Where is God in the Constitution?

Faith and Action ^ | Nov 04 | David W. New, Esq.

[Ed Current]

Religious Freedom Restoration Act

(1) The freedom to practice religion and to express religious thought is acknowledged to be one of the fundamental and unalienable rights belonging to all individuals.

(2) The Framers of the Constitution deliberately withheld, in the main body of that document, any authority for the Federal Government to meddle with the religious affairs or with the free speech of the people. Then, as further and more specific protection for the people, they added the first amendment, which includes the `establishment clause' and the `freedom of speech clause' which are as follows: `Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech . . .'. It is of utmost importance to note that the first amendment is not a grant of authority to the Federal Government. To the contrary, it is a specific restriction upon the exercise of power by the Federal Government.

(3) For over 150 years, the Court held to this historically correct position in interpreting the first amendment. During this period, scant mention was made to `The Separation of Church and State'.

(4) Then, beginning in 1947, and accelerating through the 60's, the Court abruptly reversed its position. This was done with no change in the law, either by statute or by amendment to the Constitution. The Court invented the distorted meaning of the first amendment utilizing the separation of `church and state' in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education when it announced: The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. (Everson v. Board of Education; 330 U.S. 1, 18 [1947]). Over the past five decades, rulings of the United States Supreme Court have served to infringe upon the rights of Americans to enjoy freedom of speech relating to religious matters. Such infringements include the outlawing of prayer in schools and of the display of the Ten Commandments in public places. These rulings have not reflected a neutrality toward religious denominations but a hostility toward religious thought. They have served to undermine the foundation of not only our moral code but our system of law and justice.

(5) In making this abrupt change, the Court ignored all historical precedent established previously by the Court, the wording of the First Amendment, and the intent of its framers. The rulings are legally irrational and without foundation. Although the Court presumed to rely upon the First Amendment for its authority for these rulings, a review of that Amendment reveals that said rulings could not possibly have been based upon its original intent. Consequently, it is incumbent upon this Congress to review not only the rulings of the Court which are in question but the wording and history of the First Amendment to determine the intent of its framers. This abrupt change is found in the following court cases:

(A) `A verbal prayer offered in a school is unconstitutional, even if that prayer is both voluntary and denominationally neutral.' (Engel v. Vitale, 1962, Abington v. Schempp, 1963, Commissioner of Education v. School Committee of Leyden, 1971.)

(B) `Freedoms of speech and press are guaranteed to students and teachers unless the topic is religious, at which time such speech becomes unconstitutional.' (Stein v. Oshinsky, 1965, Collins v. Chandler Unified School District, 1981, Bishop v. Aronov, 1991, Duran v. Nitsche, 1991.)

(C) `It is unconstitutional for students to see the Ten Commandments since they might read, meditate upon, respect, or obey them.' (Stone v. Graham, 1980, Ring v. Grand Forks Public School District, 1980, Lanner v. Wimmer, 1981.)

(D) `If a student prays over his lunch, it is unconstitutional for him to pray aloud.' (Reed v. Van Hoven, 1965.)

(E) `The Ten Commandments, despite the fact that they are the basis of civil law and are depicted in engraved stone in the United States Supreme Court, may not be displayed at a public courthouse.' (Harvey v. Cobb County, 1993.)

(F) `When a student addresses an assembly of his peers, he effectively becomes a government representative; it is therefore unconstitutional for that student to engage in prayer.' (Harris v. Joint School District, 1994.)

(G) By interpreting the establishment clause to preclude prayer and other religious speech in any public place, the Supreme Court necessarily violates the free speech clause of the very same first amendment.

These rulings of the Court constitute de facto legislation or Constitution-amending. This is a serious violation of the doctrine of separation of powers, as all legislative authority bestowed by the people through the Constitution is bestowed upon the Congress and the Congress alone.

(6) A fundamental maxim of law is, whenever the intent of a statute or a constitution is in question, to refer to the words of its framers to determine their intent and use this intent as the true intent of the law.

(7) The intent of the First Amendment was and is clear on these two points: The Federal Government was prohibited from enacting any laws which would favor one religious denomination over another and the Federal Government has no power to forbid or prohibit any mention of religion, the Ten Commandments or reference to God in civic dialog.

(8) In its rulings to prohibit Americans from saying prayers in school or from displaying the Ten Commandments in public places, the Court has relied heavily upon the metaphor, `Separation of Church and State'. Note that this phrase is nowhere to be found in the First Amendment or any other place in the Constitution.

(9) The metaphor, `Separation of Church and State', was extracted, out of context, from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in reply to a letter from them expressing concern that the Federal Government might intrude in religious matters by favoring one denomination over another. Jefferson's reply was that the First Amendment would preclude such intrusion.

(10) The Court, in its use of Separation of Church and State, has given to this phrase a meaning never intended by its author; it took it out of context and inverted its meaning and intent. The complete text of Jefferson's letter is found in Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282, to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802.

(11) Justice William Rehnquist made an extensive study of the history of the First Amendment. In his dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree (472 U.S. 38, 48, n. 30 [1984],) he stated: `There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the `wall of separation' that was constitutionalized in Everson. . . . But the greatest injury of the `wall' notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. . . . [N]o amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true. The `wall of separation between church and state' is a metaphor based on bad history. . . . It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned. . . . Our perception has been clouded not by the Constitution but by the mists of an unnecessary metaphor. It would come as much of a shock to those who drafted the Bill of Rights, as it will to a large number of thoughtful Americans today, to learn that the Constitution, as construed by the majority, prohibits the Alabama Legislature from endorsing prayer. George Washington himself, at the request of the very Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God. History must judge whether it was the Father of his Country in 1789, or a majority of the Court today, which has strayed from the meaning of the Establishment Clause.'

(12) As Justice Rehnquist states, the greatest injury of the `wall' notion is its `mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. . . .' It is necessary to review not only Jefferson's intent in his use of this `wall', but his involvement or noninvolvement in the drafting of the First Amendment, and the intent of the framers of the First Amendment.

(13) Jefferson was neither the author of nor a coauthor of the First Amendment. He cannot be considered as a source of legal authority on this subject. The Court, if it had wished to rely upon Jefferson to determine the true and original intent of the First Amendment, could have served themselves and the American people well by referring to Jefferson's admonition to Judge William Johnson regarding the determination of the original intent of a statute or a constitution: `On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.' (Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor [Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830, Vol. IV., p. 373,] to Judge William Johnson on June 12, 1823).

(14) The principal authors of the First Amendment, the record reveals, were Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, not Thomas Jefferson. Others who participated were John Vining of Delaware, Daniel Carroll and Charles Carroll of Maryland, Benjamin Huntington, Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, William Paterson of New Jersey, and James Madison and George Mason of Virginia. Thomas Jefferson is not found in the record as having participated. (The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States [Washington, D.C.; Gales and Seaton, 1834], Vol. I, pp. 440-948, June 8-September 24, 1789.)

(15) George Mason, a member of the Constitutional Convention and recognized as `The Father of the Bill of Rights', submitted this proposal for the wording of the First Amendment: `All men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.' (Kate Mason Rowland, The Life of George Mason [New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1892,] Vol I, p. 244.)

(16) The Father of the Constitution, James Madison, submitted the following wording for the First Amendment: `The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established.' (The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States [Washington, D.C.; Gales and Season, 1834,] Vol. I, p. 451, James Madison, June 8, 1789.)

(17) The true intent of the First Amendment is reflected by the proposals submitted by Fisher Ames, George Mason and James Madison and the wording finally adopted.

(18) Justice Joseph Story, considered the Father of American Jurisprudence, stated in his Commentaries on the Constitution: `The real object of the [First A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohometanism [sp], or Judaism, or infidelity by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy [a denominational council] the exclusive patronage of the national government. (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States [Boston; Hilliard, Gray and Company, 1833], p. 728, par. 1871.)

(19) Proof that the intent of the framers of the First Amendment did not intend for the Federal Government to restrict the exercise of free speech in religious matters in civic dialog is found in various statements by George Washington, who was President when the Congress adopted the First Amendment. The following is found in his `Farewell 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.' (George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States. . . . Preparatory to his Declination [Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge, 1796], pp. 22-23.

(20) James Wilson was a very active member of the Convention and was later appointed by President George Washington as an original Justice on the United States Supreme Court where he coauthored America's first legal text on the Constitution. Wilson never mentioned a `separation of church and state'. To the contrary, he declared the correlation between religion and civil laws: Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. (James Wilson, The Works of James Wilson, Bird Wilson, editor. Philadelphia; Bronson and Chauncey, 1804. Vol. I, pp. 104-106.)

(21) It was Fisher Ames of Massachusetts who provided, on the 20th of August, 1789, the final wording for the First Amendment as passed by the House of Representatives. Fisher Ames, who should be considered the foremost authority on the intent of the First Amendment, never spoke of a separation of church and state. (Fisher Ames, Works of Fisher Ames, Boston; T.B. Wait & Co. 1809, p. 134, 135.)

(22) Because the Court does not seem to be disposed to correct this egregious error, it is incumbent upon the Congress of the United States to perform its duty to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, by the use of its authority to apply checks and balances to other branches of the government, when usurpations and the exercise of excesses of power are evident. The Congress must, then, take the appropriate steps to correct egregious problem.

The Ten Commandments and the Ten Amendments: A Case Study in Religious Freedom in Alabama, 49 Ala. L. Rev.434-754 (1998).has the history and refutation of the incorporation doctrine used by the deviant courts to pervert the text of the14th Amendment.

[blackeagle]

bump

[Tailgunner Joe]

bttt

[writer33]

BTTT!

[phoenix0468]

bttt

[Borges]

I would disagree in saying that the French Enlightenment (Volatire, Diderot...) was the birthplace of Secularism not Darwin. And they did have a primary influence on the writing of the Constitution.

[Ed Current]

The source most often cited by the founding fathers in their political writings(1760-1805) was the Bible, which accounted for 34% of all citations. Deuteronomy was the most frequently cited book of the Bible."^{Liberty Fund, Inc. - Check-In}

[Just mythoughts]

"I would disagree in saying that the French Enlightenment (Volatire, Diderot...) was the birthplace of Secularism not Darwin. And they did have a primary influence on the writing of the Constitution."

I would have to disagree with you about the timing of 'Secularism's' beginning with the French, although plenty can be laid at their doorstep, Secularism got its first planting in the Garden of Eden. The serpent (devil)whispered sweet seductions into Eve's ear telling her that, 'God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.' That planting is with us to this day.

[Ed Current]

The most celebrated American historian, George Bancroft, called Calvin "the father of America," and added: "He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty." To John Calvin and the Genevan theologians, President John Adams credited a great deal of the impetus for religious liberty (Adams, WORKS, VI:313). This document includes a justification for rebellion to tyrants by subordinate government officials; this particular justification was at the root of the Dutch, English, and American Revolutions.

Authors Most Frequently Cited by the Founders

Authors Most Frequently Cited By the Founders of the United States

The following chart enumerates European and Biblical contributions to the founders' political thought. These are the people and sources that the founders quoted most often. The political literature included in this study was literature written by the founders of the United States between 1760 and 1805 (approximately one third of the significant secular literature and about ten percent of the significant sermons).

---

Source: Donald S. Lutz, "The Relative Importance of European Writers on Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thought," American Political Science Review 189 (1984), 189-97.

---

	Frequency of Citation
Rank	Author	Percentage
1	St. Paul (Biblical)	9.00%
2	Montesquieu (Enlightenment)	8.30%
3	Sir William Blackstone (Common Law)	7.90%
4	John Locke (Whig)	2.90%
5	David Hume (Enlightenment)	2.70%
6	Plutarch (Classical)	1.50%
7	Cesar Beccaria (Enlightenment)	1.50%
8	Trenchard & Gordon (Whig)	1.40%
9	De Lolme (Enlightenment)	1.40%
10	Baron Pufendorf (17th Century Protestant Political Theorist)	1.30%
11	Sir Edward Coke (Puritan/Common Law)	1.30%
12	Cicero (Classical)	1.20%
13	Thomas Hobbes (17th Century Political Theorist)	1.00%
14	Robertson (Enlightenment)	0.90%
15	Hugo Grotius (17th Century Protestant Political Theorist)	0.90%
16	Rousseau (Enlightenment)	0.90%
17	Bolingbroke (Whig)	0.90%
18	Francis Bacon (Puritan)	0.80%
19	Price (Whig)	0.80%
20	Shakespeare	0.80%
21	Livy (Classical)	0.80%
22	Alexander Pope (Enlight.)	0.70%
23	John Milton (Puritan)	0.70%
24	Tacitus (Classical)	0.60%
25	Coxe (Whig)	0.60%
26	Plato (Classical)	0.50%
27	Abbe Raynal (Enlightenment)	0.50%
28	Mably (Enlightenment)	0.50%
29	Machiavelli	0.50%
30	Vattel (Enlightenment)	0.50%
31	Petyt	0.50%
32	Voltaire (Enlightenment)	0.50%
33	Robinson	0.50%
34	Algernon Sydney (Whig)	0.50%
35	Somers (Whig)	0.50%
36	Harrington (Whig)	0.50%
37	Rapin (Whig)	0.50%

 

 

[D-fendr]

Without declaring indepence there would be no constitution. And the constitution derives its existence and authority from the declaration – in part:

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

[Borges]

I was about to add Montesquieu to my enumeration but held back at the last moment. Still, the 18th century thinkers made a good showing on that chart. And if someone could explain how The Ten Commandments are the basis of the Constitution I'm all ears. They are ethical precepts which are not law and I would presume no one would want most of them to be (Keep the Sabbath Day Holy, covet thy neighbors goods, Honor they Father and Mother...). good words to live by but not legal principles.

[Ed Current]

The National Lawyers Association takes the position that the practical effect of the legal connection or relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution is that the Constitution is to be interpreted in the light of the principles set forth in the Declaration.[...] The Preamble introduces and explains the purpose of The U.S. Constitution, and links it to The Declaration of Independence."

The Preface to the United States Code - Annotated states that "this code is the official restatement in convenient form of the general and permanent laws of the United States in force December 7, 1925...." The Preface also states that there is also contained therein a copy of the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Ordinance of 1787 and the Constitution with Amendments. Robert C. Cannada, Senior Counsel, Butler, Snow, O'Mara, Stevens & Cannada, PLLC, Jackson, Mississippi, "America's Choice: A Limited Government Or A Totalitarian Government," The National Lawyers Association Review, Winter 1996.

[Borges]

Should be 'Not covet thy Neighbor's Goods' :)

[xkaydet65]

I would disagree. I feel that it was the English Enlightenment, Locke, et.al, who most influenced the Founders. The extremisms of Voltaire, Rousseau, and more dangerously St. Juste, are not found in the balanced work that is the Constitution. Also there is genuine effort to protect the minority from the evils of the untrammeled majority. Something the French Revolution lacked and Europe lacks even today.

[mission9]

Where is God in the Constitution of the United States? Here is the quote from the ratification Clause: Article VII.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
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 In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

The LORD referred to is not the King of England. He is the Jehovah God of Jacob, Issac and Jesus. Most education in those days consisted of the study of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, so that the ancients holy books could be read in their native tongue. This phrase "in the year of our Lord" was not a convention of speech. It was the very air that free men breathed.

[IronJack]

Whence do the rights enumerated in the Constitution arise? If the Constitution does not follow the precedent of the Declaration of Independence on that matter -- that men are endowed with those rights by a Creator God -- then what new precedent does it establish? What are the origins of our rights?

If you say "government," then any government that grants those rights is entitled to take them away. If you say "nature" or something equally vague, you are in essence saying God, although you lack the courage to use the word.

The only other possibilities are chilling: our rights arise because we say they do. So if we eventually say they don't, they don't. Or we assume certain rights because of public utility. However, if that utility changes, then the rights vanish. The relativist school poses a serious threat to our notion of democracy.

When all is said and done, the rights listed by the Constitution arise from a divine author, or we are simply serfs under a different king.

[nosofar]

So. Is the word 'Man' in the constitution? I don't have a text file to search. I'd think so, but I can't think of where.

[IronJack]

The National Lawyers Association takes the position that the practical effect of the legal connection or relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution is that the Constitution is to be interpreted in the light of the principles set forth in the Declaration.

I hadn't read this post when I posted above. But it's nice to know the National Lawyers Association agrees with me.

[Ed Current]

How ABSOLUTELY RIGHT your are.
Post #12 may be of interest.

[Ed Current]

I was about to add Montesquieu to my enumeration but held back at the last moment

It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power 1 The celebrated Montesquieu, speaking of them, says: "Of the three powers above mentioned, the judiciary is next to nothing.'' "Montesquieu: The Spirit of Laws.'' vol. i., page 186. ^{The Avalon Project : Federalist No 78}