British history is rich with sacrifice for the principles of Liberty; understanding that Liberty is a gift from God and not a privilege granted by government. It was passionate battles for Liberty that drove the wisdom of limited government that is seen in America and around the globe. In those battles for Liberty we find several repeating mechanisms of despotism; foreign influence, corrupt courts, diminishing property rights and government intrusion in church matters, just to name a few. Our forefathers paid a dear a price to secure our Liberty.
Many have repeated the phrase, “Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.” King Solomon said, “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.” Human nature never changes, and those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat its mistakes. We are walking a path of destruction we need not trod. Our forefathers forged a way for us to avoid tyranny in government, but we have put down their lamp and now wander in the dark. We cannot restore Liberty, we cannot recapture our future, without the hard earned wisdom of the past.
Beginning with the Anglo-Saxon resistance to Danish rule in the early eleventh century, the British people paid a dear price for the wisdom necessary to forge the way for just government. Yet it appears this crucible of Liberty is not immune from tripping over the same obstacles of their past. The Anglo-Saxon communities of the eleventh century, seemed to have an inherent understanding of the evils of foreign rule. Having had Anglo-Saxon kings in the past and upon the death of Danish King Sven Forkbeard, the Anglo-Saxons re-established their former Anglo-Saxon King, Æthelred. Æthelred was allowed to be King, but under new terms; a limited government where the King was to be in submission to the will of the people. The Witenagemot, who was particularly strong during Æthelred’s reign, would ensure this limitation of power. The agreement with Æthelred would begin the future of Liberty Charters, creating the limited monarchy that would make the Kingdom of England unique and pave the way for limited government and secured Liberty to the people in the west.
When Edward the Confessor failed to produce an heir, the people found themselves in threat of foreign rule, once again. The heir to the throne would be the Norman, William I. In an effort to keep Norman rule out of England, the people would attempt to establish Harold Godwinson, an Anglo-Saxon, to be their king. The appointment of Harold by the people was a direct affront to the man who had earned the nick-name “William The Conqueror.” William raised his Norman army and defeated Harold and the people in the Battle of Hastings, reaffirming his Right to be king.
William I was Norman and that was the style of rule he intended to establish in England. However, the Anglo-Saxon style of rule, where the king bore a certain level of submission to the people, had become too deep rooted for William to overtly overturn. William, determined to rule in the unlimited nature of a Norman king, decided to establish his style of rule in a more surreptitious way. Instead of declaring his Divine Right to Norman rule, William began by replacing the jurists in the English courts with men who were not loyal to English law, but loyal to the ideologies of the King. With these men on the bench, William could enforce his foreign, Norman law on the English people even when it was contrary to English law. Apparently William knew what history and human nature dictates, that people are less suspect of the courts to change the politics of the land.

William knew that if he was going to transform England into Norman rule and avoid armed rebellion, he would have to change the ideology of those in the kingdom. William used the foreign, Norman law, the force of the courts, and even the physical force of his reign to chase the land owners who opposed his rule completely out of the kingdom. By foreign, Norman law, when land became abandoned the ownership of that land reverts to the King. William used this law to assume possession of the land he cleared and invited his Norman allies to live on these lands and support his reign. By force and manipulating the courts, William hoped to change the ideology of the land; by filling the kingdom with those who supported his Norman style of rule and by putting fear in the hearts of those landowners that remained.

The Norman foreign law transformation would take place over the reign of William I and his son William II. This oppression of the Anglo-Saxon style of government – kings in submission to people – would end with the “accidental” death of William II in 1100 when an arrow from William’s brother, Henry I’s hunting party “accidentally” hits William II in the eye. Henry I became be king, but not without controversy. In his efforts to please the people, Henry agreed to sign the 1100 Charter of Liberties; a promise from Henry that the evil and oppressive reign of his father and brother would end: “And I take away all the bad customs by which the kingdom of England was unjustly oppressed; which bad customs I here set down in part:…”
Henry restored England to “the laws of the Anglo-Saxon King Edward” removing the foreign Norman rule over the people. This promise of Liberty would fade quickly in the minds of kings; nearly 100 years later, King John would engage in the very activity the Charter promised to eliminate.
King John was another Norman King, and is perhaps the most evil king England would ever know. The people described John as a “wicked, evil king,” that “even hell was fouled by the presence of John.” John was a massive taxation king. Those who could not pay their taxes found themselves in jeopardy of prison, mutilation, and even execution. John would transgress the boundaries and promises of Henry I’s 1100 Charter of Liberties. When the people chose Steven Langton to be their Archbishop, John denied the people their choice and inserted himself into the business of the church. This would be the last violation of the 1100 Charter of Liberties the people would tolerate: a rebellion formed against John. Through this rebellion, John was forced, by sword, to sign a new promise; The Magna Carta of 1215. The Magna Carta reasserted the promises of the 1100 Charter of Liberties, but also established new limits upon the King.
This new limit on government, took a bold stand against the foreign influence that plagued the kingdom and required, “all foreign born knights, crossbowmen, serjeants, and mercenary soldiers” that aided John’s foreign Norman rule were summarily expelled from the kingdom. John would sign the Magna Carta with a sword at his throat and was removed from the throne less than a year later. The Magna Carta is often undersold in its importance. Prior to the Magna Carta, promises came by willing consent of the king. The Magna Carta established, in writing, the demands of the people upon their king and bound the limited monarchy to the control of a representative government.
The British people would have to battle with kings and queens for the next 4 centuries to maintain limited and local government and shun foreign influence to preserve the Liberties of the people codified in the 1100 Charter of Liberties and the Magna Carta of 1215. The next true advancements in codified Liberty would come during the reign of Charles I.
Charles’ father, James I, would saturate the British government once again with foreign influence and power. This foreign ideology, along with its power and control, remained even as Charles assumed the throne. Charles’ refusal to be bound by Parliament and the people; his denial of the people’s rights in Liberty, led to next evolution of Liberty Charters; the Petition of Right of 1628.
The Petition of Right, an exercise of clause 61 of the Magna Carta of 1215, declared the grievances of the people against the King. This Charter listed eleven points of violation of the Liberties of the people and restated the violated provisions of the Magna Carta and Charter of Liberties.
Charles signed the Petition by the force of a sword to keep his throne. However, the promises he made to the people were clearly just to make peace; his blatant disregard for Liberty would continue. It is in the time of Charles’ reign that the people rebelled in the Bishop Wars against the king’s intrusion in their churches; a violation of both the Liberty Charter and Magna Carta. Charles was finally brought up on charges of treason in 1641, through the Grand Remonstrance.
The Grand Remonstrance, another Charter of Liberty, is a list of grievances against Charles’ violations of the three previous Charters. In this list we see, once again, the trials of the past that are direct warnings for our present and our future.
“The root of all this mischief we find to be a malignant and pernicious design of subverting the fundamental laws and principles of government, upon which the religion and justice of this kingdom are firmly established.”
This document is an invaluable lesson in human nature and government overreach. It is a survey of 600 years of kings and government, declaring a design in their actions whose only purpose is to overturn and undermine Liberty. Once again this document identifies the “malignant and pernicious design” as infiltration of foreign law and foreign influence upon government;

“Such Councillors and Courtiers as for private ends have engaged themselves to further the interests of some foreign princes or states to the prejudice of His Majesty and the State at home…to maintain continual differences and discontents between the King and the people, upon questions of prerogative and liberty…to conjoin those parties of the kingdom which were most propitious to their own ends, and to divide those who were most opposite…”

What were those foreign influences that were so destructive to liberty? A few examples found are the use of foreign law to deny people their guaranteed Rights through a corruption of the courts;

• “And to keep them still in this oppressed condition, not admitting them to be bailed according to law, yet vexing them with informations in inferior courts…”

• “The imprisonment of the rest, which refused to be bound, still continued, which might have been perpetual if necessity had not the last year brought another Parliament to relieve them…”

• and the diminishing the property rights of the people in the manner of William I and William II to consolidate power with the King; “The taking away of men’s right, under the colour of the King’s title to land, between high and low water marks…”

• “The enlargements of forests, contrary to Carta de Foresta, and the composition thereupon…”

• “Conversion of arable into pasture, continuance of pasture, under the name of depopulation, have driven many millions out of the subjects’ purses, without any considerable profit to His Majesty…”

• “Large quantities of common and several grounds hath been taken from the subject by colour of the Statute of Improvement, and by abuse of the Commission of Sewers, without their consent, and against it…”

Charles was sentenced to death for his violations of Liberty and the people establish a higher standard of limited government than ever before. This influence of the people over government would have to be renewed in less than 40 years, during the reign of James II and through the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
James II boldly engaged in the same tactics of previous kings. Among his violations of the four previous Liberty Charters, James would completely ignore the separation of powers established between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches;
“By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament;”
James, violating separation of powers, engaged in the writing of laws that were reserved to Parliament alone, so he could maintain foreign influence without Parliament’s obstruction. James also corrupted the judiciary by creating the Courts of Ecclesiastical Causes to circumvent the courts of common law, increasing the power of foreign law and influence, thereby wielding the law and judiciary by his will and that of his foreign advisers, contrary to the Liberty Charters and the will of the people;
“By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the great seal for erecting a court called the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes;”
James actions were as if he used the Grand Remonstrance as a guide book on what to do instead of a document limiting and denying the king’s authority. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 was the people’s response to James’ audacious disregard for the Liberties of the people. This revolution birthed the final installation of the Liberty Charters of Great Britain; the English Bill of Rights of 1689. It was in this document that the people would not only declare the evils of foreign influence but also establish an oath of office for the government; all must pledge to eschew all foreign influence from this day forward.

“I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.”

History proves that foreign influence is the enemy to Liberty. When government becomes yoked with foreign power it no longer needs the consent of the people; it no longer feels the control of the people; it no longer fears the condemnation of the people. A government with the aid of foreign influence has no respect for the Liberty of the people; it doesn’t have to. When the people cannot control their government, there is no limit to government power. A government with foreign backing will never allow limits by the people. Refusing foreign influence is the only way to maintain a limited government that respects the Rights of the people.
Foreign influence will also breed discord between the people and their government and the people with each other. When government refuses the limits of the people and enforces laws that are contrary to their Rights, both history and human nature dictate that hostility between the people and government will arise. Disharmony will arise between the people, pitting those who want to exercise their Rights and those who support the government and foreign rule. The irony of this inevitable consequence of foreign influence is that this conflict actually weakens the government and leaves it ripe for takeover by the very foreign power creating the struggle. Refusing foreign influence is actually essential in maintaining the security of the people and their government.
You cannot tame the fire of foreign influence. It does not want to help or guide; it wants to control and consume. But foreign influence cannot be controlled, molded, or even limited. Once allowed within your government, foreign influence is an all-consuming fire that will bring the destruction of a raging inferno. There has never been any other conclusion and doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the very definition of insanity.
How many of these same violations upon our Liberties do we find in government today? How often will we continue to blindly put ourselves at risk by yoking with foreign influence? In a day when we are believed to be more civilized and better educated than our centuries past, how can we be living with government engaging in the same “malignant and pernicious design” as these days of old?
Since we know that experience is an oracle of truth, where that experience shows the same results over and over again, wisdom says we must then hold those anticipated consequences to be an inevitability. History gives us those certainties about Britain remaining in the European Union.
This is not a conclusion based upon racism; that is an ignorant and ridiculous assumption.  This is a decision based upon history, truth, and inevitable consequences.  If Britain stays in the EU it will be the destruction of British Liberty and British government as you know it.
There are eternal consequences for our acquiescence to foreign power. History has given us all the direction we need to make a well-educated decision. We cannot claim ignorance as an excuse. If we neglect what we owe to God, our future, and the sacrifices of our past, our consciences will reproach us for our folly and our Posterity will curse us for our selfish considerations.

Our contemporary American experience seems often Orwellian.  We have a Congress that denies our Rights in the name of security.  We have a president who not only writes laws with his pen, but is also in the habit of rewriting history to serve his political purposes.  Many patriots have expended a great deal of energy this year in the fight to see our Liberty protected and America’s greatness restored. We are all well aware that there are still many struggles ahead and mountains yet to be conquered.  But let us be reminded of a hope that is rooted firmly in the original American experience that makes our land so exceptional.

Our history is rich with men and women who have surrendered all so that many could live in the greatest place the world has ever known. For over 700 years before the Declaration of Independence, men and women were learning the lessons that would be taught to our founders. Lessons that would infuse our founders with the courage and hope that would build this exceptional land.

Patrick Henry said, “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know no way to judge the future but by the past.” He was letting us know that his knowledge of those last 700 years, were the very reason he knew how this fight would turn out. He knew that every time men and women understood the value of Liberty and pledged all to protect it, they were always victorious. These guarantees of history must have raced through Henry’s head; 1100 Charter of Liberties, Magna Carta, 1628 Petition of Right, 1641 Grand Remonstrance, and his very own Bill of Rights of 1689. These were battles fought in the name of Liberty and he knew that victory was a guarantee. This is our history. This is our guarantee. This is our victory!

We have so much to be thankful for.  Let us not forget that Liberty is a gift that was purchased for us with great sacrifice. Among the many things we have to be thankful for, we must be eternally grateful for the wisdom of men and women that understood that Liberty was a gift from God and that all God’s gifts are worth our every sacrifice.  John Adams, in a letter to Abigail in 1777 expressed this sacrifice.

“Posterity ! you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom! I hope you will make a good use of it If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it.”

We must honor this sacrifice by honoring their memory and continuing their efforts.  Too often I see the revisionism of our history in an effort to demean these men and women with the purpose of destroying our Constitution.  We do not properly respect their efforts by allowing these lies to be taught to our sons and daughters.  We must teach the truth.  We owe it to them.  We owe it to our children.  It is our hope.

I am not trying to give the founders some divine status or even suppose them a level of perfection that they did not have. We must understand that our Liberty was not founded upon people, but upon principles. The people that gave us our exceptional American principles were flawed vessels just like you and me. However, the really amazing part of this history is that flawed men understood that the foundation of an enduring union must be Liberty moored in morality. Consider these words by Alexander Hamilton:

“Equal pains have been taken to deprave the morals as to extinguish the religion of the country [France], if indeed morality in a community can be separated from religion…The pious and moral weep over these scenes as a sepulcher destined to entomb all they revere and esteem.

The politician who loves liberty sees them with regret as a gulf that may swallow up the liberty to which he is devoted. He knows that morality overthrown (and morality must fall with religion), the terrors of despotism can alone curb the impetuous passions of man, and confine him within the bounds of social duty.” The Stand, No. III (April 7, 1798)

Our founders knew that Liberty is a combination of two equally important parts – it is FREEDOM under the constraints of MORAL LAW. Liberty cannot survive where there is pure freedom. Pure freedom gives man the right to do whatever is right in his own mind: cheat, lie, rob, murder. Pure freedom is anarchy. At the same time, Liberty cannot survive with moral law alone. Moral law not mingled with freedom is theocracy. Theocracy in the hands of men is tyranny in the name of religion. Our founders attempted give us this balance and secure the blessings of liberty for us in our founding documents. If we abandon our history, we abandon our founding documents and disregard our moral foundations, then liberty is in peril.

Thomas Jefferson gave us this warning, “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that is justice cannot sleep forever.”

While Benjamin Franklin warned America’s founders directly:

“In the beginning of the Contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for Divine protection…. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of Superintending Providence in our favor…have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?…. God Governs in the affairs of men And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?”

Patrick Henry said “Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.”

Did these brave men and women live without fear? Hardly so! Mercy Otis Warren articulated this dilemma so well.

“I have my fears. Yet, notwithstanding the complicated difficulties that rise before us, there is no receding; May nothing ever check that glorious spirit if freedom which inspires the patriot in the cabinet and the hero in the field, with courage to maintain their righteous cause, and to endeavor to transmit the claim to posterity, even if they must seal the rich conveyance to their children with their own blood.”

They knew that bravery was not the absence of fear, but doing what you must in the face of fear. They knew that the battle for Liberty, as Mercy called it, was a righteous cause. Knowing the source of her courage is the key to understanding her resolve. Mercy wrote a letter to her friend Mrs. Macauley in 1774, from this letter we can know the source of her strength. She said they were “ready to sacrifice their devoted lives to preserve inviolate, and to convey to their children the inherent rights of men, conferred on all by the God of nature.”

The key to victory, the key to the courage that brings victory is not simply fighting the fight, but KNOWING we fight a righteous battle for the One who gave us that Liberty. Our founders were in a position to pledge their lives, the lives of their families, everything that they had because they were firmly rooted in ALL the assurances of Liberty. Our founders knew that Liberty is a gift from God, and those that stand for God’s gifts will be victorious through God’s promises. They firmly believed that living in tyranny was worse than dying for Liberty. They knew that through their faith in Christ, their rewards in standing for God’s gift would be certain, whether on the battle field or in Heaven.

As Thomas Paine so eloquently put it, “THESE are the times that try men’s souls.” But Paine’s full statement gives a richness that is lost with the initial quote alone. Payne continues to tell us who will last in this battle and WHY they will last.

“The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing (sic) its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.”

If we want to have the resolve that Mercy Otis-Warren spoke of, the confidence that Patrick Henry displayed, we must KNOW what Thomas Jefferson knew so we will not become the sunshine patriots Thomas Paine condemns. We must know Liberty is a gift from God.  We must know this Gift, although comes at a high price, is worth fighting for because God is with us. If God be with us, who can be against us?

As an exceptional union built upon exceptional principles, we cannot deny that we are built with a foundational understanding of an exceptional God. Thomas Jefferson reminds us that, “We are not in a world ungoverned by the laws and the power of a Superior Agent. Our efforts are in His hand, and directed by it; and He will give them their effect in His own time.”

Because of our historical understanding that America was built on the principles of freedom and morality, America has always been the haven of rest when tyrants oppress their own. She is the vineyard of innovation and opportunity. We are a people that open their arms to the tired, to the poor, to the oppressed, to the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. No other people can claim this legacy; no other people have this birthright. This is the shining city upon a hill, and we cannot hide our light under a bush.

The focus of our education should not be on the flaws of the men who gave us our Constitution, but on the exceptional principles that they gave us. We have an exceptional union where “all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights.” A land birthed by the principle that the power of the government is to be held BY the people and not where the government holds power OVER the people. A country that believes the principle that says all are free to worship according to the dictates of their conscience, and all are equally free, “Jews, Turks, pagans, AND Christians.”  We have prospered based on the principle that ideas and hard work open the door to prosperity regardless of bloodline, skin color or social status. A land that has remained free based on the principle that liberties remain secure by maintaining the right to defend self, property, and Liberty.

In the profound words of Daniel Webster, “Is our Constitution worth preserving? Guard it as you would guard the seat of your life, guard it not only against the open blows of violence, but also against that spirit of change…Miracles do not cluster. That which has happened but once in six thousand years, cannot be expected to happen often. Such a government, once destroyed, would have a void to be filled, perhaps for centuries, with revolution and tumult, riot and despotism.”~ An Anniversary Address by Daniel Webster July 4th 1806

Let us maintain a true focus on what is important. In this day it is so popular to denigrate America for every little flaw. Why not take back a bit of American Exceptionalism? Why not embrace what makes us different from every other place on the globe? America is exceptional because we are built on exceptional principles. Principles of Liberty, freedom, morality, and equality as derived from our Creator.  And these principles are STILL WORTH FIGHTING FOR!

This is a letter from Elizabeth Manley, our first Liberty First Intern!  She was an inspiration to me and my family.  This letter will let you know exactly why.  Hope you enjoy!  I hope that we will encourage Elizabeth and her generation to preserve Liberty for the future.  If you are encouraged by Elizabeth’s letter, please leave a comment and let her know.  I know it will make her day!  ~ KrisAnne Hall

Hello friends, family & Patriots,

Wow!! I have had an adventure! I want to share my experiences and opportunities with you, and I think a good way to do that is to share with you three specific parts of my trip. I would like to give you a little history on myself, share some of what I have learned from this trip, and pass along what I hope to see happening in the future with my generation of young people.

My name is Elizabeth Grace Manley.  I live in Idaho and am the third child in a family of eight. I am seventeen, just graduated high-school, and am starting college classes this fall. Over the last ten days, I have been blessed to be able to spend time with and intern with a wonderful woman (whom many of you know) by the name of Mrs. KrisAnne Hall. I met Mrs. Hall for the first time in June of 2015.  I got to hear some of her story and listen to one of her lectures. For those of you who don’t know, Mrs. Hall is a former prosecutor, Russian Linguistic, and Army veteran. Over the last five years, Mrs. Hall has traveled the United States speaking on the Genealogy of the Constitution, State Sovereignty, Nullification, and more. When I met Mrs. Hall in June, I asked if she was in need of an intern. I was excited to find that she did and had been praying for one over the last year and a half. The Lord put the puzzle together and by August 11^th of 2015 I was in an airplane flying to St. Louis to meet her. Though my internship was a short one, I have learned so much. I am not informed but educated. The difference being that as an educated young woman, I am now ready to pass along all that I have learned to others, not just sit idly by knowing facts about the failings of the US. I have continued to become more and more passionate about government and what we as a nation should be doing in the States and Federal Government.  So there you have it, a little background on who Elizabeth “the intern” is.

I have learned so much over the last ten days. I learned that the Constitution is a compact (a written agreement between states not people) and the rights that the Constitution talks about are not new but taken from five original documents. The founding father’s looked back on their history and drafted the Constitution from their father’s writings namely five liberty charters.  I also learned that the states of America are independent sovereigns. They have all the same rights that Germany, France, and Britain have! The states came first and formed a federal government to help them not enslave them. But you see, we can’t blame where our nation is today on the president or even the government. The real reason the United States is in such chaos is because the states are lazy. They no longer care to keep their government in check, and instead they began to act like subjects. Lastly, I learned that I have Biblical role-models who righteously resisted authority! We as Christians do not have to smile and bow to every whim of the government because God tells us to submit ourselves to authority. On the contrary, we have Biblical examples who have taught us that God honors those that stand up to a tyrannical government. A few of my Biblical heroes are: Esther, Sampson, Paul, Moses, Daniel, and the Hebrew midwives.

I have big hopes for my peers.  We are the next generation of Americans! We cannot stand by and let our nation fall. Each person will answer to God for his/her decisions and actions to guard what God has blessed us with.

 

 

Please stand with me, let’s encourage each other on to bigger and better things! Let’s face the world as a strong generation and let’s not pass this evil on to our children.

Mercy Otis Warren states: “We will stand today, or our children will fall tomorrow.”

You still have inalienable rights. You were born with the right to speak. What good does it do you if you never, ever use it?! Can we speak out against the evil, stop letting our government define things for us, and instead put government back in it’s rightful place?

I want to thank Mrs. Hall and her family for letting me stay with them, learn from them, and have the ability to come home educated on these things! It was a wonderful opportunity and one that I would recommend to others. I so enjoyed our adventures, the radio show, speaking to others, and seeing the country! Thank you Mrs. Hall for being a passionate educator! And thank you to all of you taking the time to read this! It was a wonderful adventure. If you have any questions, please feel free to pass them on to me! 🙂

All my love and God’s blessings,

Elizabeth Manley

I was recently contacted by a concerned Texan regarding a town hall meeting she attended with her Congressional Representative.  Her email to me reads as follows:

“I have a constitutional question.  At a town hall yesterday, we had a heated discussion with our Congressional representative Mike Conaway.  Our question was why isn’t the House withholding funds for Obama’s overreaches?  Conaway’s reply was the House can’t do that alone, it also takes the Senate.  I have been under the impression the House alone controlled the purse strings.  Am I correct?”

I wanted to respond to this email publicly since it involves an important constitutional issue.  I fear that many are confused on this vital check and balance and because of our ignorance of this principle we are losing one of the most important controls on government incorporated into the Constitution.

Article 1 section 7 of the Constitution is the governing text regarding this issue of spending.  It reads:

“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.”

Since the Constitution is a contract, pursuant to contract law we must look to the drafters of the contract when we need clarity.  James Madison explains exactly what we need to know in Federalist 58:

“The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of the government…This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutatory measure.”

Madison also explains that one of the main reasons the House was vested with this important power was to reduce “the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of government” as the people may demand.

On May 15, 1789, James Madison, then federal representative to his District in Virginia, had a conversation with fellow Virginia Representative Alexander White during the ratification debates:

Mr. White: “The Constitution, having authorized the House of Representatives alone to originate money bills, places an important trust in our hands, which, as their protectors, we ought not to part with.  I do not mean to imply that the Senate are less to be trusted than this house; but the Constitution, no doubt for wise purposes, has given the immediate representatives of the people a control over the whole government in this particular, which, for their interest, they ought not let out of their hands.”

It is interesting to note that Alexander White is repeating the principle of the power of the purse Madison identified in Federalist 58; that it is the duty of the House to have a “control over the whole government” to reduce “the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of government.”

Madison replies to White with confirmation:

“The principle reason why the Constitution had made this distinction was, because they (the House) were chosen by the people, and supposed to be the best acquainted with their interest and ability.”

It is clear, according to the drafters of the Constitution, that the House alone was vested with the power of purse.  Pursuant to Article 1 section 7, the Senate may propose amendments and may concur, but their assent is not necessary.  As both White and Madison stated, this power rests in the House alone because it is the House that is chosen directly by the people as their representatives and best suited to redress their grievances and reduce and control all the other branches as the people see fit.  If the House proposes a budget that the Senate refuses to vote upon, then the House budget stands.  If the Senate proposes an amendment to the budget and the House doesn’t want it, then the original House budget stands.  It is also important to note that constitutionally speaking the president has no veto power over a budget.

Some may confuse the procedure for passing a law with the procedure for passing of a budget.  A very important distinction must be recognized; a budget expires, a law does not.  A law must follow the procedure of all the houses of Congress, with veto power by the president because in order to get rid of a law it must be repealed.  Budgets, however, expire and must be renewed by each congressional session.  No future congress is ever bound by a past congressional budget.  That is why the Senate is not necessary and President is procedurally excluded from the budget process.

We must also remember that one of the chief purposes for vesting this power in the House was to reduce the overgrowth of the other branches of government.  It is counterintuitive to ask the House to exercise that control over the Senate, the Executive, and the Judiciary and then require those branches to concur with that control.  It is highly unlikely that our founders would create such an absurdity with in the Constitution.

The current budget procedures, invented outside the boundaries of the Constitution, by past Congresses, have achieved exactly what both Madison and White have warned, they have let this vital power out of their hands and placed into the hands of those not constitutionally fit to fulfil the demand.  We need educated and principled leaders in Congress to stand against this usurp of the greatest check and balance on governmental overreach.