The Declaration of Independence

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America


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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
____________________________
Learn more about the Declaration of Independence at the National Archives

Energy Bill Deserved Governor's Veto

Senate Bill 493 offers some good ideas for promoting renewable energy in Connecticut. Unfortunately, this bill was passed without a public hearing, was written by a small number of Democratic legislators in the closing HOURS of the legislative session, was released to legislators for review only a few hours before a vote and was introduced to the Senate by the Energy & Technology Committee co-chair with an 8-minute presentation.

Although they were not allowed to take part in development of the bill, the state Department of Public Utility & Control and the Office of Policy & Management both reviewed a draft of the proposal only hours before debate and concluded that it would be very costly to electricity customers. They stated, “our overall concern is that most of the provisions of this bill will result in significant increases in ratepayers’ costs and will have a considerable state budgetary impact that are not accounted for in the adopted budget or any proposal under consideration.”

At a time when Connecticut state government is unable to sustain current levels of spending and is researching opportunities for government reorganization, efficiency and down-sizing (I serve on the Commission on Enhancing Agency Outcomes studying these matters) we can't seriously entertain EXPANDING the size of state government as is proposed in SB493. In Governor Rell’s veto message she states, “the cost to ratepayers over the life of this new solar program is nearly $1.4 billion. So, while this is a laudable goal, it is not the time to make this type of investment.”

I supported a Republican amendment to the bill that retains some of the renewable energy proposals in SB493 without expanding state government and dramatically increasing state spending. The proposal, which failed along party lines, included many of the same provisions in the Democrat plan but removed many of the more costly items. This amendment also eliminated proposals that did not have a public hearing.

I am anxious to support responsible legislation that addresses high electricity costs in Connecticut and encourages renewable energy initiatives. Senate Bill 493 is clearly an irresponsible, unaffordable proposal at a time when Connecticut's state government is facing the biggest budget crisis in our history. This is the reason I opposed the bill and why I will vote to sustain the Governor's veto.

"Kick the Can" Olympics at CT Capitol

If your income goes down will you cut spending in your household budget? Will you find more ways to stretch your dollars? Of course you will!


State government works differently than you do. Revenue to state government (taxes collected) has crashed during this recession. The answer from majority Democratic leaders at the State Capitol – borrow billions of dollars and keep spending!


Last September the Democrats borrowed $950 million for operating costs without substantive spending cuts. Budget experts and economists warned us the recession would impact the state budget far longer than the private sectors of our economy. That warning should have motivated the Democratic leadership to entertain serious government reform to cut spending in future budget years. Unfortunately, we’re likely to see a proposal to borrow another billion dollars to pay for current year expenses!


Surely businesses and families have responded to the recession in their budgets but state government keeps driving full speed ahead to the budget cliff in 2012.


Our state budget for 2012-2013 is projected to have a $4 billion deficit. If we know the amount of future deficits why not fix the deficit problem? “Kick the Can” Olympics is the reason. The majority Democratic leadership is kicking the can down the road for a future governor and legislature to address the long-term budget crisis in Connecticut.


“Kick the Can” Olympics – a political game that lets the majority Democratic leadership claim they’ve “balanced the budget” in time for their re-election campaigns. Everyone who watches government operations in Connecticut knows 2012 is a nightmare for the next governor and legislature.


What a shame we can’t convince the majority Democratic leadership to make the tough decisions today that will lessen the budget catastrophe coming in 2012.

Connecticut Should Reject ObamaCare

An Open Letter to Attorney General Richard Blumenthal

Signed by all Republican State Senators

Dear Attorney General Blumenthal:

As the elected official charged with representing the interest of the people of Connecticut, it is now time for you to take action to preserve the Constitution and protect our state’s citizens and businesses. The illegal mandates passed by Congress in the form of the so-called Health Care Reform law must be challenged.

Under our Constitution, those rights not explicitly provided to the federal government are reserved to the states. The Constitution does not empower the federal government to usurp the issue of making health care decisions for either the state or its citizens. The selection of healthcare providers and medical treatments, as well as the decision NOT to have certain treatments or coverage is the decision of the individual, protected by the Due Process rights of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. It is not now, nor has it ever been, in the purview of Congress to supersede those individual rights.

In addition, it has long been settled that the federal government has ceded to the states the responsibility of setting local healthcare standards of care, as well as regulatory authority over the medical and insurance industries. This inherent recognition of states' rights as pertaining to health care should remain, absent some Constitutional amendment granting oversight to Congress.

Finally, the attempted use of the Commerce Clause to justify this latest power grab by the federal government is unwarranted and improper. If the Commerce Clause, which springs from the authority to oversee economic activity between the states, was truly a proper source for an entire radical redesign of the health insurance industry, then it would not have been illegal to sell health insurance policies across state lines. In a free society, it has never been the duty of Congress to force the people of the United States to purchase a certain commercial product simply as a consequence of being alive. It is inherently illegal to mandate that free citizens must buy health care coverage or face sanctions.

We urge you to join the growing number of attorney generals who have already begun legal proceedings to stop this illegal action by Congress. Regardless of your personal beliefs or philosophies, you are bound by duty to protect and defend the people of this state, the small employers who will be penalized or put out of business by the mandates, the large insurance companies that call our state home and employ tens of thousands of our residents in an industry that will eventually be eliminated by government intrusion into our free markets, and the private citizens who will ultimately have to pay the $ 1.3 trillion price tag.

We would be happy to discuss this issue with you further at your convenience and we will assist your office in any way possible.

Sincerely,

Senator John McKinney, Senate Minority Leader
Senator Len Fasano, Senate Minority Leader Pro Tempore
Senator Andrew Roraback
Senator Tony Guglielmo
Senator John Kissel
Senator Sam Caligiuri
Senator Dan Debicella
Senator Rob Kane
Senator Toni Boucher
Senator Kevin Witkos
Senator Scott Frantz
Senator Michael McLachlan

A Spending Cap in Connecticut?

On November 3rd, 1992 Connecticut voters approved an amendment to the state Constitution creating a constitutional spending cap. However, the amendment requires the legislature to define three key terms: increase in personal income tax, increase in inflation, and general budget expenditure. Without defining these terms, the Constitutional spending cap is ineffective and the legislature is only bound to a statutory spending cap that can be and has been ignored. A statutory spending cap does not have the binding power or effectiveness of a fully implemented constitutional amendment. Statutory language can be changed by a simple majority vote of the General Assembly, and often is.

I testified before the General Assembly’s Appropriations Committee in support of SB-3, An Act Redefining Terms Concerning the Spending Cap. If passed into law, the bill will define terms necessary to implement Connecticut’s Constitutional spending cap.

For eighteen years, the legislature has been idle on this issue as they continued to spend without any accountability. The irresponsible government spending this cap was designed to prevent has spiraled out of control and played a major role in putting us where we are today. Year after year we propose language that will implement the cap and year after year the majority party refuses to take action. It is long past time for the legislature to finally take action and listen to the voice of the people.

The people of Connecticut have spoken. They made it clear eighteen years ago they wanted the legislature bound by a constitutional spending cap, but their vote has been ignored. I am unfortunately not very optimistic that the majority will take action on SB-3 and fully implement Connecticut’s constitutional spending cap, but I will continue to fight toward that end. The voters exercised their vote on this matter in 1992 and they should not be ignored any longer.

Connecticut State Sovereignty?

Tenth Amendment Legislation Moves Forward

Grassroots activists from around Connecticut gathered at the capitol complex Wednesday, February 17th, to join me and a coalition of legislative leaders in announcing that the Government Administration and Elections Committee (GAE) will raise legislation reasserting Connecticut’s Tenth Amendment rights under the Constitution.

Just hours before the press conference scheduled to call on Democrat leadership to raise the legislation, we heard from Sen. Gayle Slossberg, co-chair of GAE, that our proposed resolution would be raised for a public hearing. I have no doubt that the leadership and dedication of the many activists who showed their support last Wednesday played an important role in moving this legislation forward. It was a powerful display of democracy in action. But activists can’t stop here. When the public hearing is scheduled in the coming weeks, it will be an even greater opportunity for citizens to exhort legislators from both sides of the aisle to stand up for the Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment Resolution calls on Congress to create only statutes that fall within their constitutional authority. The Constitution has only given Congress the authority to make laws that pertain to certain issues such as taxation, international commerce, currency regulation, the federal Judiciary, and the armed forces to name a few. The Constitution also grants Congress the authority to make laws necessary and proper for the carrying out of their enumerated powers which is a clause that has been manipulated to grant the federal government authority far beyond what our founding fathers intended. The Tenth Amendment reasserts that Congress may only make laws that fall within their Constitutional authority.

The federal government has been steadily expanding their authority in areas the Constitution has not authorized. Even ‘conservative’ federal administrations have ignored the Constitution and imposed both health and educational mandates on states. The most recent federal health care proposal, if passed, will be by far the most serious overreach of Congressional power and it is time for states to begin speaking up. Washington DC has a terrible habit of passing unfunded mandates down to states and the Connecticut General Assembly has done the same thing to our towns and cities. This top down approach on both the state and federal level is unsustainable, unconstitutional, and must stop.

If passed, the Tenth Amendment Resolution will be a key step towards defining in state statute the limits of congressional power. I also proposed legislation that would have taken that next step to define statutorily Connecticut’s rights under the Tenth Amendment and create a method by which the state can review federal laws, regulations and programs for compliance with the Tenth Amendment. I am still committed to pursuing the proposed statutes and consider the headway made on the resolution an important step in the right direction.


While this legislation won’t singlehandedly stop Congress from legislating issues outside their enumerated powers, it will make a strong statement that the people of the Constitution state are no longer willing to allow the federal government free reign over their lives. The Tenth Amendment should speak for itself and I only hope that the federal government will be reminded by our efforts in Connecticut to conduct their legislation within its boundaries.

Congratulations to the Connecticut Grassroots Coalition for their hard work!

Connecticut Democrats Jammed Healthcare?

Does anyone in Connecticut who is currently upset with President Obama and Washington Democrats over their attempt to jam national healthcare down our throats realize Connecticut Democrats did the same thing last year?

SustiNet - Connecticut Democrat's version of misguided health care reform passed the legislature last year and was vetoed by the Governor. The Democrats came back in a special session to override the veto over my objections and all Republican legislators.

The Connecticut Democrats' plan will cost Connecticut taxpayers somewhere between $530 million and $1.7 billion per year beginning in 2012. Where is this money going to come from? Taxpayers. Perhaps $1,000 per year for each Connecticut family in new taxes.

Connecticut Democrats offered empty promises with this health care reform proposal and no money to pay for it. They did victory laps on passing the bill and again when they voted to override the Governor's veto.

Connecticut Democrats jammed "healthcare reform" down our throats last year - no different than the shenanigans of Washington Democrats.

Where is the taxpayer's outrage?

My objections to the Democrats' misguided reform on the floor of the Senate and my no vote means little to Connecticut Democrats. When will Connecticut's taxpayers hold the Democrats in Hartford accountable for their actions?