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

Knowing your Constitution - Part V - - The Christian Constitution and Limited Government-Part II

 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 Religious Freedom.

I received a response to my prior post from a lawyer.  He assures me that I am misinformed as to lawyers not studying the Constitution.  It truly does please me to hear this.  And I appreciate this person bringing this to my attention.

There is much being said in recent years (decades, actually) regarding the secularized government that we are supposed to have.  By bringing this to the forefront those promoting such a notion attempt to block what they perceive as infiltration of religion into the public square.  They quote founders who made statements referring to the “wall of separation” between church and state.  I mentioned in my previous posting that this was so that there was no establishment of a ‘state-sponsored’ Church.  This has been challenged for quite some time now, and particularly within the past several decades.

James Madision has become known as the “Father of the Constitution” because he was an arduous note taker, and scribed much of the debate on the Constitution, as well as being a defender of the Constitution as one of the writers of The Federalist Papers.  He has been highly quoted as saying that, “The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion” (Detached Memoranda, 1820).  This quote is taken in his arguments against paid chaplains in the Government.   It might be noted that his Detached Memoranda was written, as was those anti-God writings of Thomas Paine, later in life.  Upon review of Madison’s life you find what he was most greatly opposed to.  He was very vocal in his displeasure when seeing the punishment of citizens within the varied states for their resistance to following religious practices set into place by state law.  It was his belief that none should be subjected to punishment due to their religious practice, or lack thereof.

Let’s take a moment and look at the original Amendment presented to Congress which has become the First Amendment.  James Madison presented his first draft to the Congress in the 1^st Congressional session June 8, 1789 after ratification by the States of the Constitution which established the branches and authorities of government.  The portion related to religious freedom read as follows:

…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.

It is by this that we observe the original intent of the Amendment.  Before the Supreme Court right now are cases related to businesses owned by those who hold high religious values which brings them in direct opposition to aspects of the Affordable Care Act.  (I call it by its legislative name, but it is known throughout the land as “ObamaCare”.)  In the original wording we find that “the civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship”.  Truly, the rights of those opposed to providing services which bring to an end the life of a human being in its earliest stages of infancy are being infringed by a law which requires them to do so against their religious beliefs at the threat of severe fines.  This is done in the name of “Rights”.  The truth is that one of the “Rights” granted to us by our Creator, according to the Declaration of Independence, is LIFE.  So, in relation to the First Amendment “Rights” of the “free exercise” of religion without threat of punishment by adhering to those “Rights”, the Supreme Court should find in favor of those whose religious faith has driven them to defy such a law.

Also, the original wording expressly mentions that there should be no “national religion” established.  So many who quote Madison try to imply that this was not the major emphasis of the Amendment, and yet that is exactly what is directly mentioned in the original draft.  Yes, there was much debate on the Amendment, as well as the others presented that day.  I have not at this point in time had the opportunity to read the entirety of the debate.

I have, however, taken the time to read a large number of the letters, articles, speeches and noted debates within the ranks of the Founding Fathers during the formation of this nation.  Based on my observations, and the multitude of words expressed within the annals of true history, it is no doubt that the government was established, not as a Theocracy, but as a secular Republic which was to be ruled under the influence of morality and ethics which come 

from “religious” practice.

The emphasis of those wishing to firmly state that our government is to be purely secular is that those in the days of our foundation could have established a Theocracy had they chosen to do so.  And that statement is true.  What they wished to avoid was the iron hand of a Theocracy which operated under a Monarchy which told the average citizen how they would worship God, or it would impose fines and worse.

I do not have the opportunity today to complete the full expression of this effort; however, I will continue this into a third part early next week.

When the Government of the United States of America attempts to impose its lack of moral compass onto the entire country through laws which support and promote the elimination of “unwanted pregnancy” (the life of an unborn child), they directly violate the “Rights” of the religious, and overstep their place in establishing a directive that goes against the very Constitution they imply to support.

One by one the true “Rights” of the citizenry are trampled while those supposing to be representative of “the People” press their warped ideology onto the masses.  And many of those masses, uninformed and lured into being an electorate enticed by what they can get from the Government, have no real idea of what this nation is all about and how we were established.  Instead, they blindly cast ballots with the promise that they will, in turn, receive what is “due” them.

Meanwhile, the nation’s crime rate rises, the unemployed abandon hope of finding a job, illegal activities are viewed as legal, and morality is viewed as repressive.  Lifestyles detrimental to the natural flow of society are promoted, and virtues valued for centuries come under attack.

          II Timothy 3:1-8

 ¹ But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: ² For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, ³ unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, ⁴ traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, ⁵ having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! ⁶ For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts,⁷ always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. ⁸ Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith...

One final note for today:  If the Founding Fathers were so opposed to Christian (“religious”) influence on their proceedings, why did George Washington, as part of his inauguration (not just on the same day, but actually part of the inaugural plan) take he and those members of Congress to church for a time of prayer and worship?  Why did he later state in his final address:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.  The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.  A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity.  Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?  And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Both the Bible and President George Washington warned against the same thing: supposed intelligence brought about by “refined education” (see Proverbs 3:5-8).  Why is America in the place we find ourselves (II Timothy 3:1-8 above)?  Because we have “left (our) first love” (Revelation 2:4  - see also Revelation 3:14-22).  It is time to return to the original plan.  It is time to set the record straight.

Rex Louth

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

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

Knowing Your Constitution - Part IV - - The Christian Constitution and Limited Government-Part I

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

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

HAPPY VALENTINES DAY!!!

Today I want to deviate from my traditional blog to share a true love story.  A story that is very personal for me…  It is the story of two young Christians brought together by the very hand of God, bringing into existence a relationship to stand the test of time.  This is not a narrative found in the Bible.  In fact, up to this moment, it has not been captured in print anywhere that I am aware of.

It began September 18, 1976.  On that day a new pastor was moving into the parsonage of the Church of God in Crown Point, Indiana.  Also on that day, the church’s youth had planned a trip into Chicago to go to Brookfield Zoo.  Knowing the pastor would be moving in that day, those in charge of the youth invited the pastor’s two oldest children to join them on the trip.  His son, fourteen and a half going on twenty-five, and his daughter, who was celebrating her twelfth birthday that very day, joined the group as the van arrived at the parsonage.

The group was comprised of several teens and preens near their age, and they were getting to know their newfound friends when the driver announced that there was one more young lady to pick up.  The group quickly informed the young man and his sister that this girl had just started attending the church the week before, and had accepted Jesus as her Savior that very week on Wednesday the 15^th.  Soon they had arrived at her home, and onto the van stepped the most radiant and beautiful creation God had ever brought onto the planet.  The young man’s heart leaped in his chest.  It was like the moment in the cartoons when the pupils of the eyes turn to hearts and the heart appears to be bulging out of ones chest.

The rest of the day at the zoo was spent with one of his new-found friends following the group of ladies around.  The young man gladly accepted the ability to wander near her under the pretense that he was accompanying his buddy on his quest to be near her.

Heading home on the van, he did whatever he could to gain her attention.  The wooden plank bench that lined the interior of the van was not attached to the floor (yes, in those ancient days there was not the intensive laws restricting seatbelts and such).  Every turn created the ‘opportunity’ for this adventurous ‘love-struck’ guy to place his fingers behind the seat and allow them to be pinched so he could cry out in pain.  (I never indicated that he was the brightest bulb in the socket.)  Just to have her turn and look at him, even though later he found that it was not concern that was found in her eyes, but wonder that he wouldn’t just move his hands, was worth the angst involved.

In the months to come he did everything he could to win her affection.  After some time passed he had resigned to just achieving the honor of her friendship.  They had become very close in that way, and on the next Valentines Day he blew it.  It was then that the girl he had his eyes on wore a very lovely, very striking dress with wide sleeves.  The white dress covered with green floral design looked magnificent on her, but he allowed a discussion with another friend of his to lure him into teasing her that she looked like she was wearing a kimono.  She had worn the dress to capture his attention, and it hurt her that he teased her so.  And another opportunity was lost.

The ensuing months found them working together in God’s purposes at the church through the youth program.  Great advances in the faith brought both of them closer to God and each other.  All the while he admired her beauty inside and out.  If only she knew how he really felt.

Then one day in late November something happened.  Something wonderful.  Something miraculous.  The young lady approached his mother, 

the pastor’s wife, in the church office.

She told her that she really felt like she should be dating her son, but that she didn’t want to interfere in the girl he was presently ‘dating’.  The mother’s response was priceless: “Goodness, girl: Go get him away from her!” (or something like that)

Later he found what had caused her to make such a move.  She stated that he had walked her out to her car after a service when God spoke to her heart and said, “You’ve been praying for ‘the one’ and he has been in your back yard the whole time.”  It was then she had decided to approach his mother on what to do.

Shortly thereafter the youth group went out to Burger Chef after church, as they often did (yes, there really was a fast food restaurant by that name, young people…  look it up).  That evening the young man sat next to his girlfriend with the young lady of his true desire sitting across from him.  She was blowing Coke at him through her straw, teasing him.  He took that as a flirtatious sign.  When the group was disbanding to head to their respective homes, he told his girlfriend to get in the van heading her direction and he and his sister would get a ride home with this other young lady.  It just so happened that she had offered a ride, and he and his sister would be her only passengers.

That night he gave her several mis-directions to get to his home, which location she was unfamiliar with at the time.  Finally, his sister, knowing what he was doing, and annoyed at the whole process, cried out from the back seat, “We’re three blocks from home!  That way!”  She emphatically pointed in the direction to follow.  He nodded and provided the correct instructions to the correct destination.

Once home the close friends allowed the sister to go into the house while they stayed outside talking.  During that conversation she said to him that she was praying that God would send her someone “just like” him.  He looked into her eyes and said, “I believe He will.”  He slept very well and contented that night, and made a decision that would change the course of his life toward God’s true will.  He was going to ask out that girl one more time, and take the chance!

And he did.  After a rather dramatic breakup with the girl he had been ‘dating’ for some time, the couple began their journey toward love.  And then came her dad.

This gentleman had strictly stated that if she were to marry someone from “that church” he would never walk her down the aisle.  In fact, he forbade her from dating anyone from “that church” after she had brought home a particularly insane young man from the church previously.

And here came the test.  Her dad was a hunter and trapper, in addition to being a fisherman.  It was the “hunter and trapper” that brought about the true test of love.

When she would invite her young man over to dinner after church on a Sunday, he would be presented with some new ‘meat’ that appeared only on his plate.  Everyone else may have chicken or ham, but his was a very special plate.  During their time dating this young man ate opossum, squirrel, snake, rabbit, turtle, muskrat, and other varied delicacies.  Each time he prayed over his meal with an earnestness never before realized in meal-time prayer.  Each time he ate what was set before him.  Eventually, he won over her dad’s approval.

When his dad notified the family that they would be moving to a new church soon, the young man stated very clearly that he would go with them to help re-start a ministry across the state.  But there was one condition:  he wanted to marry the young lady.

Now at the time he was graduating from High School one year early due the accelerated schedule he had taken on.  He was planning to graduate after his Junior year and go to college.  Plans change.

He was seventeen now, and his young lady, almost two years his senior, had graduated from a vocational college and was working in the medical assistant field.  In order to get married in the State of Indiana he would have to have his parent’s signatures.  They agreed.

Left out of all of this are the wonderful times spent going out to their favorite restaurant, the New Moon in Merrillville, and going bowling at an alley near to the eatery.  The first kiss (oh my goodness…can that girl kiss!), and the many to follow.  The nights spent on the phone sharing dreams and their love of God.  The days spent leading the youth group with their Leader, Vicky and her husband.  And who can forget the two accidents the young lady had, one ending up in a field on her way to school (which nearly cost her cousin his life when he wouldn’t tell the young man the full story of what he had seen of her plight – I exaggerate, mostly); and one which brought about a shiny royal blue door to her otherwise fire engine red Nova (which she still hasn’t lived down to this day).

During this time of dating they grew closer than he ever thought he could with one person.  Her beauty outside was matched only by her inner glow which emanated from her love for God, and still is.

On September 29, 1979, at Third Street Church of God in Fort Wayne, Indiana, Janet’s dad walked her down the aisle, and presented her to me for marriage.  My dad officiated the ceremony, his hands trembling as the paper book he held in his hands lightly rattled.  I remember that day as though it were yesterday.  The moment she appeared I experienced something very much akin to what I had that very first day three years prior…I lost my breath.  And she has never stopped taking my breath away.

Since then we have experienced so much together.  The birth of our first child, our eldest daughter on February 14, 1982 (Happy Birthday, Crystalyn!); the passing of Janet’s mom just a couple of short years later, the birth of our daughter, Stephanie, and son, Joshua; Janet’s dad going home to be with his Lord (yes, God gave us the opportunity to lead both her mom and dad to Jesus before their deaths); the weddings of our two daughters;  the birth of our granddaughter (on Stephanie’s 20^th birthday) and grandson.  We survived a miscarriage, losing our “first” son in December, 1992 (Rex Jr).  We have served as pastor of two congregations (one here for over twenty-five years now); and so much more.

Has it all been glorious and smooth…  oh no…  but every heartache…  every pain…  every climb up the mountain has been worth every moment spent with the love of my life.

To my wife of thirty-four years and counting…

I love you, Janet.  I have had a form of love for you since that day when you stepped onto that van…  That love has only grown…  And I will love you into eternity…

Happy Valentines Day!!!

@};-  @};-  @};-  @};-  @};-  @};- 

@};-  @};-  @};-  @};-  @};-  @};- 

<3