Laws in America were originally written simply. Every citizen could read them quickly and understand their meaning. The founders wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Northwest Ordinance and the Constitution of the United States, none of which was longer than 4,500 words.

Part of the Northwest Ordinance was “Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary for good government and the happiness of mankind, the means of education shall be forever encouraged.” Congress then gave 1/36th of the land in the Northwest Territory to be controlled by the states to support education in each township.

Another fine law was the Homestead Act of 1862. It awarded 10 percent of the land to individual citizens and contained 1,300 words.

Compare those to Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010, also known as ObamaCare. It ran to 363,086 words, and that does not include countless rules and regulations, which have been generated since passage. ObamaCare was not readable or comprehensible to any member of Congress who voted for it or to the citizens whose lives it was aimed at manipulating in a detailed and intrusive way.

Is it any wonder that being governed this way the richest nation in the history of the world is going bankrupt? The size of the federal budget is beginning to equal the size of the rest of the country in economic terms.

The Constitution placed sovereignty in the hands of a thriving private sector that would control the size of government, which would derive its authority from the governed. As the government becomes almost as large as those who elect it, the government, with its lobbyists and lawyers, becomes increasingly influential in the electoral process with its lack of voter verification championed by these same lobbyists and lawyers, thereby purposely corrupting the electoral process. If this continues, we will see more attempts to regulate political speech as we are already beginning to see in the lawyer-written regulations stymieing free elections.

This new way of governing actively opposes America’s founding principles. Obama wrote in his book “The Audacity of Hope,” “Implicit in the Constitution’s structure, in the very idea of ordered liberty, was a rejection of absolute truth……” How was Constitutional lawyer Obama led to believe something so foreign to America’s Constitutional heritage as the idea that, in the name of liberty, we must reject absolute truths quoted in the Declaration of Independence? Why is it that in two presidential campaigns, not one opposing candidate pointed out this obvious destructive difference to American Heritage?

• • •

Stumptalk is published weekly in the Crossville Chronicle. The opinions expressed in this column are not necessarily those of the Chronicle publisher, editor or staff. To contact Stumptalk, email coordinator Jim Sykes at

Recommended for you