Our contemporary American experience seems often Orwellian.  We have a Congress that denies our Rights in the name of security.  We have a president who not only writes laws with his pen, but is also in the habit of rewriting history to serve his political purposes.  Many patriots have expended a great deal of energy this year in the fight to see our Liberty protected and America’s greatness restored. We are all well aware that there are still many struggles ahead and mountains yet to be conquered.  But let us be reminded of a hope that is rooted firmly in the original American experience that makes our land so exceptional.

Our history is rich with men and women who have surrendered all so that many could live in the greatest place the world has ever known. For over 700 years before the Declaration of Independence, men and women were learning the lessons that would be taught to our founders. Lessons that would infuse our founders with the courage and hope that would build this exceptional land.

Patrick Henry said, “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know no way to judge the future but by the past.” He was letting us know that his knowledge of those last 700 years, were the very reason he knew how this fight would turn out. He knew that every time men and women understood the value of Liberty and pledged all to protect it, they were always victorious. These guarantees of history must have raced through Henry’s head; 1100 Charter of Liberties, Magna Carta, 1628 Petition of Right, 1641 Grand Remonstrance, and his very own Bill of Rights of 1689. These were battles fought in the name of Liberty and he knew that victory was a guarantee. This is our history. This is our guarantee. This is our victory!

We have so much to be thankful for.  Let us not forget that Liberty is a gift that was purchased for us with great sacrifice. Among the many things we have to be thankful for, we must be eternally grateful for the wisdom of men and women that understood that Liberty was a gift from God and that all God’s gifts are worth our every sacrifice.  John Adams, in a letter to Abigail in 1777 expressed this sacrifice.

“Posterity ! you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom! I hope you will make a good use of it If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it.”

We must honor this sacrifice by honoring their memory and continuing their efforts.  Too often I see the revisionism of our history in an effort to demean these men and women with the purpose of destroying our Constitution.  We do not properly respect their efforts by allowing these lies to be taught to our sons and daughters.  We must teach the truth.  We owe it to them.  We owe it to our children.  It is our hope.

I am not trying to give the founders some divine status or even suppose them a level of perfection that they did not have. We must understand that our Liberty was not founded upon people, but upon principles. The people that gave us our exceptional American principles were flawed vessels just like you and me. However, the really amazing part of this history is that flawed men understood that the foundation of an enduring union must be Liberty moored in morality. Consider these words by Alexander Hamilton:

“Equal pains have been taken to deprave the morals as to extinguish the religion of the country [France], if indeed morality in a community can be separated from religion…The pious and moral weep over these scenes as a sepulcher destined to entomb all they revere and esteem.

The politician who loves liberty sees them with regret as a gulf that may swallow up the liberty to which he is devoted. He knows that morality overthrown (and morality must fall with religion), the terrors of despotism can alone curb the impetuous passions of man, and confine him within the bounds of social duty.” The Stand, No. III (April 7, 1798)

Our founders knew that Liberty is a combination of two equally important parts – it is FREEDOM under the constraints of MORAL LAW. Liberty cannot survive where there is pure freedom. Pure freedom gives man the right to do whatever is right in his own mind: cheat, lie, rob, murder. Pure freedom is anarchy. At the same time, Liberty cannot survive with moral law alone. Moral law not mingled with freedom is theocracy. Theocracy in the hands of men is tyranny in the name of religion. Our founders attempted give us this balance and secure the blessings of liberty for us in our founding documents. If we abandon our history, we abandon our founding documents and disregard our moral foundations, then liberty is in peril.

Thomas Jefferson gave us this warning, “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that is justice cannot sleep forever.”

While Benjamin Franklin warned America’s founders directly:

“In the beginning of the Contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for Divine protection…. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of Superintending Providence in our favor…have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?…. God Governs in the affairs of men And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?”

Patrick Henry said “Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.”

Did these brave men and women live without fear? Hardly so! Mercy Otis Warren articulated this dilemma so well.

“I have my fears. Yet, notwithstanding the complicated difficulties that rise before us, there is no receding; May nothing ever check that glorious spirit if freedom which inspires the patriot in the cabinet and the hero in the field, with courage to maintain their righteous cause, and to endeavor to transmit the claim to posterity, even if they must seal the rich conveyance to their children with their own blood.”

They knew that bravery was not the absence of fear, but doing what you must in the face of fear. They knew that the battle for Liberty, as Mercy called it, was a righteous cause. Knowing the source of her courage is the key to understanding her resolve. Mercy wrote a letter to her friend Mrs. Macauley in 1774, from this letter we can know the source of her strength. She said they were “ready to sacrifice their devoted lives to preserve inviolate, and to convey to their children the inherent rights of men, conferred on all by the God of nature.”

The key to victory, the key to the courage that brings victory is not simply fighting the fight, but KNOWING we fight a righteous battle for the One who gave us that Liberty. Our founders were in a position to pledge their lives, the lives of their families, everything that they had because they were firmly rooted in ALL the assurances of Liberty. Our founders knew that Liberty is a gift from God, and those that stand for God’s gifts will be victorious through God’s promises. They firmly believed that living in tyranny was worse than dying for Liberty. They knew that through their faith in Christ, their rewards in standing for God’s gift would be certain, whether on the battle field or in Heaven.

As Thomas Paine so eloquently put it, “THESE are the times that try men’s souls.” But Paine’s full statement gives a richness that is lost with the initial quote alone. Payne continues to tell us who will last in this battle and WHY they will last.

“The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing (sic) its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.”

If we want to have the resolve that Mercy Otis-Warren spoke of, the confidence that Patrick Henry displayed, we must KNOW what Thomas Jefferson knew so we will not become the sunshine patriots Thomas Paine condemns. We must know Liberty is a gift from God.  We must know this Gift, although comes at a high price, is worth fighting for because God is with us. If God be with us, who can be against us?

As an exceptional union built upon exceptional principles, we cannot deny that we are built with a foundational understanding of an exceptional God. Thomas Jefferson reminds us that, “We are not in a world ungoverned by the laws and the power of a Superior Agent. Our efforts are in His hand, and directed by it; and He will give them their effect in His own time.”

Because of our historical understanding that America was built on the principles of freedom and morality, America has always been the haven of rest when tyrants oppress their own. She is the vineyard of innovation and opportunity. We are a people that open their arms to the tired, to the poor, to the oppressed, to the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. No other people can claim this legacy; no other people have this birthright. This is the shining city upon a hill, and we cannot hide our light under a bush.

The focus of our education should not be on the flaws of the men who gave us our Constitution, but on the exceptional principles that they gave us. We have an exceptional union where “all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights.” A land birthed by the principle that the power of the government is to be held BY the people and not where the government holds power OVER the people. A country that believes the principle that says all are free to worship according to the dictates of their conscience, and all are equally free, “Jews, Turks, pagans, AND Christians.”  We have prospered based on the principle that ideas and hard work open the door to prosperity regardless of bloodline, skin color or social status. A land that has remained free based on the principle that liberties remain secure by maintaining the right to defend self, property, and Liberty.

In the profound words of Daniel Webster, “Is our Constitution worth preserving? Guard it as you would guard the seat of your life, guard it not only against the open blows of violence, but also against that spirit of change…Miracles do not cluster. That which has happened but once in six thousand years, cannot be expected to happen often. Such a government, once destroyed, would have a void to be filled, perhaps for centuries, with revolution and tumult, riot and despotism.”~ An Anniversary Address by Daniel Webster July 4th 1806

Let us maintain a true focus on what is important. In this day it is so popular to denigrate America for every little flaw. Why not take back a bit of American Exceptionalism? Why not embrace what makes us different from every other place on the globe? America is exceptional because we are built on exceptional principles. Principles of Liberty, freedom, morality, and equality as derived from our Creator.  And these principles are STILL WORTH FIGHTING FOR!

Contact Information 245 Winter Street SE Salem, Oregon 97301 smiths@willamette.edu

Susan L. Smith is a law professor at Williamette University, who “focuses her scholarly research on the role of law in achieving sustainability and environmental criminal enforcement.”  She is a former senior trial attorney and Assistant of the Environmental Defense Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice, where she received several awards for distinguished service.  She has taught “Environmental Law and Policy, Sustainable Natural Resources Law, Environmental Criminal Enforcement, Toxic Substances Regulation, Water Law...”  With this background, Smith took it upon herself to publish erroneous information about me, my teaching, and the Constitution to defend her environmental activist ideologies.   Here is my response to her flawed opinions:

Answering an Oregon “Legal Scholar”

After reading Professor Susan Lea Smith’s ‘review” of my ‘legal arguments’ in her opinion piece dated January 22, 2016, it is clear that environmentalist Susan Smith has done very little research on the matters she attempts to address in her opinion piece to the people of Harney County; including, but not limited to, my qualifications, my teaching on the subject of State Sovereignty, and the matter in which I taught the citizens of Harney County, Oregon. If Ms. Smith researches her legal teachings in the same sad manner in which she researched my teaching, I pity her students at Williamette University Law School.

In Ms. Smith’s first footnote she questions my qualifications as a “scholar.” Unlike Ms. Smith, this is not a title that I have ever been so arrogant to bestow upon myself, and I think a simple definition might clear the confusion:

schol·ar ˈskälər (noun)  a specialist in a particular branch of study, especially the humanities; a distinguished academic. A person who is highly educated or has an aptitude for study. synonyms:  academic, intellectual, learned person, man/woman of letters, mind, intellect.

I would be curious to understand why Ms. Smith doesn’t believe my years of dedicated specialized study, the five books, and over 100 published articles I have written would not qualify me as a “specialist.” Is it perhaps because I am not currently employed by a small rural college (ranked 132^nd out of 144 ranked law schools in the US)? I wonder how many classes Ms. Smith teaches that qualify her to give a “scholarly opinion?” How many people has she taught? Annually, I teach an average of 265 lessons in over 22 States, and in just ten months I teach an average of over 40 thousand people, yet that is not good enough for Ms. Smith. Prior to my private teaching, I taught at the law enforcement academy in Madison County Florida for over a year as an adjunct professor. Perhaps she didn’t take the time to research all of this, which wouldn’t surprise me.

Next Ms. Smith tries to impugn my reputation by questioning my association with the Florida Bar and my qualifications in the area of Constitutional law. Once again, this highlights Ms. Smith’s pathetic research skills. First, I am a member of the Florida Bar. My bar number is a matter of public record. Additionally, as a member of the Florida Bar, I have chosen to be listed as “inactive” because I am not able to take on litigation cases due to my incredibly active teaching, speaking, and publication schedule.  My standing with the Florida Bar is not under question and I have never received any disciplinary actions by the Florida Bar.  All of this can be discovered by a rudimentary search on the internet.

Finally, as to my qualifications; I received my JD from The University of Florida, Levin College of Law (ranked in the top 50 law schools in the country).  While in law school I was the only member of my class to receive the University’s Constitutional Law Scholarship.  Prior to graduation, I was fast tracked into the University’s certified legal intern program by the State Attorney of the 3^rd Judicial Circuit of Florida, receiving my certification before any of my other 300 classmates.  While participating in the internship program, prior to graduation, I had already successfully tried over 10 criminal jury trials.  I was not only a prosecutor for the State of Florida for nearly a decade, but I also specifically practiced Constitutional law with a private firm for over two years. With this firm, I defended the Rights of dozens of people in active court, in multiple States.  Additionally, I gave legal advice to dozens of private citizens, and to both public and private organizations in the area of Constitutional law every year. I wonder, how many real Constitutional cases, in a real courtroom, has Ms. Smith had the opportunity to lead? Any attorney would know how to find this information.  But, I guess truth was not an important part of Ms. Smith’s paper to Harney County.  Maybe someone at Williamette should explain Ms. Smith the elements of libel?

Ironically, Ms. Smith claims that I teach an interpretation of the Constitution called “textualism.”  That could not be any further from the truth. A simply review of my over 100 teaching articles, videos, or any one of my five books, (all available with simple glance on my website) proves that statement to be patently false. Ms. Smith claims her interpretation is based upon “original intent,” yet she nearly immediately deviates from original intent by invoking Supreme Court cases as matter of “precedent” to support her opinions, rather than the actual words of intent of the Framers. I will resist the overwhelming urge to reteach my classes to her in this letter; as they are easily accessible in writing, and on YouTube, for those who are actually interested in truth.

You can also discover that I was an environmentalist and a biologist, so I am not unfamiliar with the environmentalist thought process. As with Ms. Smith, it doesn’t seem unusual for an environmentalist at one point in the name of saving swamps and salmon to rail against the federal government’s immunity, yet cheer for the federal government’s universal supremacy when suddenly they are siding with the plants and shredding the Constitution. I will simply say this to the people of Harney County- beware of “scholarly” interpretations that support federal supremacy and judicial supremacy over the inalienable Rights of the People and the powers reserved to the States. Such is a person arguing for slavery, not for the rule of law.

If what Ms. Smith says is true, then Oregon is not a State, but a colony or territory of the federal government. In that case, Oregon should have no representation in the House or Senate and no electoral votes for President. To be a State, that government must be “sovereign and independent” (see Massachusetts v Mellon 262 US 447, 482 (1923) and NFIB v Sebellius 567 US ____ (2012) Docket No. 11-393. A State that does not have sovereignty over its land is not a State but a Territory. Perhaps the people of Oregon might want to know the federal government views them as merely a Territory of the federal government?

The most striking fact of her opinion is Ms. Smith’s complete reliance upon the federal government through its judicial branch to exercise an authority to determine exclusively and finally the limits of its own power. If that is true, we do not live in a Constitutional Republic, where the government is limited and defined by the Constitution. Instead we live in a “totalitarian fedocracy” where the only limit to the government is its own will, dictated by an oligarchy of 9 kings and queens.  Unfortunately, this is a natural consequence of an educated class of people who have been trained in the principles of judicial supremacy rather than in Constitutional supremacy. After all, once a recognized part of this elite class, who wouldn’t want to be the ultimate arbiters of all things; who would voluntarily relinquish that authority to the people through their States as demanded by the Constitution? Apparently not many in our current judicial system, and certainly not Ms. Smith or the federal government she defends.

When the only argument to substantiate federal authority is “because the federal government reasons it to be so,” there is no limit, control, or check and balance to such federal authority. The people are left to surrender to the “whim of the sovereign” and we are reduced to the nature of tributary slaves.

People of Harney County, this is simply a matter of fact and a matter of who you choose to be.  By fact is Oregon a State or a colony? By choice are you free people in a Constitutional Republic or subjects of a federal Oligarchy of nine kings and queens whose oppressive rule is propagated by their slavish minions in the legal field declaring LONG LIVE THE KINGS? It seems that Ms. Smith believes the KING CAN DO NO WRONG as long as he happens to be on the side of her own pet issue.