Civil Government: Magistracy, Authority, and Romans 13: Authority

The Government Owes Me! Part 1 of 2

Transcript: AI Transcript

Professor: John Weaver

Subject: Civil Government

Genre: Sermon

Dictation Name:

Date: 2012-01-25

Synopsis: Pastor John Weaver argues that while Christians owe certain duties to civil government, those duties are qualified by God's law and the U.S. Constitution. He explains that God ordained civil government to be His servant, exactor of righteousness, and public worship, but not tyrannical forms. The federal government was created by the states as a limited, covenantal servant, and the Constitution is a grant of authority from the people. Because covenants involve reciprocity, when the federal government violates the Constitution, it becomes illegitimate, and the people are not obligated to obey its usurped authority. The lecture emphasizes that the government owes the people a republican form of government, not a democracy, and that the people are the ultimate interpreters of the Constitution.

[John Weaver] The interesting thing is about a month or so ago someone made a statement to me and I began thinking about that statement and so I came up with two messages so this is going to be part one and I trust that you will be here next Sunday to hear part two all except for Shirley. We'll excuse her. The title of the message is, The Government Owes Me. Ah, listen.

[John Weaver] Look in Romans chapter 13 verse 8. Look what the scripture says, Owe no man anything but to love one another, for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. How many of you have heard or at least have heard someone imply that the government owes me? all of us. The truth of the matter is that we have sired a generation of people who no longer wish to work, or to think for themselves, or to work for themselves, or be responsible for themselves. And certainly in our age of welfare, food stamps, WIC, free meat, free cheese, free milk, free dental and medical coverage, Medicare, Medicaid, clunker programs, Head Start, governmental housing, and governmental schools, We can understand why people think certainly the government owes them. Is it any wonder that they think such?

[John Weaver] I just read an article the other day when the food stamp program began, I think it was in 1967, something like that. They estimated there might be a cost of 50 million bucks, you know, something. And of course, now it's probably a trillion because so many people are now on food stamps. Those who think in terms of the welfare state fail to realize that whatever the government gives to them it must take from someone else. There's no such thing as a free lunch someone pays. There's no such thing as free health care someone pays. It was Margaret Thatcher of England who said socialism is a wonderful thing until you run out of other people's money.

[John Weaver] Now, let me state very clearly today what I'm going to be teaching and showing you from the scripture. As Christians, we do owe our form of civil government certain things. However, that which is owed to them is qualified, limited, bounded, and controlled, first of all, by the word of God, and secondly, by the Constitution. The federal government which has been established by the people of the states owes the states and the people thereof and that debt is also limited, bounded, and controlled not only by the Word of God but also by the Constitution. It is a fact that we as Christians indeed have a debt to a biblical and godly government. God has ordained His government.

[John Weaver] He did not ordain a socialistic, Marxist, communistic, tyrannical, or despotic, or totalitarian government. However, he did ordain his government and that government which he ordained is for our benefit.

[John Weaver] Now it is a fact of life that you cannot exist and you cannot live without government. You cannot live without self-government, family government, church government, State government, national government, you have to have government. Well, what kind of government did God ordain? First of all, let me tell you, I'm not going to be giving you a full exposition of Romans chapter 13. If you want to understand Romans 13, read my book, The Christian Civil Government. But I do want to point out certain things just by way of reference and by way of stirring up your memory. I want you to look in Romans chapter 13 verse 3 and 4. Here's what the Bible says, Romans 13 verse 3, For rulers, now we're talking about civil rulers particularly, For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.

[John Weaver] Will thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same. For he, the civil ruler, is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid. For he bareth not the sword in vain. For he's the minister of God, a revenger, to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

[John Weaver] Now skip down to verse six, he says, for this cause pay you tribute also for they're God's ministers attending continually upon this very thing. Now, obviously, rulers that are ordained of God are not a terror to good works. Good works are determined by God. Good works are those works which are in conformity to his word and his will. When government then becomes an enemy to good works, it becomes an enemy to truth and righteousness and it also becomes an enemy of God. So God ordained civil government to punish the wicked and to promote the righteous. So government that God is ordained in is not an enemy to anything that is biblical and right. I want you to turn in your Bibles, whole Romans 13, turn in your Bibles very quickly to Psalm 94, and let's begin reading there with verse 20. Psalm 94 and verse 20. And let me point out the fact, once again very clearly from Scripture, that when government becomes anything else other than what God has ordained, It becomes the enemy of God.

[John Weaver] Notice in Psalm 94 verse 20, here's what the Bible says. Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee which frameth mischief by law? They gather themselves together against the soil of the righteous and condemn the innocent blood. Now I've pointed this verse out to you numerous times, but once again, shall the throne, so a throne then speaks of government. Throne of iniquity, that is a wicked civil government, shall the throne of iniquity, that is shall a wicked civil government have fellowship with thee, that is with God, when that wicked civil government frames or makes mischief or sin legal. And then the next verse explains, because it says they, that is the wicked civil rulers, they gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous and condemn the innocent blood. So wicked thrones or wicked rulers have no fellowship with God when they fight against Him, trample His law under their feet, and persecute and condemn the innocent.

[John Weaver] Now if you'll go back to Romans chapter 13, and look if you would please at verse 4, just by way of stirring up your memory. Verse 4, the Bible says concerning the civil ruler, for he is the minister of God to thee for good. First of all, the word minister there is the Greek word diakonos. It is where we get our English word deacon from. We talk about the diakonate, that is the deacons. And the word deacon literally means a servant. So let's ask, according to verse four, why did God ordain civil government? First and foremost, God ordained civil government to be his deacon, to be his servant. He did not ordain civil government to be his enemy or his rival. He ordained it to be his servant. Secondly, if you look in verse 4, For he is the minister of God to thee for good, but if thou do evil, be afraid. For he beareth not the sword in vain, for he is the minister of God, same word, deacon, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

[John Weaver] Now the word revenger is the word ekdikos. Dikios is the word for righteousness. Ek is a preposition which means to draw out of. So actually the word revenger there literally means an exactor of righteousness. So why did God ordain civil government first of all to be his servants, secondly to be his exactor of righteousness?

[John Weaver] Now let me point something out. Where do you find righteousness? Only God and his law are righteous. So righteousness is that which is in conformity to God's law. Justice is only justice when it is in conformity to the law of God. Righteousness is found in God's law. God ordained the civil ruler to exact his righteousness. Listen carefully. God did not ordain government. God did not ordain a civil ruler to be a law unto himself or to determine for himself what is right or what is wrong. God has decreed that which is right and God has decreed that which is wrong. And He set the civil ruler up and civil government up to exact His righteousness.

[John Weaver] Thirdly, If you'll skip down to verse six, he says, for this cause pay you tribute also for they are God's ministers attending continually upon this very thing. Now the word ministers, there's a little different from the word used in verse four. This time, the Greek word is the word Latourgos. It is where we derive our English word, liturgy. And a liturgy is a public form of worship. We went through a liturgy this morning. We opened in prayer. We read the scripture. That is a liturgy. So a liturgy then is a public form of worship.

[John Weaver] Therefore, here is the government that God has ordained. God has ordained a government to be his servant, to be his exactor of righteousness, and to be his public worship. And when a government therefore obeys God, applies his law, and fulfills his righteousness, it becomes a public form of worship. The civil government that God has ordained is one that protects the righteous, punishes the wicked, obeys his law, and publicly worships him.

[John Weaver] Let me state this emphatically. God has not ordained any other form of government. Totalitarian governments are not God's ordination since they are contrary to God and contrary to his word. God's law applies to civil rulers and to governments. There are none who are exempt from God's law. Now remember this. God has ordained only three institutions. He ordained the family, which is a ministry of education. The church, which is a ministry of grace and civil government, which is a ministry of justice. Now watch just as the family is obligated to be Christian and obey God. The church is obligated to be Christian, obey God. And the civil government is obligated to be Christian and obey God. Why? Because all three are his institutions. He created them, He ordained them, and each institution is answerable and accountable and responsible to Him. Okay? Now, listen carefully.

[John Weaver] Our founding fathers gave us that which we call a constitutional republic. There are some who understand that when the Constitutional Convention met, When they met originally and initially, they went there to rewrite or rework what were known as the Articles of Confederation. They did not do that. They came out with the Constitution. Now, there are people who will argue and say, well, the Constitution should have never have been brought forth. They went there to rework the Articles of Confederation.

[John Weaver] Regardless of whether or not that is right or wrong, I'm not arguing any of that. The point I'm trying to make is this. The Constitution is that which we have today. And that is what we are dealing with at this particular point. Let me read to you Article 6, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution. I want you to listen to it. This Constitution and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States." Let me just stop right there. What is the authority of the United States? The Constitution. Okay? So this Constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and judges in every state shall be bound thereby anything in the Constitution or laws of any state of the country to the contrary notwithstanding."

[John Weaver] Now, what did Article 6, paragraph 2 say? It said, for our form of government, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Well, as Christians, we understand that the Constitution would be the supreme law after and under the law of God. The law of God is first and foremost and paramount.

[John Weaver] Now, the reason I quoted that and the reason I'm telling you this is we have forgotten a simple fact. We have forgotten as a people that our Constitution is a covenantal document. I'll explain that momentarily. The federal government as you and I know it was created by the states. and set up to be the servants of the states. The states existed prior to the federal government and without the states, the federal government would not have come into existence. Do you understand that? There were 13 original colonies or states and when George III made peace, he made peace with 13 independent, free states. and sovereign states. So it's the states that came together and created the federal government. And the states then, when they did that, agreed to give up certain delegated powers to the federal government, and the rest, residue, and remainder of their powers, they kept for themselves.

[John Weaver] Let me just read Articles 9 and 10. I will comment more on these next week, but listen carefully. Here's Article 9, the enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. You know, I hear people talk about the Bill of Rights and the Bill of Rights is indeed important. But do you understand we have far more rights than those that are just listed in the Bill of Rights? That's what Article 9 is all about. Article 10 says this, the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively or to the people. So the only power then that was delegated to the federal government was a limited power and everything else was reserved to the states or the people.

[John Weaver] Now, governments Are usually today in our understanding, wicked entities. Because governments are not usually biblical governments, but practically any and all government is covenantal in nature. My wife and I have a covenant that's family government, children involved. That's that's family government, our church. is involved in a covenant. You cannot have government of any kind without a covenant.

[John Weaver] Now I said earlier that we have forgotten that our Constitution is a covenantal document. Listen carefully. Covenants involve reciprocity. Reciprocity simply means that there exists reciprocal duties obligations and responsibilities. Reciprocity involves both parties, both sides. Both sides have responsibilities, duties and obligations one to the other. It's the idea of I will do this for you if you will do this for me. And I don't care where you turn in your Bible, you're going to find that covenants between God and man Covenants between man and man all involve reciprocity. For instance, look in your Bibles, whole Romans 13, but turn to the book of Judges chapter 2, and look if you would please at verse 20. Judges chapter 2 and verse 20. Judges 2 verse 20. Look what God says. Judges 2 verse 20. Judges 2 verse 20, And the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel. Why?

[John Weaver] And he said, Because that this people have transgressed my covenant, which I commanded their fathers, and have not hearkened unto my voice. Did God have a covenant with Israel? Yes. Were there reciprocal duties and obligations? Yes. What did God say? God said, If you obey me, I'll bless you. So as long as they obeyed, God would have been obligated to bless. But God also said, if you disobey me, what? I'll curse you. So when they disobeyed, God was obligated to curse them, and he did. There's reciprocal obligations. That is true.

[John Weaver] Look in 2 Kings 11. 2 Kings 11. And notice what Jehoiada says in verse 17. 2 Kings 11.

[John Weaver] Verse 17, second Kings 11 verse 17. And Jehoiada made a covenant between the Lord and the king and the people. That's one covenant that they should be the Lord's people between the king and also on the people. Now watch this. Jehoiada made a covenant between the Lord and the king and the people. Now in this covenant, the king or the civil ruler agreed to be God's civil ruler. And the people agreed to be God's people. But then there was a second covenant between the king also and the people. That is, the king then agreed to rule faithfully, and the people agreed to obey him as long as he did. So, here's reciprocity.

[John Weaver] But there are covenants between God and men, and covenants between man and man. Now if you look in 1 Samuel 11 and verse 1, First Samuel chapter 11 and verse 1 just showing you these covenants always have reciprocity First Samuel chapter 11 in verse 1 Then Nahash the Ammonite came up and encamped against Jabesh Gilead and all the men of Jabesh said unto Nahash Make a covenant with us and we will serve thee Now Nahash had come up to kill these people basically. He came up to conquer them. And they said, look, we don't want to fight because very obviously you're going to win and we don't want to die. So you make a covenant with us and we'll serve you. So here is reciprocity. All covenants involve reciprocity. All covenants, all contracts have limitations.

[John Weaver] When you think of the Constitution of the United States, think of it like this. The states have a duty to support the federal government in the federal government's limited delegated powers that were conferred upon them by the states. The states do not have the duty and do not have the obligation or responsibility to support the federal government in those areas that were never specifically given to the federal government. Now, since the federal government was created by the states, it owes the states obedience in the delegated areas of its power. Moreover, it owes the states submission in that it should not steal, usurp, or tyrannically grabbed for power that was never given to it to begin with. And when it does usurp and steal and grab power that was never delegated to it, it becomes an illegal, illegitimate, and unlawful government. The federal government does not have the authority to exceed the Constitution.

[John Weaver] You say, but it doesn't. There's a difference between authority and power. You know, I may not have the authority to come up and steal Henry's money, but if I throw a.357 Magnum in his face, I've got the power to steal his money. It's theft. There's a big difference between authority and power. So the federal government does not have the authority to exceed the Constitution. The Constitution is referred to as a limited powers document or an express powers document. And all it means is this, that the governmental powers of the federal government are those that are limited to the Constitution or those that are expressed in the Constitution. If it is over and above and beyond the Constitution, they don't have that power. and whatever they do that is over and above and beyond is null and void ab initio. Now, the courts have consistently ruled that any unconstitutional law is null and void ab initio. I'll explain that. The term void Ab initio means to be treated as invalid from the outset. Ab initio is a Latin phrase that is used as a qualifier.

[John Weaver] For instance, in any jurisdiction, if you force me to sign a contract, I'm signing it under duress. And that contract is null and void from the very beginning, even though I signed it. Here's what Black's Law Dictionary says concerning void. Listen carefully. Void. Null. Ineffectual. Nugatory. Having no legal force or binding effect. Unable. In law to support the purpose for which it was intended.

[John Weaver] Now I want to read to you several statements that you can find in 16 Amjurah American jurisprudence. I want you to listen carefully. The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

[John Weaver] Now let me just stop there. This is very important. So if Congress passes a law that is unconstitutional, American jurisprudence says that that law is null and void since the beginning, time it was enacted. You do not have to wait for a court to come along and say, this is unconstitutional. Now, wait a minute. Back up. Stop and think. If a law is null and void, ab initio, from the beginning, if it is unconstitutional, and it requires no one to obey it, how do you know it's unconstitutional from the beginning?

[John Weaver] Who then is the determiner and the decider of what is constitutional and what is not constitutional? you're going to find it comes down to we the people. I'm just showing you how this is throughout, throughout our form of law. Here's another quote. An unconstitutional law and legal contemplation is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as if it would be had the statute not been enacted. What? An unconstitutional law and legal contemplation is inoperative as if it had never been passed. How about this one? Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it." That's American jurisprudence. So an unconstitutional law confers no power or authority upon anyone, it affords no protection, and it justifies no acts performed under that void statute. Here's another one. A void act. cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

[John Weaver] An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby." And then I love this quote, 16 American Jurisprudence, 2nd edition, section 256, No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

[John Weaver] Now if all this is true, and it is true, what has happened in America today? Why have we lost our freedoms? Why are we so wrapped up in bureaucracy and totalitarianism and tyranny? How did we lose our freedoms? Well, let me give you an illustration. Let's suppose that there were 13 very wealthy men who wanted a servant to do what either they could not do or were unwilling to do. So instead of hiring 13 different servants, these 13 men pooled their resources together and hired one servant who was to be obedient, loyal, submissive, and efficient. And these 13 very wealthy men entered into a covenant or a contract with this one servant and spelled out all of his duties and told them, told him what he could do, what he could not do.

[John Weaver] There was no question about it. It was spelled out. But they also gave him authority to have three assistants.

[John Weaver] Now, over a period of years, the servant realized how easy it would be to steal from his masters and run over them. He realized he could do it slowly and steadily. He also realized how easy it would be not only to control their money, but also to control their lives. He realized he could do all this by himself. But he could do it much more quickly if he used his three assistants. If he had them on his side, he could take his masters to the cleaners far more effectively and far more efficiently. So working together, the servant and his three assistants stole everything the masters had so that the servants became the masters of the masters. And the masters basically became the servants. It was done slowly, premeditatedly, and deliberately over a long period of time. And the servants got to the place where they had such power and such control that their masters had to submit to them or face dire consequences. And when the masters came up and said, look, here is the original covenant.

[John Weaver] Here is the original contract. Here is the original agreement. The servants who had become the master said this, but that agreement is out of date. And so they stigmatized it and they vilified it. And they said it's negatory, it's no account because this contract is a living contract. And it no longer means what it meant when we wrote it back then or when you wrote it back then. Now it means what we tell you it means.

[John Weaver] You say, what are you talking about, Pastor? Are you out of your mind? No. The federal government and its three assistants, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. And what have they done? They have taken that original contract, that original covenant, and they now tell you that it no longer means what you think it means. It only means what they tell you that it means. And moreover than that, it's a living document. It changes. Their usurped power and usurped authority is derived from the claim that they claim to be the sole interpreters of the covenant and the contract.

[John Weaver] The Bible condemns servants ruling over masters. Do you know that? Look in your Bibles to the book of Proverbs chapter 19. Proverbs chapter 19 and look at verse 10. Proverbs 19 and verse 10. Proverbs 19 verse 10. Look what God says. Delight is not seemly for a fool, much less for a servant to have rule over princes. God says it's not right for a servant to have rule over princes. Skip to Proverbs 30, if you would please. Proverbs 30. And look at verses, beginning there with verse 21. Proverbs 30, verse 21. God says, for three things the earth is disquieted, and for four which it cannot bear. So here's some things that causes a real uproar in the earth. Verse 22, for a servant when he reigneth, and a fool when he is filled with meat, for an odious woman when she is married, and a handmaid that is heir to her mistress. There be four things, and he goes on. But notice, for three things the earth is disquieted, and for four which it cannot bear.

[John Weaver] And the first one that is mentioned is for a servant when he reigneth. So let's ask this question, how does a servant rule over princes? How does a servant reign? The answer is simple. If you allow the servant to interpret his duties and declare the extent or the limit of his authority, then he will claim it all. If I were to ask the average American, not you because you know better, but if I were to ask the average American, if there is a legal issue in this land, who is it that has the final say?

[John Weaver] And most Americans would respond, the Supreme Court. It's the Supreme Court. In fact, we look to the Supreme Court for all of the constitutional answers. I want you to listen carefully because what I'm about to show you is not only historical, it is biblical. And I'm going to show you that the Supreme Court was never set up by our founding fathers to be the sole interpreter of the Constitution. In fact, I'm going to show you from our founding fathers who the interpreters of the Constitution really are. Thomas Jefferson said this, I think he would qualify as a founding father, would he not? Thomas Jefferson said this, to consider the judges of the Superior or the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbitrators or arbiters of constitutional questions would be a dangerous doctrine which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.

[John Weaver] They have with others the same passion for party, for power, and for the privileges of their core. And their power is the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has no single tribunal. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves." Isn't that interesting? Thomas Jefferson said, in the Supreme Court, it's not the ultimate authority. We are. The servant cannot decide the extent of his powers.

[John Weaver] the federal governments created by the states. It cannot hold a monopoly on constitutional interpretation. If you allow it to do so, you will be ruled by the discretion of the servant. You lose more and more freedoms as the federal government grabs for more and more power. John Taylor, another founding father from 1753, to 1824, Caroline County, Virginia, was a politician and a writer and he said this, the states do not hold their constitutional rights by the courtesy of Congress. Congress is the creature of the states and of the people, but neither the state nor the people are the creatures of Congress. It would be evidently absurd that the creature Congress should exclusively construe the instrument of its own existence, the Constitution. Wow.

[John Weaver] The legislature of Pennsylvania approved a resolution in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, and here is what the state of Pennsylvania wrote. The people of the United States by the adoption of the federal constitution established a general government for the special purposes reserving to themselves respectively the rights and authorities not delegated in that instrument to the compact thereby created each state a seated in its character as a state and as a party. The Act of Union thus entered into being to all intents and purposes a treaty between sovereign states. The general government by this treaty was not constituted the exclusive or final judge of the powers. It was to exercise. For if it were so to judge, then its judgment and not the Constitution would be the measure of its authority. The Alien and Sedition Acts I forget the exact date, 1790s. And here, right after the Constitution was written, here the state of Pennsylvania says, the government's not the interpreter of the extent of its powers. You don't let the servant tell you what power and authority he has.

[John Weaver] You tell the servant. In 1825, Thomas Jefferson prepared a series of resolutions for the Virginia legislature called the Solemn Declaration and Protest of the Commonwealth of Virginia on the principles of the Constitution of the United States and on the violation of them. Here is what Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1825. I'm not reading the whole thing, I'm just giving you the closing paragraph. Here's what he wrote. While the General Assembly thus declares the rights retained by the states rights which they have never yielded and which this state will never voluntarily yield, they do not mean to raise the banner of disaffection or separation from their sister states co-parties with themselves to this compact, talking about the Constitution.

[John Weaver] They know and value too highly the blessings of their union as to foreign nations and questions arising among themselves to consider every infraction to be met by actual resistance. They respect too affectionately the opinions of those possessing the same rights under the same instrument to make every difference a construction or ground of immediate rupture. Now listen, They would indeed consider such a rupture among the greatest calamities that could befall them." Stop right there. What did he say? If there's a rupture between the states who are all co-parties to this Constitution, that would be bad.

[John Weaver] He says, we don't want that. They would indeed consider such a rupture as among the greatest calamities which could befall them, but not the greatest. There is one greater. submission to a government of unlimited powers. We must remember folks that God's law applies to all of his institutions as well as individuals. Thou shalt not steal applies to an individual, right? Does that mean as a church we can steal from someone else? No. God's law, thou shalt not steal, applies to the church. What about the family? Can a family steal? No, it applies to the family. If theft is wrong for an individual, if theft is wrong for a family, if theft is wrong for a church, do you mean to tell me it's alright if the government steals? No! Thou shalt not steal applies to governments equally as it applies to anyone else. God's law applies to all. Creatures and creations of God may not and cannot excuse themselves from God's law. Government is equally the creation of God and is therefore bound by God's law.

[John Weaver] To assume that it is not would be to deny God's sovereignty and to state somehow that government was either equal to God or above God, which would become its own God, which is absolute blasphemy. So let's ask the questions. Does the federal government have the right to ignore the Constitution? Does the federal government have the right to usurp authority and demand unconditional obedience? Does the federal government have the right to demand support for that which it has never been covenanted to do in the first place? Does the government have the right to violate, usurp, and destroy the Constitution and then demand payment for its unlawful actions? And the answer to all of those questions is no. It does not have the right, does not have the power.

[John Weaver] You see, here's what got me started. In our present day, If the federal government thinks for one instance that you owe them, they are merciless towards you. They will persecute you. They will prosecute you. You will face the loss of property. You will face imprisonment or even death. They will persecute and prosecute and intimidate. if they think for one instant that you owe them. But the question is, what about the fact that the federal government owes the states and the people thereof respectively? Will they be as merciless toward themselves? Will they police themselves? Will they arrest themselves? Who will police the police?

[John Weaver] Remember what I told you at the beginning of this message? Covenants involve reciprocity. Reciprocity just simply means there are dual obligations, responsibilities and duties. Now I titled this message, the government owes me. Do you realize there are certain things the government does indeed owe us? And I can't cover all of them today, but I'm going to cover one point first. the federal government owes us a Republican form of government. The fourth section of the fourth article of Constitution directs that, listen carefully, that the United States shall guarantee to every state in the Union a Republican form of government. The form of government is to be guaranteed which supposes a form already established and this is the Republican form of government that our forefathers established and therefore the federal government is obligated and duty-bound to protect and to guarantee to every state in the Union. Now there are some things that the federal government may or may not do which I will cover some next week but here's one thing they must do They must guarantee to every state in the Union a Republican form of government.

[John Weaver] So the question has to be asked, what is a Republican form of government? What is its essence? How do we know whether or not we have a Republican form of government? Well, for definition then of Republican government, we must consider what it was in 1787 when the Constitution came into play. Certainly we may say that the governments of the 13 original states as they existed at the time of the writing of the Constitution was to be considered a Republican form of government. The characteristics that define a Republican form of government are usually never discussed, especially by the school teachers, by the political leadership, by the pastors, in fact generally All of those people and about everybody else says that what we have is a democracy, which is absolutely, totally, and completely wrong.

[John Weaver] And the interesting thing is this. If we go along and accept the usual rant and nod our head saying, well, yeah, literally what we get is a democracy by default. Why do you think all of our politicians keep telling us that we live in the greatest democracy in the world? because they don't want you to know that we really do not have a democracy according to the Constitution.

[John Weaver] We have republican form of government. Now, if you will look up Black's Law Dictionary, the word republican government, you won't necessarily find that in the seventh edition, but you will find the word republic. Here's what Black's Law Dictionary says concerning republic. Listen carefully. There is a huge distinction. Republic, a system of government in which the people hold sovereign power and elect representatives who execute or exercise that power. It contrasts, on the one hand, with a pure democracy in which the people or community as an organized whole wield the sovereign power of government, and on the other with the rule of one person, such as a king or emperor, czar, or sultan. Now, listen to what he just said. What is republic? He distinguished between a republic, a democracy, and a monarchy. He said a republic is a system of government in which the people hold sovereign power. What does that mean?

[John Weaver] It means each of us, individually, would be construed as sovereigns. How does that differ from a democracy? Listen, it contrasts on the one hand with a pure democracy in which the people or community as an organized hold wield sovereign power. So here's, here's the difference. If we took everyone in this room and we said, we're democracy, we're one organized whole, we have the power. That means just the whole, the conglomerate. The Republic says no, it's not the whole, it's not the conglomerate, it's each individual. So in a Republic, it is the people who are the sovereigns, it is the people who hold the power, it is contrasted with a democracy. There's a vast difference between a Republic and a democracy.

[John Weaver] Thomas, not Thomas Jefferson, but James Madison, who by the way was called the father of the Constitution because he was secretary of the Constitutional Convention, James Madison in Federalist Papers number 10 said this, hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention, have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been inviolate in their deaths. Do you think the founding fathers gave us a democracy when James Madison says, man, those are wicked, wretched things. We don't want that.

[John Weaver] To show you how far we have gone, here is a quote from the United States Army training manual in 1928. Democracy. A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting of any form of direct expression results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic, negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, impulse, without restraint to or regard to consequences, results in demagoguism, license, agitation, discontent, and anarchy. That was in 1928. Folks back then understood the difference between a republic and a democracy. A republic, in a governmental sense, is a government which the sovereignty is held by the people, granted only to their rulers, and then the rulers rule according to law. The Declaration of Independence states that the purpose of government is to protect the rights of the people and that all just power that any government holds is from the consent of the governed. What? You mean they are supposed to have our consent before they do anything?

[John Weaver] Oh, yes. Oh, yes. That's what the Declaration says. So let me put it together for you like this. The first element in a republican form of government is that the power belongs to the people and it is derived from the people. And the second element of republic is that government itself operates within and under and control of the law. In other words, In a republic, the people are the masters, and the government is the servant, and the government is bound by the contract, by the law, by the Constitution. If you would like to know what the Constitution is, here's what it really is. The Constitution is a grant from we the people to form a government. The government that the Constitution authorizes is a limited government operating only on the granted authority and power that we the people give it.

[John Weaver] In every sense it meets the earlier historical definition of republic. The Constitution is the grant of authority for the government. Let me spell this out. The Constitution then is to be the law of the people for the government. The Constitution is to control the government, not the people. It is a system of government which recognizes that each individual is endowed by his Creator with certain inalienable rights. And in a republic, the government protects those rights, guarantees those rights. Why? Because it rules according to law.

[John Weaver] If you understand If you understand what a constitutional republic implies and what it is, you would never ever believe Nancy Pelosi when she says, we have to pass this bill to see what's in it. You would never ever believe Representative Pete Stark when he said that the government can do whatever it pleases. And you would never believe Representative Alcee Hastings from Florida who said, there are no rules.

[John Weaver] We make them up as we go along. Here's my question, folks. Since the Constitution is to be our grant of authority to the federal government to rule constitutionally. If we are not being ruled by the Constitution, by what are we being ruled? If we're not being ruled by the law of the land, then we must be being ruled by the whims and desires and edicts and schemes of the elite politicians. There is no standard. Remember I told you that government is covenantal in nature? Remember I told you that covenants involve reciprocity? Remember I told you that reciprocity means that there's mutual obligations, mutual duties? Let me make a point without really developing it. I don't care if you consider biblical law, common law, statutory law, the principle is the same.

[John Weaver] Whenever you have a covenant, whenever you have a contract, covenant contracts all the same, If one party violates the covenant, the other party is loose from obedience. You understand that? If Henry agrees to bill me a garage for a certain amount of money, and he only bills a third of it, and never finishes it, and then demands all of his money, am I obligated to pay him? No! We had a written contract. We had a written covenant. If my wife runs off with another man and leaves me and never comes back, am I obligated to keep supporting her? No.

[John Weaver] If we have made an agreement with the federal government, this is how we want to be ruled, and the federal government refuses to rule that way, do we owe any submission? to their usurped authority and tyrannical totalitarian acts? No. Let me point something out. I don't know if you've thought about this or not. I hope you have. But you realize this is the principle upon which our country was founded. Did you know that?

[John Weaver] Because in 1776, when we had a war for independence against George III of Britain. In 1774, Fairfax County, Virginia, George Mason, George Washington, and Charles Broadwater met, and those men, and probably some others, drew up what are known as the Fairfax Resolves, 24 Resolves. And they sent them to George III, and they basically said this, George, we're willing to be your subjects. but we're not going to be your slaves.

[John Weaver] You have violated the covenant that we've had. You've violated the covenant with each one of the colonies. Each one of the colonies was an independent colony. There were covenants, there were contracts, there were constitutions with each of the colonies. And they were begging and they were pleading with George III to keep his end of the bargain, of the covenant. They were saying, we want to be your subjects, but we're not going to be your slaves.

[John Weaver] And you know what the Declaration of Independence is? The Declaration of Independence is a listing of all the violations of George III against the Constitution and the covenant that the colonists had. And when he failed to keep his end of the contract, the American colonists said, No more. We're seceding. We're leaving England and Georgia Third. And then when Georgia Third sent his troops over to force submission, our founding fathers fought. But all of this came about because government failed to keep its end of the Constitution.

[John Weaver] Covenants involve reciprocity and one thing the government does indeed owe us is a republican form of government whereby we the people are independent and free and sovereign and they live and rule and work by the law that we give them. Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, we ask for your blessing, for your help. We pray that you would indeed teach us, build us up in the most holy faith, and help us to see, Lord, not only the importance of the Word of God, but also the importance of knowing the Constitution, if we are to be the ones that determine whether or not something is constitutional. Give us grace, Lord, to serve Thee acceptably, with reverence and godly fear. In Thy name we pray. Amen.

The Government Owes Me! Part 1 of 2

John Weaver | YouTube

Lecture Metadata	Details
Speaker	John Weaver
Source	YouTube
Media ID	sYgGM8uCtbs
Subject	Civil Government
Course	Civil Government: Magistracy, Authority, and Romans 13: Authority
Genre	Sermon
Date	2012-01-25
Dictation Name
Book	Book 023: The Government Owes Me! — Chapter 1
Source Timed Segments	66

Formatted Transcript

Introduction: The Entitlement Mentality

Weaver introduces the topic by noting how many people believe the government owes them, citing the growth of welfare programs and the idea that government handouts come at someone else's expense.

The interesting thing is about a month or so ago someone made a statement to me and I began thinking about that statement and so I came up with two messages. So this is going to be part one and I trust that you will be here next Sunday to hear part two—all except for Shirley. We'll excuse her. The title of the message is, "The Government Owes Me." Ah, listen. Look in Romans chapter 13 verse 8. Look what the scripture says,

Scripture Reading — Romans 13:8

"Owe no man anything but to love one another, for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law."

How many of you have heard or at least have heard someone imply that the government owes me? All of us. The truth of the matter is that we have sired a generation of people who no longer wish to work, or to think for themselves, or to work for themselves, or be responsible for themselves. And certainly in our age of welfare, food stamps, WIC, free meat, free cheese, free milk, free dental and medical coverage, Medicare, Medicaid, clunker programs, Head Start, governmental housing, and governmental schools, we can understand why people think certainly the government owes them. Is it any wonder that they think such?

I just read an article the other day when the food stamp program began, I think it was in 1967, something like that. They estimated there might be a cost of 50 million bucks, you know, something. And of course, now it's probably a trillion because so many people are now on food stamps. Those who think in terms of the welfare state fail to realize that whatever the government gives to them it must take from someone else. There's no such thing as a free lunch—someone pays. There's no such thing as free health care—someone pays. It was Margaret Thatcher of England who said socialism is a wonderful thing until you run out of other people's money.

What Christians Owe to Government Is Qualified

Christians do owe certain things to civil government, but that debt is limited by the Word of God and the Constitution. The federal government also owes the states and people, bounded by the same authorities.

Now, let me state very clearly today what I'm going to be teaching and showing you from the scripture. As Christians, we do owe our form of civil government certain things. However, that which is owed to them is qualified, limited, bounded, and controlled, first of all, by the word of God, and secondly, by the Constitution. The federal government which has been established by the people of the states owes the states and the people thereof and that debt is also limited, bounded, and controlled not only by the Word of God but also by the Constitution. It is a fact that we as Christians indeed have a debt to a biblical and godly government. God has ordained His government.

God's Ordained Government: Servant, Exactor of Righteousness, Public Worship

From Romans 13, Weaver shows that God ordained civil rulers to be His deacons (servants), exactors of righteousness according to His law, and a public liturgy of worship. Any government contrary to this is not ordained by God.

He did not ordain a socialistic, Marxist, communistic, tyrannical, or despotic, or totalitarian government. However, he did ordain his government and that government which he ordained is for our benefit. Now it is a fact of life that you cannot exist and you cannot live without government. You cannot live without self-government, family government, church government, state government, national government—you have to have government. Well, what kind of government did God ordain? First of all, let me tell you, I'm not going to be giving you a full exposition of Romans chapter 13. If you want to understand Romans 13, read my book, The Christian Civil Government. But I do want to point out certain things just by way of reference and by way of stirring up your memory. I want you to look in Romans chapter 13 verse 3 and 4. Here's what the Bible says, Romans 13 verse 3, "For rulers," now we're talking about civil rulers particularly,

Scripture Reading — Romans 13:3-4

"For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil."

"Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same. For he," the civil ruler, "is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid. For he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is the minister of God, a revenger, to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

Now skip down to verse six, he says,

Scripture Reading — Romans 13:6

"For this cause pay you tribute also for they are God's ministers attending continually upon this very thing."

Now, obviously, rulers that are ordained of God are not a terror to good works. Good works are determined by God. Good works are those works which are in conformity to his word and his will. When government then becomes an enemy to good works, it becomes an enemy to truth and righteousness and it also becomes an enemy of God. So God ordained civil government to punish the wicked and to promote the righteous. So government that God has ordained is not an enemy to anything that is biblical and right. I want you to turn in your Bibles, hold Romans 13, turn in your Bibles very quickly to Psalm 94, and let's begin reading there with verse 20. Psalm 94 and verse 20. And let me point out the fact, once again very clearly from Scripture, that when government becomes anything else other than what God has ordained, it becomes the enemy of God.

Notice in Psalm 94 verse 20, here's what the Bible says.

Scripture Reading — Psalm 94:20-21

"Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee which frameth mischief by law? They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous and condemn the innocent blood."

Now I've pointed this verse out to you numerous times, but once again, "shall the throne," so a throne then speaks of government. "Throne of iniquity," that is a wicked civil government, "shall the throne of iniquity,

Scripture Reading — Psalm 94:20-21

" that is shall a wicked civil government have fellowship with thee, that is with God, when that wicked civil government frames or makes mischief or sin legal. And then the next verse explains, because it says "

they," that is the wicked civil rulers, "they gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous and condemn the innocent blood.

Scripture Reading — Psalm 94:20-21

" So wicked thrones or wicked rulers have no fellowship with God when they fight against Him, trample His law under their feet, and persecute and condemn the innocent.

Now if you'll go back to Romans chapter 13, and look if you would please at verse 4, just by way of stirring up your memory. Verse 4, the Bible says concerning the civil ruler,

Scripture Reading — Romans 13:4

"for he is the minister of God to thee for good."

First of all, the word "minister" there is the Greek word diakonos. It is where we get our English word "deacon" from. We talk about the diakonate, that is the deacons. And the word "deacon" literally means a servant. So let's ask, according to verse four, why did God ordain civil government? First and foremost, God ordained civil government to be his deacon, to be his servant. He did not ordain civil government to be his enemy or his rival. He ordained it to be his servant. Secondly, if you look in verse 4, "For he is the minister of God to thee for good, but if thou do evil, be afraid. For he beareth not the sword in vain, for he is the minister of God," same word, deacon, "a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

Now the word "revenger" is the word ekdikos. Dikios is the word for righteousness. Ek is a preposition which means to draw out of. So actually the word "revenger" there literally means an exactor of righteousness. So why did God ordain civil government? First of all to be his servants, secondly to be his exactor of righteousness.

Now let me point something out. Where do you find righteousness? Only God and his law are righteous. So righteousness is that which is in conformity to God's law. Justice is only justice when it is in conformity to the law of God. Righteousness is found in God's law. God ordained the civil ruler to exact his righteousness. Listen carefully. God did not ordain government. God did not ordain a civil ruler to be a law unto himself or to determine for himself what is right or what is wrong. God has decreed that which is right and God has decreed that which is wrong. And He set the civil ruler up and civil government up to exact His righteousness.

Thirdly, if you'll skip down to verse six, he says, "for this cause pay you tribute also for they are God's ministers attending continually upon this very thing." Now the word "ministers" there is a little different from the word used in verse four. This time, the Greek word is the word leitourgos. It is where we derive our English word "liturgy." And a liturgy is a public form of worship. We went through a liturgy this morning. We opened in prayer. We read the scripture. That is a liturgy. So a liturgy then is a public form of worship.

Therefore, here is the government that God has ordained. God has ordained a government to be his servant, to be his exactor of righteousness, and to be his public worship. And when a government therefore obeys God, applies his law, and fulfills his righteousness, it becomes a public form of worship. The civil government that God has ordained is one that protects the righteous, punishes the wicked, obeys his law, and publicly worships him. Let me state this emphatically. God has not ordained any other form of government. Totalitarian governments are not God's ordination since they are contrary to God and contrary to his word. God's law applies to civil rulers and to governments. There are none who are exempt from God's law. Now remember this. God has ordained only three institutions. He ordained the family, which is a ministry of education. The church, which is a ministry of grace, and civil government, which is a ministry of justice. Now watch: just as the family is obligated to be Christian and obey God, the church is obligated to be Christian and obey God, and the civil government is obligated to be Christian and obey God. Why? Because all three are his institutions. He created them, He ordained them, and each institution is answerable and accountable and responsible to Him. Okay? Now, listen carefully.

The Constitution as a Covenantal Document

The U.S. Constitution is a covenant between the states and the federal government, involving reciprocal duties. The federal government was created by the states with limited, delegated powers; all other powers are reserved to the states or the people.

Our founding fathers gave us that which we call a constitutional republic. There are some who understand that when the Constitutional Convention met, when they met originally and initially, they went there to rewrite or rework what were known as the Articles of Confederation. They did not do that. They came out with the Constitution. Now, there are people who will argue and say, well, the Constitution should have never been brought forth. They went there to rework the Articles of Confederation. Regardless of whether or not that is right or wrong, I'm not arguing any of that. The point I'm trying to make is this. The Constitution is that which we have today. And that is what we are dealing with at this particular point. Let me read to you Article 6, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution. I want you to listen to it. "This Constitution and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States." Let me just stop right there. What is the authority of the United States? The Constitution. Okay? "So this Constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and judges in every state shall be bound thereby anything in the Constitution or laws of any state of the country to the contrary notwithstanding."

Now, what did Article 6, paragraph 2 say? It said, for our form of government, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Well, as Christians, we understand that the Constitution would be the supreme law after and under the law of God. The law of God is first and foremost and paramount.

Now, the reason I quoted that and the reason I'm telling you this is we have forgotten a simple fact. We have forgotten as a people that our Constitution is a covenantal document. I'll explain that momentarily. The federal government as you and I know it was created by the states and set up to be the servants of the states. The states existed prior to the federal government and without the states, the federal government would not have come into existence. Do you understand that? There were 13 original colonies or states and when George III made peace, he made peace with 13 independent, free, and sovereign states. So it's the states that came together and created the federal government. And the states then, when they did that, agreed to give up certain delegated powers to the federal government, and the rest, residue, and remainder of their powers, they kept for themselves.

Let me just read Articles 9 and 10. I will comment more on these next week, but listen carefully. Here's Article 9, "The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." You know, I hear people talk about the Bill of Rights and the Bill of Rights is indeed important. But do you understand we have far more rights than those that are just listed in the Bill of Rights? That's what Article 9 is all about. Article 10 says this, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively or to the people." So the only power then that was delegated to the federal government was a limited power and everything else was reserved to the states or the people.

Now, governments are usually today in our understanding, wicked entities. Because governments are not usually biblical governments, but practically any and all government is covenantal in nature. My wife and I have a covenant—that's family government, children involved. That's family government. Our church is involved in a covenant. You cannot have government of any kind without a covenant.

Reciprocity in Biblical and Civil Covenants

Using examples from Judges, 2 Kings, and 1 Samuel, Weaver demonstrates that all covenants involve mutual obligations. If one party violates the covenant, the other is released from obedience.

Now I said earlier that we have forgotten that our Constitution is a covenantal document. Listen carefully. Covenants involve reciprocity. Reciprocity simply means that there exists reciprocal duties, obligations, and responsibilities. Reciprocity involves both parties, both sides. Both sides have responsibilities, duties, and obligations one to the other. It's the idea of "I will do this for you if you will do this for me." And I don't care where you turn in your Bible, you're going to find that covenants between God and man, covenants between man and man, all involve reciprocity. For instance, look in your Bibles, hold Romans 13, but turn to the book of Judges chapter 2, and look if you would please at verse 20. Judges chapter 2 and verse 20. Judges 2 verse 20. Look what God says. Judges 2 verse 20, "And the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel." Why?

And he said, "Because that this people have transgressed my covenant, which I commanded their fathers, and have not hearkened unto my voice." Did God have a covenant with Israel? Yes. Were there reciprocal duties and obligations? Yes. What did God say? God said, "If you obey me, I'll bless you." So as long as they obeyed, God would have been obligated to bless. But God also said, "If you disobey me," what? "I'll curse you." So when they disobeyed, God was obligated to curse them, and he did. There's reciprocal obligations. That is true.

Look in 2 Kings 11. 2 Kings 11. And notice what Jehoiada says in verse 17. 2 Kings 11.

Verse 17, 2 Kings 11 verse 17.

Scripture Reading — 2 Kings 11:17

"And Jehoiada made a covenant between the Lord and the king and the people."

That's one covenant

Scripture Reading — 2 Kings 11:17

"that they should be the Lord's people between the king and also on the people."

Now watch this. Jehoiada made a covenant between the Lord and the king and the people. Now in this covenant, the king or the civil ruler agreed to be God's civil ruler. And the people agreed to be God's people. But then there was a second covenant between the king also and the people. That is, the king then agreed to rule faithfully, and the people agreed to obey him as long as he did. So, here's reciprocity.

But there are covenants between God and men, and covenants between man and man. Now if you look in 1 Samuel 11 and verse 1, 1 Samuel chapter 11 and verse 1, just showing you these covenants always have reciprocity. 1 Samuel chapter 11 in verse 1,

Scripture Reading — 1 Samuel 11:1

"Then Nahash the Ammonite came up and encamped against Jabesh Gilead and all the men of Jabesh said unto Nahash, Make a covenant with us and we will serve thee."

Now Nahash had come up to kill these people basically. He came up to conquer them. And they said, look, we don't want to fight because very obviously you're going to win and we don't want to die. So you make a covenant with us and we'll serve you. So here is reciprocity. All covenants involve reciprocity. All covenants, all contracts have limitations.

Unconstitutional Laws Are Void Ab Initio

The federal government has no authority to exceed the Constitution. Unconstitutional laws are null and void from the beginning, impose no duties, and no one is bound to obey them. The people, not the Supreme Court, are the ultimate interpreters of the Constitution.

When you think of the Constitution of the United States, think of it like this. The states have a duty to support the federal government in the federal government's limited delegated powers that were conferred upon them by the states. The states do not have the duty and do not have the obligation or responsibility to support the federal government in those areas that were never specifically given to the federal government. Now, since the federal government was created by the states, it owes the states obedience in the delegated areas of its power. Moreover, it owes the states submission in that it should not steal, usurp, or tyrannically grab for power that was never given to it to begin with. And when it does usurp and steal and grab power that was never delegated to it, it becomes an illegal, illegitimate, and unlawful government. The federal government does not have the authority to exceed the Constitution.

You say, but it doesn't. There's a difference between authority and power. You know, I may not have the authority to come up and steal Henry's money, but if I throw a .357 Magnum in his face, I've got the power to steal his money. It's theft. There's a big difference between authority and power. So the federal government does not have the authority to exceed the Constitution. The Constitution is referred to as a limited powers document or an express powers document. And all it means is this, that the governmental powers of the federal government are those that are limited to the Constitution or those that are expressed in the Constitution. If it is over and above and beyond the Constitution, they don't have that power. And whatever they do that is over and above and beyond is null and void ab initio. Now, the courts have consistently ruled that any unconstitutional law is null and void ab initio. I'll explain that. The term "void ab initio" means to be treated as invalid from the outset. Ab initio is a Latin phrase that is used as a qualifier.

For instance, in any jurisdiction, if you force me to sign a contract, I'm signing it under duress. And that contract is null and void from the very beginning, even though I signed it. Here's what Black's Law Dictionary says concerning void. Listen carefully. "Void. Null. Ineffectual. Nugatory. Having no legal force or binding effect. Unable in law to support the purpose for which it was intended."

Now I want to read to you several statements that you can find in 16 Am. Jur. American jurisprudence. I want you to listen carefully. "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it."

Now let me just stop there. This is very important. So if Congress passes a law that is unconstitutional, American jurisprudence says that that law is null and void since the beginning, time it was enacted. You do not have to wait for a court to come along and say, this is unconstitutional. Now, wait a minute. Back up. Stop and think. If a law is null and void, ab initio, from the beginning, if it is unconstitutional, and it requires no one to obey it, how do you know it's unconstitutional from the beginning?

Who then is the determiner and the decider of what is constitutional and what is not constitutional? You're going to find it comes down to we the people. I'm just showing you how this is throughout, throughout our form of law. Here's another quote. "An unconstitutional law and legal contemplation is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as if it would be had the statute not been enacted." What? An unconstitutional law and legal contemplation is inoperative as if it had never been passed. How about this one? "Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it." That's American jurisprudence. So an unconstitutional law confers no power or authority upon anyone, it affords no protection, and it justifies no acts performed under that void statute. Here's another one. "A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one."

"An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby." And then I love this quote, 16 American Jurisprudence, 2nd edition, section 256, "No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." Now if all this is true, and it is true, what has happened in America today? Why have we lost our freedoms? Why are we so wrapped up in bureaucracy and totalitarianism and tyranny? How did we lose our freedoms? Well, let me give you an illustration. Let's suppose that there were 13 very wealthy men who wanted a servant to do what either they could not do or were unwilling to do. So instead of hiring 13 different servants, these 13 men pooled their resources together and hired one servant who was to be obedient, loyal, submissive, and efficient. And these 13 very wealthy men entered into a covenant or a contract with this one servant and spelled out all of his duties and told him what he could do, what he could not do.

The Servant Has Become the Master

Weaver illustrates how the federal government and its three branches have usurped power, claiming to be the sole interpreters of the Constitution, effectively ruling over the states and people. The Bible condemns servants ruling over princes.

There was no question about it. It was spelled out. But they also gave him authority to have three assistants. Now, over a period of years, the servant realized how easy it would be to steal from his masters and run over them. He realized he could do it slowly and steadily. He also realized how easy it would be not only to control their money, but also to control their lives. He realized he could do all this by himself. But he could do it much more quickly if he used his three assistants. If he had them on his side, he could take his masters to the cleaners far more effectively and far more efficiently. So working together, the servant and his three assistants stole everything the masters had so that the servants became the masters of the masters. And the masters basically became the servants. It was done slowly, premeditatedly, and deliberately over a long period of time. And the servants got to the place where they had such power and such control that their masters had to submit to them or face dire consequences. And when the masters came up and said, look, here is the original covenant.

Here is the original contract. Here is the original agreement. The servants who had become the master said this, "But that agreement is out of date." And so they stigmatized it and they vilified it. And they said it's nugatory, it's no account because this contract is a living contract. And it no longer means what it meant when we wrote it back then or when you wrote it back then. Now it means what we tell you it means. You say, what are you talking about, Pastor? Are you out of your mind? No. The federal government and its three assistants, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. And what have they done? They have taken that original contract, that original covenant, and they now tell you that it no longer means what you think it means. It only means what they tell you that it means. And moreover than that, it's a living document. It changes. Their usurped power and usurped authority is derived from the claim that they claim to be the sole interpreters of the covenant and the contract.

The Bible condemns servants ruling over masters. Do you know that? Look in your Bibles to the book of Proverbs chapter 19. Proverbs chapter 19 and look at verse 10. Proverbs 19 and verse 10. Proverbs 19 verse 10. Look what God says.

Scripture Reading — Proverbs 19:10

"Delight is not seemly for a fool, much less for a servant to have rule over princes."

God says it's not right for a servant to have rule over princes. Skip to Proverbs 30, if you would please. Proverbs 30. And look at verses, beginning there with verse 21. Proverbs 30, verse 21. God says, "For three things the earth is disquieted, and for four which it cannot bear." So here's some things that cause a real uproar in the earth. Verse 22, "For a servant when he reigneth, and a fool when he is filled with meat, for an odious woman when she is married, and a handmaid that is heir to her mistress. There be four things," and he goes on. But notice, "for three things the earth is disquieted, and for four which it cannot bear."

And the first one that is mentioned is "for a servant when he reigneth." So let's ask this question, how does a servant rule over princes? How does a servant reign? The answer is simple. If you allow the servant to interpret his duties and declare the extent or the limit of his authority, then he will claim it all. If I were to ask the average American, not you because you know better, but if I were to ask the average American, if there is a legal issue in this land, who is it that has the final say?

The Founding Fathers on Constitutional Interpretation

Quoting Thomas Jefferson, John Taylor, and the Pennsylvania legislature, Weaver argues that the founding fathers never intended the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter of the Constitution; that power belongs to the people and the states.

And most Americans would respond, the Supreme Court. It's the Supreme Court. In fact, we look to the Supreme Court for all of the constitutional answers. I want you to listen carefully because what I'm about to show you is not only historical, it is biblical. And I'm going to show you that the Supreme Court was never set up by our founding fathers to be the sole interpreter of the Constitution. In fact, I'm going to show you from our founding fathers who the interpreters of the Constitution really are. Thomas Jefferson said this, I think he would qualify as a founding father, would he not? Thomas Jefferson said this, "To consider the judges of the Superior or the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbitrators or arbiters of constitutional questions would be a dangerous doctrine which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."

"They have with others the same passion for party, for power, and for the privileges of their core. And their power is the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has no single tribunal. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves." Isn't that interesting? Thomas Jefferson said, the Supreme Court is not the ultimate authority. We are. The servant cannot decide the extent of his powers.

The federal government was created by the states. It cannot hold a monopoly on constitutional interpretation. If you allow it to do so, you will be ruled by the discretion of the servant. You lose more and more freedoms as the federal government grabs for more and more power. John Taylor, another founding father from 1753 to 1824, Caroline County, Virginia, was a politician and a writer and he said this, "The states do not hold their constitutional rights by the courtesy of Congress. Congress is the creature of the states and of the people, but neither the state nor the people are the creatures of Congress. It would be evidently absurd that the creature Congress should exclusively construe the instrument of its own existence, the Constitution." Wow.

The legislature of Pennsylvania approved a resolution in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, and here is what the state of Pennsylvania wrote. "The people of the United States by the adoption of the federal constitution established a general government for the special purposes reserving to themselves respectively the rights and authorities not delegated in that instrument to the compact thereby created each state a seated in its character as a state and as a party. The Act of Union thus entered into being to all intents and purposes a treaty between sovereign states. The general government by this treaty was not constituted the exclusive or final judge of the powers it was to exercise. For if it were so to judge, then its judgment and not the Constitution would be the measure of its authority." The Alien and Sedition Acts, I forget the exact date, 1790s. And here, right after the Constitution was written, here the state of Pennsylvania says, the government's not the interpreter of the extent of its powers. You don't let the servant tell you what power and authority he has.

You tell the servant. In 1825, Thomas Jefferson prepared a series of resolutions for the Virginia legislature called the "Solemn Declaration and Protest of the Commonwealth of Virginia on the principles of the Constitution of the United States and on the violation of them." Here is what Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1825. I'm not reading the whole thing, I'm just giving you the closing paragraph. Here's what he wrote. "While the General Assembly thus declares the rights retained by the states, rights which they have never yielded and which this state will never voluntarily yield, they do not mean to raise the banner of disaffection or separation from their sister states co-parties with themselves to this compact," talking about the Constitution. "They know and value too highly the blessings of their union as to foreign nations and questions arising among themselves to consider every infraction to be met by actual resistance. They respect too affectionately the opinions of those possessing the same rights under the same instrument to make every difference a construction or ground of immediate rupture." Now listen, "They would indeed consider such a rupture among the greatest calamities that could befall them." Stop right there. What did he say? If there's a rupture between the states who are all co-parties to this Constitution, that would be bad.

He says, we don't want that. "They would indeed consider such a rupture as among the greatest calamities which could befall them, but not the greatest. There is one greater: submission to a government of unlimited powers." We must remember folks that God's law applies to all of his institutions as well as individuals. "Thou shalt not steal" applies to an individual, right? Does that mean as a church we can steal from someone else? No. God's law, "thou shalt not steal," applies to the church. What about the family? Can a family steal? No, it applies to the family. If theft is wrong for an individual, if theft is wrong for a family, if theft is wrong for a church, do you mean to tell me it's alright if the government steals? No! "Thou shalt not steal" applies to governments equally as it applies to anyone else. God's law applies to all. Creatures and creations of God may not and cannot excuse themselves from God's law. Government is equally the creation of God and is therefore bound by God's law.

God's Law Applies to Government

The Ten Commandments, including 'Thou shalt not steal,' apply to civil government as much as to individuals. Government cannot excuse itself from God's law without denying His sovereignty.

To assume that it is not would be to deny God's sovereignty and to state somehow that government was either equal to God or above God, which would become its own God, which is absolute blasphemy. So let's ask the questions. Does the federal government have the right to ignore the Constitution? Does the federal government have the right to usurp authority and demand unconditional obedience? Does the federal government have the right to demand support for that which it has never been covenanted to do in the first place? Does the government have the right to violate, usurp, and destroy the Constitution and then demand payment for its unlawful actions? And the answer to all of those questions is no. It does not have the right, does not have the power.

The Government Owes Us a Republican Form of Government

Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution guarantees a republican form of government. Weaver defines a republic as a system where the people hold sovereign power individually, not as a collective democracy, and government rules according to law.

You see, here's what got me started. In our present day, if the federal government thinks for one instance that you owe them, they are merciless towards you. They will persecute you. They will prosecute you. You will face the loss of property. You will face imprisonment or even death. They will persecute and prosecute and intimidate if they think for one instant that you owe them. But the question is, what about the fact that the federal government owes the states and the people thereof respectively? Will they be as merciless toward themselves? Will they police themselves? Will they arrest themselves? Who will police the police?

Remember what I told you at the beginning of this message? Covenants involve reciprocity. Reciprocity just simply means there are dual obligations, responsibilities, and duties. Now I titled this message, "The Government Owes Me." Do you realize there are certain things the government does indeed owe us? And I can't cover all of them today, but I'm going to cover one point first. The federal government owes us a republican form of government. The fourth section of the fourth article of the Constitution directs that, listen carefully, that the United States shall guarantee to every state in the Union a republican form of government. The form of government is to be guaranteed which supposes a form already established and this is the republican form of government that our forefathers established and therefore the federal government is obligated and duty-bound to protect and to guarantee to every state in the Union. Now there are some things that the federal government may or may not do which I will cover some next week but here's one thing they must do. They must guarantee to every state in the Union a republican form of government.

So the question has to be asked, what is a republican form of government? What is its essence? How do we know whether or not we have a republican form of government? Well, for definition then of republican government, we must consider what it was in 1787 when the Constitution came into play. Certainly we may say that the governments of the 13 original states as they existed at the time of the writing of the Constitution was to be considered a republican form of government. The characteristics that define a republican form of government are usually never discussed, especially by the school teachers, by the political leadership, by the pastors, in fact generally all of those people and about everybody else says that what we have is a democracy, which is absolutely, totally, and completely wrong.

And the interesting thing is this. If we go along and accept the usual rant and nod our head saying, well, yeah, literally what we get is a democracy by default. Why do you think all of our politicians keep telling us that we live in the greatest democracy in the world? Because they don't want you to know that we really do not have a democracy according to the Constitution. We have a republican form of government. Now, if you will look up Black's Law Dictionary, the word "republican government," you won't necessarily find that in the seventh edition, but you will find the word "republic." Here's what Black's Law Dictionary says concerning republic. Listen carefully. There is a huge distinction. "Republic, a system of government in which the people hold sovereign power and elect representatives who execute or exercise that power. It contrasts, on the one hand, with a pure democracy in which the people or community as an organized whole wield the sovereign power of government, and on the other with the rule of one person, such as a king or emperor, czar, or sultan." Now, listen to what he just said. What is a republic? He distinguished between a republic, a democracy, and a monarchy. He said a republic is a system of government in which the people hold sovereign power. What does that mean?

It means each of us, individually, would be construed as sovereigns. How does that differ from a democracy? Listen, it contrasts on the one hand with a pure democracy in which the people or community as an organized whole wield sovereign power. So here's the difference. If we took everyone in this room and we said, we're a democracy, we're one organized whole, we have the power. That means just the whole, the conglomerate. The republic says no, it's not the whole, it's not the conglomerate, it's each individual. So in a republic, it is the people who are the sovereigns, it is the people who hold the power, it is contrasted with a democracy. There's a vast difference between a republic and a democracy.

Not Thomas Jefferson, but James Madison, who by the way was called the father of the Constitution because he was secretary of the Constitutional Convention, James Madison in Federalist Papers number 10 said this, "Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention, have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." Do you think the founding fathers gave us a democracy when James Madison says, man, those are wicked, wretched things. We don't want that. To show you how far we have gone, here is a quote from the United States Army training manual in 1928. "Democracy. A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting of any form of direct expression results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic, negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences, results in demagoguism, license, agitation, discontent, and anarchy." That was in 1928. Folks back then understood the difference between a republic and a democracy. A republic, in a governmental sense, is a government in which the sovereignty is held by the people, granted only to their rulers, and then the rulers rule according to law. The Declaration of Independence states that the purpose of government is to protect the rights of the people and that all just power that any government holds is from the consent of the governed. What? You mean they are supposed to have our consent before they do anything?

Oh, yes. Oh, yes. That's what the Declaration says. So let me put it together for you like this. The first element in a republican form of government is that the power belongs to the people and it is derived from the people. And the second element of a republic is that government itself operates within and under and control of the law. In other words, in a republic, the people are the masters, and the government is the servant, and the government is bound by the contract, by the law, by the Constitution. If you would like to know what the Constitution is, here's what it really is. The Constitution is a grant from we the people to form a government. The government that the Constitution authorizes is a limited government operating only on the granted authority and power that we the people give it.

The Constitution Controls the Government, Not the People

The Constitution is a grant of authority from the people to the government, limiting its power. When the government violates the covenant, the people are not obligated to obey. The American Revolution was based on this principle of covenant violation.

In every sense it meets the earlier historical definition of republic. The Constitution is the grant of authority for the government. Let me spell this out. The Constitution then is to be the law of the people for the government. The Constitution is to control the government, not the people. It is a system of government which recognizes that each individual is endowed by his Creator with certain inalienable rights. And in a republic, the government protects those rights, guarantees those rights. Why? Because it rules according to law.

If you understand what a constitutional republic implies and what it is, you would never ever believe Nancy Pelosi when she says, "We have to pass this bill to see what's in it." You would never ever believe Representative Pete Stark when he said that the government can do whatever it pleases. And you would never believe Representative Alcee Hastings from Florida who said, "There are no rules." "We make them up as we go along." Here's my question, folks. Since the Constitution is to be our grant of authority to the federal government to rule constitutionally, if we are not being ruled by the Constitution, by what are we being ruled? If we're not being ruled by the law of the land, then we must be being ruled by the whims and desires and edicts and schemes of the elite politicians. There is no standard. Remember I told you that government is covenantal in nature? Remember I told you that covenants involve reciprocity? Remember I told you that reciprocity means that there's mutual obligations, mutual duties? Let me make a point without really developing it. I don't care if you consider biblical law, common law, statutory law, the principle is the same.

Whenever you have a covenant, whenever you have a contract, covenant contracts all the same, if one party violates the covenant, the other party is loose from obedience. You understand that? If Henry agrees to build me a garage for a certain amount of money, and he only builds a third of it, and never finishes it, and then demands all of his money, am I obligated to pay him? No! We had a written contract. We had a written covenant. If my wife runs off with another man and leaves me and never comes back, am I obligated to keep supporting her? No.

If we have made an agreement with the federal government, this is how we want to be ruled, and the federal government refuses to rule that way, do we owe any submission to their usurped authority and tyrannical totalitarian acts? No. Let me point something out. I don't know if you've thought about this or not. I hope you have. But you realize this is the principle upon which our country was founded. Did you know that?

Because in 1776, when we had a war for independence against George III of Britain, in 1774, Fairfax County, Virginia, George Mason, George Washington, and Charles Broadwater met, and those men, and probably some others, drew up what are known as the Fairfax Resolves, 24 Resolves. And they sent them to George III, and they basically said this, "George, we're willing to be your subjects, but we're not going to be your slaves." You have violated the covenant that we've had. You've violated the covenant with each one of the colonies. Each one of the colonies was an independent colony. There were covenants, there were contracts, there were constitutions with each of the colonies. And they were begging and they were pleading with George III to keep his end of the bargain, of the covenant. They were saying, we want to be your subjects, but we're not going to be your slaves.

And you know what the Declaration of Independence is? The Declaration of Independence is a listing of all the violations of George III against the Constitution and the covenant that the colonists had. And when he failed to keep his end of the contract, the American colonists said, "No more. We're seceding. We're leaving England and George III." And then when George III sent his troops over to force submission, our founding fathers fought. But all of this came about because government failed to keep its end of the Constitution. Covenants involve reciprocity and one thing the government does indeed owe us is a republican form of government whereby we the people are independent and free and sovereign and they live and rule and work by the law that we give them. Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, we ask for your blessing, for your help. We pray that you would indeed teach us, build us up in the most holy faith, and help us to see, Lord, not only the importance of the Word of God, but also the importance of knowing the Constitution, if we are to be the ones that determine whether or not something is constitutional. Give us grace, Lord, to serve Thee acceptably, with reverence and godly fear. In Thy name we pray. Amen.

Study Guide

Major Themes

Limited Government Under God's Law

Summary: Civil government is ordained by God but must operate within the bounds of His law. Any government that exceeds those bounds or becomes tyrannical is not ordained by God.

Evidence: Weaver states: 'God has not ordained any other form of government. Totalitarian governments are not God's ordination since they are contrary to God and contrary to his word.'

Covenantal Reciprocity

Summary: All governments are covenantal in nature, involving mutual obligations. If one party violates the covenant, the other is released from obedience.

Evidence: Weaver explains: 'Covenants involve reciprocity... if one party violates the covenant, the other party is loose from obedience.'

The Constitution as a Grant of Limited Power

Summary: The U.S. Constitution is a grant from the people to the federal government, delegating only specific, limited powers. All other powers are reserved to the states or the people.

Evidence: Weaver reads Article 10: 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively or to the people.'

Unconstitutional Laws Are Void

Summary: Laws that exceed constitutional authority are null and void from the beginning, impose no duties, and no one is bound to obey them.

Evidence: Weaver quotes American Jurisprudence: 'An unconstitutional law... is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment.'

The People as Ultimate Interpreters of the Constitution

Summary: The founding fathers intended the people, not the Supreme Court, to be the final arbiters of constitutional questions.

Evidence: Weaver quotes Thomas Jefferson: 'To consider the judges of the Superior or the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbitrators... would be a dangerous doctrine which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.'

Republic vs. Democracy

Summary: The U.S. is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. In a republic, the people are sovereign individuals; in a democracy, the collective majority rules, often leading to mob rule.

Evidence: Weaver cites Black's Law Dictionary and James Madison to distinguish a republic from a democracy, noting Madison called democracies 'spectacles of turbulence and contention.'

Government as Servant, Not Master

Summary: The federal government was created by the states to serve them, not to rule over them. When it usurps power, it becomes illegitimate.

Evidence: Weaver uses the parable of the 13 wealthy men and their servant to illustrate how the federal government has stolen power from the states.

The Government Owes a Republican Form of Government

Summary: Article IV, Section 4 obligates the federal government to guarantee a republican form of government to every state, which means rule by law with the people as sovereigns.

Evidence: Weaver states: 'The federal government owes us a republican form of government... the United States shall guarantee to every state in the Union a republican form of government.'

Key Arguments

God ordained civil government to be His servant, exactor of righteousness, and public worship.

Summary: Romans 13 shows that civil rulers are to be God's deacons, executing His righteousness, and their rule is a form of public worship when done according to His law.

Evidence: Weaver explains the Greek words diakonos, ekdikos, and leitourgos in Romans 13:4-6 to support this threefold purpose.

The federal government was created by the states with limited, delegated powers.

Summary: The states existed before the federal government and created it through the Constitution, granting only specific powers while retaining the rest.

Evidence: Weaver states: 'The federal government as you and I know it was created by the states and set up to be the servants of the states.'

Covenants involve reciprocity; violation by one party releases the other.

Summary: Biblical and historical examples show that when a covenant is broken, the injured party is no longer bound. This applies to the constitutional covenant between the people and the federal government.

Evidence: Weaver cites Judges 2:20, 2 Kings 11:17, and 1 Samuel 11:1, then applies the principle to the Constitution.

Unconstitutional laws are void ab initio and need not be obeyed.

Summary: Legal authorities affirm that laws exceeding constitutional authority are null from the start, impose no duties, and no one is bound to obey them.

Evidence: Weaver quotes multiple passages from American Jurisprudence, including: 'No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.'

The Supreme Court is not the final interpreter of the Constitution; the people are.

Summary: Founding fathers like Jefferson and Taylor argued that allowing the Supreme Court to be the ultimate arbiter leads to oligarchy. The people and states retain interpretive authority.

Evidence: Weaver quotes Jefferson: 'I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves.'

God's law, including the prohibition against theft, applies to civil government.

Summary: If theft is wrong for individuals, families, and churches, it is also wrong for government. Government cannot exempt itself from God's moral law.

Evidence: Weaver argues: 'Thou shalt not steal applies to governments equally as it applies to anyone else.'

The U.S. is a republic, not a democracy, and the distinction is crucial.

Summary: In a republic, the people are sovereign individuals; in a democracy, the majority rules as a collective, often trampling rights. The Constitution establishes a republic.

Evidence: Weaver cites Black's Law Dictionary and James Madison's Federalist No. 10 to contrast the two forms.

When government violates the Constitution, the people are not obligated to submit.

Summary: Just as the American colonists declared independence when George III broke the covenant, so today if the federal government exceeds its constitutional bounds, obedience is not owed.

Evidence: Weaver states: 'If we have made an agreement with the federal government... and the federal government refuses to rule that way, do we owe any submission...? No.'

Scripture References

Romans 13:8

Context: Weaver reads the verse as a starting point: 'Owe no man anything but to love one another...'

Romans 13:3-4

Context: Weaver reads these verses to show that rulers are not a terror to good works but to evil, and are God's ministers for good.

Romans 13:6

Context: Weaver reads this verse to show that rulers are God's ministers attending continually, and uses the Greek word leitourgos to explain public worship.

Psalm 94:20-21

Context: Weaver reads these verses to show that a throne of iniquity (wicked government) has no fellowship with God when it frames mischief by law.

Romans 13:4

Context: Weaver expounds the Greek words diakonos and ekdikos to explain the civil ruler as God's servant and exactor of righteousness.

Judges 2:20

Context: Weaver cites this verse to show God's covenant with Israel involved reciprocal obligations: obedience brought blessing, disobedience brought cursing.

2 Kings 11:17

Context: Weaver reads this verse to illustrate a covenant between the Lord, the king, and the people, and a separate covenant between the king and the people.

1 Samuel 11:1

Context: Weaver uses this verse to show a covenant between Nahash and the men of Jabesh Gilead involving reciprocity: 'Make a covenant with us and we will serve thee.'

Proverbs 19:10

Context: Weaver quotes this verse to show it is not fitting for a servant to rule over princes.

Proverbs 30:21-22

Context: Weaver reads these verses to show that the earth is disquieted when a servant reigns, applying it to the federal government ruling over the states.

Historical References

Margaret Thatcher

Context: Weaver quotes Thatcher: 'Socialism is a wonderful thing until you run out of other people's money.'

Food Stamp Program (began circa 1967)

Context: Weaver mentions the food stamp program's estimated initial cost of 50 million dollars and its massive growth.

Articles of Confederation

Context: Weaver notes that the Constitutional Convention originally met to rework the Articles of Confederation but produced the Constitution instead.

Article 6, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution

Context: Weaver reads this clause establishing the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

Articles 9 and 10 of the U.S. Constitution (Bill of Rights)

Context: Weaver reads these articles to show that rights not enumerated are retained by the people, and powers not delegated are reserved to the states or people.

Thomas Jefferson

Context: Weaver quotes Jefferson on the danger of considering the Supreme Court as ultimate arbiters of constitutional questions, and on the people as the safe depository of power.

John Taylor of Caroline (1753-1824)

Context: Weaver quotes Taylor: 'It would be evidently absurd that the creature Congress should exclusively construe the instrument of its own existence, the Constitution.'

Pennsylvania Legislature Resolution on Alien and Sedition Acts

Context: Weaver quotes the resolution stating that the general government was not constituted the exclusive or final judge of its powers.

Thomas Jefferson's 'Solemn Declaration and Protest' (1825)

Context: Weaver quotes Jefferson's closing paragraph, emphasizing that submission to a government of unlimited powers is a greater calamity than rupture between states.

James Madison, Federalist No. 10

Context: Weaver quotes Madison's description of democracies as 'spectacles of turbulence and contention' incompatible with personal security or property rights.

Important Quotes

Socialism is a wonderful thing until you run out of other people's money.

Significance: Attributed to Margaret Thatcher, this quote encapsulates the lecture's theme that government handouts are not free but come at the expense of others.

God has not ordained any other form of government. Totalitarian governments are not God's ordination since they are contrary to God and contrary to his word.

Significance: Establishes the biblical basis for limited government and rejects the idea that all governments are ordained by God regardless of their character.

The federal government as you and I know it was created by the states and set up to be the servants of the states.

Significance: Key historical claim that the federal government is subordinate to the states, not the other way around.

An unconstitutional law and legal contemplation is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.

Significance: Quoted from American Jurisprudence, this supports the argument that unconstitutional laws are void and need not be obeyed.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

Significance: Direct legal authority cited to reinforce the duty of the people to disregard unconstitutional acts.

To consider the judges of the Superior or the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbitrators or arbiters of constitutional questions would be a dangerous doctrine which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.

Significance: Thomas Jefferson's warning against judicial supremacy, used to argue that the people are the final interpreters of the Constitution.

It would be evidently absurd that the creature Congress should exclusively construe the instrument of its own existence, the Constitution.

Significance: John Taylor's statement that the federal government cannot be the sole interpreter of the document that created it.

Submission to a government of unlimited powers.

Significance: Jefferson's phrase identifying the greatest calamity, used to emphasize the danger of allowing government to exceed constitutional bounds.

Discussion Questions

What does it mean that civil government is to be God's 'deacon' or servant, and how should that shape our expectations of government today?

Context: Weaver explains the Greek word diakonos in Romans 13:4, emphasizing that government is to serve God's purposes, not its own.

How does the concept of covenantal reciprocity apply to our relationship with the federal government under the Constitution?

Context: Weaver argues that the Constitution is a covenant with mutual obligations; if the government violates it, the people are released from obedience.

In what ways has the federal government exceeded its delegated powers, and what should be the response of the states and the people?

Context: Weaver describes the federal government as a servant that has usurped authority, and cites Proverbs to condemn servants ruling over princes.

Why did the founding fathers reject democracy in favor of a republic, and what are the practical differences between the two?

Context: Weaver contrasts republic and democracy using Black's Law Dictionary and James Madison's Federalist No. 10.

Who should have the final say in interpreting the Constitution, and what are the dangers of allowing the Supreme Court to be the ultimate arbiter?

Context: Weaver quotes Jefferson and Taylor to argue that the people and states, not the judiciary, are the proper interpreters.

How does the principle 'thou shalt not steal' apply to civil government, and what are some modern examples of governmental theft?

Context: Weaver argues that God's moral law applies to all institutions, including government, and that unconstitutional takings are theft.

What does it mean for the federal government to 'guarantee a republican form of government' to the states, and is that guarantee being upheld today?

Context: Weaver cites Article IV, Section 4 and defines a republic as government by law with the people as sovereigns.

How does the American Revolution serve as a precedent for resisting unconstitutional government today?

Context: Weaver draws a parallel between George III's violation of colonial covenants and modern federal overreach.

Applications

Know the Constitution and God's Law

Summary: Believers must study both Scripture and the Constitution to discern when government oversteps its bounds, because the people are the ultimate interpreters.

Evidence: Weaver states: '...the importance of knowing the Constitution, if we are to be the ones that determine whether or not something is constitutional.'

Withhold Obedience from Unconstitutional Acts

Summary: Since unconstitutional laws are void and no one is bound to obey them, Christians should not feel obligated to comply with governmental edicts that exceed constitutional authority.

Evidence: Weaver quotes: 'No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.'

Reject the Entitlement Mentality

Summary: Christians should not adopt the world's view that the government owes them a living, recognizing that all government benefits come at the expense of others.

Evidence: Weaver warns: 'Those who think in terms of the welfare state fail to realize that whatever the government gives to them it must take from someone else.'

Hold Government Accountable as a Servant

Summary: Since the federal government was created to serve the states and the people, citizens must insist that it remain within its delegated powers and not usurp authority.

Evidence: Weaver uses the parable of the servant who became master to illustrate the need to enforce the original covenant.

Understand the Republic vs. Democracy Distinction

Summary: Christians should educate themselves and others on the difference between a republic and a democracy, and resist the push toward majoritarian mob rule.

Evidence: Weaver emphasizes: 'We have a republican form of government... it is contrasted with a democracy.'

Apply God's Law to All Spheres

Summary: Recognize that God's moral law, including the Ten Commandments, applies to civil government just as it does to individuals, families, and churches.

Evidence: Weaver argues: 'Thou shalt not steal applies to governments equally as it applies to anyone else.'

Learn from Historical Precedents

Summary: Study the founding fathers' writings and the principles of the American Revolution to understand the proper response to governmental tyranny.

Evidence: Weaver references the Fairfax Resolves and the Declaration of Independence as models of covenant enforcement.

Pray for Grace to Serve God Acceptably

Summary: Weaver closes with a prayer for God's help to serve Him with reverence and godly fear, implying that faithful citizenship is part of that service.

Evidence: Weaver prays: 'Give us grace, Lord, to serve Thee acceptably, with reverence and godly fear.'

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | clean_readable_transcript | 2026-06-05T15:51:45Z

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | weaver_study | 2026-06-06T05:55:18Z

Clean Transcript

The Government Owes Me! Part 1 of 2

Clean readable transcript. This view follows the Commentary.net cleaned segment text while preserving timestamps for audio follow-along.

The interesting thing is about a month or so ago someone made a statement to me and I began thinking about that statement and so I came up with two messages. So this is going to be part one and I trust that you will be here next Sunday to hear part two—all except for Shirley. We'll excuse her. The title of the message is, "The Government Owes Me." Ah, listen.
#1 | 0:16 to 0:52 | cleaned
Look in Romans chapter 13 verse 8. Look what the scripture says, "Owe no man anything but to love one another, for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law." How many of you have heard or at least have heard someone imply that the government owes me? All of us. The truth of the matter is that we have sired a generation of people who no longer wish to work, or to think for themselves, or to work for themselves, or be responsible for themselves. And certainly in our age of welfare, food stamps, WIC, free meat, free cheese, free milk, free dental and medical coverage, Medicare, Medicaid, clunker programs, Head Start, governmental housing, and governmental schools, we can understand why people think certainly the government owes them. Is it any wonder that they think such?
#2 | 0:52 to 1:51 | cleaned
I just read an article the other day when the food stamp program began, I think it was in 1967, something like that. They estimated there might be a cost of 50 million bucks, you know, something. And of course, now it's probably a trillion because so many people are now on food stamps. Those who think in terms of the welfare state fail to realize that whatever the government gives to them it must take from someone else. There's no such thing as a free lunch—someone pays. There's no such thing as free health care—someone pays. It was Margaret Thatcher of England who said socialism is a wonderful thing until you run out of other people's money.
#3 | 1:51 to 2:37 | cleaned
Now, let me state very clearly today what I'm going to be teaching and showing you from the scripture. As Christians, we do owe our form of civil government certain things. However, that which is owed to them is qualified, limited, bounded, and controlled, first of all, by the word of God, and secondly, by the Constitution. The federal government which has been established by the people of the states owes the states and the people thereof and that debt is also limited, bounded, and controlled not only by the Word of God but also by the Constitution. It is a fact that we as Christians indeed have a debt to a biblical and godly government. God has ordained His government.
#4 | 2:39 to 3:35 | cleaned
He did not ordain a socialistic, Marxist, communistic, tyrannical, or despotic, or totalitarian government. However, he did ordain his government and that government which he ordained is for our benefit.
#5 | 3:36 to 3:53 | cleaned
Now it is a fact of life that you cannot exist and you cannot live without government. You cannot live without self-government, family government, church government, state government, national government—you have to have government. Well, what kind of government did God ordain? First of all, let me tell you, I'm not going to be giving you a full exposition of Romans chapter 13. If you want to understand Romans 13, read my book, The Christian Civil Government. But I do want to point out certain things just by way of reference and by way of stirring up your memory. I want you to look in Romans chapter 13 verse 3 and 4. Here's what the Bible says, Romans 13 verse 3, "For rulers," now we're talking about civil rulers particularly, "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil."
#6 | 3:53 to 4:46 | cleaned
"Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same. For he," the civil ruler, "is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid. For he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is the minister of God, a revenger, to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."
#7 | 4:47 to 5:07 | cleaned
Now skip down to verse six, he says, "For this cause pay you tribute also for they are God's ministers attending continually upon this very thing." Now, obviously, rulers that are ordained of God are not a terror to good works. Good works are determined by God. Good works are those works which are in conformity to his word and his will. When government then becomes an enemy to good works, it becomes an enemy to truth and righteousness and it also becomes an enemy of God. So God ordained civil government to punish the wicked and to promote the righteous. So government that God has ordained is not an enemy to anything that is biblical and right. I want you to turn in your Bibles, hold Romans 13, turn in your Bibles very quickly to Psalm 94, and let's begin reading there with verse 20. Psalm 94 and verse 20. And let me point out the fact, once again very clearly from Scripture, that when government becomes anything else other than what God has ordained, it becomes the enemy of God.
#8 | 5:07 to 6:31 | cleaned
Notice in Psalm 94 verse 20, here's what the Bible says. "Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee which frameth mischief by law? They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous and condemn the innocent blood." Now I've pointed this verse out to you numerous times, but once again, "shall the throne," so a throne then speaks of government. "Throne of iniquity," that is a wicked civil government, "shall the throne of iniquity," that is shall a wicked civil government have fellowship with thee, that is with God, when that wicked civil government frames or makes mischief or sin legal. And then the next verse explains, because it says "they," that is the wicked civil rulers, "they gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous and condemn the innocent blood." So wicked thrones or wicked rulers have no fellowship with God when they fight against Him, trample His law under their feet, and persecute and condemn the innocent.
#9 | 6:31 to 7:36 | cleaned
Now if you'll go back to Romans chapter 13, and look if you would please at verse 4, just by way of stirring up your memory. Verse 4, the Bible says concerning the civil ruler, "for he is the minister of God to thee for good." First of all, the word "minister" there is the Greek word diakonos. It is where we get our English word "deacon" from. We talk about the diakonate, that is the deacons. And the word "deacon" literally means a servant. So let's ask, according to verse four, why did God ordain civil government? First and foremost, God ordained civil government to be his deacon, to be his servant. He did not ordain civil government to be his enemy or his rival. He ordained it to be his servant. Secondly, if you look in verse 4, "For he is the minister of God to thee for good, but if thou do evil, be afraid. For he beareth not the sword in vain, for he is the minister of God," same word, deacon, "a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."
#10 | 7:37 to 8:51 | cleaned
Now the word "revenger" is the word ekdikos. Dikios is the word for righteousness. Ek is a preposition which means to draw out of. So actually the word "revenger" there literally means an exactor of righteousness. So why did God ordain civil government? First of all to be his servants, secondly to be his exactor of righteousness.
#11 | 8:51 to 9:16 | cleaned
Now let me point something out. Where do you find righteousness? Only God and his law are righteous. So righteousness is that which is in conformity to God's law. Justice is only justice when it is in conformity to the law of God. Righteousness is found in God's law. God ordained the civil ruler to exact his righteousness. Listen carefully. God did not ordain government. God did not ordain a civil ruler to be a law unto himself or to determine for himself what is right or what is wrong. God has decreed that which is right and God has decreed that which is wrong. And He set the civil ruler up and civil government up to exact His righteousness.
#12 | 9:16 to 10:17 | cleaned
Thirdly, if you'll skip down to verse six, he says, "for this cause pay you tribute also for they are God's ministers attending continually upon this very thing." Now the word "ministers" there is a little different from the word used in verse four. This time, the Greek word is the word leitourgos. It is where we derive our English word "liturgy." And a liturgy is a public form of worship. We went through a liturgy this morning. We opened in prayer. We read the scripture. That is a liturgy. So a liturgy then is a public form of worship.
#13 | 10:17 to 10:58 | cleaned
Therefore, here is the government that God has ordained. God has ordained a government to be his servant, to be his exactor of righteousness, and to be his public worship. And when a government therefore obeys God, applies his law, and fulfills his righteousness, it becomes a public form of worship. The civil government that God has ordained is one that protects the righteous, punishes the wicked, obeys his law, and publicly worships him.
#14 | 10:59 to 11:35 | cleaned
Let me state this emphatically. God has not ordained any other form of government. Totalitarian governments are not God's ordination since they are contrary to God and contrary to his word. God's law applies to civil rulers and to governments. There are none who are exempt from God's law. Now remember this. God has ordained only three institutions. He ordained the family, which is a ministry of education. The church, which is a ministry of grace, and civil government, which is a ministry of justice. Now watch: just as the family is obligated to be Christian and obey God, the church is obligated to be Christian and obey God, and the civil government is obligated to be Christian and obey God. Why? Because all three are his institutions. He created them, He ordained them, and each institution is answerable and accountable and responsible to Him. Okay? Now, listen carefully.
#15 | 11:35 to 12:53 | cleaned
Our founding fathers gave us that which we call a constitutional republic. There are some who understand that when the Constitutional Convention met, when they met originally and initially, they went there to rewrite or rework what were known as the Articles of Confederation. They did not do that. They came out with the Constitution. Now, there are people who will argue and say, well, the Constitution should have never been brought forth. They went there to rework the Articles of Confederation.
#16 | 12:53 to 13:38 | cleaned
Regardless of whether or not that is right or wrong, I'm not arguing any of that. The point I'm trying to make is this. The Constitution is that which we have today. And that is what we are dealing with at this particular point. Let me read to you Article 6, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution. I want you to listen to it. "This Constitution and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States." Let me just stop right there. What is the authority of the United States? The Constitution. Okay? "So this Constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and judges in every state shall be bound thereby anything in the Constitution or laws of any state of the country to the contrary notwithstanding."
#17 | 13:38 to 14:47 | cleaned
Now, what did Article 6, paragraph 2 say? It said, for our form of government, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Well, as Christians, we understand that the Constitution would be the supreme law after and under the law of God. The law of God is first and foremost and paramount.
#18 | 14:48 to 15:09 | cleaned
Now, the reason I quoted that and the reason I'm telling you this is we have forgotten a simple fact. We have forgotten as a people that our Constitution is a covenantal document. I'll explain that momentarily. The federal government as you and I know it was created by the states and set up to be the servants of the states. The states existed prior to the federal government and without the states, the federal government would not have come into existence. Do you understand that? There were 13 original colonies or states and when George III made peace, he made peace with 13 independent, free, and sovereign states. So it's the states that came together and created the federal government. And the states then, when they did that, agreed to give up certain delegated powers to the federal government, and the rest, residue, and remainder of their powers, they kept for themselves.
#19 | 15:10 to 16:29 | cleaned
Let me just read Articles 9 and 10. I will comment more on these next week, but listen carefully. Here's Article 9, "The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." You know, I hear people talk about the Bill of Rights and the Bill of Rights is indeed important. But do you understand we have far more rights than those that are just listed in the Bill of Rights? That's what Article 9 is all about. Article 10 says this, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively or to the people." So the only power then that was delegated to the federal government was a limited power and everything else was reserved to the states or the people.
#20 | 16:30 to 17:27 | cleaned
Now, governments are usually today in our understanding, wicked entities. Because governments are not usually biblical governments, but practically any and all government is covenantal in nature. My wife and I have a covenant—that's family government, children involved. That's family government. Our church is involved in a covenant. You cannot have government of any kind without a covenant.
#21 | 17:28 to 18:08 | cleaned
Now I said earlier that we have forgotten that our Constitution is a covenantal document. Listen carefully. Covenants involve reciprocity. Reciprocity simply means that there exists reciprocal duties, obligations, and responsibilities. Reciprocity involves both parties, both sides. Both sides have responsibilities, duties, and obligations one to the other. It's the idea of "I will do this for you if you will do this for me." And I don't care where you turn in your Bible, you're going to find that covenants between God and man, covenants between man and man, all involve reciprocity. For instance, look in your Bibles, hold Romans 13, but turn to the book of Judges chapter 2, and look if you would please at verse 20. Judges chapter 2 and verse 20. Judges 2 verse 20. Look what God says. Judges 2 verse 20, "And the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel." Why?
#22 | 18:10 to 19:38 | cleaned
And he said, "Because that this people have transgressed my covenant, which I commanded their fathers, and have not hearkened unto my voice." Did God have a covenant with Israel? Yes. Were there reciprocal duties and obligations? Yes. What did God say? God said, "If you obey me, I'll bless you." So as long as they obeyed, God would have been obligated to bless. But God also said, "If you disobey me," what? "I'll curse you." So when they disobeyed, God was obligated to curse them, and he did. There's reciprocal obligations. That is true.
#23 | 19:39 to 20:16 | cleaned
Look in 2 Kings 11. 2 Kings 11. And notice what Jehoiada says in verse 17. 2 Kings 11.
#24 | 20:16 to 20:20 | cleaned
Verse 17, 2 Kings 11 verse 17. "And Jehoiada made a covenant between the Lord and the king and the people." That's one covenant "that they should be the Lord's people between the king and also on the people." Now watch this. Jehoiada made a covenant between the Lord and the king and the people. Now in this covenant, the king or the civil ruler agreed to be God's civil ruler. And the people agreed to be God's people. But then there was a second covenant between the king also and the people. That is, the king then agreed to rule faithfully, and the people agreed to obey him as long as he did. So, here's reciprocity.
#25 | 20:30 to 21:17 | cleaned
But there are covenants between God and men, and covenants between man and man. Now if you look in 1 Samuel 11 and verse 1, 1 Samuel chapter 11 and verse 1, just showing you these covenants always have reciprocity. 1 Samuel chapter 11 in verse 1, "Then Nahash the Ammonite came up and encamped against Jabesh Gilead and all the men of Jabesh said unto Nahash, Make a covenant with us and we will serve thee." Now Nahash had come up to kill these people basically. He came up to conquer them. And they said, look, we don't want to fight because very obviously you're going to win and we don't want to die. So you make a covenant with us and we'll serve you. So here is reciprocity. All covenants involve reciprocity. All covenants, all contracts have limitations.
#26 | 21:17 to 22:23 | cleaned
When you think of the Constitution of the United States, think of it like this. The states have a duty to support the federal government in the federal government's limited delegated powers that were conferred upon them by the states. The states do not have the duty and do not have the obligation or responsibility to support the federal government in those areas that were never specifically given to the federal government. Now, since the federal government was created by the states, it owes the states obedience in the delegated areas of its power. Moreover, it owes the states submission in that it should not steal, usurp, or tyrannically grab for power that was never given to it to begin with. And when it does usurp and steal and grab power that was never delegated to it, it becomes an illegal, illegitimate, and unlawful government. The federal government does not have the authority to exceed the Constitution.
#27 | 22:24 to 23:50 | cleaned
You say, but it doesn't. There's a difference between authority and power. You know, I may not have the authority to come up and steal Henry's money, but if I throw a .357 Magnum in his face, I've got the power to steal his money. It's theft. There's a big difference between authority and power. So the federal government does not have the authority to exceed the Constitution. The Constitution is referred to as a limited powers document or an express powers document. And all it means is this, that the governmental powers of the federal government are those that are limited to the Constitution or those that are expressed in the Constitution. If it is over and above and beyond the Constitution, they don't have that power. And whatever they do that is over and above and beyond is null and void ab initio. Now, the courts have consistently ruled that any unconstitutional law is null and void ab initio. I'll explain that. The term "void ab initio" means to be treated as invalid from the outset. Ab initio is a Latin phrase that is used as a qualifier.
#28 | 23:53 to 25:26 | cleaned
For instance, in any jurisdiction, if you force me to sign a contract, I'm signing it under duress. And that contract is null and void from the very beginning, even though I signed it. Here's what Black's Law Dictionary says concerning void. Listen carefully. "Void. Null. Ineffectual. Nugatory. Having no legal force or binding effect. Unable in law to support the purpose for which it was intended."
#29 | 25:26 to 26:03 | cleaned
Now I want to read to you several statements that you can find in 16 Am. Jur. American jurisprudence. I want you to listen carefully. "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it."
#30 | 26:05 to 26:41 | cleaned
Now let me just stop there. This is very important. So if Congress passes a law that is unconstitutional, American jurisprudence says that that law is null and void since the beginning, time it was enacted. You do not have to wait for a court to come along and say, this is unconstitutional. Now, wait a minute. Back up. Stop and think. If a law is null and void, ab initio, from the beginning, if it is unconstitutional, and it requires no one to obey it, how do you know it's unconstitutional from the beginning?
#31 | 26:42 to 27:33 | cleaned
Who then is the determiner and the decider of what is constitutional and what is not constitutional? You're going to find it comes down to we the people. I'm just showing you how this is throughout, throughout our form of law. Here's another quote. "An unconstitutional law and legal contemplation is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as if it would be had the statute not been enacted." What? An unconstitutional law and legal contemplation is inoperative as if it had never been passed. How about this one? "Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it." That's American jurisprudence. So an unconstitutional law confers no power or authority upon anyone, it affords no protection, and it justifies no acts performed under that void statute. Here's another one. "A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one."
#32 | 27:36 to 29:19 | cleaned
"An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby." And then I love this quote, 16 American Jurisprudence, 2nd edition, section 256, "No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
#33 | 29:19 to 29:48 | cleaned
Now if all this is true, and it is true, what has happened in America today? Why have we lost our freedoms? Why are we so wrapped up in bureaucracy and totalitarianism and tyranny? How did we lose our freedoms? Well, let me give you an illustration. Let's suppose that there were 13 very wealthy men who wanted a servant to do what either they could not do or were unwilling to do. So instead of hiring 13 different servants, these 13 men pooled their resources together and hired one servant who was to be obedient, loyal, submissive, and efficient. And these 13 very wealthy men entered into a covenant or a contract with this one servant and spelled out all of his duties and told him what he could do, what he could not do.
#34 | 29:54 to 31:13 | cleaned
There was no question about it. It was spelled out. But they also gave him authority to have three assistants.
#35 | 31:13 to 31:21 | cleaned
Now, over a period of years, the servant realized how easy it would be to steal from his masters and run over them. He realized he could do it slowly and steadily. He also realized how easy it would be not only to control their money, but also to control their lives. He realized he could do all this by himself. But he could do it much more quickly if he used his three assistants. If he had them on his side, he could take his masters to the cleaners far more effectively and far more efficiently. So working together, the servant and his three assistants stole everything the masters had so that the servants became the masters of the masters. And the masters basically became the servants. It was done slowly, premeditatedly, and deliberately over a long period of time. And the servants got to the place where they had such power and such control that their masters had to submit to them or face dire consequences. And when the masters came up and said, look, here is the original covenant.
#36 | 31:22 to 33:00 | cleaned
Here is the original contract. Here is the original agreement. The servants who had become the master said this, "But that agreement is out of date." And so they stigmatized it and they vilified it. And they said it's nugatory, it's no account because this contract is a living contract. And it no longer means what it meant when we wrote it back then or when you wrote it back then. Now it means what we tell you it means.
#37 | 33:01 to 33:38 | cleaned
You say, what are you talking about, Pastor? Are you out of your mind? No. The federal government and its three assistants, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. And what have they done? They have taken that original contract, that original covenant, and they now tell you that it no longer means what you think it means. It only means what they tell you that it means. And moreover than that, it's a living document. It changes. Their usurped power and usurped authority is derived from the claim that they claim to be the sole interpreters of the covenant and the contract.
#38 | 33:42 to 34:31 | cleaned
The Bible condemns servants ruling over masters. Do you know that? Look in your Bibles to the book of Proverbs chapter 19. Proverbs chapter 19 and look at verse 10. Proverbs 19 and verse 10. Proverbs 19 verse 10. Look what God says. "Delight is not seemly for a fool, much less for a servant to have rule over princes." God says it's not right for a servant to have rule over princes. Skip to Proverbs 30, if you would please. Proverbs 30. And look at verses, beginning there with verse 21. Proverbs 30, verse 21. God says, "For three things the earth is disquieted, and for four which it cannot bear." So here's some things that cause a real uproar in the earth. Verse 22, "For a servant when he reigneth, and a fool when he is filled with meat, for an odious woman when she is married, and a handmaid that is heir to her mistress. There be four things," and he goes on. But notice, "for three things the earth is disquieted, and for four which it cannot bear."
#39 | 34:35 to 35:57 | cleaned
And the first one that is mentioned is "for a servant when he reigneth." So let's ask this question, how does a servant rule over princes? How does a servant reign? The answer is simple. If you allow the servant to interpret his duties and declare the extent or the limit of his authority, then he will claim it all. If I were to ask the average American, not you because you know better, but if I were to ask the average American, if there is a legal issue in this land, who is it that has the final say?
#40 | 35:58 to 36:47 | cleaned
And most Americans would respond, the Supreme Court. It's the Supreme Court. In fact, we look to the Supreme Court for all of the constitutional answers. I want you to listen carefully because what I'm about to show you is not only historical, it is biblical. And I'm going to show you that the Supreme Court was never set up by our founding fathers to be the sole interpreter of the Constitution. In fact, I'm going to show you from our founding fathers who the interpreters of the Constitution really are. Thomas Jefferson said this, I think he would qualify as a founding father, would he not? Thomas Jefferson said this, "To consider the judges of the Superior or the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbitrators or arbiters of constitutional questions would be a dangerous doctrine which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."
#41 | 36:49 to 38:07 | cleaned
"They have with others the same passion for party, for power, and for the privileges of their core. And their power is the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has no single tribunal. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves." Isn't that interesting? Thomas Jefferson said, the Supreme Court is not the ultimate authority. We are. The servant cannot decide the extent of his powers.
#42 | 38:07 to 38:50 | cleaned
The federal government was created by the states. It cannot hold a monopoly on constitutional interpretation. If you allow it to do so, you will be ruled by the discretion of the servant. You lose more and more freedoms as the federal government grabs for more and more power. John Taylor, another founding father from 1753 to 1824, Caroline County, Virginia, was a politician and a writer and he said this, "The states do not hold their constitutional rights by the courtesy of Congress. Congress is the creature of the states and of the people, but neither the state nor the people are the creatures of Congress. It would be evidently absurd that the creature Congress should exclusively construe the instrument of its own existence, the Constitution." Wow.
#43 | 38:51 to 39:57 | cleaned
The legislature of Pennsylvania approved a resolution in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, and here is what the state of Pennsylvania wrote. "The people of the United States by the adoption of the federal constitution established a general government for the special purposes reserving to themselves respectively the rights and authorities not delegated in that instrument to the compact thereby created each state a seated in its character as a state and as a party. The Act of Union thus entered into being to all intents and purposes a treaty between sovereign states. The general government by this treaty was not constituted the exclusive or final judge of the powers it was to exercise. For if it were so to judge, then its judgment and not the Constitution would be the measure of its authority." The Alien and Sedition Acts, I forget the exact date, 1790s. And here, right after the Constitution was written, here the state of Pennsylvania says, the government's not the interpreter of the extent of its powers. You don't let the servant tell you what power and authority he has.
#44 | 40:02 to 41:34 | cleaned
You tell the servant. In 1825, Thomas Jefferson prepared a series of resolutions for the Virginia legislature called the "Solemn Declaration and Protest of the Commonwealth of Virginia on the principles of the Constitution of the United States and on the violation of them." Here is what Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1825. I'm not reading the whole thing, I'm just giving you the closing paragraph. Here's what he wrote. "While the General Assembly thus declares the rights retained by the states, rights which they have never yielded and which this state will never voluntarily yield, they do not mean to raise the banner of disaffection or separation from their sister states co-parties with themselves to this compact," talking about the Constitution.
#45 | 41:34 to 42:40 | cleaned
"They know and value too highly the blessings of their union as to foreign nations and questions arising among themselves to consider every infraction to be met by actual resistance. They respect too affectionately the opinions of those possessing the same rights under the same instrument to make every difference a construction or ground of immediate rupture." Now listen, "They would indeed consider such a rupture among the greatest calamities that could befall them." Stop right there. What did he say? If there's a rupture between the states who are all co-parties to this Constitution, that would be bad.
#46 | 42:41 to 43:23 | cleaned
He says, we don't want that. "They would indeed consider such a rupture as among the greatest calamities which could befall them, but not the greatest. There is one greater: submission to a government of unlimited powers." We must remember folks that God's law applies to all of his institutions as well as individuals. "Thou shalt not steal" applies to an individual, right? Does that mean as a church we can steal from someone else? No. God's law, "thou shalt not steal," applies to the church. What about the family? Can a family steal? No, it applies to the family. If theft is wrong for an individual, if theft is wrong for a family, if theft is wrong for a church, do you mean to tell me it's alright if the government steals? No! "Thou shalt not steal" applies to governments equally as it applies to anyone else. God's law applies to all. Creatures and creations of God may not and cannot excuse themselves from God's law. Government is equally the creation of God and is therefore bound by God's law.
#47 | 43:23 to 44:46 | cleaned
To assume that it is not would be to deny God's sovereignty and to state somehow that government was either equal to God or above God, which would become its own God, which is absolute blasphemy. So let's ask the questions. Does the federal government have the right to ignore the Constitution? Does the federal government have the right to usurp authority and demand unconditional obedience? Does the federal government have the right to demand support for that which it has never been covenanted to do in the first place? Does the government have the right to violate, usurp, and destroy the Constitution and then demand payment for its unlawful actions? And the answer to all of those questions is no. It does not have the right, does not have the power.
#48 | 44:46 to 45:46 | cleaned
You see, here's what got me started. In our present day, if the federal government thinks for one instance that you owe them, they are merciless towards you. They will persecute you. They will prosecute you. You will face the loss of property. You will face imprisonment or even death. They will persecute and prosecute and intimidate if they think for one instant that you owe them. But the question is, what about the fact that the federal government owes the states and the people thereof respectively? Will they be as merciless toward themselves? Will they police themselves? Will they arrest themselves? Who will police the police?
#49 | 45:49 to 46:51 | cleaned
Remember what I told you at the beginning of this message? Covenants involve reciprocity. Reciprocity just simply means there are dual obligations, responsibilities, and duties. Now I titled this message, "The Government Owes Me." Do you realize there are certain things the government does indeed owe us? And I can't cover all of them today, but I'm going to cover one point first. The federal government owes us a republican form of government. The fourth section of the fourth article of the Constitution directs that, listen carefully, that the United States shall guarantee to every state in the Union a republican form of government. The form of government is to be guaranteed which supposes a form already established and this is the republican form of government that our forefathers established and therefore the federal government is obligated and duty-bound to protect and to guarantee to every state in the Union. Now there are some things that the federal government may or may not do which I will cover some next week but here's one thing they must do. They must guarantee to every state in the Union a republican form of government.
#50 | 46:55 to 48:35 | cleaned
So the question has to be asked, what is a republican form of government? What is its essence? How do we know whether or not we have a republican form of government? Well, for definition then of republican government, we must consider what it was in 1787 when the Constitution came into play. Certainly we may say that the governments of the 13 original states as they existed at the time of the writing of the Constitution was to be considered a republican form of government. The characteristics that define a republican form of government are usually never discussed, especially by the school teachers, by the political leadership, by the pastors, in fact generally all of those people and about everybody else says that what we have is a democracy, which is absolutely, totally, and completely wrong.
#51 | 48:35 to 49:36 | cleaned
And the interesting thing is this. If we go along and accept the usual rant and nod our head saying, well, yeah, literally what we get is a democracy by default. Why do you think all of our politicians keep telling us that we live in the greatest democracy in the world? Because they don't want you to know that we really do not have a democracy according to the Constitution.
#52 | 49:37 to 50:04 | cleaned
We have a republican form of government. Now, if you will look up Black's Law Dictionary, the word "republican government," you won't necessarily find that in the seventh edition, but you will find the word "republic." Here's what Black's Law Dictionary says concerning republic. Listen carefully. There is a huge distinction. "Republic, a system of government in which the people hold sovereign power and elect representatives who execute or exercise that power. It contrasts, on the one hand, with a pure democracy in which the people or community as an organized whole wield the sovereign power of government, and on the other with the rule of one person, such as a king or emperor, czar, or sultan." Now, listen to what he just said. What is a republic? He distinguished between a republic, a democracy, and a monarchy. He said a republic is a system of government in which the people hold sovereign power. What does that mean?
#53 | 50:04 to 51:18 | cleaned
It means each of us, individually, would be construed as sovereigns. How does that differ from a democracy? Listen, it contrasts on the one hand with a pure democracy in which the people or community as an organized whole wield sovereign power. So here's the difference. If we took everyone in this room and we said, we're a democracy, we're one organized whole, we have the power. That means just the whole, the conglomerate. The republic says no, it's not the whole, it's not the conglomerate, it's each individual. So in a republic, it is the people who are the sovereigns, it is the people who hold the power, it is contrasted with a democracy. There's a vast difference between a republic and a democracy.
#54 | 51:18 to 52:14 | cleaned
Not Thomas Jefferson, but James Madison, who by the way was called the father of the Constitution because he was secretary of the Constitutional Convention, James Madison in Federalist Papers number 10 said this, "Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention, have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." Do you think the founding fathers gave us a democracy when James Madison says, man, those are wicked, wretched things. We don't want that.
#55 | 52:15 to 52:56 | cleaned
To show you how far we have gone, here is a quote from the United States Army training manual in 1928. "Democracy. A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting of any form of direct expression results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic, negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences, results in demagoguism, license, agitation, discontent, and anarchy." That was in 1928. Folks back then understood the difference between a republic and a democracy. A republic, in a governmental sense, is a government in which the sovereignty is held by the people, granted only to their rulers, and then the rulers rule according to law. The Declaration of Independence states that the purpose of government is to protect the rights of the people and that all just power that any government holds is from the consent of the governed. What? You mean they are supposed to have our consent before they do anything?
#56 | 52:59 to 54:44 | cleaned
Oh, yes. Oh, yes. That's what the Declaration says. So let me put it together for you like this. The first element in a republican form of government is that the power belongs to the people and it is derived from the people. And the second element of a republic is that government itself operates within and under and control of the law. In other words, in a republic, the people are the masters, and the government is the servant, and the government is bound by the contract, by the law, by the Constitution. If you would like to know what the Constitution is, here's what it really is. The Constitution is a grant from we the people to form a government. The government that the Constitution authorizes is a limited government operating only on the granted authority and power that we the people give it.
#57 | 54:44 to 55:48 | cleaned
In every sense it meets the earlier historical definition of republic. The Constitution is the grant of authority for the government. Let me spell this out. The Constitution then is to be the law of the people for the government. The Constitution is to control the government, not the people. It is a system of government which recognizes that each individual is endowed by his Creator with certain inalienable rights. And in a republic, the government protects those rights, guarantees those rights. Why? Because it rules according to law.
#58 | 55:50 to 56:34 | cleaned
If you understand what a constitutional republic implies and what it is, you would never ever believe Nancy Pelosi when she says, "We have to pass this bill to see what's in it." You would never ever believe Representative Pete Stark when he said that the government can do whatever it pleases. And you would never believe Representative Alcee Hastings from Florida who said, "There are no rules."
#59 | 56:36 to 57:20 | cleaned
"We make them up as we go along." Here's my question, folks. Since the Constitution is to be our grant of authority to the federal government to rule constitutionally, if we are not being ruled by the Constitution, by what are we being ruled? If we're not being ruled by the law of the land, then we must be being ruled by the whims and desires and edicts and schemes of the elite politicians. There is no standard. Remember I told you that government is covenantal in nature? Remember I told you that covenants involve reciprocity? Remember I told you that reciprocity means that there's mutual obligations, mutual duties? Let me make a point without really developing it. I don't care if you consider biblical law, common law, statutory law, the principle is the same.
#60 | 57:21 to 58:57 | cleaned
Whenever you have a covenant, whenever you have a contract, covenant contracts all the same, if one party violates the covenant, the other party is loose from obedience. You understand that? If Henry agrees to build me a garage for a certain amount of money, and he only builds a third of it, and never finishes it, and then demands all of his money, am I obligated to pay him? No! We had a written contract. We had a written covenant. If my wife runs off with another man and leaves me and never comes back, am I obligated to keep supporting her? No.
#61 | 58:59 to 59:52 | cleaned
If we have made an agreement with the federal government, this is how we want to be ruled, and the federal government refuses to rule that way, do we owe any submission to their usurped authority and tyrannical totalitarian acts? No. Let me point something out. I don't know if you've thought about this or not. I hope you have. But you realize this is the principle upon which our country was founded. Did you know that?
#62 | 59:56 to 1:00:31 | cleaned
Because in 1776, when we had a war for independence against George III of Britain, in 1774, Fairfax County, Virginia, George Mason, George Washington, and Charles Broadwater met, and those men, and probably some others, drew up what are known as the Fairfax Resolves, 24 Resolves. And they sent them to George III, and they basically said this, "George, we're willing to be your subjects, but we're not going to be your slaves."
#63 | 1:00:34 to 1:01:09 | cleaned
You have violated the covenant that we've had. You've violated the covenant with each one of the colonies. Each one of the colonies was an independent colony. There were covenants, there were contracts, there were constitutions with each of the colonies. And they were begging and they were pleading with George III to keep his end of the bargain, of the covenant. They were saying, we want to be your subjects, but we're not going to be your slaves.
#64 | 1:01:10 to 1:01:36 | cleaned
And you know what the Declaration of Independence is? The Declaration of Independence is a listing of all the violations of George III against the Constitution and the covenant that the colonists had. And when he failed to keep his end of the contract, the American colonists said, "No more. We're seceding. We're leaving England and George III." And then when George III sent his troops over to force submission, our founding fathers fought. But all of this came about because government failed to keep its end of the Constitution.
#65 | 1:01:38 to 1:02:38 | cleaned
Covenants involve reciprocity and one thing the government does indeed owe us is a republican form of government whereby we the people are independent and free and sovereign and they live and rule and work by the law that we give them. Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, we ask for your blessing, for your help. We pray that you would indeed teach us, build us up in the most holy faith, and help us to see, Lord, not only the importance of the Word of God, but also the importance of knowing the Constitution, if we are to be the ones that determine whether or not something is constitutional. Give us grace, Lord, to serve Thee acceptably, with reverence and godly fear. In Thy name we pray. Amen.
#66 | 1:02:39 to 1:03:32 | cleaned

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | clean_readable_transcript | 2026-06-05T15:51:45Z

The Government Owes Me! Part 1 of 2

John Weaver | Freedom Ministries

Pastor John Weaver argues that while Christians owe certain duties to civil government, those duties are qualified by God's law and the U.S. Constitution. He explains that God ordained civil government to be His servant, exactor of righteousness, and public worship, but not tyrannical forms. The federal government was created by the states as a limited, covenantal servant, and the Constitution is a grant of authority from the people. Because covenants involve reciprocity, when the federal government violates the Constitution, it becomes illegitimate, and the people are not obligated to obey its usurped authority. The lecture emphasizes that the government owes the people a republican form of government, not a democracy, and that the people are the ultimate interpreters of the Constitution.

Introduction: The Entitlement Mentality

Weaver introduces the topic by noting how many people believe the government owes them, citing the growth of welfare programs and the idea that government handouts come at someone else's expense.

Scripture Reading — Romans 13:8

"Owe no man anything but to love one another, for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law."

What Christians Owe to Government Is Qualified

God's Ordained Government: Servant, Exactor of Righteousness, Public Worship

Scripture Reading — Romans 13:3-4

"For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil."

Now skip down to verse six, he says,

Scripture Reading — Romans 13:6

"For this cause pay you tribute also for they are God's ministers attending continually upon this very thing."

Notice in Psalm 94 verse 20, here's what the Bible says.

Scripture Reading — Psalm 94:20-21

"Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee which frameth mischief by law? They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous and condemn the innocent blood."

Scripture Reading — Psalm 94:20-21

" that is shall a wicked civil government have fellowship with thee, that is with God, when that wicked civil government frames or makes mischief or sin legal. And then the next verse explains, because it says "

they," that is the wicked civil rulers, "they gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous and condemn the innocent blood.

Scripture Reading — Psalm 94:20-21

" So wicked thrones or wicked rulers have no fellowship with God when they fight against Him, trample His law under their feet, and persecute and condemn the innocent.

Now if you'll go back to Romans chapter 13, and look if you would please at verse 4, just by way of stirring up your memory. Verse 4, the Bible says concerning the civil ruler,

Scripture Reading — Romans 13:4

"for he is the minister of God to thee for good."

The Constitution as a Covenantal Document

Reciprocity in Biblical and Civil Covenants

Using examples from Judges, 2 Kings, and 1 Samuel, Weaver demonstrates that all covenants involve mutual obligations. If one party violates the covenant, the other is released from obedience.

Look in 2 Kings 11. 2 Kings 11. And notice what Jehoiada says in verse 17. 2 Kings 11.

Verse 17, 2 Kings 11 verse 17.

Scripture Reading — 2 Kings 11:17

"And Jehoiada made a covenant between the Lord and the king and the people."

That's one covenant

Scripture Reading — 2 Kings 11:17

"that they should be the Lord's people between the king and also on the people."

Scripture Reading — 1 Samuel 11:1

"Then Nahash the Ammonite came up and encamped against Jabesh Gilead and all the men of Jabesh said unto Nahash, Make a covenant with us and we will serve thee."

Unconstitutional Laws Are Void Ab Initio

The Servant Has Become the Master

Scripture Reading — Proverbs 19:10

"Delight is not seemly for a fool, much less for a servant to have rule over princes."

The Founding Fathers on Constitutional Interpretation

God's Law Applies to Government

The Ten Commandments, including 'Thou shalt not steal,' apply to civil government as much as to individuals. Government cannot excuse itself from God's law without denying His sovereignty.

The Government Owes Us a Republican Form of Government

The Constitution Controls the Government, Not the People

The Government Owes Me! Part 1 of 2

John Weaver | YouTube

Lecture Metadata	Details
Speaker	John Weaver
Source	YouTube
Media ID	sYgGM8uCtbs
Subject	Civil Government
Course	Civil Government: Magistracy, Authority, and Romans 13: Authority
Genre	Sermon
Date	2012-01-25
Dictation Name
Book	Book 023: The Government Owes Me! — Chapter 1
Source Timed Segments	66

Lecture Guide

Outline

Introduction: The Entitlement Mentality: Weaver introduces the topic by noting how many people believe the government owes them, citing the growth of welfare programs and the idea that government handouts come at someone else's expense.
What Christians Owe to Government Is Qualified: Christians do owe certain things to civil government, but that debt is limited by the Word of God and the Constitution. The federal government also owes the states and people, bounded by the same authorities.
God's Ordained Government: Servant, Exactor of Righteousness, Public Worship: From Romans 13, Weaver shows that God ordained civil rulers to be His deacons (servants), exactors of righteousness according to His law, and a public liturgy of worship. Any government contrary to this is not ordained by God.
The Constitution as a Covenantal Document: The U.S. Constitution is a covenant between the states and the federal government, involving reciprocal duties. The federal government was created by the states with limited, delegated powers; all other powers are reserved to the states or the people.
Reciprocity in Biblical and Civil Covenants: Using examples from Judges, 2 Kings, and 1 Samuel, Weaver demonstrates that all covenants involve mutual obligations. If one party violates the covenant, the other is released from obedience.
Unconstitutional Laws Are Void Ab Initio: The federal government has no authority to exceed the Constitution. Unconstitutional laws are null and void from the beginning, impose no duties, and no one is bound to obey them. The people, not the Supreme Court, are the ultimate interpreters of the Constitution.
The Servant Has Become the Master: Weaver illustrates how the federal government and its three branches have usurped power, claiming to be the sole interpreters of the Constitution, effectively ruling over the states and people. The Bible condemns servants ruling over princes.
The Founding Fathers on Constitutional Interpretation: Quoting Thomas Jefferson, John Taylor, and the Pennsylvania legislature, Weaver argues that the founding fathers never intended the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter of the Constitution; that power belongs to the people and the states.
God's Law Applies to Government: The Ten Commandments, including 'Thou shalt not steal,' apply to civil government as much as to individuals. Government cannot excuse itself from God's law without denying His sovereignty.
The Government Owes Us a Republican Form of Government: Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution guarantees a republican form of government. Weaver defines a republic as a system where the people hold sovereign power individually, not as a collective democracy, and government rules according to law.
The Constitution Controls the Government, Not the People: The Constitution is a grant of authority from the people to the government, limiting its power. When the government violates the covenant, the people are not obligated to obey. The American Revolution was based on this principle of covenant violation.

Major Themes

Key Arguments

God ordained civil government to be His servant, exactor of righteousness, and public worship.

Romans 13 shows that civil rulers are to be God's deacons, executing His righteousness, and their rule is a form of public worship when done according to His law.

Weaver explains the Greek words diakonos, ekdikos, and leitourgos in Romans 13:4-6 to support this threefold purpose.

The federal government was created by the states with limited, delegated powers.

The states existed before the federal government and created it through the Constitution, granting only specific powers while retaining the rest.

Weaver states: 'The federal government as you and I know it was created by the states and set up to be the servants of the states.'

Covenants involve reciprocity; violation by one party releases the other.

Biblical and historical examples show that when a covenant is broken, the injured party is no longer bound. This applies to the constitutional covenant between the people and the federal government.

Weaver cites Judges 2:20, 2 Kings 11:17, and 1 Samuel 11:1, then applies the principle to the Constitution.

Unconstitutional laws are void ab initio and need not be obeyed.

Legal authorities affirm that laws exceeding constitutional authority are null from the start, impose no duties, and no one is bound to obey them.

Weaver quotes multiple passages from American Jurisprudence, including: 'No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.'

The Supreme Court is not the final interpreter of the Constitution; the people are.

Founding fathers like Jefferson and Taylor argued that allowing the Supreme Court to be the ultimate arbiter leads to oligarchy. The people and states retain interpretive authority.

Weaver quotes Jefferson: 'I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves.'

God's law, including the prohibition against theft, applies to civil government.

If theft is wrong for individuals, families, and churches, it is also wrong for government. Government cannot exempt itself from God's moral law.

Weaver argues: 'Thou shalt not steal applies to governments equally as it applies to anyone else.'

The U.S. is a republic, not a democracy, and the distinction is crucial.

In a republic, the people are sovereign individuals; in a democracy, the majority rules as a collective, often trampling rights. The Constitution establishes a republic.

Weaver cites Black's Law Dictionary and James Madison's Federalist No. 10 to contrast the two forms.

When government violates the Constitution, the people are not obligated to submit.

Just as the American colonists declared independence when George III broke the covenant, so today if the federal government exceeds its constitutional bounds, obedience is not owed.

Weaver states: 'If we have made an agreement with the federal government... and the federal government refuses to rule that way, do we owe any submission...? No.'

Scripture References

Romans 13:8: Weaver reads the verse as a starting point: 'Owe no man anything but to love one another...'
Romans 13:3-4: Weaver reads these verses to show that rulers are not a terror to good works but to evil, and are God's ministers for good.
Romans 13:6: Weaver reads this verse to show that rulers are God's ministers attending continually, and uses the Greek word leitourgos to explain public worship.
Psalm 94:20-21: Weaver reads these verses to show that a throne of iniquity (wicked government) has no fellowship with God when it frames mischief by law.
Romans 13:4: Weaver expounds the Greek words diakonos and ekdikos to explain the civil ruler as God's servant and exactor of righteousness.
Judges 2:20: Weaver cites this verse to show God's covenant with Israel involved reciprocal obligations: obedience brought blessing, disobedience brought cursing.
2 Kings 11:17: Weaver reads this verse to illustrate a covenant between the Lord, the king, and the people, and a separate covenant between the king and the people.
1 Samuel 11:1: Weaver uses this verse to show a covenant between Nahash and the men of Jabesh Gilead involving reciprocity: 'Make a covenant with us and we will serve thee.'
Proverbs 19:10: Weaver quotes this verse to show it is not fitting for a servant to rule over princes.
Proverbs 30:21-22: Weaver reads these verses to show that the earth is disquieted when a servant reigns, applying it to the federal government ruling over the states.

Historical References

Margaret Thatcher: Weaver quotes Thatcher: 'Socialism is a wonderful thing until you run out of other people's money.'
Food Stamp Program (began circa 1967): Weaver mentions the food stamp program's estimated initial cost of 50 million dollars and its massive growth.
Articles of Confederation: Weaver notes that the Constitutional Convention originally met to rework the Articles of Confederation but produced the Constitution instead.
Article 6, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution: Weaver reads this clause establishing the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.
Articles 9 and 10 of the U.S. Constitution (Bill of Rights): Weaver reads these articles to show that rights not enumerated are retained by the people, and powers not delegated are reserved to the states or people.
Thomas Jefferson: Weaver quotes Jefferson on the danger of considering the Supreme Court as ultimate arbiters of constitutional questions, and on the people as the safe depository of power.
John Taylor of Caroline (1753-1824): Weaver quotes Taylor: 'It would be evidently absurd that the creature Congress should exclusively construe the instrument of its own existence, the Constitution.'
Pennsylvania Legislature Resolution on Alien and Sedition Acts: Weaver quotes the resolution stating that the general government was not constituted the exclusive or final judge of its powers.
Thomas Jefferson's 'Solemn Declaration and Protest' (1825): Weaver quotes Jefferson's closing paragraph, emphasizing that submission to a government of unlimited powers is a greater calamity than rupture between states.
James Madison, Federalist No. 10: Weaver quotes Madison's description of democracies as 'spectacles of turbulence and contention' incompatible with personal security or property rights.

Important Quotes

Socialism is a wonderful thing until you run out of other people's money.

Attributed to Margaret Thatcher, this quote encapsulates the lecture's theme that government handouts are not free but come at the expense of others.

God has not ordained any other form of government. Totalitarian governments are not God's ordination since they are contrary to God and contrary to his word.

Establishes the biblical basis for limited government and rejects the idea that all governments are ordained by God regardless of their character.

The federal government as you and I know it was created by the states and set up to be the servants of the states.

Key historical claim that the federal government is subordinate to the states, not the other way around.

An unconstitutional law and legal contemplation is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.

Quoted from American Jurisprudence, this supports the argument that unconstitutional laws are void and need not be obeyed.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

Direct legal authority cited to reinforce the duty of the people to disregard unconstitutional acts.

To consider the judges of the Superior or the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbitrators or arbiters of constitutional questions would be a dangerous doctrine which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.

Thomas Jefferson's warning against judicial supremacy, used to argue that the people are the final interpreters of the Constitution.

It would be evidently absurd that the creature Congress should exclusively construe the instrument of its own existence, the Constitution.

John Taylor's statement that the federal government cannot be the sole interpreter of the document that created it.

Submission to a government of unlimited powers.

Jefferson's phrase identifying the greatest calamity, used to emphasize the danger of allowing government to exceed constitutional bounds.

Discussion Questions

[Question]

What does it mean that civil government is to be God's 'deacon' or servant, and how should that shape our expectations of government today?

[Context]

Weaver explains the Greek word diakonos in Romans 13:4, emphasizing that government is to serve God's purposes, not its own.

[Question]

How does the concept of covenantal reciprocity apply to our relationship with the federal government under the Constitution?

[Context]

Weaver argues that the Constitution is a covenant with mutual obligations; if the government violates it, the people are released from obedience.

[Question]

In what ways has the federal government exceeded its delegated powers, and what should be the response of the states and the people?

[Context]

Weaver describes the federal government as a servant that has usurped authority, and cites Proverbs to condemn servants ruling over princes.

[Question]

Why did the founding fathers reject democracy in favor of a republic, and what are the practical differences between the two?

[Context]

Weaver contrasts republic and democracy using Black's Law Dictionary and James Madison's Federalist No. 10.

[Question]

Who should have the final say in interpreting the Constitution, and what are the dangers of allowing the Supreme Court to be the ultimate arbiter?

[Context]

Weaver quotes Jefferson and Taylor to argue that the people and states, not the judiciary, are the proper interpreters.

[Question]

How does the principle 'thou shalt not steal' apply to civil government, and what are some modern examples of governmental theft?

[Context]

Weaver argues that God's moral law applies to all institutions, including government, and that unconstitutional takings are theft.

[Question]

What does it mean for the federal government to 'guarantee a republican form of government' to the states, and is that guarantee being upheld today?

[Context]

Weaver cites Article IV, Section 4 and defines a republic as government by law with the people as sovereigns.

[Question]

How does the American Revolution serve as a precedent for resisting unconstitutional government today?

[Context]

Weaver draws a parallel between George III's violation of colonial covenants and modern federal overreach.

Applications

Format deepseek deepseek-v4-pro structured study JSON | Source Commentary.net transcript enrichment

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | weaver_study | 2026-06-06T05:55:18Z