What did Jefferson mean by “Separation of Church and State”

“I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from meddling in religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion [1], but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States [2]. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government [3]. It must rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to Samuel Miller, Jan. 23, 1808

[1] Referencing the 1st Amendment
[2] Referencing the 10th Amendment
[3] Observing no Federal authority is delegated over the issue.
[4] Declaring then that it must be a matter decided at the State level.  

This was written 6 years after the earliest known reference to the phrase “Separation of Church and State” by Thomas Jefferson . Most of us have been taught that Jefferson was adamant about an absolute separation between religion and all government, but in the quote above, Jefferson says something very different. He says that religion, along with doctrines and disciplines, were to remain with State governments at the highest level. Therefore, he was stating there is no necessary separation between individual State governments and religion according to the 1st Amendment, but only with the Federal government. So, did he change his mind? Of course not.

Jefferson, along with Madison, did argue for a separation in his State of Virginia. However, as Jefferson points out, this is not a matter to be directed by the general (federal) government, but reserved to the individual States separately. To be decided on by their respective people.

Earliest known reference to Separation of Church and State:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Baptists from Danbury, Connecticut, 1802

In his letter to Samuel Miller, Jefferson references the 1st and 10th amendments of the US Constitution:

1st Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The 1st Amendment begins with “Congress shall make no law”. This unambiguously applies this restraint against the Federal government (general government) and not the Individual States themselves.

Jefferson also references the 10th amendment which of course states that all authority not delegated to the Federal government are reserved to the States or to the people.

He then observes that per the US Constitution, the Federal government has no delegated authority over the matter. So even in absence of the 1st and 10th amendments, Jefferson argues that the Federal government has ZERO authority over the issue, he then concludes that it must rest with the States.

Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom

While Jefferson deferred the authority over religion to the State governments, Jefferson also believed that his State of Virginia should protect the religious rights of all people equally. This is a reflection of his understanding of the role of various governments. Where the ideal of Jefferson held that religion was a personal matter, not to be interfered with by the State of Virginia or the Federal government, he did not find it in the capacity of the Federal government to force this ideal upon the other States.

“[When] the [Virginia] bill for establishing religious freedom… was finally passed,… a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word “Jesus Christ,” so that it should read “a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion.” The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination.”
–Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821

US Bill of Rights and the Incorporation Doctrine

What is little known about the Bill of Rights is that they were all originally intended to apply as restraints ONLY against the Federal Government, but because of the Incorporation Doctrine of the 20th Century, this interpretation according to original intent has been changed so that the Supreme Court has slowly been incorporating the Bill of Rights so that some apply against the States as well. What many believe to be an expansion and protection of freedoms, has been a violation of them by removing from us our right to self governance, which was a paramount concept at the time of our founding and crucial in preventing tyranny from the central government. In order for the Federal government to protect our rights, it has to necessarily define them.

Regarding the original intent of the Bill of Rights, consider the following:

Bill of Rights Preamble:

“The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution expressed a desire in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

This says that the States expressed a desire to prevent misconstruction or abuse of Federal powers, so further declaration and restrictions would be placed in order to extend public confidence in the new Federal government.

Supreme Court Decision of Barron vs Baltimore 1833

The courts decided according to original intent that the Bill of Rights, including the 5th amendment did not apply to the States, but only the Federal Government.

Important quotations from Barron v Baltimore:

“The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states.”

“Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the powers of the state governments, they would have imitated limitations on the powers of the state governments, they would have imitated the framers of the original constitution, and have expressed that intention.”

“These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them.”

The Incorporation Doctrine

In his letter to Samuel Miller, Thomas Jefferson referenced the 1st amendment and 10th amendment, but he also makes the point that even in exclusion of these amendments the Constitution grants no authority to regulate religion, therefore the Federal government has no such power. This also applies to the limits of the entire US Bill of Rights according to original intent. The original Constitution provided no power to the Federal government to enforce the US Bill of Rights against the individual state governments, this did not occur until the 20th century interpretation of the 14th amendment with the Supreme Court Case Gitlow v. New York in 1925, which created the “Incorporation Doctrine“. Prior to this, the US Bill of Rights did not apply to the individual State governments. They were restricted by their individual State Constitutions and related Declaration of Rights or State Bill of Rights.

Why the Lie?

Why then have we been told that the founders, especially Jefferson intended for there to be a “Separation” between all government and religion? Why weren’t we told the complete truth? Why weren’t we told the simple truth that the FEDERAL government was never to interfere with religion, which includes necessarily morality, but the people were left to decide the relationship between religion and law within their own state? Why didn’t we just read the Constitution for ourselves and see what was in black and white? Why didn’t we just read the original words of Jefferson in their proper context?

For those who are concerned that Liberty is being violated by an ever expanding central government. The States are your strongest legal safeguard. Allowing the Federal government the ability to force the “Bill of Rights” upon the States ironically threatens your rights, it does not secure them. While at the same time, if we allow the Federal government to enforce morality, that is in clear violation of the Constitution and it is also a threat to our liberty.

Considering the Bill of Rights, notice your “freedom of religion”, it has been all but chased out of public life, even on the State level. This was not the founders’ intent, not even Jefferson himself.

Consider your other rights, do you think the Federal government is protecting them or is it a direct threat to them? Our founders knew any centralized authority would eventually become a threat to our Liberties, which is why they delegated very few and defined powers to the Federal government. Ironically, the specific protection of our “liberty” was not one of them, except from the threat of foreign enemies where the Federal government was to protect the States from foreign invasion. The protection of our “liberties” otherwise, was to rest with the people and to be administered by the individual States under directives of their respective citizens.

Read: War on Religion

Is it any wonder why our Federal government is out of control? We have abandoned the structures of government that our founders carefully put in place, we have abandoned their warnings. The primary reason for which is that we simply don’t know them. It is about time we begin to relearn history with an objective lens. It is time that we dust off the original sources of history and rediscover the true intent of our founders for ourselves.

Why not start today? Check out our basic Study Guide. It is a collection of simple videos and articles to help you learn the basics of our founding principles.

“In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Second Inaugural Address, 1805

“But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. … But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity.”

– James Madison, Federalist No. 46, 1788

“On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Judge William Johnson, June 12, 1823

“The States can best govern our home concerns and the general government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore… never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold at market.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Judge William Johnson, June 12, 1823

It is interesting how much the concept of “democracy” is promoted. You will hear many references to America as a democracy. It is said that America attempts to spread democracy around the world. Listen to politicians and Presidents, they are quick to refer to the U.S. as a democracy, but words about the Republic are rarely ever uttered. So, what are we, a Democracy or Republic?

The most prominent reminder anymore is the Pledge of Allegiance.

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands…”

The truth is, America is in fact a Constitutional Republic. Our Constitution clearly states it in Article IV, section 4. However, there was a push against the limits of the Constitution in the early 20th century by the progressive movement. What is now more commonly referred to as modern liberalism (not to be confused with Classical Liberalism, which is something else entirely).

This push included perverting the legal arguments in regards to the construction of the Constitution from “original intent” to the concept of a “living Constitution”. This undermined the Republic by bastardizing the contract itself. No longer did lawmakers have to go through the onerous task of changing the supreme law with amendments; they simply had to reinterpret the document to end up with a whole new meaning.

The other push that weakened our Republic was for the concept of democracy. A properly controlled Republic has many restrictions against the government. Ours in particular originally gave an overwhelming majority of power to the States and the people,  in accordance with the concept of self governance, leaving very few and defined powers to the Federal government. A democracy on the other hand is simply mob rule, where the limits of government are arbitrary and undefined.

By first undermining the meaning of the Constitution and the limits against the Federal government, then by using populist appeals for democracy and perverting the phrase “we the people”; Politicians have succeeded in concentrating power in DC by simply promising to give away more transferred possessions to the voters with the justification they were performing under the “will of the people” and the “good of the whole”.

The truth is our representatives are to FIRST, abide by the Constitution and its limits. Then vote with the will of the people or constituency they represent.

The Constitution and our republican form of government (not to be confused with the political party) were built around the concept of Natural rights and Self Governance. Our State and local governments were to protect our natural rights to Life, Liberty and Property. It was to protect the minority from the whims of the majority. Where 99% of people could not take away the natural rights of the 1%. Keep in mind, the smallest minority is of course, the individual. The Federal government was to protect the mutual interest of the States.

That begs the question, what “rights”? Do we have a right to a paycheck, a car, a house, food, education, health care, etc? NO!

Our Natural rights are very simple.

Life: No one can unjustly take your life, that is murder.*

Liberty: No one can unjustly take your liberty, that is slavery.*

Property: No one can take your justly acquired property, that is stealing.**

*”Unjustly”, meaning without due process of law and regard to our natural rights. If I threaten someone’s life, I forfeit my own right to life as I can be killed in self defense. If I commit crimes (violate someone’s natural rights), I forfeit my right to Liberty.

**”Justly acquired property” simply means property cannot be acquired by theft, bribes, force, fraud or other violations of natural rights to property. It must be acquired through work or voluntary exchange.

Of course, this concept of natural rights and true Liberty has been forsaken. The government has acted as an agent of theft. It has been organized into an instrument of legalized plunder as Frederic Bastiat described it in his brilliant essay, “The Law”.

“Legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways; hence, there are an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, bonuses, subsidies, incentives, the progressive income tax, free education, the right to employment, the right to profit, the right to wages, the right to relief, the right to the tools of production, interest free credit, etc., etc. And it the aggregate of all these plans, in respect to what they have in common, legal plunder, that goes under the name of socialism.”

“But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply, see if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them and gives it to the other persons to whom it doesn’t belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.”

This applies to all entitlement programs, social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare etc. It also includes corporate welfare such as subsidies, bailouts, government insurance etc. Again, this has all been done in the name of the “good of the whole” and “democracy”.

When our founders wrote “We the People” in the US Constitution, they did not mean this in a populist sense. It was affirming the fact that the people, more specifically the individual, is the ultimate sovereign in any government. This was taken from the enlightenment writings by John Locke and others that inspired our nation and is described in our Declaration of Independence.  The concept that people existed before government and therefore our Natural rights also existed before government. In that, the only legitimate purpose of government was to protect our natural rights and any authority beyond that purpose or any authority of government that violates the natural rights of its citizens was arbitrary power. It was the duty of the people then to overthrow such power and establish a new government within its proper bounds.

We were to be a Republic, a society of laws, not of men. But, the dumbing down of our educational system, which is now primarily a product of government, has resulted in a loss of these vital concepts. The concept and philosophy behind true Liberty and the proper role of government, which are made self evident with proper education in history, economics and philosophy, are so loosely gathered in people’s minds that politicians are able to assemble them in any way they please, so that what they say appears to be the truth, but in reality, it is only a perversion of it.

America has been duped. If we are ever to see a true restoration of our Republic, the American people must take it upon themselves to study and learn these important concepts. If we think our salvation is in politicians or a some great leader, we are only fooling ourselves. The restoration of the Republic depends upon the American people.

“Educate and inform the whole mass of the people… They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.”
— Thomas Jefferson

“The biggest threat to freedom is not communism, fascism, socialism or despotism. It is the apathetic beneficiaries of liberty who are indifferent to freedom itself.”
— University of Common Sense.org

Many Americans are beginning to question the constitutionality of proposed programs such as government run health care. In response to these challenges, a misinterpretation of the ‘General Welfare’ clause seems to be the common support for such Federal programs. This article examines what the General Welfare clause actually means.

US Constitution Preamble:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. “

The Federal Government has continued to expand its power using misinterpretations of the US Constitution as its defense. The General Welfare clause is one of the most commonly misinterpreted and seemingly vaguest of all of the clauses in the Constitution. There is much that can be written on the subject, however, the meaning of the ‘General Welfare’ clause is easy to grasp with just a few observations. The first is the common definition of both general and welfare. The second is to which body or entity this clause applies.

Common Definitions:

General: “involving, applicable to, or affecting the whole”

Welfare: “the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity.”

Source: (http://www.merriam-webster.com)

So, the US Constitution states that the US government will promote the state of well being, happiness, and prosperity for the whole. Those in defense of the expansion of Federal power (and what are now defined as Federal “welfare” programs and entitlement programs) stop there and are satisfied with this generic application of such a definition. However, in order to completely understand the meaning and intended purpose of this clause, you must define who or what makes up the “whole”. In other words, to whom does the General Welfare clause apply?

Article 1, Section 8:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

This section specifically defines to which body or entity the general welfare clause is to apply. Since the United States is specifically made up of the States themselves, this clause applies to the States as a whole and not the People. The US Constitution addresses specific entities throughout the document. The People as an entity are only addressed twice in the main body of the US Constitution and in no case does the General Welfare clause apply to the People specifically. However, the Constitution does specifically define the rights which are to be retained by the People, as you can see in the following constitutional amendments. Notice the 10th Amendment.

Amendment I
“…or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.”

Amendment II
“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Amendment IV
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,…”

Amendment IX
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Amendment X
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Amendment XVII
“…elected by the people thereof…”

“…That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election…”

Is it a Power?

Looking at the two occurrences of “General Welfare” within the US Constitution, it is important to observe that in neither case does the phrase itself delegate any power. The first occurrence is in the Preamble to the US Constitution where the purpose of the Union and US Constitution is stated. The second occurrence is in article 1, Section 8 relating to the taxation authority of congress as stated before. Article 1, Section 8  is where all congressional authority is enumerated. It was understood that congress had no power that was not specifically enumerated in the US Constitution. A broad reading of the General Welfare clause would render the enumeration of powers pointless. There would be no specific limitation to Federal power. Instead, it would only require an argument that any action was for the general good. This was not the intention by those who created the document. To answer the original question, is the general welfare clause an enumerated power? No,not in either occurrence.

“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
– James Madison, Letter to James Robertson April 20, 1831

Summary

The General Welfare clause applies to the States of the Union, not to the People. However, it is certainly in the best interest of the People if the General Welfare of the states is promoted. Furthermore, even if this clause was determined that it did apply to the people specifically, it is clear that any benefit or enhanced well being should be general or applied to the whole and not a select portion.

It is also not an enumerated power. It states the purpose for the Union and US Constitution in the preamble as well as the purpose of raising taxes, but the phrase itself does not create any power itself. If ‘general welfare’ was carte blanche authority, it would render the limits of the Federal government to the enumerated powers meaningless. Article 1, Section 8 is not a list of suggestions of power, it is a list of delegated authority. If a power is not listed, congress is not authorized to write a law requiring an unlisted power and would need to seek amendment to the US Constitution.

It is important to note that under the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution, many of the programs that have been created by the Federal Government such as Federal Welfare, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, etc, would otherwise be perfectly constitutional under the jurisdiction of the states themselves.

More quotes from the founders regarding the General Welfare Clause of the US Constitution:

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”
— James Madison, remarks on the House floor, debates on Cod Fishery bill, (February 1792)

“[We] disavow and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the compact, in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think or pretend would promote the general welfare, which construction would make that, of itself, a complete government, without limitation of powers; but that the plain sense and obvious meaning were, that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others.”
–Thomas Jefferson: Declaration and Protest of Virginia, 1825

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the “Bill of Rights.”

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Davy Crockett was a Congressman in TN before he was a hero of the Alamo. This is an excellent story from his life where he was challenged by a citizen regarding Federal “benevolence”, during a campaign for re-election .

“Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.”

“The next summer……… I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but as I thought, rather coldly.”

“I began: ‘Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and-’

‘Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for your the last time your were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’

I begged him to tell me what was the matter.”

“Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me…….”

“I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.”

“No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?”

“Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.”

“It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer his is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose…..”

Full Story: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/ellis1.html

Chapter 12, “The Freedom Philosophy” (1988) by The Foundation for Economic Education (Crockett’s story is taken from “The Life of Colonel David Crockett, compiled by Edward S. Ellis (Philadelphia; Porter; Coates, 1884, via Freely Thinking.com

This is one of the most succinct summaries of the US Constitution. It is our duty as voting citizens to understand this supreme law of our land. Take a moment to learn about this paramount document.

Part 1

Part 2