by Timothy N. Baldwin
April 6, 2010
In a recent article on World Net Daily,[1] it was reported that Congressman Phil Hare (D – IL) admitted on video that he did not care whether or not the U.S. Constitution granted authority to the federal government to execute the recently-passed Health Care law. He openly acknowledged that he does not even know where the constitution grants the authority. Hare tells those constituents asking him questions on the matter, “I don’t worry about the Constitution on this to be honest.”[2] That Congress does not worry about the limits of the Constitution is obvious by their actions. Here, we see the subjective intent and motive to ignore the constitution that they swear an oath to uphold.
For many generations the nature, character of form of government as operated under the federal constitution have been completely annihilated from their original ratification by the states from 1787 to 1791. Despite each federal and state politician swearing an oath to uphold the Supreme Law of the Land (which does not equate to federal laws, by the way), our laws and system of government today literally contradicts what it was intended to be when the constitution was ratified.
The reasons for this contradiction are many: lack of (true) education and a host of disinformation; indifference to the principles of the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God; the evils and corruptions of politicians who prefer the luxuries of power, money and sex over free society and government; the dearth of diligence by the states to check the federal government; bad faith has replaced good faith in following the limits placed upon government; and so on. In short, for politicians, the problem can be summed up this way: their oath to uphold the Supreme Law of the Land means nothing.
The oath of office is significant and telling because of its intended meaning, application and consequence. Consider what an oath is and compare what it means today.
The oath of office comes from the notion first that there is a Creator God who implements justice on earth and in life hereafter: he rewards good and punishes bad. It comes from the notion that mankind has a tendency to be evil and will use power at the expense of the people’s and individuals’ freedom and rights. It comes from the notion that constitutions, elections and even threats of revolts do not adequately prevent politicians from abusing power. Therefore, an oath of office is required to ensure political leaders will bind themselves to the Supreme Law of the Land, which is the law that comports to the natural and constitutional limitations placed upon government by God and the people.
More specifically, an oath is a solemn promise made by the politician to God Almighty, where if the politician breaks his promise, he is calling upon himself the wrath of God’s punishment upon his life in whatever proportion God feels is justified. Samuel Pufendorf (enlightenment philosopher and jurist) writes on the matter and expresses it as follows:
“If…an oath has been given…the man captured is bound to fulfill his promises; not because the brigand wins a peculiar right therefrom, since…oaths add nothing further to the substance, as it were, of the obligation…as concerns the man to whom the promise is made, and no special right arises from them in a human court of law…; but because of the reverence due the DIVINE SPIRIT, whose mercy he has renounced unless he keeps his promise. And it is better to suffer loss of money than to have treated the DIVINE MAJESTY with a certain lack of respect.”[3]
Pufendorf adds to the subject:
“[The] purpose [of an oath] is, that men should be more firmly bound to…fulfill their promises out of FEAR OF THE DIVINE SPIRIT, omnipotent and omniscient, whose wrath, if they should knowingly practice deceit with an oath, they are calling upon themselves, where otherwise the fear of others appeared to be a less effective bond of faith, as they hoped to be able either to escape their power or else to avoid detection.”[4]
As described, the oath of office is not even a matter between politician and society: it is between politician and God, where the politician openly and publically binds himself to a promise and willingly accepts the wrath of God upon his life for breaking that oath.
To this end,
“the fear of Deity adds finally the last element of strength to human good faith. From this fact also it is apparent…that atheism should not grow strong. For, if you have removed God from the function of administering justice, all the efficacy of these pacts, to the observance of which one of the contracting parties is not able to compel the other by force, will immediately expire, and every one will measure justice by his own particular advantage.”[5]
It is no wonder that federal politicians ignore their oath of office: they have no fear of God before their eyes, and they much more have no fear of the people. How can you expect a person to fear people if they do not fear God? How can you expect the federal government to uphold their oath when the only fear they have is a U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that the law they passed two years or four years ago was unconstitutional?
How do you expect those God-rejecting vultures in Washington D.C. to refrain from power usurpation when the only power allegedly capable of resistance comes from a source so remote from application that they can scarcely comprehend its effect? How do you expect a government possessing bad faith to check and balance its own actions when the second amendment’s intended application against that usurping federal government is comical and when the state governments have shirked their role in this regard for generations?
As has been apparent for many years, federal (and many state) politicians could not care less about the solemn oath of office. So, besides the obvious corruption of laws and politics, what is the final and natural effect of this evil? The end result is that the very foundation of society forming government is destroyed, giving rise for those people to form a new government.
Consider what the foundational purpose is of a people’s forming society and subsequently, government (note: there is a huge difference between society and government, despite the actions of our socialists in D.C.). A complete education will reveal that a body of people will enter into society for their utility first, and then they subsequently form a government to secure their freedom and rights so each person may enjoy his or her pursuits of happiness without unjust interference. This entire operation among that body of people gathered together for self-governance (called a body-politic) is based upon the presumption of many things, one of the most important of which is “good faith” within government.
Those in government must possess good faith because government has the force of law and the power to trample freedom through taxation, regulation and punishment. Good faith in government demands that those who hold its power possess both the subjective and objective intent of carrying out the purposes of that society and the fundamental laws formed by that body-politic or bodies-politic in form of a constitution. Where those politicians do not possess the necessary intent as such to preserve freedom, there no longer exists the good faith element of government. The consequence: tyranny and oppression.
Pufendorf recognizes that without this presumption of good faith, that society or societies would not even have come together to form that government and would not have even gathered together for purpose of utility. He observes,
“[I]f that fear [of others breaching their obligations under natural law and pact] should prevail over good faith, no civil society could be formed or preserved, but life would have to be spent in perpetual warfare, and therefore in the status of brute beasts. For those…who unite to form a state ought to have good faith among themselves, because they, indeed, wish to procure public welfare, the rest of men to obey it. Otherwise they would never coalesce into one body, unless those who subject themselves to the other party should compose themselves to obey, content with the pledge of good faith which has been given by the one who is to bear authority.”[6]
Shortly put, where the element of good faith is absent in those who possess governing authority, government’s very purpose no longer exists and those in that society revert back to a state of nature, possessing the natural power to reinstitute new forms of government that they deem best to preserve freedom and rights. To this end, the Declaration of Independence of 1776 was executed by each body-politic in America: the thirteen colonies, acting independently for each society, creating independent and sovereign states.
If you think Congressman Phil Hare and his like are the only federal politicians who do not possess the required element of good faith, you are mistaken. If you think that only those politicians who openly express, as Hare did, that they do not care about the constitution, you are mistaken. Whether openly admitted or not, the conclusion is the same: for generations, federal politicians’ (both Democrat and Republican) actions reveal their objective and subjective intent of ignoring and usurping the U.S. Constitution’s limits. (Sadly and sickening enough, we put them there!)
Today, the people who have formed individual societies of states (bodies-politic) must re-evaluate the very purpose of their forming the federal government. The political sciences (revealed through the nature of man and the creation of God) which generate the formula of freedom must be once again examined and applied by enlightened freedomists of our generation. Tyrannical empires of the past have fallen for their ignorance and contradiction of these principles, proving that governments are not eternal, nor should they be. Thankfully, freedom’s principles never die, as freedom spirit cries out eternally for all those who will listen and act accordingly.
When a government shows its design of reducing us to mere despotism, it is our right and our duty to take the natural measures God has granted to us to secure our freedom–union of fifty states existing or not. Union of fifty states is not the goal. Freedom is the goal: freedom for us now and freedom for our posterity later.
So, let us see whether Congress impeaches those traitors in Washington D.C. who openly ignore the constitution they swore to uphold. If they do not, we can only presume that they are complicit with that most egregious breach of their solemn oath to God; and more than that, they agree with and participate in that evil.
Footnotes:
1, WorldNetDaily, “Congressman: ‘I don’t worry about the Constitution’,” (April 2, 2010)
3, Samuel Pufendorf, “Two Book of the Element of Universal Jurisprudence,” Book 1, (Indianapolis, IN, Liberty Fund, 2009), 137.
6, Ibid., at 127.
© 2010 Timothy N. Baldwin, JD – All Rights Reserved
Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment