The progressive takeover of America has been a process, and the liberal left believes the end of that process is in sight. They are now attacking institutions long thought to be untouchable. They have now graduated to targeting our God-given rights in ways they have never been willing to before.
In the book, "New Views of The Constitution of the United States" by John Taylor in 1823, the first section begins, "I shall attempt to ascertain the nature of our form of government, and the existence of a project to alter it."
A project to alter it.
In the introduction, Taylor recognizes that what we have is a federal system, not a national government. "The happiness and prosperity of the United States will be greater under a federal than under a national government." The difference being a voluntary union of States using a federal system to accomplish the duties needed to be administered by a central government in order to protect, promote, and preserve the union, rather than a consolidated national government that exists to control and regulate the States and the people.
Further into the book by Taylor, he reminds us that the definition of union is stated in the Declaration of Independence, "That these United Colonies are, and right ought to be, free and independent states."
Taylor goes on to explain, "The word 'united' is used in conjunction with the phrase 'free and independent states,' and this association recognizes a compatibility between the sovereignty and the union of the several states."
In "Yate's Notes" on page 39 of Taylor's book, the existence of those that desired a powerful system "with its concentration in one supreme national government" was penned, recognizing the danger of such a system. Going into the Constitutional Convention, "these gentlemen appear to have been as thoroughly convinced of the superiority of a federal, as other gentlemen were of the superiority of a monarchical or national, form of government; and both left the convention under a conviction that the latter would be established. . . Subsequently to their departure, the plan of government was changed from a national to a federal form. . . They therefore viewed the constitution under the prepossession inspired by the eagerness for a national government, displayed in the convention before they left it."
The Articles of Confederation had been too week, so a drive for a stronger government ensued, but quickly the founders realized they were only approaching an opposite extreme, and a powerful central government would surely lead to tyranny.
James Madison entered the Constitutional Convention desiring a strong national government as did Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton exited the convention still desiring a powerful and controlling central government, but through the debates Madison had been convinced to believe more like Thomas Jefferson (who was absent from the convention) who believed that a limited government was necessary to protect the sovereignty of the people, and the States.
The new federal government needed to be one that adhered to the rule of law, and recognized the importance of natural law, as spelled out in the Declaration of Independence.
In "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding," John Locke laid out the importance of natural law, and how it defined out rights as sovereign individuals. The rights of citizens are God-given, and are not for government to take away.
The Declaration of Independence calls our God-given rights, "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."
These natural rights are, according to the Declaration of Independence, entitled by God, are "self-evident," and "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."
In the final sentence of the Declaration of Independence the founders proclaim that the Declaration was accomplished "with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence."
Even Thomas Jefferson, regarded as a Unitarian that often challenged man-made versions of religion, calling the men behind these religions "religion builders", recognized the importance that our rights are natural rights not granted by government, but by the Creator. He wrote, "Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man."
Benjamin Franklin said, "If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it?"
Whether a number of the founders had a strong aversion to "religion," it is clear that they did not have an aversion to faith, the freedom of people to worship as they wished, or the formation of a limited government that did not establish its own religious preference.
The founders recognized the importance of the concept of the freedom of religion, for it dwelt in the very foundation of the United States, going all the way back to colonization. The primary reason for the colonization of the English Colonies, in many instances, was the desire for the freedom of religion. From the puritans to the pilgrims, the desire was the same. Among the natural rights, therefore, is the freedom of religion - a natural right by nature's God that cannot be legally taken away by government.
The desire to interfere with religious freedom, or to remove God from the foundations of this nation, is nothing new. When Benjamin Franklin recommended that the delegates of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 pray before each session, Alexander Hamilton and a number of others that shared his political views, expressed their apprehensions about praying before each session of the convention. Statists tend to have apprehensions about Faith in God. Remember, it was the Democrat Party, the party of big government, that had to vote at their national convention, on whether or not to return God to their platform. And when it was deemed God would be returned, about half of the auditorium booed.
Statists tend to be anti-God. Big Government does not like competition.
After a couple centuries of manipulating language, and perpetuating a myth about the constitutionality of the idea of the separation of church and state, statists have created so much confusion that now the concept of religious freedom has become murky, and society is not sure how to define it.
Religious Freedom is now under attack, and religious freedoms are being taken away on a technicality.
Chief Justice Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court, in his ruling on the legality of ObamaCare's individual mandate, wrote that the mandate was no different than a tax and therefore legal. If that is true, then mandating payment for birth control as part of that health insurance cannot be viewed as a violation of religious freedom.
A Quaker legally is allowed to avoid military conflicts without violating the law. That same Quaker, however, will go to jail if he refuses to pay the taxes that fund the military. In the same vain, in any state where the government pays for birth control or abortions, individual citizens can choose to not use birth control or to have abortions. They cannot however refuse to pay taxes because these programs violate their religious beliefs.
Obamacare was not supposed to be a tax, and in the language of the law it is stated that the fines for failure to comply with the law are not a tax, yet because Justice Roberts declared it to be a tax, according to the legal world, the federal government, through the health care law, can violate the religious freedoms of business owners.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
First Amendment is Murky on Religion and Companies - Wall Street Journal
No comments:
Post a Comment