No doubt many of you are wondering why a 78 year old retired lawyer is not only a member of the National Lawyers Association but is also a member of its Board of Directors and attends each annual convention. The answer to that question is quite simple. I am a member because I believe that it is important to have an alternative to the American Bar Association and I believe in the principles of the National Lawyers Association. The reason, however, that I am on the Board of Directors and active in that organization is the first part of its Mission Statement, which reads as follows:

National Lawyers Association is dedicated to the principle that the Founding Fathers of the government of the United States of America established a government structure for the Nation consisting of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution; that the Constitution is to be interpreted in the light of the principles and transcendent truths set forth in the Declaration of Independence; and that the legal community has a special responsibility to preserve and protect that structure.

This sounds good but the question is "what does it really mean?"

In the next few minutes I will attempt to answer that question so I hope that you will "stay with me".

It is "self-evident" that there are only two types of government. A government is either based upon and therefore acknowledges and honors "truths" or, on the other hand, it is not based upon any truths and therefore does not acknowledge or honor any "truths".

If a government does not acknowledge the existence of or honor any truths then, among others, the following characteristics are true of that government:

(1) There are no limitations on the powers of the government. Since the officeholders are not required to honor any "truths" then there is no limitation on the powers of the government.

(2) Since there are no limitations on the powers of the government, the people are subject to the tyranny of the majority. The officeholders, in order to be elected or to be re-elected, attempt to enact legislation or make decisions in "what they consider to be in accord with the majority opinion." This is what is known as the "tyranny of the majority."

(3) There is no such thing as an act being "right" or "wrong". It is wrong to kill or to steal only because there is a statute that makes it so. It is wrong if the majority wants it to be wrong but it is not wrong if the majority thinks it's OK.

(4) The government does not acknowledge the existence of any unalienable rights in any individual and therefore, of course, feels no obligation to protect any such rights. The only "rights" that the individual possess are the rights granted by the government which, of course, can be taken away by the government.

Do you see any or all of these characteristics in the way in which our government is functioning today?

If the government does acknowledge the existence of and honors certain "truths" then, among other concepts, the following characterizes that government:

(1) The powers of the government are limited or restricted by the "truths". The officeholders are not authorized or empowered to make decisions or enact legislation that contradicts those "truths".

(2) Since the government is obligated to honor these "truths" the officeholders are not to simply take action in accordance with what they think is the opinion of the majority but, to the contrary, are to operate the government as a "republic".

(3) The government through its officeholders acknowledges that the "truths" establish certain acts as "wrong" and certain acts as "right".

(4) The government through its officeholders acknowledges the existence of unalienable rights in the individual and that it has an obligation to secure or protect those rights.

I am amazed that some prominent attorneys openly state that they prefer a government that recognizes no "truths" and in which the Judiciary can determine what "rights" individuals have and the extent to which those "rights" can be exercised by the individual. In other words, they are very frank in stating that they would like to have a type of a totalitarian government with the Judiciary in charge. While I cannot vouch for this I feel confident that the reason they feel this way is that they see the only alternative to this type of government as being a government based upon a particular religion and they want no part of a government based on a particular religion. They prefer a government controlled by the judiciary over a government controlled by a particular religion. But these two alternatives are not the only alternatives. There is an additional alternative and it is set forth in the Organic Laws that established this nation and created its government.

The Founding Fathers were free to establish any type of government that they thought would be accepted by the People. They could have established a government based upon the truths of a particular religion or based on no "truths" - but they did neither. They created a nation with a government that is based upon "truths" but those do not come from any particular religion -- these truths are self-evident.

The first document that they adopted was the Declaration of Independence. There has been much misunderstanding concerning this document. It did not declare our independence from England. Two separate committees were working simultaneously during the summer of 1776. One committee, known as the Lee Committee, was charged with the responsibility of drafting the proper document to separate the colonies from England. The other committee, headed by Thomas Jefferson, was assigned the responsibility of drafting a document telling the world why the colonies had separated from England and specifying the type of government that was to be established for the new nation. As a matter of fact, the Jefferson Committee finished its work first and was ready to report to the Congress, however, that report was tabled until action could be taken on the Lee Committee report. After several days of discussion, the Lee Committee report was adopted and the colonies declared their separation from England. The Congress then took up the Jeffersonian Committee report and after several days of discussion in which it was changed and amended, they adopted what we now know as the Declaration of Independence.

That Declaration reads as follows:

WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The colonies then adopted the Articles of Confederation which were nothing more than a document binding the states, as sovereign entities, to a purpose. The states functioned under that document until the Constitution was adopted. One of the stated purposes of the Constitution was to form a more perfect union of the States. The Constitution, itself, recognized that the nation had been brought into existence by the Declaration of Independence.

These two documents, the Declaration and the Constitution, have constituted the Organic Laws of the government of our nation since the adoption of the Constitution. The government was based upon the foundation of the self-evident truths set forth in the Declaration and was to operate in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

It is hard to believe but true - for over a hundred years our governmental officials, particularly our Supreme Court, have ignored the Declaration. They simply take the position that the only thing required by the oath that they support the Constitution is that the officeholder support the Constitution just as though the Declaration does not exist. In other words, they ignore the charter of our government. They ignore the purpose of the government and the self-evident truths as set forth in the Declaration.

As of today we have (1) a Supreme Court Justice who states that it is not wrong to kill or to steal unless there is a statute that makes it wrong; (2) we have another Supreme Court Justice who states that it is his responsibility to attempt to determine what the majority desire with reference to a particular question and make his decision in line with that majority opinion; (3) we have another Justice who has stated that the belief in a Creator is a religious belief, and in effect, that the officeholders in the government are prohibited by the First Amendment from looking to the Creator for guidance in the performance of their official duties; (4) even though in order to become a member of the Union a State had to have a Constitution that was in conformity with the principles of the Declaration of Independence, our Supreme Court has now held that a State cannot require any of its office holders to acknowledge the existence of a Creator. In effect, the Supreme Court is, intentionally or unintentionally, changing the form of government of America from one based upon truths to one that does not recognize or honor anything such as a "truth" it has no foundation.

The positions taken by the Court which are contrary to the provisions of the Declaration are truly amazing. In truth and in fact the Supreme Court is not recognizing any limitations on its powers. It obviously considers itself to have unlimited powers. By ignoring the Declaration of Independence our officeholders, spearheaded by the judiciary, are leading our nation down the wrong road. Our officeholders recognize no principles or "truths" of any kind for the establishment of any moral "rights" or "wrongs" in their legislation or in their decisions.

I believe lawyers do have a peculiar responsibility in this situation. It is lawyers who serve in the Judiciary. The majority of our legislative bodies are made up of lawyers. The people look to and have a right to look to lawyers to protect the form of government that was created by our Founding Fathers. I believe that we as lawyers must get involved by requiring our officeholders to accept the fact that under their oath or affirmation they are obligated and have a duty to interpret the Constitution in the light of the principles set forth in the Declaration. This is quite a challenge. I hope that lawyers will take the time to analyze the Mission Statement of National Lawyers Association and really become involved. We lawyers can not only redirect our country but we can also elevate the status and reputation of lawyers to that which was true historically and to which we should all aspire. We can be involved in doing something that is for the good of our nation as distinguished from the good of our pocketbook. This is the challenge that I would like to give to you and particularly to you younger lawyers. Hopefully, you will have a nation for years to come in which you can practice law which is based upon principles and "truths" rather than upon the "tyranny of the majority" - A government that will acknowledge and honor morals that grow out of and are in keeping with the unchanging self- evident truths set forth in the Declaration.

When all is said that can be said, the truth is that the Declaration of Independence is the only weapon available to us, as citizens, that gives us any hope or possibility of changing the direction of our government and ultimately our society -- our country. Up until now we have been fighting the war without using that weapon and we are losing the war for the moral integrity and stability of our nation. It is time that we took up the weapon -- the sword if you will -- that our Founding Fathers provided for us and begin winning this war.

Our officeholders, including the members of the judiciary, must realize, voluntarily I hope, but if not by appropriate action of the Peoples, that they are officeholders in a "republic" and that they are obligated by their oath or affirmation to acknowledge and honor the "self-evident truths" set forth in the Declaration of Independence in the performance of their official duties.