When Men Forsake God, Tyranny Always Follows

March 31, 2013

By Chris Banescu

The prophetic words of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn resonate like thunder across the history of man.  “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.”  Thus summarized the Nobel laureate, Orthodox Christian author, and Russian dissident the main reason why the communist revolution was able to enslave, terrorize, and murder tens of millions of innocent people.  An atheistic mentality and a long process of secularization gradually alienated the people from God and His moral laws.  This led them away from truth and authentic liberty and facilitated the rise of tyranny.

Godlessness is always the first step to the concentration camp.  Tragically, that same process is now at work in America and many other parts of the world.  Too many refuse to see it or believe it.

America has long been a beacon of freedom for millions of souls who came here seeking liberty and opportunity.  It achieved this unique place in history by recognizing the authority of God and his moral laws and declaring that men have the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Founded by faithful and God-fearing men who despised government tyranny and sought religious freedom and individual liberty, America incorporated these universally true principles in its Declaration of Independence and Constitution.  These ideals eventually became the bedrock upon which all our laws, government, and institutions were originally built.

America’s Founding Fathers understood and proclaimed that all rights come from God alone, not governments.  They insisted that government must always serve man and that man was created by God to be free.  Their deep faith and reverence of the Almighty inspired and guided their actions and motivated their decisions.  It is this belief and trust in God’s authority and wisdom that ultimately transformed America from a tiny British colony with a handful of refugees to the mighty economic and military superpower and an oasis of freedom, opportunity, and prosperity for tens of millions of immigrants.

The Founding Fathers, like Solzhenitsyn, understood the dependence of freedom on morality.  A virtuous and faithful people who placed God at the center of their lives and the foundations of their institutions helped America become that shining city on a hill “whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere,” said President Ronald Reagan.  “We’ve staked the whole future of American civilization not on the power of government,” wrote James Madison, “far from it.  We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us…to govern ourselves according to commandments of God.  The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which the Constitution is founded.”

This same theme is found throughout the writings of the Founders.  John Adams clearly understood that our “Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”  “He who is void of virtuous attachments in private life is, or very soon will be, void of all regard for his country,” observed Samuel Adams.  Patrick Henry wrote that “virtue, morality, and religion … is the armor that renders us invincible[.] … [I]f we lose these, we are conquered, fallen indeed[.] … [S]o long as our manners and principles remain sound, there is no danger.”

Solzhenitsyn warned that by forgetting God, America and the West faced a “calamity of a despiritualized and irreligious humanistic consciousness” that would weaken their foundations and make them vulnerable to moral decay and internal collapse.  Only by turning back to God from the self-centered and atheistic humanism where “man is the touchstone [measure] in judging and evaluating everything on earth” would the West have any hope of escaping the destruction toward which it inevitably moves.

Unfortunately, America did not heed Solzhenitsyn’s warnings.  In the last several decades, America has been rapidly transformed from a God-fearing and worshiping nation into a secularist and atheistic society, where communist and atheistic ideals are glorified and promoted, while Judeo-Christian values and morality are attacked, ridiculed, and increasingly eradicated from the public and social consciousness of our nation.  Under the decades-long assault and militant radicalism of many so-called “liberal” and “progressive” elites, God and His moral laws have been progressively erased from our public and educational institutions, to be replaced with all manner of delusion, perversion, corruption, violence, decadence, and insanity.

“Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants,” warned William Penn.  Throughout history, the most serious threats to man’s freedom always arise when men refuse to acknowledge that God is ultimately the source and protector of real and lasting liberty and freedom.  When that timeless truth is erased from men’s consciousness, when God’s wisdom and laws are forgotten, when morality is no longer a virtue to be treasured and emulated, when human life is no longer sacred, and man becomes the only standard of all that is true, then genuine freedom will begin to vanish from any group, institution, community, or society.  Carnality, greed, selfishness, and worldly pleasure and power become the main goals of human existence.  The moral and ethical clarity, conviction, and courage required to defend freedom and protect genuine liberty ultimately disappear, to be replaced by the most cruel, unethical, tyrannical, and godless ideologies.

It is no coincidence that advocates and followers of Fascism, Nazism, and Communism — all secular, immoral, atheistic, and godless ideologies — enslaved and murdered the greatest number of people in the history of mankind.  All produced some of the most cruel, violent, and evil tyrants this world has ever known — despots who persecuted their own citizens, slaughtered the innocent, destroyed their own people, and brought calamities to other nations.  All subjugated the liberty and property of men to the absolute power and control of the state.  All were enemies of God and blasphemers of His Holy Scriptures.  All viciously persecuted the most devout and religious members of their societies, primarily the religious Christians and Jews who righteously and faithfully followed the Lord.

This is the lesson the 20th century expended so much blood to teach us.  It appears that without a marked change in course, the Western world is going to have to learn it again.

Chris Banescu is an Orthodox Christian attorney, conservative blogger, and university professor.  He regularly blogs at www.orthodoxnet.com/blog and www.chrisbanescu.com.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2013/03/when_men_forsake_god_tyranny_always_follows.html at March 31, 2013 – 12:45:03 PM CDT

Apportionment and The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution

Fred Elbel.

Website by Fred Elbel, Elbel Consulting Services, LLC

Political representation in the United States is based upon creating constituencies in proportion to geographical areas. The US House of Representatives, for example, delimits seats proportionally between states. The states, in turn, create districts in which House members run.

The decennial US Census has been used since 1790 as the basis for the United States representational form of government. As a result of growing population, the number of House members eventually quadrupled in size. In 1911, the number of Representatives was therefore fixed at 435.

In principle, districts are reapportioned every ten years after the decennial US Census. The number of districts apportioned to each state is defined by Congress, in accordance with Title 2 of US Code. (In practice, the two major political parties vie for control of reapportionment in order to maximize their respective constituency bases). During the 1960s, the Supreme Court ruled in a series of cases that congressional and state legislative districts must consist of relatively equal populations. Specifically, the Court’s decision in Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) mandated that states apportion congressional district boundaries based strictly according to population.

Malapportionment can occur in the states as a result of failures to reapportion after significant population shifts within established districts. The resulting effect is that in a given House district, a House member can end up representing a much larger number of voters as compared with another district. The result is that citizens in the larger district have less direct access to, and influence upon, their elected Representative – thus diluting the principle of “one man, one vote”, which has been upheld by the US Supreme Court.1

Reapportionment based on non-citizens

As the number of US House seats is fixed at 435, reapportionment means that if a given state gains a House district, another state must lose one. If (illegal alien non-citizens are counted in the decennial Census upon which districts are apportioned, then states with larger illegal alien populations are likely to end up with more districts and therefore more representation in the House. This effectively dilutes the votes of citizens in states having relatively low populations of illegal aliens.

Similarly, congressional districts in those states with proportionately higher numbers of illegal aliens end up representing a large illegal alien, non-citizen, non-enfranchised population.

Illegal immigration has the same effect on presidential elections because the Electoral College is based on the size of congressional delegations. Indeed, the presence of all foreign-born persons in 2000 (naturalized citizens, non-citizens, and illegal aliens) redistributed 16 seats, up from 12 seats in 1990.5

For example, in Southern California, several districts contain less than half of the eligible voters found in districts in other states.2 Indeed, 43 percent of the population in California’s 31st district is made up of non-citizens, while in the 34th district, 38 percent are non-citizens. In Florida’s 21st district, 28 percent of the population is non-citizen, and in New York’s 12th district the number is 23 percent.5 The presence of illegal aliens in other states caused Indiana, Michigan, and Mississippi to each lose one seat in the House in 2000, while Montana failed to gain a seat it otherwise would have. In addition, the presence of all non-citizens in the Census redistributed a total of nine seats.5

Apportionment Solutions

Reapportionment weighted by the presence of illegal alien noncitizens is notably unfair to American citizens (both natural-born and naturalized), and clearly violates the principle of “one man, one vote”.

The most obvious solution to this inequity is to stop counting noncitizens for purposes of apportionment. Article 1 Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution mandates that a census be conducted every 10 years expressly for the purpose of apportioning seats in the House of Representatives. Yet the Constitution does not specify the method of apportionment, or the composition of the population to be apportioned. Since the original 1790 apportionment, several different methods have been used, with the method of Equal Proportions being used since 1940.

Precedent is established in that Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment both explicitly exclude non-taxed Indians from apportionment. In addition, the 14th Amendment, Section 2 acknowledges that some may be denied the right to vote. 2

Although the Supreme Court has to-date favored counting both citizens and noncitizens in reapportionment cases, this interpretation of the Constitution appears to clearly go against the Founders’ intent. It should not require a Constitutional amendment to count only citizens for apportionment purposes, but in light of special interest groups pushing for open borders, perhaps an Amendment ultimately will be necessary.

“If, as I suggest, one person one vote protects a right uniquely held by citizens, it would be a dilution of that right to allow noncitizens to share therein.”

Kozinski’s opinion reinforces the concept that illegal aliens should not be count for apportionment purposes.

Given the number and power of special interest groups pressing for open borders, any attempt to change apportionment methodology would meet substantial resistance in Congress. Furthermore, the most serious obstacle to counting only citizens for apportionment purposes would remain: the inability to differentiate between citizens and noncitizens during the Census-taking process.

Ultimate Solution

The ultimate solution would be to enforce existing immigration laws both along the US perimeter and within in the interior, thus preventing additional illegal aliens from entering the US, while encouraging those already living here to return home to reunite with their families.

References

1.   Reapportionment, and United States Census, 2000 (Wikipedia)

2.   James Gimpel and John Edwards , Immigration Dilutes the Voting Rights of Citizens- Gimpel, The Social Contract (Winter 2005)

3.   Charles Wood, Losing Control of America’s Future — Census, Birthright Citizenship & Illegal Aliens, The Social Contract (Spring 2005) [This article is adapted from a larger paper, “Losing Control of America’s Future – the Census, Birthright Citizenship, & Illegal Aliens“, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (Spring, 1999)]

4.   Charles Wood, Losing Control of the Nation’s Future — Part One — The Census and Illegal Aliens, The Social Contract (Winter 2005) [This article is adapted from a larger paper, “Losing Control of America’s Future – the Census, Birthright Citizenship, & Illegal Aliens“, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (Spring, 1999)]

5.   Dudley L. Poston, Jr., Steven A. Camarota, and Amanda K. Baumle, Remaking the Political Landscape – The Impact of Illegal and Legal Immigration on Congressional Apportionment (Center for Immigration Studies, October 2003)

6.   Dudley L. Poston, Jr., Steven A. Camarota, Leon F. Bouvier, Godfrey Jin-Kai Li, and Hong Dan, Remaking the Political Landscape – How Immigration Redistributes Seats in the House (Center for Immigration Studies, October 1998)

7.   Mark Krikorian, Dudley L. Poston, Jr., Steven Camarota, Noah M. J. Pickus, Remaking The Political Landscape: The Impact of Illegal and Legal Immigration on Congressional Apportionment, Panel Discussion Transcript, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. (Center for Immigration Studies, October 23, 2003)

8.   Steven A. Camarota, The Impact of Non-Citizens on Congressional Apportionment, Testimony prepared for the House Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census (Center for Immigration Studies, December 6, 2005)

9.   Leon F. Bouvier, The Impact of Immigration on Congressional Representation (Center for Immigration Studies, July, 1988)

10.   Steven A. Camarota Rotten Boroughs – Immigration’s Effect on the Redistribution of House Seats (Center for Immigration Studies, Fall, 1998)

11.   Dudley. L. Poston, “The U.S. Census and Congressional apportionment”, Jr. (Society, 34, March-April 1997, pp.36-44)

12.   Dudley L. Poston, Jr., Leon F. Bouvier, and Hong Dan, “The Impacts of apportionment Method and Legal and Illegal Immigration on Congressional apportionment in the Year 2000”, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Demographic Association, Orlando, Florida (September 25-27, 1997)