Individual Liberty — Individual Responsibility 

First principles – Part 1

Equality

All men are created equal. Thomas Jefferson, and the other fifty five members of the Continental Congress that signed the Declaration of Independence agreed that this is a self-evident truth. In fact, it is the first of several self-evident truths that they recognized and declared.

It’s plain for anyone to see that the circumstances into which all men are born are not equal. Some men are born into poverty, and others into wealth. For that matter, it is also plain that the individual attributes of men are not equal either. Plainly, some men are more intelligent than others, and some are blessed with natural athletic ability. These things are obvious today, and they were surely no less obvious two hundred and thirty three years ago. It’s clear then that a man’s lot in life was not what Mr. Jefferson was writing about when he penned those words. Surely he, and the other delegates to the Continental Congress understood them to mean something else.

Consider for a moment the context in which these words were written. The Declaration of Independence doesn’t begin with the declaration that all men are created equal after all. Instead it begins by saying that the thirteen united States of America believed that a decent respect to the opinions of mankind required that they declare the reasons for separating themselves from the government they had been bound to. This gives context to the self-evident truths that are then listed, which begin with the statement that “all men are created equal.”

A man’s wealth or physical and mental attributes don’t make him better or worse than another man. If we are all equal in our creation that implies something else entirely. No man’s station in life gives him any more importance to our creator than that of any other man. We are all to be judged alike by our creator. If our creator has created us equal, then our government should treat us equally as well – without regard to acquired or inherited wealth, without regard to physical attributes or to mental ability. No man should be punished because he is wealthy, nor should he be favored because of it. This isn’t equality of outcome – it’s equality of consideration. Each man’s voice is equal to that of any other man, because we are all created equal.

The nature and source of our rights

They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights. This is another of those self-evident truths recognized in the Declaration of Independence, a unanimous declaration of the thirteen united States of America. In agreeing that this is a self-evident truth, the delegates of those states admitted and declared that our rights do not derive from government, they are a part of our very being. Our rights were granted to us by our creator, and they are unalienable. We cannot be separated from them. Governments cannot take them away from us, and we cannot surrender them.

Basic rights

Among these rights are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. This is the third of the self-evident truths that, among others, those fifty-six men pledged their Lives, their Fortunes, and their Sacred Honor to each other to support. They recognized that men are endowed with other unalienable rights, but these three seemed particularly important to recognize.

Each man equally has a right to life. By extension, we each have a right to fight for our life if it is threatened – a right to self defense. By the same token, we do not have a right to take the life of another person, except when doing so is the only way for us to preserve our own life. After all, each man has an equal right to life. What more need be said? Does the right to life imply a right to a comfortable living? Does it imply a right to health care? Some of our politicians have held that it does both. I don’t believe that that interpretation of the right to life is correct.

I don’t believe it for many reasons, but two of them were listed together with the right to life. These two are the other unalienable rights that we are endowed by our creator with, and that the esteemed authors of the Declaration of Independence felt the need to recognize: The right to Liberty, and the right to the pursuit of Happiness.

Considering for a moment the notion that the right to life implies the right to a comfortable living, surely the founders didn’t believe this to be true. If you note that the third unalienable right that they identified was the right to the pursuit of Happiness, I think you can see that. Mr. Jefferson did not write, and those fifty-five other delegates to the Continental Congress did not agree, that we have a right to Happiness but only to pursue Happiness. The notion that comfort is implied in the right to life in that context is ludicrous.

While it is true that we have other unalienable rights than simply Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness that our founders chose not to enumerate, we should be wary of politicians that choose to redefine these basic rights “in the context of a changing and growing social order”. Despite what Franklin D. Roosevelt said, that is not the task of Statesmanship. If the existence of these rights is, as the Declaration of Independence states, self-evident, then to re-define them is to deny the truth of them as asserted by those very men that fought and died to secure them for us.

The purpose and authority of government

The Continental Congress wasn’t finished enumerating their self-evident truths. Number four on the list is this: “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”.

The Continental Congress declared that the purpose of government was to secure the unalienable rights of man. They further declared that men create governments, they aren’t created by God. This isn’t to say that God doesn’t have a hand in shaping them, but governments are institutions of men. Many (but certainly not all) of the founders of our government were religious men who saw the divine hand of providence shaping the events that led to it’s creation, but they were all of them men.

While not explicitly stating it in the Declaration of Independence, the founders also knew well the weaknesses of men, among which is their penchant for power. They knew that mankind needs governance because not all men respect the rights of others. They were also painfully aware of the abuses that men could put to the power of a government. It was these abuses after all that spurred the creation of the Declaration of Independence.

There’s another implication present in this self-evident truth. Not all of the powers wielded by governments are “just” and benevolent. Those powers that are “just” don’t come through the government’s taking power unto itself though. They instead are willingly ceded to the government by those that are governed. If the people don’t willingly grant a power to a government, and the government has that power, then it is not a “just” power.

Reasons for changing a government

When a government amasses power through takings or the apathy of the people that power is an abuse of the compact made between the people and the government. Just as the founders recognized the need for government due to the nature of men who don’t respect the rights of others, they also recognized that the men who compose a government might also not respect the rights of the governed.

Recognized? They believed that they were suffering under a living example of that very abuse of power. The fifth of the self-evident truths that the Continental Congress declared was that “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

They clearly believed that the government of Great Britain, and “the present King of Great Britain” had become destructive to their unalienable rights as men. They also believed, that it was exercising powers that were not derived from the consent of the governed – by definition unjust powers. They enumerated a long train of abuses that the government across the ocean had carried out upon the colonies, and they declared that enough was enough. From that point forward they would be free and independent states.

They didn’t take this action lightly.  They knew that by dissolving the political bands that tied them to Great Britain they were setting themselves up in a position from which there could be no retreat. War had already broken out between Great Britain and the colonies before they declared independence, but until then there was the possibility of a peaceful resolution to the conflict. The men who signed the Declaration of Independence were branding themselves as traitors to the crown, certain to be hunted down and executed in ignominy if the colonies were defeated – and at the time, and for a good while after the Declaration was signed it looked like that might well be the result.

The establishment of the united States of America

The very beginning of the Declaration of Independence identifies the document for what it is, “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America”. Note the capitalization in that statement. While our founding documents often have unusual spelling, punctuation, and capitalization I cannot help but think that it is significant. I am encouraged in this view by the way the Declaration closes.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do…

Reference is made here to “these Colonies”, “these United Colonies”, “Free and Independent States”, and simply “Independent States”. The Declaration of Independence did not create a single nation. Instead it created thirteen independent nations. They were united in the cause of liberty. They were united in their desire to separate themselves politically from the State of Great Britain. The Declaration essentially placed each of the colonies on an equal footing with the nation of Great Britain.

Georgia, through its delegates, declared that it was a Free and Independent State on a par with other nations of the world. So too, individually and together did North Carolina, South Carolina, Massachusetts, Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. These colonies were declaring themselves to be sovereign nations, not political subdivisions of some greater nation.

I think that this is a very important point. At the time of the founding, it wasn’t really “the United States of America”, but instead “these United States of America.” Very shortly I think it will become clear why this is such an important distinction. It will be even more important when we discuss the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the amendments to the Constitution that follow after the Bill of Rights.

Instituting a new government among men

The establishment of thirteen independent states was remarkable enough, but the founders were nothing if not practical. Thirteen small nations individually were not much of a match for the military might of Great Britain. Even united there was some question about how well this bid for liberty would fare. Even before Thomas Jefferson penned the words “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another” the Continental Congress was calling upon the states (colonies at the time) to begin drafting plans for new state governments, anticipating the day when they would separate from the government of Great Britain.

Shortly after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, they began drafting a plan for a new central government – a union of the states. Drafting the plan didn’t take too long, despite an ongoing war, but getting all of the states to agree to it took five years of effort, five years punctuated by the war with Great Britain. The Articles of Confederation were drafted and signed by the delegates to the Continental Congress by July 9, 1778, and finally ratified on March 1, 1781.

After a preamble, and first getting the matter of naming the new confederacy out of the way, the Articles of Confederation begin thusly.

Article II. Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation, expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

The people of the new states quite naturally did not want a strong central government running their lives. They had had enough of that with a powerful central government running things from across the ocean. Distance to the seat of the new government might not be quite so great, but independence was hard won and sovereignty not to be given up lightly.

The people tended not to think of themselves as citizens of a large nation, but as citizens of independent small countries banded together for their common defense. That’s exactly what they were under the Articles of Confederation. That’s how things stood at the beginning of the Constitutional Convention, called by Congress to resolve issues that were pressing upon the states – economic depression, social unrest, foreign intrigue, and not a little interstate discord.

To put a little perspective on things, it took Congress eleven years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence before they finally established the Constitution of the United States of America. That’s right, ELEVEN YEARS. This was no small undertaking. While it’s true that the work of the Constitutional Convention only took four months, they were four bitterly fought months. Our Constitution is the result of major compromises between some extremely intelligent, strong-willed men who wanted a supremely powerful national government and some equally intelligent, equally strong-willed men that wanted the states to retain their sovereignty over the people.

Even after eleven years had passed, and after the work of the Constitutional Convention had been completed, still more time would pass before the new Constitution was ratified and the old confederation known as the United States was replaced by the new nation known as the United States. While the outcome of that convention was obviously desirable, as evidenced by the eventual ratification of the new Constitution, it should stand as a warning to anyone that would call for a new constitutional convention to propose a few amendments to address what may seem to be shortcomings in the current document. Recall the words of the Declaration of Independence.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

It seems wise to me that if there is a perceived need for a change to our government, that we should be very careful indeed how we go about asking for that change. The Continental Congress called for the Constitutional Convention with the intent of repairing shortcomings in the Articles of Confederation (arguably, some of the delegates had in mind replacing them from the beginning). What they got was an entirely new form of government – which might very well be the result if men seeking to fix a few perceived flaws in our current Constitution choose to call for another convention instead of proposing amendments.

By the way, for a truly excellent description of the Constitutional Convention, including the changing factions and the evolution of the basic framework of our government, you might want to pick up the book A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution by Carol Berkin. It's a fun read and contains a lot of insight into the mind and character of our founding fathers. It's a civics lesson that's truly entertaining.

The Constitution of the United States of America

The Articles of Confederation established a compact between the several states. Under them, the states retained nearly all of their sovereignty, and so quite naturally they still acted as independent countries. I suppose that you could compare the confederation known as the United States of America to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or to the United Nations. It’s probably not the best of comparisons that you could make, but remember, the purpose of the United States at the time was to form a union of nations that were to band together for the common defense.

The Constitution of the United States of America did something else entirely. Under the Constitution, a new nation was formed. Each of the states gave up a portion of its sovereignty to the federal government, in exchange for a federal guarantee of a republican form of government.

The Constitution is divided into seven articles, some of which are composed of multiple sections. Before the first article, is the preamble, which introduces the document and explains its purpose.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Let’s take the words of the preamble in context, shall we? When the preamble says that the people are establishing the Constitution “in Order to form a more perfect Union”, it is speaking of that loose union established in the Articles of Confederation. The need to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility and to provide for the common defense all referred to circumstances under that old union. There were cases where the states were disputing with one another and some of the states perceived that an injustice was being done to them by the other states. As separate sovereign nations, the states were not cooperating with one another to provide for the common defense. These were the reasons that the Congress called for the Constitutional Convention in the first place.

The next phrase is one upon which some people, myself included, believe that a lot of mischief turns. That is the phrase in which the people are establishing this Constitution to “promote the general Welfare”. If we couple this phrase with the enumerated powers of Congress found in Article I, section 8 where we find this power… “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” it’s clear that the Constitution both allows for the promotion of the general Welfare and grants Congress the power to provide for it.

The question is, what did the authors of the Constitution mean by this? And this is not a trivial question. The great political debates of our time hang upon this idea. The essential differences between what we refer to in political discussion today as “left” and “right” hang upon the interpretation of this idea. These differences are not new in our modern politics either, they go back to the very beginning of our nation. If we look to the founders for the answer to this question perhaps we can shed some light on it. If we look at the history that led up to the drafting and the ratification of our Constitution, perhaps we could settle this issue. And perhaps not. James Madison, often cited as the “father of the Constitution” had this to say about it.

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.”
— James Madison, letter to Edmund Pendleton, 21 January 1792

Why would he say this in this way? Why would he say that “the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers” unless it was his understanding that that was what the form of the government under the Constitution was meant to take? I’ll have more to say on this later. In the meantime I encourage you to read the transcript of the Constitution for yourself. It’s freely available online – from multiple sources.

Finishing out the preamble to the constitution we see that the people finally ordained and established the Constitution to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”. Recall those self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence, “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”. This is the primary purpose of government. This purpose stands apart from all of the other purposes listed in the preamble, and ultimately it is the justification for our Constitution. The preamble begins with the words “We the People” and ends with this specific purpose for establishing the Constitution. In compliance with that great self-evident truth, the powers of the government under our Constitution are derived from the consent of the people being governed.

Reflecting once more upon this – an enumerated list of purposes for the Constitution – listing the inadequacies of the old government under the Articles of Confederation – and concluding with the very reason that governments are instituted among men is given in the preamble to the Constitution. Considered in that context, I think it’s easier to see what it is that the phrase “promote the general Welfare” means in the preamble. This purpose stands with the other enumerated purposes, apart from and in addition to the primary purpose of government. If that isn’t sufficient context, then consider also the careful wording of the specific enumerated power granted to Congress by the Constitution regarding “the general Welfare”. The first power enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 is the power of taxation with the purpose of paying the debts and providing for the common defense and general welfare “of the United States”.

It is my carefully considered opinion that when the Constitution speaks of the “general welfare”, that it is referring not to the welfare of the people at large, but rather to the welfare of the union of the states. That is, it is referring to the welfare of “the United States.” Considered in this way, this clause is not a license for the federal government to do what it pleases. It is not meant to transform a limited government with specific, enumerated powers into an unlimited government subject to a few restrictions. Instead it is meant to ensure the welfare of the union of the states, as an aid to forming that “more perfect union”.

Rather than take up a considerable amount of space covering the entire document – it runs to four rather large pages of parchment, about 4,500 words, and I’ve already taken up close to 3,500 just covering a few paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence and glossing over the buildup to the Constitution and the purposes behind it – I’ll give a quick summary of the structure of the government established by this wonderful document.  I’ll take that up in part two.