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!!!
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
No comments:
Post a Comment