Archive for constitution
Disciple of Liberty by Jason Rink
Posted by: | CommentsBook review of Disciple of Liberty: Seven Priorities of a Christian Patriot by Jason Rink. The Liberty Voice: Ohio. 145 pages. Retail: $14.95.
In the world of literature on liberty, books fall into three distinct categories. First are the books for experts scholars, deeper works that address high level concepts, social or economic theory, and philosophical ideas. Next are the books for the informed reader, those that have a working knowledge of libertarian ideas and seek to improve one’s understanding of the philosophy of liberty. Finally, there are books for those just starting their journey in liberty, those who have little knowledge of economics or libertarian theory. Jason Rink’s Disciple of Liberty falls into the latter category, and it fills a particularly useful void in libertarian literature: an easily accessible explication of liberty to the Christian newcomer, from the Tea Party proponent to the disillusioned conservative or liberal.
Rink’s key point, made very early in the book, is that Christians do not need to wonder if it is appropriate or biblical to get involved in politics to defend liberty. On the contrary, it is good and right to become informed and take a stand for what is just, good, and right, we ought to get involved in some way. One cannot simply look at Romans 13 and say that “obeying the powers that be” is all we should do. For those “on the fence,” Rink says to get on board.
But Rink does not simply tell us “just do something, anything!” without a care for what we stand for. “Just get out and vote!” is not a compelling message at all. Rather, he takes the minarchist, constitutionalist position, and defends it wholeheartedly. Rink identifies seven priority areas to which Christians should pay special attention:
- Define the limits of authority – The government cannot, and should not, have unlimited power. Limits must be clear and precise.
- Demand fidelity to the Constitution – The limits of authority for the United States Federal Government are found in the Constitution, period. We should continually demand that representatives follow it.
- Defend liberty for all people – If we expect to have liberty, we need to defend liberty even for people with whom we disagree with their choices. This is a difficult, yet absolutely essential element part of our way of life. Rink quotes Thomas Paine:
“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”
- Despise debt – We know that individually we cannot spend more than we make; it is unsustainable and irresponsible. The same should be true of the government. No more can they be allowed to spend like a drunken sailor. And this isn’t even about welfare programs either, which account for a small fraction of total government spending. Rather, we must oppose spending on everything that is unconstitutional, from the FCC to the military-industrial complex.
- Demand honest money – The US Federal Reserve and it’s fiat monetary system is fraudulent, backed by nothing but empty promises. A return to the gold standard should be at the top of our priorities, for it is the ultimate check against runaway spending by the State.
- Desire peace with all nations – A Christian is called to love his enemies, not bomb them. We need to understand the history of our current wars in the Middle East and demand that the government cease interventionism.
- Disciple others in liberty – It is time to get involved in the fight for freedom, and we all can play an important role.
Disciple of Liberty has many commendable strengths. The book’s length, about 100 pages long plus reprints of the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, is very appropriate for a reader who is not ready to tackle a tome about libertarianism quite yet. It is fast paced and lively, yet gently brings the reader to see from a different point of view. The seven principles he outlines are really good, all are worth understanding in detail. Striking a balance between length and depth of material is quite a challenge. Overall, Jason Rink has put together an interesting and useful book that can help Christian newcomers to libertarian thinking grasp some fundamental ideas about liberty.
However, there are a few things in the book (or not in the book) that I don’t like. For one thing, the sources and bibliography are surprisingly short. A bit more along the lines of what to read next would have been nice. If I may be so bold, I’d recommend Rothbard’s For a New Liberty and Ron Paul’s Revolution: A Manifesto (which, I should note, was mentioned in the Bibliography).
Another minor point of contention I have with the book is its interpretation of Romans 13, but it is an admittedly debatable topic. Of course, Rink easily disproves the “you just have to obey the government” line that so many evangelicals take. He take’s Chuck Baldwin’s approach, which emphasizes that our contemporary “powers that be” are the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, whereas my own approach is quite a bit different. Detailed exegesis, though, is difficult to distill when you are trying to reign in the length of a book, so it is understandable. But following on this point, overall I have certain doubts about making Constitutionalism our prime directive. Personally, I see the Constitution as a bludgeon or mirror, something we can use to say the Federal Government is so terrible that it does not even follow its own rules and never has. We need to remind people that government is aggression, and that our “resistance” against aggression is to expose such truth without apology. Now, Jason does mention each of these things in the book, so this is just the hard-core anarcho-capitalist in me talking. In no way am I downplaying Jason’s work.
As a personal friend of Jason now, I can honestly say that I am very proud of what he’s done despite my reservations on a few points. This is a great book for liberals, conservatives, or Tea Party supporters, who are all in need of some perspective about what liberty should mean to us. I think that it would be great to give to your Christian parents, relatives, or friends who are fed up with the Federal Government and are looking for an alternative. I encourage you to use Disciple of Liberty to strengthen your own resolve and plant new seeds of liberty in Christian hearts.
Visit Jason Rink at www.jasonrink.com. Buy his book here.
Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.
Tags: christian libertarian, Christianity, conservatism, constitution, liberalism, libertarianism, Tea Party, theology, war
Related Content:
How Much Bureaucracy Did Congress Just Buy Us?
Posted by: | Comments
You have to hand it to the Federal Government, they really know how to take a bad situation and make it much worse. Consider the new health care bill. Have you paused to think about the expansion of bureaucracy that it will bring? Guess what?
It’s going to be massive.
Estimates run that the one-hundred eleven new groups formed by the bill will need to employ on the order of 50,000 newbie bureaucrats. But whatever, this country is bankrupt and probably won’t be able to sustain this program for a couple of years. Start taking care of yourself better now so you don’t get smashed by statist health care later.
Read the huge list of new bureaucratic groups after the jump.
Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.
Tags: constitution, economics, Obama, universal health care
Related Content:
“First They Came…”
Posted by: | Comments“There is a time for everything,” says Solomon, the wise author of Ecclesiastes. Are we mindful enough of when it is necessary and right to proclaim justice on behalf of others? Let us not be silent when we have good opportunity “to speak truth to power.” Pastor Martin Niemöller had it right in his short, popular poem:
“THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.”
Mary Theroux of the Independent Institute updates Niemöller with some analogous language that perhaps hits closer to our immediate political situation:
“FIRST Truman went to war against Korea without Congress,
and I didn’t speak up because the communists had to be stopped.
THEN Clinton passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,
and I didn’t speak up because innocent people don’t need habeas corpus.
THEN Bush passed the USA PATRIOT ACT,
and I didn’t speak up because terrorists don’t deserve trials.
THEN Obama ridiculed the Supreme Court,
and I didn’t speak up because I don’t like corporations.
THEN Obama classified the Constitution as messy rules standing in the way of important ends,
and by that time no one could remember what a root principle is.”
Will you speak up today? Don’t you think that it’s time?
Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.
Tags: constitution, free speech, justice, speaking truth to power, war
Related Content:
Constitutional Restraints on Power
Posted by: | CommentsBy Edmund Opitz.
American political institutions presuppose certain convictions about human nature, the worth and prerogatives of persons, the meaning of life, the distinction between right and wrong, and the destiny of the individual. The Colonists came to their understanding of these matters as heirs of the intellectual and religious heritage of Christendom—the culture whose shaping forces sprang from ancient Israel, Greece, and Rome.
Given the consensus of two centuries ago—which regarded man as a sovereign person under God—it was only logical to structure government so as to expand opportunities for the exercise of personal freedom. The Constitution is clearly designed to maximize each individual’s equal right to pursue his own peaceful goals and enjoy the benefits and responsibilities of ownership.
The Declaration of Independence put into words what nearly everyone was thinking, that personal rights and immunities are ours because we are created beings, that is, we manifest a major purpose and intent of this universe. This implies a firm rejection of the alternative, which is to assume that we are the mere end products of natural and social forces, adrift in a meaningless cosmos. For if the universe is meaningless, then no way of life is any more meaningful than any other; in which case Power has no limits.
Our forebears had firm convictions about the purpose of life, and knew that in order to achieve life’s transcendent end Power must be limited: “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God,” they declared. If life is viewed in these terms, how shall we conceive the proper scope and competence of government? What is its role in society? What functions should we assign to it?
Government is the power structure of a society. This is the first and most important fact about the political agency, that it has the legal authority to coerce. The second thing is to inquire whether the power wielded by government is self-sprung, or delegated by a more comprehensive authority than the merely political. Does government rule autonomously or by divine right; or is the real power located elsewhere and merely loaned to government? The Constitution is clear on this point; the power is in the people to lay down the laws which Power must obey. They set it up; they tell it what to do.
“We, the People of the United States,” reads the Preamble, “do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Specific Limitations
The people empower an agency to do certain things for them as a nation, but if we isolate the provisions they laid down to limit government the prevailing intent or consensus which made the Constitution its political tool becomes clearer.
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. Amendment X
The people, furthermore, possess a body of rights by native endowment above and beyond those mentioned in the Constitution.
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment IX
These sovereign people shall be free to worship, speak, and publish freely.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Amendment I
Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. Amendment I
Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom . . . of the press. Amendment I
Voluntary association is the corollary of individual liberty, and this is emphasized, as well as the right of petition.
Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble. Amendment I
Congress shall make no law abridging . . . the right of the people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Amendment I
The old world divisions of mankind into castes and orders of rank are to be no more.
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States. Article I, 9
Every citizen shall have a right to participate in the processes by which the nation is governed; and, should he desire to run for public office he shall not be put to a creedal test.
The right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged. . . . Amendments’ XV and X1X
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. Article VI
Freedom to Trade; No Special Privilege
Commerce makes for a free and prosperous people, so restraints on trade shall be removed.
No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State. . . . Article 1, 9
No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another. Article I, 9
Progressive taxation violates the principle of equal treatment under the law—penalizes ability, and lowers productivity, so it is forbidden.
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census. . . . Article I, 9
The public treasury shall be inviolate; government shall not confer economic privilege on some at the expense of others.
No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law. Article I, 9
Personal privacy shall be respected and jealously guarded.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects . . . shall not be violated. Amendment IV
Conflict is a built-in feature of human action, and when collisions of interest do occur in society, the rights of the individual must be maintained.
No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Amendment V
Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. Amendment V
Strings on the Military
In some nations, the civilian life is a mere appendage to the military. This will not happen here because civilians control the purse strings.
No appropriation of money (to raise and support military and naval forces) shall be for a longer term than two years. Article 1, 8
As a further safeguard against any future militarization of this nation, the civilian sector must have the means for defending itself.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendment II
In some countries, criminal proceedings are used to entrap citizens, whose guilt is assumed; the burden of proof is on them to show their innocence. Here, the innocence of the accused is assumed, until his guilt is proved. The law shall not reach backward to designate as criminal an action which until then was innocent.
No . . . ex post facto law shall be passed. Article I, 9
There shall be no Star Chamber proceedings.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury. Amendment V
Protecting the Accused
The accused is protected against illegal imprisonment, and must be informed of the charges against him.
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended. Article I, 9
Punishment shall fit the crime; it shall not mean extinction of civil rights, forfeiture of property, or penalties against kin.
No bill of attainder . . . shall be passed. Article 1, 9
The accused is entitled to be tried by his peers.
. . . the right of trial by jury shall be preserved. Amendment VII
There is to be no forced self-incrimination.
Nor shall [he] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. Amendment V
The rights of the accused are summarized:
1. . . . . a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury;
2. Within the district wherein the crime shall have been committed;
3. to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;
4. to be confronted with the witnesses against him;
5. to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor;
6. and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Amendment VI
Even when found guilty, the accused is protected.
1. Excessive bail shall not be required;
2. Nor excessive fines imposed;
3. Nor creel and unusual punishments inflicted. Amendment VIII
Treason
Treason is a crime against the nation, so serious that it must be defined with special care.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Article III, 3
The person judged guilty of treason is personally responsible for his crime, and therefore his family and kin shall not be punished.
No attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood. Article III, 3
Impeachment is a special case.
The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments . . . and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present.
Judgment . . . shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States. Article I, 3
A blind spot in the original Constitution is corrected.
Neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime . . . Amendment XIII
No state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Amendment XIV
The separate states are not wholly sovereign.
No state shall enter into any treaty . . . coin money . . . pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts. Article I, 10
The Method of Freedom
There is a strong penchant in human nature which impels people who feel strongly about something—a good cause, say—to group their forces and use the power of government to fasten their panacea on those they’ve been unable to persuade. The Constitution is a prime example of the limitations placed upon governmental power so that people with a cause to advance must resort to education, persuasion, and example only. This is the method of freedom, and a people committed to the method of freedom find the Constitution still an apt instrument for structuring a society which maximizes freedom and opportunity for all persons. It was designed to establish a national government internally controlled by checks and balances between the separate powers. And government was to be further limited by the Federal structure itself, in which the centripetal power of Washington was to be offset by the centrifugal powers of the separate states.
The Constitution was not a perfect document, but it carried the means of its own correction, and it did embody the consensus of the people for whom freedom was the prime political good. It was workable. And it will work again whenever a significant number of people have the force of intellect to comprehend sound ideas, and the force of character to make them prevail.
Originally published in The Freeman. This article originally appeared in the April 1978 Freeman and was reprinted in September 1987 to mark the 200th anniversary of the completion of the writing of the U.S. Constitution.
Read more from the Edmund Opitz Archive.
Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.
Tags: constitution, Edmund Opitz, philosophy, power
Related Content:
10 Things I Hate About Taxes #4: Privacy and Personal Income
Posted by: | CommentsThis is the fourth article in a series on taxation leading up to Tax Day, April 15.
The Fourth Amendment (IV) of the Bill of Rights says:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I read this amendment as saying that the only time “reasonable search” of my possessions – which includes information about me as well – can occur is when a warrant has been issued with probable cause. All other searches I am free to reject, for any reason whatsoever.
So how can the government claim the right to require me by force to give up information about my income?
If you don’t believe that, well then… the Ninth Amendment (IX) says:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The language here is a bit tricky, but stick with me… The word “enumeration” according to Dictionary.com means, “To count off or name one by one; [to] list.” So we should read this as, “Yo, America, you know those rights specifically listed? That’s not all, everything else is yours too.” In other words, your rights are assumed, not given by the government.
Let’s ask again, what right does the government have to my income, or even the information about my income? Constitutionally, the government does not have the right to force information about my income from me.
Of course, this didn’t stop Congress from trying on various occasions, and it didn’t stop them from passing the Sixteenth Amendment (XVI):
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Notice the wording at the end, “without regard to… enumeration.” So essentially, Congress at the time understood that the Constitution forbid them from doing this very thing. It was embedded in the Fourth and Ninth Amendments that this this right belongs to us, and yet no longer.
What happens when the Constitution is now inconsistent with itself? Do we really have a right to privacy, or not?
Or am I wrong to interpret the Constitution in this way? No wonder the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment is so high on Ron Paul’s to-do list. If Congress has the power to repeal rights with the stroke of a pen, we are steps away from tyranny. Perhaps we are already there…
Thanks to Greg at The Holy Cause for inspiring part of this article.
Previous Article | Next Article | Full List
Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.
Tags: Bill of Rights, constitution, economics, taxes
Related Content:
Norman is the creator and primary writer for LCC. Learn a little bit about him in the