Over the last few years, I've heard many people talking about just how important the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution are as founding, and even governing documents. The fact is that they are both extremely important. Without the Declaration, this nation would never even have been formed. And without the Constitution, we wouldn't have lasted as long as we have. Their importance is a no brainer. What I want to address is what makes them both separately important, and some misconceptions as I see them.
The Declaration of Independance:
Without a doubt, this is perhaps the most important document in the history of our nation. Had our founding fathers not had the courage to write and sign the declaration, we would probably still be a British protectorate. However, it is not a governing document. Boiled down to its simplest level, the Declaration is a letter. A highly formalized letter, but a letter nonetheless. It was written to inform King George III that the citizens of the American colonies were no longer happy being kept under the rule of the British government. It told the king, in no uncertain terms, that they were tired of being treated as though they were second class citizens, and that they felt they had a duty to throw off the yoke of what was, to them, a despotism.
One specific thing I'd like to address about the declaration, since so many people site it as the reason we should be a "Christian Nation" are the references to the christian god and creator. For those who do not remember, most monarchs of the time believed that their power to reign was granted to them directly by God. Hence the bishop is always the one placing the crown on the head of the new monarch. They believed themselves to be anointed by God as the rightful ruler of their land. This was certainly true in Britain. I believe this to be the primary reason why the christian god was mentioned in the declaration.
You see, if a monarch believes themself to be the chosen of God, then the claims of a mere mortal as to their fitness to rule can be seen as nothing. So when the founders wrote the Declaration, they included wording which directly challenged the king's "divine right " to rule. By stating that all men were endowed with certain inalienable human rights by their creator, the founders were, in essence, telling the king that he was going against the will of the very god which had placed him on the throne. In this way, they not only declared that they believed him a despot, but that even God must see him as wrong. This is the reason I believe the framers of the declaration included those passages.
Before anyone goes off the deep end and accuses me of calling the forefathers non-christian, I didn't say that. This is simply my analasys of the reasons for certain wordings. I wasn't there, so I could very well be wrong. But it does seem to make sense to me.
Shall we move on?
The Constitution:
This is the document that actully gave our new nation the framework for its government. It took the lessons learned at the hands of the British monarchy and put them to use to form a representative republic. It established the guidelines for taxation, elections, etc. It is our primary governing document, and all other laws passed by the government were to be held to its standards. It even went so far as to guarantee certain specific rights in order to ensure the people retained their liberty under the new government. The one thing it did not do, and for good reason, was to name a state religion. The founders knew they did not want the church interfering in the business of the state, and did not want its people to suffer at the hands of what would have been, in essence, a theocracy. As such, there is almost no mention of religion in the Constitution. The only places it is mentioned is to specifically prohibit the use of a test of faith for those taking an office within the government. That's not to say the Constitution wants us all to give up our faiths and be atheists. It simply made sure that the church was not a part of the workings of government.
Unfortunately, there are quite a few people who believe that, because of the mention of a god in the declaration, that this nation is supposed to be a christian one. But that just isn't the case. Let's go over my main points one more time.
The Declaration is a letter of declaration written to the King of England and his government at the time. Without it, this nation would never have been formed. But however pretty the words, however formal it may be, it is still, in simplest terms, a letter. It is not a governning document.
The Constitution on the other hand is the governing document for this nation. It is the basis by which all other laws should be measured. It gives us our freedoms and protects us from tyranny and despotism. While the United States would never have existed without the Declaration, it never would have survived without the Constitution.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
This Should Not Be Happening
Ladies and gentlemen, today is a sad day for this once great nation. Today, the United States Supreme Court will hand down its ruling on an issue that should never even have made it to the floor of Congress. Today, they will decide whether or not the bill popularly known as Obamacare will stand, or to strike it down as having violated the Constitution in any number of ways. Here's the thing though... it should never have made it to the point of being voted on. The fact that it was ramrodded through Congress, and was voted on before anyone knew or understood what was in it means that it was not held up to the standards of the Constitution, and the system of checks and balances put in place by the founding fathers was unable to stop a blatantly unconstitutional law from being passed.
Today, the last line of defense for the Constitution is being put to the test. I should be able to say with absolute certainty that this law will be struck down with no dissenters. I should be able to say that because each and every one of the justices of the supreme court swore an oath to defend the constitution, and as such, should see this law for the threat to freedom it truly is. Of course, if that vow had ever meant anything to anyone, this bill would never have gotten this far. But, as with congress, and even the presidency, personal agendas and politics are more important than our governing document. Which means that, while these justices should be able to simply say "hell no" to Obamacare and strike it down as being unconsitutional with a unanimous vote, instead we will have a split decision. That decision will be split along party lines. Essentially, they do what the person who appointed them tells them to do.
I'm sure there are a couple justices who actually want to uphold the constitution and preserve the freedoms for which our forefathers fought over two centuries ago. But I am painfully aware that there are sitting justices who were given their positions not because of their dedication to the constitution and liberty for all, but because they promised they'd toe the party line should anything like this every come up. Just look at the case of the Arizona illegal immigration law. What should have been a simple case of preserving the freedoms and sovreignty of the states, and even the nation as a whole, was shot down, even as the president signed into law by executive order, amnesty for some 800,000 illegal immigrants. That was not a decision made to protect the constitution and this nation. It was a decision made to further the political agenda of a specific group of people.
By now, whatever I may think, the decision has surely been presented. While I hope the justices of the Supreme Court have used common sense and good judgement, I know that they will do what they will do, regardless of what I want. I only hope, for the sake of the United States as a whole, and the people in general, that the decision they do make isn't the one that begins the march from freedom and liberty to tyranny and despotism.
Today, the last line of defense for the Constitution is being put to the test. I should be able to say with absolute certainty that this law will be struck down with no dissenters. I should be able to say that because each and every one of the justices of the supreme court swore an oath to defend the constitution, and as such, should see this law for the threat to freedom it truly is. Of course, if that vow had ever meant anything to anyone, this bill would never have gotten this far. But, as with congress, and even the presidency, personal agendas and politics are more important than our governing document. Which means that, while these justices should be able to simply say "hell no" to Obamacare and strike it down as being unconsitutional with a unanimous vote, instead we will have a split decision. That decision will be split along party lines. Essentially, they do what the person who appointed them tells them to do.
I'm sure there are a couple justices who actually want to uphold the constitution and preserve the freedoms for which our forefathers fought over two centuries ago. But I am painfully aware that there are sitting justices who were given their positions not because of their dedication to the constitution and liberty for all, but because they promised they'd toe the party line should anything like this every come up. Just look at the case of the Arizona illegal immigration law. What should have been a simple case of preserving the freedoms and sovreignty of the states, and even the nation as a whole, was shot down, even as the president signed into law by executive order, amnesty for some 800,000 illegal immigrants. That was not a decision made to protect the constitution and this nation. It was a decision made to further the political agenda of a specific group of people.
By now, whatever I may think, the decision has surely been presented. While I hope the justices of the Supreme Court have used common sense and good judgement, I know that they will do what they will do, regardless of what I want. I only hope, for the sake of the United States as a whole, and the people in general, that the decision they do make isn't the one that begins the march from freedom and liberty to tyranny and despotism.
Friday, June 15, 2012
Same Sex Marriage and the Constitution
Lately there has been a lot of commotion from people about whether or not same sex couples should be allowed to be "married". So far as I'm concerned, that's perfectly alright. You find someone you love that much, you should be able to bind yourself to them in that manner. Unfortunately, if the latest trends in legislation are any hint, I seem to be in the minority. With so many states either outright banning same sex "marriage", or adding new definitions to their constitutions to effectively make those marriages impossible, it almost sounds like the majority of the populace is dead set against it. But not the US Constitution.
I've been doing a lot of thinking on this subject, and while what follows may be only a legal argument put forward by an amateur constitutionalist, I think it makes sense.
In short, the state has no right to prohibit or otherwise hinder the rights of any citizen, no matter the sexual orientation, to be married under the religious freedom portion of the first amendment of the constitution. I can already hear some of you asking yourselves what the hell does any of this have to do with the freedom of religious expression. Give me a moment and I'll explain.
You see, there are only two reasons that I can think of for a person to discriminate against same sex couples. The first is a simple, personal dislike of homosexuality because it isn't "normal", or "right" biologically speaking. Okay, I get that. But it doesn't mean they have any less reason to be married than an interracial couple. The second reason, and the one that I think applies the most in this case, is a dislike based on religious principles. Essentially, because a person's faith/religious texts state that homosexuality is wrong, it must be so. It is for this second reason that I believe the first amendment applies.
My contention is that many of the lawmakers, if not all, who have been pushing to prevent same sex marriage belong to a faith which believes homosexuality is wrong because it is what their god or gods have told them. In this case, the legislators who have been pushing so hard to pass these discriminatory laws, have been doing so because it's what their faith tells them to do. By doing this, they are, in essence trying to force the laws of a small group of faiths on people who obviously do not share those beliefs. This, in effect, means that they are preventing the free expression of faith by those not of their faith.
I do realize that many faiths say nothing about gay marriage specifically, and that many same sex couples belong to a religion that, for the most part, does not allow same sex couplings, much less marriages. But by living a life that sees, very obviously, no harm in same sex relationships, they have essentially shown themselves to have different beliefs. So for a group of people to tell them they cannot have a state recognized marriage is essentially the same as the state suppressing the religious freedom of a specific group of individuals, subjugating it to the will of another religion. This is in direct violation of the first amendment's clause on freedom of religious expression.
I am not saying that faiths which have a strict "no gays allowed" policy must be forced to perform same sex marriage. It's against their faith, and as such, they have the right to say no under the first amendment. What I am saying is that the state has no right to prohibit or otherwise restrict a citizen's right to a state recognized marriage based on the sexual orientation of those citizens. Especially when the primary justification for such blatant discrimination is religious.
I've been doing a lot of thinking on this subject, and while what follows may be only a legal argument put forward by an amateur constitutionalist, I think it makes sense.
In short, the state has no right to prohibit or otherwise hinder the rights of any citizen, no matter the sexual orientation, to be married under the religious freedom portion of the first amendment of the constitution. I can already hear some of you asking yourselves what the hell does any of this have to do with the freedom of religious expression. Give me a moment and I'll explain.
You see, there are only two reasons that I can think of for a person to discriminate against same sex couples. The first is a simple, personal dislike of homosexuality because it isn't "normal", or "right" biologically speaking. Okay, I get that. But it doesn't mean they have any less reason to be married than an interracial couple. The second reason, and the one that I think applies the most in this case, is a dislike based on religious principles. Essentially, because a person's faith/religious texts state that homosexuality is wrong, it must be so. It is for this second reason that I believe the first amendment applies.
My contention is that many of the lawmakers, if not all, who have been pushing to prevent same sex marriage belong to a faith which believes homosexuality is wrong because it is what their god or gods have told them. In this case, the legislators who have been pushing so hard to pass these discriminatory laws, have been doing so because it's what their faith tells them to do. By doing this, they are, in essence trying to force the laws of a small group of faiths on people who obviously do not share those beliefs. This, in effect, means that they are preventing the free expression of faith by those not of their faith.
I do realize that many faiths say nothing about gay marriage specifically, and that many same sex couples belong to a religion that, for the most part, does not allow same sex couplings, much less marriages. But by living a life that sees, very obviously, no harm in same sex relationships, they have essentially shown themselves to have different beliefs. So for a group of people to tell them they cannot have a state recognized marriage is essentially the same as the state suppressing the religious freedom of a specific group of individuals, subjugating it to the will of another religion. This is in direct violation of the first amendment's clause on freedom of religious expression.
I am not saying that faiths which have a strict "no gays allowed" policy must be forced to perform same sex marriage. It's against their faith, and as such, they have the right to say no under the first amendment. What I am saying is that the state has no right to prohibit or otherwise restrict a citizen's right to a state recognized marriage based on the sexual orientation of those citizens. Especially when the primary justification for such blatant discrimination is religious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)