Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
See the link for the video of ‘Crushed My Presuppositions – Shattered’ at Rumble or YouTube
This weeks program preparations crushed my presuppositions about the foundations of the Constitution. Have you ever had your presuppositions crushed – shattered? Did you ever, over time, think that ‘something is wrong in the State of Denmark?’ You know, you have had the inkling1 in the back of your mind, ‘there is more going on than what I’m seeing or reading on the surface of it all?’
Make sure you check the References and This Weeks Articles
I know my critics will be all over me on this. Let me put it to you this way. The Constitution is the most unique form of covenantal government devised by men. It is the law of the land. With the original Ten Amendments it is the most functional system that should be able to maintain the liberties of those compacted to it. It should keep private property in the hands of legal citizens. I should function within its boundaries.
Yet, we see a completely different resultant in function and outcomes. Yes, the Anti-federalist argued that there would be national encroachments upon the States and therefore upon the individual Citizen of the States, right into your bathroom, bedroom, kitchen and even bathroom.
These functions and outcomes is what I am addressing. I am taking a new position that differentiates between human culture and a governing political2 state. To which this study crushed my presupposition of the Constitution having a Biblical Christian foundation.
What Is Said Is Not Meant By the Sayer
Ponder this quote as we then consider A question of Sovereignty.
As has been noted, many men use words which to others imply a religious view not held by the speaker or writer without an awareness either of the divergence of meaning or the mixed presuppositions. Witness, for example, Rev. John Witherspoon (1722–1794), Presbyterian leader who in 1768 assumed the presidency of the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University). Witherspoon taught many who later played an active role in American life. His own belief in sound money, mixed government and a division of powers was pronounced. An orthodox Calvinist, Witherspoon, without any sense of contradiction, also followed the philosophy of Thomas Reid34 (1710–1796), Scottish realism, using this questionable tool against Hume, Deism and French philosophers. In his Lectures on Moral Philosophy, he spoke the language of rights and reason, combining with this man-centered emphasis his own theocentric faith.
R. J. Rushdoony (1964)
In my crushed presuppositions, I delve into the study of a question I often ask on the program: Who is the Sovereign? With that I will always point out that all and every form of government and governance is religious and theological. Which asks the next question: Which religion and theology?
Remember that I did a program on Madison purposefully attacked Christian Biblical principles in government, especially covenantal government. (See Episode 393: Madison – The Original Anti-Christian Nationalist)
A Question of Sovereignty
As I often do, I have to begin with a question of sovereignty. Here, Sam Adams writes to Richard Henry Lee, I hope to direct you to more of this correspondence as time permits but you may have to look at Lee’s writing linked in the References.
December 3, 1787
…If the several States in the Union are to become one entire Nation, under one Legislature, the Powers of which shall extend to every Subject of Legislation, and its Laws be supreme & controul the whole, the Idea of Sovereignty in these States must be lost. Indeed I think, upon such a Supposition, those Sovereignties ought to be eradicated from the Mind; for they would be Imperia in Imperio (Independent or supreme authority exercised or claimed within the jurisdiction of another authority.) justly deemed a Solecism in Politicks, & they would be highly dangerous, and destructive of the Peace Union and Safety of the Nation…
April 22, 1789
I hope the federal Congress is vested with Powers adequate to all the great purposes of the federal Union; and if they have such adequate Powers, no true and understanding Federalist would consent that they should be trusted with more—for more would discover the Folly of the People in their wanton Grant of Power, because it might, and considering the Disposition of the human Mind, without Doubt would be wantonly [exercised to] their Injury and Ruin. The Powers vested in Government by the People, the only just Source of such Powers, ought to be critically defined and well understood; lest by a Misconstruction of ambiguous Expressions, and by interested Judges too, more Power might be assumed by the Government than the People ever intended they should possess. Few men are contented with less Power than they have a Right to exercise, the Ambition of the human Heart grasps at more. This is evinced by the Experience of all Ages.
July 14, 1789
…We organize our State Governments, and I heartily wish that their Authority and Dignity may be preserved within their several Jurisdictions, as far as may be consistent with the Purposes for which the federal Government is designed. They are in my opinion petit (Small; little; mean. This word petit is now generally written petty.) Politicians who would wish to lessen the due Weight of the State Governments; for I think the federal must depend upon the Influence of these to carry their Laws into Effect; and while those Laws have for their sole Object the promoting the purposes of the federal Union, there is Reason to expect they will have the due Support of the State Authorities. Places are now become the Object of Multitudes…
Crushed My Presuppositions
What crushed my presuppositions? The details soon. Let me start with Webster’s 1828 definition of ‘presupposition’, which will require you to follow along. By the way, remember that not everyone has a clear recollection as to what a presupposition is, hence the definition.
PRESUPPOSI’TION, noun: Supposition previously formed.
1. Supposition of something antecedent.
To which one must have context of ‘supposition’ and ‘antecedent.’
SUPPOSI’TION, noun: The act of laying down, imagining or admitting as true or existing, what is known not to be true, or what is not proved.
1. The position of something known not to be true or not proved; hypothesis.
This is only an infallibility upon supposition that if a thing be true, it is impossible to be false.
2. Imagination; belief without full evidence.
—————
ANTECE’DENT, adjective Going before in time; prior; anterior; preceding; as, an event antecedent to the deluge.
ANTECE’DENT, noun That which goes before in time; hence in writings, that which precedes in place. In grammar, the noun to which a relative or other substitute refers; as, Solomon was the prince, who built the Temple. In logic, the first of two propositions in an enthymeme, or argument of two propositions; as, if the sun is fixed, the earth must move. Here the first and conditional proposition is the antecedent; the second, the consequent.
Just a side note to excite the grey matter, if you’ve not had your coffee yet, is that the definition of supposition regards a none truth or something yet proven. Therefore, as one considers the foundational history of the American colonies from the first landings in Virginia to those in New England, one has to revisit what is true in the granting of Charters as Covenants, the social order of the time and mostly the religious belief systems in the Western world.
Now with that and that you have a clear definition of ‘presupposition, let me lay out the inklings that have gnawed at the back of my mind since I wrote my book on the Constitution and began my several decades study of Samuel Adams, the Anti-federalist as well as Covenant.
For this program I am going to go over just a couple of the elements that have been unsettled in my mind:
1. The increase of unitarianism in the Colonial churches.
2. The lack of specific references to covenantal governance in the Federalists or Anti-federalist papers.
3. Congress under the Article of Confederation not adhering to the method of ratification in that Constitution, thereby allowing an illegal shift of purpose from the Annapolis Convention of 1786 to a runaway Convention of 1787 which lead to the Constitution.
4. Witherspoon revisited. Crushed by the inkling of his commentary on ‘Oaths.’ (See reference in the latter part of Conspiracy In Philadelphia section.)
5. The question of ‘We The People’ as sovereigns and the Christianity question in American Constitutionalism.
This is a lot to chew on for this program.
Adlibbing As Always
Again, I don’t have time to write out a script for the program. So you will have to listen or watch it to get the details.
CONSPIRACY IN PHILADELPHIA
This book is what did it, ‘Conspiracy In Philadelphia.’ This will rattle your core understanding of the shift in sovereignty established in the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of 1787.
If you have the fortitude to challenge your presuppositions then you have to read this book. Find the link in the References.
Key points just to get you more riled up:
1. Page 13:
The political history of the United States after 1688 has essentially been the extension of Roger Williams’ view of civil government, as opposed to John Winthrop’s.5
2. Page 13:
It is mainly Christian defenders of political pluralism who are drawn to Williams these days.
3. Page 13:
But if Rhode Island was not the explicit political-theological repre- sentative model in eighteenth-century colonial America, what was? We must begin therefore with the question: What were the religious and intellectual roots of the U.S. Constitution?
4. Page 15: The First Chapter and the most telling.
THE THEOLOGICAL ORIGINS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
5. Page 18:
Society, Witherspoon wrote, is a “voluntary compact”6 among equals. Most important, his discussion of oaths was limited strictly to contracts (person to person) and vows: personal promises between God and an individual. Oaths, he said, “are appendages to all lawful contracts; . . .”7 He did not discuss covenants as oath-bound contracts among men in which God is the enforcing party. Had he done so, he would have had to abandon Locke and the whole Whig political tradition.
Witherspoon made the assumption that there is a common sense logical realism that links the logical processes of all men, Christians and non-Christians. He appealed to this common sense realism in his defense of the Christian faith. This was the heritage of eighteenth- century Scottish rationalism, the birthplace of the right wing of the Enlightenment. Specifically, this was Thomas Reid’s philosophy.
What’s All That About
What happened over the course of time to fulfill Sam Adams perspective that ‘the Idea of Sovereignty in these States must be lost?’ Why is more attention given to the national government than to the States? What was the national shift in Sovereignty that establishes ‘We The People’ over what the Articles of Confederation delegates in Article XIII, Clause 2.
Final Point…For Now
With an understanding that the Constitution is not foundationally fixed on Biblical Christian principles under the Sovereignty of God, how does one ensure that the true rights of the Citizen are maintained. How does one do this?
The first point of what to do is to pray and seek reformation in the church.
Second is to do all that you do in life according the fundamental Biblical truth.
Lastly for now, is to be active in you community to instantiate Biblical principles in all of the culture that you interact with.
Thank you to all who are subscribers to the program. Please share the newsletter and subscribe to the Rumble or YouTube channel.
References:
1. Conspiracy In Philadelphia by Gary North
2. Political Polytheism, The Myth of Pluralism
3. Letters of Richard Henry Lee, Volume 2
This Weeks News Articles Resources
1. More Pro-Life Activists Sentenced For 2020 D.C. Abortion Clinic Protes
2. The New Oracles of Generative AI
3. The W.H.O. “Pandemic Treaty” WILL be Negotiated in Secret! Our Sovereignty is Under Attack
4. Peru Declares Transgenderism A Mental Illness BY BLUEAPPLES
5. Cohen Destroyed: Trump Lawyer “Dog Walks” Star Witness Through Lie After Lie, CNN Pundits Aghast
6. Joe Biden Invokes Executive Privilege Over Special Counsel Recordings
7. City of “Yes, I Want to Be a Slave” by Kathleen Marquardt
8. Like It or Not, China Is the Green OPEC by KENNETH RAPOZA
China laid the groundwork for the global green economy. Now, the West is paying for it
10. Ballotpedia’s Administrative State Legislation Tracker.
11. Tucker Carlson: Exposed: Loophole in U.S. Law Allows Illegals to Vote Without Penalty
12. The Trouble With World Government BY TYLER DURDEN, FRIDAY, MAY 17, 2024 Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,
13. Biden Campaign Demands Unprecedented Rule Changes for Debates, Showing How Scared They Are
1INK’LING, noun: A hint or whisper; an intimation.
2POLIT’ICAL, adjective [supra.] Pertaining to policy, or to civil government and its administration. political measures or affairs are measures that respect the government of a nation or state. So we say, political power or authority; political wisdom; a political scheme; political opinions. A good prince is the political father of his people. The founders of a state and wise senators are also called political fathers.
1. Pertaining to a nation or state, or to nations or states, as distinguished from civil or municipal; as in the phrase, political and civil rights, the former comprehending rights that belong to a nation, or perhaps to a citizen as an individual of a nation; and the latter comprehending the local rights of a corporation or any member of it.
3Thomas Reid: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reid/
4Who Was Thomas Reid and Why Does His “Common Sense” Philosophy Still Matter? (Part 1) by KIM RIDDLEBARGER on November 7, 2023 – https://heidelblog.net/2023/11/who-was-thomas-reid-and-why-does-his-common-sense-philosophy-still-matter-part-1/
5Edmund S. Morgan, The Puritan Dilemma: The Story of John Winthrop (Boston: Lit- tle, Brown, 1958).
6John Witherspoon, An Annotated Edition of Lectures on Moral Philosophy, edited by Jack Scott (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1982), Lecture 10, p. 123. Specifically: p. 124. Slavery was a problem for him, and he took the view that original slavery is only valid for those captured in war or lawfully punished as criminals (pp. 125–26). Here we see the Old Testament’s influence, not Locke’s. But we are not obligated to release them, once we find them in slavery. Here we see everyone else’s influence in the history of man except the Quakers (after 1770). See Gary North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), ch. 4: “A Biblical Theology of Slavery.”
7Ibid., Lecture 16: “Of Oaths and Vows,” p. 177.