Hat tip to Mark Sear of Lakewood. I don't know Mark, but his letter published in the 8/31 Rocky hits the bullseye for Element R, my "third force" responsibility movement in American politics. Among his seven question for dependency-minded voters are these: "Why is it someone else's responsibility to alleviate self-inflicted problems?" "Am I more worried about claiming my rights' than about fulfilling my responsibilities?" Bravo, Mr. Sear.
God save our states
August 1 being Colorado statehood day, I got to thinking about the role of the states in our federal union. Joanna Barton, who teaches government at a London prep school, told me last week on the Glenwood train that she's spending a month here trying to figure that out. Bottom-up diversity from state to state in politics, economics, and culture is one of the glories of America. One trait that is remarkably similar across all 50 states, however, is the grounding of their form of government on spiritual reliance, not on the secularism so fashionable today.
Colorado joined the Union on Aug. 1, 1876, with a state constitution whose preamble reads:
We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, in order to form a more independent and perfect government; establish justice; insure tranquillity; provide for the common defense; promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the "State of Colorado".
The drafters met by authority of an Enabling Act of the US Congress, which stipulated that the new state's
constitution shall be republican in form... and not be repugnant to the constitution of the United States and the principles of the declaration of independence; and... that perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of said state shall ever be molested in person or property, on account of his or her mode of religious worship.
The Declaration of Independence, in turn, reverently invokes God not once but four times: as lawgiver, "Creator," "Supreme Judge of the World," and "Divine Providence." Its principles, to which Colorado's constitution-makers were obligated to adhere, can hardly be called secularist.
As researcher William J. Federer has shown, every single state also reverently invokes God in its constitutional preamble or bill of rights. All fifty; no exceptions. Specifically looking at some of our neighboring western states, here's what we find:
* Arizona, 1911... "grateful to Almighty God for our liberties" * Idaho, 1889... "grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings" * Montana, 1889... "grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty" * Nevada, 1864... "grateful to Almighty God for our freedom" * New Mexico, 1911... "grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty" * Utah, 1896... "grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of life and liberty" * Wyoming, 1890... "grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties"
Returning to the Centennial State as we mark our 131st birthday today, Colorado's motto bears remembering by all who compete politically here, and by all who await what state government may do to or for them. "Nil Sine Numine," it says in Latin; "Nothing without the Spirit."
Hear Bensman on 'Breaching America' from 7/1 radio
My interview with Todd Bensman of the San Antonio Express-News, about his investigation of Mideast illegal aliens coming here through Mexico, starts in this sound file and wraps up in this one. Congratulate us, please... online audio from Backbone Radio is a reality at last, with generous assistance from my microphone partner Joshua Sharf and our engineer Don Apodaca. Joshua followed up with an excellent blog interview of Bensman; read it here.
Sizing up Colorado, two centuries on
By John Andrews (andrewsjk@aol.com) This morning my view from a hotel window toward Pike's Peak is obscured by a driving blizzard. Harsh autumn weather like this bedeviled the Pike expedition, first American explorers of our state, in late 1806. We're in Colorado Springs for an El Pomar Foundation lecture series I co-chair; last night's program used the Pike bicentennial as an occasion for some political self-examination.
The peak that later bore his name was, Pike wrote, "never out of sight in our wanderings" through the region. America's founding principles should stand as a similar landmark for Coloradans today, I believe. Pending a full report later on my 10/25 debate with Ed Quillen, here's the outline we spoke to:
“The American Experiment, 200 Years after Zebulon Pike”
Resolved: Colorado’s practice of liberty and equality today would meet with Thomas Jefferson’s approval
John Andrews, Former Senate President, taking the affirmative Ed Quillen, Denver Post columnist, taking the negative
1. Do you agree or disagree that Colorado’s practice of liberty and equality today would meet with Thomas Jefferson’s approval?
2. What are three strong points of evidence to support your conclusion? What points of contrary evidence would you acknowledge as valid?
3. Taking other prominent American Founders such as Adams, Washington, Hamilton, James Madison or Patrick Henry, can we identify certain founding principles for the American experiment on which all would agree?
4. Does it really matter what Jefferson or any of the Founders would think of our state and nation today? Why or why not?
5. What improvements do you believe are needed in Colorado’s practice of liberty and equality? What other key indicators besides these two should we be monitoring? What serious threats to the future of the American experiment are evident in our state today?
Bogus rights invert Constitution's intent
By Krista Kafer (krista555@msn.com) Recently on Backbone Radio (Sundays 5-8, 710 KNUS) we spoke with Andy McKean, founder of Liberty Day, an organization that promotes and celebrates the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. He reminded us of a law enacted in 2004 to require all educational institutions receiving federal funds to teach about the Constitution every 17th of September (the day the Constitution was signed in 1787).
Ironically, Congress has no authority over education under the Constitution and was outside of its mandate when it enacted this law; nevertheless, the nation’s K-12 and college students need every opportunity they can get to learn more about the Constitution -- of which most are woefully ignorant. (Contact the Liberty Day.org website for information on its pocket constitutions and other school resources.)
Even if they didn’t read it in school, everyone should take time to read the Constitution this month. Voters, in particular, should grab a copy now that election season is under way. Politicians and special interests have a nasty habit of misusing and distorting the founding words to sell themselves and their questionable ideas to the public.
Take this statement for example, “We support the equal right of all people to have freedom of expression, religion and the pursuit of happiness as well as a quality education, a clean and safe environment, a secure and healthy future, a fair living wage, secure retirement, equal opportunity, and access to quality health care.” That's from the Colorado Democratic Party's website, and you’re bound to hear a lot of the like until November 7th.
Such statements seem to echo the principles of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights -- yet in misusing the term “right," this line of thought expresses something quite opposite. The term “right” as the founders understood it relates to natural rights -- those God-given inalienable rights to life, liberty and property that every human being has just by being alive. The purpose of government is to protect these rights from those who would trample them.
Government’s purpose in guaranteeing natural rights, expressed unequivocally in the Declaration of Independence, is reiterated in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights – no one shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The rights in the Bill of Rights (i.e. freedom of expression, religion, gun ownership, etc) are natural extensions of the rights to life, liberty, and property.
There is an important distinction between natural rights and other claims; a natural right does not obligate others to sacrifice their rights for its fulfillment. For example, if someone is granted a “right” to housing or health care without paying for it, then another is obligated to sacrifice his or her property and labor to pay for it. Person A has the liberty to forego buying insurance with his money (property), but Person B who pays for it through her taxes loses both her property and her liberty to do with it what she wishes. Rather than serve as the equal guarantor of everyone’s liberty and property, government takes some people’s liberty and property to dispense it to others.
“Rights” to free services are not rights as the founders understood them. They are privileges for some and sacrifices for others. In the 20th century, however, politicians began to use these opposite terms synonymously. What began with Wilson and FDR has become a habit among politicians from both parties. Voters should be suspicious of politicians who promise services as rights. They are distorting the principle of rights for their own gain and in doing so, eroding the very rights they are supposed to protect.
Keep that in mind on Constitution Day, September 17, and again on Election Day, November 7.