“In the Supreme Court We Trust?”

special to Free Republic ^ | 22 August 2003 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

[Congressman Billybob]

Attention all school superintendents, principals, teachers, students and parents: The Pledge of Allegiance has been changed. Effective immediately, please use the following text until further notice:

“I pledge allegiance to the Supreme Court of the United States, and to the Republic which it controls, one nation, under nobody in particular, with liberty and justice for all (or at least for all who can get five Justices to buy their argument).”

That's what it has come to. What are we going to do about it?

This issue has been kicking around the federal courts for decades, fueled primarily by ACLU cases challenging all types of references to “God” in public places and forums. It came to a head last week when a federal court ordered Chief Judge Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court to remove from its building a monument containing the Ten Commandments and quotes from other documents including the Declaration of Independence. Chief Judge Moore asked the Circuit Court and then the Supreme Court to stay that order on an emergency basis. Both refused. Then the other eight judges of his court decided to remove the monument pending appeal – and Chief Judge Moore vowed to continue the case in the Supreme Court.

The various representatives of these anti-“God” cases have claimed on TV and in print that this is a matter of “respecting the First Amendment.” But for 156 years of its existence, the First Amendment was no barrier whatsoever to public mentions of belief in God. Only in 1947, when the Supreme Court announced the doctrine of “separation of church and state” did the First Amendment magically forbid such references.

And, where did that phrase come from? It was borrowed from a private letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists – and as many commentators have noted, the Court used the phrase out of context from Jefferson's letter which was highly favorable to organized religion. The phrase was grafted into the Constitution by a majority of the Supreme Court, over the detailed and vigorous objection of Dissenters who believed that the Constitution means what it says.

Over the decades the Supreme Court and various lower federal courts have issued various decisions barring prayers before high school games, barring the posting of the Ten Commandments in classrooms, and even barring a “moment of silence” at the beginning of the school day. But equally important are decisions the federal courts have NOT made. They have refused to order legislatures to stop having prayers to begin their business days. They have refused to order the Department of the Treasury to stop putting “In God We Trust” on our money. The have refused to order the federal government to stop having chaplains in the military.

The differences between the orders issued by the federal courts and orders refused, demonstrate that the Supreme Court does not really mean what it says. The logic of its prior cases would lead to an end to prayers in Congress and in state legislatures, an end to the national motto, and an end to chaplains. But the Court knows full well that any such orders would be overwhelmingly ignored by Congress on behalf of the people. The practices would not stop; the Court would simply be embarrassed.

But there are more embarrassments for the Court than that. The central figure in the frieze on the back of the Court's white marble building on Third Street in D.C. is a statue of Moses holding the Ten Commandments. He is flanked by Confucius and Solon, two other great “law-givers.”

Inside the Court's chambers is a relief of a bearded man in a robe, holding two tablets with Hebrew inscriptions. Anyone who did not just fall off the turnip truck knows that is a reference to the Ten Commandments. Also, every meeting of the Court begins with the Clerk announcing, “Oyez, oyez, oyez. God save this honorable Court and the United States of America.” There is not the slightest hint that the Court is about to remove Moses from the outside and inside of its building, or instruct its Clerk to change what he says when the Court is about to take the bench.

In short, exactly as the carved marble of the Court's building suggests, and Chief Judge Moore said in his public remarks last week, the Judeo-Christian tradition and the Ten Commandments are the foundation of British law, American law, and of most legal systems throughout the Western World. To deny this is to deny both history and law. But this court denial is applied only in Alabama, not in D.C.

God, I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

So what are the possible solutions to this problem, which continues to spread state by state and school district by school district? The best solution is in the hands of the Supreme Court itself. It should take the Alabama case. It should decide that its recent prior cases are historically dishonest and legally wrong, and reverse the lot of them. It should start fresh on the basis that the First Amendment forbids government favoritism between one religion and another, but it both permits and protects various forms of recognition that the United States was and is a God-fearing nation.

Should the Court do that? Absolutely. Will it do so? Almost certainly not. So we turn to the second solution.

Under Article III of the Constitution, Congress has authority over the jurisdiction of the federal courts. It has in the past used laws to restrict the power of those courts, most recently (at the backstage behest of Senate Minority Leader Daschle) with respect to fire fighting on federal lands in South Dakota, and South Dakota only. Restrictions have been made before; they can be made again.

With nothing but a law, not a constitutional amendment, Congress can tell the Supreme Court and lower courts to take their hands off all cases concerning the text of the Declaration of Independence (four references to God), of the Constitution (one reference), of the Pledge of Allegiance (one reference), of the National Anthem (the motto, “In God We Trust,” first appeared in its fourth stanza). And for good measure Congress can exempt all historical documents more than three centuries old. That would cover the Mayflower Compact, the Magna Carta, and the Ten Commandments, among many others.

What is going on here has to do not with God, but with jurisprudence. How should judges and Justices approach any case? All of them take an oath to respect and defend the Constitution. But that document in Article V gives the power to amend the Constitution solely to the people, acting through their representatives in Congress and in the states. When courts undertake for themselves to rewrite the Constitution, they are acting contrary to their oath. In an old-fashioned phrase the Framers often employed, they are “usurping power” that does not belong to their branch of government.

Why should Congress act to stop this judicial usurpation? For the same reason that parents should act immediately when they discover their children playing with matches. The solution is not to leave the matches in the children's hands but try to persuade them to be more responsible. It is to take away the matches.

The “God” cases are only one of several areas in which the Supreme Court has arrogated to a minimum of five of its Justices, a power that rightfully belongs only to two-thirds of Congress followed by three-fourths of the states. The Supreme Court has been playing with constitutional matches for seventy years and burning down the Constitution a room at a time. Since the Justices are unlikely to change their behavior any time soon, it is the obligation of Congress on behalf of the people to correct their behavior by taking away their matches.

As soon as that is done, we can return to the original Pledge:

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.” The nation does not consistently live up to that definition, any more than each of us always lives by the Ten Commandments. But it is important to have higher standards in this world.

Anyway, that's what I think, as a citizen and a lawyer. And that's what the Framers thought, who were also citizens and in many instances, lawyers as well. They were not perfect either, but they were excellent leaders who put present day leaders to shame, as a group, and would roundly condemn the recent actions of the Supreme Court.

- 30 -

John Armor is an author and civil rights attorney. His next book is on Thomas Paine, a Founding Father who is often (but falsely) described as an atheist.

- 30 -

[bimbo]

Rush Limbaugh last week offered the opinion that the Reagan Revolution faltered because we assumed we had won the ideological battle and didn't need to keep educating the people.

A VERY good post, but I feel an urge to correct the above revisionist statement. It was Rush Limbaugh, not “we,” who bullishly declared victory in the ideological battle. It was a million dittoheads who claimed: “Yeah, cool, Rush! Now we can relax and enjoy our new freedom.”

[bimbo]

What can Congress do about this? They can't be establishin' no religion, now can they???????

While we weren’t looking, they certainly DID illegally establish an official religion – Secular Humanism. We, the People, must now worship the government.

[Congressman Billybob]

Nope. Congress cannot, and should not, establish a religion. What it CAN do is establish limits on the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Article III of the Constitution gives Congress that power. On occasion it has used that power. Now is the time to use it again.

Billybob

[Congressman Billybob]

That fine quote from Sam Adams is one of my favorites, also. Thanks for posting it.

Billybob

[Teacher317]

Yes the american populace is going to go up against the most powerful military force in the world armed with what?

Deer rifles work just fine. Note the success of the WV and DC snipers with weapons of similar firepower.

FYI... when push comes to shove, a hefty percentage of that "most powerful military force" will be on the other side. (I've had many conversation with friends in the service about this.) Besides, even if they do not, 2 million massed soldiers vs 45 million scattered snipers doesn't look much like a losing proposition for the populace. If only 1 in 5 bother to fight, and only 1 in 4 of those manages a hit before they are eliminated, the snipers still win with a million men to spare. Those are decent odds, and the exact logic behind the Second Amendment.

[Gritty]

I believe you are right in the solution.

However, there is one critical drawback to implementation. The Senate is in effect being controlled by the Democrats, who, along with a few rascally Republicans, would never let such a thing happen as the Court is giving them so much of their otherwise unpassable agenda.

I think to be successful, our first effort should be to politically neuter the Liberals in the Senate either by throwing them out of office or by a strong Republican leadership playing implacable hardball (the option much less likely to occur).

[TEXOKIE]

EXCELLENT ARTICLE!! THANKS FOR POSTING IT!!

BUMP FOR ANOTHER ROUND ON THIS FINE SATURDAY!

[Roscoe]

But this court denial is applied only in Alabama, not in D.C.

Myron Thompson's apologists here on FR don't like having that pointed out to them.

[TEXOKIE]

"I will attribute this piece later tonight or tomorrow. "

OK. I'll bite....who said the speech??? (Which is terrific, btw.)

[itsahoot]

Article III of the Constitution gives Congress that power. On occasion it has used that power. Now is the time to use it again.

I got beat to a bloody pulp on this issue. I maintained that according to "B1 Bomber Bob" Dornan Congress had passed laws that were not subject to Judicial review some 124(est) times in the past. Boy that created some harsh words. Glad to see that you understand this.

[itsahoot]

the snipers still win with a million men to spare. Those are decent odds, and the exact logic behind the Second Amendment.

And this is exactly the reason the 2nd is under such attack.....

[rw4site]

Speechmaker

[yhwhsman]

Thanks Billybob. Posting for tracking purposes.

Yhwhsman

[Avoiding_Sulla]

I like your column and ideas.
But how do we get Congress to move?

I've suggested citizens make a habit of chanting at appearances by congressmem of all stripes something like "Bring - Back - God / Bring - Back - God / ..." until they get the message.

I've also recognized the difficulty given the behavior of the political party leadership in recent years. The Michigan Affirmative Action ruling by SCOTUS was even worse than this confrontation, yet how come there wasn't a groundswell of congressional activity to slap SCOTUS over its invoking "compelling state interests" (CSI) to overrule the very constitution they are sworn to uphold?

Here's how I see that stacking up.

As to why Congress hasn't mounted a challenge you need look no further than the Leftist/Statist axis I dubbed in April 2000, RepublicRats™.

The leadership of the GOP, the party that proclaims itself our protector against judicial activism, has marginalized the conservative element within the GOP who really are our statwarts. If there are conservatives actively seeking to overturn the CSI outrage of the last SCOTUS session, they are getting no press coverage. They are not on the radar screen. They have been marginalized.

But along comes Chief Justice Moore has risked his considerable position to bring the conservative cause out of the corner and onto the front page. The media and the rest of the Establishment couldn't just ignore him. He exposed for us the ACLU flimflam of justice while he still could and so we could react.

There are many who say CJ Moore has violated the rule of law. I ask, what law?
A ruling made concrete by a SCOTUS that chose to ignore his case?
A SCOTUS ruling that attempted to marginalize the issue he raised? Just go way they say?
The same SCOTUS which stands in open contempt of the very constitution upon which this questionable decision rests?

SCOTUS is said to be setting down the law by rubber stamping the questionable ruling. That makes it an undemocratic law. A law of judicial fiat. An autocratic law passed by 5 out of 9 little robes. Robes who think they are accountable to nobody, not even God. Their aim, by ignoring his case, was to marginalize CJ Moore like the rest of the Establishment have been doing to other good conservatives. One law, among many, for which the SCOTUS could be slapped but for the RepublicRats™ in leadership in Congress.

Well, who that is of right mind advocates violating laws as a matter of course? Yet sometimes civil disobedience is necessary. Used judiciously, not overused, it makes a splash that is usually long overdue. Too bad the media is on the side of Leviathan in this one Congressman BB.

Well, God bless Chief Justice Moore.
God bless those who answer the call to battle made aloud by his case and strengthened by his courage.
May this nation continue to be blessed by men of conscience who are willing to sacrifice their position for the sake of our great nation.

[4integrity]

My question too.....how do we get ACTION? I often call and email Senators and Congressmen. Most recently, I called about the filibusters of the Pres judicial nominees and Sen Orin Hatch's Amendment to allow a naturalized citizen, who has lived in the U.S. for 20 yrs, become President. The person in Hatch's office listened and explained why, he believed, a true 24x7 filibuster is not necessarily in the best interest of Republicans. But, calls to the RNC and Sen. Frist's office were answered by "dead people" who just gave lip service. VERY FRUSTRATING. Even literature,asking for money, from the various Republicans no longer talk about the judicial nominees. This is too important an issue to ignore. What ACTIONS can we, the people, take to help get the Senate to vote on these judges? Why doesn't the RNC coordinate an effort to have all State and Fed Parties conduct a MASSIVE grass roots campaign to contact all Senators demanding a vote? Individual calls or emails are ignored. What can we do??

[Avoiding_Sulla]

I think the way to get action is to organize openly planned embarrassments for your elected officials. Then pass along your successes and lessons to friends all around the country. (Hint, hint: some at FR might be receptive).

Go to the next forum where one of your politicians is appearing with a handful or more of your VERY FRUSTRATED friends. Disperse yourselves throughout the audience. Then begin chanting an appropriate recited set of phrases, following the cues of your boldest member.

Because this particularly egregious case is in the news, my most recent suggestion is "Bring - Back - God / Bring - Back - God / Bring - Back - God /...."

It's democratic. It's reasonable. And it makes it a lot harder for your representatives to marginalize public sentiment when they meet it whereever they go in public.

And plan on having fun at some public marshmallow's expense while doing your duty for your nation at the same time. You may find that that marshmallow really has a backbone buried way down deep in there. ;)

[happygrl]

Thank you Congressman Billybob.

The simplicity of it all boggles the mind, apparently in too deep a fashion for the SCOTUS.

I am looking forward to your book on Tom Paine and to watching as another cannard of the left is stood on its head.

[4CJ]

But the Court knows full well that any such orders would be overwhelmingly ignored by Congress on behalf of the people. The practices would not stop; the Court would simply be embarrassed.

Then embarrass the heck out of them. Simpering idiots for the most part, with maybe 1 out of 100 actually understanding the Constitution. Bump for Justice Roy S. Moore.

[wita]

I think I get your point. The congress has taken care to de-arm the American population of at least state of the art weapons, puting the American people at a distinct disadvantage should (civil war), shudder, (an oxymoronic statement if there ever was one) ever become a reality.

[davidosborne]

BTTT !!! Great thread.. thank you.. I am adding this thread to my website !

David