Congressional Record, Volume 145 Issue 137 (Tuesday, October 12, 1999)

[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 137 (Tuesday, October 12, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H9880-H9886]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

WHEN HISTORY IS LOOKED AT, THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL SEPARATION OF
CHURCH AND STATE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, tonight several of us are again gathered here
in the hall of the House in this legislative body that represents the
freedom that we know and love in America to discuss what our Founding
Fathers believed about the First Amendment, the freedom of religion,
the issue of religious liberty, and the intersection of religion and
public life.
Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot said by people of all political
ideologies about the role of religion in public life and the extent to
which the two should intersect, if at all. Lately we have heard the
discussion of issues like charitable choice, graduation prayers, even
prayers at football games, opportunity scholarships for children to
attend religious schools, government contracting with faith-based
institutions, and the posting of the Ten Commandments and other
religious symbols on public property.
As we hear this discussion, we often hear the phrase ``separation of
church and state'' time and time again.
Joining me tonight to examine this phrase and this issue and what our
First Amendment rights entail are several Members from across this
great Nation. I am pleased to be joined by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Tancredo), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
Ryun), and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), each of whom
will examine the words and the intent of our Founding Fathers.
I would like to begin by examining some of the words of some of our
Founders and Framers of the Constitution as we look at the issue of
encouraging religion. In debates in this body in recent weeks, some
Members have criticized proposed measures to protect public religious
expressions or to allow voluntarily participation in faith-based
programs.
They tell us that it is not the purpose of government to encourage
religion, even if it shows preference to no particular religious faith
or group. Interestingly, we hear no criticism when we encourage or
cooperate with private industry or with business or any other group.
Only when we cooperate with faith institutions do the critics emerge.
Are the programs and endeavors of people of faith below government
encouragement? Or do people of faith have some lethal virus which
prohibits the government from partnering with them? Certainly not. What
then is the problem? We are told that for us to encourage religion
would be unconstitutional, that it would violate the Constitution so
wisely devised by our Founding Fathers. This is an argument not founded
in history or precedent. It is an argument of recent origin. It does
not have its roots in our Constitution but rather in the criticisms of
numerous revisionists who wish the Constitution said something other
than what it actually does. In fact, those who wrote the Constitution
thought it was proper for the government to endorse and encourage
religion.
As proof, consider the words of John Jay, one of the three authors of
the Federalist Papers, and the original chief justice of the United
States Supreme Court.
Chief Justice John Jay declared, and I quote, ``It is the duty of all
wise, free and virtuous governments to countenance and encourage virtue
and religion.'' Chief Justice John Jay was one of America's leading
interpreters of the Constitution, and he declared it is the duty of
government to encourage virtue and religion.
Consider next the words of Oliver Ellsworth. He was a member of the
convention which framed the Constitution. He was the third chief
justice of the United States Supreme Court.

{time} 2030

Chief Justice Ellsworth declared, ``The primary objects of government

[[Page H9881]]

are peace, order, and prosperity of society. To the promotion of these
objects, good morals are essential. Institutions for the promotion of
good morals are therefore objects of legislative provision and support,
and among these, religious institutions are eminently useful and
important.''
Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth, another of American's leading
interpreters of the Constitution, and one who actually helped frame the
Constitution, declares that religious institutions are to be
encouraged.
Consider, too, the words of Henry Laurens, another member of the
constitutional convention. Henry Laurens declared, ``I had the honor of
being one who framed the Constitution. In order effectually to
accomplish these great constitutional ends, it is especially the duty
of those who bear rule to promote and encourage respect for God and
virtue.''
Henry Laurens is a third constitutional expert, one who participated
in the drafting of the Constitution and who therefore clearly knows its
intent, and he declares that it is the duty of government to encourage
respect for God.''
Consider also the words of Abraham Baldwin, another of the original
drafters of the Constitution, one of its signers. Abraham Baldwin
declared, ``A free government can only be happy when the public
principle and opinions are properly directed by religion and education.
It should therefore be among the first objects of those who wish well
the national prosperity to encourage and support the principles of
religion and morality.''
Abraham Baldwin is yet a fourth constitutional expert, a signer of
the Constitution. He declares that government should encourage
religion.
Since the very Founders who prohibited, ``an establishment of
religion'' also said that it was the duty of government to encourage
religion, it is clear that they did not equate encouraging religion as
an unconstitutional establishment of religion.
Finally, consider the words of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story,
placed on the Court by President James Madison. Justice Story, in his
1833 Commentaries On The Law, which today are still considered
authoritative constitutional commentaries, declared this, ``The
promulgation of the great doctrines of religion, the being and
attributes and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to
Him for all our actions, founded upon moral accountability; a future
state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal,
social, and benevolent virtues, these never can be a matter of
indifference in any well-ordered community. It is indeed difficult to
conceive how any civilized society can well exist without them.'' .
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story titled The Father of American
Jurisprudence for his significant contributions to American law
declares that government is not to be indifferent to religion.
There are many, many other examples, and they all prove that the
current arguments demanding that government not encourage religion or
allow participation in faith-based programs are ill-founded. The
conflict between those today who argue that the Constitution does not
permit us to encourage religion, and the actual framers of the
Constitution who assert that we may encourage religion is best
expressed by Chief Justice William Rehnquist who declared, ``It would
come as much of a shock to those who drafted the Bill of Rights to
learn that the Constitution prohibits endorsing or encouraging
religion. History must judge whether it was those in 1789, or those
today who have strayed from the meaning of the Bill of Rights.''
Certainly, clear-thinking Americans know that those who wrote the
Constitution understand its meaning better than today's critics who try
to make the Constitution say something that it does not.
It is time for this body to get back to upholding the actual wording
of the Constitution, not some substitute wording that constitutional
revisionists wish that it had said.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado Mr. Tancredo.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I rise again tonight, as
we have done on one other occasion, to address several myths, to
destroy several myths, myths that have worked their way into the fabric
of America, especially what people believe about the Constitution and
about the role of religion in American life. Perhaps no where do we
find a greater accumulation of these myths than in the area of
education and religion.
I have had the privilege in Colorado to, several times now, present
to the people of the State, through the initiative process, proposals
designed to deal with school choice, vouchers, tuition tax credits, and
the like.
I have always included in those proposals a provision that would
allow a parent to use those dollars in support of an educational
experience for their children in any school of their choice, including
faith-based institutions. Inevitably, during the debate on those
issues, inevitably, more hostility is directed toward that particular
part of our amendment than almost anything else.
One wonders what justifies this intense hostility against allowing
faith access to the halls of education and the public square. Our
opponents tell us that, ``our founding principles'' require this
hostility, that under our Constitution, public education has always
been segregated from any religious influence. They further tell us that
this was the intent of the great statesmen who gave us our government.
These, Mr. Speaker, are all myths. Such misinformed claims prove
that, evidently, the individuals making them know little or nothing
about those who gave us our documents or about the history of American
education. However, since I am pro education, I am certainly willing to
help educate my misinformed colleagues across the time on this issue.
Many of our early statesmen were great educators. In fact, in the 10
years after the American Revolution, more universities and colleges
were started than in the entire 150 years before the Revolution. Our
Founders were definitely pro education. They had much to say on the
subject, and their profound impact is still felt today.
One influential Founding Father educator was Dr. Benjamin Rush, a
signer of the Declaration of Independence, a leader in the ratification
of the Constitution, and a member of the administrations of Presidents
John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison.
The credentials of Dr. Rush are impressive. He helped start five
colleges and universities, three of which are still going today.
Additionally, he pioneered education for women and for Black Americans,
and, along with Benjamin Franklin, was the founder of America's first
abolition society.
Dr. Rush also authored a number of textbooks, held three
professorships simultaneously, and, in 1790, became the first Founding
Father to call for free public schools under the constitution.
Consequently, Benjamin Rush can properly be titled ``The Father of
Public Schools Under the Constitution.''
Now, what did this gentleman with those kinds of credentials and
background say about public education? I will quote, ``The only
foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in
religion. Without religion,'' he said ``I believe that learning does
real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind.''
Clear words about religion and education.
Consider, too, the words of William Samuel Johnson, a signer of the
Constitution and a framer of the First Amendment, the very amendment
that our opponents wrongly claim excludes religion from the public
schools.
Interestingly, in an exercise which we still practice today, Samuel
Johnson spoke at a public graduation exercise, and, at it, he told the
graduates, ``You have received a public education, the purpose whereof
hath been to qualify you the better to serve your Creator and your
country.''
Then there is the Constitution signer Gouverneur Morris. He was a
most active member of the Constitutional Convention and was chosen by
his colleagues to write the wording of the Constitution. Gouverneur
Morris is therefore called ``The Penman of the Constitution''. It
certainly seems that the man chosen to write the Constitution would
know its intent.
Concerning public education, Gouverneur Morris declared ``Religion is
the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach
the

[[Page H9882]]

precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God.''
Another drafter of the Constitution, Henry Laurens, expressed equally
clear views on religion in public schools. He explained, ``I had the
honor of being one among many who framed that Constitution. In order
effectually to accomplish these great constitutional goals, it is the
duty of rulers to promote and encourage respect for God. The Bible is a
book containing the history of all men and of all Nations and is a
necessary part of a polite education.''
Consider the next words of Fisher Ames. He was a Member of this body,
and according to the records of Congress for 1789, he was a Member of
the House, and he was the most responsible for the final wording of the
First Amendment.
Did he have anything to say about religion in schools? Definitely. In
fact, when he learned that some schools were de-emphasizing the Bible
in their curriculum, Fisher Ames exploded, ``Why should not the Bible
regain the place it once held as a school book.'' He said, ``Its morals
are pure, its examples captivating and noble.''
The man most responsible for drafting the final wording of the First
Amendment saw no problem with religion in public schools. In fact, he
believed that it was a problem if a public school excluded religion.
There are many, many others, all equally succinct in their
declarations. These are no light weights. The Penman of the
Constitution, the Father of the Public Schools Under the Constitution,
the drafter of the language of the First Amendment, delegates to the
Constitutional Convention, signers of the Constitution, and they all
agree that public education is not to exclude religion.
Because their opinion about religion and education was so clear, the
unanimous decision reached by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1844 came as no
surprise. In that case, it was proposed that a government-administered
school should exclude all ministers from its campus. It was, thus,
feared that religious influences would also be excluded.
Interestingly, the defense attorney, Horace Binney, who was a Member
of this body, the plaintiff attorney, Daniel Webster, also a Member of
the House, a U.S. Senator, and a Secretary of State for three
Presidents, and the U.S. Supreme Court all agreed that religious
influences should not be barred from the school. The decision was
delivered by Justice Joseph Story, placed on the Supreme Court by
President James Madison.
Story declared, ``Why may not the Bible, and especially the New
Testament, without note or comment, be read and taught as Divine
revelation in the school, its general precepts expounded, its evidences
explained and its glorious principles of morality inculcated? Where can
the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly
as from the New Testament?''
This was a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court. I wonder why our
colleagues across the aisle and others are so hostile to the presence
of faith in public education, and then they fail to mention this case.
I also wonder why they ignore the numerous signers of the
Constitution who said exactly the opposite of what our opponents are
advocating.
Very simply, opponents of public religious expression know that their
policies which discriminate against millions of people of faith and
against thousands of programs of faith are so unacceptable to Americans
that additional clout is needed to convince the unwilling public to
succumb to their policies.
So where do they get this additional clout? They wrongly make the
Constitution and the framers of our documents into unwilling
accomplices to their religion-hostile agenda. That is, they blame their
religious discrimination on ``the Constitution''.
Forget the fact that the Constitution does not say what the opponents
of religious expression claim that it says. Or they blame their
religion-hostile policies on the great founding principles of those who
gave us our government. Just ignore the minor technicality that those
who did give us our government opposed the very religion-hostile
policies that our opponents are now advocating.
The anti-faith policies of those who are opposed to these ideas are
just as bad as their history and just as bad as the distortions they
fabricate to try and excuse their religious apartheid. There simply is
nothing, either in the actual wording of the Constitution or in the
precedents of early American history, that requires religion to be
segregated from the public square.
So tonight we once again hope to destroy myths and to continue in
that process.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Tancredo), who happens to represent the area, I believe, of Littleton,
Colorado, where the great tragedy at Columbine High School occurred. I
am sure the prayers of the Nation have been with his constituents this
year.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

{time} 2045

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I want to take just one moment to talk a
little bit about how this important discussion came about. On June 29
of this year, the gentlewoman from Idaho introduced House Concurrent
Resolution 94 and this body debated that resolution.
It was really a simple resolution. The title of it was Recognizing
National Need for Reconciliation and Healing and Recommending a Call
for Days of Prayer.
In addition, it specifically said that, ``Resolved by the House of
Representatives that the Congress urges all Americans to unite in
seeking the face of God through humble prayer and fasting persistently,
asking God to send spiritual strength and a renewed sense of humility
to the Nation so that hate and indifference may be replaced with love
and compassion and so that the suffering in the Nation and the world
may be healed by the hand of God.''
There were a couple of other points that were basically the same,
recommending that the leaders and the national, State, and local
government and business and clergy appoint and call upon the people
they serve to observe a day of prayer and fasting and humiliation
before God. A very simple resolution, going back to the very founding
of this country on religious principles.
And yet, when that resolution came to a vote on this floor on June
29, it received 270 votes, 270 Members voted yes, 140 Members voted no,
and 11 voted present.
Now, normally it would have passed, but this was on a suspension
calendar because no one thought it would be controversial. And since it
did not receive two-thirds of the vote of those voting that day, it
failed.
It is really difficult to imagine that a simple resolution with such
traditional values expressing those calling for humility and prayer to
help heal this Nation would fail on this floor.
Now, I would also tell my colleagues that of the 140 people who voted
no on this floor, 136 of them were Democrats.
Now, I do not question the motives of anyone who voted no. However,
the vote demonstrates clearly that a significant number of Members in
this body do not want this body to express itself on religious matters.
It is also important to remember that this resolution was simply an
expression of the House on this issue, it was not a law, it did not
have any mandates, it did not have any inner enforcement, but simply an
expression of the House. And even if it had passed the House and the
Senate and was signed by the President, it would not have been an
enforceable statute, simply an expression of the sense of Congress.
Now, the sad thing is people on this body do not want the House of
Representatives expressing a view on religion, and yet nearly 200
religious resolutions have been passed by this body over the history of
this Congress and many of them passed at the request of Founding
Fathers like George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, and others.
Now, members from the other party objected to this body doing what
scores of former congressmen had constitutionally done. Why? Well, they
made it very clear that day in June that they voted against it because
they said to

[[Page H9883]]

encourage a day of prayer and fasting would be unconstitutional.
Now, why did they say that? I want to quote from their statements
taken from the Congressional Record. One of them said, ``Congress has
no business giving its official endorsement to religion. This
resolution is an official endorsement of religion and thus constitutes
an establishment of religion.''
One of them said, ``To even suggest prayer should be a government
dictated, necessary duty demeans the very sanctity of prayer.''
Another one said, ``No matter how this resolution is dressed up, it
is an official endorsement of religion and of particular religious
beliefs and activities and constitutes an establishment of religion.''
Well, I found that difficult to believe after having read this
resolution three and four and five times. There is nothing in here
about dictating anything. It does not establish any religion
whatsoever. And I wanted to touch on that briefly.
One example of the definition of ``establishment'' came from this
very body. In 1854, an investigation was conducted by the House
Committee on the Judiciary about what is an establishment of religion.
After a year of hearings and investigations on what constituted an
establishment of religion, the House Committee on the Judiciary
emphatically reported.
What is an establishment of religion? It must have a creed defining
what a man must believe. It must have rights and ordinances which
believers must observe. It must have ministers of defined
qualifications to teach the doctrines and administer the rights. It
must have tests for the believers and penalties for the nonbelievers.
There cannot be an established religion without these.
We know that this simple resolution on this floor on June 9, 1999,
did not come close to any of those. And yet most of those opposed said
that it established religion.
In addition to that, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary reported
the same thing, that it must have a creed defining what a man must
believe. It must have rights and ordinances which believers must
observe. It must have ministers of defined qualifications. It must have
tests for believers, penalties for the non-conformists.
So from these clear definitions of this body itself, from the Senate
judiciary, from the House judiciary, this resolution was not an
establishment of religion under any definition.
Further proof that it was not, Justice Joseph Story, a legal expert
appointed by the Supreme Court by President James Madison and who was
called the Father of American Jurisprudence, was very clear on what the
word ``establishment'' meant in the First Amendment.
In his commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, a work
which is still cited regularly in this body, Justice Story began by
declaring that government should not only endorse but should encourage
religion. And then he would explain that ``the promulgation of the
great doctrines of religion, the being and attributes and providence of
one almighty God, the responsibility to him for all our actions founded
upon moral freedom and accountability, a future state of rewards and
punishments, the cultivation of all the personal social and benevolent
virtues, these never can be a matter of indifference in any well-
ordered community.''
He went on to say that ``The real object of the First Amendment was
to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment by the government,
and without that there is no establishment of religion.''
I, for one, and I think others here tonight refuse to submit to the
popularity of political correctness that states that elected
representatives of the people should not pass resolutions expressing
the sense of Congress on religious matters. I do not advocate nor does
anyone here advocate the establishment of any religion as defined. We
do not want to mandate Hinduism. We do not want to mandate Buddhism. We
do not want to mandate Christianity, Jewish religion, Islamic religion.
So we do not advocate the establishment of any religion. But we
recognize the inseparability of the religious principles from humanity.
And if this body cannot discuss it, if this body cannot pass
resolutions expressing its view on religion, then who in America can?
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that very formative
discussion of the issue of religious liberty and intent of our
Founders.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) for his leadership on this most important
issue.
Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks in this chamber, we have debated so many
issues related to religious liberties. Opponents of public religious
expression from across the aisle were very vocal in their opposition.
It was difficult to listen to them rewrite history and the
Constitution.
Consider, for example, the assertions that they made when we were
debating the Juvenile Justice bill shortly after the Littleton tragedy.
One of the amendments to that bill offered by the gentleman that we
just heard from recently who represents Littleton allowed the schools
to erect memorials in honor of the slain and permitted religious
symbols or sayings to be included in these memorials if desired by the
citizens.
That identical amendment, I want to say that again, this particular
identical amendment already passed the Senate by an overwhelming
majority of 85-13. That amendment contained Congressional findings
stating, based on our investigation of the issue, that to include a
religious symbol or saying in a public display would not violate the
Constitutional prohibition against the establishment of religion.
This Congressional finding caused opponents on the other side of the
aisle to set forth a startling, dangerous document. They said, ``It is
the Supreme Court that interprets the Constitution and says what the
Constitution means. It is not the province of Congress.''
This is a very dangerous doctrine. If this doctrine is true, then
this body is no longer an independent branch of Government, it has
become a sub-branch of the Judiciary. In fact, if this doctrine is
true, we should pass no law until we get prior approval from those who
are apparently our bosses, the Judiciary.
Are my colleagues proposing we should consult the Judiciary before we
waste time passing a law with which they might disagree?
Incredibly, this doctrine was set forth in the 1930s and 1940s by
Charles Evans Hughes, who is the Chief Justice of the United States
Supreme Court. Chief Justice Hughes declared, ``We are under a
Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say that it is.''
Let me say that again. ``We are under a Constitution, but the
Constitution is what the judges say that it is.''
His statement properly raised a fire storm at the time and was
soundly refuted. It is no less dangerous today simply because it has
been revived by those across the aisle. It is unbelievable to me that
any Member of this body would support that particular doctrine.
If the doctrine reported by those on the other side of the aisle is
true that only 940 individuals in the Judiciary can understand and
interpret the Constitution, then we should replace the teaching of the
Constitution in our schools with the teaching of the decisions of the
Judiciary. And although I say this facetiously, regrettably, this is
already happening.
A former member of this body out of the State of Georgia was shocked
to find that the Government textbooks used in his State published by
one of the national curriculum publishers had actually replaced the
original words of the Bill of Rights with the court's interpretation of
the Bill of Rights.
If those on the other side of the aisle are right and only the
Judiciary can understand and interpret the meaning of the Constitution,
then the recommendations by Founding Father John Jay should be
considered subversive.
John Jay, coauthor of the Federalist Papers and who has been
mentioned many times this evening already, who was one of the three men
most responsible for the adoption of the Constitution, and the other
original chief justices of the Supreme Court, he admonished America and
he said, ``Every citizen ought to diligently read and study the
Constitution of his country. By knowing their rights, they will sooner
perceive when they are violated and be

[[Page H9884]]

the better prepared to defend and assert them.''

{time} 2100

Interestingly, this dangerous doctrine is not a new doctrine. Two
hundred years ago, it was rejected by every one of the early statesmen
who gave us this government. In fact, those who wrote the Constitution
declared the doctrine exactly the opposite of what our opposing
colleagues are setting forth.
For example, they taught that the opinion of Congress was more
important than the opinion of the Judiciary. For example, in the
Federalist Papers, Federalist Paper 51, it declares this, under the
Constitution, and I quote: ``The Legislative authority necessarily
predominates.''
Let me read from the Federalist Paper 78. It declares this, and I
quote: ``The Judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three
departments of power.''
These declarations in the Federalist Papers were representative of
the widespread feeling of those who gave us the Constitution. As an
even further example at the Constitutional Convention, delegate Luther
Martin declared, and I quote again, ``Knowledge cannot be presumed to
belong in a higher degree to the judges than to the legislature.''
There are many more examples, but the point is established: the
authors of the Constitution believed, and taught, that Congress had a
responsibility to interpret the meaning of the Constitution for itself.
So where did our learned colleagues on the other side of the aisle
come up with this radical doctrine that only unelected attorneys are
capable of correctly interpreting the Constitution? They said, and I
quote, ``Everybody learns this the first week in constitutional law in
law school or college.''
Great. Our law schools. Foxes guarding the henhouse. Should we really
trust lawyers who teach students that only other lawyers, and
especially lawyers that are on the Federal court, can interpret the
Constitution?
While the doctrine proposed by those on the other side of the aisle
is a startlingly dangerous doctrine, I can understand why they propose
it. It is evident in our recent debates on religious liberties. Some
clearly do not like the plain, unambiguous words of the Constitution
that guarantees the free exercise of religion. They do like, however,
the decisions reached by a judiciary that has become increasingly
hostile towards students and citizens and communities who simply want
to express their religious faith. Many on the other side of the aisle
are simply choosing the source with whom they agree, and,
unfortunately, it is not the Constitution.
For my part, I will continue to read and study and interpret the
actual document and when the Constitution explicitly declares that
citizens are guaranteed the free exercise of religion, I will support
those citizens' rights to express their religious faith publicly. I
choose to support the Constitution the way it was written rather than
the way a bunch of constitutional revisionists want it to read.
Mr. PITTS. I thank the gentleman from Kansas for his very informative
and timely explanation of the principles of religious freedom as
regards to our courts versus the Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Jones).
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
for yielding. I am picking up on the same theme as my distinguished
colleague from Kansas.
I, too, was shocked to hear the claim that this body is incapable of
interpreting the Constitution for itself. Unfortunately, those across
the aisle did not like the interpretation of the Constitution reached
by the majority of this body and instead preferred the interpretation
of the Constitution reached by unelected lawyers. So, in an effort to
impose the will of those judges with whom they agree on this body with
whom they disagree, they tell us that we in this body have no right to
interpret the Constitution for ourselves.
This is an amazing doctrine to set forth because they disagree with
the free exercise of religion explicitly guaranteed by the
Constitution. Contrary to their ill-educated claims, Congress does have
not only the right but also the authority and the responsibility to
interpret the Constitution for itself. We are here to use every tool at
our disposal to preserve for the people of the United States the rights
guaranteed by that document, including their right of public religious
expression, even when the judiciary disagrees with that
constitutionally guaranteed right.
Interestingly, in the course of our debates on religious liberties,
our opponents across the aisle have frequently cited two Founding
Fathers, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Since they have such a
high esteem and veneration for these two, I felt sure they would want
to know what Madison and Jefferson said about the right of Congress to
read and interpret the Constitution for itself.
When James Madison heard it proposed that only judges, and not the
Congress, were capable of interpreting the Constitution, he forcefully
rejected that suggestion. He declared, and I quote:

The argument is that the Legislature itself has no right to
expound the Constitution; that wherever its meaning is
doubtful, you must leave it to take its course until the
Judiciary is called upon to declare its meaning. I beg to
know upon what principle it can be contended that one
department draws from the Constitution greater powers than
another. Nothing has yet been offered to invalidate the
doctrine that the meaning of the Constitution may as well be
ascertained by the Legislative as by the Judiciary authority.

And distinguished Founding Father John Randolph, a member of this
body for nearly three decades who served with James Madison, reaffirmed
this doctrine explaining, and I quote:
``The decision of a constitutional question must rest somewhere.
Shall it be confided to men immediately responsible to the people or to
those who are irresponsible?'' At that point he was talking about the
Congress and judges.
I further quote:
``With all the deference to their talents, is not Congress as capable
of forming a correct opinion as they are?'' That again I think is an
important quote to share with the colleagues here tonight as well as to
those who are not here.
The other favorite Founding Father of our distinguished colleagues
across the aisle is Thomas Jefferson, the founder of their party.
Thomas Jefferson was equally clear on this issue. He declared:

Each of the three departments has equally the right to
decide for itself what is its duty under the Constitution
without any regard to what the others may have decided for
themselves under a similar question.

The doctrine that only the judiciary can interpret the Constitution
is a radical and dangerous doctrine.
And in a second statement by Jefferson, he continued the same thing,
declaring:

To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all
constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed,
and one which would place us under the despotism of an
oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more
so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for
power, and the privilege of their corps. And their power the
more dangerous as they are in office for life and not
responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective
control. The Constitution has erected no such single
tribunal.

The other founder of the Democratic Party is Andrew Jackson. Maybe
those from across the aisle would be interested in what he said on this
same issue. Jackson emphatically declared, and I quote:

Each public officer who takes an oath to support the
Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands
it and not as it is understood by others. The opinion of the
judges has no more authority over the Congress than the
opinion of Congress has over the judges. The authority of the
Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control
the Congress.

On our side of the aisle, the one we claim as the founder of our
party, Abraham Lincoln, was also clear about this issue. In his
inaugural address, President Lincoln declared, and I quote:

I do not forget the position assumed by some that
constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme
Court. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that
if the policy of the government is to be irrevocably fixed by
decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made the
people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having
resigned their government into the hands of that eminent
tribunal.

Interestingly, one of the things on which both Republicans and
Democrats

[[Page H9885]]

long agreed was rejecting the doctrine that Congress could not
interpret the Constitution. But now those from across the aisle want to
abandon the wisdom of the past two centuries and look solely to the
judiciary as being the interpreters of the Constitution.
Do they really believe the judiciary to be infallible? Need I remind
them that it was the judiciary who declared that black Americans were
property and not people? Or that it was the judiciary who instituted
the separate but equal doctrine; and that when the judiciary finally
struck down that position in Brown v. Board of Education that it was
only reversing its own policy that it had established in Plessey v.
Ferguson? Does not experience teach that the court is fallible and that
Congress in its interpretation of the Constitution has been correct
more often?
I choose to agree with America's leading statesman and legal experts
from both the Democrat and Republican parties over the past two
centuries that Congress does have both the right and the obligation to
interpret the Constitution for itself. Our oath of loyalty is not to
the judiciary's opinions but rather is to the Constitution itself. Or,
as President Andrew Jackson so accurately explained, and I quote,
``Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution
swears that he will support it as he understands it and not as it is
understood by others.''
Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I
would like to say that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian
principles and those of us who serve in the United States Congress have
a responsibility to remember that this Nation was founded on Judeo-
Christian principles.
Mr. PITTS. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for that
continuing explanation of the right of Congress to read and interpret
the Constitution for itself, and not just rely on the courts.
Indeed, there is nothing sacrosanct about a Supreme Court decision.
The Supreme Court has reversed itself over 100 times since our Nation's
founding.
At this time, batting cleanup, I yield to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. DeMint) to talk about one of the more controversial
issues that we face this session, the Ten Commandments posting.
Mr. DeMINT. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his
leadership and for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this House of Representatives recently passed a bill
sponsored by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt) which was
related to the Ten Commandments. This measure is now part of the
juvenile justice bill that along with other value-focused provisions
will make our schools safer and our communities better places to live
for everyone.
Surprisingly, several misguided objections about the Ten Commandments
bill were raised by some of my colleagues here in the House, objections
which were clearly based on a misunderstanding of the bill and of the
Constitution. Tonight, I would like to set the record straight.
The misinformation promoted by the critics of the Ten Commandments
bill includes the false idea that the bill would force schools to post
the Ten Commandments. It does not. The bill will only transfer power
away from the Federal Government and back to the State governments
where it belongs. It simply allows each State and their schools to
decide for themselves whether or not they wish to display the
Commandments. This measure wisely corrects the failed one-size-fits-all
Federal Government restrictions on religious freedoms. Furthermore, the
bill does not violate Thomas Jefferson's separation of church and state
as a few Members have charged. Rather, it complies totally with Thomas
Jefferson's intent. Jefferson believed that this issue belongs to the
States, not the Federal Government.
Jefferson forcefully argued, and I quote, ``No power to proscribe any
religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has
been delegated to the Federal Government. It must, then, rest with the
States.''
Jefferson repeated this argument on numerous other occasions,
explaining that the issue belongs to the States, not the Federal
Government. For example, in 1798 he declared, and I quote, ``No power
over the freedom of religion is delegated to the Federal Government by
the Constitution.'' And in his second inaugural address in 1805 he
declared, ``The free exercise of religion is independent of the powers
of the Federal Government.''
Very simply, according to Jefferson, the purpose of the first
amendment was to keep religious issues from being micromanaged at the
Federal level. As Jefferson explained to Supreme Court Justice William
Johnson, and I quote, ``Taking from the States the moral rule of their
citizens and subordinating it to the Federal Government would break up
the foundations of the Union. I believe the States can best govern our
domestic concerns and the Federal Government our foreign ones.''
The Bill of Rights was specifically designed to leave decisions on
things like posting the Ten Commandments in the hands of the States.
Consequently, the Ten Commandments bill passed by the House does not
violate Jefferson's separation of church and state concept. Rather, it
confirms Jefferson's clearly stated design.

{time} 2115

However, even if some were to assert that the decisions on the
display of the Ten Commandments should be a Federal issue, we can still
strongly defend the people's freedom to display the commandments.
Consider the words of President John Adams who signed the Bill of
Rights as he links the Ten Commandments with our laws protecting
individual rights, and I quote: ``The moment the idea is admitted into
society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God and that
there is no force of law in public justice to protect it, anarchy and
tyranny commence. If `thou shall not covet' and `thou shall not steal'
are not commandments of heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts
in every society before it can be civilized or made free.''
And President John Quincy Adams, a legislator and legal scholar whose
famous cases before the Supreme Court are well known, also declared
about the Ten Commandments: ``The law given from Sinai was a civil and
municipal code as well as a moral and religious code. These are laws
essential to the existence of men in society and most of which have
been enacted by every Nation which ever professed any code of laws.
Vain indeed would be the search among the writings of secular history
to find so broad, so complete and so solid a basis of morality as the
Ten Commandments lay down.''
And Noah Webster, an attorney and constitutional expert declared, and
I quote: ``The opinion that human reason left without the constant
control of divine law and commands will give duration to a popular
government is as unlikely as the most extravagant ideas that enter the
head of a maniac. Where will you find any code of laws among civilized
men in which commands and prohibitions are not founded on divine
principles?'' end quote.
Clearly, those present at the formation of our government saw no
problem with the public use of the Ten Commandments. In fact, they saw
grave consequences of any country that did not follow them.
Nevertheless, despite what some Members and some in the media have
claimed, the bill would not force anyone to display the Ten
Commandments. The bill simply transfers the decisions on voluntary
posting of the Ten Commandments back to the States and communities
where the decisions properly belong.
Those who argue that the Constitution says otherwise need to recheck
the wording of the Constitution for themselves, rather than simply
embracing the arguments of the constitutional revisionist who wished
the Constitution said something other than what it really says. This
House has taken a commendable step toward securing the future for every
American by returning more decisions and freedoms back to the States
and back to our schools. I urge my colleagues to support the juvenile
justice conference report that includes the Ten Commandments provisions
when it comes to a vote.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that excellent
discussion of the original intent of our framers regarding religious
liberty and the Ten Commandments posting debate that we have had
recently with the juvenile justice bill.
I want to say a final thank you to all of the participating Members
tonight.

[[Page H9886]]

It has been most informative to listen to each of my colleagues as
they have shared the very words of our Founding Fathers. And as we have
listened to these words, it becomes crystal clear that, to the extent
that the First Amendment addresses the interaction between public life
and religious belief, it is this: that the only thing that the First
Amendment prohibited was the Federal establishment of a national
denomination. The freedom of religion, therefore, is to be protected
from encroachment by the State, not the other way around.
Mr. Speaker, with the words of our Founding Fathers, and they are
many, from George Washington to John Adams to John Jay, Benjamin Rush,
John Quincy Adams, Fisher Ames, Daniel Webster, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas
Jefferson and others cited tonight, each one of these men was fully
committed to the primary role that religion played in public life and
in private life, yet without the establishment of one particular
denomination.
So, Mr. Speaker, as we continue to consider the many policies that
lie before us, from charitable choice to opportunity scholarships to
attend religious schools, to governmental contracting with faith-based
institutions, even to the posting of the Ten Commandments on public
property, let us do so with a true intention of the framers in mind,
and that intention was to allow and encourage religion, both to
flourish and to inform public life, yet still without naming a
particular state religion or denomination at the Federal level.
That is fully possible.
Instead of shutting it out and denying even the purely practical
solution that it offers, let us not be afraid of the good that religion
can and does bring to public life. Indeed, it is one of the reasons
that we have such a great country called America.

____________________