"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
Law is a communal effort of accomplishing what each man has a right to accomplish on his own. I have a right to defend my Life, my Liberty and my Property. This right is inherent and not a consequence of man, rather of existence. However, if applied on an individual basis the application is subject to variables which are further subject to strength, emotions, etc. As a consequence communities developed methods of establishing Law and applying Justice. Justice is the uniform application of the Law within the community.
The defense of Life, Liberty and Property then becomes the responsibility of the community rather than of the individual. It is stabilized by the application of Justice, which, as provided for by our Constitution, is tempered by both Grand and Petit Juries.
What happens, then, when we relinquish control of determination of both Law and Justice to those outside of our sphere of influence and outside of our social living group community? If the maker of the laws, and the enforcer of the laws is not of our choosing, and is applying itself in a manner inconsistent with the concepts of Justice as we perceive them as a community do we have any recourse from these impositions?
The Declaration gave us the premise for establishing Law and Justice to concepts within our realm of acceptability. We have evolved, however, through divisive application by those with power, away from this original concept. We have capitulated to the influences of human nature, and the desire of some of power. As we read further we will begin to understand that the influences being imposed upon us today are not unlike those that were exerted over two-hundred years ago. Usurpation of fundamental rights was the cause then, as now. The remedy then, as now, is that retention of our rights.
"But when long trains of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide for new guards for their future security."
If a foreign invader had established himself on our land, and imposed regulations constraining our exercise of our Liberty, stealing our Property, and threatening our lives (remember Waco?) under the guise of rule enforcement, would we not cast him from our land? Were we to begin this objective of expulsion on a smaller scale, eventually to escalate to whatever form necessary, would we not be following in the footsteps of our forefathers? If these invaders were to claim a common heritage, as was the case with Britain, would we compromise our beliefs and buffer our commitment?
If our Founding Fathers were to see us today would they be proud for what they would see?
Let us contemplate the meaning of this day.
Return to Sons of Liberty Index
Go to Next Sons of Liberty
Go to Previous Sons of Liberty