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.”