Section 1

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

“Legislators”

No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.¹

Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language defines the words “legislator” and “legislative”:

A lawgiver; one who makes laws….²

1. Giving or enacting laws; as a legislative body. 2. Capable of enacting laws, as legislative power.³

With these definitions in mind, measure Article 1, Section 1, of the United States Constitution by the following declarations from the prophet Isaiah and James, the brother of Yeshua⁴ (Jesus’ given Hebrew name):

For YHWH⁵ is our judge, YHWH is our lawgiver, YHWH is our king; he will save us. (Isaiah 33:22)⁶

There is one lawgiver …. (James 4:12)

Yahweh is the source of all valid law and is, therefore, the source of all true morality. In other words, Yahweh⁷ has a monopoly on legislation, and thus morality. Because legislation enacts or establishes morality, morality and legislation are indivisible.

Yahweh holds the monopoly on what is good and what is evil. For any one man or group of men to attempt to legislate a different code of good and evil is tantamount to calling good evil and evil good (Isaiah 5:20). Consider also Isaiah 8 and Jeremiah 8:

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isaiah 8:20)

How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of YHWH is with us? Lo, certainly in vain [Strong’s, a sham] made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain. The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of YHWH; and what wisdom is in them? (Jeremiah 8:8-9)

Jeremiah’s denunciation of the scribes who made the law of Yahweh a sham applies as much to the Constitutional framers as it did to the Pharisees in Yeshua’s day and their progenitors and proselytes who penned the Talmud:

But he [Yeshua] answered and said unto them [scribes and Pharisees], Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? …ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Matthew 15:3-9)

If one did not know better, he might think from the following that Gary DeMar is anti-Constitution:

The Constitution contains little moral prescription…. The Constitution does not address ethical issues…. At best, the Constitution is a written set of political rules that will implement whatever moral precepts are generally held by the people at any given time. Slavery was constitutionalized because the majority of people in the eighteenth century believed the practice was morally acceptable. Abortion was illegal until 1973 because the majority of people believed that the “fetus” deserved legal protection.⁸

Actually the Constitution is full of ethical issues, as demonstrated throughout this book. Try as they did (or did they?), it was impossible for the framers to make it a morally neutral document. Legislation is never morally neutral. Worse, calling good evil and evil good is itself a claim to divinity. One of the attributes of God is the power to determine or legislate good and evil (Genesis 2:16-17, 3:5). Because there is only one true God, there can be only one standard (His standard) for what is good and what is evil. Anyone who attempts to change His definition of good and evil is usurping His place as God. In The World Under God’s Law, Robert Ingram wrote, “…the other gods about whom we must be concerned are, as they ever have been, to be found in the seats of temporal, or human, government.”⁹

Article 1 begins “All legislative powers herein granted….” Granted by whom? Not by the God Yahweh, but by the god WE THE PEOPLE. You will look in vain to find any reference – within or without the United States Constitution – wherein the Constitutional framers affirmed that the legislative powers enumerated in Article 1 and elsewhere throughout the Constitution were granted by Yahweh. It will also prove to be an effort in futility to locate anywhere where they affirmed or confirmed the laws of Yahweh:

Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; a blessing, if ye obey the commandments of YHWH your God, which I command you this day: And a curse, if you will not obey the commandments of YHWH your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known [previously]. (Deuteronomy 11:26-28)

Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen. (Deuteronomy 27:26)

Conversely, consider the following declaration by James Madison:

A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves would be considered by the judges as null and void.¹⁰

In Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion, referring to a related statement by John Adams, David Barton declared that the United States Constitution is the primary standard for judging political principles:

Since citizens are entrusted with the responsibility to judge for themselves “the political principles and measures,” the first and primary standard for measurement is the Constituton.¹¹

The first and primary standard of measurement for anything political or otherwise always has been and always will be Yahweh’s laws. Since when have citizens been entrusted to judge matters already adjudicated by Yahweh? Asaph provides the answer:

I am YHWH thy God…. But my people would not hearken to my voice…. So I gave them up unto their own hearts’ lust: and they walked in their own counsels. (Psalm 81:10-12)

Every Christian¹² should be asking: From where did this federal power to grant anything originate? If we were to consult the Prophet Habakkuk, he would inform us that this power originated with itself:

...Their justice and authority originate with themselves. …They whose strength is their god. (Habakkuk 1:7, 11, NASB)

The Constitutional framers commandeered Yahweh’s exclusive legislative power and vested it in a congress of their own making. The legislation agreed upon by the framers and authorized by the U.S. Constitution is frequently inconsonant with and antagonistic to Yahweh’s laws:

Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees [anything contrary to or not in harmony with Yahweh’s laws], and that write grievousness which they have prescribed. (Isaiah 10:1)

This is the same as saying Constitutional legislators rule by their own authority:

The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their [own] means [authority, NASB]; and my people love to have it so…. (Jeremiah 5:31)

If you do not believe the people love to have it so, just challenge the validity of the United States Constitution.

If we believe all morality originates with Yahweh, then we must also conclude that any law contrary to or not in harmony with His perfect laws represents lawlessness, unrighteousness, and immorality.

Because Yahweh is the sole legislator, only His legislation is law. This means any attempt by man to make law that is contrary to or not in harmony with His perfect laws is, at best, ultimately futile. This futility is demonstrated by the fickle propensity of Constitutional “legislators”:

Two people could have walked down any U. S. street in 1930 – one with a bottle of whiskey under his arm and one with a bar of gold in his pocket, and the one with the whiskey would have been a criminal whereas the one with the bar of gold would have been considered a good law abiding citizen. If the same thing happened in any U. S. city in 1970, the one with the whiskey would be the law abiding citizen and the one with the gold bar would be the criminal.¹³

More importantly, any attempt to legislate outside biblical parameters is a treasonous and seditious act against Yahweh. To usurp a legislator’s power, one must run him out of the country or overthrow him. The Constitutional framers effectually overthrew Yahweh when they established WE THE PEOPLE as the supreme authority:

[The God of Puritanism] stripped of his antique powers [by the Constitutional framers] ... had no recourse but to enter as a weakened prince into the temple of individualism, and there to seek refuge.”¹⁴

Consider again one of the three Supreme Court decisions cited in the previous chapter:

All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.– Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 164, 176 (1803)

This ruling was based upon Article 6’s declaration that “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land….” Consequently, if you are a Constitutionalist, you must consider any law contrary to the United States Constitution – including the Bible – to be null and void. Ron Paul, one of the Republican Presidential candidates in 2008, and arguably one of the greatest contemporary proponents of the U.S. Constitution, made this clear in the summer of 2007 when asked in an interview by John Lofton, if he believed “homosexuality … [is] a sin?”, Paul responded:

I’m not as judgmental about that … probably because of my medical background. I don’t see it in that simplistic terms [sic]. I think it’s a complex issue to decide whether it’s sin or other problems with the way people are born. It’s too complex to me¹⁵ … to give an answer as simplistic as that.¹⁶

When Lofton asked, “Do you believe that God says it’s a sin?” Paul responded:

Well, I believe a lot of people understand it that way, but I think everyone’s God’s child too, so I have trouble with that.¹⁶

Anyone who knows Paul’s record knows that if the United States Constitution condemned sodomy, he would have stood against homosexuality unabashedly. Yet he would not even acknowledge that Yahweh declares sodomy a sin. Why? His god is WE THE PEOPLE, and because the U.S. Constitution is his god’s law, it trumps all other law, including Yahweh’s.

On the other hand, if you are a Christian and your God is Yahweh and you believe Psalm 19:7, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Isaiah 33:22, and James 4:12, then any law repugnant to Yahweh’s law, including the United States Constitution, must be null and void. It is not law at all, but rather lawlessness. Whether we see it this way or not, Yahweh certainly does.

The usurpation of Yahweh’s law by the Constitutional framers was essentially admitted to by Ronald Reagan in his 1987 State of the Union Address:

Many countries have written into their constitutions provisions for freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Well, if this is true, why is the Constitution of the United States so exceptional? Well, the difference is so small it almost escapes you – but it’s so great it tells you the whole story in just three words: “We The People.”

In those Constitutions, the government tells the people what they are allowed to do. In our Constitution, We The People tell the government what it can do and that it can do only those listed in that document and no others.

Virtually every other revolution in history has just exchanged one set of rulers for another. Our revolution is the first to say the people are the masters, and government is their servant.

And you young people out there, don’t ever forget that. Some day, you could be in this room – but wherever you are, America is depending on you to reach your highest and be your best because here in America, We The People are in charge.¹⁷

In other words, instead of taking orders from Yahweh, most Americans take their orders from WE THE PEOPLE or, more precisely, from their so-called legislators and ultimately from the Supreme Court Justices.

Section 2, Clause 1

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.

Extra-Biblical “Laws”

Yahweh is the only lawgiver, His laws are perfect, and nothing found in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1 could improve upon it:

What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. (Deuteronomy 12:32)

I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him. (Ecclesiastes 3:14)

Section 2, Clause 1 is the first of many unnecessary “legislative” additions found throughout the U.S. Constitution. It is also the first Constitutional provision mandating public slavery to a congress that has power to make laws, not only in addition to Yahweh’s perfect laws, but in contradiction to them. Beginning with the Constitutional Convention, Congress has habitually legislated contrary to Yahweh’s morality. This incessant supplanting and subjoining of Yahweh’s laws will not end until Americans recognize and repent of their Constitutional idolatry.

House of Representatives

Some Constitutionalists argue that the concept of representative government originated with Moses:

And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. (Exodus 18:25)

Nowhere in the framers’ copious convention notes, or anywhere else in their writings, do we find any indication that the idea for the House of Representatives was inspired by Exodus 18:25.

Constitutionalists apply Exodus 18:25 to this section of the U.S. Constitution to give it an aura of biblical authority. But Moses’ charge has nothing to do with representatives of the people. As proven by its context, it is a provision for judges – representatives of Yahweh:

And Moses’ father in law said unto him, …Be thou for the people to Godward, that thou mayest bring the causes unto God: And thou shalt teach them ordinances [statutes, NASB] and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do. Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens: And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge…. So Moses … chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. And they judged the people at all seasons…. (Exodus 18:17-26)

George Mason, one of Virginia’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention and the “Father of the Bill of Rights,” commented on the House of Representatives:

In the House of Representatives, there is not the Substance, but the Shadow only of Representation; which can never produce proper Information in the Legislature, or inspire Confidence in the People; the Laws will therefore be generally made by men little concern’d in, and unacquainted with their Effects and Consequences.¹⁸

This was written in the late 1700s, and yet most Constitutionalists, adamant in their defense of the Constitution, contend the lack of representation is a consequence of today’s Constitutional abuse. According to Mason, this abuse has taken place since the Constitution’s inception. With rare exception, presidents, representatives, and senators are only concerned with the wishes of their constituents when campaigning. The cry for “no taxation without representation” remains as valid today as in the 1700s. For example, consider Senator Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) comment on April 12, 2010, regarding the health care bill:

I’ve gotten 90,000 emails and faxes on the health care bill and over 85,000 of them are against it. After all the debate we’ve had, I can’t believe so many people still don’t get it!¹⁹

When will Americans wake up to the fact that they have no representation in Washington, D.C.? Attorney Lysander Spooner elaborated:

No man can be my servant, agent, attorney, or representative, and be, at the same time, uncontrollable by me, and irresponsible to me for his acts. It is of no importance that I appointed him, and put all power in his hands…. For still another reason they are neither our servants, agents, attorneys, nor representatives. And that reason is, that we do not make ourselves responsible for their acts. If a man is my servant, agent, or attorney, I necessarily make myself responsible for all his acts done within the limits of the power I have intrusted to him…. But no individual who may be injured in his person or property, by acts of Congress, can come to the individual electors, and hold them responsible for these acts of their so-called agents or representatives. This fact proves that these pretended agents of the people, of everybody, are really the agents of nobody. If, then, nobody is individually responsible for the acts of Congress, the members of Congress are nobody’s agents.²⁰

Section 2, Clause 2

No person shall be a representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty-five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.

Those are the only qualifications required to be a representative of the people? Of course, the first mistake is that they represent the people instead of Yahweh. Even with this, the standards are not very high. Of course, Article 6’s ban on religious test oaths eliminated any possibility of the biblical qualifications being employed to determine whether a candidate is qualified and competent to fill a leadership position. (See Chapter 5, which addresses Article 2, for a list of biblical qualifications for public service.)

Anyone who has read the Bible should recognize that none of the qualifications listed above came from the laws of Yahweh. The only relative age provided in the Bible is twenty years, the age of adulthood and accountability. (I will cover this in more detail in Chapter 23 when addressing Amendment 14.)

The framers obviously did not believe Yahweh’s laws are perfect, sufficient for doctrine, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. They concluded they knew better than Yahweh.

Section 2, Clause 3

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers…. The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct.

Decennial Census

This is where the unlawful decennial census – which has been exploited to pry into every household’s most private of affairs – originated. If such a census were necessary, we would find it provided for somewhere in Yahweh’s perfect laws. But the only census provided for by Yahweh is that of men of military age:

Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of their names, every male by their polls; from twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war…. (Numbers 1:2-3)

This census was abused by David with grave consequences:

And Satan²¹ stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. And David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people, Go, number Israel from Beer-sheba even to Dan; and bring the number of them to me, that I may know it. And Joab answered, YHWH make his people an hundred times so many more as they be: but, my lord the king, are they not all my lord’s servants? Why then doth my lord require this thing? Why will he be a cause of trespass to Israel? …And God was displeased with this thing; therefore he smote Israel…. So YHWH sent pestilence upon Israel: and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men. (1 Chronicles 21:1-14)

Even unrighteous Joab understood the difference between what was lawful and unlawful.

The U.S. Constitution’s decennial census is not forbidden in the Bible, but neither was David’s. Something does not necessarily have to be outlawed in the Bible to be outside Yahweh’s law and therefore unlawful.

Bible readers often wonder, “Why were the people judged instead of David?” The people, in their apathy, did nothing to contravene David’s unlawful act – just as Americans did nothing in the late 1700s when a handful of men claimed for the people an authority and justice that originated with themselves:

Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. (James 4:17)

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove [expose, NASB] them. (Ephesians 5:11)

In 1 Samuel 14:44-45, when King Saul intended to kill his son Jonathan, the people repudiated his work of darkness, just as the 18th-century Americans should have done.

2 Kings 20 provides precedent for opposing unbiblical censuses, which often require information to which the government has no right:

At that time Berodach-baladan … king of Babylon, sent letters and a present unto Hezekiah [king of the house of Judah]…. And Hezekiah hearkened unto them, and shewed them all the house of his precious things, the silver, and the gold, and the spices, and the precious ointment, and all the house of his armour, and all that was found in his treasures: there was nothing in his house, nor in all his dominion, that Hezekiah shewed them not. (2 Kings 20:12-13)

Although not a formal numbering of the people, Hezekiah sounds all too similar to undiscerning, government-obedient Christians²² who every ten years reply to the census takers, “Ask and it shall be provided to you.” Is Yahweh happy with such indiscriminant disclosure?

Then came Isaiah the prophet unto king Hezekiah, and said unto him, …What have they seen in thine house? And Hezekiah answered, All the things that are in mine house have they seen: there is nothing among my treasures that I have not shewed them. And Isaiah said unto Hezekiah, Hear the word of YHWH. Behold, the days come, that all that is in thine house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store unto this day, shall be carried into Babylon: nothing shall be left, saith YHWH. And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon. (2 Kings 20:14-18)

Nowhere was Hezekiah forbidden to divulge his family and his possessions to the Babylonians, but he was judged for his indiscretion nonetheless.

Section 2, Clause 5

The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.

Impeachment, removal from a judicial seat, has biblical precedent, inherent in the biblical qualifications themselves. However, there is no biblical precedent for the House of Representatives’ “sole power of impeachment.” This power of self-discipline is indicative of a good ol’ boys club. As a result, this power granted by the U.S. Constitution has been employed only once (in the case of Senator William Blount on July 8, 1797) in over 220 years, despite the fact that almost everyone in the House of Representatives deserves impeachment. Except in the rarest instances, the members of the House are not about to turn on one another, lest they be, in turn, devoured by one another.

The biblical power for removing a judge from his bench is to be impartially enforced whenever a judge breaches the biblical qualifications, provided in Exodus 18:21; Deuteronomy 1:13-17, 17:15-19; 2 Chronicles 19:5-8; Romans 13:1-4; 1 Corinthians 6:1-5; 1 Timothy 3:1-13; and Titus 1:5-9.

Section 3, Clause 1

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof,²³ for six years; and each senator shall have one vote.

The Senate

George Mason was no more charitable about the Senate than he was about the House of Representatives:

The Senate have the Power of altering all money Bills, and of originating appropriations of money, & the Sallerys of the Officers of their own Appointment, in Conjunction with the president of the United States; altho’ they are not the Representatives of the People, or amenable to them. These, with their other great Powers (viz: their Power in the appointment of Ambassadors and all public Officers, in making Treaties, and in trying all Impeachments) their Influence upon & Connection with the supreme Executive from these Causes, their Duration of Office, and their being a constant existing Body, almost continually sitting, joined with their being one compleat Branch of the Legislature will destroy any Balance in Government, & enable them to accomplish what Usurpations they please upon the Rights and Liberty of the People.²⁴

Patrick Henry was even less charitable:

…Your Senate is so imperfectly constructed that your dearest rights may be sacrificed by what may be a small minority…. Your strong holds will be in the hands of enemies: It is on a supposition that your American Governors [senators] shall be honest … but its defective, and imperfect construction, puts it in their power to perpetrate the worst of mischiefs, should they be bad men: and, Sir, would not all the world, from the Eastern to the Western hemisphere, blame our distracted folly in resting our rights upon the contingency of our rulers being good or bad. Shew me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty? I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed with absolutely certainty, every such mad attempt.²⁵

What Henry depicted as “your strongholds … in the hands of enemies” is described by Yeshua in Matthew 23:3 as sitting in Moses’ seat.

Limited Government

Yahweh’s perfect laws make no provision for Senators. A Senate is simply more government where none is needed. It further enslaves the people to a gargantuan federal government, which must, of course, be paid for with citizens’ tax dollars. This is precisely what Yahweh warned Israel against in 1 Samuel 8.

Constitutionalists, Libertarians, and to a lesser degree even Republicans are often heard discussing limited government, including the idea that limited government was one of the objectives of the framers of the U.S. Constitution. It is true that government was much more limited in the late 1700s than it is today. But do not believe for a minute that the Constitution provided us with limited government, even in the 1700s. A president, a vice president, a House of Representatives, a Senate, and a judiciary can hardly be described as limited. When the framers threw away America’s Christian theocracy in exchange for the United States’ secular theocracy, they cast aside limited government as well.

Consider how truly limited Yahweh’s government is. Except for some rare exceptions, His government consists of one King and a judiciary to litigate His law and enforce His judgments. That is limited government. In Yahweh’s government, there’s no need for a president and his cabinet, no need for legislators, and thus no need for the House of Representatives or the Senate and their glutted bureaucracy, no need for a prison complex,²⁶ no need for a parasitical welfare system,²⁷ no need for the Federal Reserve, no need for the Internal Revenue Service, no need for a tax-subsidized standing army, ad nauseam.

There would also need to be what I have, for lack of a better term, chosen to call “applicators” – that is, appointed pronomian theologians who would be responsible for applying Yahweh’s to current situations. Dennis Woods suggests “law finders”:

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to refer to legislators as “law finders” rather than “law makers.” This would signify that their primary task is to search the Word of God for divine law on which to model the laws of the nation.²⁸

Constitutionalists want to get rid of nearly all of what’s enumerated in the former paragraph, and yet they would have us “return” to the very document that robbed us of a truly limited government.

Section 3, Clause 3

No person shall be a senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.

Whereas representatives are required to be twenty-five years old, senators are required to be thirty years of age. Both age requirements were arbitrarily decided upon and cannot be found in the Bible.

Section 3, Clause 4

The Vice President of the United States shall be president of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.

No more biblical precedent exists for a vice president than for a president. If we have no need of a president, we certainly have no need of a vice president. (I address presidents and vice presidents in Chapter 5, which addresses Article 2.)

A search of the records in 1942 showed that in the course of our history the Vice President had cast the deciding vote in the Senate 188 times, often with respect to the most momentous matters. To August of 1994 this has occurred 234 times. It is interesting to note that the fate of the Nation has hung on the ethics and integrity of one man this many times.²⁹

In such instances, instead of determining the future or fate of the nation upon Yahweh’s perfect morality as provided in His law, the Constitutional Republic relies on the integrity of one finite man, whose deciding vote has often been in contempt of Yahweh’s morality.

Section 3, Clauses 6-7

The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the chief justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present.

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States; but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

The Senate, like the House of Representatives, is a part of the good ol’ boy’s club that protects its own in order to protect itself. Nothing probably demonstrates this better than the case of President William Jefferson Clinton, who had been convicted of perjury before both grand and civil juries, and for the misuse of his high office in obstruction of justice. Although Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives, the Senate failed to convict him.

It is tragic that our forefathers did not heed Patrick Henry’s sage advice:

This, Sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility – and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves.³⁰

Section 4, Clauses 1-2

The times, places and manner of holding elections, for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof: But the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

This sounds all too similar to what King Jeroboam, the first king of the house of Israel, did after the house of Israel seceded from the house of Judah:

Then Jeroboam built Shechem in mount Ephraim…. And Jeroboam said in his heart, Now shall the kingdom return to the house of David: If this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of YHWH at Jerusalem, then shall the heart of this people turn again … unto Rehoboam king of Judah, and they shall kill me…. Whereupon the king … made two calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And he set the one in Bethel, and the other put he in Dan. And this thing became a sin: for the people went to worship before the one, even unto Dan. And he made an house of high places, and made priests of the lowest of the people, which were not of the sons of Levi. And Jeroboam … offered upon the altar which he had made in Bethel the fifteenth day of the eighth month [as opposed to the Feast of Tabernacles on the fifteenth day of the seventh month], even in the month which he had devised of his own heart; and ordained a feast unto the children of Israel…. (1 Kings 12:25-33)

The two calves represented Jeroboam’s political party. Jeroboam set up the lowest of the people as priests. There is, indeed, nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9-10). Jeroboam’s priests were likely no comparison to the scoundrels on Capitol Hill:

The best of them is as a brier: the most upright is sharper than a thorn hedge…. (Micah 7:4)

The phrase “even in the month which he had devised of his own heart” indicates that Jeroboam’s authority originated, not with Yahweh, but with himself (Habakkuk 1:7). Just as the framers did with WE THE PEOPLE and their elected “representatives,” Jeroboam imputed his authority to the gods of his own making.

Section 5, Clause 3

Each house shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may, in their judgment, require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either house on any question, shall, at the desire of one-fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.

Unlike Yahweh’s government where everything is done in the open, the Senate and House of Representatives have the right to keep secret whatever they deem necessary. Although secrecy may at times be necessary to safeguard military secrets, this Constitutional provision for concealment, without further clarification and stipulation, is too easily abused.

That the framers would include an unrestricted provision for secrecy should surprise no one, since the entire Constitutional Convention was conducted in secrecy:

To conceal the nature of this attempted coup from the public, especially from any members of Congress who did not attend the Convention, the debates in Philadelphia were closed to the public. (Can you imagine the hue and cry of the press and news media if such a convention were closed to them today? No scoops for Pulitzer Prize-seeking reporters? No “details at eleven”?) So secretive were the attendees that Madison, who was the primary engineer of the coup and its unofficially designated scribe, refused to allow his transcripts to be published until after his death. They did not become public until 1840. This code of silence was mentioned by Warren Burger, shortly after he announced his resignation as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, who informed a national television audience: “I think one of the reasons of the success of the Constitution was the iron code of silence that bound all of the members who were there.”

It was not just Madison who felt so bound. Robert Yates, who was at the time Chief Justice of the State of New York, attended the early days of the Convention. He left in disgust, convinced that the Convention served ill purposes. He had taken notes of the proceedings through July 5. Yet even this opponent of the Constitution refused to publish these notes. In a public transcript of them, published first in 1838, his anonymous biographer took great care to explain that Yates had not broken the Convention’s code of silence: “Chief Justice Yates, though often solicited, refused during his life, to permit his notes of those debates to be published, not only because they were originally not written for the public eye, but because he conceived himself under honourable obligations to withhold their publication. These notes, after his death, fell into the hands of his widow, who disposed of them, and they are thus become public.”…

When the Convention ended, they took the final step. They handed all the minutes over to George Washington to take back to Mount Vernon. They knew that no one in the nation would have the audacity to tell George Washington that he had to hand over the evidence of what was in fact a coup. Madison’s notes state specifically that “The president, having asked what the Convention meant should be done with the Journals, &c., whether copies were to be allowed to the members, if applied for, it was resolved, nem. con., ‘that he retain the Journal and other papers, subject to the order of Congress, if ever formed under the Constitution.’ The members then proceeded to sign the Constitution….” In short, if the coup was successful, then the new Congress could gain access to the records. If not, no one would have any written evidence to prove anything except the untouchable General Washington. On that basis, they signed.³¹

In a letter to the honorable Thomas Cockey Deye, Speaker of the House of Delegates of Maryland, Luther Martin, attorney general of Maryland and one of Maryland’s delegates to the federal Constitutional Convention, commented upon the secret nature of the Convention’s proceedings:

…the doors were to be shut, and the whole proceedings were to be kept secret; and so far did this rule extend, that we were thereby prevented from corresponding with gentlemen in the different States upon which, I confess, I greatly regretted. I had no idea, that all the wisdom, integrity, and virtue of this State, or of the others, were centred [sic] in the convention. I wished to have corresponded freely and confidentially with eminent political characters in my own and other States … to give their sentiments due weight and consideration. …the members were prohibited even from taking copies of resolutions, on which the convention were deliberating, or extracts of any kind from the journals, without formal moving for, and obtaining permission, by a vote of the convention….³²

This secret element of the Convention was the principal reason Patrick Henry declared “I smell a rat!” and refused to participate. He smelled more than a rat – he smelled the strong Masonic, secret societal influence that permeated the entire affair. Following are some of Henry’s thoughts:

…I might speak of terrors…. I conceive this new government to be one of those dangers…. My great objection to this Government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights; or, of waging war against tyrants…. This Constitution is said to have beautiful features; but when I come to examine these features, Sir, they appear to me horribly frightful….³³

Section 6, Clause 1

The Senators and representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States….

Senators and Representatives decide themselves what is compensation for their services. Virginia’s, New York’s, and North Carolina’s ratifying conventions proposed amendments to the effect that “no alteration of the existing rate of compensation should at any time take effect before the next election of Representatives.” The self-evident wisdom of such an amendment was ignored and the Constitution was ratified without it. It took 202 years for this provision to finally become an amendment, when, in 1992, it became the Twenty-Seventh Amendment to the Constitution. However, congressman have gotten around this amendment with cost of living adjustments (COLAs), and in 1993 a Pay Commission gave every member of Congress a $4,144 pay raise, which the Commission declared were COLAs. When judicially challenged, COLAs were conveniently ruled not to be pay raises subject to the Twenty-Seventh Amendment (Boehner v. Anderson, 30 F.3d 156 [D.C. Cir. 1994] and Schaffer v. Clinton, 240 F.3d 878 [10th Cir. 2001]).

Originally Congressional salaries were $6 per day while in session. In 1815, they received $1,500 per year, and by 1968 their yearly salary had been raised to $30,000. The current salary for Senators and Representatives is $174,000. The Speaker of the House receives $223,500, and the Majority and Minority Leaders receive $193,400. Every year, Congressmen and Senators receive an automatic “cost of living adjustment.” Additionally, every member in the Senate and House receives an allotment for office expenses, which includes staff payroll and traveling expenses. This generally amounts to approximately $1 million per office. Current annual Congressional expenditure is $626,103,500, and this does not account for the many other financial perks³⁴ and the lavish retirement plans received by former Congressmen and women and their spouses:

With service of 20-25 years, a Member of Congress could retire with up to 80 percent of his or her final salary replaced. Of course, the only cap on how fast their benefits rise is the rate of increase in CPI [Consumer Price Index]. For this reason, Congressional pensions can and frequently do exceed a Member’s final salary, but only after a few years in retirement, when COLAs [Cost of Living Adjustments] begin to kick in. For example, a Member of Congress who could collect $5 million or more, if he or she retires in his/her fifties, lives until his/her eighties, and elects to leave a part of the pension benefit to a spouse, who then lives 10 or more years longer…. With Cost of Living Adjustments, total payments over a lifetime can reach these levels (though the more typical payout is likely to be between $1 million and $2 million). In the final analysis, Congressional pension benefits are 2-3 times more generous than what a similarly-salaried executive could expect to receive upon retiring from the private sector.³⁵

A return to Yahweh’s government, in which a Senate and House of Representatives is superfluous, would eliminate this heavy tax burden altogether.

Section 7, Clauses 1-2

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.

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve, he shall sign it, but if not, he shall return it, with his objections, to that house in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration, two-thirds of that house shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other house, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of that house, it shall become a law….

Any “legislation” in agreement with Yahweh’s laws was already law and does not need man’s ratification to validate it any more than the law of gravity needed man to ratify it for it to become valid. Any “legislation” not in agreement with Yahweh’s law is simply legalized immorality.

Furthermore, do not overlook that this “legislation” authorizes a two-thirds majority to make anything “law” – including infanticide and protection of sodomites. In other words, legalizing these and other abominations is not outside Constitutional limits, as some Constitutionalists claim. In many instances, the strictest Constitutionalists are not those in today’s Constitution Party, but rather those found in today’s Senate, House of Representatives, and Supreme Court.

Section 8, Clause 1

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Power

This Clause begins “The Congress shall have power…” Power from whom? Daniel wrote that Yahweh “ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.” (Daniel 4:17). Yeshua told Pilate that “thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above.” (John 19:11)

Although all power or authority ultimately originates with Yahweh, this does not mean that Yahweh approves all authority:

He [Yahweh] shall come as an eagle against the house of YHWH, because they have transgressed my covenant, and trespassed against my law…. Israel hath cast off the thing that is good…. They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not…. (Hosea 8:1-4)

These disobedient Israelites rebelled against Yahweh’s law and set up kings whom Yahweh did not know. Are we to believe the omniscient, sovereign God did not know what these rebellious Israelites were up to? Of course not. Rather, these rulers were set in positions of authority without Yahweh’s favor. This is no different from Yahweh telling Samuel to give the Israelites the earthly king they desired in 1 Samuel 8, despite the fact that in so doing they rejected Yahweh as their King.

No government can exist without Yahweh allowing it to do so. But two different types of government exist for two different types of people. Nations that submit to Yahweh’s Word are blessed with just and righteous rulers. Nations who rebel against His Word are visited with oppressive rulers for the purpose of bringing them to submission. Hosea and Nehemiah provide examples of the latter:

…the Assyrian shall be his king, because they [Israel] refused to return [to Yahweh]. (Hosea 11:5)

…the they were disobedient, and rebelled against thee, and cast thy law behind their backs…. Therefore thou deliveredst them into the hand of their enemies, who vexed them … they did evil again before thee: therefore leftest thou them in the hand of their enemies, so that they had the dominion over them…. And [Yahweh] testifiedst against them, that thou mightiest bring them again unto thy law; yet they dealt proudly, and hearkened not unto thy commandments, but sinned against thy judgments…. Howbeit thou art just in all that is brought upon us … we have done wickedly: Neither have our kings, our princes, our priests, nor our fathers, kept thy law, nor hearkened unto thy commandments and thy testimonies…. For they have not served thee in their kingdom…. Behold, we are servants this day … unto the kings whom thou hast set over us because of our sins: also they have dominion over our bodies, and over our cattle, at their pleasure, and we are in great distress. (Nehemiah 9:26-37)

Power to Unfairly Tax

An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

It is commonly held today that the authority to tax described in this Section 8, Clause 1 is implied in Romans 13:

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. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation…. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute [taxes, NASB] also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. (Romans 13:1-2, 5-7)

Many ministers have turned this passage into “a sword of oppression rather than a shield from tyranny.”³⁶ If one ignores the context, it does appear that all governments have the right to tax their citizens and that Christians are obligated to pay any and all taxes. But this interpretation can only be defended if verses 3-4 are ignored. In verse 6, we are told “for this cause pay ye tribute.” In other words, for the specific cause mentioned in the previous verses:

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. (Romans 13:3-4)

Paul was explicit about the type of rulers to whom he was referring. Three times in five verses he identified them as ministers, or servants of Yahweh, who do good to the righteous and strike fear into the hearts of the wicked. Does this description apply to everyone working in government today? Does this description apply to anyone in government today? Just as respect and honor are not due to everyone, neither are taxes due to someone just because he claims they are. Are taxes due to those who legislate and finance infanticide, homosexuality, and pornography? Are taxes due to those who conspire to disarm law-abiding citizens and who promote an antichrist New World Order?

Because the rulers described by Paul are servants of God who terrify the wicked (Amendment 8 all but disqualifies Constitutional government on this count) and bless the righteous (Article 6 and Amendment 1 all but disqualify Constitutional government on this count), he wrote for this cause pay ye tribute or taxes. Paying government officials who do not fulfill Paul’s description is financing our own destruction:

The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: “Your money, or your life.” And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat…. The highwayman … does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travelers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection…. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave. The proceedings of those robbers and murderers, who call themselves “the government,” are directly the opposite of these of the single highwayman.

…whoever desires liberty, should understand these vital facts, viz.: 1. That every man who puts money into the hands of a “government” (so called), puts into its hands a sword which will be used against him, to extort more money from him, and also to keep him in subjection to its arbitrary will. 2. That those who will take his money, without his consent, in the first place, will use it for his further robbery and enslavement, if he presumes to resist their demands in the future…. 5. That the only security men can have for their political liberty, consists in their keeping their money in their own pockets, until they have assurances, perfectly satisfactory to themselves, that it will be used as they wish it to be used, for their benefit, and not for their injury [Romans 13:3-4]. 6. That no government, so called, can reasonably be trusted for a moment, or reasonably be supposed to have honest purposes in view, any longer than it depends wholly upon voluntary support [as with the biblical tithe, which was principally for the maintenance of biblical government].³⁷

In a sermon preached in 1749 from Romans 13, Pastor Jonathan Mayhew concurred:

Here the apostle argues the duty of paying taxes from this consideration, that those who perform the duty of rulers are continually attending upon the public welfare. But how does this argument conclude for paying taxes to such princes as are continually endeavoring to ruin the public, and especially when such payment would facilitate and promote this wicked design.

Does this argument conclude for the duty of paying tribute, custom, reverence, honor, and obedience to such persons as, although they bear the title of rulers, use all their power to hurt and injure the public? – such as are not God’s ministers, but Satan’s? such as do not take care of and attend upon the public interest, but their own, to the ruin of the public? – that is, in short, to such as have no just claim at all to tribute, custom, reverence, honor, and obedience? It is to be hoped that those who have any regard to the apostle’s character as an inspired writer, or even as a man of common understanding, will not represent him as reasoning in such a loose, incoherent manner, and drawing conclusions which have not the least relation to his premises. For what can be more absurd than an argument thus framed: “Rulers are, by their office, bound to consult the public welfare and the good of society; therefore, you are bound to pay them tribute, to honor, and submit to them, even when they destroy the public welfare, and are a common pest to society by acting in direct contradiction to the nature and end of their office”?³⁸

It would be interesting to hear today’s pastors and politicians respond to Mayhew’s pointed questions. Adam Clark elucidates upon Paul’s intent:

…there is no insinuation in the apostle’s words in behalf of an extravagant and oppressive taxation, for the support of unprincipled and unnecessary wars; or the pensioning of corrupt or useless men.³⁹

Even Thomas Jefferson declared that no one should be forced to underwrite immoral legislation:

…to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical….⁴⁰

Christians should gladly pay taxes (a tithe of one’s increase) to the lawful government described by Paul: a government that does good works, supports the righteous, and brings wrath down upon the wicked. Because Yahweh has a monopoly on morality (good works, righteousness, and judgment), His government is the only government that can be described with these terms. Consequently, we should have no objection paying biblically authorized taxes to such government; in fact, we are explicitly charged to do so. However, this does not necessarily include the Constitutional Republic established in the late 1700s. Because the United States Constitution is antithetical and antagonistic to the Bible, the United States Constitutional Republic is disqualified as the type of government described by Paul.

Although the power described in Section 8, Clause 1 ultimately came from Yahweh, it was not provided by Yahweh as a form of righteous government. Nothing in His perfect law empowers a Congress, and none of the framers claimed their power came from Yahweh. Instead, they attributed it to the god WE THE PEOPLE. Such imagined idolatrous power is simply an attempt to usurp authority from the one who was given “all power ... in heaven and in earth” (Matthew 28:18).

Because the power in this Clause is illegitimate, then so is anything it has consequently empowered Congress to do, such as to tax and impose duties, imposts, and excises.

Furthermore, the amount of taxation is nowhere mentioned in this Section or, for that matter, anywhere in the Constitution. This greatly concerned both Patrick Henry and Luther Martin:

The clause under consideration gives an unlimited and unbounded power of taxation…. …the whole of our property may be taken by this American government, by laying what taxes they please, giving themselves what salaries they please and suspending our laws at their pleasure…. In this scheme of energetic government, the people will find two sets of tax-gatherers – the State and Federal Sheriffs. This it seems to me will produce such dreadful oppression, as the people cannot possibly bear: The Federal Sheriff may commit what oppression, make what distresses, he pleases, and ruin you with impunity: For how are you to tie his hands? Have you any sufficiently decided means of preventing him from sucking your blood by speculations, commissions, and fees?⁴¹

By the power to lay and collect imposts, they may impose duties on any and every article of commerce imported into these States, to what amount they please. By the power to lay excises, (a power very odious in its nature, since it authorizes officers to go into your houses, your kitchens, your cellars, and to examine into your private concerns,) the Congress may impose duties on every article of use or consumption, - on the food that we eat, on the liquors we drink, on the clothes that we wear, the glass which enlightens our houses, or the hearths necessary for our warmth and comfort. By the power to lay and collect taxes, they may proceed to direct taxation on every individual, either by capitation tax on their heads, or an assessment on their property. …the government has power to lay what duties they please on goods imported; to lay what duties … afterwards, on whatever we use or consume; to impose stamp duties to what amount they please, and in whatever case they please, afterwards to impose on the people direct taxes, by capitation tax, or by assessment, to what amount they choose; and thus to sluice them at every vein, as long as they have a drop of blood, without any control, limitation, or restraint….⁴²

This prognosticated “unlimited and unbounded power of taxation” – what today might be described as womb-to-tomb taxation – has become a reality. Biblical tax, on the other hand, is fixed at ten percent of a person’s increase. In other words, under Yahweh’s economic system, only those who can afford it are taxed. No one would ever be encumbered with income or property tax. (These egregious taxes, and others, will be addressed in Chapter 25 when addressing Amendment 16).

“for the … general Welfare of the United States”

Although this phrase originally meant that all expenditures from the public treasury must benefit the public at large, this phrase has been employed to legitimize welfare for the poor. The Social Security Act of 1935, which provides for the taxation of employers and employees alike, in order to provide funds for old-age pensions, was upheld under this clause by the United States Supreme Court in Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, Collector of Internal Revenue (1937), 301 U. S. 548.

In passing President Barrack Obama’s 2010 health care bill, some congressman defended their actions by appealing to the general welfare clause:

Under several clauses – the Good and Welfare [general welfare] Clause and a couple others. All the scholars, the constitutional scholars that I know – I’m chairman of the Judiciary committee, as you know – they all say that there’s nothing unconstitutional in this bill and if there were, I would have tried to correct it if I thought there were. (Rep. John Conyers, MI)⁴³

…in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect that end. The end that we’re trying to effect is to make health care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility. (House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, MD)⁴⁴

Section 8, Clause 2

[Congress shall have power] To borrow money on the credit of the United States.

Power to Enslave

The United States government was in debt from its inception:

From the very beginning, the U.S. had a monetary system based on borrowing and debt. First came the thousands of state chartered banks that began operating late in the Revolutionary War period and continued in one form or another until today. Then there were the two early central banks: the First Bank of the United States (1791-1811) and the Second Bank of the United States (1816-1836). Today’s national banking system began during the Civil War with the National Banking Acts of 1863-64. Then there is the system we are living under today, the Federal Reserve, chartered by Congress in 1913. Even during the times when the government has sold its debt directly to the public, as with war bonds, savings bonds, and Treasury notes and bills, that too has been money borrowed at interest.⁴⁵

Because government borrowing was perceived to be something necessary from the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, the United States government was under the curse of Yahweh from its inception. One of Yahweh’s blessings is the ability to lend; one of His curses is the necessity of borrowing:

And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of YHWH thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that YHWH thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth: And all these blessings shall come on thee, and overtake thee…. YHWH shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season, and to bless all the work of thine hand: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow…. But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of YHWH thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee…. The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low. He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail. (Deuteronomy 28:1-2, 12, 15, 43-44)

The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower becomes the lender’s slave. (Proverbs 22:7)

Put simply, the United States Constitution provided for the enslavement of the people of the United States of America. More to the point, because Americans chose a government that represented themselves, rather than a government that represented Yahweh, our present economic woes were inevitable:

Thus speaketh YHWH of hosts, saying, This people say, The time is not come, the time that YHWH’s house [the seat of government] should be built. Then came the word of YHWH by Haggai the prophet, saying, Is it time for you, O ye, to dwell in your cieled [paneled, NASB] houses, and this house lie waste? …Consider your ways. Ye have sown much, and bring in little; ye eat, but ye have not enough; ye drink, but ye are not filled with drink; ye clothe you, but there is none warm; and he that earneth wages earneth wages to put it into a bag with holes. Thus saith YHWH of hosts; Consider your ways. Go up to the mountain, and bring wood, and build the house; and I will take pleasure in it, and I will be glorified, saith YHWH. Ye looked for much, and, lo, it came to little; and when ye brought it home, I did blow upon it (blow it away, NASB). Why? saith YHWH of hosts. Because of mine house that is waste, and ye run every man unto his own house. (Haggai 1:2-9)

But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. (Matthew 6:33)

Shortly after his appointment by President George Washington on September 11, 1789, as the United States’ first Secretary of Treasury, Alexander Hamilton funded the new economy with borrowed money. On February 9, 1790, James Jackson, the first congressman of Georgia, predicted our economic quagmire:

Though our present debt be but a few millions, in the course of a single century it may be multiplied to an extent we dare not think of.⁴⁶

Nowhere does Yahweh’s law provide for government borrowing, and it limits private debts to seven years (Deuteronomy 15:1-11), resulting in the following blessings:

At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a release. …Every creditor that lendeth ought unto his neighbour shall release it…. Only if thou carefully hearken unto the voice of YHWH thy God, to observe to do all these commandments which I command this day. For YHWH thy God blesseth thee, as he promised thee: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow; and thou shalt reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over thee. (Deuteronomy 15:1-6)

In The Nature of the American System, R.J. Rushdoony described the illusion of a balanced budget under the United States Constitutional government:

…although politicians may promise a balanced budget, they are more likely to gain the power they desire by increasing debt, for in a debt-free country, the citizenry is strong and the civil government is limited. In a debt-ridden country, taxes increase, liberties decrease, and the civil government, increasingly less responsive to the will of the citizenry, increases its own power over the people even as it vastly enlarges the power of the invisible government over all.⁴⁷

Spooner commented upon the national debt:

How … is it possible, on any general principle of law or reason, that debts that are binding upon nobody individually, can be binding upon forty millions of people collectively, when, on general and legitimate principles of law and reason, these forty millions of people neither have, nor ever had, any corporate property? never made any corporate or individual contract? and neither have, nor ever had, any corporate existence? …Furthermore, this secret band of robbers and murderers, who were the real borrowers of this money, having no legitimate corporate existence, have no corporate property with which to pay these debts. They do indeed pretend to own large tracts of wild lands, lying between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and between the gulf of Mexico and the North Pole. But, on general principles of law and reason, they might as well pretend to own the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans themselves; or the atmosphere and the sunlight; and to hold them, and dispose of them, for the payment of these debts.⁴⁸

A debt incurred by borrowing not only enslaves the present generation but usually future generations as well:

The last of the Civil War debt was retired in 1934. As of June 30, 1919, the Treasurer of the United States reported the estimated gross cost of World War I as $30,177,000,000. The debt for World War II is placed at around $275,000,000,000.⁴⁹

Without this constitutional power to borrow, these and all subsequent ungodly wars could have perhaps been averted.

Circa 1988, the United States of America became the world’s greatest debtor nation. At the end of 2007, the United States national debt was $8.7 trillion and growing at $600 billion a year. Without major budget cuts or significant tax increases, it could reach $11.2 trillion by the year 2010. The interest alone would be nearly $560 billion. We borrow approximately $2 billion daily from foreign investors to float our economy, and it is estimated that every man, woman, and child in the United States would owe $145,000 to pay off the United States’ current debt. (This was written prior to the current economic meltdown, bailouts, and ensuing escalation of government debt. Who knows what these figures are now.)

Section 8, Clause 3

[Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.

Power to Contract With Non-Christian Nations

Clause 3 contains no executive stipulation for commerce with Christian nations as required under Yahweh’s laws:

But if thou shalt indeed obey his [Yahweh’s] voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries…. Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works…. Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods. (Exodus 23:22-32)

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)

Because the Constitutional Republic is not a Christian government, it had no qualms about making a treaty with the Muslim State of Tripoli on January 3, 1797:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [The United States of America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. – Treaty with Tripoli, of Barbary, Article 11

This treaty was unanimously approved by the Fifth Congress and signed by President John Adams. Shortly thereafter, it was printed in its entirety, including its statement that the U.S. government was not founded on Christianity, in the Philadelphia Gazette and in two New York papers. (This Treaty is covered in more detail in Chapter 9, which addresses Article 6.)

Section 8, Clause 3 paved the way for GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), the NAU (North American Union), and other disastrous unbiblical trade agreements:

And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer … said to king Jehoshaphat, Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate YHWH? Therefore is wrath upon thee from before YHWH. (2 Chronicles 19:2)

Section 8, Clause 4

[Congress shall have power] To establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States.

Power to Unnaturally Integrate

In disregard for Yahweh’s laws of segregation (Exodus 33:16; Leviticus 20:24-26; Numbers 23:9; Deuteronomy 32:8; 1 Kings 8:51-53; Nehemiah 9:2, 10:28-29; Hosea 7:8-9; Acts 17:26; etc.⁵⁰), the constitutional framers’ vague language regarding naturalization and therefore citizenship, opened the door to integration, multiculturalism, and miscegenation. This, in turn, has led to advocates of gods other than Yahweh ruling over us and legislating additional “laws” contrary to Yahweh’s.⁵¹ (See Chapter 11, which addresses Amendment 1, for more on the consequences of government-sanctioned polytheism.)

Power to Implement Unbiblical Bankruptcy Regulations

The Fourth Commandment’s sabbatical year provides a seven-year bankruptcy provision (Deuteronomy 15:1-11), by which those unable to meet their financial obligations can be forgiven their debt. However, because Article 1 does not specify this biblical provision, unbiblical bankruptcy regulations have been implemented in its place.

Section 8, Clause 5

[Congress shall have power] To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures.

Power to Fix Unjust Weights and Measures

Yahweh’s perfect laws are very specific regarding the value of money and its standard of weights and measures. Any empowering of Congress to do the same was redundant, at best:

Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall you have: I am YHWH your God.... (Leviticus 19:36)

A just weight and balance are YHWH’s: all the weights of the bag are his work. (Proverbs 16:11)

Placing this power in the hands of Congress also placed the power to corrupt this provision in the hands of Congress, and corrupt it they have. For example:

…the Act of Congress of February 25, 1862, as revised down to March 3, 1863, is still effective, declaring that “United States Notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on public debt.” It must be here noted that Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are only in the form of a note, no longer a promissory note, having no provision for redemption in lawful money [gold or silver], and are sustained in value as MONEY only by COMMON USAGE and BELIEF. It is true FIAT MONEY. The New $100 “off center” Franklin bill issued in 1998 and the other “off center” bills issued since are no longer even against a Federal Reserve Bank, the Seal is that of the Federal Reserve System.⁵²

The United States economic system is a faith-based system and is, therefore, essentially a religion. Consequently, once the populace figures out the worthlessness of their Federal Reserve Notes and, therefore, stops believing in them, the entire economic system will collapse. There are ominous signs that this inevitability is not too far distant future.

Section 8, Clause 7

[Congress shall have power] To establish post-offices and post-roads.

Power to Establish Monopolies

Monopolies are often misunderstood. It is not a monopoly for someone to develop and market a product that no one else has yet produced. In other words, there is more to what makes a company a monopoly then simply a lack of competitors:

Being a single seller, by itself, is not good, nor evil – it depends on how one obtained that single-seller status. Did one obtain a monopoly by economic competition in the marketplace, or did one obtain it by political pull, i.e., lobbying? If such status is gained by competition in the free-market then the “monopoly” – the successful business – is good. If such status is gained by using the government, or Mafia, to force one’s competition out of business, then the monopoly is evil. As all political intervention (limitation by force) in the marketplace is outlawed under capitalism, a harmful monopoly under capitalism is impossible. If one considers a monopoly by definition as intrinsically evil, then only “businesses” that obtain their market share by having their competition outlawed (as the U.S. Post Office does) can be called a monopoly.

…Observe what is evil here: the act of using the government to outlaw one’s competition. It does not matter whether the government uses its power to outlaw competition to “protect” a single business, or to benefit a group of one hundred companies from a single superior competitor. Whenever the government outlaws an individual from entering and competing in any given industry it is evil and wrong. The criterion of judgment is: is competition (the freedom to produce and trade) outlawed in some respect (that is, regulated) or not?

…The sole source of harmful monopolies is the government, which is the only agency that has the power to outlaw (i.e., regulate) competition. As evidence, witness the United States Post Office, which makes it illegal for anyone to charge less than 34¢ [42¢ today] for first class mail…. Other examples include the East India Company of the 17th and 18th centuries, the American Pacific Railroads of the 19th century, and the AMA’s monopoly over the prescription of medicine in the 20th [and 21st] century.⁵³

The establishment of post offices was the first act of Congress by which unbiblical monopolies were authorized. The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, also known as Public Law 91-375, changed the Post Office into a self-supporting corporation owned by the federal government.

Government has no business owning anything. Thomas Jefferson understood this – at least as it concerned America’s road system:

In 1803 Congress authorized three per cent of the net proceeds of the sale of public lands⁵⁴ in the State of Ohio to be paid to that State for the construction of roads. In 1806 an act was passed for the construction of the Cumberland Road – more commonly called the National Road – from the River Potomac to the Ohio. Both these acts were approved by Mr. Jefferson, as President, though in one of his messages he expresses the opinion that Congress, under the Constitution, does not possess the power of making roads.⁵⁵

Deuteronomy 19:3 provides for vital roads to be built (in this instance, to and from the cities of refuge), but it does not designate by whom. Because all land was held privately, it stands to reason that the roads would also be owned privately and either afforded free access or operated as toll roads.

There is no such thing as a lawful monopoly. Legal monopolies, however, exist by the permission and sometimes even the provision of government. When government legalizes a monopoly, it discriminates against, restricts, and even prohibits others from making a lawful living by the same means, thereby stealing from them.

Put simply, monopolies are organized theft. The following passages, in principle, condemn monopolies, including the United States Postal system and the government’s ownership of the highway system:

Thou shalt not steal. (Exodus 20:15)

Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that YHWH thy God giveth thee to possess it. (Deuteronomy 19:14)

Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth! (Isaiah 5:8)⁵⁶

Section 8, Clause 11

[Congress shall have power] To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.

Power to Engage in Unlawful Warfare

The power to declare war is a serious responsibility. Why, then, were the framers not more specific about defining war and the conditions under which war could be declared? Section 8, Clause 11 is essentially the only place in the U.S. Constitution where warfare is mentioned. Little wonder this power has been abused.

Martin was also concerned about the inherent abuse of this power as well:

…the Congress have also the power given them to raise and support armies, without any limitation as to numbers, and without any restriction in time of peace. Thus, Sir, this plan of government, instead of guarding against a standing army, that engine of arbitrary power, which has so often and so successfully been used for the subversion of freedom, has in its formation given it an express and constitutional sanction, and hath provided for its introduction; nor could this be prevented.⁵⁷

John Quincy Adams (the sixth president of the United States) was visionary regarding the consequences if America became entangled in international conflicts:

America … has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when the conflict has been for principles to which she clings…. Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions, and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. …she well knows that be once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors, and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force; the frontlet on her brow would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished luster, the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.⁵⁸

Because the framers provided no biblical parameters, unbiblical warfare has been the rule of the day ever since. Historian William Blum compiled the following list of countries bombed by the United States since World War II:

China 1945-46 and 1950-53, Korea 1950-53, Guatemala 1954 and 1967-69, Indonesia 1958, Cuba 1959-60, Vietnam 1961-73, Congo 1964, Laos 1964-73, Peru 1965, Cambodia 1969-70, Granada 1983, Libya 1986, El Salvador 1980s, Nicaragua 1980s, Panama 1989, Iraq 1991-2001 [and 2003-2009], Sudan 1998, Afghanistan 1998 [2003-2009], Yugoslavia 1999.⁵⁹

From 1945 to the present, the United States has bombed nineteen different countries under the guise of defending America’s sovereignty and promoting democracy. But America is none the better for it, and not one of these countries has become a legitimate democracy (not that this would be anything to celebrate) as a result of the United States’ unethical aggression. Something is amiss. Wars fought for political gain or financial profit – such as the World Wars and the subsequent smaller conflicts – can only be classified as ungodly acts of aggression.

One often hears that we need to “fight them over there” in order to prevent us from having to “fight them over here.” But fighting alleged enemies “over there” has not made American any safer, and, in some instances, such acts of aggression have made America less safe.

Certain acts of warfare are biblically justified. King Solomon made the following definitive statements about war:

…by wise counsel thou shalt make thy war…. (Proverbs 24:6)

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: …a time to kill, and a time to heal … a time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace. (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8)

Fighting men were among those honored as men of faith in Hebrews 11:

…time would fail me to tell of Gideon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthah; of David…: Who through faith subdued kingdoms … waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens…. Of whom the world was not worthy…. (Hebrews 11:32-38)

On numerous occasions in the Old Testament, Yahweh commanded His people to initiate war against ungodly nations. The “Song of Moses” includes the following declaration about Yahweh after He destroyed the Egyptian army in the Red Sea:

YHWH is a man of war…. (Exodus 15:3)

David is described as a man after Yahweh’s own heart and he was lauded as having slain ten thousands.

Yahweh’s law requires every able Israelite man, twenty years and older, be prepared for armed service:

…YHWH spake unto Moses … saying, Take ye … from twenty years old and upward, all [men] that are able to go forth to war in Israel … number them by their armies. (Numbers 1:1-3)

This is not describing a national standing army, national service, or a military draft, but an autonomous militia. It was this autonomy that ancient Israel gave up for a centralized standing army. Our standing army (presently at 2.6 million) is part of the curse Yahweh warned the Israelites would accompany an earthly king:

And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. (1 Samuel 8:11-12)

This is precisely what has happened. Our young men and women are taken and often sacrificed by today’s military industrial complex, at taxpayers’ expense. In other words, United States citizens are financing the destruction of their own sons and daughters in ungodly conflicts.

In God & Caesar: Christian Faith & Political Action, John Eidsmoe goes to great lengths in making his case that warfare is biblical, albeit, without a word regarding ungodly warfare. He implies that if your country calls, it is your duty to serve regardless the cause.⁶⁰ However, Yahweh prescribes strict rules of warfare for his people, some of which are provided in Deuteronomy 20:

…When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. …if it make thee [an] answer of peace … then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. …if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it…. When thou shalt besiege a city … thou shalt not destroy the [fruit] trees thereof … thou mayest eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down … to employ them in the siege: Only the trees which thou knowest that they be not trees for meat [fruit], thou shalt destroy and cut them down; and thou shalt build bulwarks against the city that maketh war with thee, until it be subdued. (Deuteronomy 20:1-20)

These and other biblical rules of warfare determine the righteousness of a war.

It is often heard that an untold numbers of people have been killed in wars fought in the name of Christianity. The killing of untold numbers of people in itself does not make a war unjust – untold numbers of people are almost always killed in warfare. However, more often than not, Christianity has been falsely indicted. There can be a significant difference between a war waged in the name of Christianity and a Christian war. If a military conflict waged in the name of Christianity is not biblical it is not Christian. It is, therefore, slanderous to condemn Christians as the cause of any unjustified deaths that are a consequence of these wars. More often than not, it is the departure from the biblical rules of warfare that are to blame.

Because most people are ignorant of Yahweh’s laws, even most Christians are oblivious of the United States’ unbiblical warfare tactics, including the indiscriminate Agent Orange defoliation policy in Vietnam and the attack upon Iraq after George W. Bush spurned Saddam Hussein’s peace offering.

Only righteous conflicts, legitimately waged in defense of one’s homeland, or offensive wars ordained by Yahweh Himself, like the one against the Canaanites, are justified and godly. When they are sanctioned by Yahweh with Him as our commander, we are guaranteed military success:

And, behold, God himself is with us for our captain…. Thus … the children of Judah prevailed, because they relied upon YHWH God of their fathers. (2 Chronicles 13:12, 18)

Christians must be cautious about sending their children to fight in America’s military conflicts. Not only might their children be sacrificed for an unrighteous cause, they might also be considered murderers or accomplices to murder by Yahweh. The similarities between Germany’s pre-Hitler military oath and that of the United States should not be overlooked:

German Military Oath: I swear loyalty to the Reich’s constitution and pledge that I as a courageous soldier always want to protect the German Empire and its legal institutions, be obedient to the Reichspräsident and to my superiors.

American Military Oath: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

How many military atrocities have men and women blindly committed after searing their consciences with their allegiance to their respective constitutions?

Section 8, Clause 15

[Congress shall have power] To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.

Power to Provide and Call Forth a Militia

Except for the phrase “execute the laws of the union,” the United States Constitution has finally provided something compatible with the Bible: a militia of every able-bodied man twenty years and older for the defense of himself, his family, his community, and his nation.⁶¹ Patrick Henry, however, was concerned with the militia being in the power of Congress:

My great objection to this government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or of waging war against tyrants…. Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defense, the militia, is put into the hands of congress.⁶²

Section 8, Clause 18

[Congress shall have power] To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Power to Unlimited “Legislation”

Do not miss the open-ended “legislative” power herein granted to the Congress. Despite Constitutionalists’ claims to the contrary, today’s government is Constitutional. Nearly everything that has, is, and will be made “law” was made possible by this Clause, including the much contested Fourteenth and Sixteenth Amendments. Although there are legitimate Constitutional concerns regarding the manner in which both these Amendments were passed, they have subsequently been accepted by every Congress since and have, in effect, become Constitutional law. Contesting the Constitutional legitimacy of these two Amendments has changed nothing and never will.

That this Clause provided Congress nearly unlimited power is proven in that it was vigorously contested for this very reason:

There was no opposition or discussion in the Convention, but great opposition was made in the State conventions. Patrick Henry often speaks of it as “the sweeping clause,” by which Congress was to overthrow the States. Those opposed to the Constitution assailed it with great vehemence, and endeavored, through the prejudice excited, to prevent the conventions of the States from ratifying the constitution…. Mr. Madison says, “Few parts of the Constitution have been assailed with more intemperance than this….”⁶³

This power was already inherent in the Constitution, even without this Clause:

Writers on Constitutional Law agree that Congress would have had ample authority to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested in the general government by the Constitution, even if this clause had not been inserted. If the Constitution provides for a government, and invests it with powers, it follows as an unavoidable inference that the legislative department of that government can make the laws needful for carrying those powers into execution…. He [Madison] proceeds to show the folly of attempting a positive enumeration of the powers necessary and proper for carrying their other powers into effect; that “the attempt would have involved a complete digest of laws on every subject to which the Constitution relates; accommodated, too, not only to the existing state of things, but to all the possible changes which futurity [future generations] might produce.”… “Had the Constitution been silent on this head, there can be no doubt that all the particular powers requisite as means of executing the general powers would have resulted to the government by unavoidable implication. No axiom is more clearly established in law, or in reason, that whenever the end is required, the means are authorized. Wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power necessary for doing it is included.”

Mr. Hamilton uses similar language. “It may be affirmed with perfect confidence that the constitutional operation of the government would be precisely the same if these clauses were entirely obliterated, as if they were repeated in every article. They are only declaratory of a truth which would have resulted by necessary and unavoidable implication from the very act of constituting a federal government and vesting it with certain specified powers.”

[Supreme Court] Chief Justice [John] Marshall [1801-35] says: “A power vested carries with it all those incidental powers which are necessary to its complete and efficient execution.” This principle has been repeatedly sanctioned by the Supreme Court, and has been acted on by the general government from 1789 to the present day.

[Supreme Court] Judge[Joseph] Story [18ll-45] says: “It would be almost impracticable, if it were not useless, to enumerate the various instances in which Congress, in the progress of the government, have made use of incidental and implied means to execute its powers. They are almost infinitely varied in their ramifications and details. Nothing is plainer than that the Constitution was intended to vest in the general government all the powers which properly belong to such a government, and so it has been understood from the beginning. The language of the Constitution in divers places presupposes that Congress could make laws for which no specific authority is given. Thus, in Art. I, Sec. 9 [8], it is provided that the importation of slaves should not be prohibited till 1808; yet nowhere does the Constitution invest them with any authority to prohibit it then. In the same section it is declared that ‘The privileges of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.’ But where has the Constitution conferred upon Congress, or any department of the government, any distinct power to suspend this writ?”

From the beginning of the government under the Constitution, laws have been enacted that could be justified only on the doctrine of implied powers. And all administrations have recognized the same doctrine. Opposition to certain measures has often been based upon their alleged unconstitutionality; but when the political party from which the opposition came has itself been placed in power, it has not hesitated to deviate quite as far from the strict letter of the Constitution.

Among the acts which are indefensible on the theory of specially enumerated powers may be mentioned the purchase of Louisiana; the embargo act of 1807; grants of lands for railroads and canals; the annexation of Texas; grants of lands for agricultural colleges, etc.⁶⁴

Without the parameters of Yahweh’s morality as found in His laws, Section 8, Clause 18 becomes an endorsement to constitutionally legislate almost anything, leaving such decisions to the personal discretion (or indiscretion, as the case may be) of the Legislative and Judicial branches of the of the United States Constitutional Republic. That this is true is easily demonstrated by examining the Congressional and Judicial records of the past two hundred plus years. Nearly everything Congress has legalized – including funding infanticide via taxes and sanctioning, promoting, and protecting homosexuality – has been authorized by the United States Constitution, particularly Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18.

Section 9, Clause 1

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importations, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

Power to Profit from Slavery

Although this Clause was made obsolete on January 1, 1808, when Congress prohibited all further importation of slaves, slavery was nonetheless constitutionally legal – provided a tax or duty was imposed upon the sale of slaves – for nearly twenty-one years. Although the Bible does allow for certain forms of slavery (which I will expound upon in Chapter 22 when addressing Amendment 13), it does not provide for a slave market from which government can profit.

An argument is made that political changes do not occur overnight and that, therefore, the framers could not abolish such a longstanding institution immediately. This is true, but this argument does not justify the Constitution’s provision to profit from slavery for the remaining twenty-one years of it existence here in America.

Moreover, had Americans been living by Yahweh’s laws in the 1700s as they formerly did in the early 1600s, slavery (particularly slavery resulting from kidnapping) would have been as rare as it had been in Puritan New England.

Section 9, Clause 1

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Habeas Corpus vs. Witnesses

The juridical term habeas corpus is Latin for “we command that you have the body” or “show the body.” It is meant to protect individuals against arbitrary government prosecution. In order to hold and prosecute an indicted criminal, sufficient plausible evidence must exist. With the exception of Article 3, Section 3, in cases of treason, the Constitution does not specify the nature of the credible evidence. Yahweh’s law, on the other hand, requires (among other things⁶⁵) that every indictment be based upon the testimony of two or more credible witnesses:

One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. (Deuteronomy 19:15)

Conclusion

Psalm 19:7-11 declares that Yahweh’s commandments, statutes, and judgments are more desirable than gold. However, the Constitutional framers obviously did not desire them. The framers ignored His laws and replaced them with their own edicts.

Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law? (Psalm 94:20)

Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed. (Isaiah 10:1)

…they that handle the law knew me not…. Hath a nation changed their gods, which are yet no gods? But my people have changed their glory for that which doth not profit…. For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water. (Jeremiah 2:8-13)

In contrast to Article 1, Yahweh’s law does not provide for legislators. If it did, David’s declaration that Yahweh’s law is perfect would be a sham. Yahweh’s law would be as imperfect as the United States Constitution and in need of on-going amendments. Because Yahweh’s law is perfect, any endeavors to improve upon it are simply attempts at usurpation to dethrone the King and commandeer His throne. This is what Adam and Eve desired in the Garden. It is what the Hebrews attempted at the Tower of Babel. It is what the Israelites tried in 1 Samuel 18. It is what has been attempted every time our forefathers have rejected Yahweh’s perfect laws and chosen man’s surrogate laws in their place.

But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; when your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me: For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the Lord. (Proverbs 1:25-29)

For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely. They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace. …therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith YHWH. Thus saith YHWH, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. Also I set watchmen over you, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. But they said, We will not hearken…. Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it. (Jeremiah 6:13-19)

Ephraim is oppressed and broken in judgment, because he willingly walked after the commandment [of men]. (Hosea 5:11)

In a lecture entitled “Law: The Biblical Foundations,” attorney Herb Titus compared forming a government to building a ship:

Today if a man would build a ship to launch on the ocean according to his own views of the way ships ought to be built … and he didn’t conform that ship to the laws that govern navigation, that ship would either sink or it wouldn’t get very far. Why does man think he can build the ship of state according to his own imagination [and not on the laws of Yahweh] as to what governs human relationships, whether they be sexual, commercial, or whatever – according to what he imagines human being to be? A ship of state launched according to the vain imaginations of men will have the same fate as a ship that was launched into the ocean inconsistent with the laws that govern navigation.⁶⁶

Too bad Titus does not apply this same standard to the Constitution and cannot see that the ship of state built thereon is all but shipwrecked for the very reason he stated.

The video and DVD versions of the movie The Ten Commandments contain a personal introduction by the movie’s director Cecil B. DeMille, in which he stated what today would be certainly politically incorrect and in many churches religiously incorrect:

The theme of this picture is whether men ought to be ruled by God’s laws or whether they are to be ruled by the whims of a dictator like Ramses. Are men the property of the State or are they free souls under God? This same battle continues throughout the world today.⁶⁷

What DeMille stated is true whether we are ruled by one or many men in contrast to Yahweh’s laws. Thus, we need to simply ask ourselves, “Whose law reigns supreme?”

Yahweh has the monopoly on legislation. Few people believe Isaiah 33:22 and James 4:12 anymore than they believe Psalm 19:7-9 and 2 Timothy 3:16-17. This is to be expected from non-Christians, but what about those who claim Christianity? If they truly believed these four passages, they would refuse to call yesterday’s Constitutional framers and today’s senators and representatives legislators. They certainly would not look to their non-biblical decrees as law.

Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that YHWH he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else. Thou shalt keep therefore his statutes, and his commandments, which I command thee this day, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which YHWH thy God giveth thee, for ever. (Deuteronomy 4:39-40)

---

Click Here to Read Chapter 5

---

Click to order the Bible Law vs. The United States Constitution CDs:

• The e-book (on CD) A Christian Perspective on the U.S. Constitution
• The audio CD The Bible vs. The U.S. Constitution (Pts. 1 & 2)

End Notes

1. Gideon J. Tucker, New York Surrogate Reports (New York, NY: New York Surrogate, 1866), p. 249, quoted in Suzy Platt, ed., Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations (New York: NY: Barnes & Noble, 1992) p. 198.

2. Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language, s.v. “Legislator” (1828; reprint ed. San Francisco, CA: The Foundation for American Christian Education, 1967).

3. Ibid., “Legislative.”

4. Yeshua (yay-shoo'-ah) is the English transliteration of our Savior’s given Hebrew name. For a more thorough explanation concerning the use of the names of God, “The Third Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*

5. Where the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) – the four Hebrew characters that represent the personal name of God – has been unlawfully rendered the LORD or GOD in English translations, I have taken the liberty to correct this error by inserting YHWH where inspired by Yahweh. For a more thorough explanation concerning the use of the names of God, “The Third Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska, 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*

6. All Scripture is quoted from the King James Version unless otherwise noted. Portions of Scripture have been omitted for brevity. If there are questions regarding any passage, please open your Bible and study the text to ensure it has been properly used.

7. YHWH (most often pronounced Yahweh) is the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible. For a more thorough explanation concerning the use of the names of God, “The Third Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska, 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*

8. Gary DeMar, “Says Who?,” Biblical Worldview (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, March 2003) vol. 19, num. 3, p. 7.

9. T. Robert Ingram, The World Under God’s Law (Houston, TX: St. Thomas Press, 1981) p. 33.

10. James Madison, Henry G. Gilpin, ed., The Papers of James Madison (Washington, DC: Langtree & O’Sullivan, 1840) vol. 2, p. 1184.

11. David Barton, Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion (Aledo, TX: WallBuilder Press, 2005) p. 339.

12. Not everyone claiming to be a Christian has been properly instructed in the biblical plan of salvation. Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:36-41, 22:1-16; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27; Colossians 2:11-13; and 1 Peter 3:21 should be studied to understand what is required to be covered by the blood of Yeshua and forgiven of your sins. For a more thorough explanation concerning baptism and its relationship to salvation, “Baptism by the Scriptures” and “Fifty Objections to Baptism Answered” may be read online, or the book Baptism: All You Wanted to Know and More may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for free.

13. W.W. Turner, The Amazing Story of the British Sovereign (Nashville, TN: 1970) p. 4, quoted by Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973) p. 644.

14. Richard Mosier, The American Temper (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1952) p. 70.

15. Ron Paul’s answer “it’s too complex to me” was not all that different from Barack Obama’s equivocating response to Rick Warren’s question, “At what point does a baby get human rights?” Obama responded, “To answer that question with specificity is above my pay scale.”

16. Ron Paul, interview by John Lofton, Summer 2007, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE>.

17. President Ronald Reagan, 1987 State of the Union Address, <http://janda.org/politxts/State%20of%20Union%20Addresses/1981-1988%20Reagan/rwr87.html>.

18. George Mason, The Essential Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, ed. David Wootten (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 2003) p. 1.

19. Senator Dianne Feinstein, 12 April 2010.

20. Lysander Spooner, No Treason No. 6: The Constitution of No Authority,” <http://www.lysanderspooner.org/bib_new.htm>

21. As in Numbers 22:22 in reference to the angel of Yahweh, “Satan” would be better translated “an adversary,” identified in 2 Samuel 24:1 as Yahweh Himself.

22. For more about undiscerning government-obedient Christians, Christian Duty Under Corrupt Government: A Revolutionary Commentary of Romans 13:1-7 may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $7 donation.*

23. The phrase “chosen by the legislature thereof” was changed by Amendment XVII, paragraph 1 to “elected by the people.”

24. Mason, p. 1.

25. Patrick Henry, Ralph Ketcham, ed., “Speeches of Patrick Henry (June 5 and 7, 1788),” The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates (New York, NY: Penguin Books, 2003, 2nd ed.) pp. 213-14.

26. The book Prisons: Shut Them All Down! may be read online or ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $3 donation.*

27. For more on the United States Welfare System, “The Eighth Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not steal may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation each.*

28. Dennis Woods, Discipling the Nations: The Government Upon His Shoulder (Franklin, TN: Legacy Communications, 1996) p. 8.

29. Thomas James Norton, “The Constitution For the United States: Its Sources and Its Application: Article I” <http://www.barefootsworld.net/constit2.html>.

30. Henry, pp. 215-16.

31. Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989) pp. 417-18.

32. Luther Martin, “The Genuine Information, Laid Before The Legislature Of Maryland…,” Secret Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Convention 1787, Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1838 (Hawthorne, CA: Omni Publications, 1986) p. 4.

33. Henry, pp. 201-202, 213.

34. <http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=343>.

35. <http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=20>.

36. Paul Hall, back cover of Christian Duty Under Corrupt Government: A Revolutionary Commentary on Romans 13:1-7, by Ted R. Weiland, 2nd ed. (Scottsbluff, NE: Mission to Israel, 2006). Christian Duty Under Corrupt Government may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $7 donation.*

37. Spooner, <http://www.lysanderspooner.org/bib_new.htm>.

38. Jonathan Mayhew, “A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers,” quoted by John Wingate Thornton, The Pulpit of the American Revolution: Political Sermons of the Period of 1776 (New York, NY: Da Capo Press, 1979) pp. 77-78.

39. Adam Clarke, Clarke’s Commentary, 6 vols. (New York, NY: Carlton & Phillips, 1853) vol. 6, p. 147.

40. Thomas Jefferson, preamble to the Virginia Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, 1789.

41. Henry, pp. 211-12.

42. Martin, pp. 52-53.

43. John Conyers, quoted in Kerry Picket, “Conyers fabricates constitutional law citing ‘good and welfare’ clause,” Washington Times, 23 March 2010, <http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/mar/23/conyers-makes-constitutional-law-citing-good-and-w/>.

44. Steny Hoyer, quoted in Matt Cover, “Hoyer Says Constitution’s General Welfare Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance,” CNSNews.com, 21 October 2009, <http://cnsnews.com/news/article/55851>.

45. Richard C. Cook (former U.S. federal government analyst), “A Master-Slave Society: Democrats in Denver Should Skip One of Their Parties and Read the American Monetary Act,”<http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article5992.html>.

46. James Jackson, Annals of Congress, Volume 1, February 1790, pp. 1141-42.

47. Rousas John Rushdoony, The Nature of the American System (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1965/2001) p. 169.

48. Spooner, <http://www.lysanderspooner.org/bib_new.htm>.

49. Thomas James Norton, “The Constitution For the United States: Its Sources and Its Application: Article I” <http://www.barefootsworld.net/constit2.html>.

50. For additional information concerning Yahweh’s laws concerning segregation, The First Commandment may be read at missiontoisrael.org/ first-commandment.html, or the book Thou shalt have no other gods before me may be obtained from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.

51. For additional information concerning Yahweh’s laws regarding miscegenation, The 7th Commandment may be read online, or the book Thou shalt commit adultery may be obtained from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $6 donation.

52. Thomas James Norton, “The Constitution For the United States: Its Sources and Its Application: Article I” <http://www.barefootsworld.net/constit2.html>.

53. “Monopoly,” http://www.self-gov.org/good/a0276.php.

54. For more on the theft that created public lands, “The Eighth Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not steal may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation each.*

55. Israel Ward Andrews, Andrews Manual of the Constitution (Cincinnati and New York: Van Antwerp, Bragg & Co., 1887) pp. 132-33.

56. For more on monopolies, “The Eighth Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not steal may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation each.*

57. Martin, p. 58.

58. John Quincy Adams, quoted in William H. Seward, Life and Public Services of John Quincy Adams (New York, NY: C.M. Saxton, Barker & Co., 1860) p. 132.

59. William Blum, <http://www.anitaroddick.com/pfpage.php?sid=595>.

60. John Eidsmoe, God & Caesar: Christian Faith & Political Action (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1984) pp. 42-53.

61. For a more thorough explanation about the biblical mandate to bear arms, “Firearms: Scripturally Defended,” may be read online.

62. Patrick Henry, quoted in William Wirt, Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry (Ithaca, NY: Andrus, Gauntlett, & Co., 1850) p. 195.

63. Andrews, pp. 132-33.

64. Ibid., pp. 132-35.

65. For a more thorough explanation of Yahweh’s indictment requirements, “The Ninth Commandment” may be read online.

66. Herb Titus, “Law: The Biblical Foundations,” Disc 2, God, Man, & Law: The Biblical Principles (Powder Springs, GA: The American Vision, 2007).

67. Cecil B. DeMille, The Ten Commandments, Paramount Pictures, Hollywood, CA, DVD, 1956.

*We are admonished in Matthew 10:8 “freely ye have received, freely give.” Although there is a suggested price for our books, we do not sell them. In keeping with 2 Corinthians 9:7, this ministry is supported by freewill offerings. If you cannot afford the suggested price, inform us of your situation, and we will be pleased to provide you with whatever you need for whatever you can send.