Constitutional Grievances Then and Now

On May 23, 2024, Liberty Toastmasters members gathered for their annual table topics day to examine the Declaration of Independence’s 27 grievances against King George III. From excessive taxation to standing armies, open borders to administrative overreach, the parallels to contemporary American politics proved both illuminating and unsettling. In the second hour, author Jeffrey Paul presented his case for why America faces an existential choice between founding principles and authoritarian progressivism.

The Declaration’s Grievances Mirror Modern America

Start listening at 12:00 – Hour 1

Bill Vetter opened the discussion by cataloging the Crown’s offenses against the colonies: dissolved courts, standing armies, officers sent to harass the populace and consume their resources. He posed a pointed question about the modern administrative state, with its thousands of officials acting simultaneously as legislators, judges, and enforcers, all without constitutional separation of powers. The discussion touched on the Federal Reserve’s inflation as a hidden tax and the proxy wars conducted without congressional declarations.

“I have to ask whether and to what extent the current regime in our country is engaged in more subtle but effectively the same injuries and usurpations.”

Bill Vetter, Liberty Toastmasters South

War Grievances and Federal Overreach

Start listening at 15:00 – Hour 1

Marshall Dawson, a candidate for Congress in Colorado’s Second District, examined grievances 23 through 27, the war grievances. Jefferson wrote of plundered seas, ravaged coasts, burned towns, and destroyed lives. Dawson traced the parallels to present-day lawlessness: an open southern border with military-age males from hostile nations, federal agents present at January 6th operations, and billions sent overseas to fund proxy conflicts without diplomatic alternatives. He cautioned that while the Declaration provides a moral basis for throwing off abusive government, the better path remains changing it from within through active civic engagement.

“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes. The Declaration of Independence is a statement of morality put forth as a basis of why colonists could no longer abide an abusive government.”

Marshall Dawson, Congressional Candidate CD2

Immigration and Natural Rights

Start listening at 18:00 – Hour 1

Bennett Rutledge, running for Colorado Senate District 16, offered a counterpoint by examining the grievance about obstructing naturalization of foreigners. He noted that legal immigrants who complete the citizenship process often demonstrate superior knowledge of founding documents compared to native-born Americans. The discussion acknowledged the tension between enforcing immigration law and honoring the tradition of welcoming those who seek to become Americans.

“These are probably the best educated citizens in terms of knowledge of the Declaration and the Constitution that we’ve got.”

Bennett Rutledge, SD16 Candidate

The Foundation of Self-Governance

Start listening at 21:00 – Hour 1

Greg Morrissey, himself an immigrant who chose America, emphasized that the Declaration must be mandatory reading before high school graduation. Understanding how the nation achieved independence provides the foundation for maintaining freedom. He stressed that the rights Americans enjoy were purchased with blood, not granted freely, and each generation bears responsibility for their preservation.

“The reason you have what you have is because these people fought and died for what you have. And it’s got to be kept. It wasn’t free.”

Greg Morrissey, Liberty Toastmasters

International Law and American Sovereignty

Start listening at 24:00 – Hour 1

Becky Hawkins examined the grievance about transporting colonists overseas for trial. While America has avoided the International Criminal Court, participation in FATF and FinCEN creates vulnerability to international financial enforcement. She cited Hong Kong’s experience under Chinese influence as a warning about how such mechanisms can be weaponized against dissidents.

“These things can happen even in today’s world. Our founders were very insightful in putting these things in.”

Becky Hawkins, Liberty Toastmasters South

Natural Law and the Right of Revolution

Start listening at 27:00 – Hour 1

Marla Fernandez grounded the discussion in Thomas Aquinas’s natural law framework. Aquinas held that political authority derives from God and leaders must uphold justice and protect the people’s rights. When rulers become tyrants who violate natural law, the people may possess a right, though not an absolute one, to resist or depose them. This theological foundation anticipated the Declaration by five centuries.

“Thomas Aquinas posits that a ruler’s prolonged pattern of abuse and usurpation signifies a deliberate intent to subject the people to absolute tyranny.”

Marla Fernandez, Liberty Toastmasters South

Constitutional Amendments as Protection

Start listening at 33:00 – Hour 1

Dave Walden, past president of Liberty Toastmasters North, connected the Declaration’s grievances to the Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments represent Madison’s systematic effort to prevent the abuses the colonists suffered. The war began on April 19, 1775, when British General Gage attempted to confiscate arms and powder at Concord. This attempt to disarm the colonists proved the final provocation.

“If you want to understand the important usurpations, go to the Bill of Rights. It is the attempt by Madison to list what a new citizen would be protected against.”

Dave Walden, Liberty Toastmasters North

Winning America’s Second Civil War

Start listening at 10:00 – Hour 2

Jeffrey Paul, research professor at West Virginia University’s Social Philosophy Center, argued that America faces a fundamental choice between founding principles and their antithesis. The German-trained academics who shaped American progressivism sought autocratic power under various pretexts: helping the poor, protecting the environment, advancing racial equity. These pretexts mask an appetite for control over others’ lives. Paul proposed replacing the entire federal tax system with a one percent universal sales tax on all goods, services, stocks, bonds, and derivatives. This system would balance the budget, leave more money in citizens’ hands, and reduce government’s capacity for economic manipulation.

“What they want is autocratic rule over others. They’ll do anything. And so that’s the kind of stuff that you’ve got to watch and make an issue out of.”

Jeffrey Paul, West Virginia University