Everyday is the Day to Remember, Reaffirm, and Live Out the Philosophy of the American Declaration of Independence

I Write This Piece From an American Perspective, But Its Thesis Is Universal

Billings Learned Hand was an American jurist, lawyer, and judicial philosopher. He served as a federal trial judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York from 1909 to 1924 and as a federal appellate judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from 1924 to 1951.Wikipedia

If the last three years have shown us anything, it is the great truth of Judge Hand’s words. How many of us found out — or had our worst fears confirmed — that among the vast majority of our friends, families, neighbors, and colleagues were hearts devoid of even of the slightest fidelity to liberty?

The powers that shouldn’t be announced a crime — and “the people” said, “Yeah, bring it on. Screw our freedoms.”

On this topic, Barry Brownstein from the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) wrote a brief article. He opened his excellent piece by highlighting a reversal of cause and effect, declaring the following:

“If I were to sum up the rousing message of Étienne de La Boétie’s 16^th Century monograph, The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse on Voluntary Servitude, I would say we are not victims of the world we see. We have reversed cause and effect. Tyranny is not happening to us, it is happening because of us.”

I think it’s a bit of both — tyranny is happening to us and because of us, though not all of “us.” It’s happening because the vast majority place no value on liberty at all. Not really. Many have convinced themselves that they do, but when it counted, they were “unavailable” for the counting…They revealed hearts devoid of the spirit of freedom.

Many good men and women are putting everything into the restoration of liberty. Many in this country point to the Constitution — “getting back to the Constitution” or pointing to the Tenth Amendment — but is that really how we’ll restore freedom in this country? If Liberty is to be restored, will it get there by talking about and idolizing the Constitution?

Or will (re) learning and reaffirming the words of the Declaration — words that inspire to this day — bring Liberty back to the hearts of men and women? To strengthen those who fight for what is right?

I say it’s the Declaration.

The Constitution or the Declaration of Independence?

Let’s start with the Constitution. I can’t quite put my finger on when it started to bug me, but it seemed that there is a growing fetishism with the Constitution, particularly with the erroneous notion that it is the source of our rights. No. It’s just a framework for a type of government. That’s all.

Yet so many seem to worship it vs. the document that is its philosophical foundation. WHY is this? So many waxing poetic about our “Constitutional rights” when, in fact, we don’t have “Constitutional” rights. We have natural rights. God-given, Creator-given “un-a-LEEN-able” natural rights.

The Constitution’s role, especially its first ten amendments (that the Constitution’s author, James Madison, opposed) is (allegedly) to provide protections of those natural rights. That’s it. This is done by (supposedly) providing guard rails against government mistreatment and overreach (as detailed in the Declaration) and by providing for redress when someone — anyone, including those in government — violates those natural rights.

One of my other questions related to this exaltation of the Constitution is this: Which one? The original? The later, revised version that includes the Bill of Rights? Or the current version that includes the 17 or 18 or 19 additional amendments that includes the amendment that destroyed the right to the fruits of our labor? And the amendment that toppled a pillar of the republic—giving over to “popular” vote the appointment of federal senators?

So. Which Constitution?

Exactly?

To wit: If we are to restore our liberties within the confines of the Constitution, what would be our philosophical basis for doing so? From what authority would we insist upon the return to what is supposed to be very, very limited government that exists only to protect individual rights?

The Declaration of Independence — The Bedrock of the Constitution

Before there was a U.S. Constitution there were the Articles of Confederation. Before the Articles, there was the Declaration of Independence. Before that, (by just a few weeks) there was the Virginia Declaration of Rights.

In the Virginia Declaration you will find an exposition of natural rights and the proper role of government in protecting them. It details the whats and the whys. You’ll find here the precursor to the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. I highly recommend reading the Virginia Declaration!

But I digress.

Constitutional attorney, scholar, author, and lecturer, Edwin Vieira, Jr., is considered an expert on the Constitution. With four degrees from Harvard, he has argued and won three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. He is also the world’s foremost authority on Constitutional money, as well as constitutional national security and safety.

In his excellent 2008 article, “The Bedrock of the Constitution” wherein he expounds on the Declaration of Independence, Dr. Vieira lays out his thesis with the following:

“Would any reasonably prudent businessman sign a proposed contract involving a large-scale venture to be conducted over many years, if the other party admitted that most of the contract’s terms were undefined, that some terms were so vague as to be undefinable, and that in the future he intended to interpret all of the contract’s provisions in whatever matter might suit his own purposes at that time? Obviously not. Yet this is precisely the theory of "the living Constitution" that all too many judges and lawyers actually put into practice today. In essence, they contend that Americans have a constitution with no fixed meaning and that the Constitution therefore can be interpreted, reinterpreted, and reinterpreted yet again in order to advance the political and economic agenda of public officials and their clients in special-interest groups.

Central to this theory is the claim that no truly "unalienable rights" exist — that all individual rights are subject to "reasonable regulation" by the state, particularly if public officials can point to some purported "compelling governmental interest" for doing so. Thus, the government may curtail some individual rights entirely under certain circumstances, and may limit all such rights to some degree under some circumstances.

An assertion of this type is hardly astounding for self-interested public officials to advance. After all, to the extent individual rights are constricted, officialdom’s powers correspondingly expand. Yet the proponents of "the living Constitution" do offer some apparently plausible arguments in favor of their position. In fact, they correctly point out, the Constitution does not contain the term "unalienable rights." The Ninth Amendment does declare that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." But this amendment does not describe these rights as "unalienable." Nor does it explicitly deny that, even though these rights are "retained by the people" (as all individual rights must be), they can nonetheless be "regulated" by some level or branch of government. Similarly, the Tenth Amendment declares that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." But this amendment does not deny that the powers delegated to the General Government, or reserved to the states, are sufficient for "regulating" every individual right to some degree in one situation or another.

These, however, are superficial readings. For they leave out of consideration that the source of legal authority for the Constitution of the United States — as well as for the constitutions of every state — is the Declaration of Independence, (Emphasis added) and that the Declaration sets rigid standards for the exercise of governmental powers precisely in order to secure individual rights.”

The source of legal authority for the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence. Rigid standards for the exercise of governmental powers. The Declaration of Independence. The only proper role of government — to secure individual rights. The Declaration of Independence. The un-a-LEEN-able ones — and all others deriving from them.¹

“The Constitution is not, and cannot be, self-justifying.”

Dr. Vieira then summarizes, “The Constitution is not, and cannot be, self-justifying. Legal authority cannot arise out of nothing.”

So. The question naturally arises: If the Constitution cannot be self-justifying and legal authority cannot arise out of nothing, then from what source does its legal authority emanate? The Declaration tell us, “the People.” OK…well, from where do “the People” derive their authority?

You know where this is going.

Again, Dr. Vieira clarifies:

“The colonists did not identify their own overarching wills and bruised egos as the sources of legal authority for this action. Rather, the Declaration attests that "the good People of these Colonies" "assume[d] among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle[d] them." Thus, the source of their authority was objective, not subjective. (Emphasis added.) It lay outside of "the good People" themselves, in "Laws" of an order higher than any merely human ordinance. (Emphasis added.)

BOOM!

Objective. Laws of an order higher than merely human ordinance. Beyond the reach of “fiddling with” and reinterpreting by men…

---

The Global Crime of 2020

When the elected, evil-doing doofuses in corner offices (and their unelected hacks) across the country announced their plans to “flatten the curve” of the “COVID-19” outbreak (that wasn’t), for about one second I was truly incredulous. Then I became infuriated. Indignant. Outraged. They’re going to do what??? They have no authority to do this! Despite legislation saying they could (the national PREP Act, for example, and at the State level, legislation like Massachusetts’ “Civil Defense Act”), no lawful authority existed for these evil-doing, craven doofuses to do what they did.

How did I know they had no lawful authority to do this?

Did the Constitution tell me so?

No.

My bones told me so. My instant indignation told me so. My instant thought of the great harms to come — to the most vulnerable — told me so. That’s how I knew.

And the Source of this “knowing?”

The internalized (and often subconscious) understanding of the words of the Declaration. “…endowed by my Creator…” The bestowed inheritance by the pure accident of having been born an American. “…Laws” of an order higher than any merely human ordinance.”

How else did I know?

Via the hard and fast belief in the divinity of my own creation. And YOURS. And that of every single person on God’s green earth. Of the God-given, “un-a-LEEN-able” natural rights of all men and women to which all lawful governments must subordinate themselves.

That’s how.

I didn’t need no stinkin’ Constitution, and neither do you. As Dr. Vieira points out, a monarchy — if it serves by the above rules — is a legitimate form of government. There is nothing “magical” about a constitutional republic. As we have seen, the actors within its framework proved themselves just as capable as a king in carrying out “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object…”

---

A week or so ago I wrote a comment about all of this over on LinkedIn — to an overwhelming positive response. Here is my concluding remark:

- "If people do not understand and adhere to the philosophical foundation of the inalienable rights of Man, then what is the point of glorifying the mechanism alleged to protect them?"

So, while I do believe the Constitution provides the means for correcting the governments’ long train of abuses, it is the Declaration that gives us the inspiration and the moral/legal foundation. It gives us the why, lighting the spark of Liberty in just enough of those colonists to change the world.

I believe there’s just enough of us here today (It will never be a majority…) to live up to their example and stand on the words that for the first time in history declared

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The Constitution has its place, but the Declaration of Independence is where it’s at. Judge Hand might just be right when he says no constitution can restore liberty to its rightful place in the hearts of men and women, but the Declaration?

Image courtesy of tucsonlocalevents.com

Let it be your spark. Let the knowledge of the rightness of its moral foundation and Lawful authority buttress you personally in your stand against tyranny. Let it buttress you in your efforts — if you choose to try — to bring liberty back to the hearts of men and women.

“Nil desperandum, -- Never Despair. That is a motto for you and me. All are not dead; and where there is a spark of patriotic fire, we will rekindle it.” ― Samuel Adams

And so we shall.

Amen.

1. For example, the right to be left alone/in peace is a right deriving from the un-a-LEEN-able right to live your life as you see fit — as long as you cause no harm, no loss, and no injury to others. This is the Natural Law.