Justice Moore Is Protecting Your Constitution

August 27, 2003

The controversy surrounding the 10 Commandments Monument in Montgomery, Alabama should once again bring into clear focus how far we've drifted from original intent.   I will say it again for those who don't know: There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution.   The founding fathers never intended there to be.   It merely states that Congress shall not establish a religion.  

 

Why do you suppose they said ‘Congress?'   It's very simple, really, and the folks down at the ACLU are either too lazy to do their research or know this little fact and are counting on the rest of the country remaining ignorant.

 

The reason the word ‘Congress' is included in the establishment clause is because that's exactly what the framers meant.   Many of the individual states had their own state religions at the time the constitution was ratified, some for many years after.   The framers purposely included this clause to make it clear that Congress was not to establish a federal religion or a litmus test for holding federal office because of the disparate states and their own religious beliefs.

 

In fact, many of the individual state constitutions required a belief in God and, in some cases, a belief in a certain religion, in order to hold office in that state.   These religious requirements were in force even after the constitution was ratified.

 

 

Does that mean that we should go back to religious litmus tests in each state?   I should hope not but that's for the states to decide.   Alabama's Chief Justice Roy Moore is exactly right in standing up for the 10 Commandments monument in the state judicial building.   For one thing, placing a monument anywhere does not establish a religion but the salient point is the establishment clause clearly doesn't apply to the states.

 

I've been troubled by at least one conservative columnist who pleads that Justice Moore should cave in because of the recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court not to hear the case.   By not hearing the case, they let stand a lower court ruling that the monument be removed.   This particular columnist cites the supremacy clause of the constitution that says federal law trumps state law.   That's true insofar as that law is within the confines of the constitution.   This ruling is not.   It is clearly unconstitutional.   Were the Supreme Court to give approval of a lower court ruling shutting down a conservative newspaper would this columnist feel the same?   Probably not.

 

We run the great risk of giving up all of our constitutional rights when we give up one.   Whether or not you have an interest in the 10 Commandments monument in Montgomery is not the issue.   What's at issue is the Constitution.   Will we continue to allow courts with the likes of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the constitutional heretic who now takes her marching orders from the World Court, to erode our basic, constitutional rights?   I should hope not.

 

While all the attention is being focused on the establishment clause of the First Amendment, let us not forget what the rest of that sentence says.   ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. (emphasis added)   Beyond not meddling in the rights of states to decide issues of religion, Congress is tasked with making sure our religious rights are not impeded.   If you're not inclined to stand up for Justice Roy Moore at least stand up for the Constitution.   Because the next right they come after may be something that hits a little closer to home.