The Executive Branch: Celebrating the Semiquincentennial, Part IV

We’re continuing our monthly series celebrating the nation’s 250^th birthday.

·       Part I: The Declaration of Independence 

·       Part II: The Preamble of the Constitution 

·       Part III: Lawmaking 

·        In our Part IV today, as we’re walking through the Constitution, Article II covers the executive branch, the powers vested in the President of the United States of America.

Before we get started, I just want to mention a version of the Constitution I got in the mail, from Turning Point USA. It’s all there, like a pocket version, although it’s slightly bigger than pocket sized. It includes illustrations, and on every page a definition of terms down at the bottom. (Some pages the definitions take up half the page.) The whole thing is there—all the original wording. But with the helps, it just seems easier to understand. If you’ve got a young person in your life—or if you just want an easier way to read and understand the Constitution—this might be a handy version. They sent me mine for free, in an envelope requesting a donation. But you can get these from their website, here. 

Article II, Section 1: Electing the President

OK, Article II of the Constitution first goes over the election of the President, which is using the Electoral college.

To read the full article, follow LINK TO SUBSTACK.

Preamble to the Constitution: Celebrating the Semiquincentennial, Part II

 

image of the US Constitution Preamble from Wikipedia

This is Part II of a monthly series, the way I’m celebrating our country’s 250^th birthday. Last month, in Part I, we went over the Declaration of Independence. This month we’ll begin looking at the US Constitution, covering just the Preamble.

First of all, let’s note that not all countries have a birthday. The US does: July 4, 1776. We chose the date of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, separating the 13 original colonies from Great Britain’s colonial rule.

The Revolutionary War was underway already, begun April 19, 1775, at Lexington and Concord. And it continued until September 3, 1783, nearly 8 ½ years later. By then the country was functioning under a rather loose document, the Articles of Confederation. The new independent colonies were tied together as the states’ league of friendship, a perpetual union, but loosely defined.

Reenactment of the Battle of Lexington and Concord, April 2025,
at Jesse Jones State Park, in Humble, TX.
I played music, in costume, for the celebration, but I wasn’t in the reenactment.

There were, you might be surprised to learn, ten presidents of the United States of America prior to George Washington. But during their terms, the presidency was much weaker, and their administrations not too memorable. The central government, such as it was, did diplomacy and territorial disputes, but couldn’t manage to raise funds, regulate commerce (including between and among the states), or get delegates to assemble to work out issues.

To read the full article, FOLLOW LINK TO SUBSTACK.

Advice for DOGE: Look at the Enumerated Powers

We’re within three weeks of the (hopefully) peaceful transfer of power. With the vacuum of leadership in the current administration, the world is already turning to President-Elect Donald Trump as the de facto leader, and change is underway. I expect there’s a lot more change to come.

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is not a new government agency or entity; it is to be a commission to make recommendations, which, as I understand it, would then have to be followed up by the legislative or executive branches, depending on what a particular recommendation pertains to. It is to be co-led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. Both are really smart guys. And Vivek, at least what I’ve heard from him, understands the Constitution pretty well. Elon has shown his ability to do nearly impossible things, one of which was to turn Twitter into X, with most of the employees gone, and make it now a much freer-speech platform. Maybe they can do the job.

A tweet Elon Musk put out in November, embracing the Doge meme
image that predates the creation of DOGE by more than a decade.

Here's what Wikipedia says about DOGE:

Musk has suggested that the commission could help to cut the U.S. federal budget by up to US$2 trillion through measures such as reducing waste, abolishing redundant agencies, and downsizing the federal workforce. Ramaswamy also stated that DOGE may eliminate entire federal agencies and reduce the number of federal employees by as much as 75%. DOGE may attempt to do this through re-enacting Schedule F. Musk has also proposed consolidating the number of federal agencies from more than 400 to fewer than 100.

It looks like a complicated and difficult undertaking—at which I hope they succeed.

While I have little expectation that advice from me will get to them, I offer it anyway. I’d like to streamline their process by suggesting that they simply go by the Constitution. If the power wasn’t granted to the federal government in the Constitution, then do away with that function.

We’ve looked at the limits of the Constitution before (specifically here, here, and here): the purposes in the Preamble, the enumerated powers, and then the just-to-make-sure-these-aren’t-ignored limits spelled out in the Bill of Rights. But we haven’t done it in the context of an actual, possibly imminent, opportunity to make it happen. So let’s review.

The Constitution’s Preamble, in bulleted form, gives us the mission statement for the federal government:

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.

You could sum up this mission as to protect the people as a whole: to secure their life, liberty, and property. So anything else in the Constitution will be to make those things happen. Most notably, there are the enumerated powers, from Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, spelling out for Congress what it can legislate, what the Executive can then administer and carry out, and what the Judiciary can then adjudicate on:

Article I, Section 8, is where you find most of the enumerated powers.

1.     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;

2.     To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

3.     To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

4.     To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

5.     To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

6.     To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

7.     To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

8.     To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

9.     To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

10.  To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

11.  To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

12.  To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13.  To provide and maintain a Navy;

14.  To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

15.  To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16.  To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

17.  To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

18.  To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Article I, Sections 9, lists some limitations on the federal government, and Section 10 lists some limitations on the states.

Then there are a few more enumerated powers added as amendments to the Constitution:

19.  Thirteenth Amendment: To outlaw slavery and involuntary servitude (except as a punishment for crime), and to enforce this prohibition.

20.  Sixteenth Amendment: To lay and collect taxes on income—changing this from the original language in Article I, Section 8, which didn’t allow this type of direct tax.

21.  Fifteenth, Twenty-fourth, and Twenty-sixth Amendments: To enforce equal voting rights laws across all the states.

It undoubtedly doesn’t take 400 agencies (and probably not even 100 DOGE set as their goal) to do these 21 things. That means the federal government is doing a whole lot that it hasn’t been given power by the people to do—including things that the people can’t rightly give to government (for example, redistribution of wealth: if an individual does it, it's theft; and so it is when the government does it).

So, for the benefit of DOGE, here’s a list of powers the federal government has NOT been given:

ü  Power to govern education.

ü  Power to offer charitable services (welfare).

ü  Power to force purchase of a service or product (such as health insurance).

ü  Power to forbid purchase of a legal service or product (such as gas-powered vehicles).

ü  Power to require payment into a retirement supplement (Social Security).

ü  Power to interfere with commerce that doesn’t cross state lines.

ü  Power to redefine marriage in a way that is contrary to long-standing law and tradition, and to enforce acceptance of the new definition, even when it violates personal religious beliefs.

ü  Power to subsidize any industry (such as alternative “green” energy).

ü  Power to target industries in accordance with a social agenda (gun manufacturing, automobile manufacturing, nuclear energy, oil and gas, fast food, or sugary drinks).

ü  Power to use taxpayer funds to support abortion, nor power to claim abortion as a federal right.

ü  Power to subsidize or control (or forgive) student loans.

ü  Power to take over any industry (as when the Obama administration temporarily took over GM and banks).

ü  Power to favor or disfavor individuals or groups for hiring, educational opportunities, or other purposes based on their race, religion, or ESG or other invented social score or category.

ü  Power to coerce a person to subject themselves to a particular medical intervention.

ü  Power to censor legal speech, or encourage or allow censorship by businesses as censors-by-proxy for the government.

 ü  Power to partner with businesses to accomplish by proxy what the federal government is not lawfully allowed to do.

ü  Power to commit US military lives and US treasure to fight wars not declared by the US Congress.

 ü  Power to use regulatory agencies to legislate, execute, and adjudicate laws within a single branch of government.

I’m sure that list is not exhaustive. But it’s enough to get DOGE started. Anything the government is doing that it has not been specifically granted the power to do—has to go.

The question will be how to cut: swiftly and completely, or more gradually but on a definite timetable with the end in sight (so a future administration can’t revive it). Personally, right now, I’m in favor of swiftly and completely. It’s working for Argentina right now. And we have reason to believe, not only will cutting mean less government spending, but it will free up all kinds of resources to be used for creating value that's currently being blocked from being created.

Exceptions to swiftly and completely might be where long-standing promises have gone into financial planning, wherein the government has deprived people of alternatives. Taking money out of paychecks for Social Security would be an example; you can’t take it out all those years, depriving earners of the use and investment power of their money, and then take away the promised, albeit inadequate, benefit. (COLA for Social Security benefits this year is 0.2%, in a high-inflation environment, which is clearly inadequate.) Then the question will be how to get us from the current mess we’re in to a constitution-abiding state.

DOGE could keep in mind this Spherical Model axiom:

Whenever government attempts something beyond the proper role of government (protection of life, liberty, and property), it causes unintended consequences—usually exactly opposite to the stated goals of the interference.

What DOGE has been tasked with will not be easy; but it is simple: limit the federal government to its proper role by abiding by the Constitution. I pray for them to take this rare opportunity and make the radical changes necessary to rescue our constitutional republic.

Divinely Inspired Constitutional Principles

Of the 195 countries in the world today (depending on how you count), all but three have a written constitution. All of these derive from the existence of the Constitution of the United States of America, which is the oldest, most longstanding of them all. Many states, as in the United States, in Mexico, and other places, may also have their own written constitutions. Texas does.

In our worldwide conference yesterday, President Dallin H. Oaks,[i] of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, talked with us about the US Constitution and the divinely inspired principles of freedom it embodies. Why was that brought up in a worldwide religious meeting?

President Dallin H. Oaks, of the First Presidency of 
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
speaking at Sunday afternoon's General Worldwide Conference
screenshot from here

 

As Pres. Oaks said,

The United States Constitution is the oldest written constitution still in force today. Though originally adopted by only a small number of colonies, it soon became a model worldwide.

And,

The United States Constitution is unique, because God revealed that He established it for the rights and protection of all flesh.

We believe our US Constitution was divinely inspired at a time and place that made the restoration of the gospel—the founding of our Church—possible, just three decades after it was written. But it’s not just for Church members; it’s for the benefit of all mankind.

US Constitution
image from Wikipedia

While there were other places and people in the world that spoke about human rights and equality—as opposed to a stratified society, which was the norm and had been historically—the United States Constitution was the first to put that into law. There was no place else in the world at that time that would have been receptive to Christ’s restored religion in which God is no respecter of persons but invites all to come unto Christ.

Pres. Oaks has the qualifications to speak on the matter:

·         He clerked for the Chief Justice of the United States.

·         He taught law for 15 years.

·         He served on the Utah Supreme Court for 3 years.

·         He has served as an apostle for our Church for 37 years.

I could add that he also happened to be the President of my alma mater, Brigham Young University; his term ended at my graduation. That doesn’t have anything to do with his expertise on the Constitution and how it relates to the Church, but it adds to my respect for him.

He speaks clearly and lays out his points logically. Always. And yet, he tends to stir up the occasional hornets’ nest when he speaks. Maybe because he’s willing to state things at odds with current culture or political correctness.

I suppose in today’s climate, you’re not supposed to say that something one country has is better than what other countries have. But if it weren’t true, we wouldn’t have a border problem. So let’s just admit that there’s something good here in America. And whatever good we have probably stems from the freedom and prosperity we have directly resulting from our Constitution.

Freedom relates to agency—our ability to choose, and therefore to be accountable for, our actions. He said,

The most desirable condition for the exercise of that agency is maximum freedom for men and women to act according to their individual choices. Then… every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment. Therefore, the Lord revealed, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another. This obviously means that human slavery is wrong. And, according to the same principle, it is wrong for citizens to have no voice in the selection of their rulers or the making of their laws.

So individual freedom is the overriding principle. But he further distills what makes the US Constitution such a good pattern for the world into these five principles (but not necessarily limited to only these):

1.       The source of government power is the people.

He adds that,

Sovereign power in the people does not mean that mobs or other groups of people can intervene or intimidate to force government action. The Constitution established a constitutional democratic republic, where the people exercise their power through their elected representatives.

2.       A division of power in which only limited, enumerated powers are granted to the central government, and all other rights are reserved “to the states respectively or to the people.”

3.       The separation of powers among independent executive, legislative and judicial powers. More than a century earlier “the English Parliament pioneered the separation of legislative and executive authority when they wrested certain powers from the king.” But it was an inspired innovation to have all three branches co-equal, so they “could exercise checks upon one another.”

4.       The Bill of Rights, guaranteeing individual rights as well as limits on government authority.

These are not new, as he points out:

Here the inspiration was in the practical implementation of principles pioneered in England, beginning with the Magna Carta. The writers of the Constitution were familiar with these, because some of the colonial charters had such guarantees.

5.       The rule of law, as opposed to ruler’s law.      

He says,

We are to be governed by law, and not by individuals. And our loyalty is to the Constitution and its principles and processes, not to any officeholder.

Here in Texas our state constitution was patterned after the US Constitution, so I thought I’d take a look and see if it held these five principles.

The opening of the Texas Constitution, handwritten 1876
image from Wikipedia

Bill of Rights, check. Instead of amendments, Article I is the Bill of Rights. It starts with Freedom and Sovereignty of the State, saying this:

Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.

This is the basis of the contract between Texas and the United States of America.

Going on, it covers being a republican form of government—representing the voice of the people. That’s the first principle of Pres. Oaks’ list, so check that. Then comes equal rights for all—no special privileges for any. Then comes equality under the law, saying it this way:

Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin. 

There are several in a row related to freedom of religion: no religious tests to qualify for office or public trust, provided that a person acknowledges “the existence of a Supreme Being.” Without a Supreme Being, there are no God-given rights to preserve; that would be a problem. Then witnesses cannot be disqualified based on religious belief nor lack thereof; “but all oaths or affirmations shall be administered in the mode most binding upon the conscience, and shall be taken subject to the pains and penalties of perjury.” Next is freedom of worship—and this is longer and more detailed than the First Amendment in the US Constitution. It says,

All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship.

There’s one more related to religion: no appropriations can go to sectarian purposes—that is, to the benefit of a particular religious sect. No financial religious favoritism.

Next comes freedom of speech and press. Then no illegal searches or seizures. Then rights of the accused, which look similar to in the US. Listed separately are rights of bail, and denial of bail after multiple felonies, which is somewhat long and detailed, with a couple of sub-sections.

Then is the writ of habeas corpus, which shall never be suspended. And that is followed by an inclusive one with no excessive bail or fines; no cruel or unusual punishment; courts must be open; and there must be a remedy by due course of law. Then comes no double jeopardy, and the right to trial by jury.

Things are getting detailed. I’ll add that there are specific limits to imminent domain, including a definition of “public use” to prevent taking property for economic development purposes—which was an amendment in 2009.

There is no deprivation of life, liberty, or property except by due course of the law. There are a couple of others related to law and life. And then a definition of treason against the state:

Treason against the State shall consist only in levying war against it, or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort; and no person shall be convicted of treason except on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

We can’t leave out the right to keep and bear arms. Then military is subordinate to civil authority, and there’s no quartering of soldiers in houses.

Let me add this one, added in 2005: “Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.” And “This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.” The US Supreme Court is currently at odds with the Texas Constitution.

President Oaks, by the way, mentions this, saying:

Despite the divinely inspired principles of the United States Constitution, when exercised by imperfect mortals, their intended effects have not always been achieved. Important subjects of lawmaking, such as some laws governing family relationships, have been taken from the states by the federal government.

He also mentions other infringements such as "The First Amendment guarantee of free speech has sometimes been diluted by suppression of unpopular speech," and some messiness concerning the separation of powers. People definitely make divine inspiration go awry when they don't follow it. 

Nevertheless, these principles, Pres. Oaks says, make it so all individuals are equal before the law. That is the goal. Unfortunately, that is not always the outcome.

The Texas Constitution has a total of 34 rights in that Article I, all coming ahead of the code of laws.

So are all five principles covered in Texas? Yes. We have rule by the people. We have rights of state government that have not been granted to the federal government. We have the separation of powers: executive, two-chamber legislative, and judicial (divided into civil and criminal state supreme courts). We have the Bill of Rights, which we’ve detailed. And we abide by the rule of law, rather than ruler’s law.

Hurray for Texas!

So what do we do about this love of the principles of the Constitution?

We use the moral agency God has given us to make the best decisions we can and use our influence for good. Pres. Oaks suggests some things good citizens can do:

In the United States and in other democracies, political influence is exercised by running for office—which we encourage—by voting, by financial support, by membership and service in political parties, and by ongoing communications to officials, parties, and candidates.

It’s a fine line, and he’ll be getting flack just for trying to carefully walk it. But he suggests both being politically involved and not criticizing others in how they are politically involved, or in the choices they make. As he says,

There are many political issues. And no party, platform, or individual candidate can satisfy all personal preferences. Each citizen must therefore decide which issues are most important to him or her at any particular time. Then, members should seek inspiration on how to exercise their influence according to their individual priorities.

You don’t know the thought processes another person has gone through, or what their particular priorities are—or even what they may or may not be aware of. So you shouldn’t decide someone is an unworthy church member simply because their political opinions may differ from your own. In a church where the membership heavily leans conservative, I guess that needed to be said.

Often when I hear Pres. Oaks speak, I am wondering which people is he speaking to concerning a particular point. In October 2020 he reminded us that our process is to accept the result of an election, and if disappointed work toward the next election. This was before the election was stolen, but I still took it to heart, since I saw election fraud as likely because of all the mail-in votes and other challenges to basic election integrity. But I couldn’t picture Latter-day Saints going out and protesting. This time he said,

Being subject to presidents or rulers of course poses no obstacle to our opposing individual laws or policies. It does require that we exercise our influence civilly and peacefully, within the framework of our constitutions and applicable laws. On contested issues we should seek to moderate and unify.

I of course agree. But did we members of our Church really need reminding that we influence only civilly and peacefully, within the law? That seems like a given. Or maybe I’m unaware of some rabble-rousing Latter-day Saints somewhere?

I was heartened to hear him say, “We should trust in the Lord and be positive about this nation’s future.” I do trust in the Lord. But I haven’t lately been positive about this nation’s future. He says we should all of us, around the world, pray for our leaders. I do that.

It may be that, while I love the US Constitution, as Pres. Oaks clearly does, he knows more about the future than I do. In my assessment, we are at a stage where we could call what we have the Democratic-Socialist Tyranny of America (that appears to be the intention of those currently in power and trying to make their power permanent), as opposed to the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America.

If I continue to support Texit, it will be with an eye toward influencing, where I can, to live where we have the divinely inspired principles of the US Constitution. I want that for my beloved United States as well the nation-state I’m living in. But if I can't get it in both, I'll aim for where I live.

In Daniel Miller’s book on Texit, which I’ve been reading this past week, he points out that other places that have separated, such as Scotland from Great Britain and Catalonia from Spain, when you ask a person where they’re from they don’t say the larger unit they’re affiliated with; they say their home place. But here in Texas—well, we sometimes do say Texas before America, as people in probably no other state would do, but we still pledge allegiance to the US flag just before turning toward the state flag and pledging allegiance to Texas (pp. 174-177). The two didn’t used to seem incompatible. They certainly aren’t incompatible when considering the actual US Constitution. But that’s not really what we’ve been dealing with for quite a while.

So I’m considering President Oaks’ words. I am loving an honoring the US Constitution—and our equally principled Texas Constitution. And I’ll watch and hope for America’s positive future, while also pursuing freedom, prosperity, and civilization where I think I have influence to do so.

_____________

[i] As of today, this link of the full session was available, but later this week each speech should be available separately, along with the transcript, including footnotes.

Dream Nation

If I were to found a nation from scratch, what would it be like? It would look a great deal like the US Constitution. It would base government on the underlying principle that rights come from God. People will try to take away those rights, and they must be prevented. Government serves that limited purpose. Government should be used to protect our lives, liberty, and property—and the free choice of work to acquire property.

This new nation would have to be a break-off or restart of something existing, since the world is pretty much fully named and occupied now. The words declaring this new nation might include something very much like

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 to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

And then they would go on to describe why there should be this new government in place of the old:

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.

There might follow a list of the grievances—the laws broken by the previous government. And after that list of government’s crimes against the people, the new nation would declare its independence. The signers would invoke their “Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence,” and they would “mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

This is how it was done 240 years ago, at the birth of the United States of America. Appeals to the law that was supposed to guarantee their natural rights had been underway for decades. It appeared every avenue of making things right was exhausted. At the time of the Declaration, war was underway, and continued for several more years. Only Divine Providence could have led to the miraculous victory. Eventually the fledgling nation grew and prospered, and the mother country stopped trying to re-wrest control.

Washington-on-the-Brazos, where the Texas Declaration of
Independence was signed in 1836
photo from Wikipedia

Similarly, in 1836, a section of Mexico listed grievances, and after exhaustive efforts to redress wrongs by appealing to the constitutional law of the nation were attempted and rebuked by the illegitimate dictator, independence was declared. So the Republic of Texas declared independence. A war was already underway, and continued. But with miraculous help from Divine Providence, the dictator-president was defeated in a brief battle at San Jacinto, to the east of present-day Houston.

The fledgling nation struggled, and before many years asked to become one of the United States of America. And has prospered considerably since—far beyond anything imagined by the mother country. As a single state within the US, it is the twelfth largest economy in the world.

So, there’s a pattern. A constitution is in place, promising the people protection of their God-given rights. Then tyrants get power and ignore the law. The free people then try to assert their rights through legal appeals, through reason, through common sense. And their appeals are ignored. Then the people—enough of them—come to see that a complete break is necessary, so that they can form a new nation that doesn’t allow government tyranny.

The tyrant nation doesn’t want to let them go peacefully and attempts to force submission. But, God willing, the free people win their independence.

If the tyrant nation didn’t try get the people to submit through brutal force, the war part of becoming independent would be eliminated.

So, if I were to have what I wanted, it would be to jettison the tyrants from the government—and any portions of the country where the voice of the people prefers the tyrants—and return to the Constitutional laws.

If that is not possible—as it was not with either mother country England for the original thirteen colonies, nor with mother country Mexico for Texas—then there would need to be a declaration of independence.

I am speaking hypothetically only. I am in favor of abiding by the US Constitution, and I don’t think we have yet done everything possible to exhaust the possibility of restoring the Constitution and jettisoning the tyrants.

But, while the United States is considered “indivisible,” that is only while the government guarantees “liberty and justice for all.” Our list of grievances is already as long and serious as was the founders’.

I am where the US founders were between 1760 and 1776, while John Adams was stationed in England making appeals. And I am where Stephen F. Austin was in 1830-1835, before he came out of a dungeon where he was imprisoned for asking that the constitution be followed.

So, hypothetically speaking, since I live in Texas, let’s suppose all avenues of Constitutional restoration have been exhausted. And Texas declares independence from the post-Constitutional Socialist States of America. Let’s further suppose that, because of close proximity to the other states, and the long years of people moving in and out among states, that the Socialist States of America would hesitate to declare war on Texas, but would allow a peaceful secession.

Other states could join—maybe Oklahoma, which is adjacent, but maybe also Utah, which wouldn’t be contiguous, but might prefer joining Texas rather than asserting its independence while surrounded by the Socialist States. There may be others.

So, we have this new nation, formed the way other freedom seekers have formed nations (except peacefully). And now we need to set up the laws.

I think the abandoned US Constitution is an excellent starting point. We would need to form a Constitutional Republic: representative government, by the voice of the people, but with guarantees against majority—or minority—tyranny.

Let’s keep most of it, and then add what we need to clarify and to maintain. We keep power divided into three branches of government. But we would spell out that all national laws must be duly legislated by the bicameral legislative branch and none else. Let’s add that every piece of legislation must deal with a single issue, and that it must identify the power in the Constitution granting authority for that duty.

The executive branch would have no power to issue any such thing as an edict, nor any executive order other than to indicate to workers the procedures for executing the legislated laws. Executive regulatory agencies, which currently have lawmaking, judicial, and punishment self-appointed duties would be entirely eliminated.

As now, the third branch would be the judiciary, which deals with judging according to the law—and has the bonus obligation of identifying whether a duly legislated law is legal according to the ultimate law, the Constitution. But let’s add that a two-thirds majority of the legislative branch could overrule the judiciary. (I’ve heard that suggestion for an Article V Convention to amend the Constitution.) This would prevent the judiciary from asserting illicit lawmaking authority.

We should make it both easier and probable for the legislative branch to impeach (remove from office) the president or vice-president either for attempts at unconstitutional acts or for crimes and corruption. And we could add that the people could also call for impeachment or recall (in a way similar to an Article V convention), if they see that the legislative branch isn’t responding to their appeals.

In addition, the legislative branch—as well as the people—could impeach a justice for failure to abide by the Constitution, or for crimes and corruption.

All would have term limits. The president would have no more than two terms (eight years). Senators would have no more than two terms (twelve years). Representatives would have no more than six terms (twelve years). Justices would have no more than sixteen years. (Length of terms might be negotiable; but this is my daydream, so I get to say.)

We would keep the Bill of Rights—maybe clarifying where courts have tried to interfere with our God-given rights.

Religion would be encouraged, in public and private life. No specific religion or sect would be given preferential treatment by government. But government could do nothing to hinder the free expression—public and private—of religion and religious people. Public prayer would be common at civic gatherings. Such prayers can be done according to the religion of the one praying, and those of differing religions would be expected to be respectful—as others would be to them at other opportunities.

We would also be free to speak opinions—even unpopular opinions—without fear of prosecution. Limits would include defamation, libel, slander, provoking violence, pornography and lewdness. But would not include civil discourse. And, of course, there would be no laws preventing others from saying things a person or group disagrees with, thereby “offending” them.

People clearly have not given up the right to defend themselves, just because they have hired a police force to help protect them. Only criminals would be prevented from owning and using firearms for protection, hunting, sport, or whatever use they see fit.

Families must be protected as the basic unit of society. Marriage would be defined as it has for millennia, as a man and a woman. Other definition powers would be retained locally. Preference would be given to married husband and wife. Other family forms, while permitted, do not expect government or public approval. Parents have the right and responsibility to see to the care, education, and upbringing of their children. Only when parents drastically fail would the law step in to protect the child.

Any power not enumerated in the Constitution would not be granted to the federal government, but would be held by local jurisdictions or the individual people. The local jurisdictions (states, provinces, or whatever they are called in this new nation) would decide when to assert their rights—regardless of what a Supreme Court says. The final arbiter should be the people, not a national government-appointed judiciary, which clearly has a conflict of interest in such cases.

Government’s only economic powers would include standardizing weights and measures, standardizing money, maintaining federal infrastructure, and preventing monopolies. A flat tax of no more than 10% could be imposed more maintaining government purposes of border protection, sovereignty duties, and enumerated government purposes. With government limited to its enumerated powers, there should be little difficulty in maintaining a balanced budget and avoiding debt—but rather than trust on this, the laws should make it mandatory (with possible temporary exceptions, such as natural disasters and attacks on the nation’s soil).

The new nation would secure its borders, and have an orderly, fair, and consistent immigration and naturalization policy.

The national government would refrain from interfering where it is not granted powers, such as in education, charity, environmental regulation, and subsidizing particular industries or market sectors.

We need informed voters committed to maintaining the Constitution. While there should be no financial or racial test for voters, I’m willing to believe we could come up with a test that is part of voter registration—something that proves the voter understands the basic form of government, the limits of government, and who one’s current national elected officials are. And we could have candidates sign an oath showing their understanding of and dedication to the Constitution—with punishments including possibly prison and fines for breaking this oath.

What I dream about is a country well up into the northern hemisphere of the Spherical Model—where we have freedom, prosperity, and civilization. Our original founders did everything right—except prevent us from ignoring the law and slipping southward. But that is not a problem with their system; that is a problem with the people.

So let's start with civilizing people, so that they naturally want--and work for--freedom and prosperity.