Letter Three

Dear Citizen,

I am writing you with a deep concern for our country's Constitution. One of our founding fathers, Samuel Adams, stated, "The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation—enlightened as it is—if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men."

In our day some people have the idea that the Constitution is outdated and that its application should not apply in a traditional sense due to the ever-changing world around us. In The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama sides with Supreme Court Justice Breyer, saying, "Ultimately, though, I have to side with Justice Breyer’s view of the Constitution—that it is not a static but rather a living document,[s1] and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world. He points out further that, "Finally, anyone looking to resolve our modern constitutional dispute through strict construction has one more problem: The Founders and ratifiers themselves disagreed profoundly, vehemently, on the meaning of their masterpiece.[s2] Let’s examine what a few Founders thought about the Constitution.

James Madison, who is known as the Father of the Constitution, said, "Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."

John Adams, the second president of the United States and an ardent contributor to the cause of freedom and to the American Revolution, expressed, "Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone,[s3] which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People [s4] in a greater Measure[s5] than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty."

Now let’s think about a few hot issues in politics today: morals and religion. Do you know that John Adams’ statement was somewhat prophetic? I have compiled a short list of some of the decisions that the Supreme Court has made that have supported John Adams' words. (If you don't know, the Supreme Court is the highest judicial body in the United States, and its rulings become the official interpretation of the Constitution.[s6] ) Here's The List.

1962- Prayers in school are ruled unconstitutional

1963- Reading Bibles in school s ruled unconstitutional

1968- Teaching evolution n school[s7] is ruled unconstitutional

1973- Abortions are ruled in favor of women's choice

1980- [s8] Posting the Ten Commandments n school is ruled unconstitutional

The funny thing is that all those laws but one still stands concrete. The teaching of evolution in schools is a different matter. For example, a Federal Court in California stated, “The Supreme Court has held unequivocally that while belief in a Divine Creator of the universe is a religious belief, the scientific theory that higher forms of life evolved from lower ones is not." Most people either believe in God or they believe in science and some believe in nothing. However let’s focus on the fact that the battle between religion and science in the classroom should have stopped in 1968 when the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional to teach evolution. My reasoning behind that statement is that nowadays most people either believe in God or in scientific theory as to how they were created. So how is science not a religion? I would argue that that is exactly what it has become.

The sole responsibility of a Supreme Court Justice is to decipher laws and guarantee that the United States remains a land guided and governed by its most fundamental body of law—the Constitution. Yet one of our Supreme Court justices, Elena Kagan, has stated, "What my political views or my constitutional views are just doesn't matter."

I know 2+2=4; shouldn't Supreme Court Justice = Defender of the Constitution?

I would like to end with a statement from J. Reuben Clark, a former ambassador to Mexico In regards to the Constitution and our duty to uphold it, he declared,

"God provided that in this land of liberty, our political allegiance shall run not to individuals, that is, to government officials, no matter how great or how small they may be. Under His plan our allegiance and the only allegiance we owe as citizens or denizens of the United States,[s9] runs to our inspired Constitution which God Himself set up. So runs the oath of office of those who participate in government. A certain loyalty we do owe to the office which a man holds, but even here we owe, just by reason of our citizenship, no loyalty to the man himself. In other countries it is to the individual that allegiance runs. This principle of allegiance to the Constitution is basic to our freedom. It is one of the great principles that distinguishes this ‘land of liberty’ from other countries. Thus God added to His priceless blessings to us."

Let us uphold the Constitution even if it is not popular. If you haven't read it, I challenge you to do so.

Best wishes in the fight for freedom and virtue,

Justen Daniel