Is America A Christian Nation, Part XV, How the Articles of Confederation Transfer God's Authority to the Constitution

In the last installment of Is America A Christian Nation, using the expressions of the Declaration of Independence we learned how authority flows from the principles of that agreement to each successive agreement.  For authority to convey from those principles, the actions of the people of the United States of America must follow those principles without exception.  For example, because principle #4 cited previously offers the universal truth that government derives it powers from the consent of the people, then by consent of those same people, an American government receives authority.  That is how American authority conveys.  

Consent to unified government first presented in 1781 as the original 13 states ratified the Articles of Confederation, offered for ratification in 1777. That agreement conveyed certain basic authority to a unified government.  One argued power of that government was to ensure that the union remain intact in perpetuity.  That fact is certified in the following stanza, proclaiming the agreement to a perpetual union and who agreed to reside in that union:

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

A perpetual union is one that does not contemplate its own end.  An agreement in perpetuity is an agreement that therefore does not end.  Even an agreement to end the agreement must be a part of the agreement in the first place  And this is why the Articles of Confederation is still in force today.  But by certain provisions in that agreement, certain of the principles agreed and ratified in 1781 have simply changed.  But the changes are indeed authorized in the Articles of Confederation, which changes demonstrate that the articles are still in force.  If the Articles are not in force, then any authority that might have been used to authorize the change that came in the form of the Constitution died at the same time the Articles of Confederation died.  Fortunately, that has not happened.

But getting back to the matter at hand, determining without question whether America is a Christian Nation, authorized therefore by the scriptures of the Bible including the New Testament, and therefore indeed Jesus Christ, whereas having to 'back in' to that conclusion in our study of the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation state the only conclusions available to draw, and that agreement states these conclusions boldly and without equivocation, offering 

Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America, agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, in the words following, viz:

In the passage above, two conclusions are apparent.  The first conclusion is that the Articles of Confederation, offered for ratification in 1777, concern the same nation reasoned into existence under the Declaration of Independence in 1776.  That being the case, as we have seen previously in this series, the nation under the Declaration of Independence did not, and could not have morphed into any other sovereign animal than the one described in that document.  And by Article I of the new agreement, the sovereign nation under the Declaration of Independence retained its same title, the article offering

Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America."

And Article II of the confederation agreement certifies that each party to the agreement delegated certain authority to the new government, which authority could not be rescinded, except as provided in some provision of that same agreement, offering

Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

Because perpetuity was expressly delegated to the confederation government, that aspect of the agreement could not be altered unless specifically provided elsewhere in the agreement.  For this reason, and really this reason only, because perpetuity was never removed, eventually Lincoln would find the authority necessary to take steps to save the union under the Constitution.

Next though, toward the end of the agreement we find the bold provision that the Unites States of America is indeed under the authority of God, offering

And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said articles of confederation and perpetual union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said articles of confederation and perpetual union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the united States in congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said confederation are submitted to them. And that the articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the union shall be perpetual.

Compared to some of the previous discussions in this series, the Founders made this so plain that it is unequivocal, that the World has a Great Governor, God, and that God authorizes the people of the United States, through their representatives, to ratify this agreement known as the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.  And to leave no doubt as to their intentions, the people agreed once again that the union shall be perpetual. So each state, boldly proclaimed its agreement that the union referred under its terms shall not end.  Because each party agreed to that stipulation, then that term of the agreement is enforceable by all other parties.

And notice that God is not a passive god here.  According to the men who authored and endorsed this agreement, God 'inclined their hearts' to approve the Articles of Confederation.  That God would incline one's heart is a Christian concept.  Because Christians offer their hearts to God through Jesus Christ, they are given the gift of the Holy Spirit indwelling with their given spirits.  Among the works of the Holy Spirit, He guides the Christian toward fulfilling the will of God.  So in offering that the Great Governor of the World inclined their hearts, the legislature representing the American people certified that they were Christians under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

And to further solidify that the Great Governor of the World was no deist god, no god of any other thinking than God of the Bible and New Testament, the people of the United States of America, by their authorized representatives, agreed that the date of the agreement in question is relative to the date of the birth of Jesus Christ, "our Lord," offering

In Witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress. Done at Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania the ninth Day of July in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven Hundred and Seventy-eight, and in the Third Year of the independence of America.

Because the America people agreed that the 'Great Governor of the World' influenced and authorized their actions in agreeing to the Articles of Confederation, and because within that same document those people also agreed that their Lord is Jesus Christ, then it is not arguable against the conclusion that according to this document, Jesus Christ is the Great Governor of the World, which conclusion requires that Jesus Christ owns all authority on earth, once again agreeing with the scriptures of the New Testament.  So in this agreement, our Founders made it easy for us to understand that the United States of America is indeed one nation under God, which draws its authority from Jesus Christ, and is therefore a Christian nation under that definition.

In the next installment in this series, Is America A Christian Nation, we will finally take a look at America's Constitution, and determine whether it either ratifies, or denies, the heretofore demonstrated conclusion that America is a Christian Nation authorized by the Scriptures of the New Testament, and therefore Jesus Christ.

So stay on the lookout and check in for the next contribution.  If you would like a reminder of each successive article in this series and beyond, simply click on the 'subscribe' button on the page and you will receive notifications.  Thank you for your readership!

Hank

Is America A Christian Nation, Part XIV, Transferring Ideal Authority

In the last installment in the series, Is America A Christian Nation, standing atop the conclusions realized in earlier installments, we pointed out that the Declaration of Independence does not specifically stipulate that the authority for America comes from God of the Bible, including the New Testament. But because the laws in each colony/state-to-be required any representative of the people to profess faith as a Christian, any reference to God endorsed in the Declaration these men signed as representatives of the people, can only have been God of the Bible and New Testament.  For this reason, the expressions of the Declaration of Independence support that American sovereign authority derives from God, the Holy Trinity, through Jesus Christ, who according to New Testament scriptures is given all authority in Heaven and earth.  Because Jesus Christ owns all authority, any authority for a nation, must pass through Him on the way.

Following that train of reason, according to the Declaration, based upon certain New Testament scriptures, Jesus Christ endows all men with certain authority, certain human rights, and does so equally, all men being equal in the eyes of God.  There are numerous scriptures from which this principle derives, perhaps notably, Matthew 22:37-39, where Jesus is quoted to say

³⁷ Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ ³⁸ This is the first and greatest commandment. ³⁹ And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’

That Jesus commands men to love others as they love themselves, that command requires men to respect that all men are created equal in the eyes of God.  If that were not true, then God would understand loving certain individuals, perhaps even one's self, more than others. 

There are many other New Testament scriptures from which the principle that 'all men are created equal' derives.  The Golden Rule is certainly one.  Another is John 15:13 where Jesus is quoted, saying

Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.

That one might voluntarily lay down life for a friend, necessarily implies that the life of one's friend is of equal value to that of one's self, the equity of the exchange allowing  one to sacrifice for another freely.  But this scripture also specifically implies that a friend's right to life is equal to one's own claim on the same, here again requiring believers in Jesus Christ to respect each man's equal right to life.

These are just of few of New Testament scriptures that help to demonstrate that the Natural Laws of God cited in the expressions of the Declaration of Independence, derive from the New Testament. 

And before we go further, I think it is important to realize that, during the period encompassing 1776 and 1781, the United States of America was a nation governed solely by the principles of the Declaration of Independence, governed solely by ideals.  Wow! Imagine that, a nation governed solely by just a few simple ideals!  But think about it; that is the exactly the way that Jesus Christ describes Christian life, self-government by ideals, government of men, by men, whose laws are few but who each respect the rights of others.  This demonstrates yet another way in which American sovereignty derives from the scriptures.

Now this next point is very important going forward, so I hope you get this if you don't get anything else from this series.  And that point is that those few simple ideal principles, stated clearly in the American Declaration of Independence, are still authoritative.  Every law in the land, every statute, every regulation, each individual act of every tool of government, finds its source of authority in those few principles in the Declaration of Independence.  There is no other source of authority for American national government.  So what does that really mean???

It means that any governmental intention that violates the intentions of those principles, is unauthoritative, null, void before it is enacted into law or before it is acted upon by a tool of government.  Because the entire nation of the United States of America draws its authority from these few principles, these ideals, ordered as they are in the form of a rational reason for that authority to exist, then any American authority to act, in theory, is restricted to those actions, the intentions of which are in support of and consistent with those principles.  And THAT was Jefferson's brilliance.  And THAT is the importance today of the Declaration of Independence. Even the very principle that authorizes men to institute a national government derives from the authority that flows from one of the principles, the Natural Laws of God, in the Declaration of Independence.  Just for example, let's see how that works.

Remember in the previous installment XII, I wrote, 'Principle # 4 is the Natural Law that authorizes government to exist.'  That law states the following:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;

Because that Natural Law of God is 'truth,' self-evident 'truth,' that principle carries authority.  That is because authority derives from truth.  Truth is authoritative because one can always count on truth.  One cannot count on falsehood.  So truth can be used to construct authoritative agreements.  Agreements without truth are agreements based in falsehood, bad faith, bad intentions which are null and void and thereby unenforceable.  Agreements made in good faith, truthful intentions, are enforceable using the authority of the agreement.  So efforts carried forth which are intended to fulfill the principle #4 above, or any of the principles of the Declaration, are authorized.  Those efforts and the fruits of those efforts therefore carry authority, the authority that derives from Truth.  Now truth itself derives from love, but that is a topic for another time.

Carrying this discussion a smidge further, as long as the representatives of the people of the United States design a government, the intentions of which are in keeping with principle #4 above, and do not violate any other of the Declaration's principles, the results of their efforts carry authority.  And that is exactly what the people's representatives did in constructing America's first 'constitution.' And that is why that document, the Articles of Confederation, carry authority.  That is the only reason.  Had principle #4 above been left out of the Declaration, and had the founders enacted some other rationale to justify independence from Great Britain, one that did not authorize an institution of government, then any government that may have sprung from those efforts would not have carried authority. 

So in keeping with the authority that flows from principle #4 of the Declaration, America's first effort to institute a national government was that government described under the agreement ratified in 1781, the Articles of Confederation. Understanding now how that document came to its authority, in our next installment we will return to the matter at hand. We will look at America's 'first constitution' and understand what it might have to say which will aid us to fully and completely answer the question, Is America a Christian Nation.

And I have a suggestion for you.  If these articles have sparked a certain interest in the topic I am covering, click on the box above and subscribe.  Don't be shy! With each new contribution, you will be notified by an email.  I'm not counting heads, but I think the topic is so important that I hate for anyone who is interested to miss anything for the lack of a notification.

Have a great day and I'll be back for more soon.

Hank

Is America A Christian Nation, Part XIII, the Declaration Continued

In the previous installment of Is America A Christian Nation, within the expressions of the Declaration of Independence, we identified the source of all American sovereign authority.  And that source is God.  That authority flows from God, to men, and from men to a government of their choosing.  That's what the Declaration says.  But knowing that "God" the Creator, is the source of all American authority really does not fully answer the question at hand, which is to determine whether, in all respects, America is a Christian Nation.  After all, the followers of Islam believe in God, or Allah..  Other religions have their gods as well.

Another possibility is that the Declaration refers to a deist god, one who created the world and universe, set it in motion, and then took a long coffee break, allowing men and nations to settle their own issues toward a conclusion, the nature of which God chooses not to affect.  Could it be that Founders were deists?

The point I make here is that, the analysis we pursued in the very previous installment, while it demonstrates conclusively that American sovereign authority comes from God,  that analysis did not necessarily demonstrate or prove that God, the Creator referred in the Declaration of Independence, is God of the New Testament. Hey, as they say, Rome wasn't built in a day!  I have to leave a few things to talk about each next time!  That's what keeps you coming back!

So let's talk about all that. 

To gain a foothold on whether, indeed, the Declaration of Independence is a Christian document, written by Christians, referring only to God of the Bible and New Testament, let's look at that document's last stanza, which proclaims:

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. 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.

So where is Jesus in all of that??  Good question, friends.  Nothing within these expressions says anything about Jesus, Christ, the Holy Trinity, the New Testament, or gives any indication at all that the 'Supreme Judge of the world' is in fact God of the Bible and New Testament.  So I guess I'm stuck here, right?...WRONG!  We just have to dig a little deeper to discern the truth.

Because the Declaration of Independence does not specifically refer to the Bible, or Christ, or the Trinity, or the New Testament, to draw any conclusion beyond that which is stated plainly, we will have to go back to the authority given the representatives of the 'good People of these Colonies.' We will have to discern just what any of them were authorized to do, given their charge of authority by those they represented, while engaged at the proceedings during which those men ended up signing the Declaration of Independence.

During the time in question, a period which spans July 4, 1776, each of the American British Colonies, which would become declared 'free and independent states' on that date, had codified a legal requirement, either by charter, or by charter and newly constructed state constitution, that individuals who represented the people of those colonies/states, were Christian, men who either swore an oath that they were Christian, or who otherwise professed faith in Jesus Christ.   And indeed, when the various state constitutions were completed, each state constitution either established a specific Christian denomination as its state religion, or specified that those who represented the people professed to be Christian, believing in Jesus Christ and the Gospel of the New Testament.  Here is a good reference for anyone to verify what I write here http://undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=69.

So unless the men who convened in Philadelphia were not only Christian, each professing a belief in God of the New Testament as a condition of their appointment in the first place, they would not have been authorized to represent the people of the colonies/states they represented.  And if they were not authorized to represent the 'good People of the Colonies,' then the Declaration of Independence was an unauthorized agreement and the good People never declared independence!  So either the Declaration of Independence is a Christian declaration, or it is NO declaration at all! There are no other viable choices here.  Not only were the men who represented each American-British Colonist PROFESSED Christians, they were also LEGALLY Christians. So those who contend that America is not a Christian nation, in so doing also contend that America does not exist, thereby nullifying their very contention.  I describe this result in the same way I describe division by zero.  One cannot even speak of something that does not exist.  It is a meaningless waste of time.  The men who represented the 'good People of the Colonies,' as a LEGAL REQUIREMENT of that position, professed faith in Jesus Christ.  That was the law.  So as a matter of law, any reference to God in the Declaration is also a reference to God of the Bible including the New Testament.

So if we rightfully conclude that the United States of America of today, did in fact begin on July 4, 1776, as in previous installments in this series we have demonstrated beyond any substantial objection, then the Declaration of Independence must be a Christian declaration, announced and endorsed by Christians, men who represented a Christian nation, as defined as a nation whose sovereignty is authorized by the scriptures of the New Testament, which scriptures contend that all authority in Heaven and earth is given to Jesus Christ.  And because the Declaration of Independence speaks in terms of universal, natural laws, that document professes that any real authority for men and nations, which includes the United States of America, must derive from Jesus Christ as well.  All other semblance of authority is therefore either false, despotic, brought either by force, or by pure agreement among men.

In the next installment in our series Is America A Christian Nation, we will investigate further this notion of Christian God in the American founding documents.  And we will delve into America's first constitution of sorts, the Articles of Confederation, looking for any discrepancy, any reason whatsoever to question the conclusions drawn so far, and discover whether that document either disputes, or ratifies the conclusion that the Declaration of Independence is a Christian document.  So come back soon and find out.

Thanks again for your support and readership!

Hank

Is America A Christian Nation, Part XII, Authority From the Declaration of Independence

In our previous installment in the series Is America A Christian Nation, citing evidence already in play we demonstrated that the Supreme Law of the Land in the United States of America actually incorporates the expressions of three documents, not just the Constitution.  That is because the authority that passes to the Constitution originally derives within the expressions of the Declaration of Independence, and then passes through the Articles of Confederation before taking residence in the Constitution.  Because this is true, any conditions placed upon the use of that authority under either the Declaration of Independence, or the Articles of Confederation, must remain satisfied, even today.  That is how these documents are written.

In this installment, using the terms of the first in this series of documents, the Declaration of Independence, we will identify the very source of American sovereign authority. We are going to understand just exactly what that document's author, Thomas Jefferson, had in mind when he constructed the rationale that concluded with the rightful sovereign authority for a new nation, the United States States of America.  And we will also begin to understand how Jefferson's reasoning might affect any rightful use of that authority today, over two and one-quarter centuries later.  So let's get to it!

The Declaration of Independence presents a simple rationale beginning with the following principle:

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.

That principle indicates that a rationale shall follow declaring the causes impelling one people, the American British colonists, to dissolve the political bands with another, the subjects of the King of England.  According to that principle, it was certain of God's Natural Laws which entitled the colonists to severe ties with the king.  According to the Declaration, the truth of these Natural Laws is self-evident, therefore requiring no particular proof.  The Declaration then asserts the truth of five of those Natural Laws.  Those laws are:

1. that all men are created equal;

2. that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights;

3. that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

4. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;

5. 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.

Using these Natural Laws as the foundation of their justification, the Founders assert that human rights, one of which is the authority for men to act on their own behalf, is a gift that flows from God to each person individually, and equally, all men being equal in the eyes of God.

Having documented the basic flow of divine authority to men, the truth of which is self-evident, the founders cite two more specific Natural Laws.  Because God gives rights to all men equally, and because the tendency of men is to violate the rights of other men, it naturally follows that God authorizes men to institute certain means of protecting their God-given rights. Principle # 4 is the Natural Law that authorizes government to exist in the first place.  That principle of Natural Law defines the basic and universal role of government as “to secure these (human) rights.”

After documenting the basic purpose of institutional government, the founders enumerate one more endowed right.  And that right may be thought of as a trigger mechanism of sorts.   Principle #5 states that when any government destroys the basic rights endowed by the Creator, rather than secure them as required by natural law #4, men have the God-given right to abolish that government and establish a new one more “likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Springing forward on the expressions of principle #5, the Declaration cites evidence that the King of England had violated God's Law, “becoming destructive” of God's endowed rights to the colonists.  After listing evidence of the king's infractions, violating God's law, the document concludes with the signers declaring, “therefore…these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States.”  The use of the term, “therefore” indicates that a legal conclusion of sorts is being drawn from the previous assertions of law and fact, the law of course being God's Natural Law, and the facts being those the Founders assert as evidence against the king for violating God's Law. 

That conclusion declaring "rightful" independence is the “conclusion of sovereignty” for the United States of America.  America depends on that rightful conclusion even today. Without that conclusion, one justified solely from the preceding foundation of reason in the Declaration of Independence, there would be no rational source of authority by which the United States of America could claim its independence from Great Britain, even today. That is because, as we have proven together in previous installments in this series, the America of today is the very same America it was on July 4, 1776.  Nothing has been established that changes or alters the flow of authority reasoned into existence in the Declaration of Independence.  Today, our Constitution depends completely upon the authority reasoned to exist from applying natural laws #4 and 5 above to the facts as they saw them.  Without those natural laws, and without the rationale offered in the expressions of the Declaration, no authority could be or would be in place for any subsequent congress to eventually convene and authorize the Constitution. 

Question: Why did the Founders go to so much trouble to come up with this extraordinary "rationale" to break ties with the king?

Answer: Otherwise, they had no justification to do what they did.  Without Jefferson's reasoning, the American nation would have had no legitimate “right” to claim its sovereignty from the King.  The genius of Thomas Jefferson understood that the thirteen colonies could not “rightly” walk away from Great Britain simply because they wanted to.  An action of that kind would be an act of vigilantism.  Jefferson understood vigilantism to be nothing less than group despotism. And despotism was the root cause against which the conclusion of sovereignty in the Declaration was drawn in the first place.  In walking away, America would be just as bad as the king.  So Jefferson had to give a legitimate reason for the colonists to reject the king's authority, claiming authority of their own in the process, quite an assignment given young Jefferson at the 2nd Continental Congress.  The bottom line is that, in agreeing with the rationale offered by Jefferson to the 2nd Continental Congress, as each stood in line to endorse the Declaration of Independence, representing each of the "good people of the colonies," the Founders claimed authority given to them from God. 

Now this is not to say that Jefferson and the rest of the Founding Fathers did not believe that what each endorsed with their signature as the truth.  We have every reason to expect that in fact they did believe it.
 
But regardless of any facts one might suppose to the contrary, the undeniable fact is that the conclusion of sovereignty for the United States of America depends completely on one fundamental precept at its core.  And that precept is that God exists.  If God does not exist, then human rights do not exist. If human rights do not exist, men have no authority to declare sovereignty and convey that sovereignty to the state.  So it is unavoidable to conclude that, according to America's founding document, if God does not exist, then America itself does not exist. 

And for this reason, for some to argue that God has no place in the fabric of the national and patriotic institutions of America, they must also effectively disavow their own claim to unalienable rights.  Jefferson's logic is circular.  Either Americans have unalienable rights endowed by God or they have only those rights that flow from an agreement among them, namely, the government formed under such an agreement.  To accept a position as authoritative that denies the existence of God in America is therefore to claim no unalienable right to have done so.  To maintain that position, is to argue that the very foundation on which the American society and its primal source of authority are founded was a grave error.  To do so is to argue that men possess no rights that cannot, rightfully, be taken away by a simple act of the majority of force mustered within any particular segment of human society.  And so the lesson to convey in this installment is that

The sovereign authority of the United States of America, as it is designed and defined by the Founders, requires the absolute practical certainty of the existence of God.

In the next installment, we will pick up at this juncture.  And thank you very much for participating!

Hank

Is America A Christian Nation, Part XI, The Evidence of the Dred Scott Decision

In the previous installments in this series, Is America A Christian Nation, the case is building  that the Constitution is not a standalone document.  The Constitution is the final of a series of three documents, which together currently convey authority to the government of the United States. The Constitution tells us this, holding in its Article VII that the congress of the United States of America, proposed the new Constitution for ratification in the 12th year of the existence of the nation known as the United States of America.  Arithmetic settles any question that the year in which the nation for which the Constitution came to be supreme law began with the signing of the Declaration of Independence in the year 1776.  Because this is true, then all of the assumed truths laid out in the Declaration, which originally formulated the rationale resulting in the independence of those United States, are also assumed into the Constitution.  And for this reason as well, all national commitments and agreements occurring between 1776 and 1789, prior to the Constitution's ratification, remain commitments and agreements which must be honored under the Constitution.

One such committed agreement is the Treaty of Paris of 1783, which officially ended the American Revolutionary War.  Under that agreement, both nations, the United States and Great Britain, acknowledge and submit to the authority of the Holy Trinity, God of the Bible including the New Testament.  That reference to the authority of the Holy Trinity therefore recognizes the New Testament in its entirety, holds the New Testament as truly the Word of God, and holds one truth in particular, that being that all authority on Heaven and Earth is given to Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:18), as the New Testament plainly attests.  Since all authority is given to Jesus Christ, then any authority for men and nations, if it is true authority, must first flow through Jesus Christ, and then from Jesus to men.  As we will discover, that flow of authority is the same flow described in the Declaration of Independence.  But we will speak more on that later in the series.

In part X of this series, we uncovered that Abraham Lincoln, America's revered 16th president, and George Washington, America's universally admired first president, both understood that the Constitution receives its authority from the agreements which precede it, the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation.  But Lincoln and Washington are certainly not alone in that understanding.  References to the principles of the Declaration of Independence abound, not only in the political rhetoric of the day, but also in constitutional questions coming about during the times these men lived.

And in this installment in the series, I believe it is particularly instructive to look at one such constitutional case, one ruled by the United States Supreme Court, a case that helps to demonstrate that the Constitution is not supreme law in and of itself, but a document that can only be successfully interpreted when viewed in the light of the conditional authority that it receives from the Declaration of Independence, as conveyed through the Articles of Confederation.  The case that I cite here may seem a strange one to try to use to bolster a case that the Constitution receives its authority from certain ideals laid out in the declaration. That is because the ruling ultimately defied those ideals.  But in the justice's rationale, the Declaration's authority over the question before the court is undeniable.  The case in question is the Dred Scott Decision.

In the Dred Scott case, Chief Justice Roger Taney authored the U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that people of African descent brought into the United States and held as slaves (or their descendants, whether or not they were slaves) were not protected by the Constitution and could never be U.S. citizens. The court also held that the U.S. Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories, and that because slaves were not citizens, they could not sue in court. Furthermore, the Court ruled that slaves, as chattels or private property, could not be taken away from their owners without due process.

 The rationale behind Taney's opinion finds basis in the chief justice's interpretation, not of the Constitution, but of all things, the Declaration of Independence!  That's right, the Dred Scott case, which held that Negroes were NOT equal to whites, finds its deciding rationale in a document that extols the basic truth that 'All men are created equal."  In the high court's opinion, Taney judges the facts of the case, and the law, in the light of the Declaration, ultimately finding that Negroes were “so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”  Here are some excerpts from Taney’s opinion:

1) In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument.


2) The language of the Declaration of Independence is equally conclusive: It begins by declaring that, '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 nature's God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.'


It then proceeds to say: '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 them is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.'


The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day would be so understood. But it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration; for if the language, as understood in that day, would embrace them, the conduct of the distinguished men who framed the Declaration of Independence would have been utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserted; and instead of the sympathy of mankind, to which they so confidently appealed, they would have deserved and received universal rebuke and reprobation.


Yet the men who framed this declaration were great men high in literary acquirements high in their sense of honor, and incapable of asserting principles inconsistent with those on which they were acting. They perfectly understood the meaning of the language they used, and how it would be understood by others; and they knew that it would not in any part of the civilized world be supposed to embrace the negro race, which, by common consent, had been excluded from civilized Governments and the family of nations, and doomed to slavery. They spoke and acted according to the then established doctrines and principles, and in the ordinary language of the day, and no one misunderstood them. The unhappy black race were separated from the white by indelible marks, and laws long before established, and were never thought of or spoken of except as property, and when the claims of the owner or the profit of the trader were supposed to need protection.




3) What the construction was at that time, we think can hardly admit of doubt. We have the language of the Declaration of Independence and of the Articles of Confederation, in addition to the plain words of the Constitution itself; we have the legislation of the different States, before, about the time, and since, the Constitution was adopted; we have the legislation of Congress, from the time of its adoption to a recent period; and we have the constant and uniform action of the Executive Department, all concurring together, and leading to the same result. And if anything in relation to the construction of the Constitution can be regarded as settled, it is that which we now give to the word 'citizen' and the word 'people.'

In each of these three paragraphs of Taney's opinion, the chief justice repeatedly invokes the principles of the Declaration of Independence.  He even invokes the language of the Articles of Confederation.  Plain from these excerpts is that, in order to faithfully interpret the Constitution, Chief Justice Taney felt the need to reconcile his Dred Scott rationale, not only against the relatively low standards of the Constitution, but also against the much higher standards of the Declaration of Independence, and even the general language of the Articles of Confederation!  But if the theory that the Constitution is a standalone document is correct, the Declaration of Independence speaks to an entirely different nation than the one who’s supreme law is the Constitution.  And the Articles of Confederation pertains solely to a 'multi-lateral treaty organization' that would have nothing whatsoever to do with the United States of America, a nation under the Constitution.  That being the case, knowing that there is no flow of authority between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, Taney would have had no reason to justify his opinion against the principles of the Declaration of Independence, much less invoke the Articles of Confederation.  In so doing, Taney went miles out of his way and made his job exceedingly more difficult. 

There is only one explanation regarding the reason Chief Justice Taney chose to justify his Dred Scott decision against the principles of the Declaration of Independence rather than simply the language of the Constitution.  And that is that the without the Declaration of Independence serving as its source of authority and its guide for interpretation, the Constitution is a relatively meaningless document, rules without reasons.  Taney understood the authoritative nature of the declaration.  He understood that anything less than justifying his opinion in the light of the Declaration would be questionably authoritative.  As poorly as he interpreted those documents, Taney’s Dred Scott decision plainly demonstrates that Chief Justice Taney understood that the Constitution derives its authority from a rationale of principles, expressed as they are, in the Declaration of Independence. 

Ironically, only by citing the Declaration of Independence, and bastardizing its meaning, did Taney feel he could overrule what that document plainly states.

So even a bastardization of the meaning of the Declaration of Independence helps to shine the light of truth on that same meaning.  That is the nature of truth.  Truth cannot be hidden by falsehood.  And the truth is that the Constitution of the United States draws its authority from the Declaration of Independence, through the Articles of Confederation.  So if it can be conclusively demonstrated that those earlier documents derive their authority from God of the Bible including the New Testament, then it is unavoidable that even today, the Unites States of America is truly one nation under God, and draws its authority from none other than Jesus Christ, Who as the New Testament proclaims, owns all authority in Heaven and earth.

This installment ran just a bit long.  But it had to all be laid out.  In the next installment, knowing what we now know about the flow of sovereign authority from the Declaration of Independence through to the Constitution, we will begin to explore the declaration and find out just how the authority for the United States of America came to be.

Don't touch that dial!

Hank

Is America A Christian Nation, Part X, What George Washington Tells Us Today

From the last installment in our series, Is America A Christian Nation, we understand Lincoln's opinion that all rights of secession for the individual states that comprise the United States of America were relinquished under the Articles of Confederation, the supreme law of the land at the time, which was ratified in 1781.  With Lincoln's help, we understand the validity of the proposition that those rights could not be restored under the Constitution unless the conditions under which they were relinquished in the Articles were satisfied, namely, that all states comprising the union must agree for a state to secede.

The main principle that we bring forward here is that, according to Lincoln, and according to the reasoning we have employed in the previous installments, the Constitution is not a standalone document.  The Constitution is a document subject to certain preexisting conditions laid out in the state documents which preceded it. The point of that argument is that, since the authority of the Constitution is subject to the conditions set forth in its precursors, and since operating under its immediate precursor, the Congress of the United States of America ratified a treaty subjecting itself to the authority of the Holy Trinity, that fact would place any sovereign authority conveyed from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution, under that same source of authority, namely, the authority of God of the Bible, including the new Testament.

But why should we take Lincoln's word for it?  And why should we believe ourselves in any of this.  We are mere laymen, not Constitutional scholars, right?  Perhaps our own reasoning is faulty in a manner that we cannot yet see.  And no man is without error.  Lincoln was mortal. We are mortal.  So to really conclude that Lincoln was right, and that we are reading these documents as they ought to be read, it does seem proper that we should seek other authoritative opinions on the matter, from individuals whose authority springs from first hand knowledge of these circumstances and events, and whose reputation is considered impeccable by virtually anyone with whom we may confer.  So to fill that authoritative role in our discussion here, one such individual we might consider would be George Washington, the individual universally admired as the father of our country, and investigate what he might have left for us to consider today.

Fortunately for these purposes, in Washington's Farewell Address, an address offered as he was leaving office as the first president under the United States Constitution, George Washington stated plainly his understanding of the meaning of the United States of America.  In that address, this individual who understood like few others what the American Revolution was all about, a man who, knowing the meaning of the revolution, and also signed the Constitution, offers us the following:

It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt, that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages, which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its Virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature.

So according to George Washington, as he was leaving office after two terms as the first president under the Constitution, America in his mind is an “experiment” designed to test whether Providence  has connected the “permanent felicity” of a nation with that nation’s “virtue.”  That statement says volumes.  George Washington contends that the United States is more than just a nation among nations.  Washington tells us today that America is truly an experiment designed to determine whether a virtuous nation, in God's eyes, could elicit God's protection, protection by the divine Providence.  Washington tells us that this experiment is underway; it is not concluded by any measure, but that the "experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature."

Of course, this aspect of the divine Providence, Washington understood, is a direct reference to the terms of Declaration of Independence.  In future installments in this series we will look at that document, the Declaration of Independence, and explore its true meaning.  But for our purposes here, it is sufficient that in his farewell address, after serving two terms under the Constitution, George Washington understood that God held a vital role in the founding of America.  And by his statement, Washington demonstrates his understanding that God's role was not simply to authorize America going forward and then sit back and watch.  No, Washington understood that God's role was one practically identical to the role of God in Old Testament, God Who led the Israel out of Egypt and Who provided protection for Israel, that is, as long as Israel obeyed His commands and respected His authority.  Washington therefore offers for us to consider that only a nation who obeys the commands of a just and benevolent God, can be a nation "guided by an exalted justice and benevolence."

Now an exhaustive reading of the terms of the Constitution cannot yield support George Washington's conclusion.  There is nothing within the terms of the Constitution that even remotely refers to the divine Providence, nor any source of guidance such as "exalted justice and benevolence."  The Constitution is self-proclaimed a product of men.  Men are fallible.  Men make mistakes in conferring justice.  Men are questionably benevolent.  And the Constitution offers no particular source of guidance that might incline the hearts of men to understand and utilize exalted justice or benevolence in their decisions, only their own opinions and personal preferences.  Because this is true, in making such a statement in his farewell address, Washington could only have been referring to standards of human behavior that are set in place outside of the Constitution, prior to the Constitution, but which standards serve as necessary conditions that authorize the Constitution. 

And so, without even yet considering the profound meaning behind the excerpt of George Washington's farewell address we bring forward, as is the case in Lincoln's special address to congress of July 4, 1861, it is unavoidable to conclude that both of these men understood the same thing, and that is that the Constitution is not a standalone document.  Both of these men understood that the Supreme Law of the Land in the United States of America truly consists of three documents, the Declaration of Independence, which among other principles invokes the concept of the divine Providence, the Articles of Confederation which established the first formal government and made the union perpetual, and the terms of which authorize the Constitution, and the Constitution itself, a document that relies on certain authority having been conveyed from each of the first two. 

In our next installment in the series, Is America A Christian Nation, we will travel from the sublime to the ridiculous, from the principles of "exalted justice and benevolence" to the principles of men whose intentions are to bastardize those very principles, changing their meaning, attempting to establish new meanings for their own transient purposes.  But in doing so, we will discover that the truth cannot be hidden; that placing a veil of falsehood over the truth only more convincingly contrasts the truth from all else, and that the truths established under the Declaration of Independence unavoidably serve as authority for our Constitution today.  In our next installment, we will consider the Dred Scott Decision and how that affront to justice and benevolence, shines the light of truth on the Constitution today.

I'll be back soon..

Hank

Feet Off the Desk, Mr. President!

I remember quite a few years ago, when I was working as a superintendent for an independent builder, I sat down in my field office chair and placed my feet, boots and all, on top of my old wooden, retread of a desk, and I commenced to make my morning phone calls.  The desk wasn't expensive, even when it was new. And you could tell that it had seen action in many construction offices over the years.  So there I was, feet up on the desk, phone in hand, when my immediate boss came in.  That he was not happy is an understatement.  I'd not been spoken to like that for as long as I could say, told how I was disrespectful of the company owner's property.  He told me how it made me look lazy, how I probably was lazy, and how I needed to show the company's owner more respect than to be found in such an lackadaisical pose while supposedly working.

I was pretty stunned.  I really couldn't believe this guy.  I was doing my job, making calls, scheduling the work.  I was doing all those things that I was hired to do...or was I?  No, I was not.  Although my boss thoroughly offended my every sensibility, he was exactly right.  I WAS disrespectful.  No one has the right to come to work for another, be paid by the other, and disrespect the other's possessions.

So with that memory somewhere in my dim recesses, today I see this photo

Now according to Wikipedia, that the desk Mr. Obama uses as a footstool is one given to the American people by

Queen Victoria during the presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes in 1880 and was built from the timbers of the British Arctic Exploration ship Resolute. Many presidents since Hayes have used the desk at various locations in the White House, but it was Jackie Kennedy who first brought the desk into the Oval Office in 1961 for President John F. Kennedy. It was removed from the White House for only one time, and this was after the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963, when President Johnson allowed the desk to go on a traveling exhibition with the Kennedy Presidential Library. After this it was on display in the Smithsonian Institute. President Jimmy Carter brought the desk back to the Oval Office, where President Ronald Reagan, President Bill Clinton, President George W. Bush, and now President Barack Obama have used it in this, its most famous location.

Regardless of the value of the desk, the principle is the same.  And the response from the boss ought to be the same too, "Mr. President, get your feet off of that desk.  You look lazy, probably are lazy, and you need to show some respect for the property owned by your boss, in this case, the American people."