Constitutional Corner: Natural Law Today – A Question of Rights

Open as PDF

We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable (as Jefferson wrote in his first draft of the Declaration), that all men are created equal, that they are endowed (i.e., gifted/supplied/blessed) by their Creator (that would be God) with certain unalienable (i.e., non-transferable/inherent/innate/implicit) rights, among which are (at least the right to) life, (the right to enjoy) liberty, and (the freedom to pursue) happiness.

Webster’s 1828 dictionary tells us truth is “Conformity to fact or reality; exact accordance with that which is, or has been, or shall be.”  Sacred meant “Entitled to reverence; venerable, inviolable.” Undeniable? That speaks for itself.

The Supreme Court in 1897 called Mr. Jefferson’s little 1300-word essay “the thought and spirit of our government,” relegating the Constitution itself to merely the “body and letter” of our government.[1]  I (and others) contend that the Constitution can only be rightly understood and interpreted in the illumination provided by the Declaration.

But let’s not take Jefferson’s view on the matter; it is, after all, rather sparse. You might prefer Alexander Hamilton’s more expansive view:

Good and wise men, in all ages, … have supposed that the deity, from the relations we stand in to himself and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable law, which is indispensably obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution whatever. This is what is called the law of nature … Upon this law depend the natural rights of mankind: the Supreme Being gave existence to man, together with the means of preserving and beatifying that existence. He endowed him with rational faculties, by the help of which, to discern and pursue such things, as were consistent with his duty and interest, and invested him with an inviolable right to personal liberty, and personal safety … The Sacred Rights of Mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the Hand of the Divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”[2]

Too verbose? Something more succinct? Perhaps that of John Adams:

“You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.”[3]

Declaration of Independence and Constitution signer, and drafter of the Articles of Confederation, John Dickinson, put it this way:

“Kings or parliaments could not give the rights essential to happiness… We claim them from a higher source – from the King of kings, and Lord of all the earth. They are not annexed to us by parchments and seals. They are created in us by the decrees of Providence, which establish the laws of our nature. They are born with us; exist with us; and cannot be taken from us by any human power without taking our lives. In short they are founded on the immutable maxims of reason and justice.”[4]

Or perhaps from Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia:

“[C]an the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties (i.e. rights) are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever.”[5]

The Founders who proclaimed their belief in natural law/natural rights are too numerous to list.  As Chester Antieau writes in an essay entitled Natural Rights and the Founding Fathers – The Virginians, “It would be amazing if any Revolutionary leader of the Commonwealth could be found who did not subscribe to the doctrines of natural law and right.  Moreover, the doctrine was widely held and continually expressed by the popular assemblages throughout the Commonwealth during Revolutionary days.”[6]

As Thomas West argues in his new book The Political Theory of the American Founding: Natural Rights, Public Policy, and the Moral Conditions of Freedom, “the founders shared a ‘theoretically coherent understanding’ of politics rooted in natural rights philosophy.”

So is this essay about law or rights?  Both; law begets rights and natural law begets natural, unalienable rights. The Founders understood this, nearly to a man.

As Jefferson would write late in life, the thoughts he expressed in the Declaration were nothing more than the “harmonizing sentiments of the day…an expression of the American mind.”[7]

The dual concepts of natural law and natural rights were not discovered by the Founders, these ideas had been expounded upon for millennia. Plato (427–347 B.C.), Aristotle (384–322 B.C.), Cicero (106–43 B.C.), St Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274), William of Ockham (1280–1349), Richard Hooker (1554–1600), Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) and Matthew Hale (1609-1676), all these men contributed to natural law thought long before John Locke (1632 –1704) — upon whom Jefferson largely relied — took up his pen. Frenchman Baron de Montesquieu (1689–1755) and Swiss thinker Emmerich de Vattel (1714-1767) later added to the assembled wisdom. The Founders studied them all.

But another set of “enlightened” political philosophers: David Hume, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant and others, were hard at work during this same timeframe dismantling the classical-traditional view of natural rights. These philosophers of the Enlightenment (who inspired the bloody French Revolution) rejected God as the author of the Natural Law, or at least diminished His significance, and elevated human reason, the “general will” that was found in legislative majorities, to the pinnacle of authority. The Enlightenment philosophers, in the words of noted historian Carl Lotus Becker, “deified nature and denatured God. Since Nature was now the new God, source of all wisdom and righteousness, it was to Nature that the eighteenth century looked for guidance, from Nature that it expected to receive the tablets of the law; and it was just as necessary now as ever for the mind of the rational creature to share in the mind of this new God, in order that his conduct, including the ‘positive laws of particular states,’ might conform to the universal purpose.”[8]

But the Founders rejected this notion. For them, natural law was “antecedent to all earthly governments,” it preceded even the creation of man; and it gave rise to natural, unalienable rights. Around that concept they built our government.

They agreed with Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780), who wrote in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in America in 1771:[9]

This will of [man’s] maker is called the law of nature. For as God, when he created matter, and endued it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the…direction of that motion; so, when he created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that freewill is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws….Such among others are these principles: that we should live honestly, should hurt nobody, and should render to every one his due.”[10]

Ergo, Jefferson’s “Laws of nature and Nature’s God” which gave the colonists the right to “assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station” to which they felt entitled.

But was natural law enough? Was Blackstone’s “faculty of reason” sufficient “to discover the purport of those laws?”

Blackstone himself conceded it was not. He added:

“[D]ivine providence… in compassion to the frailty, the imperfection, and the blindness of human reason, hath been pleased, at sundry times and in diverse manners, to discover and enforce its laws by an immediate and direct revelation. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures.”

Which leads us to the Law of Moses, i.e. the Ten Commandments.

When God inscribed: “Thou shalt not murder” on a block of stone it became “revealed or divine law,” in Blackstone’s view, and this particular commandment enshrined a right to the preservation of one’s life. “Thou shalt not steal” affirmed a right to retain property, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor” affirmed a right to receive honest testimony.

But did the Israelites or even we today really need an inscription in stone to confirm that murder and lying are wrong, that human life should be preserved? When Cain slew Abel, 1500 years before Moses delivered the two tablets, did Cain really need God to personally come and tell him he had violated natural law? Abel’s blood is said to have cried out from the very ground upon which it had poured. Cain needed no reminder of the gravity of his action, as Romans 2:15 reminds us, the natural law was written on his heart, as it is ours.  But due to the “frailty” of our ability to naturally discover the natural law purely through reason, some key features had to be revealed to us.

And this was the view of the Founders.

But as we all “know,” Jefferson and the others of his time were writing in what is today considered “Founders’-speak,” a “dead language” consigned to the “dustbin of history” along with Koine Greek and Babylonian, the language of an “unenlightened age” where men had only recently cast off the geocentric theory of the solar system and still owned slaves. Or so the critics of natural rights theory would have us believe.

Today we know better, they say. “There is no god and there is no soul. Hence, there is no need for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable truth is dead and buried. There is no room for fixed and natural law or permanent moral absolutes,”[11] wrote Father of the modern public school, John Dewey.

Despite these attacks, the idea of natural law and unalienable rights still persisted.  In his January 1961 Inaugural Address, John F. Kennedy reminded us that:

“The world is very different now. [M]an holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.”

Two years after Kennedy’s inaugural speech, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in his famous “Letter from a Birmingham Jail:” “We have waited for more than 340 years for our … God-given rights,… To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.” As we will see, Dr. King is merely reciting Blackstone.

Though he did not live to enjoy the final fruits, King’s movement achieved its long-awaited goal: unjust laws were repealed and God-given rights restored. Why? Because the rights they sought were grounded in natural, immutable law — they were unalienable.

In 1991, when Clarence Thomas was nominated to replace Thurgood Marshall on the Supreme Court, the New York Times noted that Thomas was “the first Supreme Court nominee in 50 years to maintain that natural law should be readily consulted in constitutional interpretation.”

His confirmation hearing put natural law back in the spotlight, with Joe Biden calling it a “dangerous” view.

For more recent evidence of this “enlightened” view we can turn to noted “political philosopher” (and lawyer) Chris Cuomo of CNN, who proclaimed recently: “Our rights do not come from God, your honor (he told Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore), and you know that. They come from man… Our laws come from collective agreement and compromise.”[12]

Did you notice Cuomo’s slight-of-hand there? He begins his statement speaking of rights and ends up talking about laws. At least he sees the connection; but since in Cuomo’s world (and many today join him in so thinking) there is no such thing as natural law, there is no such thing as a natural right. If a civil, man-made law doesn’t create a right, the right simply does not exist. Cuomo’s thinking is a natural outgrowth of the Enlightenment.

Instead of natural rights we have substituted, ala Cuomo, rights created by civil law. The rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights have become a “gift” of the Constitution. As proof: for the last ten years at least, the Whitehouse website proudly proclaims: “The 2nd Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.

Now, to be fair, we must admit that civil law can indeed create rights, I would call these civil rights, although that term is also sometimes used to describe natural rights.  But there certainly are rights created by the consent of the governed. If we are honest we will also acknowledge that “what the government giveth, the government can taketh away.”  Civil, man-made rights, are clearly alienable; here today and perhaps gone tomorrow.  Rights bestowed by those representating the “will of the majority.”

If there is no natural law, as Thomas Aquinas put it in Summa Theologiae,, “Whatever the Prince wills, is the law.”

But let’s approach that idea with caution.  As James Madison warned: “In Republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority.“ Madison called the Declarations of Rights of his time, “Parchment Barriers,” which had been violated “by overbearing majorities in every State” whenever they were “opposed to a popular current.”

If our rights are nothing more than an expression of civil law, then one moment it can be: “You have a right to life,” and the following moment it can be “We’ll decide whether life-prolonging medical care will be provided you.” One year it can be “you have a right to property” the next “you have a right to retain some portion of your property.” Your rights become whatever a majority in Congress deem important at that moment, they are neither enduring nor immutable. This is wonderful as long as your view of what’s important happens to align with that of the majority; but what if you find yourself in the minority?  What then?

So where has been the legal profession in all this?

Many, if not most lawyers of the founding period, and there were about 30 of them in the Constitutional Convention, held to Blackstone’s view.  They were called “Blackstone Men” if they did so. There were more copies of Blackstone’s Commentaries sold in America than in England.

But I would contend that most lawyers today, if asked, would not subscribe to Blackstone’s view of the law. Our nation’s law schools and a British import, legal positivism, are to blame.[13]

Enter English jurist and philosopher, Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832).  Bentham, a contemporary of some of the Founders,[14] is generally regarded as the founder of the British legal positivist movement. Bentham’s “fundamental axiom” was: “It is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong.” In other words, morality, and the rights attendant to it, is determined by majority rule.

The tenets of legal positivism include:

  • There are no divine absolutes in law, or if there are, they are irrelevant to a modern legal system.
  • Law is constructed – not discovered or revealed.
  • Law evolves as man evolves.
  • Judges guide the evolution of law through their decisions.
  • To study law the scientific way, go to the original sources, i.e., the decisions of judges.

Christopher Columbus Langdell, Dean of Harvard Law School, having studied in England with Bentham’s acolytes, is credited with bringing legal positivism to American law schools. From Harvard, it quickly spread.  Today’s law schools, with a few exceptions, teach natural law in their History of Law course.  It is certainly not studied as a living, breathing part of contemporary law.

A final point: is there a relationship between natural law and civil law. We heard Dr. King insist that “An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.”  Sounds a lot like Blackstone, who wrote: “This law of nature…is of course superior to any other…. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force…from this original.”[15]

Let that last point sink in:  No man-made law is valid unless it comports with natural law.  And since natural law and revealed law have the same “adorable source,”[16] it follows that no man-made law is valid if it contradicts revealed law found in the Bible in any way.  What does this imply about “laws” which allow for the killing of the unborn?

Like the rest of God’s creation, natural law and natural rights remain with us, in the background perhaps, waiting to be rediscovered and returned to their rightful place of prominence in our society.

If you are content to have your rights decided by a vote of the majority, to have the majority decide whether you may speak freely, whether or not you can assemble or associate, whether you may follow your conscience, then there is nothing further to do. That is the path our society is on. But if you prefer to have natural rights, as determined by the Creator of the Universe, the One who brought mankind into existence, the One whose image we bear, then there is work to do.

And here are the “marching orders,” not from a Founding Father, but a Founding Mother. In 1805, Mercy Otis Warren, sister of the great patriot James Otis, Jr., wrote: “It is necessary for every American, with becoming energy to endeavor to stop the dissemination of principles evidently destructive of the cause for which they have bled. It must be the combined virtue of the rulers and of the people to do this, and to rescue and save their civil and religious rights from the outstretched arm of tyranny, which may appear under any mode or form of government.”  Translated from “Founder-speak” this means we must stop teaching or otherwise promoting a false view of natural rights and natural law.

That is our charge today, the charge to every freedom-loving American: to stop the dissemination of principles, wherever they are found being promoted, that are destructive of the cause for which the Founders bled, the preservation of their rights as Englishmen.

Does natural law exist today?  It’s really a question of rights.[17]

 

“Constitutional Corner” is a project of the Constitution Leadership Initiative, Inc. To unsubscribe from future mailings by Constitution Leadership Initiative, click here.

[1] GULF, C. & S. F. R. CO. v. ELLIS ,  165 U.S. 150 (1897)

[2] The Farmer Refuted, February 23, 1775

[3] A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law, 1765

[4] John Dickinson, An Address to the Committee of Correspondence in Barbados, 1766

[5] Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 18, 1781

[6] http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3506&context=wlulr

[7] Letter to Richard Henry Lee, 1825

[8] Carl Lotus Becker, The Declaration of Independence, A Study in the History of Political Ideas, p. 51.

[9] More copies of Blackstone’s Commentaries were sold in the American colonies than in the rest of the British Empire.

[10] Commentaries on the Laws of England, Introduction, Section the Second

[11] John Dewey, “Soul-Searching,” Teacher Magazine, September 1933, p. 33

[12] http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/curtis-kalin/cnn-anchor-our-rights-do-not-come-god

[13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_positivism.

[14] Bentham died only three years after James Madison.

[15] Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book 1, Chapter 2

[16]The law of nature and the law of revelation are both Divine: they flow, though in different channels, from the same adorable source. It is indeed preposterous to separate them from each other.” Declaration of Independence and Constitution signer James Wilson, Law of Nature, 1804.

[17] For further reading on this subject I recommend two books: “Written on the Heart” by J. Budziszewski, and “Retrieving the Natural Law” by J. Daryl Charles.

Constitutional Corner – The Mind of James Madison, Part 1

Open as PDF

I had the pleasure of interviewing on my weekly radio show last Friday, author and professor, Colleen Sheehan of Villanova University.[1] Her recent book, “The Mind of James Madison, The Legacy of Classical Republicanism,”[2] deals with Madison’s “Notes on Government” project, a little known effort he took in early 1791[3] to put to paper his thoughts on what republican government is all about, at least certain of its features. The podcast of the show is available for download here. [4]

Sheehan’s book fills a critical void in understanding the political philosophy that Madison espoused. We can glean some of his ideas from the twenty-nine Federalist essays he contributed to Hamilton’s effort to get the New York convention to ratify the Constitution. But these were, by necessity, limited to those connected in some way to features of the Constitution. We know other ideas from the nineteen “Party Press” essays[5] he sent to college-chum Phillip Freneau’s fledgling National Gazette newspaper in Philadelphia, most of them based on the “Notes.” And we encounter others, as well as his combative style, in the Pacificus-Helvidius debate series[6] against friend-turned-political adversary, Alexander Hamilton (Jefferson wrote Madison: “For god’s sake, my dear Sir, take up your pen, select the most striking heresies, and cut [Hamilton] to pieces in the face of the public.” This, Madison proceeded to do). But these are mostly snippets; until “Notes on Government,” Madison had never taken time to sit down and organize his political philosophy in a methodical way, which is understandable given his near-continuous life of public service from 1776 to his election to the First Congress in 1789. This was a busy man.

The “Notes” were never published, indeed, they were never even finished; some chapters, such as “The Influence of Education on Government,” remained blank. But they covered some unique ground not addressed elsewhere.

Perhaps the most important chapter in the “Notes,” and one to which Sheehan devotes a major portion of her book, dealt with the influence of public opinion on government.

In Federalist 49, Madison stated that “All governments rest on opinion,” which Professor Sheehan notes might be a recapitulation by Madison of British philosopher David Hume’s “governors have nothing to support them but opinion.”[7] Madison describes public opinion as the “real sovereign” in a free government. One new revelation that struck me was Madison’s belief that governments are sometimes bound to obey public opinion, but that they can also influence public opinion. As Madison put it: “As there are cases where the public opinion must be obeyed by the Government, so there are cases, where, not being fixed, it may be influenced by the Government.”

In today’s climate of “fake news” — information designed expressly to skew public opinion — one wonders to what extent government, if it indeed is shaped by opinion, reflects a true expression of the public? One also wonders to what extent opinion is being shaped by the government itself – and how? Townhall meetings thus take on a new importance; not only do they allow the people to express their opinions to their elected representatives, they also, if used properly, allow the representatives to provide a “reality check” on the unrealistic expectations of their constituents. The American people, many of them at least, have created in their minds a false image of the purpose of government and, more importantly, its capabilities.  Townhalls, if attended, can help correct these false and unrealistic expectations.  “Whatever facilitates a general intercourse of sentiments, as good roads, domestic commerce, a free press, and particularly a circulation of newspapers through the entire body of the people, and Representatives going from, and returning among every part of them, is … favorable to liberty,” says Madison in an essay drawn from the “Notes.”

Sheehan’s book forms a great resource: it includes a full copy of the “Notes” as well as other related material, such as his famous “Vices of the Political System of the United States,” and a letter he wrote Jefferson in France to explain some of the features of the newly drafted Constitution. The Appendix takes up nearly half the book.

During our hour-long interview, Professor Sheehan and I explored other features of the “mind of James Madison” beyond those contained in the “Notes,” such as his view of religion, the church/state question and his personal view of slavery. Madison criticizes the existence of slavery in the “Notes,” noting that where it is condoned in a country or state, this can produce, over time, an aristocracy in which, at least in the example he gives of Virginia, can result in only about a quarter of the population having any real political power. Yes, Madison grew up among slaves, used them as his personal valets throughout his life, and inherited responsibility for Montpelier’s slaves upon the death of his father in 1801. Yet he did not free any of them in his will, as some men at the time did. Why? It is my belief, and the Professor’s, that the financial hardship imposed by Madison’s spendthrift adopted son, John Payne Todd, who found himself more than once in debtor’s prison, kept Madison so financially “off balance” that freeing his slaves would have placed the entire estate, and the well-being of his devoted wife, Dolley, in peril, something he could not bring himself to do. As it was, after Madison’s death in 1836, Dolley Madison was still left in severe financial hardship for the remainder of her life, having to sell her husband’s papers to Congress just to get by. Paul Jennings, Madison’s personal valet in the White House, was purchased and allowed to work for his freedom by none other than Daniel Webster. In his memoirs, Jennings writes of frequently being directed by Webster to drop off food and other goods at Dolley’s apartment in Washington.

We also discussed the issue of Free Speech that is being so contested today and how Madison might have viewed the controversy. If public opinion is so inexorably tied to government, anything that inhibits the free exchange of ideas and information can only be a detriment to the ultimate success of that government.

The Mind of James Madison, The Legacy of Classical Republicanism, is a great help to understanding this complex Founding Father. It is well worth the read. In future essays we will explore other aspects of “the mind of James Madison.” Stay tuned.

“Constitutional Corner” is a project of the Constitution Leadership Initiative, Inc. To unsubscribe from future mailings by Constitution Leadership Initiative, click here.

[1] http://www1.villanova.edu/villanova/artsci/psc/facstaff/biodetail.html?mail=colleen.sheehan@villanova.edu

[2] https://www.amazon.com/Mind-James-Madison-Classical-Republicanism/dp/1107029473

[3] Sheehan makes a compelling case that the Notes were mostly written between the adjournment of Congress on March 2, 1791 and the assumption of some extended travel with his friend Jefferson in late April of that year.

[4] http://www.1180wfyl.com/we-the-people-2017.html

[5] http://teachingamericanhistory.org/newsletter/201007-2/

[6] http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-pacificus-helvidius-debate/

[7] Madison almost certainly had a copy of Hume’s Political Discourses

Constitutional Corner – A Brief History of Virginia’s State Constitution

Open as PDF

If you want an introduction to the philosophy of government as understood by America’s Founders, don’t read the U.S. Constitution, instead read a Declaration of Rights from one of the original thirteen states, especially those of Virginia, Pennsylvania or Maryland.  Instead of first laying out a plan of government, as the U.S. Constitution does and as the state constitutions eventually do, these state Declarations of Rights explain “why” we have government and what its true goals should be.  Reading these will be time well spent.

As dismal is the typical American’s knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, greater still is their ignorance of their state’s constitution.  Yet, at one point in our country’s history the state constitutions were all that governed Americans.  For five years, from 1776 to 1781, the Articles of Confederation remained unratified; Maryland refused to complete the unanimous consent required to put them into effect. Finally, France threatened to pull out of a treaty and Maryland finally relented.  Even in 1781, however, the thought of a truly national constitution was still a misty dream in the minds of a select few men.

From its founding in 1607 up to 1776, Virginia was governed by a series of proprietary and then royal charters.  In 1619, Virginia’s House of Burgesses was established, creating the first representative government in the colonies and “the oldest continuous law-making body in the New World.”[1]  The House of Burgesses would operate over the next 157 years, governing the people of Virginia until the call for independence went out.

Virginia’s Declaration of Rights was also the first in our nation’s history. Both New Hampshire and South Carolina adopted Constitutions before Virginia, in early 1776, but those documents were published, at least initially, without Declarations of Rights. The Virginia Declaration of Rights was adopted June 12, 1776, and the new Constitution followed on June 29. This original declaration of rights, with a few additions, still forms Article 1 of Virginia’s Constitution today.

In begins with these words:

“That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”

Isn’t that a beautiful paragraph? Don’t you wish the U.S. Constitution began with something similar? So did James Madison.

Madison tried unsuccessfully to add something similar to this wonderful proclamation to the preamble of the U.S. Constitution as he drafted what would become the new Bill of Rights.  Unfortunately, this introduction was left on the cutting room floor. Madison knew the paragraph well; he had been appointed to represent Orange County at the convention in Williamsburg and had worked on George Mason’s drafting committee, where he made a major contribution to religious liberty by insisting on a change to one of the later articles (that we’ll discuss in a moment). The only quibble I have with this paragraph is Mason’s choice of the word “inherent.” “Inherent” can be construed to mean “part of the human condition,” and this meaning avoids assigning these rights to a transcendent source, i.e. God. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson framed these “inherent” rights much better, as an inalienable endowment of our “Creator.” Jefferson’s construction comports better with the thoughts of Locke, Blackstone and others.

Speaking of Jefferson, had he been given the choice, he would have opted to remain in Williamsburg writing Virginia’s Constitution rather than represent his state at the Continental Congress in Philadelphia. But I believe history confirms that the Virginia Assembly made the right choice in sending him northward. As proof that his heart was still in Williamsburg, after arriving in Philadelphia, Jefferson sent his ideas for the new state constitution down to Williamsburg. Unfortunately, they arrived too late to be incorporated. But part of what he sent was used; if you read Virginia’s original preamble to their Declaration of Rights it is clear that what Jefferson sent them included a copy of at least the “complaints” section of his draft Declaration of Independence. Virginia’s version closely follows Jefferson’s draft. At that time in our history, plagiarism was considered a sincere form of flattery.

Another of my favorite passages in Virginia’s Declaration, one I’ve written about on numerous occasions, is Section 15:

“That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.”

America is a nation with amnesia. We have forgotten our rich history of self-government and individual freedom. We are being pushed and prodded instead towards collectivism and socialism. Do you want America to survive as a free republic? easy; have everyone frequently review our nation’s “fundamental principles.” I’ve written about these principles in numerous essays; they can be found in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, even in the Articles of Confederation and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. By an act of Congress, these four documents form our country’s “Organic Law,” so it behooves us to know what they say, what principles they contain, and how these principles should inform our actions as a self-governing people.

A final passage from the Declaration of Rights that I should discuss is Article 16:

“That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.”

This passage interests me for several reasons.  First, my favorite Founder, James Madison played an important role in “tweaking” the wording of this section to provide for greater religious freedom in the state.  Mason’s original draft called for “toleration” of religious views; Madison argued that did not go far enough and his wording was adopted instead. Second, as you see, according to our Constitution, Virginians of all faiths have a “mutual duty” to practice Christian forbearance, love and charity towards each other. Kind of neat, huh?

When they ratified the U.S. Constitution in June of 1788, Virginia sent Congress a copy of their Declaration of Rights and suggested it help form a new Bill of Rights for the Constitution. In March of 1789, newly elected James Madison, representing Virginia’s Fifth Congressional District, took his seat in the Congress.  He found Virginia’s suggestions for a Bill of Rights waiting his arrival, along with those of several other states.

Of the approximately twenty-six separate rights secured in the ten Amendments that eventually made up the U.S. Bill of Rights, Virginia’s 1776 declaration covered seventeen of them. Notably absent from Virginia’s declaration were:

  • Any prohibition of an established state religion. What became the First Amendment only prevented Congress from declaring a national religion, state religions were OK and most states had one. The Church of England was the established church in Virginia. It would eventually be disestablished and the prohibition against an established state church would be added to the Virginia’s Declaration of Rights in 1830 and expanded in 1971.
  • Any protection of free speech. This would not be added to the Virginia’s Constitution until 1971, as would freedom of assembly, and the right to keep and bear arms.
  • Virginians from 1776-1791 (when the Bill of Rights went into effect) had no right of due process and no right of the assistance of counsel. These would also be added later.
  • The only glaring deficiency of the present Virginia Constitution when compared with the U.S. Bill of Rights is that there is, to this day, no assurance of a grand jury indictment when charged with a capital crime. Virginians are of course assured of such an indictment today by virtue of the U.S. Bill of Rights and the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

Standing opposite these omissions, Virginia’s Declaration of Rights includes several statements which indicate Mason’s drafters were a cautious lot who understood the danger of a too-powerful government; they added statements nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution or its Bill of Rights.  They include:

  • That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people (it’s nice to be reminded of this).
  • That magistrates should at all times be amenable to the people (i.e., willing to accept suggestions).
  • That government is instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community (how easily this is forgotten today).
  • That a majority of the community has a right to reform, alter or abolish their government (and they have from time to time).
  • That no individual or group is entitled to exclusive or separate benefits or privileges from the community (a later amendment was added to Virginia’s Declaration which would seem to do precisely that. See the 2010 amendment discussed below).
  • That citizens should evidence a permanent common interest in, and attachment to, their community before being allowed to vote (although no legislation was ever passed to put this into action).
  • That citizens are not bound by any law to which they have not assented through their representatives or which is not for the public good.
  • That citizens have duties as well as rights.
  • That there should be an effective system of public education (I wonder if today’s system qualifies as “effective?”)
  • That no government separate from, or independent of, the government of Virginia, ought to be erected within the state. (Review the creation of West Virginia)
  • That the state has no power to suspend the execution of laws without the people’s consent.

As you can see, there many protections found in Virginia’s Constitution that are missing from the U.S. Bill of Rights.

In 1783, Jefferson sent his friend “Jemmy” a draft of a new state constitution in which he proposed “fixes” for the weaknesses he saw in the 1776 version.  One of those weaknesses lay in limiting the right to vote to property owners, which essentially meant only men of wealth could vote.

This limitation proved a perpetual irritant, as did discordant representation of the western counties, whose thinner populations left them under-represented and thus dominated by the Tidewater region. A constitutional convention was finally called in 1829–1830[2] to fix these two problems. Seventy-eight year old James Madison was invited to attend, as were “giants of the revolution” James Monroe and John Marshall.  Madison urged wider suffrage, but his voice was so weak he could hardly be heard. The new constitution expanded suffrage somewhat but retained the property requirement; it left the representation problem unresolved. Note: The 1829 Constitution was the first to be ratified by a popular vote; 1776’s had been adopted without putting it to a vote of the citizens.

Another new Constitution in 1851[3] finally eliminated the property requirement for voting, resulting in extending the vote to all white males of a certain age. The 1851 Constitution also established popular election for the Governor, the newly created office of Lieutenant Governor, and all Virginia judges.

After seceding from the union in April 1861[4] and ratifying the Constitution of the Confederate States of America in June, Virginia’s Confederate government proposed changes to the state constitution, such as changing “United States” to “Confederate States.” The citizens rejected them.

During the war, citizens upset at Virginia’s secession from the Union formed the “Restored Government of Virginia,”[5] situated in Fredericksburg, and in 1864 they drafted and “passed” a new state Constitution. Due to doubts over its legality, it is not considered valid and is not listed in Virginia’s constitutional history.

After the war, while under military rule, another new constitution was drafted in 1867/68. Opponents called the result the “Underwood Constitution” or the “Negro Constitution”, since it gave freed slaves the vote (the Fifteenth Amendment would not be ratified until 1870). The new constitution expanded suffrage to all male citizens over the age of 21, it established a state public school system, and provided for judges to be elected by the General Assembly rather than by popular vote. The Governor was granted full veto power and a constitutional amendment and revision procedure was established.

By the turn of the 20th century, despite the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, many Southern states had essentially eliminated their black vote through use of poll tests. Pressure mounted among whites in Virginia to do the same. The 1901 constitutional convention[6] met in this climate. Delegates focused on how to restrict black voting rights without violating the Fifteenth Amendment or disfranchising poor whites in the process. The convention created the requirement for poll taxes and a literacy test — an exemption was granted for military veterans (of either Union or Confederate Armies) and their sons.

The prospective voter, before he or she could even register, had to prove “able to read any section of this Constitution submitted to him by the officers of registration and to give a reasonable explanation of the same…” I wonder how many of Virginia voters could do this today? (Note: any persons who had fought a duel or accepted the challenge of a duel were prohibited from voting.) This change effectively disfranchised many black voters, though many illiterate whites were similarly affected. In the years which followed, Virginia’s electorate was reduced by half.

Other significant provisions of the 1901 Constitution were the creation of racial segregation in public schools and abolishment of the county court system. Due to concern over African-American opposition, the proposed constitution was not put to a popular vote and the Virginia Supreme Court upheld this action in 1903.

In 1926, a commission was appointed to recommend further changes to Virginia’s Constitution and the proposed changes were submitted to a vote of the people in 1928. New limits in how the legislature could incur debt for capital improvements and a prohibition on taxing real estate or tangible personal property were approved. The State Treasurer, the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the Commissioner of Agriculture were now to be appointed by the Governor.

A limited Convention was held in 1945 for the sole purpose of ensuring that members of the armed services would not be prevented, by registration and poll-tax requirements, from voting in state elections in 1945.

In response to the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown vs Board of Education decision (which ruled segregated schools unconstitutional), another limited convention was held in 1956 to amend Section 141 and allow for the expenditure of public funds for the education of students at private, non-sectarian schools (i.e. all-white schools).  This was part of a massive resistance[7] Virginia put up to the Brown decision.

In 1968, the Virginia General Assembly established a commission to revise the constitution once again. The Commission on Constitutional Revision presented its recommendations to the Governor and the General Assembly the following year. The proposed Constitution was overwhelmingly approved by the voters and took effect on July 1, 1971. This remains Virginia’s Constitution today.[8] As I’ve noted, several changes were made to the Declaration of Rights.  Since then, the constitution has been amended at least twelve times.

  • An amendment in 1972 reduced the voting age to eighteen (the 26th Amendment, lowering the voting age to eighteen in national elections, had been ratified the previous year).
  • In 1976, an amendment modified the state’s residency requirements. 1980 and 1994 amendments set procedures for reconvening the General Assembly.
  • A 1994 amendment brought the constitution in compliance with the new national Motor Voter Act.
  • A 1996 amendment established rights for victims of crime.
  • A 2000 amendment established that all the state’s residents had a right to hunt, fish and harvest game.
  • In 2002, amendments were approved which concerned claims of actual innocence presented by convicted felons and allowed local governing bodies to grant tax exemptions for property used for charitable and certain other purposes.
  • A 2004 amendment established decennial redistricting and added a list of persons who may serve as Acting Governor.
  • In 2006, an amendment was approved by 60% of the voters prohibiting same-sex marriage (ostensibly nullified by Obergefell v Hodges).
  • A 2010 amendment provided property tax relief for certain persons with income and/or financial worth limitations and certain veterans. This almost certainly violated the earlier constitutional provision that “That no individual or group is entitled to exclusive or separate benefits or privileges from the community.” Another amendment set a maximum amount for the Revenue Stabilization Fund.
  • Reacting to the Supreme Court’s Kelo v City of New London decision, a 2012 amendment prohibited the taking or damaging of private property for public purposes.
  • In 2014, the people approved an amendment to exempt surviving spouses of soldiers killed in action from paying property tax.
  • Finally, in 2016, a similar property tax exemption for spouses of certain emergency services providers was approved.

We can see from Virginia’s constitutional history that a constitution can at times be used as a weapon.  Democrats controlled the Virginia legislature from at least the mid-1800s until 2000,[9] an amazing 150-year stretch (except for a short period of military rule during re-construction).  During the Jim Crow era, they used the state constitution to, first, suppress the black vote, and then to extend de-facto segregation by facilitating segregated schools.

In their 1981 book “The Constitutional Convention as an Amending Device,” editors Kermit Hall, Harold Hyman and Leon Sigal identify a great disparity in American constitutionalism, namely, Americans show great interest in “tweaking” their state constitutions, sometimes by amendment, sometimes by complete replacement. Conversely, they seem to reluctant to replace or even amend the U.S. Constitution. “Between 1776 and 1976 some 226 state constitutional conventions were convened, 136 constitutions ratified, and more than 5,000 amendments adopted.”[10] Virginia itself has had five Constitutions since 1776.  Yet the U.S. Constitution, never replaced, has been amended only 27 times since its ratification in 1788 (18 times if you count the first ten amendments as a block) and the last amendment was 25 years ago.  Why the disparity?

Perhaps we revere our national constitution too much (or our state constitutions too little).  Given that the U.S. Constitution is today a shell of its former self in terms of limiting the national government, creating a government that today “can do most anything in this country,” perhaps it is time we reassess our reluctance to consider long overdue amendments that will help put the national government “back in its box.”  Perhaps we should take a lesson from our state experiences and once again make the U.S. Constitution serve the people who provide its political power. Just saying.

“Constitutional Corner” is a project of the Constitution Leadership Initiative, Inc. To unsubscribe from future mailings by Constitution Leadership Initiative, click here

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_General_Assembly#History

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Constitutional_Convention_of_1829%E2%80%931830

[3] http://vagovernmentmatters.org/primary-sources/519

[4] http://www.janus.umd.edu/Feb2002/Cote/01.html

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restored_Government_of_Virginia

[6] https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Constitutional_Convention_Virginia_1901-1902

[7] http://www2.vcdh.virginia.edu/xslt/servlet/XSLTServlet?xml=/xml_docs/solguide/Essays/essay13a.xml&xsl=/xml_docs/solguide/sol_new.xsl&section=essay

[8] http://hodcap.state.va.us/publications/Constitution-01-13.pdf

[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_House_of_Delegates

[10] The Constitutional Convention as an Amending Device, Kermit Hall, Harold Hyman & Leon Sigal, ed., American Historical Association, 1981, p.69.

Constitutional Corner – The Left’s War on Speech

Open as PDF

The Progressive Left is engaged in a war on free speech. Don’t take my word for it, the headlines are ubiquitous: “Attack on conservative speaker stuns Middlebury College,” from the Boston Globe; “Commencement speakers: Conservatives need not apply” from the LA Times; “Protesters disrupt town-hall healthcare talks,” from Reuters.

If these articles don’t convince you, read a couple of books on the topic, one by a liberal herself. Kirsten Powers, whose liberal credentials are impeccable even if she does appear on Fox News, has written “The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech.” Another recommendation is “The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech,” by Kimberley Strassel. Another is “Shut up, America – The End of Free Speech” by Brad O’Leary. I’ve not read Powers’ or O’Leary’s books, I only glanced at them on Amazon, but I have read Strassel’s, and it’s a real eye-opener.

If these books don’t convince you, check out British commentator Jonathan Pie on YouTube. The segment is called “How and Why” and I warn you right now that Pie’s language is not for the faint of heart. Through his profanity he reveals “how and why” Donald Trump got elected, in his view of course, and he minces no words.

Here are a few of Pie’s G-rated quotes: “We have made people unable to articulate their positions for fear of being shut down.” “Every time someone on the Left says ‘You mustn’t say that’ they are contributing to this culture [of being shut down].” “It’s time to stop silencing your opponents… Engage in the debate; talk to people who think differently to you and persuade them of your argument.” Even with 3.3 Million views, it is obvious that most on the Left have either not listened to Pie’s YouTube rant, or have, and have dismissed it out of hand and gone back to business as usual.

I’m certainly not the first to use the “War on Speech” phrase, and I doubt I’ll be the last.  The war takes place on many fronts and involves many tactics but the most common tactic is intimidation. Intimidate public speakers into silence, intimidate people and businesses into abstaining from making political contributions. In short, intimidate everyone who believes differently than you. Force them to shut up, lock their doors and stay out of politics.

Brendan Eich worked for years as Mozilla’s Chief Technology Officer. In 2008, he gave $1,000 in support of California’s Proposition 8. Proposition 8, you may recall, amended the California Constitution to affirm marriage to be between a man and woman.  This was in response to passage of Proposition 22, which made the same affirmation through a simple resolution, but which the California’s Supreme Court had struck down. Prop 8 passed with 52% of the vote and California’s Constitution was amended.

Six years later, Brendan Eich was appointed Mozilla’s CEO. Immediately, an online “shaming” began over his then six-year old contribution to the Prop 8 campaign. Eich lasted 11 days as CEO before being forced to step down.

Eich was fortunate all he lost was his job. Other Californians were less fortunate once the Prop 8 contributors list was made public. Leftists could now use Google Maps to search for neighbors who had contributed, and then the “fun” began:

  • A restaurant manager made a modest $100 donation in support of the proposition. Bad move. The restaurant suffered a boycott, trash-talking reviews on the internet, and mobs who blocked their doors and shouted “Shame on you” to arriving customers. Restaurant owners were forced to cut hours and lay off employees, some of them, ironically, homosexuals.
  • Activist groups launched boycotts of the Sundance Film Festival, based in Utah, solely because some Prop 8 donations had come from that state.
  • The owner of a chain of small grocery stores noticed flyers appeared under the windshield wipers of customers, maligning him for his donation. Three different Facebook pages sprang up urging a boycott of the store. Protestors occupied the entrance to the store, handed out flyers and demanded people not shop there. Customers were harangued to sign boycott petitions. One activist loaded up a shopping cart full of groceries and, once it was rung up at the register, refused to pay. The owner of the stores had to install security cameras over fear of product tampering.
  • Lawyers who had worked on the Prop 8 campaign naturally received hate emails and phone calls, including recommendations to “Burn in hell.”
  • A New York artist who donated and who, ironically, made her living by painting drag queens and gay parades suddenly found two reporters waiting outside her house asking why she contributed. Reviews of her art took on a new tone.
  • A teacher who supported Prop 8 was told by activists that they would call all the parents of students in her school and inform them of her “despicable” action.
  • Flyers appeared on trees in the neighborhoods of contributors telling neighbors of their support. A flyer was wrapped around a brick and thrown through the window of a Lutheran church.
  • A statue of Mary was defaced on the eve of the election. Car windows were smashed, cars keyed, tires deflated, all because people had the audacity to “speak” through their political contributions.

Realize that these were not donations to a candidate or his campaign; there was no possibility of encouraging corruption or gaining a quid-pro-quo; this intimidation sent a simple message: don’t donate to, i.e., don’t speak politically about causes with which we disagree.

Of course, the homosexual lobby got their ultimate revenge when the Supreme Court struck down all constitutional restrictions over same-sex marriage in the Obergefell v Hodges decision.

But lest you think this is all about Prop 8, it certainly is not.

Conservative and even some liberal speakers are routinely dis-invited to College campuses when some “offended” group complains. Those that are allowed to speak encounter infantile disruptions by groups and individuals who attempt to shout them down. Even the Chancellor of Berkeley, Nicholas Dirks, whose liberal credentials we can assume are also impeccable, was prevented from holding a campus forum on Civility.  “Civility? We don’t need no stinking civility, we be college students.”  Unfortunately, this group of babies will one day be in leadership positions.

Riots in Berkeley over a scheduled talk by homosexual conservative Milo Yiannopoulos caused hundreds of thousands worth of damage and the same was promised if Ann Coulter was allowed to speak.  She was given the opportunity to speak when few students would be available.  She declined.

TV host and transgender-rights activist Janet Mock, conservative writer Ben Shapiro, Illinois state attorney Anita Alvarez, writer Charles Murray, Palestinian activist Bassem Eid, rapper Action Bronson, Massachusetts General Hospital physician Emily Wong, then CIA Director John Brennan, black conservative Jason Riley, and many, many others have all been uninvited to speak or disrupted when they tried.

One of the complaints of these children-in-adult-bodies is that they are only trying to stop “speech that hurts.” The problem here is that, much to these people’s chagrin, there is no constitutional right to not be hurt or offended by something. If you think you’ll be offended by what someone has to say, don’t go to hear them. As author Salman Rushdie points out, people who declare they were offended after reading a 600-page book “have done a lot of work to be offended.”

We’ve all seen videos of the Townhall meetings disrupted by boos and catcalls when a Congressman says something the Left dislikes. If these people think their behavior is going to win them converts and grow their base, I think they have misjudged. As near as I can tell, such thuggish behavior only serves to further polarize a community.

Then there is the growing movement to shut down those who entertain reservations about climate-change and/or whether it is man-caused. Some state Attorneys General as well as the US Justice Department under Obama were talking about charging Exxon Corporation and individuals under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, otherwise known as RICO. Their crime? Exercising their collective right to speak.

In the 1970s, scientists told us to fear global cooling and warned about the coming ice age. In 1970 alone, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe and the Los Angeles Times all published stories with headlines like “Scientists See Ice Age in the Future.Time magazine’s cover story on January 31, 1973 (still posted on the magazine’s website) was entitled: “The Big Freeze.”  In the last two decades it was “global warming.” When that was disproven it became undefined “climate change.” What will “science” claim in 2030?

Next to feel the heat are those who choose to speak out about the risks of mandatory vaccinations.

Anti-Vaxxers… please die in a fire” read one headline. A recent outbreak of measles among guests who had attended Disneyland created a stir. Of the 34 Disneyland guests who contracted measles and who reported their vaccination history, six said they had already been vaccinated against measles. Obviously measles vaccinations don’t always protect. Conversely, from 2004-2015, there were 108 deaths reportedly due to the vaccination itself.[1]

Of course, we all remember the attempt by the Obama administration to keep the Tea Party movement from speaking out, or at least slow it down until after the 2012 election by delaying their tax-exempt applications at the IRS. The President blamed it on some overzealous Cincinnati staffers, which proved to be a bald-face lie after IRS emails were released. Lois Lerner remains uncharged.

Corporations that contribute to Republican politicians or conservative causes also become the target of intimidation. Here’s how it works:

The American Legislative Exchange Council provided Florida with model “Stand Your Ground” legislation, which Florida’s legislature passed. Trayvon Martin was killed accosting George Zimmerman and, due to Florida’s new “Stand your Ground” law, Zimmerman was not prosecuted. Thanks to Florida’s contribution disclosure laws, the leftist group Color of Change discovered that credit card company, Visa, Inc. contributed to ALEC. Color of Change then demanded that Visa stop contributing to ALEC or risk derogatory radio ads in the hometown of every Visa board member, holding each of them accountable for Martin’s death. Similar threat letters were received at McDonald’s, John Deere, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Amazon, Wendy’s and Proctor & Gamble — ALEC contributors all. What message did this send?

Where disclosure laws exist, all this is completely legal — unethical perhaps[2] — but legal. Where such laws are lacking, the Left is usually successful in getting contributor lists leaked. Shutting down corporate “political speech” by reversing or nullifying Citizens United is a long-shot, so the Left intends to get all the mileage they can from intimidation. And since the high Court sustained the requirement for disclosure in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, law at question in the case, the Left has all the information they need to inflict their favorite weapon.  For more on the issue of the Court and anonymous “speech,” my friend Rob Natelson has written this great article.

Perhaps the most despicable action to suppress individual speech, actually just to punish those who hold different views and have the audacity to express them, has been the action taken against the Benham brothers whose TV show “Flip It Forward,” was set to premiere on HGTV last October. The noble focus of the show was to help families purchase homes they otherwise could not afford. To punish David Benham for leading a 2012 prayer rally outside the Democratic National Convention and speaking his views on homosexuality, their show was cancelled when the homosexual lobby started calling.

Chip and Joanna Gaines, hosts of HGTV’s popular “Fixer Upper” show, are under similar fire because their pastor preached that homosexuality is a sin, the implication being that if the Gaines attend that church they must feel the same way. And if they do they can’t be allowed to succeed in cable TV. Of course, some on the Right pointed to a similar connection between Barack Obama and Reverend Jeremiah Wright; the Left saw no problem: Wright had it right.

Finally, the Left’s war on “speech they find offensive” has been extended to individual words. Seattle police can no longer call suspects, “suspects” in their written reports, they must now be called: “community members.” That is going to make for some absolutely hilarious police reports. In utopian Washington State, prisons are told to phase out the word “offender” and replace it with terms like “individual,” “student,” or “patient.” In several states, most recently Pennsylvania, the word “sex” is being quietly and administratively redefined in the statutes to include “gender expression.”

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ ’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

Some of this would be funny if it weren’t so sad. Even sadder is the typical American who says nothing in the face of this blatant intimidation. The typical American doesn’t speak out about much of anything, but some still feel strongly enough about an issue to support it financially. That is unlikely to continue once their cars are keyed or rocks thrown through windows — message received loud and clear.

George Washington once said: “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” Benjamin Franklin added: “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”

Conclusion: We need to nip this “war” in the bud.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously said that “Free speech does not give you the right to shout fire in a crowded theater.” That’s fine, I understand that there is a safety risk accompanying some speech. The problem today is that our entire society has been turned into a crowded theater, and talking about any controversial topic is equivalent to shouting “Fire.”

Here are my suggestions:

  • Read the books mentioned above.
  • Search out other essays on the topic.
  • Read and understand the Citizens United opinion, particularly Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion.
  • Fight against disclosure laws wherever they are proposed. Transparency is a worthy goal, but intimidation will be the result.
  • Defend those who bravely speak the truth.
  • Show up at Town Hall meetings, the other side will.

Yes, I think we can all agree that there is too much money in politics, but, like it or not, the Courts have found political contributions to be “speech,” so we must consider all the second-order effects of “regulating” it.  The Left has found intimidation to work, it will continue.

The Left’s “War on Speech” must be vigorously opposed or soon the government will be telling you what you may say and what you may not. Is this the America we want? If it is not, we have some work to do.

“Constitutional Corner” is a project of the Constitution Leadership Initiative, Inc. To unsubscribe from future mailings by Constitution Leadership Initiative, click here

[1] http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/zero-u-s-measles-deaths-in-10-years-but-over-100-measles-vaccine-deaths-reported/

[2] Got to be careful, the Right likes to pressure Leftist-cause contributors as well.

 

Constitutional Corner – The Right of Self Preservation

Open as PDF

In 1775, Alexander Hamilton wrote:

“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”[1]

We should not seek out our rights in “musty old” Constitutions, we should look for them in the world around us; as an expression of natural law they are “written on our hearts.”[2] But what is their source, who wrote them there?

John Dickinson represented Pennsylvania in the Second Continental Congress in 1776, although he refused to sign the Declaration of Independence. Eleven years later he represented Delaware at the Constitutional Convention (where he did sign the document). He answers the question:

“Kings or parliaments could not give the rights essential to happiness… We claim them from a higher source – from the King of kings, and Lord of all the earth.  They are not annexed to us by parchments and seals. They are created in us by the decrees of Providence, which establish the laws of our nature. They are born with us; exist with us; and cannot be taken from us by any human power without taking our lives. In short they are founded on the immutable maxims of reason and justice.”[3]

Who would deny that each human being has a natural right to preserve their own life? Self-preservation is an almost universal, natural response of living organisms. Upon recognizing a threat to its life, nearly any aware creature will move away from the perceived threat or, if movement is impossible, do whatever is possible to neutralize or minimize the threat to its life. It seems as if this response is hardwired into us. Might this be because it is both a natural response and a natural right?

All the great natural rights philosophers recognized a right of self-preservation. Thomas Hobbes put the right of self-preservation at the top of his catalog of laws of nature that constitute the “true moral philosophy.”[4] He wrote in “Leviathan:”

“The Right Of Nature , which Writers commonly call Jus Naturale , is the Liberty each man hath, to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own Nature; that is to say, of his own Life; and consequently, of doing any thing, which in his own Judgement, and Reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto.” (Emphasis added)

John Locke took it a step further; not only could we defend ourselves, we could wreak havoc on whomsoever or whatever threatens us:

“Self-preservation [is] a duty to God…I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion.[5]

Notice that to Locke (and others, as we’ll soon see) we have a duty to preserve ourselves; but the duty is owed not to ourselves but to our Creator. Do we have a similar duty to protect the lives of others?

“Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself… so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.”

Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, the great French philosopher, wrote:[6]

“God is therefore willing, that everyone should labor for his own preservation and perfection, in order to acquire all the happiness, of which he is capable according to his nature and state…”

“For, man being directly and primarily charged with the care of his own preservation and happiness, it follows therefore that, in a case of entire inequality, the care of ourselves ought to prevail over that of others…”

“If a particular manner of acting appears to me evidently fitter than any other for my preservation and perfection, fitter to procure my bodily health and the welfare of my soul; this motive alone obliges me to act in conformity to it.” (Emphasis added)

The Founders took a similar view:

“Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.[7]

“In the human body the head only sustains and governs all the members, directing them, with admirable harmony, to the same object, which is self-preservation and happiness;[8]

Self-preservation is the first principle of our nature. When our lives and properties are at stake, it would be foolish and unnatural to refrain from such measures as might preserve them because they would be detrimental to others.[9]

The right of self defense is the first law of nature.”[10] (Emphasis added in all)

Since natural law and revealed law (the Bible) have the same source, we should find them in harmony. But the Bible takes a more nuanced view, especially when we encounter the New Testament.  But first the Old:

“Thou shalt not murder” makes it clear that we can have an expectation that no one should threaten our life. But does this give us the right to actively defend our life?

In Psalm 82:4, we find an obligation to protect all who are in danger:

“Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.”

In Ezekiel 33 we encounter an obligation to warn others of approaching danger, and if we do not, any harm that comes to them will be our responsibility:

“…’But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and a sword comes and takes a person from them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require from the watchman’s hand.”

Numerous verses[11] demonstrate that murdering another person results in the forfeiture of the life of the murderer. Does it not follow that to prevent someone from forfeiting their life we should do what we can to prevent or neutralize their attack on our person?

For what are we preserving by doing so? Yes, our life; but to whom do we own our life? Are we not God’s “property?” Is it not God’s property we are ultimately protecting?

Or know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God? and ye are not your own; for ye were bought with a price: glorify God therefore in your body.[12]

Returning to “Thou shalt not murder;” can we justify taking the life of an attacker in defending our self? Jesus’ command to “turn the other cheek” certainly presents us with a challenge. Must we “turn the other cheek” when our life, and something more than a slap on the face, is in the bargain? In John 15:13, we are shown it is an act of love to lay down our own life for a friend. Sacrificing one’s self when others are imperiled, subordinating our right of self-preservation to the preservation of someone else, is the ultimate act of love. We honor those who choose this path; but it remains a choice.

Yet, Jesus confirms there is still a time and place for weapons of defense: “he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.”[13] When Peter imprudently cuts off the ear of the high priest’s servant while trying to protect Jesus, Peter is told to put his sword back in its sheath, not discard it.[14]

So if the Right of Self-Preservation was universally recognized by moral philosophers and the Founders, subordinating that right counted as the ultimate sacrifice, why was this right not enumerated in the Constitution?

Perhaps one reason has to do with the limits of language.  Madison noted that:

“[T]here is great reason to fear that a positive declaration of some of the most essential rights could not be obtained in the requisite latitude. I am sure that the rights of conscience in particular, if submitted to public definition would be narrowed much more than they are likely ever to be by an assumed power.”[15]

Translation: if you do not describe the right you are trying to secure with “the requisite latitude,” that is, precisely enough, there is danger that it will not be secured correctly or adequately. And if the public is allowed to define the right, they will likely do so in an even narrower sense than the government might.

Considering Madison’s example: how would you describe the Right of Conscience? To what beliefs would it extend – anything and everything, or only religiously-focused beliefs? If you believe it is morally wrong to kill animals should you be able to enunciate and act upon that belief? Of course, but not to the point that your actions infringe on the right of others to eat meat if they choose (PETA take note).

How would you describe the Right of Self-Preservation in a short sentence or paragraph so that it would be appropriately protected by your government? The “Stand Your Ground Laws” found in several states are a step in that direction, but do they cover all circumstances where self-preservation comes into play? Certainly not. Does a terminally ill patient have a right to take experimental drugs or therapies not yet approved by the FDA if doing so offers a chance of preserving their life? So called “Right to Take” legislation is attempting to secure precisely that right.[16] Would you have included that in your description of the Right of Self-Preservation?  I would probably have overlooked it.

While Madison chose not to enumerate a Right to Self-Preservation, most likely because the right went without saying, he did provide for it. In arguing for the Bill of Rights on the floor of Congress, Madison said:

“It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration, and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the general government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to (what would later become the Ninth Amendment).”

“The Ninth Amendment is the repository for natural rights,” writes Leonard W. Levy in Origins of the Bill of Rights.[17] But, Levy cautions: “no evidence exists to prove that the Framers intended the Ninth Amendment to protect any particular natural rights…we can only guess what the Framers had in mind.

The problem with the Ninth Amendment is that the rights it is to protect must be “teased out of it.” And who should do the “teasing:” five lawyers in black robes, or the rightful owners of the Constitution, i.e., the people? Clearly the people are the ultimate authority over what the Constitution says and means; in my view they are the only rightful agency with the authority to identify new rights which are to be protected by the Ninth Amendment. “To say that the Framers did not intend the Court to act as a constitutional convention or to shape public policies by interpreting the Constitution is…to assert historical truth.”[18]

As Levy points out, until 1965, the Ninth Amendment was considered an indecipherable mystery by the court, akin to an “ink blot.” In 1965, the five lawyers “teased out” a right to privacy over the use of contraceptives;[19] eight years later they extended this newly discovered privacy right to the killing of babies in the womb.  In the 2015 case of Obergefell v. Hodges, while the Court claimed to discover a right to homosexual “marriage” in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, they could just as easily have discovered this “right” in the Ninth. “Within fifteen years [after Griswold] the Ninth Amendment…was invoked in more than twelve hundred state and federal cases in the most astonishing variety of matters.”[20]

Let us presume then that a Right of Self-Preservation is a natural right deserving of protection by the government; by what means is this right to be acted upon? Is it logical that a right to preserve one’s life when confronted by some armed with a weapon should involve the use of a weapon at least equal in lethality? I think so.

Locke reminds us that: “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.”[21] (Emphasis added)

No one ought to wish to harm us, but some do. Some people have no compulsion against killing their fellow man and even inflicting great pain in the act. Paraphrasing Jesus: like the poor, given the fallen nature of man, we will always have such people with us.

As I noted earlier, Locke states: “I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion.

Defending yourself against someone who threatens to take your life with a gun logically requires a gun of your own. And the Founders would agree:

“The right of the citizens to bear arms in the defense of themselves shall not be questioned.” James Wilson

”Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defence of the country, the over-throw of tyranny, or in private self-defense.” John Adams

“…[T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own State, or the United States… and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals.” Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention

In Thomas Jefferson’s Commonplace Book we find him quoting Cesare Beccaria’s book, On Crimes and Punishment.[22] Jefferson found this quote of Beccaria worth remembering: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms … disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

In 1859, a court, albeit a state court, finally proclaimed forthrightly what everyone, certainly everyone of the time, knew to be true: “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.”[23]

Turning to the Second Amendment, much has been made of its prefatory clause which can be read to imply that keeping and bearing arms is only permitted for militia duty. This is clearly an important reason for having arms, but I hope you see by now that it is not the only reason.

As Robert Natelson explains in The Founders and the 2nd Amendment:[24]

“History makes it clear that the Second Amendment is designed to serve four principal purposes.

First, it guarantees the states militia power of their own to balance the military power of the federal government;

Second, it promotes the God-given right of personal self defense;

Third, it enables the citizenry to repel foreign invasion; and

Fourth, it enables the citizenry to overthrow domestic tyrants and intimidate or discipline those who otherwise would be tyrants.”

Each of these purposes deserves more elaboration, but space this day does not permit it.

Let us be clear: the second Amendment grants no rights, it only protects a preexisting right from government infringement (and the infringement that has been allowed thus far is also a story for another time). The Supreme Court’s decision in Heller v. District of Columbia,[25] although decried by Progressives, demonstrated conclusively that a right of individual self-defense/preservation is appropriately exercised by keeping and bearing arms.

There are those who will insist, however, that an individual gives up his natural right of self-preservation when entering into a social contract; i.e., the government assumes responsibility for our protection. This brings to mind the meme: “when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.” It should also come as no surprise that police have no responsibility to protect individual citizens from harm.[26] So then there’s that.

To conclude: the Right of Self-Preservation is a natural right with a long pedigree. The ability to use appropriate weapons, including guns, when exercising that right should be as protected as the right itself. The right to keep and bear arms does not hinge exclusively or even predominately on duty in a militia.

“Constitutional Corner” is a project of the Constitution Leadership Initiative, Inc. To unsubscribe from future mailings by Constitution Leadership Initiative, click here

[1] Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775.

[2] Romans 2:15.

[3] John Dickinson, An Address to the Committee of Correspondence in Barbados, 1766.

[4] Leviathan, xv, ¶40.

[5] Second Treatise on Government, Section 16.

[6] Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, The Principles of Natural And Politic Law, 1748.

[7] Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting. November 20, 1772.

[8] John Dickinson, A Speech Against Independence, 1776.

[9] Alexander Hamilton, A Full Vindication, December15, 1774.

[10] Henry St. George Tucker (in Blackstone’s Commentaries).

[11] Exodus 21:14, Deuteronomy 19:11, Numbers 35:16.

[12] 1Corinthians 6:19-20, American Standard Version.

[13] Luke 22:36.

[14] John 18:11.

[15] Annals of Congress, 8 June 1789.

[16] https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/11/18/right-to-try-laws-allowing-patients-to-try-experimental-drugs-bypass-fda.

[17] Leonard Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights, Yale University Press, 1999, p. 254.

[18] Ibid, p. 243.

[19] Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965),

[20] Levy, p. 242.

[21] John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, Chapter 1, Section 6.

[22] http://www.constitution.org/cb/crim_pun.htm.

[23] Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402.

[24] http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/04/01/the-founders-and-the-2nd-amendment/.

[25] District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

[26] Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005).

Constitutional Corner – The Right of Protest

Open as PDF

Wikipedia[1] says “[t]he right to protest is a perceived human right arising out of a number of recognized human rights. While no human rights instrument or national constitution grants the absolute right to protest, such a right to protest may be a manifestation of the right to freedom of assembly, the right to freedom of association, and the right to freedom of speech.”

I could stop right there, because that is a nice succinct way of answering the question of whether there is indeed a right of protest, but that just wouldn’t be fun, so let’s proceed:

Wikipedia’s answer is fine as far as it goes, but it fails to address the distinction between natural versus civil rights a distinction Americans of the founding period easily explain. We are endowed natural, unalienable rights by our Creator, we are granted civil, alienable rights by our government.

Could a right of protest be a natural right? In its most generic sense, certainly. In a state of nature you can certainly protest anything you want: the taste of food, the weather, anything is fair game. But in a political sense, a right of protest makes no sense at all.

The Oregon ACLU[2] appears to harbor no doubt, however, stating on their website: “You have a constitutionally protected right to engage in peaceful protest in “traditional public forums” such as streets, sidewalks or parks.” Really?  Constitutionally-protected?

As Wikipedia rightly points out, but which the Oregon ACLU  apparently doesn’t realize, no national constitution, including our own, establishes such a right.

A Right of Protest might have been contemplated in the Ninth Amendment; protests were certainly a well-known feature to colonial Americans. The colonists took to the streets in droves to protest the Sugar Act of 1764, the Stamp Act of 1765, the Townshend Acts of 1767, the Tea Act of 1773 and, finally, the Intolerable Acts of 1775.

Some protests turned violent, particularly in Boston, but certainly not all of them; some protests were purely economic in nature – boycotts of British-made goods. James Madison recounted in a letter to his father how he and fellow college students participated in a subdued protest of New York merchants who chose to not take part in a boycott of British liquor urged by their brethren in beleaguered Boston.

An 1861 anti-war protest in Baltimore, Maryland resulted in both citizen and military deaths when protesters tried to block the movement of southbound Massachusetts troops going from one train station to another. It was actually the first blood spilled in the war.

From July 13–16, 1863, protests in New York City over the Union Army draft quickly turned violent, leading to 120 deaths and at least 2,000 people injured. After the Battle of Gettysburg, President Abraham Lincoln had to send several regiments of militia and volunteer troops to control the city. Protests of the National Conscription Act took place in other cities and states across the North.

The “Bonus Army” protest of 1932 resulted in 2 dead; 1,086 injured.[3]

And then how can we forget the many protests of the Vietnam War and some attendant acts of terrorism by the Students for a Democratic Society and the Weather Underground.

Some today have likened our current anti-Trump protests to the Boston Tea Party, as though there was some sort of moral equivalence. Balderdash! The Boston Tea Party was a calm and orderly affair, focused exclusively on the tea (a broken ship’s lock was immediately replaced and, eventually the more than a million dollars of tea was paid for). I can see the disclaimer now: “No ships were damaged nor crews assaulted in the taking of this tea.”

Contrast this with the violent protests on January 20th in which businesses, including an immigrant-owned limousine were torched. If there is good news here, it is that the more than 200 protesters who were arrested that day face 10 years imprisonment and up to a 250,000 fine.

Going back to the Wikipedia description, “such a right to protest may be a manifestation of the right to freedom of assembly, the right to freedom of association, and the right to freedom of speech.” “May be?” So if we combine these three natural rights somehow a right of protest springs out of them? It reminds me of the right of privacy assembled by the high court in Griswold v. Connecticut from “bits and pieces” of inferences of privacy found in the 4th and 5th Amendments, and others.

But as I repeatedly say to groups: I have no problem with creating a right to privacy or any right at all, and securing it in the Constitution; but who rightfully has the authority to create and define those rights: five unelected lawyers, or the 300 million owners of the Constitution – i.e., the American people? Because the process of amending the Constitution to create such a right requires a bit of work on our part, we seem to be more inclined to let lawyers in black robes do our work for us. Need a right to privacy? No problem. Need a right to kill your unborn child? No problem. Need a right for two homosexuals to “marry?” No problem. Give the job to the courts, they can do anything.

Our current Court, which seems to show no reticence to creating new rights, is not willing to give citizens the right to protest or even exercise their free speech right on the court’s very own steps.[4] But that’s not a obstacle to a determined protester. Protesters upset with the Citizens United decision have now taken their obnoxiousness inside the Supreme Court’s chamber,[5] even to the point of interrupting the Chief Justice.

The Supreme Court itself has never claimed there was a right to protest, per se; they have instead viewed protest-related cases as free-speech issues:

In 1969, (Tinker v. Des Moines) high school student protesters were told they could wear black armbands as a free speech right.

In the 1989 case of Texas v. Johnson, the court decided that burning the U.S. flag in protest of the government’s actions was to be considered a free speech issue. Flag burning joined the ever-increasing list of “symbolic speech” that was to be protected.

In 2011, the Westboro Baptist Church won the right to protest military funerals after claiming free speech.[6]

In 2014, in McCullen v. Coakley,[7] the Court unanimously held that Massachusetts’ 35-feet buffer zones to keep abortion protesters from interfering with women seeking abortions violated the First Amendment because it limited free speech too broadly.

So, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that there is no such thing as a political right to protest. You have a right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, you even have a right to assemble for that purpose as well as to freely speak your grievances. But when your use of any of those rights infringes on my right to freely travel in my car, or damages my property, or disturbs my peace, we have a problem, and I’m going to demand that the law be enforced against you.

The criminals who defaced a putting green on a Trump golf course[8] last week need to be rounded up, fined and imprisoned.

The holligans who are preventing businessman Peter Thiel from enjoying his home[9] and neighborhood should be disbursed and arrested if they return.

Protesters who disrupt a Congressman’s Town Hall meeting[10] should be arrested for incitement. Let them convince a judge their actions were otherwise.

Any protests which turn into riots and property destruction where it can be proved that George Soros or anyone else funded the event should result in the arrest of those financiers for inciting riot.

The training sessions conducted by the ACLU[11] should be monitored for the same purpose and if any instructions can be interpreted as inciteful, the director of the ACLU should be similarly arrested.

Quoting from the federal government’s website on the subject of riot, we find:

Government officials cannot simply prohibit a public assembly in their own discretion,[4] but the government can impose restrictions on the time, place, and manner of peaceful assembly, provided that constitutional safeguards are met.[5] Time, place, and manner restrictions are permissible so long as they “are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, … are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and … leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.”

The First Amendment does not provide the right to conduct an assembly at which there is a clear and present danger of riot, disorder, or interference with traffic on public streets, or other immediate threat to public safety or order.[13] Statutes that prohibit people from assembling and using force or violence to accomplish unlawful purposes are permissible under the First Amendment.[14]

So there it is: you may peacefully petition the government for a redress of your grievances, you may even do so in a group; and you may speak your mind in any public place (except the Supreme Court’s steps). But please don’t insist that you have a constitutionally-protected right of protest.  Further, if you do not allow other Americans to enjoy their equal rights while exercising yours, don’t claim you stand on the moral high ground.  Just saying.

“Constitutional Corner” is a project of the Constitution Leadership Initiative, Inc.  To unsubscribe from future mailings by Constitution Leadership Initiative, click here

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_protest

[2] http://aclu-or.org/content/your-right-protest

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/protesters-have-no-free-speech-rights-on-supreme-courts-front-porch/2015/08/28/f79ae262-4d9e-11e5-bfb9-9736d04fc8e4_story.html

[5] http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/21/politics/supreme-court-protests-citizens-united/index.html

[6] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/03/AR2011030304124.html

[7] http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mccullen-v-coakley/

[8] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/03/12/video-shows-environmental-activists-defacing-popular-trump-golf-course/?utm_term=.0972b18e88da

[9] http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Pro-immigrant-demonstrators-rally-outside-Peter-10995442.php

[10] http://www.sbsun.com/general-news/20160304/protesters-disrupt-logistics-town-hall-meeting-in-san-bernardino

[11] https://aclufl.org/2017/02/24/aclu-to-host-the-resistance-training-an-aclu-town-hall-in-miami/

Constitution Corner – The Right of Conscience

Open as PDF

“… there is great reason to fear that a positive declaration of some of the most essential rights could not be obtained in the requisite latitude. I am sure that the rights of conscience in particular, if submitted to public definition would be narrowed much more than they are likely ever to be by an assumed power.”[1]

Despite Madison’s initial reluctance to add a Bill of Rights to the Constitution, he finally succumbed to the arguments of Jefferson, Mason, Henry and others, and then fought vigorously for its addition.  Nevertheless, as he warned Jefferson, if the rights to be secured are not described “in the requisite latitude” they will likely not receive the protection they deserve.

So how do you describe the right of conscience?

You start by understanding what conscience is and why it is part of the human condition.

Every person is born with a conscience; it has been called “a gift of God to mankind.”  This gift manifests itself as the “still, small voice” in our spirit that speaks as we contemplate a particular action:  “And your ears shall hear a word behind you, saying, ‘This is the way, walk in it,’ when you turn to the right or when you turn to the left.”[2]  We may not hear a verbal “word” behind us, but we know the guidance is there; that guidance, based on the laws of God, is “written upon our hearts.”

Notice that conscience guides actions as well as thoughts; we are to “walk it its light.”  Thoughts or beliefs are a first step, but insufficient; they are impotent if they cannot also be acted upon.

In 1778, Theophilus Parsons warned: “We have duties, for the discharge of which we are accountable to our Creator and benefactor, which no human power can cancel. What those duties are, is determinable by right reason, which may be, and is called, a well informed conscience. What this conscience dictates as our duty, is so; and that power which assumes a control over it, is an usurper….”[3]  “Duty” implies action.

Based on the suggestion of New Hampshire as they ratified the Constitution, and his own inclinations, Madison tried to explicitly secure such a right.

He had observed, first-hand, the ill-treatment afforded Baptist ministers in nearby Culpepper County, Virginia.  Arrested for preaching without the required license from the state (which they were unable to obtain since the Church of England was the established state church), they were thrown in the “goal” and treated harshly; one account has a jailer urinating into their cell through the bars.  Hearing of this and apparently visiting and speaking with them, Madison pleaded in a letter to his college friend William Bradford: “…[P]ity me and pray for Liberty and Conscience to revive among us.”

It was the ministers’ freedom to act upon their beliefs of conscience that had Madison most concerned.  The beliefs themselves were, “in the main … very orthodox.”[4]

Madison’s “Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments on June 20th, 1785 reminds us that:

“[t]he Religion … of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate… It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association, must always do it with a reservation of his duty to the General Authority; much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no mans (sic) right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.[5] (emphasis added)

New Hampshire suggested: “Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or to infringe the rights of conscience.”  Madison added his own thoughts and came up with: “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.”  The Senate removed the conscience reference altogether and left us with what we have today.

So to what “objects” does the right of conscience extend?  Here’s where Madison’s warning about “requisite latitude” comes into focus.  Conscience clearly begins with religious thought and action.  Any fair study of the right of conscience during the founding period must conclude that freedom of religion was the driving force behind this right.  From the Pilgrims to the Puritans, to the formation of Connecticut, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania and Maryland, religious liberty and the freedom to act on Christian conscience has been central to the American experience.

Accommodations have indeed been made to allow people (and even corporations) to align their actions with their specific religious beliefs:

For-profit companies as well as religious organizations are not forced to cover contraceptives in their healthcare plans. [6]

A woman can voluntarily quit her job over a requirement to work on the Sabbath without losing her right to unemployment benefits.[7]

A Jehovah’s Witness cannot be denied unemployment benefits after quitting his job at a weapons plant over objection to manufacturing weapons of war.[8]

The Amish cannot be forced to send their children to compulsory public school.[9]

But does right of conscience extend only to religious tenets and beliefs?

No!  In two cases,[10] the Supreme Court decided that “conscientious objection” beliefs did not have to be religiously based to be valid and deserving of respect and accommodation; they could be based on personal codes of morality.

Pharmacists in Illinois have been granted the freedom to not dispense abortificants (the “Plan B Pill”) if doing so conflicted with their objections to abortion.[11]

So a person cannot be forced to serve in the military when he or she believes war to be morally wrong, but apparently a florist can be forced to sell flowers which will be used to celebrate a homosexual wedding,[12] a baker forced similarly to bake a cake for such a wedding,[13] and a photographer forced to photograph it.[14]  If they refuse to provide these services because they believe homosexual marriage to be morally wrong or Biblically condemned, they will be sued, fined, forced out of business and almost certainly sent to “diversity training”[15] to align their “aberrant” beliefs with public policy.

America, what a country!

It should go without saying that a Jewish or Muslim butcher will never be compelled in this country to sell pork, a black carpenter compelled to build crosses for the KKK, or a lesbian print shop owner compelled to print posters for the Westboro Baptist Church.

It should be clear by now that Christian business owners and only they are being systematically targeted, with one intent: to drive them out of business if they refuse to support the LGBT agenda.  They will be forced to celebrate homosexual marriage along with everyone else, or find a different line of work!

So what is God’s view of homosexuality and homosexual “marriage?”

“While the Bible does address homosexuality, it does not explicitly mention gay marriage/same-sex marriage. It is clear, however, that the Bible condemns homosexuality as an immoral and unnatural sin. Leviticus 18:22 identifies homosexual sex as an abomination, a detestable sin. Romans 1:26-27 declares homosexual desires and actions to be shameful, unnatural, lustful, and indecent. First Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexuals are unrighteous and will not inherit the kingdom of God. Since both homosexual desires and actions are condemned in the Bible, it is clear that homosexuals “marrying” is not God’s will, and would be, in fact, sinful.

Whenever the Bible mentions marriage, it is between a male and a female. The first mention of marriage, Genesis 2:24, describes it as a man leaving his parents and being united to his wife. In passages that contain instructions regarding marriage, such as 1 Corinthians 7:2-16 and Ephesians 5:23-33, the Bible clearly identifies marriage as being between a man and a woman. Biblically speaking, marriage is the lifetime union of a man and a woman, primarily for the purpose of building a family and providing a stable environment for that family.”[16]

James Madison called conscience “the most sacred of all property.”  “Government is instituted to protect property of every sort;” he wrote, “as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals… that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own.”[17]

Just as government is taking an increasingly dim view of personal property in this country,[18] they are taking an equally dim view of the rights of conscience, at least when the beliefs in question do not align with those of the progressive Left.

Rather than being secure, liberty of conscience finds itself under attack by those who feel we must all think and act alike on certain issues.  While there have been occasional victories, liberty of conscience still finds itself, at least on the subject of homosexual marriage, very much on the defensive.  We hope and pray that soon-to-be Justice Neil Gorsuch will help bring sanity to this pitiable situation.

Liberty of conscience, at the very heart of the settlement and formation of America, must be preserved if America is to remain America.  Samuel Adams told those gathered in the State House in Philadelphia on August 1, 1776, “…[f]reedom of thought and the right of private judgement, in matters of conscience, driven from every other corner of the earth, direct their course to this happy country as their last asylum.”[19]

No longer.

“If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; … such a government is not a pattern for the United States.  If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.”[20] (emphasis added)

As “James Madison” tells the school kids I visit, if you do not know your rights and/or are not willing to defend and assert them, you effectively have no rights and are on the road to slavery.  If Americans, and particularly Christian Americans, don’t stand united against this oppression, as Ronald Reagan once said: …”we will wake up one day telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

“Constitutional Corner” is a project of the Constitution Leadership Initiative, Inc.  To unsubscribe from future mailings by Constitution Leadership Initiative, click here

[1] James Madison letter to Thomas Jefferson, 17 Oct 1788.

[2] Isaiah 30:21.

[3] http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch4s8.html

[4] From James Madison to William Bradford-24 January 1774

[5] http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions43.html

[6] Hobby Lobby Stores & Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Burwell, Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell.

[7] Sherbert v. Verner 374 U.S. 398 (1963)

[8] Thomas v. Review of Indiana Employment Security Division 450 U.S. 707 (1981)

[9] Wisconsin v. Yoder 406 U.S. 205 (1972)

[10] Seeger v. United States (1965) and Welsh v. United States (1970)

[11] https://aclj.org/pharmacists-victory-illinois-seven-year-fight-conscience-rights

[12] http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/8608

[13] http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/christian-baker-takes-compulsion-of-speech-case-to-supremes/

[14] http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/5537

[15] http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-business-owner-gay-pride-t-shirts-diversity-training-148793

[16] https://www.gotquestions.org/gay-marriage.html

[17] http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s23.html

[18] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

[19] http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/american-independence-speech-by-samuel-adams-august-1-1776.html

[20] http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/property/

Constitutional Corner – Musings on the Article V Convention Simulation

Open as PDF

Although I would have much preferred to have been able to observe the Article V Convention simulation last week[1] from on site, the livestream of the event had to suffice; alas, I have no official affiliation with Convention of States.  But I will admit upfront to being a big fan.  Our nation suffers from a myriad of problems; some of them can only be remedied through amending the Constitution.

I know the words “amend the Constitution” send shivers up the spines of some.  “How could you even consider such a thing?”  After all, the Constitution is the “the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man,”[2] is it not?  I answer: “Yes, it was, and no, it is no longer.”

The Constitution has suffered serious injury in the hands of the Supreme Court (and through the people’s neglect).  It no longer represents the limitation, the constraint on government that was intended by the Framers.  Instead, the federal government today can, in the eloquent words of former California Congressman Peter Stark: “do most anything in this country.”[3]

The most convincing evidence of this ability is our nearly $20 Trillion in debt.  “Do[ing] most anything in this country” means spending money with abandon, much of which we didn’t have and which we had to literally print.  But thanks to the Supreme Court, whose decisions have rendered the Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause and other key provisions into grants of plenary power over, respectively, business and, well, everything else, the Congress and its executive agency minions can regulate any aspect of business in America, and spend money for any purpose it deems to fit its own definition of “general welfare.”

I don’t care how many conservatives you elect to Congress, nothing is going to change this paradigm.  Short of a rewording of the two relevant clauses, forcing them back to their Founding Era meaning, Congress and the rest of the federal government will continue to do what they do best: drive this country towards economic ruin.

Now, we could sit back and wait for Congress to select “Option One” of Article V.  Those hundreds of “Constitutional Conservatives” we intend to elect, someday, could indeed propose amendments which restore the original intent of both clauses, stripping themselves, the Congress, of near-plenary power over the American economy in the process — but I’m not holding my breath.  There’s a greater chance of Colin Kaepernick getting booted out of the NFL, restoring honor to a sport millions of Americans schedule their lives around.  But, actually, that’s not going to happen either.

No, the only way to return those two clauses to their original intent, their original strength, and restore these two original “chains” on government,[4] is to have the states, in convention, propose modifications to the Constitution’s wording, utilizing “Option 2” of Article V.

“But a convention called under Article V is way too dangerous,” claim the skeptics, whose paranoia over safety inexplicably still allows them to drive on public highways.  “A whole new Constitution could result.  We know such a document is laying in a dusty drawer somewhere awaiting its opportunity to save our nation from itself.”  Poppycock!

As vividly demonstrated last Thursday and Friday at the Williamsburg Lodge in historic Williamsburg (both James Madison and Patrick Henry made appearances), a convention of the states, conducted under the auspices of Article V, will likely be a controlled, measured, ruled, even sometimes boring affair.  Certainly no “running away” or even running around was in evidence.  Instead, the commissioners from 50 states crafted eight well-thought-out changes to our Constitution that would either impose long overdue fiscal restraints on the federal government, reduce the enormous power and horizon-to-horizon jurisdiction of the federal government, or impose limits on the terms of some of its “serving essentially for life” officials — the three criteria which would have been found in the applications of 34 states who insisted Congress call such a convention and, presumably, in the instructions the commissioners carried.

The second day of this two-day event was livestreamed to the Williamsburg Public Library (and thousands of other locations and individual computers around the country).  We witnessed commissioners grappling with the exact meaning of words and the looming specter of “the Law of Unintended Consequences.”  Only six of the eight proposed amendments passed with a majority floor vote of the convention, the remainder being declared “only half baked.”  And even those that passed often underwent drastic modification from their committee versions before a majority of state delegations were happy with them.  Of course, this was merely a simulation, a demonstration for effect, a chance to show that rules for such an event could be promulgated, agreed to, and followed with respect and decorum. 

And they were.  I cringed as the poor parliamentarian and convention president had to sort out layers upon layers of motions to amend the amended amendments.  But it was all done with style and grace and no one was told to “go to the corner,” or “shut up and color.”

Now yes, all these commissioners were there because they believed in the potential efficacy of such an event, even the commissioners from what we consider “hard-core” liberal states.  In the real event (when it occurs — and it must) the discourse is certain to be more rancorous, the debates more strident, and the output perhaps even more sparse, knowing that real changes are being proposed to a real 200+ year old document.

But let’s return to the central question: Do we continue down the path we are on, with a federal government exploiting limitless power, overburdening American businesses, spending money like there’s no tomorrow, with hundreds of unelected judges and career politicians serving essentially “for life,” protected either by the words of the Constitution itself or returned to their elected offices by the sheer power of corporate donations?  Do we continue this way until the “whole house of cards” collapses of its’ own ungovernable weight? 

Or do we pull from the remnants of our tattered Constitution: “Option 2” of Article V? — an option placed there with exquisite foresight, the Framers knowing full well that “a fondness for power is implanted, in most men, and it is natural to abuse it, when acquired.”[5]

Ultimately the choice is ours.  We can work hard to persuade the remaining holdouts that this is our best and perhaps our last chance to restore Constitutional sanity before the Debt Clock implodes, or we can turn back to watching Dancing with the Stars, and hope for the best. 

Which will it be?[6]

“Constitutional Corner” is a project of the Constitution Leadership Initiative, Inc.  To unsubscribe from future mailings by Constitution Leadership Initiative, click here.

[1] http://www.conventionofstates.com/cossim

[2] William Gladstone, four time British Prime Minister,  (1809-1898)

[3] Stated at a Town Hall meeting, Hayward California, July 24, 2010.

[4] Thomas Jefferson, fair copy of the draft of the Kentucky Resolution of 1798

[5] Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775

[6] For more information of the Convention of States Project, see www.conventionofstates.com.

Constitution’s Week in Review – 27 August 2016

Article 1, Section 2.  Apportionment

The original Constitution set Congressional representation at 1 Representative for every 30,000 persons.[1]  If this formula had remained in effect, the House of Representatives would today contain over 10,000 members.

What would have been the original first amendment had it been ratified in 1791 would have gradually increased the apportionment formula until it reached 1 Representative for each 50,000 persons.  Even at 1 to 50,000, the House would today contain about 6400 members.[2]

Back when communication was somewhat less than globally instantaneous, and telepresence still a science fiction, a legislative body of these proportions seemed unmanageable, and so the Reapportionment Act of 1929 was passed which capped the number of Representatives at 435.  In 1929, when the U.S. population stood at 121.8 Million, this meant each Representative must represent 280,000 persons.  Today, the average Representative must represent the interests of 750,000 individuals.  Good luck with that.

Providing the basis for this apportionment was an enumeration or census, to be conducted every 10 years:

“The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.”

Our country’s first official census was conducted in 1790[3] and the last in 2010.[4]  The 2020 census is beginning to come onto political radar screens and looks to be as controversial as any previous.  What should be a simple counting project has proven to be anything but.

Certain elements of the U.S. government attempt to use the census to gain additional socio-demographic information they can use to shape their programs.  This means asking census questions that go well beyond a simple “enumeration” and intrude into personal information that some feel the government has no need to know or right to demand.

With apportionment, however, comes political power — 15 states are projected to gain or lose districts as a result of the 2020 census — and that means politically-motivated groups will seek ways to influence the outcome.  It should come as no surprise then to learn that certain political groups hope to influence the 2020 census to gain political advantage.

The Open Society Foundation, founded by George Soros, is funding key progressive groups[5] with the goal of attempting to “influence appropriations for the (U.S.) Census Bureau.” while pushing to change the methods by which racial categories are counted.  One big issue: do you count incarcerated individuals as residents of the jail/prison location or are they residents of their pre-incarceration domiciles?   With U.S. prisons bursting at the seams, this becomes an important question.  Watch for more on this as we get closer to the actual census.

First Amendment. A Win for Religious Liberty?

Genesis 1:27 tells us that God created humans as either male or female.  Although biologists point to several factors involved in determining gender during conception, gender, once set, is set; the idea that someone could actually change their gender after birth is of very recent vintage.  Only advances in cosmetic surgery have made the idea even approachable.  Of course, at the genetic level the idea is preposterous.  Despite all external attempts to portray oneself as the opposite sex, chromosomes have proven more resistant to change.

But now that the issue of homosexual marriage appears to have been settled, in the eyes of many, if not most Americans, gender identity is the new battleground.  Bathroom/shower-room use in the public schools gets a lot of the attention (as a side note: a Texas Federal Judge has blocked the Department of Education’s attempt to inflict gender confusion on the nation’s schoolkids).[6]  But trans-genderism is creating other controversies as well.  For instance, must an employer accommodate an employee’s announcement of gender “transition” at face value and retain that employee in their job?

A U.S. District Judge in Michigan has decided the answer to that question is “No,”[7] the employer can not only fire such an individual, they and can base their decision on their firmly held religious values, even if the business involved is not a church or other religiously-oriented organization.  I’ve no doubt this decision will be appealed and I fully expect it to reach the Supreme Court, where, based on our Society’s emerging hostility to religion, I predict the Court will strike down the decision and state that a firing decision cannot be based on religious views of gender.  But we’ll see.

Two Wins for Religious Liberty in One Week, What’s Happening Here?

The following story shows the strength of grass-roots efforts when properly marshalled.

The California legislature was set to pass SB1146.[8] Among its provisions was one preventing low-income students from receiving Cal Grants, California’s system of need-based education aid, if they attended colleges which restrict campus bathroom use based on biological sex.  Thanks to “hundreds and hundreds of phone calls,” Senator Ricardo Lara, a Democrat  and the bill’s sponsor, agreed to remove the offending clauses.

Kudos to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission which mobilized their members.  It can work!

Why Does the Federal Government Own So Much State Land?

In previous posts and in my seminar I complain about the extent of state land claimed by the federal government: 85% of Nevada, 70% of Alaska, 57% of Utah, and so on.  Article 4, Clause 2 gives Congress the power to “dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.”  Notice the words “dispose of.”  These imply that federal territory will not be held in perpetuity, only temporarily until it is either sold off or made into a state.  Environmentalists, of course, have no problem with the federal government sequestering such land from development and keeping it as wilderness “for the people;” otherwise, cash-hungry states would just sell it off to developers, and then “good bye Yellowstone!”  Now we learn there are a considerable number of conservatives[9] who see things the same way.  Apparently willing to put aside the issue of big government, they see these lands as a “national birthright” and demand they be protected from economic development, principally by keeping them under federal ownership.  What’s a Republican platform-writer to do?

Upcoming Events:

Note for those in the Hampton Roads area: On Tuesday, 6 September, our Natural Law Discussion Group, having finished a look at Natural Law, will undertake an abridged version of Institute On The Constitution’s Duty of the Jury Course.  This course explores the traditional power of juries and how it has changed over the years.  In the colonial period and even into the 1860s, juries routinely exercised the power to judge both the law and the facts.  Not so much today; primarily because juries are routinely and specifically instructed by judges that they do not have this power.  The discussion group is (and has always been) open to anyone with an interest in studying what we’re studying.  The group meets from 6:30-8:30 pm in the Oyster Point area of Newport News, VA.  For the address details, send an email to: gary@constitutionleadership.org.

12 Sep, Lessons in Liberty – The Electoral College

The functioning of the Electoral College today bears little resemblance to the Framers’ intentions.  But rather than completely eliminate the “College” with an amendment, which would be the “constitutional” thing to do, groups like National Popular Vote have decided a final end-run is all that’s needed.  Can the Framers’ intent be restored?  Come find out on Monday, 12 September, 7-9pm at the Foundation for American Christian Education in Chesapeake, VA.  For those outside the local area, the presentation will be livestreamed.  Registration is $10 either way at www.face.net.

19 Sep, Christian Financial Concepts Webinar – The Electoral College Once Again

The following Monday, I give a one-hour abbreviated version of my Electoral College presentation for the Christian Financial Concepts[10] webinar series.  Participation is free, but this will by necessity be a more truncated view of the subject.

WFYL Radio: We the People, the Constitution Matters.  Having completed a look at the principles of the Declaration of Independence, our intrepid commentators take on the topic of “Progressivism in America.”  Join us Friday mornings from 7-8am beginning 26 August, as we cover the sordid history of Progressivism, how it gained a foothold in America, the damage it has already done and where its acolytes plan to take this country given the chance after November.

The “Constitution’s Week in Review” is a project of the Constitution Leadership Initiative, Inc.  To unsubscribe from future mailings by Constitution Leadership Initiative, click here.

[1] The word “residents” is not used, however, giving rise to the question of whether representation was intended to be based on “residents,” however temporary may be their residency, or “citizens,” or some other designation.

[2] For more on ratifying the original first amendment today see: https://americaagain.net/

[3] The U.S. population in 1790 was 3,929,214.

[4] The U.S. population in 2010 was 309,300,000.

[5] http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/22/leaked-doc-soros-open-society-seeks-reshape-census-electoral-districts/

[6] http://patriottribune.com/44167/texas-judge-blocks-transgender/

[7] http://www.gopusa.com/?p=13949?omhide=true

[8] http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/12/what-conservatives-did-to-pull-off-religious-liberty-win-in-california/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Top5&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWmpRME5qSTRPR001TTJNdyIsInQiOiJFbE9iRSsyekZicFlMNzByTUMza2xVQzlmSm1MOTdRSEpCY3NFNU5reVBzclI2QU5hRm5KSk1SNHB0WUtTcEVIcElLZXhEcW5wMTVyMmtnZXJyZ0lST1JEdHd6QnZxWHQyR25jOUxqTGFicz0ifQ%3D%3D

[9] https://www.yahoo.com/news/conservatives-split-over-u-land-transfers-western-states-104946810–finance.html

[10] http://www.christianfinancialconcepts.com/webinars.php

 

Constitution’s Week in Review – 20 August 2016

As I watched some of the Olympics coverage this week I couldn’t help reflect on the central role “rules” play in an ordered society.  Image if two soccer teams showed up for their match and the refs announced that the rules were mere “guidelines,” that the public expected them (the refs) to “keep up with the times.” “In the end,” says the Head Ref, “the final score will be determined by how well we think each team played.”

I suspect: “Say what?” would be the mildest of the reactions from the players.

Yet the American public seems to not care much whether our government plays by the rules of the Constitution or not.  Just saying.

It Seems To Be All About The First Amendment This Week.

Can a church operate on Biblical beliefs? I wonder how many states, besides Iowa, have a “Civil Rights Commission.”  My guess is that most do.  Does your state?  If so, you might want to start monitoring it to see if its members intend to follow the lead of Iowa’s Commission (ICRC).

In 2007, the Iowa legislature expanded the state’s Civil Rights Act to make it illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender identity.  The ICRC then issued an online brochure[1] that stated churches would “sometimes” be held accountable for the guidelines.  Naturally, this caused great confusion among the state’s churches, with some charging that the ICRC was forcing gender-neutral bathrooms on them[2] and even that the ICRC intended to monitor sermons for compliance.  Those on the Left called it a non-issue.[3]  With the help of Alliance Defending Freedom, other churches filed suit to have the brochure clarified.[4]

It appears the ICRC has no intention, for now, of filing complaints against churches for failing to allow gender-confused individuals to use the bathroom of their choice or for preaching bible-based admonitions against homosexuality.  But there remains great confusion over whether churches must become “members-only” in order to be totally immune.

How’s gender-confusion being dealt with in your state?

Mosques vs Churches.  Does the First Amendment require government at every level to accommodate every religion equally?  I know what the Framers of the Constitution would have said.  We’ll soon find out what today’s courts think.

Muslims of Sterling Heights, Michigan, asked for a zoning waiver that would allow them to build a second mosque in the city, and were turned down.  Claiming bigotry, the Muslims filed suit[5] and, rather than wait for the suit to be resolved, the Obama administration jumped into the fray and launched their own investigation of the claim.

If a Christian Church had instead been denied a zoning variance for similar reasons, I doubt the result would be a lawsuit.  But the way things are going in this country, with Christians being told to “shut up and color,” I won’t be surprised to see churches being similarly restricted and reacting similarly.  But back to the central question: must government, in this case city government, treat all religions equally?  If a variance is given to one religion or denomination must it then be given to all?  Can there still be valid reasons for turning down a zoning request?  Or to avoid any hint of bias, must we allow Muslims in America to erect mosques wherever they desire?  The landscape of America is changing, and the pace of that change is quickening.  At some point Americans will have to decide whether they wish to retain some sort of a national identity.  What do you think?

What does Free Speech Include?  People often point to Canada as our “enlightened neighbor to the north.”  Sporting a nationalized healthcare (from which the wealthy flee to obtain their care in America) and a bold, brash young Prime Minister, it is easy to overlook the “dark side” of Canadian life.  Like this:  would we be comfortable in America with unelected commissioners dispensing fines when comedians’ jokes start crossing imaginary lines in the sand?

Quebec’s Human Rights Tribunal fined a Canadian comedian[6] $42,000 for joking about a disabled boy.  Unfortunately, the boy he chose to joke about really existed and was sort of a national icon; that certainly didn’t help.  But I think we can all agree that while such a joke is clearly in poor taste, we’re headed down a steep, steep slope if we start prosecuting people for poor taste.  On the bright side, the aisles of Walmart would quickly empty,[7]

That Nasty Bible Again.  Mikey Weinstein[8] of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation continues to wage his one-man crusade against Christianity in the Air Force, this time complaining about a Bible left in plain view on an Air Force Major’s desk.[9]  Official Air Force policy says Bibles on desks is acceptable, but that didn’t stop Mr. Weinstein, who hoped to capitalize on a ruling last week by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces which upheld the bad conduct court-martial of a Marine who displayed Bible verses on her computer workstation.  Weinstein’s complaint will fail, but I predict the publicity-hungry ex-Air Force officer (you don’t know how much it pains me to acknowledge Weinstein was such) will not be dissuaded.

Upcoming Events: It is shaping up to be a busy Fall.  I will be putting on at least one Constitution Seminar in either September or October in the Tidewater area, but the date and location are not yet certain.

On Tuesday, 6 September, our Natural Law Discussion Group, having finished a look at Natural Law, at least for the moment, will undertake an abridged version of Institute On The Constitution’s Duty of the Jury Course.  This course explores the traditional power of juries to judge both the law and the facts.  In the colonial period and even into the 1860s, juries routinely exercised this power.  Not so much today; primarily because juries are routinely and specifically instructed by judges that they do not have this power.  The discussion group is (and has always been) open to anyone with an interest in studying what we’re studying.  The next bi-monthly meeting will be 6 September from 6:30-8:30 pm in the Oyster Point area of Newport News, VA.  For the exact address, send an email to: gary@constitutionleadership.org.

12 Sep Lessons in Liberty – The Electoral College

The functioning of the Electoral College today bears little resemblance to the Framers’ intentions.  Rather than complete its death blow with a Constitutional Amendment, groups like National Popular Vote have decided a final end-run is all that’s needed.  Can the Framers’ intent be restored?  Come find out on Monday, 12 September, 7-9pm at the Foundation for American Christian Education in Chesapeake, VA.  For those outside the local area, the presentation will be livestreamed.  Registration is $10 either way at www.face.net.

19 Sep Christian Financial Concepts Webinar – The Electoral College

The following Monday, I give a one-hour abbreviated version of my Electoral College presentation for the Christian Financial Concepts[10] webinar series.  Participation is free, but this will by necessity be a more truncated view of the issues involved.

WFYL Radio: We the People, the Constitution Matters.  Having completed a look at the principles of the Declaration of Independence, our intrepid commentators take on the topic of “Progressivism in America.”  Join us Friday mornings from 7-8am beginning 26 August, as we cover the sordid history of Progressivism, how it gained a foothold in America, the damage it has already done and where its acolytes plan to take this country in the very near future.

The “Constitution’s Week in Review” is a project of the Constitution Leadership Initiative, Inc.  To unsubscribe from future mailings by Constitution Leadership Initiative, click here.

[1] http://www.christianpost.com/news/churches-sex-segregated-bathrooms-transgender-feel-unwelcome-closed-to-public-iowa-commission-166167/

[2] http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/06/iowa-bureaucrats-force-trans-bathrooms-on-churches-forbid-non-pc-preaching/

[3] https://stream.org/iowa-civil-rights-commission-spokesperson-urges-churches-trust-wont-target-sermons-religious-practices/

[4] http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/10015

[5] http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/macomb/2016/08/10/muslims-sue-sterling-heights-mosque/88526616/

[6] http://heatst.com/culture-wars/comedian-fined-42000-for-telling-a-joke/

[7] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rj0QGecsg3Y

[8] http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/38272018.html

[9] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/18/air-force-orders-investigation-bible-officers-desk/

[10] http://www.christianfinancialconcepts.com/webinars.php