Against All Enemies; R. Bearce

Robert Bearce AGAINST ~TIf~ALL ENEMIES Part! THE elected and appointed officials of our federal government take an oath of office before undertaking their constitutional duties. Let's take a look at that oath, expressed as a question and answered by UI do." Do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the Con stitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose ofeva sion; and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to en ter: So help you God? In this three-part series, Robert Bearce of Houston, Texas identifies the basic principles of limited gov ernment as set forth in the Constitution of the United States. He shows how we have forsaken many of the basics, and points the way toward a restoration of freedom.

In response to their oath of office, our Congressmen and Senators an swer uI do," but do they really mean it? Unfortunately for the cause of freedom, the oath of office has often become only a hollow formality. Too many members of the adminis trative, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government have failed to ((support and defend the Constitution of the United States" and ubear true faith and allegiance to the same." The Constitution has been misin terpreted, abused, and subverted. As it continues to be violated, we should see how freedom is gradually being destroyed. The word (~destroyed" might ap pear to be somewhat harsh, but it is appropriate. We ought to heed a warning made by Patrick Henry in 515 516 THE FREEMAN September 1775, not long before the opening shots of the War for Independence were fired at Lexington and Con cord. Henry clearly understood how freedom was being threatened by oppressive government rule. He warned against indifference, com placency, and apathy.

Ult is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be ofthe number ofthose who, hav ing eyes, see not, and having ea~s, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." By ((temporal salvation," Patrick Henry meant the preservation of freedom-the freedom to work and provide for our personal lives as we best see fit. Henry and other patriots believed that freedom meant indi viduals had the ability and respon sibility to plan their own lives with out unnecessary government inter vention. That freedom was being threatened, and Henry was telling the colonists to wake up and con front the danger before them. His admonition applies to us today.

If we truly want to strengthen freedom and regain what we have already lost, we will pledge our selves to defending the Constitution. We cannot support our Constitution, however, unless we face the fact that it is being continually ignored and betrayed. It is time that we give some serious thought to the Con stitution. Protection from Enemies Foreign and Domestic The Founding Fathers who framed our Constitution in 1787 knew that individuals have certain unalienable rights-Hlife, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," as earlier expressed in the Declaration of Independence. These rights were God-given rights. No government or constitution gave them to the indi vidual. Rather, the purpose of gov ernments and constitutions was to protect these basic, God-given rights. The Founding Fathers compre hended how and why people behave the way they do. Men like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton understood human nature. They saw that some human beings would always resort to force, deceit, war, stealing, and killing to get what they wanted. Thus, there was an obvious need for government-legit imate, just government to carry out two main functions: (1) protecting free people from foreign enemies and invaders; 1980 AGAINST ALL ENEMIES 517 (2) protecting honest, self-re sponsible, hardworking citizens within the nation from domestic lawbreakers who would use coer cion, fraud, or force to deprive others of ttlife, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Good government would do the above, and the Founding Fathers outlined that kind of government in our Constitution. Just as they gave the government certain authority, they also placed limitations on gov ernment power. The framers of the Constitution realized that while government was needed to protect individual freedom, government it self had to be placed within limited, strictly defined boundaries. IT gov ernment was not restrained, it would destroy individual liberty and lead to tyranny. Government had to be controlled. James Madison ex plained the matter: ttIt may be a reflection on human nature that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is govern ment itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? ITmen were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to gov ern men, neither external nor inter nal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a govern ment 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."

When Madison wrote that gov ernment should ttcontrol the gov erned," he was thinking about necessary government laws re quired to maintain impartial law and order-law and order that pro tected individual liberty. This issue of defending individual rights and limiting the power of government is the central theme of the Constitu tion. Preserving Personal Liberty Four aspects of the Constitution show the Founding Fathers' concern for preserving personal liberty within the boundaries of limited government. First, we have a written constitu tion. Having the powers of govern ment and the rights of the citizenry spelled out in print is no assurance that freedom will be observed, but a written constitution does act as a safeguard to liberty. When the Con stitution is snubbed or disregarded, we can at least hold up a warning hand and say something to the ef fect: ttStop, government bureau crats! The law you have just passed is unconstitutional. The Fifth Amendment says . . ."

Second, our Constitution provides for a republic. That is, we have a republican form of government based upon the citizenry electing representatives to carry out the 518 THE FREEMAN September functions of government. The Founding Fathers did not frame a constitution that would set up a democracy-a kind of government where political power lay directly in the hands of the people. Under a pure democracy, the citizens of the state would exercise popular vote to decide what laws should be made. The majority view would be regis tered and then carried out by the administrative hand of the central government. There would be no rep resentation (legislative branch of government) between the citizenry and the administrative branch of government. A democracy might appear to be more ((democratic" than a republic, but the authors of the Constitution knew· that a democracy would lead to a loss of individual freedom . . .

followed by anarchy or tyranny. While the Constitution was being considered for ratification by the Massachusetts Convention, Moses Ames observed: ((It has been said that a pure de mocracy is the best government for a small people who assemble in per son.... It may be of some use in this argument ... to consider, that it would be very burdensome, subject to faction and violence; decisions would often be made by surprise, in the precipitancy of passion, by men who either understand nothing or care nothing about the subject; or by interested men, or those who vote for their own indemnity. It would be a government not by laws, but by men." The Dangers of Democracy Seeing the dangers of a democ racy, the Founding Fathers adopted a republican form of government. It is true that the history of our nation shows that a republic can suffer the very weaknesses of a democracy that Ames described, but the fact remains that a republic comes nearer to preserving individual rights than does a democracy.

Madison and others rejected popu lar vote as the method of making laws. Instead, Article I of the Con stitution provides for representation through the election of Senators and Congressmen to the Senate and House of Representatives. These legislators would represent us and make laws-laws that should pro tect and promote individual free dom. The government was to be guided by clearly defined laws, not by direct majority rule, which would lead to oppression. Although Thomas Jefferson did not participate in the work on the Constitution, he understood why a republic was superior to a democ racy. He also knew what the basic purpose of a republic was: ((The true foundation of republican govern ment is the equal right of every citizen, in his person and property, and in their management."

1980 AGAINST ALL ENEMIES 519 A republic meant a government that allowed the people of the United States to work freely, as sociate freely, and otherwise plan their own lives in the way they pleased-equal rights shared by all citizens. Speaking of the national or central government of the United States, Article IV, Section 4 of the Consti tu tion says: ((The Uni ted States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall pro tect each of them against Inva sion ..." (emphasis added). A third principle of our Constitu tion that defends individual liberty is federalism. When we speak today about the ((federal government," we refer to the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the central government located in Washington, D.C. In the minds of the Founding Fathers, though, federal govern ment was an all-encompassing term used to describe a nation made up of sovereign states-a nation com posed. of a central or national gov ernment (the folks in Washington, D.C.) and state governments (Dela ware, South Carolina, Connecticut, etc.).

Notice that the Constitution recognizes that the United States are, not uis," a union of sovereign states. Article III, Section 3 reads: ((Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies ..." (emphasis added). Al though the Founding Fathers con sidered themselves as Americans and citizens of a unified nation, they also considered themselves citizens of separate, self-governing states. The United States were considered in the plural, not the singular. Thus, treason against the United States was against them, not it. This fact stresses the federalist nature of the government established by the Con stitution. The Separation of Powers to Protect the Citizenry The Constitution provides for federalism that grants some powers to the national government and other powers to the states. This fed eral separation of powers acts as a safeguard to personal freedom.

Federalism places the burden of lawmaking and political decisions upon power units close to the super vision of the citizenry. The Found ing Fathers did not want the na tional government in Washington, D.C., telling the people of Virginia or North Carolina what to do. Thus, political power was distrib uted among the different state, county, and local governments, enabling the people to govern them selves. This widespread distribution of authority makes it more difficult for one power unit to infringe upon the constitutional rights of the citi zens.

520 THE FREEMAN September The Founding Fathers provided for another form of separation of powers. This is the fourth aspect of the Constitution's defense of indi vidual liberty. The national gov ernment, or, as we say, the federal government, was split up into three separate branches with each branch having distinct, limited powers. Basically, the executive branch of government headed by the Presi dent and his Cabinet carries out constitutional laws and duties. The legislative branch made up of the Senate and House of Representa tives makes the laws, while the judi cial branch (the Supreme Court and federal courts) decides whether or not laws have been violated in light of the Constitution. Three Branches of Government The authority and powers of the three branches of the federal gov ernment are balanced and checked by one another. For example, the President can veto laws passed by Congress. Congress, on the other hand, can withhold funds from executive agencies. Although Con gress can pass legislation, the Su preme Court has the power to declare certain laws unconstitutional, mak ing them null and void. The Presi dent appoints federal judges and various civil servants, but the Sen ate can refuse to ratify major ap pointments. The federal judiciary can find individuals guilty of crimes, but the President has power to grant pardons and reprieves.

This separation of powers, like federalism, should act as a checks and balances system to keep gov ernment from going beyond the boundaries of its constitutional au thority. No single branch of gov ernment should have the combined power to make, interpret, and en force laws. The United States Constitution is really a remarkable document. It is a monument to personal freedom. The Founding Fathers distrusted government, and they attempted to shackle political power when they adopted the Constitution. It restricts government to the primary respon sibilities of providing for the com mon defense, maintaining domestic security and peace, and protecting individual rights. The Bill of Rights When we think of individual rights, we usually have in mind the first ten amendments to the Con stitution, the Bill of Rights. Much has been written about the first eight amendments which include assurances of freedom of religion, speech, and press . . . the right to bear arms . . . the right to trial by jury, etc. Not enough is said, though, about the Ninth and Tenth Amend ments.

The Ninth Amendment states that uThe enumeration in the Con1980 AGAINST ALL ENEMIES 521 stitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This amendment assures the in dividual that he has other rights besides those listed in the Constitu tion and previous eight amend ments. These unnamed rights can not be taken away just because they are not mentioned in the Constitu tion. We have such rights as ((the pursuit of happiness," not included in the Constitution but stated ear lier in the Declaration of Indepen dence. Now look at the Tenth Amend ment: uThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitu tion, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This important amendment says that all powers not granted by the Constitution to the national gov ernment are retained either by the states or individual citizens. Like wise, all powers not prohibited by the Constitution to the states are left in the hands of the states or people themselves.

Unfortunately, many of our gov ernment officials today act as if the Ninth and Tenth Amendments do not exist. They have twisted the meaning of the Constitution and the role of government. They look upon the Bill of Rights as rights granted to us by a supposedly benevolent government. In reality, the first ten amendments are a list of prohibi tions against government interfer ing with those rights. Our legis lators should listen to Daniel Web ster. Webster was only a youngster when the Constitution was ratified in 1788, but in later years he earned the reputation of being (~The Defen der of the Constitution." During a Senate speech in 1830, he declared: ((Thepeople, then, Sir, erected this government. They gave it a Con stitution, and in that Constitution they have enumerated the powers which they bestow on it. They have made it a limited government. They have defined its authority. They have restrained it to the exercise of such powers as are granted; and all others, they declare, are reserved to the states or the people."

A Framework for Freedom The Founding Fathers knew that the basic responsibility of govern ment was to serve as a ~(watchdog" to maintain a free society of free individuals working together freely. Improved working conditions . . . better education ... good health care ... material progress-all of these are goals that people work toward. The purpose of government is to ensure the necessary freedom that will permit individuals to work for those goals through self-respon sibility, individual initiative, the free market, and voluntary ex522 THE FREEMAN change. Government has the re sponsibility of providing a framework that will allow individ uals to achieve prosperity and dig nity on their own. The Founding Fathers were not men who felt that the purpose of government was to plan, formulate, and then implement specific ways to achieve the goals of a nation. Gov ernment was not to be in the busi ness of providing public housing or job training through its political, economic, or social legislation. Gov ernment was not to mold society but, instead, allow society to mold itself freely.

Let's consider some advice from Jefferson: ((... Still one thing more, fellow citizens-a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of in dustry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government .... " We need to see how far we have strayed away from the Constitution. Not only is government poking its bureaucratic nose into where it should not be, it is not fulfilling one of its primary constitutional responsibilities-deterring crime. Government is supposed to prevent, prosecute, and punish crime, but now government itself has become the lawbreaker of the Constitution. The Enemy Within Many· of our public officials have broken their oath of office. They affirm or swear that they will sup port the Constitution and defend it ttagainst all enemies, foreign and domestic." There is the foreign threat of Marxist subversion and aggression. More dangerous, how ever, are the domestic enemies individuals whose actions and at titudes are corrupting the Constitu tion. Those individuals include some of the very government officials sworn to uphold the Constitution.

Actions by the executive, legisla tive, and judicial branches of the federal government have proven that many officeholders apparently do not understand the Constitution. If they do know what the Constitu tion stands for, then we should hold them responsible for willfully re pudiating their oath of office. Two tasks are before us. First, we must have a firm appreciation for the Constitution. Second, we must have a clear understanding how and why the Constitution is being de fied. Until we face the truth, we will slide steadily towards the eventual destruction of freedom in the United States. , (Editor's note: Part II of ttAgainst All Enemies" will appear in the next issue of The Freeman.) Henry Hazlitt HOWTO RETURNTO GOLD THE economic letter of the Texas Commerce Bank, dated April 18, discussed the problems of returning to the gold standard, and decided that such a return should not be attempted. The bank's discussion reveals a number of misconceptions of how a gold standard functions. As these misconceptions are probably widespread, they are worth analysis.