Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Power to the People

Q: Do the Bill of Rights apply to Congress and Congress alone?

A: This is a difficult question to answer in 500 or 600 words. The short version of the answer is “yes” and “yes,” but maybe not for the reasons you are thinking.

To explain a bit further, let us dip into some governmental philosophy. Governments, much like corporations, are non-entities. That is, they are the creations of legal documents and the coalescence of ideas, as proposed (of course) by humans. In the creation of a government, like our Democratic Republic, we as citizens effectively say, “Look, we recognize that we are, by birth and nature, free and ought to be permitted to live as such. But, we recognize that there is a need for some parameters to be set in our society. We recognize that even nature has rules that are so deep, so pervasive, so ingrained in we the created that we must codify them. Therefore, we will place that freedom in the stewardship of something we will call government.”

That is a simplistic summary, indeed, but the main point is very important: citizens possess the rights and freedoms as – coining the words of the Declaration of Independence – inalienably endowed to them by their Creator. Whatever power our government has, therefore, is subject to approval or disapproval by we the governed. Thus, the Constitution establishes the form necessary to govern the collective whole.

Are you with me still? Good. Back to the question.

The Bill of Rights applies to all citizens. That is, it secures the inalienable rights our Declaration of Independence suggests we posses in written form. Hence, we the citizenry can invoke any one of the provisions of the constitution and subsequent amendments. For instance, the Second Amendment permits us to possess and bear arms – even, in extraordinary circumstances, against the government itself. Essentially, the Bill of Rights functions to say to government, “We the people say this far you may go and no farther.”

Yet, what of the Bill of Rights as it concerns Congress? As originally designed, the Bill of Rights is the written consent of the governed; it is the margin to government. It works to say that government – as Thomas Paine once suggested, “In its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst, an intolerable one” – must be restrained.

And this makes sense. Why would we the governed allow a non-entity, of our own creation and management, to go beyond our inalienable rights? While there is a need to provide for an ordered society, that ordering must be subject to those it governs and, borrowing again, “to the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.”

If this all sounds vaguely familiar, pull out your pocket Constitution and turn with me to the Ninth Amendment where it states, “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” And, as if to underscore the point, the Founding Fathers added the Tenth Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In answer to the question, yes, the whole of the Constitution applies against Congress as a boundary, guaranteeing the application of the freedoms secured therein to the people. Where government overreaches, the Bill of Rights freely applies to the people as a shield against an invasive government, guaranteeing the survival of the freedoms inalienably endowed to them by their Creator.

__________________
Copyright Jeremiah G. Dys 2007. May not be used absent express, written permission. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.

5 comments:

Alicia said...

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Right. So my point was this: Pick a power, any power. Say, the power to institute a religion, or the power to restrict public speech. Now, these powers are expressly not given to the federal government; on the contrary, they are denied the federal government. Additionally, these powers are not denied the States. Therefore, Constitutionally, the States may institute a State religion, or employ censorship, and they would not be in violation of the Constitution. If the people of East Dakota want to institute the Lord's prayer in their public schools, no one can use the Constitution against them.

My beef is with the idea that the Supreme Court can judge state and local bodies regarding whether they have violated the Constitution. State and local governments are incapable of violating the Constitution, because it doesn't apply to them! Grr!

By the way, your description of the federal government reminds me of an excellent analogy by R.C. Sproul, Jr. He described the federal gov't once as a joint-stack company. The States are the stockholders. This means the States are in charge, not the stock company. The States deligate certain very limited tasks to the company to make life a little smoother around these parts. The outrageous thing is, today the CEO and officers of the company have turned around and are insisting (with wide approval) that the company is in charge of the States. Everything is upside down. It's like living in Wonderland.

Alicia said...

Oops. I meant "joint-stock" company.

J Aquila said...

I totally get the theology side of Coulter's argument and don't disagree with the theme she is struggling to get across.

The fact of the matter is, this lady is terrible at putting things into proper form, which ends up hurting her political party, and those who she considers as brother and sisters in Christ.

Coulter is nuts if she thinks what she said was not "PC" - plus offensive and /or anti-semitic. Regardless of which religion is true and right, Coulter goes balls out to proclaim that all people under any other "religion" are wrong and must become like her, because she thinks we got it all figured out. Christian-dom has proven otherwise.

The way she represents herself and our beliefs, as a "Christ Follower", was ridiculous. I myself believe I am called to love those who don't know Christ. Not to make them feel inferior and say they need to be upgraded. I get what "upgraded" means, but I don't throw it in their faces, and tell them to get with the program.

I just love them and show them Christ. Calling them out, creating conflict, and insulting their religious beliefs does nothing for the great commission.

Coulter is so right wing that she doesn't get that, and that's why she doesn't speak for me. And that link you sent me is obviously just as much pro-right wing as Coulter, that they'll do anything to defend her actions, not matter how offensive or degrading. I bet they came to her defense when she called our leaders "fags" as well. If I was a professional journalist, trying to make or report the news, I'd simply dismiss this woman, when it comes to someone being "newsworthy"

J Aquila said...

Dys -

I'm not sire where you got that Donny Deucth gets his gollies in the pursuit of making Believers look silly, but I can tell you, from being a fan of his show, religious discussion and rarely if ever comes up during his program. Thus the reason for some of his comments about being offended by Coulter's words, about being a practicing Jew, or about being perfected.

Again, I agree with the doctrine Coulter is fumbling around and using rediculous metaphoric images, to describe. But, the way I choose to show Christ and "love" them, is exactly how I believe Christ commanded us to.

What Coulter did was bring what she believed is the best way to premote conversion to Christianity. To set forth the program, "turn or burn" - which yes - is the truth. We all must admitt our sins and reject our old life, for a new one in Christ.

But who in their right minds would want to with the enourmous Bible thump that they just received from people like Coulter, or Jerry Falwell, or Pat Robertson. All three of these individuals have said some crazy things which makes them look like nuts, and our religion look like the worst alternative out there. There's no love in saying that gays and wicked business people caused 9-11 to happen (Falwell) or Ceasar Chavez needs to be assasinated (Robertson). If you can show me how people who are hurting and need Christ can find truth or love within statements like that, I'll sign up for whatever cool aid their drinking ASAP ... But I sure as hell can't.

To love on people (as Christ loved the Church) doe not mean to tell everyone that they're just fine the way they are, or that Christ loves them regardless of how they are living. To love them is to "have a friend / be a friend" and help people take whatever their next step is, in discovering and learning to be more like Christ. ultimately to have a relationship with Jesus. Plain and simple. I don;t tell people they are so wicked that there is no chance I'd ever invite them to Church, or better yet, hang out in my home, until they learn to call Jesus, there one true Lord and Savior. How would I ever tell the people that need Jesus about him, if I did not first esablish a relationship with them, and let them see Christ through me first?

Coulter did not do this, and I don;t think Duetch would ever consider going to any church that Coulter would ever invite him to. I do think that I could, one day, invite him to come to church with me and reciev a "yes" in reply. but first, I'd have to show Mr. Duetch that my religion cares more about him as a child of God, than his "sin" or religion of choice.

Jesus was a practicing Jew. Remember? Coulter was right when she made remarks about the old testament and the Jews needing to accept the New Testament, but putting those comments in with statements about needing to "be perfected" is not going to come across as the best invitation to try attending a beliver's church.

You have to love people as they are. Hate their sin. Accept your mission and circumstances - and - be Jesus in the flesh for them. I don't know of any other to way to get people to Christ.

Once people see who Christ is and want to be like him, they're persnal decisions and steps taken will turn them away from what keeps them away from knowing the one true God. This is how we win. Taking step by step. Living with and loving those Christ commanded us to love. Walking with them and pointing them the way.

J Aquila said...

So, what are your thoughts on Mitt since you said he might be a great candidate? I'm curious considering the one obvious negative most Christians might have against Romney, being a Mormon.

Obviously I would prefer him over Hillary any day.