Romans 13

[Mongol Servant]

Though many "Christians" felt "led of The Lord" to vote for McCain, in an effort to keep the muslim out of the White House - this subject (Romans 13) came up on a few occasions, after he usurped his authority as a senator, in unlawfully taking the President's office (NO valid U.S. birth certificate). Pastor Baldwin hits the nail on the head:

"It seems that every time someone such as myself attempts to encourage our Christian brothers and sisters to resist an unconstitutional or otherwise reprehensible government policy, we hear the retort, "What about Romans Chapter 13? We Christians must submit to government. Any government. Read your Bible, and leave me alone." Or words to that effect.

No doubt, some who use this argument are sincere. They are only repeating what they have heard their pastor and other religious leaders say. On the other hand, let's be honest enough to admit that some who use this argument are just plain lazy, apathetic, and indifferent. And Romans 13 is their escape from responsibility. I suspect this is the much larger group, by the way.

Nevertheless, for the benefit of those who are sincere (but obviously misinformed), let's briefly examine Romans Chapter 13. I quote Romans Chapter 13, verses 1 through 7, from the Authorized King James text:

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."

Do our Christian friends who use these verses to teach that we should not oppose America's political leaders really believe that civil magistrates have unlimited authority to do anything they want without opposition? I doubt whether they truly believe that.

For example, what if our President decided to resurrect the old monarchal custom of Jus Primae Noctis (Law of First Night)? That was the old medieval custom when the king claimed the right to sleep with a subject's bride on the first night of their marriage. Would our sincere Christian brethren sheepishly say, "Romans Chapter 13 says we must submit to the government"? I think not. And would any of us respect any man who would submit to such a law?

So, there are limits to authority. A father has authority in his home, but does this give him power to abuse his wife and children? Of course not. An employer has authority on the job, but does this give him power to control the private lives of his employees? No. A pastor has overseer authority in the church, but does this give him power to tell employers in his church how to run their businesses? Of course not. All human authority is limited in nature. No man has unlimited authority over the lives of other men. (Lordship and Sovereignty is the exclusive domain of Jesus Christ.)

By the same token, a civil magistrate has authority in civil matters, but his authority is limited and defined. Observe that Romans Chapter 13 clearly limits the authority of civil government by strictly defining its purpose: "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil . . . For he is the minister of God to thee for good . . . for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

Notice that civil government must not be a "terror to good works." It has no power or authority to terrorize good works or good people. God never gave it that authority. And any government that oversteps that divine boundary has no divine authority or protection. This is a basic principle of Natural Law (and all of America's legal documents--including the U.S. Constitution--are founded upon the God-ordained principles of Natural Law).

The apostle clearly states that civil government is a "minister of God to thee for good." It is a not a minister of God for evil. Civil magistrates have a divine duty to "execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." They have no authority to execute wrath upon him that doeth good. None. Zilch. Zero. And anyone who says they do is lying. So, even in the midst of telling Christians to submit to civil authority, Romans Chapter 13 limits the power and reach of civil authority.

Did Moses violate God's principle of submission to authority when he killed the Egyptian taskmaster in defense of his fellow Hebrew? Did Elijah violate God's principle of submission to authority when he openly challenged Ahab and Jezebel? Did David violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to surrender to Saul's troops? Did Daniel violate God's principle of submission to authority when he disobeyed the king's command to not pray audibly to God? Did the three Hebrew children violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to bow to the image of the state? Did John the Baptist violate God's principle of submission to authority when he publicly scolded King Herod for his infidelity? Did Simon Peter and the other Apostles violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to stop preaching on the streets of Jerusalem? Did Paul violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to obey those authorities who demanded that he abandon his missionary work? In fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail.

Remember that every apostle of Christ (except John) was killed by hostile civil authorities opposed to their endeavors. Christians throughout church history were imprisoned, tortured, or killed by civil authorities of all stripes for refusing to submit to their various laws and prohibitions. Did all of these Christian martyrs violate God's principle of submission to authority?

So, even the great prophets, apostles, and writers of the Bible (including the writer of Romans Chapter 13) understood that human authority--even civil authority--is limited.

Plus, Paul makes it clear that our submission to civil authority must be predicated on more than fear of governmental retaliation. Notice, he said, "Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake." Meaning, our obedience to civil authority is more than just "because they said so." It is also a matter of conscience. This means we must think and reason for ourselves regarding the justness and rightness of our government's laws. Obedience is not automatic or robotic. It is a result of both rational deliberation and moral approbation.

Therefore, there are times when civil authority may need to be resisted. Either governmental abuse of power or the violation of conscience (or both) could precipitate civil disobedience. Of course, how and when we decide to resist civil authority is an entirely separate issue. And I will reserve that discussion for another time.

Beyond that, we in the United States of America do not live under a monarchy. We have no king. There is no single governing official in this country. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with any man or any group of men. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with the President, the Congress, or even the Supreme Court. In America, the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land." Under our laws, every governing official publicly promises to submit to the Constitution of the United States. Do readers understand the significance of this distinction? I hope so.

This means that, in America, the "higher powers" are not the men who occupy elected office; they are the tenets and principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Under our laws and form of government, it is the duty of every citizen, including our elected officials, to obey the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, this is how Romans Chapter 13 reads to Americans:

"Let every soul be subject unto the [U.S. Constitution.] For there is no [Constitution] but of God: the [Constitution] that be [is] ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the [Constitution], resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For [the Constitution is] not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the [Constitution]? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For [the Constitution] is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for [the Constitution] beareth not the sword in vain: for [the Constitution] is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for [the Constitution is] God's minister, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."

Dear Christian friend, the above is exactly the proper understanding of our responsibility to civil authority in these United States, according to the teaching of Romans Chapter 13.

Furthermore, Christians, above all people, should desire that their elected representatives submit to the Constitution, because it is constitutional government that has done more to protect Christian liberty than any other governing document ever devised by man. As I have noted before in this column, Biblical principles and Natural Law form the foundation of all three of America's founding documents: the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

(See: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2005/cb...0630.html)

As a result, Christians in America (for the most part) have not had to face the painful decision to "obey God rather than men" and defy their civil authorities.

The problem in America today is that we have allowed our political leaders to violate their oaths of office and to ignore--and blatantly disobey--the "supreme Law of the Land," the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, if we truly believe Romans Chapter 13, we will insist and demand that our civil magistrates submit to the U.S. Constitution.

Now, how many of us Christians are going to truly obey Romans Chapter 13?"
(Copyright Chuck Baldwin - 2009)

[Jerry80871852]

I really don't care for this writer. But, all pastors and teachers I know of, that is in those churches I have ever been a part of, teach that we are suppose to obey our government in all matters as long as it does not cause us to disobey God.

1Ti 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
1Ti 2:2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

Many of us fail to lead a quite life. Perhaps if we were just quietly going about the works God gave us to do everything would go better for all of God's children.

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them

Now what are these works God has ordained us to do?

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Act 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

If we do this work our time will be wisely spent, and at each sucessful witness this will take place in heaven.

7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

Luke 15:7 (KJV)

And we will store up good works against that day.

9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.

10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;

13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.

15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

1 Cor 3:9-15 (KJV)

And we will have works that abide and not suffer so great of a loss in that day.

[George]

Brother Mongol Servant that was an excellent piece. I appreciate you taking the time to post it. There certainly seems to be a lot of truth in it.

In Christ,
George

[candlelight]

Thank you, Brother Mongol Servant. Pastor Chuck Baldwin really describes exactly what man is to do with regards to our government. Now, if we can get this into the hands of every God-fearing man in America? Baldwin will have a wonderful shot as POTUS in 2012. As a married women... I believe that my husband is to make the decision in voting matters. The choice is up to the American public. And, I pray that we (as a nation) are able to vote righteously.


Here is what Thomas Jefferson had to say on the matter of church and state. Praise God for the Baptists in this country. They laid the foundation.


"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and 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 and State." - Thomas Jefferson ~ Letter to Connecticut Baptists


If only the government would stay out of church matters... we would be more than fine. They have crossed into territory, over the years, that does not belong to them. Lord help us!

In Christ Jesus ~

Molly

[Mongol Servant]

Bro George & Molly,
Thanks for the encouraging thoughts. I'd love to see President Baldwin in 2012 (if we're still here) and a big change in the Congress as well. However, there are still a multitude of Baptists and other Christians, that have this "go-along-to-get-along" mentality, and aren't willing t stand up for what's right. As Ben Franklin said long ago, some in America are willing to trade freedom for safety and security. But, when Christians allow the federal, state, or local governments to circumvent, ignore, or disobey THE LAW, then they (Christians) are culpable accomplices to the crime

Jerry, I still think you're missing it somewhere, buddy. Pastor Baldwin is exhorting Christians to do that very thing - obey the Constitution, which FORMED our government.

[Bro Nobody]

Hmm a perfect example of this is us here in Honduras... You all under your current prez O are on the same side as Chavez, Castro, Noriega... makes you feel all warm and fuzzy all over doesnt it. Can we move the statute of Liberty down here since you not using anymore...

[Jerry80871852]

One thing I've notice about Christians that are heavy into politics. Their 1st concern always seems to be their pocketbooks.

And if you say anything negative about the Christians candidate of choice, many of them will get a bit aggravated at you. This happened to me when I mentioned to a supported of President Bush of how un-Christians he was for saying that all people prayed to the same God no matter what religion they held to. They defended his statement. Please tell me how a Christian can defend a man saying such an ungodly and untrue thing?

If I compromised in the pulpit God's teachings as much as congressmen and presidents do while holding public office I would be fired before the sun goes down and asked never to set foot in that church again yet Christians will defend the ungodly acts of the president of their choice.

And of course in the run for the Republican candidate during this last election Mr. Huckabee was really the best candidate godly wise of all, although he is very liberal. I remember quite well how many Christian talked quite bad about him and how unfit he was to be president of this United States.

It must take some very careful thinking to decide which of 2 evils will be the best to vote for when a president or congressman be on the ballot on election days.

[Mongol Servant]

Bush was only spouting off what his advisors told him to. (Remember - the sole purpose of a politician, is to get re-elected). No, I don't think Bush was a Christian.

Huckabee is not only a liberal, he's part of the CFR as well. The best candidate on the last go-round would have been Chuck Baldwin or Ron Paul.

"Voting for the lesser of two evils, is still evil." - Senator Jesse Helms

[candlelight]

Mongol Servant Wrote:Bro George & Molly,
Thanks for the encouraging thoughts. I'd love to see President Baldwin in 2012 (if we're still here) and a big change in the Congress as well. However, there are still a multitude of Baptists and other Christians, that have this "go-along-to-get-along" mentality, and aren't willing t stand up for what's right. As Ben Franklin said long ago, some in America are willing to trade freedom for safety and security. But, when Christians allow the federal, state, or local governments to circumvent, ignore, or disobey THE LAW, then they (Christians) are culpable accomplices to the crime

Jerry, I still think you're missing it somewhere, buddy. Pastor Baldwin is exhorting Christians to do that very thing - obey the Constitution, which FORMED our government.

You're welcome Mongol Servant. It appears that Chuck Baldwin seems to be the only one that has a grip on this whole thing... in this nation and world. Hopefully, he will be out candidating early so people can find out about him in the beginning of the campaign. I really think (at least in my area) this was the problem with Baldwin's campaign. Many people up north did not know who he was. Below is a quote on what Ronald Reagan said:


"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." ~ Ronald Reagan


Proverbs 14:34... Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. 'Righteousness Exalts a Nation" King James Bible

In Christ Jesus' Name ~

Molly

[Jerry80871852]

Mongol Servant Wrote:Bush was only spouting off what his advisors told him to. (Remember - the sole purpose of a politician, is to get re-elected). No, I don't think Bush was a Christian.

Huckabee is not only a liberal, he's part of the CFR as well. The best candidate on the last go-round would have been Chuck Baldwin or Ron Paul.

"Voting for the lesser of two evils, is still evil." - Senator Jesse Helms

Those 2 were just a likely to win as I if I had run for president. So voting for them was helping one of the other candidates, Obama or McCain, to win. Of course McCain was not going to win anyway.

I suppose spouting off is as good excuse as any to say to the world all people pray to the same God. Even when people spout off using an excuse and says something like that, they're still denying the one true God and misleading some.

And the road to hell will be paved with many excuse of whihc God did & will not accept.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

[Mongol Servant]

Here's the latest installment on the Romans 13 issue:

This article came from Chuck Baldwin's "News With Views" website and is very good. A little lengthy, but worth the time:

[Note: My son, Tim, writes today's column. He is an attorney who received his Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham, Alabama. He is a former prosecutor for the Florida State Attorney's Office and now owns his own private law practice. He is married to the former Miss Jennifer Hanssen.]

Let's be honest, America is facing the same legal, moral and ethical questions that our Founding generation did, especially regarding the issue of "Who Is Sovereign in the United States." For our Founders, they fought, bled and died on the principles that no man or government has the right to rule over others contrary to their agreement (i.e. compact, constitution) and contrary to the principles of natural law as revealed in the Creation of God; that all men are born in nature with the power to govern themselves; and that no Sovereign government, established lawfully by the consent of we the people, can be usurped and controlled by any other entity. Thus, today in America, the question once again comes down to "Who is Sovereign in the United States?"

Today, there are 3 basic options for "Who is Sovereign in the United States": (1) the Federal government, (2) the State governments or (3) We the People. I feel confident in stating that most contemporary Americans believe that the answer to this critical question is the Federal government--especially as it concerns any practical effect on the power of and over government. For years, Americans have been brainwashed though public education, major media networks and politicians that ALL federal laws are the "supreme law of the land" and that no state law or action to the contrary is valid, citing Article 6, paragraph 2 of the US Constitution as their "irrefutable" proof. Of course they are completely wrong: American ideology and legal fact states that sovereignty rests with "we the people." However, the question must be more narrowly defined.

That is, does the sovereign power of we the people rest with all the people in the nation as one body, or does the power rest with the people THROUGH the respective States? The answer to this question cannot be overstated, because if the sovereign power rests with we the people collectively as one body, then the States have absolutely no power and at the ratification of the US Constitution, the States lost all powers originally granted to them by their respective sovereigns (the people of that State). To the contrary, if Sovereignty rests within or through their respective States, then the States conversely have more power than what is being admitted today by the "Centralists" of our day.

Through an honest study of the history and the context of the Articles of Confederation, the US Constitution, the Constitutional Convention and subsequent Ratification debates, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, the rulings of subsequent US Supreme Court Rulings and the writings of political philosophers and statesmen of the 1700s and 1800s, the conclusion is undeniable and clear: We the People are the Sovereigns of the States respectively and of the States United through our respective States.

Thus, the issue is not who is Sovereign, because we know that We the People are sovereign in the US and that the Sovereigns of each State have never ceded to the Federal government any power not expressly granted to it by the Compact (the US Constitution). But rather, the issue is one of JURISDICTION: in other words, who has the power to act on behalf of and in compliance with the Sovereign? The issue of jurisdiction is so important because it acknowledges that since the Sovereign has "paramount authority" in government, any powers that are granted from the Sovereign to government are to remain within that grant of authority. Put another way, the States can no more grant authority to the Federal government against the will of the Sovereign--the people--than the Executive branch of the Federal government can give to the Judiciary branch the powers that we the people granted to it alone. To deny that such a grant exists or conversely to ignore the limitations placed on the governments by the Sovereign is to suggest that tyranny is a lawful act and that it must be complied with. America's founders would have considered such a political theory to be treasonous. Do we the people think so seriously of the matter? According to recent events, the answer to this question will likely be answered sooner than later.

As some of you may know, several states have and are passing legislation regarding the independence and sovereignty of the people of their respective states. More specifically, the states of Tennessee and Montana have passed "Firearms Freedom Acts," which have become law and which reaffirm their Sovereignty under the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution. This law states that any firearms that are made, sold and bought in that state are NOT subject to the Federal regulations of firearms, because they are inherently internal affairs, which exempt them from the commerce clause of the US Constitution.

As you would imagine, the Federal government, through its agency, the Department of Justice, did not take too kindly to Tennessee's assertion of jurisdiction over this matter and position that the federal laws did not apply to the subject matter at hand. This federal opposition has become known through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), whereby they informed the firearms licensees in an "open letter" in Tennessee that the recently enacted law (Firearms Freedom Act) does not apply and is void and that they (the firearms licensees) must still obey and submit to the federal laws, regardless of the State's statute. (See here)

This ATF response tells us the following about the federal government's ideology of Sovereignty: (1) the federal government does not recognize the lawful and independent jurisdiction of the Sovereigns of Tennessee to operate their internal affairs as they deem proper and fitting; (2) the Sovereigns of Tennessee do not possess lawful jurisdiction to govern themselves through constitutional means; (3) the federal government has the power and authority to control the internal affairs of all States, as they deem fit. Bottom line, the Federal government is Sovereign. With their theory in mind, however, what commodity, what relationship, what contract, what service, or what molecule in this entire country would not be subject to their control and power?

This issue is the very same reason why the Colonists declared their independence from Great Britain in 1776 and why Great Britain declared the Colonies to be in a state of rebellion against the government. The conflict was in fact the application of their Constitution: whether it be a "living" constitution or whether it be "fundamental laws" based upon the intent and will of the people. The fact is, it was the Great-Britain-view of their constitution verses the American-view of their constitution that caused the conflict between the crown and the colonies. One historian summarizes the conflict this way:

"The contrast cannot be too strongly insisted upon. [The colonists], on the one hand, believed that the British Constitution was fixed by 'the law of God and nature,' and founded in the principles of law and reason so that Parliament could not alter it, but [Great Britain believed] that 'the constitution of this country has been always in a moving state, either gaining or losing something,' and 'there are things even in Magna Charta which are not constitutional now' and others which an act of Parliament might change. Between two such conceptions of the powers of government compromise was difficult to attain . . . Such differences in ideals were as important causes of a breaking-up of the empire [of Great Britain] as more concrete matters like oppressive taxation." (Claude Halstead Van Tyne, The Causes of the War of Independence, Volume 1, [University of Michigan, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1922], 235, 237).

Indeed, the issues of taxation during the 1760s and 1770s were only fruits of the underlying issue, and that is, who is Sovereign in America. According to Great Britain, the government had the power to impose its will on the people of America despite the will of the colonies and despite the natural laws governing the compact between the English people and their government. In other words, the government believed that their constitution was "living," giving the government power to impose its will on the people, without the people's consent. The colonists, however, saw the matter to be a usurpation of their God-given right to be governed by their consent and in compliance with their constitution. The end result: the Sovereigns in each colony seceded from the empire of Great Britain because of Great Britain's refusal to follow their constitution.

Do Sovereigns throughout our States United not see the significance of the issue we are facing today? Are we so blind to history that we cannot compare this scenario to the very scenarios that led to the American Revolution? Are we so ignorant as to the intents and purposes of the US Constitution? Consider that the "supreme laws of the land" were never meant to be carte blanche powers of the Federal government, but instead federal laws were expressly limited by the terms of the compact between and for the States, found in the Constitution. This concept of "supreme law of the land" was expressed by a founding father, whom many would consider to be a "centralist" in belief, Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper #27:

"[T]hat the laws of the Confederacy [meaning, the United States of America--yes, even Hamilton, along with many other founders, such as George Washington, called the US Constitution a Confederacy, because they knew that the nature and character of the compact of the US Constitution did not change from the Articles of Confederation] as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land, to the observance . . . in each State, will be bound by the sanctity of an oath. Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members, will be incorporated into the operation of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS."

Hamilton's legal position concerning the limited power of the federal government and the "supreme law of the land" was the consensus of the founders, the States and we the people. Nowhere in America's founding was there the notion that the supreme laws of the land were anything contrary to the compact FOR the States. The supreme laws of the land are simply those "fundamental laws" that we the people have created and imposed upon the government to follow and uphold.

Of course, the question has been raised over the past 150 years of "who has the power to determine whether or not the Federal government has usurped their constitutional authority?" The popular answer is (wrongfully), the US Supreme Court. God forbid that the Sovereigns of each State must wait and rely on 9 federal judges to make rulings of this nature before a State would have any legal rights or justification to act in accordance with the will of their Sovereigns. Indeed, the ATF interpreted the Constitution unilaterally without the opinion of the US Supreme Court and without opinion or order denied the constitutionality of Tennessee's Firearms Freedom Act. The Sovereigns in each state have the same power, and the historical and legal evidence is plentiful. Consider Thomas Jefferson's position:

"[T]he States should be watchful to note every material usurpation on their rights; denounce them as they occur in the most peremptory terms; to protest against them as wrongs to which our present submission shall be considered, not as acknowledgments or precedents of right, but as a temporary yielding to the lesser evil, until their accumulation shall overweigh that of separation." (Thomas Jefferson and John P. Foley, ed., The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, A Comprehensive Collection of the Views of Thomas Jefferson, [New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1900], 133)

I will not attempt to persuade the reader at this point on the fallacious position that only the US Supreme Court can make a determination of constitutional actions. However, for those who would argue that the US Supreme Court is in fact the only legal means by which a State can say "no" to the federal government, then I believe that such a person has reached the point of voluntary slavery, and such a person is dangerous to the concepts of federalism, American-sovereignty, and constitutional limits and freedom, as expressed by thousands of the most influential men in our history. And such a person has accepted only those political means of redress whereby the Sovereigns of each State drudge through the treacherous mud of tyranny and get absolutely nowhere.

What we are seeing today, and have seen for over 100 years in America, is the usurpation of the federal government over Sovereignty--we the people--and over Jurisdiction--the States. While this article cannot begin to expound in depth the true character and nature of the US Constitution, a study of history reveals that the US Constitution was an agreement between the Sovereigns of each State whereby they acceded to give up only certain parts of their sovereignty for the "more perfect union" of the people within those States. As with any sovereign people or government, accession may be limited to whatever means and ways necessary to protect the freedom of that society. This is in fact what the Colonists did in 1776 when declaring independence from Great Britain, what the States did in 1781 when ratifying the Articles of Confederation, and what the States did in 1787 when ratifying the US Constitution. It was the Sovereigns, through their respective States, who declared their natural rights under God, who secured their natural rights through independence from governments and who expressed that any act outside of their consent is tyranny.

When this recognition resounds in the hearts and minds of the people, as our Declaration of Independence states, "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." Do you really think after only 11 years from the signing of the Declaration of Independence that those same people who risked everything for independence from those "living-constitutionalists" in Great Britain and who believed in the principles seen in the Articles of Confederation would have completely renounced their understanding of a Confederacy and Federalism and would have resigned the same and delegated all of their powers that they fought and died to secure for each State and for their citizens? If you think so silly a notion, you severely impose injustice upon the intelligence and intentions of our founders.

However, the record is clear that the Sovereigns of each State never ceded to the federal government powers not expressly vested to it and never waived the ability to reclaim that power through their proper channels--the States--the same channels by which the US Constitution was ratified. Consider the Sovereigns' voice in the State of Virginia in 1787:

"We the delegates of the people of Virginia . . . Do, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby, remains with them and at their will; that therefore no right, of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by the congress, by the senate or house of representatives acting in any capacity, by the president or any department, or officer of the United States, EXCEPT IN THOSE INSTANCES IN WHICH POWER IS GIVEN BY THE CONSTITUTION FOR THOSE PURPOSES." (Emphasis added.)

However, the Federal government today does not recognize the Sovereignty in the people of the respective states; it does not recognize the respective States' jurisdiction over all matters not expressly delegated to the federal government; and it does not seem to acknowledge State Sovereignty under the 10th amendment of the US Constitution. Given their evident intent and purposes to continually grow in power and to continually oppress and suppress the sovereignty of we the people, against our respective states, the question becomes, how will they be made to understand this? It is of course up to the Sovereigns in each state to answer this question. And we see the answers arriving through State laws such as the Firearms Freedom Act.

The time has come in America where to be free necessarily means to resist status quo and federal usurpation and to actively change the course and philosophy being shoved down our throats. There really is no middle ground any more. This is not a matter of politics anymore. This is not a matter of Republican and Democrat. This is a matter of FREEDOM, as much so as were the matters of 1775 and 1776. It is staring you in the face, daring you to make a move. May we never be guilty of causing, whether by our apathy, indifference, laziness or comfort, this nation to lose the freedoms that our founders attempted to secure with infinite pains and labors. We the people must once again reassert our Sovereignty in this country and the States must recognize and act upon their God-ordained role as Freedom protectors and tyranny resisters.

© 2009 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved

[Mongol Servant]

This is the latest from Chuck's newsletter. It really bears out much of the problem faced by today's churches:

By Chuck Baldwin
August 25, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

America's Christian heritage is both rich and deep. What most historians and educators refuse to acknowledge, our forebears understood clearly: it was mostly Christians and churches that formed and shaped the new land that became known as the United States of America.

For example, when discussing the brave exploits of the passengers on board the Mayflower, people seem to have forgotten that the voyage was mostly the endeavor of a single church congregation. And don't forget that it was Pastor Jonas Clark's male congregants who withstood British troops at Lexington and fired the very first of the shots heard 'round the world. The famous French historian, Alexis De Tocqueville, credited the pulpits and churches of Colonial America with inspiring America's successful War for Independence and subsequent prosperity much more than its institutions of learning, halls of Congress, or industries of invention. From the very beginning, America's Christians and pastors were intricately involved in the establishment and building of this republic.

It is no hyperbole to say that without the influence, sacrifice, dedication, blood, sweat, and tears of America's early Christians, this country would not exist.

But what do we see today? We see pastors and church congregations who are, for the most part, totally ignorant of their own heritage and history. They have little or no understanding of the principles of Natural Law--something America's founders knew almost by second nature (no pun intended). They seem to know next to nothing of the Biblical principles of liberty and government. All they seem to be able to do is regurgitate some mindless interpretation of Romans 13--an interpretation that could have been written by King George III or even Adolf Hitler.

Ignoring the great examples and exhortations of both Testaments, today's Christians seem to have lazily latched onto a modern-day "divine right of kings" philosophy, through which they have become the pathetic slaves of arrogant and pompous political wolves dressed (barely) in the sheepskins of legitimacy.

Where are America's watchmen on the wall? Where are the great stories of courage and commitment demonstrated by America's founders that once emanated from church pulpits? How is it that today's Christians know more about sports celebrities than they do America's heroes? How is it that these lying, conniving, con artists called politicians can sucker church members as easily as they do the un-churched? How is it that Christians do not seem to recognize the devilish doctrines of socialism, fascism, elitism, or globalism for what they are? How can they be so easily manipulated? How is it that these corrupt politicians--who vote to kill unborn babies, merge America into internationalist and global entities, strip Americans of their God-given natural right of self defense, promote homosexual marriage, or allow America to lose its identity, culture, and heritage through unbridled illegal immigration--remain in "good standing" with any number of supposed "Christian" churches?

Even though there are more churches in America than anywhere else in the world, the pastors and Christians of this country have, for the most part, become completely irrelevant to preserving "the blessings of liberty"--or even fundamental Biblical principles, for that matter.

Churches used to be respected as lighthouses in communities: places free from the jaundiced juxtaposition of political correctness and avarice. Today's churches are filled with both. Where once churches stood as guardians of truth, they have now become progenitors of error. Where once preachers stood in the similitude of Elijah and John the Baptist, they now grovel in the image of Joel Osteen and Rick Warren. Sunday Schools were once bastions of Bible teaching; today they are glorified coffee shops and playgrounds. The modern Christian home cannot even disciple its own children: how can it then be expected to "make disciples of all nations"?

I repeat: the modern American church has, for the most part, become irrelevant.

It is little wonder that more and more people are losing interest in the organized church. Instead of finding Christian love and kindness, they find the same kind of gossip, slander, petty bickering, favoritism, and selfishness that they might find at any office water cooler. Instead of hearing a prophet of God declare the Word of God, they hear a milquetoast minister meekly musing the latest self-help book.

The complete irrelevance of today's organized church in America to the preservation of Christian liberty and constitutional government is especially disconcerting to those of us who still have freedom's fire burning in our souls. Where do we go for respite and instruction?

I tell you the truth: there are hundreds of thousands of patriotic, freedom-minded Christians all over America who have had it "up to here" with these spineless social clubs called churches! They are tired of petrified pastors groveling before corrupt politicians and businessmen. They hunger for truth, and they are not finding it in most organized churches.

As an example, go to my list of people who have written me to let me know that they are desperately seeking a Black Regiment-type church that they can attend. The list grows by the day.

These people are not looking to be entertained or pampered. They do not care about social standing or making "business contacts." They don't care which church has the "most exciting" youth program, or how many softball teams it has. They want a church where the pastor isn't afraid to speak truth to power and take a stand for liberty. And, unfortunately, such churches are getting harder and harder to find.

In fact, I submit that the true church is not "emerging"; it is "submerging." As in totalitarian regimes all over the world, where there are basically two types of churches: the organized State-approved church, where people who worship the State go to put on a religious show; and the underground church, where real Christians go to worship God with honest, likeminded believers.

The "underground" church in America is not totally underground--yet. But the schism is taking place rapidly. Unlike the houses of State Worship, which enjoy large congregations and ornate buildings, underground churches are, for the most part, small and unassuming. Home churches are also mushrooming and must be considered part of the underground church movement. And, of course, Black Regiment churches are springing up all across the country.

I am convinced that it is through these independent, unaffiliated, unorganized, or underground churches that relevancy will return. It is in these churches where Christians can be taught the Biblical principles of Natural Law, where children who are disciplined and know how to behave are not considered oddities, where pastors aren't afraid to proclaim truth, where people are still committed to constitutional government--and understand the difference between a democracy and a republic--and where self-serving neocons are not regarded as heroes.

So, if you are a Christian and you want to be relevant to the preservation of liberty in this country, you need to get out of these establishment, State-worshipping churches and find yourself an "underground," unaffiliated, or Black Regiment church. And you need to do it quickly!

© 2009 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved

[George]

Let me share a line from a sermon I heard about 10 days ago that I think is appropriate to this discussion:

If the opposite of pro is con is the opposite of progress congress?

In Christ,
George

[Mongol Servant]

That's correct, Bro George! What I think is pathetic, is the average American's apathetic attitude over what this socialist Congress and President are doing to us. Another dude on a different forum, made the statement that we authorized the government to do what they are doing because we elected them in the 1st place! That's exactly what King Osama said to the Republicans on his initial discussions about the stinkulus plan!

Brother, we are in some deep kimchii!

[IM4given]

hmm...something I have been pondering for the past few days is this....

if it appears that the American people are waking up and are on the verge of giving Washington DC an entirely NEW congress and senate in 2010 - will PresBO use some form of legalese to declare a state of emergency and impose martial law to prevent the elections from happening?....

seems that is what has happened in times past....