Pastor's Blog

JESTER NEWS— In a move that was widely expected among court-watchers, the Ninth District Court of Appeals ruled yesterday that reading the Founding Fathers in public schools and appealing to them in legal arguments is unconstitutional. “We have been watching this court for sometime now,” said Gary Shyster, a lawyer with the ACLU, who filed a brief in the case. “We knew that it was only a matter of time.” Christa Phobe, executive director of Hysterical Americans United for the Removal of all Traces of a Christian Past, was elated with the court’s decision. “We knew we had a strong case since the court had previously ruled against the posting of the Declaration of Independence in government buildings because of its appeal to ‘the Creator.’ If the Declaration had to go, we knew the rest of the Founding Fathers’ writings couldn’t be far behind.”  The case originated when Ima Bigot of Berkeley, California objected to an assignment her son was given in his hi...

Joseph Story (1779-1845) was an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court (1811-1845). He is remembered most for his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States , published in 1833, a work that set the benchmark for interpreting the Constitution for the rest of the 19th century. In his discussion of the First Amendment, he puts the lie to the modern secularist interpretation of the establishment clause. How far any government has a right to interfere in matters touching religion, has been a subject much discussed by writers upon public and political law. The right and the duty of the interference of government, in matters of religion, have been maintained by many distinguished authors, as well those, who were the warmest advocates of free governments, as those, who were attached to governments of a more arbitrary character. Indeed, the right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons, who believe tha...

In light of the debate about the Second Amendment and the gun laws our President would like to see imposed, it might not be inappropriate to remind ourselves of the Founders' views on the subject.  James Madison, in Federalist 46, argued in favor of ratifying the Constitution in spite of the fears of the anti-federalists that the federal government would then have the authority to command a “regular army” and thus the power to deprive the people of their liberty. There were, in Madison’s view, two insurmountable obstacles to this kind of federal tyranny:  (1) the power of the state governments, and (2) a well-armed American populace, two advantages not enjoyed, he observed, by the people in the nations of Europe. Here are his words: Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to ...

Article I Section 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Legislative power is the power to make law (from Latin, lex, legis ). It is significant that the first article outlines the process by which laws are to be made. This is clearly one of the most important functions of government. A just, free, and prosperous society depends upon the rule of law, impartially administered. Under the Constitution the legislative power is entrusted to Congress, which consists of two chambers:  the Senate and the House of Representatives. [1] We find here another division of power. In order for a law to be passed, it has to be approved by both chambers of Congress. Although both are involved in making law, they represent different interests—at least this was true under the original form of the Constitution. Originally, Senators were chosen by their state’s legislatu...