Gallery

Is The Declaration Of Independence ‘Obsolete?’

It is popular among the ‘intellectual elite,’ and their baying sheep, to say that the Declaration and Constitution are ‘old, dusty and irrelevant.’   The assertion always takes some form of “The founders never envisioned,” and/or “Times have changed.”  The problem for all these fools (yes, they are all fools) is that human nature has not changed.  That means they are wrong.  However, I don’t want to just say that they are wrong and assume the reader will agree.  I want to show you that they are wrong by showing the reader just how relevant the Declaration of Independence still is (the Constitution is irrelevant, as another — just as good — could easily be constructed by another body of people with the same understanding and dedication to the principles and ideals set down in the Declaration).

However, before we begin, I want to explain something that many of these fools I just mentioned do not understand.  I do not have to find an exact parallel example of something to show they are equivalent in function or purpose.  Many weak-minded people today think that it is necessary to show an exact copy of a modern event to a past event, or the past event doesn’t apply.  That is fallacious reasoning.  Let me try to explain with a simple illustration.  If Cain decided to kill able because he was jealous of his brother, but he used a rock; modern day fools would say that me shooting my brother is not the same because I used a handgun and not a rock.  However, the hatred in my heart is the same as in Cain’s.  The action is the same (we both murdered our brother), and the result is the same (our brothers are now dead).  Thus, they are equivalent examples, and they serve to show that man has not ‘progressed’ past jealousy and murder.  They also illustrate that ‘technology’ does not and cannot change this fact.  That is because — contrary to the assertion of our fools — human nature is fixed.

So, with the understanding in mind that I need not show an exact match in appearance, but only a match in purpose or function, let’s have a new look at the Declaration of Independence.

As we start out, the first thing we will find is that it is written in the form of a legal document, and it is making a legal appeal explaining the fundamental complaint against the Crown and the reasoning behind the proposed actions.  It is also readily apparent that the Declaration is appealing to ‘The Supreme judge of the world‘ — GOD!  It is crucial that we understand this.  The founders knew exactly what they were doing, and to Whom they were appealing.  They also knew that God does not respect the laws of man.  Therefore, they had to appeal to God in terms of His eternal laws.  This is what is meant by ‘The Laws of Nature and Nature’s God:’ God’s Natural and Moral Laws:

The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription


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.

Next, the founders point directly to God as the source of our rights.  They assert that that source and the rights bestowed by God are self-evident: meaning they cannot be denied or debated.  And that these rights belong to the individual, and that they are certain: meaning they are fixed and cannot be questioned or changed.  This lays the basis for everything else the founders are about to say and do.  What’s more, it is the only foundation upon which man can lay any claim to rights.  All other arguments rest of an authority that is not fixed and, therefore, can be and often is changed — usually by force — and there can be no moral appeal to any authority which is predicated upon the principle of ‘might-makes-right’ or ‘because-I-said-so.’  This was true in 1776 and it remains true today:

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.

The founders then assert that government is formed by the governed, and for the purpose of protecting our individual rights.  This is the only way a just government can exist.  Therefore, any other form of government is unjust.  It is only when ruled by consent and according to the per-determined and agreed upon terms of that governance can any government be called ‘just.’  Furthermore, these terms must provide for the equal protection of the individual’s right.  Anything less would be a violation of the individual’s inalienable rights and, thus, a violation of eternal law:

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

This is the founders telling us the Social Contract is an eternal principle of just governance, and it remains so today.  Democracy or the will of the masses or ‘common good’ does not and cannot change this.  Appeals to ‘social justice’ do not change these eternal principles.  Anything less that an equal protection of every individual’s rights amounts to despotism, and when that despotism reaches a point of intolerance, it is the right of every individual to change or even abolish that government and replace it with a just one (NOTE: in the founders’ time, ‘happiness’ was not a hedonistic appeal, but an established legal principle referring to the right to pursue and preserve a moral and virtuous life and society) :

–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.

The founders then acknowledge that any action against an established government is to be taken with the utmost seriousness.  They admit that it is better to suffer bad government than to continually change the government.  It is only when government becomes a vehicle of destruction that the people then have a right — nay, a duty to change that government and replace it with one that will protect the rights of every individual.  Then they state the opening of their charges against the Crown, making it known that they intend to prove that the King had — in fact — become a tyrant: a vehicle of destruction:

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.

So far, nothing the founders stated has changed.  After some 240 years, human nature remains the same.  The principles governing liberty remain the same.  God’s Natural and Moral Law remains the same.  None of these things have been changed by technology.  We will now prove this by listing examples of modern equivalents alongside the founders charges against the King.  Only, in our case, we will be making them against the Federal government.

Now, let’s see if the founders’ complaints against the Crown have any modern equivalents?

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

This is the equivalent of the President refusing to comply with U.S. immigration law.  It is also equivalent to the President acting as though laws have been passed when they haven’t, and re-writing laws without any involvement by duly appointed/elected legislative bodies.  So we still have the same problem here as the Colonists had with the King.

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.

This is equivalent to the Federal government suing States to suspend State laws.  We have seen this in matters of immigration, health care and homosexual marriage.  Nothing has changed here, either.

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.

This one is not exactly the same.  For the most part, the Federal government hasn’t forced the States to cede their sovereignty, they have blackmailed them.  Either the States agree, of the Federal government withholds the money the States need to pay for the taxes the Federal government forced on them in the form of mandates.

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 is equivalent to the Congress holding secret and middle of the night legislation sessions. By doing so, the Federal government effectively removes the people from the legislative process.  It is also similar to when the Federal government exerts pressure ,especially in conjunction with its compliant accomplices in the media, to pressure State representatives into agreeing with Federal wishes.

This is also similar to the Federal government forcing private citizens to sit down and sign papers giving the Federal government control over their businesses, as in the TARP and GM/Chrysler bailouts.  When this is done without representative officials involved, it is lawlessness and tyranny.  So we are still dealing with the same problem on this count as the Colonists were.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

Similar in spirit to using the IRS to attack political opposition.  The operative goal here is to silence and/or render ineffective any and all political opposition to the Crown/government.  Here, things are a little different, but still similar in effect as the problems the Colonists were facing.

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.

This would be equivalent to leaving important government positions vacant so as to prevent their offices from functioning properly.  Nothing has changed here, either — except maybe how often this sort of thing happens.

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.

This is similar to the abuse of federal immigration law today.  Not only is the Federal government refusing to allow people in to the country from regions of the world the States desire, it is forcing the States to take immigrants the States do not want.  Nothing has changed.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

This is similar to the Federal government fighting every judicial ruling it does not like.  By constantly challenging the rulings of State courts, the Federal government effectively destroys the State judiciary power.  Nothing has changed.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

Now, this one has changed a little in its appearance, but not its purpose.  Today, the government doesn’t hold pay over our judges heads, it holds political litmus tests.  Either a judge conforms to a certain political ideology, or his career is effectively ended.  So, same thing, just different in application.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

This is equivalent to the creation of bureaucracies and the continual growth of the same.  Nothing new here, either.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

The equivalent here is not so much the U.S. military as the many federal police forces.  None are Constitutionally authorized and all have been militarized.  The State Department has even had its own private military, equally as well armed and trained as our own.  Same as in the Colonial times.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

Again, the equivalent here is the independent military forces that have been created; the militarized police forces and the politicization of the standing military.  By appointing political generals, the Federal government has effectively separated the military from civilian control.  Nothing new.

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:

The equivalent here is many-fold.  First, our courts have been citing foreign law.  Then we have had subordination of U.S. law to the UN.  Finally, we have had binding agreements which supersede existing U.S. law made with foreign nations without proper ratification by the Senate.  Nothing has changed here.

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

Similar to effect is the government surveillance of the American people.  Quartering troops was largely designed to help the King spy on the Colonists.  Government intrusion into every aspect of private lives is the functional equivalent.  Technology has not changed this; it has made it worse. Still the same thing as in the Colonial days.

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

The equivalent here is not trying them at all.  None of the Federal law enforcement in Ruby Ridge, Waco, or the recent FBI killing of LaVoy.  There are many such instances where, instead of mock trials, there are no trials at all.  Federal troops are allowed to kill citizens with total immunity.  This one may have even gotten worse.

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

This is done by trade law, tariffs and taxation, but it still has the same practical effect: it controls free trade tot he detriment of the States and their citizens.  Nothing new.

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

This is done all the time.  Every time Congress passes a law that mandates the States pay for it, that is a tax without consent.  Every time the Government passes regulations, they are taxing the States.  Every time new fees are levied, or licenses created, they are taxing the States.  And much of this is done totally outside the Congress, meaning, outside of the proper legislative process.  This is exactly the same as in the time of the Colonists.  Again, this one hasn’t changed — except to maybe have gotten worse.

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

We have the same things happening today.  The Patriot act allows the government to declare you a ‘terrorist,’ then you not only do not get a trial, you don’t have right to due process.  We even have U.S. Senators calling for the suspension of due process, which is what is at the heart of trial by jury.  Still the same.

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

This is exactly what rendition is.  Nothing new.

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:

This is similar to confiscating large sections of a State under the guise of ‘conservation,’ then using the Federal system in these areas to effectively control the rest of the State.  Some States have had as much as 80% of their land seized in this manner, and it has had a negative effect on their political structure and process.  Not much has changed here.

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

This is equivalent to the President unilaterally re-writing laws, such as the healthcare laws and the U.S. bankruptcy laws in the GM/Chrysler bailout.  Nothing changed here, either.

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

This is similar to the Federal government denying the States any right to legislate in areas where the Constitution does not expressly empower the Federal government and then claiming that power for itself.  Nothing different here.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

The same thing has been done today.  By refusing to defend the borders; by importing large numbers of people who have openly declared their hostility toward and intention to destroy this nation; and by conducting foreign wars without Congressional authorization, the Federal government has not only put the States out of its protection, it has openly declared war on them.  Still the same.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

This is similar in nature to the asset seizure and confiscation policies the Federal government has given itself.  The government need only charge you with suspicion of certain crimes and they can take your property. Nothing new.

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.

This is the equivalent of importing Muslims who have openly declared their desire to destroy this nation into the States and then forcing the States to pay for their support.  Same-old, same-old.

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.

This is similar to forcing Federal law enforcement and the U.S. military to bear arms against their fellow citizens.  Still the same.

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.

This is equivalent to the President openly supporting lawlessness under the banner of Occupy and Black Lives Matter while refusing to even acknowledge real national tragedies such as the death of a national hero or the Ft Hood shootings.  These actions are intentionally designed to separate and divide the nation — exactly the same way the King was doing in Colonial times.  Nothing has changed.

Other crimes against the States that have no direct equivalent in the Colonists’ complaints would be:

The Federal government has also taken funds approved for one program and allocated them to others without Congressional approval.

The executive has been allowing government servants to accept bribes from foreign powers in return for political favors.  This is not the same, but it is as destructive in form as the Colonists’ complaint.

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.

The people and the States have repeatedly petitioned for a return to lawful order.  They have elected officials promising to do so, and marched in peaceful protest.  They have petitioned and tried State initiatives.  But everything they have done has been ignored or thwarted or just swiped aside by the Federal government.  this is exactly the same today as in the Colonial times.  Nothing has changed.

From this list, the founders then moved to reminding the British that they had been constantly warning against these grievances while, at the same time, seeking to remain one people.  All the Colonists wanted was their rights preserved and laws upheld.  The Colonists reminded the Crown that they had appealed to them on every civil level, but the Crown and Parliament had not only ignored them, but attacked them.  therefore, since the British were in violation of their Charters, and had become Tyrannical, the Colonists were invoking their Natural Right to sever their political binds to Britain.

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.

Finally, here is where the founders hold to eternal Truth where we have not progressed, but regressed.  They inserted an appeal to God for a judgment in their cause.  Jefferson originally left this out, so by inserting it, the Colonists were making the declaration that they were directly appealing to God.  One does not appeal to something in which one does not believe.

Then they declare their independence and right to assume self-governance.

And, finally, they insert another direct appeal to God to support and protect them in their endeavor.

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.

Now, I do not understand how any rational, intellectually honest individual can read through the Declaration, compare it to modern events and conclude that the Declaration is not relevant.  It is clearly relevant, because human nature has not changed.  Neither has the only authority by which anyone can claim individual rights, or appeal to a Higher authority than a corrupt and tyrannical earthly government.  In fact, I would dare say that, rather than being obsolete, the Declaration is still quite revolutionary in its philosophy.  How could it not be?  When you consider that the people calling it obsolete are all pushing for a return to the same despotism that the Declaration broke free of, it can’t be anything but revolutionary.  It is those crying for a return to tyranny who are obsolete and rightly deserving to be thrown in the trash bin of history.  But then, the founders were also a much more enlightened people than we are, so one wouldn’t expect us to be able to avail ourselves of their advanced ideology.  Sadly, it is possible that we are clamoring for a return to the obsolete because it is all we deserve…

[NOTE: I asked a lawyer friend of mine to help me in listing modern offenses for this post.  He did so, and told me he was shocked at just how many he could list off the top of his head — as in, without having to think or look for them.  I believe this is part of the problem: even those of us who should know better have allowed ourselves to become so distracted that we do not see the tyranny enveloping us on all sides — and this goes double for the fools among us.]

[PLEASE HELP: I no longer think of my voice as anything special.  There was a time when I believed I had something important to say, but not so much these days.  I write now because I feel driven to do so.  Something inside me will not let me rest until I post the pages you just read.  I’d just as soon not bother anymore.  It all seems like no one is listening and I do more harm than good.  So I have come to trust that whatever it is driving me has all this under control.  Personally, I believe it is God, but others may not.  All I ask is that, if anything I write helps you, or you think it might help others in any way, please, share this page.  Re-blog it, share it on FB or send the link to your friends.  So long as you feel it will do more good than harm, then please, use this page however you wish.  Thank you.]

Advertisements

3 responses to “Is The Declaration Of Independence ‘Obsolete?’

  1. Reblogged this on The Rio Norte Line and commented:

    A little long, but worth the read.

  2. Reblogged this on UZA – people's courts, forums, & tribunals and commented:
    Thanks for further explanation. Our rights come from our humanity; Judge Napolitano explains it well in the seminar: Natural law as a restraint against tyranny;

  3. Joe,

    Read the post and it’s got it nailed down quite well. Sadly, most living/occupying the US no longer want more than their basic desires filled by the providers.

    What they fail to understand is the providers are becoming very tired and worn out from the last 100 plus years of being blamed for their laziness.

    I can see light at the end of the tunnel regardless of whom is elected.

Your comments are wanted and welcome, but are moderated before posting

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s