I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state, I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution.I thought I'd give it a shot. Here's my email. You can contact him at david.bradley@tea.state.tx.us
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good evening Mr. Bradley,
I heard in the news today that you "have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find [a separation of church and state] in the Constitution.” If I may, please objectively read this analysis demonstrating that the constitution does separate, at the least, aspects of the institutions of church and state.
As you probably know, the legal precedent for this 'separation' stems from the establishment clause and the free exercise clause in the first amendment of the constitution. As you also probably know how these two clauses have developed into the 'separation of church and state,' I rather not argue this as you probably would retort interpretation of the constitution does not equate to what the 'founding fathers' wrote. However, before I continue, I would like to note that in Article III the constitution give "judicial Power" to the supreme court, without stipulating how the supreme court would judge cases under its jurisdiction. Without specific rules, the supreme court must interpret the Constitution to some capacity. While interpretation can be strict, there are a variety of approaches that have been legitimately practiced for just over 200 years. Interpretation of the Constitution is a central component that allows the constitution to be applicable in many ways. However, for the concept of the separation of church and state you refer to, the Constitution is quite clear.
Now, I bring my focus to the establishment clauses. In the former President James Madison papers, the author of the clause, it is shown that he "apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience...", or otherwise stated that the government would be prevented from imposing religious beliefs on individuals. While this view was quite clear, it still can be argued that there is no textual distinction of the separation of church and state. Again, I beg to differ.
The establishment clause, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" refers to two institutions, congress and an unspecified religion, and a specific mandate that distinguishes what the state institution cannot do. What the state institution cannot do is credential a religious institution. Specifically, this has nothing to do with the belief structure of a religion; I think we can agree that you cannot establish a belief or prohibit someone from belief. However, the institution organized around a belief system can be established. In sum, the this state institution is prohibited from regulating a religious institution. Thus, a barrier of what the government can or cannot do in respect to a religious institution.
The church is a religious institution and the establishment clause prevents the government from regulating that institution. While this is a strict reading of the constitution, there is a very specific separation between the two institutions on the issue of regulation, in particular the establishment or the right for a religious institution to practice their belief. This was clarified in the unanimously ratified Treaty of Trippoli, drafted under the Washington Administration in 1796, which states in Article 11, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Moreover, Article VI of the Constitution states that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." (emphasis added). While you may argue that because the Constitution may not specifically separate church and state, the treaties that are adopted by the Senate are held to the same esteem in the written word of the founding fathers.
Out of context from of the legal precedent set since 1897 that there is a separation between church and state, I have shown a specific aspect where the government legislative body is barred from performing an action reserved to religious institutions; the establishment of a religious institution or regulating a religious institution in how they practice their belief. Held in the same honor and respect as the Constitution, by the Constitution, The Treaty of Trippoli as well supports that the United States of America is wholly distinct and separate from the Christian religion, if not any religious institution. Whether you reject the broad notion that there is no constitutional separation of church and state, there are specific constitutional separations between the church and state.
Please, if you find a logical fallacy in my analysis, I would appreciate the discussion. If your objective analysis proves that you concur with my reasoning, I look forward to a further conversation on charities worthy of your donation.
Sincerely and thankfully,
Austin
