Continuing with the same examples in the previous blog: chattel slavery and homosexual marriage, let’s try to answer the question about what forms the legal basis of defining ‘core values’ in the United States today.
Chattel slavery was legal before the civil war in South
Carolina. It was always illegal in New York. This is a
case of the states having that absolute power over the
Federal government at the time. The Federal government did
not have jurisdiction and thus the states had more power
than the Federal government in this core value. The civil
war amendments to the United States Constitution (USC)
changed this law. It gave absolute power in this core value
question to the Federal government.
Likewise recent SCOTUS decisions have given the Federal
government absolute power in defining homosexual’s core
values. No state is permitted to prohibit homosexual
marriage. Everyone who issues marriage licenses are
prohibited from discriminating against homosexuals and must
issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples who request
them. As Kim Davis knows the government can and may legally
punish those who refuse.
Our Federal Government is a constitutional republic. The
United States Constitution (USC) is the civil authority over
our nation. As examples above show, law derived from this
authority has changed over time because of amendments. The
USC has very little moral law written within. Just as the
question of chattel slavery, 99% of moral law was governed
by the states. But because of amendments, particularly the
14th civil war amendment, many “Supreme Court of the United
States (SCOTUS)” judgments define core values now.
What does the USC place as the authority to define civil
(legal) justice of moral core values? This is where things
get very interesting. Arguments have continued for a long
time about this. On one side we hear “original intent”.
Often cited are the references to the Christian God as
creator, lawgiver, and Supreme Judge as stated in our
Declaration of Independence. This is often referred to as
natural law under God but with a vacuum of civil law
specifics about core values. On the other side we hear
religion is excluded by the first amendment: “freedom of
religion” and the USC Article 6 paragraph 3: “no religious
oath test”.
Nine of the thirteen states had religious oaths of their own
when the USC was adopted. The natural-law-under-god group
was so loose an alliance it fell apart early in a legal
justice sense within the United States. These 9 states
removed their religious oaths rather quickly.
Can we conclude the USC is a secular contract distancing
itself from Christianity having any judicial authority over
core values? Actually, I don’t know. Many historians have
studied and written about this. Perhaps the most cited
book, other than the original documents themselves, is _The
Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of
the United States_ written by Benjamin F. Morris where we
find this:
This Constitution, … contains no recognition of the
Christian religion, nor even an acknowledgment of the
providence of God in national affairs. This omission
was greatly regretted by the Christian public …
But, less than a page later says
Notwithstanding this omission, the record of facts now
to pass before the reader will demonstrate that the
Constitution was formed under Christian influences and
is, in its purposes and spirit, a Christian instrument.
All that can be said for certain is that many of the recent
SCOTUS 5-4 decisions may be simplified as ‘original intent’ vs
14th-amendment progressive interpretation. The reason this
split in USC decisions exists and has become more acute, I
believe, is because the USC is vague on what it, itself,
says is the foundation of the rule of law beyond what the
USC specifically says.
What about the Christian or Biblical roots of civil justice?
Even Christian constitutional lawyers drift from ‘original
intent’ siding with some 14th-amendment progressive thought.
In Gitlow v. New York in 1925, the majority opinion of
SCOTUS said the 14th amendment restricted states rights to
limit free speech. The Bill of Rights was beginning to be
applied to the states. Recently John W. Whitehead of the
Rutherford Institute wrote that SCOTUS
has expanded the definition of religion under the First
Amendment to include various religions and philosophical
systems. Therefore, the First Amendment protects all
religions and religious expression in guaranteeing
freedom for all (and rightly so).
The conclusion is that our justice system is pluralistic
when it comes to religion. Our justice system today is a
secular conscience. Natural law without its Christian
Scriptural founding is the Supreme authority over core
values in the United States today. This was never the
“original intent” when the USC was written. Recall that at
the time the USC was adopted, 9 of the 13 colonies had their
own versions of Christian (state) oaths.
More to come.