God is Central to Our System of Government

Man will ultimately be governed by God or by tyrants. – Benjamin Franklin

It is hard to believe, but once again we are back to the Christmas season. While families are busy shopping and planning their holiday celebrations, the secularists are busy trying to wipe every reference to God from the public square. Public school administrators are telling teachers they cannot wear Christmas pins or mention the name of Jesus during class time. Nativity scenes are being restricted from public property (even while menorahs are allowed). And business executives are telling employees to say “Happy Holidays” or “Merry Winter” (my favorite) instead of “Merry Christmas”, which is deemed insensitive to the tiny fraction of the population that doesn’t celebrate Christmas. Though some retailers may not indulge Christmas-loving shoppers by wishing them a “Merry Christmas”, rest assured they will still be happy to take their money. But let’s hope retailers will at least take a moment and be thankful to Jesus because, were it not for His birth, this time of year would not be nearly as lucrative for them.

The attacks on Christmas are just the latest incarnation in a broader and more lasting movement to wipe every vestige of Christian faith from American public life. Most Americans are familiar with the well-publicized legal fights over prayer in schools and the Ten Commandments, but few probably realize the broader implications of the secularization of America. Attacking the special place of God in our national heritage is an attack on the foundations of our system of government. America would not have been possible without an acknowledgement of and deference to the supreme authority of God.

The NAS Bible states in 1 Peter 2:14 that governments are ordained by God for the “punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right”. God ordains government to be an extension of His divine authority on earth by enforcing his standards of justice in the world. The Founders of our nation recognized this. They acknowledged with our first founding document, the Declaration of Independence, that all people are granted certain rights by God that cannot be taken away. These “unalienable” rights include “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” and the role of government is to “secure these rights”. Note that the government does not grant these rights, it secures these rights, which are already granted by God. The role of government is to protect the God-given rights of mankind. If a government fails to do so and becomes abusive of citizens’ God-given rights, the Declaration states that it is the right and the duty of the people to “throw off such government” and establish a new one.

Think of a system of government in which the acknowledgment of God is absent. From whom do the people derive their rights? Certainly not God – He doesn’t exist, right? If the people receive any rights at all, they would be granted to them by their rulers. If a ruler can grant rights, he can also take them away. He is the absolute authority in the land, and the people have no final recourse but to him. When one really ponders it, this is absolutely shocking. A human being, a mere mortal subject to disease and death like the rest of humanity, is in a position of absolute ownership over his people. He is an absolute despot who can do with the people as he wishes. If a despotic ruler has some measure of virtue, the people are fortunate. But human history demonstrates that those with absolute power tend to be corrupted to an astounding degree. The leader who believes he answers to nobody but himself for his actions is capable of any form of evil against his people.

If the Founders did not believe in God, they could never have appealed to His standards to condemn the abuses of the despotic King of England. The highest authority in their lives would be the King himself and they would have no legal basis with which to rebel against him. But the Founders did believe in God, and they appealed to His higher standard – the standard to which the King of England also was subordinate. Because the King had broken the laws of God by violating the unalienable rights of the colonists, he forfeited his authority over them. It then became the right and duty of the colonists, as expressed in the Declaration, to reject the King’s authority and establish a new government that recognized and observed God’s laws.

If today’s secularists lived back in the Founding Era, they could never have produced a document such as the Declaration of Independence. To what standard would they have appealed to pass judgment on the conduct of the King of England? In a world of moral relativism, how could they even say that the conduct of the King was wrong? The secularist rejects the idea of an absolute moral standard, let alone one from God.

It is important that Americans realize that the acknowledgment of God and His Divine authority are central to the existence of the American Republic. With the first stanza of the Declaration, the Founders subordinated American government to God’s authority. The central role of the new American government was to secure the natural, God-given rights of its citizens, placing it in a position of service to both God and its citizens. If God is removed from the equation, our government becomes the supreme authority in the land. Composed of corruptible people and answerable to nobody but itself, it will once again devolve into the same tyranny that has plagued all of human history. Americans need to fear if their leaders no longer fear God. A leader who has no fear of Divine justice in the next life is capable of great evil in this life. It may not seem like a big deal for a store to forbid a “Merry Christmas” wish, but the wider effort to eliminate God from America’s public life is a big deal because it strikes at the very foundation of our form of government. God is central to the mission statement of our nation, the Declaration of Independence. Without Him and the acknowledgment of His laws, America would never have been possible.

The full text of the Declaration of Independence is available here.

Impeachment is Only Solution for Judicial Activism

Because of the two recent Supreme Court decisions regarding displays of the Ten Commandments, the issue of judicial activism has once again returned to prominence in the national debate. The blatantly contradictory decisions could hardly have made it more difficult to discern the legality of public religious displays. According to Van Orden v. Perry, the Ten Commandments are legal at the Texas state capitol because, according to swing vote Justice Breyer, they were adequately balanced by secular displays. However, it appears that the posting of the Ten Commandments in a Kentucky courthouse was a little too religious for the Court because it was deemed illegal in McCreary County v. ACLU. Maybe the Court would be so kind as to give the nation an idea of what could be considered a “legal” ratio of religious to secular items for future displays. As demonstrated in a previous article, the proper interpretation of the First Amendment really does come down to one question: Does the religious expression in question represent an establishment of a national church that receives direct government support and compels all citizens to be adherents? If the answer is “no”, then there is no violation of the Establishment Clause. Historical evidence abundantly supports this, but the modern Court has shown itself to not be interested in history. The Court has continued to show an historically unjustified and increasingly negative bias against Christian faith over the last five decades, and church/state jurisprudence – as confused as it is – has increasingly reflected that bias.

Because the Court has radically departed from the original meaning of the First Amendment, it must be relying on another, wholly inappropriate, source for its decisions: the personal biases of the judges. When a judge substitutes his personal bias for the written law, he makes law and usurps the authority of Congress, the only authorized lawmaking branch of the government. And because a judge is appointed instead of elected, the people have no recourse against his bad decisions, which have the force of law. If the people do not have the power to decide on the laws under which they live, then it cannot be said that America truly is a republic in which the authority of the government is derived from the people. Activist judges – those that substitute their personal opinions for the written law – are a serious danger to popular authority. If future generations are to be guaranteed the liberties Americans now enjoy, then judicial activism is a problem that needs to be dealt with.

Fortunately, Congress has begun to take action to curb the abuses of the judiciary by limiting the jurisdiction of the courts. This authority, granted to Congress under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, involves prohibiting the courts from hearing certain types of cases. By doing this, Congress prevents the courts from ruling on certain issues and doing more damage to the Constitution in areas related to those issues. The latest effort currently pending in both houses of Congress is the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005, which will strip from the courts the ability to rule on issues related to the public acknowledgment of God. This legislation is a valiant effort, but limiting jurisdiction is not the ideal solution to the judicial activism problem for several reasons:

1. Limiting jurisdiction is a reactive approach, not a proactive one. The damage is done to the Constitution long before Congress is able to even address the problem.
2. Judicial activism is occurring over a larger range of issues. Congress is already overburdened and cannot hope to keep up with an increase in the need to limit the authority of the courts on various issues.
3. Limiting jurisdiction is impractical in many situations. Some issues are very complex and it can be difficult to design legislation that will limit enough authority to prevent abuse while still allowing the courts to properly do their jobs.
4. Limiting jurisdiction is just a “band-aid” solution that does not solve the problem of judicial activism. Congress can prevent the courts from ruling on certain issues, but activist judges will still remain on the bench. 

The reality is that Congress does not even need to pass additional laws to curb the abuse of activist judges because Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution already provides a solution: impeachment. Many commentators argue that impeachment is only justified by the Constitution for blatant criminal acts, but according to early Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, impeachable offenses can include more than just “crimes of a strictly legal character”. Such offenses can include crimes “of a political character” that may arise from “personal misconduct, or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests, in the discharge of the duties of political office.” 1 A judge who chooses to substitute his own will in place of the written law is not only violating his oath to uphold the Constitution, but is also usurping the authority of the people to rule themselves via their elected representatives. This certainly would qualify as a crime of a “political character”.

Because Congress is vested with the power of disciplining the crimes and abuses of judges, it is their duty to do so. The abuses and crimes of judges are abuses and crimes committed against the people. Any failure of Congress to discipline abusive judges is a failure to meet its constitutional obligation to act as a “check” on the runaway power of the judiciary. The current strategy to limit the jurisdiction of the courts is certainly a welcome step in the right direction, but it cannot be considered a final solution. The only effective solution, and one that will send a powerful message to other would-be judicial activists, is the public disgrace of impeachment.

Read the opinions for Van Orden v. Perry here.
Read the opinions for McCreary County v. ACLU here.

References

1. Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution. (n.d.). Retrieved July 7, 2005, from http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/story/sto-310.htm

Have You Been Dumbed Down?

A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins. – Benjamin Franklin

Americans have been amazingly dumbed down by the public education system. Need proof? The following questions address relatively basic principles regarding our system of government. See if you can answer them without looking up the answers:

1) Natural law is one of the foundational principles upon which our government rests. Explain what it is and how it is relevant to our system of government.

2) Explain the difference between a republic and a democracy. Which type of government did the Founders intend America to be?

3) What are the three branches of our government and what are their roles? List them in the order of their power.

4) Explain the concept of federalism. Why did the Founders implement a system of federalism in America?

5) Why does Congress have two houses? Who were they both supposed to represent? (Hint: they were not both intended to directly represent the people)

6) What were the Articles of Confederation and why were they scrapped? What replaced them?

7) What was the legal basis cited by the Founders for the break with England?

If you cannot answer these questions in full without looking up the answers, it is a pretty good bet you have been dumbed down by America’s educational system. I too am a product of the educational system, but have recently been studying our system of government on my own. It was not until 3 years ago that I had actually read the Constitution myself, and I am 30 years old. Let me ask you the following:

1) Have you studied the Constitution yourself?

2) Have you studied the Declaration of Independence?

3) What about the Federalist Papers?

If you have not, then how can you possibly say that you understand your government and your freedoms? Do you even care that you do not understand your freedoms? How can you protect your freedoms if you do not know what they are? I encourage everybody to read America’s founding documents. Don’t depend on somebody else to tell you what they say, find out for yourself. All three texts mentioned above can be found online with a quick Google or Yahoo search. Check them out, and take the first steps toward understanding the republic in which you live.

If a nation expects to be ignorant – and free – in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. -Thomas Jefferson

Every man of the State ought diligently to read and to study the constitution of his country . . . By knowing their rights, they will sooner perceive when they are violated and be the better prepared to defend and assert them. -John Jay

Poll Shows Americans Misunderstand Role of Judges

The Pew Research Center released a poll June 15, 2005 indicating an increasingly negative perception of the Supreme Court among the American people. An article by the Associated Press documenting the poll suggests that Americans tended to perceive the Court more negatively when it does not support their political views. One quote from the article is particularly striking, since it seems to capture a common misconception among Americans about the proper role of the courts. According the Associated Press, the poll shows that the “public is evenly split on whether they want President Bush to select a nominee who will move the court in a more conservative or more liberal direction.” 1 Because of such a statement, somebody who does not understand the proper role of a judge might view the Supreme Court, or the courts in general, the same way as the Congress – a body that moves right or left in its “agenda” depending upon whether conservatives or liberals are in the majority. In other words, if liberals are a majority on the Supreme Court, then its decisions will tend to support policies that appeal to liberals. Conversely, if conservatives are a majority, then Supreme Court decisions will tend to support policies that appeal more to conservatives. The issue is not so much whether or not this happens, but whether or not it should happen. The terms “conservative” and “liberal”, as they relate to modern political ideologies, are irrelevant to the proper role of the judiciary. Alexander Hamilton described the judiciary in Federalist #78 as having “neither force nor will, but merely judgment”. 2 In other words, the courts only have the power to render judgment on the law, not enforce it or change it. If a judge rules with a political end in mind, conservative or liberal, he sheds his neutrality with regard to the law and substitutes his “judgment” for “will”. He, in effect, has become a legislator and changed the law because his decision will influence subsequent court decisions. This is very dangerous to liberty because judges, being appointed instead of elected, are unaccountable to the people. The people have no recourse against policy created by the judiciary.

It is important that the public begin to understand that they need to consider qualifications over ideology with regard to judicial nominees. What is important is that the nominee be able to discern the meaning of the law and rule in strict accordance with it. The courts should not move in either a “more conservative or liberal direction”. For the sake of liberty, they should simply decide cases based on the written text of the law, regardless of the political views of the judges.

References

1. Poll: Public Image of Supreme Court Falls. (June 15, 2005). Retrieved June 15, 2005, from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050615/ap_on_go_su_co/supreme_court_attitudes
2. The Federalist #78. (n.d.). Retrieved June 15, 2005, from http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm

The Truth About the First Amendment

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .” – First Amendment, U.S. Constitution

The phrase “separation of church and state” is so often heard in today’s public debate that many Americans actually believe it to be a part of the Constitution. Amazingly, this phrase, which has had a tremendous impact on public policy over the last 50 years, appears nowhere in the Constitution. It is, in fact, derived from a personal letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. The Danbury Baptists had previously expressed to Jefferson their concern that the federal government could restrict their religious freedom by establishing a national church. Jefferson, writing them back, reassured them with the following:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. 1 

The “wall of separation” phrase from Jefferson’s short letter has been the basis of 50 years of court decisions that have twisted the First Amendment into something it was never intended to be: a tool for unelected judges to restrict religious freedom at all levels of American society. According to the modern courts, prayers at graduation ceremonies and displays of the Ten Commandments in state courthouses are prohibited under the First Amendment. History demonstrates that what truly is unconstitutional is the interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by the modern courts. An amendment that was originally intended to secure religious liberty has been turned into a tool to restrict it.

In order to begin to uncover the true meaning of the First Amendment, it is important to understand a little about the Founding Era. After the Revolutionary War, the colonies united loosely under the Articles of Confederation, which was a document that functioned more like a treaty between nations than an actual constitution. The Articles provided for a weak central government only, and the states were allowed to largely act as autonomous nations. Because of this, each of the states managed their own trade, defense, and diplomatic concerns. Over time it became apparent that the system was unworkable because the central government had too little authority to address common concerns. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was convened with the initial intent to only rework the Articles of Confederation. Instead, the Articles were scrapped altogether and an entirely new constitution drafted.

Because the states were so autonomous at the time, it is very important to understand that many of them were reluctant to relinquish sovereignty to the new federal government. And having just endured a brutal war against a tyrant in England, Americans were not anxious to trade one tyranny for another. Because of this, the Constitution established a federal government with very limited powers, providing it just enough authority to handle common concerns such as trade, defense, and foreign diplomacy with the least possible restriction of state sovereignty. Despite the meticulous efforts of the Framers, many states still objected to the original draft of the Constitution because it lacked a bill of rights, which was seen as essential to protecting individual liberties from an abusive federal government. Of twelve that were proposed, ten amendments were adopted and became what we know today to be the Bill of Rights.

A critical point to understand is that, because the Constitution established a federal government, the limitations on federal power written into the Bill of Rights apply only to the federal government. The Founders were less concerned that the state governments could become tyrannical and abusive because of their close proximity and greater responsiveness to the people. Therefore, the Establishment Clause prohibits only the federal government from establishing a religion. Thomas Jefferson confirms this:

I consider the government of the United States [the federal government] as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion [the First Amendment], but from that also which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the United States [the Tenth Amendment]. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in any religious discipline has been delegated to the General [federal] Government. It must then rest with the States. 2 

Joseph Story also confirms this by explaining that the First Amendment requires that “the whole power over the subject of religion” be “left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice.” 3 Because the First Amendment was intended to only limit the federal government, it would be completely permissible for the individual states to establish a state sponsored church if the citizens of that state wished to do so. However, “none of the State constitutions from the time of the American Revolution (or thereafter) established any single State denomination; most provided equal protection for all.” 4

The greatest contention in the church/state debate seems to revolve around the word “establishment”. There seems to be little agreement about what legitimately constitutes a prohibited establishment of religion. The modern courts have made it clear that they interpret “establishment” very broadly, so much so that just about any public religious expression is an “establishment of religion”. Religious expressions such as prayers at graduation ceremonies, displays of the Ten Commandments in courthouses, and nativity scenes in public parks have all been prohibited as religious establishments. Historical evidence demonstrates that the modern understanding of the word “establishment” is very different from the meaning the Framers understood. The House Judiciary Committee Report of 1853-1854 describes what is required for something to be a religious establishment:

It must have a creed defining what a man must believe; it must have rites and ordinances which believers must observe; it must have ministers of defined qualifications to teach the doctrines and administer the rites; it must have tests for the submissive and penalties for the nonconformist. 5 

The Senate Judiciary Committee provides even more insight:

The clause speaks of ‘an establishment of religion’. What is meant by that expression? It referred, without doubt, to that establishment which existed in the mother-country . . . . [which was an] endowment, at the public expense, in exclusion of or in preference to any other, by giving its members exclusive political rights, and by compelling attendance of those who rejected its communion upon its worship or religious observances. 6 

The Committee continues by stating that the Founders intended the First Amendment to “prohibit ‘an establishment of religion’ such as the English Church presented.” 7 The Founders were fearful of two things when they drafted the Establishment Clause: tyranny and rivalry. Joseph Story addresses the first when he points to the “parent country”, which “afforded the most solemn warnings and melancholy instructions” regarding the potential tyranny of a state-sponsored, national church. He accuses the Church of England of creating a “chapter” in history filled with “dark bigotry and intolerance”. The Church of England was guilty of making such things as “apostacy, heresy, and nonconformity” to church teachings “standard crimes for public appeals” 8. In other words, people were being prosecuted for being unwilling to conform to the dictates of the Church of England. Tyranny was a major concern, but so also was rivalry between religious sects. It is no surprise that religious rivalry would be stirred if a specific religious sect or denomination is elevated above the others to a favored position with the government. The Founders sought to prevent such rivalries with the First Amendment, as Joseph Story explains:

The real object of the amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohametanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry between Christian sects. (emphasis added) 9 

The best example of an establishment of religion, and the one to which the Founders pointed, is the Church of England. The object of the First Amendment was not to prohibit or limit religious expression, but to prohibit the tyranny and rivalry possible under a nationally sponsored church similar to the Church of England. If the Ten Commandments in a state courthouse do not create a national church, then they do not violate the First Amendment. If a prayer at a graduation ceremony does not create a national church, then it also does not violate the First Amendment. For anything to be in violation of the First Amendment Establishment Clause, it must fit the criteria of a religious establishment similar to the historical Church of England.

So far, it is clear that the First Amendment, along with the rest of the Constitution, applies only to the federal government. Only the federal government was prohibited from establishing a national church like the historical Church of England. Though states retained the authority to create state churches – religious establishments at the state level – they chose not to do so. Though the Founders sought to prevent the establishment of a national church, they never intended for the national government to be irreligious, contrary to what the modern secularist asserts. According to Joseph Story, the “general, if not universal, sentiment” during the Founding Era was that “Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state” and any “attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation” among American citizens 10. This is no surprise since most Americans were of a Judeo-Christian persuasion, again, contrary to what the modern secularist asserts. This why America still has longstanding traditions like prayer in Congress and the Supreme Court along with nationally declared days of prayer. For most of America’s history, such traditions were perfectly acceptable under the First Amendment. It is only under the interpretations of the modern courts that such traditions have come into question.

References

1. Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists. (June 1998). Retrieved May 25, 2005, from http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
2. David Barton, Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, and Religion
3. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution (Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 1987), pg. 702.
4. Barton, pg. 28.
5. Barton, pg 30.
6. Barton, pg. 30-31.
7. Barton, pg. 30-31.
8. Story, pg. 702.
9. Story, pg. 701.
10. Story, pg. 700 (Aledo, TX: Wallbuilder Press, 2000), pg 25.