There is a vast, profound difference between a constitutionalist — those who believe in and study our Constitutional Republic — and those who believe that more government is the solution.  The difference is neither Republican nor Democrat in origin.  Both parties suffer from the same misconception.

That profound differentiation, between individual freedom and government control, originated in the Declaration of Independence.  Jefferson there enumerates three inalienable rights: life, liberty, and ownership of property.  This single concept is the foundation of our belief.

Constitutionalists believe one thing: that individual rights, liberty, and freedom spring from our Creator, not from any man-made government.  Therefore, when leaders like FDR, Woodrow Wilson, and Obama proclaim a government’s “right” and ability to bestow these inalienable rights upon the citizen, we object vehemently.  This leftward path leads to control, not freedom.

The War, no doubt, gave FDR’s elevation of the freedoms of the first ten amendments a rhetorical appeal, emphasizing a Bill-of-Rights Constitution rather than a Separation-of-Powers Constitution cleared the way for the sorts of policies implicit in FDR’s progressive vision of American public policy. This explains much of the ambition of the early New Deal legislation that largely ignored the traditional limitations on congressional authority, such as the non-delegation (Chevron) doctrine and federalism.

The reason is simple: if rights are granted by a government, or another person, they can be taken away by that same government.  If originated by a higher being, our Creator, then these rights are not subject to the whims of a government body or other men.

Few at the time seemed to notice that this reading was being pushed to help Americans feel better about increases in federal authority.

FDR subverted the intent of the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, to suggest that government could and should provide the individual with these “rights.” From this misunderstanding springs the notion that a government can reduce the liberty and freedom of one person to bestow these “rights” on others. Progressive taxation, subsidies for EV’s, student loan forgiveness, welfare checks, are but a few perversions of the original intent. 

Not only does FDR offer the Bill of Rights as the reason why Americans have enjoyed freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of press, he also insists it is the reason we have “the free schools, the free churches, the labor unions, the religious and educational and civic organizations of all kinds which, without the guarantee of the Bill of Rights, could never have existed.

This is why constitutionalists object to notions of nationalism, tribalism, mob rule, and of course the ultimate mob: “the majority.”  This is why we object to “democracy” as the defining term of our government.  Democracy empowers the majority (50 percent plus 1) to rule the minority, the individual.  The Constitution defines a limited government strictly controlled by the Rule of Law, whose sole purpose is to protect the individual.  The difference is profound. 

Is there something dangerous about Americans thinking that the government has the authority to act in a multitude of undefined ways so long as well-defined individual rights are not violated?

Separation of powers, federalism, and the enumeration of powers were all intended to limit the authority of the federal government and to motivate it to check itself — therein lies the protection of liberty. The first ten amendments were intended and understood to contribute to the institutional structure of the three branches of government and to clarify certain necessary principles of republican government under a written constitution.

Therefore, when a politician offers a solution that imposes new laws, he is offering to place you into bondage.  When a politician suggests a minor increase in taxation, he is setting you up to pay for your own bondage.  When a politician authorizes spending more than the government takes through taxes, that politician is placing you and future generations into bondage.

To willingly place ourselves into bondage is not rational.  Nor is it necessary.

The Rule of Law is clearly defined in our Constitution.  Our republic is sustained and passed on to future generations through individual adherence to original law.  And when the politician, bureaucrat, or agency gets out of line, it’s our responsibility to put him back in place.  That’s how we keep a republic.  It’s up to each one of us.

Jay Davidson is founder and CEO of a commercial bank.  He is a student of the Austrian School of Economics and a dedicated capitalist.  He believes there is a direct connection joining individual right and responsibility, our Constitution, capitalism, and the intent of our Creator.

Image via Pxfuel.