Constitution Day 2025 - part 3

   Constitution Day 2025

Part 3

As I wrap up my focus on our magnificent Constitution, I want to remind the reader that in part one, I submitted some evidences of the Christian foundation which undergirds our Constitution, and in part two, I endeavored to demonstrate that “[o]ur Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other”. (The aforementioned was the last part of Adams’s quote.) In this third and final blog, I will continue to prove not only the above partial quote, but also the entirety of the quote.

In this blog, I will briefly address:

• Federalism

• The guarantee of a Republican Form of Government

• Oaths

• No religious Test

• The First Amendment

• We the People: the character required to sustain this constitutional republic

As we leave the three branches of government–reminiscent of Isaiah 33:22– with the balance of powers and their ability to “check” one another, we will now turn our attention to Article 4. 

Article 4

Article four shifts the emphasis away from the national government to the States. This decentralization and diffusion of power is known as federalism. In a nutshell, the national or federal government has certain enumerated powers as noted particularly in Article 1, and these powers are further outlined in Articles 2 and 3. The rest of the powers are retained by the States and by the people. This arrangement respects local self-government concerning the States and the governmental levels within them, and it also honors individual self-government as is clearly delineated in the Bill of Rights. Thus, the Constitution ingeniously binds us together in unity while respecting the diversity and responsibility of each State and of the people. As to this topic, Thomas Jefferson said,

The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the States are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign affairs. Let the General Government be reduced to foreign concerns only, and let our affairs be disentangled from those of all other nations, except as to commerce, which the merchants will manage better, the more they are left free to manage for themselves, and our General Government may be reduced to a very simple organization, and a very inexpensive one; a few plain duties to be performed by a few servants. https://www.azquotes.com/quote/544693 

Noah Webster offers a more picturesque explanation of this breakdown of sovereignty and sub-sovereignty in federalism. He writes,

As towns and cities are, as to their small matters, sovereign and independent, and as to their general concerns, mere subjects of the state; so let the several states, as to their own police, be sovereign and independent, but as to the common concerns of all, let them be mere subjects of the federal head…However independent each state may be and ought to be in things that relate to itself merely, yet as a part of a greater body, it must be a subject of that body, in matters that relate to the whole (Ferdon 390). 

Of course, this breakdown further extends to the family and the individual. The Founders possessed a keen understanding of human nature. They knew that if power was accumulated and absorbed into one man or group of men, tyranny would be the natural result. Instead, all power belongs to God alone who delegates to man specified areas of authority, power, and responsibilities for our good and His glorious purposes.

A Republican Form of Government

Article 4.4 begins with The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government... However, there is a mantra today that we are a democracy. We are not, nor can the word “democracy” be found anywhere in the four organic laws of the United States which includes the Constitution. Democracy (pure democracy) according to Wallbuilders “operates by direct majority vote of the people. When an issue is to be decided, the entire population votes on it; the majority wins and rules”. The eventual result of such a form of government is that “In [a] democracy…there are commonly tumults and disorders…Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth” (Noah Webster/Wallbuilders). Rather, America is a republic, more specifically a constitutional republic. 

What is a Republic?

A republic is not rule by men; it is rule by laws. Laws do not change, but men do. Of course, if the positive laws are bad, that is, they conflict with God’s moral law, they can be changed through the legislative or the amendment process. 

A republic is characterized by written law (in our case, the Constitution and laws pursuant to it), men and women elected to represent the people according to said laws, and equality under the law. This governmental organization was derived from the Hebrew republic in Exodus 18:12, and Deuteronomy 1:13-15, and it requires wisdom and individual self-government from the electorate. As Ferdon notes in her book, A Republic If You Can Keep It, 

“[T]he very nature of “republicanism” is its emphasis upon local self-governing bodies organized through local choice of leadership. Civilly, a republican form of government is characterized as a delegated body of representatives charged by the politically enfranchised to rule and manage their local political affairs through consent. Historically, republican government of this nature was also referred to as independent government, graduated or extended self-government, or delegated self-government” (110).

Article 5

This article addresses the process of amending the Constitution which might need to happen from time to time in pursuit of a more perfect union.

Article 6

America is a sovereign nation which declares that the Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made…under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land. 

So important is the supremacy of the Constitution that an Oath or Affirmation to support it is required of elected officials.

Oaths

There are at least four places in the Constitution in which an oath or affirmation is required. (An affirmation, in legal terms, is equivalent to an oath). An oath is defined as “[a] solemn affirmation or declaration, made with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed. The appeal to God in an oath implies that the person imprecates His vengeance and renounces His favor if the declaration is false… A false oath is called perjury” (“Oath,” def.).

Concerning oaths, the Reverend John Witherspoon noted,

An oath is an appeal to God, the searcher of hearts, for the truth of what we say, and always expresses or supposes an imprecation of his judgement upon us, if we prevaricate.

An oath therefore implies a belief in God, and his Providence, and indeed is an act of worship, and so accounted in Scripture, as in that expression, Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and shalt swear by his name… (Witherspoon 130).

Hence, the question comes down to this, 

Can it with propriety be said that a government which forbids the exercise of the slightest of its functions by any one who cannot make and has not made such an appeal to the supreme Being, in whom he believes does not recognize the authority of God? It includes other sovereignties, and provides that even there no man shall be entrusted with any power that concerns the whole people who fails to furnish this testimony of his religious character (Morris 313).

Thus, though the Constitution does not explicitly mention God until the end of it, the federal government is nevertheless a creation of the states which possessed Christian based constitutions. Additionally, the requirement of oaths here is a testament to their acknowledgement of God, and the option of affirmations reveal that they understood that religious liberty or liberty of conscience are necessary for freedom.

No Religious Test

At first glance, the prohibition of requiring a religious test seems to indicate that religion (Christianity) or perhaps even morality were unimportant as they relate to entering public office. Nothing could be further from the truth. 

On this article Judge Story says—The clause requiring no religious test for office is recommended by its tendency to satisfy the minds of many delicate and scrupulous persons, who entertain great repugnance to religious tests as a qualification for civil power or honor. But it has a higher aim in the Constitution. It is designed to cut off every pretence of an alliance between the Church and the State in the administration of the National Government. The American people were too well read in the history of other countries, and had suffered too much in their colonial state, not to dread the abuses of authority resulting from religious bigotry, intolerance, and persecution (Morris 307).

There is one other reason I’d like to offer: the requirement of a religious test could become fertile soil for unintended consequences especially in a somewhat progressive culture as exists today. As James Bayard stated, “The prohibition of any religious test for office was wise, because its admission would lead to hypocrisy and corruption” (Morris 310). And yet we can all attest to the truth of this statement as we have seen over the years potential officeholders professing Christianity, I assume, because they need the support of this majority voting bloc. However, upon assuming office, they put forth vile and immoral policies which produce confusion and a disdain for Christianity among the unregenerate. 

Article 7

The Constitution was ratified in the year of our Lord and in light of the Declaration of Independence.

The Bill of Rights

I will end with the First Amendment though the entire Bill of Rights could be used to underscore the Christian foundation of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is probably best viewed as a continuation of our God-given, unalienable rights found in the Declaration of Independence. The First Amendment protects our freedom of conscience.   

The First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 

• Establishment of religion: As was remembered from the histories of other countries, the establishment of a national religion would produce a union between the Church and the State and would eventually lead to persecution of non-adherents. Accordingly, this even had to be corrected in some of the Colonies who were zealous for their particular sect (denomination).

In his article, From Jefferson to Brandeis: The First Amendment, the Declaration, and the Constitution, Jeffrey Rosen informs us “that Madison, the drafter of the First Amendment, shared Jefferson’s views because he echoed them in his Memorial and Remonstrance in 1785, which persuaded the Virginia Legislature to pass Jefferson’s bill” (Rosen 6). And just what was detailed in Jefferson’s bill?

Thomas Jefferson’s 1777, bill was the Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia. As Rosen recalls, 

“Under Virginia’s colonial religious code, all dissenters were required to support and attend the Established Anglican church. Presbyterians and Baptists could be arrested for practicing their faith or preaching the gospel. Quakers, Jews, and other dissenters could be denied the freedom to marry or to have custody of their children. Jefferson proposed not only to disestablish the Anglican Church and remove all criminal punishments for dissent, but also to prohibit all compelled support for religion of any kind. He concluded that because freedom of conscience is a fundamental right, government can regulate “overt acts against peace and good order,” but it lacks all power to “intrude into the field of opinion” (Rosen 4).

Thus, the exclusion of any law which respects an establishment of religion would keep us from civil-ecclesiastical tyranny.

• Prohibiting the free exercise thereof: Conversely, Congress is to make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This is precisely what occurred from the national and state governments during the “COVID era”. Prohibitive mandates were promulgated, and the civil authorities trampled on our rights of religious freedom. They transgressed that which alone is God’s jurisdiction, precisely that of the human conscience. (See Romans 2:15-16)

• Or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press:The freedom of speech and of the press are parallel rights. Both the spoken and written word flow from ones conscience. The freedom to speak and to write–the two main ways of communicating and/or disseminating information– belong to every citizen. As for the press, they are journalists who are to simply give an eye-witness and/or investigative report on events in both the governmental and private sectors. When our freedom to speak is hindered, or when the press is hindered or corrupted, it stifles the free-flow of ideas, and the atmosphere is quickly infected with propaganda and outright lies. 

Again, Rosen writes that,

 “Jefferson emphasized that it’s crucial in a democracy for citizens to be able to criticize public officials because legislators and religious leaders, “being themselves fallible and uninspired,” will always try to impose “their own opinions and modes of thinking” on others…[In] expressing his unshakable faith in the power of reasoned deliberation to distinguish truth from error, [Jefferson emphasized that] “truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate”” (7,8). 

Of course, in light of right and wrong, free speech must be curtailed if its immediate effect could cause injury or death. As W. Cleon Skousen noted in The Making of America, “On the state level it is necessary to prohibit freedom of speech in a number of ways. For example, it is not permissible to…slander or libel another person. It is also unlawful to cry “Fire!” in a crowded auditorium or theater as a practical joke and thereby cause a panic” (688). 

• Or the Right of the People Peaceably to Assemble: This acknowledges our right of voluntarily association with others in various capacities. However, it is also closely associated with the final clause in this amendment concerning petitioning.

• And to Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances. Again, Skousen informs, 

“In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote…”In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”” 

Of course, governments throughout the ages have resented petitions for the simple reason that they usually itemize the sins of government and the dereliction of administration by government offices. Nevertheless, this is the safety valve by which governments survive. (689, 90)

We the People: the character required to sustain this constitutional republic

Because it can hardly be said better than they have, I will offer some insights and cautionary advice from Judge Joseph Story and Noah Webster as to what is required of us to keep our Republic. 

“This constitution of government,” says Justice Story, “must perish, if there be not that vital spirit in the people which alone can nourish, sustain, and direct all its movements. It is vain that statesmen shall form plans of government in which the beauty and harmony of a republic shall be embodied in visible order, shall be built upon solid substructions, and adorned by every useful ornament, if the inhabitants suffer the silent power of time to dilapidate its walls or crumble its massy supporters into dust, if the assaults from without are never resisted and the rottenness and mining from within are never guarded against. Who can preserve the rights and liberties of a people when they shall be abandoned by themselves?...America, free, happy, and enlightened as she is, must rest the preservation of her rights and liberties upon the virtue, independence, justice, and sagacity of the people. If either fail, the republic is gone. Its shadow may remain, with all the pomp and circumstance and trickery of government, but its vital power will have departed” (Morris 319, 20).

As alluded to, “this dark condition of the republic [is] produced by the general corruption of the people and the government” (Morris 319). What do we need to return the general character that We the People possessed at the time of our founding? Here, Noah Webster offers his sage advice.

 “If we and our posterity shall be true to the Christian religion–if we and they shall live always in the fear of God and shall respect [H]is commandments–if we and they shall maintain just moral sentiments, and such conscientious convictions of duty as shall control the heart and life–we may have the highest hopes of the future fortunes of our country;...But if we and our posterity neglect religious instruction and authority, violate the rules of eternal justice, trifle with the injunctions of morality, and recklessly destroy the political constitution which holds us together, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us that shall bury all our glory in profound obscurity” (Morris 320, 21)

In short, we need the gospel of Jesus Christ. We need the Great Awakening style of religion which changed lives and in turn, these believers changed the culture, a culture in which the Moral Law was esteemed and the conviction from it was felt by the general population. We need a moral and religious people.

Works Cited

Note: Besides the websites embedded in these documents, the sources cited are as follows:

Barton, David, and Tim Barton. The American Story: The Beginnings. WallBuilder Press, 2020

Demar, Gary. America’s Christian History: THE UNTOLD STORY. American Vision, Inc., 1996

Ferndon, Gai M. A Republic If You Can Keep It. Foundation for American Christian Education, 2008

Foster, Marshall. The American Covenant: The Untold Story. Nordskog Publishing, Inc., 2021

“Founders & Democracy.” WallBuilders, 29May23 https://wallbuilders.com/resource/republic-v-democracy/ 

MacArthur, John. The MacArthur Study Bible. Thomas Nelson, 1997

Morris, Benjamin F. The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States. American Vision Press, 2021

Rosen, Jeffrey. “From Jefferson to Brandeis: The First Amendment, the Declaration, and the Constitution.” The National Constitution Center, 2May22, http://constitutioncenter.org/go/firstamendment 

Skousen, W. Cleon. The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution. National Center for Constitutional Studies, 2007

www.webstersdictionary1828.com 

Witherspoon, John. “Lectures on Moral Philosophy.” Internet Archive, Princeton University Press, 1912. https://archive.org/details/lecturesonmoralp00withrich/page/n13/mode/2up