BY
GARY RAY BRANSCOME
The godly freedom of which the
The freedom for which our
forefathers risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, was not
the freedom to be immoral, but the freedom to be moral. They wanted the freedom
to follow God's law, to worship God as they pleased, to train their children as
they saw fit, and to do all of this without government restrictions, red tape
and harassment. In short, they fought and died for the freedom of all Americans
to live quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty (1 Timothy 2:2).
During the nineteenth century
millions of people poured into this country seeking that kind of freedom. While
the laws in
While regulations vary from place
to place, if you think America is still a free country then try selling food
from a pushcart, especially in a big city, and see how far you get before the
health department throws you in jail. Try to start your own taxi business and
see what red tape you have to go through. In
An optician once explained to me
how unnecessary regulations took away certain freedoms that he once enjoyed. As
a young man, he had been trained as an optometrist. However, certain men who
were already in that field, disliked competition, and wanted to limit the
number of people entering that field. Therefore, they asked their state
representatives to pass laws that would reduce the number of people entering
their profession. Of course, that is not what they actually said! What they
said, was that they wanted to make sure that everyone in the field was actually
qualified to do the job. But in order to get the law passed, everyone already
in the field could be exempted from the new requirements, if they filed a
certain form. The man who told me this, refused to file the form because he
felt that the new requirements were unethical, and, for that reason, was downgraded
from an optometrist to an optician.
What that man experienced is
certainly not unique to his field. In fact, one state representative told me
that most of the requests for legislation that he received were aimed at
stifling competition. Moreover, instead of speaking out against that sort of
subversion, educators usually defend it, and even engage in it themselves, in
order to reduce the number of people in the teaching profession. If you would
like a book that explains why that sort of legislation undermines the economy,
let me recommend "The Incredible Bread Machine". [used copies may
still be available]. Laws that are rooted in greed only make life harder for
all of us.
The genius of the American system
of government is its system of checks and balances, which divide and limit the
powers of government in order to prevent their abuse. That system assumes that
human nature is basically sinful, and needs to be restrained. Moreover, because
of the restrictions placed on our government, we have enjoyed freedom, and
freedom-loving people from around the world have flocked to our shores.
However, one by one those safeguards against tyranny are being taken away.
The Tenth Amendment, which was
added to the constitution to prevent a usurpation of power by the central
government, says, "The powers not delegated to the
However, even though that amendment
provides us with a very important safeguard to our freedom, certain rulings by
Chief Justice John Marshal have been used to subvert it. The rulings that I
have in mind, are those that became the basis for the so-called doctrine of
"implied powers." The entire oppressive bureaucracy that we now have
to deal with has grown out of that doctrine. Yet Congress could remove that
threat to our freedom very easily, for it has the authority to define the
Constitution. In other words, congress could restore the effectiveness of the
Tenth Amendment, simply by ruling that the purpose of that amendment was to
limit the central government to "those powers expressly delegated to the
Those who defend the so-called
"implied powers" argue that the federal government needs the
flexibility they provide. However, the federal government could enjoy
flexibility without opening the door to tyranny, simply being required to ask
the states for permission to use a particular implied power, especially if each
grant of permission was limited to a certain number of years. [The present
"welfare" system, which threatens to bankrupt our nation, is just one
example of the bureaucracy that has grown out of the so-called doctrine of
"implied powers."]
Our state governments were intended
to protect the people from the central government, in the same way that the
colonial governments had protected the people from
In order to protect the people from
oppressive taxation, our Constitution did not allow the central government to
tax the people directly. Instead all taxes levied by the central government
were to be apportioned among the various states according to their population,
as established by a census (Article 1, section 2 and 8). The Sixteenth Amendment
removed that constitutional safeguard against tyranny, and the high taxes you
now pay are the result. Moreover, the IRS often conducts itself in a way that
is clearly tyrannical, yet since the number of people who experience that
tyranny are a minority, little is said. Nevertheless, history tells us that if
such tyranny is ignored it will only grow worse. [We need to repeal the
Sixteenth Amendment.]
Although those responsible for
ratifying the Constitution wanted assurance that the new central government
would not become tyrannical, some felt that a bill of rights was unnecessary,
since the central government could not legally take upon itself powers not
delegated to it by the Constitution. However, because others insisted on a more
concrete assurance that power would not be usurped, the Bill of Rights was
drafted. And the first words of that document ("Congress shall make no
law") make it clear that its very purpose is to limit the power of the
central government. Furthermore, each of the specific amendments was drafted to
deal with a particular way in which governmental power had been abused in the
past.
At this point, some of you may be
wondering how the government has been able to turn that document against the
people. And the answer lies in they way the courts have interpreted the
Fourteenth Amendment. Due to their interpretation, the first Amendment (for
example) is no longer seen as a restriction on government, but as a clause
empowering the Federal Government to keep you from infringing on anyone else's
freedom of religion. In practical terms, that means that instead of giving you
the freedom to tell others about Jesus, the First Amendment is now interpreted
to give the government the power to keep you from telling others about Jesus,
as a way of protecting their freedom of religion. Although we have not yet
reached the point where soul winning is actually forbidden, things are moving
in that direction. At present, all favorable references to the Christian religion
have been censored out of public school textbooks. Several towns, founded by
Christian people, have been forced to remove Christian symbols from their
official seal, and a number of communities have been forced to take down
Christmas manger scenes. Thus, in the name of tolerance, the courts are
promoting anti-Christian bigotry.
A few centuries ago a Bible
believer could be jailed for criticizing the state church. In fact, many of the
people who founded this country came to
Some years ago the Honorable William
Brevard Hand, Chief Judge for the
Judge Hand's brief concludes with
the words "If we who today rule, do not follow the teachings of history
then surely the very weight of what we are about will bring down the house upon
our head, and the public having rightly lost respect in the integrity of the
institution, will ultimately bring about its change or even its demise."
Those words, and the fact that Judge Hand's ruling was later overturned by a
higher court, should sound a wake up call to all Americans.
When the founding fathers delegated the power to make treaties to the central government,
the following words were added to Article Six, in order to insure that the
states would abide by those treaties:
"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."
What has happened, is that those who would rob us of our
freedom are using that clause, to give unconstitutional powers to our central
government. Of course, they have placed a meaning on the word
"treaty" that never entered the mind of the founders. Nevertheless,
by calling various international agreements "treaties" those
agreements are being given constitutional status as if they were actual
additions to our constitution. One well-known example of this happened at the
time of the Gulf War. When President Bush was asked what right he had to send
American troops into war without congressional approval, he said that did not
need congressional approval because the United Nations had authorized him to
send the troops.
If you have been wondering where
federal judges find anything in our Constitution about the rights of
homosexuals, or a right to abortion, you need look no further than Article Six.
However, we can reverse the damage that has been done by such agreements,
simply by insisting that our government repudiate any and all such
"treaties." [Bill Clinton, was so eager to subvert freedom, that he
signed a number of UN treaties that had been rejected by congress.]
Far too many Americans seem to have
forgotten the fact that the rights on which our freedom rests come from God.
Furthermore, while God has given us the right to life, by saying "Thou
shalt not kill," he has never given anyone the right to butcher babies.
Likewise, He has not given anyone the right to be homosexual, or to promote
homosexuality (Romans
The Supreme Court was never
intended to wield legislative power. On the contrary, the very purpose of its
existence is simply to rule on specific cases. In addition, all such rulings
are to be in accord with the Constitution, the intent of the specific law in
question, and any legal precedents that apply. Nevertheless, activist judges
have cast all such restrictions aside and in case after case have, in effect,
rewritten our laws. They do this simply by making rulings that disregard the
intent of the lawgivers, while changing the meaning of the law. They then
exceed their authority by mandating compliance with their new definition of the
law.
The doctrine of implied powers
(which I mentioned previously) has opened the door for the creation of
regulatory agencies. These agencies, once established, create a nightmare of
bureaucratic red tape and volumes of burdensome regulations. Moreover, those
regulations have the force of law, even though they have never been voted on by
congress, or by the people. Worse yet the men who make those laws are not
accountable to the people. There is no way that we can vote them out of office.
No matter who we elect to Congress, the same people continue to run those
agencies. Yet, the constitution nowhere authorizes congress to create such
agencies. On the contrary, Mussolini invented regulatory agencies, and Congress
used the doctrine of implied powers to justify imposing his Fascist programs on
In spite of efforts by the press to
hide the abuse of power by these agencies, horror stories and examples of
tyranny at the hands of these agencies, continue to leak out. Not too long ago,
a farmer in
Since God instituted government to
protect those who trust in Him, Christians need to get involved in the
governmental process (Romans 13:1-6, 1 Peter