Tag Archives: Constitution

“An Injustice That Rejects the Moral Basis for Government”

If you would like to take a semester course on federal and state constitutional powers simply by reading a short essay, get something to drink and set aside 15 minutes and read my good friend Alan Keyes' brilliant summation below. It is in response to a question of whether or not Article 6 of US Constitution could be used in favor of Kim Davis.

Article 6 religious test prohibition applies to “any office or trust under the United States”.  Kim Davis’s office is not “under the United States.”  She holds an office under county government.  

The power to make laws respecting a religious establishment, including a religious test for office, is reserved by the 10th Amendment “to the States, respectively, or to the people.  Therefore, Article 6 does not apply to them, or to the offices they establish, absurd jurisprudence misconstruing the 14th Amendment notwithstanding. 

The 14th amendment cannot be construed to extend the 1st amendment’s establishment clause to the States, since doing so gives rise to a logical absurdity.  The 14th Amendment’s language requires that States refrain from executing laws that abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.  But on account of the 10th Amendment’s reservation of powers clause the power to make laws respecting an establishment of religion is reserved to the States, respectively, or the people. It is therefore included among the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens that the States are required by the 14th amendment to refrain from infringing.  Construing the 14th Amendment in a way that applies the 1st Amendment’s establishment clause to the States leads to a result that requires the States, at one and the same time, to do and refrain from doing the same thing, since a State’s refusal to enforce legislation on the subject of religious establishment would abridge the power the 10th Amendment makes it the privilege of the States, respectively or the people to exercise.

This is absurd.  To avoid the absurdity the 14th Amendment would have to contain language that explicitly removes the power to make laws respecting religious establishment from the 10th Amendment’s reservation of powers, or else the 10th Amendment would have to be altered or repealed.  Neither condition is true. Therefore, the purported construction  of the 14th Amendment fails.

The real question therefore, is not a 6th Amendment issue.  The real question is, how does Kim Davis come under the jurisdiction of a Federal judge, an officer of the United States government, when the Constitution prohibits Congress from making any law respecting (i.e., on the subject of) an establishment of religion.  If Congress can make no law on the subject, and that is all the Constitution says about it, what lawful basis is there for the U.S. Judiciary’s involvement? 

The Judges and Justices of the U.S. Judiciary assert jurisdiction over the issue of marriage on the excuse that a violation of Constitutionally protected right has taken place.  But where there can Constitutionally be no U.S. law, the right involved must be a) explicitly stated in the Constitution; or b) antecedently possessed by the people as per the 9th amendment.  But the Constitution explicitly recognizes no homosexual right to so-called marriage.  No such right existed under common or any other antecedent human law applicable to people living in the U.S. at the time the Constitution was adopted.  The only other rights clearly antecedent to the Constitution recognized at the time of its adoption are the unalienable rights, endowed by the Creator, recognized in the Declaration of Independence.

But no rationally valid argument can be made for the proposition that homosexual marriage is a God-endowed unalienable right.  Such rights are the consequence of the “laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”. Homosexual behavior has no basis in natural law.  Advocates of normalization have tried to develop scientific evidence that homosexuality has a genetic basis. They have consistently failed. 

Even if they had succeeded, however, the mere fact that human beings have the natural impulse to engage in an act, sexual or otherwise, doesn’t make it right.  Unlike skin color, human passions, however natural, are susceptible to self-conscious control in light of human conscience.  On account of that capacity, people driven by passion to rape or even murder others cannot simply claim that sexual lust or anger, both of which have a genetic basis, absolve them of culpability.  They have to demonstrate that their capacity for self-conscious self-control was materially impaired.  But the notion that homosexuality is the result of material impairment is precisely what its advocates have rejected, in recent years, as bigotry.

So they are reduced to arguing that it is a matter of love.  But love does not, in and of itself, give any particular act of love the status of unalienable right.  That status requires a basis in “the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”, as made clear by the Creator’s endowment of human nature.  But which of the Creator’s commands, encoded in human nature, requires homosexual relations for the natural good of humanity?  Heterosexual procreation satisfies this requirement, which is why human law is obliged to respect the institutions based upon it.  In what way do homosexual relations satisfy it?

Unless they can provide an answer to this question no human officials can pretend that homosexual relations are an exercise of unalienable right. Any assertion of right in their regard is a specious fabrication. The individuals responsible for it are abusing their power as government officials. They are denying and disparaging the unalienable right that is the basis for the natural family.  This they do by equating that right with an exercise of freedom that can claim no sanction in the “laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”, insofar as those laws define and govern human nature. But this denial and disparagement of antecedent right IS prohibited by the Constitution’s 9th Amendment. It is an injustice that rejects the moral basis for government deriving its just powers form the consent of the governed.  In effect it abandons the premise of constitutional government in the United States.

We must reject the forceful imposition of homosexual marriage as an abuse of government power that violates the Constitution’s 9th amendment.  We must reject it because it abandons the true understanding of unalienable right that is the basis for the Constitutional self-government of the people of the United States.  For the life of me, I cannot understand why these simple and plainly reasonable conclusions, firmly rooted in the history and practice of the people of the United States, and critical to every fight for equal justice in our history, are being unaccountably resisted by the very people who claim to oppose the abuse of government power to enforce the normalization of homosexuality.  In terms of unalienable right this abuse of government power is an injustice more palpable and egregious than the imposition of taxation without representation that led America’s founding generation to rebel against British rule.

Are the principles of the Declaration of Independence now so universally despised and rejected?  Are the people who profess to hold to those principles now so thoroughly brainwashed by the lie that drives God from His position of authority over human justice (the falsely argued doctrine of the separation of Church and State)?  Are they so thoroughly devoid of the courage of America’s founding generation, rooted in Christian faith, that they fear to stand on the ground of God-endowed unalienable right? Is their fear of the travail of defending it at the risk or cost of their lives and fortunes, greater than their trust in the Supreme Judge of the World?  Are they so devoid of faith and trust in the righteous power of their Creator, and the Word through which He exerts that power, which is Jesus Christ?  What other reason is there to avoid taking a clear stand on the high ground of moral principles authorized by God, reason and the Constitution.  Those principles justify Kim Davis’s actions. Those principles demand, that every true American share her determination to refuse the tyrannical commands of government officials who have now egregiously abandoned their duty to preserve the constitutional republic founded upon them.


Alan Keyes

Please visit Alan's blog, Loyal to Liberty 

Parsing the Preamble

constitution_quill_penThomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created, equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness…That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…"

"…serving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

From where does the US government receive the consent of the governed and how is that government instituted? From the US Constitution. When you look at the Constitution you can't help but notice the first three words: WE the People.

Now if this document had been written in modern days by say me, you could chalk up the huge font to Dave once again being slayed by the Microsoft Word font beast. However Jacob Shallus, under the guidance of the Committee of Style, wrote the Preamble purposefully.

Many of you might still be able to recite the Preamble, but most of us would be at a loss to explain the three questions answered in it. The first question answered, and the most important one is: Who? Answer: "WE the People of the United States…"

The second question is: Why Answer: "...in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."

The third question is: What? Answer: "…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The Random House Dictionary in its second definition defines ordain as "to enact or establish by law, edict, etc." The example given is "to ordain a new government."

So the government of the United States of America was enacted and established by WE the People. What does that mean to us? Look at the first three articles of the Constitution: Article I establishes the legislative branch; Article II establishes the executive branch; and Article III establishes the judicial branch.

How many believe that these branches are listed in the Constitution by some random order and not having to do with any importance or precedence in the minds of the 39 signatories? If you believe that it is apparent you not only went to a government school but also possibly to a liberal college.

So why the history lesson? Because WE the People have been asleep at the wheel for far too long and have neglected the single most powerful weapon we have in defending liberty: the ballot.

The question is, will we use it.

Copyright © 2014 The Truth Watch


Normally I would apologize for yelling in my title, but I mean to yell this time. There is another constitutional professor, this time writing in the New York Slimes, about abandoning our Constitution. You can read the liberal tripe here:

Let’s Give Up on the Constitution

This article is fraught with liberal logic and is completely off-track.

Here are just a few examples, with my comments in italics…

1. “Why should anyone care? Why should a lame-duck House, 27 members of which were defeated for re-election, have a stranglehold on our economy?”

Because taxation directly affects WE the People and the House is designed to be immediately responsive to the people. 

2. “Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse.”

No, our obsession with American Idol has saddled us with dysfunctional politicians. Only in America can Congress have a 9% approval rating and have a 93% incumbency re-election rate.

3. “As someone who has taught constitutional law for almost 40 years, I am ashamed it took me so long to see how bizarre all this is.”

Teaching constitutional law does not make you a constitutional scholar; it makes you a scholar of constitutional case law. Many a lawyer I know says they were never taught the constitution in law school, just constitutional case law. Teaching constitutional case precedence does not translate into learning constitutional principles.

4. “…a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action.” 

This is where he shows his true liberal colors with this tired old academic tripe. The brilliance in the Constitution is that it can be amended, for better or for worse. You don’t like it? Change it. The Founders understood the times would change and gave us the safest mechanism for changing our system of government. 

5. “Before the Civil War, abolitionists like Wendell Phillips and William Lloyd Garrison conceded that the Constitution protected slavery, but denounced it as a pact with the devil that should be ignored.”

The Constitution did not protect slavery; it said it was to be dealt with in 20 years after our nation grew strong enough to deal with it. Was this the best solution? No I don’t believe so but had Congress acted in 1807 on the slavery issue instead of kicking the can down the road for half a century we may have prevented the Civil War. That being said, it was dealt with.

 6. “The deep-seated fear that such disobedience would unravel our social fabric is mere superstition. As we have seen, the country has successfully survived numerous examples of constitutional infidelity.”

 To use the stated examples in his article as positive occurrences of “constitutional infidelity” shows his ignorance in American history, pre-revolutionary times. Our Founders declared that we would be a nation of laws; laws that were based on “the laws of nature and Nature’s God…” as Jefferson wrote in our Declaration of Independence.

Of course he says he wants to keep parts of the Constitution, such as freedom of the press, so he can continue to publish his anti-constitutional tripe.

Very well Mr. Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown University, go ahead and take out your black magic marker and blot out the parts of the Constitution you don’t like and we’ll all fall in line.