Have the SCOTUS interpretations of the Bill of Rights served to exalt or disgrace our nation?
In Post One I quoted this Proverb. Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to a people. (Proverb 14:34)
I stated I would explore the reasons of what and how changes occurred over time to our founding father’s basis of presumptions of Rights in relation to interpretations of Rights by the USA Supreme Court.
Compare the Declaration of Independence statement in Post One by our founding fathers that we have been endowed by our Creator with inalienable Rights to this SCOTUS 1971 Lemon Test about Religious Teaching in Schools according to the Bill of Rights.
In 1971, the Supreme Court surveyed its previous Establishment Clause cases and identified three factors that identify when a government practice violates the Establishment Clause: “First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive entanglement with religion.” Lemon v. Kurtzman
What the Founders Should Have Done
In my opinion, we should have emulated the method our Creator used to convey laws to mankind. Notice each law in the Ten Commandments begins,’ Thou Shalt Not.’
Instead our Bill of Rights vainly begins with instruction words stating ’Congress shall make no laws.’
I believe our founders knew well that Congress being composed of human beings, is subject to human faults. Our founding fathers wanted to restrict Congress from easily changing laws pertaining to Constitutional Rights. However, the wording format in the Bill of Rights paved a way to allow Judges to interpret the original founder word meanings.
The result is SCOTUS was given the power and authority to interpret, and with a simple majority could overrule to add or alter the original meanings of Rights our founding fathers stated was endowed by our Creator.
Over time, that power to interpret served to open up the mire of lawsuits, controversies, misunderstandings of laws, and resultant hostilities to evolve about perceptions of Rights in the USA.
Today, human police, when confronted by human faults, have to make split second decisions to enforce both rights and wrongs of human behaviors. They do not have the luxury of time, as do Rights lawyers, to mull over the circumstances a policeman confronts to deliberate whether or not an unruly incited person believes, presumes, or perceives they are acting lawfully within their Constitutional Rights.
In My Opinion
The Bible teaches goodwill, moral guidance, responsibility, discipline, humility, and justice, love, wisdom etc.. However, there are no religious statements in the Bible that can prove God gave any Rights to his creations. As for a natural inclination to do right, according to researchers at Yale University’s Infant Cognition Center, also known as “The Baby Lab,” babies can actually tell good from evil, even as young as 3 months old.
I see no harm to presume God gave moral guidance to our founders to include Rights in our Constitution. However, I personally believe God provides blessings rather than Rights as rewards to the deserving, and justice as punishments to sinners and lawbreakers.
What is My Point
My point is not whether God did, or did not endow us with these Rights. What I disagree with is the way the Bill of Rights was written, and that afforded SCOTUS Constitutional power to interpret their personal political ideology over Congress.
For example, note the limitation statement in the above 1971 Supreme court that states about statues to teach religion in public schools. “the statute must have a secular legislative purpose…advance or promote…… not have any excessive entanglement with religion…
This SCOTUS ruling separates goodwill religious moral teachings in public schools and mandates a hands off government policy from any entanglement with any religious teachings or dogma. At the same time in the world and in our nation, we read and hear how radical Islamist terrorists are slaughtering innocent people and as they kill, proclaim “God is Great.”
Another point is that the wording in the Bill of Rights did not emulate the wording format of the religious Ten Commandments. The Commandments states clearly what is wrong and what is right without need for wrong or right interpretations of what the writers intended.
There should be no need or requirement for any human interpretations to judge the original intentions of our founding father’s Bills or Laws. Only to judge whether the law was obeyed or not.
Have the interpretations of SCOTUS served to exalt or disgrace our nation? You decide.
In My Next Post
I will explore how in my opinion our founding fathers should have worded the Bill of Rights as a Bill of Wrongs with examples and explanations.
Regards and goodwill blogging.
Human Rights HERE
Why We Don’t Care About the Protection of Our Rights HERE
Post One HERE