[The following is a guest post by Ann Green.]

In honor of our nation's birthday I read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I offer a few observations. {When I use quotes, I left in the capitalizations as they appear in the text.}

I found my reading to be especially relevant at a time when the Federal Government is grabbing power as fast as it can. It is very clear that the overriding goal of the Founder Fathers was to restrict the power of government over the individual. "Governments are instituted among men," the Declaration states, "Deriving their just powers from the Consent of the Governed." The preface to the Bill of Rights tells us, "The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added." The focus is not on what rights people have so much as it is on what the government cannot do.

Think how few members of the United Nations are governed by the consent of the governed. Yet we take these despots seriously as our partners in diplomacy.

Our "inalienable rights" are "endowed by the Creator." The Judeo-Christian influences on the Founders are never in doubt, but those for whom this is a problem can relax. Amendment I of The Bill of Rights states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Somehow that wording later led to hysteria about every mention of God in public venues and in the Pledge of Allegiance, as well as the cross that stood in the middle of the Mojave Dessert for over 70 years as a memorial to soldiers who died in the First World War. It had to be covered with plywood while the ACLU dragged the case through the courts. Amendment I has meant gainful employment for the ACLU for decades. Contrary to the belief of those who obsess about this issue, it is possible for our Founders to have been influenced by religious tradition without intending to impose specific religious expectations on the people.

Among the Founders' stated reasons for breaking ties with King George, "He has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records." I daresay this would include the modern-day practice of decision-making behind closed doors in the proverbial smoke-filled rooms. Writing bills that are 2000 pages long is another way of hiding content, not only from the public, but sometimes from the senators and congressmen who vote on them, although, we're assured, all will become clear once they've been passed. Article I Section 7 of the Constitution explains the legislative process, how a bill is designed, sent to the president, considered and reconsidered. Nowhere does it say how a bill is packed with pork and hidden amendments irrelevant to its substance, then snuck through Congress by way of parliamentary tricks never meant to be utilized to make a fundamental change in the lives of millions, a change which most of them oppose.

"He has erected a Multitude of new Offices," the Declaration continues, "...enlarging its {the government's} Boundaries." Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution sets these Boundaries as providing national defense, a court system, roads, post offices and the ability to repay debts incurred in the event of war. Never in their wildest imagination did the Founders foresee Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs. And those are just the ones which have achieved Cabinet-level status. I thought President Reagan was going to do away with the Department of Education. As with any new department or tax, once in place, it's like a raspberry stain on a white shirt -- good luck getting rid of it. It's easy to see the need for a new department like Homeland Security, but even that has so many overlapping layers, it can't do its job. Now with the Dodd-Frank financial "reform" bill we will have the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection and an Office of Financial Research. I think we could guess how the Founders might react to the appointment of at least 32 individuals with great power, called "czars," none of whom are subject to congressional scrutiny. Few elected officials can resist the temptation to add bureaus, foundations, departments, agencies, offices, or, my personal favorite, task forces. There is a New Yorker cartoon depicting the Bureau of Dot Connection. Enough said.

King George was also asked not to let the door hit his royal rear on his way out for "imposing Taxes on us without our Consent." Such taxes can be found in too many places to enumerate, but from today's headlines health care comes to mind. The tax on tanning has already kicked in. Then there's cap and trade -- taxing CO2, what an idea! There's also talk of a VAT and maybe a tax on junk food, for our own good, of course. Here in Taxxachusetts, site of the Boston Massacre, we had a 25% increase in our sales tax zipped in last August, with regular increases in fees and tolls (which are always on the verge of going away) every time we turn abound.

For those in on the current trend among the intellectual gliteratti of seeking guidance from international law, one envisions the Founders doing triple axles in their graves at the very idea. Unfortunately, Supreme Court Justices Kennedy, Ginsberg, and Sotomayor are part of the trend. Can Elena Kagen be far behind?

Addressing George directly, the Founders scold, "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." Aside from the obvious suspect, note the recent behavior of Congressman Bob Etheridge of North Carolina, who roughed up a student with the nerve to ask him a question in broad daylight in Washington, DC. Watch the video of California Congressman Pete Stark's insulting remarks to a constituent who had volunteered as a Minuteman to protect the porous Arizona border. Or check out Barney Frank's unguarded remarks at a gathering of Young Democrats, "We're not satisfied with everything we've done. The way to cure that is to give us more authority and more ability." Last March, at the AIPAC Policy Conference, before our day of lobbying our senators and congressmen, those of us lucky enough to be his constituents were given instructions on how to approach Frank. The precise directions implied that we were about to enter the presence of royalty. I found myself wondering if I'd be told to curtsy.

John Hancock, I think it's safe to say, did not envision a government which would micromanage our lives. Unlike those who run the City of Newton, he would not tell you what kind of trash receptacle you have to use, or like the City of New York, what kind of fat is permitted in the food you serve in your restaurant. Not to perseverate on the healthcare bill, but I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that John would not empower the government to require you to purchase coverage or pay a fine.

I could go on, but it's time to cook the hotdogs.

Our Constitution begins with the words "We the People," not "You guys in the Government." This is not just about the current administration. This is about knowing your rights and knowing what kind of government you have. Whether there is a national election or a local one, many people don't bother to vote these days. This is the year to read the Declaration and the Constitution and to reenergize as citizens. You can tell your senator or congressman with your voice and your vote, "I know how things are supposed to work. I pay your salary. And you're not the Boss of me."