Rights of the Citizens and Delegations to the Government

[mikewhitney]

The United States was formed on the basis that all rights are initially held by the people but that their rights may be yielded to the government for the common good. The US government was granted permission to form and support a navy ... and to make gold and silver coin ... as specific examples. The US government was also granted sole power to make treaties with other countries.

The permission for the government to use firearms thus comes as an extension of the natural right of people. The government does not have any authority or power beyond what was permissible to the general population. Thus, the effort to limit firearms by the US government represents an abuse of power -- an inversion of the authority.

I'm not quite sure how such principles apply to the States. But the States often abuse the treaty clause by making their own agreements with other countries. And the States may be obligated to the same delegation of rights... that the powers to the State come first from rights held by the people.

Any thoughts?

[demi-conservative]

The government does not have any authority or power beyond what was permissible to the general population.

This is blatantly unscriptural. As always, Romans 13.

Thus, the effort to limit firearms by the US government represents an abuse of power -- an inversion of the authority.

The whole implicit idea is wrong. Government doesn't get authority from the people, its authority comes from God. Whether the authority it has extends to limiting firearms is a separate question.

[seer]

This is blatantly unscriptural. As always, Romans 13.

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment

So wouldn't a Republic and derives its authority from the people have been instituted by God?

[Sparko]

This is blatantly unscriptural. As always, Romans 13.



The whole implicit idea is wrong. Government doesn't get authority from the people, its authority comes from God. Whether the authority it has extends to limiting firearms is a separate question.

Um what seer said, and I thought you didn't even live in the USA, or was that another game you were playing?

[mikewhitney]

Thanks seer for making that point. The constitutional republic was built on what might be called a Christian inspired philosophy.

[seer]

Thanks seer for making that point. The constitutional republic was built on what might be called a Christian inspired philosophy.

Actually Mike, even though our government may have been God ordained, and that Christians (and Christian writings) had the greater influence in our founding, I'm not sure that it is Christian per se. The Bible does not suggest that we have "rights" but "duties." And there is a big difference between the two.

[mikewhitney]

I mainly think of Locke's philosophical influence on the early founding fathers. Locke was influenced by biblical thought.

The inspiration does lie along this spectrum of rights and duties but rather on the balance between people and governments. The power in the hands of government was intended to decrease. The nations, as their governments, were to lose power and were to be subjected to the rule of Christ.

This is the direction of my thought but involves depth that I won't get into at the moment.

[seer]

I mainly think of Locke's philosophical influence on the early founding fathers. Locke was influenced by biblical thought.

The inspiration does lie along this spectrum of rights and duties but rather on the balance between people and governments. The power in the hands of government was intended to decrease. The nations, as their governments, were to lose power and were to be subjected to the rule of Christ.

This is the direction of my thought but involves depth that I won't get into at the moment.

Locke's point in his second work (which influenced the founders) was that we were all God's property and I could not take your property because that would usurp God's right of property. Then there was the whole social contract thing with I don't remember being particularly grounded in Scripture - but it has been a while.

[Terraceth]

Locke's point in his second work (which influenced the founders) was that we were all God's property and I could not take your property because that would usurp God's right of property. Then there was the whole social contract thing with I don't remember being particularly grounded in Scripture - but it has been a while.

Well it's not exactly equivalent to the idea of the social contract, but Romans 13:6-7 implies the existence of such a thing.

[demi-conservative]

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment

So wouldn't a Republic and derives its authority from the people have been instituted by God?

The authority of the rulers in a republic is from God. That doesn't mean that claims about 'actually, the authority is from the people' have any truth to it.

[Cow Poke]

Actually Mike, even though our government may have been God ordained, and that Christians (and Christian writings) had the greater influence in our founding, I'm not sure that it is Christian per se. The Bible does not suggest that we have "rights" but "duties." And there is a big difference between the two.

Much of the teaching of Christianity has to do with yielding our rights, and serving others. Jesus, for example, had every right to have HIS feet washed in the upper room, but he not only yielded that right, but lowered Himself to serve His disciples.

[seer]

Much of the teaching of Christianity has to do with yielding our rights, and serving others. Jesus, for example, had every right to have HIS feet washed in the upper room, but he not only yielded that right, but lowered Himself to serve His disciples.

That is why I prefer duties to rights. We have God given duties to God and our fellow man.

[Cow Poke]

That is why I prefer duties to rights. We have God given duties to God and our fellow man.

I call them 'responsibilities', but, yeah.

(maybe because it works better in a sermon - rights and responsibilities both start with 'r')

[firstfloor]

The United States was formed on the basis that all rights are initially held by the people but that their rights may be yielded to the government for the common good. The US government was granted permission to form and support a navy ... and to make gold and silver coin ... as specific examples. The US government was also granted sole power to make treaties with other countries.

The permission for the government to use firearms thus comes as an extension of the natural right of people. The government does not have any authority or power beyond what was permissible to the general population. Thus, the effort to limit firearms by the US government represents an abuse of power -- an inversion of the authority.

I'm not quite sure how such principles apply to the States. But the States often abuse the treaty clause by making their own agreements with other countries. And the States may be obligated to the same delegation of rights... that the powers to the State come first from rights held by the people.

Any thoughts?

Government of the people by the people means that the government is the people and the people can decide to disarm themselves if they want, by making laws.