"Heritage Americans"

Many posts have discussed patriotism and the role of religion in American life. 

The late John McCain said: "We are citizens of the world's greatest republic, a nation of ideals, not blood and soil."

Karl Rove at WSJ:

Creating America wasn’t easy, and the fulfillment of our founding documents still demands much. But we make a grave mistake if we think this nation is only for what some call “heritage Americans,” whose forebears—specifically Anglo and Scots-Irish Protestants—fought in the Revolution or Civil War.

This notion that there is a select subset of “real” Americans is being pushed by, among others, Vice President JD Vance. He says that “America is not just an idea” but “a particular place, with a particular people.” Our country is more than an idea, but it began as one. Our people are particular, yet it makes no difference whether your forebear wintered at Valley Forge or fought at Gettysburg. What matters is living up to the Declaration’s promises.

It is ironic that Mr. Vance, a Catholic convert, would advocate “heritage Americans.” In the past, such movements routinely declared Catholics unacceptable members of our national family. One of the largest such groups was the American Protective Association, an anti-immigrant organization in the Gilded Age. It claimed 2.5 million adherents at its height. Its members swore an oath denouncing the pope and “the diabolical work of the Roman Catholic Church.” The APA was particularly strong in Mr. Vance’s home state of Ohio.

This notion of “heritage Americans” is at odds with the Declaration. America’s birth didn’t include a new aristocracy based on inherited valor.

Consider some Americans without Revolution or Civil War forebears: Elon Musk, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Nvidia co-founder Jensen Huang, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Charlize Theron, Hakeem Olajuwon, former Pepsi CEO Indra Nooyi, Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, Salma Hayek, Henry Kissinger, Oracle’s Safra Catz, Bob Hope, Irving Berlin, Interactive Brokers’ founder Thomas Peterffy, Yo-Yo Ma, Alex Trebek and at least 40 winners of the Nobel Prize for Medicine.

Grievances

 Many posts have discussed the Founding.

Ryan Goodman, Jack Palmer-Coole, Siven Watt and Simone Lipkind at Just Security:

Americans commemorate the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence this year. As many in the United States and around the world reflect on the words in the solemn document, it will be readily apparent how the actions of the monarch that prompted the “grievances” of the settlers are echoed by the actions taken by the current presidential administration in its first year and a half. 

We believe there is an important history lesson in simply reading, and rereading, the Declaration and reflecting on the current times in the United States. In the passages below, the text of the Declaration is annotated with the words of federal judges in 52 court cases involving the current administration. We have identified 17 of the 27 grievances with a contemporary analog.

Over the past months, different studies published at Just Security have closely documented how the federal courts have adjudicated Americans’ attempts to vindicate their rights against administration policies. The gravity of the judges’ conclusions are sobering. Indeed, reading the Declaration and their words side-by-side shows how much the very fabric of the American social contract is being tested. Today’s federal judiciary, no less than the signatories of the Declaration 250 years ago, is speaking to the current generation about the foundational needs of a functional and representative American democracy, with meaningful checks and balances, and above all, a commitment to the rule of law.

....

Grievance 16: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
Grievance 17: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

Historical grievance: The Boston Port Act (1774) shut down Boston Harbor, the Restraining Acts (1775) barred New England from trading outside the British Empire, and the Prohibitory Act (1775) prohibited American trade altogether (Grievance 16). The Sugar Act (1764), Stamp Act (1765), and Townshend Acts (1767) imposed direct taxation on the colonies without their consent or representation in Parliament (Grievance 17).
Contemporary translation: Executive restriction of international trade (Grievance 16); and executive imposition of tariffs (considered a tax by the Supreme Court) without congressional authorization (Grievance 17).
Strength of contemporary analog: Strong.

“Based on two words separated by 16 others in Section 1702(a)(1)(B) of IEEPA — ‘regulate’ and ‘importation’ — the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time. Those words cannot bear such weight.

Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution sets forth the powers of the Legislative Branch. The first Clause of that provision specifies that ‘The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.’ It is no accident that this power appears first. The power to tax was, Alexander Hamilton explained, ‘the most important of the authorities proposed to be conferred upon the Union.’ It is both a ‘power to destroy’ and a power ‘necessary to the existence and prosperity of a nation’ — ‘the one great power upon which the whole national fabric is based.‘

The power to impose tariffs is ‘very clear[ly] … a branch of the taxing power.’ ‘A tariff,’ after all, ‘is a tax levied on imported goods and services.’ And tariffs ‘raise[] revenue’ — the defining feature of a tax
…
Recognizing the taxing power’s unique importance, and having just fought a revolution motivated in large part by ‘taxation without representation,’ the Framers gave Congress ‘alone … access to the pockets of the people.’ see also Declaration of Independence ¶19[sic]. … They did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch.”

“We are therefore skeptical that in IEEPA — and IEEPA alone — Congress hid a delegation of its birth-right power to tax within the quotidian power to ‘regulate.'”

— Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. (W. Bush appointee) — IEEPA as a basis for presidential tariff power (link to Supreme Court opinion)

Myths, Misinformation, and the Founding

 

Many posts have discussed myths and misinformation. 

View on Threads

There's something odd about being so self-righteous when you're so wrong. Mamdani is, of course, correct, and Posobiec is wrong - New York was the first capital of the United States of America. pic.twitter.com/ytYUU9tHXr

— James Surowiecki (@JamesSurowiecki) July 6, 2026

No…the Declaration of Independence says all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights including Life, Liberty & the pursuit of Happiness. “Made in the image of God” is from the Bible. I guess its easy to confuse 2 things you’ve never read https://t.co/x729uCghhP

— Andrew—#IAmTheResistance (@AmoneyResists) July 5, 2026

Civic Ignorance on America's 250th Birthday

Many posts have discussed what Americans do and do not know about their government.

Emily Ekins at Cato:

A new national survey from the Cato Institute, conducted in collaboration with Morning Consult of 2,253 Americans ahead of July 4th and America’s 250th anniversary, finds nearly half (46%) of Americans don’t know what America’s 250th anniversary commemorates. A little more than half (53%) correctly answered that it was the adoption of the Declaration of Independence.

Despite civic ignorance, overwhelming majorities are grateful (86%) and proud (79%) to be Americans. Most also believe America is a land of opportunity (61%), and even more believe the American Dream (74%) is available to them personally. As the nation celebrates its birth, most Americans feel positive (76%) about the nation’s founding, and 70% believe its founding principles remain relevant today. In particular, overwhelming majorities believe the US Constitution is important for protecting our rights and freedoms (86%) and for enabling America’s prosperity (82%).

However, nearly 6 in 10 believe the country has moved away from the founding principles, and 56% worry the US could stop being a free country within the next 50 years. People believe corruption, concentrations and abuse of power, and ignoring founding principles could lead to the country’s demise. Americans support constitutional limits, dividing power, and checking the power of the president to maintain their freedoms. For instance, 58% say no political party should be trusted with too much power, 55% say the US Constitution should place firm limits on what the government is allowed to do, even if it makes it harder to solve problems, and 72% say the president should have to obey Supreme Court rulings even when he disagrees.

Yet, a significant minority is willing to bend the rules when it suits their advantage. Four in 10 Americans think it’s acceptable if a president they support stretched the Constitution to get what they want.

Another risk to the country is low substantive civic knowledge on basic governance questions. For instance, while 77% know George Washington was the first president, 58% don’t know what the main purpose of the US Constitution is, and 57% don’t know the reason we declared independence from Great Britain and created our government with limited powers.

Capitalism (52%) is viewed somewhat more favorably than socialism (37%). However, people are evenly divided on socialism, with equal shares who are favorable and unfavorable. Gen Z stands out with more who are supportive of socialism (53%) than capitalism (45%). The survey found the “Democratic Socialist” label can both help and harm a candidate about equally. While 39% said they’d be more likely to vote for a Democratic Socialist candidate, 40% said they’d be less likely, and 22% weren’t sure either way. Democrats (61%) and Gen Z (51%) reported they’d be likely to vote for a candidate with the Democratic Socialist label.

America: The Signers Would Be Disappointed

 Many posts have discussed patriotism and American exceptionalism.

Andy Kemp at Gallup:

As the United States approaches its 250th anniversary, just 19% of Americans say the signers of the Declaration of Independence would be pleased with how the country has turned out.

Just over three in four Americans (77%) now say the founders would be disappointed, compared with 71% in 2013 and 42% in 2001. The latest findings come from a May 2026 Gallup survey.

 

250

Many posts have discussed patriotism.

 Josephine Walker at Axios:

Dueling events for America's 250th birthday are creating confusion as celebrations ramp up across the U.S.

Why it matters: The disconnect made headlines last week when a group of performers withdrew from on the National Mall, prompting President Trump to step in.

Those concerts were organized by Freedom 250, a White House-established initiative. America 250, a separate, Congress-approved missive, has planned events nationwide in the run-up to Independence Day.

The intrigue: Several of the performers who canceled cited being misled about the event.Country singer Martina McBride said on Instagram that she "was assured this was a nonpartisan event that was meant to celebrate ALL 50 states. ...Yesterday things started changing and what we were told is, in fact, not what is happening."

...

Freedom 250 is planning events that reflect Trump's flair for spectacle.

That includes a UFC fight on the White House South Lawn, an IndyCar race through downtown Washington, D.C., a FIFA World Cup fan zone and the Great American State Fair — both to be held on the National Mall.

Jemar Tisby at The Bulwark:

The issue is not hosting a sporting event, it’s the one they chose and what it says.

If the White House wanted to host a sporting event commemorating the nation’s 250th anniversary, they could have chosen “America’s Pastime”—baseball.

And they could have held it at a stadium dedicated to the purpose, not spent tens of millions constructing a temporary arena that may leave scars on the landscape for a long time to come.

Instead they chose cage fighting, the most visceral expression of violence for sport.

What does it mean to normalize blood sport at that address?

Whatever your personal opinion of MMA as a sport, this is a deliberate choice about what power looks like, what celebration looks like, and what America is supposed to mean.

Yet it’s not a departure from this regime’s ethos; it’s right in line with their performance of masculinity.

Judicial Order Cites the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bible

  The Trump administration is snatching people without due process. Killing them, too.

Judge Fred Biery:

Before the Court is the petition of asylum seeker Adrian Conejo Arias and his five-year-old son for protection of the Great Writ of habeas 1 corpus. They seek nothing more than some modicum of due process and the rule of law. The government has responded.

The case has its genesis in the ill-conceived and incompetently-implemented government pursuit of daily deportation quotas, apparently even if it requires traumatizing children. This Court and others regularly send undocumented people to prison and orders them deported but do so by proper legal procedures.

Apparent also is the government's ignorance of an American historical document called the Declaration of Independence.  Thirty-three-year-old Thomas Jefferson enumerated grievances against a would-be authoritarian king over our nascent nation.  Among others were:  

1."He has sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People."  

2."He has excited domestic Insurrection among us.” 

3."For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us." 

4."He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our Legislatures."

"We the people" are hearing echoes of that history. And then there is that pesky inconvenience called the Fourth Amendment: 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and persons or things to be seized. U.S. CONST. amend. IV.

Civics lesson to the government:  Administrative warrants issued by the executive branch to itself do not pass probable cause muster.  That is called the fox guarding the henhouse.  The Constitution requires an independent judicial officer. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Constitution of these United States trumps this administration's detention of petitioner Adrian Conejo Arias and his minor son, L.C.R.  The Great Writ and release from detention are GRANTED pursuant to the attached Judgment. 

Observing human behavior confirms that for some among us, the perfidious lust for unbridled power and the imposition of cruelty in its quest know no bounds and are bereft of human decency.  And the rule of law be damned.

Ultimately, Petitioners may, because of the arcane United States immigration system, return to their home country, involuntarily or by self-deportation.  But that result should occur through a more orderly and humane policy than currently in place.  

 

Matthew 19:14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

John 11:35 Jesus wept.

Civic Virtue and the Republic

Many posts have discussed volunteering and civic virtue.

 Robert P. George at AEI:

The Constitution was famously defended by Madison in Federalist No. 51 as “supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives.” He made this point immediately after observing that the first task of government is to control the governed, and the second is to control itself. He allowed that “a dependence on the people is, no doubt the primary control on the government, but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” But even in this formulation, our constraints and institutions do not stand alone; indeed, they are presented as secondary. What is primary and entirely necessary is healthy and vibrant political culture — “a dependence on the people” to keep the rulers in line.

As the ablest scholar and political theorist of the founding generation, John Adams understood as well as anyone the general theory of the Constitution. He knew that a healthy political culture was vital to ensuring that rulers stay within the bounds of their legitimate authority and act as servants of the common good and of the people they rule. Adams famously remarked that “our Constitution is made for a moral and religious people” and “is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

...

This year, we mark the anniversary of a document that acknowledged certain truths to be self-evident, among them that all men are endowed by God with unalienable rights. From the moment of our country’s Founding, the authors of our constitutional and political order saw their project as premised on the notion that the citizenry — though diverse in ethnicity and creed — shared some fundamental premises about human nature and the human person. Now, though, the foundational components meant to form good, moral, and reasonable citizens are frail; they wield less influence in our society and in our politics than they did in the past. Our bonds are weakening; our civic fabric fraying.

If we are experiencing a period of American decline, it’s not because of the constitutional order and political system whose 250th anniversary we celebrate this year. The decline is attributable, rather, to the degradation of what Edmund Burke famously referred to as the essential “little platoons” of society: those building blocks of virtue, from families to voluntary associations, that work together to form an informed and virtuous citizenry. With the elements necessary to foster a healthy and vibrant democratic culture debilitated, is it any wonder that public confidence in our ability to keep our republic is so shaky?

The Donroe Doctrine

Many posts have discussed foreign policy, war powers and the US military.  Yesterday, the US snatched Maduro.

Yesterday, Trump said:

Furthermore, under the now deposed dictator Maduro, Venezuela was increasingly hosting foreign adversaries in our region and acquiring menacing offensive weapons that could threaten US interest in lives. And they used those weapons last night. They used those weapons last night, potentially in league with the cartels operating along our border.

All of these actions were in gross violation of the core principles of American foreign policy dating back more than two centuries, and, uh, not anymore. All the way back, it dated to the Monroe Doctrines, and the Mo- -- Monroe Doctrine is a, a big deal, but we've superseded it by a lot. By a real lot. They now call it the "Donroe" Document.

I don't know. It's, uh, Monroe Doctrine. We sort of forgot about it. It was very important, but we forgot about it. We don't forget about it anymore. Under our new national security strategy, American dominance in the Western hemisphere will never be questioned again. Won't happen. So, just in concluding, for decades, other administrations have neglected or even contributed to these growing security threats in the Western hemisphere.

 George F. Will at WP:

Universalism flows from the ninth word of the most important sentence in this creedal nation’s catechism: “all.” All human beings are endowed with unalienable rights, including the right to government legitimated by consent. The perennial American argument concerns what, if anything, this catechism commits the nation to do.

Twenty-one years ago, George W. Bush’s second inaugural address proclaimed “the calling of our time” to be nothing less than “ending tyranny in our world.” This project has not fared well since then.

The 1823 Monroe Doctrine declared the Western Hemisphere closed to further European colonization, and, implicitly, open to U.S. intervention in order to guarantee … Here things become murky. Commercial considerations (long ago, bananas; today, oil) and geopolitics have driven interventions.

The doctrine, although promulgated by President James Monroe, should be called the Adams Doctrine, for his secretary of state, John Quincy Adams. (The Marshall Plan, announced in a brief Harvard commencement speech by Harry Truman’s secretary of state, George Marshall, is not known as the Truman Plan.)

Although European colonization in this hemisphere long ago subsided, perhaps the Monroe Doctrine is still apposite. But two years before the Monroe Doctrine was enunciated, Secretary Adams said of our nation:

“Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.”

Jack Goldsmith:

In sum, it would not be terribly hard for the Justice Department to write an opinion in support of the Venezuela invasion even if the military action violates the U.N. Charter.

To repeat, that does not mean that the action is in fact lawful—and it pretty clearly isn’t under the U.N. Charter. It only means that the long line of unilateral executive branch actions, supported by promiscuously generous executive branch legal opinions, support it. As I wrote in connection with the Soleimani strike: “our country has—through presidential aggrandizement accompanied by congressional authorization, delegation, and acquiescence—given one person, the president, a sprawling military and enormous discretion to use it in ways that can easily lead to a massive war. That is our system: One person decides.”

This is not the system the framers had in mind, and it is a dangerous system for all the reasons the framers worried about. But that is where we are—and indeed, it is where we have been for a while.

"Truly American" and National Identity

Many posts have discussed patriotism and the role of religion in American life. 

The late John McCain said: "We are citizens of the world's greatest republic, a nation of ideals, not blood and soil."

Public Religion Research Institute:

Most Americans (78%) believe that “America is best understood as a nation built around the idea that all people, regardless of the circumstances of their birth or station in life, have equal rights and freedoms,” while 19% believe that “America is best understood as a nation comprised of people with a shared heritage and homeland.” Majorities of Democrats (88%), independents (79%), and Republicans (70%) agree with the first statement, while far fewer agree with second statement (11%, 18%, 27%, respectively).

Majorities across religious groups and Christian nationalism groups agree that America is best understood as a nation built around the idea that all people have equal rights and freedoms.

...

When asked about how important the following traits are to being “truly American,” most Americans say that believing in individual freedoms, such as freedom of speech (93%), believing in the Constitution (91%), accepting people of diverse racial and religious backgrounds (89%), believing in the Declaration of Independence (88%), respecting American political institutions and laws (88%), and being able to speak English (75%) are very or somewhat important.

Americans are more divided over whether believing in God (57%) and being born in America (54%) are very or somewhat important to being truly American. Americans are less likely to say that being a Christian (43%) or having ancestors who served in the military in previous wars, such as the World Wars and the Civil War (42%) are important. Just 23% of Americans say that being of Western European heritage is important to being truly American.

With the exception of Western European heritage, where only one-third say this trait is important (33%), majorities of Republicans believe every other trait is important to being truly American. Conversely, fewer than half of Democrats say that being born in America (42%), believing in God (41%), having ancestors who served in the military in previous wars, such as the World Wars and the Civil War (34%), and being a Christian (29%) are important to being truly American. Majorities of Democrats say all other traits are important. Though independents mirror all Americans very closely, they are 8 percentage points less likely to say believing in God (49% vs. 57%) or being Christian (35% vs. 43%) are very important to being truly American.

Vance Does Not Get America

 Many posts have discussed the Founding.

Matthew Continetti at AEI on J.D. Vance's "blood and soil" rhetoric:

In June, Vance made a similar argument in a speech to the Claremont Institute, whose mission is “to restore the principles of the American founding.” The institute might try starting with the vice president. If an American is simply someone who agrees “with the creedal principles of America,” Vance said, that would include “millions, maybe billions, of foreigners,” while excluding “a lot of people the ADL would label domestic extremists, even though their own ancestors were here at the time of the Revolutionary War.”

Excuse me? Why the gratuitous reference to the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish organization? And when did bloodlines trump lawfulness and reverence for the Constitution? There are more than a few American Jews whose ancestors lived in America during the Revolution. And certainly creedal principles mattered in
1776. The people who didn’t believe in them were called Tories. They became Canadian.

At the National Conservatism Conference in Washington, D.C., in early September, Senator Eric Schmitt of Missouri took up Vance’s line of thought. “We Americans,” he said, “are the sons and daughters of the Christian pilgrims that poured out from Europe’s shores to baptize a new world in their ancient faith.”

Stirring rhetoric, I suppose. But isn’t Schmitt leaving a whole bunch of people out? Like: the descendants of African slaves brought here involuntarily long before his German ancestors arrived in Missouri in the 1840s. And: the descendants of Jewish and Chinese and Japanese and Mexican immigrants. And: the naturalized citizens who’ve arrived since the 1970s and taken an oath to “defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Ranking citizens by date of arrival has consequences. It creates a mirror-image identity politics as exclusive and unappetizing as the left-wing version. It empties civic nationalism of substance. It turns citizenship into Ancestry.com. It rejects all who believe that America represents something more than blood and soil—that it is the last best hope of earth.

Since Abraham Lincoln, Americans have read the Constitution through the lens of the Declaration—as a blueprint for the government of a national community that conceivably every person could join. Thus, after the Civil War and Reconstruction, citizenship became the criterion for belonging to the American People. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Their “privileges and immunities” cannot be abridged.

What a tragedy it would be if we spend the next year celebrating America’s birthday—only to forget what America means.

Foreign Policy and the Declaration

 Many posts have discussed the Founding.

Schmitt, Gary J, 'The Period is Not Far Off': American Statecraft in the Founding Generation (April 01, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5278972 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5278972

Abstract:

If the Declaration of Independence was, as Thomas Jefferson claimed, an “expression of the American mind” at the time of the country’s founding, what does it imply about the American approach to statecraft? What follows is an analysis of the Declaration as a national security document: its principles and their application. With that as background, the paper moves on to explore how the founding generation adapted those principles to the global security environment it found itself in, and the institutions and policies it established to deal with that environment. It concludes with a close analysis of the statecraft of John Quincy Adams, arguing that Adams believed he was staying true to Washington’s vision in the Farewell Address by advocating for a more forward-leaning American foreign policy given the growing strength of the United States, the rise of revisionist powers in Europe, and the prospect of a new strategic alignment in the American hemisphere with the advent of republican governments in Latin America. In brief, the paper modifies the typical “realist” account of Adams and argues that Adams was alive to the theoretically expansive implications of the Declaration of Independence.

The Founders and Current Events

 Many posts have discussed the Founding.

David Frum at The Atlantic:

Two political myths inspired the dreams and haunted the nightmares of the Founders of the American republic. Both these foundational myths were learned from the history and literature of the ancient Romans.

Cincinnatus was the name of a man who, the story went, accepted supreme power in the state to meet a temporary emergency and then relinquished that power to return to his farm when the emergency passed. George Washington modeled his public image on the legend of Cincinnatus, and so he was depicted in contemporary art and literature—“the Cincinnatus of the West,” as Lord Byron praised him in a famous poem of the day.

Against the bright legacy of Cincinnatus, the Founders contrasted the sinister character of Catiline: a man of depraved sexual appetites who reached almost the pinnacle of power and then exploited populist passions to overthrow the constitution, gain wealth, and pay his desperately pressing debts. Alexander Hamilton invoked Catiline to inveigh against his detested political adversary, Aaron Burr:

He is bankrupt beyond redemption except by the plunder of his country. His public principles have no other spring or aim than his own aggrandisement … If he can, he will certainly disturb our institutions to secure to himself permanent power and with it wealth … He is truly the Cataline of America.

Jessica Gavora at The Atlantic:

The notion that America is an idea has always lifted up our country, and for good reason. The fact that America was founded on the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the governing limits of the Constitution makes us unique among nations. Most countries trace their origins to tribal identity. But America has its origins in the revolutionary idea that the government cannot deny men and women an equal opportunity to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Both our friends and foes have recognized this difference. No less than Joseph Stalin railed against American “exceptionalism” when our workers refused to join in solidarity with his murderous revolution of the proletariat.

People Who Did Not Sign the Declaration

Many posts have discussed myths and misinformation -- especially about documents of the Founding

Absolutely humiliating community note for Marjorie Taylor Greene pic.twitter.com/eLdrHHIEyh

— MeidasTouch (@MeidasTouch) July 7, 2024

Speaker Mike Johnson

Mike Johnson (R-LA) has become speaker of the House. His inaugural speech mentioned religion and the Declaration.

Newly elected House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA): "Scripture, the Bible, is very clear: God is the one that raises up those in authority. All of us ... [Marxism and Communism] begin with the premise that there is no God." pic.twitter.com/VCh4kKHdQC

— Heartland Signal (@HeartlandSignal) October 25, 2023

The republic, not a democracy thing and the separation of church and state

Mike Johnson in 2016: "What’s happened, Alex, over the last 60 or 70 years, is that our generation has been convinced that there is a separation of church and state. Most people think that that’s part of the Constitution, but it’s not.”

(It is: See The Establishment Clause). pic.twitter.com/yP0vsl7rC1

— Ashton Pittman (@ashtonpittman) October 26, 2023

Franklin and the Declaration

 From the Ken Burns documentary on Benjamin Franklin:

 

A Member of Congress Who Needs to Read our Textbook

 Many posts have dealt with myths and misinformation.

Lauren Boebert claimed, “The Constitution guarantees life— life, liberty, [and] the pursuit of happiness.”

The well known phrase is from the Declaration on Independence, not the Constitution. pic.twitter.com/NOHLmsGtYG

— PatriotTakes 🇺🇸 (@patriottakes) August 5, 2022

lauren boebert says she wants a biblical citizenship test in the US pic.twitter.com/64REbZyCEl

— Owen Morgan (Telltale) (@telltaleatheist) August 2, 2022

After stating “know your history,”Lauren Boebert claimed “there were Gatling guns” when the second amendment was written.

Fact check: The Gatling gun was invented in 1861, over 70 years after the Constitution was drafted. pic.twitter.com/Y0BHuO3yoi

— PatriotTakes 🇺🇸 (@patriottakes) June 26, 2022

James Madison and the Declaration

Paul Specht at PolitiFact:

Speaking at the Republican National Convention, 25-year-old congressional candidate Madison Cawthorn said that people who doubt young people "don’t know American history."

Cawthorn, who faces Democrat Moe Davis in North Carolina’s 11th Congressional District, then reeled off a few historical figures who were young when they helped change America.

"George Washington was 21 when he received his first military commission. Abe Lincoln: 22 when he first ran for office. My personal favorite: James Madison was just 25 years old when he signed the Declaration of Independence," Cawthorn said.

While Cawthorn’s claims about Washington and Lincoln merit minor corrections, there’s a big problem with his claim about Madison.

Madison did turn 25 in 1776, the same year the Declaration of Independence was signed. But Madison didn’t sign it. You can see the list of signatories on the website for the National Archives.

The Mayflower Compact

Stephen B. Young at The Minneapolis Star-Tribune

The founding impulse for America came with the Pilgrims, mooring at Plymouth 400 years ago this autumn. The Calvinist Pilgrims came in search of a place to live out their faith — an intangible mind-set that called them to work and to pray. They set moral standards for themselves and organized their personal, family and community lives to aspire to those ideals.

Their moral vision was of a community of industrious believers in the good, of proud and hardworking, self-governing individuals, accepting a vocation of service to God and community.

The men who had chosen this course for their families agreed to:

“Solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another; covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic ... to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal laws ... as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good ... .”

This Mayflower Compact provided for the rule of law in governing the community; it honored personal freedoms under the law; it set expectations of each person to work for both personal and the common good. It presumed good will, good faith and commitment on the part of those who joined the common effort. It also presumed some education and rationality.

This moral vision came to be the American dream.

In 1776, this aspiration was applied to ennoble political separation from the government of Great Britain. The Declaration of Independence echoed the Mayflower Compact in being a contract among those who believed in “certain truths.” The new nation of the United States of America would seek to live by ideals, not by tribal identity or by the doctrines of any one religion. The new nation would be a novus ordo seclorum — “a new order for the ages.”

ADA Is 30

President George H.W. Bush on signing the Americans with Disabilities Act, 30 years ago today:

Our success with this act proves that we are keeping faith with the spirit of our courageous forefathers who wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "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." These words have been our guide for more than two centuries as we've labored to form our more perfect union. But tragically, for too many Americans, the blessings of liberty have been limited or even denied. The Civil Rights Act of '64 took a bold step towards righting that wrong. But the stark fact remained that people with disabilities were still victims of segregation and discrimination, and this was intolerable. Today's legislation brings us closer to that day when no Americans will ever again be deprived of their basic guarantee of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

This act is powerful in its simplicity. It will ensure that people with disabilities are given the basic guarantees for which they have worked so long and so hard: independence, freedom of choice, control of their lives, the opportunity to blend fully and equally into the rich mosaic of the American mainstream. Legally, it will provide our disabled community with a powerful expansion of protections and then basic civil rights. It will guarantee fair and just access to the fruits of American life which we all must be able to enjoy. And then, specifically, first the ADA ensures that employers covered by the act cannot discriminate against qualified individuals with disabilities. Second, the ADA ensures access to public accommodations such as restaurants, hotels, shopping centers, and offices. And third, the ADA ensures expanded access to transportation services. And fourth, the ADA ensures equivalent telephone services for people with speech or hearing impediments.

...

Our problems are large, but our unified heart is larger. Our challenges are great, but our will is greater. And in our America, the most generous, optimistic nation on the face of the Earth, we must not and will not rest until every man and woman with a dream has the means to achieve it.

And today, America welcomes into the mainstream of life all of our fellow citizens with disabilities. We embrace you for your abilities and for your disabilities, for our similarities and indeed for our differences, for your past courage and your future dreams. Last year, we celebrated a victory of international freedom. Even the strongest person couldn't scale the Berlin Wall to gain the elusive promise of independence that lay just beyond. And so, together we rejoiced when that barrier fell.

And now I sign legislation which takes a sledgehammer to another wall, one which has for too many generations separated Americans with disabilities from the freedom they could glimpse, but not grasp. Once again, we rejoice as this barrier falls for claiming together we will not accept, we will not excuse, we will not tolerate discrimination in America.

With, again, great thanks to the Members of the United States Senate, leaders of whom are here today, and those who worked so tirelessly for this legislation on both sides of the aisles. And to those Members of the House of Representatives with us here today, Democrats and Republicans as well, I salute you. And on your behalf, as well as the behalf of this entire country, I now lift my pen to sign this Americans with Disabilities Act and say: Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down. God bless you all.