That is one of the essential understandings of the American founding and of the Constitution. Another is "Render under Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's." Both are profound, explicitly Christian understandings.
These are the central ideas of the purpose and limits of a government of "We the People" as set forth in the Preamble of the Constitution.
This "We the People" is under God directly, not "under" any other ruler. Man is endowed with his natural human rights (preeminently life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness) directly by God. States can confer no rights; only God can. Men are governed by -- or perhaps I should better say men are accountable to -- not the state, but God alone, Who is the supreme Judge of all men.
Thus it follows the state ought to be severely limited in its power and reach, and subject to, not the so-called General Will such as any politically-motivated philosopher might come up with, but the Will of the People themselves. It is the People who are sovereign in our system of government, not the government. Government functionaries, appointees, elected officers, etc., are agents of their principal (the American People), and not the other way around.
At least that was the Framers' idea of the system they wrought in establishing the constitution and sending it out for ratification by the several state conventions. The people gave their assent to this form of limited government, and were supposed to be vigilent in overseeing its operations, making such necessary adjustments to it as constitute their own happiness and satisfaction, through constitutional means -- and even extra-constitutional means, up to and including their sovereign right to abolish the government by any and all necessary means if it transgressed the just limits imposed on it by the People, as set forth in the Constitution. (The right of self-defense against an unjust government by arms if necessary arguably was the major rationale for the Second Amendment, and also agruably the reason why the progressive Left detests the RKBA and seeks to abolish it by judicial fiat....)
The philosophy of the American founding was truly the most radical revolution in political thought in the history of man. The fact that it was implemented, and has succeeded for over two centuries, shows that it can work. But it takes eternal vigilence on the part of citizens, and their direct responsibility -- not to the state, but to God -- to keep it alive in a flourishing state. On which human liberty ultimately depends.
And so that was the meaning of my observation that the next election will be all about what kind of an America do we want to live in. I'm thrilled to hear the Great El Rushbo has said likewise. That just makes me feel that my observation is on the right track. Unfortunately, the only talk radio I hear is during morning and evening drive time, and so I don't have a chance to listen to Rush's show. Which is most regrettable! For he is one of the most astute political analysts and thinkers of our time.
This is the crux. If Man is endowed by his Creator with ‘unalienable’ rights, and the state has no part in determining the boundary of those rights, then many become frightened and angry, because they can gain no advantage; no power, no mastery over other men. They can ‘game’ the state (‘game the system), but they can’t ‘game’ God. Politicians particularly relish ‘gaming’ the system (see our current misanthropic crop), but, so too do celebrities and all that cortege of pretenders who swirl in orbit around the centers of power in DC, New York, Hollywood, etc. Gaming the system marks their highest aspiration, and success in ‘gaming’ evidences their greatest achievements. To confess sovereignty in all the people reduces them to a pedestrian status they fear greater than oblivion.
xzins observes in his msg 224 “If Franklin remained a deist, he was, like Jefferson, a Christian Deist.”
And that exactly fixes the problem critics face in attempting to deny a Christian influence on the making of America. To tailor the charge of deism to any of the Founding Fathers, the critics must redefine ‘deist’ to fit the changing characteristics of the different Founders. Franklin proclaimed “God governs in the affairs of men.” Not a belief usually attributable to Deists. Jefferson, on the other hand, swore fealty to Jesus Christ (“the pure gospel of Jesus Christ”). etc.
What is particularly distinguishing about the Founding Fathers is that they were already at the pinnacle of their society and yet chose to extend sovereignty to all the people, thereby surrendering much of the advantage they held in society. Does anyone know of any other class of men who have done such a thing in all of history? Yes, I know, their definition of ‘the people’ was considerably more narrow than what it became. Nevertheless it was their impetus that propelled us forward, step by step, as we progressed from their beginnings. Forward step by step, that is, until some thirty-five years ago when a majority of nine black-robed Justices chose to deny ‘personhood’ to unborn children, and thereby commenced the march backwards in the denial of sovereignty to the people.