Rights and Limited Government

Dumb Voter No More . com

Rights and Limited Government

Democratic and the Republican parties have been trying to trick us. These folks, who really want the government to care for us from cradle to grave, have been promoting the idea that health care is a right. In promoting that false premise, they have succeeded in moving the debate from WHETHER the feds should micro-manage health care to HOW the feds should micro-manage health care. This is a false premise, and we should reject it. Health care is not a right; it is a good, like food, like shelter, and like clothing.

Judge Napolitano

Government's job is to protect (individual) rights.

What is the purpose of government under capitalism?
It is to protect rights that governments are instituted. A proper government's only responsibility is to protect the rights of the individual, by banning the initiation of force, thus making all relations between men peaceful, i.e., free from the threat of violence and fraud.

What do you mean by the initiation of force?
In a political context, freedom has only one specific meaning -- freedom from the initiation of force by other men. By initiation I mean those who start the use of force to achieve their ends, i.e., a bank robber. Only the initiation of force against a man can stop his mind, thus rendering it useless as a means of survival. Only by the initiation of force can a man be: prevented from speaking, or robbed of his possessions, or murdered. Only through the initiation of force can a man's rights be violated.

What do individuals delegate to government?
In order to place the retaliatory use of force under objective legal control -- that is, under clearly defined laws that are logically deduced from the principle of rights -- those who make up society delegate their right to retaliate against those who initiate force, to government.

What is the purpose of law?
In a free society each and every man lives under a rule of law, as opposed to a whim-ridden rule of men. Such a rule of law has only one purpose: to protect the rights of the smallest minority that has ever existed -- the individual. Such laws form objective legislation, which hold a man innocent until he can be proven guilty, as opposed to a library of irrational regulations which hold a man guilty until he can somehow prove himself innocent, to the gratification of some Atilla able to gain a foothold in public office. In a free society it is the actions of government -- and not the actions of citizens -- that are regulated.

What is the purpose of the constitution?
To ensure no despot -- whether that despot be a single dictator, an elite political pressure-group, or the befuddled democratic majority of the moment -- may usurp the powers of government, and turn its machinery upon its citizens, each and every aspect of government action is codified, and carried out, according to objectively defined laws. The supreme legal document of a proper society is the constitution -- a citizen's protection not only against private criminals, but public ones also.

What would a society be without government, i.e., without the delegation of the use of force?
Man's state in nature, where every man is allowed complete discretion in the retaliatory use of force, according to the laws of the jungle, is nothing more than a state of anarchy -- perpetual civil war and gang warfare. If there were no legal agency to carry out such a task, each man would be forced to carry out retaliation at his own discretion, i.e., anarchy. A modern day example of such a situation is Bosnia, where two gangs, or "competing governments" -- the Croats and the Serbs -- are competing with each other in the same geographical area. So much for the libertarian-anarchist version of a "free" society -- a society where everyone is free to murder.

Can men use force in self defense?
To use force in retaliation -- in self defense against those who initiate it -- is not a moral option, but a moral requirement. A moral man has nothing to gain when a man tries to kill him, but he has much to lose if he does not defend himself. For this reason it is right, just, and proper to use force in retaliation and self-defense. The use of force, in and of itself, is not evil -- but to initiate (start) force is. Contrary to the vile doctrines of the pacifists, force used in self-defense is a species of the good.

Does government's monopoly on the use of force give it the right to initiate (start) force against others?
Under no conditions may government violate anyone's rights, by initiating force against others. A proper government is permitted to use force to retaliate against a thief who has initiated force against someone (in the act of robbing them). However, a proper government is not permitted to copy the means of private criminals by initiating force against its citizens. The government is not even permitted to rob them of their wealth--even, or rather especially, if the stolen loot is to be used for so called "noble" purposes, such as for the sick and poor. No end (even for the "poor") ever justifies an illegitimate means (the initiation of force). Any man who initiates force against others is a dictator, and should be treated as such, to the extent he initiates force.

Can citizens delegate the right to initiate force to government?
Citizens may not delegate the "right to initiate force" to government, as no one possess such a "right" to begin with. As Ayn Rand has commented "there is no such thing as the right to enslave." What individuals do possess is the right to defend against force (in some cases this may include pre-emptive action). As no individual in his private capacity, as a citizen, may initiate force against others, neither may he in his public capacity as a state official initiate force either.

Doesn't the cause of the "public good" justify the initiation of force?
No one may initiate force for any reason whatsoever, even if that alleged purpose is for the "public good". For is not the individual whose rights are being violated for the "public good", a member of the "public" also? How can such a violation be in the public's good? For is not his good also the good of the public, of which he is a member? The truth is, such violations are only in the irrational interests of a division of the public, but are not in the interests of the entire public.

How does government carry out its' duties in practice?
To protect rights, government require essentially three things: an army -- to protect against foreign invaders, a police force -- to protect against domestic criminals, and a court system -- to settle honest disputes that arise, and to punish criminals according to objectively predefined laws.

Throughout history the two main enemies of human freedom have been criminals and the government. Government was instituted to protect our freedoms in person and property from being violated by criminals. The U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written as tools in protecting our freedoms from the government itself -- by binding the political officials down from mischief with the chains of explicit, written laws and rules of due process. But, the Constitution itself -- being only words on a piece of parchment -- does not have any way to enforce its own provisions if they are violated by government agents. No system of government made up of human beings will automatically restrict itself to its proper functions. Only if enough people -- human beings -- understand and give a damn about freedom and what it requires can it be preserved. The price of liberty is constant vigilance to keep government in its proper place.

The U.S. Government today is becoming more and more like those European regimes that our fathers and grandfathers went to war against in World War II. Peaceful citizens are being harassed -- and in some instances even murdered -- by Gestapo-like Federal goons from a national government that is way out of control.

Most Americans today take their freedoms for granted or, worse still, do not miss or even know the freedoms our country once afforded but which have been lost because of usurpations by Big Government. The following paragraph is a warning from the past which modern America ignores at the peril of what's left of our freedoms.

How To Identify Legal Thievery -- and What To Do About It:

"The law can be an instrument of equalization only in so far as it takes from some persons what belongs to them and then gives it to other persons. But, when the law does this, it becomes an instrument of plunder -- legal plunder.

"How is legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply: See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen or group of citizens at the expense of another citizen or group of citizens by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish that law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but it is also a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law -- which may be an isolated case -- is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a whole system of plunder and interventionism, a system called socialism." --Frederic Bastiat, 1850

Classical liberalism (the political philosophy of John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Herbert Spencer -- a few of the forerunners of the modern libertarian movement) favored individual rights of self and property, free markets, and limited constitutional government. Twentieth Century "liberals" (who are really welfare-state fascists) have stolen the term "liberal" and stand for the opposite of what classical liberalism stood for. Today's so-called "liberals" claim the right to use the power of Big Government to spend other peoples' money and run other peoples' lives --arrogantly thinking that they can run our lives for us and spend our earnings for us better than we can do so ourselves. Modern "Liberalism" is simply busybodyism with the power of the Big Gun -- the meddlesome political state -- behind it.

Unless check-mated by a vigilant citizenry, government tends to grow in size, power, and reach. And it acts more and more like the criminals it was supposed to protect its citizens from in the first place. Click to find out where this trend could lead. What are the degrees of busybodyism?

The more power we give to government to tax, regulate, and control us, the less freedom we have. And the more power is given to government, the more it wants and the more it usurps. Controls beget more controls. Regulations tend to create side effects which are then seized upon as excuses for still more regulations, and so on. Government meddling spreads until we wake up living in a country run by a government which has more in common with Nazi Germany or even Soviet Russia than it does with the original American Republic.

Such terms as "coercion," "violence," "voluntary relationship," and "freedom" are crucial to an understanding of the libertarian position and it is not inaccurate to say that one of the main characteristics that sets libertarians apart from the vast majority of non-libertarians is that libertarians in general hold a clear distinction in their minds between those human activities which they claim should be permissible and those which should be banned by law. Unlike the vast majority of the non-libertarian population, libertarians generally know the difference between a voluntary relationship and a coercive or violent one, and they know the difference in fairly clear terms. It is with these terms that I hope to deal in the following paragraphs. Although I have used these formulations, particularly the definition of "coercion" or violence, since 1972 as a means of achieving more clarity in political discourse, other libertarians have expressed these same concepts in different ways and terminology.

"Coercion" (or "violent force") is an act by a human or humans against the will or without the permission of another human being with respect to that which is his own (his own person or property). It means for someone to take, use, meddle with or otherwise do something to the body or property of another human being without the permission or against the will of that other human being. This includes fraud and embezzlement and other indirect uses of force as well as direct physical violence.

If someone does something to the body or property of someone else without their permission or against their will, that is what we mean by coercion, coercive force, or violence in this context. There are two kinds of coercion: initiatory coercion (the use of coercive force against someone who has not committed a coercive act against anyone) and retaliatory coercion (the use of coercive force in retaliation against someone who has initiated the use of coercion against someone). It is the initiation of the use of coercion that all libertarians oppose on principle since it is the violation of the self-ownership or property rights of innocent human beings (those who have not initiated the use of violence against anyone). Most libertarians favor the proper and righteous use of coercive force, according to rules of due process, against criminals, those who have been convicted of violating the rights of someone by initiatory coercion.

A voluntary relationship is a human relationship in which the wills of all the participants coincide (agree) with respect to the terms of the relationship. A voluntary relationship does not (necessarily) mean one in which a person "volunteers" in the sense of performing some work for no material compensation (such as donating ones time and energies to working for a charity or on civic activities). It includes any mutually agreed-upon exchange (such as working as an employee for a company in exchange for a salary or wages.) Libertarians oppose any coercive interference -- either by government or by criminals -- with such voluntary exchanges. This is why libertarians oppose government controls on prices, wages, rents, and interest rates -- since such controls represent coercive interference with the terms of voluntary exchanges and relationships.

   These definitions imply 1) a social context, 2) a volitional context, and an 3) ownership context. The definitions assume that human beings have wills (desires, says-sos, wishes) over which they have at least some control and that there is more than one human living in the same area. (An individual human being living on an otherwise deserted island would be outside our context since he would not be able to coerce anyone or be coerced by anyone; nor would he be able to engage in any voluntary relationship since that would require at least one other person with whom to interact.)

   We say someone is (or theoretically would be) "free" or enjoys "civil liberty" if there is an absence of coercion in his life while living in a social context. In other words, a man is free or "has freedom" to the extent that, in a social context, he retains exclusive right of control over that which belongs to him (his person and his legitimately acquired property).

If I tie my shoes in a way that you do not like, I am meeting only the first two of the three criteria – that is, I am a human being and I am doing something against someone else's will; however, I am not doing anything against someone else's will with respect to that which is their own (their person or property). Notice that I am performing the action on my own shoes, not someone else's.   If, however, I were to go over and tie your shoes against your will or without your permission, that would be an act of coercion. This is a simple, and somewhat silly, hypothetical example to illustrate the point of distinction.

   Let us apply the three requirements to real-world examples to prove the practicality of this approach:

Is advertising coercive of human rights? Do TV commercials impose
violence on viewers? Or do they merely seek to change your mind
through persuasion? If a software manufacturer offers his product at a
lower price, does this constitute violence against the rights of his
competitors or anyone else? If a man looks at a woman with lust in his
heart, whether it be good or bad manners, is this an act of violent coercion which violates her rights? With clear definitions to make the proper distinctions between what is "coercive violence" and what is not, these questions can be answered without ambiguity.

    If a representative of "the Mafia" tells a storekeeper that his place of business will be hit by a bomb or riddled with bullets if he does not fork over a certain amount of "protection money" every week, is this a threat of violence? It certainly is. If an organized group of people called "the government" confiscate a man's bank account because, they say, he "owes" back taxes, is this coercion? The answer is clearly yes. If agents of the government take or use a man's land for "public use" or if they regulate him concerning how he may use his own land, does this constitute violence? Of course, it does.

    How does one know when his or her rights have been violated? Has
violence been initiated or not? There are relatively few if any "grey areas" in answering these questions if one consistently adheres to the three-part definition of "coercion" or "violent force" above.

Ayn Rand noted one of the three basic principles of ideological warfare in this way: "When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side."

    In the ideological war being waged today, it is in the interests of those who oppose liberty and human rights to obfuscate and blur as much as they can the distinction in peoples' minds between coercive and non-coercive activities.

    It is in the interests of such statists to confuse the definition of individual rights and erect false notions of "rights" (such as "group rights") which conflict with true human rights. Conversely, it is in the interests of libertarians to clarify these issues and to make clear distinctions between what is truly coercive of human rights and what is not.

There are three (3) areas of human activity:

1. Private personal actions which involve no one except that person and his own self and property. (e.g., smoking pot in the privacy of his own home; or watching his own TV in his own home as long as the noise doesn't harm someone else; or thinking unorthodox thoughts in the privacy of his own brain),

2. Voluntary (market) relations -- any relationship in which the wills of the participants coincide (agree) with respect to the terms of the relationship. (e.g., voluntary sexual intercourse in private quarters; working for an employer in exchange for a salary; buying a loaf of bread at supermarket; lending money out to gain interest or dividends; offering a lower price for ones product to persuade consumers to buy it),

3. Coercive Acts -- acts performed by a human or humans against the will of another human with respect to that which is his own (his person or property) (e.g., murder; rape, theft; breech of contract; criminal tresspass; robbery; kidnaping; taxation; slavery; torture; embezzlement)

The proper function of government is to use its powers to protect against and retaliate against category 3 -- BUT to leave alone categories 1 and 2. (Hence, police protection, the courts, and national defense are legitimate functions of a proper government. Subsidizing tobacco farmers or chipmakers is not. Dictating who we may associate with or not associate with is not.) Government (other people in society) should keep HANDS OFF categories 1 and 2. Its only proper jurisdiction is suppressing category #3.

I contend (as did Algernon Sidney, John Lilburne, John Locke and Jefferson) that when a person violates the rights of others (murder, theft, rape, etc.) that person becomes a criminal (if convicted) and forfeits at least some of his rights to be left alone by the government. A peaceful person who does not initiate force against anyone does NOT forfeit his right to be left alone. People should be free (from coercive interference) in their private affairs and voluntary relationships; on the other hand, those people who violate the rights of peaceful people should not be free and should not be left alone. They should be arrested, tried, convicted, and punished and/or segregated from the rest of society through imprisonment.

It is because government by its nature has a monopoly on the legal use of force in society that it is such a dangerous creature, and why it must be bound down by rules ("the chains of the Constitution" as Jefferson might say). The wielding of force must not be left to arbitrary, capricious, and changing whims. It must be limited by principle.

It is the principle of individual rights to person and property that sets a rational limit to the proper jurisdiction of government (society's institution of legal force); otherwise, its power is logically UNlimited and there is no justification against slavery or death camps.

Unalienable Rights - From God

". . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . ." (Declaration of Independence)

The Principle

1. The traditional American philosophy teaches that Man, The Individual, is endowed at birth with rights which are unalienable because given by his Creator.

The Only Moral Basis

2. This governmental philosophy is uniquely American. The concept of Man's rights being unalienable is based solely upon the belief in their Divine origin. Lacking this belief, there is no moral basis for any claim that they are unalienable or for any claim to the great benefits flowing from this concept. God-given rights are sometimes called Natural Rights--those possessed by Man under the Laws of Nature, meaning under the laws of God's creation and therefore by gift of God. Man has no power to alienate--to dispose of, by surrender, barter or gift--his God-given rights, according to the American philosophy. This is the meaning of "unalienable."

One underlying consideration is that for every such right there is a correlative, inseparable duty--for every aspect of freedom there is a corresponding responsibility; so that it is always Right-Duty and Freedom-Responsibility, or Liberty-Responsibility. There is a duty, or responsibility, to God as the giver of these unalienable rights: a moral duty--to keep secure and use soundly these gifts, with due respect for the equal rights of others and for the right of Posterity to their just heritage of liberty. Since this moral duty cannot be surrendered, bartered, given away, abandoned, delegated or otherwise alienated, so is the inseparable right likewise unalienable. This concept of rights being unalienable is thus dependent upon belief in God as the giver. This indicates the basis and the soundness of Jefferson's statement (1796 letter to John Adams): "If ever the morals of a people could be made the basis of their own government it is our case . . ."

Right, Reason, and Capacity to Be Self-governing

3. For the security and enjoyment by Man of his Divinely created rights, it follows implicitly that Man is endowed by his Creator not only with the right to be self-governing but also with the capacity to reason and, therefore, with the capacity to be self-governing. This is implicit in the philosophy proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. Otherwise, Man's unalienable rights would be of little or no use or benefit to him. Faith in Man--in his capacity to be self-governing--is thus related to faith in God as his Creator, as the giver of these unalienable rights and this capacity.

Rights--as Prohibitions Against Government

4. Certain specific rights of The Individual are protected in the original Constitution but this is by way of statements "in reverse"--by way of express prohibitions against government. The word "right" does not appear in the original instrument. This is because it was designed to express the grant by the people of specific, limited powers to the central government--created by them through this basic law--as well as certain specific limitations on its powers, and on the preexisting powers of the State governments, expressed as prohibitions of things forbidden. Every provision in it pertains to power.

The Constitution's first eight (Bill of Rights) amendments list certain rights of The Individual and prohibit the doing of certain things by the central, or Federal, government which, if done, would violate these rights. These amendments were intended by their Framers and Adopters merely to make express a few of the already-existing, implied prohibitions against the Federal government only--supplementing the prohibitions previously specified expressly in the original Constitution and supplementing and confirming its general, over-all, implied, prohibition as to all things concerning which it withheld power from this government. Merely confirming expressly some of the already-existing, implied prohibitions, these amendments did not create any new ones. They are, therefore, more properly referred to as a partial list of limitations--or a partial Bill of Prohibitions--as was indicated by Hamilton in The Federalist number 84. This hinges upon the uniquely American concepts stated in the Declaration of Independence: that Men, created of God, in turn create their governments and grant to them only "just" (limited) powers--primarily to make and keep secure their God-given, unalienable rights including, in part, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. As Hamilton stated, under the American philosophy and system of constitutionally limited government, "the people surrender nothing;" instead, they merely delegate to government--to public servants as public trustees--limited powers and therefore, he added, "they have no need of particular reservations" (in a Bill of Rights). This is the basic reason why the Framing Convention omitted from the Constitution anything in the nature of a separate Bill of Rights, as being unnecessary.

An Endless List of Rights

5. To attempt to name all of these rights--starting with "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" mentioned in the Declaration of Independence--would be to start an endless list which would add up to the whole of Man's Freedom (Freedom from Government-over-Man). They would add up to the entirety of Individual Liberty (Liberty against Government-over-Man). Innumerable rights of The Individual are embraced in the Ninth Amendment, which states: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (Here "Constitution" includes the amendments.) Some idea of how vast the list would be is indicated by just one general freedom which leads into almost all of Free Man's activities of daily living throughout life: freedom of choice. This term stands for the right to do--and equally not to do--this or that, as conscience, whim or judgement, taste or desire, of The Individual may prompt from moment to moment, day by day, for as long as life lasts; but always, of course, with due regard for the equal rights of others and for the just laws expressive of the above-mentioned "just powers" of government designed to help safeguard the equal rights of all Individuals. Spelled out in detail, this single freedom--freedom of choice--is almost all-embracing.

Right To Be Let Alone

6. In one sense, such freedom to choose involves Man's right to be let alone, which is possessed by The Individual in keeping with the Declaration and Constitution as against government: in enjoyment of his unalienable rights, while respecting the equal rights of others and just laws (as defined in Paragraph 5 above). This right to be let alone is the most comprehensive of rights and the right of most prized by civilized men. This right is, of course, also possessed as against all other Individuals, all obligated to act strictly within the limits of their own equal rights. Consequently any infringement of any Individual's rights is precluded.

Rights Inviolable by Government or by Others

7. Neither government nor any Individuals--acting singly, or in groups, or in organizations--could possibly possess any "just power" (to use again the significant term of the Declaration) to violate any Individual's God-given, unalienable rights or the supporting rights. No government can abolish or destroy--nor can it rightfully, or constitutionally, violate--Man's God-given rights. Government cannot justly interfere with Man's deserved enjoyment of any of these rights. No public official, nor all such officials combined, could possibly have any such power morally. Government can, to be sure, unjustly and unconstitutionally interfere by force with the deserved enjoyment of Man's unalienable rights. It is, however, completely powerless to abolish or destroy them. It is in defense of these rights of all Individuals, in last analysis, that the self-governing people--acting in accordance with, and in support of, the Constitution--oppose any and all violators, whether public officials or usurpers, or others (par. 9 below).

Each Individual Consents to Some Limitations

8. In creating governments as their tools, or instruments, and equally in continuing to maintain them--for the purpose primarily of making and keeping their unalienable rights--all Individuals composing the self-governing people impliedly and in effect consent to some degree of limitation of their freedom to exercise some of their rights. This does not involve the surrender, or the alienation, of any of these rights but only the partial, conditional and limited relinquishment of freedom to exercise a few of them and solely for the purpose of insuring the greater security and enjoyment of all of them; and, moreover, such relinquishment is always upon condition that public officials, as public servants and trustees, faithfully use the limited powers delegated to government strictly in keeping with their prescribed limits and with this limited purpose at all times. It was in this sense that George Washington, as President of the Framing Convention in September, 1787, wrote to the Congress of the Confederation--in transmitting to it, for consideration, the draft of the proposed Constitution: ". . . Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest." Here he meant merely conditional relinquishment of liberty of action in the exercise of certain aspects of unalienable rights--not the surrender of any unalienable rights, which would be impossible because a nullity, a void act.

An Offender's Just Punishment

9. Whenever Man violates either the equal rights of others or the above-mentioned just laws, he thereby forfeits his immunity in this regard; by his misconduct, he destroys the moral and legal basis for his immunity and opens the door to just reprisal against himself, by government. This means that any person, as such offender, may justly be punished by the people's proper instrumentality--the government, including the courts--under a sound system of equal justice under equal laws; that is, under Rule-by-Law (basically the people's fundamental law, the Constitution). Such punishment is justified morally because of the duty of all Individuals--in keeping with Individual Liberty-Responsibility--to cooperate, through their instrumentality, government, for the mutual protection of the unalienable rights of all Individuals. The offender is also justly answerable to the aggrieved Individual, acting properly through duly-established machinery of government, including courts, designed for the protection of the equal rights of all Individuals.

It is the offender's breach of the duty aspect of Individual Liberty-Responsibility which makes just, proper and necessary government's punitive action and deprives him of any moral basis for protest. By such breach he forfeits his moral claim to the inviolability of his rights and makes himself vulnerable to reprisal by the people, through government, in defense of their own unalienable rights. By this lack of self-discipline required by that duty, he invites and makes necessary his being disciplined by government.

The Conclusion

10. Man's unalienable rights are sacred for the same reason that they are unalienable--because of their Divine origin, according to the traditional American philosophy.

So, food is a good, shelter is a good, clothing is a good, education is a good, a car is a good, legal representation is a good, working out at a gym is a good, and access to health care is a good. Does the government give us goods? Well, sometimes it takes money from some of us and gives that money to others. You can call that taxation or you can call it theft; but you cannot call it a right.

A right stems from our humanity. A good is something you buy or someone else buys for you.

No one should have the right to someone else's property ( goods - products or services ). They only have a right to their life, liberty, and property.

Scroll down for next article ...

Governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed" - (Declaration of Independence)

The Principle

1. The traditional American philosophy teaches that government must be limited in power if Individual Liberty is to be safeguarded, if each Individual's God-given, unalienable rights are to be made and kept enduringly secure.

"Just Powers" Defined

2. This philosophy asserts that the self-governing people allow any government they may organize to possess, by grant from them, only the limited and few powers with which the people think the particular government may sensibly be entrusted in order to serve their purposes without endangering their rights--their liberties or freedoms. These powers constitute the "just powers" of government, as the Declaration of Independence phrases it. This is in keeping with the primary purpose for which the people organize governments: to make and keep these unalienable rights secure and most beneficial to themselves and to Posterity--time without end.

"Limited" - a Key Word

3. "Limited government" is a key term in the American philosophy. Its great significance is indicated by describing the purpose of limiting government's power in these words: Limited for Liberty. This summarizes what is meant by the statement in the Declaration of Independence about governments being limited in power "to secure these rights"--to make and keep them ever secure. "Limited" means limited by a written Constitution adopted by the sovereign people as their basic law--never changing in its meaning, as originally intended by The Framers and Adopters, except subject to change by the people only by amendments at any time and to any extent they may see fit. All governments in America are thus limited by written Constitutions--by the United States Constitution as the "supreme Law of the Land" and, as to each State government, by that States' Constitution. (Note again Par. 4 of Principle 3, regarding the first eight, or Bill of Rights, amendments being intended to apply against the Federal government only.)

Limited Powers, Duties, Responsibilities and Limited Threat to Liberty

4. The few and limited powers of the United States government are enumerated and defined in the people's fundamental law--the Constitution, as amended. This is the basis of Rule-by-Law (basically the people's fundamental law, the Constitution) in contrast to Rule-by-Man. The limited quantity of its powers means it is limited in potential threat to the people's liberties. These "just powers," being few and limited, automatically define the limits of the duties which the people assign to this government. It can have no duties, no responsibilities, other than those consistent with the limits of the powers granted to it by the people in the Constitution, as amended, It is equally as violative of the Constitution for government to assume duties--to pretend to have responsibilities--as it is to grasp powers, beyond these prescribed limits.

Division of Powers and Checks and Balances

5. As a further safeguard for the people's rights, The Framers and Ratifiers of the Constitution provided for division of powers not only between the Federal and State governments but also within the Federal government between its three, separate Branches and, further, specified various checks and balances among these Branches, to help prevent either usurpation of power (grasping unauthorized power) or misuse of the limited quantity of power granted to it by the people: as explained, for instance, by Madison in The Federalist number 51. Each of the Branches was designed to help restrain the other Branches from any violation of the Constitution. The admonition on this topic expressed in Washington's Farewell Address reflected the conviction of all of The Founders.

"It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free Country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective Constitutional spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the Powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power; by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the Guardian of the Public Weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them."--George Washington (Farewell Address; Emphasis added)

The Compound Republic

6. The limitation of government's power, by a written Constitution adopted by the people (by the electorate), is the main distinguishing characteristic of a Republic. The correct definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Each American government, Federal and State, is a Republic; and such a form of government is expressly guaranteed to each State by the United States Constitution. (Article IV, Section 4.) This makes the American system a combination, or federation , of Republics--a compound Republic as noted in The Federalist number 51 by Madison. Although the term "Federal Republic" has sometimes been used to refer both to the central (Federal) government and to the federated system of Republics--including both central government and State governments (all Republics)--it will facilitate clear thinking if this term "Federal Republic" is applied only to the central government while using the phrase "federated system of Republics" or "federation of Republics" to designate the combination, or confederation, of all of these Republics. Clarity of understanding will be best assured by referring to the central government as the central Republic.

The electorate adopt a Constitution as their basic law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention to frame it for their final approval, or ratification, as was done successfully for the first time in history by the people of Massachusetts with regard to its Constitution of 1780; it was so framed by a convention specially chosen by the people for this sole purpose and then submitted to the people for approval. Final adoption, or ratification, may also be effected in behalf of the people by a specially chosen convention for this sole purpose; and later amendments may be so approved for the people or through the regular legislative body--the alternatives specified in the United States Constitution. This Constitution was framed by the Federal (Constitutional) Convention in 1787 and then adopted in 1787-1788 by State Ratifying Conventions especially chosen by the people for this sole purpose; which is the complete and perfect method of Constitution-making. A Constitutional Convention--one chosen by the people for the sole purpose of framing or ratifying a Constitution--is one of America's greatest contributions, to the mechanics of self-government through constitutionally limited government.

Federal Delegated-Power, and State Full-Power, Republics

7. The Federal government is a delegated-power Republic which possesses only the comparatively few and limited powers granted to it by the people as enumerated in the United States Constitution, as amended--chiefly the powers concerned with "war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce" (quoting The Federalist, number 45 by Madison. It is in sharpest contrast that each State government is a full-power Republic which possesses the vast and varied powers needed to administer intra-State affairs--"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" (again quoting number 45). The full-power Republic of each State is subject to the State Constitution, as well as to the united States Constitution as the "supreme Law of the Land." Neither the Federal, nor any State, government therefore possesses legal sovereignty--the unlimited power of sovereignty--while the people's political sovereignty is limited in favor of preserving inviolate the God-given, unalienable rights of each Individual. (See Par. 3, Principle 4.)

The "General Welfare" in Relation to the Constitution

8. The Preamble of the United States Constitution specifies "the general Welfare" merely as one of the listed goals to be served by the Federal government in the exercise of the limited powers delegated to it, as enumerated in the body of that instrument. This mention of "the general Welfare" in the Preamble was intended, therefore, to serve in effect as a limit on the use of those delegated powers. The Preamble does not constitute a grant of any power whatever to the government. The only other mention of the words "general welfare" in the Constitution is in the Taxing Clause (Article I, Section 8) which authorizes Congress to collect taxes ". . . to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States . . ." Here, too, the words "general Welfare" were designed to serve as a limitation in effect--as a limit on the power granted under that clause. This excludes any power to tax and spend for all purposes which would not qualify as being for the "general Welfare of the United States" as a whole--for instance, it is excluded if for the benefit merely of a locality or some Individuals in the United States. The clause does not empower Congress to spend tax monies for any and every purpose it might select merely on the pretense, or even in the belief, that it is for the "general welfare." (Discussed also in Pars. 4 and 5 of Principle 11.) Congress possesses no "general legislative authority," as Hamilton stated in The Federalist number 83.

Hamilton's Opinion

9. All of those who framed and ratified the Constitution were in agreement on this point of the limited and limiting meaning of the words "general Welfare" in the Taxing Clause. As Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton contended for the first time in 1791 ("Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States") in favor of a broader interpretation of this clause than he had formerly espoused and broader than that which Madison - with Hamilton's silent acquiescence--had presented in 1788 in The Federalist (especially number 41) as reflecting the controlling intent of the Framing Convention, which Madison and Jefferson consistently supported. Hamilton did not claim, however, that this clause gives to the Federal government any power, through taxing-spending, so as in effect to control directly or indirectly anything or anybody, or any activities of the people or of the State governments. Despite his assertion that this clause gives Congress a separate and substantive spending power, Hamilton cautioned expressly (Report on "Manufactures," 1791) that it only authorizes taxing and spending within the limits of what would serve the "general welfare" and does not imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the "general welfare"--that it does "not carry a power to do any other thing not authorized in the Constitution, either expressly or by fair implication."

The Supreme Court's 1936 Decision Ascertaining and Defining the Original, Controlling Intent

10. As the Supreme Court decided (1936 Carter case) in ascertaining and defining the original, controlling intent of the Constitution as proved by all pertinent records and confirming its prior decisions over the generations since the adoption of the Constitution, the contentions advanced from time to time that "Congress, entirely apart from those powers delegated by the Constitution, may enact laws to promote the general welfare, have never been accepted but always definitely rejected by this court." It also decided that the Framing Convention "made no grant of authority to Congress to legislate substantively for the general welfare . . . [citing 1936 Butler case] . . . and no such authority exists, save as the general welfare may be promoted by the exercise of the powers which are granted." The American people have never amended the Constitution so as to change the limited and limiting meaning of the words "general Welfare" in the Taxing Clause, as thus originally intended by The Framers and Adopters in 1787-1788.

The Founders' Warnings

11. As Jefferson warned many times in his writings, public and private--for instance in the Kentucky Resolution--in keeping with the traditional American philosophy, strict enforcement of the Constitution's limits on the Federal government's power is essential for the protection of the people's liberties. This point was stressed at great length in The Federalist (notably numbers 17, 28, 33 and 78 by Hamilton and 44 and 46 by Madison) in reporting and explaining the intent of the Framing Convention expressed in the Constitution--as was understood and accepted by the State Ratifying Conventions. Hamilton's repeated warnings against permitting public servants to flout the people's mandate as to the limits on government's power, as specified in their basic laws (Constitutions) creating their governments, were in keeping with his words on one occasion in relation to the New York State Constitution. He stated ("Letters of Phocion," 1784) that any such defiance, by public servants, of the Constitution would be "a treasonable usurpation upon the power and majesty of the people . . ." Washington's Farewell Address expressed the conviction of The Founders of the Republic and their fellow leaders, in keeping with history's lesson, when he warned that usurpation "is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

Resistance to Usurpers, as Tyrants, Is Obedience to God

12. It is a traditional American motto that: "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." This motto was suggested by Benjamin Franklin in mid-1776 in the Congress as being an appropriate one for the seal of the United States; and it was so truly expressive of traditional American thinking that Jefferson adopted it for use on his personal seal.

A major part of the American philosophy underlying the resistance to the tyranny of king and parliament prior to the Declaration of Independence, and in support of that Declaration in 1776, was as follows. Public officials who exceed the limits of the powers delegated to them by the people under their fundamental law and thus violate, or endanger, the people's God-given, unalienable rights thereby and to this extent make of themselves defaulting trustees, usurpers, oppressors and tyrants. They thereby act outside of this supreme law, which defines these limits and the scope of their authority and office, and therefore act without authority from the people. By thus seceding and violating the restrictions of this law, they act outside of Law: lawlessly, as "out-laws." As Samuel Adams stated: "Let us remember, that 'if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others [Posterity] in our doom'" (Emphasis added.) They thereby, in practice, replace Rule-by-Law with Rule-by-Man. These defaulting trustees--thus acting lawlessly--thereby free the people from any duty of obedience; because legally and morally, under Rule-by-Law, obedience by the self-governing people is required only to Law and not to law-defying public servants.

The reasoning supporting the above-quoted motto's concept of moral duty is this: Man, being given by his Creator unalienable rights which are accompanied by corresponding duties, has the moral duty--duty to God--to safeguard these rights for the benefit of self and others, including Posterity. Man is therefore obligated to oppose all violators of these rights; and such failure betrays Man's duty as the temporary trustee of Posterity's just heritage. This is in keeping with the philosophy of the Declaration of Independence as reiterated in part, for example, in 1788 in the Virginia Ratifying Convention's proposals for amendments to the Constitution including a Bill of Rights stating in part as follows:

". . . that the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."

Applied to the United States Constitution, which Federal and State officials are sworn to support, this means that--in resisting Federal officials who, as usurpers, defy the limits on their powers imposed by the "supreme Law of the Land"--the people and governments of the States are opposing Rule-by-Man and defending Rule-by-Law (basically the people's fundamental law: the Constitution). They are thus defending the Constitution against its violators: the Federal usurpers; and they are acting in defense of the people's God-given, unalienable rights and the States' reserved powers. The American philosophy and system of constitutionally limited government contemplates that the people of the several States--acting through their State governments--will, in last resort, use force to oppose any force employed by the Federal usurpers, that they will use military force (Militia of the States) to oppose any military force used by such usurpers; as Hamilton and Madison explained in detail in The Federalist, numbers 28 and 46.

The Conclusion

13. The American philosophy reflects the knowledge that the history of Individual Liberty is the history of the effective limitation of government's power, which is expressed in the traditional principle summarized in the phrase: Limited for Liberty.

Quotes from The American Ideal of 1776 supporting this Principle.