Separation of Church & State: In the Constitution?

This article reprinted from http://www.redstate.com/alexashrugged/2010/10/21/church-state-and-the-first-amendment-what-coons-needs-to-know/

I read this article by Ken Paulson, the President of the First Amendment Center and had to respond to almost everything he wrote.

Church, State and the First Amendment: What O’Donnell needs to know

Sometimes political debates generate light as well as heat.

Delaware Republican Senate candidate Christine
O’Donnell’s question "Where in the Constitution is the separation of
church and state?" in an exchange Oct. 19 over teaching creationism in public schools
tells us something about her but also reminds us of how often America’s
bedrock principles on government and religion are misunderstood.

Democratic candidate Chris Coons was quick to tell
O’Donnell that religion and government are kept separate by the First
Amendment.

"You’re telling me that’s in the First Amendment?" she responded.

Indeed it is.

Indeed it is NOT! O’Donnell explicitly asks where in the Constitution the words "separation of church and state" appear and when Coons wrongly asserts it is in the First Amendment she seeks to clarify that he is indeed making the false statement that it is in the First Amendment.

Here’s a quick take on what the First Amendment says — and doesn’t say:

Keeping government out of religion and religion out of government is a core principle of the First Amendment.
The first 16 words say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Keeping government out of religion is spelled out in the first 16 words, but what in those words keeps religion out of government and where are the words "separation of church and state" that Coons says can be found there?

That means government can’t limit our personal faith or favor one
religion over others. [Yes] . It also means that creationism cannot be taught in
America’s public schools.

Um, whaaaaaaat??? That is quite a leap! Maybe that part can be found in the mythical version of the Constitution where the words "separation of church and state" appear…

The separation of church and state has been a cornerstone of American ideals for centuries.
As early as 1640, Rhode Island founder and theologian Roger Williams
cited the need for "a hedge or wall of separation between the garden of
the church and the wilderness of the world."

Perhaps a better indication of the cornerstone of American ideals comes from the Declaration of Independence. This non-secular document signed by the Continental Congress acknowledges that our rights are given from God. It also references "Nature’s God," "a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence," and "appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World." Does this sound like the beginnings of a nation that would want to keep church and state separate?

James Madison, the author
of the Bill of Rights, would later explain the need for this separation,
saying, "religion and Govt. will both exist in greater purity, Â the
less they are mixed together."

Madison says church and state are respectively best when their joining is kept to a minimum. That is not the same as saying that there must be a separation of church and state, nor is it saying that that is what was intended in the First Amendment.

Fortunately, there are Congressional transcripts that can tell us what was discussed DURING the drafting of the Bill of Rights:

"Mr. Madison thought, if the word national was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform. He thought if the word national was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent…"

Clearly Madison’s concern was the establishment of a national religion on the whole country - kind of like how there’s a Church of England - and NOT with abolishing religion from government altogether.

The words "separation of church and state" appear nowhere in the Constitution.
That’s true, [Thank you! ] and O’Donnell’s camp now says that’s what she really
meant.["NOW" says? It was clear from the beginning that was what she meant! ] The phrase stemmed from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the
Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. He cited the language of the First
Amendment and said that it built "a wall of separation between Church
and State." This was not just some poetic flourish. This was one of the
nation’s founders and author of the Declaration of Independence
explaining exactly what the First Amendment means.

At least Paulson is careful here in saying that Jefferson was a founder and author of the Declaration - he was NOT an author of the Constitution. In fact, he was in Europe while it was being drafted and his letter was written 10 years after the First Amendment was ratified. While Jefferson is certainly an important forefather whose opinions are key to our understanding of the founding of our nation, he was not present and did not participate in the debates on the Bill of Rights and thus could not "explain[] exactly what the First Amendment means."

Later in the debate, O’Donnell challenged Coon to

name the five freedoms of the First Amendment. He came up four freedroms

short.

Welcome to the club. First Amendment Center surveys show that most
Americans can name just one freedom in the First Amendment and only one
in 25 can name all five — freedom of religion, freedom of speech,
freedom of the press and the rights of petition and assembly.

"Welcome to the club"??!! That’s all he gets for not knowing a basic tenet of the Constitution?! While O’Donnell gets a long lecture despite her being correct that "separation of church and state" is nowhere written in the Constitution and Bill of Rights?!

Obviously this article was not written to inform or correct the record on the First Amendment, but to provide political cover for Coons’ errors and continue the incorrect narrative that O’Donnell didn’t know her Constitution.

Crossposted at AlexaShrugged .

Dangers of a "Living Constitution"

Constitutional Conservatism is Vital - Ken Blackwell

Ken Blackwell, a contributing editor at Townhall.com, is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council and the American Civil Rights Union.

Congressman Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) was being pressed in a live TV debate, so he may be excused for blurting out the truth. Here’s a portion of what very liberal Mr. McGovern said:

We have a lousy Supreme Court decision [in the Citizens United case] that has opened the floodgates, and so we have to deal within the realm of constitutionality. And a lot of the campaign finance bills that we have passed have been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I think the Constitution is wrong. I don’t think that money is the same thing as human beings."

What a stunning statement! There are several things to consider in this argument. For us as constitutional conservatives, it’s entirely acceptable to disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court. I say every day that Roe v. Wade was a terrible decision and should be corrected. The Kelo ruling set a dangerous precedent. That 2005 case allowed the City of New London to condemn a private homeowner’s beautiful house, not for a bridge or tunnel, not for a fort or a federal highway, but simply because the city government could gain more revenue by taking the house and leasing the property to a private developer! That’s a shocking ruling. If that ruling is not corrected, your home will no longer be your castle, it will only be your trailer.

Congressman McGovern doesn’t take issue with the Supreme Court, however, he says the Constitution itself is wrong. Did Mr. McGovern take an oath to support the U.S. Constitution? Does he consider himself bound by his oath?

Sure, you can responsibly disagree with portions of the Constitution. Ronald Reagan, for example, disagreed with the two-term limit for President. He thought the Twenty-second Amendment had been a mistake. But Reagan dutifully left office after two terms. Reagan would have supported an amendment to repeal the Twenty-second Amendment, but as long as it was in the Constitution, he felt bound to respect it.

In Congressman McGovern’s case, however, we see why liberals believe in a “living Constitution.” The living Constitution idea was characterized by Justice Scalia as a Magic Slate. You can write on it, get the interpretation you want, then lift up the plastic screen, and re-write your constitution, according to the passions of the moment.

I think Mr. McGovern is wrong in his analysis of the Citizens United ruling. The Supreme Court did not say that money was more important, or even the same thing, as human beings. It said nothing like that. What the Court did say is that you don’t lose your First Amendment rights because you express your ideas through a corporation, a union, or a non-profit organization.

In striking down major portions of the McCain-Feingold Act, the Supreme Court ruled that government cannot stop pro-life groups, for example, from highlighting the records of politicians like Jim McGovern before an election. By preventing pro-life citizens from drawing voters’ attention to how their elected representatives actually vote, this unwise and unconstitutional measure denied citizens their rights to communicate about political matters. That’s one of the main reasons for the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.

Now that he mentions it, does Jim McGovern really think “money is [not] the same as human beings?” If so, maybe he’ll join Congressman Mike Pence’s (R-Ind.) drive to de-fund Planned Parenthood. That outfit gets billions in taxpayer funds and it kills 350,000 unborn children—undeniably human beings—every year.

It would be great to welcome Jim McGovern to the ranks of those of us who believe human lives are more important than money. I’m not cynical, but I must admit I have doubts that Mr. McGovern, should he win re-election next month, will put his fine words into practice when it comes to unborn children.

Now, we can see why “constitutional conservatism” is important. Without a firm reliance on the Constitution as our anchor, the entire ship of state is adrift. Under the current administration and the current Congress, our ship of state is headed for the rocks.

Restoring Our Heritage

Congressman Offers Blueprint to Restore the Republic

by Christian Toto Posted 10/10/2010 ET

Rep. Devin Nunes doesn’t need several hundred pages to explain his plans for America’s resurgence.

In Restoring the Republic: A Clear, Concise, and Colorful Blueprint for America‘s Future, the California Republican breaks down the game plan in well under 200 pages. It’s a no-nonsense book that diagnoses the country’s current ills and offers solutions in a straightforward way even Ed Schultz can grasp.

Today’s politicians, Democrats and some Republicans alike, hearken back to the Federalists who gave Thomas Jefferson fits during the country's earliest days, Nunes writes. They crave a powerful central government that inevitably leads to less freedom for all.

The congressman begins by recalling the fear mongering that greeted the passage of TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program), the bank bailouts that we were told were the only way to prevent an economic catastrophe. The national conversation “was insulting to the intelligence of the American people,” he writes, but both parties succumbed to the rhetoric.

Today, the bailout critics seem to be multiplying and often the very same legislators who approved TARP are the ones decrying it now. But the bailouts were only the first in a series of assaults against common sense—and the country’s coffers. The Obama Administration’s healthcare reform package instigated a whole new entitlement program and cooked the books to make it seem like the country could afford it.

The solutions offered in Restoring start with a call to end redistricting trickery, even though that’s a subject that barely registers on the voters’ collective radar. Nunes argues that the gerrymandering of voting districts helps keep politicians in power rather than making them accountable to their constituents. It’s a practice both parties too eagerly embrace.

“Today’s gerrymandered congressmen are like old European royals … who knew they could never survive free and fair elections,” he writes.

The country’s need for efficient energy is in constant peril thanks to the environmentalist lobby. Its bullying tactics all but silence critics despite overheated claims and the group's anti-human tendencies. That’s one reason the global-warming brigade poses such a threat. Environmentalists use warming claims to instigate measures like cap-and-trade that could cripple the economy. And, when the globe doesn’t warm as planned, they simply exchange the term “global warming” for “climate change” and start anew, he says.

Nunes offers a multi-pronged approach to energy in the 21st Century, combining drilling in ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), with the construction of new nuclear power plants and embracing coal refinements.

Nunes targets the “big three” next, the trio of entitlement programs that pose such a danger to the country’s fiscal house. Why not give Americans more control of the money taken out of their paychecks to pay for Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, Nunes asks? If it’s good enough for members of Congress, who receive personal accounts called Thrift Savings Plans, than it should be just right for Joe and Jane American.

When the country’s top economic guru, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geitner, can’t help running afoul of tax trouble, it’s a safe bet the system could use some streamlining. And despite the combination of personal and corporate income taxes, capital gains taxes, estate taxes, sales taxes and local property taxes—just to name a few—the country has run up a staggering deficit.

The Obama Administration is likely planning another massive tax to foist on the public—a value added tax—meant to attack that deficit. So Nunes recommends a fair tax solution for California, a state already bogged down by job-killing bureaucracy. Its high tax rates and staggering deficit would make it the perfect place to start such an individualized approach, one that could later be copied by other distressed states.

Immigration reform also demands our attention because of the increasing drug-related violence roiling across our Southern border. Nunes shares anecdotes from newly christened Americans to hammer home how vital the immigrant experience is to the country. Then, he shares a three-point plan to fix the illegal immigrant problem: Rigorously securing the border with U.S. forces and touchback and guest worker programs to settle the chaotic situation at long last.

Restoring the Republic also looks at the looming threats across the globe from the rise of radical Islam to the combative regime in Iran. But fixing our domestic issues should be the first step toward addressing foreign policy matters. This country can’t support the Iranian freedom fighters and Venezuelans opposed to Hugo Chavez if our house of financial cards teeters toward collapse.

“Our rivals and enemies, of course, know full well where our weaknesses are and they craft their strategies accordingly,” he writes.

Restoring the Republic promises to give those enemies fits if modern politicians would consider the lessons explained so well within its pages.

Mr. Toto is a freelance reporter

Copyright © 2010HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.