Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

Affluent Investor | April 29, 2017

Scroll to top

Top

10 Comments

The July 4th Question: 238 Years After The First Revolution, Is It Time For A Second?

Declaration of Independence

Let’s start with a shocking, but true premise: If you are a patriotic American, you believe that there are circumstances under which it is right to take up arms against your own government. That statement feels wrong to me. It reeks of militia and McVeigh and toothless loons holed up with guns in cabins in order to avoid paying income taxes.

But the fact remains that the rationale for the existence of the nation known as the United States of America, which first appeared in print 238 years ago today, is entirely dependent on the premise that there are indeed times “…when in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…” and that such times may require the first group of people to “…mutually pledge to each other [their] Lives, [their] Fortunes and [their] sacred Honor.” And that having dissolved those political bands with another people, the newly liberated people (“…and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War…”) may, among other things, protect themselves from a tyrannical power which engages in “…a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object [which] evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism…”

This is the argument presented to the world by Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin. It was adopted and approved by the Continental Congress. It has been graphically represented in the Great Seal of the United States and it is treated as the origin of the American Republic not just in the Declaration of Independence itself, but also in the Constitution.

That last truth has been denied both by legal positivists on the left and by paleo-conservatives on the right, both intending to sever the Constitution from its roots in natural law, but for differing reasons. The legal positivists want to liberate the courts from the shackles of natural law, so that they might reinvent the American Republic. The Old Right wanted to sever the Constitution from the impetus of natural law which they believed would be used to create new ‘rights’ which would be imposed by judicial tyranny. I debated Robert Bork on this question several years ago and he was very strong in his insistence that the Constitution did not acknowledge the Declaration. The problem with that assertion is that it is contradicted by the concluding section of the Constitution itself, which states that it was “[… ] done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names.”

In other words the Constitution was signed in the fall of 1787, which was during the 12th year of the United States, which places the event which initiated the Republic sometime before September 1776. Is there any other event, save the Declaration, which would fit the historical bill? Of course not. And just in case any would argue, as Bork tried to in our debate, that this is simply a matter of a date to which no significance can be attributed, I would point out that the Great Seal of the United States, which was the result of several years of deliberation, labels the foundation (it is a literal architectural foundation at the base of a pyramid) with the Roman numerals for the year 1776. In short, the Declaration and the principles on which it is based are the foundational ideas of our Republic. One can deny their truth, but one cannot deny their legal authority.

This implies something very important: No governmental official can deny the right of the people to dissolve the political bands which tie them to a tyrannical government, without at the same time denying the Declaration and, by extension, the Constitution on which his own power is based. If he says, “The Declaration no longer applies; you must obey my authority no matter what.” We can rightly reply, “If the Declaration no longer applies, then the government of which you are a part no longer possesses legitimacy; which means you have no authority in the first place and therefore have no right to demand that we obey.”

To determine whether the framers and their principles would cause us once again to break from a central political authority one must first get into the head space of the founders. Their way of thinking, though alien to modern political philosophy (and so much the worse for modern political philosophy), is clear and cogent:

There are certain ideas which are self-evidently true. One of those ideas is that we are created without legal primacy or inferiority with regard to one another. Another idea, which is just obviously true to people whose rational faculties are operating properly, is that the rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of a prosperous life (which is what the word ‘happiness’ meant in 1776) are not alienable, that is they cannot have a lien placed on them by any other persons, not even representatives of the state.

Not only is government denied the authority to put a lien on and repossess those rights, but it is further required to protect those rights. And in fact, the protecting of those rights is the only reason that government should exist in the first place! And not only is it necessary for government to protect these rights, but its use of power to do so is still only just if it also involves the consent of the people whose freedom and property are being protected. Further (and this is shocking, even to modern ears), when governments move from protecting those rights to injuring those rights, the people are allowed to erase the authority of the government.

So, are we there yet? That question is in the air, although I don’t think I’ve heard it put so explicitly in terms of the context of the Fourth of July, 1776. Pop culture blockbusters such as the Batman franchise are preoccupied with the question of legal legitimacy. The Tea Party movement, as is obvious just by the name, suggests that we are bumping up against the limits of legitimacy. The Occupy movement by its rhetoric and its actions at least denies the legitimacy of the property rights of the individuals on whose land it squats, and the legitimacy of the powers of the police who order it to disperse.  A slew of soured grapes outbursts after the failure of the union-led Wisconsin recall vote suggested that democracy had died. Even occasional wingnut outbursts on MSNBC suggest that a forceful change of government is now called for.

Some people want to banish this conversation from polite company, but doing so does not ban the conversation from occurring; it just bans polite conversationalists from adding their influence to the debate. The greatest beneficiaries of this approach are groups at the fringe who live to incite people to violence.

No amount of banning or inciting can change the facts. 238 years ago the principles of the Declaration found that the central government had lost the right to rule and called on the people to withdraw allegiance to it. Is that the case now? Even the most ardent believer in the American experiment (and I am a very ardent one) has to acknowledge that the verdict of history is that no state remains committed to liberty forever, which means that such a time will come again. The question is whether we are there now.  Tell me what you think, and then I’ll tell you what I think.

Article originally published on Forbes.com.

Jerry Bowyer is a Forbes contributor, contributing editor of AffluentInvestor.com, and Senior Fellow in Business Economics at The Center for Cultural Leadership.

Jerry has compiled an impressive record as a leading thinker in finance and economics. He worked as an auditor and a tax consultant with Arthur Anderson, as Vice President of the Beechwood Company which is the family office associated with Federated Investors, and has consulted in various privatization efforts for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. He founded the influential economic think tank, the Allegheny Institute, and has lectured extensively at universities, businesses and civic groups.

Jerry has been a member of three investment committees, among which is Benchmark Financial, Pittsburgh’s largest financial services firm. Jerry had been a regular commentator on Fox Business News and Fox News. He was formerly a CNBC Contributor, has guest-hosted “The Kudlow Report”, and has written for CNBC.com, National Review Online, and The Wall Street Journal, as well as many other publications. He is the author of The Bush Boom and more recently The Free Market Capitalist’s Survival Guide, published by HarperCollins. Jerry is the President of Bowyer Research.

Jerry consulted extensively with the Bush White House on matters pertaining to the recent economic crisis. He has been quoted in the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Forbes Magazine, The International Herald Tribune and various local newspapers. He has been a contributing editor of National Review Online, The New York Sun and Townhall Magazine. Jerry has hosted daily radio and TV programs and was one of the founding members of WQED’s On-Q Friday Roundtable. He has guest-hosted the Bill Bennett radio program as well as radio programs in Chicago, Dallas and Los Angeles.

Jerry is the former host of WorldView, a nationally syndicated Sunday-morning political talk show created on the model of Meet The Press. On WorldView, Jerry interviewed distinguished guests including the Vice President, Treasury Secretary, HUD Secretary, former Secretary of Sate Condoleezza Rice, former Presidential Advisor Carl Rove, former Attorney General Edwin Meese and publisher Steve Forbes.

Jerry has taught social ethics at Ottawa Theological Hall, public policy at Saint Vincent’s College, and guest lectured at Carnegie Mellon’s graduate Heinz School of Public Policy. In 1997 Jerry gave the commencement address at his alma mater, Robert Morris University. He was the youngest speaker in the history of the school, and the school received more requests for transcripts of Jerry’s speech than at any other time in its 120-year history.

Jerry lives in Pennsylvania with his wife, Susan, and the youngest five of their seven children.

Become An Insider!

Sign up for Affluent Investor's free email newsletter and receive Jerry Bowyer's Special Report, "How to Be an Affluent Investor in the Age of Obama & Ineffectual Republican Opposition."



  • rocquedog

    It’s time!

  • BlueViolets

    We are 5 or 6 years too late.

    • Citizentobe

      Too late!

  • mudguy1

    It is time. In 1776 we got rid of a King. It is now time to get rid of another King (Obama) that is destroying our America. And he could care less.

    • Citizentobe

      Dear mudguy1, this POTUS little tyrant does not careless, it’s all deliberate and people don’t see it….yet.

      • mudguy1

        What I meant was that Obama dose not care what happens to America or we the People.

  • Citizentobe

    Mr. Bowyer, we are aleady there, just re-play last press-conference on immigration from this POTUS and NO forceful reaction from Congress. This Country is gone if we do not act upon the Founding Fathers’ principles.

    • I completely agree so here is a suggestion !
      I just put up a page at my site so people can give suggestions and ideas of entities/corps/special interest that are working against us everyday, so we can boycott them. There is a short list already up. We can also boycott PRAVDA/MSM very easily as well by simply not watching any of their outlets. We can all do this very easily and it is very important to follow up with an email to any entity that you are discontinuing their services and tell them why ! GE, AARP and Progressive insurance are just a few of the many! Also we need to get focused on nation wide protest. There are serious issues daily now and we have seen that a group of women could turn back the busses in Texas ? So it can be done , all we have to do, is do it ! So join me and give your feedback, ideas, suggestions to build a list and emails for people to easily use to follow thru as they send a message to congress and the many entities working against us all. The truth is we have all the power in our massive numbers and we simply have NOT used it ! So lets quit complaining and do something and work towards some serious protest to get some action taken to save this nation ! My site is my name + .com and the page is up, just use contact info. This will work because we have massive numbers and congress are all creatures of the polls and media ! I will need you assistance and help . Pass the word and join in, all are welcome. Steve Baze

  • tom nogaro

    mr. bowyer,

    ty, as always. i generally agree, epecially eschewing violence. but respectfully your argument seems to posit this as a mere national issue requiring national action.

    we have internationally and multi-nationally organized agents or forces not fully identifiable and unelected which need redress, for they seek to control our liberties, thus our lives. but not only ours as americans: europe suffers the same (witness the recent uk referendum on eu membership, and elsewhere).

    i confess having no answer to this national conundrum within a greater, more powerful global one. the best i can do is describe it, unique in world history, to my mind, as:

    having world-communist movement elements: unelected, global in scope, seeking national sovereignty overthrow, and possibly violently so (through disarmament of the vanguard american population whose state is simultaneously being maximally armed);

    yet being oligarchic and feudal, seeking submission of all non-elite proto-subjects to a self-declared elite, but not to any national monarch nor laws of natural descendancy;

    while ultimately subscribing to a peacefully fascistic method, linking global information (nsa, internet) and all means of global economic production with co-opted state elites.

    if my characterization is not fanciful, how might such be peaceably resisted? ie, is mere national action or resort to one nation’s historical example (1776) sufficient?

    i will stop there, for now. your treasured thoughts, please?

  • 1 Fed Up American

    It is definitely time for a Revolution in this Country, but it will never unfortunately will never happen.. Reason. There are too many people living off the Government in this Country a number close to 50% on some type of Welfare, housing, food stamps, rent subsidies, medical care, do you think these people would revolt and bite the hand that feeds them?
    What need to be done is HIT GOVERNMENT WHERE IT HURTS- TAX INCOME. If the working tax payer and corporations would stop collecting and paying income tax this Government would wake up real quick and I bet things in Washington would change quickley.

The Affluent Mix

Become An Insider!

Sign up for Affluent Investor's free email newsletter and receive Jerry Bowyer's Special Report, "How to Be an Affluent Investor in the Age of Obama & Ineffectual Republican Opposition."