not abolished; so long as it exists, by a constitutional necessity, for local purposes; though it should be in perfect subordination to the general authority of the union, it would still be, in fact and in theory, an association of states, or a confederacy. The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power. This fully corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with the idea of a federal government. - Federalist Papers

This is helpful in establishing a constitution or supreme law by which a land may be governed. It begins to define the role of the State in American representative government. However, it is rather broad. It offers little hint of truth or authority upon which we may build such a republic or a how to pursue a better future, save our best interpretation of history. Secondly, it leaves as matter of discretion the division of authority under which the local perfectly submits to the federal. To arrive at a careful definition, we must define unambiguously which powers are owned by whom. Our original Constitution made monumental progress towards justly and efficiently defining this very thing. Madison is more concise:

If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior.

This also adds some essential substance of ownership of power, bringing with it, among other things, the concepts of qualifications for office, term of office, and representation of the governed. However, we hope to reduce ambiguity even further in the pages ahead. Here in the introduction, I simply address the current need - to define and pursue not a confederate republic, nor even a democratic republic, but to recover and strengthen our unique American Republic.

America began and always had its goal of giving an educated, free people the privilege of pursuing those ideals they hold sacred in the public and legal norms (laws) of society. The right of the individual was honored and protected by local ordinance. The right of each community and district was respected so that its unique traditions and heritage were protected under state law. The individual states, in turn, were supported by the national and thereby allowed to act unilaterally to protect their interests. In so doing, our sacred national unity was preserved as citizens loved and took pride in their great land. None of this can any longer occur as our national legislators attempt to control personal or local behavior of the few by passing laws that oppress the many.

It must be acknowledged that holding such local or personal beliefs may offend others whose traditions and beliefs run contrary. However, the capacity to tolerate others, the choice to respect the differing values of others peaceably, and the proof of such concern in our actions of support for those with whom we disagree, is to be the unique character of the Christian religion we Americans espouse. And that blend of conviction and tolerance is the very fabric of the stability and unity requisite for any enduring civilization.

Can it be possible in so modern a world to erect a free, yet stable country? It is with a resounding Yes! this author responds. And to do so necessitates a widespread love for learning, a love of the principles espoused in the Constitution of the United States of America, and a love for one another. In putting together this little book, it is hoped to lay some foundational work upon which many may labor to reestablish the America we have held in our hearts.

Chapter I - Background 

Brief Overview of Pre-Revolutionary American History

The history of the American political system begins overseas. Only a few decades after the Christian Church began in Jerusalem and spread throughout Europe and western Asia, its leaders assumed power by divine right and began to dominate; from Rome, then progressively throughout the western world. Death and spiritual darkness ruled for a thousand years. But slowly, light began to dawn in Western Europe. Enlightenment of the Scriptures emerged from the dungeons of monasteries, making its way again to the minds of the common man. And with it, came an explosion of science, charity, and temperance, the profusion of which is unheard of in all history, both in its horizontal and vertical permeation throughout society.

This reformation, or renaissance, is synonymous with the massive propagation of the Christian religion. This ‘rebirth’ gave men, societies, and nations unprecedented power – power to help or power to enslave and kill. Seeking to control this newfound power, governments began to change dramatically. Partially, this occurred in seeking to limit the damage inflicted by abusers of that power. But in great measure, this transformation came in response to the newfound knowledge and self-control inherent in that Gospel - less external restraint being necessary when citizens, by their own internal convictions, govern themselves properly.

America had originally guaranteed privileges and rights based upon an individual’s political beliefs (i.e. their morals being consistent with those laws found in our Constitution). Most other nations had based leadership and citizenship requirements on having a special ethnic, religious, or financial status. And as existing nations and their functional monarchies continued their domination and warring traditions, a number of counter-cultures began to surface throughout western Europe. Although we hear frequently of Pilgrims, Puritans, and Huguenots, many such sects were formed. None of these groups was ever large enough, or well governed enough to come to power as an independent country amidst the established traditional regimes of Europe. While they governed themselves under their particular philosophical charters, ultimately, it was the crown who determined the level of corporate and individual freedoms bestowed.

But almost miraculously, two virgin continents, nearly unpopulated, were freely bestowed to those European interests. To some this land represented a hiding place from oppressive dictators. To others, the unexploited natural resources would lure their sense of gain or science. Some perhaps came to quench a sense of adventure, to embrace a savage life after years of coerced hypocrisy. But to others, and those with whom this book takes interest, there lay an opportunity to test on a national scale the radical concepts of liberty practiced until then only on the individual or congregational level.

Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, and others claimed substantial territory on the American continents. Within the envelope of the current United States, the first three were dominant with Spain primarily to the west and the two former to the east. The French and Indian War was hardly more than a squabble in the wilderness between French and British settlers. However, because Great Britain came out on top, our language and laws follow in great measure their British counterparts. Had France been more successful, not only would the language, but form of government doubtless have been notably different from that of today. European immigrants settled into and became synonymous with America, their religious, political, and family traditions blended together on local scales. And in spite of the vast domain, low population density, and variety of ethnic backgrounds, an amazingly uniform and protestant society emerged in nearly every corner of the land. This mysterious phenomenon was recognized universally as providential.

Had there been no wars, it is likely that the colonies or states, and perhaps even many towns and districts, would have remained completely sovereign and independent. But the testing of coordinated self-defense exposed a great weakness in our infant nation’s structure. American armies were primarily grouped into states or even smaller divisions. Each state governor was typically the military commander in chief. So, if Florida were to be invaded, the armies of Delaware or Pennsylvania were not necessarily instant in rushing to the battle. And why should they be? Although defensive war is costly, it affords no great rewards, and even more so when soldiers must be transported to fight on unfamiliar soil for a land that belongs to others. To make matters worse, when this friendly army arrives on foreign state’s soil, which has the final authority over them on the field? And who is responsible to pay the travel expenses for this army? The answers are not clear-cut.

Large, well-financed armies such as were maintained by England or Spain might have little trouble capturing our states one by one under such disorder. The leaders of our revolution quickly saw these faults first hand. George Washington and Alexander Hamilton in particular, were vehement supporters of a stronger central government specifically in response to this issue of national security.

Meanwhile, in spite of sickness, wars, political turmoil, and territorial squabbles, the American people quietly began to fill out their wilderness nation. Settlements turned into towns, paths to roads, traditions into laws. With a few exceptions (particularly in New England and the larger towns), agrarian, self-sufficient families as members of a monocultural, Church-going community were the norm in every county. Family run businesses supplied the mercantile needs of the district. Families or communities, depending on the local population, assumed full responsibility for effective and inexpensive education, offering both the facilities and budget to assure every willing citizen was highly educated. Federal services and regulations were as unwelcome as they were unneeded. Christian morals and work ethic were expected for social acceptance. This guaranteed that every child learned to work, to respect the possessions of others, to honor leaders, to speak and act honestly, and in brief to uphold the Christian mandate of furthering love for one another. This productive, caring, crime-free, independent life became and represents still the traditional American way.

We would do well to return to such an efficient and loving society. This cannot occur until we return to a rule of republican government that honors individual and community autonomy and dismantles the power of our federal bureaucracies. We proved this to be feasible in the late 1700’s by throwing off an uncaring, yet intrusive government. However, we must first prepare to re-establish our constitutional republican form of government that we have abandoned over the course of the past 100 years.

Brief Comparison with the British System

The history of Great Britain is the one with which we are in general the best acquainted, and it gives us many useful lessons. We may profit by their experience without paying the price which it cost them. John Jay – The Federalist Papers

The construction of our federal government bears a close family resemblance to that of Great Britain. England’s Parliament is composed of a dual congress, the House of Commons and House of Lords. The Commons are elected by the people, whereas the Lords are basically appointed. All proposals for raising revenue must originate in the House of Commons. There are particular political parties in Parliament, the most numerous of which has special responsibilities and privileges. The most important of these privileges is the choice of a Prime Minister, roughly analogous to our president.

Their hierarchy has evolved dramatically. Initially, (in the 11th and 12th centuries) the omnipotent king consulted his Lords (religious rulers) as he saw fit. But gradually, these Lords became more powerful. At the same time, a less powerful council composed of knights representing England’s individual counties, began to systematically organize itself. This House of Commons in 1414 was given equal legislative power to the House of Lords. Over 250 years later, one year after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the authority of the British crown itself was put in subjection to the Houses of Parliament. As an interesting side note, along with that revolution leading to the demotion of the crown from final to delegated and partial authority, was a Bill of Rights, which included a guarantee of free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to petition the government, the prohibition of excessive bail, and of cruel and unusual punishment, and many others.

There are also some distinctive differences between English and American politics. The House of Lords itself forms Britain’s Supreme Court. They, with some exceptions, do not normally create legislation, but rather modify and clarify legislation from the Commons. In financial matters, the Lords do not generally even have the power to modify bills. Beyond the many procedural differences, of course, the most obvious trait is that Britain retains the office of the crown with its royalty and nobility, the modern role of which is a bit obscure (unless one concurs with the crown being Pope of the Anglican church).

While the British form is not derived from Scripture, it has been tuned for centuries toward the demands of a nominally Christian people. The author does not purport current American policy to be in any way superior to the British model. However, our original American system has never seen its equal in terms of personal freedom, value creation, and charity. It is to this we set our sights. And rather than dwelling on or criticizing less effective governments, we look to correct our own selves and how to make our Constitution more consistent with unfailing principles, more resilient to the weaknesses and abuses of history, while retaining the simplicity, brevity, and power embraced by the convention in 1789.

Life, liberty and property

Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly, to liberty, thirdly, to property, together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can... Samuel Adams, November 1772

As the dawn of the Renaissance ended 1000 years of spiritual darkness, it stirred within the heart a concept previously unthinkable. We see it in the Magna Carta, propagated by the likes of Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, Milton, and Locke. That is this: the religious convictions of the common man are of greater consequence than the contrary dictates of any ruler, supposedly benevolent or otherwise, and that the rights and responsibilities to rule, whether of a nation or of an individual, demand inward uprightness. Further, that a lack of these qualities of self-government revoke ones right of public authority, regardless of what personal power or wealth he may possess.

It was this taste of real liberty under the restraint of Christian character that revolutionized history and became known as the western world. In contrast to prior attempts to rule the world through the power of the gospel, this pervasion of truth into society reached a point where the very employment of these supposed divinely empowered, self-gratifying tyrants, for the first time in recorded history, stood in danger of being terminated.

And along with this New World came a number of other strange and untested ideas; ideas concerning natural laws, that is laws that, despite the dictates of any king, are so basic that we hold them to be self-evident, e.g. any sane person cannot rightly argue against them. As a philosophical entity, natural laws of various sorts have existed throughout all cultures. But these laws had been only granted to the ruling class, and to those elect upon whom they conferred such privilege. Briefly, our natural laws are encompassed by the rights of life, liberty, property, and the right to defend them with lethal force. Let us consider each of these four from a bird’s eye view.

The Right of Life

It is obvious that no king, prince, or noble understands the basic chemical processes involved in life (or for that matter any scientific minds of today). Neither have they been granted any evidence, natural or otherwise, that they have authority to create life, except in regards to their own offspring. We do, however, see that it has been given them the capacity to take away life, and not only in regards to his own person, but to those around him. The question then remains whether one in authority ever has a just cause to remove the life of one less powerful than he.

Such questions of morals cannot unequivocally be answered by natural evidence or logic. If one were to attempt such natural evidence, he would be forced to resort to the laws of survival of the fittest; which order without contradiction or exception, pervades our natural world. It states that each individual has the right to terminate the life of all beings less powerful than he for any reason whatsoever. Human beings have found that survival of the fittest is not the best rule in human affairs. But where can one find or know a better rule?

The author of this book holds to the same opinion as our founding fathers, that we have been given supernatural, absolute, and eternal truth in the Holy Scriptures. Herein we see a law very different from the survival of the fittest, applicable to all people in all ages. Those circumstances under which it is acceptable and unacceptable to take away the life or property of another human are definitively laid out. These Biblical truths have been naturally and supernaturally proven for millennia as the just and compassionate means of governing societies. If we abolish for whatever reason, our only perfect standard, we have no protection against reverting to that unquestionable, barbaric standard of the animal kingdom. And such has been done by many countries.

It would perhaps not be inappropriate in America’s national law to enumerate those crimes deemed capital offenses, and standardize it for the entire nation. However, the authors of our Constitution chose to demand that only that single crime of treason carry a death penalty at the federal level. All others were to be determined at the state, district, or local level. This appears wise council; since it pushes the concept of extenuating circumstances out to judgment by those familiar with the particular infraction (for example, was a murder 1st degree or 2nd degree?).

And in looking to define what boundaries a federal government should draw in order to properly handle our right to life, we question whether suicide or euthanasia should be accepted or punished at the national level. In accord with the founding fathers, and with the principles so long proven effective in our land, the Constitutional solution is to permit each state to define its unique stance on these emotional topics. We hold to a respect for others that manifests in a grand tolerance even to the refusal of our own strong opinions on the issues that, in other nations, cause warring and discord.

This might superficially seem to cover the topic of the freedom of life. But we must admit there still remain many gray areas in this freedom, and one in particular. We must ask whether one or both of the parents have authority over the life of their child. To answer this question briefly, nature and Scripture give us a number of examples, all of which point to a rather unlimited right of the parent over the child so long as they dwell under the roof of the parent. However, this author maintains that because of the certainty of strong and discrepant viewpoints, this right too must be determined on a state-by-state basis. And the topic will be more fully addressed later.

The Right of Liberty

The second of our great rights is that of freedom of liberty. Liberty is much more difficult to quantify than the other two. But fortunately, more has also been written on it, it seems, than the others. We certainly cannot hope to deal with freedom of conscience, of speech, of the press, of our person, to establish our own business, to choose our companions or diet or travel. Yet, the goal is to somehow ordain in one document those principles that may be applied fairly and uniformly to all the liberties of all the citizens. This was accomplished in a rather extraordinary means, by delegation: leaving the determination of what those rights are, as well as how to implement them, entirely to the individual states. Initially, we had no Bill of Rights in our Constitution. The enumeration of our great liberties was held sacredly outside the realm of federal authority. Our noble executives, judges, and legislators were to embrace the tolerance and selflessness required to accept this state sovereignty. History, however, quickly taught that without laws more explicit and punctually enforced, such strong character could not be expected from our trustees (or dare we say from ourselves?).

Our type of government can be made to work, even if with difficulty. However, it requires the general populous to be 1) knowledgeable and 2) upright. Then, widespread liberty may be confidently retained at the local level. In America, our ancestors instilled in every soul a deep religious conviction leading to a universal 1) education and 2) respect for others. So long, and in such measure, as this tradition was nurtured, America prospered and enjoyed her freedoms in spite of the weaknesses and egos of Washington’s elect. Nearly 100% of our universities, businesses, as well as local and even state governments, were driven by and symbiotic with, the local ecclesiastical powers.

It is a solemn and amazing fact to which our nation’s founders adhered that the definition and implementation of these essential liberties was never to reach the clutches of the federal government. Judgments, in a free country, must remain unimpaired in the hands of the local, district, and state authorities. We must never accept, under any guise of necessity, that federal courts be used to hear cases from lower courts, except by request from the lower authority (appellate jurisdiction, as the Constitution refers to it). The list of crimes that the federal courts are constitutionally given the privilege of hearing is explicitly itemized and shorter than most people would care to admit. Or repeating the sentence in a different cloak, we must never accept that the federal government elevate any local, district, or state crime to federal status. To the degree we forsake this astonishing advice, we give the right to our lives, liberties, and property to an unknowing and uncaring political machine.

This topic will be continued, often indirectly, but in significant detail throughout the chapters of this book. For the present, we move to the third basic right we as Americans claim to hold unalienable and obviously divine, that of property.

The Right of Property

Property is defined in the sense used here by Webster (An American Dictionary of the English Language) as:

The exclusive right of possessing, enjoying and disposing of a thing; ownership. In the beginning of the world, the Creator gave to man dominion over the earth, over the fish of the sea and the fowls of the air, and over every living thing. This is the foundation of man’s property in the earth and in all its productions. ... The labor of inventing, making or producing any thing constitutes one of the highest and most [unquestionable] titles to property. Property is also acquired by inheritance, by gift or by purchase. Property is sometimes held in common, yet each man’s right to his share in common land or stock is exclusively his own. One man may have