I Have Moved

See my new Blog Site at http://blackstoneinitiative.com/.

In Praise of the Do-IT-Yourself-State: Missouri

On May 16, Barbara Shelly wrote in the Kansas City Star  (http://www.kansascity.com/2013/05/16/4240241/who-needs-legislators-in-the-do.html) a condemnation of Senate Republicans for permitting a state highway funding program to fail.  Senate Joint Resolution No. 16 would have placed on the ballot a proposal to amend the Missouri Constitution to impose a one percent sales tax to reconstruct Highway 70 and make other transportation improvements.  Because the Senate permitted this measure to fail, she proclaimed, “That is the new Missouri way.  Don’t look to your state legislature to get things done.  In the do-it-yourself state, initiative is everything.”  But she says this as if it were a bad thing.  One would almost think, sloth had become a virtue in the state of Missouri.  I am here in praise of the new attitude, her new Do-It-Yourself State.

We Americans have always been known for our initiative, for our willingness to get things done.  At least we used to be a people who prided ourselves for pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps.  That was part of the American dream, the possibility of making ourselves better by our own sweat and toil.  Was it not John F. Kennedy who said, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”  Has that really all changed in the state of Missouri?

Now, in the State-Take-Care-Of-Me utopia, the state should provide for management of police, voting, healthcare, personal ethics, and economic development.  No doubt, the state should take care of some of these, but this list is proposed without any consideration of distinguishing things not to be done by government.  One might almost hypothesize that Senator Lamping should provide my nightly dinner and cook it for me.

We must first ask whether these things are within the proper role of government.  We can all agree that governments exist to execute justice.  Therefore, the police, voting rights and the administration of a sound court system are within the jurisdiction of the state.  As to my healthcare, I do not want Senator Lamping having to do a daily workout for me.  How I insure my health is up to me.  And it is not in the purview of the state government to give special benefits to some at the expense of others in order to make my economic efforts thrive.  Economic development is simply that: economic development and not government development.  My health and economic development are my concern and they should be left to me to nurture through initiative.  Any other thinking is the very core of injustice.  In such things, it is good to leave room for initiative.

Initiative is a good thing.  There are proverbs galore extolling industry a virtue and sloth a vice. 

How long will you lie there, O sluggard?
    When will you arise from your sleep?
A little sleep, a little slumber,
    a little folding of the hands to rest,
and poverty will come upon you like a robber,
    and want like an armed man.

or

Love not sleep, lest you come to poverty;
    open your eyes, and you will have plenty of bread.

As our industrial infrastructure begins to fail, we must remember our circumstances.  We are bankrupt as a nation.  We will need money for our aging transportation system, but we have none.  We have mortgaged the future of our children to reward sloth in our State-Take-Care-Of-Me utopia.  We have bailouts, we have employment security, we have social security, we have funding for arts, we have subsidized housing, we have green power, we have everything we want, but we have no wealth.  It is time to ask if we can continue to spend our way into the easy life.  In such a circumstance, it will be necessary for our citizens to reengage their initiative.

The duty of a legislative body is the protection of the rights of a minority against the whims and avarice of a majority.  This is the glory of a constitutional republic.  In this regard, the Senate did its job in protecting the citizens of the state against the confiscation of their property.  It let the proposal die.  It did take frothy eloquence, as Shelly puts it, to defeat the unjust proposal.  Unfortunately, the frothy eloquence was necessary.  If our law makers would simply ask the question “is this just” before they propose our laws, we would need much less frothy debate.  Thank you Senator Lamping for your leadership in the Senate in creating an opportunity for initiative.

James McHenry on Scripture in a Free Republic

After public service, former Secretary of War James McHenry became President of the first Bible Society in Baltimore, Maryland, stating in 1813: 

"Neither...let it be overlooked, thatpublic utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. 

The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. 

In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw intrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong intrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience..."

Charles Carroll, a Signer of the Declaration of Independence, wrote to James McHenry, November 4, 1800: 

"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure and which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."

Two Salient Points From Sir William Blackstone

As I continue to discuss Sir William Blackstone, two salient points continue to arise.  The first is that Blackstone is an historical fact.  And the second is that Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England provide a written record of a binding commitment of our Founding Fathers.

The overwhelming consensus of the Founders in each of the individual states and the United States was the legal effect of the English common law within the realms of the new continent.  Each of the thirteen original colonies adopted the English common law shortly after the end of the War for Independence in 1776.  The Northwest Ordinance, enacted by the new Congress of the Confederation in 1787, guaranteed "judicial proceedings according to the course of the common law."  The English common law was the foundation of the American legal system, and Blackstone's Commentaries embodied the most faithful rendition and best understood expression of that system.

Blackstone is an historical fact.  The adoption of English common law as the foundational authority of our legal system is an historical fact.  Therefore, when Blackstone makes the assertion within his Commentaries that, “Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these,” the understanding of Scripture as the final authority in the public arena is an historical fact.

Many have tried to claim that utilizing Scripture in public policy discussions somehow violates an established notion of the separation of church and state or that to do so would impose the Christian faith upon those who do not believe.  This is simply not the case.  Rather, the English common law was bound up in Scripture, and this is an historical fact.  Individuals are free to believe anything they want, but in this country, the English common law and Scripture paramount.  It is nothing for which Christians need apologize.  It is simply the truth. 

The country was designed with these principles in mind.  John Adams stated that this government was created for a moral and religious people.  Patrick Henry observed that, “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!” Our system was designed to be run according to Scripture.  When a system is not used as it was intended, it simply does not work effectively.  And this is why we are seeing problems in our culture today.

Secondly, and more importantly, Blackstone is a written record of this nation's commitment to Scripture.  This is a sobering thought.  Jesus declared that all authority on heaven and earth had been given to Him and that all Scripture was written about Him and under his authority.  For those of us who believe, that information is sufficient to commit to His authority.  But what about those who do not believe?  What Blackstone does is provide a written record that the Founders submitted to that authority on behalf of the nation.  Now, for America, it is not only that Jesus has a claim of authority, it is the case that our Founders accepted that claim and bound themselves and this nation to it.

The logical result of this reality is significant.  As our leaders ignore and actively deride Scripture, there are ramifications to be considered.  To go against Scripture is not only a refusal to accept the claim of Jesus, it is the conscious breach of the commitment made by the Founders and this nation.  Thus the refusal to accept the claim is compounded by a breach of a commitment.  The nation will bear the consequences of this breach, but the leaders that bring this violation on will be punished more severely.  So, be warned rulers and representatives of the people.  For it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

A Shining City on a Hill

How many of you recall Ronald Reagan and his "Shining City Upon a Hill?"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=332QeTNmfh8.

The following is the statement of John Winthrop:

John Winthrop's City upon a Hill, 1630

Now the onely way to avoyde this shipwracke and to provide for our posterity is to followe the Counsell of Micah, to doe Justly, to love mercy, to walke humbly with our God, for this end, wee must be knitt together in this worke as one man, wee must entertaine each other in brotherly Affeccion, wee must be willing to abridge our selves of our superfluities, for the supply of others necessities, wee must uphold a familiar Commerce together in all meekenes, gentlenes, patience and liberallity, wee must delight in eache other, make others Condicions our owne rejoyce together, mourne together, labour, and suffer together, allwayes haveing before our eyes our Commission and Community in the worke, our Community as members of the same body, soe shall wee keepe the unitie of the spirit in the bond of peace, the Lord will be our God and delight to dwell among us, as his owne people and will commaund a blessing upon us in all our wayes, soe that wee shall see much more of his wisdome power goodnes and truthe then formerly wee have beene acquainted with, wee shall finde that the God of Israell is among us, when tenn of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies, when hee shall make us a prayse and glory, that men shall say of succeeding plantacions: the lord make it like that of New England: for wee must Consider that wee shall be as a Citty upon a Hill, the eies of all people are uppon us; soe that if wee shall deale falsely with our god in this worke wee have undertaken and soe cause him to withdrawe his present help from us, wee shall be made a story and a byword through the world, wee shall open the mouthes of enemies to speake evill of the wayes of god and all professours for Gods sake; wee shall shame the faces of many of gods worthy servants, and cause theire prayers to be turned into Cursses upon us till wee be consumed out of the good land whether wee are going: And to shutt upp this discourse with that exhortacion of Moses that faithfull servant of the Lord in his last farewell to Israell Deut. 30. Beloved there is now sett before us life, and good, deathe and evill in that wee are Commaunded this day to love the Lord our God, and to love one another to walke in his wayes and to keepe his Commaundements and his Ordinance, and his lawes, and the Articles of our Covenant with him that wee may live and be multiplyed, and that the Lord our God may blesse us in the land whether wee goe to possesse it: But if our heartes shall turne away soe that wee will not obey, but shall be seduced and worshipp other Gods our pleasures, and proffitts, and serve them, it is propounded unto us this day, wee shall surely perishe out of the good Land whether wee passe over this vast Sea to possesse it;

Therefore lett us choose life,

that wee, and our Seede,

may live; by obeyeing his

voyce, and cleaveing to him,

for hee is our life, and

our prosperity.

I will have more to say about this in the future, but for now I leave it to your contemplation.

William Blackstone on Natural Rights

Those rights then which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable.  On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture.  Neither do divine or natural duties (such as, for instance, the worship of God, the maintenance of children, and the like) receive any stronger sanction from being also declared to be duties by the law of the land.  The case is the same as to crimes and misdemesnors, that are forbidden by the superior laws, and therefore stiled mala in se, such as murder, theft, and perjury; which contract no additional turpitude from being declared unlawful by the inferior legislature.  For that legislature in all these cases acts only, as was before observed, in subordination to the great lawgiver, transcribing and publishing his precepts.  So that, upon the whole, the declaratory part of the municipal law has no force or operation at all, with regard to actions that are naturally and intrinsically right or wrong.

On Being Conservative: Robert Dabney

On Being Conservative
Written by Robert Dabney

[Northern Conservatism] “is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always, when about to enter a protest, very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance."

The U.S. Constitution: Our National Covenant

A speech given to the Consent of the Governed Rally in Jefferson City:

This morning I come to talk to you about federalism.  Why do I here on these steps in Jefferson City speak to you of federalism?  I speak to you of federalism because this nation is at a cross roads.  There are many in this nation who speak of bipartisanship and compromise.  These are veiled terms for the relinquishment of your liberty.  Indeed, there are many in this nation that propose that the states give in to any edict the federal government imposes.  I come to speak against this idea.

I speak to you of federalism because we must recover the true meaning of federalism, a meaning of relationship and life under God.  The meaning of the word “federal” comes from the Latin word for faith or trust.  The 1828 Webster’s Dictionary defines federal as “Pertaining to a league or contract; derived from an agreement or covenant between parties, particularly between nations.”  These definitions speak of relationship and faith and trust.  Why is this understanding of the word important?  It is important because we have forgotten this aspect of federalism.  It is an understanding that our founding fathers had and drove their actions.    

Our founding fathers were students of history and tradition.  They were students of western civilization.  They looked to the past for enlightenment on their authority to act.  They studied history.  They read Cicero.  They read Locke.  But they also read the Bible.  And they found their source for the idea of covenant in the Bible and the covenant God who wrote the Bible. 

Indeed, western tradition, Christendom as some have called it, took on the unique practice of writing covenants to govern themselves.  They bound their kings to such charters.  The founders studied these documents.  They studied the Magna Charta, the great charter.  They studied the Solemn League and Covenant.  They knew the Mayflower Compact.  These traditions informed them on how they understood their actions during the founding years of this country.

Consider the words of the Magna Charta and how they inform the meaning of our Declaration of Independence:

Henry by the grace of God King of England,  . . . Know that we, at the prompting of God and for the health of our soul and the souls of our ancestors and successors, for the glory of holy Church and the improvement of our realm, freely and out of our good will have given and granted to . . . all of our realm these liberties written below to hold in our realm of England in perpetuity.

You should note two things.  First, the great charter is a document of relationship.  It sets forth the liberties of the people in relationship to the king.  Second, the great charter is a document based on God’s authority and prompting.  The charter recognized that the people had rights in their relationship to him because the king was prompted by God.

Many years later, those that settled Plymouth entered into the Mayflower Compact.  The same themes can be heard in that covenant:

"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, . . . 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 Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation . . .

They formed relationship in a Body Politic by the grace of God.

These two themes of relationship and reliance on God would forge the covenantal ideals of our founding fathers.  You can hear these same ideals in our Declaration of Independence.

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

The Declaration of Independence is a covenantal law suit setting forth the grounds for which the Colonies would dissolve their relationships with Great Britain and do so in the presence of God.  Their actions had profound and eternal consequences and they knew it.  It ultimately took a bloody war to expel the invading forces of the tyrant King George, but it was not the war that severed the bands of relationship.  It was the covenantal law suit found in the Declaration of Independence.

After securing their freedom from Great Britain, the 13 original independent colonies formed a weak relationship under the Articles of Confederation and struggled with that relationship for a dozen years.  It was only with the Constitutional convention that the colonies formed a stronger relationship in these terms:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

With this statement the colonies established new political bonds, a new relationship, one with another.  It would be a more perfect union, a strong relationship amongst the former colonies, now states.

Many are saying today that the states should give into the federal agent established by the U.S. Constitution.  That is not what I see.  I see a strong relationship among strong states written in the U.S. Constitution.  A strong relationship does not depend on weak parties to the relationship.  A strong relationship depends on strong parties giving faith, trust and exercising their best judgments in the relationship for the liberty of the people.  I see strong states working together to guide their federal agent in the way it should go.

The state of Missouri joined that union in 1821.  What is Missouri’s responsibility as it goes forth this year?  The apostle Paul in Romans 13 declares that the civil magistrate is the servant of God.  This term servant is the same word from which we get deacon.  The service the civil magistrate is to provide to God is to punish the evil doer and defend the doer of good.  A civil magistrate has no authority to make economic choices for a people.  A civil magistrate must defend the right of all people to make their own economic choices.  The state must execute justice and you cannot execute justice when you take from some simply to give to others.

The state of Missouri has one further obligation in these troubled times.  When a party to a covenant is unfaithful to its covenant, it is the responsibility of the other party or parties to call the unfaithful one back to faithfulness.  The federal agent in our national covenant has strayed from its commitment to the U.S. Constitution.  It is time for Missouri, along with the other strong states in this union, to call the federal agent back to faithfulness to the U.S. Constitution.

In closing, I would like to commend my good friend state Senator Jim Lembke for his commitment to these principles.  Senator Lembke has a practice in which he almost never fails to take a copy of the Missouri Constitution wherever he goes.  He gives witness to the fact that the Missouri Constitution is his guidebook for his job.  For that practice, I am grateful.  Our Missouri state legislators should add one more practice to their daily routine.  They should carry and study the U.S. Constitution.  In the days to come, the federal agent will need their guidance on how to bring itself from unfaithfulness to faithfulness.  The U.S. Congress will need the aid of the state of Missouri.  This is aid we Missourians must provide.  God bless America and God bless the state of Missouri.  Thank you.