disoriented

Faith of our Fathers

The disoriented author has just completed reading biographies of each of the pantheon of Founding Fathers. Along the way I have read The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin by H.W. Brands, James Madison: A Biography, by Ralph Louis Ketchum, Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow, American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson, by Joseph J. Ellis and John Adams by David McCullough. Finally I read Joseph J. Ellis' brand new George Washington biography, His Excellency.

I have been deeply involved in politics for the last decade and a half. Being  an evangelical Christian, many of the people I run into hold firmly to the belief that this Nation was founded by like-minded Christians on Christian principles. They point to the Founding Fathers as examples of Christian character. In an attempt to be intellectually honest — I have not been able to come to the same conclusion.

In the days to come I will be chronicling my search for the Faith of our Fathers.

In 1984, George Orwell wrote:

He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.

In this country, we are reaching a crossroads. As a nation we are struggling to determine what place religion and people of faith play in our society. It is no wonder that Christian evangelicals want to portray the Founding Fathers as kindred spirits, to control the past as Orwell put it. I am one of those Christian evangelicals. I would certainly like to discover that the Founding Fathers and I share a heritage of faith not just a political heritage. On the other hand, my search is a search for truth.

I understand that many of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence were Christians. The Scottish Minister and Princeton University President, John Witherspoon certainly belongs in the Christian camp. But the philosophical and political leaders — the Pantheon, were they men of faith.

My initial reading seems to indicate that most were Deists not Evangelical Christians. Interestingly the two that seem to be exceptions may be John Adams and Alexander Hamilton.

 

Publius was Wrong

The Federalist Papers should be required reading for all Americans. Even better, every American should re-read them once a year. They were of course a series of newspaper pieces witten by Alenxander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay to convince the people of the crititcal, dare I say, battleground state of New York to vote for ratification of the new Constitution.

The essays were published under the pseudonym, Publius. They remain a fundamental part of any serious study of the Constitution to this day. In Federalist #78-81 Publius (Hamilton in this case) argues for the formation and structure of an indpendent judiciary, anchored by a Supreme Court.

Publius goes to great pains to convince readers that an independent judiciary, especially a Supreme Court would not be a danger to liberty — Publius could not have been more wrong.

In Federalist #81 Publius starts by laying out the charges of given by opponents of the court(s):

The authority of the proposed Supreme Court of the United States, which is to be a separate and independent body, will be superior to that of the legislature. The power of construing the laws according to the SPIRIT of the Constitution, will enable that court to mould them into whatever shape it may think proper; especially as its decisions will not be in any manner subject to the revision or correction of the legislative body. This is as unprecedented as it is dangerous. In Britain, the judical power, in the last resort, resides in the House of Lords, which is a branch of the legislature; and this part of the British government has been imitated in the State constitutions in general. The Parliament of Great Britain, and the legislatures of the several States, can at any time rectify, by law, the exceptionable decisions of their respective courts. But the errors and usurpations of the Supreme Court of the United States will be uncontrollable and remediless.

Publius concludes (in reference to the above stated arguments) that:

This, upon examination, will be found to be made up altogether of false reasoning upon misconceived fact.

Were it only so ...

Unforunately we have a court system made up of activist judges who do in fact, mould laws into whatever shape it may think proper; especially as its decisions will not be in any manner subject to the revision or correction of the legislative body. Even a cursory look at the judicial record on abortion and even partial-birth abortion will show how the courts have shaped laws beyond the reach of legislative correction. In Louisiana a judge even overturned a consrtitutional amendment approved by a majority of voters.

In Missouri v. Jenkins, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling whereby the lower court levied a tax to support school desegregation. The levying of a tax by a judicial body is unprecedented in our history and once again the court acted without regard for the limitations placed on it by the Constitution.

In this historic election of 2004, much is at stake. More than the war on terror, more than the so-called War in Iraq. more than Gay marriage — the composition of the Supreme Court for years to come will likely be decided by the next president.

The thought of a Justice Cuomo, consulting with the first female Chief Justice, Justice Clinton, is terrifying beyond belief.