The Impact of the 3/5 Compromise

Our Founding Fathers were not perfect. Contrary to what we often hear via talk radio, the Internet or even in school, the men (and women) who helped build the American Republic were deeply flawed individuals who made more than their fair share of mistakes.

Of course, most of us recognize that our Founding Fathers were, in the end, humans, but too often we shy away from shedding too much light on some of the more serious mistakes they made. It is far more preferable to esteem these men as marble demigods whose images grace our currency.  This isn't to say that we should refrain from paying homage to our nation's founders. I for one strongly believe that the generation that brought us the likes of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, etc. could easily be labeled as the "Greatest Generation" in all of American history (sorry, WWII vets. I still love ya!).

And there are plenty of pundits who are more than willing to point out where they believe our Founding Fathers went wrong. For example, Glenn Beck, America's favorite whack-job, believes that the gravest error made by our nation's founders was to not clarify the language of the Second Amendment.  HBO's Bill Maher believes that the greatest mistake made by the founding generation was that they should have extended the separation of church and state even further.  And Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, believes that their greatest mistake was not establishing term limits for Congressmen.

And though I can see how all three men arrived at their respective conclusions, I vehemently disagree with them all.  The language of the Second Amendment, the separation of church and state, and congressional term limits are small potatoes when compared to the biggest mistake our Founding Fathers made.

During the Constitutional Convention, James Madison noted an important observation that he and virtually every other delegate had made. He claimed that of all the difficulties separating Northern and Southern states, slavery was by far the biggest. It was the elephant in the room that nobody wanted to address specifically, but also nobody could ignore completely. Southern concern for preserving their "peculiar institution" led to more discord than any other issue that came before the Convention.

To make a very long story short, the Convention eventually agreed to a compromise that was later enshrined in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the U.S. Constitution:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons (my emphasis).  

Without even affording them the dignity of calling them what they were, all Black slaves (referred to here as "all other persons") were to be counted as 3/5 of a person in the national census.  The reason was simple: Southern leadership, who were more than aware of the North's superior population numbers, feared that they would be misrepresented in Congress.  Counting all Black slaves as 3/5 of a person, however, would even the odds and afford the South greater representation.  This, along with the Constitutional protection of slavery, helped to ease Southern concerns. Their "property rights" were now protected by federal law.

And they were right.

What became known as the 3/5 Compromise ended up having a dramatic impact in the South's ability to enforce their will on the whole of the infant American nation.  The first major example of how the 3/5 Compromise effected national politics was the Presidential Election of 1800.  In that election, Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams by only 7 electoral votes.  And though Jefferson managed to win a few key states in the North, The Electoral College map clearly shows the first of many divisions that would separate the North and the South:

As the votes were counted, Northern politicians quickly realized that without the 3/5 Compromise, Jefferson would have been defeated. The fact that slaves were being counted as part of the South's representation (without having any actual say in their government) had given Jefferson the victory; an ironic historical reality considering the fact that Jefferson himself kept 300+ souls in bondage to himself.

Later elections would have the same results.  The election of James Madison in 1812 and Martin Van Buren in 1836, were also determined in large part by the South's inflated electoral numbers that were caused by the 3/5 Compromise.

And it wasn't just in presidential elections that the 3/5 Compromise left its impression. Renowned historian Gary Wills contends that the 3/5 Compromise impacted a great number of historical events in the early republic:

Without the 3/5 Compromise, slavery would have been excluded from Missouri...Andrew Jackson's Indian removal policy would have failed...the Wilmot Proviso would have banned slavery in territories won from Mexico...the Kansas/Nebraska bill would have failed...and the likelihood of Civil War would have been dramatically reduced.

It is a cruel irony of history that the South's ability to exert its will, especially with regards to protecting slavery, was a self-inflicted wound that our Founding Fathers brought upon the infant American republic.  How much damage could have been averted is impossible to determine. The historical sin of "presentism" should prevent us from making such speculations.  But what is certain (with and without the lens of hindsight) is that the 3/5 Compromise was a tremendous blunder on the part of our nation's founders. It is an ugly skeleton in the American closet that should be seen for what it was: a terrible attempt to pacify a nation that was determined to keep its Black brothers and sisters in bondage in the "Land of the Free."

Dumb and Dumber: Glenn Beck and David Barton's Latest Lunacy (Glenn Beck Check, Part VIII)

America's Favorite Pseudo-Historians
Make Asses of Themselves...AGAIN!

My two favorite goofballs (Tweedle Dee and Tweedle DUMB) have managed to once again open their mouths and insert both feet.  Yes, the always comical dynamic duo that is Glenn Beck and David Barton, the gift that just keeps on giving, have added another smash single to their already "stellar" greatest hits album. But instead of tackling the legacy of our nation's Founding Fathers (a topic they just can't seem to ever get right no matter how hard they try), their target this time was none other than Honest Abe Lincoln.  Take a look:



This is absolutely PRICELESS!  David "The Brain" Barton actually admits to writing a review for a movie he never saw!  Are you kidding me!?! Well, Mr. Barton, with that sort of litmus test let's just pass blind judgement on whatever we don't like.  What a buffoon!

But let us not get distracted and focus on Mr. Barton's bogus depiction of the passage of the 13th Amendment.  Mr. Barton states that "there wasn't the wheeling, dealing kind of back room deals" and that the passage of the amendment was a "slam dunk, big time." 

Ugh! I don't even know where to begin!  It's almost as if these two idiots go against EVERYTHING that those in the know (in whatever field of expertise) have to say.  Evolutionists point to fossils, carbon dating, etc. to claim that the world is billions of years old, these two quote Deuteronomy to say that is wrong.  Climatologists overwhelmingly declare that the Earth's climate is changing, these two call it a progressive hoax to subjugate us all.  Historians assert very obvious truths about our nation's founding, these two say that the exact opposite is true and that evil, socialist, progressive, fascist scary people are destroying our nation's heritage.  In short, these nut-jobs have absolutely no clue what they are talking about!

But I digress.  Mr. Barton's portrayal of the passage of the 13th Amendment couldn't be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is there was a great amount of back door "wheeling and dealing" taking place.  Not only does Mr. Barton (and Beck) demonstrate his ignorance for how a Congressional Amendment is brought to pass, but he is apparently unaware that there was a plethora of drama surrounding the passage of the 13th Amendment.

First off, prior the the commencement of the Civil War, Congress (which consisted of northern and southern representation at that point) had already passed a 13th Amendment (in Feb., 1861) which "guaranteed the legality and perpetuity of slavery in the slave states."  This was the latest in what had been a series of congressional bills that had sought to protect slavery for literally decades, and appease the Southern leadership (yet somehow the Civil War wasn't about slavery...yeah, right!).  With the onset of the Civil War, the states were unable to ratify the newly-created 13th Amendment (a requirement for any Constitutional amendment), and thus it never became law. 

With the obvious division of the nation brought on by war, northern abolitionists saw an opportunity to eradicate the "peculiar institution" once and for all.  In December of 1863, Representative James Ashley of Ohio proposed a bill to support "A Constitutional Amendment for the Abolition of Slavery." For the most part, Ashley's petition fell on deaf ears (and eventually contributed to his failure to be reelected), but it did get the ball rolling.  Other congressmen, including Lyman Trumball and Charles Sumner, would propose similar measures before Congress.

But there was still a great amount of tension (even without the Southern delegates) in Congress over the issue of slavery.  It wasn't until President Abraham Lincoln decided to include the passage of a Constitutional amendment on slavery as a part of his 1864 reelection that the matter started gaining steam.  It took Lincoln and his supporters a full year to garner enough support for the measure.  In fact, a number of deals were made to appease reluctant Republican voters and to sway the 4 needed Democrat votes in the House in order to secure the passage of the 13th Amendment.  If the passage of the 13th Amendment was the "slam dunk" that Barton thinks it was, why did Lincoln and his supporters feel the need to make it the principal issue of their reelection campaign, especially when they already had passed the Emancipation Proclamation the year before?  Why were abolitionist leaders, including prominent Black leaders like Frederick Douglass, campaigning so vigorously for this amendment if it was such an obvious "slam dunk?"

In addition to this, Mr. Barton's apparently doesn't realize that constitutional amendments have to be passed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, so the 119-56 vote in the House was anything but a "slam dunk."  Heck, Barton's ignorance is so great that he states for all to hear that the amendment had "an 80 percent vote."  Uh...not quite, sir.  The measure barely passed the House with 68% support (just barely making the 2/3 cut), while the combined House and Senate support was 70% (the Senate voted 38-6 in favor).  Again, this reveals the woeful ignorance that both Beck and Barton have when it comes to the Constitution; a document they claim to "revere."

Barton's failure to accurately describe the history surrounding the 13th Amendment, along with his obvious illiteracy of Constitutional practices, just proves how untrustworthy the man is when it comes to American history.  David Barton is not a historian.  Let me say that again: David Barton is NOT a historian.  He's an activist for a radical agenda, nothing more.  Much like Howard Zinn was to the left, David Barton is a errand boy for the right.  What he writes isn't history, pure and simple. 

But let's not let good ol' Glenn off the hook here either.  Beck, who is always more than eager to suck up whatever ilk Barton spews at him, actually states at the beginning of this video that he found Spielberg's "Lincoln" film to be "a remarkable movie."  But after hearing Barton's one-minute "rebuttal," Beck stated that he "wished he had un-seen that movie."  Amazing...simply amazing. This clown, who claims to be a voice of "truth," does a complete 180 in a single minute. 

And that, ladies and gentlemen, reveals just how simple-minded Glenn Beck truly is!

For anyone left (and I know there are very few and the numbers continue to decline) who still grant these two buffoons any level of credence I hope you will now see just how misplaced your trust really is. Please, will somebody save these two from themselves!  Glenn Beck, who has fancied himself as the next Thomas Paine and then as the next George Washington (until he realized that both men would probably have hated his stupid guts), really does need to hurry up and complete his Utopian community so that he can just go away, drink the crazy Kool-Aid with all of his crazy followers, and never bother us again.  How can anyone still buy into all of this blatant bullshit???

Meanwhile, Beck's sidekick, Pseudo-historian David Barton Extraordinaire, needs to face reality.  David, you're not a historian, not even close.  Everything from your foolish assertion that half of the signers of the DoI were ministers, to your indescribably stupid "Black Robe Regiment" argument, not to mention the fact that your Thomas Jefferson book was so horrific that not only was it recalled by your publisher, but even the most conservative of supporters called your work "a joke," prove that you don't know history. Mr. Barton, I think you need to join your pal Glenn at his heavenly new compound and just leave us all alone. 

And for those of you thinking about joining Beck and Barton in "Independence, USA," consider this: Once upon a time, not that long ago, another leader decided to create a Utopian paradise for his followers where they could separate themselves from the evil, "progressive" world and teach one another according to their own values and beliefs.  Click here to see how things worked out for them. 

A 269-269 Electoral Tie?!?

So ONCE AGAIN I have fallen off the blogging wagon and allowed yet another month to pass without posting any material.  To my millions (or perhaps 3-4) of readers I apologize.  Sometimes life gets a little busy.

With September's twilight and the dawn of Fall upon us, Americans all across this nation prepare for yet another election season that is sure to bring all of the drama, suspense and intrigue of elections past.  As predicted, we are beginning to see the polls tighten up in the various battleground states that are still in play. Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin and even my beloved homes state of Colorado are all still very much in the cross hairs of both President Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney, who are making their final pleas to those few remaining undecided voters.  And since each of these states carry with them the few remaining and very precious Electoral College votes that may send their respective campaigns over the top, it is no wonder why both candidates are spending so much time and resources to win those votes.  Both parties know that each and every electoral vote counts, hence the haste in trying to acquire as many as possible in order to attain the magic number of 270.  The first one to the top of that mountain gets the White House!

But what happens if the election ends in an Electoral College tie? What happens if neither candidate reaches 270 but instead we have a 269-269 Electoral College tie?

Most Americans incorrectly assume that the popular vote would somehow determine the outcome, or that a second election would be held.  Makes sense, right?

WRONG!

The reality is that a 269-269 Electoral College tie could end up causing one helluva mess. 

It is the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that provides us with much of the script to this drama.  But instead of regurgitating the words of this amendment (which are somewhat confusing), let us instead take a look at the 2012 election and how a 269-269 tie might play out.

If on November 6th, both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney end in an Electoral College stalemate, the first course of action will be to ensure the votes of the various state electorates.  This is a bit confusing so let me explain.  In the Electoral College system, each state is assigned a certain number of "electors" based on the state's population (Colorado, for example, has 9).  Each elector is essentially one vote out of a total possible 538.  In order to become president, a candidate must secure 270 electoral votes (the majority).  In most states, the winner of the popular vote wins the state's assigned electors.  So, if on November 6th Mitt Romney were to win Colorado's popular vote, he would be assigned all of Colorado's 9 Electoral College votes.  Seems simple enough, right?

Not quite.  The problem is that some states have laws that allow their electors to vote for whomever they choose, regardless of the popular vote.  Most states have created laws that prohibit an elector from changing his//her vote from the will of the people, but not all states.  In 1968, for example, one North Carolinian elector changed his vote from Richard Nixon to George Wallace, though the change had zero outcome on that election.  But if an election were to end in a tie (like we are assuming here with Obama and Romney) it is at least possible that one single electorate (one person) from a state without these laws could determine the presidency.  Crazy: yes.  Unlikely: yes.  Impossible: Nope.

With that said, it is highly doubtful that one elector would determine the outcome of the entire election.  What is more likely is that the 12th Amendment would come into play.  What the 12th Amendment states, in the event of an Electoral College tie, is that the new House of Representatives would convene on January 6th to cast their votes for the next President, while the Senate would determine the next vice President.  Now, most political analysts believe that the Republicans will maintain control of the House in 2012, while the Democrats will maintain the Senate.  For the sake of argument I am going to assume that both of these outcomes will take place on election day.  In consequence, it is therefore likely for us to assume that the House of Representatives would elect Mitt Romney as the next President, while the Senate would elect Joe Biden as vice President.  Simple partisan politics would determine the election, and we would be left with a Romney/Biden White House.

Except there is one small wrench in this whole equation.  In a normal situation, voting in the House of Representatives is done by giving each state representative one vote.  In the event of a 269-269 Electoral College tie, however, the voting is not representative-based but state-based.  In other words, California (which has 55 electoral votes, meaning 53 seats in the House) would not have 53 votes for the next president but rather 1 vote.  Let's put this into a practical example so it makes more sense:

If Obama and Romney end in a tie and the House ends up voting for the new president, all of California's 53 representatives would vote on who the state of California would support for President.  And since most of California's representatives are Democrats, it is logical to conclude that California would go for Obama.  With that said, Wyoming, which only has 1 representative in the House (a Republican), would also vote (likely Republican) and would have just as much say as California.  The size and representation of a state means nothing in this process.  One state: one vote. 

But here's the REALLY messy part:

Let us assume that Iowa goes for Mitt Romney in the General Election.  Iowa's representation in the House consists of 3 Democrats and 2 Republicans.  If Iowa's representatives had to vote in this scenario, would they go with the will of their people who had elected Romney?  Or would they stay loyal to their party and elect Obama, since they have the majority (3 Democrats)?  This type of scenario is present in at least 6 other states.

In addition, it is important to note here that if a state has an equal number of representatives, and their voting results in a tie, that state forfeits its vote on the next president.   

One more tidbit: if the vote in the House of Representatives ends in a tie (or gridlock), the 12th Amendment stipulates that the Senate would then elect an interim, two-year president from their V.P. selection.  And since it is likely that the Democrats will maintain control of the Senate, we can logically say that in this scenario, Joe Biden would become the two-year interim President. 

But what if the Senate vote ended in a tie?  Well, as we all remember from Civics, 101, there is only one person who can cast the deciding vote in the event of a Senatorial tie: the vice President.  In other words, Joe Biden himself (the current V.P.) could, theoretically, vote for himself to become the next V.P. or (if it came to that) the next (and first) interim President of the United States.  That's right; Joe Biden (and an outside possibility of Paul Ryan) could, theoretically, become President of the United States if we have an Electoral College tie.  Think this is all a bit crazy or that maybe I am making it up? It is ALL in the 12th Amendment, people.  Read it and weep. 

So how did we end up with a ridiculous system like this in the first place? We have our beloved Founding Fathers to thank for this nightmare. 

In the Presidential Election of 1800, incumbent John Adams squared off against his one-time friend turned foe, Thomas Jefferson. Back then there was no such thing as a presidential "ticket," which meant that the candidate receiving the second most electoral votes became the V.P. In 1800, Thomas Jefferson was able to barely edge out John Adams by winning 73 electoral votes to Adams' 65.  The problem, however, was that electors in those days had 2 votes instead of one.  As a result, the 73 electors for Jefferson also casted a second vote for party ally Aaron Burr, who also received 73 votes.  Originally Burr was propped up to become Jefferson's V.P. selection, and one of the electors was to withhold his vote from Burr, thereby giving Jefferson the win.  This did not happen, and Jefferson was forced into an unforeseen and uncomfortable standoff with his would-be vice President, Aaron Burr. 

Long story short, Jefferson's election to the presidency was eventually determined in the House but not without a long fight from Burr, who tried to take advantage of his accidental nomination.  It was only after months of  political negotiation that Jefferson supporters, championed by one Alexander Hamilton (who, strangely enough, disliked Jefferson but detested Burr even more), were able to garner enough votes to secure the nomination for Jefferson.  And to prevent such catastrophes from happening again, our wise Founding Fathers gave is the very messed up smorgasbord that is the 12th Amendment.  Hamilton and Burr went on to add further fuel to their already hot feud, which eventually culminated in their now infamous and, for Hamilton, deadly duel.  Jefferson went on to comple two terms and became immortalized as one of this nation's greatest presidents and statesmen. 

But none of that solves the current potential predicament that we face with each future presidential election.  The looming possibility of a 269-269 Electoral College tie brings with it the horrors of what would undoubtedly be the most bitter, divisive and ugly political dialogue since the Civil War.  Why we aren't proactive and choose to find a better solution is beyond me.  But, as a fan of uber-ridiculous political drama, I also must concede that a 269-269 tie would make for some great must see T.V.  The 12th Amendment helped to calm the political tensions of the late 18th/early 19th century.  Only time will tell if it ends up creating a new mess for us in the 21st century. 

Our Founding Fathers and the Death Penalty

Yesterday, the State of Georgia executed convicted murderer, Troy Davis after the U.S. Supreme Court denied his request for a stay on his execution. And though I don't know all the specifics of his case, I know that it was supposedly somewhat controversial.

Now, whether Mr. Davis is guilty of the murder or not is not the purpose of this post, nor is it my intention to debate the death penalty here today. But yesterday's execution did make me wonder what (if anything) our Founding Fathers thought of capital punishment. Of course, we all recognize that 18th century America (and the world at large) was far different in terms of how punishment for criminals was carried out. Everything from whippings, beatings, beheadings, being placed in the stocks, etc. were seen as standard operating procedure for much of colonial America. We also know that General George Washington and many of his fellow army commanders regularly carried out executions of soldiers for a variety of offenses that many today would be horrified to see carried out.

And then there's the good ol' 8th Amendment. Perhaps more so than any other clause in the Constitution, the 8th Amendment's protection against "cruel and unusual punishment" is more clearly affected by societal change than any other amendment in the Constitution. After all, the very nature of the phrase "cruel and unusual" appeals to evolving societal standards. What we consider to be "cruel" or "unusual" today was seen as routine and just to our forefathers.

And to be 100% certain, it is not the role of the historian to pass judgement on what a society deemed to be acceptable/unacceptable. By no means do I wish to sound as though we of the modern era are somehow too sophisticated for the "savagery" of our less-than-civil ancestors. Instead, it is our role to simply understand the meat and potatoes of why people of the past did what they did, objectively and free from prejudice.

To accomplish this, I offer three unique takes on the death penalty from three different founders. Of course, these three voices hardly sum up the sentiments of an entire continent but I do believe they help to illustrate the conflict which some colonial Americans faced with regards to the death penalty.

First up is Thomas Jefferson. In a letter to his friend Edward Pendleton, Jefferson clearly reveals his "black or white" personality. Being the passionate idealist that he was, Jefferson rarely saw or embraced the "grey area" of any argument, and his sentiments regarding the death penalty pretty much fall in line with how Jefferson saw the world.

The fantastical idea of virtue and the public good being a sufficient security to the state against the commission of crimes, which you say you have heard insisted on by some, I assure you was never mine. It is only the sanguinary hue of our penal laws which I meant to object to. Punishments I know are necessary, and I would provide them, strict and inflexible, but proportioned to the crime. Death might be inflicted for murder and perhaps for treason if you would take out of the description of treason all crimes which are not such in their nature. Rape, buggery &c. punish by castration. All other crimes by working on high roads, rivers, gallies &c. a certain time proportioned to the offence. But as this would be no punishment or change of condition to slaves (me miserum!) let them be sent to other countries. By these means we should be freed from the wickedness of the latter, and the former would be living monuments of public vengeance. Laws thus proportionate and mild should never be dispensed with. Let mercy be the character of the law-giver, but let the judge be a mere machine. The mercies of the law will be dispensed equally and impartially to every description of men; those of the judge, or of the executive power, will be the eccentric impulses of whimsical, capricious designing man.

(Thomas Jefferson to Edward Pendleton, August 26, 1776).In contrast, Jefferson's friend Benjamin Rush adopted a far more forgiving approach to the punishment of criminals. For Rush, there was ZERO justification for the taking of another's life, regardless of the severity of the crime committed. In an essay on punishing murder by death, Rush writes:

I. Every man possesses an absolute power over his own liberty and property, but not over his own life. When he becomes a member of political society, he commits the disposal of his liberty and property to his fellow citizens; but as he has no right to dispose of his life, he cannot commit the power over it to any body of men. To take away life, therefore, for any crime, is a violation of the first political compact.

II. The punishment of murder by death, is contrary to reason, and to the order and happiness of society.

III. The punishment of murder by death, is contrary to divine revelation. A religion which commands us to forgive and even to do good to our enemies, can never authorise the punishment of murder by death. "Vengeance is mine," said the Lord; "I will repay." It is to no purpose to say here, that this vengeance is taken out of the hands of an individual, and directed against the criminal by the hand of government. It is equally an usurpation of the prerogative of heaven, whether it be inflicted by a single person, or by a whole community.

***I simply referenced Rush's 3 main bullets. I recommend reading his entire essay which can be found on the link above.***And then there's James Wilson's views on capital punishment. For Wilson, the death penalty is fine and dandy, but unlikely due to the fact that (in his mind) juries will reluctantly hand out severe punishments due to the human nature to want to forgive. As a result, Wilson recommended mild punishments for all crimes in the belief that criminals would be deterred due to the fact that juries would be more likely to convict. As he stated to a Grand Jury in 1791:

We are told by some writers, that the number of crimes is unquestionably diminished by the severity of punishments. If we inspect the greatest part of the criminal codes; their unwieldy bulk and their ensanguined hue will force us to acknowledge, that this opinion may plead, in its favour, a very high antiquity, and a very extensive reception. On accurate and unbiassed examination, however, it will appear to be an opinion unfounded and pernicious, inconsistent with the principles of our nature, and, by a necessary consequence, with those of wise and good government.

So far as any sentiment of generous sympathy is suffered, by a merciless code, to remain among the citizens, their abhorrence of crimes is, by the barbarous exhibitions of human agony, sunk in their commiseration of criminals. These barbarous exhibitions are productive of another bad effect--a latent and gradual, but a powerful, because a natural, aversion to the laws. Can laws, which are a natural and a just object of aversion, receive a cheerful obedience, or secure a regular and uniform execution? The expectation is forbidden by some of the strongest principles in the human frame. Such laws, while they excite the compassion of society for those who suffer, rouse its indignation against those who are active in the steps preparatory to their sufferings.

We may easily conjecture the result of those combined emotions, operating vigorously in concert. The criminal will, probably, be dismissed without prosecution by those whom he has injured. If prosecuted and tried, the jury will probably find, or think they find, some decent ground, on which they may be justified, or at least excused, in giving a verdict of acquittal. If convicted, the judges will, with avidity, receive and support every, the nicest exception to the proceedings against him; and, if all other things should fail, will have recourse to the last expedient within their reach for exempting him from rigorous punishment--that of recommending him to the mercy of the pardoning power. In this manner, the acerbity of punishment deadens the execution of the law.

The criminal, pardoned, repeats the crime, under the expectation that the impunity also will be repeated. The habits of vice and depravity are gradually formed within him. Those habits acquire, by exercise, continued accessions of strength and inveteracy. In the progress of his career, he is led to engage in some desperate attempt. From one desperate attempt he boldly proceeds to another, till, at last, he necessarily becomes the victim of that preposterous rigour, which repeated impunity had taught him to despise, because it had persuaded him that he might always escape.

When, on the other hand, punishments are moderate and mild, every one will, from a sense of interest and of duty, take his proper part in detecting, in exposing, in trying, and in passing sentence on crimes. The consequence will be, that criminals will seldom elude the vigilance, or baffle the energy, of publick justice.

So were the founders as divided on the issue of the death penalty as we are today? Perhaps. At least some of our founders felt uneasy or even morally motivated at the thought of capital punishment. But again, those were different times. For example, the Crimes Act of 1790 mandated execution for treason and required the mutilation of the corpse. Public flogging were a weekly occurrence and even charges of counterfeit could end in one's execution. As evidenced in the U.S. Coinage Act of 1792:

Section 19. And be it further enacted, That if any of the
gold or silver coins which shall be struck or coined at the said mint shall be
debased or made worse as to the proportion of the fine gold or fine silver
therein contained, or shall be of less weight or value than the same out to be
pursuant to the directions of this act, through the default or with the
connivance of any of the officers or persons who shall be employed at the said
mint, for the purpose of profit or gain, or otherwise with a fraudulent intent,
and if any of the said officers or persons shall embezzle any of the metals
which shall at any time be committed to their charge for the purpose of being
coined, or any of the coins which shall be struck or coined at the said mint,
every such officer or person who shall commit any or either of the said
offenses, shall be deemed guilty of felony, and shall suffer death.

Different strokes for different folks I suppose.

George Mason's Declaration of Rights

On this day in 1776, the Virginia Assembly unanimously adopted George Mason's Declaration of Rights, which guaranteed, among other things, the equal right to "life, liberty and property" (though it did little for the slaves that these same men kept in bondage). Mason's Declaration of Rights has long been hailed as the the front runner to the Bill or Rights, which was later amended to the federal constitution.

Mason's main source of inspiration came from the English Bill of Rights (1689), which guaranteed certain rights -- the right to petition, bear arms, protection from cruel and unusual punishment being among them -- to the English citizenry. This Bill of Rights, which essentially served as a social contract of sorts between the English people and William of Orange and Mary prior to their ascension to the English throne, was hailed as one of the greatest manifestations of individual liberty in the western world. Obviously British citizens living in the American colonies would have found the document to be of tremendous value, especially once the fires of revolution were ignited.

One of the most interesting parts of the Declaration of Rights -- which is actually at the very end of the document -- is Section 16, which states:

That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.

Mason repeated these same sentiments in his private correspondence when he wrote:

That as Religion, or the Duty which we owe to our divine and omnipotent Creator, and the Manner of discharging it, can be governed only by Reason and Conviction, not by Force or Violence; and therefore that all Men shou'd enjoy the fullest Toleration in the Exercise of Religion, according to the Dictates of Conscience, unpunished and unrestrained by the Magistrate, unless, under Colour of Religion, any Man disturb the Peace, the Happiness, or Safety of Society, or of Individuals. And that it is the mutual Duty of all, to practice Christian forbearance, Love and Charity towards Each other (The Papers of George Mason, ed. Robert Rutland, Vol. 1, 278).

I am amazed at the fact that very few people recognize the profound impact of Mason's declarations. Mason not only drives the message home for those who would argue against a church/state separation, but he virtually leaves no room for argument. If Mason's work left any impact on the drafting of the Bill of Rights -- and they most certainly did -- then why are some people continuing to argue this point?

The Huck Gets His History On (Or Off)

So Mike Huckabee isn't running for president in 2012 (hard to believe that candidates are ALREADY starting to jockey for position in the 2012 race when 2011 is still just getting started).

But that doesn't mean that he hasn't been making waves.

Over the past couple of months, Huckabee has been focusing his attention on history, "positive" American history to be exact. Huckabee's newest project, entitled "Learn Our History", attempts to present an "objective", pro-American interpretation of our nation's past, free from the smears and errors of current historical revisionists:

Many of our schools and teachers today haven't found ways to make history for kids fun. Instead, they’re teaching with political bias that distorts facts for the sake of political correctness. As a result, our national pride and patriotism are in jeopardy.

And on his Fox show:



Of course this isn't the first time Huckabee has been caught in a historical tug-o-war. It was only a couple months ago that Huckabee stated made the claim that all Americans needed to listen to pseudo-historian and Christian Nation Apologist David Barton at gunpoint if necessary. And during the 2008 presidential primaries, it was Huckabee who regurgitated the Barton myth that "The signers of the Declaration of Independence were brave people, most of whom, by the way, were clergymen." In addition, it was Huckabee who asserted his belief that the Constitution needed to be amended to fit the standards of God's holy word (the Bible).

And though I personally have no problem with Huckabee's desire to promote patriotism and a love for America's beautiful heritage, I do question his objectivity. After all, isn't it both necessary and appropriate for historians to point out the negative aspects of our past? This is where Huckabee is, in my opinion, in error. The perceived "attacks" on Huckabee's new project are not exclusively based on a hatred for America but rather on his clear bias. Maybe Huckabee's intentions are pure but it's hard to believe he is free from the "political bias" he laments. When his presentation praises all things Reagan, but never make mention of FDR in his WWII cartoon, one has to wonder how he came to such conclusions.

Of course this is all to be expected. Since when has a political pundit NOT used history to further his/her agenda? It's just further evidence that the culture warriors lack the true historical integrity needed to sustain any legitimate discussion on our nation's TRUE history.

I guess the old adage is true: political history isn't history; it's politics.

Magnifying Magna Carta

The "Great Charter"
in Historical Context and the
Right to Rebel Against Tyrants
Do you remember 9th grade U.S. History? If so, chances are you recall hearing about the Magna Carta of 1215 and how it supposedly set the stage for the legal protection of individual liberties and helped to inspire other documents including the United States Constitution. You probably recall hearing your teacher relate to you the tales of the oppressive and vindictive King John, who, along with fighting his supposed nemesis Robin Hood (another myth for another day) had established a quasi-tyrannical reign over his English subjects. Long story short, the English people became fed up with John and the lack of protected individual liberties and demanded that a charter be created in which the king would recognize certain basic rights to be protected by law. Thus, the Magna Carta was born.

On the surface, this sounds like an inspiring, even patriotic tale, right? It's not hard to see how such a take on history has caught on, especially here in the "land of the free", where the descendants of Christian English settlers (with the obvious exception of the African slaves, Native Americans, and a countless host of other immigrants ) proudly carried the ideas of the Magna Carta to the "New World" and augmented it with a charter of their own: the U.S. Constitution, a.k.a. Magna Carta 2.0.

But alas, as is often the case, pop culture's take on history is usually more the stuff of Robin Hood and invisible Masonic treasure maps on the back of founding documents that it becomes more desirable than the actual truth. It is for this reason that the Magna Carta has become saturated with tales of what we want it to be rather than what it actually was. The truth: Magna Carta did not protect much of anything and was in fact rejected by King John, the Pope and most Englishmen. It was never a binding legal document, nor did it serve to protect indivudual liberties. Despite this fact, Magna Carta did serve one important function: it helped to justify the rebellion to tyranny.

It is true that Magna Carta is one of many important links in the chain that eventually became constitutional law in the Western world. However, it would be a major mistake to make the claim that Magna Carta was the starting point or even the most important component to eventual constitutional rule. For example, the English Charter of Liberties (1100) which preceded Magna Carta by almost 100 years, made some of the same claims, as did many other charters of Medieval Europe.

What is important to remember here, and is often difficult for us in the present day who have lived with guaranteed legal rights to understand, is that these charters were not legislation, but rather a promise from the King that was neither binding in any legal sense nor a requirement of his position. In the Medieval world kings ruled by Divine Right, meaning that God himself had granted them almost complete authority. Individual liberties were nice and certainly people were to be treated with some level of respect, but ultimate authority rested with the king. Defiance to his rule was defiance to God himself. As the Apostle Paul states in Romans chapter 13:

1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Obviously this was a convenient justification for nobility to assert their rights to Divine Right kingship. Clothing authority in the robes of the will of God made resistance to leadership not only illegal but sinful. One could find himself in the dungeons of both earth and hell for defying a king.

With that said, the concept of ultimate authority resting with the king did not mean that rebellion was a thing of the past. Quite the contrary. For example, every English king since William the Conqueror was forced to deal with the threat of rebellion by powerful barons who questioned the king's right to lead. However, these rebellions were usually supported by another noble who laid the same claim to Divine Right authority as the King, thus the nobles were able to justify their actions. One could not be found blameless before God for supporting who he thought to be God's chosen man. During the reign of King John, however, there were no nobles present who could lay claim to the throne of England.

But why did these barons want to rebel at all? What was King John doing that was so terribly offensive? To understand these questions we must first understand the fundamental system of social organization in Medieval Europe: feudalism. In the simplest of terms, feudalism was a system in which land and goods were distributed at the will of the king. The fundamental belief was that the king was the rightful owner of all the land, but he allowed powerful nobles and barons to keep and cultivate certain portions of it. In turn, these barons allowed peasants to till portions of that land and keep a small amount of what they produced for themselves. In essence, it was a quasi-"trickle down" system where the higher your social status, the more the king let you have.

During the reign of King John, England was in an impoverished state. Recent wars with Phillip of France had exhausted the king's coffers and forced him to increase taxation upon the barons of the land, who, in turn, increased taxes on the peasants. As a result, the nobles of England became overrun with taxation to such a level that rebellion became a viable option. The lack of a legitimate royal replacement for John complicated issues, which is why the nobles decided on a charter stating their rights. However, this charter, according to historian Austin Lane Pool, was "mere subterfuge since what they really wanted was to replace the king with their chosen man."

Faced with mounting pressure, King John acquiesced to the desires of the nobles, but did so only as a political move. In reality he had no desire to honor the charter and in fact had already laid the groundwork for its demise. As historian David Carpenter points out:

John sealed Magna Carta at Runnymede on 15 June, 1215 with little intention of keeping to it...sometime in July John asked the pope to annul the charter. When the papal letter arrived in England at the end of September, the country was already at war. The rebels realized that John could never be restrained by Magna Carta. The only solution was his replacement...And with the pope's official rejection of Magna Carta the rebels had little faith in their newfound charter.

The fact that John rejected Magna Carta may be surprising to some but again, we must remember that it was not a legal document. As God's chosen leader on earth, John was not bound to follow any document issued by man. The Pope's agreement in this matter helped to support that very fact. For the barons to even issue such a document was, in the minds of John's supporters, blasphemy to God. As a result, civil war erupted as the nobles chose to not only reject their king but also defy God's biblical admonition to, "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers." In what became known as the First Barons' War, Lord Robert Fitzwalter (who many have associated with the Robin Hood legends) took the reigns of leadership and directed his fellow barons to established a codified set of "guidelines" for the king to follow. In what became known as The Articles of the Barons, Fitzwalter and his fellow barons provided a list of basic rights (an early bill of rights of sorts) which, in their minds, limited the scope of the king's authority and guaranteed certain basic individual rights. Here are a couple examples:

Article six
The king shall not grant any baron the right to take an aid from his free men, except for ransoming his person, for making his eldest son a knight and for once marrying his eldest daughter, and this he shall do by a reasonable aid.

Article twenty-one
That neither the king nor his bailiff shall take another man's timber for castles or other works of his, except with the agreement of him whose timber it is.

Article thirty nine
No free man shall be arrested or imprisoned or outlawed or exiled or victimised in any other way, neither will we attack him or send anyone to attack him, except by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land.

In a very real sense, what Fitzwalter and his fellow barons did became a precursor for Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex, which argued that the law was superior to the authority of a king. These ideas, and many others, eventually became a part of Magna Carta:

KNOW THAT BEFORE GOD, for the health of our soul and those of our ancestors and heirs, to the honour of God, the exaltation of the holy Church, and the better ordering of our kingdom, at the advice of our reverend fathers Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England, and cardinal of the holy Roman Church, Henry archbishop of Dublin, William bishop of London, Peter bishop of Winchester, Jocelin bishop of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh bishop of Lincoln, Walter Bishop of Worcester, William bishop of Coventry, Benedict bishop of Rochester, Master Pandulf subdeacon and member of the papal household, Brother Aymeric master of the knighthood of the Temple in England, William Marshal earl of Pembroke, William earl of Salisbury, William earl of Warren, William earl of Arundel, Alan de Galloway constable of Scotland, Warin Fitz Gerald, Peter Fitz Herbert, Hubert de Burgh seneschal of Poitou, Hugh de Neville, Matthew Fitz Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip Daubeny, Robert de Roppeley, John Marshal, John Fitz Hugh, and other loyal subjects:

FIRST, THAT WE HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. That we wish this so to be observed, appears from the fact that of our own free will, before the outbreak of the present dispute between us and our barons, we granted and confirmed by charter the freedom of the Church's elections - a right reckoned to be of the greatest necessity and importance to it - and caused this to be confirmed by Pope Innocent III. This freedom we shall observe ourselves, and desire to be observed in good faith by our heirs in perpetuity.

And though Magna Carta was only intended to protect the rights of the noble baron class (peasants did not receive or expect anything from Magna Carta) it did help to foreshadow the course that later charters would eventually take. Magna Carta, which stood on the shoulders of many other important charters, became a foundation for other documents to build upon. And while Magna Carta was rejected by King John, the Pope and a large number of the nobility, it did endure as an example of humanity's quest for equality, even in the face of secular and religious rebuking of such actions. In short, Magna Carta stands as one of many banners to society's endless quest for liberty.

Religion Left to the States?

Or Were the State Constitutions
Hated by the Founding Fathers?

One of the common practices of the "Christian Nation" crowd is to try and argue that America's "Christian founding" is to be found in the verbiage of the various state constitutions (examples can be found here). Of course, they do this because the federal charters (i.e. Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc.) have ZERO references to Christianity of any kind. In fact, they were kept religiously neutral on purpose. On occasion they will try to say that the language of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc. is somehow, in a roundabout way, related to some obscure biblical or Christian teaching. This argument, however, holds little water and most "Christian Nation" advocates worth their salt don't really bother with them, which leaves them with the state constitutions as the only cannon fodder for their argument.

But it's mostly smoke and mirrors.

And though there are some good arguments to be had with these state constitutions (here's one I particularly like) I maintain that they still don't prove anything of substance. It's not that the state constitutions are irrelevant. Quite the contrary. They are incredibly important to America's founding. However, they do not have any basis in establishing America as a Christian nation.

Now, it is not my intention to dispute the Christian Nationalists in this particular post. Instead, I want to simply site what I see to be a strong counter-argument to the "religion was the domain of the states" thesis. In his book, Unruly Americans, historian Woody Holton's central thesis is that the federal constitution was created primarily out of a disdain for the state constitutions -- which were seen as being "too democratic" and "too misrepresenting" for a legitimate republic to function. Holton writes:

The textbooks and the popular histories give surprisingly short shrift to the Framers' motivations. What almost all of them do say is that harsh experience had exposed the previous government, under the Articles of Confederation, as too weak. What makes this emphasis strange is that the Framers' own statements reveal another, more pressing motive. Early in the Constitutional Convention, James Madison urged his colleagues to tackle "the evils...which prevail within the States individually as well as those which accrued to our national character and interest from the inadequacy of the Confederation."

Madison, preoccupation with what he later called "the internal administration of the States" was by no means unique. On the eve of the convention, expressions of concern about the weakness of Congress, numerous as they were, was vastly outnumbered by the complaints against the state governments. "What led to the appointment of this Convention?" Maryland Governor John Francis Mercer asked his colleagues. Was is not "the corruption & mutability of the Legislative Councils of the States?"

Once the Constitution had been sent out to the thirteen states for ratification, its supporters affirmed that some of the most lethal diseases it was designed to cure were to be found within those same states. William Plumer of New Hampshire embraced the new national government out of a conviction that "our rights & property are now the sport of ignorant and unprincipled legislatures." In the last of the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton praised the Constitution for placing salutary "restraints" on the "ambition of powerful individuals in single states."

What was wrong with the state assemblies? Given the modern perception that the Founding Fathers had devoted their lives to the principle of government by the people, it is jarring to read their specific grievances. An essay appearing in a Connecticut newspaper in September 1786 complained that the state's representatives paid "too great an attention to popular notions." At least one of those Connecticut assemblymen thoroughly agreed. In May 1787, just as the federal convention assembled, he observed that even the southern states, which under British rule had been aristocratic bastions, had "run into the extremes of democracy" since declaring independence.

Simply put, if Holston's thesis is correct (and I believe he is) it means that state Constitutions became of little consequence, since they were esteemed to be a threat to effective republican government. Having a Christian text or invocation of God would be nothing more than just that...text. Now, I still remain unconvinced that the Founding Fathers' sole purpose for establishing a new Constitution was to eradicate the evils of state power. In addition, the Founders did compromise some power in the federal constitution to the states (not originally but later in the Bill of Rights). So clearly not everyone had such a powerful disdain for state power. But it is clear that the Constitution was created because the delegates felt that the states were too powerful...too free. A strong federal system (which did not sanction Christianity above all else) was seen as essential to preserving the new nation.

"Christian Nation" Doctrine that Actually Trumps Democracy

Another Christian Zealot Seeks
to Create an American Theocracy
by Brad Hart

While perusing the Internet, I stumbled upon a website that I am sure some of you are already familiar with. I think it deserves special mention here on this blog because it is a great illustration of how distorted and dangerous the Christian Nationalist agenda can become. The website, entitled, Is America a Christian Nation, is dedicated to the mainstream Christian founding myth -- i.e. America was established by devout orthodox Christians, over the years we have lost our way and forgotten our heritage, but we can and will bring back our Christian roots.

Like most pro-Christian nation websites, this page claims to present concrete evidence that gives 100% proof of America's Christian founding. Right from the start, the website points to the 1892 Supreme Court case, Holy Trinity Church v. The United States, which this website's author believes is ample proof of America's Christian heritage. However, the author neglects to mention the fact that this case had absolutely NOTHING to do with establishing America as a Christian nation. In fact, the case actually dealt with the issue of, "the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the United States, its Territories, and the District of Columbia." In the course of the Supreme Court's decision, Justice Brewer used the case to promote HIS belief that the United States was established as a Christian nation. As Justice Brewer stated:

"These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."

Legal historians, however, point to the fact that Justice Brewer's "Christian nation" comments occurred in dicta, a legal term meaning writing that reflects a judge's personal opinion, not an official court pronouncement that sets legally binding precedent.

Unfortunately, the author of Is America a Christian Nation does not understand the concept of legal dicta, nor does he/she understand how to put historical data into context. As the author ignorantly points out:

The Court did not merely say that most people in America were Christian, or that there were no Muslims or Hindus in America. According to the author of the Court's unanimous opinion, the Court's claim that America "is a Christian nation" is in "the domain of official action and recognition," not mere "individual acceptance." The Court demonstrates that our entire system of government was created with a duty to acknowledge the authority of the God of the Christian Bible, and to obey His commandments, by Christians who acknowledged the authority of God and were committed to obey His commandments [and] intended the government they created to acknowledge and obey God.

It is also important to point out that Holy Trinity v. United States was actually overruled in 1931 by U.S. v. Macintosh, which stated:

Whereas in Holy Trinity v. U.S., the Court held that because this was a Christian nation, all laws were qualified by a higher law, and no law could be interpreted in such a way as to exclude a Christian minister from entering the United States, the Macintosh Court, fully cognizant of the rule in Holy Trinity, completely reverses the rule, refuses to place the nation "under God," and instead declares that the State-as-god is owed "unqualified allegiance."

For obvious reasons, the author of Is America A Christian Nation neglected to mention much about this little tidbit of history!

Another bizarre source that Is America A Christian Nation sites has to do with the 17th century settlement of America by the Pilgrims. On the web page, the author states:

From its earliest founding in the 1600's, each American colony was a Christian Theocracy. "Theocracy" means "ruled by God," not "ruled by priests." A nation "under God" is a "Theocracy" by definition. There was universal agreement that the formation of civil government was a religious/Christian/Biblical obligation. All governments were Theocratic. Governments were formed because it was believed God in the Bible commanded human beings to form them. The founding of a government was a religious act. Under the new federal government which began under the U.S. Constitution on March 4, 1789, the United States were Christian Theocracies. The U.S. Constitution would never have been ratified if it gave power to the newly-created federal government to prevent the United States from being "under God" and officially and legally acknowledging themselves to be under His jurisdiction.

Not only is this bold proclamation utterly wrong, but it is also a potentially dangerous mode of thinking, as evidenced by the author's following statement:

American liberals HATE the word "theocracy." All you have to do to discredit an idea is accuse it of being connected in some way with "theocracy."

"Theocracy" literally means "ruled by God." It has nothing to do with priests. America was supposed to be a nation "under God." If America is under God, then God is over America. That's the literal meaning of "theocracy."

The mainstream media use "theocracy" as a scare word. They want you to think of Osama bin Laden instead of Jesus Christ. They want you to think of "tyranny under god" rather than Liberty Under God. Many writers who deny America's Christian history attempt to confuse you with caricatures of intolerant right-wing religious tyrants.

So what is so unsettling about the author's claims? Think about it. He/she is actually insinuating that the United States is NOT a democracy, but is instead a Christian Theocracy. Of course the author neglects to mention which Christian God we are under. Is it the God of the Catholics? Protestants? Mormons?

What is most unsettling about this argument is the fact that free speech/will is utterly denied. Under the Theocratic government suggested by this author, God has the final say in all issues. There is no room for individual debate. The Bible becomes the final judge and governing document, not the Constitution.

As a devout Christian myself, I understand the desire that exists for God to be a fundamental part of society. However, as we have learned through thousands of years of world history, a large number of Theocratic governments end up being the most intolerant, brutal, undemocratic and destructive regimes. Or as Thomas Jefferson put it in his Notes on the State of Virginia:

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites.

For a Christian Nationalist to suggest that America is not a Democracy but instead a Theocracy should immediately cause us to raise our red warning flags and sound the alarm.

The Second Amendment Saga

Of all the amendments to the Constitution perhaps none has created as much controversy as the 2nd Amendment. The "right to keep and bear arms" has caused both grief and comfort for generations of Americans who have fiercely debated the meaning behind these 26 simple words:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What exactly does it mean? What were the Founding Fathers suggesting? Does it even apply to the 21st century? What is a "militia" and how is it to be "well regulated"? Do all guns qualify as "Arms"? And if not, where do we draw the line?

These are just a few of the many questions that have hovered around the Second Amendment for the past 200 years, and depending on who you ask there are different answers to each of these aforementioned questions. So how are we to make sense of this issue? How can we separate the political/pop-culture jargon from the actual substance? Well, let's look at a recent Supreme Court decision, which I believe helps to illustrate the division that exists between pro and anti-gun advocates, and how they both appeal to history to defend their respective positions.

As you all know by now (unless you have been hiding under a rock) the U.S. Supreme Court passed a very important ruling just a couple of years ago that dealt with one of the basic questions surrounding the 2nd Amendment: do average citizens have a right to own a gun, in their own home, for the purposes of protection? In the case, District of Columbia v. Heller, the court ruled 5-4 that there is a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun in your personal residence for self-defense. This ruling overturned the D.C. handgun ban, which was one of the strictest gun-control law in our nation's history.

Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote for the majority opinion, stated that the justices "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country...But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table...It is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."

In his dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the Second Amendment applies only to a militia, and that the Constitution’s framers were afraid that the new federal government would disarm the populace, as the British had tried to do. Thus, the current understanding of the Second Amendment needs a modern interpretation and revision:

The Second Amendment was not written to grant citizens a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. Prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons, and prohibitions on dangerous and unusual weapons is well within the scope of this court's power to enforce and poses no attack on the Constitution.

Ok, fair is fair. Justice Stevens is right when he mentions that the United States no longer has a need for a militia...at least not in the way our founders envisioned. But does that close the door on the Second Amendment? Do we as citizens have no right to bear arms simply because there is no need for a militia in the 21st century?

I say no. Citizens still have a right to keep and bear arms and here's why:

Like every other anti-gun advocate, Justice Stevens tries to argue that the right to keep in bear arms in an archaic law that was established by our founders to ensure that their new colonies had a well armed militia. And now that we have no need for a militia, this law is obviously outdated. He is wrong. The establishment of the Second Amendment was not done for the exclusive purpose of maintaining a militia.

During the debates of the Constitutional Convention, several key founders (most noticeably James Madison) argued that a Bill of Rights was a necessary component for the new American government, a component that would ensure that certain basic rights would never be infringed upon by a local, state or federal government. And when creating the Second Amendment, men like Madison didn't pull their words out of thin air. They relied on other important documents that helped to blaze the trail for America's Second Amendment. In the 1688 English Bill of Rights we read the following:

That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.

In addition,our Founding Fathers (particularly Madison) appealed to the works of one William Blackstone, who, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, wrote the following:

"That it is a fundamental right of the people to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights, of personal security, personal liberty, and private property...and the right of the individual to keep and bear arms to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law...is the surest way to ensure our liberties."

So why are these sources significant? Because neither one makes any mention of a "militia." In fact, they both speak of personal protection and the right to "keep and bear arms."

If that's so, then where did this "militia" talk come from? Well, it's actually more simple than you might think. Recent experience had told the colonists (now Americans) that citizens keeping and bearing arms was both a good and prudent thing to do. The experience of Lexington and Concord, where the British tried to disarm American colonists, had struck fear into the hearts of many. It was only natural that such a fear would make its way into the law. The important caveat to note here is that whether or not there is a militia is irrelevant to the issue of keeping and bearing arms. It's simply an argument over semantics.

In my opinion, the Second Amendment is much more than a simple law to create a militia. As Justice Scalia notes, the right to keep and bear arms is not a suggestion, a good idea, or an outdated law. It's a RIGHT!

And our Founders knew it.

Did James Wilson Pen the Constitution?

And if so, What are
the Implications?

A historic moment in the study of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers may be taking place right under our noses. Lorianne Updike Toler, a recent graduate of Brigham Young University, has thrown the historical community a curveball that apparently nobody is sure how to read. While conducting research at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Mrs. Toler made a discovery that if proved accurate, could throw a wrench into the workings of early American historiography. Buried deep in the archives, Toler found what she believes is an original draft of the Constitution that was written by none other than James Wilson. From the Mormon Times:

"This makes James Wilson very much equal to Thomas Jefferson as a drafter of the Constitution," she said. "It means to truly understand the Constitution, we need to study James Wilson a whole lot more."

[...]

Toler said she was puzzled when she noticed, while examining what scholars consider to be the first draft of the Constitution, that there were three upside down paragraphs on the back of the document. The hurriedly composed paragraphs, beginning with the familiar words "We The People," were written in Wilson's hand.

Later, as Toler was digging through a box of legal papers at the historical society, she stumbled upon a document that appeared to pick up where Wilson's scribbled notes left off.

Toler was overwhelmed.

"To find something that is so important to the development of our country -- it was almost a sacred moment for me," Toler said, of finding the draft in November. "The founding documents, to me, are American scripture, and I had found one of the first chapters."

Toler first fell in love with the Founding Fathers as a home-schooled teenager. Her mother was an active lobbyist at the Utah Legislature, so Toler learned about democracy while doing her homework in the Senate gallery. As a law student at BYU, she founded the Constitutional Sources Project, a nonprofit devoted to making primary historical papers available online.

Only about 25 percent of the 21 million artifacts at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania are cataloged. According to Historical Society records,the society's records, the page Toler believes is a third draft of the Constitution has been filed away in a box marked simply "James Wilson: Volume Two" since at least 1970. Toler suspects the document has been in that box since it was first transcribed by Yale scholar Max Farrand in 1911.

"It was just sitting there, forgotten," Toler said.

According to Farrand's writings, in 1911, he connected the three-paragraph introduction on the back of Wilson's first draft to a document titled "The Continuation of the Scheme," Toler said. The paper Toler found is also called "The Continuation of the Scheme."

She doesn't believe it's a coincidence.

Not everyone, however, is as excited.

"I'm pretty skeptical," said Andrew Shankman, an associate professor of history at Rutgers University in New Jersey, shortly after examining the paper. "It doesn't appear to fit with the known drafts of the Constitution."

Specifically, he said, the numbering system between the three-paragraph fragment and "The Continuation of the Scheme" don't seem to match up, he said. The style is less formal than Wilson's other drafts.

Toler acknowledged the inconsistent style between drafts but attributed the differences to a "more relaxed, scatterbrained" Wilson, she said.

"This is significant because James Wilson was always polished in front of others," Toler said. "To me, the way these documents were written demonstrates that he worked alone on this project for some time. These are his raw thoughts."

What are the implications of such a discovery (assuming the discovery is legit)? Difficult to say. But I can't wait to look over what Wilson may have written in these documents!

Ronald Reagan and the "Year of the Bible"

Christian conservatism has, in recent years, evolved to become an ardent supporter of the "Christian Nation" thesis. Ever since the emergence of leaders like Jerry Falwell, D. James Kennedy, Pat Robertson and others, Christian conservatism has effectively fused the sacred and secular arenas together, all of which has, for the believer, added to the legitimacy of the "Christian Nation" argument.

And the MESSIAH of modern conservatism, Ronald Reagan, was apparently a devout believer in the Christian Nation as well. In 1983, President Reagan drafted an official proclamation (Proclamation 5018), which sought to officially make that year (1983) the "Year of the Bible." The presidential proclamation reads:

Of the many influences that have shaped the United States of America into a distinctive Nation and people, none may be said to be more fundamental and enduring than the Bible.

Deep religious beliefs stemming from the Old and New Testaments of the Bible inspired many of the early settlers of our country, providing them with the strength, character, convictions, and faith necessary to withstand great hardship and danger in this new and rugged land. These shared beliefs helped forge a sense of common purpose among the widely dispersed colonies -- a sense of community which laid the foundation for the spirit of nationhood that was to develop in later decades.

The Bible and its teachings helped form the basis for the Founding Fathers' abiding belief in the inalienable rights of the individual, rights which they found implicit in the Bible's teachings of the inherent worth and dignity of each individual. This same sense of man patterned the convictions of those who framed the English system of law inherited by our own Nation, as well as the ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

For centuries the Bible's emphasis on compassion and love for our neighbor has inspired institutional and governmental expressions of benevolent outreach such as private charity, the establishment of schools and hospitals, and the abolition of slavery.

Many of our greatest national leaders -- among them Presidents Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, and Wilson -- have recognized the influence of the Bible on our country's development. The plainspoken Andrew Jackson referred to the Bible as no less than "the rock on which our Republic rests.'' Today our beloved America and, indeed, the world, is facing a decade of enormous challenge. As a people we may well be tested as we have seldom, if ever, been tested before. We will need resources of spirit even more than resources of technology, education, and armaments. There could be no more fitting moment than now to reflect with gratitude, humility, and urgency upon the wisdom revealed to us in the writing that Abraham Lincoln called "the best gift God has ever given to man . . . But for it we could not know right from wrong.''

The Congress of the United States, in recognition of the unique contribution of the Bible in shaping the history and character of this Nation, and so many of its citizens, has by Senate Joint Resolution 165 authorized and requested the President to designate the year 1983 as the "Year of the Bible.''

Now, Therefore, I, Ronald Reagan, President of the United States of America, in recognition of the contributions and influence of the Bible on our Republic and our people, do hereby proclaim 1983 the Year of the Bible in the United States. I encourage all citizens, each in his or her own way, to reexamine and rediscover its priceless and timeless message.

In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this third day of February, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and seventh.

Ronald Reagan

In conjunction with Reagan's signing of this proclamation, Congress drafted the following resolution (which predated the one above) acknowledging the Bible as "the Word of God." It reads:

97th Congress Joint Resolution

[S.J.Res. 165] 96 Stat. 1211
Public Law 97-280 - October 4, 1982

Joint Resolution authorizing and requesting the President to proclaim 1983 as the “Year of the Bible.”

Whereas the Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation and people;

Whereas deeply held religious convictions springing from the Holy Scriptures led to the early settlement of our Nation;

Whereas Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and the constitution of the United States;

Whereas many of our great national leaders—among them Presidents Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, and Wilson—paid tribute to the surpassing influence of the Bible in our country's development, as the words of President Jackson that the Bible is “the rock on which our Republic rests”;

Whereas the history of our Nation clearly illustrates the value of voluntarily applying the teachings of the Scriptures in the lives of individuals, families, and societies;

Whereas this Nation now faces great challenges that will test this Nation as it has never been tested before; and

Whereas that renewing our knowledge of and faith in God through Holy Scripture can strengthen us as a nation and a people: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President is authorized and requested to designate 1983 as a national “Year of the Bible” in recognition of both the formative influence the Bible has been for our Nation, and our national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures.

Approved October 4, 1982.

I'm no Reagan hater. In fact, I think he was a pretty decent president. Sorry, conservo friends, I don't think Reagan was the greatest thing since sliced bread, nor do I believe he truly represented my preferred brand of conservatism (for myself, I like Ike). With that said, I do have a bone to pick with this whole "Year of the Bible" nonsense that Reagan embraced.

First off, it is completely and totally inappropriate (in my opinion) for the President to advocate for such a proposal. Just imagine a president declaring a "day of the Qur'an" or a "Day of the Torah." Simply put, it seems like such a blatant violation of the church/state separation.

Second, Reagan's declaration is chalked full of historical inaccuracies. For example, the statement that the teachings of the Bible influenced the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence is silly. Where do we find Biblical principles in either document? Besides, Jefferson made it clear that he did not rely on the Bible when writing the DOI. Rather he used Locke, Cicero, Algernon Sidney and others. In addition, the Constitution does NOT mention God except for a very brief and formal notation at its conclusion.

And then of course there are these comments from the Founding Fathers themselves:

"The government of the United States is not IN ANY SENSE founded on the Christian Religion"
~John Adams, Treaty of Tripoli, 1797

"We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition and that every person may here worship God according to the dictates of his own heart. In this enlightened Age & in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man's religious tenets, will not forfeit his protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining & holding the highest offices that are known in the United States"
~George Washington to the Swedenborgians, 1794

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."
~Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1782

"The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported."
~James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."
~James Madison

"Christianity never was a part of common law."
~Thomas Jefferson

Now, I want to be clear that I am not a Bible hater. Quite the contrary. I agree with the founders when they said that the Bible was one of the best (if not the best) books on earth and that mankind would live a happy and prosperous life by learning from its teachings. This, however, is not the issue at hand. The problem I have with the "Year of the Bible" is that it used government to sanction one religion over another. As a result, it obscured and offended that delicate balance between church and government. Simply put, Reagan should have known better.

But alas, presidents always have, and always will, do things based on their political clout. Heck, Reagan wasn't even that much of a believer!