God is Not in the Constitution (Barf)

The Village Voice ^ | 06/28/02 | Nat Hentoff

[theoverseer]

God Is Not in the Constitution

We receive our rights from God. —George W. Bush, denouncing the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because it includes "one nation under God," CNN, June 27

This decision is nuts, just nuts. —Democratic Senate leader Tom Daschle, CNN, June 26

If this decision is not overturned, we will amend the Constitution. —Democratic senator Joseph Lieberman, Fox News, June 26

In 1943, during our war against Hitler, the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision concerning the Pledge of Allegiance that created fierce controversy around the country—just like last week's Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling.

The West Virginia Board of Education had expelled children of Jehovah's Witnesses for refusing to salute the flag and stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. These deviants were to be sent to reformatories for criminally minded juveniles, and their parents were threatened with prosecutions for causing juvenile delinquency.

The majority of the Court, in a decision written by Robert Jackson—later chief American prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials—defined the very essence of Americanism as they rebuked the West Virginia Board of Education and sent those kids back to school:

"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox politics, nationalism, religion, or any other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." (Emphasis added.)

Since then, there has been a long line of federal court decisions affirming the right of students to refuse to stand for the pledge or salute the flag—for a wide spectrum of reasons of conscience.

As I described in Living the Bill of Rights (University of California Press, paper), a number of principals and school boards have nonetheless punished students for following the 1943 Supreme Court decision, and these "educators" have been overruled by the courts.

Now we have nearly the entire House and Senate, along with an array of fashionable law professors and such dubiously anointed "legal analysts" as Jeffrey Toobin of The New Yorker and CNN, scorning the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling that the phrase "one nation under God" puts the Pledge of Allegiance in violation of the separation of church and state.

First, contrary to such instant experts as Connie Chung of CNN, the pledge has not been banned across the nation. The decision affects only the nine states within the Ninth Circuit's purview, if it is not overruled. Second, even within those nine states, a public school student can still recite the pledge, omitting God. Or he or she can recite the pledge, including God—but not as part of an officially mandated public school exercise.

What Judge Alfred Goodwin, a Nixon appointee, did in his Ninth Circuit decision was to follow the rule set by Justice Robert Jackson in 1943:

The fact that "boards of education are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount principles of our government as mere platitudes." (Emphasis added.)

In his decision in Newdow v. U.S. Congress, Judge Goodwin—like Jackson in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette—was affirming the fundamental constitutional command that the government cannot endorse any particular religion or all religions. Otherwise, like China, we would have certain preferred religious beliefs especially protected by the state.

From Judge Goodwin's decision about why including "one nation under God" is a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment:

"Particularly within the confined environment of the classroom, the policy is highly likely to convey an impermissible message of [government] endorsement to some, and disapproval to others, of their beliefs regarding the existence of a monotheistic God."

As he pointed out, the phrase "one nation under God" was added to the pledge by Congress in 1954 to advance religion for the sole purpose of differentiating the United States from atheist Communist nations. And, Judge Goodwin emphasized, "such a purpose" is forbidden by the establishment clause, which prohibits the government from advancing religion "at the expense of atheism."

Goodwin also pointed to the "age and impressionability" of the children at the Morse School in Elk Grove, California, the site of the lawsuit. But on Friday morning, there on television were the elementary school students of that very school, with their hands on their hearts, reciting the pledge, including "one nation under God"—and to hell with the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

"Impressionable," however, is not the word for the members of the House and Senate who thronged to excoriate the Ninth Circuit. And on the Capitol steps, in a proud bipartisan display of ignorance of the Constitution's separation of church and state, the House members, hands on hearts, recited the pledge and broke into a righteous "God Bless America."

The cause of all this belligerently conformist patriotism is Dr. Michael Newdow, an atheist and emergency room doctor who also has a law degree and acted as his own lawyer. He sued to preserve the constitutional rights of his eight-year-old daughter, a second-grade student in the Elk Grove Unified School District.

For exercising his constitutional right to confront his government in court, Dr. Newdow says, he is receiving "personal and scary" threats: "I could be dead tomorrow. . . . A lot of God-loving people think that killing other people who don't agree with them is OK."

Dr. Newdow may not receive a warm, protective response from Attorney General John Ashcroft, who insists that "this decision is directly contrary to two centuries of American tradition."

An even longer American tradition is that there is no mention of God in the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence, heralded by opponents of the Ninth Circuit decision for its references to God, does not have the force of law. And the Constitution says plainly, "No religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public trust under the United States." We all have the right to freedom of belief, or nonbelief, in God.

[theoverseer]

For your pleasurable (?) reading.

[reasonseeker]

John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America:

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF HEAVEN [emphasis added], more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus FOUNDED ON THE NATURAL AUTHORITY OF THE PEOPLE ALONE, WITHOUT A PRETENSE OF MIRACLE OR MYSTERY [emphasis added], and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."

[muawiyah]

A lot of issues in this country could be resolved quickly by simply placing the word "God" in the Constitution. 

Not as part of something, just out there by itself - 

 

"GOD"

[Maceman]

God is Not in the Constitution

Neither is public education.

[JMJ333]

I am not a fan of Henthoff, nor a libertarian, but He is technically right in saying that God isn't specifically mentioned in the constitution. In fact, its the one serious flaw that the constitution has.

Madison stated that sovereignty should rest with the people alone--or from the consent of the governed. Jefferson made the same point in the declaration of independance when he wrote: "Government's derive their just powers from the consent of the governed."

This idea stems from 18th century liberalism [specifically from the French revolution], which was hostile to all previous forms of political theory...specifically the theory that sovereignty resides with God....and that if power isn't exercised in harmony with God's laws, it wasn't legitimate, no matter how many people consented to it.

And again...God isn't mentioned in the constitution. And by placing sovereignty in the people alone, rather than in Divine law, the framers left the door open for any evil so long as it was justified by majority rule.

Ultimately, the reason the constitutional system was perverted is not the fault of the governmental system set forth in the constitution, but rather that the constitution allows matters of truth and morality to become open questions.

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

If someone on a "talking head" show would bring out the various letters of communication between the FOUNDING FATHERS,those would show their state of mind.The government is actually supposed to promote religion and in particular,judeao/christian beliefs.RELIGION SHOULD INTERFERE WITH GOVERNMENT!

[Jim Robinson]

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution:

"But the source to which I look or the aids which alone can supply my deficiencies is in the well-tried intelligence and virtue of my fellow-citizens, and in the counsels of those representing them in the other departments associated in the care of the national interests. In these my confidence will under every difficulty be best placed, next to that which we have all been encourage to feel in the guardianship and guidance of that Almighty Being whose power regulates the destiny of nations, whose blessings have been so conspicuously dispensed to this rising Republic, and to whom we are bound to address our devout gratitude for the past, as well as our fervent supplications and best hopes for the future."

[First_Salute]

The Spring of 1789, General Washington, upon swearing in as the first President of the United States (there were 11 states at the time, which had ratified the U.S. Constitution) ... leaned over and kissed the Bible.

[blackbart.223]

"God is Not in the Constitution."

"Neither is public education."

Well said. Bingo!

[JMJ333]

Thanks for the reply! Still, there is no specific mention of God stated in the constitution. There is nothing within the constitution itself that will guarantee wisdom or morality. If our constitution has failed in any was, it is not the fault of the system. Who's fault? Its the fault of those who ask, "Is it constitutional?" Instead of "Is it in harmony with natural and divine law?"

[RonF]

"Neither is public education."

Yes, but unlike religion, there is nothing in the Constitution forbidding an establishment of public education.

[NELSON111]

What I wish someone on these "talking head" shows would point out is this: The next time some leftist gets up there and spouts about the wisdom of the Founding Fathers had in seperating church and state (their view...not the founder's) and that vouchers and the pledge is wrong blah blah blah...I wish one of them would ask this: "If all of this is wrong constitutionally...then why have all of the practices you believe are unconstitutional been going on for 200 years (like prayer before congress...et al)...even in the time of the framers...and just now we are finding out it is "wrong". Why did the framers violate the establishment clause of the constitution (or your interpretation of it) almost all the time. IT seems to me that they knew what they meant better than you and they started congress with prayer...placed the 10 commandments on the courthouse...and didn't flip their lids if someone wanted to mention God in a governmental setting. Explain their lapse.

[Kerberos]

"Ultimately, the reason the constitutional system was perverted is not the fault of the governmental system set forth in the constitution, but rather that the constitution allows matters of truth and morality to become open questions. "

Yes and we certainly wouldn't want any public debate and discussion on matters such as truth and morality. Way too dangerous.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

God Is Not in the Constitution

Article VII

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth. (excerpt)

[JMJ333]

I am speaking in context of the recent flag flap and other issues that should be a given. Quit trying to make out like I am going to gag you.

In a governmental system where rulers are chosen by elections, the rulers will reflect the moral values of the people, or those among us who can exert the most pressure on the electoral process. If the moral values decline, then so will the value of the leaders. They will find ways to subvert--or will simply ignore--the checks and balance system of the constitution in order to impose the kind of government they want.

So...why do you think that the checks and balance system began to break down so quickly? First the national government taking power from the states, and then with the various branches of government dominating the other? I don't think the framers of the constitution ever envisioned such an event...so what happened? I place my bets on who has sovereignty.

[RonF]

Much is made of the fact that the House and Senate employ a chaplain, pray before daily session, etc. However, note that this occurs by the consent of the people involved. They have a vote. Whereas public school children have no choice in what was going on.

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

No doubt they would have to squirm to answer that!We would'nt be in this mess if the truth were being taught in our schools and some adults were reminded of it.This would be a great time for a NATIONAL EDUCATION of the CONSTITUTION and BILL OF RIGHTS,it should be mandated into the educational program of our schools.I agree with your sentiments.

[Sabertooth]

In 1943, during our war against Hitler, the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision concerning the Pledge of Allegiance that created fierce controversy around the country—just like last week's Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling....

The majority of the Court, in a decision written by Robert Jackson—later chief American prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials—defined the very essence of Americanism as they rebuked the West Virginia Board of Education and sent those kids back to school:

"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox politics, nationalism, religion, or any other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." (Emphasis added.)

By refering to a "fixed star in our Consitutional constellation," Jackson establishes an orthodoxy of his very own, even as he claims none exists.

In doing so, Jackson exercises typical overreach in that, by definition, only the Acolytes of the Holy Judiciary can divine for the laity the entrails of the Mysteries of the Constitutional anti-Orthodoxy.

All kneel...

"Order in the Court!

Thank the (mumble mumble) that Robert Prometheus Jackson arrived in 1943 to pluck this spark of wisdom from the (cough cough), or we might still not know what the fixed star of the US Constitution of 1787 actually was."

I think a national holiday, or at least a postage stamp are in order.

[NELSON111]

Thanks. The same arguement could be made regarding the 2nd ammendment. Ask the liberal how many of the fathers had rifles/pistols in their homes after they left the militia. Of course...you could just read what they wrote about that subject but that would be too easy.

I HATE revisionists....and that is what most of these people are.

[Maceman]

Yes, but unlike religion, there is nothing in the Constitution forbidding an establishment of public education.

It is prohibited by the Tenth amendment. I would also argue that its prohibition is indirectly -- though not specifically -- supported by the First Amendment. (If we don't let the federal government dictate the content of our newspapers, how can we, as a free people, allow it to dictate the content of our classrooms and textbooks?)