 |
|
There has been a lot of attention given recently to Big Lies involving the United States federal courts and the Supreme Court and the display of the Ten Commandments and other religious practices. There have been so many of them, it is impossible to keep count, but the most egregious of the Big Lies are these:
The Constitution itself says nothing about support of religion, but it acknowledges religion generally in Article VI when it prohibits religious tests as a qualification for office, and the Christian religion in particular when it mentions "our Lord" in Article VII. The first direct mention of support of religion is made in the First Amendment, which states, "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 of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The statement "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is often taken out of context, as if this were separate from the rest of the First Amendment, but it is clear from the inclusion of the following language that the Amendment in total is specifically directed to maintaining all religious freedoms against interference by Congress, including the expression of religious views by word of mouth or by writing, assembly for religious purposes, or actions taken against the Government if it even attempts to interfere. The First Amendment is not about free speech, it is completely about freedom of religious expression The Founding Fathers realized that they had overlooked protection of religion of the people in the Constitution, even though they had intended to guarantee government appointees such freedom in Article VI, and chose to rectify that omission in the first provision in the Bill of Rights.
The introductory phrase, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" specifically refers to an establishment of religion, not religions which are already established, or may be later established by The People. The Founding Fathers were very careful to convey, in the strongest language possible, that The People, not Congress, retained the sole authority to establish religions or religious practices. They were rightly concerned that the power they were giving to Congress might be abused by creating a national religion, which everyone would be required to join or practice, so they specifically prohibited Congress from passing any law which would have the effect of establishing a national religion. Only The People have the power to do that.
Note that nothing in the Constitution, even as amended, restricts in any way the authority of Congress to support, promote, maintain, or provide assistance to any religion individually or any group of religions already established by The People. Congress has no authority to create a religion, but it clearly has the authority, as a legislative body, to pass laws which have the intent or effect, or both, of assisting the people to practice the religious beliefs and traditions they already hold. This is, in fact, the purpose of the Constitution itself; to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty, all of which goals are enhanced and encouraged by Government support of religion.
The very first article of the Constitution specifies that "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States..." The inclusion of the first word, "All" specifically excludes any other federal authority from having any legislative powers of any kind. Thus, only Congress can make it illegal to do something, and then only before it is done, for Section 9, of Article 1 states, "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." A "bill of attainder," is a withdrawal of all civil rights, while an "ex post facto" law is one which makes an act illegal after it is committed. What this statement says specifically is that no authority, Congress or otherwise, has the power to take away an individual's civil rights, or to make any act legal before commission illegal afterwards. Neither Congress or any other governmental agency, certainly not any court, can stop a person from doing something, or punish him for doing it, unless and until there is a written law, passed by a legislative body (not a court) prohibiting such action.
Nothing in the Constitution requires, or even allows, any court to review a legislative act in any way whatever. Article I, Section 7, of the Constitution of the United States prescribes, in great detail, how legislation is to be proposed and acted upon before it "shall become a Law." Nothing in this section even mentions a court or judicial review process. Article III, which establishes the Supreme Court, likewise excludes the Court from the legislative process. Any act by any court to attempt to limit or reverse any legislative action is therefore blatantly unconstitutional.
Unlike Congress, in which is vested "All legislative Powers," the authority of the Supreme Court is strictly limited by the Constitution. "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases in law (i. e. criminal cases) and Equity (i. e. civil suits) arising under the Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties..." It goes on to limit further such cases to those involving Ambassadors, public Ministers, Consuls, admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction, Controversies in which the United States shall be a party, Controversies between two or more states, between Citizens of different States, and between Citizens of the same States claiming Lands under Grants of different States. Other jurisdictions were withdrawn by the Eleventh Amendment.
There is not even a hint of the Supreme Court having jurisdiction over acts of Congress. Some people suggest that the Supreme Court has the authority to reverse legislation because it has jurisdiction over "Controversies in which the United States shall be a party," but an act of Congress does not itself represent a "controversy" with respect to a person or agency subject to its authority. Otherwise, the Supreme Court would have to hear all cases involving every violator of every federal law. The Founding Fathers noticed this, and made clear that this was not what they intended by providing that in such cases the Supreme Court would have only "appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact." "Controversies in which the United States shall be a party" are specifically those involving the United States and another country. What this says is that if the United States and another country disagree, the matter can be settled only by the United States Supreme Court, not the other country, and certainly not by the World Court, the United Nations, or any other judicial body. That's why it's called the Supreme Court, not "the highest court in the United States," because it's Supreme.
Article III also allows Congress to make "Exceptions" and "Regulations" of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but does not give the Supreme Court any such authority over Congress. Thus, it is Congress that limits the authority of the Supreme Court, not the other way around. Congress can, in fact, reduce the Supreme Court to a single individual, for there is nothing in the Constitution that specifies the size of the Supreme Court, only that there is one. Congress also has complete power over federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court, and can create and eliminate them by ordinary legislation. The Constitution does not identify or even require inferior federal courts.
Article V of the Constitution specifies the manner in which the Constitution can be amended, and, once again, the Supreme Court is not mentioned. The Congress has the authority to "propose Amendments," and to propose a "Mode of Ratification" which consists either of ratification by three fourths of the state legislatures or by three fourths of state constitutional conventions. There are exactly two ways the Constitution can be amended; either by proposal by Congress and subsequent ratification by three fourths of the states, or by proposal in a constitutional convention called by two thirds of the state legislatures, and subsequent ratification by three fourths of the states. Neither the Supreme Court nor any other court is involved at all.
This limitation of authority is, in fact, implicit in Article III, "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases in law and Equity arising under the Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties..." The inclusion of the word "under" clearly defines the intent of the Founding Fathers to make the Supreme Court judicial power subordinate to "the Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties..." The Supreme Court can only apply the language of "the Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties..." to cases which it hears; it has no jurisdiction over or power to change the meaning of the language itself.
One hears talk about the "separation of powers" in the Constitution, the "separation of church and state," or "checks and balances," as if these ideas were somehow part of the Constitution, but they are not. None of these terms are found anywhere in the Constitution. There is historical evidence that the Founding Fathers actually considered these ideas and wrote about them, just as they considered rule only by landowners, or a Parliament representing only the rich, or a kind of limited monarchy. But it is clear from the words written in the Constitution itself that they rejected all of these ideas in favor of a government which would be of The People, by The People, for The People, and forever responsive and accountable to The People, who would therefore always remain the sole authorities through their elected representatives, not appointed judges, over what their government did, and what powers it had.
This preservation of the rights of The People is reiterated in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which state explicitly that the enumeration or listing of the rights of government do not deny or disparage others retained by The People, and that powers not delegated to the United States or prohibited to the States by the Constitution, are specifically not granted to the United States, but are retained by the States or by The People. These two Amendments together give every State, and, indeed, every citizen, the absolute right to require the federal government, and each agent thereof, to clearly justify each and every act, if called upon to do so, by referencing the specific statement in the Constitution which gives it that right. Any act of the government not specifically authorized by the Constitution is null, void and without any affect whatever.