Everything Old is New Again: Thoughts on the Constitution by Angelina Stanford

Here is a good article posted on the Circe website  on Wednesday, January 25, 2012.  

A few days ago I stumbled onto a conversation about politics and world affairs. It didn’t take long before someone made the oft-repeated remark that the world is such a different place from when the Constitution was written. The Founders could not have imagined the world we live in, she argued. She stopped short of saying it outright but the implication was that since the world is a different place than the 1780s, the Constitution is irrelevant.

The first problem with this attitude, of course, is that once we reject the law of the land—for whatever reason—anarchy quickly ensues. But leaving that problem aside, I’d like to examine the truth of her statement. Is the world really so different today?

We tend to romanticize the past, especially the time of the founding of our country. We underestimate the incredible difficulty of establishing a new form of government, as if the early Americans had peace and prosperity and very few worries and the idealism of the Constitution was forged in a simpler time and therefore has little relevance in the complex modern world. But a close look at the early days of the Republic provides a very different picture.

Economic Woes

At the end of the Revolutionary War, the fledgling country was faced with a serious economic depression caused by a massive war debt. The government tried to spur on the economy by printing more paper money, which resulted in skyrocketing inflation. The country was broke!

Additionally, banks were foreclosing on homes and property. Outraged citizens who believed that the government was conspiring with banks to abuse the populous did more than “occupy” Washington, D.C. They marched on the town with weapons and intended to overthrow the government.

Foreign Affairs

The early Republic also relied heavily on foreign trade for its economic survival. The truth is there has never been a time when the US was not involved in a global economy—a current popular catchphrase used to distinguish modern America from its allegedly simpler economic past.

To complicate matters, the perpetual European warfare constantly threatened American economic interests. There were some who, as is the case today, insisted that the young country go to war to protect its interests, but the majority preferred diplomacy. It’s nothing short of miraculous that the Founders crafted a foreign policy that was both concerned with avoiding war and with protecting our economy, livelihoods, and safety.

Terrorism

Furthermore, within a few years the fledgling country was faced with attacks from Islamic terrorists. Barbary pirates attacked Americans and the US was drawn into its first foreign military conflict.

Sounds awful familiar, doesn’t it? Of course I suspect that when people speak about how different the world is they are really talking about technology. The girl confirmed my suspicions when she said, “The fact that we are having this discussion on Facebook shows what a different ball game we are in.”

Really? The existence of Facebook negates the US Constitution? I don’t understand why people insist that technology changes enduring principles. Technology does not alter human nature. People are still people and throughout time people have always wanted the same things: personal peace, prosperity, the good life. Technology changes none of that.

If anything, the existence of technology that can destroy multitudes should make us cling even more to the guiding principles of the Constitution. We need more wisdom from the past, not less.

There is no issue confronting our country right now that was not at least in principle in the hearts and minds of those who crafted the Constitution. We may debate how to best apply those principles, but we disregard their wisdom at our own peril.

But when I speak, they are for WAR

In the recent SC GOP debate, Ron Paul argued for a non-interventionist foreign policy.  When he invoked the “Golden Rule,” he was actually “booed” by the audience!  I was amazed by this.  I have to wonder what their response would have been if he had said, “Our Lord Jesus says that we should do unto others as we’d have them do unto us.  I believe that can be applied on a corporate and national level.”  All the other warhawks speak of continuing our non-circumspect international brutality, “They are our enemies; let’s kill ‘em.”  They got the cheers.  It reminded me of what that great warrior-king, David said, “My soul has dwelt too long with one who hates peace.  I am for peace; but when I speak, they are for war.”  Psalm 120.6,7.  When did the Christians in this nation become warmongers?  It is interesting that this article in Christianity Today appeared exactly a year before the jihadist bombing of the Twin Towers.

Ron Paul is not a pacifist.  Neither am I.  But, oh how I appreciate his non-interventionism and reverence for just warfare!  

Dispensationalists for Ron Paul!

I'm not a Dispensationalist, although I agree with some of their framework.  But from what I can understand about Dispensationalism, it holds that the Old Testament promises made to national Israel will be fulfilled to them in nationalistic terms (rather than in the transnationalistic City of God, the Church).  There is debate among dispensationalists as to what the Church's role is in this fulfillment, but they believe in a literal fulfillment, nonetheless.  Some of the promises God made, of course, are 1) that He will establish a Davidic seed as king upon the throne, 2) that He will rebuild the Temple and reinstitute Temple sacrifice, 3) that He will reconstitute them under the Mosaic Law, and 4) that He will secure their sovereignty and give them dominance over the nations.  It is said that "only Dispensationalism clearly sees a distinctive future for ethnic Israel as a nation," and that "this future includes a restoration of the nation with a distinct identity and function."  

For the sake of argument, let's assume they're right.  My question is this - why in the world would dispensationalists not support the only presidential candidate who, being a Christian himself (though not a dispensationalist), agrees with them on the issue of Israel's sovereignty?!  It seems to me that they would want our president to listen to the pleas from Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, petitioning our government to let them alone so that they can be sovereign.  How are the promises of God going to be fulfilled for Israel if Israel continues to be submissive to another nation (the USA), even if that nation, purportedly, "has their best interests in mind."  

So, my Dispensational brother and sisters, isn't it best to support Israel as "Christians" through other means rather than through the means of a baby-killing, warmongering, anti-Christian nation whose troops stationed in the Holy Land can now openly avow homosexuality?  How could God be pleased with such trespassing in the land of promise?  How could God be pleased with us telling Israel what they can and can't do and when and how they can defend themselves?  Are we to be their protectors?  Are we to supply their purse and pull the strings?  They will never be free to be who God called them to be until we get out of their business.  And, furthermore, why not support the candidate who will stop giving Israel's avowed enemies $20 billion a year - much more than we give Israel?  That just doesn't seem very Dispensational to me.  

Food for thought. I'll take mine with some milk and honey.  

The Prideful Lizards of Law

I've been told that herpetological accolades belong to Steven Spielberg for his portrayal of the cold-blooded dragon/dinosaur killers of Jurassic Park.  Close observation of lizards and other reptiles reveal that, unlike mammals, they show no expression of remorse when they kill.  A bear, on the other hand, just as it is killing, wears an expression remarkably resembling something akin to remorse.  Reptiles show no emotion.  They simply do the deed.  And this one reason the metaphor of "snake" applies so appropriately to some men who strike without remorse.  And who is a man like unto this?  

My mentor once told me a story of a presbytery comprised of many ruling elders who were lawyers.  He described how these lawyers always got their way because they knew how to use the law.  Unlike their teaching-elder minister counterparts, who had a more direct approach to matters that came before presbytery, these lawyers would use the rules of presbyterian law to accomplish their agendas.  Understandably, they waylaid the pastors by their schemes and maintained complete control, which made their voices stronger than the ministers'.  They behaved in this fundamentally lawless way until, one day, a new pastor came into the presbytery.  This man was an older minister with much experience.  He immediately assessed the situation and openly opposed what was happening.  He was eventually able to turn things around. 

However, during the period of the ruling elders' lawyerly lawlessness, one pastor was the subject of a particular lizard-lawyer's scheming.  There was an interesting point in the development of this lawyer's scheming when it became obvious to my mentor that he had made his kill-decision.  He had used up other methods of persuasion.  Now it was time to strike in a perfectly lawful, but fundamentally lawless and deadly manner.  And at this decision point, this lizard-lawyer's countenance actually changed.  He became expressionless and pale.  He actually bore the resemblance to a lizard or a snake!  

You see, he was not "evil" in the sense that he consciously knew what he was doing was wrong.  Quite the contrary, this lawyer was completely convinced of the justice of his cause, just like a snake knows when it is right to make the kill.  He became detached from the boundaries of law that would constrain him from his self-justified agenda.  He became superior to the law.  He became a king and lawmaker himself.  But, like a snake, he would not strike openly.  Rather, he would manipulate the law to his advantage.  He would slither through the grass of rules and regulations until he made his strike with the "law" on his side.  This is the essence of pride.  And it is the essence of Satanism.  C.S. Lewis makes makes this point when he says, "According to Christian teachers, the essential vice, the utmost evil, is Pride.  Unchastity, anger, greed, drunkenness, and all that, are mere fleabites in comparison: it was through Pride that the devil became the devil: Pride leads to every other vice: it is the complete anti-God state of mind" (from Mere Christianity).

My mentor's story of the lizard lawyer fits well with Lewis' description, and also with Jesus' description of the Pharisees.  The Pharisees knew how to use the Law of God to their advantage.  They knew how to strike with with violence, complete self-justification and, therefore, without remorse.  It is no wonder that Jesus called them serpents (Matthew 12.34) and sons of their father, Satan the Dragon in John 8 - “You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.” 

And what is a "lie?"  Augustine says that a lie is anything said with the intent to deceive.  This is what the Pharisees were proficient at - they said things that were ostensibly and reasonably true, but were deceitful at bottom.  This is what lawyers are trained to do - to use the "law" to give their arguments the appearance of truth.  But at bottom, they deceive in order to accomplish their agendas.  It is hard to find an honest lawyer or politician (many of whom have training in law) who will not succumb to this temptation.  

The amazing irony is that the Pharisees were recognized by all the people as the "good" men.  They were the common man's theologian.  They were the "right" ones.  They believed this of themselves and the people believed it, too.  And it is every bit the same today with Pharisaical lawyers who become ruling elders.  Most of the people believe they are the right ones, the good ones. The people only see them on the every day basis when they give off their righteous and hearth-like, healthy aura.  But ask the judges who adjudicate their cases about their true nature.  The judges usually see right through their schemes and manipulations.  Ask their fellow lawyers against whom they've tried cases.  Their reputations in their associates' eyes are not nearly so pristine.  For it is when they are in the act of striking that their true snake-like, remorseless natures are revealed.

Men's true natures are revealed not simply in how they obey Law, but in how they use Law.  It is there that we see whether they are humble or full of pride.  If they use law lawlessly, they are playing Satan's hand.  God help us against the dragons of "righteousness" in our civil and ecclesiastical spheres.  

Newtovsky Gingorovich and the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto

Newt’s a communist.  Didn’t you know?  Well, not that that means a whole lot nowadays, since we now live in a communist country. Think I’m exaggerating?  Consider the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto:  

1. Abolish private property and apply all rents of land to public purposes.  Not only does the federal government own half the land in the contiguous states and Alaska, but no private owner owns any land outright.  We all rent it.  If you don’t pay rent, you lose “your” land.  How else can you describe property tax?  In 1979, Newt voted for a massive federal land grab in Alaska - millions of acres.  Check. 
2. A progressive or graduated income tax.  The Yanks accomplished this part of the communist agenda only fourteen years after the Communist Manifesto was published by instituting the first graduated income tax in 1862 to support the War of Northern Aggression.  Not many people know that Lincoln and Marx were big pals and that Lincoln supported the European revolutions of 1848.  When the income tax was constitutionalized in 1914, it started out as a 1% tax.  There was discussion as whether or not to set a ceiling on the tax at 10%, but Congress rejected this for fear that if such a ceiling were set, we might actually, one day get there!  Well, Newt’s all for an income tax and he’s paid lip service to a flat tax, but besides being all for trying to figure out how the government can make more money, his plan still appears to be a graduated tax.  Check.
3. Abolish inheritance rights.  Death tax, estate tax, inheritance tax... whatever you call it, it’s a tax on the transfer of property after death.  Again, we knocked one out in 1862.  Newt has said the death tax is oppressive, but I don’t know how he has voted on this one, so we’ll let him slide here. 
4. Confiscate the property of “rebels.”  Violate government “regulations,” and they’ll shut you down.  Ever seen it happen?  The Act of Congress of July 17, 1862 allows the government "to suppress insurrection, to punish treason and rebellion, to seize and confiscate the property of rebels, and for other purposes."  I’m guessing Gingrich agrees with this plank, but since I don’t know any specific evidence, he gets by again. 
5. Centralize the credit.  That’s the FED Ron Paul’s always talking about, established 1913.  Gingrich likes the FED.  He said he’d fire Bernanke, but he only wants to “reform” the FED, not end it.  Check.
6. Federalize the means of communications and transportation.  Federal Radio Commision, 1927; Federal Communications Commission, 1934, Federal Aviation Agency, 1958, Federal Highway Act of 1916, the list continues...  Gingrich supports the Patriot Act which makes it possible for the government to make it a crime to speak with any group that the government doesn't like.  Check. 
7. State ownership of factories and other means of production, including agriculture.  Think “corn subsidies.”  Think “raw milk is illegal to transport across state lines.”  Think “Hoover Dam.”  Again, the Dept. of Agriculture was established in 1862.  FDR is Gingrich’s hero.  He said FDR brought us out of the Depression.  But the 1930s brought us acreage allotments, price supports and marketing controls in agriculture, and the production and sale of electrical power by the federal government.  Check.
8. Equal liability of all to labor and establishment of industrial “armies,” especially for agriculture.  The National Labor Union hit the scene in 1866, and the list grew.  The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 mandated the 40 hour work week and set the minimum wage scale.  Then came the you-know-what of 1964.  Again, with FDR, we got extensive regulation of private securities, federal intrusion into union-management relations, government lending and insurance activities, and the minimum wage.  Thank you, FDR.  Thank you, Gingrich. Check.
9. Combine agriculture with manufacturing industries and gradually abolish the distinction between city and country.  Food processing companies, with the co-operation of the Farmers Home Administration foreclosures, buy up farms and create “conglomerates.”  Assuming all the above, check. 
10. Public, secularized education, cleansed of all religious “bias.”  The northern States began shifting to public education before the War, but in 1887, federal money began funding education.  Finally, the Department of Education was formed in 1979.  Gingrich voted for its formation as a freshman congressman.  Check.  

So, with an 8/10 score, does that make Gringrich an 80% communist?  I think his granting most-favored nation status to communist China, who now owns most of our debt, brings him to 100%.  And, by the way, can you imagine Mitt Romney scoring any better?  Ha!

Some reasons why Christians like me like Ron Paul

Before giving my reasons for liking Ron Paul, let me say that I do not believe in salvation through the State.  It is always the tendency of the City of man to look to power to save and to depend upon the power of the sword.  I do not think Ron Paul is a messianic figure, nor to I look to him to solve all our problems.  That being said, as a man grateful for our country's electoral process, even if it is corrupted by violent men, I am happy to take up the cause of Ron Paul and the rule of law.  So, why do I like Ron Paul?

1) First, he's a godly and a good man.  He grew up Lutheran but is now Baptist (I don't hold that against him).  He's been faithfully and lovingly married for 54 years (went on his first date with his wife when they were 16).  He's refused his federal pension, and, out of principle and care with taxpayers' money, he has given back $100,000 of his congressional stipend.  During the racial tensions of the 70s, when a black/white mixed couple were in the hospital because she (white) was pregnant, they were neglected by the hospital staff, but Ron Paul helped her in the face of the obvious prejudice against them.  Furthermore, he didn't charge them.  Being pro-life, he's never performed an abortion...  When he was an MD, he never took government subsidies (Medicare/Medicaid) but, rather, treated all his non-paying patients for free and with the same level of care that he gave his paying patients.  The whole of Congress knows and attests that he is incorruptible in office and has never kowtowed to the establishment, nor with lobbyists nor special interests.  Establishment congressmen testify that they will not even approach Ron Paul to try to cut a deal with him because they know he always votes according to principle.  See what a Bush/Cheney strategist said about him.


2) Ron Paul understands and upholds private property rights.  Private property is one of the fundamental Calvinistic principles enshrined in our nation's founding (as well as in seven other modern nations').  The right to private property derives from the positive implications of the Eighth Commandment.  "Thou shalt not steal" implies that humans can possess things which can be stolen.  And the righteous application of the Law in Israel demonstrates that land can be possessed, inherited and protected.  Ron Paul knows the government is not supposed to own land, nor institute laws which either confiscate private owners' land/belongings, or illegally search their belongings, or treat their land as rental property, or violate owners' sovereignty regarding their estates or private businesses.  

3) RP is pro-self-defense. The right and responsibility to defend yourself and your family with force equal to that of your attacker derives from the sixth commandment as the right to protect your property comes from the eighth.  So, RP believes in the right to bear arms.

4) He believes in sphere sovereignty:  The State, the Family and the Church are three major spheres of governance and each is independent of the other, though they may share some mutual responsibilities.  An implication of this is that the State doesn't get to define what the Family is.  This is also both a Biblical and a Constitutional matter.  Not only does this imply that the State ought not be sovereign over education, but it implies that the State ought not be involved in wealth redistribution for the sake of welfare programs.  The State is not the savior.  Ron Paul is not a statist, unlike Romney and Gingrich(!)

5) RP is for a strong national defense.  He knows that the federal government's primary duty is to protect its citizens.  He knows one function of the State is to protect its citizens against foreign or domestic aggression, not mercantilistic nation-building.  He's for removing ourselves from the Middle East so that we will not be such conspicuous targets for the Islamists. Don't believe the globalist's Leo Strauss's neocon lie that they hate us because we're free.  They hate us because we're there.  And I, too, would despise any nation whose troops patrolled my streets with armaments and weapons.  Furthermore, the constitution doesn't allow for congress to allocate our tax money to foreign governments.  And if you're pro-Israel, why send $20 billion to their enemies?  Israel wants to be a sovereign nation!  Ask Netanyahu.  Why not let them?  George Washington warned against entangling alliances.  And we should be pro-Christian whatever nation they're in, rather than pro-Pakistani, or pro-Iraqi.  Our policies over there have resulted in the crushing of our brothers and sisters in Christ in those Muslim countries.

6) RP is anti-federal sponsored welfare.  This goes with point 4, above.  Understanding sphere sovereignty is important.  The federal government has no business providing charity and redistributing wealth.  Charity is the Church's role.  Let the church's operate the hospitals, the orphanages, and charitable aid.  Get the government out of this.  Government is inefficient and, at bottom, doesn't have the heart.  

7) RP believes in Just War.  Augustinian just war theory is one of the foundations of Christendom's civilization.  Christians have historically been opposed to total war which devastates non-combatant and defenseless women, children, elderly, and property.  Unlike the pagans and the Muslims and other non-Christian nations, Christians ought not torture in times of war, nor kill or injure non-combatants.  Ever since Lincoln, the US has waged war unjustly by using total war tactics.  We will be judged for every innocent killed. 

8) He believes in just weights and measures.  The Fed's printing of money devalues our currency which is a moral issue.  It always fattens the rich and oppresses everyone else.  Paul wants to end the Fed and get back to a just standard of currency.  We know from Scripture that God judges nations who devalue their currency and oppress the poor.  See Proverbs 20:10

9) He believes that God gives children to families, not to the State.  Fathers are given the responsibility for educating their children according to godly principles.  The sword is the State's function and education is not a function of justice, therefore, a federal department of education is not only unconstitutional but it is unBiblical.

10) As implied above, Ron Paul is faithful to his oaths.  He takes his oath to uphold the Constitution seriously, even if he knows that the Constitution is not a perfect document.  He knows that in a godly society, the Law is King, not the other way around.  He refuses to use the Law lawlessly, manipulating it to his own ends, even if he would rather there be a different outcome.  I know plenty of lawyers and local politicians and even GOP policy makers, who are perfectly willing to maneuver and manipulate the law (and any other "rule") in order to accomplish their own purposes.  They believe their purposes are right, of course, but they exert their influence  unjustly by using the law lawlessly. 

11) RP is pro-life.  As an MD, he never performed an abortion and when hiring help for his obstetrics practice, his prerequisite was that they agreed with him on this.  Although this is not a legitimate part of a presidential policy platform, we can count on Paul to appoint pro-life justices.  I say this and other things (like de-regulation of drugs, prostitution, homosexual agendas) are not really part of a presidential platform because the president doesn't make the laws.  But Paul's point on this is right - the federal government is not constitutionally permitted to make laws in these areas.  This is the jurisdiction of the states. And, as such, the federal government cannot overturn state laws that outlaw abortion, prostitution, homosexuality, and drugs - which is precisely what happened with Roe v. Wade.  If Paul's principles were in place, there would be a lot fewer dead babies in Texas (and in many other states).  Of course, Paul would support a constitutional amendment regarding any of these civil liberties.  But it's unfortunate that we even have to discuss it.  The Constitution is pro-life.  We just need justices who adjudicate righteously.  

So, there are eleven reasons why I like Ron Paul.  And I believe every Christian (and especially every Presbyterian, and even more - everyone who likes Rushdoony!) ought to hold these convictions.  

Using the Law Lawlessly

It’s been my experience that many lawyers are corrupted because, in law school, they are not taught to respect the law, but, rather, they are taught how to use the law to accomplish their purposes.  Whenever a man, no matter how pure his motives, uses law in order to accomplish what he thinks is right, he uses the law lawlessly and sets himself in the place of God - the arbiter of right and wrong.  But law is not an instrument to be used.  Instead, it is a help to which man submits.  It is made for man (Mark 2.27). 

Our government is full of lawyers.  Our presbyteries are full of lawyers.  And all of them, because they know how to manipulate law, are subject to the great temptation to use it lawlessly.  How they use it reveals their hearts - whether they revere law or whether they disrespect it by trusting to their individuated principles.  It is not a question of doing the “right” thing.  Everyone thinks they are right.  Those who most believe they are right and who most desire to accomplish what is right in their eyes are often much more dangerous to others than those whose consciences admit to their lawless use of the law for their own selfish ends.  A man’s heart is the issue.  Will he submit to law even when it thwarts his desire to institute (what he strongly believes) is right?  Or will he manipulate the law, or even change the law, to accomplish “righteousness?”  The latter, though he be otherwise “upright,” demonstrates fundamental irreverence, fundamental lawlessness.  

Consider the recent threats of the GOP candidates who failed to meet Virginia’s primary requirements to sue the state of VA in order to get their names on the ballot.  As an aside, in my opinion, if a candidate cannot manage his or her campaign well enough to meet the primary requirements of a state, he cannot be trusted to manage the executive branch of our country.  But more importantly, if these men (and woman) are willing to use the court system (or use “law”) to circumvent an established law to their personal advantage, they exemplify the corrupt lawyer.  They are willing to use law lawlessly.  They disrespect the law.  They are, thereby, disqualified from governing.  

Jesus had some hard things to say about the Pharisees.  They knew the law, but they did not love the law.  They used the law lawlessly.  E.g., the law said they ought to provide for their aged parents.  And the law required tithes and alms.  Rather than hurting themselves by giving both alms and provision to their parents, they used one law to nullify the other.  They “served the Lord” and excused themselves from serving the Lord.  

Our congressmen and senators and president are Pharisees.  The GOP candidates who are threatening to sue in order to get their names on the VA ballot are perfect pictures of the lawless use of the law and corrupt Pharisaical “principles.”  We need citizen-congressmen.  Men and women, with their native proclivity to manipulate law, cannot bear up under the constant pressures that come in an environment where this is always the temptation.  We need men who love law, who love the rule of law, who love the law which constituted us as a nation, and who have the heart to keep their oaths to the law.

There are some who are faithful to their oaths.  There is one such GOP candidate who is demonstrably loyal.