I have a modest proposal.  I propose that we submit and ratify three simple Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.  All three are in keeping with the principles of Natural law as laid out in The Declaration of Independence.  Furthermore, I believe these three simple Amendments would solve the majority of America’s political problems, not the least of which include the issues of term limitations, campaign finance reform, education and illegal immigration.  If I may, I would like to submit my three proposed Amendments along with a short explanation of the reasoning for each.

PROPOSAL #1:

I propose that we pass an Amendment that returns the nation to the original method of electing the President and Senators, but replace the method of selecting Congressional Representatives with a lottery system.

REASONING:

First, the Federal government was never intended to be a national government.  It is designed to govern the States, not the nation.  Therefore, the States should select the President — as they originally did.  Furthermore, the States would have to submit two names for President: one from their own citizenry and one from another State.  The Congressional Congress would then tally the names and announce the winner.  Look it up, this is how the Constitution was originally supposed to work.

Then, the States would appoint their Senators, as they once did.  This is because the Senate was intended to represent the States’ interest in the Federal government.  Therefore, it made sense to allow the States to appoint them.

Finally, I propose we go to an election of sound-minded citizenry.  Naturally, the Amendment would have to define what is meant by  ‘sound-mind,’ and it would have to do so in language that will be difficult for ‘Progressive-minded’ individuals to pervert in the future.  But, after this is accomplished, the 2-year terms of Congressional Representatives would be filled by random selection from the various Congressional districts.  The selection would come from those members who had the ability to vote in State elections (notice that there would be no more national elections).  This would have many benefits.  1 — It would make proper education mandatory, so that everyone would have the necessary knowledge to perform this duty. 2 — It would end problems with campaign finance and Party politics. 3 — It would provide an accurate representation of the given Congressional district (which could also be re-drawn to reflect much more realistic or rational boundaries, since Party Politics would no longer be an issue).

PROPOSAL #2:

The vote would be restricted to those citizens who meet a given criteria.  Now, this criteria would need to be debated, but I suggest it be very restricted.  Maybe the Founders were correct: the vote should only be a privilege given only to those who either owned real property and/or had served in the military during time of war.

REASONING:

The reasoning here is simple.  Under my first proposal, there would be no more National elections, and there shouldn’t be.  This means that voting would not be eliminated, only restricted to the areas where it is proper in a Federal system.  Under a Federal system, the proper focus of elections is and should remain the State and the immediate local district of the People of a given State.  In other words, this would make politics ‘local’ again, which makes it easier for people to stay involved.

Next, under Natural Law, voting is a privilege.  It is part of the Social Contract.  So long as the foundation of the system of government is properly constructed, there is no need to require any sort of vote at all (which is what my first proposal establishes for the Federal government).  However, in the interest of allowing the People to have an active voice in the governing of their public affairs, I propose that the States keep the vote, but limit those who are allowed to vote.  To this end, I propose three criteria.  Should this ever happen (and I doubt it will), this area can be debated further, but at the bare minimum, the vote should be restricted accordingly:

1 — Positive, picture ID and proof of eligibility to vote will be mandatory at the polling place.

2 — NO ONE who is on any form of ‘public assistance’ (i.e. draws $1+ tax dollars for any reason other than salary as a public servant) shall be allowed to vote in local or State elections for as long as they are on said assistance — NO ONE!

3 — Those citizens of a State that are not on public assistance and who have served in the military during time of war (i.e. declared by Congress) shall be allowed to vote in local and State elections.

4 — Those citizens of a State who own real property and who are not drawing any form of public assistance may be allowed to vote in local and State elections (mostly because these are the people who pay property taxes, are most affected by government action and, therefore, are most vested in paying attention to the doings of local and State governments).

PROPOSAL #3:

I propose an Amendment that makes it illegal to give money or services in kind to any candidate or campaign for which the person giving the money cannot vote in the next election.  Furthermore, any candidate found to have accepted contributions from a source that cannot vote for them in the next election will be immediately disqualified from that election and the candidate with the next highest number of votes will be seated.  In addition, any candidate who is disqualified can be personally sued (i.e. them, not their campaign) by his or her constituents for reimbursement of any funds they donated to that campaign.

REASONING:

The reasoning here should be obvious.  First, if you cannot vote for the candidate, then donating to their campaign amounts to meddling in that election.  The principle here is no different than the current controversy over whether or not the Russians meddled in our last Presidential election.  If Russia is a problem when they mess with a U.S. election, then Soros is a problem when he gives money to people in the other 49 States where he does not live, as are the Unions, Political Parties, PACs, etc who give money to campaigns where they cannot vote.

Notice how this resolves the problem with all these different special interests giving money to political candidates.  This means that a candidate will only need or be able to draw funds from his actual constituents.  It also eliminates the ability of people outside that political district to meddle with local elections.  The only detail that needs to be worked out if how to handle when a candidate has received illegal donations from outside their district.  Do you set a dollar number, percentage of their funding or number of donations before disqualifying that candidate?  This can be worked out, but it will remove outside funding and give the candidate a strong reason to make sure they comply with this requirement.

There you have it: three simple ideas that could — if ratified — resolve a great many of our current political problems.  And, in case you are wondering, the issue of illegal aliens will be resolved because A — they will no longer be allowed to vote and B — those people who can vote will be very unlikely to elect people who are going to give their money to illegal aliens.  Even term limits will be addressed as, under my three proposals, if will be much more difficult for bad politicians to raise the money necessary to stay in office.  In short, these three proposals are in keeping with the principles and ideals upon which this nation was founded and will, if ratified, largely resolve many of our current problems by eliminating the environment that has allowed our current corruption to thrive.

ADDENDUM 2018.5.12

I have a proposal for a 4th Amendment.

PROPOSAL #4:

All bills must address a single subject, and every bill must name what is being addressed and from which enumerated power Congress draws authority to address the subject/issue.  Furthermore, all bills passed by Congress must apply equally, to every citizen in every State, or the bill is null and void.

REASONING:

The Federal government is a government to manage business between the States.  It has specific enumerated powers addressing the specific areas over which its authority extends.  By forcing every bill to address one and only one issue at a time and to name the specific enumerated power that grants Congress the authority to act in this area, this proposal will greatly reduce the corruption in both spending and pork-barrelling.  Furthermore, by requiring that every Bill passed by Congress must apply equally to every citizen in every State, this will help to insure that Congress will not play special favors to special interest groups, nor exempt themselves from the laws they pass.

I believe that this is one of those rare cases where things actually are black-and-white.  Furthermore, I believe that we can tell whether or not a person actually supports America and the rule of law or is trying to destroy this nation based on which side of this issue they stand.  How did I arrive at these conclusions?  Simple.  I applied a little logic to this issue and then accepted the logical conclusions that followed.

First, let’s review what we know about the facts surrounding this issue:

1 — Iran has been a self-declared enemy of the United States since the Iran Hostage Crisis.

2 — Iran’s government prays for the destruction of America every Friday.

3 — Israel is one of if not our strongest ally in the Middle East.

4 — Iran’s stated goal is to destroy Israel.

Now, let’s look at the things Obama did leading up to Trump’s withdrawal from the Iranian deal.

First, Obama violated the Constitution when he entered into the deal he made with Iran.  This is not opinion, it is fact.  The Constitution specifically says the Senate is responsible for making such deals — not the President.  On top of that, Obama spent U.S. funds without authorization from Congress.  This is very likely another violation of the Constitution.  Either way, this was an impeachable act.

Next, the deal Obama made was bad for the United States (and Israel).  It only benefited Iran.

It is very likely that the $150 Billion+ Obama gave Iran was used to fund Iran’s military actions against Israel, a U.S. ally (money which Sec State John Kerry even admitted would be used to fund terrorism and pay Russia for helping Iran develop nuclear weapons).

Obama’s gave military aid to Al Qaeda in Libya, a declared enemy of the U.S. and Israel and ally of Iran.

Obama’s support to the Syrian Rebels was actually about giving military aid to ISIS.  It is also what Benghazi was all about: collecting weapons from Al Qaeda in Libya to send them to ISIS forces in Syria.

Many of these actions are acts of treason and others are on the razor edge of treasonous.  They are all impeachable actions.  But no one said or did anything about this.  In fact, there were GOP leaders, such as Sen. McCain, who were actively involved in helping Obama do these things.  As for the media, they protected Obama by supporting and praising these acts and denying there was anything legally wrong with any of them.  But none of this is true.  So, let’s apply a little logic to the situation.

If we have a President who goes far beyond his authority to make a binding agreement with an enemy of our nation;

An agreement that gains nothing for the U.S. and takes nothing that matters to the U.S. from that enemy;

And agreement that gives that enemy money — without Congressional involvement — that is then used to militarily endanger a U.S. ally;

What do we call such an action?

Well, the U.S. Constitution defines this as HIGH TREASON!  Therefore, by definition, Obama, those who helped him, as well as those who supported him in his actions toward Iran are guilty of treason.  One cannot provide military and monetary support to a nation that has openly declared it is actively working to destroy America and a close ally of America without being guilty of High Treason.  Therefore, Obama and all those who support him are guilty — period!  This is not an opinion.  It is simply a logical conclusion based upon the objective application of definition.

So, now we come to Trump’s withdrawal and the responses to it.  Again, those who supported Obama’s actions were (and are) traitors to the United States.  This then means, those who are opposing Trump’s actions by trying to keep this treasonous agreement in place are joining these traitors by giving aid and comfort to an American enemy.  This means they are traitors, as well.

Now, to show some modicum of grace toward those who may have supported Obama and are opposing Trump, let me acknowledge that I am fully aware that many will disagree with my accusations.  They will try to say they do not see ‘the facts’ the same way and that means I am wrong.  They will say Obama was trying to protect the U.S. by making the deal with Iran, and they will deny that Obama gave military aid to Al Qaeda and ISIS.  And they will say that they are trying to defend America by opposing Trump’s actions.  They will claim that it is Trump who is endangering the U.S.  They will say these things, and they will believe these things — and they will all be wrong!

Again, this time, we are not dealing with opinion.

Many countries have said that Al Qaeda and ISIS are connected to Iran’s attack on Israel.  Many of these countries have said Obama gave military aid to Al Qaeda and ISIS.  THIS INCLUDE U.S. MILITARY INTELLIGENCE!!!  This is a matter of public record.  It was televised on CPAN, so this is FACT!

It is also FACT that Obama violated the Constitution when he made this Iranian deal.  HE HAD ZERO AUTHORITY TO DO SO!  FACT!

Obama has helped Iran in its military efforts.  This is a FACT!  It is well documented that his actions helped Al Qaeda and ISIS, and the recent results on the ground (the results since Trump took over) support this conclusion.

All of this means Obama was giving military aid to a declared enemy of the U.S. and one of its closest allies.  This is the definition o HIGH TREASON.  Therefore, THIS IS A FACT!

Anyone who joins in or helps another person commit an illegal actions is an accomplice of that crime.  This is by definition.  Therefore, anyone who helps or supports Obama and his efforts to help Iran are guilty of treason.  This is also by definition.  If something is true by definition, IT IS A FACT!

So, once again, if you support Obama and his actions, you are guilty of treason against the United States of America — period!  This is a simple matter of definition, which means it is a fact.  One cannot escape this conclusion by trying to change the meaning of the language any more than one can make a male into a female simply by asserting it is true if a person says they ‘identify’ that way.  I can ‘identify’ as king of the world, but that does not make it true.  The same applies to those with XY chromosomes who claim they are female, and for those who support Obama who claim they are not traitors.  They can claim innocence all they want, but the FACTS say otherwise.

If it helps, think of it this way.  What if Obama had been FDR and he had entered into an agreement with Hitler in 1942 — after Germany had declared war on America?  What if, at that time, FDR had agreed to let Hitler keep everything he had and gave Hitler money and weapons to use against England?  Would we have considered FDR to have been acting in the best interests of the U.S.?  Hitler has declared war on the U.S., is attacking our ally in England, and FDR gives him money, weapons, direct U.S. military support and doesn’t even demand that Hitler surrender anything in return.  How would that NOT have been treason?  It would have been — plain and simple.  So how is it that Obama’s actions with Iran were not treason?  And that those people who supported and are still supporting him are not equally guilty of treason?

No, this issue is black-and-white.  If you support and/or defend Obama’s actions toward Iran, you are committing treason.

[NOTE: In reality, Obama’s own State Department said that this ‘deal’ was not a treaty, was not an executive agreement and was not even signed by Iran.  The Obama Administration said it was just a set of ‘policy goals.’  Well, if it is not the product of a President acting in his official capacity (and Obama’s State Department essentially said it was not), then it is the product of a personal agenda.  That means this ‘deal’ was not only treason and subversion, but also theft and Obama should be made to reimburse the American People.]

In my last few posts, I have argued that the government has a duty to protect every citizen equally, and the support and preserve the world view upon which that government is built.  This is all part of the Social Contract.  In the U.S., we know this Social Contract as The U.S. Constitution.  However, in my last post, where I argue that the government has a duty to support, preserve and defend the world view upon which it is based, I no doubt opened the door to objections based on the freedom of speech.  In this post, I propose to argue the specifics of how one can advocate for a change in society without violating the principles of Natural Law and, therefore, the Social Contract that allows free speech in the first place.

Before we can determine the proper way to advocate for social change, we need to understand the areas where we can rightfully exercise our rights.  In addition tot hat, we need to understand what — exactly — is included in our right to advocate for that change.  In almost every case, this will include the right of free speech and a free press.  So, let’s start with a discussion about these rights.

I believe in and support the notion of free speech and a free press.  I do not believe that a just government has the authority to suppress either.  However, I strongly disagree with the modern definitions of ‘speech’ and ‘the press’ in the United States.  Speech is the written or spoken word.  It is not an action.  A demonstration is not speech.  The press is a form of publication.  It can be printed or electronic in form, but it is nothing more than another way to convey or express speech.  But there is a catch here that too many of us fail to recognize or understand.

Let’s deal with speech first.  You have the right to speak your mind, but you do not have a right to be heard, nor do you have a right to demand others help you with your speech.  As long as you do not obstruct the free movement of others, or their ability to use the property equally, you are free to set a box down in a public place and give a speech on public property.  You are free to speak at the public meetings of our various governing bodies.  You are free to try to get people to listen to you wherever you meet them.  But you have no right to force others to listen, or to take your agenda into a public institution.  Your right to free speech extends only to the extent that you — personally — can voice your thoughts by your own efforts, and then, only so long as you do not trample the rights of another in the process.  The moment you try to place a demand on another person, your right to free speech ends.  This means that there is no right to carry an agenda into the schools or any other public institution.  This is because those institutions are supported by all taxpayers, which means, by using them to spread your message, you are using the money and labor of every citizen.  That is a demand and it is a violation of Natural Law.

Next, we have the press.  The restrictions on the free press are a little more difficult for people to understand and accept.  If you have your own means of printing and distributing something you want others to read, you have the right to do so.  If you have the means to publish some form of electronic publication on your own, you have the right to do so.  You even have the right to contract with other private citizens to help you do these things.  You can pay a printing shop to print your pamphlet, or pay YouTube to publish your video channel.  You have a right to do all of these things.  However, the moment you cross the line and enter into the public square, you no longer have a right to a free press because you are no longer acting as a private person.  This is the key.  The right to a free press only applies to the private person or group of citizens.  If the public square is required, then the government not only has the authority to regulate your message, it has a duty to do so.  This is because the government has a duty to make sure that tax payers are not forced to pay for something that tramples their rights, and forcing one person to work for the benefit of another is a violation of their rights.

So, how does this look in our society today?  What forms of ‘press’ have intruded upon the public square?  Well, the first area that comes to mind is the public air ways.  Anything broadcast over the public radio spectrum is subject to government regulation.  Our schools are another area where the government has a duty to regulate ‘the press.’  If an industry has been turned into a utility, then it part of the public square and, therefore, the government has a duty to monitor any form of ‘press’ that uses that utility to publish its content.  An example here would be, if the telephone system were still a legal monopoly, the government would have the authority to control the information that was transmitted over that phone system.  In any case involving public resources, the government has a duty to regulate ‘the press’ (as well as speech), but this duty is not without its own limitations.

The government’s duty is to support, promote and defend the world view upon which it is based, but this does not mean it has the authority to censor voices that advocate for change.  It only has the authority to make sure the public is not forced to finance those voices and those voices that are subversive or seditious in nature.  In other words, the government can prohibit the use of public resources and shut down speech that seeks to undermine or destroy the Social Contract (i.e. the government) and/or the world view that supports it.  The first duty — to insure the People are not forced to fund a movement — is restricted to the public square.  Individuals are free to advocate for change so long as they do not use public resources.  But the duty to silence subversive or seditious voices extends to all corners of society.  This is part of the government’s duty to defend the People and it is based on the Social Contract.  If the world view that supports that contract is attacked, then Society is attacked; and if society is attacked, every individual within it is attacked, which means the Natural Rights of every individual is attacked.  Since this is the primary duty of the government — to defend these rights — the government has a duty to stop subversion and sedition.

OK, so now that we have a little better understanding of what we mean by free speech and a free press, and the extent to how and where we can justly exercise that right, what does this mean for those who want to affect change in society?  If we are not allowed to use the public’s resources to spread our message, how do we do so?  Well, there are many ways, and several notable historic examples of how well they can work.

In my last post, I mentioned the changes affected in the Greco-Roman Empire by the early Christian Church.  The Christians had no money, no property, no political power and no legal status.  In fact, for a time, it was illegal to be a Christian.  Yet, by nothing more than the way the early Christians lived and the way they treated others, they changed the entire ancient world.  In the process, they paved the way for what we now know as ‘The Western World.’  Gandhi and MLK both modeled their movements on this example.  So we have three powerful examples of how people can advocate for social change without using public resources.

Then we have the example of men such as Karl Marx, Thomas Hobbs and John Locke.  These men used the press to publish their ideas.  From their, they gained disciples who started to spread their ideas by word of mouth.  Slowly, the movement grew until it became a major part of the public conscience.  However, in the case of one or more of these men, they advocated the usurping of public resources as a part of their agenda.  In these cases, they should have been shut down.

Then we have the example of the American founding.  They used a combination of these two methods.  The generation leading up to the American Revolution saw a great deal of public discussion, especially in the churches and local pubs.  Later, this spread to the private press.  So, by the time of the Revolution, the majority of the Colonial Society had been made aware of the thinking that eventually lead to the American Revolution.  Now, it is true, this change resulted as an act of violence.  But there is a great deal more that lead up to that war that was not violent.  If we will read, we will find that the founders said the change had happened before the shooting started, and it had happened in the hearts of the People — which is exactly what we are discussing here: how to peacefully change society by convincing the People to go along with that change.

“The Revolution was effected before the War commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations … This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution.”

— John Adams

So, this is how one can advocate for change in society without violating the Natural Rights of any member of that society.  No, it is not easy.  No, it will not happen quickly.  But it isn’t supposed to be.  If we are going to ask society to make wholesale changes to how it is set up and how it operates, we have a duty to every member of that society to convince them that our ideas are worth the change.  Otherwise, we are nothing more than a domestic enemy who is seeking to destroy society so we can re-make it according to our own desires.  In short, we are presuming to play God with the lives and property of others.  We have no such right, but the people we presume to have the authority to attack most certainly have a Natural Right to defend themselves against us — up to and including killing us!

In my last post, I argued that, under Natural Law, the government has a duty to support, preserve and defend the world view upon which it is built.  In this post, I will argue for the way the government can properly do this without violating the Principles of Natural Law.

The first thing we need to understand is that the government can only have the authority to do those things that any individual in society has a Natural Right to do, themselves.  This restriction is inherent in the principles governing the Social Contract (in the U.S., we call that contract ‘The U.S. Constitution’).  Or, to put this another way, the government does not and cannot have rights or authorities greater than those of every single individual it governs.  What it has is the permission of the People to exercise their individual Natural Rights on their behalf, and even then, only under certain conditions and only to a certain extent.  Therefore, the government cannot exercise force over any citizen where that force violates the Principles of Natural Law or the Social Contract.  If it does so, it acts unjustly, breaks the Social Contract and, if egregious enough, enters into a state of war with the People.

The second thing we need to understand is that, if they are not breaking the law, the government does not have and cannot have the authority to control private citizens, institutions or organizations.  Unless a law has been broken, the only area where the government has the authority to control is in the public square.  And by ‘the public square,’ we mean those properties and institutions that are supported by public monies and/or recognized as available for the common use.  For example: the ocean is not owned by any one individual, therefore, it is available for common use.  Therefore, the resources found in the ocean would fall under the just authority of the government to control.  The ‘air ways’ (i.e. radio frequencies) would be another area where the government could claim a just authority. Furthermore, if the land or institution is supported by public monies, such as a public park or public school, the government has a just claim to exercise its authority over them, as well.  This is because these public lands and institutions belong to and exist for the benefit of every individual in society equally.

This next point is where things get troublesome for many.  Where public property or institutions are concerned, the government has a duty to use and manage them and their operations in a way that preserves the Natural Rights of the individual, but — at the same time — supports, preserves and defends the world view upon which that system of government is built.  Why?  The answer is simple: because that world view is the source of that government’s authority.  The use of public resources to attack or destroy the world view upon which that system is founded is called subversion and it constitutes an attack on both the Social Contract and the People, as well.  If the government were to allow such an act, it would be giving aid and comfort to an enemy against which the Social Contract demands the government protect the People.  Such an act would nullify the Social Contract.  If a Social Contract is nullified, the government ceases to exist as a rightful authority over the People.  Instead, it becomes nothing more than an enemy of the People using their resources to wage war upon the People, and the People have every right to fight back against it (which, by the way, is the true reason for the 2nd Amendment: to insure the People will always retain the ability to resist a government that turns on them).

This leaves us with the problem of how the government can allow the use of public properties and resources without ignoring its duty to protect the world view upon which it is founded.  Let’s take two cases to illustrate how this can be done.

First, we will consider the Peoples’ right to use public property. The People have a Natural Right to assemble and to seek redress of grievance.  But there is no Natural Right to conduct a protest, especially a protest that interferes with the daily conduct of public institutions and/or private citizens.  Remember, you have no right to do anything that forces your will upon another, or restricts another from justly exercising their will.  If a group holds a protest where property is destroyed or even where the free movement of others on public property is impeded, that is a violation of the Natural Rights of those property owners and/or people prevented from moving about freely on mutually owned property.  The same would apply if a protest disrupted the proper functioning of a government service.  That service is meant to serve every member of society, therefore, anyone who interferes with that function has violated the Social Contract (i.e. broken the civil and Natural Law).  Therefore, while government must protect the right of a person or group to use public land as a meeting place, it also has a duty to make sure that person or group does not interfere with the rights of other citizens.  If they do, they should be arrested and charged accordingly — each and every one of them, no matter what the cost.  To not do so is to provide aid and comfort to people who are breaking the Social Contract by which they have agree to live.  That is subversion and, if the government allows it to happen too often, the government effectively joins sides with that subversive element, at which time, it can no longer claim to be the just authority over the People.  It has effectively entered into a state of war with the People and the People are justified in dealing with it accordingly.

Next, let us consider the case of a public institution such as a school.  Schools are supposed to be a place of learning, and learning requires that we challenge ourselves by considering new and opposing ideas.  The government has a duty to preserve this practice.  However, it has an equal or greater duty to see to it that the schools teach all subjects fairly and in light of their historical context.  Where the founding world view of a society is concerned, this is an especially pressing duty.  If the government allows any school that receives public funding of any kind to attack the founding world view, the government actively engages in subversion.  In a case such as our schools, where citizens are supposed to be taught about why their system was chosen in the first place, such an act is sufficient to warrant to dissolution of the government.  There need be no other violation.  Allowing the minds of the next generation to be turned against the existing system is a direct attack on the People, and if the government allows it, it has chosen to side with those conducting that attack and ceases to be a legitimate authority.  It has become a domestic enemy, instead.

Now, I am fully aware that there will be people who will claim that this amounts to a violation of free speech.  That is not the case.  Where public funds are involved, the government cannot allow anything that can be considered subversive to exist.  This is because the government is charged with the protection of each and every citizen, equally.  To allow any view other than the founding view — the view upon which that society is structured and by which the government draws its authority, is to attack that society and its People.  If it helps, think of it this way.  Do I have a right to come into your home and demand that you and your entire family pay me to lecture you about what you should believe or how you should conduct your household?  If you do not think I have the right to force you to pay me to do these things, then how can anyone argue that the government does?  Because, if students are going to be forced to go to school by aw, and the people forced to pay top support that school, then the moment that school teaches anything that does not support the world view upon which that society is based, it has assumed my place in my example: it is forcing you to pay to listen to me tell you what you should think and how you should live in your own home.  It is for this reason that the government has a duty to insure that our public institutions support, preserve and defend the world view upon which our society was founded (this is essentially how Edmund Burke defined ‘Conservatism,’ and note: it can apply to any society and/or system).

So, if the government has a duty to ensure the current world view is protected, then how can anyone possibly change the government?  Well, first, no one is saying that change will be or should be easy or fast.  It takes work, and it should.  After all, we are talking about convincing the whole of society to willingly agree to make a change.  If we are going to do this, we owe it to society to make sure we have convinced society that our change is better than what we have and that we should make the change for that reason.  This can be done, and it can be done without miss-using any public property or money.  One of the best examples of how this type of change can be affected can be found in the history of the early Christian Church.  Historians often like to give credit for the Western world to the Greeks, but the true driving force behind the changes to the Greco-Roman Empire that lead to what we now know as ‘The West’ was the way the early Christian believers lived and treated others.  They had no money, no land, no political power.  They were even outlawed.  Yet they changed the world.  Dr. King did much the same thing, as did Gandhi.  So we have examples of how such changes can be made without forcing society to pay for them.  The problem for most who will disagree is that, when it comes right down to it, the changes they want to make are not popular enough to convince society to agree to make the changes they want to make, so they have to find a way to force the People to comply with their desires.  That is a clear violation of Natural Law and, if the government helps with such an agenda — in any way — it joins in that attack on the People.

Therefore, where public property and institutions are concerned, the proper role of government is to insure that every individual is treated equally, and that their individual rights and property are equally protected.  This means the government has a duty to make sure the public square remains as neutral as possible, and that no person or group is allowed to use public resources to push a private agenda.  Finally, the government has a duty to support, preserve and defend the world view upon which it was founded because that is part of what it was charged to do when it was formed, and it is the only way the government can continue to draw legitimate authority to exercise its duties.

This may seem counter-intuitive, at least at first, but it is true.  Under Natural Law, a government has a duty to support, preserve and defend the world view upon which it was founded.  But why?  Wouldn’t this mean the government would be at odds with the will of the People if and when the People change their world view?  The answer is no, and the reason is found in the concept of the Social Contract.

The founders saw The U.S. Constitution as a Social Contract.  This is because they adhered to a world view generally known as Natural Law.  What’s more, they understood the Principles of Natural Law as defined by John Locke and other like-minded political thinkers, not as Thomas Hobbs and his allies understood it.  The clearest expression of this world view was laid out in The Declaration of Independence.  What this means is that the Constitution is linked to and draws its authority from the ideals and principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence.  This, then, means that the world view upon which The U.S. Constitution is founded is as much a part of the Constitution as its language and the parchment upon which it was written.  The same is true for all of the State Constitutions, as they are likewise based upon the founders understanding of Natural Law.  Therefore, an attack upon that world view is an attack upon the Social Contract of the Union, as well as the several States and, thus, an attack on their respective Constitutions.

Now, before the reader dismisses my assertion, I’d like to remind the reader that The U.S. Constitution actually makes reference to a Constitutional requirement that is very similar in spirit to what I am asserting.  I present the following from the U.S. Constitution:

Article IV, Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

The Constitution places a duty on the Federal government.  That duty is to insure that all of the Several States maintain a republican — or representative — form of government.  The founders rejected the notion of ‘democracy.’  They not only saw democracy for what it is: as a form of tyranny, but they also noted that ‘democracies’ are not republican (i.e. representative).  In order to be ‘representative,’ a government must provide for the voices of any minorities within the body of the governed, as well as protections for those minorities rights and property.  Any honest study of the Constitution will reveal that the founders repeatedly discussed this issue and wrote many forms of minority protections into the Constitution.  So, the Federal government has a duty to protect the voice and rights of minority groups in the several States by insuring the several States maintain a republican form of government.  But where did the founders get this notion of republicanism, especially as it pertains to the equal protections of minority voices, rights and property?  They got it from their Natural Law world view.

Now, cementing this claim — that the founders got the notion of a republican government that protects the voice, rights and property of minorities — will take another, dedicated post.  But for the purpose at hand, it should be sufficient to remind the reader that the founders based the American system off the notion of individual rights and liberty, and there is no smaller minority than the individual.  Therefore, for the sake of this post, I am going to assume that there is sufficient reason to accept my assertion that the founders notion of republican government was born of their Natural Law world view.  I continue.

Now, the Federal government has a duty to maintain a republican form of government within each of the several States.  By this, we mean ‘republican’ as the founders understood and defined it.  Unless and until the Constitution is legally amended to change this duty, or the Constitution is legally replaced (see my previous post),  that understanding of ‘republican’ also remains set in place.  It cannot be changed by ‘interpretation.’  This then requires that the Federal government (not to mention the State governments) has a duty to support, preserve and defend the world view upon which this understanding of ‘republican government’ is based.  But why?

Well, consider, if you will, what would happen to our legal system if we were to allow our understanding of the law to change.  Under the Constitution, people are to be considered (and treated) as though they are innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.  But what if the People were to switch to the European understanding of the law, where the accused is guilty until proven innocent?  How then would we justly apply the laws that were written under the authority of The U.S. Constitution?  The answer is, we could not, which would mean our legal system would effectively cease to exist.  But the Federal government has a duty to protect and preserve itself and the republican form of government in each of the several States.  How can the federal government do this is the People are allowed to just change their world view without legally changing or replacing the Constitution to reflect the changes in their world view?  Again, it cannot.  Therefore, it follows that the Federal government can only assure its ability to perform the duties with which it is charged if it supports, protects and defends the world view upon which it is based and from which it draws its authority.

Now, we must remember that The U.S. Constitution is a Social Contract.  This means that there are rights, responsibilities and privileges on the part of all Parties subject to the authority of the Constitution.  These rights, privileges and responsibilities are primarily, but not solely concerned with the States.  They also involve every individual citizen within the several States.  Furthermore, contracts are two-way agreements.  If one Party assumes the benefits of the contract, they are also bound by the terms of that contract.  Therefore, in this case, the individual is as bound to support, protect and defend the world view upon which the Constitution is built as the State and Federal governments, themselves.  This is where things start to get complicated.

The founders asserted that the people have a right to alter or replace their government.  However, they stipulated requirements that must be present before such a change can be pursued.  Namely, the government must be thought to have become tyrannical or destructive to individual rights and liberties. But doesn’t the notion of liberty suggest that people have the right to change their minds about things, even about things such as their world view and notion of just government?  The answer is yes.  But do they have a  right to just ignore the world view and the government it created and proceed to affect the changes they desire?  The answer is an emphatic NO!  They are free to change their minds, but they must go about making the changes that result from changing their minds according to the system provided by whatever system that is already in place.  In our case, that would be the U.S. Constitution.  Unless and until the People legally complete the process, the Federal government, as well as the several State government, are bound to support, preserve and protect the world view which created them.  This is because, until the Constitution is legally changed or replaced, it is a contract that is still in effect, and that contract places duties on the Federal (and State) government that can only be performed by supporting and defending the world view which created them.

This immediately brings up two important questions.  First: how does the government support, preserve and defend the world view upon which it is founded without violating the principles of Natural Law to which it must conform?  Second: if the citizens of the united States are as bound to preserve the founding world view as the Federal and State government, how can they ever exercise their Natural Rights to change their minds regarding society’s world view and to change the system of government to reflect that change of mind?  Both of these are subjects for separate posts, and I will address these issues — in order — in my next two posts.