Is America Founded a Christian Nation?
By Will Armstrong
It is exasperating to see a false idea continually promoted as truth, particularly one that insults the God we serve and the country we love. The idea that America liberty is tied to our supposed secular history used to be a fringe idea of liberal radicals but now has become mainstream.
This year the church state controversy was brought to the forefront during the Coons-O’Donnell debate, and the Christian Legal v. Martinez Supreme Court case. During a debate with Chris Coons, Christine O’Donnell asked an audience of law students and professors “where in the constitution is the separation of church and state?” The raucous laughter that broke out in response to the question is typical and sadly revealing of the attitudes and beliefs in our institutes of higher learning. Ms. O’Donnell was of course correct, because the Constitution has no reference to the phrase “separation of church and state”. Pondering the response, you might wonder, have they read the Constitution themselves and if they have, did they think it humorous that its plain meaning should be understood as written? Or did they find it amusing that someone still believes that the Constitution is the highest authority for our laws?
In the Christian legal v. Martinez case a student led Christian organization was denied use of a publicly funded college facility because they refused to accept unrepentant homosexuals as members. The ruling was 5 to 4 in favor of defendant Martinez who represented Hasting College. Justice Alito’s dissent was entirely accurate, he said; “I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that today’s decision is a serious setback for freedom of expression in this country. Our First Amendment reflects a “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide- open.” What a travesty that the supreme court ruled in favor of the college and not the Christian legal organization. Do they really believe that they are following the founder’s vision by forcing a Christian organization to accept homosexuals as members?
The prevailing belief in our schools is that although there may have been many Christians at the time of our nation’s founding, America was founded a secular nation. Although according to a recent poll 55% of American’s believe that America’s was founded a Christian nation. When discussing America’s founding even a liberal columnist in the New York Times recently admitted that those advocating for a Christian nation “have a bit of history on their side.” This is an understatement!
Pre Revolutionary period
The original settlers didn’t come to this country so they could join a secular society or even primarily for freedom of religion, they came to spread the gospel and be free to practice a purer form of Christianity. They considered the Anglican Church in England to be backslidden and they already had freedom of religion in Holland. Holland had the greatest amount of religious toleration in Europe, what bothered the pilgrims about the Dutch was their lack of fervency toward God. Any questions about this can be answered by reading the Mayflower compact or real stories of the pilgrims. The 1620 Mayflower Compact as read from William Bradford’s personal account says this “Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together into a Civil Body Politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid”. The Mayflower Compact was not a mere political formality but was considered a sacred covenant between the pilgrims and God. Their stated purpose was to plant a colony for glory of God and the advancement of the Christian Faith.
Nine years later in 1629 the first Charter of Massachusetts said this “For the directing, ruling, and disposeing of all other Matters and Thinges, whereby our said People may be soe religiously, peaceablie, and civilly governed, as their good life and orderlie Conversacon, maie ynn and incite the Natives of the Country to the Knowledg and Obedience of the onlie true God and Savior of Mankinde, and the Christian Fayth”. The clear purpose here was to have a Christian society and to advance the kingdom of God. Succeeding charters for The New Haven colony, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Harvard and Yale Universities all contain similar language”.
Despite the years of effort of liberal revisionists to omit, distort and mislead Americans about their true Christian heritage, the original quotes read in context, speak for themselves. The Christian heritage of this country just won’t go away, because it’s the truth.
Founders Quotes
The Founding Fathers vision was to have Christianity shape the nation and government but leaving the freedom to accept or reject Christ and Christianity with no coercion. The reason for this is biblical in that God wants us to come to Him by choice. They also wanted to avoid a state sponsored Christian denomination where others denominations were prohibited.
George Washington certainly didn’t want a secular nation, he said this in his 1797 farewell address “reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle…Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”
John Jay, the first chief justice of the Supreme Court wrote, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers”. He calls America a Christian nation and clearly expects Christianity to play a central role in government.
Thomas Paine is considered to be one of the most unorthodox and radical of the founders in his religious beliefs would have had more in common with the so called religious right than with today’s liberals. When addressing a group of French intellectuals Paine argued that schools must teach science and philosophy with reference to the God who created them. Today the secular ACLU would want Paine’s head on a platter along with the rest of the Founders for daring to express such strong religious convictions in public
Fisher Ames, author of the First Amendment, wrote in 1801 about his concern was that by adding so many new books in schools, there would not be enough time for the Bible, he insisted that the Bible regain pre-eminence in the classroom. He saw no contradiction with his conviction and the first amendment establishment clause and neither did Thomas Jefferson and almost the entire federal government in Washington when they attended church services in the capital building with government paid chaplains presiding. These services continued in the same matter until about the time of the civil war. Jefferson also used federal funds to build churches and promote Christianity among the Indians.
It should seem strange and an outrage that today’s Supreme Court should deny the use of a federally funded college building to a Christian group when the founding Fathers used the capital building for church services. All this is due to a perverted understanding of the establishment clause that the founders certainly did not support. Isn’t it ironic that the liberals think of Jefferson as one of their own! Jefferson would have sickened by today’s liberals and their perverted notions.
Founding Documents
It is true that our founding documents, the declaration of Independence and The Constitution, avoided Christian language most likely to avoid quarrels between the various denominations that existed in the colonies. It was decided that religion was a matter best left to individuals and their local and state governments. The founding documents do contain language that is primarily biblical such as creator, judge, and providence. The Romans and Greeks didn’t have a single all powerful God who created all things. The God of the Deists was the watchmaker God who started things up in the beginning and then was uninvolved in the affairs of men. The Romans, Greeks and Deists had no concept of natural or inalienable rights, this is a Christian concept. The notion of servant leadership prescribed by our Constitution for those holding government offices would have been a foreign idea to the Greeks and Romans; this is primarily a Christian concept. Moreover, the Constitution ends with the citation “In the year of our Lord 1787”.
Some say that the Article V1 religious test ban implies a secular state. At the time when the Constitution was written, many feared that a federal religious test would nullify their existing state test oaths and religious establishments. The unchallenged assumption was that an oath of office itself was a non-sectarian acknowledgment of God, which was considered a religious test of sorts. Many state constitutions contain the language of the Article V1 religious test ban and also the requirement of believing the basic tenets of the Christian faith. The Tennessee Constitution adopted in 1796 had the language of article V1 and also stated that “no person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State." Other states had similar provisions written their constitutions and the Christian requirements implied in the oaths of office were often emphasized at the state ratifying conventions.
School textbook omissions
According to Mary Jones author of the website “Forsaken Roots”; our school textbooks have omitted the following facts; in 1782 Congress voted to have the bible used in all our schools, and that 106 of 108 of our first colleges were Christian.
Also says Jones, in 1963 the U.S. Supreme Court banned this prayer “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence on Thee. We beg Thy blessings upon us and our parents and our teachers and our country, Amen." The court offered this justification: "If portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could and have been psychologically harmful to children." If this is true and I believe it is, this should be an outrage to every true American, firstly because we sat by and let it happen and secondly because our government appointed such Godless and foolish individuals to our highest courts.
A Christian Nation
Our presidents from George Washington to George Bush have referred to America as a Christian nation; Barack Obama is the first president to publicly to deny this.
Supreme court Justice Brewer declared “this is a Christian nation” in the majority opinion of the 1892 Holy Trinity vs. U.S. case. In 1952 Supreme Court Justice William Douglas wrote the majority opinion in Zorach v. Clauson stating that "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being”.
We as a nation need to reevaluate what America really is, a Christian nation! Moreover, we must understand that our constitution is designed only for a moral and Christian people.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
The Separation of Church and State
The ignorance of Americans on their own history and constitution has never been clearer, than on the issue of separation of church and state. The phrase originally cited in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbery Connecticut Baptists, soon after Jefferson had become president on March 4th 1801.
Many Americans believe that this nation was founded a strictly secular state. Many actually believe they are patriotically upholding the founder’s vision by making sure religion is completely removed from all public life.
Groups such as the ACLU and Americans United for The Separation of Church and State routinely file suits in court to intimidate and silence any religious voice in American public life. Cases are promoted to prevent nativity scenes, the Ten Commandments, Crosses from being displayed in public areas. Other cases promote denying the Boy Scouts use of government facilities, removal of (“In God We Trust”) on currency, censoring of school graduation and athletic event prayers, firing schoolteachers for leaving bibles on their desks.
At the same time, these groups turn a blind eye to the promotion of other religions, such as providing prayer rooms for Muslim students in public schools or school sponsored field trips to mosques, soliciting students to participate in Muslim religious rites as an educational experience. Public schools also promote new age religious ideas and forms of witchcraft as enlightened ideas, while Christianity is presented as part of our past ignorance, intolerance and bigotry.
Many who use the term “Separation of Church and State” would be surprised to discover that it’s nowhere to be found in the Constitution. The phrase was taken from a political letter written by Jefferson to the Connecticut Baptists assuring them of their concerns about religious liberty. The Baptists in Connecticut had long been a minority in an area dominated by Federalist Congregationalists, and Jefferson wanted to assure them that the federal government would not interfere in showing preference to any Christian denomination above another. England and most of Europe had oppressed Christian minorities for hundreds of years, by mandating a single state Christian denomination. In England the Anglican Church was the state mandated church, all other Christian sects or denominations were prohibited.
Years after writing the Letter to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson himself regularly attended worship services conducted in the Capital building with government paid chaplains. He also arranged for similar services to be conducted in the War Office and Treasury building both belonging to the executive branch of government. In 1803 Jefferson used federal funds to erect churches and promote Christianity among the Indians and provided government support for Christian schools.
The evidence for the Christian foundation for America’s society and government is so overwhelming that it’s difficult to comprehend how this could be misunderstood by so many.
George Washington, in his Farwell address to the nation said this “It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Thomas Jefferson said this, “The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He (God) has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses.”
James Madison, the 4th US president, father of the bill of rights, said this “I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.”
John Jay America’s first chief justice of the Supreme Court said this in 1797, two years after serving his term, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”
Jefferson’s Wall of separation of church and state only placed limits on the power of the federal government to interfere in matters of religion. The wall was intended to separate the institutions of church and in the Capital building with government paid chaplains. He also arranged for similar services to be conducted in the War Office and Treasury building both belonging to the executive branch of government. In 1803 Jefferson used federal funds to erect churches and promote Christianity among the Indians and provided government support for Christian schools.
The evidence for the Christian foundation for America’s society and government is so overwhelming that it’s difficult to comprehend how this could be misunderstood by so many.
George Washington, in his Farwell address to the nation said this “It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Thomas Jefferson said this, “The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He (God) has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses.”
James Madison, the 4th US president, father of the bill of rights, said this “I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.”
John Jay America’s first chief justice of the Supreme Court said this in 1797, two years after serving his term, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”
Jefferson’s Wall of separation of church and state only placed limits on the power of the federal government to interfere in matters of religion. The wall was intended to separate the institutions of church and state at the federal level not to separate religion from the civil government. Matters of religion were to rest with individual State and local governments and the people.
During the time period of the ratification of the first amendment, all state constitutions with the exception of Rhode Island, had a state sponsored religion. The states would never ratified the first amendment if they believed it would override the states right to sponsor their own Christian denomination.
The First Amendment was only proposed to place limitations on the government and not on religion. The freedom of the press, guaranteed in the first amendment, only places restrictions of the government to control the media not to protect the government from the press. In this way the press would be free and independent of the government. The same was purposed for the freedom of religion, government was never to be protected from religious influence, churches and individuals were to be protected from the federal governments imposition of a national Christian denomination.
Jefferson affirmed on many occasions that the federal government had no power over religious rights or the free exercise of religion. Jefferson said this at his second inaugural address in 1805,“In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general (federal) government.”
So where did this distorted idea of separating religion from public originate? In the 1830’s and 40’s a new influx of Catholic immigrants caused much concern to the established Protestant majority. Groups such as the Know Nothings and later the Ku Klux Klan advocated separatism to prevent Catholic influence in public life.
In the late 1940’s and beyond many felt Catholic parochial schools posed a threat to public schools, protestant majorities and democratic principles says Professor Daniel L.Dreisbach in his Article “The Mythical Wall of Separation: How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church–State Law, Policy, and Discourse”. Dreisbach further stated, that the ACLU, anti-Catholics elites such as Hugo Black, Protestants and others for the separation of church and state, prevailed upon the courts to secularize the state. The 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education extended the exclusion of aid to religion to federal and state governments. No previous court had interpreted Jefferson’s phrase to imply that the state was to be free any religious influence.
In the 1930’s Hitler recognized that the only institution that stood in the way his plans was the church. So Hitler promoted his propaganda with slogans such as "Politics do not belong in the Church." And "The Church must be separate from the State”, says Bryan Fischer in his article “Separation of Church and State: Straight from the Mind of Hitler” quoting Professor John Conway’s book “The Nazi persecution of the Churches 1933-45”. The former Soviet Union also enforced a strict separation of church and state only allowing the influence of the church to remain within its four walls. These phrases are virtually identical to those promoted by the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.
In December 1934, Hitler said this in a campaign speech, “But we will ensure the purging from our public life of all those priests who have mistaken their profession and who ought to have been politicians and not pastors", noted Bryan Fischer in his above mentioned article. Hitler’s objectives here are virtually identical with those of the ACLU.
The idea of separating religion from all civil government would have alarmed Jefferson and the founding fathers that clearly understood that the general principles of Christianity must have the encouragement and support of the state. They knew that without a Christian foundation and people, their republic would not survive. They understood that the source of our inalienable rights and freedom came Jesus himself and that Christianity was at the foundation of our American government and society.
Many Americans believe that this nation was founded a strictly secular state. Many actually believe they are patriotically upholding the founder’s vision by making sure religion is completely removed from all public life.
Groups such as the ACLU and Americans United for The Separation of Church and State routinely file suits in court to intimidate and silence any religious voice in American public life. Cases are promoted to prevent nativity scenes, the Ten Commandments, Crosses from being displayed in public areas. Other cases promote denying the Boy Scouts use of government facilities, removal of (“In God We Trust”) on currency, censoring of school graduation and athletic event prayers, firing schoolteachers for leaving bibles on their desks.
At the same time, these groups turn a blind eye to the promotion of other religions, such as providing prayer rooms for Muslim students in public schools or school sponsored field trips to mosques, soliciting students to participate in Muslim religious rites as an educational experience. Public schools also promote new age religious ideas and forms of witchcraft as enlightened ideas, while Christianity is presented as part of our past ignorance, intolerance and bigotry.
Many who use the term “Separation of Church and State” would be surprised to discover that it’s nowhere to be found in the Constitution. The phrase was taken from a political letter written by Jefferson to the Connecticut Baptists assuring them of their concerns about religious liberty. The Baptists in Connecticut had long been a minority in an area dominated by Federalist Congregationalists, and Jefferson wanted to assure them that the federal government would not interfere in showing preference to any Christian denomination above another. England and most of Europe had oppressed Christian minorities for hundreds of years, by mandating a single state Christian denomination. In England the Anglican Church was the state mandated church, all other Christian sects or denominations were prohibited.
Years after writing the Letter to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson himself regularly attended worship services conducted in the Capital building with government paid chaplains. He also arranged for similar services to be conducted in the War Office and Treasury building both belonging to the executive branch of government. In 1803 Jefferson used federal funds to erect churches and promote Christianity among the Indians and provided government support for Christian schools.
The evidence for the Christian foundation for America’s society and government is so overwhelming that it’s difficult to comprehend how this could be misunderstood by so many.
George Washington, in his Farwell address to the nation said this “It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Thomas Jefferson said this, “The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He (God) has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses.”
James Madison, the 4th US president, father of the bill of rights, said this “I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.”
John Jay America’s first chief justice of the Supreme Court said this in 1797, two years after serving his term, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”
Jefferson’s Wall of separation of church and state only placed limits on the power of the federal government to interfere in matters of religion. The wall was intended to separate the institutions of church and in the Capital building with government paid chaplains. He also arranged for similar services to be conducted in the War Office and Treasury building both belonging to the executive branch of government. In 1803 Jefferson used federal funds to erect churches and promote Christianity among the Indians and provided government support for Christian schools.
The evidence for the Christian foundation for America’s society and government is so overwhelming that it’s difficult to comprehend how this could be misunderstood by so many.
George Washington, in his Farwell address to the nation said this “It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Thomas Jefferson said this, “The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He (God) has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses.”
James Madison, the 4th US president, father of the bill of rights, said this “I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.”
John Jay America’s first chief justice of the Supreme Court said this in 1797, two years after serving his term, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”
Jefferson’s Wall of separation of church and state only placed limits on the power of the federal government to interfere in matters of religion. The wall was intended to separate the institutions of church and state at the federal level not to separate religion from the civil government. Matters of religion were to rest with individual State and local governments and the people.
During the time period of the ratification of the first amendment, all state constitutions with the exception of Rhode Island, had a state sponsored religion. The states would never ratified the first amendment if they believed it would override the states right to sponsor their own Christian denomination.
The First Amendment was only proposed to place limitations on the government and not on religion. The freedom of the press, guaranteed in the first amendment, only places restrictions of the government to control the media not to protect the government from the press. In this way the press would be free and independent of the government. The same was purposed for the freedom of religion, government was never to be protected from religious influence, churches and individuals were to be protected from the federal governments imposition of a national Christian denomination.
Jefferson affirmed on many occasions that the federal government had no power over religious rights or the free exercise of religion. Jefferson said this at his second inaugural address in 1805,“In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general (federal) government.”
So where did this distorted idea of separating religion from public originate? In the 1830’s and 40’s a new influx of Catholic immigrants caused much concern to the established Protestant majority. Groups such as the Know Nothings and later the Ku Klux Klan advocated separatism to prevent Catholic influence in public life.
In the late 1940’s and beyond many felt Catholic parochial schools posed a threat to public schools, protestant majorities and democratic principles says Professor Daniel L.Dreisbach in his Article “The Mythical Wall of Separation: How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church–State Law, Policy, and Discourse”. Dreisbach further stated, that the ACLU, anti-Catholics elites such as Hugo Black, Protestants and others for the separation of church and state, prevailed upon the courts to secularize the state. The 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education extended the exclusion of aid to religion to federal and state governments. No previous court had interpreted Jefferson’s phrase to imply that the state was to be free any religious influence.
In the 1930’s Hitler recognized that the only institution that stood in the way his plans was the church. So Hitler promoted his propaganda with slogans such as "Politics do not belong in the Church." And "The Church must be separate from the State”, says Bryan Fischer in his article “Separation of Church and State: Straight from the Mind of Hitler” quoting Professor John Conway’s book “The Nazi persecution of the Churches 1933-45”. The former Soviet Union also enforced a strict separation of church and state only allowing the influence of the church to remain within its four walls. These phrases are virtually identical to those promoted by the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.
In December 1934, Hitler said this in a campaign speech, “But we will ensure the purging from our public life of all those priests who have mistaken their profession and who ought to have been politicians and not pastors", noted Bryan Fischer in his above mentioned article. Hitler’s objectives here are virtually identical with those of the ACLU.
The idea of separating religion from all civil government would have alarmed Jefferson and the founding fathers that clearly understood that the general principles of Christianity must have the encouragement and support of the state. They knew that without a Christian foundation and people, their republic would not survive. They understood that the source of our inalienable rights and freedom came Jesus himself and that Christianity was at the foundation of our American government and society.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Is the US Constitution a Living Document that should change over time?
Is the US Constitution a Living Document that should change over time?
By Will Armstrong
The theory that the Constitution is a “Living Document” has been dominant since F.D.R. tried to pack the Supreme Court in the late 1930’s. The idea of an evolving Constitution has helped to transform our government from a limited one, charged with protecting individual rights, into a Nanny State that promises to take care of all our needs and make all our decisions.
The Judiciary, since the Great Depression, has made laws and created rights based on general statements in the Bill of Rights ignoring specific provisions in the 9th and 10th amendments to limit government functions.
Our Constitution was created to protect our inalienable or God given rights and to prevent arbitrary government intrusion into our lives. By the time the Constitution was written America had been subject to oppressive British rule for two hundred years. Our founding Fathers knew from experience what type of government they wanted to avoid.
The Constitution divided our government horizontally on the federal level into three branches; executive, judicial and legislative and vertically into federal, state and local governments. The purpose was to institute a system of checks and balances to promote accountability and prevent seizure of power by any single branch.
The 9th and 10th amendments purposely enumerates (lists) the specific functions of all branches and levels of government. The purpose being to create a government that is constitutionally limited. The Constitution states that whatever rights and powers are not given to the government are reserved for the people, making it clear that the government is to be a servant not a master to the people.
The concept of The Constitution being a Living document refers to theory that its interpretation needs to evolve as our culture and moral standards change. The central argument being, that how could you directly apply a two-hundred year old legal document to modern times. Two hundred years ago there we’re slaves, women had no voting rights, there we’re no food stamps and abortion wasn’t an issue.
Some proponents of the Living Document, even go on to say that the founders intended the Constitution to evolve as society changed because it was written in general terms thereby leaving room for broad interpretations.
On the surface, the argument for a Living Document sounds reasonable and fair, they reason that they would prefer a “Living document” to its implied opposite, a “dead document” written two hundred years ago by those they consider to be slave owning, sexist, religiously fanatical and wealthy white guys.
The problem with Living document theory is that the final authority for legal decisions are judges not the Constitution. Supreme Court Justices get to decide how and when our morals and culture have evolved or changed. An example of this might be that of an older law prohibiting eighteen year olds from driving a car. Judges may surmise for instance, that because there we’re no seat belts when this law was written that it would be reasonable to amend the law to say that eighteen year olds without seatbelts are prohibited from driving.
We can see from this humorous example how the clear intent of the law was altered by permitting judges to interpret the law based on the evolving cultural times such as is the case with the Living Document theory. A Supreme Court judge can now effectively enact a new law without a vote through court decisions, in addition to their legitimate role of interpreting the law as written. So the judges can now usurp the legislative function of Congress to effectively make laws by judicial fiat. Supreme Court Judges have now evolved into all wise philosopher kings who make our rules for living and who tell us what to think.
Many are not aware that the executive and legislative branches are also charged with upholding and protecting the Constitution. Federal employees, military members, civil servants and Congress all took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Now if these Supreme Court Justices are the only ones wise enough to understand Constitutions’ meaning what are rest of us swearing to uphold? Something that can be altered at a judges whim? Why wouldn’t it be meant to be understood by all?
As most of us know it takes a two thirds majority in both houses of congress to amend the Constitution. There have only been 17 admendments passed after the first ten in our Bill of Rights we’re passed in 1787. Cooperation of all the branches and levels of government are also necessary to advance new legislation. Also governmental checks and balances along with the enumeration of government powers provides accountability and makes it very difficult to alter our laws. Its no accident that changing or making new laws are cumbersome by design, the founders did that on purpose. Now why would all this be necessary if the courts could just change the law through means of ruling by evolving interpretations as is the case with a Living Document approach.
The Living Constitution threatens the inalienable rights and protections our forefather fought and died for, by consolidating power in government hands and changing our limited government to an unlimited one where rights are given by the government and the only protected rights are government rights.
By Will Armstrong
The theory that the Constitution is a “Living Document” has been dominant since F.D.R. tried to pack the Supreme Court in the late 1930’s. The idea of an evolving Constitution has helped to transform our government from a limited one, charged with protecting individual rights, into a Nanny State that promises to take care of all our needs and make all our decisions.
The Judiciary, since the Great Depression, has made laws and created rights based on general statements in the Bill of Rights ignoring specific provisions in the 9th and 10th amendments to limit government functions.
Our Constitution was created to protect our inalienable or God given rights and to prevent arbitrary government intrusion into our lives. By the time the Constitution was written America had been subject to oppressive British rule for two hundred years. Our founding Fathers knew from experience what type of government they wanted to avoid.
The Constitution divided our government horizontally on the federal level into three branches; executive, judicial and legislative and vertically into federal, state and local governments. The purpose was to institute a system of checks and balances to promote accountability and prevent seizure of power by any single branch.
The 9th and 10th amendments purposely enumerates (lists) the specific functions of all branches and levels of government. The purpose being to create a government that is constitutionally limited. The Constitution states that whatever rights and powers are not given to the government are reserved for the people, making it clear that the government is to be a servant not a master to the people.
The concept of The Constitution being a Living document refers to theory that its interpretation needs to evolve as our culture and moral standards change. The central argument being, that how could you directly apply a two-hundred year old legal document to modern times. Two hundred years ago there we’re slaves, women had no voting rights, there we’re no food stamps and abortion wasn’t an issue.
Some proponents of the Living Document, even go on to say that the founders intended the Constitution to evolve as society changed because it was written in general terms thereby leaving room for broad interpretations.
On the surface, the argument for a Living Document sounds reasonable and fair, they reason that they would prefer a “Living document” to its implied opposite, a “dead document” written two hundred years ago by those they consider to be slave owning, sexist, religiously fanatical and wealthy white guys.
The problem with Living document theory is that the final authority for legal decisions are judges not the Constitution. Supreme Court Justices get to decide how and when our morals and culture have evolved or changed. An example of this might be that of an older law prohibiting eighteen year olds from driving a car. Judges may surmise for instance, that because there we’re no seat belts when this law was written that it would be reasonable to amend the law to say that eighteen year olds without seatbelts are prohibited from driving.
We can see from this humorous example how the clear intent of the law was altered by permitting judges to interpret the law based on the evolving cultural times such as is the case with the Living Document theory. A Supreme Court judge can now effectively enact a new law without a vote through court decisions, in addition to their legitimate role of interpreting the law as written. So the judges can now usurp the legislative function of Congress to effectively make laws by judicial fiat. Supreme Court Judges have now evolved into all wise philosopher kings who make our rules for living and who tell us what to think.
Many are not aware that the executive and legislative branches are also charged with upholding and protecting the Constitution. Federal employees, military members, civil servants and Congress all took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Now if these Supreme Court Justices are the only ones wise enough to understand Constitutions’ meaning what are rest of us swearing to uphold? Something that can be altered at a judges whim? Why wouldn’t it be meant to be understood by all?
As most of us know it takes a two thirds majority in both houses of congress to amend the Constitution. There have only been 17 admendments passed after the first ten in our Bill of Rights we’re passed in 1787. Cooperation of all the branches and levels of government are also necessary to advance new legislation. Also governmental checks and balances along with the enumeration of government powers provides accountability and makes it very difficult to alter our laws. Its no accident that changing or making new laws are cumbersome by design, the founders did that on purpose. Now why would all this be necessary if the courts could just change the law through means of ruling by evolving interpretations as is the case with a Living Document approach.
The Living Constitution threatens the inalienable rights and protections our forefather fought and died for, by consolidating power in government hands and changing our limited government to an unlimited one where rights are given by the government and the only protected rights are government rights.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Universal healthcare
Universal healthcare has been packaged to sound like something it clearly is not. Many think that it means that quality healthcare will be available for all at virtually no cost. They feel that after all, isn’t quality healthcare a right, we know its in the Constitution somewhere! Not! Healthcare sponsors claim that healthcare costs and deficits will be reduced, quality improved, competition and choices increased, with access for all.
These claims remind me of the promises of pyramid schemes that the young and naïve fall prey to. When something doesn’t smell right, follow the money and ask yourself who really benefits? The government will control the money, so who do you think will really make the important decisions? Since when has the government saved tax payer money, increase competition or run anything well? The senate runs its own dining facility, it has failed to make a profit and has incurred large debts, do we really want them to directly manage 1/6th of our national economy?
Liberal politicians who pontificate about the rich paying their fair share often cheat on their own taxes, they never complain about getting too much back on their taxes or offer to contribute their own wealth to government causes. Politicians and their special interest groups are the only ones who benefit from universal healthcare. Congress, by the way has its own private healthcare system, so they won’t be subject to the new universal health plan that they have enacted.
Some claim that universal healthcare systems are working well in other countries. They may know someone from England or Canada that say their system is great. Their foreign friends may even belief it works because either they belong to a special interest group that has been bumped up the on the waiting list or haven’t had major health issues.
Universal healthcare systems tried on a state level in this country or abroad, have all experienced similar problems. These problems include soaring deficits, out of control costs, rationing, incompetence, pilfering and special privilege to certain groups. What incentives will exist for physicians to improve their skills, or medical technology to improve when wages and prices are set by the government?
Many want to believe that with a stroke of the pen the government can take care of every problem. No one wants to believe they’ve been lied to. The truth is this problem is not a simple one, we are going to have to make some hard choices to turn the system around and get expenses under control.
The heart of the problem is that about 85% of healthcare expenses are paid by someone other than those receiving care and about half the expenses are paid for by the government. The current system also provides incentives for employers to provide health insurance. There is little incentive for individuals or the government to monitor healthcare expenses.
Some solutions to the problems in healthcare involve putting people in control of their medical dollars, through such measures as medical savings accounts in tandem with high deductible low cost insurance, incentives in the tax code for individuals not employers to buy health insurance. Consumer demand will spur competition between insurance companies and medical service providers.
Other measures include relaxing medical licensing requirements to allow nurses, physicians assistants and others to provide some services that now requires a doctors care. Allowing employers and individuals to purchase health plans from other states will break state monopolies and lower prices. Moving away from prepaid medical care for routine procedures and returning to traditional insurance with flexible savings accounts will provide incentives not to overuse medical care. Over time our single payer systems such as Medicare and Medicaid could be phased out and replaced by individual based health savings accounts and high deductible health insurance with minimal government assistance.
Sometimes the truth hurts but sooner or we have to face it. We can’t blame the rich, the evil corporations or even big government for problems we’ve created. We as a nation have allowed and even encouraged the government to do for us what we should be doing for ourselves .Now we need to take some decisive and even painful steps to take our nation back!
These claims remind me of the promises of pyramid schemes that the young and naïve fall prey to. When something doesn’t smell right, follow the money and ask yourself who really benefits? The government will control the money, so who do you think will really make the important decisions? Since when has the government saved tax payer money, increase competition or run anything well? The senate runs its own dining facility, it has failed to make a profit and has incurred large debts, do we really want them to directly manage 1/6th of our national economy?
Liberal politicians who pontificate about the rich paying their fair share often cheat on their own taxes, they never complain about getting too much back on their taxes or offer to contribute their own wealth to government causes. Politicians and their special interest groups are the only ones who benefit from universal healthcare. Congress, by the way has its own private healthcare system, so they won’t be subject to the new universal health plan that they have enacted.
Some claim that universal healthcare systems are working well in other countries. They may know someone from England or Canada that say their system is great. Their foreign friends may even belief it works because either they belong to a special interest group that has been bumped up the on the waiting list or haven’t had major health issues.
Universal healthcare systems tried on a state level in this country or abroad, have all experienced similar problems. These problems include soaring deficits, out of control costs, rationing, incompetence, pilfering and special privilege to certain groups. What incentives will exist for physicians to improve their skills, or medical technology to improve when wages and prices are set by the government?
Many want to believe that with a stroke of the pen the government can take care of every problem. No one wants to believe they’ve been lied to. The truth is this problem is not a simple one, we are going to have to make some hard choices to turn the system around and get expenses under control.
The heart of the problem is that about 85% of healthcare expenses are paid by someone other than those receiving care and about half the expenses are paid for by the government. The current system also provides incentives for employers to provide health insurance. There is little incentive for individuals or the government to monitor healthcare expenses.
Some solutions to the problems in healthcare involve putting people in control of their medical dollars, through such measures as medical savings accounts in tandem with high deductible low cost insurance, incentives in the tax code for individuals not employers to buy health insurance. Consumer demand will spur competition between insurance companies and medical service providers.
Other measures include relaxing medical licensing requirements to allow nurses, physicians assistants and others to provide some services that now requires a doctors care. Allowing employers and individuals to purchase health plans from other states will break state monopolies and lower prices. Moving away from prepaid medical care for routine procedures and returning to traditional insurance with flexible savings accounts will provide incentives not to overuse medical care. Over time our single payer systems such as Medicare and Medicaid could be phased out and replaced by individual based health savings accounts and high deductible health insurance with minimal government assistance.
Sometimes the truth hurts but sooner or we have to face it. We can’t blame the rich, the evil corporations or even big government for problems we’ve created. We as a nation have allowed and even encouraged the government to do for us what we should be doing for ourselves .Now we need to take some decisive and even painful steps to take our nation back!
Monday, April 12, 2010
Explaining the fullness of the Holy Spirit
Explaining the fullness of the Holy Spirit
By Will Armstrong
To be filled with the Holy spirit is to be filled with God’s very presence. Its greater than anything we could ever touch.
The Holy spirit is a person, he is God, he is Jehovah, he is the power of God.
The Spirit is our constant companion. He is the one we have fellowship with. He is our partner, teacher, helper, guide but also our boss.
About ten years ago I felt the tangible presence of God for the first time. After a revival meeting in Toronto Canada, a women from Scotland laid hands on me and I felt the power of God strongly, I actually shook for about ten minutes and also felt a deep peace come over me.
Later that year a friend and I we’re painting a house and we went to lunch at Burger King. As we we’re walking into the restaurant there was a crowd watching helplessly as a women was choking to death on some food. The ambulance had been called but had not arrived. I felt the Lord leading me to lay hands on the women a pray, as I did within about 30 seconds she was fine. The husband thanked me for my prayers and acknowledged that they may have saved her life.
I believe the reason I had the boldness and faith to pray for this women was because of the filling of the holy Spirit. I have had many such experiences with God, usually not as dramatic but I hope and believe to be used in even greater ways.
To be full of the spirit we must first empty ourselves. Obedience is the key to drawing near to God. “ If you draw close to me, I will draw close to you”- James 4:8. Obedience to God by the leading of the spirit brings purity. “ Walk in the spirit and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh”- Gal 5:16.
We are bold, fearless and filled with power as we are consumed by God. Since its part of Gods nature to heal, we will carry God’s healing anointing. We will have power over sin and Satan, having signs and wonders following us.
When we are full of the spirit we will hear Gods voice and draw ever closer to God. To be filled with the holy spirit we must be in the secret place with God continually. Everything depends on our intimacy with God.
When filled with the Holy Spirit opposition will arise because Satan’s kingdom is being threatened.
The Spirit will equip us for every good work, to meet the destiny God has for us and for all we’re to accomplish. To be full of the Spirit is the only true qualification for ministry and is necessary to have that abundant life and exciting life God promised. A live worth living or dying for.
By Will Armstrong
To be filled with the Holy spirit is to be filled with God’s very presence. Its greater than anything we could ever touch.
The Holy spirit is a person, he is God, he is Jehovah, he is the power of God.
The Spirit is our constant companion. He is the one we have fellowship with. He is our partner, teacher, helper, guide but also our boss.
About ten years ago I felt the tangible presence of God for the first time. After a revival meeting in Toronto Canada, a women from Scotland laid hands on me and I felt the power of God strongly, I actually shook for about ten minutes and also felt a deep peace come over me.
Later that year a friend and I we’re painting a house and we went to lunch at Burger King. As we we’re walking into the restaurant there was a crowd watching helplessly as a women was choking to death on some food. The ambulance had been called but had not arrived. I felt the Lord leading me to lay hands on the women a pray, as I did within about 30 seconds she was fine. The husband thanked me for my prayers and acknowledged that they may have saved her life.
I believe the reason I had the boldness and faith to pray for this women was because of the filling of the holy Spirit. I have had many such experiences with God, usually not as dramatic but I hope and believe to be used in even greater ways.
To be full of the spirit we must first empty ourselves. Obedience is the key to drawing near to God. “ If you draw close to me, I will draw close to you”- James 4:8. Obedience to God by the leading of the spirit brings purity. “ Walk in the spirit and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh”- Gal 5:16.
We are bold, fearless and filled with power as we are consumed by God. Since its part of Gods nature to heal, we will carry God’s healing anointing. We will have power over sin and Satan, having signs and wonders following us.
When we are full of the spirit we will hear Gods voice and draw ever closer to God. To be filled with the holy spirit we must be in the secret place with God continually. Everything depends on our intimacy with God.
When filled with the Holy Spirit opposition will arise because Satan’s kingdom is being threatened.
The Spirit will equip us for every good work, to meet the destiny God has for us and for all we’re to accomplish. To be full of the Spirit is the only true qualification for ministry and is necessary to have that abundant life and exciting life God promised. A live worth living or dying for.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Should America have Universal Health Care?
Should America have Universal Health Care?
By Will Armstrong
Its hard to imagine a question with more widespread implications. The universal healthcare issue has political, economic, industrial, constitutional, moral and even religious consequences. Healthcare spending is 17% of our nations overall economic output.
Now lets look at the claims and provisions of the new house bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act -- H.R. 3962. First, the stated goals of the general provisions of this bill, according to president Obama are as follows:“It will slow the growth in out-of-control costs, introduce competition into the health care marketplace to keep coverage affordable and insurers honest, protect people’s choices of doctors and health plans, and assure all Americans access to quality, stable, affordable health care.”(Kruger 2009)
In addition to the stated goals of the bill, some key provisions include ensuring shared responsibility, protecting consumers and reducing waste, fraud, and abuse, reducing the deficit and ensuring the solvency of Medicare and Medicaid, improving quality of care for every American, increasing choice and competition.(Kruger 2009)
Many are under the impression that the US healthcare system is a free market arrangement, when in fact almost half of our system is government funded. Medicare and Medicade are single payer systems which cover one third of all Americans .The uninsured are indirectly covered by government funded emergency care. Our system does not differ significantly from European and Canadian models in that all of them with the exception of Great Britain, have a mixture of public and privately funded healthcare options. The fact is that it’s the governments’ involvement in healthcare that has driven costs to unsustainable levels not the free market as many suppose.(Dalmia 2009)
The new bill claims to introduce competition into the healthcare marketplace by providing heavily regulated and funded government health plan options to compete with private insurance options. This seems like a strange definition of free market competition, what employer in their right mind would purchase a private health plan for their employees when the government offers a free one? How can imposing a vast new array of regulations increase real competition? The new government regulations and provisions will eliminate many insurance options and choices.
Another goal is to slow the growth in out-of-control costs. The plan includes extending healthcare coverage to 37 million Americans who are currently uninsured. In economic terms, the demand for healthcare services here will be dramatically increased but supply of services remains at best a constant, which of course raises prices. Proponents of the new bill claim that using price controls will keep costs under control but this country’s past experience with price controls showed dismal outcomes. Price controls on gasoline in the 1970’s led to rationing and stagflation. (Colson 1993)
Many believe prices and costs are the same thing but this is not the case. No matter what prices the government set the costs of providing health care are the same. Keeping prices low forces insurance companies to drop their sickest clients or reduce reimbursements to customers and hospitals which is already the case with Medicade. Medicade currently reimburses only 80% of bills submitted.
“A decade-long health insurance experiment found that people given “free” medical care consumed 43 percent more care, yet saw little or no benefit in terms of health.”(Cato 2010) Universal healthcare (aka) socialized medicine leaves virtually all control of healthcare resources in government hands, therefore there is little incentive for individuals or the government to keep costs down because its not perceived to be their money.
Claims of cost savings and deficit reductions are a mirage. Much of the supposed saving are actually based on cost shifting not actual savings. An example of cost shifting is cutting back on Medicare and shifting burdens to the young and elderly to pay for the uninsured. Deficit reduction claims for the new bill are based on the projections of the CBO or congressional budget office.
To get an idea of how far off the CBO forecasting has been, its 1965 prediction of long range Medicare expenditures were nine times more than expected. “When Medicaid was created in 1965, it was supposed to be a very small program with annual expenditures of about $1 billion. It has now become a huge $280 billion per year burden for federal taxpayers.”(Mitchell 2009) Ten year increases in deficits from the new healthcare legislation are expected to be approximately 600 billion. These estimates don’t even factor other spending increases due to changes in personal and business behavior or reduced tax revenues due to huge deficits and a slowed economy.( Mitchell 2009)
Congressional healthcare advocates claim that the new legislation will assure access to quality healthcare. Experiences with universal healthcare abroad illustrate that being put on a waiting list does not equate to having access to healthcare. In 2006 Great Britain had nearly a million of its citizens waiting for admission to their nation health service hospitals. Waiting lists for heart surgery in Sweden is about a half a year, and over a year for a hip replacement. The US has three times the access to state of the art equipment and treatment as compared to other advanced industrialized nations such as Canada, Sweden, Germany and Great Britain.(Cannon and Tanner 2007)
A recent study conducted by Helen Levy of the University of Michigan's Economic Research Initiative on the Uninsured, and David Meltzer of the University of Chicago, for no proof that access to health insurance led to improvement in health. The assumption that the uninsured will skip preliminary treatment is proven false.(Cannon and Tanner 2007)
Ensuring the solvency of Medicare and Medicaid with a 3.8 percent tax on investment income for families making more than $250,000 per year ($200,000 for individuals).(Jackson and Nolen 2010) Advocates also claim savings through increased efficiency of Medicare and Medicade programs. In the past increasing taxes on wealthy American’s has only decreased revenues and claims of future savings through increased government efficiency is a promise that is seldom kept. The reality of the situation is that Medicare and Medicade benefits have to be cut with costs continuing the rise at unprecedented levels. Also funds must and will be diverted from Medicade and Medicare to pay from the currently uninsured.
There have been several constitutional objections to H.R. 3962 involving the interstate commerce clause, the general welfare clause and article 5 of the constitution allowing a two thirds majority of state legislators to declare the federal or individual insurance mandate to be unconstitutional.
Never before has the congress extended the interstate commerce clause to include a condition for an individual to purchase goods or services from a private company as a requirement for being a citizen of this country.(Barnett 2010) States are bringing lawsuits to challenge the constitutionality of offering special deals to states in return for votes. Allowing Florida to retain Medicare advantage when not available to other states should violate the general welfare clause. General welfare in the constitution applies to general not specific welfare favoring one state over another.
Effective healthcare reform must increase real competition and choice. Provide tax incentives to individuals to contribute to health savings accounts which will increase available health options. We must move away from employer based insurance to portable individual based insurance and also return to traditional insurance and away from prepaid health services such as managed care organizations. With the individual in control of healthcare resources, incentives exist to make insurance companies compete and individuals to conserve healthcare dollars.
Traditional high deductible low premium insurance will protect against catastrophic costs with health savings accounts available to meet out of pocket expenses. Putting individuals in control of their own healthcare will cause incentives for technological advances which increase quality and often reduces costs. Medical licensing laws need to be relaxed to allow lower level practitioners to perform some procedures reserved exclusively for doctors. Better technology can assist in allowing diagnostic procedures to be preformed by nurse practitioners, physician assistants and others.(Tanner 2009) Competition among health insurance companies could be increased by allowing health insurance to be purchased across state lines.
Universal healthcare amounts to nothing less than a government takeover of the healthcare industry, which is the biggest government power grab in American history. The problems we’re now experiencing are do to government intervention not the free market, so why would we want to put the entire system in government hands? As with all other sectors of our economy, the individual choices of millions of individuals will make far better decisions than a few government bureaucrats. Free markets have always out produced government run organizations because of efficiency, competition, innovation and choices. The universal healthcare system established by HR 3962 will fail to meet even one of its stated goals because its logic is based on a faulty premises and not proven free market principles.
References:
“Is Health-Care Reform Constitutional?” by Randy Barnett March 21, 2010 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11600
“Universal Healthcare's Dirty Little Secrets” by Michael F. Cannon and Michael D. Tanner April 5, 2007 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8172
“The Ownership Society and Health Care” by the Cato Institute retrieved April 6, 2010 http://www.cato.org/special/ownership_society/healthcare.html
“Bitter Medicine” by Chuck Colson 6/4/1993 http://www.breakpoint.org/component/content/article/31/3587-bitter-medicine
“The Myth of Free-Market Health Care in America” by Shikha Dalmia July 30, 2009 http://reason.com/archives/2009/07/30/the-myth-of-free-market-health
“Health Care Reform Bill Summary: A Look At What's in the Bill” by Jill Jackson and John Nolen March 21, 2010 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html
“ Affordable Health Care for America Act” by Mike Kruger October 9, 2009 http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2009/10/affordable-health-care.shtml
“Will Federal Health Legislation Cause the Deficit to Soar?” By Daniel J. Mitchell November 2009 http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-58.pdf
“Obama Doesn't Have the Only Prescription for Healthcare Reform” by Michael D. Tanner July 5, 2009
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10328
By Will Armstrong
Its hard to imagine a question with more widespread implications. The universal healthcare issue has political, economic, industrial, constitutional, moral and even religious consequences. Healthcare spending is 17% of our nations overall economic output.
Now lets look at the claims and provisions of the new house bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act -- H.R. 3962. First, the stated goals of the general provisions of this bill, according to president Obama are as follows:“It will slow the growth in out-of-control costs, introduce competition into the health care marketplace to keep coverage affordable and insurers honest, protect people’s choices of doctors and health plans, and assure all Americans access to quality, stable, affordable health care.”(Kruger 2009)
In addition to the stated goals of the bill, some key provisions include ensuring shared responsibility, protecting consumers and reducing waste, fraud, and abuse, reducing the deficit and ensuring the solvency of Medicare and Medicaid, improving quality of care for every American, increasing choice and competition.(Kruger 2009)
Many are under the impression that the US healthcare system is a free market arrangement, when in fact almost half of our system is government funded. Medicare and Medicade are single payer systems which cover one third of all Americans .The uninsured are indirectly covered by government funded emergency care. Our system does not differ significantly from European and Canadian models in that all of them with the exception of Great Britain, have a mixture of public and privately funded healthcare options. The fact is that it’s the governments’ involvement in healthcare that has driven costs to unsustainable levels not the free market as many suppose.(Dalmia 2009)
The new bill claims to introduce competition into the healthcare marketplace by providing heavily regulated and funded government health plan options to compete with private insurance options. This seems like a strange definition of free market competition, what employer in their right mind would purchase a private health plan for their employees when the government offers a free one? How can imposing a vast new array of regulations increase real competition? The new government regulations and provisions will eliminate many insurance options and choices.
Another goal is to slow the growth in out-of-control costs. The plan includes extending healthcare coverage to 37 million Americans who are currently uninsured. In economic terms, the demand for healthcare services here will be dramatically increased but supply of services remains at best a constant, which of course raises prices. Proponents of the new bill claim that using price controls will keep costs under control but this country’s past experience with price controls showed dismal outcomes. Price controls on gasoline in the 1970’s led to rationing and stagflation. (Colson 1993)
Many believe prices and costs are the same thing but this is not the case. No matter what prices the government set the costs of providing health care are the same. Keeping prices low forces insurance companies to drop their sickest clients or reduce reimbursements to customers and hospitals which is already the case with Medicade. Medicade currently reimburses only 80% of bills submitted.
“A decade-long health insurance experiment found that people given “free” medical care consumed 43 percent more care, yet saw little or no benefit in terms of health.”(Cato 2010) Universal healthcare (aka) socialized medicine leaves virtually all control of healthcare resources in government hands, therefore there is little incentive for individuals or the government to keep costs down because its not perceived to be their money.
Claims of cost savings and deficit reductions are a mirage. Much of the supposed saving are actually based on cost shifting not actual savings. An example of cost shifting is cutting back on Medicare and shifting burdens to the young and elderly to pay for the uninsured. Deficit reduction claims for the new bill are based on the projections of the CBO or congressional budget office.
To get an idea of how far off the CBO forecasting has been, its 1965 prediction of long range Medicare expenditures were nine times more than expected. “When Medicaid was created in 1965, it was supposed to be a very small program with annual expenditures of about $1 billion. It has now become a huge $280 billion per year burden for federal taxpayers.”(Mitchell 2009) Ten year increases in deficits from the new healthcare legislation are expected to be approximately 600 billion. These estimates don’t even factor other spending increases due to changes in personal and business behavior or reduced tax revenues due to huge deficits and a slowed economy.( Mitchell 2009)
Congressional healthcare advocates claim that the new legislation will assure access to quality healthcare. Experiences with universal healthcare abroad illustrate that being put on a waiting list does not equate to having access to healthcare. In 2006 Great Britain had nearly a million of its citizens waiting for admission to their nation health service hospitals. Waiting lists for heart surgery in Sweden is about a half a year, and over a year for a hip replacement. The US has three times the access to state of the art equipment and treatment as compared to other advanced industrialized nations such as Canada, Sweden, Germany and Great Britain.(Cannon and Tanner 2007)
A recent study conducted by Helen Levy of the University of Michigan's Economic Research Initiative on the Uninsured, and David Meltzer of the University of Chicago, for no proof that access to health insurance led to improvement in health. The assumption that the uninsured will skip preliminary treatment is proven false.(Cannon and Tanner 2007)
Ensuring the solvency of Medicare and Medicaid with a 3.8 percent tax on investment income for families making more than $250,000 per year ($200,000 for individuals).(Jackson and Nolen 2010) Advocates also claim savings through increased efficiency of Medicare and Medicade programs. In the past increasing taxes on wealthy American’s has only decreased revenues and claims of future savings through increased government efficiency is a promise that is seldom kept. The reality of the situation is that Medicare and Medicade benefits have to be cut with costs continuing the rise at unprecedented levels. Also funds must and will be diverted from Medicade and Medicare to pay from the currently uninsured.
There have been several constitutional objections to H.R. 3962 involving the interstate commerce clause, the general welfare clause and article 5 of the constitution allowing a two thirds majority of state legislators to declare the federal or individual insurance mandate to be unconstitutional.
Never before has the congress extended the interstate commerce clause to include a condition for an individual to purchase goods or services from a private company as a requirement for being a citizen of this country.(Barnett 2010) States are bringing lawsuits to challenge the constitutionality of offering special deals to states in return for votes. Allowing Florida to retain Medicare advantage when not available to other states should violate the general welfare clause. General welfare in the constitution applies to general not specific welfare favoring one state over another.
Effective healthcare reform must increase real competition and choice. Provide tax incentives to individuals to contribute to health savings accounts which will increase available health options. We must move away from employer based insurance to portable individual based insurance and also return to traditional insurance and away from prepaid health services such as managed care organizations. With the individual in control of healthcare resources, incentives exist to make insurance companies compete and individuals to conserve healthcare dollars.
Traditional high deductible low premium insurance will protect against catastrophic costs with health savings accounts available to meet out of pocket expenses. Putting individuals in control of their own healthcare will cause incentives for technological advances which increase quality and often reduces costs. Medical licensing laws need to be relaxed to allow lower level practitioners to perform some procedures reserved exclusively for doctors. Better technology can assist in allowing diagnostic procedures to be preformed by nurse practitioners, physician assistants and others.(Tanner 2009) Competition among health insurance companies could be increased by allowing health insurance to be purchased across state lines.
Universal healthcare amounts to nothing less than a government takeover of the healthcare industry, which is the biggest government power grab in American history. The problems we’re now experiencing are do to government intervention not the free market, so why would we want to put the entire system in government hands? As with all other sectors of our economy, the individual choices of millions of individuals will make far better decisions than a few government bureaucrats. Free markets have always out produced government run organizations because of efficiency, competition, innovation and choices. The universal healthcare system established by HR 3962 will fail to meet even one of its stated goals because its logic is based on a faulty premises and not proven free market principles.
References:
“Is Health-Care Reform Constitutional?” by Randy Barnett March 21, 2010 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11600
“Universal Healthcare's Dirty Little Secrets” by Michael F. Cannon and Michael D. Tanner April 5, 2007 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8172
“The Ownership Society and Health Care” by the Cato Institute retrieved April 6, 2010 http://www.cato.org/special/ownership_society/healthcare.html
“Bitter Medicine” by Chuck Colson 6/4/1993 http://www.breakpoint.org/component/content/article/31/3587-bitter-medicine
“The Myth of Free-Market Health Care in America” by Shikha Dalmia July 30, 2009 http://reason.com/archives/2009/07/30/the-myth-of-free-market-health
“Health Care Reform Bill Summary: A Look At What's in the Bill” by Jill Jackson and John Nolen March 21, 2010 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html
“ Affordable Health Care for America Act” by Mike Kruger October 9, 2009 http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2009/10/affordable-health-care.shtml
“Will Federal Health Legislation Cause the Deficit to Soar?” By Daniel J. Mitchell November 2009 http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-58.pdf
“Obama Doesn't Have the Only Prescription for Healthcare Reform” by Michael D. Tanner July 5, 2009
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10328
Friday, March 12, 2010
Capitalism vs Socialism which do you prefer?
Capitalism vs. Socialism
by Will Armstrong
Thomas Jefferson said “ Still one thing more, fellow citizens -- a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government”.
In comparing economic systems one must first look at the governmental system that makes it possible. So the initial question that needs to be answered is, what is good government? Jefferson’s’ quote starts with the emphasis of protecting individual rights, not interfering with commerce and the avoidance of wasteful spending.
“The most important the role of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individual citizens.”(Benson 1968) What rights and freedoms are we talking about? I can’t think of a better place to look than in the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence, since they are the blueprints of our government.
In The Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
It vital to realize that the source of our rights are not from the government but given by our creator. We already possess the unalienable rights and we charge the government to protect those rights. “Government has no innate power or privilege”(Benson 1968) only what “we the people” choose to delegate to it. Therefore the government is to be the servant of the people not their master.
One must also discern that we can’t delegate power that we ourselves do not possess. Another words we can’t empower government to do what we have no right to do. An example of this principal is that, since I don’t have the right to take what doesn’t belong to me how can I empower the government to redistribute the wealth of another.
One of the greatest benefits of capitalism is the freedom of choice. The choices of career, purchasing and investment decisions, to takes risks and reap the rewards. For capitalism to exist, the rule of law must protect property rights, individual rights, the right to start a business, and to invest. The rule of law is a fixed law that set definite limits on governments and individuals but can’t be changed at the whim of government or leaders. The concentration of government power, typical
in socialistic governments causes them to seldom respects the rule of law because it interferes with the power needed to implement their massive programs.
Capitalism allows the freedom to earn your way and the opportunity to be your best. It offers rewards for excellence, creativity, innovation and hard work. Your production improves the lives of others. Investors and business owners create opportunities for others. The rights of the individual are not sacrificed for special interest groups that empower government i.e. affirmative action, some eminent domain rulings, a tax code supporting redistribution of wealth, suppression of religious freedom through political correctness.
In a capitalist system, prices provide accurate information and incentives about how resources need to be allocated, thereby maximizing efficiency. Profits reward companies that are the most efficient and best serve the public. Companies that are inefficient and provide poor service are penalized. Profits provide strong disciplinary measures to businesses, and investor’s continually funnel resources into stronger companies continually creating more wealth and higher quality of life for everyone. (Mark J Perry 1995)
Some of the goals of socialism have merit. There is much value in collective enterprise; life and society has a social not just an individual facet. (Martin Luther King) Sometimes what works doesn’t fit in to our narrow political ideology. But the practice of socialism seems to range from bad i.e. much of Europe; to terrible i.e. the former USSR, Cuba, China, and North Korea
One of the problems with socialism is that whatever the noble intentions are to give power to the people, the power always ends up in the hands of an all-powerful elitist government. Socialist governments cannot trust the common man with power or freedom. Socialist’s tend to see corporations or corporate power to be the greatest threat to the freedom and advancement of the common man but have a naïve view that government can be trusted.
Think about this; if man can’t be trusted to govern himself why trust government to govern him, since those in government are subject to the same weaknesses as all of us?
Corporations are subject to the disciplines of the free market, if they fail to serve the public a competitor will replace them. Governments, on the other hand have no competitors, they have a monopoly, if they don’t serve us well its much more difficult to remove them. In the marketplace we are free to do business with who we want, the government, on the other hand can enforce their policies by force of arms. (Ross1997) Good examples of the dangers of concentrated government power are the roughly 100 million government- sponsored murders in the former USSR, China, Cambodia, Japan and Nazi Germany.
We need to consider the wise words of George Washington- “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence - it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master!"
Thomas Jefferson also says "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
Socialist policies runs counter to the principles of limited government and to the enumerated powers given to government specified in the ninth and tenth amendments to the Constitution. Our courts have usurped legislative powers and abused the Constitutions general welfare clause to justify massive social programs, excessive regulations and a tax system that redistributes wealth and buys votes.
Another troubling side effect of socialist economic policy is the lack of incentives. If people don’t produce, there is nothing for the government to distribute, no matter what promises the government makes. Since there really isn’t a powerful reason to produce and innovate in a socialist system, poverty is the inevitable result. I mean why work hard if your hard work and ideas won’t significantly improve your living conditions.
The inevitable result of removing peoples incentives to produce and God given rights to run their own lives, is that people will do next to nothing and the state will be compelled to create a coercive enforcement mechanism whose extreme forms include i.e. secret police, Gestapo ect. Coercive enforcement is necessary to support the unpopular policies that keep the socialist ruling elite in power.
Since this country has become more socialistic, you can see some examples of mild types of political oppression in the form of political correctness. People are now afraid of speaking out on issues such as homosexuality, race relations, child discipline and religion for fear of ridicule, losing your job or even legal action.
Much of the criticism of capitalism is actually the result of corporatism or state sponsored capitalism, which is a form of socialism not genuine free market capitalism. Corporatism includes “direct handouts, corporate bailouts, eminent domain, licensing laws, antitrust regulations, or environmental edicts (Gregory2005) More recent examples of corporatism include Enron, who powerfully lobbied for the strangling regulations in the Kyoto treaty. Why would a large corporation want expensive environmental regulations? The answer is the promise of lucrative government energy contracts and of course the elimination of their competition through huge start up expenses. This may explain why many, if not most of America’s wealthiest corporate leaders are socialist leaning liberals.
As long as economic systems involve people there will always be problems but capitalism has consistently out preformed socialism by any objective measure. No matter how wise a system of central planning is, it can never exceed the collective wisdom of millions buyers and sellers in a free market. Any system that restricts the freedom of choice, private property rights, disregards incentives and looks to government, as its savior will eventually fail. With all its faults, there is no economic system that holds a candle to free market capitalism.
References:
The Proper Role of Government by Ezra Taft Benson 1968
http://wwwwww.zionsbest.com/proper_role.html
Why socialism failed by Mark J. Perry PHD. June 1995
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/why-socialism-failed/
How Should A Christian View Communism? Martin Luther King Jr.
http://www.redmoonrising.com/AmericanBabylon/christandcomm.htm
Human Nature, Anarchy, and Capitalism by Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. 1997 http://www.friesian.com/fallen.htm
Corporatism and Socialism in America by Anthony Gregory, February 23, 2005 http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0411e.asp
by Will Armstrong
Thomas Jefferson said “ Still one thing more, fellow citizens -- a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government”.
In comparing economic systems one must first look at the governmental system that makes it possible. So the initial question that needs to be answered is, what is good government? Jefferson’s’ quote starts with the emphasis of protecting individual rights, not interfering with commerce and the avoidance of wasteful spending.
“The most important the role of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individual citizens.”(Benson 1968) What rights and freedoms are we talking about? I can’t think of a better place to look than in the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence, since they are the blueprints of our government.
In The Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
It vital to realize that the source of our rights are not from the government but given by our creator. We already possess the unalienable rights and we charge the government to protect those rights. “Government has no innate power or privilege”(Benson 1968) only what “we the people” choose to delegate to it. Therefore the government is to be the servant of the people not their master.
One must also discern that we can’t delegate power that we ourselves do not possess. Another words we can’t empower government to do what we have no right to do. An example of this principal is that, since I don’t have the right to take what doesn’t belong to me how can I empower the government to redistribute the wealth of another.
One of the greatest benefits of capitalism is the freedom of choice. The choices of career, purchasing and investment decisions, to takes risks and reap the rewards. For capitalism to exist, the rule of law must protect property rights, individual rights, the right to start a business, and to invest. The rule of law is a fixed law that set definite limits on governments and individuals but can’t be changed at the whim of government or leaders. The concentration of government power, typical
in socialistic governments causes them to seldom respects the rule of law because it interferes with the power needed to implement their massive programs.
Capitalism allows the freedom to earn your way and the opportunity to be your best. It offers rewards for excellence, creativity, innovation and hard work. Your production improves the lives of others. Investors and business owners create opportunities for others. The rights of the individual are not sacrificed for special interest groups that empower government i.e. affirmative action, some eminent domain rulings, a tax code supporting redistribution of wealth, suppression of religious freedom through political correctness.
In a capitalist system, prices provide accurate information and incentives about how resources need to be allocated, thereby maximizing efficiency. Profits reward companies that are the most efficient and best serve the public. Companies that are inefficient and provide poor service are penalized. Profits provide strong disciplinary measures to businesses, and investor’s continually funnel resources into stronger companies continually creating more wealth and higher quality of life for everyone. (Mark J Perry 1995)
Some of the goals of socialism have merit. There is much value in collective enterprise; life and society has a social not just an individual facet. (Martin Luther King) Sometimes what works doesn’t fit in to our narrow political ideology. But the practice of socialism seems to range from bad i.e. much of Europe; to terrible i.e. the former USSR, Cuba, China, and North Korea
One of the problems with socialism is that whatever the noble intentions are to give power to the people, the power always ends up in the hands of an all-powerful elitist government. Socialist governments cannot trust the common man with power or freedom. Socialist’s tend to see corporations or corporate power to be the greatest threat to the freedom and advancement of the common man but have a naïve view that government can be trusted.
Think about this; if man can’t be trusted to govern himself why trust government to govern him, since those in government are subject to the same weaknesses as all of us?
Corporations are subject to the disciplines of the free market, if they fail to serve the public a competitor will replace them. Governments, on the other hand have no competitors, they have a monopoly, if they don’t serve us well its much more difficult to remove them. In the marketplace we are free to do business with who we want, the government, on the other hand can enforce their policies by force of arms. (Ross1997) Good examples of the dangers of concentrated government power are the roughly 100 million government- sponsored murders in the former USSR, China, Cambodia, Japan and Nazi Germany.
We need to consider the wise words of George Washington- “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence - it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master!"
Thomas Jefferson also says "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
Socialist policies runs counter to the principles of limited government and to the enumerated powers given to government specified in the ninth and tenth amendments to the Constitution. Our courts have usurped legislative powers and abused the Constitutions general welfare clause to justify massive social programs, excessive regulations and a tax system that redistributes wealth and buys votes.
Another troubling side effect of socialist economic policy is the lack of incentives. If people don’t produce, there is nothing for the government to distribute, no matter what promises the government makes. Since there really isn’t a powerful reason to produce and innovate in a socialist system, poverty is the inevitable result. I mean why work hard if your hard work and ideas won’t significantly improve your living conditions.
The inevitable result of removing peoples incentives to produce and God given rights to run their own lives, is that people will do next to nothing and the state will be compelled to create a coercive enforcement mechanism whose extreme forms include i.e. secret police, Gestapo ect. Coercive enforcement is necessary to support the unpopular policies that keep the socialist ruling elite in power.
Since this country has become more socialistic, you can see some examples of mild types of political oppression in the form of political correctness. People are now afraid of speaking out on issues such as homosexuality, race relations, child discipline and religion for fear of ridicule, losing your job or even legal action.
Much of the criticism of capitalism is actually the result of corporatism or state sponsored capitalism, which is a form of socialism not genuine free market capitalism. Corporatism includes “direct handouts, corporate bailouts, eminent domain, licensing laws, antitrust regulations, or environmental edicts (Gregory2005) More recent examples of corporatism include Enron, who powerfully lobbied for the strangling regulations in the Kyoto treaty. Why would a large corporation want expensive environmental regulations? The answer is the promise of lucrative government energy contracts and of course the elimination of their competition through huge start up expenses. This may explain why many, if not most of America’s wealthiest corporate leaders are socialist leaning liberals.
As long as economic systems involve people there will always be problems but capitalism has consistently out preformed socialism by any objective measure. No matter how wise a system of central planning is, it can never exceed the collective wisdom of millions buyers and sellers in a free market. Any system that restricts the freedom of choice, private property rights, disregards incentives and looks to government, as its savior will eventually fail. With all its faults, there is no economic system that holds a candle to free market capitalism.
References:
The Proper Role of Government by Ezra Taft Benson 1968
http://wwwwww.zionsbest.com/proper_role.html
Why socialism failed by Mark J. Perry PHD. June 1995
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/why-socialism-failed/
How Should A Christian View Communism? Martin Luther King Jr.
http://www.redmoonrising.com/AmericanBabylon/christandcomm.htm
Human Nature, Anarchy, and Capitalism by Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. 1997 http://www.friesian.com/fallen.htm
Corporatism and Socialism in America by Anthony Gregory, February 23, 2005 http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0411e.asp
Is our Constitution a living document?
Is our Constitution a living document that can change over time?
By Will Armstrong
The term "living document" refers to the idea that the constitution should be interpreted to accommodation the changing times. Some say that the framers left the language of the Constitution vague so that it could change over time to stay relevant with changing conditions; they contend that the document was not supposed to be taken literally but interpreted according to its broad meaning or the spirit of it. The Constitution already has a provision for change, in the Amendment process.
The problem with viewing the Constitution this way is that you can in effect make the Constitution say what you want it to say. The problems with this view are many and it dangerously threatens our democracy. The constitution isn't just a theoretical expose but the law of our land; our elected official swears an oath to it. If the meaning of the Constitution blows with the wind what are these people swearing allegiance to.
My experience with the truth on debatable issues is that it’s usually simpler than people like to admit. I’ll admit that this issue seems pretty cut and dry to me, according to the research I’ve done. In looking at the arguments in favor of a living document I’ve noticed some self-contradictions. For instance they will complain about how the original meaning of the constitution can’t be applied to many of the current issues but at the same time claim that they are originalists or that we can’t know what the original framers but later on claim they understand the spirit of the document.
Clarence Thomas said it best when he said, “there are only two ways to interpret the Constitution – try to discern as best we can what the framers intended or make it up” and “unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent of the framers, they have no more basis in the Constitution than the latest football scores”.
The president swears an oath to preserve the Constitution, but if it meaning is in constant change what are you preserving? Why would the founders want to write a legally binding document in unclear terms, isn’t it intended to be clearly understood by as many as possible. Federal employees and judges, members of the armed forces, congress, civil servants all to an oath to support, defend and uphold to Constitution. Doesn’t it make sense that it’s meaning should be as clear and specific as possible? The online google dictionary defines Constitution as the fundamental law of the land, a legal document describing a formal system. The definition of constitution itself refutes the idea that it’s a living document.
In conclusion it seems that the unclear and inconsistent reasoning, proponents of a living Constitution seem to have, points to an agenda and rationalization behind their opinions. Where as those opposed have a more consistent and sound rationale. The idea of a living document that changes over time reminds me of the secular idea of moral relatism, which can be changed at a whim. Either way there is no foundation.
References:
Theories of Constitutional interpretation Retrieved January 11, 2010 http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/interp.html
Wikipedia (2009). Living Constitution Retrieved January 11, 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution
Wikipedia (2009). Oath of office Retrieved January 11, 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office#Military_Oaths_-_Federal_and_State
By Will Armstrong
The term "living document" refers to the idea that the constitution should be interpreted to accommodation the changing times. Some say that the framers left the language of the Constitution vague so that it could change over time to stay relevant with changing conditions; they contend that the document was not supposed to be taken literally but interpreted according to its broad meaning or the spirit of it. The Constitution already has a provision for change, in the Amendment process.
The problem with viewing the Constitution this way is that you can in effect make the Constitution say what you want it to say. The problems with this view are many and it dangerously threatens our democracy. The constitution isn't just a theoretical expose but the law of our land; our elected official swears an oath to it. If the meaning of the Constitution blows with the wind what are these people swearing allegiance to.
My experience with the truth on debatable issues is that it’s usually simpler than people like to admit. I’ll admit that this issue seems pretty cut and dry to me, according to the research I’ve done. In looking at the arguments in favor of a living document I’ve noticed some self-contradictions. For instance they will complain about how the original meaning of the constitution can’t be applied to many of the current issues but at the same time claim that they are originalists or that we can’t know what the original framers but later on claim they understand the spirit of the document.
Clarence Thomas said it best when he said, “there are only two ways to interpret the Constitution – try to discern as best we can what the framers intended or make it up” and “unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent of the framers, they have no more basis in the Constitution than the latest football scores”.
The president swears an oath to preserve the Constitution, but if it meaning is in constant change what are you preserving? Why would the founders want to write a legally binding document in unclear terms, isn’t it intended to be clearly understood by as many as possible. Federal employees and judges, members of the armed forces, congress, civil servants all to an oath to support, defend and uphold to Constitution. Doesn’t it make sense that it’s meaning should be as clear and specific as possible? The online google dictionary defines Constitution as the fundamental law of the land, a legal document describing a formal system. The definition of constitution itself refutes the idea that it’s a living document.
In conclusion it seems that the unclear and inconsistent reasoning, proponents of a living Constitution seem to have, points to an agenda and rationalization behind their opinions. Where as those opposed have a more consistent and sound rationale. The idea of a living document that changes over time reminds me of the secular idea of moral relatism, which can be changed at a whim. Either way there is no foundation.
References:
Theories of Constitutional interpretation Retrieved January 11, 2010 http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/interp.html
Wikipedia (2009). Living Constitution Retrieved January 11, 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution
Wikipedia (2009). Oath of office Retrieved January 11, 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office#Military_Oaths_-_Federal_and_State
Is America founded a Christian nation?
America a Christian nation?
by Will Armstrong
Was America founded a Christian nation or are its roots primarily from the age of enlightenment, free from the influence of Christianity? Enlightenment philosophy, being more closely related to secular humanism or even atheism than to Christianity. Some argue that although there were many Christians at the time of our nations founding, Christianity and Christian principals were intended to have no influence in our government or public life. They will point to Thomas Jefferson’s concept of “a wall of separation between church and state”, as proof of their theory.
Some say that the constitutional convention of 1789 was primarily influenced be enlightenment and deist sentiment and had little to do with Christianity. They will point to influential leaders such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson who they claim were more inclined towards deism than Christianity.
To remove any doubt that Christianity had a role in our nations founding, they will point to a statement made in the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, in which we find the words, "…the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion….”.
Examining a few the approximately 17,000 documents written around the time period of our nations founding will give a balanced view of the beliefs of the leaders at this time.
John Jay, the first chief justice of the Supreme Court wrote, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." This quote was from 1797, the year of the treaty of Tripoli. (Norris 2007) Was religion to have no place in government, not according to our first chief justice? It doesn’t appear that he’s taken a position of religious neutrality, he is advocating for Christianity.
‘Fisher Ames, author of the First Amendment, wrote an article in 1801 entitled "School Books." His concern was that by adding so many new textbooks in schools, there would not be enough time for the Bible. He said we must make sure the Bible regained its proper place of pre-eminence in the classroom!”(Bellavita 2008) Now why would the author of the first amendment advocate for the pre-eminence for the bible in schools? It is apparent that the establishment clause of the first amendment has a radically different meaning today than when it was written.
George Washington in his Farwell address said this “It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." This does not sound like someone who wants to remove Christianity from public life or government, does it? The father of our nation says it’s impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. If this isn’t proof of a Christian nation I don’t know what is! Not only does Washington advocate Christianity as the source for government but also that our civilization itself depends it.
“Senator Robert Byrd noted that of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 29 were Anglicans, 16-18 were Calvinists, and among the rest were 2 Methodists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 lapsed Quaker-sometimes Anglican, and only 1 open Deist — Benjamin Franklin who attended all Christian worships and called for public prayer.”(Pearlston 2001) These men knew there very lives we’re on the line, if they we’re deist’s and not Christians they would make it public, don’t you think?
William Holmes McGuffey is the author of the McGuffey Reader, which was used for over 100 years in our public schools with over 125 million copies sold until it was stopped in 1963. President Lincoln called him the "Schoolmaster of the Nation." In reference to Christianity in America, Mr. McGuffey says:
"The Christian religion is the religion of our country. From it are derived our notions on character of God, on the great moral Governor of the universe. On its doctrines are founded the peculiarities of our free institutions. From no source has the author drawn more conspicuously than from the sacred Scriptures. From all these extracts from the Bible I make no apology."(Jones 2010) Now why would president Lincoln declare a man, “school master of the nation”, who believes Christianity is at the foundation of our government and society, if in fact Lincoln believed in the equality of all religions and that religion has no place in public life or government? Unless we believe that the brilliant President Lincoln had a shallow or misguided understanding of our countries true foundation. I suppose you would have to say George Washington, John Jay, John Adams and many others must have been as mistaken as Lincoln regarding the countries foundations.
Calvin Coolidge, our 30th President of the United States wrote, "The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country."
In 1947 Harry Truman said, "The fundamental basis of this nation's laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and Saint Matthew, from Isaiah and Saint Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don't have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State."(Pearlston 2001) Now if Christianity is the basis of our countries laws and government, how can there be a ‘wall of separation” as generally understood today? The answer is of course; there can’t, unless you undermine the foundation of our nation.
Although this country didn’t have a state imposed religion as England and other European nations, its laws and government were based on Christianity. The establishment clause was intended to protect religious liberty not remove its influences from our government and society. Nor can we conclude a neutral view on religion because the founders made it clear that Christianity and the Bible are the basis of our government and society. If we really believe Christianity has no place in public life we should remove the pledge of allegiance from schools, remove “In God we trust” from our money, do away with religious holidays such as Christmas, Easter and Martin Luther King day and take out all religious references from our government buildings. If we do this, we would have a separation of church and state similar to its concept in the former Soviet Union, which completely removes religion from public life but allegedly allows freedom of private religious practice. Yes this country was most definitely founded a Christian nation, unique among the nations of the earth, destined to be that “city on the hill”, spreading the gospel of Christ to the nations.
References:
“A Christian nation” by Steve Bellavita November 29,2008
http://www.heraldonline.com/2008/11/29/985934/a-christian-nation.html
“Is America a Christian nation?” by Carl Pearlston 2001
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/politics/pg0040.html
“ Is America a Christian nation?” by Chuck Norris September 17, 2007
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57666
“Forsaken roots” by Mary Jones retrieved March 11, 2010
http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/forsakenroots.html
by Will Armstrong
Was America founded a Christian nation or are its roots primarily from the age of enlightenment, free from the influence of Christianity? Enlightenment philosophy, being more closely related to secular humanism or even atheism than to Christianity. Some argue that although there were many Christians at the time of our nations founding, Christianity and Christian principals were intended to have no influence in our government or public life. They will point to Thomas Jefferson’s concept of “a wall of separation between church and state”, as proof of their theory.
Some say that the constitutional convention of 1789 was primarily influenced be enlightenment and deist sentiment and had little to do with Christianity. They will point to influential leaders such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson who they claim were more inclined towards deism than Christianity.
To remove any doubt that Christianity had a role in our nations founding, they will point to a statement made in the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, in which we find the words, "…the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion….”.
Examining a few the approximately 17,000 documents written around the time period of our nations founding will give a balanced view of the beliefs of the leaders at this time.
John Jay, the first chief justice of the Supreme Court wrote, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." This quote was from 1797, the year of the treaty of Tripoli. (Norris 2007) Was religion to have no place in government, not according to our first chief justice? It doesn’t appear that he’s taken a position of religious neutrality, he is advocating for Christianity.
‘Fisher Ames, author of the First Amendment, wrote an article in 1801 entitled "School Books." His concern was that by adding so many new textbooks in schools, there would not be enough time for the Bible. He said we must make sure the Bible regained its proper place of pre-eminence in the classroom!”(Bellavita 2008) Now why would the author of the first amendment advocate for the pre-eminence for the bible in schools? It is apparent that the establishment clause of the first amendment has a radically different meaning today than when it was written.
George Washington in his Farwell address said this “It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." This does not sound like someone who wants to remove Christianity from public life or government, does it? The father of our nation says it’s impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. If this isn’t proof of a Christian nation I don’t know what is! Not only does Washington advocate Christianity as the source for government but also that our civilization itself depends it.
“Senator Robert Byrd noted that of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 29 were Anglicans, 16-18 were Calvinists, and among the rest were 2 Methodists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 lapsed Quaker-sometimes Anglican, and only 1 open Deist — Benjamin Franklin who attended all Christian worships and called for public prayer.”(Pearlston 2001) These men knew there very lives we’re on the line, if they we’re deist’s and not Christians they would make it public, don’t you think?
William Holmes McGuffey is the author of the McGuffey Reader, which was used for over 100 years in our public schools with over 125 million copies sold until it was stopped in 1963. President Lincoln called him the "Schoolmaster of the Nation." In reference to Christianity in America, Mr. McGuffey says:
"The Christian religion is the religion of our country. From it are derived our notions on character of God, on the great moral Governor of the universe. On its doctrines are founded the peculiarities of our free institutions. From no source has the author drawn more conspicuously than from the sacred Scriptures. From all these extracts from the Bible I make no apology."(Jones 2010) Now why would president Lincoln declare a man, “school master of the nation”, who believes Christianity is at the foundation of our government and society, if in fact Lincoln believed in the equality of all religions and that religion has no place in public life or government? Unless we believe that the brilliant President Lincoln had a shallow or misguided understanding of our countries true foundation. I suppose you would have to say George Washington, John Jay, John Adams and many others must have been as mistaken as Lincoln regarding the countries foundations.
Calvin Coolidge, our 30th President of the United States wrote, "The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country."
In 1947 Harry Truman said, "The fundamental basis of this nation's laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and Saint Matthew, from Isaiah and Saint Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don't have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State."(Pearlston 2001) Now if Christianity is the basis of our countries laws and government, how can there be a ‘wall of separation” as generally understood today? The answer is of course; there can’t, unless you undermine the foundation of our nation.
Although this country didn’t have a state imposed religion as England and other European nations, its laws and government were based on Christianity. The establishment clause was intended to protect religious liberty not remove its influences from our government and society. Nor can we conclude a neutral view on religion because the founders made it clear that Christianity and the Bible are the basis of our government and society. If we really believe Christianity has no place in public life we should remove the pledge of allegiance from schools, remove “In God we trust” from our money, do away with religious holidays such as Christmas, Easter and Martin Luther King day and take out all religious references from our government buildings. If we do this, we would have a separation of church and state similar to its concept in the former Soviet Union, which completely removes religion from public life but allegedly allows freedom of private religious practice. Yes this country was most definitely founded a Christian nation, unique among the nations of the earth, destined to be that “city on the hill”, spreading the gospel of Christ to the nations.
References:
“A Christian nation” by Steve Bellavita November 29,2008
http://www.heraldonline.com/2008/11/29/985934/a-christian-nation.html
“Is America a Christian nation?” by Carl Pearlston 2001
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/politics/pg0040.html
“ Is America a Christian nation?” by Chuck Norris September 17, 2007
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57666
“Forsaken roots” by Mary Jones retrieved March 11, 2010
http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/forsakenroots.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)