A Republic, Based on the Rule of Law

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
When we pledge allegiance to the flag, it is to a "republic" for which it stands, not a "democracy."  Yet, I hear Americans, educators, media mouths, politicians and entertainers constantly tell us that what we reside in is a democracy.  Even the throats of conservatives love to scream out "the will of the people!" as if that is what was meant by "consent of the governed."

The Founding Fathers, after a lifetime of reading the Holy Bible, living and learning under the British Saxon System, and studying other forms of government throughout history, came to a list of conclusions.

● Without law there is no freedom.
● All law and rights come from God.
● Only a virtuous society is capable of freedom.
● If there is an established church, the leaders of the church will conspire with the political leaders in order to create tyranny.
● There has never been a democracy that did not commit suicide.
● Democracies are short in their lives, and violent in their deaths.
● A political elite ruling over the governed becomes tyrannical.
● Local issues are better left with local government.
● A centralized government is a necessary evil, primarily for the purpose of handling external issues and disputes between local entities.
● The States, as were the Colonies, are unique and different from each other - individuals as are the people who live in them.
● While the States must remain sovereign and autonomous, if they are to join together in a union there must be a uniting agency to handle the issues required of a country.
● The greatest threat to Natural Rights is government.
● The greatest way to protect our rights is with a government in place for the purposes of law enforcement and emergency services.
● A government that fears the people is a just government.
● A people who fears their government are subjects.
● An informed people must have a voice in their government.
● An uninformed people can be easily fooled into bondage.
● A system will prosper until voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.
● While services by government may be made available, it must not come from the centralized government where it can be used as a way to control the governed.
● A standing army is dangerous because it can be used against the people.
● It is not wise to engage in foreign entanglements.
● A strong military is required to protect liberty, both at home, and abroad.
● A strong navy is necessary to protect our trade routes.

As I like to put it, under the Articles of Confederation, the fledgling country had a central government that was as timid and weak as a lamb.  During the Constitutional Convention, the delegates were convinced that what we needed was a lion.  The problem with lions, however, is that they want to eat you.  So, how do you create a lion that is powerful enough to be unleashed on our enemies, and strong enough to settle disputes between the States, yet restrained in such a manner that it does not become a tyranny?

The answer is to place restraints on it, and put it in a cage.  The U.S. Constitution is supposed to be the shackles and the cage that restrains the federal government.

Notice that on my list above, many of the things seem to contradict each other.

How do you give a government organized by men the authority to administer the law when the law is something that comes from the Creator?  How do you maintain a virtuous society, which is required for liberty, but allow the full freedom of someone to believe as they so desire - which also allows them to believe in something that may not be virtuous?  How do you allow the politicians to pray and the churches to preach politics, yet guard against an established church so that we don't wind up with what was going on in Europe, at the time?  How do you make sure We the People have a solid voice if democracy is so dangerous because the people can easily be fooled?  How can you fear a political elite, yet understand that they are necessary to properly administer a political system of government?  How do you separate local and national governmental operations and authorities without one attempting to encroach upon the other?  How can States who consider themselves to be separate countries join into an agreement to be a union without the central governing authority seeking to erase the individual identities and voices of those States?  How can we maintain our Natural Rights, expect government to recognize those rights, yet keep government from becoming a threat to those rights while legislating on issues that are related to those rights?  How can a government operate without the people having a full democratic voice, yet still operate honestly because it fears the people's wrath if it should become a tyranny?  How can an informed people have a voice in their government, while the uninformed does not, providing a consent of the governed, yet not be a democracy where the voice of the people demands that the government serve the will of the people?  How do we keep politicians from not using gifts from the treasury as a means of getting elected, and remaining elected?  How can a safety net exist without it being used as a form of welfare, or as a means of controlling the governed?  How can a country have a standing army, yet instill peace among the people because they do not fear the standing army being used against them?

Let's answer those questions one at a time.

▻ How do you give a government organized by men the authority to administer the law when the law is something that comes from the Creator?

Laws, regulations, and taxes can impact the way we work, our freedom to trade, our ability to become business owners, and our ownership of property. They impact our culture, and whether or not we may have a prosperous and flourishing society, or one that suffers under bondage and tyranny.  Romans 12:1-7 explains that government was established by God.  The Founding Fathers understood this, but in order to maintain a godly government they had to find a way to establish a system that would be unlikely to expand beyond its proper role.

Romans 13:1 says, "There is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God."

Secularists like to use that verse, too.  They argue that even if government becomes a tyranny, Christians are commanded to live under the bondage offered by that government because resisting its authority is the same as opposing God.

The verse explains what our relationship with government ought to be if government is operating in its proper role.  Government is supposed to be a “minister of God” (verse 4), and “servants of God” (verse 6).  This, of course, does not mean that all government actions are right, and we must simply bow down and suffer under tyrannical government.  In verses 1 and 5 the word “subjection” is used, not “obey.”

While there is a call for submission, or for placing one’s self under someone else, that does not mean obeying in a manner that defies God.

Acts 5:29, (KJV) "Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men."

If the government forbids what God commands or commands what God forbids, then God’s commandments take precedence over human authority.

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to obey King Nebuchadnezzar when he threatened that they would be being burned alive if they did not worship idols. Nebuchadnezzar forbade his subjects to pray to anyone but himself, and Daniel openly disobeyed.

We are not to blindly obey government, especially if called to act contrary to God’s law.  But, since government is an institution ordained by God, and we should abide by its laws, show respect to political and police authorities, and we should participate in civics as much as possible so as to ensure that our government remains God fearing.

▻ How do you maintain a virtuous society, which is required for liberty, but allow the full freedom of someone to believe as they so desire - which also allows them to believe in something that may not be virtuous?

That is the beauty of the American System.  While it is based on the values and virtues of Christianity, it has been constructed in such a manner that all people of all beliefs can live in harmony under that system.

I had a friend, Tim "Loki" Kerlin, who, while not a believer, understood the foundation of our system was in step with Judeo-Christian values.  He recognized that the principles provided a solid rock to serve as a foundation, and that while he was not a Christian, it was the best way to build a successful system of governance.

One time I was on a radio program with him, and he kept saying "our rights are God-given."  I finally stopped him and said, "but, Loki, I thought you were an agnostic?"

"Not when it comes to my rights," he quipped.

All beliefs are welcome, and the First Amendment states that ones religious practices may not be prohibited by legislation.  That said, it goes back to the thing about God's commandments taking authority over government authority ... if a non-Christian entity wishes to claim their religious practices supersede our value system and laws, it is no longer practicing religious freedom, but instead is guilty of acting in a manner contrary to the constitutional laws established.

▻ How do you allow the politicians to pray and the churches to preach politics, yet guard against an established church so that we don't wind up with what was going on in Europe, at the time?

The key to maintaining such a system is to not establish a "national church", and to leave religious issues up to the States and the communities, and to disallow the federal government from having any authority over the issue.

When Thomas Jefferson answered the letter from the Danbury Baptists about their plight in Connecticut, and he wrote "a wall of separation between church and state," what Jefferson meant was that it was not a federal authority.  As a member of the federal government, he could not interfere.  Religion in a local issue, so in order to establish true religious freedom in the State of Connecticut, the process must go through State administrative procedures and protocols.

As for the faith of this nation, the reality of it caught Alexis de Tocqueville by surprise.  He came from France, which, at the time, had completely silenced the voice of the church in their secular society.  Prior to that, the church in Europe had conspired with kings to bring tyranny upon the people for centuries.  Therefore, his automatic attitude was that a mixture of religion and politics could result in no good thing.  Yet, when he visited the United States in the 1830s to observe our penal system, he noticed that the politicians prayed (and held Bible Studies), and the pastors were preaching politics, yet one did not control the other.  It was an essentially symbiotic situation.  Tocqueville concluded that America's strength was in her churches, and we were prosperous and good because the people were a moral and religious people.

In today's society, there is an attempt to kick God out of our culture and American System.  While we should not be a theocracy where the church has its hands on any controlling strings of the government, it is important that we remain a godly people, and have godly leaders.  Without a strong Christian foundation, and people in place who defend those morals and ideals, freedom is but a moment away from being lost.

▻ How do you make sure We the People have a solid voice if democracy is so dangerous because the people can easily be fooled?

Originally, the only purely democratic vote we had regarding the federal government was the House of Representatives.  The Senators were appointed by the State legislatures, and the President was elected by electors who were chosen also by the State legislatures.  But, the House has the power of the purse strings.  So, while the voice of the people was only one part of the lawmaking process, anything and everything could be brought to a halt if the people's voice refused to fund it.  That way, while the democratic voice of the citizens was only a portion of the overall process, it was the will of the people whose hand was firmly upon the financial braking system.

▻ How can you fear a political elite, yet understand that they are necessary to properly administer a political system of government?

A republic is a representative government that also recognizes that the people are only one part of the constituency.  While we want people who have a firm political acumen in office, we fear politicians who seek their own power and glory.  So, there are checks and balances throughout the system (or, at least there "was" ... past tense).  The political elite were the Senators and Electors, with the voice of the people established as a check.  The House naturally checks the Senate, and vice versa, and together they are supposed to check the President and the Courts.  The problem is, the political elite have convinced us that our voice in the House is a minor voice, and the President is the "leader of the free world" and the courts have the final say on everything ... including the Constitution.

The current perversion of our constitutional system came about after two centuries of assaults against it.  Things like "judicial review" and the 17th Amendment have changed the system in such a way that it is unrecognizable from its original form.  It is our duty to work to restore our systems original form.  That is why learning the Constitution is so important.  How can one, for example, restore an engine back to its original glory if we don't know how it ran in the first place?

▻ How do you separate local and national governmental operations and authorities without one attempting to encroach upon the other?

The concept of Separation of Powers was expected to be applied not only to the three branches of the federal government, but also between the States and the federal government.  The 10th Amendment is clear in its language, establishing that if an authority is not granted to the federal government, nor prohibited to the States, it is a State issue.

Remember, the States have "Original Authority" over all issues.  Prior to the Constitution the States' powers were indefinite on all issues.  After the writing of the Constitution, aside from those authorities granted to the federal government, the States retained all authorities over the remaining issues.

The concept finds it roots in the idea of "localism," which basically means that local issues are best administered by local administration.  The federal government was not created so that it may interfere with local issues.  The federal government was established to handle external issues, and those issues that protect, preserve and promotes the union of States (such as acting as a mediator in disputes between the States).

▻ How can States who consider themselves to be separate countries join into an agreement to be a union without the central governing authority seeking to erase the individual identities and voices of those States?

In truth, the federal government and establishment politicians are indeed seeking to erase the voice of the States and hold the federal government as the ultimate and supreme authority over all things.  The States are a federation of sovereign states, which means that they are separate, individual, unique, and autonomous, but have come together to form a strong union for the purpose of protecting, preserving and promoting their shared interests and ideals of liberty.

Ultimately, the original intent is for the federal government to handle the external issues, and the States to handle the issues that specifically effect them.

Federalist 45 by James Madison reads, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.  The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government."
▻ How can we maintain our Natural Rights, expect government to recognize those rights, yet keep government from becoming a threat to those rights while legislating on issues that are related to those rights?

That is why the Bill of Rights uses negative language.  The key is to understand what Natural Rights truly are.  Government, since it is the greatest threat to our rights, must be restrained from having anything to do with our rights.  They are not there to protect them or guarantee them, that is our own job.

That said, local government may have some legislative authorities when it comes to our rights.

For example, you have the right to go through an intersection. No governmental agency should be able to tell you that you can't, nor should there be any laws saying that only certain people can go through the intersection. However, because many people go through the intersection, your freedom to go through that intersection becomes a dangerous thing because your safety stops at the tip of the next guy's bumper. In other words, your right to travel through the intersection must not interfere with someone else's right to navigate through the intersection. Therefore, the local government places stop signs, or signal lights, at the intersection so that everyone can cross through the intersection, but in a manner that is safe and orderly. Understand, the federal government is not supposed to be in on the decision. It's none of their business. But, if a local government feels the need to put up a stop light, then they have every authority to do so.
Or, how about the claim that we have a right to health care?  According to some politicians, if we have a right to health care that means the government must administer it, guarantee it, and if you can't afford it then they must subsidize it for you.

If that is the case, and I have a right to keep and bear arms, where's my government subsidized gun?

Obviously, the definition of what a right is, and how government is involved in our rights, is inaccurate.

I have a right to health care.  I have a right, if I break my leg, to seek medical attention.  But, that does not mean I have a right to demand a particular doctor fixes it, or that the taxpayers pay for it.  My right stops at the next guy's right, and the doctor has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, and the taxpayers have a right to not have to pay for something that I should be pursuing myself.

Or, as it says in the Declaration of Independence, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."  We don't have a right to happiness, but we do have a right to pursue it - and government is not supposed to get in the way.

▻ How can a government operate without the people having a full democratic voice, yet still operate honestly because it fears the people's wrath if it should become a tyranny?

This is where the Second Amendment comes into play.  We don't have a democracy.  But, we have been given ways to apply the brakes on tyranny.  Earlier, I mentioned the power of the purse strings.  We also have the right to keep and bear arms.

In Declaration of Independence, the text indicates that we have the right to alter or abolish our government if we believe it is tyrannical.  A government that fears the people remains honest and free, but a people who fears the government become subjects.  The primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure the people have a way to stop tyranny, should it arise.  We may not be (or, at least we are not supposed to be) a purely democratic system, but our voice can be manifested in other ways - the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is there for a reason.

▻ How can an informed people have a voice in their government, while the uninformed does not, providing a consent of the governed, yet not be a democracy where the voice of the people demands that the government serve the will of the people?

It goes back to that checks and balances concept.  Nobody has full power.  Not the President.  Not Congress.  Not the Judges.  Not the States.  Not the People.  The power of government is distributed in such a way that not only is power not concentrated in any one place, but that all of the parts of government are checked in a number of ways by other parts of the government.

As for the informed and uninformed part of the public, that is part of the reason that early on, the States determined that only property owners could vote.  If you owned property, you paid some kind of tax, and you were likely a business owner as well.  These were the people who were most informed, and paid attention to the issues.  If one has not stake in the game, the only way to win their vote is with gifts from the treasury, and that was something the Founders were trying to avoid.

▻ How do we keep politicians from not using gifts from the treasury as a means of getting elected, and remaining elected?

The federal government has no authority to offer domestic gifts from the treasury, so first, we must restore constitutional governance.  85% of federal spending is unconstitutional based on my own observations.  It happens because we allow it.  Also, as stated above, we need to reform voting.  Voting is not a right, it is a privilege (I abhor the fact that voting is called a right in a number of amendments).  That privilege is to only be offered to citizens.

In all of the Amendments that are regarding the vote (15, 19, 24, 26), the Constitution only uses the term citizen to define the qualifications.  The word citizen is also used regarding the guarantee of Privileges and Immunities (Article IV), the 11th Amendment (“citizens of another state”), and the 14th Amendment (naturalization and “privileges or immunities”).  While, for some, it seems there is nothing in the text of the Constitution that would stop a state from giving noncitizens the right to vote, in truth, there is.

In Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution it gives the authority over the "times, places and manner of holding elections" to the State legislatures, it also provides that "Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations".

▻ How can a safety net exist without it being used as a form of welfare, or as a means of controlling the governed?

The answer goes back to authorities.  The federal government has no authority to provide any kind of domestic safety net (welfare, food stamps, unemployment benefits, health care).  However, the States can.  So, a safety net is not unconstitutional, it is simply not an authority of the federal government.  This was established specifically so that federal politicians could not use such "benefits" as a way to win reelection, or control the governed through the regulations attached to safety nets.

▻ How can a country have a standing army, yet instill peace among the people because they do not fear the standing army being used against them?

The militias are for defending the homeland, and the standing army was established for foreign campaigns and defense against invasion.  Also, in Article I, Section 8 the army is only allowed a two year appropriation of money.  Therefore, it comes up in the budget every two years.  Since the people have the power of the purse strings, that means that we can defund it if the standing army is being used against us.  No money, no standing army.

The Third Amendment also protects us against a standing army, disallowing domestic quartering of troops unless in war time.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary