The
Constitution of the United States of America
We the People of the United States, in order to form a more
perfect Union, establish Justice, and insure domestic Tranquility, provide for
the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of
Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.
Article I.
Section I. All legislative Powers
herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall
consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
* * *
Amendment I
- Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress
of grievances.
The above sections of the Constitution of the
United States of America are transcribed directly from my “copy” of the
original constitution. Over the years I
have been a collector of items related to the history of the United States, and
purchased this copy, which is even printed on paper treated to look “authentic,
fifteen years ago. This was about the
time I felt compelled by God to take action in society in a way that is not
popular for a pastor to become involved.
Or at least it was not commonly accepted at that time.
I would like to point out that on the
original Constitution, the words “We the People” are, indeed, proportionately
larger than the entirety of the remainder of the document as I indicate
above. I believe there is significance
to that. It is “We the People” and not
“We the Government”. Just sayin’…
Today I wish to deal with an issue which has
come to the forefront of the news recently: Constitutional Authority.
I heard recently that when a lawyer studies Constitutional Law they are not studying “the Constitution of the United States of America”, but rather the decisions handed down related to the Constitution. As an Ordained Bishop, it occurs to me that this would be like me taking a seminary class on theology which only deals with what others have said about the Bible, or more accurately, sermons others have preached on the topics covered in the Bible.
While it is expected that one who delivers
sermons to his congregation regularly should actually read the text out of
which he is presented such a message, it appears that one who “practices” law is
not held to the same standard in their field of ‘expertise’.
Honestly, I am appalled that I may know the actual Constitution and its Amendments better than those professionally trained in such. I have read the original Constitution several times, and, with the help of a book and accompanying video titled, The Constitution Made Easy, written and presented by Michael Holler, I have conducted even further study.
What many in this nation do not know is what the Constitution IS. They know the ‘rights’ they have based on what they have been spoon-fed in the media and by those wishing to control them, but they do not have a clue what actually grants them the rights they DO have.
Before dealing with what the Constitution IS, I wish to point out what it is NOT. It is not a document outlining the right to have free things at the expense of others. It is not a document which gives everyone the freedom not to be offended. It is not a document that provides the ability to live life beyond the influence of religious practice. And it IS NOT a document which outlines the “separation of church and state” in its primary text, nor ANY of its Amendments.
And now what “the Constitution” IS. The Constitution of the United States of America is a document which grants a government to be formed on behalf of the People, or citizenry, of the United States. In England, Great Britain, the elections are granted by the monarchy to bring about a government to represent the people in which the monarch calls the Prime Minister before him/her self in order to grant them the commission to set up a government on their behalf.
This is not the case in the United States of America.
The Preamble to the Constitution clearly
states, “We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
union, establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of
liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution
for the United States of America.”
We the People… WE the PEOPLE… It is US… the Citizens of the United States who grant those representing us to do so. And they do so with limited power. We establish this Constitution to cause us to join together in a united effort to establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility. We do so to bring about a unified existence which tells the rest of the world, “We are Americans!” We do so that we might have a military presence which acts on our behalf to defend ourselves against enemies foreign and domestic, both from beyond our borders and from within. We do so that our “general welfare”, or common interests in freedom to live without concern that our government or others will disrupt our “pursuit of happiness”, as indicated in the Declaration of independence. And we do so in order so that we may “secure the Blessings of Liberty” to ourselves and our posterity.
Blessings… Blessings… hmmmm… where would “Blessings” come from? Wait… I have it!!! We get our blessings from a bottle that was thrown out to sea by someone who didn’t appreciate them, but we were blessed when we found them!!! NOT!!!
These are the Blessings of Liberty! One does not have to reach too far back to establish where these blessings came from. In the Declaration of Independence, in which we stated quite boldly that we were no longer under the dominion of the tyrannical rule of the monarchy in Great Britain, we explain very clearly where those “Blessings” came from.
“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” (again, this is transcribed
from my copy of the original printed on “authentic looking” paper)
The Blessings of Liberty came from our Creator. In God Shed His Grace On Thee, page 60, I point out. “God was at the epicenter of the rumblings which formed the United States of America. A Creator granted these rights. It was not a cataclysmic explosion of stuff hurled into space and settled into balls of molten goo which eventually somehow miraculously of its own accord effected change in a changeless environment. No Creator…no Rights.” And in the context of the Constitution, we set out our government, a Republic, representing the interested of “We the People”, to preserve the BLESSINGS of LIBERTY which were granted to us by a loving GOD and CREATOR!
This is not a stretch of logic. It is a natural, systematic, logical progression through our nation’s development. And since the God of the universe granted these rights which are so dear to us, we set up a government to protect them, not only for ourselves, but our posterity (you and I and those to come).
And it is here that the Constitution begins. Today we are told that our government is in charge. WRONG!!! WE ARE!!! WE THE PEOPLE!!!
The Constitution sets up the limitations of
government. It sets an executive office
in place known as the President of the United States of America which has the
responsibility to serve as Commander in Chief of the military forces, to
execute the office on behalf of the American people so that other nations may
be able to have a point of contact in initial negotiations, and in order to
serve as the final signature of approval or veto in legislation sent to his (or
her) desk. Even then, there is a possibility
of override of such veto if the legislature can provide an overwhelming amount of
support (67%) to overturn such. His is
NOT the position of making law, nor is it the position of deciding which laws
he will and will not enforce, or whether or not he will delay such
enforcement. Our President currently is
doing exactly this through his administration.
And Congress is the legislative body. They come up with the laws and financial appropriations. Each body of Congress, the Senate and House of Representatives, are delegated certain aspects of such law in order to maintain a balance of power. And in the event they DO pass a law, whether through Presidential approval or overriding a veto, that law may come under the challenge of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court of the United States of America is also given its authority, responsibility, and limitations within the manuscript of the Constitution. They are not to establish law, but are only to determine the Constitutionality of such laws. They may way the Constitutionality of laws which arise within varied states if they violate the united Liberty we all enjoy. However, in recent decades, the Supreme Court has taken upon itself the introduction of external influences in determining “Constitutionality”. As I mentioned previously, the “separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution nor any of its Amendments. I have dealt with religious freedom previously, and will do so again very soon in relation to the First Amendment and religious freedom.
Each element of government has at one point or another overstepped its place. We the People are guaranteed the ability to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances” in such cases. This IS guaranteed in the Constitution, in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Many are not truly aware of their ‘Rights’. While we are not guaranteed free things at others expense, we ARE guaranteed the Right to approach the government in challenge of their offenses.
The first and greatest Right we have to do so is to vote. If we wish there to be a true return to the righteous and religious directive of this nation, the Christian must place first priority on biblical principles and values in their voting process. We must stop thinking about “what’s in it for me”, and think “What is right?”, “Which candidate, which proposal, is in line with the Bible, and God’s Will?” “Who stands for the life of the unborn?” “Who lifts up the moral and ethical values presented in issues of marriage? The family? Societal issues?”
I will deal more with this as I continue this vein of thought tomorrow.
Rex Louth
Author, God
Shed His Grace On Thee (2013) Westbow Press
1. As a lawyer, I can assure you that you are misinformed about legal education. While experiences naturally vary, law students, of course, study decisions of the Supreme Court, but not “rather” than studying the Constitution as well. They go hand in hand.
ReplyDeleteYou are quite right to observe and emphasize that “We the People” established the Constitution and, with it, a limited government. That fundamental fact, though, leads to profoundly different conclusions than you seem to have drawn.
Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution, much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the first place, the Supreme Court has thoughtfully, authoritatively, and repeatedly decided as much; it is long since established law. In the second place, the Court is right. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of "We the people" (not a deity), (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day (by which governments generally were grounded in some appeal to god(s)), the founders' avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which affirmatively constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.
Indeed, the absence of references to a deity in the Constitution was noticed and discussed in the debates about its ratification, since some were disappointed the Constitution did not acknowledge a deity. Imagine their surprise at all you would now make of the Constitution's mere use of the phrase "blessings of liberty." Suffice it to say that the term "blessing" has religious and non-religious meanings and usages. See Webster's Dictionary (1828).
That the words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who mistakenly supposed they were there and, upon learning of their error, fancy they’ve solved a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphorical phrase commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.
2. To the extent that some nonetheless would like confirmation--in those very words--of the founders' intent to separate government and religion, Madison and Jefferson supplied it. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). Indeed, he understood the original Constitution--without the First Amendment--to separate religion and government. He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”
ReplyDeleteWhile some also draw meaning from the variously phrased references to god(s) in the Declaration of Independence (references that could mean any number of things, some at odds with the Christian idea of God) and try to connect that meaning to the Constitution, the effort is largely baseless. Important as the Declaration is in our history, it did not operate to bring about independence (that required winning a war), nor did it found a government, nor did it even create any law, and it certainly did not say or do anything that somehow dictated the meaning of a Constitution adopted twelve years later. The colonists issued the Declaration not to do any of that, but rather to politically explain and justify the move to independence that was already well underway. Nothing in the Constitution depends on anything said in the Declaration. Nor does anything said in the Declaration purport to limit or define the government later formed by the free people of the former colonies. Nor could it even if it purported to do so. Once independent, the people of the former colonies were free to choose whether to form a collective government at all and, if so, whatever form of government they deemed appropriate. They were not somehow limited by anything said in the Declaration. Sure, they could take its words as inspiration and guidance if, and to the extent, they chose--or they could not. They could have formed a theocracy if they wished--or, as they ultimately chose, a government founded on the power of the people (not a deity) and separated from religion.
I certainly appreciate the input regarding the Constitutional establishment of a secular government and the necessity to keep the nation from being a Theocracy. That is very true, and thus the reason that our Founders would not place one church in leadership above another. And while I see that one may find the "Blessings of Liberty" discussion a 'stretch', I find that a multitude of statements by the Founding Fathers support the absolute necessity of religious influence in the public square as well as government operations. On pages 120 through 126 of God Shed His Grace On Thee I note that findings of two separate judiciary committees from the House of Representatives and Senate point out the connection between religious activity and the government, and that our Founding Fathers were very clear in their direction that the election of officials to such offices of high authority should be only after a consideration of their moral, ethical, and, yes, religious nature. It is not my belief that America should be a Theocracy, with the Church running the government. I do believe that It was intended to be operated under the auspices of a religious people who are willing to accept beliefs other than their own. And it is incomprehensible that the Creator referred to in the Declaration of Independence is any other than the God of Judeo-Christian faith. While I know one might find this a stretch as well, those signing both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution did so in "the year of our Lord" at their respective moments in time. The date of the Constitution is noted that it is not only in "the year of our Lord (1787)" but also "the Independence of the United States of America (12th)". Both specifically noted. And James Madison, whom many quote as being opposed to any religious influence in government, offered his original Amendment (which has now become the First Amendment) as, "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed." This indicated that his chief concern was that a national religion be established and that there by any punishment for those not adhering to a nationally set process of worship or faith. More impacting is the plethora of documentation that the greatest majority of the Founding Fathers were not only Christian, but committed to their faith being an integral part of the nation's identity. In addition, I cannot fathom how one may not make a connection between the document which created the nation by independence with the one establishing it in its current form of government. Many of the same persons involved in the process of the first were in one way or another connected to the second (actually third, if you count the Articles of Confederation). Either way, the current direction the nation is headed (and has been for some time) is not the direction of original intent.
ReplyDelete1. I appreciate your well informed response, which is tightly packed with pertinent points. I hope you’ll pardon the length of my effort to address those points.
ReplyDeleteThe 1853-1854 Judiciary Committee reports you note were prompted by questions raised about the constitutionality of Congress' appointment of chaplains--one of the very topics Madison addressed in his Detached Memoranda. As it happens, he not only stated plainly his understanding that the Constitution prohibits the government from promoting religion by such acts as appointing chaplains for the houses of Congress and the army and navy or by issuing proclamations recommending thanksgiving, he also addressed the question of what to make of the government’s actions doing just that. Ever practical, he answered not with a demand these actions inconsistent with the Constitution be undone, but rather with an explanation to circumscribe their ill effect: “Rather than let this step beyond the landmarks of power have the effect of a legitimate precedent, it will be better to apply to it the legal aphorism de minimis non curat lex [i.e., the law does not concern itself with trifles]: or to class it cum maculis quas aut incuria fudit, aut humana parum cavit natura [i.e., faults proceeding either from negligence or from the imperfection of our nature].” Basically, he recognized that because too many people might be upset by reversing these actions, it would be politically difficult and perhaps infeasible to do so in order to adhere to the constitutional principle, and thus he proposed giving these particular missteps a pass, while at the same time assuring they are not regarded as legitimate precedent of what the Constitution means, so they do not influence future actions.
As Madison's commentary was not published until many years later, the Committees did not see or consider it. If they were acting as objective historians, they may have been persuaded to reach the same conclusion as Madison. But they acted as politicians issuing a political document, so knowledge of Madison's understanding likely would have made little difference to them--though it certainly would have been interesting to see them struggle to sidestep it.
With respect it being “incomprehensible” that the Declaration’s provisions refer to “any other than the God of the Judeo-Christian faith,” I will just note that commentators more familiar with religious terminology than I have observed that some of its references appear plainly Christian and others not so much. The drafters appear to have astutely chosen words that could mean different things to different people--that could fit with the thinking of Christians, Unitarians, deists, and others--so they could achieve political consensus.
You also make much of the Constitution's date, which, in keeping with the convention of the time, is keyed to the Christian calendar, without actually offering any reason this trivial observation should be regarded as substantive or significant. It is, in any event, moot since the dating language is not part of the text of the Constitution voted upon and adopted by the Convention or ratified by the states. It was apparently just appended by the scrivener who prepared copies of the document. http://www.philipvickersfithian.com/2011/05/us-constitution-and-year-of-our-lord.html
2. While the First Amendment undoubtedly was intended to preclude the government from establishing a national religion as you note, that was hardly the limit of its intended scope. The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision (“no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed”) and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment. Certainly, Madison did not read the Amendment to do so little as you suggest. During his presidency, Madison vetoed two bills, neither of which would form a national religion or compel observance of any religion, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause. While some in Congress expressed surprise that the Constitution prohibited Congress from incorporating a church in the town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia or granting land to a church in the Mississippi Territory, Congress upheld both vetoes. Separation of church and state is hardly a new invention of modern courts. In keeping with the Amendment’s terms and legislative history and other evidence, the courts have wisely interpreted it to restrict the government from taking steps that could establish religion de facto as well as de jure. Were the Amendment interpreted merely to preclude government from enacting a statute formally establishing a state church, the intent of the Amendment could easily be circumvented by government doing all sorts of things to promote this or that religion–stopping just short of cutting a ribbon to open its new church.
ReplyDeleteWhile the religious views of various founders are subjects of some uncertainty and controversy, it is safe to say that many founders were Christian of one sort or another and held views such as you note regarding religion. In assessing the nature of our government, though, care should be taken to distinguish between society and government and not to make too much of various founders’ individual religious beliefs. Their individual beliefs, while informative, are largely beside the point. Whatever their religions, they drafted a Constitution that establishes a secular government and separates it from religion as noted earlier. This is entirely consistent with the fact that some founders professed their religiosity and even their desire that Christianity remain the dominant religious influence in American society. Why? Because religious people who would like to see their religion flourish in society may well believe that separating religion and government will serve that end and, thus, in founding a government they may well intend to keep it separate from religion. It is entirely possible for thoroughly religious folk to found a secular government and keep it separate from religion. That, indeed, is just what the founders did.
It is instructive to recall that the Constitution’s separation of church and state reflected, at the federal level, a “disestablishment” political movement then sweeping the country. That political movement succeeded in disestablishing all state religions by the 1830s. (Side note: A political reaction to that movement gave us the term “antidisestablishmentarianism,” which amused some of us as kids.) It is worth noting, as well, that this disestablishment movement was linked to another movement, the Great Awakening. The people of the time saw separation of church and state as a boon, not a burden, to religion.
3. This sentiment was recorded by a famous observer of the American experiment: “On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention. . . . I questioned the members of all the different sects. . . . I found that they differed upon matters of detail alone, and that they all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America, I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point.” Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (1835).
ReplyDeleteUnderlying your view of the Declaration's role appears to be the idea that it and the Constitution written twelve years later were drafted and adopted by one and the same persons or institution. That, though, is simply not the case. While the documents plainly are related as a matter of history, the people and institutions that prepared each differed. Of the 56 or so delegates who participated in the Second Continental Congress, convened by the thirteen colonies, that drafted and adopted the Declaration of Independence, seven later participated in the Constitutional Convention, convened by the Confederation Congress, that drafted and adopted the Constitution.
Even if the two documents were adopted by one and the same institution, it would not follow that the Constitution is somehow limited or defined by the Declaration. Perhaps a useful way to illustrate the point is to note the well-established legal principle that a legislature cannot enact a law in one year that would bind a future legislature (which enjoys power equal to the earlier legislature) to act or not act in particular ways. An analogous concept applies here. The people of the colonies in declaring their independence on July 4, 1776, did not and, indeed, could not bind the people of the future independent states, 12 years hence, to form a government at all, let alone one conforming to any particular prescription. The independent people of 1787 were free to form any sort of government they chose–and they chose to form a secular one predicated on the power of the people and not on the power of a deity.
In the end, there is simply no basis for selecting one of various possible meanings of the Declaration’s political or philosophical statements, transporting that meaning to the Constitution, and giving it the effect of law. Perhaps the absence of any such legal connection between the Declaration and the Constitution can best be shown by observing that the Declaration has never had the force of law as has our Constitution. While courts have occasionally noted the Declaration as an historical fact, they have never, not once in our entire history, supposed it to have the force of law as does the Constitution.