Loading...
Larger font
Smaller font
Copy
Print
Contents
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "undefined".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents

    THE WHOLE PROCEDURE UNCONSTITUTIONAL

    Yet, though it be too late to avoid the consequences, because the principle is established, and the consequences have begun, it is not too late to appeal from the act of Congress, and even from THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT.AUSSC 64.1

    The right of appeal from any act of Congress is recognized and well known universally. The proper source of appeal from an act of Congress should be the Supreme Court. But in this matter the Supreme Court has actually led the way, has forestalled the action of Congress, and so has completely shut off this source of appeal. It follows, therefore, that an appeal must lie, not only from the act of Congress, but from the decision of the Supreme Court itself. In short, in the situation in which this matter is placed, the appeal must be taken from the whole government of the United States. This is the only source of appeal that re-mains to the people of the United States; and this does remain.AUSSC 64.2

    The right of American citizens to appeal to the government of the United States, when it touches any of their reserved rights, is an inalienable right.AUSSC 64.3

    The authority of the government of the United States is delegated, and not absolute. The authority of the government of the United States is not the supreme authority in the United States, because the people did not delegate all their rights in the making and establishment of the government. In the Constitution the people have declared:—AUSSC 64.4

    “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”AUSSC 64.5

    The government is but a creature of the Constitution. The people made the Constitution with the delegation only of certain rights. Therefore the people are the supreme authority in the United States, and the source of final appeal in all questions of their reserved rights. And “prudent jealousy” in the guardianship of these rights against encroachment on the part of the government is the first duty of American citizens; and religious rights are the chief of all these reserved rights, no less than the chief of all natural rights.AUSSC 64.6

    The government, being but a creature of the Constitution, is subject to the Constitution. Having been created by the people, through the Constitution, it is bound by the limitations prescribed by the people in the Constitution.AUSSC 65.1

    In the Constitution the people have declared that—AUSSC 65.2

    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”AUSSC 65.3

    No power in, or over, or concerning religion has been delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor has such power been prohibited by it to the States.AUSSC 65.4

    All questions, and all matters of religion, therefore, are withheld from the government of the United States, and are reserved and belong exclusively to the States or to the people.AUSSC 65.5

    As no power concerning religion has been delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States; as all power and jurisdiction in matters of religion has been reserved exclusively to the States or to the people; it follows inevitably that the government has no power or authority or jurisdiction in, over, or concerning the subject of religion: and that therefore the Supreme Court of the United States had no authority or right to declare the American people “a religious people,” or this nation “a Christian nation,” nor had Congress any right to establish or require the recognition or observance of the “Christian Sabbath.”AUSSC 65.6

    Again, not only has no authority or jurisdiction in matters of religion been delegated to the United States by the Constitution, but all such authority or jurisdiction has actually been prohibited to the United States by the Constitution. Religion cannot rightly be made in any sense a requisite to the governmental authority of the United States, because the Constitution prohibits it in the words:—AUSSC 65.7

    “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”AUSSC 66.1

    The government can never rightly legislate in any way upon matters of religion, because the Constitution prohibits it in the words:—AUSSC 66.2

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”AUSSC 66.3

    Religion cannot rightly be made a requisite to the citizenship of the United States, because the supreme law says:—AUSSC 66.4

    “The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”AUSSC 66.5

    Therefore, as all religion, and specifically the Christian religion, is prohibited the government of the United States by the supreme law, and as the Supreme Court and Congress are but co-ordinate branches of the government of the United States, it follows inevitably that the Supreme Court not only has no power to declare, but was directly and positively by the supreme law prohibited from declaring, the American people “a religious people,” or this nation a “Christian nation;” and Congress was equally prohibited from discussing or deciding the Sabbath question, and from establishing or requiring the observance of the Sabbath. 1It is pleaded that as Congress made an appropriation of money, it had a right to put such restriction as it should see fit upon the expenditure of the money granted, as to civil restrictions. But it had no shadow of right to attach any kind of religious restriction, as it did in this case. Congress had just as much right to require the World’s Fair directory to agree to submit to Christian baptism, before receiving any of this appropriation, as to require them to agree to close the gates on the “Christian Sabbath,” which it pronounced Sunday to be. Congress had just as much right to require that the directory should agree to partake of the Lord’s Supper, as a condition precedent to receiving the appropriation, as it had to require them to agree to close the gates on the Lord’s day, as it pronounced Sunday to be.AUSSC 66.6

    Yet again: As the government is but a creature of the supreme law, it is subject to the supreme law. And although the Supreme Court is the official interpreter of the supreme law, yet the court itself is bound by the supreme law. And although Congress is the official law-making power of the government, yet it is restricted, and its power is limited, by the Constitution as the supreme law. Therefore, as the Supreme Court and Congress are but co-ordinate branches of the government of the United States; and as the government of the United States is positively prohibited by the supreme law from any jurisdiction in questions of any religion; it follows inevitably that when the Supreme Court and Congress entered the field of religion, carried on a discussion in favor of religion, and officially decided and declared that the American people is “a religious people,” and this nation a “Christian nation,” and officially decided that Sunday is the Christian sabbath, and established and required the observance thereof as “the Christian Sabbath,” both the Court and Congress did, not only what they had no authority to do, but what they were positively prohibited from doing, and so violated the supreme law, and placed themselves in a position where their conclusions, their declarations, and their decisions, so far, possess no legality or validity whatsoever.AUSSC 67.1

    In pleading before the Virginia Convention for the ratification of the Constitution, Madison said:—AUSSC 67.2

    “There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation.”AUSSC 67.3

    This being true, and the intent of the makers of the Constitution, it is easy for any person to see and to state just what these actions of the general government are. 2There is a way in which the Court could have correctly touched the Constitution in this part of its decision. It is this: Where the Court said, “No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, State or national, because this is a religious people. This is historically true,” the Court should and could have said this: No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, State or national, because it is forbidden by the constitutions, State and national. THIS IS HISTORICALLY TRUE. Then how vastly different would have been the historical citations and argument; and how vastly different would have been the decision! How infinitely different, too, would have been the consequences of the decision—the one would have kept our nation still the star of liberty and of hope to all nations, whereas the other leads the nation back to Rome and the scenes and doctrines of the Dark Ages.AUSSC 67.4

    Consequently, the conclusion of this whole matter, the sum of all that has been or that can be said upon it, is, and the demonstration is complete, that the declaration, the decision, and the act of the Supreme Court and the Congress of the United States that this is “a religious nation,” “a religious people,” and “a Christian nation,” and that Sunday is the Sabbath and should be so observed, ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID, AND UTTERLY DESTITUTE OF ANY AUTHORITY WHATEVER.AUSSC 68.1

    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents