Constitution

Yesterday Eagle Forum’s Court Watch released yet another attack on “Reconstructionist (i.e., ‘activist/liberal’) judges,” who, they claim, “are leading the assault on America's Judeo-Christian foundations in our nation's Culture War.” Eagle Forum put together a Sample Resolution for members which the group said can be used as a “weapon” in “an election and at other times when petition-type expressions of our views and values are appropriate.” The resolution begins:

WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States is, and must be, the Supreme Law of the Land, superior to all court decisions;
WHEREAS, the Constitution must be interpreted in the light of its text, constitutional tradition, and its Judeo-Christian foundation;
WHEREAS, the Constitution contains nothing that requires a "wall of separation between church and state";
WHEREAS, a total separation of religion and law/government is impossible;
WHEREAS, the Framers of the Constitution did not intend that a total separation be attempted;
WHEREAS, the English Common Law in which American law is rooted was Christianized;
WHEREAS, the U.S. Supreme Court does not require a total separation between "church and state";
WHEREAS, Reconstructionist (activist/liberal) federal judges have blatantly assaulted these fundamental Constitutional principles and have re-written them under the guise of interpreting them;
AND WHEREAS, We, the people, still possess the ultimate human political power in this nation and have delegated to the President and Congress in the Constitution very broad powers to establish and empower national courts;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT ________ actively supports
1. the Congressional denial of jurisdiction to courts to hear challenges to either the verbal or non-verbal acknowledgement of God — i.e., "God" meaning the Deity central to the Ten Commandments - on public property and in official utterances such as (but not limited to) the Pledge of Allegiance and national motto.
2. Congressional refusal to recognize, fund, or otherwise enforce court decisions that prohibit either the verbal or non-verbal acknowledgement of God — i.e., "God" meaning the Deity central to the Ten Commandments — on public property and in official utterances such as (but not limited to) the Pledge of Allegiance and national motto.

Eagle Forum’s assertion that the Constitution has a “Judeo-Christian foundation” because “the English Common Law in which American law is rooted was Christianized,” appears to challenge the beliefs of Thomas Jefferson, whose “Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom” is widely considered the basis for the First Amendment.

Professor Warren Throckmorton of Grove City College on Tuesday pointed to a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to Thomas Cooper, in which Jefferson dissects and debunks claims that British common law is based in Christianity. “But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686,” Jefferson writes, referring to the common law introduced by the Saxon settlers of England. “Here, then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.” He goes on to say:

But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

In fact, Jefferson skewers those in England who tried to implement biblical law, much like many on the Religious Right attempt to do today, arguing that the gospel was “intended by their benevolent author as obligatory only in foro concientiae” (obligations of conscience, not law), and that the Ten Commandments were never incorporated into common law:

In truth, the alliance between Church and State in England has ever made their judges accomplices in the frauds of the clergy; and even bolder than they are. For instead of being contented with these four surreptitious chapters of Exodus, they have taken the whole leap, and declared at once that the whole Bible and Testament in a lump, make a part of the common law; ante 873: the first judicial declaration of which was by this same Sir Matthew Hale. And thus they incorporate into the English code laws made for the Jews alone, and the precepts of the gospel, intended by their benevolent author as obligatory only in foro concientiae; and they arm the whole with the coercions of municipal law. In doing this, too, they have not even used the Connecticut caution of declaring, as is done in their blue laws, that the laws of God shall be the laws of their land, except where their own contradict them; but they swallow the yea and nay together. Finally, in answer to Fortescue Aland’s question why the ten commandments should not now be a part of the common law of England? we may say they are not because they never were made so by legislative authority, the document which has imposed that doubt on him being a manifest forgery.

University of Pennsylvania historian Richard Beeman was yesterday’s guest on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart following an appearance by pseudo-historian David Barton. Beeman, like other real historians, notes that Barton greatly embellishes the religious views of the Founding Fathers and misrepresented the Constitution.

“The Constitution is federally devoid of any mention of religion except for one provision which says there shall be no test for public office or any position of public trust, so the only mention of religion is keep religion out of our government,” Beeman says, and “the debate in the [constitutional] Convention is virtually devoid” of religious references. Barton, on the other hand, made this pathetic case that the Constitution incorporates the Bible.

Right Wing Watch looked into Barton’s many fabrications, falsehoods, obfuscations, revisionist history, as well as his total neglect of the Fourteenth Amendment’s incorporation of the First Amendment to the states and his warped view of constitutional jurisprudence while he was on The Daily Show.

During part II of the interview with Beeman, Stewart noted that while Barton told him that he was OK with Sharia law in the US, he would likely make the opposite case to his conservative supporters.

In fact, that is exactly what happened, as Barton dedicated an entire radio program to denying what he plainly told Stewart about Sharia.

Such dishonest actions reflect the fact that Barton is a political activist, not a historian -- he even was paid by the Republican National Committee to mobilize church groups to support President Bush’s reelection and Republican candidates. As Kyle notes, even his documentary on African American history is brazenly partisan.

As Beeman and other credentialed historians make clear, Barton is simply distorting history for his own political purposes.

Opponents of marriage equality continue to demand that Republicans put up a huge fight against the Obama administration’s decision to stop defending DOMA, and Rep. Steve King (R-IA) is even threatening by tweet that “if President Obama won’t redirect Holder’s DOJ to aggressively defend U.S. DOMA law, I will move aggressively to cut their budget.”

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council is meeting with congressional Republican leaders to plot strategy, and yesterday appeared on Bill Bennett’s “Morning in America” to discuss why he believes the Department of Justice made the decision that DOMA is unconstitutional.

Perkins initially likened Obama to a Middle East dictator for his actions on DOMA:

Perkins: The fact that the president is taking this on and saying, ‘look I don’t care what the Congress said,’ really it’s a challenge to the Congress and their authority as to whether or not who’s going to make the laws of the land. This would be fitting if it were in the Middle East in one of these dictatorships that are falling right now, but this is the United States of America.

Later, Bennett and Perkins agreed that the DOMA decision was a manufactured, “dangerous and destructive distraction” to stop Americans from thinking about Obama’s supposed failure to handle problems in the Middle East and at home:

Bennett: You’re analysis is great, you know I’m always very candid with you Tony, I’m just so baffled by this. I can’t recall a time when there’s been more news in a week, you know, to just list all the countries in the Middle East takes half a segment. Then look what’s going on in Wisconsin, and Ohio, and Indiana, and this situation in Libya where we’re trying to get American citizens on a ferry out of that country. I just am dumbfounded, why they picked this moment to do this.

Perkins: They can’t handle them.

Bennett: Part of leadership is priorities, to pick this moment to attack marriage? Go ahead, instruct me.

Perkins: Look, I mean if you can’t handle those problems and solve them then why not create a domestic distraction?

Bennett: I mean that’s the height of irresponsibility.

Perkins: But I think that’s exactly what it is.

Bennett: This is a distraction, and a dangerous and destructive distraction.

Thomas Monaghan, the billionaire behind Dominos Pizza and a prolific donor to Religious Right and Republican causes, founded Ave Maria University of Florida to be one of the most conservative Catholic institutions in the country. Not only did Monaghan seek to establish a new Catholic university, but also wanted to build an entire city based around his ultraconservative ideology. Rick Santorum lauded Ave Maria’s students as God’s soldiers training for a spiritual war, and Justice Antonin Scalia even assisted the founding of the Ave Maria School of Law.

Now, another conservative Supreme Court Justice is aiding Ave Maria’s efforts. While speaking to students of Ave Maria University and Ave Maria School of Law, Thomas told students not to shy away from using their religious views in public life, defended “constitutional originalism,” and touted the stability of his marriage (which must be a very sore subject for Thomas). The Ave Herald reports:

"I was minding my own business and President Bush appointed me," he said. Now, 20 years later, he said he was surprised to look around the justices' conference table recently and realize that he was the third most senior jurist on the Supreme Court. His time on the court has given him much greater perspective, he said.

"You get more of a panoramic view."

Nonetheless, he said, "I get called an activist because I believe we should follow the constitution, not the stuff we made up about it."

He urged the students to respect the courts, even if they disagree with their decisions.

"You want to be constructive," he said. "You can feel strongly without acting emotionally and being bitter and angry."

Common themes in both appearances were the importance of faith and being guided by wanting to "just do the right thing."

"I tell my law clerks every year," Justice Thomas said, "that pragmatism is not a principle. It's giving yourself the excuse to go along to get along."

In the end, he said, people need to be able answer the question asked at the end of the movie Saving Private Ryan: Have I been a good man? Have I led a good life?

Catholics, he said, should not be afraid to live their faith openly.

"Many people choose to hide their lights under a bushel basket," he said in reference to a Gospel passage.

"Our deeds are our most effective homilies, our most effective speeches."

He advised students to seek a balance between their careers and family life, saying that his own marriage of 24 years to his wife, Virginia, who was with him at both appearances, "has been a hoot."

Keep sight of what is important, he told the students at AMU.

"Don't lose your faith, don't lose your family, don't lose your friends. Have the confidence that with God and your faith anything is possible."