The Constitution of the United States of America

A Divine Document

by Charles Hanna

For many years now it has been my firm conviction and oft stated opinion the United States Constitution bears at least a family resemblance to the Bible, and therefore is due the reverence of the United States citizens "second only to the Bible", and should be "respected, obeyed, loved, and considered as the protector and insurer of freedom, and liberty from oppressive government".

How does the Constitution bear family resemblance to the Bible in my perspective? As a Christian I accept the Bible as God's own infallible, incontrovertible word revealed to and recorded by men; but, His word, and His alone. One the other hand, as a United States citizen, I am no less convinced the United States Constitution was written by men who invoked God's presence and guidance in their deliberations. The invocation was important enough to the framers of the Constitution they recorded the fact of it's intonation. Our Almighty God answered their prayers with His divine guidance and inspiration.

Why would I think the Constitution of the United States is a divinely inspired document? Consider this; if you and I create a business enterprise in which you invest $1000.00 and I invest $100.00, when it begins to make a profit, we will prosper at a 10 to 1 ratio and consider it a fair and proper arrangement. The men who fomented, organized, funded and commanded the revolution were seen by King George of England as some good old boys with a difference of opinion. Since citizens don't enjoy the luxury of differences of opinion in a monarchical governmental system, King George doubtless saw these men as traitors to the crown. Had the revolution failed, the founding fathers would have been publicly hanged as traitors, along with their immediate family members for providing aid and comfort to the enemy. All their assets would have been forfeited to the crown.

A despot would have to be careful not to create a sympathetic back-lash, so he would probably have blackballed the extended families of the founding fathers so they couldn't work. When they began to steal to feed their families, they could then be properly hanged as thieves, or whatever reason might seem convenient.

The non-commissioned Continental Army would be treated as uneducated and ignorant men duped and mis-led by the highly educated (as a rule) and smooth-talking "traitors". These would be paroled on subscription to an oath of allegiance to the crown and sent home, certainly without arms. Two considerations would be playing here; If you execute too many people, you may breath new life born of fear and/or outrage, into the revolution. It is also a fact, hanged people can't pay taxes.

If my consideration in the foregoing three paragraphs are correct, we would have to conclude the founding fathers were the big investors in the revolution. They stood to lose everything. Yet, when these same men wrote the a government into existence, they did not profit at 10 to 1 ratio. Instead they created a government in which all men are equal under the law. Thus, all profited equally in the benefits afforded by the success of the revolution. In my estimation, the reason our founding fathers did not do business in the fashion seen as fair among me is because they were working under divine inspiration.

No, the Constitution of the United States is not a divine revelation by any stretch of the imagination. It is, most definitely, the result of divine inspiration:

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.
For there is no power but of God: the powers that
be are ordained of God. Romans ch. 13: 1

The Constitution of the United States is our basic document creating our governmental system. According to God's infallible word as revealed by the Apostle Paul in the book of Romans, our Constitution exists by His will. Therefore that document, including the first ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights Necessary to Secure Ratification, is due our reverence next to the Bible because it establishes in law a government "ordained of God". Had we required such reverence of ourselves and our elected political leaders from the beginning, we would not have legislated ourselves into the predicament of run-away and abusive government we now enjoy.

Any proposed legislation at any level of government must pass the test of constitutionality. If the proposal cannot meet the requirements of the Constitution, the proposal is invalid. If it is passed into law, that passage does not confer validity upon it. I believe a great deal of law on our books today is patently unconstitutional. The problem here is the lack of resources by individuals to contest the cases to the U. S. Supreme Court for a determination. Carrying this thought further, I personally do not believe we should carry that burden. I believe we have a right to expect our governing bodies to always make those determinations before acting on legislation of any sort.

Another problem faced is the manipulation of the system. I am convinced the U. S. Supreme Court refuses to hear Second Amendment issues because they know the right enumerated in the Bill of Rights are clearly written in English (as opposed to Legalese). I'm also sure they clearly understand these rights are pre-existing, not granted; and they are incontrovertible, securing individual rights. The status the Bill of Rights occupies as the instrumentality of ratification of the Constitution secures it's position as incontrovertible, basic, founding law. The fact the Bill of Rights, in the minds of the writers, recognizes these enumerated as pre-existing rights should be an indication to anyone of average intelligence they are not subject to interpretation. I believe the court knows an honest finding in a Second Amendment case will necessarily render null and void the largest part of all the gun control laws in the United States.

An additional problem faced is the perversion of the intent of law. In 1968 the U.S. Supreme Court considered U.S. vs. Haynes. Haynes was a known Mafia hired killer. As I recall, law enforcement had been unable to put a murder case together in any of Haynes suspected killings that would stand the test of law in court. Haynes became involved in a traffic matter, maybe an accident, during which contact the officers involved made a legal discovery Haynes was in possession of an unregistered machine gun. In hopes of removing Haynes from circulation, the officers filed federally, securing conviction which was upheld through the appeals system to the U.S. Supreme Court. That court over-turned the conviction.

Haynes had other felony convictions in his background. As a convicted felon, it would be a felony for Haynes to possess any firearm, let alone a machine gun! The court ruled Haynes could not be required to register his machine gun. Such a requirement would have Haynes giving evidence against himself proving he was committing a felony by being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, abrogating his right under the Fifth Amendment to not be required to give evidence against himself.

In actuality, there is a semblance of solid rationale in the decision until you consider the court, in effect, ruled convicted felons cannot be required to obey weapons registration laws because it violates their Constitutional rights; but left stand the law to be enforced against law abiding citizens! The more proper call in this case would have been to compare the National Firearms Act of 1934 to the Constitution and found for what it is; unconstitutional! As I understand it, criminal control was originally left to the states to manage under the police power delegated to them to the exclusion of the federal government. When I started in the business of law enforcement in the summer of 1959, we were not subject to the federal rules of evidence. Each state had developed it's own acceptable means of dealing with crime. It was during the 1960's, through a Supreme Court ruling as I recall, all the states suddenly became subject to the federal rules of evidence. Memories of these steps toward increasing, creeping nationalization of law enforcement is one of the reasons no one likes to have old men around.

Particularly ironic, U.S. vs. Haynes was handed down by the Supreme Court in the same year even more onerous registration was imposed upon the law abiding through the passage of the 1968 Gun Control Act, highly touted as as great boon to law enforcement in their "war against crime", and the means by which we would deny firearms to criminals and assassins of political figures.

Possibly the most dangerous problem the Constitution faces, second only to the apathy of the American people, is the presence in government at all levels of arrogantly and openly lawless people. I regret that I am unable to locate a recent article which attributed to a highly placed bureaucrat in the present federal administration comments indicating it is the stance of this administration the Second Amendment provides authorization to the states for the maintenance of National Guard organizations, not an individual right to keep and bear arms; and, it is their intent to continue in their gun control agenda. I believe this person was a member of either the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms or the Justice Department.

Such conduct must be viewed as willful lawlessness, as opposed to misrepresentation of the law! Proper interpretation of law requires, to the best of one's ability, the determination of what the writer/s meant to say. When removed by 200+ years from the time of writing, this process is complicated by the need to research records, as opposed to the availability of direct access to the legislators. We, the people, spent the money necessary to clarify the meaning of the Second Amendment several years ago.

During the early 1980's the Judiciary Committee's Sub-committee on the Constitution, chaired by Senator Orin Hatch (R- Utah) conducted what is probably the most extensive legal research yet made public on the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms". The Senate Sub-committee on the Constitution is charges with the responsibility of interpreting the Constitution for the Senate.

Entitled, "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms", the report contains nearly 200 pages covering 11 centuries of legal development. According to the subcommittee report, the Second Amendment had its roots in English Common Law, and can be traced as far back as 872 AD. The term "militia" first came into use around 1588, and was understood as designating the entire body of arms-owning citizens.

In his preface to the report, Senator Hatch emphasizes, "What the Subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear and long-lost proof that the Second Amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for the protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms."

The Sub-Committee stated. "The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as it's interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after it's ratification indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."

Preparation of this report was accomplished through research capabilities of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, resources of the Library of Congress, and the assistance of Constitutional scholars. The Journals of the House of Commons and private notes of sponsors of the British 1696 Declaration of Rights provided insight into the purpose of the Declaration. Colonial interpretations of the Declaration's right to keep arms were determined through study of colonial newspaper discussions of the issue.

Intent of the framers of the Second Amendment was determined through study of James Madison's draft of the amendment; his outline of speeches upon the Bill of Rights; and discussions by early scholars who were personal friends of Madison, Jefferson, and Washington, written while these still lived. With such in-depth research accomplished and recorded, mis-interpretation of the Amendment can be nothing short of willful.

I have lived my life inside the government where abuse of authority is rampant, open and vicious. The Regular Army and law enforcement practice incredible abuse of authority among their employees and themselves with virtual impunity. An attorney who specializes in government abuse of authority once told me the abuse must be so flagrant it can't be ignored in order for the government to rule against itself.

You may rest assured there is a tremendous number of persons in places of high leadership within these two armed agencies under the control of our politicians who would be more than happy to impose their methodology of government upon the people as a whole were it not for that pesky Constitution! This is particularly so of law enforcement and the politicians themselves.

The absolute totality of frustration is accomplished when, at the end of these deliberations, one arrives at the conclusion this is our fault. As long as the electorate is satisfied with a job, a house, a car, a beer, and a ball game; and as long as they are satisfied to let 50% or less of the electorate determine what our government shall be, then we are destined to become a foot-note in somebody's history book. When we turn out 85% to 90% of the electorate, informed for every election, we will begin to experience "Government of the people, for the people, and by the people."

Charles Hanna is a 28 1/2 veteran of the Kansas Highway Patrol. He also served 5 years with the Augusta, Kansas Police Department. He has over 21 years military experience including 3 years Active Duty with the 82nd Airborne Division. He has 18 years in the Reserves, 6 years of which were spent with the 12th Special Forces. Mr. Hanna presently serves as City Councilman with the city of Augusta, Kansas where he does his duty, endeavoring to guard the Constitutional rights of his constituents.

Website design by Just Write Word Processing - Website Hosting by Net Focus Communications