What more could we ask for? And yet all of this was rejected by the Declaration’s signatories and Constitution’s framers and replaced with their own man-made surrogates, commencing America’s suicidal trek to the precipice of moral depravity and destruction.

The Declaration Speaks for Itself

Paragraph #2, Sentences 4-7

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

As we proceed to biblically examine each of the twenty-seven Facts (grievances), take note of how many of these same abuses (nearly all of them) can be leveled at both the Declaration’s signatories and the Constitution’s framers.

Grievance #1

He [Britain’s King George III] has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

Talk about an indictment against those in rebellion to King George.

Eleven years later, did the Constitution’s framers (some of whom also signed the Declaration of Independence) respond to this charge against Britain’s oppressive dictatorship by enacting wholesome laws for the public good, or did they merely enact a different set of unwholesome laws that also contributed to the public’s ruin?

Patrick Henry’s strident warning to his fellow Virginians at the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788 is worth repeating since it answers this question arguably better than any other, if for no other reason than because of his notoriety. Although the following speech is nowhere near as renowned as his “Give me liberty” speech, I would argue it’s many times more important. Tragically, it wasn’t heeded, and America has been fulfilling Patrick Henry’s warning ever since:

…I say our privileges and rights are in danger. …the new form of Government … will … effectually … oppress and ruin the people…. In some parts of the plan before you, the great rights of freemen are endangered, in other parts, absolutely taken away…. There will be no checks, no real balances, in this Government: What can avail your specious imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances? …And yet who knows the dangers that this new system may produce: they are out of the sight of the common people: They cannot foresee latent consequences.... I see great jeopardy in this new Government.84

Patrick Henry not only recognized the immediate dangers of the newly proposed Constitution but also its future disastrous repercussions, which America is suffering today (even after the Bill of Rights was added), as is evident to anyone who is honest about America’s present state of affairs:

[B]ecause they have ... trespassed against my law ... they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.... (Hosea 8:1, 7)

Today’s America is reaping the inevitable ever-intensifying whirlwind resulting from the wind sown by the constitutional framers and fanned by today’s hoodwinked Christians and patriots who have been bamboozled into believing today’s whirlwind can be dissipated by appealing to the wind responsible for spawning the whirlwind.

Justified Hypocrites

The Declaration’s signatories were entirely justified in this first grievance against King George. Tragically, the Constitution’s framers turned around eleven years later to become hypocrites, guilty of the very same injustice.

Just as there’s only one law of liberty (Yahweh’s perfect law of liberty), there’s likewise only one wholesome and good law—identified as good (i.e., righteous) five times by the Apostle Paul alone.* There’s only one good and wholesome law if for no other reason than because there’s only One who’s good—the one and only Lawgiver per Isaiah 33:22 and James 4:12:

[T]here is none good but one, that is, God.... (Matthew 19:17)

Any edict contrary to the Lawgiver’s law is merely man making legal what Yahweh has dictated unlawful and making illegal what He has deemed lawful.

Case in point: the United States Constitution in which there’s hardly an Article or Amendment that’s not antithetical if not seditious to the Lawgiver’s law.85 Thus, the framers’ Constitution is just as much, if not more, an unwholesome set of laws as were King George’s against which they and their fellow “founding fathers” revolted.

Many Times Worse

In fact, the American framers’ unwholesome Constitution is multiplied times worse than Britain’s unwholesome laws. The abuses endured by America’s colonials under King George III don’t hold a candle to the abuses Americans have suffered and continue to suffer under the biblically seditious Constitution. Taxation alone demonstrates this to be true.

When you take into account the Constitutional Republic’s graduated income tax, property tax, sales taxes, and all the other sundry taxes Americans are shackled with—all of which are unbiblical—the average American is taxed from 35-40% of their annual income. Compare this to a mere 6% taxation by Britain in 1775.

Grievance #2

He [Britain’s King George III] has forbidden his [American] Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

Which of the following is worse?

1. The suppression of the colonials’ immediate and pressing demands?

2. The usurpation and abolition of Yahweh’s moral law as supreme?

The latter was first officially accomplished here in America with the state constitutions and later with Article 6’s claim that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It was then firmly fixed in place by Marbury v Madison and Reynolds v United States, arguably the two most biblically consequential Supreme Court decisions of all time.

Marbury v Madison (1803) declares “[A] law repugnant to the Constitution is void.”86 Per Article 6,87 this includes any biblical law incongruent or opposed to either the Constitution or its supplementary laws, including treaties with other nations.

This was made especially clear with Reynolds v United States (1879). Reynolds addressed the Mormon Church’s claim that polygamy was a right afforded them under Amendment 1. Because most Americans find polygamy repugnant, the consequential magnitude of Justice Morrison R. Waite’s decision is lost on them. In fact, very few people are even aware of this decision and its impact upon Christendom.** Note especially the first and last sentences in the following quotation from
Reynolds v United States:

Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice?... So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land.89

Contrary to Matthew 7:21-27*** and James 1:22-25,**** the Supreme Court in Reynolds v United States ruled that a man’s actions can be severed and isolated from his faith and judged illegal according to the Constitution and its supplementary edicts. This legal precedent paved the way for any Christian action***** based upon a biblical conviction—such as preaching against sodomy—to be arbitrarily outlawed in the same fashion. Had the framers instead established Yahweh’s immutable law and its predetermined morality as the supreme law of the land, polygamy and human sacrifice (and all other issues) would have fallen under its jurisdiction to be determined as either lawful or unlawful.90

The suppression of the colonials’ immediate and pressing demands by King George doesn’t begin to compare with the grievous consequences incurred from the usurpation and abolition of Yahweh’s moral law as supreme by the constitutional framers.

Grievance #3

He [Britain’s King George III] has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

Because the grievances cited here are themselves biblically seditious, they contributed nothing toward eliminating the American colonies’ overall government problems. Instead, they assisted in recreating what is at the heart of the colonials’ grievances against Great Britain—that is, capricious man-made legislation.91

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

There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy.... (James 4:12)

There are no vacuums when it comes to legislated morality (or immorality as the case may be). Law is inherently a moral issue—the means for determining what constitutes good (what’s lawful) and what constitutes evil (what’s unlawful).

Consequently, because there’s only One with the authority to determine what constitutes good and evil, there is likewise only one Lawgiver. Thus, only the Lawgiver’s law is true law. Anything to the contrary is calling good evil and evil good, per Isaiah 5:20. Anything to the contrary is lawlessness, especially establishing legislators who are given the alleged authority to add to the Lawgiver’s law.91 It’s biblical sedition at its worst.

Administrators vs. Legislators

Biblical government requires administrators of God’s triune moral law (the Ten Commandments and their respective statutes and judgments), contrasted with legislators who create (add to or take away) from Yahweh’s completed law:

Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live.... Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of Yahweh your God which I command you. (Deuteronomy 4:1-2)

Juxtaposed with “legislators” who add to or take away from Yahweh’s law, administrators assist in implementing Yahweh’s law (government) here on earth. This is accomplished on three levels: individual, domestic, and societal. Every Christian man should be an administrator of God’s law on at least the first two levels.

Administrators represent God, not the people or any one person.

And [King Jehoshaphat] said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but Yahweh.... And he charged them, saying, Thus shall ye do in the fear of Yahweh faithfully, and with a perfect heart. (2 Chronicles 19:6-9)

The same holds true for husbands and fathers. Your administration over your family should represent God, who entrusted them to your care.

Yahweh our God is one Yahweh: And thou shalt love Yahweh thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. (Deuteronomy 6:4-8)

And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. (Ephesians 6:4)

Because we are representatives of God and administrators of His law, it is therefore our duty to search His law as it applies to any particular situation and to teach and implement the law(s) applicable to that situation or need.

For Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the law of Yahweh, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments. (Ezra 7:10)

And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, which they had made for the purpose; and beside him stood Mattithiah, and Shema, and Anaiah, and Urijah, and Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right hand; and on his left hand, Pedaiah, and Mishael, and Malchiah, and Hashum, and Hashbadana, Zechariah, and Meshullam. And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people.... So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading. (Nehemiah 8:4-8)

These men were administrators, not legislators. However, this does not mean supplementary stipulations cannot be implemented, provided they’re consonant with Yahweh’s prescribed law. For example, a father who governs his family under God’s authority and by His law has the liberty to implement house rules, such as hygienic and household chores.

The same is true for administrators on all other levels of society. Biblical precedent can be found in Nehemiah’s lots in Nehemiah 10:34, Jeremiah’s land deeds in Jeremiah 32:9-14, Rachab’s patriarchal requisites in Jeremiah 35:5-19, and Mordechai’s Purim celebration in Esther 9. None of these are directly provided for in the Ten Commandments or their statutes, but all of them are in harmony with Yahweh’s commandments and statutes.

Grievance #3 Again

He [Britain’s King George III] has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

Formidable to tyrants or subversive to the one and only Lawgiver?

The colonials’ problem with King George was not that he needed to pass additional laws on America’s behalf but rather that he and his parliament had usurped Yahweh’s exclusive legislative authority and created “laws” incompatible with God’s moral law. These unbiblical edicts were consequently injurious to both the American colonials and Britons alike.

Compounding the Problem

The American colonials’ demand for an alleged right of representation in Britain’s legislature only compounded the problem and made them complicit in King George’s legislative usurpation. Compounding the problem even further, once secession from Britain was realized, the colonials simply replicated Britain’s biblical sedition.

This was first accomplished with the original 18th-century state Constitutions and then with the federal Constitution created in 1787, none of which acknowledged God as the exclusive Lawgiver and thus His law as the only true law. Instead, they replaced Yahweh with We the People as America’s Sovereign92 and His law with their man-made constitutions as the supreme law of the land.93

In so doing, the 18th-century founding fathers replicated King George’s real sin both against God and against the people of the American colonies (against the people because what all nations are looking for from their governments can only be found in the Bible’s perfect law of liberty, resulting in government that’s a continual blessing to the righteous and perpetual terror to the wicked, per Romans 13:1-7.94)

In other words, it wasn’t so much a Declaration of Independence that America needed in 1776 as it was a Declaration of Liberty, as can only be attained individually via Christ’s blood-atoning sacrifice and resurrection from the grave and societally via the Bible’s perfect law of liberty.

Different Versions of the Same Sin

King George’s sin was not so much his oppression of the American colonials, but rather his sedition against Yahweh. In replacing the Lawmaker’s law with his own edicts, King George replaced the Lawgiver with himself.

The 18th-century founding fathers’ sin, as particularly reflected in the Constitution’s Article 195 and its legislative branch, was merely a different version of the same thing. Instead of replacing the Lawgiver’s law with another King’s “law,” they replaced the Lawgiver’s law with We the People’s surrogate—the “law” of those who allegedly represent We the People.

Vox Populi, Vox Dei

In so doing, the founding fathers also replaced the Lawgiver, not with another King, but with a plurality of alleged Sovereigns. In Latin, this is expressed as Vox Populi, Vox Dei, that is, the Voice of the People, the Voice of God. Vox Populi, Vox Dei is especially demonstrated in both the Constitution’s unbiblical election process96 and unbiblical jury system.97

Republicanism is just another form of humanism expressed through its unbiblical majority vote in its elections and the jury system in the Constitutional Republic’s courtrooms.

Vox Populi, Vox Dei is the rallying cry of Constitutionalism, Republicanism, Democracy, and all other forms of humanistic government. This juxtaposed with the rallying cry of the early American Scottish Covenanters, “No King but Jesus!”

Divine Right of the People

Constitutionalists often contrast the Right of Kings with the Right of the People. The only difference between the two is the number of people futilely clamoring to be Divine or Sovereign. Regardless whether ruled by one or many, it remains humanism—that is, man doing what is right in his own eyes, per Judges 21:25.

The “divine right” of the people, as expressed, among other things, in the Constitutional Republic’s elections96 and its courtrooms97 not only replaces the “divine right” of the English Kings and their Parliaments, but the Divine Right of Yahweh as God, King, Judge, and Lawgiver!

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 2:13)

* Romans 7:12-16 & 1 Timothy 1:8

** Reynolds v United States helped turn what was Christendom (Christians dominionizing society on behalf of their King) in early 1600s America into today’s mere four-walled, stain-glassed Christianity, aka Churchianity.88

*** “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’ Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine, and acts upon them, may be compared to a wise man, who built his house upon the rock. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded upon the rock. And everyone who hears these words of Mine, and does not act upon them, will be like a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and it fell, and great was its fall.” (Matthew 7:21-27, NASB)

**** “But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was. But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man shall be blessed in what he does.” (James 1:22-25)

***** This is not to say the cult known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka the Mormon Church) is Christian. It is not.