Time: Thu Dec 11 02:42:32 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA25454
	for <pmitch@smtp-local.primenet.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 20:45:41 -0700 (MST)
	by smtp01.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA04471;
	Wed, 10 Dec 1997 20:35:12 -0700 (MST)
 via SMTP by smtp01.primenet.com, id smtpd004378; Wed Dec 10 20:35:00 1997
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 20:34:51 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: IMPRIMIS: "Four Points of the Compass"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

>November 1997
>Volume 26, Number 11
>Four Points of the Compass:  Restoring America’s Sense of Direction
>Balint Vazsonyi
>Director, Center for the American Founding
><italic> In this issue, a survivor of Nazism and communism describes the
>genius of the American constitutional system.  His remarks were delivered
>on the Hillsdale College campus last month in a lecture sponsored by the
>Department of History and Political Science, the Department of Economics,
>Business, and Accounting, and the Center for Constructive
>In his second Inaugural Address, President Clinton called for a new
>Constitution.  He borrowed language from the Declaration of Independence,
>where, in 1776, Thomas Jefferson presented the argument for a new
>government.  While Mr. Clinton did not refer to the Constitution in so many
>words, his meaning was clear.  "We need a new government for a new
>century," he proclaimed on January 29, 1997.  Unlike our present
>government, this new government would "give" a number of benefits to the
>American people.
>We at the Center for the American Founding disagree.  We believe that our
>present form of government, as articulated in the Constitution, has brought
>forth the most successful society in the history of the world.  Indeed, the
>country that was established here more than two centuries ago is one of a
>America: One of a Kind
>No other country exerts its best efforts for the benefit of all mankind.
>No other country will send its young into war without expectations of
>territorial gain.  No other country invites the men, women, and children of
>the world to come here and become American—the appellation uniform to al
>who live here.  There is a unique American capacity for success, for
>strength, for goodness.  Yes—the United States of America is one of a kind.
>We say "one of a kind" and we think of Shakespeare’s plays, Beethoven’s
>music, or George Washington’s character.  We try hard to analyze them, but
>the ingredients that make them unique are invisible.  In the case of
>America, the ingredients may be identified easily.  They include the rule
>of law, individual rights, and guaranteed property.
>Let us talk about ingredients.  If we eat something memorable, we want the
>recipe.  With food, we know without the slightest doubt that the
>ingredients determine the result.  Chocolate ice cream, for example, takes
>chocolate, cream, and sugar.  If, instead, we use ground beef, mustard, and
>"A.1." sauce, we scarcely expect chocolate ice cream to be the end product.
>The ingredients that have created America as we know it are being gradually
>replaced.  Is it reasonable to expect that the end product will nonetheless
>remain the same?
>Over the past three decades the rule of law has been displaced by the
>search for "social justice."  Group rights and privilege make a mockery of
>the constitutional rights of the individual.  Where not long ago Americans
>could feel secure in their right to acquire and hold property, government
>today is no longer discussing whether—only how <italic>much<italic> of
>it—to confiscate, and how to redistribute it.
>But the greatest variety of assault is launched against our common American
>identity, that magnet that binds all of us together.  Our existence as a
>nation depends on it because the people of this country converged, and
>continue to converge, from every corner of the globe.
>Identity is about being similar and being different.  Since Nature has made
>every one of us different, we have to agree about those aspects of our
>lives that will make us similar.  Other nations have a shared history;
>Americans have successfully substituted a shared belief in, and adherence
>to, certain principles.  Our common language, English, took the place of a
>uniform culture.  In place of a state religion, a Bible-based morality was
>taken for granted.  If we add to this a certain work ethic, an expectation
>of competence in one’s field of work (whether it requires splitting the
>atom or sweeping the floor), a spirit of voluntary cooperation, insistence
>on choice, and a fierce sense of independence, then we have the ingredients
>of American identity.  <italic>It is these ingredients that distinguish us
>from other societies, and enable those who sweep the floor today to split
>the atom tomorrow.<italic>
>Today, our nation’s leaders are engaged in choosing a path to pursue.  Yet,
>all along, we have had a path to <italic>follow.<italic>  That path is
>clearly pointed out in the Declaration of Independence.  Our Founders
>provided a superb road map in the Constitution of the United States.  Add
>to this the guidebook known as the <italic>Federalist Papers<italic> and it
>is hard to see how we could have lost our bears—but we have.  The unique
>combination of ingredients we discussed earlier functions as our bearings.
>They keep us on the path, they help us navigate the road map provided by
>the Founders.  Together, they constitute a kind of compass—the compass in
>the title of these remarks.
>The Rule of Law or Social Justice?
>Our compass was calibrated between 1776 and 1791.  The rule of law became,
>and should have remained, our "North Star."  But now we have rule by the
><italic>lawmaker<italic>.  Every member of the executive and the judiciary
>has become a potential lawmaker and in most cases uses that potential to
>the hilt.
>Yet the rule of law was intended to place its fundamental provision beyond
>the reach of politics and politicians.  Whereas it <italic>confers<italic>
>legitimacy upon subsequent laws that spring from its eternal well, it
><italic>denies<italic> legitimacy to all legislative maneuvers that corrupt
>its purpose.  It holds the makers, executors, and adjudicators of the law
>accountable at all times.  Above all, it demands equal application to every
>man, woman, and child.  Nothing in the history of human societies can match
>the significance and magnificence of equality before the law.
>The aspiration for equality before the law began with the Magna Carta, or
>even earlier, in the legend of King Arthur’s court, where knights sat at a
><italic>round<italic> table.  Eventually, Thomas Jefferson etched the
>concept in the minds of freedom-loving people everywhere.  But even after
>those immortal words of the Declaration of Independence had been written,
>it took most of two centuries before America, lad of many miracles, almost
>made it reality for the first time.
>It was not to be.  The rule of law came under attack just as it was about
>to triumph.  The attacker displayed the irresistible charm of the
>temptress, the armament of the enraged avenger, dressed itself in
>intoxicating clichés, and wore the insignia of the highest institutions of
>learning.  It called itself "social justice."
>Social justice is not to be confused with genuine concern for those who
>suffer, which is a frame of mind, a noble sentiment, a measure of
>civilization.  The search for social justice provides a cover for the
>destruction of our legal system by setting unattainable goals, by fueling
>discontent, by insinuating a permanent state of hopelessness.
>Social justice is not a basis for stable society because, unlike the rule
>of law, it is what anyone says it is on any given day.  We need only to
>move back a few years in time or travel a few thousand miles to find an
>entirely different definition.  It is an empty slogan, to be filled by
>power-hungry political activists so as to enlist the participation of
>well-intentioned people.
>The rule of law and a world according to social justice are mutually
>exclusive.  One cannot have it both ways.
>"Thou shalt know the tree by its fruit."  The rule of law gave birth to
>individual rights—in other words, rights vested solely in individuals.
>Only individuals are capable of having rights, just as only individuals can
>be free.  We say a society is free if the individuals who make up that
>society are free.  For individuals to be free, they must have certain
>unalienable rights, and additional rights upon which they have agreed with
>one another.
>Individual Rights or Group Rights?
>Social justice has spawned an aberration called "group rights."  Group
>rights are the negation of individual rights.  Group rights say, in effect,
>"You cannot and do not have rights as an individual—only as the member of a
>certain group."  The Constitution knows nothing about groups.  Groups have
>no standing in the eyes of the law.  And, since so-called group rights are
>invariable created and conferred by persons of temporary authority, they
>are "subject to change without notice," as the saying goes, just like the
>definition of social justice itself.
>Individual rights and group rights are mutually exclusive.  Once again, one
>cannot have it both ways.
>Among our individual rights, the right to acquire and hold property has a
>special place.  This right protects the weak against the strong and
>balances inborn gifts with the fruits of sheer diligence and industry.
>John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison held that civilized society
>is predicated upon the sanctity of private property and that to guarantee
>it is government’s primary function.  Without absolute property there is no
>incentive, no security, no liberty.  The freedom to enter into contract,
>the freedom to keep what is yours, the freedom to dispose of what is yours
>underlies all liberties.
>Neither the search for social justice nor group rights recognizes, or
>respects, private property.  They look upon individuals as faceless members
>of a multitude who, together, create a certain quantity of goods.  These
>goods belong to what they call the "community."  Then certain "wise" people
>decide who needs what and distribute—actually redistribute—the goods.
>These wise people came up with the word "entitlement."  Entitlements are
>based neither on law nor on accomplishment.  Entitlements are based on
>membership in a certain group, and we have seen that groups themselves are
>designated by persons of temporary authority, rather than by law.
>The right to property and entitlements through redistribution are mutually
>exclusive.  I repeat:  One cannot have it both ways.
>American Identity or Multiculturalism?
>We have been ordered by the prophets of social justice to replace our
>common American identity with "multiculturalism."  One cannot fail to
>notice the enormous importance the leaders of the social justice crowd
>attach to the eradication of American identity.  They insist on bilingual
>education and multilingual ballots.  They remove the founding documents
>from our schools.  They enforce anti-American history standards.  They
>banish the Ten Commandments.  Add to this the replacement of American
>competence with generic "self esteem" and voluntarism with coercion.
>Consider the vast numbers of new immigrants who are encouraged to ignore
>the very reasons that brought them to America in the first place.  The list
>goes on, and sooner or later the loss of a common American identity will
>affect national defense, if it has not done so already.
>Will Americans lay down their lives if America is nothing but a patchwork
>of countless group identities?
>Will the armed forces of the United States fight to uphold, defend, and
>advance multiculturalism?
>The questions before us are serious and legion.  We are virtually drowning
>in "issues" that come at us like an octopus.  Then, just as we tackle each
>arm, the octopus turns into a turtle, tucked inside its impenetrable shell.
> How do we respond?  What positions do we take?  And, once we figure out
>our position, how do we argue its merit?
>We at the Center for the American Founding propose the "four points of the
>compass" because we believe that our restored bearings will place us firmly
>on the path of lasting success once again.  After the distortions of the
>past 30 years, we need to recalibrate our compass to point to the rule of
>law, individual rights, guaranteed property, and our common American
>As you have seen, these are interconnected, and they flow from one another,
>just as the false compass points that have come to displace them—social
>justice, group rights, redistribution, and multiculturalism—are
>interconnected and flow from one another.  What is multiculturalism if not
>a redistribution of our cultural treasury?  What is redistribution if not a
>group right?  What is a group right if not the implementation of some
>political activist’s version of social justice?
>For 30 years, we have acquiesced in a stead erosion of America’s founding
>principles.  The time has come to reverse the process.  Rather than
>contending with countless individual issues, we need to take the debate
>down a few notches, right to the core.  We recommend that future
>legislative initiatives be tested against the four points of the compass.
>Does the proposed bill negate the rules of law?  Does it violate individual
>rights?  Does it interfere with the guarantee of property?  Does it
>constitute an assault on our common American identity?  Only if the answer
>to each question is "no" should the proposal proceed and be judged on its
>merit.  We recommend applying the same test, a "do-no-harm" screen, to
>existing statutes and regulations.  There is much on the books that ought
>to be repealed.  In other words, let us weed the garden before planting a
>fresh crop.
>Reasserting the Authority of the Constitution
>In practical terms, how do we know what the rule of law can and cannot
>accommodate, and how far do we take individual rights?  The answer comes
>from Article VI of the Constitution:  "This Constitution, and the laws of
>the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof...shall be the
>supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound
>thereby...."  It is as uncomplicated as that.
>We are asking the citizens of this great nation and their representatives
>at all levels to consider the proposed approach.  We would like to engage
>and incorporate the wisdom and experience of Americans everywhere.  We do
>not underrate the magnitude of the step we are proposing, but believe it
>will make a difference.  Through this simple device, it will become clear
>that one cannot take an oath to uphold the Constitution yet support group
>rights.  One cannot take an oath to uphold the Constitution yet acquiesce
>in the taking of property without equitable compensation.  One cannot take
>an oath to uphold the Constitution yet support measures that are clearly at
>odds with the requirements of national defense.
>Some suggest that, in 1996, the country voted for bipartisanship.  We think
>the people said:  "If you don’t give us a real choice, we won’t give you a
>real election."  A majority is eager to partake in a real debate about
>reclaiming our original path versus  making a clean and honest break with
>the past.
>Those who, like President Clinton, feel that the time has come to change
>the supreme law of the land should come forward and say so openly.
>Instead, they talk abut a "living, breathing Constitution," which is simply
>a cover for changing it piecemeal.  Let us face the choices as they truly
>are.  We are the heirs of a remarkable group of men who, more than two
>hundred years ago, had every reason to feel similarly overwhelmed by the
>decisions they had to make.  They knew people find it difficult to agree on
>everything.  Their response was to make very few laws, for they understood
>that the fewer the laws, the broader the agreement.  So they sought
>agreement on core principles they held to be nonnegotiable.
>Today, we propose four principles that ought to be nonnegotiable.  They
>are, as we have seen, inseparable.  We call them the "four points of the
>compass."  Together they can and will restore America’s sense of direction.
>..........< End of article >..........
>Balint Vazsonyi’s career as a concert pianist spans four decades and as
>many continents.  He fled Hungary following the 1956 uprising and came to
>the United States.  Since then, he has continued to tour internationally.
>He has also been a professor of music at Indiana University, dean of music
>at Miami’s New World School of the Arts, and chief executive officer of
>Telemusic, Inc.
>In 1996, as a senior fellow of the Potomac Foundation, he established the
>Foundation’s Center for the American Founding.  He currently serves as the
>director of this Washington-based think tank.
>Dr. Vazsonyi holds a Ph.D. in history, and he writes frequently for such
>publications as <italic>National Review<italic> and the <italic>Washington
>Times<italic>, where he has been a regular columnist since 1996.
>Hillsdale College
>33 East College Street
>Hillsdale, Michigan  49242
>Imprimis is free upon request.  Write or call 800-437-2268

Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris      : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA;   M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com       : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best 06
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone 07
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail