"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