I was asked why I don't care for our current President. Since he's an authoritarian progressive statist ended up being an unacceptable answer, I'll give a serious one...well, the other one was serious, just not specific enough it seems. So, let's look at the positions of the President and see what's not to like, at least in the eyes of this classical liberal.
Foreign Policy
Let's start with foreign policy. Truth be told, I'm not a fan of much of the current U.S. foreign policy. Not under Obama, not under Bush, not under Clinton, etc. all the way back to Ford. I can give Reagan credit where it is due because even though I think he spent way too much money and meddled unnecessarily in some parts of the world, he did create the conditions that brought about the end of the Soviet Union during his tenure. Other than that? Let's see. I question why we continue to have troops in South Korea when the South Korean people don't really want us there. I also wonder why, over 20 years after the fall of the Soviet Union, we still have so many troops and bases stationed in Europe, strategically placed to "protect" the Europeans from Russia. I'm not saying Russia isn't a threat mind you, just that it doesn't seem like we should be footing the bill for the protection of Europe. Shouldn't the Europeans be doing that? At any rate, I digress.
Let's talk about the foreign policy positions of this administration. They've ended the war in Iraq. Yay! I approve of this action. I was always an opponent of the war and supported ending it in a way that stabilized the country. However, the President is trying to claim credit for this one. Now I will grant that the end of the war happened under his watch...therefore, he gets some of the credit. However, he simply followed the timeline and plan that was already in place which means he really didn't deviate much from the Bush plan. So sure, he deserves some credit and I'm glad the war is over. Then there's Afghanistan. I was always for this war, so to speak. At least, I was for it as much as someone who despises war can be for one. However, I don't think wars should be fought unless one plans to win it. Winning a war requires getting your hands dirty (see WWII). It isn't pretty, it isn't neat and innocents are always lost in the process. This is the primary reason to oppose a war after all. However, Bush went in with a surgical force and then turned it over to NATO. Obama, to his credit has somewhat stabilized things there with his surge. However, I didn't want a surge at this point. I either want us to leave or to fight it to win. Fighting to win does NOT mean negotiating with the Taliban. It does NOT mean worrying about which border the action took place over. It does NOT mean compromising our principles in order to achieve some stability. To fight to win, you basically decide who the enemy is and then bomb them and shoot at them relentlessly until they beg you to stop. That's how you win a war. Nonetheless, we have our surge and we have our relative stability, but in the process, we've alienated Pakistan. Considering they are a nuclear power, was that very wise?
Okay, enough with the wars, let's talk about something good. The President has certainly done well in using Seal Team 6. The elimination of Bin Laden and the saving of hostages were both very well executed. In fact, I wonder if Bin Laden was executed, but that's a different story. I support his strategic and tactical use of this particular branch of the military. Way to go Mr. President!
Now, other foreign policy issues. Well, there were the blunders at the beginning of his Presidency in disrespecting Great Britain. Those can easily be chalked up to inexperience and forgiven. He has gotten much better in this area. Then there is Israel and the Middle East. I don't envy any President dealing with the mess in and around Israel so support Israel, don't support Israel...it is pretty much a no win situation. However, I am one of those people who was very put off by the early days of the President's term when he went around to various Muslim countries apologizing for the United States. I don't believe this gained us respect but rather showed weakness. That's an arguable position either way, so I don't begrudge him his opinion on this, I just don't agree with it.
Then there is Libya. While I disagreed with Mr. Bush's wars, I do have to admit that he at least got Congressional approval to carry them out. I don't recall any Congressional approval for the use of force in Libya. While we may not have had troops on the ground, our planes were certainly bombing targets there. I know, I know. Clinton bombed targets. Reagan bombed targets. I KNOW! My first response is that just because a previous President did it means the current one can is NOT an argument I buy. In fact, I emphatically challenge that assertion. Secondly, Presidents seem to have gotten into their heads that as long as we don't put troops on the ground, then we aren't actually committing our troops and therefore don't need Congressional authorization. Third, we have the War Powers Act which gives the President a certain amount of time to commit troops while seeking Congressional approval. In the case of Libya, the President did NOT seek approval within the time allotted. Therefore, I have to argue that our participation in Libya was an illegal act. That the world is safer without Ghadafi in it is irrelevant. The world is safer without Saddam Hussein too, but I didn't support that war either. Don't get me wrong though. With only a few exceptions, our troops have performed admirably and deserve a lot of credit for carrying out their missions. I support them wholeheartedly. They go and do the job they are sent to do. Whether or not I agree with the mission is not important to how they do their job. I say this just to be clear.
Finally, a few little things and one really big not so little one. First the really little and insignificant one. I didn't think he should have accepted the Nobel prize. I didn't think it was appropriate for a sitting President to accept such an honor. Several Presidents had been honored in this way in the past, but I don't believe any of them were serving at the time. Nonetheless, this is a minor point that has little to do with policy and everything to do with my opinion of what one should or shouldn't do as President. However, I can't imagine what the prize committee was thinking. After all, he received a peace prize while our country was still involved in two separate wars. At any rate...moving on. President Obama promised on the campaign trail that he would close Guantanamo Bay. Not the base, but the prison. I support this position. However, we are now in year 3 of his term. Guantanamo is still open. He campaigned that he would end warrantless wiretapping and waterboarding. He hasn't. Okay, so he's tough on terror. Good for him. That's a position he has to take it seems. However, here's the really big one for me. He had an American citizen who was known to consort with terrorists killed. But he was a terrorist and he was overseas you say? All right. At what point did the Constitution cease to apply. When he left our national borders or when he consorted with known bad guys. After all, we have no evidence that he actually committed a crime against the United States. He was killed because of his potential threat. No trial or due process was afforded him. If we had evidence that he'd done wrong against this country, he could have been tried in abstentia, even if in one of the military kangaroo courts they set up for terrorists. But no. We just killed him. This gives me great pause as an American citizen who occasionally travels overseas. It seems the President now thinks that I can be killed simply because I kept the wrong company.
Domestic Policy
Domestic policy is an even stickier issue. This is largely due to the fact that I don't like either side on this. When it comes to individual rights, unalienable rights, personal rights, civil rights, human rights, constitutional rights, negative rights, whatever you want to call them, both parties generally get it wrong. Also, when it comes to economic policy, both parties generally get it wrong. It seems that they get it wrong in different ways with different motives and different negative outcomes, but two wrongs never have made a right. Nevertheless, what specifically about this President do I disagree with?
I'll start with the bailouts. Everyone says, "but the bailouts were done under Bush" and I say you are so right. However, Obama was a Senator at the time. How did he vote on the bailouts. You guessed it. He supported them. In fact, most politicians from both parties supported them. Therefore, I don't give him a pass on that one. Then we had the stimulus. Why would we have stimulus. After all, the only people who think that government spending stimulates jack is the military and Keynesian economists. Keynesian economics preaches that with the right amount of government intervention and the right amount of government control, the economy can be controlled and result in full employment and price stability. This is a widely accepted economic theory and the President has made it clear through his statements that he subscribes to it. The reason people confuse him for a full blown socialist is because he is a Keynesian. So are most socialist, but don't expect the average person to be able to tell the difference. Nonetheless, Keynesian economics has never worked anywhere in the world. Where it is applied in gusto, it doesn't result in price stabilization or anything resembling full employment. In fact, most of the socialist states of Europe have used this theory in justifying their public policy. It seems Keynesianism is Europe has now resulted in economic collapse, inflation, deficit spending, high unemployment over an extended period of years (predating the current economic crisis), and shortages (which is actually a common effect of price fixing), but it has certainly not resulted in prosperity, price stability, or near full employment and yet it is the free market and Wall Street that are the problem? The President has pursued his Keynesian agenda with gusto. Through the bailouts, the stimulus packages, etc. He's even "monetized" the debt. For the non economists out there, that just means he's authorized the federal reserve bank to print so much money that we can use it to pay our debts. If you or I did this, we'd be arrested. Fortunately, the government actually has the authority to print money, but we've never done it at this rate before.
His promise during the campaign to have an open and transparent administration was a welcome change from the Bush years of executive privilege. However, other than letting everyone know who comes and goes from the White House, nothing has really changed.
Now for one of my biggest issues with the President. His supposed czars. These are all advisers to the President who have not been confirmed by Congress. Obama isn't the first President to have one, but he is certainly the most prolific. In fact, there is some controversy over what constitutes a "czar" position. Nonetheless, depending on who is doing the counting, Obama pretty much ends up with nearly 40 political advisers that aren't confirmed by the Senate. That's a LOT! If you read this blog at all, then you know I am sort of a stickler for the Constitution and therefore I generally have a problem with any Presidential appointee that isn't confirmed...call me crazy. This was always a small problem under previous Presidents, Bush compounded it and Obama exploded it.
I could mention that I'm opposed to abortion on demand, that I believe welfare should be left up to the states, that I don't think federal funds should be used to pay for abortions, that I believe Social Security is a federally mandated ponzi scheme that should be phased out and replaced with something that makes sense, works and doesn't allow the federal government to "raid" the trust fund (which doesn't actually exist by the way). However, these are all positions that can be argued one way or another where common ground and compromise might help resolve issues.
Not that this President is particularly interested in compromise or resolutions. But how can you say that you ask? Easy. Let's start with how the Health Care bill he's so proud of was drafted. In secret meetings with only members of his own party present. Yeah, that creates bipartisanship and cooperation. Or, how about how that same piece of legislation was forced through the Congress. After campaigning that every piece of legislation would be available on his website to be read before a vote was taken, they passed this one without anyone reading, including the Congress. They did it using a parliamentary procedure that had never before been used in this way. They simply shoved it down the throats of the American people, whether we wanted it or not. This is to be expected when one party controls both houses of Congress and the Presidency (never a good idea it seems). However, this issue became one of the centerpiece issues of the 2010 elections and Democrats who had supported the maneuvering and the bill in general were swept out of office in almost every swing race. This took the House of Representatives away from the Democrats and created a mixed Congress (this is usually a good thing).
However, President Obama is bound and determined to get his policies in place regardless of what Congress does or says. Last time I checked, the legislature made the laws, the executive enforced the laws and the judicial interpreted the laws. However, I know I'm a bit naive since apparently the judicial and the executive can also make laws. Between activist judges on both sides of the aisle, Bush's signing statements (which obama campaigned against and now uses himself when convenient) and all the executive orders that have no basis in legislative history, I'm kind of tired of all the law making taking place in someplace other than the Congress. Now, this should concern you whether you agree with certain policies or not. After all, if the President can ignore legislation or simply create legislation out of thin air and do whatever he wants to do, then what is the role of Congress. Sure, there are many regulations and executive orders that are legitimately allowed because Congress passed some legislation that required them, but Obama has taken this concept well beyond that.
I'll give several examples. Net neutrality legislation was rejected by the Congress, yet the executive branch threatened the industry with turning the internet into a utility if they didn't accept regulations. These regulations had no basis in law because Congress had already rejected it, but the industry was more afraid of being turned into a utility so much of it capitulated. A couple of companies are still fighting it in court. Also, cap and trade legislation was soundly rejected by the Congress, yet the administration has proceeded to create regulations that would institute large swaths of the cap and trade agenda simply by designating carbon dioxide a pollutant which allows them to use the clean air act to regulate it. Last time I checked, Congress needed to change the law to designate something a pollutant. Congress clearly and resoundingly said no. Therefore, the President did it anyway. What?!
Finally, other egregious things that have happened include the recent passage of the NDAA. Obama stated he disagreed with the language of that bill given untold expansion of power to the executive and he even threatened a veto. Yet, when it came down to it, the President signed the bill, expanding his own power and that of all future Presidents while seriously comprising the Constitution since the bill basically allows the indefinite imprisonment of people (and yes, U.S. citizens) inside the United States. I suppose I can't blame him too much here. After all, what President wouldn't choose to expand their own power. I don't seem to recall one at the moment but feel free to point one out.
In essence, the President has pretty much acted to expand the power of the federal government, to expand the power of the executive and to ignore the will of Congress and therefore by extension, the will of the people. Do I think things would be different if we had a different President? Not so much. After all, I've said the two parties are two sides of the same bad coin. The only real difference we'd have, in my opinion, is that you'd have someone who was interested in destroying the Constitution more slowly than our current President is.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Monday, January 9, 2012
The most misquoted and misused verse in the Bible! IMO!
This subject came up in my pastor's sermon yesterday and reminded me once again how misused this particular verse is. Which verse? Ephesians 5: 22-23. "22 Wives, be subject (be submissive and adapt yourselves) to your own husbands as [a service] to the Lord.23 For the husband is head of the wife as Christ is the Head of the church, Himself the Savior of [His] body." (Amplified)
Over the years, I have had numerous conversations with people about this verse. Christian men who feel their wives don't respect them, men who think they can use it as a bludgeon to their wives, sexists who think it justifies their sexism and non Christians who believe it shows some inherent sexism within Christianity. All of these perspectives are incorrect, but that doesn't prevent them from being propagated.
Part of the problem with this verse is that it is commonly taken out of context. Within the context in which it is placed, Paul is writing to the church at Ephesus and telling them how they ought to behave as a church. He is giving advice. In this passage, he is informing them how a marriage should look. Here is the total context for the marriage passage.
21 Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One).
22 Wives, be subject (be submissive and adapt yourselves) to your own husbands as [a service] to the Lord.
23 For the husband is head of the wife as Christ is the Head of the church, Himself the Savior of [His] body.
24 As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.
25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her,
26 So that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the Word,
27 That He might present the church to Himself in glorious splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such things [that she might be holy and faultless].
28 Even so husbands should love their wives as [being in a sense] their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself.
29 For no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and carefully protects and cherishes it, as Christ does the church,
It starts off with submitting to one another. This is commonly left out because it is so inconvenient for those who would misuse this verse, both inside and outside the church. The following passages then go on to tell wives and husbands specifically how they are to carry out this mutual submission. Wives should submit to their husbands by giving up their authority as the church gives it up to Christ. Therefore, the husband is the head of the house. However, the submission continues with the verses for the husband. It says that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Well, this is hard because Christ loved us so much that he gave up his life. So, husbands, we are to love our wives so deeply that we are willing to give up our life for them. Not just to die for them, as Christ did for us, but to give up our desires, opinions, etc. just as Christ did for the church. After all, Christ said he came to Earth to serve.
A contextual look at this verse removes the lording it over his wife interpretation that some men have. It also removes the sexist undertones that non Christians read into it. The marriage relationship is one of mutual respect and service to one another. That is what is described here. As for who the head of the household is? Well, someone has to be the final authority on matters, but this does not mean that a man can just make all the decisions and expect to be obeyed. Quite the contrary, the relationship described here expects the man to take his wife's advice and consent very seriously. Therefore, the process described in this passage makes it more likely that a man will to listen his wife when making that "final" determination than it is that he will simply make a decision and expect to be obeyed. In fact, if he doesn't seek his wife's advice and consent in matters relating to the marriage, then he isn't showing her the respect she deserves and therefore, isn't loving her as Christ loves the church. In that case, he has abdicated his authority and most certainly is NOT the head of his household, at least not in God's eyes.
This is how I sincerely believe this passage is to be properly viewed.
Over the years, I have had numerous conversations with people about this verse. Christian men who feel their wives don't respect them, men who think they can use it as a bludgeon to their wives, sexists who think it justifies their sexism and non Christians who believe it shows some inherent sexism within Christianity. All of these perspectives are incorrect, but that doesn't prevent them from being propagated.
Part of the problem with this verse is that it is commonly taken out of context. Within the context in which it is placed, Paul is writing to the church at Ephesus and telling them how they ought to behave as a church. He is giving advice. In this passage, he is informing them how a marriage should look. Here is the total context for the marriage passage.
21 Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One).
22 Wives, be subject (be submissive and adapt yourselves) to your own husbands as [a service] to the Lord.
23 For the husband is head of the wife as Christ is the Head of the church, Himself the Savior of [His] body.
24 As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.
25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her,
26 So that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the Word,
27 That He might present the church to Himself in glorious splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such things [that she might be holy and faultless].
28 Even so husbands should love their wives as [being in a sense] their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself.
29 For no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and carefully protects and cherishes it, as Christ does the church,
It starts off with submitting to one another. This is commonly left out because it is so inconvenient for those who would misuse this verse, both inside and outside the church. The following passages then go on to tell wives and husbands specifically how they are to carry out this mutual submission. Wives should submit to their husbands by giving up their authority as the church gives it up to Christ. Therefore, the husband is the head of the house. However, the submission continues with the verses for the husband. It says that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Well, this is hard because Christ loved us so much that he gave up his life. So, husbands, we are to love our wives so deeply that we are willing to give up our life for them. Not just to die for them, as Christ did for us, but to give up our desires, opinions, etc. just as Christ did for the church. After all, Christ said he came to Earth to serve.
A contextual look at this verse removes the lording it over his wife interpretation that some men have. It also removes the sexist undertones that non Christians read into it. The marriage relationship is one of mutual respect and service to one another. That is what is described here. As for who the head of the household is? Well, someone has to be the final authority on matters, but this does not mean that a man can just make all the decisions and expect to be obeyed. Quite the contrary, the relationship described here expects the man to take his wife's advice and consent very seriously. Therefore, the process described in this passage makes it more likely that a man will to listen his wife when making that "final" determination than it is that he will simply make a decision and expect to be obeyed. In fact, if he doesn't seek his wife's advice and consent in matters relating to the marriage, then he isn't showing her the respect she deserves and therefore, isn't loving her as Christ loves the church. In that case, he has abdicated his authority and most certainly is NOT the head of his household, at least not in God's eyes.
This is how I sincerely believe this passage is to be properly viewed.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Is the U.S. a tyranny by Thomas Jefferson's definition?
I've been wondering about this question for some time now. We all claim to cherish our liberty, but we seem very content to sacrifice it in exchange for security, safety, etc. This is true whether it be personal security and safety or monetary security and safety. Therefore, I thought I'd do an experiment and look at the words of Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence and compare them to modern day America. In quotes will be Jefferson's statement in the declaration. The words underneath will be my response. Here goes.
The king refused to agree to laws that the colonists felt were necessary. This is the essence of self rule. It has been argued that the colonists would never have considered a rebellion if the king would have allowed them self government or Parliamentary representation. All of these he denied them. Therefore, upon gaining their freedom, they set up a system of government with checks and balances built into it to prevent the concentration of power in any one part of the government as well as to ensure a federal system rather than a national one to prevent the concentration of power in the central government. I'd say whether or not the central government is passing or preventing laws that are necessary is a matter of opinion, so on that there is room for argument, but can anyone argue that power is not slowly being concentrated in Washington at the expense of the states as well as in the executive at the expense of the legislative?
So, the king refused self rule of the very governors he appointed and required they seek his permission. Then he ignored them. Our central government is certainly guilty of passing laws regardless of the wishes of the several states and then requiring them to follow those laws. Jefferson and Madison wrote the Virginia Kentucky resolutions which stated that the states had the right and responsibility to nullify overreaches in power of the central government. This "right" has certainly not existed or been allowed in this country for 150 years. In essence, the central government denies the powers of the individual states on a regular basis. These could be seen as similar...although I'll admit it required a lot of thought on my part.
Refused to pass laws unless the people relinquish their right of representation? Interesting statement. Jefferson says this is the act of a tyrant. Well, several Presidents, particularly the last two, have used unconstitutional methods (signing statements, executive privilege, redefinition of existing statutes to create regulations and more) to enact their policies and agendas that have been directly contrary to the will of Congress and by definition therefore, the will of the people. In several instances acting in a fashion contrary to direct votes of Congress and contrary to a majority of citizens. So, we are now on our second tyrant in a row, at least, if we are to base this on this one statement alone. However, Jefferson wouldn't allow that. He specifically referred to a long line of usurpations, so we will continue.
This refers to making the legislative bodies meet in odd places and times and to have to travel to much during the colonial period. This...our government does NOT do. Unless you want to talk about Presidents meeting with the leaders of the legislative bodies at odd hours of the night, which does happen. I don't really think this one applies though.
So far, we have not had a dissolution of Congress. However, there have been several attempts at getting around Congress. FDR used packing the court to get around them...Lincoln suspended the writ of habeus corpus, Adams passed the Alien and Sedition acts, Bush exercised "executive privilege", Clinton simply lied outright and Obama has decided to do things anyway because we can't afford to wait for Congress. This type of disregard for the legislature surely falls under the idea of the second part of this statement since ignoring Congress or maneuvering around Congress or doing things contrary to the will of Congress is certainly an invasion on the rights of the people.
Well, if we haven't dissolved the Congress yet, then no President has prevented it from being reconstituted. Therefore, this one doesn't apply until such a time as the Congress is dissolved for any reason.
One of the reason the framers of the Constitution placed a uniform immigration law as a power of the central government was to prevent any state from exercising this kind of power over other states or countries. Freedom of movement was valued by the colonists as was the ability to increase in number through immigration. They were complaining that the king would not allow immigration but also that he refused to pass laws that would encourage migration, particularly by discouraging the purchasing of land or making the process too,onerous. Security measures taken, particularly post 9/11, have certainly limited our freedom of movement, not to mention our ability to travel. Therefore, our freedom of movement has been significantly decreased ostensibly in the name of security. TSA is a particularly egregious example of this domestically. However, killing American citizens abroad just because we think they are dangerous is certainly the act of a tyrant. After all, being killed by a military bomb dropped by a drone in a foreign country certainly denies them their constitutional right to a trial by jury.
He would not allow the colonies to make their own laws, as stated earlier, but here Jefferson is saying that he also would not allow them to set up their own courts. The colonists didn't believe that imperial courts or courts in England had their best interests at heart but instead were beholden to the king and Britain. Therefore, can we look at our system and see a similarity? Well, this brings us back to the idea of state nullification. If the Supreme Court is the sole arbiter or constitutionality, then the whim of 9 people is the only thing that stands between us and despotism. That certainly qualifies as power concentrated in a few. In addition, does the Supreme Court have the best interests of the individuals, states or local jurisdictions at heart or do they have the interests of the central government at heart. Research has shown that the Supreme Court invariably sides with the central government over the states or local jurisdictions. Jefferson would certainly argue that this isn't how it is supposed to work. If the central government has no check on the expansion of its power, then it certainly is in danger of concentrating that power to the point of tyranny.
The king basically said judges couldn't serve or get paid if they decided against him. This is why we set up an independent judiciary that required appointment by the President and confirmation by the legislature. This was meant to ensure that the judges could not be swayed in the way described here. However, in recent years, Presidents of both parties haven't looked at their judicial appointments in terms of who is qualified and capable of being a judge and who will defend the constitution, but instead make their appointments based on which judges they think will support their policies. This has resulted in political maneuvering by the Congress in all sorts of ways to prevent the appointment of what one side or the other considers to be a "radical" appointment. In fact, Ted Kennedy once held up a nomination in committee long enough to ensure that a particular court had already heard and decided a case because he knew that particular nominee would vote contrary to his preferred outcome. This type of maneuvering is all about power and results in nothing more than the concentration of power. It is certainly heading down the tyranical road.
So, I would argue that the various government agencies and all their bureaucracies fall into this category, but depending on the agency, there would be disagreement and room for discussion. Therefore, I'll leave them out of this and just refer to a relatively new phenomenon. "Czar" positions are pretty recent. In fact, based on my recollection, the first czar was appointed under Reagan. This "executive branch" position to "advise" the President has grown exponentially, with each successive President having more and more of these unconfirmed advisers. This has culminated in the obscene number of czar in the Obama administration. In fact, Obama even ignored the will of Congress regarding these positions. Congress included in one of their funding bills a section that prohibited the funding of salaries for these positions because they felt this had really gotten out of control. This was being driven by a lot of opposition to these positions from the general populace. However, when Obama signed the bill into law, he used the Bush tactic of a signing statement, and signed the bill into law while stating that he didn't consider that section to apply to the President who would exercise his own prerogative regarding it. This is astounding. There has never been a constitutional amendment giving a President line item veto power. Therefore, he can't just sign a bill and state that a section doesn't apply. Bush was wrong in this and so is Obama. The proliferation of czar positions and the complete disregard for the will of the people regarding these positions means we do have a tyranny based on this statement.
The United States did not keep a standing army of any size until after World War II. However, this standing army has always been prohibited from acting within the borders of the U.S. This was specifically designed because of how King George behaved towards the colonists. In fact, not only does the constitution prohibit the use of private property, but Congress even passed the posse comitatus act that prohibited the use of the military within U.S. borders. As of the latest military spending bill, the posse comitatus act has basically been done away with. The Congress has now stated the President can use the military within our borders for certain purposes. This flies directly in the face of the founders intentions as well as over 200 years of long standing tradition. The fact that Congress would even consider giving this power to the President suggests we've come truly far afield of the idea of not using the military on U.S. soil. Of course, our current standing army is with the consent of our legislature, as is this "new" Presidential power. But we are moving closer and closer to a very dangerous outcome if we continue on the path we are on.
He wanted to make the military a superior law enforcer in the colonies. Isn't that specifically what the Congress is implying through their latest law that allows the President to use the military within our borders?
When we, as a nation, chose to remove the vote of the states and make the Senate electable by the people, we diminished the federal system set up designed to allow the states to check the power of the federal government by giving ascent to treaties through the Senate. The states no longer have that ability. Sure, the Senate still must approve treaties, but they aren't doing it with the interests of the states or the people in mind, but rather the interests of the central government. Therefore, we have opened up our nation and its sovereignty to abuses from foreign powers. The constitution can't protect us from these abuses because it specifically supports Senate approved treaties. Therefore, a lot of treaties have stipulations in them that are anathema to our own constitution, but we are forced to follow them anyway. This is the very essence of what Jefferson was talking about here. We are voluntarily giving up our sovereignty and usually we the people don't even realize it has happened until much later...when it is seemingly too late.
This hasn't happened yet, but I refer you to the above legislation and the power it gives to the President.
The king protected his officials and the British military from punishment of illegal acts. Hmm...let's see...Bush started to torture our enemies and Obama has continued the practice. Bush started unwarranted wiretapping of U.S. citizens and Obama has continued the practice. These acts are protected by law...so we are certainly protecting those who seek to violate our rights. Tyranny.
Hmm...we've insituted onerous trade tariffs and barriers in the past, but this is a power given the central government. However, the President can't act unilaterally in this regard. We have a recent example of how the President ignored the will of Congress regarding trade with TARP. This bill was passed to prop up banks that were in trouble. Whether the banks wanted money or not. However, once the bill was passed, the President simply ignored the will of Congress and used the money for anything he wanted, including bailing out car companies. This power was not given to the President in the legislation, yet he did it anyway. Both Bush and Obama behaved in this fashion with TARP and again with the "stimulus package". Tyranny.
Well, our system of government says that any tax passed by Congress is by definition with our consent. However, how about taxes (such as the new health care bill "fee") that are passed with political maneuvering never before used on legialation other than spending bills? Well, supposedly it is still passed by Congress, so...I suppose it doesn't count.
Well, we are killing U.S. citizens abroad for consorting with terrorists, so I'd say we are now guilty of this one. If you hang out with the wrong folk and you are overseas, then we can kill you? Sorry, NO!
Any U.S. citizens held at Guantanamo or in other places around the world who were fighting with Al Qaeda? Yep, I remember that happening too. Huh!
Isn't this type of abuse what we've now moved into with the whole doctrine of preemption fostered by the Bush administration? I mean, we are overthrowing governments now, establishing new governments and introducing our imposed system on them. While this may not be an abuse against our own citizens, it is exactly what Jefferson is talking about here. Is it not?
This is the essence of federalism. Our founders believed that the central government should not have all the power and so they reserved most of the power for the states and the people. This is clearly stated in the 10th amendment of the constitution. Many people argue in favor of smaller government and states rights while others argue against both. However, strong and sovereign states was entirely the point. Can anyone argue that the states have any real power against abuses by the central government? If so, I'd love to hear it. So, I'll chalk this one up to tyranny.
So far, I don't know of an instance since the Civil War where a state legislature has been suspended. However, during reconstruction, the central government imposed all sorts of restrictions on the states. This was the beginning of the end for real state power. This process was continued using the power of the Judiciary in the 20th century, sometimes for good, but a good outcome doesn't justify an act if it diminishes the power of the states, ignores the constitution and increases the power of the federal government.
Well, this hasn't happened yet, so I guess we are safe, eh? Oh wait, our current President seems to think that his opposition isn't a group of equal partners, but instead a bunch of miscreants to be swept aside. He said as much when he said that those who created the mess should just get out of the way and let him clean it up.
If our central government continues the reckless spending they've been doing, then the plundering of our seas, the ravaging of our coasts and the burning of our houses will be the least of our worries. In fact, there are some good arguments that government rules, acts and regulations played a direct role in creating the dot com bubble of the nineties which led to the housing bubble of the first decade which led to the economic crash. Now we think we can spend our way out of trouble? The fact that this tactic has never worked in all of history notwithstanding. Can anyone else remember the Weimar Republic? Oh yeah, no, not really, because we don't really teach good history anymore, but they tried to print money and spend their way out of it too and that didn't lead to anything good.
Well, so far this hasn't happened, so chalk one up to our central government for not doing this.
The practice of impressment was a heinous one by the British crown. Fortunately, we aren't doing this. As far as I know. However, perhaps we are over in Iraq or Afghanistan for all I know.
Well, the two parties are very adept at pointing fingers at each other. However, this current President pretty much engages in class warfare tactics whenever he gets the chance. It is probably a carry over from his days as a community organizer, which in Chicago equates to what...really? My Chicago friends say a community organizer in Chicago is the same as a union boss or activist in other cities. That would explain his constant campaigning. At any rate, our President isn't the first one to pit the sides against each other and the two parties seem to like it that way. Recently, we've seen Tea Party activists and Occupy Wall Street activists and what do the politicians do about this? They villify each movement as much as possible with the intent of either turning the public against them or using them to their own personal and political advantage. If this doesn't come close to inciting domestic insurrections, I'm not sure what more we need to do short of actually shooting guns.
So, there you have it. The entire list of abuses and usurpations carried out against the colonies by King George and listed by Jefferson in the Declaration for posterity. The fact that we don't really teach good civics anymore may be the reason why nobody seems to notice these obvious parallels, or maybe people just don't care anymore because they've grown accustomed to the idea that the government is supposed to take care of them. Either way, we now have a centralized, powerful government that is clearly in danger of becoming the very thing our founders fought against. Not convinced? Comment and tell me why.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
The king refused to agree to laws that the colonists felt were necessary. This is the essence of self rule. It has been argued that the colonists would never have considered a rebellion if the king would have allowed them self government or Parliamentary representation. All of these he denied them. Therefore, upon gaining their freedom, they set up a system of government with checks and balances built into it to prevent the concentration of power in any one part of the government as well as to ensure a federal system rather than a national one to prevent the concentration of power in the central government. I'd say whether or not the central government is passing or preventing laws that are necessary is a matter of opinion, so on that there is room for argument, but can anyone argue that power is not slowly being concentrated in Washington at the expense of the states as well as in the executive at the expense of the legislative?
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
So, the king refused self rule of the very governors he appointed and required they seek his permission. Then he ignored them. Our central government is certainly guilty of passing laws regardless of the wishes of the several states and then requiring them to follow those laws. Jefferson and Madison wrote the Virginia Kentucky resolutions which stated that the states had the right and responsibility to nullify overreaches in power of the central government. This "right" has certainly not existed or been allowed in this country for 150 years. In essence, the central government denies the powers of the individual states on a regular basis. These could be seen as similar...although I'll admit it required a lot of thought on my part.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
Refused to pass laws unless the people relinquish their right of representation? Interesting statement. Jefferson says this is the act of a tyrant. Well, several Presidents, particularly the last two, have used unconstitutional methods (signing statements, executive privilege, redefinition of existing statutes to create regulations and more) to enact their policies and agendas that have been directly contrary to the will of Congress and by definition therefore, the will of the people. In several instances acting in a fashion contrary to direct votes of Congress and contrary to a majority of citizens. So, we are now on our second tyrant in a row, at least, if we are to base this on this one statement alone. However, Jefferson wouldn't allow that. He specifically referred to a long line of usurpations, so we will continue.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
This refers to making the legislative bodies meet in odd places and times and to have to travel to much during the colonial period. This...our government does NOT do. Unless you want to talk about Presidents meeting with the leaders of the legislative bodies at odd hours of the night, which does happen. I don't really think this one applies though.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
So far, we have not had a dissolution of Congress. However, there have been several attempts at getting around Congress. FDR used packing the court to get around them...Lincoln suspended the writ of habeus corpus, Adams passed the Alien and Sedition acts, Bush exercised "executive privilege", Clinton simply lied outright and Obama has decided to do things anyway because we can't afford to wait for Congress. This type of disregard for the legislature surely falls under the idea of the second part of this statement since ignoring Congress or maneuvering around Congress or doing things contrary to the will of Congress is certainly an invasion on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
Well, if we haven't dissolved the Congress yet, then no President has prevented it from being reconstituted. Therefore, this one doesn't apply until such a time as the Congress is dissolved for any reason.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
One of the reason the framers of the Constitution placed a uniform immigration law as a power of the central government was to prevent any state from exercising this kind of power over other states or countries. Freedom of movement was valued by the colonists as was the ability to increase in number through immigration. They were complaining that the king would not allow immigration but also that he refused to pass laws that would encourage migration, particularly by discouraging the purchasing of land or making the process too,onerous. Security measures taken, particularly post 9/11, have certainly limited our freedom of movement, not to mention our ability to travel. Therefore, our freedom of movement has been significantly decreased ostensibly in the name of security. TSA is a particularly egregious example of this domestically. However, killing American citizens abroad just because we think they are dangerous is certainly the act of a tyrant. After all, being killed by a military bomb dropped by a drone in a foreign country certainly denies them their constitutional right to a trial by jury.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He would not allow the colonies to make their own laws, as stated earlier, but here Jefferson is saying that he also would not allow them to set up their own courts. The colonists didn't believe that imperial courts or courts in England had their best interests at heart but instead were beholden to the king and Britain. Therefore, can we look at our system and see a similarity? Well, this brings us back to the idea of state nullification. If the Supreme Court is the sole arbiter or constitutionality, then the whim of 9 people is the only thing that stands between us and despotism. That certainly qualifies as power concentrated in a few. In addition, does the Supreme Court have the best interests of the individuals, states or local jurisdictions at heart or do they have the interests of the central government at heart. Research has shown that the Supreme Court invariably sides with the central government over the states or local jurisdictions. Jefferson would certainly argue that this isn't how it is supposed to work. If the central government has no check on the expansion of its power, then it certainly is in danger of concentrating that power to the point of tyranny.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
The king basically said judges couldn't serve or get paid if they decided against him. This is why we set up an independent judiciary that required appointment by the President and confirmation by the legislature. This was meant to ensure that the judges could not be swayed in the way described here. However, in recent years, Presidents of both parties haven't looked at their judicial appointments in terms of who is qualified and capable of being a judge and who will defend the constitution, but instead make their appointments based on which judges they think will support their policies. This has resulted in political maneuvering by the Congress in all sorts of ways to prevent the appointment of what one side or the other considers to be a "radical" appointment. In fact, Ted Kennedy once held up a nomination in committee long enough to ensure that a particular court had already heard and decided a case because he knew that particular nominee would vote contrary to his preferred outcome. This type of maneuvering is all about power and results in nothing more than the concentration of power. It is certainly heading down the tyranical road.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
So, I would argue that the various government agencies and all their bureaucracies fall into this category, but depending on the agency, there would be disagreement and room for discussion. Therefore, I'll leave them out of this and just refer to a relatively new phenomenon. "Czar" positions are pretty recent. In fact, based on my recollection, the first czar was appointed under Reagan. This "executive branch" position to "advise" the President has grown exponentially, with each successive President having more and more of these unconfirmed advisers. This has culminated in the obscene number of czar in the Obama administration. In fact, Obama even ignored the will of Congress regarding these positions. Congress included in one of their funding bills a section that prohibited the funding of salaries for these positions because they felt this had really gotten out of control. This was being driven by a lot of opposition to these positions from the general populace. However, when Obama signed the bill into law, he used the Bush tactic of a signing statement, and signed the bill into law while stating that he didn't consider that section to apply to the President who would exercise his own prerogative regarding it. This is astounding. There has never been a constitutional amendment giving a President line item veto power. Therefore, he can't just sign a bill and state that a section doesn't apply. Bush was wrong in this and so is Obama. The proliferation of czar positions and the complete disregard for the will of the people regarding these positions means we do have a tyranny based on this statement.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
The United States did not keep a standing army of any size until after World War II. However, this standing army has always been prohibited from acting within the borders of the U.S. This was specifically designed because of how King George behaved towards the colonists. In fact, not only does the constitution prohibit the use of private property, but Congress even passed the posse comitatus act that prohibited the use of the military within U.S. borders. As of the latest military spending bill, the posse comitatus act has basically been done away with. The Congress has now stated the President can use the military within our borders for certain purposes. This flies directly in the face of the founders intentions as well as over 200 years of long standing tradition. The fact that Congress would even consider giving this power to the President suggests we've come truly far afield of the idea of not using the military on U.S. soil. Of course, our current standing army is with the consent of our legislature, as is this "new" Presidential power. But we are moving closer and closer to a very dangerous outcome if we continue on the path we are on.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He wanted to make the military a superior law enforcer in the colonies. Isn't that specifically what the Congress is implying through their latest law that allows the President to use the military within our borders?
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
When we, as a nation, chose to remove the vote of the states and make the Senate electable by the people, we diminished the federal system set up designed to allow the states to check the power of the federal government by giving ascent to treaties through the Senate. The states no longer have that ability. Sure, the Senate still must approve treaties, but they aren't doing it with the interests of the states or the people in mind, but rather the interests of the central government. Therefore, we have opened up our nation and its sovereignty to abuses from foreign powers. The constitution can't protect us from these abuses because it specifically supports Senate approved treaties. Therefore, a lot of treaties have stipulations in them that are anathema to our own constitution, but we are forced to follow them anyway. This is the very essence of what Jefferson was talking about here. We are voluntarily giving up our sovereignty and usually we the people don't even realize it has happened until much later...when it is seemingly too late.
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
This hasn't happened yet, but I refer you to the above legislation and the power it gives to the President.
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
The king protected his officials and the British military from punishment of illegal acts. Hmm...let's see...Bush started to torture our enemies and Obama has continued the practice. Bush started unwarranted wiretapping of U.S. citizens and Obama has continued the practice. These acts are protected by law...so we are certainly protecting those who seek to violate our rights. Tyranny.
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
Hmm...we've insituted onerous trade tariffs and barriers in the past, but this is a power given the central government. However, the President can't act unilaterally in this regard. We have a recent example of how the President ignored the will of Congress regarding trade with TARP. This bill was passed to prop up banks that were in trouble. Whether the banks wanted money or not. However, once the bill was passed, the President simply ignored the will of Congress and used the money for anything he wanted, including bailing out car companies. This power was not given to the President in the legislation, yet he did it anyway. Both Bush and Obama behaved in this fashion with TARP and again with the "stimulus package". Tyranny.
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
Well, our system of government says that any tax passed by Congress is by definition with our consent. However, how about taxes (such as the new health care bill "fee") that are passed with political maneuvering never before used on legialation other than spending bills? Well, supposedly it is still passed by Congress, so...I suppose it doesn't count.
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
Well, we are killing U.S. citizens abroad for consorting with terrorists, so I'd say we are now guilty of this one. If you hang out with the wrong folk and you are overseas, then we can kill you? Sorry, NO!
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
Any U.S. citizens held at Guantanamo or in other places around the world who were fighting with Al Qaeda? Yep, I remember that happening too. Huh!
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
Isn't this type of abuse what we've now moved into with the whole doctrine of preemption fostered by the Bush administration? I mean, we are overthrowing governments now, establishing new governments and introducing our imposed system on them. While this may not be an abuse against our own citizens, it is exactly what Jefferson is talking about here. Is it not?
For taking away our Charters, our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
This is the essence of federalism. Our founders believed that the central government should not have all the power and so they reserved most of the power for the states and the people. This is clearly stated in the 10th amendment of the constitution. Many people argue in favor of smaller government and states rights while others argue against both. However, strong and sovereign states was entirely the point. Can anyone argue that the states have any real power against abuses by the central government? If so, I'd love to hear it. So, I'll chalk this one up to tyranny.
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
So far, I don't know of an instance since the Civil War where a state legislature has been suspended. However, during reconstruction, the central government imposed all sorts of restrictions on the states. This was the beginning of the end for real state power. This process was continued using the power of the Judiciary in the 20th century, sometimes for good, but a good outcome doesn't justify an act if it diminishes the power of the states, ignores the constitution and increases the power of the federal government.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
Well, this hasn't happened yet, so I guess we are safe, eh? Oh wait, our current President seems to think that his opposition isn't a group of equal partners, but instead a bunch of miscreants to be swept aside. He said as much when he said that those who created the mess should just get out of the way and let him clean it up.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
If our central government continues the reckless spending they've been doing, then the plundering of our seas, the ravaging of our coasts and the burning of our houses will be the least of our worries. In fact, there are some good arguments that government rules, acts and regulations played a direct role in creating the dot com bubble of the nineties which led to the housing bubble of the first decade which led to the economic crash. Now we think we can spend our way out of trouble? The fact that this tactic has never worked in all of history notwithstanding. Can anyone else remember the Weimar Republic? Oh yeah, no, not really, because we don't really teach good history anymore, but they tried to print money and spend their way out of it too and that didn't lead to anything good.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
Well, so far this hasn't happened, so chalk one up to our central government for not doing this.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
The practice of impressment was a heinous one by the British crown. Fortunately, we aren't doing this. As far as I know. However, perhaps we are over in Iraq or Afghanistan for all I know.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
Well, the two parties are very adept at pointing fingers at each other. However, this current President pretty much engages in class warfare tactics whenever he gets the chance. It is probably a carry over from his days as a community organizer, which in Chicago equates to what...really? My Chicago friends say a community organizer in Chicago is the same as a union boss or activist in other cities. That would explain his constant campaigning. At any rate, our President isn't the first one to pit the sides against each other and the two parties seem to like it that way. Recently, we've seen Tea Party activists and Occupy Wall Street activists and what do the politicians do about this? They villify each movement as much as possible with the intent of either turning the public against them or using them to their own personal and political advantage. If this doesn't come close to inciting domestic insurrections, I'm not sure what more we need to do short of actually shooting guns.
So, there you have it. The entire list of abuses and usurpations carried out against the colonies by King George and listed by Jefferson in the Declaration for posterity. The fact that we don't really teach good civics anymore may be the reason why nobody seems to notice these obvious parallels, or maybe people just don't care anymore because they've grown accustomed to the idea that the government is supposed to take care of them. Either way, we now have a centralized, powerful government that is clearly in danger of becoming the very thing our founders fought against. Not convinced? Comment and tell me why.
The Declaration of Independence
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
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.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
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.
The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:
Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton
Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton
Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton
Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean
Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark
Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
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.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
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.
The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:
Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton
Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton
Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton
Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean
Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark
Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
An interesting question about forgiveness
So, a friend recently sent me this:
Below is my response to him. Feel free to add any additional wisdom in the comments.
What should you do if a SINNER wants to join your church? WWJD? What Would Jesus Do? Well, there seem to be three types of examples.
1) He made a point of hanging out with the scum of the earth. He went out of his way to include hookers and tax collectors and lepers and Roman oppressors that would be obviously unwelcome around the religious people. We wouldn't want to be seen as endorsing their actions. That attitude is wrong, because God always loves everyone.
2) Sometimes he seemed to make forgiveness conditional. "Go forth and sin no more." This seems wonderful to me. That way I still get to act superior, but also get to act nonjudgmental.
3) Sometimes he drove the sinners from the temple with a whip. That is awesome.
So, if an obviously bad sinner comes to your church, should you welcome him, or say he's only acceptable later if he's changed his ways, or literally whip his ass?
I don't know.
Below is my response to him. Feel free to add any additional wisdom in the comments.
This is an interesting question...after all, we don't want to seem like we endorse a sin, as you said. However, the three examples you gave give further clues, I think.
Jesus hung out with the scum of the Earth because they are the ones who need saving. He also said that ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and so we are all guilty of something. In addition, he condemned the religious leaders for their strict adherence to the letter of the law without exercising good judgment, mercy or forgiveness. He also stated that if our brother sins against us we should forgive him, not 7 times, but 70 times 7 times. That's generally believed to mean that he should be forgiven indefinitely by most interpreters.
When he states to go and sin no more, he is expressing the sentiment that we should all have. When we sin, we should feel that we should never do it again. Jesus would tell us never to do it again as well. However, we often do do it again and yet He still forgives us. We are actually quite incapable of ending our sinful ways without Him.
For your third example, it is clear that Jesus is talking about the body of Christ. Once he's cleansed the temple he says "my house is to be a house of prayer, but you are making it a den of robbers". To me, this means that the "church" can sin as well as individuals. After all, there were probably a couple of merchants who got driven out that were behaving as they should, but the overwhelming majority of them were cheating people and they had the blessing of the priests in doing so. This is sort of in line with say, the Bakers and how they cheated people during their "ministry". It doesn't just hurt them, but it hurts everyone who believes because it sets the wrong example and sends the wrong message. However, even the Bakers are forgiven by Him. Rather interesting therefore what we should do.
My response would be this (and I think my church would respond similarly)...
If you are committing a sin or living in sin in a way that harms only yourself, then why would we not welcome you. After all, you need God if you are to end the cycle of sinfulness you are living in. It isn't our place to judge the sinner in that case, but rather to love them. However, where many people make a mistake here is that they think the church should compromise what it believes in order to welcome the sinner. This is not the case. Sin is sin, no matter what. Therefore, while the church should be loving and welcoming, it should not compromise on the truth. For instance, our church has a lesbian couple in it who has a child. We welcome them, they are ministered to, the child is taught in Sunday school, etc. They even participate in life group. However, the church also has made its position on homosexuality clear and has never compromised that. Yet the two continue to attend. Would we let them be life group leaders? Probably not, because this puts the church in a position of endorsing their sin. This isn't to say that other life group leaders aren't sinful or committing sin, they are. However, there is a difference in being sinful and stating that you want to live according to God's plan but fail vs. being sinful and claiming you think it is all right even if it is clearly contrary to biblical truth.
Finally, we come to our own behavior. As Christians, we are called to a higher standard than society in general. This is because we are to serve God, but also because our actions reflect on the church. Therefore, while we might confess our sins to our church openly and honestly, we are less likely to do so in a setting where non Christians are present. According to the weak brother/strong brother argument made by Paul, we should strive to deny ourselves things that are clearly not sinful for us because it might cause our brother in Christ to stumble. Therefore, while it is not sinful for me to drink because I have no problem in that area, I should not drink in front of a Christian brother (or anyone) who I know has a problem with drinking because my drinking might cause them to "fall off the wagon" and therefore I am equally guilty of the sin that they've committed. Therefore, even if someone believes homosexuality is not a sin for them, they should abstain from that activity because it is a very public activity and could easily cause someone else to stumble which makes them and the other person equally guilty.
So, WWJD? He'd welcome them, and tell them their actions are sinful without condemnation but in love (we as humans aren't very good at this part) and then he'd tell them to cease their sinning. As God, He had the right and the ability to judge others, which we don't. He did this on several occasions in fact. When he chose not to judge the woman caught in adultery, it wasn't because she wasn't guilty, but because she was. He forgave her and then told her to go and stop doing it. Therefore, the church should welcome sinners of all stripes, but never compromise the truth, while loving all people regardless of their circumstances. We can't change a person's heart. Only God can do that and sometimes, we humans have a hard time remembering that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)