The Principles of Liberty | Principle 22

"A Free People Should be Governed by Law and Not the Whims of Man"

If mankind are governed by the whims of men they are subjected to every changing inclination of sudden illogical changes of mind, ideas, or actions of those in power.  This is ruler's law at its worst.  In this kind of society, no rights are secure and nothing is dependable; things are in a constant state of flux.  Nothing is fixed nor predictable for the future.

The Founders defined law as a 'rule of action', which was binding on the ruler as it was upon the people.  It was designed to give society a stable frame of reference so the people could feel secure in making plans for the future.  John Locke said:

Freedom of men under government is to have a standing rule to live by, common to everyone of that society. and made by the legislative power erected in it.

Under established law, every person's rights and duties are defined.  Such a society gives the people a feeling of liberty, liberty under the law.  The American Founders believed that without the protection of law there can be no liberty.

John Locke also pointed out that unless a society can provide a person with a code of fixed and enforceable laws, he might as well have stayed in the jungle.

To this end it is that men give up all their natural power to the society that they enter into, and the community put the legislative power into such hands as they see fit, with this trust, that they shall be governed by declared laws, or else their peace, quiet, and property will still be at the same uncertainty as it was in the state of Nature.

John Adams also agreed when he said:

No man will contend that a nation can be free that is not governed by fixed laws.  All other government that that of permanent known laws is the government of mere will and pleasure.

 Aristotle said:

Even the best of men in authority are liable to be corrupted by passion.  We may conclude then that the law is reason without passion, and it is therefore preferable to any individual.

 And from this we can see that Aristotle disagreed with his mentor Plato, who believed that that the ideal society should be governed by a few who would rule according to scientific principles and make on the spot decisions and force the people to do what is good for them.  He said that if there was not a man with this scientific knowledge, then law would be required, but it was only the second best thing.

the difference appears to be perspective.  Rather then looking at law as a merely a code of negative restraints and prohibitions, the Founders considered it to be a system of positive rules by which they could be assured of enjoying their rights and the protection of themselves, their families and their property.  John Locke said it best:

The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.  For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom.  For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others, which cannot be when there is no law.

The Founders were sensitive to the fact that people only have confidence in laws that they can understand, as well as feel that it is of relative permanence, which will not be continually changed.  James Madison said this so well:

It will be of little avail to the people that the law are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be revealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow.  Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known and less fixed?

 Thomas Jefferson resigned from the congress in 1776 in order to return to Virginia to make certain that the state laws were rewritten so that when independence had been won, the people would have a model system of legal principles which they could both understand and support.  The complex codes and laws of our day could be similarly improved with such a great housecleaning as Jefferson did for Virginia.  Imagine what James Madison would think of our legislature and senate who pass bills that are so large that they have not read them when they vote on them, that vote on bills that are not yet even written!

The 28 Principles of Liberty | Principle 20

"Efficiency and Dispatch Require Governments to Operate to the Will of the Majority, but Constitutional Provisions Must be Made to Protect the Rights of the Minority"

One of the serious mistakes Of the Articles of Confederation was the requirement that all states must approve in order for any changes to be made.  During the Revolutionary War, there were several vital changes that were suggested, but each time a single state was able to prevent that needed change.

Delaying action like this in an emergency can be disastrous.  Unanimity is ideal, but majority rule is a necessity.  John Locke explained it this way,"When any number of men have consented to make one community or government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude (bind) the rest.  It being one body it is necessary the body should move that way whiter the greater force carries it, which is the consent of the majority, or else it is impossible it should act ot continue one body...And thus, every man, by consenting with others to make one body politic under one government, puts himself under obligation to every one of that society to submit to the determination of the majority, and to be concluded (bound) by it."

Nevertheless, the American Founders had suffered enough from the tyrannical conduct of Parliment to feel highly sensitive to the rights of minorities.  Thomas Jefferson referred to this in his inaugural address on March 4, 1801 when he said: "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression."

Once upon a time, we were all minorities in this nation.  We are literally a nation of minorities.  It is the new-comers that feel that they are not yet first-class citizens.  The United States has built a reputation of being more generous and helpful to newcomers than any other nation.  It is a reputation worth preserving.

The 28 Principles of Liberty| Principle 19

"Only Limited and Carefully Defined Powers Should be Delegated to Government, All Others Being Retained in the People."

There was no principle no more adamantly emphasized during the Constitutional Convention then the absolute necessity to limit the federal government.  Not only was this done by carefully defining the powers delegated to the government, but the Founders were determined to bind down its administrators with legal chains contained within the Constitution.

One of the reasons that many of the states would not adopt the original draft is because they feared the encroachments of the federal government on the rights of the states and the people.  Therefore, the first ten amendments were added to include the ancient, unalienable rights of the Anglo-Saxon so that there could be absolutely no question as the the strictly limited authority the people were conferring on their central government. We can see this by looking closely at the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

The Ninth: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Tenth: "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."

The people felt that it was absolutely necessary to hedge up the federal authority because of their experience with a corrupt and abusive government in the past. 

Alexander Hamilton commented on this by saying, "There is, in the nature of sovereign power, an impatience of control that disposes those who are invested with the exercise of it to look with an evil eye upon all external attempts to restrain or direct its operations...This tendency is not difficult to be accounted for.  It has its origins in the love of power.  Power controlled or abridged is almost always the rival and enemy of that power by which it is controlled or abridged.  This simple proposition will teach us how little reason there is to expect that the persons entrusted with the administration of the affairs of the particular members of an confederacy (the federal government) will at all times be ready with perfect good humor and an unbiased regard to the public weal to execute the resolutions or decrees of the general authority.  The reverse of this (expectation) results from the constitution of man."







The principle of limited government is enforced by the separation of powers between the states and the federal government by design.  The federal government was supreme in matters relating only to its responsibilities and was specifically restricted from invading the independence and sovereign authority that is reserved to the States.  This principle had to be carefully perpetuated for a healthy independence otherwise, the independence of each would deteriorate and eventually one would become dominant.  If it was the federal government that gained dominance, then it would mean the end of local self-government and the security of the individual.  If the States became dominate, then the nation you begin to fracture into smaller units.

The Founders felt that having this balance would make it possible for the people to have recourse if one or the other became dominant or abusive of their powers.  Hamilton said that the people could throw themselves into either scale, that they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress.

The Founder's would have frowned on the 17th Amendment.  The reason for this is because it took away the ability for the states to more effectively protect themselves by their Senators being appointed by the state legislature thereby making it possible for the Senate to veto anything that the House which they considered a threat to the rights of the individual states.  Unfortunately this was wiped out by the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913.  This amendment made the election of Senators by popular vote, stripping the state legislatures of their ability to defend their liberty.  It caused the states to lose the representation at the federal level and the Senators could now be pressured by whatever popular pressures of the day existed during their campaign season, just like the House of Representatives.  Since then there has been no veto power that the states could exercise against the Congress in those cases where a federal statue was in violation of states' rights.  In other words, this amendment is in direct violation of the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution, and it would be wise for the American people to restore their Constitutional powers to the State level as was designed by the Founding Fathers.

The 28 Principles of LIberty: Principle 18

"The Unalienable Rights of the People are Most Likely to be Preserved if the Principles of Government are Set Forth in a Written Constitution."

The one weakness of the Anglo-Saxon common law, was that it was unwritten. Due to the fact that the whole people were aware of the principles, they seemed to be indifferent to writing them down. According to Dr. Colin Rhys Lovell, this was customary until they converted to Christianity. Prior to that, it was unwritten and considered immutable.

It was the Norman conquest that taught the Anglo-Saxons in England a bitter lesson. A majority of their treasured rights disappeared through the flood of blood and oppression. They did regain them very slowly over a period of time, a few centuries, and gradually were written down. In A.D. 1215, King John virtually had a sword held to his throat, due to the national crisis, and signed the Magna Charta, which set forth the traditional rights of the freemen as well as the feudal barons who had been serving under King John.

During that same century, the model parliament came into being which compelled the King to acknowledge that principle of no taxation without representation. Later, in 1628, Charles I was pressured into signing the People's Petition of Rights and the English Bill of Rights was signed in 1689 by William and Mary.

Through the centuries, the British have tried to manage the political affairs with no written constitution and relied on these few documents as a source of reference. They did prove very helpful to the Founders, but they felt that the structure of government should be structured in a more permanent and comprehensive form. So, the tradition if a written constitution in modern times is completely American in principle and practice.

The first written charter for America was the Mayflower Compact of 1620. If became more comprehensive when Thomas Hooker and his associates adopted the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut in 1639. The charter makes no reference to the British Government nor the Crown, but the source of its authority as "We, the people."

Montesquieu said that the writing of a statute or a charter is "oftentimes better regulated by many than by a single person." The Founders agreed with this idea and considered it wise to filter it through the wisdom and experience of many delegates assembled in a convention rather then leaving it to the genius of some individual.

James Madison stated, "It is not a little remarkable that in every case reported by ancient history in which government has been established with deliberation and consent, the task of framing it has not been committed to an assembly of men, but has been performed by some individual citizen of preeminent wisdom and approved integrity. Minos, we learn, was the primitive founder of the government of Crete, as Zaleucus was of that of the Locrians. Theseus first, and after him Draco and Solon, instituted the government of Athens. Lycurgus was the lawgiver of Sparta. The foundation of the original government of Rome was laid by Romulus, and the work completed by two of his elective successors, Numa and Tullius Hostilius. On the abolition of royalty the consular administration was substituted by Brutus, who stepped forward with a project for such reform, which, he alleged, had been prepared by Servius Tullius, and to which his address ontained the assent and ratification of the senate and people. This remark is applicable to confederate governments also. Amphictyon, we are told, was the author of that which bore his name. The Achaean league received its first birth from Achaeus, and its second from Aratus."

It is always difficult to operate through a committee, a group, or a convention as the Founding Fathers did. The final product was far stronger then any individual alone could have written it. And time has also proven the incredible value have having a written document for reference, a standard, rather then relying on a few scattered statutes as the fundamental law of the land.

The 28 Principles of Liberty are adapted from W. Cleon Skousen's Book 'The 5000 Year Leap' and are brought to you by Fragrant Smoke.

The Principles of Liberty: Principle 17

The 28 Principles of Liberty: Principle 17

“A System of Checks and Balances Should be Adopted to Prevent the Abuse of Power”

After John Adams had sold the people on the separation of powers, it must have been shocking to him to see that they wanted to make the separation so complete that it would have made the system unworkable.

The individuals who took a puritanical view opposed the adoption of the Constitution because they wanted the separation complete and absolute. They missed the most important part, and that was that they were to be separate in their functions, but subject to the checks and balances of the other two departments in case it became abusive in performing those functions.

James Madison spent 5 of the Federalist Papers numbers, 47 to 51, explaining why the separation of powers should not be absolute, but should make allowances for a built-in system of checks and balances. He conceded that keeping the three departments separated was fundamental to the preservation of liberty.

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

The purpose of checks and balances is a constitutional control in the hands of each department of government to prevent any usurpation of power by another department or abusive administration of the power granted to it.

The failure to use the checks and balances effectively has resulted in allowing the judiciary to create new laws by pretending to be merely interpreting old laws. Failure to use checks and balances has also allowed the President to make thousands of new laws, instead of congress, by issuing executive orders. It has allowed the federal government to invade the reserved rights of the states on a massive scale. It has allowed the legislature to impose taxes on the people never contemplated by the Founders, or the Constitution. Each department of the government has the responsibility to rise up and protect its prerogatives by exercising the checks and balances which have been provided, and even more so, the people have the responsibility to be the watchmen over their representatives and elect ONLY those that will function within Constitutional boundaries.

James Madison said, “As the people are the only legitimate foundation of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter under which the power of the several branches of government is derived, it seems strictly consonant to the republican theory to recur to the same original authority whenever an one of the departments may commit encroachment on the chartered authorities of the others.”

How do the people protect themselves? Madison sought many different avenues and found that the only protection was within the machinery of checks and balances provided in the Constitution as written.

The three departments are independent, yet reliant on each other to fulfill their functions, so they are mutually dependent. Their resulting system was far more complex then Montesquieu. Here are their provisions:

1. The House of Representatives serves as a check on the Senate since no statue can become a law without their approval.

2. The Senate also serves as the check on the House of Representatives since no statue can become a law without its approval.

3. A President can restrain them both by using his veto to send back a bill not meeting his approval.

4. The Congress has on the other hand, a check on the President by being able to pass a bill over his veto with a 2/3 majority of each house.

5. The legislature also has a further check on the President through its power of discrimination in appropriating funds for the operation of the executive branch.

6. The President must have the approval of the Senate in filing important offices of the executive branch.

7. The President must also have the approval of the Senate before any treaties with foreign nations can go into effect.

8. The Congress has the authority to conduct investigations of the executive branch to determine whether or not funds are being properly expended and the laws enforced.

9. The President has a certain amount of political influence on the legislature by letting it be known that he will not support the reelection of those who oppose his program.

10. The executive branch also has further check on the Congress by using its discretionary powers in establishing military bases, building dams, improving navigable rivers, and building interstate highways so as to favor those areas from which the President feels he is getting support by their representatives.

11. The judiciary has a check on the legislature through its authority to review all laws and determine their constitutionality.

12. The Congress, on the other hand, has a restraining power over the judiciary by having the constitutional authority to restrict the extent of its jurisdiction.

13. The Congress also has the power to impeach any of the judges who are guilty of treason, high crimes or misdemeanors.

14. The President also has a check on the judiciary by having the power to nominate new judges subject to the approval of the senate.

15. The Congress has further restraining power over the judiciary by having the control of appropriations for the operation of the federal court system.

16. The Congress is able to initiate amendments to the Constitution which, if approved by three-fourths of the states, could seriously effect the operation of both the executive and judicial branches.

17. The Congress, by joint resolution, can terminate certain powers granted to the President such as war powers without his consent.

18. The people have a check on their congressmen every two years, on their President every four years, and on their Senators every six years.

The Founders Device for Peaceful Self-Repair

In other nations that copied our constitution, they forgot to incorporate adequate checks and balances. Instead, when a usurper takes over, they must use an army and result to machine guns and bombs to get them out. What the founders wished to achieve in the Constitution of 1787 was machinery for the peaceful means of self-repair when the system when out of balance.

During Watergate, this peaceful process was used. The Congress threatened to impeach, and the President who used his high office for purposes that were outside his scope of authority and the ramifications of legal conduct, he resigned. There was no command of the army to allow him to stay in power; it was a quiet and peaceful transition. This was the primary purpose of the United States Constitution, to have a peaceful means in order to repair distortions of power. While it requires more patience then the use of force, its outcome is much more certain.

The Principles of Liberty: Principle 16

The 28 Principles of Liberty: Principle 16

“The Government Should be Separated into Three Branches-Legislative, Executive and Judicial.”

Polybius, recognized as the greatest of all Greek Historians, lived 204 to 122 B.C. When Greece was conquered by Rome, Polybius was deported to the Roman capital. This is where he quickly recognized the advantages of the Roman republic. He was the author of 40 books of history.

During his day, there were three main types of government discussed; Monarchy, Aristocracy and Democracy. Unfortunately, none of these systems, when allowed to govern, provided equality, prosperity, justice or domestic tranquility for the whole of society. He felt that he understood why this was. Each form carries within itself, the seed of it s own degeneration, if allowed to operate without checks or balances. Monarchy could easily become tyranny, aristocracy sink into an oligarchy and democracy into mob rule by force and violence.

Polybius felt that there were essential elements in each form and questioned why not combine them into a single system? This idea began its birth in the Roman system, but shortly after Polybius died, the Romans abandoned their principles of a republic and chose an emperor instead. So, Polybius’s idea of a system that restrained government from acquiring enough power to abuse the people died with him, until Baron Charles de Montesquieu determined to resurrect it. He wanted to submit this mixed constitution for consideration of modern man.

Montesquieu became one of the best-educated scholars in France. He wrote a book called “The Spirit of Laws”, which has been described as one of the most important books ever written. The final writing took him two solid years. It was greatly admired by the Founders. It documented the practical possibility of a government based on ‘separation of powers’ or a mixed constitution.

In book XI, Montesquieu set forth the ingredients for a model constitution. The Founders used many portions of it as a guide in their own work. The Founders joint effort far exceeded Montesquieu, but he does deserve credit for his contribution.

A single executive was ideal to Montesquieu due to what he witnessed as a weakness of the Roman system in setting up two or more consuls. Having a single person who can make decisions quickly and decisively and cannot escape either credit or blame for the consequences would be ideal.

It was John Adams that pushed the idea of the separation of powers. It was a very revolutionary idea and very unpopular when first presented. It was only Dr. Benjamin Rush that agreed with John Adams at first. In writing a letter to Benjamin Rush, John Adams mentions how Thomas Paine came to talk to him about it. John Adams felt that politics was a divine science and dedicated much of his life to studying it, so that his children and grandchildren may be blessed by his efforts. He started by planting his seeds of separation of powers in Massachusetts.

It was quite the struggle, but he did succeed, and for the first time in the world, a constitution read:

“In the government of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts the legislative, executive and judicial powers shall be placed in separate departments, to the end that it might be a government of laws and not of men…”

Years later, he got his ideas incorporated into the U.S. Constitution, but was never able to gain genuine acceptance for himself. Even though he had been the first U.S. vice president and the second President, he very shortly disappeared into history and was nearly forgotten. It was when scholars started digging into the origins of American constitutionalism that he came into perspective. He, himself, thought that few would remember what he had attempted to accomplish. To a friend he wrote, “Mausoleums, statues, monuments will never be erected to me. Panegyrical romances will never be written, nor flattering orations spoken to transmit me to posterity in brilliant colors.”

His ideas however, did catch on. Pennsylvania revised their constitution to include a separation of powers and Benjamin Franklin, one of the last to be converted, acknowledged that the Constitution of the United States was as perfect as man could be expected to produce, and urged all members of the Convention to sign it.

We close with John Adams aspiration “To see rising in America an empire of liberty, and the prospect of two or three hundred millions of freemen, without one noble or one king among them.”

The 28 Principles of Liberty are adapted from W. Cleon Skousen's book, The 5000 Year Leap and are brought to you by Fragrant Smoke.

The 28 Principles of Liberty: Principle 15

“The Highest Level of Prosperity Occurs when there is a Free-Market Economy and a Minimum of Government Regulations.”

Having a good idea of what was possible with setting up a political and social structure based on natural law, the founders sought for natural law for the market place as well. In 1776 the book “The Wealth of Nations” came out. It was not easy reading, but became the watershed between mercantilism and the doctrines of free-market economics. It fit the experiences and thinking of the Founders.

Thomas Jefferson wrote, “In political economy, I think Smith’s Wealth of Nations the best book extant.”

There was no where on earth that these principles were being practiced by any nation of any consequence. The United States was the first people to undertake the structuring of a whole national economy on the basis of natural law and the free-market concept described by Adam Smith. Among other things, this formula called for the Following:

1. Specialized production: Let every person or corporation of persons do what they do best.
2. Exchange of goods takes place in a free-market environment without governmental interference in production, prices or wages.
3. The free market provides the needs of the people on the basis of supply and demand, with no government imposed monopolies.
4. Prices are regulated by competition on the basis of supply and demand.
5. Profits are looked upon as the means by which production of goods and services is made worthwhile.
6. Competition is looked upon as the means by which quality is improved, quantity is increased, and prices are reduced.

There are four laws of economic freedom:

1. The freedom to try.
2. The freedom to buy.
3. The freedom to sell
4. The freedom to fail.

By 1905 the United States had become the richest industrial nation in the world. With only 5% of the earth’s continental land area and merely 6% of the world’s population, the American people were producing over half of almost everything, clothes, food, houses, transportation, communications, even luxuries. It was a great tribute to Adam Smith.

The Founding Fathers agreed with Adam Smith, that the greatest threat to economic prosperity was the intervention of the government into the economic affairs of private businesses and the buying public. Historically, governments have tried to do this through fixing prices, fixing wages, controlling production, controlling distribution, granting monopolies, or subsidizing certain products.

There are four legitimate areas of responsibility which properly belong to the government.

1. Prevention of illegal force in the market place to compel purchase or sale of products.
2. Preventing Fraud in misrepresenting the quality, location, or ownership of the item being sold or bought.
3. Preventing a Monopoly that eliminates competition that results in restraint of trade.
4. Preventing Debauchery of the cultural standards and moral fibers of society by commercial exploitation of vice pornography, obscenity, drugs, liquor, prostitution, or commercial gambling.

George Washington said, “Let vigorous measures be adopted; not to limit the prices of articles, for this I believe is inconsistent with the very nature of things, and impracticable in itself, but to punish speculators, forestallers, and extortioners, and above all to sink the money by heavy taxes. To promote public and private economy; encourage manufacturers etc.”

After 1900, these principles were lost in the shuffle. Many prominent and influential leaders began to lose confidence in the system. These included wealthy industrialists, heads of multi-national banking institutions, leaders in the academic world, and some of the more innovative minds of the media. The same restlessness was taking hold of similar circles in Europe.

There were many organizations that were demanding that the government get involved in the redistribution of wealth. Many of the problems of the time were created by the very individuals that were demanding a new system. The new system would involve extensive government regulation and outright expropriation of major industries and natural resources. This greatly accelerated the idea of a strong centralized government with regulatory power over every aspect of the marketplace.

By the 1920’s debunking of the Founding Fathers was in full swing. Discussion of the Constitution being obsolete was discussed openly. The ideas of Adam Smith were referred to as out of date, or ancient.

John Chamberlain eventually came to realize what was going on, what the intellectual leaders were doing. They were deliberately tearing down the founders and the free-market economy in order to create a void that they could fill with there new formula. And it was the very economic nostrum that was the very toxin that the Founders had warned about. Chamberlain states that before Franklin Roosevelt that we had the Republic, meaning that the checks and balances were in place, and after 1933 we began to be centralized and there were interventionist controls of industry. That prior to that America had been hallowed out in the Twenties because the colleges ceased to teach anything important about our heritage. You had to be a graduate student to even catch up with the” Federalist Papers” or “The wealth of Nations.” He states that is generation was the ignorant generation. He said that the depression began their education, but the first book in economics that they read was Marx’s “Capital.” They had nothing to put against it, and it laid the foundation brick by brick for Keynes.

W. Cleon Skousen mentions that he too had a similar experience of trying to find America’s roots coming less then a decade behind Chamberlain. He states that the Founders had been relegated for about 25 years at this point. Many had their eyes opened after reading “The Socialist Tragedy,” which explained what socialism had done to Europe. Max Eastman wrote “Reflections on the failure of Socialism,” explaining what socialism had done to America and the world in 1962.

The Founders determined that they would make the American dollar completely independent of any power or combinations of powers outside of the American people. They gave the exclusive power to issue and control money to the people’s representatives, the congress and forbade anyone else from meddling with it.

Not only was congress responsible for issuing the money, but it was to see that is purchasing power remained fixed. In other words, the value of the money was to remain steady and reliable not only in the United States but in relation to foreign money. All money was to be coined in precious metal. Paper notes were to be a promissory note, or a promise to pay in gold or silver. The States were to make certain that they did NOT allow debts to be paid except in terms of gold or silver.

Washington stated, “We should avoid the depreciation of our currency; but I conceive this end would be answered, as far as might be necessary, by stipulating that all money payments should be made in gold and silver, being the common medium of commerce among nations.”
If you are not yet familiar with our monetary system, studying about Fractional banking would be a good start. Jefferson, forsaw that the banks would inflate the economy by loaning out fictitious paper money, with no assets behind it. This would boom the economy and once the financiers had lured borrowers into a precarious situation, they would call for a bust and foreclose on the properties for which the bank had virtually furnished NOTHING. The financiers that gained control of American finance built the economy on debt instead of wealth.



Jefferson, Jackson and Lincoln all tried to get the monetary program turned around so that congress would issue its own money and banks would required to loan on existing assets rather then use fictitious money based on merely a fraction of their assets. At one point when it seemed to be catching on, the London Times came out with a frantic editorial stating:
“If that mischievous financial policy, which had its origins in the North American republic during the late war of that country (the civil war), should become indurated down to a fixture, the that government will furnish its own money WITHOUT COST. It will pay off its debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.”

In close, I leave you with the words of Thomas Jefferson toward the latter days of his life, “We are overdone with banking institutions, which have banished the precious metals, and substituted a more fluctuating and unsafe medium..These have withdrawn capital from useful improvements and employments to nourish idleness..These are evils more easily to be deplored than remedied.” On another occasion he also said, “We are completely saddled and bridled, and…the bank is so firmly mounted that we must go where it will guide.”

The 28 Principles of Liberty: Principle 14

“Life and Liberty are Secure Only so Long as the Right to Property is Secure”

Under English common law, significance was attached to the unalienable right of possessing, developing and disposing of property. Land and the products from it were considered gifts from God, and were to be cultivated, beautified, and brought under dominion. Psalm 115:16 says, “…Even the heavens are the Lord’s: but the earth hath he given to the children of men.”

John Locke pointed out that the human family originally was given the earth as a common gift and they were given the capacity and responsibility to improve it. Locke said, “God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life and convenience.” He also pointed out that men were commanded to subdue it and have dominion over it in Genesis 1:28.

Since dominion means control, and control requires exclusiveness, private property rights became an inherent aspect of being able to subdue the earth and bring it under dominion. Without private individual property rights, it would have been completely legal for someone to come and take the property that another had cultivated, taking the fruits of their labor. And even then, without property rights, someone stronger then he could come and take the property from him.

If there were no property rights, four things would occur, that would frustrate the Creator’s command to multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it, bring it under dominion.
If the example above occurred, then it would completely destroy the incentive of an industrious person to develop and improve more property.

The industrious person would also be robbed of the fruits of his labor. This would also encourage bands of robbers to be tempted to go around the country and confiscate by force and violence all the good things that others had painstakingly and frugally acquired.
Until finally leaving men to exist on a level of hand -to -mouth survival because if they had gained any property of significance, they would be robbed.

Locke also pointed out the fact that property is an extension of a person’s life, energy, and ingenuity. So, to destroy or confiscate such property is to literally attack the life of that individual. When an individual has cultivated a farm, created a thing of beauty, or secured a wage for their labor, they have literally projected their very being, the very essence of their being, the very essence of their life into that labor. The work of our hands and the labor of our bodies belong to us.




Locke also brings up an important question, If all things were originally enjoyed in common with the rest of humanity, would and individual have to get the permission of every other person on earth before he could call certain things his own? Locke has said, “That Labour … added something to them (the acorns or apples) more than Nature, the common mother of all, had done, and so they became his private right. And will any one say he had no right to those acorns or apples he thus appropriated because he had not consent of all mankind to make them his? If such consent as that was necessary, the man would have starved, notwithstanding the plenty God had given him….It is the taking any part of what is common, and removing it out of the state Nature leaves it in, which begins the property, without which the common gift of God is of no use. Thus this law of reason makes the deer that property of the Indian that hath killed it; it is allowed to be his goods who hath bestowed his labor upon it, though, before it was the common right of every one.”

It is important to recognize that common law doesn’t make property sacred, but only the right which someone has acquired in that property. Justice George Sutherland of the U.S. Supreme Court once told the New York State Bar Association:

“It is not the right of property that is protected, but the right to property. Property, per se, has no rights; but the individual, the man, has three great rights, equally sacred from arbitrary interference: the right to his life, the right to his liberty, the right to his property. These three rights are so bound together as to be essentially one right. To give a man his life but deny him his liberty, is to take from him all that makes his life worth living. To give him his liberty but take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty is to still leave him a slave.”
Abraham Lincoln also said, “Property is the fruit of labor. Property is desirable, is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently to build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence…I take it that it is best for all to leave each man free to acquire property as fast as he can. Some will get wealthy. I don’t believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good.”

Early American colonists have much to say on this topic because it was a critical issue leading to the Revolutionary War. The effort of the Crown to take their property through various kinds of taxation without their consent was denounced as a violation of the English constitution and English common law. They often quoted John Locke, “The supreme power cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own consent. For the preservation of property being the end of government, and that for which men enter into society, it necessarily supposes and requires that the people should have property, without which they must be supposed to lose that property by entering society, which was the end for which they entered into it.”
John Adams saw private property as the most important single foundation stone undergirding human liberty and human happiness. He said, “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. PROPERTY MUST BE SECURED OR LIBERTY CANNOT EXIST.”

As we have pointed out earlier, one of the worst sins of government, according to the founders, was the exercise of its coercive taxing powers to take property from one group and give it to another. In our own day, when the government has imposed upon us a multiple trillion dollar budget with a portion of it directly coming from “transfer payments” from the tax paying public to the wards of the government, the following words from James Madison may sound strange:
“Government is instituted to protect property of every sort…This being the end of government, which alone is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.”

In the early years of the American courts it was held unlawful to take property from one group and transfer it to another and completely outside the constitutional power delegated to the government. It was not until 1936, that the Supreme Court began to distort the meaning of the general welfare clause and started to permit the distribution of federal bounties for the poor and the needy. Before this time, it was completely prohibited.

The Supreme Court had declared, “No man would become a member of a community in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labor and industry. The preservation of property, then, is a primary object of the social compact… The legislature, therefore, had no authority to make an act divesting once citizen of his freehold, and vesting it in another, without a just compensation. It is inconsistent with the principles of reason, justice and moral rectitude; it is incompatible with the comfort, peace and happiness of mankind; it is contrary to the principles of social alliance in every free government; and lastly it is contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution.”



Dr. Ludwig von Mises made this observation, “If history could prove and teach us anything, it would be the private ownership of the means of production as a necessary requisite of civilization and material well-being. All civilizations have up to now been based on private property. Only nations committed to the principle of private property have risen above penury and produced science, art and literature. There is no experience to show that any other social system could provide mankind with any of the achievements of civilization.”

A question yet remains, if it corrupts a society for the government to take care of the poor by violating the principle of property rights, who will take care of the poor? The answer of those who built America seems to be “Anybody BUT the federal government.”

Americans have never tolerated the suffering and starvation which has plagued the rest of the world, but until the last generation help was given almost exclusively by the private sector or on a community or state level. In his day, President Grover Cleveland vetoed legislation designed to spend federal taxes on private welfare problems. He stated that there was no warrant for such an appropriation to be found in the Constitution and that government should not be in the position to extend itself to the relief of individual suffering, which is not related to public service or benefit. He felt that this type of expansion needed to be resisted that the lesson be enforced that “Though the people support the government the government should not support the people.” He mentioned that friendliness and charity always came through fellow-citizens. Creating systems like this he said, would weaken our national character.

The 28 Principles of Liberty are adapted by Charity Angel from W. Cleon Skousen's book "The 5000 Year Leap" and are sponsored by Fragrant Smoke, your place for incense and incense burners.

The 28 Principles of Liberty: Principle 13

“A Constitution Should be Structured to Permanently Protect the People from the Human Frailties of their Rulers.”

At the Constitutional Convention, the Founding Fathers had to answer the following question: “How can you have an efficient government, but still protect the freedom and unalienable rights of the people?”

The Founders had much more confidence in the people then in the leaders of the people, especially if those leaders are trusted, even if those leaders were themselves. They felt that the greatest of all danger arises when the people so completely trust a leader that they feel no anxiety to watch him and what he is doing. The Federalist: A Commentary on the Constitution of the United States (Modern Library Classics)Alexander Hamilton wrote, “For it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that people are commonly most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those toward whom they entertain least suspicion.”

Over two hundred years of American history have demonstrated the wisdom of the Founders in proclaiming a warning against the human frailties of their elected or appointed leaders. Every unconstitutional action has been justified because it was for a ‘good cause.’ Every illegal transfer of power from one department to another has been excused as ‘necessary.’ The expansion of the government in Washington is in direct result of trusting political leaders. Thomas Jefferson used all the force that he could muster by tongue and pen when he wrote: “It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights; that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism; free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy, and not confidence, which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power; that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no farther, our confidence may go…In questions of power, then, let no more be said of confidence in man, BUT BIND HIM DOWN FROM MISCHIEF BY THE CHAINS OF THE CONSTITUTION.”

The Real George Washington (American Classic Series)George Washington also made this very clear. The Founders saw the government as a very volatile instrument of explosive power which must be harnessed, by an strictly interpreted Constitution, or it would destroy the freedom it was designed to preserve. He Said, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence-it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”



Additionally, James Madison: Writings: Writings 1772-1836 (Library of America)James Madison said, “It may be a reflection on human nature that such devices as Constitutional chains should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?....If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. But lacking these, in framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: YOU MUST FIRST ENABLE THE GOVERNMENT TO CONTROL THE GOVERNED; AND IN THE NEXT PLACE OBLIGE IT TO CONTROL ITSELF.”

And this is what the Constitution is all about, providing freedom from abuse by those in authority. Those who say that the Constitution is obsolete just because social and economic conditions have changed do not understand this. The Constitution was designed to control something that has not changed, and that is human nature. Therefore, the original A Glorious Standard for All MankindConstitution will never be obsolete.

The Founders also knows that the loss of freedom comes through gradual erosion of constitutional principles, and it not always so obvious that the people detect it. Madison stated, “I believe there are more instances of abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations…This danger out to be wisely guarded against.”

In 1785 Madison stated that it is right to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. Having prudent jealousy was the first duty of citizens and one of the great characteristics of the The Revolution: A ManifestoAmerican Revolution. The Freemen of America did not wait for usurped power to strengthen itself, they acted, and because they acted, they avoided the consequences that come when denying this principle.

You might ask, where will abuse leaders encroach, where are they likely to attack? Are their some basic rights which aggrandizing politicians seek to destroy first? The Founders said there was. And the Founders said we should especially concentrate on the preservation of one particular right because all other rights are related to it. We will discuss this in principle 14.

The 28 Principles of Liberty are written by Charity Angel, and are adapted from W. Cleon Skousen’s book “The Five Thousand Year Leap ” Learn more about the 28 principles of liberty at http://theprinciplesofliberty.com/

Educate Yourself!! Buy Your US Constitution Study Suite NOW!!