pt1
The Contract
On may 14 1787 Ordinary people who were elected by the people in their respective states, attended a meeting in Philadelphia that would become the single most important event in the emerging nations history. To date the importance of the moment is buried in a shroud of mystery, (at least to my mind considering the lack of information dealing with the contractual basis of the Documents). It is my intention within the confines of this Blog, to ILLUMINATE the darkness that has cloaked this momentous occasion. We are well informed as to the deliberations that took place with regard to representation from the states to the Federal Government as well as HOW much Authority (and subsequently) power, would be allowed by the people to the CENTRAL Government. Many Famous quotes were born out of this struggle for a balance of power that was difficult to obtain with agents for the English crown as well as Jesuits from the Vatican, actively seeking adherence to the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta stood as the English's Contract with the Holy Roman Church allowing all property held by the English or their chattel, to fall under papal Rule. The Church then felt strongly that the emerging American nation should rightly belong contractually by implication, to the Vatican. However the Americans won the war against the English and in so doing, they obtained their remedy from Obligation to the Contract. Now being free from Contractual Obligation, the American Nation sought to create their own Contract that would stand as their standard and Principle from which all other contracts would derive.
The date of 1787 then finds this young contractually unencumbered nation in the midst of deliberation that would produce several documents that have far reaching implications. Let's examine first the Constitution. The drafting of the Constitution created a NEW CONTRACT. This contract was approved by the people and signed by all those who intended to bring into being this central Government. The Constitution is by all accounts a FEDERAL CHARTER. It places limitations on the scope and size of this Governmental entity being brought to life. The Federal charter mandated that it would (as well as all treaties UNDER it) be the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. Now let's examine something for a moment. We have a contract do we not? In contract LAW the creator of the contract becomes what? The holder in due course. So quite Literally the creators became the Holder in Due course. In order for them to fulfill the elements of a contract these important issues had to be met.
1. Meeting of the minds (mutual consent)
2. offer and acceptance
3. Mutual consideration
4. Performance or delivery
5. Good faith
6. No violation of LAW
Whether or not the elements of a contract were met, have been debated. Lets take a look. An examination of the Federalist Papers reveals there was certainly a meeting of the minds that took place, this fact is non-debatable. Moreover there was mutual consent by those present as well as the Ratification by the states as Prima Facie evidence to this fact. There certainly was an offer and the Ratification was acceptance. Mutual consideration existed as the elements were present namely certainty of expressed contract, mutual assent, language construction and mutual understanding, consideration, and finalization by signature. The debated issue comes at consideration. Was there proper consideration? Let's take a look.
Consideration is the exchange of value between the contract participants. We must first identify the parties. The Parties present were citizens of the SEVERAL STATES. Yes that's right the federal government did not exist and so had no say in the contract. The peoples identities were ON the state. So the parties identified in the contract were the States. The people belonging to the BODY POLITIC making the state gave the state it's ability to contract by standing as BENEFICIARY of all things contracted by said state. So what was the consideration? The states gave up as Value some of each of their autonomy, money, citizens for service, and an amount of legal jurisdiction among the leading elements.
So this Contract was a contract BETWEEN the STATES for the creation of a central Government. So who was the HOLDER IN DUE COURSE? The states. By what Authority? The people. Who are then the beneficiaries? The people. The people control the states who then in turn control the central Government. That was the Contract.
Additional documents were drafted as well. Namely: The Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. What exactly was the purpose of these Documents when the contract was the Constitution? Let's take a look at the Declaration of Independence (as the Bill of Rights sort of takes care of itself and we will address this later). This document is the most unique in the group. Why would I say this? Because in the history of the world no other peoples ever gave 'Constructive Notice of Intent' to their emerging Government. Yes, the Declaration of Independence is actually 'Constructive Notice of Intent' by the PEOPLE themselves aside from state representation. This becomes the central document then OF THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE. Why was the notice CONSTRUCTIVE? Because the Government did not yet exist as an entity. This document becomes vitally important in view of the inevitability of Government turning oppressive. Let's look at some quotes from the framers with this in mind........
History, in general, only informs us what bad government is.-
Thomas Jefferson
"Our properties within our own territories [should not] be taxed or regulated by any power on earth but our own."
-Thomas Jefferson
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Benjamin Franklin
If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare... they may appoint teachers in every state... The powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.
- James Madison
But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.
John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, July 17, 1775
Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it.
John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776
At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account.
Thomas Jefferson
The message becomes clear. But for the scholarly mind perhaps Jefferson was too idealistic and is easily dismissed with a casual, “No man in his right mind would think that way today” mantra in the vein of “Modernism”. Having made that statement it behooves the writer to then search through “Modern” thinkers in order to find a commonality. This would undoubtedly prove that some ideals are timeless and cannot be marginalized.
Sandoz (a Hermann Moyse jr distinguished professor of political science and Director of the Eric Voegelin Institute for American Renaissance Studies ) was a graduate from Louisiana state University with a B.A in 1951 and an M.A in 1953. His writings include:
The Politics of Truth and other Untimely Essays: The Crisis of Civic Consciousness (U. Mo. Press, 1999);
A Government of Laws: Political Theory, Religion and the American Founding (LSU, pb. 1991; 2nd ed., U. Mo. Press, 2001); Political Sermons of the American Founding Era, 1730 to 1805 (Liberty Press, 1991; 2d ed., 2 vols., 1998)
Eric Voegelin's Significance for the Modern Mind (LSU, 1991); Published Essays, 1966–1985, vol. 12,
The Collected Works of Eric Voegelin (LSU, 1991); Published Essays, 1953–1965, ibid. (CW, vol. 11 [2000]); Published Essays, 1940–1952, ibid. (CW, vol. 10 [2000])
Republicanism, Religion and the Soul of America; and Vol. 34 of Collected Works, Autobiogaphical Reflections (rev’d edn), Glossary of Terms, Cumulative Index, ed. with introductions by Ellis Sandoz (both U. Mo. Press, 2006).
The Roots of Liberty: Magna Carta, Ancient Constitution, and the Anglo-American Tradition of Rule of Law (Missouri, 1993; 2d ed. Liberty Fund, 2008)
Political Apocalypse: A Study of Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor, 2d ed. rev. (Wilmington, Del.: ISI Books);
The Voegelinian Revolution: A Biographical Introduction, 2d ed. rev. (New Brunswick, N. J.: Transaction Pubs., Rutgers University);
Ellis Sandoz wrote the introduction to the 2004 a revised edition of Eric Voegelin, Science, Politics and Gnosticism, ed. ( ISI Books).
Let's see if we can find a commonality between writers so far removed one from the other by time.
The first work will deal with his book a government of Laws. In this book Sandoz claims, “The thread of abiding interest lay in a sense that much of the usual fare relating to the American political order obscured as much as it clarified by not exploring the intellectual, spiritual, and institutional roots of American experience. There is more to America than many academicians have dreamt of and certainly a great deal more to it than most are prepared to write about”.
This is the preface to his work and right out of the gate he attacks the central issue, an almost perverse aversion by American philosophers to all things American. Why? He goes on to say, “The chief flaws lay in stopping too soon historically and failing to pursue the philosophical issues to the point where American experience converged with the universal and perennial theories of HUMANKIND”
He nails it right there. The general thought is and always has been that the youth of America doesn't equate to a HUMAN experience. This gets even more egregious as we go but the point that needs to be made is this............”I wish to begin by reflecting on the question of man: Human nature, politics, and Democracy. We have in the contemporary crisis of Western civilization two great crises. One relates to the social and Economic organization that is most conducive to human well-being and prosperity. This is age old. In the Gospel we are told, “The poor you have with you always” (Matt. 26:11). And the other is, “The contemporary crises of the spirit. It is the crisis of the intellectual integrity of human existence. And I wish to reflect upon that because, after all, whatever political order may be, the fundamental requirement is that the political order be a fit habitation for human beings”.
So where does it tie in to the Founders works and famous quotes? Simple. SUBJECT MATTER .
Every quote I’ve included here is the founders expressing what is, and what isn't a “Fit habitation for human beings”. A reading of Eliss Sandoz's work and the founders will convince you of a common theme quantumly entangling the different works together over the separation of time. Include works such as “John Lockes two treatises on Government” and Plato's “The Republic” and Thomas Hobbs' “Leviathon” etc. and the picture is clear.
The proofs are there if there is sufficient curiosity to cause a person to search them out.
So we have established then that the founders intended on establishing a contract between the states for the purpose of controlling the newly emerging government and instituting safeguards against tyrannical encroachment from future Human beings who become drunk with and for power. We've also seen that the Declaration of Independence is and was Constructive notice of intent to this emerging Government that the true power in this particular Organization is from the bottom up and not top down. What does this all mean?
In order to answer that question we have to go a little further and ask the most important question of them all............If the States were intent on establishing a Government, what type of Government did they intend? Most of you I'm guessing know the answer to that one...........A Republic. But not just any old average garden variety Republic. A similar type of Republic to Platos, far removed from Roman influence. The type of Republic they intended was experimental in that the people had never had so much power before. Now we get into the MEAT of the analysis. It doesn't take an extreme education for one to realize that people are very different from each other. The differences between us often create distances that each person feels powerless to traverse and gain insight and understanding with each other. Factor into this equation class separation and racial segregation and you have a humanity divided from each other, and yet the founders left us with the greatest trust ever given to any peoples of the earth (from a Governing standpoint mind you).
"We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government." James Madison
Self Government? Did James imply that the people never Governed themselves before? If not who was Governing them? Or did he mean that “each individual must govern him or herself? I'm inclined to believe the latter as it makes the most sense. Here's a quote to back it up:"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams
So for the first time in history a people we being charged and trusted with governing each of their daily lives in a moral and Religious manner? That's exactly what they intended. Further: "(T)he foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; ...the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained..." George Washington, First Inaugural, April 30 1789. So why are we even talking about this? Because it was all part of the contract, some aspects of the contract were expressed others were implied. All contracts have these elements as do trusts which are simply different forms of contracts.
So what is “Private Morality”? Or better yet what did George Washington MEAN when he said those words? George was a very religious person, meaning that his daily life was guided by his knowledge of a higher power and its continual influence in his and others lives. Does that mean George is speaking about Christianity in particular? I don't believe so as the founders sought to establish the freedom of religion standard of practice also voiced by President Madison in the Treaty of Tripoly: ARTICLE 11.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
At this point the Christian reading this may feel outraged, but prudence dictates we must dig and uncover these truths as evidenced here: Proverbs 2: 1-5. So we have the elements of the contract being brought to light and an understanding of what was intended. Washington talked about some interesting things and even proclaimed to have visions about the future of the America he so loved. In this quote he says this: “eternal rules of order and right”? What did he mean? This is not found in the Bible per se but is sometimes alluded to. In the Bible God established actual rules that at first were verbal but were later written down. In none of the writings have I found “eternal rules of order and right”, but perhaps someone in their own exegesis can illuminate this for us.
So here's what we have. We have the People deciding on a new form of Government where the individual is solely responsible for their morality and behavior. We have Representatives sent from every state involved coming together to hammer out the details of this MASSIVE trust about to be bestowed upon the American people. We have a Constructive Notice of Intent from the People to both the King of England and the emerging Centralized Government that states their Lawful and Legal position with regard to this Trust and the enacting clause within the document if the tyrannical measures stated ever come to pass. We have a drafting of the contract, with the contractual elements having been met, and a subsequent ratifying by the participant states. We have a full blown Legal and Lawful Contract boys and girls. We've even covered a few of the implied obligations but more will follow.
