Great Must-Read Article

Please take time and read the following article written by Ronnie Wolfe, Pastor of First Baptist Church, Harrison, OH.

Jerimiah 5:21

The Supreme Court and Constitutional Interpretation

What is Constitutional Interpretation?: The Supreme Court has the difficult job of applying the U.S. Constitution to situations in today's world. Constitutional Interpretation is the specific way that judges understand the text of the Constitution - what they believe it means.

Each of the Supreme Court judges uses one of several different judicial philosophies when hearing and deciding controversial cases. Variations in the judges' philosophies have led to important split decisions in recent years.

For example:

In Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), the Court voted 5-4 to strike down Nebraska's ban on partial birth abortions.

In Lee v. Weisman(1992), the Supreme Court decided, 5-4, that public school officials violated the First Amendment if they sponsored religious prayers at graduation ceremonies.

The Philosophies: This article will look at four basic philosophies, or methods, of constitutional interpretation:

Conservative:

• The Originalist Philosophy
• The Literalist Philosophy
  Liberal:
• The Modernist Philosophy
• The Instrumentalist Philosophy

The Originalist / Original Intent Philosophy: Originalists interpret the Constitution to mean what the framers intended it to mean when they wrote it. The Constitution is a legal document, they argue. It's a contract. It's original intent is everything. Originalists go to the Federalist Papers and other contemporary writings to understand the original meaning of the Constitution.

Originalists on the Supreme Court: Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas

The Literalist / Strict Constructionist Philosophy: Strict Constructionists read the law according to the literal definitions of the words involved. They do not try to infer the Framers' intent behind the words, but stick to the meanings of the actual words used.

Literalists on the Supreme Court: John Roberts and the late great William Rehnquist

The Modernist Philosophy: Modernists look at the Constitution as a "living" document. Its intents and purposes are free to change with the society it governs. Modernists argue that the Framers had no ability to foresee the various ways that future citizens might be oppressed. Judges have the responsibility to "fill in the gaps" to protect Americans from legislative tyranny by striking down laws that restrict fundamental human rights.

Instrumentalist Philosophy: Instrumentalists also see the Constitution as a living document. Instrumentalists try to apply the Constitution in the way that is most practical for contemporary society, regardless of the original intent of the document or strict definitions of its words.

Modernists/Instrumentalists on the Supreme Court: John Paul Stevens, David Hackett Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer

Liberal Swipes: Modernists consider the Originalist approach too rigid. The overwhelming purpose of the Constitution, they argue, is to protect liberty. Judges can head off a potential crisis by dealing with "bad" laws quickly, rather than waiting for the long amendment process to bring about what they consider a needed change.

Conservative Parries: Originalists and Constitutional Constructionists contend that the Constitution is a legal document, and is meant to provide rigidity. That's what structure is all about. They believe that Modernists usurp power that belongs to Congress by legislating from the bench. Non-elected judges, they argue, should not be making moral or ethical decisions for the country. Those decisions should be made by the elected representatives in the Legislative Branch - who answer to the citizens.

Conclusion:

Let's say Betsy agrees to take care of Joe's tortoise under the condition that she keep it in a "cool" location - that is, a moderately cold spot away from her furnace. It would be unfair for Joe to later say, "Hey. You need to jazz up my tortoise's tank per the 'cool' clause of our agreement." It might be good for the tortoise to have a jazzed up tank, but that was not part of the bargain Joe and Betsy made.

The Constitution is a contract between the states and the U.S. federal government. The terms of the contract need to retain the same meaning they had when the contract was signed, or it loses its true authority. The elected members of Congress are capable of writing the laws necessary to deal with a changing society. Non-elected justices should not step in and take that power for themselves.

"If you think the Constitution is some exhortation to give effect to the most fundamental values of the society as those values change from year to year;… if you think it is simply meant to reflect the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society — if that is what you think it is, then why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers? What do I know about the evolving standards of decency of American society? I’m afraid to ask."

- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

Public Schools And Religious Freedom

Introduction: While there are certain guidelines to follow, religion is still a legitimate subject for the classroom, one that both teachers and students may discuss. The "separation of church and state" crowd has worked to completely remove God from the school setting, but students and teachers still have the right to bring Him in – in many ways:

Freedom Of Speech: The Supreme Court has ruled that students retain their freedom of speech when they walk through the school doors. According to the 1969 Supreme Court decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, a school may only silence students if they are actually disrupting school discipline. So, a student may not harass other students about religion or interrupt class with Moses impressions.

Free Time: However, during free time, students are at liberty to:

• Read their Bibles
• Talk to peers about religion and pray with their peers
• Wear clothing with religious symbols and messages
• Even pass out religious tracts

As long as students are not acting out in a disruptive manner, they retain their freedom of expression.

Equal Access: According to the 2001 Supreme Court decision in Good News Club v. Milford Central School, faith-based clubs have the same rights to public school facilities as other noncurriculum clubs (like the chess club or the classical music club). Religious clubs are also guaranteed official recognition, which means the school must allow them access to the school newspaper, bulletin boards, and the public announcement system.

Any Exceptions?: Religious clubs must be student-initiated and student-led. The students may invite outside speakers, but the club must be organized and led by the students themselves.

In the Classroom: Religion is a major influence in history, politics, and the human experience in general. Because it has educational value, students and teachers may discuss religion in class. Teachers must maintain a neutral position with the students, but students are free to offer their own personal opinions on religious matters.

What About Assignments?: Students may write papers on religious subjects, including the Bible. The Bible has had an enormous impact on history and literature and is an important book to know, even from a secular viewpoint. Literature from Shakespeare to Faulkner is full of allusions that can only be fully appreciated with a working knowledge of the biblical text.

Teachers: Teachers represent the government while in the public school classroom and at school events. Teachers do not lose their First Amendment rights at school, and may discuss religious topics with their own peers, but they must be careful not to "force their religion" on the students. At the same time, teachers may not discourage students' religious activity when it falls within legal guidelines.

Can They Teach About Religion?: Teachers do have a lot of freedom to teach about religion for educational purposes. They may teach on comparative religions, including Christianity. They may discuss the impact religion has had on history and science and literature. They may even discuss religion with students one-on-one, if the student initiates and maintains the conversation and is not compelled to agree with the teacher's position.

In Conclusion: There is a growing understanding that the intellect is not the only part of the human person, but that students do have a spiritual side that also needs to be fed. Schools have the freedom to allow students to express their spiritual side and to seek to nourish it.

The 180 Days????

Christians in Politics

More and more, Christians are expressing concern over the moral drift of our nation and an increasing frustration over not knowing what they can do about it. Many wonder about the role of the pastor, the role of the local church, and the role of the individual believer. This section is intended to provide some answers on this important subject.

Why should Christians get involved?

A consistent trait throughout history is that societies to break down, decay, and eventually disappear. It is also true that a society cannot operate long in a moral vacuum. When people of good conscience fail to influence society with their values, other influences will fill the gap. This has happened in America. In the past one hundred years, most fundamental Christians have left the political arena, considering it "worldly" and outside the legitimate realm of Christian influence.

What have been the results?

Tragic consequences abound: Divorce rates, epidemics in drug and alcohol abuse, the horror of abortion and the widespread acceptance of nearly every form of sexual perversion. We can also add to this list the growing corruption within government itself and the increasingly hostile attitude of the state toward the Church.

Christians need to be involved in the political process in order to have a positive effect on the future of our communities and our nation. It is poor citizenship and poor Christian stewardship to permit this great nation to plunge on toward destruction by default.

Is political involvement Scriptural?

Much is made of the fact that nowhere in the Bible is it mentioned specifically that Christians should participate in politics. The assumption is made that unless the Bible clearly says we should - we should not. However, integrity to Scripture demands that we acknowledge that the Bible nowhere condemns involvement in politics. According to Romans 13:6,7, Paul's view of government was positive, that it is a God-given instrument for the promotion of good and a restraint to evil. I Timothy 2:1-2 records Paul's admonition that we pray for our government leaders. It is a serious mistake to take this passage as only having application to the Sunday morning pastoral prayer. Paul surely meant our prayers for civil leaders should encompass more than a general petition for God's blessing. In Romans 16:23, Paul relates a greeting from Erastus, the city treasurer. Some commentators say that this was an elected position which gave the official responsibility over all public works as well as the city treasury. There is not the slightest indication that Paul considered Erastus outside the will of God.

Politics, in the strict sense, relates to the art of governing. It is doubtful that any Christian would advocate a total absence of government. Of all the people who should hold positions of authority, it should be those who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and committed to the absolute authority of Scripture.

What about separation of Church and State?

Our national constitution was not framed with a view toward excluding Christians from civil affairs. Rather, it was written to exclude the formation of a state church or religion. Furthermore, separation of church and state cannot be taken to mean that when a Christian seeks public office he must place his faith into a blind trust. To do so would be to compartmentalize Christianity - separate life into the secular and sacred, which is impossible for the committed Christian.

What does federal law allow churches to do?

For the most part, fundamental churches are recognized by the IRS as non-profit, tax-exempt religious organizations. Within the guidelines for 501(c)3 organizations it is legal for churches to engage in the following activities:

• Voter registration and education. A church may engage in or spend money for non-partisan voter registration and voter education activities, so long as those activities are not intended to benefit any particular candidate or political party.
  
  
• Conduct public candidate forums. A church may hold public political forums for the purpose of discussing election issues, debating political or social matters, or hearing several candidates present their views, so long as all viable candidates for that office are invited.
  
  
• Introduce candidates at services. The candidate may only be introduced, or invited to deliver a message, lead in prayer, or read Scripture. The candidate may not ask for support or funds to be used in his campaign.
  
  
• Circulate petitions and lobby. A church may spend up to twenty percent of its time and annual budget circulating petitions and engaging in other legislative activities, such as lobbying. Such steps are intended to influence the outcome of legislation.

What does federal law prohibit?

Briefly, federal law prohibits 501(c)3 organizations from engaging in activities designed to specifically influence the outcome of elections:

• Establish a political action committee (PAC)
  
  
• Contribute to political parties or candidates
  
  
• Endorse candidates.

Nothing, however, prohibits individuals in the church (including the pastor) from participation in any of these activities.