Senator Tim Kaine’s (D-VA) recent remarks questioning the Declaration of Independence’s assertion that rights come from a Creator—not from government—reveal a troubling misunderstanding of America’s foundational philosophy. Kaine argued that the idea of rights being divinely endowed can be problematic, especially when interpreted through different religious traditions. He ignorantly compared the belief in natural rights espoused by the American Founders to the theocratic regime in Iran, which claims divine authority to define and enforce rights.
Such comments—at the very least—suggest a confusion between the source of rights and the mechanism by which they are protected. The U.S. Constitution—secular and inclusive—ensures that no religion can dictate law. But it also rests on the Declaration’s moral foundation: that liberty is not a privilege granted by the state, but a birthright that government must respect and protect.
The rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are not contingent on any religious doctrine or subject to the whims of a majority—they’re universal, unalienable, and rooted in natural law. The Declaration of Independence frames these rights as endowed by our Creator, but it deliberately avoids specifying any particular religion. That ambiguity was intentional, reflecting the Enlightenment belief that human rights transcend sectarian boundaries. The Constitution reinforces this by establishing a secular framework, e.g., no religious test, freedom of religion, and government neutrality towards religion. The Founders weren’t codifying religious dogma—they were asserting that rights exist prior to and above government, and that no regime has the authority to revoke our rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Senator Tim Kaine’s misreading of the Declaration and the Constitution regarding religion has conflated natural rights with religious enforcement. The American system was designed to protect rights regardless of religious belief—not to impose them through it.
The Declaration does not promote religious doctrine. It affirms that human beings possess unalienable rights by virtue of their existence—rights that precede and transcend any government. This idea, rooted in Enlightenment thought and natural law, was revolutionary in 1776 and remains essential today. The phrase “endowed by their Creator” was deliberately broad, inclusive of all faiths and even those with none. It was never meant to impose theology but, asserts that rights are not granted by rulers—they are inherent.
To compare this principle to theocratic regimes like Iran is not only historically inaccurate, but also philosophically incoherent. The Founders rejected monarchy and religious tyranny. They built a system where government’s sole legitimate purpose is to secure rights—not define them, not dispense them, and certainly not interpret them through religious authority.
To misunderstand this is to misunderstand America itself. Yet the masses—persuaded by the likes of Senator Kaine and the Democrats—have been convinced that we live in a democracy and rights come from laws created by government. As a result, one of the most misunderstood aspects of American governance is that the United States was deliberately founded as a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, precisely to shield individual rights from the whims of majority rule. In a democracy, the majority can vote to take away your rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
This shift from a Constitutional Republic toward a majoritarian democracy didn’t happen overnight. It’s the result of decades of cultural, legal, and institutional drift. Here’s why the original safeguards put in place by our Founders haven’t held the line.
Erosion of Federalism
The Founders designed a system where states were sovereign in many areas. Over time, federal power has expanded—through judicial interpretation, executive action, and legislation—often at the expense of local autonomy. This centralization makes it easier for national majorities to override minority interests.
Judicial Activism and Deference
While courts were meant to be a bulwark against majority overreach, they’ve deferred to democratic will rather than enforcing strict constitutional limits. In other cases, courts have legislated from the bench, reshaping and eliminating rights based on evolving social norms rather than original meaning.
Popular Sovereignty Over Constitutional Limits
There’s been a cultural shift toward viewing popular vote as the ultimate authority, even when it conflicts with constitutional principles. This mindset treats the Constitution as flexible or outdated, rather than as a fixed contract that binds both rulers and ruled. As a result, we are no longer free citizens, we are slaves or subjects to those in power.
Undermining of Institutional Checks
Congress was meant to be jealous of its power, the Executive constrained by law, and the Judiciary independent. But partisanship, bureaucratic entrenchment, and executive overreach have blurred these boundaries, weakening the very checks and balances that were supposed to prevent democratic excess.
Rise of Mass Democracy and Media Influence
The Founders feared emotional populism, which is now amplified by mass media and social platforms. Public opinion can be swayed rapidly, and politicians often respond to polls rather than principles. This undermines the deliberative nature of a republic.
So yes, the United States of America was designed to be undemocratic in key respects—not to suppress the people, but to protect individual rights from the masses when necessary. The failure isn’t in the design, but in the abandonment of constitutional discipline in favor of democratic expediency.
President Trump and his Administration is attempting to reverse course, bringing us back to the time when individual freedom and respect for private property rights were paramount. Trump needs our support, and for the Supreme Court to do the right thing going forward. See Freedom vs. Democracy: The Supreme Court May Be Our Last Hope.
Compromises have been made over decades, resulting in division and the mess we find ourselves in today. There are only two choices: (1) Either you believe in individual freedom; or (2) you believe in slavery. There is no in-between. Democracy or majority rule represents the ability of the majority to enslave the minority. The restoration of our Constitutional Republic will bring back the freedom and respect for private property, which was passed down to us by the Founders.
President Trump is trying to reestablish our Constitutional Republic while “The Democratic Party Hates America” and wants to destroy the experiment in individual freedom handed down to us by the Founders, who mutually pledged to each other their Lives, their Fortunes, and their sacred Honor on July 4, 1776.
If you believe in Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, you know what to do when elections come around!
Dum Spiro Spero—While I breathe, I hope.
Slàinte mhath,
Robert (Mike) G. Beard Jr., C.P.A., C.G.M.A., J.D., LL.M.