Zera's Blog

A Citizen's View from Main Street

112th Congress HR1255 – Government Shutdown Prevention Act of 2011


HR1255 provides a learning moment in the annals of American civics, for those who would learn…

It certainly leaves the tea party republicans no incentive to seek compromise or negotiate in good faith. In fact, it also gives them incentive NOT to raise the debt ceiling.

The Bill:

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.R. 1255 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1255

To prevent a shutdown of the government of the United States, and for
other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 30, 2011

Mr. Womack (for himself and Mr. Woodall) introduced the following bill;
which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and in addition

to the Committees on Oversight and Government Reform, House
Administration, and the Budget, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

A BILL

To prevent a shutdown of the government of the United States, and for
other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Government Shutdown Prevention Act
of 2011”.

SEC. 2. FUNDING THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE REMAINDER OF FISCAL YEAR 2011.

(a) Deadline for Consideration of Legislation Funding the
Government for the Remainder of Fiscal Year 2011.–If the House has not
received a message from the Senate before April 6, 2011, stating that
it has passed a measure providing for the appropriations for the
departments and agencies of the Government for the remainder of fiscal
year 2011, the provisions of H.R. 1, as passed by the House on February
19, 2011, are hereby enacted into law.

(b) Publication of Act.–In publishing this Act in slip form and in
the United States Statutes at Large pursuant to section 112 of title 1,
United States Code, the Archivist of the United States shall include
after the date of approval, if applicable, an appendix setting forth
the text of the bill referred to in subsection (a).

SEC. 3. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PAYMENTS TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT.

(a) Treatment of Members During a Government Shutdown.–The
Secretary of the Senate and the Chief Administrative Officer of the
House, respectively, shall not disburse to each Member or Delegate the
amount of his or her salary for each day that

(1) there is more than a 24-hour lapse in appropriations
for any Federal agency or department as a result of a failure
to enact a regular appropriations bill or continuing
resolution; or

(2) the Federal Government is unable to make payments or
meet obligations because the public debt limit under section
3101 of title 31, United States Code, has been reached.

(b) Treatment of the President During a Government Shutdown.–The
President shall not receive a disbursement of basic pay for any period
in which–

(1) there is more than a 24-hour lapse in appropriations
for any Federal agency or department as a result of a failure
to enact a regular appropriations bill or continuing
resolution; or

(2) the Federal Government is unable to make payments or
meet obligations because the public debt limit under section
3101 of title 31, United States Code, has been reached.

<all>

Analysis

First of all, it appears to be assigned to no less than 4 committees simultaneously. I’ve always understood that bills have to go from committee to committee sequentially. Otherwise, amendments could leave you with multiple versions of a bill – which cannot be. Unless, of course, no amendments are to be allowed – which in turn means that all discussion and debate is aimed not at the legislation, but at persuasion.

UPDATE: H. Res. 194 blocked any path for Democrats to alter the bill.

“All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived.”

The “hear no evil, speak no evil” resolution.

UPDATE: H. R. 1255 has been passed by the House, making the number of simultaneous committees a rhetorical question.

“and for other purposes.”

Always a warning flag. It means that there is more to the bill than is reflected in the title.

Section 2:

“Deadline for Consideration of Legislation Funding the
Government for the Remainder of Fiscal Year 2011.–If the House has not
received a message from the Senate before April 6, 2011, stating that
it has passed a measure providing for the appropriations for the
departments and agencies of the Government for the remainder of fiscal
year 2011, the provisions of H.R. 1, as passed by the House on February
19, 2011, are hereby enacted into law.”

There are two issues here:

  1. “the provisions of” is not terribly explicit. If they had at least stated “DIVISIONS A through C”, it would have shown at least a little legislative skill. I seriously doubt the legitimacy of a law that references or attempts to enact the language of another bill, which never became law in it’s own right.
  2. This is the same sort of back-door legislative legerdemain that the republicans cried foul over, but without the cover of House/Senate rules. This is not the “deem and to pass” procedure despite the apparent similarities. The self-executing rule is a House rule that can only effect the authority of the House. It cannot speak for the Senate. The Senate already said no to the language of H. R. 1, so trying to enact it through the back door carries a decidedly anti-constitution stigma.

“(b) Publication of Act.–In publishing this Act in slip form and in
the United States Statutes at Large pursuant to section 112 of title 1,
United States Code, the Archivist of the United States shall include
after the date of approval, if applicable, an appendix setting forth
the text of the bill referred to in subsection (a).”

This is a sure sign that they know they are not doing this right, and need to tell the Archivist how to clean up their mess.

Section 3 has it’s problems as well:

shall not disburse to each Member or Delegate the amount of his or her salary for each day that”

Let’s check the Constitution:

“No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.”

U.S. Const., Amend. XXVII

Oops, those “Read the Bill”/”Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does.” people just gave themselves an egg facial.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

“The President shall not receive a disbursement of basic pay for any period in which”

Another trip to the Constitution:

“The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.”

U.S. Const. Art. II, sec. 1

The republicans aren’t even bringing their “C” game. If this is their best effort at “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution”, then they need classes from non-conservatives. Whatever they learned from the conservatives does not pass muster. Or maybe they just do not understand the meaning of “shall”.

shall (merriam-webster)

“used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory”

UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

“the Federal Government is unable to make payments or meet obligations because the public debt limit under section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, has been reached.”

This is the most insidious part of all. Even if an appropriations bill is passed into law, they could still shove H.R.1 down our throats just by thwarting efforts to raise the debt ceiling.

What is their justification?

By Mr. WOMACK:
H.R. 1255.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following:
Section 2 is enacted pursuant to the rulemaking powers provided in clause 2 of section 5 of article I of the United States Constitution in furtherance of the appropriation power provided in clause 7 of section 9 of article I of the Constitution and spending power provided in clause 1 of section 8 of article I of the Constitution.
Section 3(a) is enacted pursuant to the rulemaking powers provided in clause 2 of section 5 of article I of the United States Constitution. Section 3(a) is consistent with article XXVII in that it does not vary the compensation of Members and Senators but only seeks to regulate its disbursement during certain periods.
Section 3(b) is enacted pursuant to clause 18 of section 8 of article I of the United States Constitution. Section 3(b) is consistent with clause 7 of section 1 of article II of the United States Constitution in that it does not vary the compensation of the President but only seeks to regulate its disbursement during certain periods.

And what do those clauses say?

“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”

U.S. Const, Art I, sec 5 – second clause

This clause has no applicability to section 2 of H.R. 1255. Law cannot be enacted by House rules. If H.R. 1 had been incorporated into H.R. 1255, then this would be a stand-alone bill. As it is, I do not see any “deemed to pass”  type language here. This is of particular concern because the Senate has already rejected the language of H.R. 1.

“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”

U.S. Const, Art I, sec 9 – seventh clause

No problem here.

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

U.S. Const, Art I, sec 8 – first clause

No problem here either.

Personal Note: The preamble states promote the general Welfare while this clause states provide for the general Welfare – interesting variation in language.

Concerning section 3 of H.R. 1255:

The rules made by each House to proscribe the punishment of it’s Members do not withstand provisions in the Constitution.

It is not clear that “punish its Members” includes economic actions. Furthermore, “punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour” applies only when there is – DISORDERLY BEHAVIOR. Burning a budget on the House floor would be disorderly behavior, failing to pass one is not.

This section is intended to impair the people who would have to take action to start funding the government again. While most of them have their own funds to live on, not all have that kind of personal reserves. Just ask Sean Duffy. Not paying Congress or the President while they are working to fund the government could impair that effort. These are the people who MUST be on the job when nobody else is, if we are to have a government – and a country.

Also, there is no language to make up the missed payments. The bill explicitly states “shall not disburse” – which means that, contrary to Mr. Womack’s assertion, this does indeed “vary the compensation”.

There is no “article XXVII” in the Constitution. I presume this constitutional scholar means U.S. Const, amend XXVII. (Amendment 27)

Nit Pick: “Members and Senators” should be “Members of each House” if they want to be consistent with the clauses they reference. Otherwise, it should be “Senators and Members of the House” or some such. This is just mixing titles and designations.

“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

U.S. Const, sec 8, eighteenth clause

This is a curious citation because the only application relevant to (3)(b) would be in support of paying the Debt, yet (3)(b) is about NOT paying a debt.

Again, there is no language to make up the missed payments. The bill explicitly states “shall not receive a disbursement” – which means that, contrary to Mr. Womack’s assertion, the President’s Compensation would indeed be “diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected.

Lastly, the bill would have to be passed in both the House and Senate, and signed into law, on or before 8 April 2011, or it could not be anything but an unconstitutional ex post facto (retroactive) law.

“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”

U.S. Const, art I, sec 9, third clause

That would be a third strike on constitutionality alone.

Conclusion

With legislative sleight-of-hand, two unconstitutional provisions, a poison pill, and two ticking time bombs, this cannot be seen as a serious bill written by responsible people. It can only be seen as a propaganda tool to be used against the unwary. The most nefarious aspect is that it leaves republicans, especially the Tea Party caucus, NO reason to compromise or even negotiate in good faith. Further, it provides considerable reason NOT to raise the debt ceiling and let the government go broke. The negative consequences of this would be enormous.

You have been warned!

You have Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR) and Rep. Rob Woodall (R-GA) to thank for wasting your time, my time, and the limited time of the House of Representatives.

UPDATE: H. R. 1255 was passed by the House with 15 Republicans and all Democrats voting against it.

UPDATE: The republicans are still pushing this through the Senate.

UPDATE: With the passing of another continuing resolution, and particularly with passage of the pending budget bill, this bill would come into conflict with the deals already brokered. This bill is now beyond repair.

112th Congress H.R. 1255

March 31, 2011 Posted by | Constitution, Government, Legislation, Strangelove | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

One Nation Under Allah


If the Christian fundamenta­lists and extremists hadn’t spent the last few decades tearing down the Wall of Separation­, this would not even be an issue. Now that they have opened the door to theocracy, they are afraid of who else may walk through. Their mistake.

As to foreign laws, they have no standing in American courts. They are sometimes used as references in an attempt to glean wisdom from the experience­s of others, but they are not enforcible here except as part of a treaty.

“This Constituti­on, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constituti­on or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithsta­nding.”

A treaty is not a foreign law, it is a law that we agree to share with other countries. It does not have the force of law until ratified, at which time it becomes part of American law.

Ignorance, paranoia, and xenophobia notwithsta­nding.

We went through this over INTERPOL not too long ago.

I could be wrong, but I believe that any modificati­on to a treaty cannot have the force of law here unless ratified by the Senate.

I also believe that a binding resolution is not a modificati­on of a treaty, but a statement obligating a country to make a law of their own to implement the policy in the resolution­.

I could not find the text of the resolution you are concerned about, but what I did find on the UN website indicated a non-bindin­g resolution­. Without the text, I cannot form an opinion on it, even to confirm that it actually seeks to criminaliz­e anything – or simply discourage­.

My conclusion is:
A UN resolution­, binding or not, is not a treaty and has no force of law here. Should we write a law to implement a UN resolution­, the usual rules for lawmaking would apply.

It would take a new constituti­onal amendment to override the First Amendment, and that’s not going to happen.

Art. 2, sec. 1, UN charter:
The Organizati­on is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

Art. 2, sec. 7, UN charter:
Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentiall­y within the domestic jurisdicti­on of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter

OIC, 2005:
http://new­s.bbc.co.u­k/2/hi/mid­dle_east/4­511548.stm
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

March 19, 2011 Posted by | Constitution, Religion | , , , , | Leave a comment

Herman Cain: The American dream is under attack…we are on the attack


“The American dream is under attack, that’s the bad news,” said Cain while speaking at the forum. “The good news is we are on the attack. We have got to lead this nation from an entitlement society to an empowerment society. We must defend those principles this nation was founded on.”

Except that his party is the one that’s attacking everything America stands for and was founded on.

From religious freedom to voting rights to representational government, they have bills pending to set it all aside.

Michigan Set To Enact Sweeping ‘Financial Martial Law’ Bill

The War Against the Republic: The Battle Of Madison

Milwaukee Ald. Milele Coggs says bill would give Wisconsin the most restrictive voter ID law in the nation

Lawmaker Behind South Dakota’s ‘Justifiable Homicide’ Bill Defends Measure [UPDATE]

English-only bill could create civil rights problems, groups say

2011 Wis SJR10 – Continuity of state and local gov. operations

The republican party is aggressively terminating the Great Experiment, with strong support from people who don’t even know what the experiment is.

If the Tea Party really wanted to take back our country, they should be fighting the corporations instead of shilling for them.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Herman Cain: First Amendment ‘Doesn’t Say People Can’t Have Religion In Government’

March 18, 2011 Posted by | Candidates, First Amendment, Religion | , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

2011 Wis SJR10 – Continuity of state and local gov. operations


http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2011/data/SJR-10.pdf

2011 − 2012 LEGISLATURE
LRB−0710/2
SRM:cjs:md

2011 SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 10

February 4, 2011 − Introduced by Senators HOPPER and JAUCH, cosponsored by
Representative BALLWEG. Referred to Committee on Senate Organization.

  1. To amend section 34 of article IV of the constitution; relating to: continuity of
  2. government (second consideration).

Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau

EXPLANATION OF PROPOSAL

This proposed constitutional amendment, to be given second consideration by
the 2011 legislature for submittal to the voters in April 2011, was first considered by
the 2009 legislature in 2009 Assembly Joint Resolution 59, which became 2009
Enrolled Joint Resolution 14.

Article IV, section 34, of the Wisconsin Constitution provides that the
legislature, to ensure continuity of state and local government operations in periods
of emergency resulting from enemy attack, must provide for prompt and temporary
succession to the powers and duties of public offices, of whatever nature and whether
filled by election or appointment, the incumbents of which may be unavailable to
carry on the powers and duties of the offices. In addition, the legislature must adopt
any other measures that may be necessary to obtain the objectives of that section of
the constitution.

This constitutional amendment amends that provision in article IV, section 34,
to strike the phrase “enemy action in the form of an attack” and substitute “a severe
or prolonged, natural or human−caused, occurrence that threatens life, health, or the
security of the state,” thereby providing for legislative action to ensure continuity in
periods of emergency, whether resulting from enemy attack or from other causes.

PROCEDURE FOR SECOND CONSIDERATION

When a proposed constitutional amendment is before the legislature on second
consideration, any change in the text approved by the preceding legislature causes
the proposed constitutional amendment to revert to first consideration status so that
second consideration approval would have to be given by the next legislature before
the proposal may be submitted to the people for ratification [see joint rule 57 (2)].

If the legislature approves a proposed constitutional amendment on second
consideration, it must also set the date for submitting the proposed constitutional
amendment to the people for ratification and must determine the question or
questions to appear on the ballot.


  1. Whereas, the 2009 legislature in regular session considered a proposed
  2. amendment to the constitution in 2009 Assembly Joint Resolution 59, which became
  3. 2009 Enrolled Joint Resolution 14, and agreed to it by a majority of the members
  4. elected to each of the 2 houses, which proposed amendment reads as follows:

    SECTION 1. Section 34 of article IV of the constitution is amended to
    read:

    [Article IV] Section 34. The legislature, in order to ensure continuity
    of state and local governmental operations in periods of emergency
    resulting from enemy action in the form of an attack a severe or prolonged,
    natural or human−caused, occurrence that threatens life, health, or the
    security of the state, shall (1) forthwith provide for prompt and temporary
    succession to the powers and duties of public offices, of whatever nature
    and whether filled by election or appointment, the incumbents of which
    may become unavailable for carrying on the powers and duties of such
    offices, and (2) adopt such other measures as may be necessary and proper
    for attaining the objectives of this section.

  5. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the senate, the assembly concurring,
  6. That the foregoing proposed amendment to the constitution is agreed to by the 2011
  7. legislature; and, be it further
  8. Resolved, That the foregoing proposed amendment to the constitution be
  9. submitted to a vote of the people at the election to be held on the first Tuesday in April
  10. 2011; and, be it further
  11. Resolved, That the question concerning ratification of the foregoing proposed
  12. amendment to the constitution be stated on the ballot as follows:
    1. QUESTION 1: “Continuity of government operations during an
    2. emergency. Shall section 34 of article IV of the constitution, which requires the
    3. legislature to ensure continuity of state and local government operations during an
    4. emergency, be amended to change the definition of emergency from ‘enemy attack’
    5. to ‘severe or prolonged, natural or human−caused, occurrence that threatens life,
    6. health, or the security of the state’?”
    7. (END)

Summary

“periods of emergency resulting from enemy action in the form of an attack” is a pretty specific condition, one that strongly implies chaos to a degree that would physically impair the normal functioning of government. It was clearly meant for a moment when political agendas had to be set aside and emergency measures taken to address immediate problems. This section of the Wisconsin Constitution dates back to 1961, before 21st century communications like cell phones, satellite phones, and the Internet. It was a time when the possibility that key people could be unreachable for extended periods of time was a reasonable concern. A time when phones were relatively few and land wired, although there were more pay phones. A time before the resources of a staff could be squeezed into a portable device.

Today, the concern must be for the physical impairment of the key individual, and less for the breakdown of communications. In the current environment, it would be unrealistic to expect that the republicans would set aside ideology long enough to deal with an emergency.

“severe or prolonged, natural or human−caused, occurrence that threatens life, health, or the security of the state” is a very broad, ill-defined condition for authorizing the “temporary” alteration of an elected government.

“provide for prompt and temporary succession to the powers and duties of public offices, of whatever nature and whether filled by election or appointment, the incumbents of which may become unavailable for carrying on the powers and duties of such offices”

This was written to authorize extreme measures to avert the complete breakdown of government at a time when control of the territory itself would be brought under question. The threat of foreign invasion is less likely than ever. But is invasion what this amendment is about?

  • severe or prolonged
  • natural or man-made
  • threatens life, health, or the security of the state

A hurricane is severe, natural caused, threatens life. It fits the requirements. But is it grounds for replacing government officials who “may become unavailable”?

The recession is severe and prolonged, man-made, and threatens the security of the state. Does it justify replacing government officials, including elected officials, who may just be on vacation or out of state on business, or maybe just a legislator when the legislature is out of session?

The budget crisis is severe and prolonged, man-made, and threatens the security of the state. This amendment could be used to replace one or more Democrat senators and eliminate what little balance of power there is in the state government.

Unanswered questions/undefined terms:

  • How severe is “severe?
  • How long is “prolonged?
  • How many lives must be threatened to say a situation “threatens life”? What kind of threat?
  • What kind of threat to health? How widespread? Bird flu? Salmonella? Poisoned ground water?
  • What constitutes a “threat to the security of the state”? Illegal immigrants? Corporate lobbyists? The Koch Brotherhood?

This amendment goes very far beyond the scope and purpose of the original section of the state Constitution.

Unbelievably, this resolution does not offer the slightest reason or justification for such a drastic alteration of a section of their constitution that is largely obsolete and irrelevant.

This suggested amendment does not simply beg to be abused, it seems designed for the sole purpose of laying the foundation for an usurpation of power.

It paves the way for a coup d’état. I guess that is one way to “take back the government”, but it is not the democratic way – not the American way.

I rate this amendment a corruption of the Republican form of government and anti-American.

Update: I have noticed that they tried to do even worse in the last session:

2009 Wis SJR39

In the previous attempt, all they did was strike “resulting from enemy action in the form of an attack“, leaving the authorization for ANY “emergency”. There was a requirement that it be posted 3 months before the election, which was dropped this time, but no wording for the ballot was specified.

March 3, 2011 Posted by | Constitution, Legislation, Strangelove | , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Michele Bachmann Raises Record $5.4 Million In Three Months


Her support has nothing to do with her qualifications as a Representative and everything to do with her notoriety. She is a standard-bearer and symbol for the far right, a leader of their extremism and embodiment of their ineffectiveness and irresponsibility in matters of true governance.

She believes that we should be a theocracy, and her success is a testament to the incompatibility of theocracy and democracy. Christian fundamentalist money loves her.

She wants to dismantle government of the people in favor of corporate domination, no matter how irresponsible and destructive that is. Corporate money loves her.

Her district has the highest foreclosure and unemployment rates in the state. Little of her money comes from actual constituents.

She has formed a Tea Party Caucus in the House, and effectively dared republicans to join or else. She is accumulating power without any real accomplishment behind it. She says and does anything for political gain. She is the embodiment of what is wrong with American politics.

Those who vote for her fall into three categories:
1) Those who share her extreme ideology. They will vote for her no matter what.
2) Hardline republicans who vote the party no matter the candidate. Long-time republicans are starting to defect in her case as she becomes too extreme for them to accept anymore.
3) Those who don’t pay attention to politics and just vote the party or the name they remember or the ad they believe. A few facts make all the difference for them.

Michele Bachmann is antithetical to our survival as a country. She is pro-religious persecution and pro-corporatocracy, and anti-everything else.

  • Anti-worker
  • Anti-consumer
  • Anti-environment
  • Anti-freedom of religion other than hers.
  • Anti-civil rights that offend her personal prejudices.

Her economic policies have never worked, even for her, yet she clings to them like stone tablets.

She is exactly the sort of politician that we need to get out of government.

More on 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

October 15, 2010 Posted by | Campaign Finance, Candidates, Capitalism, Constitution, Direction, Elections, Government, Religion | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Supreme Court Considers Constitutionality Of Military Funeral Protests



Hate speech projects and perpetuates hate. It is one of the oldest forms of terrorism. It is socially destructive.

The right of free speech is not unlimited. When speech begins to infringe on the rights of others, it must be determined who has the prevailing rights. When the intention is to create pain or fear, when it can even drive one to suicide, the public has an interest in limiting that speech.

A funeral is a sacred, and usually religious ceremony that takes place on hallowed ground. I would absolutely support the First Amendment rights, both speech and religion, of the funeral party over the same rights of the intruders.
More on Supreme Court
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

October 1, 2010 Posted by | Constitution, First Amendment, Religion | , , , | Leave a comment

A Nation Founded on Faith – in People


U.S. Declaration of Independence ratified by t...

Image via Wikipedia

Contrary to impassioned theocratic urban legend, the country was NOT founded on belief in a God. It was founded on the belief in the people to govern themselves through a government that derives it’s authority THROUGH THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.

The political philosophy of the Declaration was not new; its ideals of individual liberty had already been expressed by John Locke and the Continental philosophers. What Jefferson did was to summarize this philosophy in “self-evident truths”

The Declaration of Independence

Religious zealots like to quote the Declaration of Independence: “they are endowed by their Creator” but they take it out of context in pursuit of their own agenda.

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,

The Declaration of Independence

Instituted among Men (not the church), deriving their powers from the consent of the governed (not God). Continue reading

September 15, 2010 Posted by | Constitution, Religion | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: