Reasserting the Spirit of 76

Wesley H. HiIlendahl is Vice President and Director of the Economics Division of the Bank of Hawaii.
      This article is from an address of November 19, 1980, before the Hawaii Chapter of the Freedoms Foundation at Valley Forge.

A fresh spirit of change is in the air. It has swept into the Office of President a man who, as the Governor of California, has shown his dedication to the principles of limited government. It has carried into ascendancy in the halls of congressmen who by their records have dem onstrated their commitment to support constitutional principles which were designed to protect individual liberty.

Let us seek the roots of that spirit. Perhaps we may find the key to curing what the ]ate Dean Clarence Manion termed “Cancer in the Constitution.”[1]

An examination of the Declaration of Independence will produce several important clues: “(Men) are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . . among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” “. . . to secure these rights governments are instituted . . . deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Government is to be founded on principles and its powers organized in such form “most likely to effect safety and happiness.”

Men capable of expressing thoughts such as these had of necessity developed an inbred sense of self-reliance. They were God-fearing, Bible-reading people who were accustomed to taking responsibility for their own actions. Whence would they likely receive guidance for these ideas of liberty? We know they invariably looked to the Bible as the source of inspiration and direction. So let us follow their steps.

James, the President of the church at Jerusalem, was eloquent in translating the spirit of the Old Testament law into Christianity. In Chapter 1:25 he wrote: “But whoever looks into the perfect law of liberty and abides in it is not merely a hearer of the word which can be forgotten, but a doer of the work, and this man shall be blessed in his labor.”[2] In Chapter 2:11, James ad monished those who have broken the commandments: “You have become a transgressor of the law . . . so speak and act as men who are to be judged by the law of liberty.”[3] This clearly denotes that individuals are to be held responsible for their choices and actions. Irresponsible actions are to be judged accordingly.

Paul wrote from Corinth encouraging the Galatians to maintain Christian liberty. Chapter 5:1, “Stand firm therefore in the liberty with which Christ has made us free, and be not harnessed again under the yoke of servitude.” In Romans 8:21 we find that servitude is the bondage of corruption. Then in Galatians Chapter 5:13 and 14, “For my brethren you have been called to liberty, only do not use your liberty for an occasion to the things of the flesh, but by love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one saying that is: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Underlying liberty is freedom of choice. We are admonished to make only responsible choices. Our actions should focus on service rather than on the accumulation of wealth as an end in itself. To live within the laws of the Commandments also includes the prohibition of making laws which institutionalize greed, envy, lust, or coveting of property. So herein is the spirit of the law.

The Purpose of Law

As to the purpose of law, we may turn to the great English judge, Sir William Blackstone, who said “The principal aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights which were vested in them by the immutable laws of nature . . . . The first and primary end of human laws is to maintain and regulate those ‘absolute’ rights of individuals.”[4] The Frenchman, Frederic Bastiat, in his pamphlet on The Law wrote: “We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life—physical, intellectual and moral life . . . . Life, faculties, production—in other words, individuality, liberty, property—this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.

“Life, liberty and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place . . . . The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do; to protect persons, liberties, and properties; and to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.”[5]

Constitutional Law—Power to the People

In the United States Constitution we find a codification of the Biblical laws. It provided for the protection of life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. It provided for the freedom of choice of individuals with implied self-responsibility for their actions, and the protection of indi viduals against those who would abridge or infringe those rights. A society wherein individuals are free to choose requires a government supported willingly by the consent of the governed. Individuals who choose to be free must be willing to support laws which protect the rights of all others who choose to be free. This constitutes a free and open society wherein each can choose to serve God and mankind in the ways of his own choice, free from the will of others.

At the same time, the men who drafted the Constitution accepted the fact that individuals are corruptible. They are subject to temptation; they can be envious, and greedy; they may steal, or covet property. As someone has said, each man has his price, and it is indeed a rare individual who is totally incorruptible, given the opportunity to gain power. So their principal concern was how to develop a legal framework that would prevent corruptible individuals or groups from acquiring power to infringe on the rights of other individuals. The key word is power. The division of power, fragmentation of power, and the checks and balances of power extend through the entire fabric of the Constitution. A horizontal division of power was provided in the form of legislative, executive and judicial separation. A vertical division of power appears in the form of the federal, state and local governments. The goal was to limit opportunities to concentrate powers taken from the people.

Limiting the Government

The Bill of Rights includes a set of specific “thou shalt nots” which were designed to constrain the federal government from infringing on specific individual rights. In substance, the Constitution is a document which was designed to hold in chains the powers and authority of the federal government along with those who would use government to further their own ends.

For such a system to survive requires a continual effort toward maintaining the distribution and balance of power at all times. During a speech in Ireland on July 10, 1790 John Curran warned, “The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance.”

The guarantees of “freedom to”-to choose, to try and to fail—can only be made under a government which is restricted from interfering with individual choices. In contrast, the constitution of the Soviet Union and the United Nations charter are vehicles of unlimited power. Their goals of “freedom from”—from war, disease, want, unemployment and the like—can only be enforced by an unlimited central authority and bureaucracy.

Being aware that neither the Constitution nor statutory law can ever change the nature of man, nor force him to be what he cannot or will not be, we may ask how successful were the framers of the Constitution. We live in an imperfect world. It is an imperfect Constitution and we are imperfect individuals. Yet for nearly two centuries with freedom of opportunity the people of the United States increased their standard of living more rapidly than did those of any other nation in the world. Given the choice, the acid test is whether one would rather live in the United States or somewhere else in the world. The vast influx of legal and illegal aliens speaks for itself.

The Problems of Government—Man Was Made Vain

Yet we are troubled today; inflation, unemployment, economic instability, housing shortages, high taxes, high interest rates, are but a few of our problems. How do the conditions underlying the problems of today compare with the concerns and grievances of the Founding Fathers? Let’s look again at the Declaration of Independence. The signers were concerned about “relinquishing the rights of representation in the legislature.” Today we are concerned about centralized government and administrative law.

In 1776 they were concerned about being “exposed to dangers of invasion from without and convulsions from within.” Increasing numbers are concerned about our defense posture today and the problems of internal unrest.

They complained that “judges were dependent on the will (of the King) for tenure of their offices.” Today’s judges are political appointees who, to a significant extent, legislate according to their ideologies rather than seek precedent for decisions.

The Founders were concerned about “a multitude of new offices,” and we are concerned about burgeoning bureaucracy.

They were concerned about “imposing taxes without our consent.” Who isn’t concerned today about high taxes, consent or otherwise?

They were concerned about “deprived . . . benefits of trial by jury.” Today administrative law has gone a long way to the same end, and has altered fundamentally the forms of government.

They complained about exciting “domestic insurrections among us.” Today who is not concerned about crime and personal safety? The very survival of our system is threatened by the encroachment of a totalitarian ideology.

Are we not faced again today with the problems of 200 years ago? We are in fact encountering an ageless collision with a destructive ideology. Paul wrote in his letter to the Romans 8:20, 21, “For man was made subject to vanity . . .” (Definitions of vanity include, “inflated pride of one’s self,” or “emptiness, worthlessness.” We may ponder the significance of this polarity of meaning.) “For man was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who gave him free will in the hope that he would choose rightly. Because man himself shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the Children of God.”

Or perhaps more clearly, man (of) himself shall be delivered . . . Man only by his own choice of responsible thoughts and actions can achieve the soul growth that is required to achieve grace, and entrance into the Kingdom of God.

But in fact, has he chosen “rightly”? In spite of the commandment “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s property,” we have permitted laws to be passed which, taken all together, confiscate almost half of our neighbor’s property via taxes in the vain concept of doing good. These vain thoughts manifest in a number of syndromes:

• The “welfare” syndrome which enforces the privilege of the few at the expense of the rights of the individuals who constitute the body politic.

• The “free lunch” syndrome which looks on dollars sent from Washington as free. If we don’t get them someone else will.

• The “meddling in the affairs of others” syndrome in which individuals feel compelled to attempt to solve the problems of others rather than minding their own business and concentrating on solving their own problems.

• Similarly, the “let George do it” syndrome considers today’s problems to be too complex to be solved equitably at the state or local level—they must be sent to Washington.

• The “exploitation” syndrome in which the producers in society are held to have victimized those less stationed. Therefore the producers must be chained with regulations and their ill-gotten profits must be taxed away.

• The “victims of society” syndrome maintains that criminals are the innocent victims of society—they cannot be held responsible for their crimes or misdeeds; therefore they must be pampered and “rehabilitated” rather than punished, while many live in fear that they may be the next victims.

• Finally, the “homogenized milk” syndrome which is destroying all natural affinity groups and is forcing all people to live and work together on the basis of a “social adjustment” formula of equality based on race, color, creed, or whether one fancies dogs, cats, horses or white rats.

These syndromes are all manifestations of an ideology that is anathema to liberty. They reflect the attitude of those who lack faith in the ability of each individual to solve his or her own problems; hence, a forced redistribution of society is necessary to overcome maladjustments.

The thermometer of a redistributive society is what? Inflation. Inflation is a measure of the maldistribution of wealth via government—no more, no less. The underlying motivating forces and the mechanics of inflation are complex and widely misunderstood. Yet no one in good conscience can deny the necessity to help those who are in a condition of misfortune. However, today much redistributed wealth is going to those who have established vested positions of privilege. The consequence is that regardless of how legitimate a given cause may be, the total burden of aggregate causes on the nation has exceeded the carrying capacity of its productive re sources to the point where inflation is an unavoidable condition. The problem goes far deeper than any transient federal administration, its roots extend back through decades. Inflation is the manifestation of vain thoughts and ideas applied cumulatively since the Civil War. It represents the misapplication of free will and an accumulation of a vast number of wrong choices.

The Redistribution of Power

What have been the mechanics of change wherein these false doctrines have gained ascendancy?

Dr. Cornellius Cotter, Professor of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin, appeared before a special Senate committee in April, 1973.[6] He remarked: “You know, Senator Mathias, it has been said—and, I think wisely so—that if the United States ever developed into a totalitarian state we would not know it. We would not know that it had happened. It would be all so gradual, the ritualism would all be retained as a facade to disguise what had happened. Most people in the United States, in official position, would continue to do the sorts of things that they are doing now. The changes would have all been so subtle although so fundamental that people generally would be unaware.”

Senator Church responded, “That is the way it happened in Rome, is it not?”

Dr. Cotter: “Indeed.”

Senator Mathias: “No Roman was more deferential than Augustus.”

Dr. Cotter: “Exactly.”

Senator Church: “And kept the Senate happy, although the Senate had lost its power.”

So this age-old collision of ideas is producing very subtle changes in the power structure of the United States. The mechanism of change involves power, its balance and the concentration. Four simultaneous flows have been underway for a century: (1) Power from the Congress to the Executive Branch, (2) power from the Congress to the Supreme Court, (3) power from the states to the federal government, and (4) power from individuals to the government.

Judicial Abuses

Let’s examine some of these flows of power. First, the Supreme Court. The Bill of Rights expressly forbids the federal government to interfere with the fundamental personal liberties of individuals in this society. That’s clear enough. As an outfall of the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868. This amendment forbids the states to interfere with the rights of the people. However, it had a devious intent, namely to give Congress control over the people of the South. But in 1873 the Supreme Court thwarted that intent in the “Slaughterhouse Cases.” For half a century an ideal situation prevailed in which both the federal government and the states were constrained by the Constitution and its amendments from interfering with the liberties of the people.

However, in more recent years a subtle but profound change has been effected by the Supreme Court. Dean Clarence Manion wrote, “. . . . For the 32 years of service together on the Supreme Court, Justices Black and Douglas have been repetitiously citing each other as authority for a gross and gratuitous misconstruction of the First and 14th Amendments.”[7]

“The accumulation of these malignant constitutional misconstructions of the first eight amendments with the 14th has placed a cancer near the heart of our constitutional system which is proliferated with each successive term of the United States Supreme Court.”[8] Essentially, today the Court has legislated its jurisdiction over the rights of people by effectively merging the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment and reversing its position in 1873.

The specific consequences of the Black and Douglas decision were highlighted in an editorial which appeared in the San Diego Union: “The United States Supreme Court has returned three more decisions drastically altering the pattern of American life.

“For more than 15 years now the Court has been steadily rewriting the laws and reinterpreting the Constitution to suit the ideological bias or judicial whims of its mere-hers . . .

“In recent days the Supreme Court has ridden over states’ rights abolishing residency requirement for relief, sidestepped a ruling in a case of burning the American Flag, and placed further restrictions on law enforcement by freeing a convicted rapist because the police took his fingerprints in some legal hocus-pocus . . .

“. . . Court majorities in those 15 years have returned more than 30 decisions . . . . have brought about basic and often demoralizing changes in the fields of politics, criminal procedure, religion, race relations, subversion and communism, antitrust laws and obscenity.

“The Court has told the states how they are to portion their legislatures, granted avowed Communists the run of defense plants; made a criminal’s confession almost impossible to use; approved even secondary school demonstrations against the South Vietnam war; banned prayers or reading of the Bible in public classrooms; ruled that passports cannot be withheld from Com munists just because they are Communists; and held that deserters from the armed forces, even in wartime, cannot be stripped of citizenship . . . .

“In the notorious Keylishian case, a majority opinion held that a college professor may not be dismissed for teaching and advocating, in college, or anywhere, the overthrow of our government by force and violence . . .[9] The Court, once the ultimate in both prudence and jurisprudence, is now the darling of the liberal radicals; it has done for them what the Congress has refused to do.”[10]

This is a most concise summary of the consequences of the Court’s abrogation of states’ rights and the jurisdiction of Congress.

Courts Take Charge as Congress Forfeits Control

At this point, the more perceptive will grasp the real issue which underlies the polarization of the Nation concerning the Equal Rights Amendment. Under the facade of women’s rights, the real objective is to deliver the jurisdiction for defining the rights of all individuals into the hand of a congress which has already defaulted its jurisdiction to the legislative whims of the Supreme Court. At the heart of the opposition to ERA are those who recognize its passage would give validity to the Supreme Court’s abridgement of the Bill of Rights, and encourage further intrusions into the private affairs of individuals.

As a curtain over these actions, a myth has been erected which holds that Supreme Court decisions are the “Law of the land.” It presumes that once the Court takes a position on a case, every similar case would be adjudged that way. In actuality, each ruling is the “law of the case.” It is possible for a court, made up of the same or different justices, to arrive at a different interpretation if it were to rule on a similar case.

Under a second myth, the prevailing belief is that Congress has no control over the Supreme Court, hence, Congress has no way to redress the sorties of the Court into the legislative arena. Such an alleged lack of control is far from fact. Congress enacted the first Federal Judiciary Act in 1789 and this act has been employed to apply its unquestioned constitutional power over the jurisdiction of all Federal courts.

The Congress by a wide margin recently voted to deny the Supreme Court the right to spend appropriated funds to conduct hearings into school busing cases, in effect, denying the court jurisdiction.

Dean Clarence Manion held that a major step will be taken toward rectifying the consequences of the Court’s unconstitutional decisions when the Congress restricts, abolishes or controls selected types of appellate jurisdiction of both the Supreme Court and all other Federal Courts.[11] A federal court system comprised mainly of judges and justices who are committed to upholding the original tenets underlying the Constitution, can do a great deal to curb the judicial misuses and excesses which have prevailed in re; cent years.

Legislative Abuses

For many decades the Supreme Court routinely struck down as unconstitutional various acts passed by Congress which infringed on the Bill of Rights. However, over the last two decades the Congress, taking its cue from the Black-Douglas Supreme Court decisions, has enacted a number of bills which have intruded ever-increasingly into those rights which were originally held to be out of bounds. These intrusions are being felt by the public in their opportunities for employment, work environment, on the highway, in the air, while shopping and banking, in schools, among family relations and in the home. While obviously accomplishing some benefits, the bulk of this legislation has been undertaken in response to the highly vocal, sometimes rowdy, pressure of special-interest groups. In the main, these intrusions have caused vast numbers of people to become outraged, resentful and rebellious.

In its attempts to legislate social justice and equality, the Congress has cut to the core of the mores of the incredibly complex but generally balanced and tolerant American society.

The wisdom of those who insisted on including the Bill of Rights in the Constitution is gradually seeping into the subconscience of all but the most hardheaded advocates of reform by coercion. It would be a wise Congress indeed that undertook to reverse or modify these unconstitutional intrusions which prior congresses have made over the years.

Executive Abuses

The scope of the powers of the executive branch has been expanded enormously, particularly in recent years. Authority of the office of the President has increased while departments, commissions, boards and agencies have proliferated.

Professors Cotter and Smith determined that the powers entrusted by Congress to the Executive Branch can be grouped in four categories: (1) Powers over persons, (2) powers to acquire property, (3) powers to regulate property, and (4) control of communications.[12]

Executive Orders: The President normally employs Executive Orders to implement the efficient conduct of the daily routines of the office.[13] However, several presidents have employed Executive Orders to conduct international relations and to effect legislation.

For example, President Roosevelt used an Executive Order in 1933 to establish diplomatic relationships with the Communist regime in Russia at a time when it was unlikely that such action by Congress would have been supported by a consensus of the people.

Under the pressure of time, the President has employed emergency orders properly in the declaration of national emergencies. However, one would believe that matters as basic as the legal framework for the conduct of government under such national emergencies would be given extensive examination by the Con-cress in the process of passing suitable laws. Such is not the case.

President John F. Kennedy issued a series of Executive Orders in 1962 which established a comprehensive legal framework to deal with any national emergency as defined by the President or the Congress.[14] On its face, this would appear to have constituted an unwarranted intrusion into the legislative process.

On October 11, 1966 President Lyndon Johnson issued Executive Order 11310 which continued the process by transferring the authority granted under the emergency orders from the Office of Emergency Planning to the Department of Justice.

President Richard Nixon also gave attention to updating the emergency orders while in office.

Early in the 1970s Congress became sufficiently concerned about the existence of national emergencies that the Senate established a Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency.[15] This led in 1976 to the passage of the National Emergencies Act.[16] This act terminated all existing declared emergencies and established procedures and limits for the declaration of future national emergencies.

The matter took on new impetus when, on July 20, 1979, President Jimmy Carter issued two new Executive Orders:

(1) E.O. 12148 Federal Emergency Management, which authorized a thorough overhaul of both civil and war emergency procedures and placed them under a newly created Federal Emergency Management Council.

(2) E.O. 12149 Federal Regional Councils, which established councils for ten standard federal regions, their principal function being to implement federal programs.

Taken separately or together these Executive Orders provide wide-ranging ramifications when analyzed from the point of view of the powers delegated to these Councils. While these structures may be thought of as logical provisions for the implementation of federal policy, increasing numbers of states are taking the position that Regional Councils constitute a major intrusion into their autonomy.[17]

Such widespread reaction would lead one to conclude that a deep rift has developed in the power structure as a consequence of the thrust underlying these Executive Orders. As a consequence of these and other Executive Orders, a broad review by Congress of their use and abuses should lead to establishing guidelines which define appropriate uses of Executive Orders by the Executive Branch.

Administrative Law: The myriad of statutes, regulations and codes by which the various departments and bureaus of government administer their operations under the Executive Branch constitute administrative law. In large part they are established to implement details of the broad language of the acts of Congress. These regulations are essential to the smooth and orderly functioning of government.

Nevertheless, the structure of departments which combines executive, legislative, and enforcement or judicial functions, provides a concentration of power and authority which lends itself to potential bureaucratic abuses. Among many possible examples, congressional hearings have revealed that the detailed statutes developed in administering the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) went far beyond the intent of the act, and provided the basis for executive abuses and deliberate harassment, in particular of small business. Many are aware of instances in which the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department, using the charge of conspiracy and restraint of trade, has imposed fines and/or jail sentences though the accused firms and their officers were innocent. These firms chose to make payment under a plea of nolo contendere because the legal fees required to establish their innocence would exceed the fine.

Administered properly, government agencies should facilitate trade and commerce, and protect the various interests of the people. At best, administrative law can only regulate, prohibit, or constrain individuals or groups from imposing on the rights of others. However, in increasing numbers of cases the bureaucracy has gone far beyond its legitimate functions. One may find dozens of magazine and newspaper articles reciting wasteful or counterproductive bureaucratic activities, and arrogant abuses of power.

Today the friction and costs to society of the bureaucracy have reached destructive proportions. These excesses must be brought again under control. The implementation of reforms is too broad a subject to address here. A comprehensive report by the Heritage Foundation[18] has recommended a broad platform of reforms to President-Elect Reagan “to roll back big government.” Included are specific recommendations concerning Executive Orders and administrative law. Implementation of these recommendations should go a long way in restoring a proper balance of power.

Revitalizing the American Dream

The foregoing are but a few examples of the restructuring of power which has been achieved during the last century. They have been selected to illustrate the vast departure from the spirit in which the Constitution was written some 200 years ago. As a consequence, people in all walks of life—both the providers and the recipients of government aid—are hurting as they have never hurt before. The thermometer—inflation—shows that the waters of our economic and political environment are approaching the boiling point. Not one amongst us is immune to the heat.

In the face of these adversities, a new spirit is emerging in the land. The new religious revival extending from neighborhoods to nationwide television is a new expression of the old Spirit of ‘76. People are going back to basics. They are thinking, questioning, and organizing.[19]

The overwhelming choice by the electorate of a new administration dedicated to redressing these abuses of power is a manifestation of the revival of the spirit.

The retirement of many congressmen who have aided and abetted this misdirection of power, together with the election of other congressmen who affirm the original precepts of the Constitution are further manifestations of the spirit.

Yet this is only a beginning. We must not expect miracles from any administration, nor can any of us escape the painful process of readjustment. We are presently in a position to achieve a victory in this battle. But the foes in the ageless war for the minds of men are not to be easily vanquished. It will require years of unrelenting effort to overcome the damages which have been incurred by the Republic.

We know in our hearts that cold, impersonal welfare will never succeed loving charity. Government can never provide security to replace self-reliance. No government can accomplish those things we must do for ourselves if our souls and spirits are to expand. If we are to restore the American dream we must never again become complacent and allow ourselves to be overridden by those who are in a vain quest for false goals.

Let us again restore the balance between spiritual and material values. The institutions of church and state are inseparable, they are as inseparable as two ends of a rope, each is a manifestation of the spirit and substance of society.[20] We may recall that the spirit of liberty was heralded from every pulpit during our Revolutionary War. I maintain that Spirit of ‘76 has never really disappeared, we have simply allowed it to become encrusted with false doctrine.

Paul offered words of encouragement: “Stand firm therefore in liberty with which Christ has made us free. Be not harnessed again under the yoke of servitude . . . . the bondage of corruption.” James urged us: “So speak and so act as men and women who are to be judged by the law of liberty.” Let freedom-loving individuals prevail by reasserting the Spirit of ‘76. []

1.   Clarence E. Manion, Cancer in the Constitution (Shepherdsville, Ky.: Victor Publishing Company, 1972).

2.   Holy Bible, trans. George M. Lamsa (Philadelphia: A. J. Holman, 1957). This version is translated into English from the Aramaic, the language of Jesus and is recognized for accuracy and clarity of expression.

3.   The law of Liberty within the context of Bible usage expresses freedom of choice with con sequences. All thoughts and actions cause reactions for which we are to be held accountable. The Law of Liberty is the Christian counterpart of the Sanscrit term, Karma.

4.   James Mussatti, The Constitution of the United States, Our Charter of Liberties (Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., 1960), p. 9.

5.   Frederic Bastiat, The Law, trans. Dean Russell (Irvington~on-Hudson: Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., 1950), pp. 5,6,7. (The Law was first published as a pamphlet in June 1850.)

6.   U.S. Congress, Senate, Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency, National Emergency, Part I Constitutional Questions Concerning Emergency Powers, Hearings before the Special Committee of the Senate, 93rd Cong., 1st sess., April 11,12, 1973, p. 29.

7.   Manion, p. 33.

8.   Ibid., p. 35.

9.   As a consequence of this Supreme Court decision, by 1975 an estimated 2,000 campus “radical economists” who “respect the point of view of Mao” and who believe in “a socialism of affluence” were members of the Union of Radical Political Economists. (Los Angeles Times, December 21, 1975).

10.   San Diego Union, April 28, 1969.

11.   Manion, p. 27.

12.   C. P. Cotter and J. M. Smith, Powers of the President During Crises (Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs Press, 1960).

13.   Executive Orders are issued by the President, reviewed by the Office of Legal Counsel and published in the Federal Register. They become law unless rescinded by Congress within a specified period of time.

14.   Executive Orders including numbers 10995, 10997, 10998, 10999 and 11000, 11001, 11002, 11003, 11004, 11005 and 11051 define procedures during war, attacks or other emergen cies for executive control of communications, energy, food and farming, all modes of transportation, civilian work brigades, health, education and welfare functions, housing, public storage and so on.

15.   U.S. Congress, Senate, National Emergency.

16.   National Emergencies Act, U.S. Code, vol. 50, sec. 1601—51 (1976).

17.   Extensive hearings on regional governance have been conducted by legislative committees in a score of states. The proceedings of these hearings appear in bulletins published by the Committee to Restore the Constitution, Inc., P.O. Box 986, Fort Collins, Colorado 80522.

18.   Charles Heatherly, ed. Mandate for Leadership (Washington, D.C.: Heritage Foundation, 1980).

19.   For an example of grass roots organization see “The Pro-Family Movement: A Special Re- pert” in Conservative Digest 6 (May/June 1980). Responding to this movement, Senator Paul Laxalt has introduced S. 1808, The Family Protection Act, designed to strengthen the American family and to promote the virtues of family life.

20.   Into the artfully contrived rift between church and state has been driven the wedge of Humanism. According to the book The Assault on the Family, “As a religion, Humanism de mands the end of all religions that are God oriented, and the abolition of the profit-moti-vated society, so that a world utopian state may be established which will dictate the distribution of the means of life for everyone.” See “Our Last Opportunity” in Don Bell Reports, November 13,1980.

The history of liberty is a history of the limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it. When we resist, therefore, the concentration of power, we are resisting the processes of death, because concentration of power is what always precedes the destruction of human liberties.

—Woodrow Wilson

Related Articles


{{}} - {{relArticle.pub_date | date : 'MMMM dd, yyyy'}} {{}} - {{relArticle.pub_date | date : 'MMMM dd, yyyy'}}
{{article.Topic.Topic}} {{article.Topic.Topic}}