[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 25010-25016]
[From the U.S. 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 
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

[[Page 25011]]

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 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

[[Page 25012]]

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 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

[[Page 25013]]

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 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?

[[Page 25014]]

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 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

[[Page 25015]]

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. 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.

[[Page 25016]]

  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.

                          ____________________