Posted on 05/26/2010 6:10:06 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
America as we see it today is not the same nation as the America in which my parents grew up. It is certainly not the America that was founded over 230 years ago by a group of patriots who had just won a war of liberation against the most powerful monarchy in the world at that time. These changes, this degradation of America, has accelerated in the last 40 years, however, as a moral sea change swept over this land, driven by the purposeful rejection of America's Christian foundations and the system of government that was influenced and established under their auspices.
Let us make no mistake — while America was not founded as a Christian nation in the sense of the establishment of Christianity as the state religion, nevertheless America was a Christian nation at her inception. The entire warp and woof of society was permeated with the biblical worldview. Our Founders, realizing the truth of the Christian doctrine of the inherent sinfulness of man, established a government in which power was divided at the federal level between three competing, contrary branches with specifically-defined powers. Further, political power was divided between what was supposed to be a relatively weak federal government and the state governments. The intention underlying this choice was to dilute the ability of any one man or group of people from being able to exercise power, naturally corruptible, over their fellow citizens. This intention, we must understand, was a spiritual and moral one, based upon biblical understandings of the nature of man....
(Excerpt) Read more at renewamerica.com ...
This is the secret of the great United States. I believe the Pope sees it as well in his call for a new evangelization of the West!
I'm continually amazed how many people buy this claptrap. Here's a different view:
"Where are your checks in this government? Your strongholds will be in the hands of your enemies. It is on a supposition that your American governors shall be honest, that all the good qualities of this government are founded; but its defective and imperfect construction puts it in their power to perpetrate the worst of mischiefs, should they be bad men; and, sir, would not all the world, from the eastern to the western hemisphere, blame our distracted folly in resting our rights upon the contingency of our rulers being good or bad? Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt...This, sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility — and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves.
Patrick Henry, June 5th, 1788
PH’s comments weren’t specifically aimed at the constitutional separation of powers, but against the general notion that *any* government established by men could be maintained off the simple goodness and honesty of those participating in it. The “checks” described in your quote are not referring to the ones referred to in the article.
Yes they were:
If we admit this consolidated government, it will be because we like a great, splendid one. Some way or other we must be a great and mighty empire; we must have an army, and a navy, and a number of things. When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: liberty, sir, was then the primary object. We are descended from a people whose government was founded on liberty: our glorious forefathers of Great Britain made liberty the foundation {54} of every thing. That country is become a great, mighty, and splendid nation; not because their government is strong and energetic, but, sir, because liberty is its direct end and foundation. We drew the spirit of liberty from our British ancestors: by that spirit we have triumphed over every difficulty. But now, sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country into a powerful and mighty empire. If you make the citizens of this country agree to become the subjects of one great consolidated empire of America, your government will not have sufficient energy to keep them together. Such a government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism. There will be no checks, no real balances, in this government. What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances?Ibid
Zech 1:3
Marking
I’ve never read that before. Thanks for posting it.
I see paganism as an excellent weapon against Islamic influences in our country.
No they weren’t, he’s addressing the character of the American people, not the reasoning behind why the Founders included the system of checks and balances which they did into the Constitution.
My pleasure. Patrick Henry’s speeches from the Virginia Ratifiying Convention are extremely illuminating. They lift the fog of romantic attachment to the Constitution and expose it for what it was and is—a mistake.
Patrick Henry was da man!!! God bless the Commonwealth.
Congress, by the power of taxation, by that of raising an army, and by their control over the militia, have the sword in one hand, and the purse in the other. Shall we be safe without either? Congress have an unlimited power over both: they are entirely given up by us. Let him candidly tell me, where and when did freedom exist, when the sword and purse were given up from the people? Unless a miracle in human affairs interposed, no nation ever retained its liberty after the loss of the sword and purse...I should be led to take that man for a lunatic, who should tell me to run into the adoption of a government avowedly defective, in hopes of having it amended afterwards. Were I about to give away the meanest particle of my own property, I should act with more prudence and discretion. My anxiety and fears are great lest America, by the adoption of this system, should be cast into a fathomless bottom.
Patrick Henry, June 9th, 1788
"There will be no checks, no real balances, in this government. What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances?
It's not even debatable.
We are told that this government, collectively taken, is without an example; that it is national in this part, and federal in that part, &c. We may be amused, if we please, by a treatise of political anatomy. In the brain it is national; the stamina are federal; some limbs are federal, others national. The senators are voted for by the state legislatures; so far it is federal. Individuals choose the members of the first branch; here it is national. It is federal in conferring general powers, but national in retaining them. It is not to be supported by the states; the pockets of individuals are to be searched for its maintenance. What signifies it to me that you have the most curious anatomical description of it in its creation? To all the common purposes of legislation, it is a great consolidation of government.June 9th, 1788
Patrick Henry was a hero. It’s sad that his views did not prevail. But I accept that as the will of Providence. All the same, I find it useful and valuable to understand what the reality of the situation is. If nothing else, it saves a lot of time and mental power. It frees one from the romantic attachment to the Constitution and this continual pining about “if only they would follow it” or “go back to the Constitution.” Now, when I hear such talk, I just shake my head. It could be worse, I suppose. But it could have been a lot better too. Such is life.
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.We witness the actions of these "men disposed to usurp" every day in our current government.
Obviously, Henry was correct.
This analysis is correct. We have been considering these issues for years. See our articles:
http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/the-bible-and-government
http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/socialism-not-compassionate
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.