During this time I have seen a most disturbing sign of our political condition, and it confirms what I have expressed for the past several years concerning state sovereignty verses federal usurpation.

Montana Medical Marijuana Laws

In 2004 the citizens of Montana overwhelmingly passed an initiative to legalize the medical use of marijuana. (Please, if you oppose legalizing marijuana, do not let the subject fog a clear understanding of the point of this article–personal views on morality is not the issue.)

Since then, the State legislature has essentially repealed that law and replaced it with another medical marijuana plan. Regardless of which marijuana law, the lawful use of marijuana for medical use remains.

Conflict with Federal Drug Laws

This state law is, of course, in violation of federal laws that outlaw all possession, manufacturing, growing, and use of marijuana. So, how does this conflict play out in the federal union of the United States? And what do the state and federal governments’ actions regarding the same reveal about this union’s condition?

Federal Prosecutions in Montana

Since early 2011, the federal government has initiated raids and prosecutions against Montana citizens for alleged violation of federal drug laws—in spite of Montana’s laws.

Federal agents focused their attacks on those who were doing business openly—using store front, public advertisement, incorporated registration, etc. This is significant given that the Feds claim they investigated these matters for “years”—it is comparable to investigating Wal-Mart for selling products made in China. Makes you wonder how proficient they are in tax-dollar use.

Federal “Conspiracy” Charges Against Citizens

Word has spread in Montana that the federal government considers certain people as conspiring to violate federal law where those people have only relationships with marijuana users and providers.

For example, a general contractor who builds a greenhouse for a provider; a landlord who rents a grow building to a grower; a person who supplies manufacturing materials; a doctor who prescribes marijuana to a patient; an attorney who drafts legal documents for a marijuana incorporation—all are subject to federal prosecution as “conspirators”.

In fact, one such contractor has been federally charged, and I know of an attorney who has been made a “generous” plea offer of over 100 years in federal prison. What an outrage!

If you study and understand the fundamental concepts regarding state sovereignty and federalism, this situation should burn coals in your gut. But it is worse than the obvious issues of inviolable separation of state from federal usurpation.

Who Are the “Conspirators” to the Feds?

Get a good grasp of this picture: the legislators of Montana pass a law permitting the medical use of marijuana, and similarly, for 7 years, never repeal the marijuana law the people directly passed; the executive branch of Montana signs the same into law; the executive’s administrations regulate and provide for the legal methods of using and distributing marijuana in the State; the Montana Supreme Court has recognized marijuana as a prescription drug; the Secretary of State certifies corporations who openly operate medical marijuana business.

In short, those in the marijuana business are working as legitimately under State law as a local barber shop—not to mention, the State is receiving taxes from this industry and has supplied payroll, covered overhead, and built infrastructure with these taxes. During these economic times, this is not a small matter.

Yet, the Federal government prosecutes Montana’s citizens who comply with a law the state government passed, permitted, executed, and administered on their behalf. The Feds do not attack the power of the State directly by prosecuting State officials. Rather the Feds attack Montana’s citizens, thereby ruining the lives of those without sufficient power, money, and force of government to protect the State’s sovereignty recognized in the tenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

How convenient for shaping the issue of federal authority. Were the Feds to focus their criminal prosecutions on State officials, the issues would look quite difficult. The Feds avoid this scene. I guess the public mind has not been completely indoctrinated to that level—yet.

Apply Federal Authority Equally—What Would Result?

Here is the question:

if it is lawful for the federal government to arrest Montana citizens who are complying with State law for violating federal law (including those who “conspire” to help users or providers with this unlawful use of marijuana), then would it not also be for them to prosecute state officials who instigated the conspiracy to begin with by putting into place the law so people could benefit from it?

If the answer is, yes; then we do not live in a federal union composed of sovereign states—we live in a national system with the States being nothing but counties to the one-nation, AMERICAN STATE.

If the answer is, no; then what power does the federal government have to arrest a state citizen in complying with a state law?

And what is to be said about the sovereignty of the States and the federal union it created where state government does nothing to protect its own sovereignty?

“State” Officials Are Really Federal (Sub)Agents

It is contemptible that the government of the State of Montana would pretend to care about the sovereignty of the people of Montana by passing a law on their behalf only to hide behind their official status while the federal government bulldozes its way into this state to arrest any Montanan it says is breaking federallaw.

Given the way the federal government treats the citizens of the States and the State’s land, the question must be asked: what good are States anyway? Why do we even have States where this kind of action takes place supposedly pursuant to the U.S. Constitution? It would seemingly be much better were we to get rid of the pretense and the litigation arguing the point.

However, seeing that this exact type of constitution was proposed at the 1787 constitutional convention but rejected indicates that the system being implemented today is not constitutional after all.

All the while, State officials sit in their fancy government chairs in a beautiful, big State house, pass state laws, pull the rug over their eyes to the federal government’s intrusion of the State’s sovereignty, and somehow think they are representing the State of Montana.

Sovereignty un-asserted and unprotected is no sovereignty at all. Even the Federalist authors—the “liberals” of their day—admitted this about our federal system.

Will Montana (and Other States) Elect a Real State Leader in 2012?

The States are reaching a tipping point. Either the States are going to be crushed under the weight of the federal government, or (some) will successfully reclaim sovereignty that has been lost for over 150 years. The real question is: what will be the catalyst to cause the tip?

There is hardly any room, if any, left for (federal) courts to determine issues of political power and the sovereignty of the people. This can only be decided by the people—the source of political power.

Montana needs a governor to stand up for the sovereignty of the people of Montana—a governor who will not hide behind his executive position but will assert his position to protect our sovereignty and independence—who will uphold the tenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I hope the people of Montana will recognize the vital importance of this issue. It is not about Republican or Democrat; conservative or liberal; red, blue, or green. It is about liberty and a republican and federal form of government.

Those who snuff at this fundamental concept only reveal their priorities and misunderstanding of American constitutional law and political philosophy; their credibility to influence these kinds of decisions should be seen as meritless and elementary.

For you Montanans who see this importance, I hope you will cut through politicians’ rhetoric as they campaign for office in 2012 (for indeed, most, if not all, of the republicans are going to say something about State rights but will do nothing in practice to assert it). Find the candidate who will be a true leader and stand for the rights of the State of Montana. It is their duty.

The only way you can preserve your freedom in the State of Montana is to elect a governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general who will support and defend our constitutions in reality, not in charade only.

Enlightenment Philosophy

Charles Montesquieu goes into detail concerning the nature of States. He starts his Spirit of Laws by describing the types of government. “When the body of the people is possessed of the supreme power, it is called a democracy”, he says; “[t]here can be no exercise of sovereignty[1] but by their suffrage” (Charles Montesquieu,Spirit of Laws, Trnsl. Thomas Nugent, [Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1952)] 4). Given the political power each individual holds in the exercise of the State’s sovereignty, “[a] free agent”, he says, “ought to be his own government; the legislative power should reside in the whole body of the people” (Spirit of Laws, 71). Thus, a pure democracy is a State where the people hold all sovereignty of the State and directly pass all the laws of that State. Each citizen is his own legislator.

In discussing the disadvantages of a pure democracy, Montesquieu observes, “since [direct participation in passing laws of the State] is impossible in large states, and in small ones is subject to many inconveniences, it is fit the people should transact by their representatives what they cannot transact by themselves…The great advantage of representatives is, their capacity of discussing public affairs. For this the people collectively are extremely unfit, which is one of the chief inconveniences of a democracy” (Ibid., 71). This disadvantage is observed as well by Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, who says, “[democracy] is too weak, leaves the people too much to themselves, and tends to confusion and licentiousness” (Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, The Principles of Politic Law, [Liberty Fund, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, 2006], 341). The solution to the Enlightenment philosopher is a republic, as explained by Burlamaqui:

“There are two ways of finding this temperament [between an absolute monarchy and popular democracy]: The first consists in lodging the sovereignty in a council so composed, both as to the number and choice of persons, that there shall be a moral certainty of their having no other interests than those of the community, and of their being always ready to give a faithful account of their conduct. This is what we see happily practised in most republics. The second is, to limit the sovereignty of the prince…by fundamental laws” (Ibid., 345).

This is the character and nature of a republic: a State where sovereignty originates in the people and its administration is delegated in trust to representatives bound by constitutional limitations and accountable to the people for their conduct.

We need not get into further details of how a democracy or republican government operates and under what conditions they naturally thrive and maintain liberty[2], though they are very relevant to fully understand this subject. The highlighted observation regarding a democracy and republic is the fundamental basis on which they rest—that is, the origins and execution of sovereignty.

So, what is the common feature shared by a democracy and a republic? Answer: the people (1) possess all political sovereignty; (2) delegate it to their choosing and on their conditions; and (3) reserve the right to recall it at any time to secure their happiness and rights. Democracies and republics diverge when considering the constitutional ways of passing and executing the State’s laws.[3]

The basis for a we-the-people State is found in natural law as discussed by Enlightenment philosophers and adopted by America’s founding fathers. The power of the people as a sovereign body politic derives from “the intention or will of God with respect to man, [which] consequently acquaints us with the law of nature” (Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, The Principles of Natural and Politic Law, 147). In exposition of these natural laws, Burlamaqui says, “sovereignty resides originally in the people” (Ibid., 302).

The consequence of the democracy and republic foundation is that the people determine the State’s direction according to the constitution established by them. As Burlamaqui says, “[t]he only just foundation of all acquisition of sovereignty, is the consent, or the will of the people” (Burlamaqui, Principles of Politic Law, 349).  Thus, in a democracy and republic, the citizens are to respect and obey those who have been delegated the power of government, “as long as he uses his power with equity and moderation, and does not exceed the limits of his authority” (Burlamaqui, Principles of Politic Law, 369).

The focus of this type of government is that the people ultimately and continually make the determination of correctness for the State and the people’s representatives. Where correction is to be made, the people ensure it. Where change is to be made, the people make it. Where abolition is to be made, the people make it. Where direction is given, the people give it. The sense of this kind of State is one of activism, knowledge, control, education, and responsibility. According to Enlightenment philosophy, this creates the freest States as most compatible with God’s creation and man’s constitution, and its natural conditions and limitations must be observed to maintain its true form. The American Declaration of Independence simply reiterates these principles.

Let us compare these fundamental concepts with Georg Hegel’s philosophy.

Hegel Philosophy

Throughout Hegel’s work, a common theme is present: the people do not possess natural and political qualities to govern themselves. They need “leaders” to tell them what is best for them. The people do not possess real sovereignty, even though individuals may have formed a State historically in time; or as Hegel says, “forms [of government] must be discussed historically or not at all” (Georg Hegel, Philosophy of Right, Ed. University of Chicago, Trnsl. T.M. Knox, [Encyclopedia Britannica, Oxford University Press], 91).  Hegel demeans democracies and republics as an “immature” kind of State; and also undermines the Enlightenment regarding self-government as revealed by God’s creation and man’s constitution.

To Hegel, the best form of government is a heredity monarchy. Hegel says, “[t]he rights of birth and inheritance constitute the basis of legitimacy, [as] contained in the Idea [of the State]” (Ibid., 95). He dogmatically rejects even a popular elective monarchy, saying that it “stands opposed to the Idea of ethical life [and] is the worst of institutions” (Ibid). Hegel finds that a hereditary monarchy is “something not deduced but purely self-originating” as it complies with the “Idea of the State” (See, Part 2) (Ibid, 93). Hegel finds, “[heredity monarchy is] grounded in the authority of God” (Ibid. 93). The unconditional rule of a monarch comports to Hegel’s notion of the limitless power of the State itself.

Even more absurd to Hegel are the concepts of the democracy and republic as forms of government where “the people” possess sovereign political power. Hegel first observes, “[w]e may speak of sovereignty in home affairs residing in the people, provided that we are speaking generally about the whole state…, namely that it is to the state that sovereignty belongs” (Ibid., 93-94, emphasis added). Hegel redefines sovereignty as being an original possession of the State, not the people. There is no delegation by the people to government, but only that sovereignty exists in the State by its nature. Hegel finds that the Enlightenment understanding of sovereignty in the people “is something opposed to the sovereignty existent in the monarch”—the “best” form of government (Ibid., 94).

In a word, Hegel believes the “Idea of the State” as executed by an absolute, hereditary monarch must never be interfered with by people who would claim to hold the sovereign power of the State. More than the concept of “we the people” interfering with the “Idea of the State”, Hegel thinks it is altogether confusing and irrational. Hegel says, “the sovereignty of the people is one of the confused notions based on the wild idea of the ‘people’” (Ibid., 94). Without a monarchy, “the people is a formless mass and no longer a state”, Hegel says (Ibid., 94). Self-government as described in our Declaration of Independence, thus, is an absurd notion to Hegel.

Hegel also mocks the Enlightenment foundations of a democracy and republic. He says, “[i]f by ‘sovereignty of the people’ is understood a republic form of government…then all that is needed in reply has been said already [and] such a notion cannot be further discussed in face of the Idea of the state in its full development” (Ibid., 94). First, Hegel finds that a democracy and republic are incompatible with the “idea of the State in its full development” (See, Part 3). Second, Hegel finds that the “sovereignty of the people” in a democracy or republic is meaningless to the “idea of the State” (See, Part 4). As Hegel says, “‘Who is to frame the constitution?’ This question…is meaningless, for it presupposes that there is no constitution there, but only an agglomeration of atomic individuals” (Ibid., 91). Essentially speaking, Hegel finds no merit in the concept that the people hold sovereign political power and that a democracy or republic is a good form of government as it relates to the purpose of the State.

So, what is Hegel’s concept of sovereignty? “[S]overeignty is there as the personality of the whole [State], and this personality is there…as the person of the monarch” (Ibid., 94). In a word, sovereignty only exists as the State exists, and this sovereignty realizes in the “person of the monarch”—not because the people delegated their original power to him as their representative; but rather, it exists in him by divine ordination or by the “Judge of the World”: history.

How does one become a monarch, legislator, or potentate in such a State? To Hegel, it is based in chance and opportunity—in history—not principle, reasoning, or the will of the people. After discussing his ideas regarding sovereignty, democracies, and republics, Hegel says,

“[E]ven in those comparatively immature constitutional forms [i.e. democracy and republic], there must always be individuals at the head. Leaders must either be available already, as they are in monarchies of that type, or…they may rise to the top, as statesmen or generals, by chance and in accordance with the particular needs of the hour. This must happen, since everything done and everything actual is inaugurated and brought to completion by the single decisive act of a leader” (Ibid., 94).

To Hegel, there is only one way to realize and execute the sovereignty of the State: through the power of a leader–who is at the right place at the right time. Moreover, Hegel finds that “mature” forms of government are hereditary monarchs, and “immature” forms of government are those based upon the concept of “sovereignty in the people”. He says, “[t]he development of the state to constitutional monarchy is the achievement of the modern world, a world in which the substantial Idea has won the infinite form [of subjectivity]” (Ibid., 90).

Observations and Conclusions

It is no wonder one sees a tremendous concentration of political power throughout the 1800 and 1900s throughout the world with Hegel’s philosophy being advocated by educators, philosophers, and politicians—they being the most likely to become the “leaders” of a Hegelian State. When one considers the formulas which make a democracy and republic successful in the maintenance of liberty compared to the ingredients of Hegel’s “Ideal of the State”, a good argument could be made that more of Hegel’s ingredients make up the character of the United States than the Enlightenment philosophy.

Much could be said about this, but suffice it to say, there is one requirement universally accepted for a democracy and republic to maintain liberty. That State must comprise a small territory and population where the people know and are able to execute their interests. In truth, where society becomes complex, societiesmust stay relatively small to maintain control of their own destiny. Hegel admitted this as well, but rejects it as opposed to “the Idea of the State”.

To get around the inconveniences having a small territory and population poses, republics form federations with limited authority. In such a federal union, the small republics must and by right retain all sovereignty not expressly delegated to the larger republic. Both the Articles of Confederation and United States Constitution hold this federal character. It is this retention of inviolable state sovereignty which enables the small republics forming the union to stay appropriately sized and maintain the pure form of a republic to prevent developing into Hegel’s notions of a “mature” state.

Under such a federation of smaller States, democracies are naturally at disadvantage and are destined to lose all qualities which make a democracy pure in form and practice. For this reason alone, the United States of America is anything but a democracy; for it hardly meets, if any, elements of a pure democracy. Of all people who should oppose the nationalization of reserved state powers, Democrats should. Ironically, most of them today prefer big government, nationalization, and the destruction of state sovereignty. Obviously, they have not studied philosophy or history on this subject; or like many politicians, are Hegelians in disguise.

As Hegel points out concerning the State being led not by the people but by “leaders” who happen to be in the right place at the right time, the United States seems only to be led by superrich and super-powerful people who control federal politics from Washington D.C, New York City, London, and other world-power-brokerages.  Even a statesman as proven, provocative, and principled as Congressman Ron Paul gets the boot by most media and by D.C, despite the success and soundness of his seasoned political and professional career.  The people are only left with whoever the mega-wealthy people chose for our buffet menu; and state and federal laws ensure that it remains that way. The elitist-control of politics was attempted to be eliminated (supposedly) by replacing the Electoral College with popular vote; only to be supplanted by the national two-party system where only the “chosen” are given for the people’s choice.

A truly competitive political process or outcome is not reality. Short of the most draconian circumstances, federal and state laws are passed without even the people’s knowledge or concern. Competition of political ideas are thwarted or belittled at the first sign of growth. Yet, we are told today that power rests in the people and we live in a “free democracy”. The facts do not comport to the rhetoric.

How does a Hegelian turn a once Enlightenment society, constitution, and government into a Hegel-style State?

Simply stated, (1) the territories, population, and actions of the people must be vastly expanded and put under centralized control; (2) the smaller republics must lose their sovereignty at the expense of the larger “republic” as a development of the “idea of the State”; (3) local self-determination must be replaced with national power; (4) national power commingle with a “league of nations” agenda (as Hegel advocated); (5) fixed and original principles of constitutional government must be replaced with a living organism of state development; and (6) politics and government must be tightly controlled by a cabal of “leaders” which Hegel explains are the only ones God-ordained to rule the people in their ignorance and ineptness.

These factors naturally cause a dilution of the natural characteristics that keep a society truly democratic or republican. The effect is, people have exponentially less power, influence, and oversight over government. Each vote becomes less meaningful and important. The view of the constitution becomes more and more diverse and conflicting. The State’s direction becomes more confused and misguided. The chances of redirection, restoration, or control are increasingly diminished. The people become disenfranchised and indifferent. The struggle for political power becomes concentrated into the hands of those who have the power and money to buy or “buddy” their way to the top; all the while, the concerned common person tries to figure a way to catch up with those with literally billions of dollars at their disposal to ensure power stays put.

If we are going to return to original constitution principles and operate under pure democratic and republic principles, then we must recognize what it means to be a republic and what kind of characteristics must exist to maintain those forms of government. Perhaps constitutional amendments should be proposed and advocated to bring our original sovereignty into our hands once again. Otherwise, we are simply a fulfillment of the Hegelian dialectic State in the process of becoming what he claims happens to all “maturing” governments.

Hegel’s philosophy on interpreting and applying the constitution of a State is perhaps the most tangible and evident as it relates to constitutional law and political direction in the United States. Hegel’s view of the constitution is similar to his view on the formation and purpose of the State as discussed in Part 3. As will be seen in this discussion, many politicians and office holders in the United States have, knowingly or not, adopted Hegel’s view of our federal and state constitutions. Consequently, it is destroying the very nature of the constitutions themselves and is accomplishing Hegel’s vision of the State.

Hegel determines that a State’s constitution need not be interpreted and applied in light of the framers’ intent and purposes. Hegel says, “Another question readily presents itself here: ‘Who is to frame the constitution?’ This question…is meaningless[.] [I]t is absolutely essential that the constitution should not be regarded as something made, even though it has come into being in time. It must be treated rather as something simply existent in and by itself” (Georg Hegel, Philosophy of Right, Ed. University of Chicago, Trnsl. T.M. Knox, [Encyclopedia Britannica, Oxford University Press, 1952], 91). Just as the purpose of the State is not to be considered when factoring the power of the State (see, Part 3), Hegel likewise determines the organic meaning of the constitution is not to be considered. To Hegel, there are no reference points or “first principles” in interpreting and applying the State’s constitution.

To Hegel, a constitution is a living organism—taking a life of its own—to change and develop as society changes and develops without the need for formal amendments or the people’s expressed consent. The change and development of society is not determined by the people, but by government. The constitution is the State’s method of objectifying through laws its subjective will. Hegel states, “the constitution…depends in general on the character and development of its self-consciousness. In its self-consciousness its subjective freedom is rooted and so, therefore, is the actuality of its constitution” (92, emphasis added).

Expressly stated, Hegel finds that the constitution’s development must be realized by government. Hegel puts no merit in the notion that the constitution’s original meaning and purpose must be applied to the actions and laws of government. Instead, the government’s actions and laws define the constitution as a developing idea of self-consciousness. The constitution is less about limitations upon government and more about empowering government so there will be no restrictions in its self-consciousness development.

Hegel describes the constitution as “rational” as long as the State carries out its powers in accordance with its concept—to objectify “freedom” for individuals in society (see, Part 2). To further understand Hegel’s concept of a constitution being “rational”, one must understand what he describes as constitutional powers of the State.

First, Hegel describes the rational constitution by describing the “power of the Crown”, saying that “thisabsolute self-determination constitutes the distinctive principle of the power of the crown” (92, emphasis added). Hegel finds that a constitution must have a sovereign power of government in one person, and this sovereign power equates to the “universality of the constitution and laws” (92). In other words, the crown contains universal power of the State according to its “concept”. It must have the power to carry out the State’s will, not considering natural law and constitutional limitations.

Second, Hegel sees the legislature body as being merely “a mediating organ” between the people and the sovereign power (101). To Hegel, any and all branches of government are not purposed to check each other; but rather, to act as an aggregate of the same unit (101). They are sort of team players playing different positions. In fact, Hegel finds the separate branches of government to be an absurd notion contrary to the “concept of the State”. Undermining the Enlightenment philosophy, Hegel says that any opposition the legislators present to the executive “is reduced to a show” (101). “There may indeed be an appearance of opposition between them,” Hegel says, “but if they were opposed, not merely superficially, but actually in substance, then the state would be in the throes of destruction” (101). To Hegel, actual opposition within government hinders its self-development, which is universally executed by the crown. The legislators serve more as spokesmen for the interests of particular groups; not as advocates to protect inalienable rights of the people and collective rights of society and to check the power of the executive.

In Hegel’s view, both executive and legislative branches serve not as representatives of the people or holders of the constitution. They act as organisms of the State—the developing self-consciousness of its constitution. Their purpose is to carry out the self-determinative will of the State. The constitution is primarily the power of the State carry out laws according to the ever changing character of its will. Hegel expressly says,

“The patriotic sentiment [i.e. universal duty to submit to the laws and institutions of the State] acquires its specifically determined content from the various members of the organism of the state. This organism is the development of the Idea to its differences and their objective actuality…Throughout this process the universal maintains its identity, since it is itself the presupposition of its own production. This organism is the constitution of the state” (84).

A “rational constitution” is one of power, not limitation. There are no fundamental notions of rights, freedoms, liberties, etc., which are to limit the action of the State. This would get in the way of the “organism” being able to grow and thrive as the objectification of reality; for as Hegel puts it, “[that State’s] end is the universal interest” (84). This universal interest is determined by the crown and his mediators (i.e. legislators) and by whatever factors influence those controlling State actions. Once that universal interest is determined and executed, the State has conformed to a “rational constitution”.

Enlightenment Philosophy

The Enlightenment philosophy cannot be more polemical to Hegel’s concepts of a constitution. To Enlightenment philosophers, substantial priority was placed on the States’ constitution, necessarily including its formation, interpretation, application, and preservation. This philosophy was, of course, the adopted view of the United States’ founding fathers (See, U.S. Constitution, Art. 6).

Emer de Vattel defines a constitution as the “fundamental regulation that determines the manner in which the public authority is to be executed” (Law of Nations, [Indianapolis, IN, Liberty Fund, 2008], 91). Vattel describes the constitution in terms of authority extended with limitations so that government may “obtain[] those advantages with a view to which the political society was established” (92). Clearly, Vattel’s description anticipates both the advantages to society and those individuals comprising it, as well as the purpose for which the State was created.

“The perfection of a state, and its aptitude to attain the ends of society,” Vattel says, “must then depend on its constitution” (92). Again, the “ends of society”—namely, to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of individuals—is the purpose of the constitution. Therefore, Vattel emphasizes the importance of creating a constitution grounded in sound principles of natural law. Vattel states, “[the state’s] first and most essential duty towards itself, is to chuse the best constitution possible, and that most suitable to its circumstances…[for] its own preservation, safety, perfection, and happiness” (92).

This perspective of a constitution was extremely important because in the view of Enlightenment philosophers “this constitution is a vain phantom, and the best laws are useless, if they be not religiously observed: the nation ought then to watch very attentively, in order to render them equally respected by those who govern, and by the people destined to obey. To attack the constitution of the state, and to violate its laws, is a capital crime against society” (93). In contrast to the “living constitution” concept advocated by Hegel, Vattel clearly describes a constitution as being fixed in principles and original in meaning; and for this reason states, “[the state] cannot take too much care in place [its preservation, safety, perfection, and happiness] on a solid basis” (92). Thus, the United States Supreme Court before correctly iterated,

“We are bound to interpret the Constitution in light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted, not as reaching out for new guaranties of the rights of the citizen, but as securing to every individual such as he already possessed as a British subject—such as his ancestors had inherited and defended since the days of Magna Carta.” Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 243 (1895).

Were a constitution a living development of self-consciousness as Hegel describes, there would be no real need in creating a “solid” constitution. By nature it would be fluid and changeable upon the discretion of those in government power. Wherever power was needed to accomplish the State’s subjective will, power was used; and that was considered the “rational constitution”, according to Hegel.

This was not the case with the Enlightenment philosophers. Just the opposite, Hegel’s view of the State’s constitution was considered a capital offense against society. Vattel charges the people of the State not only to serve as watch dogs to State officials, but also to resist them. Vattel observes,

“The nation ought constantly to repress them with its utmost vigour and vigilance, as the importance of the case requires. It is very uncommon to see the laws and constitution of a state openly and boldly opposed: it is against silent and gradual attacks that a nation ought to be particularly on its guard…It would be rendering nations an important service, to shew from history, how many states have thus entirely changed their nature, and lost their original constitution. This would awaken the attention of mankind:–impressed thenceforward with this excellent maxim[], principiis obsta [‘Resist the first advances’]” (93).

The Declaration of Independence, the foundation of American ideology, said the same thing, declaring, “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.” Thus, a constitution’s true meaning being solid, only to change upon the will of the people, is the Enlightenment approach and the foundation of American constitutional law. This approach fundamentally serves as a limitation on government and protection of individuals’ rights, even if it means the movement of government is stifled and not efficient.

Observations and Conclusion

There is a striking difference between Hegel’s and the Enlightenment’s view of interpreting and applying the constitution. Interestingly, many politicians in the United States claim the U.S. constitution and State constitutions are “living” without regard to the active determination and effectuation of the people’s will. Such a proposition is blatantly incorrect and shows either ignorance or machination.

Tragically, many judges, attorneys, sheriffs, police chiefs, and other State and federal officials have adopted Hegel’s view of the constitution; and most law schools advocate the same notion. For example, consider the United States’ Supreme Court decision in 1920 which adopted this Hegelian view of the U.S. constitution:

“[W]hen we are dealing with words that also are a constituent act, like the Constitution of the United States, we must realize that they have called into life a being the development of which could not have been foreseen completely by the most gifted of its begetters. It was enough for them to realize or to hope that they hadcreated an organism.” Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, 434 (1920).

This statement conforms precisely to Hegel’s philosophy of the State. Moreover, this court expressly used Hegel’s concepts (see, Part 3). When the U.S. Supreme Court uses concepts like this to reach its decisions, it is no wonder why we have presidents who claim the U.S. Constitution should or need not be followed as intended by the founders. Case in point: Obama said, the United States needs to break “free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution”.[1] According to Obama, the tool to accomplish this is, of course, the “living, breathing constitution”.[2] This has been a widely used “constitutional” view and is mostly a justification to enlarge the power of the federal government and decrease the power of the states and individuals. Consequently, the constitution’s original character has been undermined decision by decision—and by force. It has largely been successful, regardless of conservative rhetoric from politicians.

These people’s oath to uphold our constitutions are shadowy at best because they uphold something entirely different than what the constitution envisioned—a philosophy which created the soil and roots of Karl Marx’s communism and Adolph Hitler’s autocracy, and its degenerative affect continues in America. Considering most practicalities, Hegel’s philosophy has accomplished what Emer de Vattel describes as a nation whose character has been changed and constitution destroyed by the slow and gradual attacks upon the principles which formed the constitution.

Office holders and seekers should be chained to the questions regarding this subject. Without a public understanding of this philosophy, Hegel’s “Idea” will continue to thrive.

As discussed in Part 2 of this article series, the State is the objectivity of individual freedom, in Hegel’s view. The State’s power is absolute and supreme in all regards. This objectivity of individual freedom is simultaneously the purpose of the State, because as Hegel puts it, the individual’s destiny is fulfilled by being subject to the State. There is no defined “purpose” of the State as it relates to natural law, constitution, logic, or reason. Rather, to Hegel, the real question is not for what purpose was the State created; but rather, what is the “concept of the State”. It matters not why a State is formed; it only matters that it exist. Once it exists, its purpose is accomplished by whatever actions it executes. The State’s purpose and power are thus coterminous.

Upon this supposition, Hegel rejects sentiments that the State is not “doing its job” or is “violating the social compact” to which it must adhere to be considered legitimate authority. To Hegel, the State’s authority exists independent of any purposes of formation whether in natural or constitutional law. “The people” as the creator of society and government is not even a factor in determining government power (a subject to be addressed in detail in a subsequent article series). The State’s subjects only need to consider what the State determines to be law at that time and obey. As Hegel puts it, this is the individual’s universal duty to the State (see, Part 2).

Hegel rejects the Enlightenment philosophy that society and government are formed on principles of social compact. Hegel states, “the notion of a contractual relation between him [i.e. government] and his people…stands opposed to the Idea of ethical life” (Georg Hegel, Philosophy of Right, Ed. University of Chicago, Trnsl. T.M. Knox, [Encyclopedia Britannica, Oxford University Press, 1952], 95). This term “Idea of ethical life” means, to Hegel, the absolute power of the State as supreme over the individuals in society; so, the idea of a social compact stands opposed to the power of the State. Natural and constitutional limitations upon the State do not exist. By definition, there is no such thing as the “purpose” for forming society and government. There is only the “Idea of ethical life”—that is, the State’s absolute power.

When considering the position held by Enlightenment philosophers, as used for the foundation of the United States of America, one sees that Hegel’s views of the formation and purpose of government stands in sharp contrast and contradiction to original American ideals. It certainly plays a significant role in how politicians see their powers relative to the constitution and citizens of the State, all the while claiming we are “free”. Let us consider now the Enlightenment view of the purpose of the State.

Enlightenment Philosophy

Throughout Enlightenment philosophy, there was a consistent theme regarding the formation of society and government. This theme was, there is a defined purpose for forming a State and that purpose is a lens through which to judge government actions. This purpose is found in both nature and constitution. The rationale and basis rest on this: (1) God created man with inherit, inalienable rights and the authority to enforce and protect those rights, and (2) an oath is implicitly or expressly imposed upon every person serving in public capacity for the good of the people (See, Ezekiel 17:16; Ecclesiastes 8:2-5; Psalm 55:20; Amos 1:9).

Since being in a state of nature poses problems with individuals being able to protect their God-given freedom and rights, people form government to serve as their common will and force of protecting those rights from within and without. The people’s rights are original, and government’s power is fiduciary. Locke explains that in a state of nature, since men have a right to judge their own cause without control or appeal, it may be that justice will not be served systematically given our nature of self-preference. Complete individual sovereignty (as in a state of nature) would render each person capable of defining when he is “hurt” and thus is entitled to enforce his right absolutely. Not much speculation is needed to see how such a state of complete individual sovereignty would render that society chaotic.

Ironically, complete, unfettered individual freedom would render that society at constant war, ultimately to be controlled by those with enough power and resources to buy the loyalty of those less capable. Eventually, tribal wars overcome those people, and a dictatorship results, as history shows. For this cause, “civil government is the proper remedy for the inconveniences of the state of Nature” (John Locke, Concerning Civil Government, Ed. Alexander Campbell Fraser, [Oxford University Press, 1952], 28). Concepts such as damage,hurt, obligation, duty, liability, etc. are thus defined in law so the people may know how to conduct their behavior and may enforce their rights through civil, peaceful means.

Neither complete individual sovereignty nor complete state sovereignty complies with the state of human nature and experience, according to Enlightenment philosophy. Government is needed; but it needs be limited by constitution and purpose. Individual freedom is a right, but the absolute and indiscriminate exercise of it is (partially) surrendered in exchange for the common will through the State. Thus, government regulates the people of that society by the constitution they create and through laws passed pursuant thereto; but the people watch and check the government for violations of that constitution created to protect their rights and enjoy the utility of their common will. This is an Enlightenment principle of the State.

Locke declares the State’s general purpose as “the preservation of property” (43), which he describes as one’s life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as well as lands, houses, &c. The importance and preeminence of private property is the pillar of freedom: to enjoy the fruits of one’s labor; to supply income and sustenance; to provide for one’s family; and to promote industry and improvement of lifestyle—this being done not in state of nature form, but rather in state of society, constitutional form. In like vein, Emer de Vattel explains that the State is formed “to protect and defend” the citizen, and it must “lay[] the foundation of its own preservation, safety, perfection, and happiness” (Law of Nations, [Indianapolis, IN, Liberty Fund, 2008], 86). Thus, the State’s constitution empowers government to protect private property through passing and enforcing laws.

The State cannot violate these purposes and still be considered legitimate. The people have a right to hold the State accountable to their natural and constitutional purposes. Just as an individual has a right to protect his freedom against an individual in a state of nature, he also has a right to be free from the force of laws to which he has not consented in a state of society. Locke explains that men possess natural liberty “to be free from any superior power on earth…[and] to be under no other legislative power but that established by consent in a commonwealth, nor under the dominion of any will, or restraint of any law, but what that legislative shall enact according to the trust put in it.” (Concerning Civil Government, 29, emphasis added).

One’s consent relates directly to the “trust” (i.e. fiduciary) purpose of the State and its natural and constitutional limitations. Government force creating submission of individuals can never equate to consent. Thus, Hegel’s notion of “the concept of the State” equating to absolute power over its subjects contradicts the Enlightenment understanding that legitimate authority comes by way of the State fulfilling its purpose and not usurping the authority individuals possess.

The Declaration of Independence mirrors these Enlightenment sentiments. Namely, it reiterates: “all men are created equal, [and] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”.  Upon this foundation, the colonies seceded from Great Britain because each Colony determined for itself that being political, constitutionally, and legally connected to their government (of hundreds of years) no longer satisfied the purpose for which Great Britain was established and for which the Colonies were formed; namely, to preserve and protect property (i.e. life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, &c). Ultimately, this is the question each society (i.e. county, state, or region) of each generation must answer for itself.

Observations and Conclusion

The consequences of these two philosophies should be obvious and indeed are significant in all regards of one’s daily life. Where Hegel presents no purpose of the State but only its “concept” and thus absolute power, those subjects are destined for either slavery or to fight their way to positions of political power so they can escape the chains placed upon subject status. Insider favors and corruption are rampant in that State. Loving one’s neighbor as himself is hardly a “Golden Rule”. Autocratic control, police and military force are the “rule of law”. Education is propaganda, controlled, and centralized; it indoctrinates all students to be good State patriots. The State has little to no incentive to limit its actions to standards of justice and decency. It seeks to expand itself and limit or destroy competition against its power. It only commands and expects obedience. When a subject invokes individual rights over the laws of the State, that subject is ignored or trampled by the State—and to Hegel, rightfully so.

In contrast, where a society understands the natural and expressed purpose of forming the State and its education develops the notions of natural and constitutional law, as did the Enlightenment, the people quite willingly serve as the watchman and overseers of government. The people hold the power of the State and its direction. They are intent to ensure that the laws comply with the constitution of the State to meet its purposes and to ensure their happiness and protection of individual rights and property. The people are ever vigilant in demanding their rights be not usurped by government power. Education emphasizes individual responsibility, character, honesty, and authority. The Golden Rule is happily followed for each knows that if a neighbor’s rights can be usurped by government, so can his. The State has much incentive to limit its actions to the standards of justice and decency, knowing the people will not accept corruption and tyranny. Government regulates in good faith compliance with the natural and expressed purposes of that State. Politicians are students of political philosophy and protectors of individual freedom; they are not seekers of personal gain and aggrandizement.

When the Enlightenment philosophy is abandoned, the vacuum is quickly filled with Hegelian concepts, like what happened in the United States soon after its formation. Understanding the formation and purpose of the State is crucial to understanding the next article series, which is “Interpreting and Applying the Constitution”. As will be seen, not defining the purpose of the State translates into the lack of constitutional limitations and actually creates a disdain for constitutional limitations as originally created by the people of the State.

From this Hegelian notion of no purpose comes the notion of the “living constitution” we have heard in the United States for over 100 years. Some have attempted to make the “living constitution” an American constitutional principle. In truth, it is a Hegelian principle. It is this Hegelian “concept of the State” (i.e. absolute power of the State) that has equipped less-than-honorable politicians and others with intent of subterfuge to convince the people that their actions are “constitutional” while at the same time they accomplish their goals as a Hegelian.

Hegel Philosophy

According to Hegel, the existence of “freedom” has its foundation in the “origin in the will” (Georg Hegel, Philosophy of Right, Ed. University of Chicago, Trnsl. T.M. Knox, [Encyclopedia Britannica, Oxford University Press, 1952], 12). The will goes through a process leading to self-consciousness; thus, to “posit any content in himself by his own effort” (13). Hegel calls the destination of this process “individuality” (14). From this individuality, the will creates specific determinations and seeks to realize them (15). In short, the individual attempts to accomplish in real life what his will desires.

Hegel claims that for the individual to objectify his will, his subjective determinations must be made “universal” through an objective forum (17-18), or else, his will remains in a non-rational condition—like an animal. Hegel says, “the absolute goal…of free mind is to make its freedom its object, i.e. to make freedom objective as much in the sense that freedom shall be the rational system of mind, as in the sense that this system shall be the world of immediate actuality” (18). In a word, subjective freedom must have a rational method through which to objectify or make real his freedom. Hegel calls this kind of freedom,Moral Freedom, Idea of Freedom, and Ethical Life.

Hegel determines that this individual realizes this moral freedom through the State. Hegel says, “[t]he State is the actuality of the ethical Idea.” (80). To Hegel, the State is the only means through which individual freedom has any objectivity. He reasons in this manner, “Whoever wills to act in this world of actuality has eo ipso [by the thing itself] submitted himself to its laws and recognized the right of objectivity…In this objective field, the right of [objective] insight is valid as insight into the legal or illegal” (46). Hegel further reasons, “the nature of man consists precisely in the fact that he is essentially something universal, not a being whose knowledge is an abstractly momentary and piecemeal affair” (Ibid). Hegel means, exercising objective Moral Freedom is only accomplished by complying with the laws of the State.

Hegel sets forth premises to justify his position regarding “objective freedom”, stating, “the origin of evil in general is to be found in the mystery of [individual] freedom” (48). In other words, evil arises out of the subjective will without the State’s laws to determine whether those actions comply with objective freedom (i.e. legal or illegal). All individual freedom without the State amounts to irrationality, absurdity, and contradiction. In particular, Hegel is extremely sensitive about people in society who might claim their actions comport to a higher law than man’s law (i.e. natural and divine law). In mocking these positions, Hegel touts, “You actually accept a law…and respect it as absolute. So do I, but I go further than you, because I am beyond this law and can make it to suit myself” (54). Of course, this higher law Hegel mocks is the same law upon which the Enlightenment philosophy is based—the foundation of American jurisprudence.

Hegel’s disdain for the Enlightenment philosophy is clear when he states in part, “this babble has made reasonable men just as sick of the words ‘reason,’ ‘enlightenment,’ and ‘right,’ &c., as of the words ‘constitution’ and ‘freedom’” (89). Hegel believes the Enlightenment philosophy is incredible because it is based upon reason and logic, and not upon the “concept of the State”. Hegel presupposes that since logic is based upon interpretations deduced by human mind, logic will interfere with the concept of the State, which is to objectify subjective freedom. Thus, Hegel believes the Enlightenment philosophy of America’s independence is not only unreasonable and contradictory, but evil because logic cannot and must not get in the way of the “concept of the State”.

To prevent this “evil” in society where people claim a higher law than man’s law, thus abusing their freedom, Hegel concludes, “the ethical order is freedom or the absolute willas what is objective, a circle of necessity whose moments are the ethical powers which regulate the life of individuals” (55, emphasis added). “Ethical freedom” is the STATE, to determine all objective freedom for the individual. Notice as well that Hegel equates “freedom” with the “absolute will” of the State. Thus, to a Hegelian, society is free where the State has absolute control over individuals. Hegel further states, the State’s power “is an absolute authority and power infinitely more firmly established than the being in nature” (55). Since the power of the State is absolute and its power is infinite, it follows that “these laws and institutions are duties binding on the will of the individual” regardless of logic, reason, and the purposes and ends of society and government (56). The STATE is the end unto itself because only it is reality.

Even more than the individual having a duty to submit to this absolute State authority, Hegel declares that the individual’s destiny “is fulfilled when they belong to an actual ethical order [i.e. State], because their conviction of their freedom finds its truth in such an objective order, and it is in an ethical order [i.e. State] that they are actually in possession of their own essence or their own inner universality” (57, emphasis added). Hegel means, an individual is destined to be a subject of a State and his essence as a human is fulfilled by being subject to the absolute will of the State. Upon these premises, Hegel ultimately finds that individual rights are found not in nature or God, but in the State. He says, “by being in the ethical order [i.e. State] a man has rights” (57).

Hegel finds that individuals are completely inferior to the State in all regards: in life, liberty, and property. A “patriot” of the State is one who sees his interests as subservient to the interests of the State; he must act in accordance with all state laws and institutions. Hegel says,

“[a]s the substance of the individual subject, it is his political sentiment [patriotism];…as the substance of the objective world, it is the organism of the state. The political sentiment, patriotism pure and simple, is assured conviction with truth as its basis…In this sense it is simply a product of the institutions subsisting in the state, since rationality is actuallypresent in the state, while action in conformity with these institutions gives rationality its practical proof.” (84, brackets not added).

Clearly stated, Hegel determines that patriotism equates to obedience to the State in all regards. More than a person being patriotic by recognizing his objective freedom through the State, the individual must sacrifice his life, liberty, and property to and for the State. Hegel determines, “[the individual’s] relation [to the State] and the recognition of it is therefore the individual’s substantive duty, the duty to maintain this substantive individuality, i.e. the independence and sovereignty of the state, at the risk and the sacrifice of property and life” (107). Hegel further states that “[s]acrifice on behalf of the individuality of the state is the substantial tie between the state and all its members and so is a universal duty.” (107). Were a person to invoke natural rights granted by God to protect his life, liberty, and property against the State, or were a person to even question the actions or authority of government, Hegel would find that person to be ipso facto unpatriotic.

Quite clearly, under Hegel’s philosophy, the State is absolutely and infinitely supreme; and the individual has a duty to sacrifice his life and property for the State because the individuals’ “objective freedom” cannot exist except by the State. The individual exists for the State; not the State for the individual. This duty to sacrifice one’s life, liberty, and property for the State is universal in time and conditions regardless of whether the State is in a state of war or peace and regardless of constitution. If the State requires the sacrifice, the individual must make the sacrifice; and the State is the sole determiner of its own needs. Put inversely, the State is the sole determiner of which individuals need to sacrifice for the State; and this determination has nothing to do with reason or logic, but only with the “concept of the State”.

By Hegel’s own admission, these ideas contrast sharply to the ones which founded and birthed the United States of America and its constitutions: the Enlightenment Period.

Enlightenment Philosophy

The American Declaration of Independence mirrors Enlightenment philosophy. Even someone who is only vaguely familiar with the Declaration would recognize its principles are incompatible with Hegel’s philosophy. The Declaration recognizes the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Hegel recognizes no such right. In the Declaration, the State is not the method of obtaining objectivity of freedom, but is the protector of freedom and is ultimately under the control of the people for whose benefit it was created.

These concepts were specifically advanced by Enlightenment philosophy and were described as immutable. Samuel Pufendorf says, “the fundamental laws of nature [are] truth and necessity aris[ing] directly from the very character of human nature; and [are]conclusions…deduced from these principles” (Pufendorf, Two Books of the Elements of Universal Jurisprudence, Ed. Knud Haakonssen, [Liberty Fund, Indianapolis, IN, 2009], 218). Thus expressed in the Declaration, “We hold these truths to be self-evident”. For the American colonies, the belief that God judged the actions of mankind equipped them to secede from Great Britain, given the truth of individual freedom and limitations of State power.

To Hegel, there was no “immutable truths” of right and wrong relative to the State’s judgments and actions. There was only the power of the State. To Hegel, the ultimate judge is not God, as the Declaration declares (“the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions”). Rather, the “history of the world [is] the world’s court of judgement” (Hegel, Philosophy of Right, 110). As will be seen in this article’s subsequent parts, this Hegelian concept of “history” has a fundamental bearing on how those in political power control the State.

As a fundamental premise of understanding human nature, society, and government, John Locke explains that individual freedom is found in the laws of Nature created by God. Individual freedom is a natural, inherit right granted by the Creator of life and matter. He states that political power (i.e. the State) is founded not upon the “concept of the State” but rather upon this: “all men are naturally in…a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature” (Locke, Concerning Civil Government, 25). Civil liberty was substantively a matter of “life, liberty, health, and indolency of body; and the possession of outward things such as money, houses, furniture, and the like” (Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration, Ed. Charles Sherman, [D. Appleton-Century Company, 1937], 3). It was a matter of individual freedom. Thus, “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions” (John Locke, Concerning Civil Government, Ed. Alexander Campbell Fraser, [Oxford University Press, 1952], 26). This law of nature restricts government as well, for at least “they are subject to the Divine sovereignty and the law of nature” (Samuel Pufendorf,Two Books of the Elements of Universal Jurisprudence, 34).

Upon the recognition that God created man, individual freedom contains the right to use the grants of God for the individual’s benefit. Locke states, “for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by His order and about His business; they are His property, whose workmanship they are made to last during His, not another’s pleasure.” (Locke,Concerning Civil Government, 26). By definition, the State is not the objective form of individual freedom. Enlightenment philosophers acknowledged that the individual, as a workmanship of God, is a moral being, answerable to God primarily and man secondarily. This philosophy acknowledges that God equips individuals with certain rights independent of society and government. The State is not the objectivity of rights, as Hegel proposes. God is.

With this individual freedom, God grants to him certain authority respective of his rights. Samuel Pufendorf recognizes that “[a]uthority over persons and actions which are one’s own is called liberty” (Two Books on the Elements of Universal Jurisprudence, 89). Where no individual authority exists, no individual liberty exists. Thus, were individual freedom to exist only through the power of the State, no liberty would exist at all; it would depend entirely on the State’s arbitrary control or otherwise. To the Enlightenment, individual liberty is a matter of individual ownership sanctioned by God and is not subject to arbitrary control of the State.

Individual freedom, or as referenced in philosophical terms, individual morality, is something imposed upon individuals by God, not the State as Hegel proposes. This individual morality and freedom exists independently of the State. Samuel Pufendorf puts it this way, “[morality] does not derive its origin from the arbitrary imposition of men [i.e. government], but only from the disposition of God himself, who has so formed the nature of man that particular actions of necessity are or are not congruent with this nature” (Two Books of the Elements of Universal Jurisprudence, 24).

So, while government may unjustly interfere with individual freedom, we suffer only while evils are sufferable. At some point, individuals may invoke their right and command of freedom and may do as the Declaration states, “alter or [] abolish it, and [] institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” Without the concept of individual freedom and rights, there is hardly room for John Locke’s definition of tyranny: “tyranny is the exercising of power beyond right” (Concerning Civil Government, 71). Of course, Hegel does not recognize such a definition of tyranny because he does not recognize natural rights of the individual outside of the power of the State. How can the State exceed powers when it is the realization of the individual’s freedom?

This concept of unilaterally executing individual freedom was not new. John Locke stated it clearly in his works as noted in part 1 of this series. Samuel Pufendorf stated the same thing before Thomas Jefferson, saying, “since he to whom sovereignty is given possesses otherwise no right over me, and therefore holds by my mere free will whatever authority he has over me, it is assuredly patent that it rests with me how far I care to admit his sovereignty over me” (Two Books on the Elements of Universal Jurisprudence, 89). Were it not for the supremacy of individual freedom, this right to change, abolish, or secede from government would not be possible. Quite obviously, Enlightenment philosophy rejected what Hegel advocated and placed significant value on the individual as a creation of God with individual freedom.

Observations and Conclusion

Tragically, from the late 1800s until today in America, many in the highest levels of education and politics have adopted the principles advocated by Hegel. Many of them have openly admitted this; others not so bold hide their Hegelian beliefs in Enlightenment terminology. These Hegelians have largely influenced the direction of constitutional law and political direction of the United States. Even a shallow study would reveal this, and these subsequent articles will reveal more of this truth.

As a result, the United States has undergone a change in character to the point that it is unrecognizable as the same country. Instead of wanting individual freedom, many Americans prefer government intervention, management, and control—just as Hegel (and Marx) envisioned—in contradiction to foundational principles of constitutional republicanism and democracy.

To return to true American principles, citizens and their representatives must reject the Hegelian supposition of State power and authority relative to individual freedom, and once again place preeminence on the value of God’s creation of the individual, who has the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness independent of government.

Furthermore, we must question authority as it has been told to us. We must require our agents to reconcile their positions of constitutional law and politics with the fundamental notion of individual freedom. If their positions do not reconcile with this fundament tenet of American jurisprudence and philosophy, they may be a Hegelian in disguise.

Subsequent articles are forthcoming on the remaining topics, and will be designed to offer the political student with more tools to judge actions with philosophy.

Most people do not relate politics to philosophy, but that is exactly what they should be doing if they care to know the roots of the fruit growing from the trees of society and government. If they did, more could be done to communicate effectively to both citizen and politician. History tends to prove that public awareness regarding political philosophy grows out of mere circumstances which force basic reaction instead of intellectual response. Fortunately, it appears the United States is due for an awakening of freedom as the philosophy leading us down the road of slavery is at a natural end. But to hasten its end, this series of articles is written to educate the political student and concerned citizen about the origins of philosophy used to get the United States to where it is today.

You have likely heard the American Declaration of Independence described as an expression of new concepts relating to man, politics, and government. Some have gone so far as to describe it as “God-inspired”. Historically, this description is not true. The Declaration of Independence was a reflection of ideas presented by philosophers of the Enlightenment Period (approx. 1630-1800) and in particular, John Locke (1632-1704). Some of the verbiage used by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence was all but direct quotes from John Locke’s An Essay Concerning The True Original Extend and End of Civil Government. Some have even accused Thomas Jefferson of plagiarism given its similarities. Their comparisons in the endnote below prove this.[1]

The foundational concepts the American Colonies used to secede from Great Britain were not new. They were specific ideologies expressed and expounded by philosophers for at least 150 years. Ironically, a 150 year period of development of ideology which created the renowned “freest nation on earth” suffocated just after the birth of the United States. No sooner had Enlightenment philosophy created the United States of America in 1776, a new philosophy had infiltrated and eventually revolutionized the politics of the United States. It destroyed the foundational concepts of the “State”. This new philosophy began by a person known as “the Aristotle of the Modern Age”: Georg Wilheim Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831).

Hegel and his like attempted to prove through the science of philosophy that the STATE was the only way through which subjective freedom is realized. Instead of the State existing for the people, the people existed for the State. Hegel used the word “freedom” often in his work and uplifted its importance. That sounds nice—until you realize his definition of “freedom” meant something entirely different than it did to Enlightenment philosophers and the United States’ founding generation. Likewise, when politicians today use words such as “freedom”, “liberty”, “equality”, etc., their use of these words have a fundamental difference from those who sowed the seeds of liberty from 1630 to 1787.

For those who do not know, Hegel’s work was Karl Marx’ text book. Marx studied Hegel intently and used his philosophy as a basis and justification for his political works on communism. Adolf Hitler likewise used many of Hegel’s ideologies to justify his reign in Germany and the extermination of the Jews who threatened his goals of a strong nation of patriotic Germans.

Before you discount the significance of Hegel’s philosophical work on our own nation’s political philosophy, consider: it is a fact that the public education system in American has been shaped and determined by those who purposely incorporated Hegelian philosophy.[2]In particular, an ardent student and follower of Hegel was William Torrey Harris, who literally changed the landscape of education in the United States. In 1889, Harris was appointed U.S. Commissioner of Education, a position he held until 1906. Since Hegel’s Philosophy of Rightwas published, “top educators” have incorporated his principles into all of American public education, including the highest learning institutions. It has been deeply woven into the fabric of U.S. society and government ever since.

When one compares and contrasts the ideology of the Enlightenment Period with Hegel’s work, the why’s and how’s of societal, political, and constitutional development become very plain to see. We continually hear the questions from concerned Americans, “how do we take our country back?” and the like. I say, look no further than the comparison of philosophies adopted by the United States higher political and educational institutions during its existence. From 1787 to mid-1800, the Enlightenment philosophy prevailed. From late 1800s to today, the Hegelian prevails.

If you are serious about “getting our country back” to the values that made the United States what it was—the principles which formed the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and United States Constitution—you must start with the higher thoughts of cognition: philosophy.

In the forthcoming parts of this article, we will compare and contrast the concepts advanced by Hegel with Enlightenment philosophy. At the conclusion of the article series, we should have an understanding of how to approach politicians and require them to answer these vital questions of philosophy. Whether they realize it or not, they likely fall into one or the other. They should be held accountable to which philosophy their actions and beliefs adhere. And the people are the ones to highlight and expose this.

We will explore the following topics:

A. Individual Freedom and State Supremacy

B. Formation and Purpose of the State

C. Interpreting and Applying the Constitution

D. Republicanism and Democracy

E.  The People’s Right of Revolution

F. Religion/Church

G. War

But these Americans feel the dangers of technology do not include the lack of government authority or government abuse in using this technology. Just the opposite: they “would like the government to protect them from these dangers” (Ibid). The implication is clear: the people do not feel the government’s use of technology poses any dangers or risks against liberty.

With this kind of perspective, it appears technology and liberty may find themselves at war with each other—sooner rather than later. Ultimately, it will put people at war: those who want more technology to make their lives easier and those who want more liberty to live independently and freely.

The question is, “does technology—and its continual advancement—improve the natural and societal condition of mankind?” Well, perhaps the question cannot be stated so simply to obtain the true answer. Still, the subject is especially relevant because what the commercial world creates today, the government uses tomorrow and in mass. We are facing realities today that previous American generations could not have imagined.

Recall that Thomas Jefferson thought the West would not be developed for 1,000 years. No sooner had he spoken those words, the West was being developed rapidly because of the unforeseeable Industrial age. Of course, my parents’ generation could never have thought that they could transfer mega information from tiny handheld devices through satellite and laser technology. Now here we are today to prove their minds incapable of comprehending how fast technology was to advance. For certain, what future generations will have to deal with only intensifies the debate of technology verses liberty.

We have seen the movies and TV shows where computers scan the facial images or retinas of humans to identify them. This once-science-fiction has been the reality in certain contexts in the United States and other nations. It is so main-stream that commercial entities are using facial scanning technology to identify people for purposes of advertisement. As stated in a recent article found at the Drudge Report, “[o]nce the stuff of science fiction and high-tech crime fighting, facial recognition technology has become one of the newest tools in marketing.” Shan Li and David Sarno, Advertisers Start Using Facial Recognition To Tailor Pitches, August 21, 2011, Los Angeles Times).

While some attempt to minimize the malfeasant use of such technology, the truth is, creators of this kind of technology admit this technology is “widely adaptable” (Ibid). As such, it can be used for any purpose the user would prefer. In conjunction with the thousands of video cameras strategically placed in virtually every city in the United States, technology could be used to record every facial print exposed to the software’s capacity. With just one scan of your face, your unique facial identifiers (like a fingerprint or DNA) can be recorded permanently in the government’s database. It would have the same effect as people having to register their fingerprints, DNA, etc. with the government.

Most (if not all) state constitutions and laws do not authorize the government to collect fingerprint and like information from people. Only upon unique circumstances do their laws allow the government to record and store such personal information. For all others, it matters not that you receive the benefit of living in that State; enter public areas and thus “have no reasonable expectation of privacy”; or receive a license by the State to drive a vehicle. Fundamental notions of liberty prohibit the government from arbitrarily collecting personal information, such as your facial print/DNA

This begs the question, what will stop governments from utilizing this kind of increasingly-intrusive technology? After all, if they can “lawfully” use video-audio technology throughout our cities and towns without so much as a negative letter to the editor, what is to stop governments from using other technology in the name of “security and safety”?

Have we come to the point in the United States that to be a part of society means you have implicitly authorized government to use any new technology available for any alleged legitimate purpose? What about the RFID technology which is certainly in line to be used by the federal and state governments? What about the use of satellites to pinpoint every structural location, including recording video and photography imagery of your private residence? What about the technology being used similarly without our knowledge?

These kinds of issues cut to the very core of what it means to form society and government; to be a free person; and to limit government. It reaches into the very soul of the nature of man and laws of nature. This matter will undoubtedly require the extrapolation and exposition of philosophers to articulate the rationale and reasoning which will (re)form the foundation of a freer society—where one is able to walk in a grocery store, drive down the road, or enter the county courthouse without being raped by technology. Without this kind of philosophical advocacy, it is likely that technology will triumph over liberty as its dominion increases exponentially every day, just as government does.

However, nothing could be further from the truth regarding the political association and federal system designed by founding fathers like James Madison—the father of the USC—who was among the first State participants to pass a nullification bill against the federal government only one decade after the States ratified the USC. Likewise, the Federalist Papers reveal the understanding of even the most nationalistic-monarchical founder father (Alexander Hamilton) that the States must interpose against federal usurpation. This usurpation was to be watched and determined not by the United States Supreme Court, but by the State government. To ignore the historical, legal and political facts of our founding is a serious act of opposition to the freedom supposedly protected in this union of States, and it destroys the very purpose for which the union was formed.

It has been stated that Senator Jim Shockley claims that the Civil War settled the issue of federal supremacy over the states. Does this mean that war is the ultimate decider of constitutional limitations on the federal government? I thought the USC and the consent of the governed were this American union’s standard? If war is the standard applied regarding constitutional authority, then we do not live in a free, constitutional republic. Rather, we live in a conquered, subdued district of the American empire, where the consent of the governed is not the foundation of civil society. Even worse, the consent of the governed is a political tool used by politicians to make citizens think they are free simply because they have the “right to vote,” all the while, shirking the weightier duties that really make the difference between slavery and freedom.

Given those holding such views (and those who support them), freedom apparently has taken a large leap backwards to 1768 and Great Britain rules again under the divine right of the kings. This is a very dangerous proposition expressed by Shockley and others—one from which many of our founding generation fought and died to supposedly liberate their posterity. It is amazing how otherwise intelligent men and women who claim to love America and Montana can propose such an anti-freedom maxim—a maxim which enslaves us and our posterity. What should be understood is this: since the federal government has in fact usurped so much power from the States since the War of Federal Aggression in the 1860s, political science and balance requires that the States now stand up, take notice and reclaim what was taken from them by force and bribe between then and now.

Based upon the actual meaning, character and nature of the USC (assuming that–and not conquest–is your standard), it is the duty of the States to protect their own sovereignty and authority, as well as their citizens. No federal government branch will do this, as has been so eloquently analyzed by American jurists of the past. The proof of that fact has been sufficiently evident for many decades and is becoming more and more pressing upon our conscience. Yet, those who would shirk their duty and responsibility on the State level would point to the federal courts as our supposed protector of the Tenth Amendment in the USC. This is shameful and a political atrocity.

Those of you who oppose these ideas should read one article of many I have written on this subject as simply a way of opening eyes wide shut to the reality that you may be wrong and have been deceived. If after having ardently studied the pertinent issues, facts and philosophies concerning political power, which provided our founding generation with the tools necessary to execute their own state nullification bills (of 1768, 1798 and 1799) and sign the Declaration of Independence, you should at least be able to more articulately express sufficient political reasons than the ones stated by the opponents of this bill. So far, the reasons fall wholly short of excusable, much less justifiable.

This issue of State Sovereignty is not going away with your vote. Justice, freedom and sovereignty require it.

In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court opined that the fourteenth amendment (which was ratified only three years after the War Between the States under not-so-favorable conditions of the Southern states and which supposedly created national citizenship for all citizens of the States) nationalizes the second amendment such that all the States are bound to the federal government’s enforcement of those limitations. In other words, the federal government was supposedly given the power to ensure that all the States not deprive their citizens the “privileges and immunities” of the constitution. In essence, the States would have no sovereignty regarding this subject matter to the extent the federal government denies them permission, or any other matter that the federal government deemed “incorporated” into the federal constitution through the fourteenth amendment. This political application is a serious error and its consequences contradict the meaning and purpose of creating a federation of states and of separating state and federal powers. Literally speaking, there is no way that we can “get back to the constitution” where the application of the fourteenth amendment exists in this manner, not to mention the myriad of other reasons we will never “get back to the constitution.”

I acknowledge right off the bat that my view in this article is not likely in the majority of “conservative” groups, especially when it comes to a matter that has recently favored their “conservative” view. But that is all the more reason to express what I believe is the truth of this matter, for it goes to the very heart of freedom’s future and without an understanding of what jurisdiction, sovereignty and limitations of power mean, freedom will never be restored and will continue to suffer. Furthermore, I acknowledge that for what I am proposing to be the correct form of government to take place, the States must revolutionize the way they handle their politics, especially their relationship to the federal government. I also admit that not all of the States in the union will do this. In fact, maybe only a small percentage will, but the people living in those States must capture this vision for freedom to prosper in their State.

Ironically, most conservatives who praise this “gun-rights victory” also claim that the only way freedom will be restored is if we “get back to the constitution,” not recognizing that the constitution of 1787 and the constitution of 1868 and the constitution of 2010 do not closely resemble each other, not even considering what the Anti-Federalists warned of the U.S. Constitution. This simply shows that their understanding is misguided, incoherent and conflicted. On one hand, they praise a “supreme law of the land” that nationalizes a matter which the constitution of 1787 originally and purposely left to the states in a federal form; but on the other, they complain that the federal government is too intrusive in our lives and would admit that the fourteenth amendment (of the constitution of 1868) has a large role to play to that end. They hate Peter when he robs them to pay Paul, but they love Peter when robs he Paul to pay them. This approach to federal politics does not produce freedom.

Let me make this abundantly clear: today, the federal constitution is no longer federal, but is national in its character and nature. Ever since the fourteenth amendment was “ratified,” the federal government has become more increasingly the national supreme government at the expense of state sovereignty and the tenth amendment. It matters not that the federal government appears to be doing a good thing. Their power is obtrusive, encroaching and limitless, all through the use and instrumentality of the constitution.

Freedom is not victorious when the federal government obtains more power and control over the States through the use of a constitution that was supposedly designed to leave to the States all powers not delegated to the federal government and not expressly waived by them. The tenth amendment is as integral to the meaning of the constitution as the second amendment, if not more so; yet it is swept aside. Those who opposed the U.S. Constitution in 1787 did so based upon the conclusion that the U.S. Constitution created a national form of government and all but eliminated the sovereignty of the States. They were apparently more astute in their assessment of the U.S. Constitution’s future than were the Federalists. They did not base their opposition to the constitution upon the fear that the States would retain too much power and thus would potentially deprive their citizens of fundamental rights.

The States had their own constitutions (and still do) to secure the blessings of liberty. In fact, Illinois’ state constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms without reference to the U.S. Constitution: “Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Everything not delegated to the federal government was deemed the inherent right of the States regarding internal polite. The people of the States did not need the federal government to protect them from themselves. If they thought otherwise, they would have formed a national form of government, just as Alexander Hamilton proposed in the constitutional convention. But this plan was rejected; yet somehow it now has a stronghold on our minds through a century of moral depravity, individual ill-virtue, philosophical expediency, religious despondency and political subterfuge.

The founding generation wanted to leave to the States the sovereignty which they deservedly won fighting a bloody war against Great Britain, so that they could govern themselves as the people in those States deemed best. They rejected nationalism at every turning point, and it was for this reason that the tenth amendment was insisted upon: to protect State sovereignty and to draw that inviolable line against the federal government. The Bill of Rights had absolutely nothing to do with limiting the States regarding their internal affairs. Yet today, it is another federal government arrow in their quiver to shoot down State sovereignty, piercing the heart of the original union.

A constitution cannot maintain a federal nature of parallel lines of state and federal sovereignty while at the same time allowing the federal government to intrude on the states’ sovereignty retained in that same document. If our founders were so wise as to create a constitution of parallel lines of sovereignty and as to leave to the states all matters not delegated to the federal government, including those matters in the bill of rights, then why would we happily accept a principle that completely contradicts that understanding and intention? Why do we rejoice when a State’s sovereignty is destroyed by the weapons we supposedly locked away from the federal government for our own sake? Do we not recognize that the weapons they use to destroy one State on one issue can be used to destroy another state on a different issue?–that they are the sole distributer of “justice”?

That the founding generation did not want the federal government to be in control of those matters which most people willingly hand over to the federal government today, including the second amendment, is undeniable. If the answer to the question of federal power rests in a conclusion reached through the use of contemporary-standard application, such that you are happy when the federal government encroaches upon the lines of sovereignty retained by the States, then I advocate and propose a different contemporary standard–one that rests upon the maxims of self-government, limited government, state sovereignty and real federalism, not based upon national supremacy, encroachment and interposition. I reject the principles of nationalism, which have created our demising situation and plight today. I would much rather accept the evils of my state than the evils from the federal government. Evidently, the founding generation felt the same way. However, such cannot be said of supposed “conservatives” today.

Part 2 of this article will discuss the anticipated objections to this article. To read part 2, click here.