Thoughts on liberty

[As the Independence Day weekend winds down, I wanted to post some ideas I have been pondering over the last few months, and finally had the chance to organize a bit. Most of them are developed and expressed much more completely (and coherently) by Hugh Nibley in his essay “The Ancient Law of Liberty”.]

Independence Day is a glorious opportunity to celebrate what is best about America – the privilege of determining the course of our own lives, of worshiping God (or not) according to the dictates of our consciences, to dream and strive to fulfill our dreams – a privilege made possible because of the liberties safeguarded by the government our Founding Fathers created.

This government was established through careful deliberation and under the inspiration of heaven in order to protect our God-given freedoms. Freedom allows for individuals to grow personally through choosing between responsibility and indulgence, truth and error, good and evil. The freedom to choose is fundamental to the path and progress of our lives. Our Founding Fathers did not believe that government is the source of basic human rights – like personal liberty – but that it has the responsibility to protect the freedoms which allow us to exercise those


History is filled with societies whose governments ruled by tyranny of one kind or another. Kings and emporers, often claiming to act as the representatives of God on earth, made it their business to “see to it that everybody is virtuous." On the other hand, as Alexander Hamilton noted in the Federalist, the opposite extreme allows as much opportunity for mischief:

of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.

The bottom line is that human designed governments have always drifted towards tyranny, even if doing so was well-meaning at the outset. On July 3rd, 1776 it would be hard to find a society on earth whose members enjoyed the freedom to determine the nature and direction of their own lives. As Thomas Paine wrote:

Freedom hath been hunted round the globe. Asia and Africa have long expelled her. Europe regards her like a stranger, and England hath given her warning to depart. O! receive the fugitive and prepare in time an asylum for mankind.

However, on the Fourth of July, 1776, the Declaration of Independence declared God’s law of liberty was in place again on the earth.

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.

And the people of America received this law with open arms. After the public reading of the Declaration, Samuel Adams (or John depending on the source quoted) noted, "The people, I am told, recognize the resolution as though it were a decree promulgated from heaven."

Freedom, however, is hard to manage. Freedom allows the opportunity to fail, as well as succeed. That possibility, and perhaps the fear of taking responsibility for directing ones own life, leads some to look to an external power to choose for them, to guarantee their safety and provide for their welfare. Many in our own country, the cradle of liberty, now look to the federal government to provide for their welfare. They look to government to replace religion and God as the institution best suited to fix personal and social ills. And many in our government (of both major parties) are quite eager to attempt to fill that role.

Unfortunately, history has shown this to be a sketchy proposition at best. A far-off, dispassionate, bureaucratic government can never make decisions for us as well as we can for ourselves. And granting government the right to direct our lives not only makes for poor choices in individual circumstances but erodes our capacity to make informed, responsible choices in the future. As the habit of ceding self-determination to the government progresses, our capacity to make those choices weakens. Benjamin Franklin described this condition succinctly:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

It is for reasons such as these that religion, which teaches men to govern themselves according to the dictates of their conscience and with an eye towards being accountable to God for their choices, is such an indispensable part of a free society. As George Washington said in his farewell address:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness – these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. … And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is easy to take these things for granted. It is easy to think about our liberties around the 4th of July as we celebrate with fireworks, parades or family gatherings, then return to ‘regular life’, not considering the liberties which make those lives possible until the next year. It seems that the growing shadow of tyranny in our own government has motivated more of us to re-read our Founding documents, try harder to understand the thoughts and intents of those who wrote them, and to do our part to maintain those liberties – just as the Founders did their part to create the government that has protected us for 234 years. I know it has done so for me.

Kagan's Big Brother

Elena Kagan, President Obama’s nomination for the vacant Supreme Court vacancy, has not yet been the object of as much attention or controversy as have other recent SCOTUS nominations – including Sonia Sotomayor.  Her thin paper trail has been an effective barrier to getting traction in a study of her judicial views.  However, as those views come to light it is becoming increasingly clear that she is an aggressively liberal jurist whose views are grossly out of step with the principles established in our founding documents.

A recent Washington Times editorial points out that what trail does exist leads to one common idea: Kagan believes that government is the source of our rights and privileges as citizens. Judges are the voice of that government and determine what those rights are and when we should be granted them.

In discussing a 1992 case involving “hate speech” Kagan pondered whether the government could or should permit “some but not all fighting words", or whether it was “constitutionally constrained from selectively doling out this favor."  

If this terminology is to be taken seriously, Kagan seems to believe that government grants permission to speak to those it approves, "doling out" those rights as a "favor."  The idea that government does or should have the right to determine whether or not an individual can speak his mind is repugnant.  This opinion clearly suggests that she believes that government is pre-eminent in America – that citizens serve the state, derive their rights and privileges from the state and ultimately owe their very prosperity and happiness to the state.

Whatever else in her experience may (or may not) qualify her for a seat on the Supreme Court, this position clearly does not.  On this most basic issue, the relationship between the state and citizens, she gets it wrong -- absolutely wrong.  And this is not a merely academic dispute over subtleties in the meaning of words.  She honestly believes that government grants rights to its citizens.  That is not just slightly off the mark in terms of what our founding fathers believed and wrote in our founding documents.  It is 180 degrees wrong.  Completely wrong.  Just plain wrong.  

One cannot read the Declaration of Independence (something Kagan has apparently not done recently) without noting that Jefferson and company were very clear about one thing – legitimate government derives its just powers from "the consent of the governed".  If the intent of the founders was to create a government that answers to the people, and whose powers were derivative, not pre-eminent, can it even be seriously suggested that the government grants the right to self-expression as a “favor”? 

The Founders made it quite plain that legitimate government is not the grantor of rights, but the custodian of powers granted by the citizens who enjoy those rights as part of their existence -- which precedes government.  In their view, the most fundamental rights to free speech, religious belief, self-protection, pursuit of happiness were God-given, part and parcel of our existence as self-determining, free-thinking men and women.  Their study of history made them much more astute judges of the trajectory of government than Ms Kagan’s Ivy League education has made her.  They trusted it less, and for good reason.


In the words of the Times editorial Ms. Kagan “continually writes of ‘government discretion’ and ‘government prerogative.’ But she is dead wrong about such government pre-eminence. In the United States, the default position is that people pre-exist the government, not the other way around.”

Why does it matter?  If government as the power to grant rights then it can legitimately take them away, shape them, deny them to us, tell us when and where they can be exercised etc.  They can tell us what TV or radio stations we can listen to (see the Orwellian-named “Fairness Doctrine").  They can tell us what cars to drive (see the new GM).  They can tell us how much salt we can have in our food (see the new dietary ‘guidlelines’ for New York). That is the very definition of tyranny – and the cause over which the founders staked their lives and honor to fight against.

In short, Kagan has no place among the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.  While we can't know for sure how she would rule in any particular case brought before the Court, her bias is clearly pro- government, a bias which puts her clearly at odds with a Constitution designed to limit government.

While the Republicans in the Senate seem hesitant to take issue with Kagan (and it may be a moot point since Democrats have the votes to confirm her nomination), they should not lose the opportunity to point out the fundamental flaws in her judicial philosophy.  Even if she is confirmed by the Democratic majority, the debate over her nomination should be part of a serious discussion on first principles: 

–    where do the rights of citizens in the United States come from (God or Government)?
–    what is the role of the government regarding those rights? (to protect and preserve them, as the Founders intended, or to grant them as “favors” when and where and to whom it pleases?)
–    what limitations, if any, do our elected representatives work under?  (hint for those currently working for us in government – the answer is “yes, there are” and you swore an oath to uphold the document which spells them out.)
–    are we going to keep the republican form of government designed by our founders, and take the responsibility for educated self-government that it presumes, or yield our governance into the hands of elitist, corrupt tyrants in the making?

Surely the upcoming confirmation hearing will not be the final skirmish in the left’s assault on our Constitution.  But Supreme Court nominees serve for life.  This fact alone should motivate Senators who will vote on her nomination to have a serious discussion about her qualifications.  And it should motivate we who care about the life of the Republic to join the battle, contact our Senators and demand that Ms. Kagan’s nomination be given the full and vigorous debate owing to such a position.

Ship the traitors to Mexico

These people have no shame.  It's bad enough (but typical of this administration) that Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano have criticized Arizona's immigration law without reading it.  But now Democratic leadership and White house staff have shown their true colors.

If Mexican President Calderone wants to speak critically of Arizona's law, fine.  But if he does so on our soil, he should meet with a united response of political leaders standing up for the law of our land, not the standing ovation he received from Congressional Democratic leadership and White House staff today.   

Applauding Calderone's speech furthers at least two problems.  First, it exacerbates ethnic tensions within our country caused by hysterical reactions to this law.  Responses like those from the local governments in Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego fuel the very ethnic divisions they accuse the Arizona law of fostering - and the shameful acts of Democratic leaders today further those divisions even more.  (Of course this is probably OK in their view.  Perfect cover for the "big business bailout" passed today.  Remember that this is a party intent on using crisis to legitimate takeover.)  Second, such a response undermines respect for the laws of a state, which the federal government should be supporting and maintaining.  Government's success in preserving peace among its citizens depends on fostering respect for the laws of the land.  Applauding a foreign leader who takes issue with a law is akin to standing by while he spits on our flag.

Arizona passed SB 1070 for their own self-preservation.  State senator Sylvia Allen recently wrote an article describing the horrendous border violence Arizona citizens have had to live with.  Not only does illegal immigrant traffic bring drug trafficking, robbery, property destruction, rape, and murder, but costs the state billions of dollars in health care, education, and law enforcement costs related to the flow of illegal aliens.  Since the federal government has failed in its responsibility to secure its border, Arizona has every right to do so.

The Obama administration has repeatedly shown an appalling disdain for their most fundamental duties - to uphold our Constitution, and to secure the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" of our citizens by protecting the integrity of our borders.

Arizona's new immigration law is not just state law - it is an affirmation of federal law.  So not only was Calderone criticizing Arizona law, but United States law as well.  And for Democrats to applaud his criticism borders on treason.  Let them go back to Mexico with him.

Why does our Constitution matter?

What kind of government does America have? (hint - it isn't a democracy)

Here's a great little video describing the form of government our Founders set up.  They definitely did their homework - and there were very good reasons they set up a Constitutional Republic as opposed to a democracy.

Why does this matter?  Liberal Democrats (and many Republicans as well) seem to have forgotten that there are limits on what our government can legitimately do - and that those limits are established in the Constitution.  During the health-care debate Nancy Pelosi was famously asked where the authority for remaking health-care was found in the Constitution.  Her response was telling - "Are you serious?  That's not a serious question."  Other Democrats have said similar and more ridiculous things about the relevance of the Constitution to current issues.

So what?  Some argue that since the Constitution was written over 200 years ago we've outgrown it, and it is no longer relevant.  This debate is at the core of a great deal of the legislative agenda of the current Democratic party leadership.  It matters because the Constitution establishes the foundation for the rule of law.  When we ignore the foundation upon which the rule of law is based we move towards the "rule of man".  That's the sure road towards tyranny.

Enjoy the video.

Church, State and the National Day of Prayer: What would our Founders think?

Recent articles published at the Patriot Post by Mark Alexander and Rebecca Hagelin put in clear perspective one of the most fundamental issues plaguing our nation.While we have plenty of challenges, many of the most serious ones can be traced back to one basic shortcoming – we have not adequately remembered and revered God as the Source of our life and liberty. The ruling yesterday by U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional only confirms this secular trend. It also highlights a grossly distorted perspective of the Founders’ views on the relationship between Church and State.

Our Founding Fathers made it very clear that the Constitution they labored to create was only fit to govern a people who took religion and morality seriously. John Adams expressed this quite forcefully. Said he “We have no government capable of contending with human passions unbridled by religion and morality”. The great English philosopher and statesman Edmund Burke, whom Adams, Madison and their colleagues looked to as a teacher described this relationship perhaps most clearly:

“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains on their own appetites.”

Faithful adherence to religious beliefs leads to self-restraint, personal responsibility and charity for others. Consequently, such people need less government because they govern themselves and their communities well. The farther we slip from the moorings which religion has so long provided, the more government must be created to fill the void.

It is often argued that many of the Founders were not Christian, because they did not regularly attend public worship services or because some embraced Deism. While the Founders may not all have been personally attached to any particular denomination, that fact is not necessarily an indication of lack of Christian faith. Many were devoted churchmen and participated actively in their local congregations.  Some did not.  But there is ample historical evidence that Washington, Adams, Madison, Jefferson and the rest had a strong belief in God.  Washington was so aware of his influence in the young nation, and so sensitive to the need to prevent religious strife, that he chose not to participate in any particular denomination so as not to create grounds for religious bigotry. While their personal religious practices were diverse, and their beliefs complex, the Founders were uniformly and enthusiastically supportive of the role of religion in maintaining a stable, harmonious and prosperous nation. In his farewell address to his cabinet George Washington said:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest prop of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge in the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle... Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it?"

Over and over again the men who forged this nation from a conglomerate of separate colonial societies recognized the hand of God in their unlikely success – in the war for Independence against Britain, in the proceedings which gave birth to the Constitution and in the lengthy process of ratifying it, state by state.

In the Federalist #20 James Madison wrote: “It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the Revolution.”

While enthusiastic about the role of religion in the public sphere, the Founders were equally devoted to protecting the religious liberties of individual religious societies from undue governmental influence. They knew only too well the tyranny which a state-sponsored church could inflict. In response to a letter from the United Baptist Churches in the State of Virginia expressing concerns over the level of protection for religious freedom assured in the proposed Constitution, Washington wrote:

"....If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed in the Convention, where I had the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, certainly, I should never have placed my signature to it"

Given the Founders clear support for the role of religion in public life it is impossible to take seriously the idea that their desire to prohibit a state-sponsored church meant that they were advocating an absolute separation of Church and State. Those who advocate such an idea today (mostly so-called “progressives” and supporters of central government power) clearly have their own anti-religious agenda. Their fear of religion blinds them to the genuine strength religion brings to a society.

Or perhaps they simply prefer the levers of government, which they as civic priests can use to exert control over the people, to the levers of personal control exercised by a people who act according to the dictates of their own consciences, and who direct their lives through honoring faith in and personal commitments to a God whom they love and revere. Undermining the religious foundation of those liberties which have made us who we are is both incredibly naïve and dangerously shortsighted – although that seems to be the path which the atheists and secular religionists among us have been pushing for decades – and which sympathetic elements in our judicial system have supported. We can only hope that we as a nation can reverse this trend before it is too late.

Why does liberty mean so much to me? A slice of family history

I get very agitated when I see politicians – Republicans, Democrats or those of any other stripe – enacting legislation which tears down the fundamental principles upon which this country was founded.  Why does it bother me so much?  Many of the reasons I could cite are reasons I share with most other conservatives in this country, but some of the reasons are much more personal.

My ancestors were some of the earliest European émigrés to America.  They helped to settle the New York colony, and fought actively for America’s independence.

Michael Weigand, along with others of his religious community, came to the New World to escape the political tyranny and religious persecution of 18^th century Europe.  With his family, he left his homeland in the Rhine river area (modern Germany) after being burned out three times in ten years by the armies of Louis XIV.  As refugees they fled through Holland to England.

Queen Ann took pity on them and granted the group a tract of land along the Hudson River where they settled in 1708.  The settlement they helped to develop eventually became Newburgh, New York.

Map of land granted by Queen Anne - divided by family

Later, several of Michael’s descendants fought against the British in the War of Independence.  John, Martin, Matthew, Michael (a grandson) and Tobias Wygant all served as enlisted men in the New York militia.  Their unit was called out many times over the course of the War to defend their homes and families.

Martin owned a tavern in Newburgh
which served as a rendezvous point for the Fourth Regiment, and for a time allowed General Anthony Wayne to headquarter in his home.  George Washington himself set up a headquarters in Newburgh at the Hasbrouck House during the last year and a half of the war.
While this might seem like distant history, it has great meaning for me because these are my people.  My ancestors endured great tribulation leaving their homeland and helping to settle this country.  And they went to war to maintain the right to govern themselves.

Now our Congress, and a President who seems to care nothing for the history and traditions of this country and its people, want to undermine that right to self-governance.  As a nation founded on the ideals of self-government we cannot allow this to stand.  As John Adams reminds us, once freedom is surrendered it is very difficult to regain.

Many other families in this country have ancestral stories similar to mine.  Share your stories.  Share them with your representative in Congress.  Send them to the President.  Remind our leaders that they serve us, and that we (and our ancestors) are not amused.

Underlying issues in the health-care debate

There are two fundamentally different views on the nature of human rights at the heart of the current health care debate.  The “positive rights” or “natural rights” tradition holds that basic human rights are inherent in our being.  They are seen as gifts from Nature or Nature’s God, and therefore exist prior to government.  Since government does not grant them it does not control, direct or guarantee them.  In this view, people make choices for themselves as they exercise personal liberty to direct their own lives, and create governments as necessary to help referee conflicts which inevitably arise between individuals exercising those rights.
In the “negative rights” tradition, rights are granted by government.  People are only allowed to do what a sovereign government allows permission for them to do.  Because rights are granted by the government, the government also controls their exercise.

Our Founders advocated a positive rights view.  Jefferson enumerated “the pursuit of happiness” not “the guarantee of happiness” among those rights he said were unalienable.  He had good reason for this.  If government is held to be the source or guarantor of happiness it can also take that happiness away.

Advocating for health care guaranteed as a “right”, paid for and delivered by the federal government is advocating at the same time for government to control the exercise of that right, including when and where care will be given.  If the government is paying for care, the government will naturally determine which tests are allowed to diagnose a problem, how many can be given, which procedures are allowed, etc. If you think insurance companies are intrusive and obstructionist, just wait until a federal agency dictates how health care is run.

While inconvenience, longer wait time and rationed care seem to be inevitable outcomes of the federal takeover of health care, the most damning outcome is likely to be surrendering more of our personal liberty – turning more and more control over to a federal master.  Benjamin Franklin said it this way:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Like many other conservatives have said before me, the more fundamental issue here is about much more than health care – it is about the proper role of government.  We want government to do less to us and for us -- and leave us alone to direct our own lives.  They want it to do more, and seem willing to accept the chains that are eventually forged in the process.