Home arrow Commentary arrow OPINIONS arrow op-ed arrow The Real Meaning of the Fourth of July
Jul 02 2008
The Real Meaning of the Fourth of July | Print |  E-mail
Op_ed
By MWC NEWS   

Translation

The Real Meaning of the Fourth of July
by Jacob G. HornbergerImage

Contrary to popular myth, the men who signed the Declaration of Independence were not great Americans. Instead, they were great Englishmen. In fact, they were as much English citizens as Americans today are American citizens. It's easy to forget that the revolutionaries in 1776 were people who took up arms against their own government.

So how is it that these men are considered patriots? Well, the truth is that their government didn't consider them patriots at all. Their government considered them to be bad guys -- traitors, all of whom deserved to be hanged for treason.

Most of us consider the signers of the Declaration of Independence to be patriots because of their courage in taking a stand against the wrongdoing and tyranny of their own government, even risking their lives in the process.

Yet not even the patriotism and courage of these English citizens constitutes the foremost significance of the Fourth of July, any more than the military victory over their government's forces at Yorktown does.

Instead, the real significance of the Fourth of July lies in the expression of what is undoubtedly the most revolutionary political declaration in history: that man's rights are inherent, God-given, and natural and, thus, do not come from government.

Throughout history, people have believed that their rights come from government. Such being the case, people haven't objected whenever government officials infringed upon their rights. Since rights were considered to be government-bestowed privileges, the thinking went, why shouldn't government officials have the power to regulate or suspend such privileges at will?

The Declaration of Independence upended that age-old notion of rights. All men -- not just Americans -- have been endowed by God and nature, not government, with fundamental and unalienable rights. Governments are called into existence by the people -- and exist at their pleasure -- for one purpose: to protect the exercise of these inherent rights.

What happens if a government that people have established becomes a destroyer, rather than a protector, of their rights? The Declaration provides the answer: It is the right of the people to alter or even abolish their government and establish new government whose purpose is the protection, not the destruction, of people's rights and freedoms.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights must be construed in light of that revolutionary statement of rights in the Declaration of Independence. The American people used the Constitution to bring the federal government into existence but also, simultaneously, they used that document to limit the government's powers to those expressly enumerated in the Constitution. With the Constitution, people limited the powers of their own government in a formal, structured way, with the aim of protecting their rights and freedoms from being infringed upon by that same government.

Why did Americans deem it desirable and necessary to limit the powers of the federal government? Because they feared the possibility that their new government would become like their former government against which they had had to take up arms. While they recognized the necessity for government -- as a means to protect their rights -- they also recognized that the federal government was the greatest threat to their rights. By severely limiting the powers of the federal government to those enumerated within the Constitution, the Framers intended to encase the federal government within a straitjacket.

Even that was not sufficient for the American people, however. As a condition for approving the Constitution, they demanded passage of the Bill of Rights, which emphasized two deeply held beliefs:

(1) that the federal government, not some foreign entity, constitutes the greatest threat to the rights and liberties of the American people; and (2) that the enumeration of specific rights and liberties, both substantive and procedural, would better ensure their protection from federal infringement.

On the Fourth of July we celebrate the patriotism and courage of those English revolutionaries who were willing to pledge their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor in defense of the most revolutionary declaration of rights in history -- that man's rights come from God and nature, not from government.

Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org).


This_Category
Category:: Op_ed

Recommend this article...




Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto:
Digg!Reddit!Del.icio.us!Newsvine!Blogmarks!Yahoo!

Quote this article on your site | Views: 851

Comments (1)
RSS comments
1. 04-07-2008 01:00
IMHO, Americans are very misguided about their revolution. They overlook the very essence of what the revolution was about and what brought it on. This was not a spontaneous uprising of the people against an oppressive government. Revolutions of this type occurred in France and Russia where the conditions under people were living at the time were impoverished in the extreme. There was no need of incitement, the uprisings were spontaneous. These revolutions are \"calibrators\", they tell us how bad things have to get before people will rise up against their government. So governments can pretty-well tax people into the ground before they will rise up [spontaneously]. On the other hand, when individuals or groups in a position of influence have the motivation and the means to incite people by creation of both a perceived need to rise up and a \"convenient\" path by which to do it with a reasonable chance of success then all that is needed is to create the popular sentiment and the positive hope of success. This is what created the Nazi regime. Such was the case of the American revolution. The local pseudo-aristocracy, planted by the colonial parent, wanted to \"corner the market\". They had both the will and the capacity to stir up a popular sentiment against the British government and they had also the means to furnish a positive hope of success because they could arm, orhanise and motivate the masses. The American revolution has more in common with the old wars of Europe in which powerful elites funded, equipped and motivated organised armies to go into battle for \"king and country\" and the gullible masses fought and died for their often oppressive masters. Your American constitution reflects the situation this pseudo-aristocracy found themselves in having won THEIR freedom - the popular sentiment they had stirred up for the fight was still hot and flushed after the victory and could not be affronted and so it was given yards of glorious rhetoric in a doculent that is as worthless today as it would have been then had it been put to the test. Every chalenge to your government\'s imperatives in the history of that document has seen a new clause exposed as worthless. Today you don\'t even have Habeus Corpus and you are still carping on about this glorious revoulyion and your amazing constitution and bill of rights while your now fat and comfortable pseudo-aristocracy stage-manages a pseudo-democracy, which is no less a sham. With both parties owned by big capital and all of the media controlled by the same big capital it is hard to believe from the outside that you could be so blind and (dare I say stupid?) as to be still pinning your hopes on a \"progressive-sounding\" democrat. 
If you want a summary of what you can be depended on to be getting worked up about in 2010 just imagine if Barak Obama is sounding and acting like McCain. From here it\'s as obvious as the reality of your constitution.

Write Comment
  • Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article.
  • Personal verbal attacks will be deleted.
  • Please don't use comments to plug your web site. Such material will be removed.
  • Just ensure to *Refresh* your browser for a new security code to be displayed prior to clicking on the 'Send' button.
  • Keep in mind that the above process only applies if you simply entered the wrong security code.
Name:
E-mail
Homepage
Title:
BBCode:Web AddressEmail AddressBold TextItalic TextUnderlined TextQuoteCodeOpen ListList ItemClose List
Comment:



Code:* Code
I wish to be contacted by email regarding additional comments

Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.4


Tags:  Jacob G. Hornberger Fourth of July Bill of Rights
 
< Prev Content   Next Content >
 

Translate

Enter Amount: