Knowing your Constitution - Part VI - - The Christian Constitution and Limited Government-Part III - OVERREACH

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 continue to deal with an issue which has come to the forefront of the news recently: Constitutional Authority and OVERREACH.

It is my firm conviction that all branches of the federal government are guilty of overreach.  I have mentioned in previous entries that I am not a lawyer; however, in recent days I have been in sincere discussion with several of the bar.  (Who, by the way, confirmed the rumor that I had heard previously, and was subsequently assured was not the case, but is, that many lawyers study Constitutional law by studying cases studies and NOT the Constitution itself, but I digress.)  While I am not an attorney, I have read the Constitution and studied it as a concerned citizen of the United States of America.

With this in mind, I offer the following analysis:

The sitting President of the United States (or standing, depending on which position he is presently speaking untruth <I almost said “lying”, but some would say that is too harsh>) is in violation of the Constitution by his continual adjustment to legislation passed by Congress.  The phrase above, taken directly from the Constitution in Article I, Section I, states very clearly that legislative powers are placed in the hands of the Congress in two branches, the House of Representatives and the Senate.  It proceeds to outline the procedures by which the bodies of Congress shall pass legislation (laws) and have them forwarded to the President for his (or her) signature.  Yes, I concede that we may one day very well have a female President, although I pray that it is NOT in 2016, unless a conservative lady arises from the “right-wing” party.  (Run, Sarah, Run!).

Once signed into law, or a veto is overturned by Congress (also in the outline of procedures known as the Constitution), it becomes the set law of the land and may not be arbitrarily altered by the Executive Branch (the President of the United States, for those less informed).  Our President has indicated, “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone”.  Well, that’s hunky dory…  but so do I…  and you don’t see me out here attempting to overwrite Congressional authority!!!

And speaking of that wonderful Congress in whose power legislation rests, do you know THEY have overstepped the Constitutional boundaries as well?  Yes they have!  (ouch – that sounds way to much like a left wing battle cry).  In the First Amendment to the Constitution (which I have also written out for those of you who have not read the Constitution or its amendments – particularly those of the left-leaning type) it clearly states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”  Well, let me see…  I say in my “church lady-ish” voice…  Where could they POSSIBLY have overstepped their authority in THIS area?  

Hmmmm…  Oh yes…  I have it now…  They passed a massive law, many times the size of all the writings of the Bible, no matter which version you’re reading, and stated that ALL EMPLOYERS, (and all persons for that matter) shall carry abortifacient drugs and contraceptives contrary to what may be their religious beliefs.  I refuse to call the abortifacient drugs (who comes up with these words?) medication, because its primary purpose is to kill babies in the womb.  Their support of this is that everyone is entitled to have these, and we don’t have to USE them…  we just have to carry them and PROVIDE them!!!  Which, by the way, IS against my faith!

And now I come to the wondrous rulings of the all-impartial Supreme Court.  (I’m sorry…I think I gagged and had a bit of…solution…form in my throat).  Like it or not, there are many rulings prior to those of the late 1940’s which indicate that religion, and, yes, Christianity particularly, is viable in the public square.  Nativity scenes, Ten Commandment displays, and, (gasp), even crosses are allowed in public places.  I place an entry from my book, God Shed His Grace On Thee, found on pages 121-124 for your consideration:

A group asking that chaplains be removed from the Houses

of the United States Congress as well as the Army and

Navy approached the Senate in 1852. The Senate Judiciary

Committee issued their report early the following year. After

pointing out the various examples of the founders supporting

religious activity within the government, they indicated very

strongly that they had every right to support chaplains in these

areas.

Our fathers were true lovers of liberty, and utterly

opposed to any constraint upon the rights of conscience.

They intended, by this amendment (the first) to prohibit

“an establishment of religion” such as the English church

presented, or anything like it. But they had no fear or

jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us

an irreligious people; they did not intend to inhibit a just

expression of religious devotion by the legislators of the

nation, even in their public character as legislatures;

they did not intend to send our armies and navies

forth to do battle for their country without any national

recognition of that God on whom success or failure

depends; they did not intend to spread over all the public

authorities and the whole public action of the nation

the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistical apathy.

Not so had the battles of the revolution been fought,

and the deliberations of the revolutionary Congress

conducted. On the contrary, all had been done with a

continual appeal to the Supreme Ruler of the world, and

an habitual reliance upon His protection of the righteous

cause which they commended to His care.75

Similarly, the Judiciary Committee of the House of

Representatives was approached by a group requesting that

Christianity be removed from all government proceedings in

1853. The committee took a full year in reviewing the request

and its findings, presented on March 27, 1854, stated the

following:

Down to the Revolution, every colony did sustain religion

in some form. It was deemed peculiarly proper that the

religion of liberty should be upheld by a free people. Had

the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of

any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution

would have been strangled in its cradle. At the time of

the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments,

the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be

encouraged – not any one sect.

                                      * * *

If there be a God who hears prayer – as we believe

there is – we submit, that there never was a deliberative

body that so eminently needed the fervent prayers of

righteous men as the Congress of the United States.

                                       * * *

…we beg leave to rescue ourselves from the imputation

of asserting that religion is not needed to the safety of

civil society. It must be considered as the foundation

on which the whole structure rests. Laws will not

have permanence or power without the sanction of

religious sentiment – without a firm belief that there

is a Power above us that will reward our virtues and

punish our vices. In this age there can be no substitute

for Christianity; that, in its general principles, is the

great conservative element on which we must rely

for the purity and permanence of free institutions.

That was the religion of the founders of the republic,

and they expected it to remain the religion of their

decendents.76

In the case of HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. U.S., 143 U.S. 457,

12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226, the Supreme Court delivered its

findings on February 29, 1892. Holy Trinity Church in New York

City had brought in a minister from England for employ in their

congregation. According to a law enacted by Congress, no

one was to be able to do so. The court handed down a ruling

stating that Holy Trinity Church would be able to do so under

their rights as a religious organization. Within the body of the

ruling is the following statement.

If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American

life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs,

and its society, we find everywhere a clear recognition of

the same truth. Among other matters note the following:

The form of oath universally prevailing, concluding

with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening

sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions

with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, “In the name

of God, amen;” the laws respecting the observance of

the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular

business, and the closing of courts, legislatures,

and other similar public assemblies on that day; the

churches and church organizations which abound in

every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable

organizations existing everywhere under Christian

auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with

general support, and aiming to establish Christian

missions in every quarter of the globe. These and many

other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of

unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances

that this is a Christian nation.77

75 United States Senate: Judiciary Committee Report, Chaplains in

Congress, and in the Army and Navy. (January 19, 1853).

76 United States House of Representatives: Judiciary Committee Report,Chaplains in Congress, and in the Army and Navy. (March 27, 1854).

77 United States Supreme Court, Holy Trinity Church vs. U.S., 143 U.S.457 (February 29, 1892).

  

The Supreme Court has an opportunity to act as a Congressional authority this summer as it hands down its ruling regarding the cases brought before it of the Conestoga Wood Specialties and Hobby Lobby businesses.  These Christian owned businesses, just two of eighty-four (84) who have brought cases against this overreach of Congress, provides the Court with the ability to do something right.

Christians have the Constitutional right to serve God openly in the public square!  Congress cannot Constitutionally stop the religious display of artifacts in public.  The Constitution does not give anyone the right not to be offended…   Our government, in all branches, has lost sight of the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment.

It is with this in mind that I set forth the following proposition, also based on the First Amendment.  The final section of the First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the…right of the people…to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  This is a correct citing of the Amendment.  I believe it is time for a petition to be formulated which outlines the “grievances” which have been forced upon us by a government gone amok!  It is time for the people of this land from coast to coast to unite in one voice to say, “We will not go quietly into the night!  We will not vanish without a fight!  We’re going to live on!  We’re going to survive!”.  I just love that speech from Independence Day  ;)  )  

A “redress of grievances” is call for.  I am not suggesting a revolution of physical violence… in no way…  but we DO have a Constitution which grants us peaceable means to effect change...

So...
Let's do this!!!

Rex Louth

Author, God Shed His Grace On Thee (2013) Westbow Press

www.rexlouth.com  -  www.westbowpress.com/bookstore

God Shed His Grace On Thee - - - The United States of America: A Christian Nation

I have not posted a blog for nearly two weeks now.  It is my intention to resume my discussion of the Constitutional Crisis we are undergoing in our nation; however, while reviewing my manuscript for "God Shed His Grace On Thee" (C) 2013, 2014 Rexford "Rex" Louth, I re-read (hey, I wrote it) a section of the proofs of Christianity being the faith of our nation.  There are those who will try to lend rebuttal by bringing up the "Treaty of Tripoli" and other quotes from documents and persons of the early nation.  They are wrong.  I offer the following, quoted from the book, for your perusal today, and will be continuing my "other" series soon:

                                     =  =  = 

...(T)here are...actions taken within the halls of
Congress and the Supreme Court which are very difficult for the
non-believer to accept. Each of these elements of government
has declared such to be true. We have already discussed
Presidential proclamations to the effect that the Almighty has
had a determining hand in the matters of the United States of
America’s existence.

A group asking that chaplains be removed from the Houses
of the United States Congress as well as the Army and
Navy approached the Senate in 1852. The Senate Judiciary
Committee issued their report early the following year. After
pointing out the various examples of the founders supporting
religious activity within the government, they indicated very
strongly that they had every right to support chaplains in these
areas.

"Our fathers were true lovers of liberty, and utterly
opposed to any constraint upon the rights of conscience.
They intended, by this amendment (the first) to prohibit
“an establishment of religion” such as the English church
presented, or anything like it. But they had no fear or
jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us
an irreligious people; they did not intend to inhibit a just
expression of religious devotion by the legislators of the
nation, even in their public character as legislatures;
they did not intend to send our armies and navies
forth to do battle for their country without any national
recognition of that God on whom success or failure
depends; they did not intend to spread over all the public
authorities and the whole public action of the nation
the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistical apathy.
Not so had the battles of the revolution been fought,
and the deliberations of the revolutionary Congress
conducted. On the contrary, all had been done with a
continual appeal to the Supreme Ruler of the world, and
an habitual reliance upon His protection of the righteous
cause which they commended to His care."75

Similarly, the Judiciary Committee of the House of
Representatives was approached by a group requesting that
Christianity be removed from all government proceedings in
1853. The committee took a full year in reviewing the request
and its findings, presented on March 27, 1854, stated the
following:

"Down to the Revolution, every colony did sustain religion
in some form. It was deemed peculiarly proper that the
religion of liberty should be upheld by a free people. Had
the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of
any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution
would have been strangled in its cradle. At the time of
the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments,
the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be
encouraged – not any one sect.
                                * * *
If there be a God who hears prayer – as we believe
there is – we submit, that there never was a deliberative
body that so eminently needed the fervent prayers of
righteous men as the Congress of the United States.
                                * * *
…we beg leave to rescue ourselves from the imputation
of asserting that religion is not needed to the safety of
civil society. It must be considered as the foundation
on which the whole structure rests. Laws will not
have permanence or power without the sanction of
religious sentiment – without a firm belief that there
is a Power above us that will reward our virtues and
punish our vices. In this age there can be no substitute
for Christianity; that, in its general principles, is the
great conservative element on which we must rely
for the purity and permanence of free institutions.
That was the religion of the founders of the republic,
and they expected it to remain the religion of their
decendents."76

In the case of HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. U.S., 143 U.S. 457,
12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226, the Supreme Court delivered its
findings on February 29, 1892. Holy Trinity Church in New York
City had brought in a minister from England for employ in their
congregation. According to a law enacted by Congress, no
one was to be able to do so. The court handed down a ruling
stating that Holy Trinity Church would be able to do so under
their rights as a religious organization. Within the body of the
ruling is the following statement.

"If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American
life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs,
and its society, we find everywhere a clear recognition of
the same truth. Among other matters note the following:
The form of oath universally prevailing, concluding
with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening
sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions
with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, “In the name
of God, amen;” the laws respecting the observance of
the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular
business, and the closing of courts, legislatures,
and other similar public assemblies on that day; the
churches and church organizations which abound in
every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable
organizations existing everywhere under Christian
auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with
general support, and aiming to establish Christian
missions in every quarter of the globe. These and many
other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of
unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances
that this is a Christian nation."77

When considering the rulings of courts through that day in 1892,
it is difficult to understand the ability of the Supreme Court in
later years to completely ignore the precedent established by
these prior rulings. Beginning in 1948, the Court began to
infringe upon the rights of religious practice in reinterpreting the
“establishment clause” of the first amendment, noting President
Thomas Jefferson’s reference to the “separation of church and
state”. It must be noted that President Jefferson’s letter in no
way attempted to set up the idea that government was not to
promote Christianity in any fashion.

John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme
Court, believed very strongly in the need for a Christian
society controlling the Christian government. He is quoted
in the following two statements that to sustain a reliance on
Christianity is to maintain the freedom fought for and cherished
so vehemently by those in his time.

“Real Christians will abstain from violating the rights of
others, and therefore will not provoke war. Almost all
nations have peace or war at the will and pleasure of
rulers whom they do not elect, and who are not always
wise or virtuous. Providence has given to our people the
choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the
privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select
and prefer Christians for their rulers.”78

“No human society has ever been able to maintain both
order and freedom, both cohesiveness and liberty apart
from the moral precepts of the Christian Religion. Should
our Republic ever forget this fundamental precept of
governance, we will then, be surely doomed.”79

75 United States Senate: Judiciary Committee Report, Chaplains in
Congress, and in the Army and Navy. (January 19, 1853).
76 United States House of Representatives: Judiciary Committee Report,
Chaplains in Congress, and in the Army and Navy. (March 27, 1854).
77 United States Supreme Court, Holy Trinity Church vs. U.S., 143 U.S.
457 (February 29, 1892).
78 Jay, William (1833). The Life of John Jay: With Selections from His
Correspondence and Miscellaneous Papers. (New York: J. & J.
Harper), 376
79 The Heritage Foundation, Loconte, Joseph, “Why Religious Values
Support American Values”, http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/whyreligious-
values-support-american-values, (Accessed August 4, 2013).

<the above is taken from pages 120 through 125>

If you like this portion (and even if you don't) I encourage you to get your own copy of "God Shed His Grace On Thee" in either paperback, hardback, or eBook format (or any combination of the three  ;)  ).  They may be purchased through www.westbowpress.com/bookstore or directly through me if you would like a signed copy.

Rex Louth
Author - God Shed His Grace On Thee - (C) 2013, 2014  Rexford "Rex" Louth
Colorado Springs, Colorado