chcafe

Congress Hall Cafe

Bill of Rights

 

First Amendment

The Bill of Rights was an act of reconciliation by the Federalist to the Anti-Federalist in order to appease their opposition and gain the Anti-Federalist support for the new Constitution. The amendments of the Bill of Rights were complied by the States in order to secure specific rights to themselves against the authority of the newly established general government; the States considered themselves free and independent republics ( Declaration of 1776), and one of these rights to be retained by the States is enumerated in the First Amendment and it was the right to determine their own religious destiny.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”

The limitation of the First Amendment is that “Congress” not the States ”shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion” and Congress shall not “prohibit” the States from the “the free exercise, thereof.”  Thereof what?  To establish religion. Before and after the adoption of the Bill of Rights, the newly formed American republics had the right and continued the right in the support of state sanctioned Christian denominations; for example, Massachusetts and New Hampshire supported congregationalism, and Maryland supported the Anglican church, and even after the First Amendment adoption.

Massachusetts Constitution 1780 (Declaration of Rights)

III.”–As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of GOD, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this Commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require…”

The question of the First Amendment is not a question of separation of church and state; it is a question on the jurisdictional powers between Washington DC and the States of the Union. It was understood that the Constitution of the United States was designed for the “general welfare” of the Union while the internal and specific welfare belonged solely to the States (see Tenth Amendment) which included the legislative authority over religion, health and personal safety. The battle over the First Amendment is not a battle of church and state but a war between Washington and the States of the Union in who controls the religious question. The Supreme Court by their “ incorporation” doctrine of the Fourteen Amendment has unwisely put the limitations and restrictions of the First Amendment upon the States. This is a clear usurpation that destroys the original intent of the amendment. This dangerous Court precedent comes in the same shape and form that caused the American revolutionary war. It was the acts of the Parliament of England that insensibly assumed legislative authority over the colonial governments in violation of their legal charters. America’s Constitution creates jurisdiction, and jurisdiction establishes the right of law enforcement and legislation, and when powers exceed jurisdiction it is usurpation and is called tyranny.  The American colonist would not be bamboozled into submission to an illegal authority, and standing against usurpation, they took the road of liberty. Today, American should consider their example.

“Z” quote year 1787 : “If the rights of conscience, for instance, are not sacredly reserved to the people, what security will there be, in case the government should have in their heads a predilection for any one sect in religion? what will hinder the civil power from erecting a national system of religion, and committing the law to a set of lordly priests, reaching, as the great Dr. Mayhew expressed it, from the desk to the skies?

Note: This quote was published in the Independent Chronicle in Boston in 1787 in response to Dr. Franklin’s published sentiments to the the new Constitution. It highlights the then existing concern that the first amendment later addresses. The prevalent fear of the general government creating a national church upon a particular sect thereby endangering and interfering with local religious communities and the states right of control over religion.

Concerning: Separation of Church and State versus God’s Law

North West Ordinance 1787

“Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

Does the doctrine of separation of Church and State mean the separation of God’s law from civil society? At the founding of America, most States supported a particular religious sect of Protestantism by taxation. Although the early republics were largely homogeneously Protestant, except for a few instances, Protestantism itself was made up of several sects including congregationalism, Anglicanism, Baptist, and others. State taxes were used to build church buildings and give support to pastors to teach the doctrine of one particular sect, for example, the state of Massachusetts supported congregationalism and Maryland’s taxation supported the Anglican communion. However, each State was an admixture of various religious sects and as each sect grew in size and influence the question of fairness was raised, should States use the power of taxation collected from all the people to pay for buildings and the support of pastors of one particular sect? The equitable answer was no, and the States over time disestablished their particular sect thereby allowing each sect to survive on free contributions. However, the States disenfranchisement of a particular sect did not mean the disenfranchise of God’s law. The law of Moses, part of our common law and the province of civil authority, was not a specific tenant of one particular sect, it belonged to all Christians and Jews alike without controversy; moreover, the laws of Moses did not violate liberty of conscience, in fact, is was supported by the conscience of all Christians no matter the sect and by Jewish’ sects as well. This fact is demonstrated in our legal history where biblical law, part of the common law, was part of America’s jurisprudence that supported “Do not steal”, “Do commit adultery” “Do not murder” with penalties for bestiality, incest and homosexuality until 2003 when the Supreme Court overturned all States laws against this sin by the fiction of “substantive due process.”  Americans have learned the difference between a religious sects interpretation of Scripture, which is not the province of civil authority, and the laws of Moses which is. Above the heads of the justices of the Supreme Court, and in stone, and in various other places of the Supreme Court building are displays of the Ten Commandment; the very laws revealed to Israel by the voice of God, and the reason that the Ten Commandments are so prominently displayed in this courthouse and in courthouses throughout our nation is to remind judges and the public of our nation’s standard of right and wrong and the difference between good and evil.  No one would think of removing from our State’s statute books the commandment “Do not steal” because it would mean the loss of protection of our personal property; nor would we remove the biblical mandate “Do not murder” because the protection of life would be lost. Today, those who vent against the law of Moses in our civil statutes often cite “the separation of church and state” thus following a violative use of the First Amendment by a secularized  Court and in doing so are undermining America’s long legal history with the common law and the biblical standard.

Second Amendment

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Sidney: “They know how to preserve their liberty, or to vindicate the violation of it; and the more patient they have been, the more inflexible they are when they resolve to be so no longer. Those who are so foolish to put them upon such courses, do to their cost find that there is a difference between lions and asses; and he is a fool who knows not that swords were given to men, that none might be slaves…” 343

Advertisements

One comment on “Bill of Rights

  1. Ruthann Kett
    June 19, 2013

    Thx for this awsome post

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Information

This entry was posted on February 6, 2013 by .
%d bloggers like this: