Natural law, 'nature's God' and the constitutional conservative

Wow, some really good answers. Some very ignorant people just bashing others.
I find those with hearts inclined towards our founding father's true wishes for this great nation of America, are on the right track. Those who seem to hate, well about everything and everyone, veer to the far left. Always seems to be the same trend.
I am a God fearing, Jesus loving Christian, as is my whole family. I live in a country of many freedom's which came with a hefty price.
My rights, did not come from a government but from God first, then wonderful men, who loved the Lord, wrote our Constitution, not their words, words of Wisdom from Christ, Himself.
Why do so many Christian hating, Bible bashing, people feel the need to attack in such a fierce way? They know they are already defeated.......
People, read your Bibles. Victory has been won and was attained at Calvary.
We are a Blessed by God nation due to those before us that truly lived for Him.
Now here we are sooooooo many years later. Blessed and ungrateful, unthankful even denying where our Blessing's come from. Accepting so many offenses, hating the truth, living in filthy, stenchful sinful ways, turning noses up at God, our Beloved Father.
You want a new start, REPENT !!!
Then vote for the official that has the closest running record to the word of God.
That is how we will have smaller government, less invasion on our rights and privacy. Don't just say things with your mouth, live for Chirst.
We the People, are a majority. The majority want to go back to a more simple, pure, clean, moral way of living and Government. Vote that way... .live that way. Keep striving towards that mark, everyday. We all sat back and let this horrible man become President of our great Land. We sat back and didn't fight when only a handful of people wanted to take prayer out of school. We the People, now need to stand, strong, united and say " NO more" These liars we have in Congress now would do anything to keep their jobs, even cheat at the polls using absentee ballots. They know their time is short. Lets make it shorter. Vote... Vote.. Vote. God Bless all of you, wether you like it or not. Jim & Naneha Lee, Mena, AR

All the rights granted us in the U.S. Constitution, are GOD given rights. Examples of all of our constitutional rights can be found in the KJV Bible.
Our country is being/has been taken over by a communist socialist regime. We are beyond the point of no return. From this point forward, the Constitutional United States of America cannot make a comeback without a national revolution, and revolution is IMPOSSIBLE with out blood shed; every student of history knows this.
.Ben Scot Monteith.

Something just a little off the subject.

Here’s a little story that might help some people stop and think. The plant that I work at has a lot of good people. They have time and time again, come together to help their fellow employees. Over the years, many people that we worked next to have had circumstances come up in their lives that left them in need. Every time the employees on their own, have stepped up and help meet those needs.
The company didn’t mandate that we give anything. As a matter of fact the company didn’t get involved at all. What the company did do at their own expense was to allow us to take up collections on their time. That was their gift to us, and to our fellow employee in need. That is a lot more than most big corporations would have allowed.
The latest need that the employees at this plant had to address, concerned an employee that has a disease that will leave him crippled for life. It doesn’t get better, it progressively gets worse.
We all watched as this employee struggled to fulfill his duties, and do his job, even to the point that the pain showed up in his eyes. He tried to smile, and go on, but even the strongest can’t fight forever. Guess what, we all noticed that this employee who had showed up every day, was now missing, and we all wondered why.
One of the employees who also has a business on the side, decided to pay him a visit and find out why. When he found out the circumstances, he was quick to offer his help, and also let the rest of us know, that this employee was in need of our help.
Out of the kindness of his heart he offered his services. Out of the kindness of our hearts, we offered what money we could afford. Our combined efforts provided this employee with a, much needed sidewalk, (due to his circumstances) and some extra money to help with his bills.
We gave because we wanted to give. The company didn’t force us to give. The Government didn’t tax us and force us to give. We gave to someone who had worked hard, and deserved our help. True Americans give to the deserving. If you want a free handout, you need to ask a socialist for help.
You want well deserved help, ask a true American. See below for someone who doesn’t deserve your help.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBzjLnO-e3o&feature=player_embedded

I have read the article and yes I am a "Constitution Conservative". I knew that my political leanings were conservative and I would like to see our Constitution to be upheld. I am tired of both "national parties" not doing what they said that they were going to do while they run for re-election and I won't take it anymore. I do intend to vote for those who share my way of thinking and I know that it won't be any from the "major parties". I was taught that this country was founded on the theory that the "majority rules" in our land and I have seen time and time again that this idea has been forgotten in the last 50 years. I can no longer support a government that is taking away everything that I fought for and my brother, father,grandfather and all the way back to the Revolution. It is time for another "revolution" to take place at the voting booth on November 2, 2010 and I hope that the people that care enough to protect our "rights" will be voting all those who are in office today out. We must do it now or we can say goodbye to all that this country has stood for for the last 234 years since we declared our independence from a government that no longer cared what we wanted just what they wanted. And finally everybody our Constitution still works and we can make it work for us and against those who don't know what it says. America you have been duly warned, to ignore this is to say that you don't care, to arise to the call is the height of patriotism. So America arise!!!

I just love the way that those who have commented here, degrading our constitution, spitting in the face of our God, suggesting that we replace freedom with socialism, comparing mankind with animals, etc., also love to hide behind the right provided you by people who fought and died to secure those rights for you.
Where do I disagree with our constitution? Here's one place. Those who wrote the constitution did not consider the fact that they needed to make special provisions for dealing with the idiots our nation has bred. You know the idiots that never paid a price, but enjoy the freedoms.
You know, someone like our current President, and most of the people who support him, and most of the people he supports.
I hate Right wing, I hate Left wing, but I love our nation, and all that it stands for. From what I have read by some, you hate both.
From what I understand, there is no provision in our constitution, that prohibits one from leaving this country. There are many Nations that will welcome people like yourselves with open arms. They want people that are willing to be slaves rather than being self governed. People who have no God except for their government, and something called science.
They also will welcome those who consider mankind to be nothing more than another form of animal. They welcome leeches like yourselves, just long enough to bleed the leech.
You are welcome to leave this nation any time you choose. You are very strong, and very smart. You don't need a constitution, you don't need God, you don't need anything but yourself and a few others that are just as stupid as you.
You might find that once you enter any other nation, you might wish you had a constitution, you might wish you had a God, you might wish that there were others willing to lay down their lives to help secure your freedoms. You might end up wishing you could open up your big mouth and speak out against your new nation like you could here, but you made your own choice.
Don't worry loud mouth, like any other animal, all you have to do is adapt to your new circumstances.
Wish you luck in your new environment.

Dear Mr. Sekulow
First let me thank you for being a voice for the silent majority who are going about their daily jobs in pursuit of the American dream. I think many are waking up to the reality that our children and grandchildren may be the first generations to not have this opportunity to pursue the American Dream due to the tyrants that have taken over. How can 443 people have so much control over 300 million plus people? How can they redefine America and what is natural and granted to us by GOD?
I always marvel at the words of our founding fathers of our Great Nation as a nation UNDER GOD. They had to risk life and property to stand up for liberty from tyranny. They were self-made men of courage. We can continue to learn from them that we must limit government and control it and not the other way around. We owe it to them and those who have chosen to spread the Judeo-Christian principles around the world by example, the American service men and women who serve our great country, America.
May GOD continue to bless and keep you in your important mission of using the law to protect us from the abuse that is so rampant in our government today. Some are trying to put us under a global “New World Order”. We need to stay America, one sovereign nation under GOD

The Constitution's author, James Madison, wrote Thomas Jefferson on 8 February 1825, these words concerning the supremacy of the Declaration of Independence over our nation's Constitution:

“On the distinctive principles of the Government...of the U. States, the best guides are to be found in...The Declaration of Independence, as the fundamental Act of Union of these States.”

President James Madison, June 20, 1785 - "Before any man can be considered as a member of Civilized Society, he must first be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe."

James Madison also wrote, "The belief in a God All Powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities impressed with it." In a letter to Frederick Beasley.

George Mason 1772, "The laws of nature are the laws of God, Whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth. A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to Him from Whose punishment they cannot protect us, all human constitutions which contradict His laws, we are in conscience bound to disobey."

Alexander Hamilton - "To grant that there is a supreme intelligence who rules the world and has established laws to regulate the actions of his creatures; and still to assert that man, in a state of nature, may be considered as perfectly free from all restraints of law and government, appears to a common understanding altogether irreconcilable. Good and wise men, in all ages, have embraced a very dissimilar theory. They have supposed that the deity, from the relations we stand in to himself and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable law, which is indispensably obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution whatever. This is what is called the law of nature....Upon this law depend the natural rights of mankind."

James Wilson wrote in his Lectures on Law, 1789-91: "Law...communicated to us by reason and conscience...has been called natural; as promulgated by the Holy Scriptures, it has been called revealed...But it should always be remembered, that this law, natural or revealed...flows from the same divine source; it is the law of God." James Wilson continued: "Human law must rest its authority, ultimately, upon the authority of that law, which is divine." The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania records in Updegraph v. Commonwealth, 1824: "The late Judge James Wilson, of the Supreme Court of the United States, Professor of Law in the College in Philadelphia...for our present form of government we are greatly indebted to his exertions...In his Course of Lectures (3d Vol. of his Works, 122), he states that...'Christianity is part of the common-law.'"

See http://www.earstohear.net/Heritage/foundation.html

To me the definition of a constitutional conservative is a person who does not revise the constitution to institute a new form of modern slavery. The term modern slavery is defined as a government created environment that is debt ridden, where the government solves peoples problems that they should have taken responsiblity for and one where you do not have to work to make a living - you just convince the government to take some elses money to spend. It is clear that we are in a time where personal responsibility is not a virtue. When will America wake up? The constitution is not perfect but it has worked until the last 40 or so years when our nation lost its way.

Constitutional Conservative = Free Market Christian Theocrat

TO JOHN_ENGELMAN1, YOU SIR ARE AN IDIOT ! JOSIE

Posted by: OneNationUnderGodUSA | October 19, 2010 8:50 AM Well said!

And anyone who disagrees should be stoned for blasphemy! John 10:33.

The specific purpose of the constitution is to define every power the federal has to exercise. Adding to those powers is the specific purpose of the amendment process. Life, Liberty (defined as ownership of property, and the pursuit of happiness been abridged by ruling elite, as proven by world wide government history. Tyranny is the result. The constitution was designed and formed to divide control thus ensuring government by the people, and is unique in this regard.
These are indisputable facts clearly portrayed in writings of the times.
Moreover the subtle abuse of the purpose has been creatively exercised through programs and policies that curtail state and individual rights.
Although these programs have existed for half a century or more, they avoid constitutional integrity precisely to enable minority addenda and control, often "in the name of the people and for their good".
The assumption by legislators that they have superior understanding and wisdom violates the means of preventing takeover of my rights. Jim Stein

How can we really believe our government, and for that matter, many of the public of our great nation have not twisted the meaning of our Constitution to fit their own selfish agenda? Separation of church and state: to keep the government from pressing any religion onto the citizens so that we have a free will of our own religion. What is their in this definition that tells religion to stay out of the governments business? NONE!
Lets make sure that if the Constitution is pressed against us that the definition is correct. We live in a great country! Lets keep it great and not twisted!

What a joke. This "constitutional conservative" garbage is what I hate about politics: it's all about choosing manipulative terms for things. How many of these "constitutional conservatives" know the first thing about the constitution? They're just reactionary and they see the constitution as harking back to a time of small government and dominance of conservative Christianity.

I'd be much more interested in these people if they could tell me what they want to change about the government in more specific terms than "make it smaller." You want to shrink the government? By cutting what specific programs?

You don't like health care reform? That doesn't mean that the constitution stands for the proposition that we should line the pockets of insurance companies while ordinary people go bankrupt paying for medical expenses.

The United States Constitution is not The Absolute Truth. It is nothing more than one way to operate a representative democracy. As democracy has spread throughout the world, the British parliamentary system has been a more popular model. The U.S. Constitution is ambiguously worded. That is why most Supreme Court decisions are not unanimous. The Constitution is the last refuge of those who know that their arguments are untenable and that most Americans disagree with them. Those who claim to stand in front of the Constitution defending it are really hiding behind it, hoping no one notices how feeble their arguments are.

Scripture always helps set the tone for describing "Nature's God", The Creator of Heaven and earth. If we truly want to be a constitutional conservative, we need to realize how conservative our Founding Fathers were. They memorized the below Bible verses and used them to guide them in the construction of our nation.

When you rely on the wisdom that comes from an eternal God, in the establishment of a nation you expect to endure for generations; you start with logic that will be relevant in every age (despite what the modern day humanists may tell you today).

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.(John 1:1) "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."(John 1:14)

"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"(John 8:58)

"He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."(Colossians 1:117)

"And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.(John 17:5)

Our mostly Christian Founders knew not only that their rights came from God, but that obedience to His Laws would be necessary to keep our Liberty and society Blessed. Read the results of following or turning away from God in Deuteronomy 28, or what Jesus says in John 15:4-5 (something we have proven in America over the last 234 years).

Prayer (like in 2 Chronicles 7:14) and a return to obeying the Laws of God, is exactly what is needed to restore our Constitutional Republic, as Benjamin Franklin reminded of us so long ago.

God-fearing, Patriotic Americans must hear,listen, and follow the words of The LORD:"Depart from evil, and do good; and dwell for evermore. For the LORD loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off. The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever. The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment. The law of his God is in his heart; none of his steps shall slide. The wicked watcheth the righteous, and seeketh to slay him. The LORD will not leave him in his hand, nor condemn him when he is judged. Wait on the LORD, and keep his way, and he shall exalt thee to inherit the land: when the wicked are cut off, thou shalt see it. I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree. Yet he passed away, and, lo, he was not: yea, I sought him, but he could not be found. Mark the perfect man, and behold the upright: for the end of that man is peace. But the transgressors shall be destroyed together: the end of the wicked shall be cut off. But the salvation of the righteous is of the LORD: he is their strength in the time of trouble. And the LORD shall help them, and deliver them: he shall deliver them from the wicked, and save them, because they trust in him.(Psalm 37:27-40).

The model for a government of the people, by the people, and for the people was given us in the beginning and the further away we get the more it costs us in taxes, understanding, time, and most importantly -- freedom. Individual freedom is being slowly eroded so that our grandchildren won't have the freedom we have and will be paying our bills through taxes with less representation in government. This erosion has been going on for too many years and it's time We The People did something about it. We need to vote for representatives that will restore states rights, stop the expansion of the federal government, and reduce its power to what is described in the Constitution. VOTE: It's a right we can't afford to loose!!!

Dear Mr. Sekulow,
Aren't you aware of how Americans have lost their constitutional rights due to the Super Patriot Act and to Treaties with the U.N. and the Free Trade Agreements, i.e., Nafta and Cafta, and also North American Union between Mexico and Canada.
These treaties and agreements allegedly give our constitutional rights to the U.N. and the Agreements negate our borders creating essentially a borderless nation with out any sovereign of her own, and an allegiance to the United Nations.....So, I don't see how it is going to make any difference with a Constitutional Conservative if these treaties and agreements are in use at this time. Would you please given an answer to this dilemma!

Posted by: jdcc2010

*******************************************

The US Constitution is national. The US do need international and supranational laws as much as other nation states for agreed common terms of reference and standards among nation-states. These laws are negotiated by member states of the UN and through it various agencies. Trade and enviroment are still ongoing.

Law of the Sea, human rights, IATA etc are in place. Nation-states have been known to change their Constitution, laws and acts to be in compliance with supranational laws.

As for bilateral and regional pacts, including trade pacts, those are voluntary and by mutual agreement after negotiations. One never heard of negotiators agreeing to pacts which are contrary to their national interests or to contradict their Constitution, if they have one. The UK has no Constitution, only Magna Carta from which its specific laws and acts are derived from and more.

Which nation's Constitution has clauses on, say, air transportation, the environment? How does pursuing them internationally be in contradiction with the US Constitution? The US Constitution did not mention on rights of the child, and still there are national laws and international conventions pertaining it.

Is acceding to, say, the Kyoto Protocols against the US Constitution as the Supreme Law of the US? Or was it against national interest or specific vested interest? And the ICC and ICJ is against US Constitution too? "Constitutional conservatives" are for legal unilateralism and exceptionalism in a globalised world desperately needing common agreed standards, norms and laws on everything from trade to the environment and not just human rights?

We Need to keep our constitution and laws that are already in effect when we first drafted the constitution. In God We trust. We need to keep.The new health plan to me, is just a step towards communism.We will not stay free if we keep on letting the government make laws and we have to abide by them or go to jail, that is socialistic. We are the United States and we need to stay United in our Freedom.

I do believe there is a movement back to the roots of our great Nation but in order to make a change we all have to get out and VOTE!!!

The text of the Constitution, records of the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist papers written in support of its passage and always acknowledged by the Supreme Court as historical aids to its proper interpretation, and other writings by, or cited by, the Framers and Founders, the text and arguments for the passage of the Bill of Rights, etc., make very clear that the Constitution followed upon the foundation of the Declaration of Independence. “life, liberty, and property” in U. S. CONST. AMEND. V is one example clearly derived from “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” which the Declaration says are fundamental and “unalienable” rights granted not by government but by “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.”
Not all the Founders were Christians, but the argument, often quoted in textbooks and by teachers that “the Founders were Deists,” is never supported by any actual original evidence, because that generalization is easily refuted and, indeed, a palpably absurd lie. The Framers were a group of strikingly well educated, strong-minded men who could hardly have been believed to agree about theology or government. Washington, Jay, etc. were leaders in the Episcopalian church. Franklin was no saint but firmly and publicly believed in resurrection through Jesus Christ. Jefferson [who wasn’t at the Constitutional convention but in France] could arguably be called a deist, and was the only President, including those Founder Presidents who were at the Constitutional Convention, who did not make a Presidential Thanksgiving proclamation because he was the only one who believed that, in his official capacity, he had no Constitutional power to do so. He is among those who also vetoed bills on the stated ground that they were not authorized within the Constitution. Paine, not at the Constitutional Convention, was an atheist. One didn’t have to support the Iroquois government, one of the sources of federalism, to support that, either.
By the way, the next time you hear what is now called a “liberal,” i.e., a leftist supporter of the relatively recent so-called “living Constitution” theory that Congress or the Supreme Court do, or could, sit as a kind of “continuing Constitutional convention,” tell you that the Tenth Amendment is “merely declaratory,” and thus does not have effect, contrary to every rule of construction, and, indeed, that the powers and functions of the federal government are or should be unlimited and determined by current election returns, remember, or go to the original source materials and verify, the fact that the Framers originally omitted the Bill of Rights from the Constitution because they had not given the federal government, the subject thereof, any power to invade the rights guaranteed [not granted] therein. In other words, whatever one says about the Tenth Amendment can also be said about, for example, the First, and the five (5) specific fundamental human rights guaranteed therein.

It is amazing how far " We The People" have let the Government grow way out of it's Constitutional mandate. Hopefully this election will bring about a change that will help restore the Government to it's proper limited Constitutional role.

The entire foundation for our nation's form of government is established by these words from the Declaration of Independence: "...all men (humans) are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..." Our government can only work if we recognize our equality. But our equality only exists insofar as it has been ENDOWED to us by our CREATOR. No Creator, no equality. If God is removed from the equation and we consider humans as merely ultra-evolved animals, then the concept of equality becomes a farce that is demonstrably false. I am not literally equal to anyone else on earth. I'm not the same sex as half its population, not the same age as 98% of the remainder, and no one else is the exact same height, weight, IQ, skill, experience, education, aspirations--I could go on and on. From a purely natural-selection viewpoint, in what way is the severely physically and mentally handicapped child "equal" to the Nobel-prize researcher who finds a cure for dreaded diseases? Eliminate God and we are compelled to answer, "They are in no way equal." Without God we are left only to "pretend" that we're all equal. An entire system of government based on "let's pretend"? Are you kidding me? But the Founding Fathers had it right. We ARE all equal, from the handicapped child to the famous scientist. We are equal because God endows us with infinite intrinsic value not because of our abilities or accomplishments but purely because we are human beings. The steady trend toward the reinterpretation of the First Amendment to "freedom FROM religion" is a harbinger of doom for our country. One day, when God has been totally and formally excluded from our system of government, someone will ask, "All equal? Who SAYS we're all equal?" And in the deafening silence that follows, our nation will collapse like a house of cards.

Having read many of the comments above, it is obvious that there are many opinions concerning the constitution, religion, declaration of independence etc.
Here's how I see it, which by the way is just another opinion.
Those who helped form our nation, were tired of having their government ignore them, and stealing their hard earned money through taxes, to support their own selfish desire to be the elite. Their leaders were kings and queens, and by the very title itself were in a position to ignore and abuse the people they ruled over.
Kings and Queens were brought up to believe that it was their God given right to rule, and that they were free to punish anyone that disagreed with them. They also believed that they were elite, and above all others.
Those who formed this nation, chose to believe that God in fact was the true authority, and that He created all men equal, and that representing the people, is more of an honor than an elite position.
The purpose of Government is to represent the will of the people, rather than to inflict its will on the people.
In my opinion, to be a Constitutional Consevative, is to embrace all of the documents leading to our freedom, and our independence. In that I would include (One Nation Under God) That means that we the people, and all that we elect, are answerable to God himself. Those that we elect are also answerable to we the people.
The problem as I see it is that those we elect, want to be the rulers,and the elite, rather than being the voice of the will of the people.
Every person in this nation no matter what color, what religion, what political party, or what sex, all share the same needs. What are our needs? Food, shelter, clothing,transportation, etc.
Add to all these the desire to be self governed, and you pretty much wrap it up. How could something so simple go so wrong?
It's quite simple. Those we elect, no matter what color, what religion, political party, or what sex, also share the same need. They desire to be the elite.
They don't want to be subject to the same laws that govern us, they don't want the same healthcare we have, they don't want the same retirement benefits we have.
The bottom line is that our elected officials, are in fact kings and queens. Who's at fault? The answer is we the people. We have allowed it, and only we can change it.
We were, thanks to those who gave up their lives to secure them, born with rights and freedoms. If we give them away, no matter what the reason, we are at fault.
We need to force those that we elect to represent us, do just that, represent us, rather than rule us.
One Nation Under God, All Created Equal, with a Government Of the People, By the People, and For the People. That's what it's all about.
Our current leaders want it to be. One nation without a God. We were created above all others. A goverment of the elite, by the elite, and for the elite.
It's time to choose. Freedom or Slavery

Love this with all my heart, mind, and soul!

Why confuse yourself with confusing rhetoric and lies, regardless of where they come from?!

Believe in something or fall for anything! And NOT just anything............... Believe in the foundations of America. Something SO great had to make this... this country, this freedo...m, this democracy, (despite America's shortcomings) as wonderful and unique as it is!!! It can NOT be an accident! And our Founding Fathers knew this SO well. And SO did God!

Love this with all my heart, mind, and soul!

Why confuse yourself with confusing rhetoric and lies, regardless of where they come from?!

Believe in something or fall for anything! And NOT just anything............... Believe in the foundations of America. Something SO great had to make this... this country, this freedo...m, this democracy, (despite America's shortcomings) as wonderful and unique as it is!!! It can NOT be an accident! And our Founding Fathers knew this SO well. And SO did God!

A constitutional conservative must be the new name for Americans. Since the ones who don't agree with the constitution, etc. are actually in political office. A patriotic true American would now get a new name: constitutional conservative. Guess you can learn something new everyday. Guess all of the other documents that established/governed/etc the foundation of the United States of America needs to be given extra protection before someone comes along to try and discredit them.

The Progressive's want to rewrite the Constitution to suit them selves and interpret its already clear meaning. Constitutional Conservatives in contrast believe the Constitution is clear on what power the federal government has and the balance belongs to the state. Progressive Elitist's want total power, more government more control and blinded determination an desire to turn our Republic into a Democracy as they take every opportunity to tell us.
Let Tea Party Principles prevail!

I don`t have a problem with change as long as it is within God`s will. Everything started with God , this is God`s country, God`s constitution . Did God plan for big government ?? I think not. Big government is satan`s plans . We are a country of laws , small laws , not government out of control .

In response to JDCC2010:

I point you to the Article 6 Supremacy Clause: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

In the United States, the Constitution overrides any conflicting laws and treaties - the Constitution is truly the Supreme Law. Thus, if a treaty conflicts with the Constitution, it is void.

Hope this helps.

All I can say, after reading as many distasteful posts as I could stand, is this is sad!
What do we want and what are we proud of? I deserve a good standard of living or to be super rich, hey to bad for those who struggle for basic necessities day to day! Sex : Kill the unborn, break up marriages by being unfaithful, homosexuality and sex out side of marriage spreading all kinds of diseases (some deadly in this life!)! hey but we are just animals so we lie, cheat, steal, kill, destroy ourselves, hey vote liberal keep the party going!
To bad our children suffer the consequences of our selfish actions! I can't believe how childish we have become considering all the knowledge we have this age!
I am thankful for 1 certainty that remains constant, GOD is alive and well, you know the GOD as He describes Himself to be, not as people have made their own god to look like! God made this Country and He alone made this Country Great! Now with Babylon in mind I fear for this Nation, for as we have chosen similar ways, Are we just going to be remembered as a Nation in the past!
Come quickly LORD JESUS for we no longer as a people, not only in the USA but world, have a heart for the truth but only for selfishness!

IF,
the people by the people and for the people can nail their god on the cross?????? ,
what stop and deter the people by the people and for the people from nailing their man made constitution on the other side of the cross?

it start at the theology ,

there is nothing in the natural law nor any thing under the creator where it say that god was nailed on the cross or incarnated in mankind or sent his only son to die on the cross for the sin and sake of mankind???

the constitution says the #CREATOR# not the delusion who died on the cross for the sake and sin of mankind.

how conservative juchristian and constitutional conservative meet on the cross to form a government ?

Would government not be smaller and better funded if religion was removed from it? I’m not saying that religion has a huge part in formal politics but I am saying that it has too much. Let us regress a bit and think of what may be the case if we were to remove religion from just a few instances of the past. Supposing that Descartes was truly religious should religion have been removed from his thinking would it not be probable that he would have done more for the study of mathematics instead of being distracted by an attempt to rationally validate god? A god he eventually and inevitably posited to be improbable. Likewise, if we took religion out of government would we not then be better able to focus on our own needs instead of god’s wants? Take Catholicism out of catholic aid in Africa and we could have stopped teaching a continent plagued by AIDS and overpopulation that contraceptives are murder. The list of ways in which religion has hurt most of what it touches goes on and on and yes I know there will be the argument concerning the idea that the secular world did terrible things too, which is petty finger pointing and does nothing to bolster the idea of religion as a moral construct and still in response to said opposition,: Do we still teach communism or Nazism of fascism as plausible paths to morally productive lives? No, not in America. Think for a minute what is the one construct in the name of which more people throughout history have died then by that of communism, Nazism and fascism combined… god. Your god not mine. I am a non believer just as every Christian is in every walk of life aside from their religion. Want smaller government? Get rid of the tax shelters for religiously owned properties. Those shelters are federal entities are they not? Ditch and give those billions of gods dollars back to the people. By the way, why does god need so much money? Isn’t greed immoral. Well, apparently not if you’re the church.

Rather than argue over all of this since it originated with first, The Declaration of Independence, in Congress, July 4,1776 and followed by, The Constitution of the United States of America. I have one small book with one following the other and another small book with just, The Constitution of the United States of America followed by The Bill of Rights and other Amendments to the Constitution. These were put out by "YOUNG AMERICA'S FOUNDATION." You can go on line and see if they are still offering these. If not, you can go to any public library, see them, and maybe be allowed to get copies of them. There should be NO argument over these precious documents! It is really silly to argue over them when many obviously do not have copies of nor do they know these documents letter by letter an word for word.

Dear Mr. Sekulow,

Aren't you aware of how Americans have lost their constitutional rights due to the Super Patriot Act and to Treaties with the U.N. and the Free Trade Agreements, i.e., Nafta and Cafta, and also North American Union between Mexico and Canada.

These treaties and agreements allegedly give our constitutional rights to the U.N. and the Agreements negate our borders creating essentially a borderless nation with out any sovereign of her own, and an allegiance to the United Nations.....So, I don't see how it is going to make any difference with a Constitutional Conservative if these treaties and agreements are in use at this time. Would you please given an answer to this dilemma!

Good post, Dantheopsman.

I am a Constitutional Conservative, adn recent college graduate. I support The 1789 Project (the1789project.com), which fights for a return to our nation's founding principles and adherence to the Constitution.

I have read the Declaration of Independence and Constitution multiple times, and have read from the Federalist and anti-federalist papers, etc.

It is clear that America's founding fathers believed that our rights came from God, not government, and that governments are supposed to protect those rights.

They also understood that governments are only legitimate insofar as they act in accordance with the "consent of the governed."

The Constitution of the United States was written to delegate certain "enumerated powers" clearly listed therein to the federal government, while all other power (the "reserved powers") was to remain with the people or the states (9th and 10th Amendments).

Unfortunately the states and the people have let their power be gradually seized by the federal government. The congress has also allowed the executive branch to grow in power, usurping congresses legislative power through the rulemaking process and regulations.

We The People are tired of this and the debt it is drowning us in, and are fighting back. Nov. 2nd we will send a message to those in DC who think they are supposed to run our lives.

kvsmm1945, I agree with you 1000%! I will be at the ballot box, and I hope all the rest of you out there that are sick and tired of our government trying to ruin our great country will be there as well. We will take America back! In God We Trust.

So, Nancystaible, a "Constitutional Conservative" is someone who clings to values that contradict the Constitution itself?

Read up on the Supremacy Clause, for starters.

Darwincrosland, Sekulow deliberately misstates what Congressman McGovern said. McGovern was reacting to the self-proclaimed "strict constitutionalist" Supreme Court justices who overturned a century of laws duly passed by Congress to rule that corporations, including those owned by Saudi royalty, have the same rights as human beings to free speech, which to them includes dumping unlimited amounts of cash into our elections. McGovern said that if those justices reached that conclusion from a plain reading of the Constitution, "then I think the Constitution is wrong," but it's NOT what the Constitution says.

Funny how context works.

I have read the above comments, some intelligent, many not so, and I just have one question for those opposing Sekolow's position: Do you recognize the need for any limits on government power?

And, if you do, how best to invoke them than through the limitations set in the constitution?

To understand “The Declaration of Independence” and “The Constitution” of the United States of America it takes more than to just read those words printed on some old parchment, one must read and study “The Federalist Papers”, “Letters of Brutus” (anti-federalist papers), “Minutes from The Constitutional Convention 1787” and other supporting documents of the founding fathers. In this way one can more completely understand what the intent of the authors of the world famous documents. The argument, debate and compromise along with the road to amending these documents shows progression (not progressiveness) past the point to which we find ourselves with the current leadership in Washington D.C. It is my fervent hope that this election will reignite the flame of freedom which has been snuffed by the politicians and bureaucrats that clammier for power over each and every citizen of our country. Each of us needs to understand, at the very least; intent so that when confronted by fast talking political types each of us can defend our Constitution. Example, there is no provision for “Separation of Church and State” in our Constitution.
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …
Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see.

It's very simple. The United States of America is a business. I will use Chick-Filet as an example. If I want a job at Chick Filet, I apply. If I get the job, I have to follow rules, and do what the owner of the company expects of me. If I mess up constantly, I get warned, then fired. That simple.

WE THE PEOPLE own a company called The United States of America. We have a right as owners to hire and fire. Like a company, we have a grievance proceedure (the media and our own freedom of speech)and we hire and fire by something known as the Ballot Box, and the Right to Vote. Congress does not own this country - I DO. Special interests do not own this country - I DO.

My ancestors got here in 1710. They have fought in every war to guarantee our Bill of Rights. I am sure that my family members who fought during the Mohawk Valley Wars, and who were with Washington's Army at Valley Forge, as well as those at Gettysburg, are rolling over in their graves to see what is happening to our country. Two grandpas fought in WWI, my uncle Bob came home from Korea, his cousin Herman didn't. My parents; both in the armed services, met in Washington, DC in WWII.

When you want to know who the Constitutional Conservitives are, look at me! Look at my pacifist cousin who serves at an AID station in the mid-east - shot at every day, fighting with his weapons of prayer and a belief that he is doing right.

I am WE THE PEOPLE, and I want my country back! I hope to see the rest of you at the ballot box. For the first time since 1776, we have the anger and numbers to enforce the paper that our forefathers drafted - The Constitution of the United States of America.

In my opinion, probably most of those posting a negative comment have not read the Constitution. I suggest everyone read it!
In our country we MUST get back to a government that follows the Constitution to the letter!! We would be better off personally, financially, and in every other way. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say people will be taken care of by the government from cradle to grave; however, it does say that we are free to make our own way in life, having the liberty to realize our dreams and goals.
We have not done any favors to those we have supported who don't want to work; rather, we have kept them in poverty, beholden to a government for their every need, and created a multi-generational way of life, from which it is difficult to escape. Now, we have another very expensive entitlement in the "health care bill" that we all have to pay for and will drive costs up and care down. Of course, it has little to do with health care and everything to do with control of the people. Those voting on it didn't even read it. In the words of our illustrious Speaker of the House, "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it"!! How ridiculous is that??
Wake up America before you find yourselves in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union!

kjordan1, thank you(?) for your assumption of ignorance, but I can just as well suggest some readings for you. You're wrong on several counts, but first and foremost, the omission of a creator from the constitution was neither accidental nor was it a "sign of reverence" because the document was "made by the hand of man." There were several attempts to explicitly insert into the constitution a god as the source of our rights and of our moral code. All such attempts were roundly rejected. This was not out of reverence, but out of the studied wisdom which came from over 150 years of colonial charters which were explicitly sectarian, not to mention the supposed divine right of kings, as well as a familiarity with other governments around the world and throughout history which claimed religious authority. Those delegates knew clearly that the best, and perhaps only, way to ensure a peaceful and enduring democratic society was to remove god from government. God may have a place in society, but not in the rule of law. Governments are for We the People, churches are for god.

And that's exactly what they did.

To Danielinthelionsden

While prodigalministries blog may not be written eloquently to your standards, I understand it perfectly.

"we will return to primitive and simple government, like pagan communities dancing in the night and killing their competitors for sport or food.
Posted by: vertebrae8"

Dude, I find your vision for the future compelling.

m

I am very concerned about Democrat Congressman Jim McGovern's comment, "I think the Constitution is wrong."

Interestingly enough there are those who have read the constitution and those who have watched enough television and listened to enough liberal professors to believe that they know what the constitution says, however, there are few, who have made posts here, who have actually read The Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States of America.

My comments are to you - stop your apathy, and stop listening to your liberal professors. Read for your selves those precious legal documents. Stop the attacks on both our Founding Fathers and upon Christianity. Stop comparing Christians to any other group of thugs and deviants.

Stop lying about Jefferson - he wrote the words of Christ in a Bible, called the Jefferson Bible. Jefferson was not a theist. A theist is a person who belives in God but also holds that that God is distant (emotionally)from his creations. You are wrong! I love and adore God, the God of Abraham, the God of Jacob, and the God of Isaac. That same God came down in the flesh to suffer for my sins, His name is Jesus. He suffered God's wrath for your sins too. He is your God too.

prodigalministries

Your poorly written comment is hard to understand. But its ignorance speaks for itself.

...The one thing I don't understand is why people of NO faith would even bother to go to the FAITH page to begin with.( I, like Paul of Tarshish, speak foolishly in that statement!) Of Course I know why....Too many people fail to realize that the Constitution of the U.S., AND Incidently, ALL of the 50 States belonging to it, are all set up to Lift Up and Encourage fellow man to better ourselves in a Moral and Ethical fashion. Unfortunatly, there are always present those who desire not to be lifted up, but to draw all others down to the Chaos that surrounds a life of Bondage to those things that can-not profit a person Mentally, Physically, or Spiritually, simply because they have had a "Bad Expierence", or have just simply been Ill Informed. If you can Honestly say that you feel O.K. when you hear of the Attrocities being done to the Widows, Orphans, Homeless and Hungry, not just overseas, but here in the U.S. due to Mis-management of Government, and feel that the Moral fabric remains entact even after removing the very statutes that have kept open perversities at bay in this land; if you feel O.K. by having your Sons and Daughters taught that it's O.K. to mix genders , then you are the very people who set free those who commit vile acts of perverse lust on the youth in America! Don't blame the Church or GOD, either ! The things happening in the Eccumenical Community are the direct result of the Moral break-down being hushed and hidden for so long that, like an infection, sooner or later ends up being a nasty open wound that doesn't want to heal. It is NOWHERE approved by GOD by ANYONE for ANY REASON,and likewise, FREEDOM, TRUE FREEDOM, is a DIRECT RESULT of having Moral and Ethical Rules in place to be followed by ALL PEOPLE, and in THIS country, to be for the benefit of the MAJORITY; NOT the MINORITY !! When Minority sets the Rules, the Populus WILL SUFFER !! If you will simply search History, you will find that this is a Historical Fact ! Gold isn't shiny when it's found, but it is precious; a Rose is lovely, but the thorns will bring you Pain. It's time to stop chasing the "Shiny" lies, those things that may look good on the surface, and get back to the basics of Law and Order ! Let's see how many negative comments I get for shining THIS LIGHT, as I read in an earlier comment, which, by the way, didn't shine light, but invoked more darkness; not the other way 'roud as the writer saw it. You may believe that you rule this "world", and you're right; But your rule of Lawlessness and Chaos will be over soon, the KING WILL return, and TRUE LIGHT SHALL SHINE over the ENTIRE EARTH !! GOD Bless you, A.C.L.J., for keeping up the Good Fight of TRUTH and LIBERTY !!

People are just animals. They have no rights except what the top of the food chain grants them. The only real virtue is strength. Constitutions get in the way of the natural order of things. Religion perverts the perfect nature of rule by superior force. Science has not, and will not prove any moral arguments, therefore we are left to ourselves and those strong enough to rule. Conservatives try to conserve the originally liberal ideas that ruined the prior system of command and structure, where people knew who their better bred masters were. Don't waste your time, science will usher in the new age where human animals will be free from themselves and we will return to primitive and simple government, like pagan communities dancing in the night and killing their competitors for sport or food.

A Constitutional Conservative believes in the balance of power between the three branches of the federal government through an established system of checks and balance. He also believes the role of the federal government is to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense. The Constitutional Conservative recognizes each of the 50 states of the United States to be sovereign entities within their borders governed by their individual Constitutions not to be overridden by federal mandates. These are but a few of the tenents of a Constitutional Conservative.

Whatever happened to "compassionate conservative"? So, now, there's constitutional conservative. Then, perhaps, declarationist conservative, then on to bill of rightist conservative and maybe, back again to rightist conservative.

Got to hand it to some conservatives for self-branding and rebranding of conservatives as a God given right.

Love Sekolow's fatwa : "The constitutional conservative movement affirms that the role of government is limited and that rights are God-given, not man-made."

As an alien, I am beaming back up to the mothership. Actually, to beam out of constitutional conservative cyberspace to where I am now.

Got very strange people out there. The Declaration of Independence is just a list of grievances..... The Constitution is a living document….and changes over time.

I am of the Vietnam era, I fear we as a group, are going to leave the United States of America with some very ignorant citizens. Many already have the right to vote and can still be termed hippy freaks.

JYHUME makes a valid, but technical, point about this article citing the word "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. In other words, he takes the Constitution out of context. In doing so, he neglects to point out the overwhelming evidence of the "Faith of our Fathers" in God. And that our Founding Fathers had more faith in God than in government. To our founding fathers, it was a given that God was at the center of the new world order that the Constitution of the United States represented, the very document that changed the Western World. The fact that they left the word God out of the document was both a sign of reverence, and the fact that this was a legal document made by the hands of man. JYHume either purposefully, or ignorantely, makes a true point but omits the overwhelming truth: Our Founding Fathers relied upon the Word of God, the "Creator" for inspiration and instruction for the brave, new experiment in a government to be implemented by the United States of America in the U.S. Constitution, by the people and for the people, as a light to all the peoples of the world. Any review of original documents by our founders will yeild ample proof that God and the Bible formed the rock upon which this bold new form of government was built. To purposefully ignore the importance of the Declaration of Independence when citing the Constitution, and people who claim to be "Constituional Conservatives," is as foolhardy. Only by understanding all that our Founding Fathers represented, through a solid immersion of all of their writings, can we ever hope to have 1/10th the understanding of what they meant by life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I suggest that JYHume begins by rereading Washington's Farewell Address, and understanding all that was said there as a primer in what our Founding Fathers intended by the U.S. Constitution.

As was said recently by a Congressman, "If we can't take our country back at the ballot box, we will be forced to use the bullet box."
Posted by: rogerlmeyer

= = = = = = = = = =

Whoever said that is an idiotic demagogue. I swear that's almost as stupid as "We are the change we've been waiting for."

Why do people like that even GET elected? Vote against that fool, too.

This pretty well sums up my views. I hope that the coming election will defeat the current Administrations ambitions to subject us to a Socialist Rule.

As was said recently by a Congressman, "If we can't take our country back at the ballot box, we will be forced to use the bullet box."

In response to many of the belligerent comments posted thus far to the effect that those who advocate religious principle in connection with government have no coherent or articulate platform to rely on, I refer you to the following University address: On the Moral Purposes of Law and Government, by Robert George of Princeton University, found at http://www.byub.org/talks/Talk.aspx?id=2345# . It is a masterful discussion of the roles of government and the state in moral issues, particularly on the subject of the definition of marriage. In framing his argument, he covers the full gambit of pragmatic, legal, social, historical, biological, and philosophical frameworks, giving a strong rational voice to those with religious sentiments.

I will further say this: As a Latter-day Saint, I believe the words of the Book of Mormon, which teaches that those on the American continent particularly “shall serve God or shall be swept off” (Ether 2:10). This includes our laws, as well.

I realize I will hear arguments of ‘not being grounded on anything.’ Please know that this book has the promise that any who will read and pray about it will know from God Himself that it and its teachings are true, including its implications for civil government. I have read it, and asked, and God has told me that these things are true; and millions of others have performed the same experiment, with the same results. This knowledge, direct from the Creator of man and the Author of Natural Law, is a stronger platform than most from which to discuss such points.

To those who challenge the roles of faith and God in government, I encourage you to put this to the test.

mini1071: thank you, my thought exactly.

Mr. Sekulow has given a clear explanation of the meaning of Constitutional Conservative. It seems immediately strange that "constitutional conservatives" should turn not to the constitution for guidance, which they so revere, but to the Declaration of Independence. Apparently, the Constitution is not the most important document here.

Why not call yourselves the "Declaration of Independence Conservatives?"

Perhaps you don't really like the Constitution because it so clearly states that "We the people... do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." What? No god?

Just think, if you called yourselves Declaration-of-Independence-Conservatives, you could shorten it and call yourselves DICs!

Wow. Surprisingly good article.

It's nice to see Locke getting his due.

I've never heard of a "Constitutional Conservative" but I like the sound of it. I think I need to bone up on my buzzword literacy.

Someone wrote:
“when government is in the way of personal liberties and actually steps into Nature's God's role and takes away and infringes upon our liberties given by the Same, it is too big and needs a pruning.”

Posted by: edbyronadams
“We might call that the Rorschach theory, seeing in the Constitution what you want to see in order to give the unwashed masses the laws they need but don't want.”

More talking points from MILLIONAIRES on talk radio.
What personal liberties have you lost?
Who has stepped into Nature's God's role and taken away and infringed upon our liberties given by the Same.

What liberties did “SAME” give you?
Didn’t the ten commandment take away quite a few liberties?

And edbyronadams, what laws don’t the unwashed masses not need? Banking regulations? Airline safety standards? Clean air and water? How about automobile safety standards?

Stop with vague nonsense espoused by millionaire talking heads.

We have strayed far from the foundation laid out by our forefathers. They had respect for the Lord and a deep love for this country. The more self-focused and absorbed we become the further we move away from that which is good and true. The founding fathers would be ashamed to see our apathy toward abortion, God's ten commandments and the way we kiss up to other countries yet ignore our own citizens. In the pursuit of "change and growth" we have lost who we are.

To illustrate how far our government has moved away from our founders Constitutional vision, on September 17, 2010, President Obama [and former Constitutional Professor] quoted our Declaration of Independence and omitted the word ‘Creator’ as he addressed Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute’s 33rd Annual Award Gala.

It is very troubling indeed when liberal progressives will even go as far as rewriting our founding documents in order to advance their non-Constitutional agenda and ideology.

Robert J. Thorpe, author of “Reclaim Liberty: 3-Step Plan for Restoring our Constitutional Government”, www.reclaimliberty.us, “Laus Deo”

Constitutional conservatives believe that human freedom comes from God. Our founding fathers knew this truth, which is why they were very explicit about not mixing church and state. Neither the church nor the state can govern with total freedom in mind. Both entities are about control… the opposite of freedom is control / govern.
Liberal, with their best intensions, believe that human rights come from humans themselves, as per CHAOTICIAN101’s comments posted earlier on this site (October 18, 2010 10:59 AM), which is why I believe this country is in its decline.

Illogicbuster, I'd love a concrete example rather than a gratuitous swipe, and remember that "unconstitutional" is NOT a synonym for "something I personally disagree with".

"The 'Laws of Nature' establish that the basic rights we enjoy as Americans do not originate in the US Constitution, nor do they exist because they are written in the Bill of Rights, legislation, or court decisions. Legislators and judges do not endow people with 'unalienable rights,' our 'Creator' does."
- J Sekulow

The "Laws of Nature" do not in any way address civil government.
And if rights are, in fact, "unalienable" and granted by the one "Creator" who created us all, then why are the same rights not available to all citizens of all nations? How is it that puny mortal man can refuse his fellow men rights granted by the Almighty?

The fact is, rights are determined by governments, and when governments grant rights in an unequal fashion, it falls to the governed to address the inequality and perservere in their efforts until the inequalities are resolved.

JAMESK1 wrote:I am exasperated by people who constantly wail about the Constitution and obviously haven't read the ever-loving thing.
----------------------------------------

And, I'm exasperated by people who HAVE read it ans still don't understand it or, CHOOSE to ignore it. Obie comes to mind...

A "constitutional conservative" is sort of like a "compassionate conservative", except without the compassion.

Since these people keep telling us they think their so-called "Laws of Nature" supersede the Constitution, why don't they call themselves "laws of nature conservatives" instead. Most of them have no more regard for our Constitution and the rights and liberties it guarantees our citizens than any member of the Taliban has.

To cite one of many examples, 14th Amendment, Section 1: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." If that doesn't say, as plainly as is possible in the English language, that a pregnant woman is a citizen with legal rights and her fetus is not, please tell me what it does say. Then, tell me the name of a prominent "constitutional conservative" who endorses Roe v. Wade, which merely restated the obvious.

I wasn't sure of the definition of a constitutional conservative. Now that I know, I know that that is what I truly am. I believe in what our forefathers wrote. I believe in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and I pledge allegiance to my flag with my hand over my heart. That is something that the president does not want to do. Also, never before has our country had Czars. I am offended by this administration. I am offended that they feel they need to apologize for us. I guess that political correctness is only for illegal aliens and not for those who are citizens. I am offended also that a Koran can't be burned but a Bible can be. I feel this administration is trying to undermine the very roots of this country and cause America to be NO MORE.

Let me get Mr. Sekulow straight here - we have to go to the Declaration of Independence in order to properly understand the Constitution.....

To wit.."For constitutional conservatives, the Declaration of Independence encompasses the "Laws of Nature" and it guides their understanding of the US Constitution."

Why pray tell does a document written to declare and justify the colonies independence .. in 1776 hold THE KEY to interpreting the Constitution written in 1787? Am I missing some rule of law here?

Could it be because the Constitution does not invoke God and Gods law? So, the next best thing is the Declaration with Jefferson's Diest based counter to the authority of Britains King by Devine Right?

With all due respect to Jefferson and the rest of the Committee of Five, there is no evidence the lofty introductory and argumentative paragraphs of the Declaration, nor its gripe list, were anything more than introduction to the Lee resolution incorporated in the final paragraph... "That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved"

A constitutional conservative would have to support the separation of church and state, considering the absence of any reference to God and His Son or Christianity in the document and the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. Any other postion could only be that of a judicial activist. A contrary position would require a selective consideration of documents and facts outside of the constitution, which is judicial activism, i.e., putting words in the mouths of the Founding Fathers.

The Bible doesn't support freedom of speech, press, or religion. No mention of voting (don't bother to cite a passage that says nothing of the kind) or womens' suffrage.

The Bible endorses the divine right of kings, rape, slavery, genocide, witch unts, and violent religious extremism.

It's interesting to see some Tea Party / theocrat websites about the founding fathers and their sparse collection of cherry picked and often fabricated quotes that they torture and stretch to give a Biblical justification to conservative politics. Then go to a secularist site and see the hundreds of founders' quotes about religion being the corrupt tool of "tyrants" and "despots." You may call them religious but their distaste for ORGANIZED religion is shockingly direct and explicit.

As well, in response to Jeancommunicates, Aristotle in his ethics, regardless of believing in pagan gods, argues that in the pursuit of a virtuous life it was important to disregard the gods based on the assertion that they are incomparable to humanity and, in their immortality and divinity, they were too different from us to merit a comparison. As well, the Euphythro dilemma, thanks to plato, argues that indeed goodness must exist outside the gods: the conclusion plato comes to being that the gods must do things that are good because they are good and that things are not good because the gods do them. Aristotle argued that the gods had nothing to do with the virtuous endeavors of man and Plato argued that goodness existed beyond the gods. Regardless, based on the word "gods" these men would have been burned at the stake upon discovery or first breath by the catholic or christian church if either had existed while they did and you want to claim them as your own?

192you are the kind of person who thinks religion and politics should be kept separate, you either fail to realize what religion or politics means, or are just repeating the stupidity of others. You cannot separate religion from who you are and what you believe. What you believe flows directly into what you do, be it economically, politically, or privately. The founders (there were more than 3) were deeply religious, spiritual, or deistic. All laws are simply codified morals, and morals do not come from secular thinking. Morals only come from beliefs about supernatural, metaphysical, spiritual, or other faith-based axioms. Religious people have every right to vote according to their theistic values, just as much a right as the secular fools who ride the coat tails of judeo christian philosophy, espousing the very same principles without knowing where they learned "wrong and right" from.

Want to know the difference religion makes between wrong and right? Look at other cultures past and present. You should be thankful for America's judeo christian background, and afraid of what we could become without it.

Here's another hint. Don't say you "believe in the constitution of the United States written by our forefathers in 1776." It makes you look ignorant of the fact that it wasn't written until 1787, and it implies that you disagree with the Bill of Rights (1791), the outlawing of slavery (1865), equal protection under the law (1868), equal suffrage for nonwhites (1870), for women (1920), term limits for Presidents (1951), the right of DC citizens to vote for President (1961), the ban on poll taxes (1964), the right for 18-year-olds to vote (1971), or a ban on Congress giving themselves pay raises during non-election years (1992).

I am exasperated by people who constantly wail about the Constitution and obviously haven't read the ever-loving thing.

It is very necessary that, no matter what the political affiliation of a given person, religion be left out of politics at this point in time and development of our 'civilized' society. In response to the article written by Mr. Sekulow, i find it disturbing that one could so terribly misconstrue what it was that John Locke wrote. In commenting on the law of a "creator" or natures law Locke refers to the world we leave behind in forming society, the natural and ungoverned law which allows for the arbitrary usurping of our freedoms void of any structure, be it governmental or social. Locke's idea of a god was not of some almighty purely moral being but of something that perhaps gave the potential for morality to mankind by simply setting the ball rolling, much more along the line of deism than that of christianity, at least this is certainly what is portrayed in the passage quoted. In all actuality it would be very difficult for us to ever discern what Locke's theistic views where due to the oppressive nature of religion during his time. Let us take responsibilities for our own moral actions, for the good and the bad and not leave any of such a serious conversation up to something so vague and ambiguous as the moral or immoral opinions of god. Our forefathers would be ashamed at our approach towards theocracy in this day and age. Really? in the face of the men who in spite of global criticism managed to separate themselves and their countrymen best as they could from the confines of the theocratic world they fled we still insist on regressing to this condition of petty quibbling. In spite of the great men, who at great potential hazard to themselves, wrote that we should separate church from state in respect to what they saw as thousands of years of wretched manipulation of humanity via and arbitrary voice in the sky demanding respect, a thing they new cannot be demanded but must earned, in spite of all this we argue about what in our lives obviously cannot matter whilst we live unless we let such superstition get the best of us. Say what you will of where you go when when you die, this is your right and it should be protected, but remember this is your opinion not a fact, so please refrain from treating it as so. Think of the good to be done when we are forced to take responsibility for our own actions, the virtuous bliss achieved from doing good and the ultimate deterrent of understanding that, regardless of having to answer to god, you WILL have to answer to our laws for the wrongs that you do, no get out of jail free card, mankind must shake off the shackles of a scapegoat that allows the "rationalization" of inhuman atrocities such as untold amounts of spilled blood over which magic sky voice is the right one, if nothing else we have better things, more practical things to fight over, issues of a rational sort with rational premises that when treated logically make it hard to rationalize petty bickering or murder as means to an end.

All of our forefathers recognized God. And they recognized not only the existence of God but that our rights came from God and wrote our laws accordingly. It is important to read and study the Holy Bible so you can understand what our forefathers are saying, what Shakespeare said and what Aristotle and Socrates were saying. All forefathers even pagans believed in a God. Whether it was the One true God or a false god or goddess, they all believed in a god. The Bible God is sovereign and false gods and goddesses promote self. Self rules in the heart of every person. "The idea that man could become a god or that he is a god but doesn't yet realize his divinity, may seem farfetched to some people, but that's because they are simply unaware of how prevalent this belief is. Futhermore, from a biblical perspective, the criterion for being a god is rather simple. everyone who has NOT submitted to Jesus Christ and has not been reconciled to God through faith in Christ's finished sacrifice as payment for his sins qualifies as a god, a self-governing being who has elevated self over and above His Creator." We seem to have about 7 billion of these so-called gods on our planet today, each one doing his or her own thing and not listening to their Creator.

To be conservative today means to value the right to life, and it's evidence in support of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Here are two links that astound me! Why are we part of a decade that embraces deceit easily. Why does the administration suppress fact and testimony of doctors, nurses, paraprofessionals, etc.? We can use abortion as an example. To me conservative and Teshuva are close: it means a return to eternal truths about the value of human life. Please look at these links; they are truth.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3798/is_200004/ai_n8880011/
http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html

I thought it odd that this piece appeared in "On Faith", but here we are.

I do think that Sekulow is deliberately conflating the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and sadly many Americans don't appreciate the difference. The word "God" never appears in the United States Constitution and with good reason. If we ever have a state church, it's not going to look like mine.

"Nature's God" is not the God traditionally worshipped by Christians, Jews and Muslims. It is a rationalist construct of the Enlightenment and its Deists. It is the passive watchmaker who creates and sets the world in motion, then ignores it. That's not the God I went to worship with friends and family yesterday morning.

Even at the time of the writing of the Constitution, there was much controversy over "Nature's God" and natural law. Lyman Beecher and others excoriated Thomas Paine after he wrote "The Age of Reason".

The problem with natural law arguments has always been the question of "yes, but natural in whose eyes?" It's a rehash of Scottish Common Sense philosophy, which holds that there is a perceptible ultimate reality that one can easily determine, provided one is a 17th-century Scotsman.

This shows up in the self-proclaimed "constitutional conservatives" Sekulow lauds here. They use "unconstitutional" as a synonym for "something I personally disagree with."

Guess what? The following things are expressly authorized by the US Constitution:
-Birthright citizenship
-The Income Tax
-The direct election of Senators
-Duly ratified treaties being fully binding on Americans
-The United States Postal Service
-Recess appointments by the President
-It is unlawful to charge someone a fee to vote.

You don't get to call yourself a "strict constitutionalist" if you want to remove large pieces of it.

Most school age, college aged and young adults dont even know their Constitutional rights let alone eho their Politicians are. Many did not know a thing about Obama or that he is a Communistic Liberal who is not a REAL Christian. And hes that he is not even using a legal name, yet believed everything a Poitician tells them to do. That tells me that the majority of the voters who voted for Obama did not even know he was a lIberal let alone a Christian or one in good standing in his Political standing. Many people dont know beans from squat when it comes to their politicians! Many just vote for the sake of voting. They are not educated voters. If they were educated they would first check where their candidates are standing before they voted, not after. That takes time and many dont take the time before they vote. They just believe someone else word or opinion about a candidate; and vote for a person someone else tells them to believe. Its why we have so many wicked leaders in powerful places' because were not taking the time to check out those persons we vote for. I know it was how I was when I was young and foolish voter!I trusted my elders to be right! I used to vote Democratic because I felt they were for the people, but have since learned you cant trust your Political party! Democrats seem to be the least educated and the mostpassive when it comes to being wise; learning is just the beginning, but finding out about your Politicians life cna tell you how they will lead. If you forget to see their examples, dont complain when they take your whole life away from you and give it to someone else! Because that is what politicians will do if you allow Liberals to lead! You have to get to know your candidates! And what they stand for. And if they dont have standards and stand for anything' dont be surprised if you lose your rights. You cant expect them to do right once they are voted into offices when their whole life they did everyone wrong!! Get eduated before you vote. Know your politicians! Conservative people who live lives of truth and justice will also do the same once in office. But Liberals just live for the sake of living and dont care about you, just their own lives! Its why we have terrible leaders now is because many voters did nto give a dam for anything of value. Its why American is gradually flaling apart because we stopped caring for what is right and good! If you have Leaders that are truthful; they will do whats right! Its why I vote for Conservatives now! I know they believe in whats right!You cant trust any News media to be Consevrative for most are all Liberal! Because they dont have a conscious mind towards what is right, only for what pays!But it pays greater dividends to do whats right than what is wrong! Go Conservatives!They have standards!

kimsegar1 posts October 18, 2010 10:50 AM
"At least with the real Conservitives, everyone will find in law that taxes are unconsititional and not needed by gov. after all, who's money do you think "they" are sticking in their pockets? KEEP sitting on the fence and everyone will end up with nothing !"

Who is "THEY"?

Without taxes the United States would be a third world collection of states.

TP'ers are like the 60's radicals ... tear it up and start over.

While that is happening, 2.4 BILLION Chinese and Indians, despite their own problems, will by sheer population brute force soon overwhelm the U.S. because they support educating their population.

Without taxes the United States would be a third world collection of states.

Edbyronadams, you mean the Rohrsach theory that forces us to actually live by the Constitution we say we honor--that all men are created equal? For years, it was the southern white racist Rohrsach test that said that all me except those who were not white. Or the Rohrsach test that held that women were not included in the phrase "all men".

Look. If you want to argue about using a test, the conservatives have just as many tests as do the liberals. But I can tell you this, it isn't the liberals who want to force Americans into some loyalty oath. It isn't the liberals who are trying to get religious indoctrination into our schools or who want to stigmatize little girs and little boys who do not feel the need to pledge allegiance.

Trust me. You would be surprised at how appalled the Founding Fathers would be at some of the conservative views that claim to come from them.

Great article I am definitely a constitutional conservative Mr. Sekulow. It's like asking if you believe in freedom or bondage really...when government is in the way of personal liberties and actually steps into Nature's God's role and takes away and infringes upon our liberties given by the Same, it is too big and needs a pruning. November 2010 is baby step number one.

This is a great piece. Thanks for clarifying and helping to make people understand the definition of constitutional conservative. It is needed to be in print somewhere to be a true resource.

Ed Cummins, where in the world do you get such hokey radical viewpoints? You should read more history. You would find that Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Paine and Washington would regard you as one of those dangerous "factions" they worried so much about.

Both Jefferson and Franklin loathed the fundamentalists of their day. Jefferson was well acquainted with a number of religions and kept a copy of the Koran in his desk. He often labeled himself a Deist who believed in an impersonal God who created the Cosmos then left it alone to develop in its own way.

Many of our great men had their own private religious beliefs but did not have a high regard for the more zealous fundamentalist types because they threatened the advances of science and enlightenment. Lincoln in particular had a loathing for the fundamentalists of his day even though he often wrestled with the will of God.

And, excuse me; but how do you call someone a human rights lawyer who generally argues against human rights?

The word "conservative" used to mean something. But our philosophical enemies co-opted the word and (like RINOs) they became CINOs -- Conservatives In Name Only. We know them today as NEO-Conservatives -- and they are trying to lead the opposition to true Constitutional Conservatives. Read "William F. Buckley, Jr., Pied Piper For The Establishment".

The generally Liberal media dubbed Buckley as "Mr. Conservative", but he was not one of us. Yes, he paid off in real coin to gain credibility as a conservative, but when the chips were down he misled many into supporting destructive measures like NAFTA and GATT in cooperation with Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich. (All 3 belonged to the elitist Council on Foreign Relations at the time.)

Now we are in danger of soon getting some CCINOs -- Constitutional Conservatives In Name Only. Why? Because those who would consolidate power in a new world order have learned to lead their own opposition. Buckley was one of those; Newt Gingrich is one of those. See the DVD "The REAL New Gingrich".

curmudgeon6 ,
Obviously you don't quite understand the part We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. It doesn't matter who started this post, Thank God there are some in this country brave enough to stand for what is right and good and pure. Tere is no such clause in the Constitution or any other place about seperation of Church and State.

Wow the liberal athiests are out in force on this one!

And the arrogance too, the AVERAGE American is not "deep" enough to answer these questions?
ONLY you people are?

I am so glad to know that you people are NOT the average American citizen! There is hope for our country after all then.

In fact, you liberals don't have a clue what the Tea Party members think or believe. Nor anything about them.

Name calling and trying to bully them that way, well THEY aren't 4th graders anymore. So name call away. How immature!

And for those who don't know the Constiution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence, read them.

The GOVERNMENT may not make its OWN Religion. Then make the citizens join it.

There are no laws restricting the practice of any prayers or belief for anyone. Not even those who hold Office.

Go live somewhere else if you don't like America, and her people.

You know, to those godless, relgion-free countries like China, Russia, N.Korea, Cuba. To name some. Tailor-made for athiests and Marxists.

"the more expansive "living Constitution" as practiced by liberal jurists."

We might call that the Rorschach theory, seeing in the Constitution what you want to see in order to give the unwashed masses the laws they need but don't want.

There is no such thing as a "Biblical" foundation to the Constitution, never has been, never will be. The Founders scrupulously avoided anything that could be construed as adopting a religious test for political participation in our society.

Indeed, attempts to "Christianize" the Constitution, to make it more of a faith based document rather than the basis for a secular political system have never succeeded because it was precisely such systems in the Old World that prompted the journey to the New World to escape just the sort of religious dominance that is implied by those in this country who want a theologically based state and constitution.

Whooo! Must be Moveon.org sent out a mass email, judging from the wacky commentary, and insulting of the Tea Party. I hope that the lefties who got wound up reading the article have finally got their breath back. Same kind of drek that I read in our local rag.

i believe in the constitution of the United
States written by our forefathers in 1776. i believe that the federal government is being turned into a socialistic/communistic nation that has no fear of GOD or the people of these UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. ED CUMMINS - 317 580 8504

A "constitutional conservative" is a Republican who wants to overthrow the Constitution and establish a theocracy.

In other words, an enemy combatant.

There is a more important division of Conservatives. Christian Conservatives. It's detailed in my book http://congressionalbiblestudy.org

Everyone should be at least conservative in the sense of knowing America's Hertiage and applying lessons from history to our current problems, since we are the most successful nation on earth. Liberals who forsake history to do their impefect desires should be removed from public life. But it takes another step up to pay close attention to our Christian Heritage and develop state of the art solutions on that foundation.

I hope the Sekulow family will join in promoting this in the arena of ideas.

LOL! Creator is really an ambiguous term! Factually, ones creator is ones mother and perhaps ones father. Of course, our religious folks have made a firm decision that man was invented by some God for his sport and amusement presumably; and that this jealous God is keeping a wary eye on his creation to make sure he is rambling around in a proper manner... and his self chosen representatives are endowed by this creator God to speak for him and to collect some tribute for their service and to force everyone to meet their god specified rules and to put those rules into laws of man so that any trespassers can be punished in this life nor just at the pearly gates of eternal adoration of God!

Look. There are two major methodologies in interpreting the Constitution--the Strict Construction view most generally associated with Constitutional conservatives and the more expansive "living Constitution" as practiced by liberal jurists.

The Strict Construction view is a bit more archaic and went out of vogue at the earliest stages of our development during the Marshall Court which established the Implied Powers Doctrine. What we call Strict Construction today is a more moderated view from the older form which quite honestly if adopted as the norm would have rendered America an obsolete, third world country by now.

The bigger arguments today come from whether the more liberal view overreaches and gives too much power to the federal government rather than the old archaic "originalist" views that seem so popular among libertarians. Generally, we bounce about between these two interpretations with one or the other view gaining the upper hand depending on the political sentiments of the moment.

No one view or method prevails indefinitely because American political sentiments swing back and forth so often.

Someone wrote:
"The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries."

Which means what?

Americ doesn't have much time to decide whether they want to be free or NOT..Whethr one believe's in G-d and what HE says is true or just don't care. I would think that by now that most know the corrupt is on both sides of gov. they have forgotten that WE THE PEOPLE are the government. we are a REPUBLIC, not a DEMOCRACY..a REPUBLIC is where we vote and the elected SERVE US..a Democracy is where we vote and they dictate every breath we take. Whatever the belief..EVERYONE wants to be FREE. EVERY election because the CONSTUTITION is trashed, the more poorer we get, the more unfair laws is passed behind closed doors and I see the same thing HILTER did, help the poor and give them much,,and later after using them, took it all away. and that is going to happen here in the US and they have a good start on taking downour ecconomy while we are lied to each and every day..What is it going to take America as your rights, freedom and liberity is taken by the same ole liars in gov. At least with the real Conservitives, everyone will find in law that taxes are unconsititional and not needed by gov. after all, who's money do you think they are sticking in their pockets? KEEP sitting on the fence and everyone will end up with nothing !

It may be helpful to some readers to note who and what author Jordan Sekulow is, beyond "a human rights attorney and Director of International Operations at the American Center for Law & Justice."

As Wikipedia notes, the American Center for Law & Justice was founded in 1990 by evangelist Pat Robertson, and was/is intended to be a sort of "anti-ACLU." Jordan Sekulow's father, Jay Allen Sekulow, is chief counsel for the organization, whis is decribed as a "public interest law firm," which kind of makes that generic term pretty much meaningless.

Sekulow got his bachelor's degree from George Wwashington University, and his law degree from Regent University (also founded by Pat Robertson), which some readers may be familiar with (it brags that more than 150 grads were hired by the Bush administration, included the now famousd Monica Gooding of Justice Department fame). In addition to being a lawyer, he is also a radio talk show host. His brother Logan hosts a Christian variety show, The Logan Show.

My only point to all this is it may he helpful to readers to understand this fellow is a full-blown evangelical of the Pat Robertson school of thought, not just some random "human rights attorney" punditizing on the nature of what a "constitutional conservative" might be.

And it raises the substantial question of whether a "constitutional conservative" can or should be de-linked from a religious [read: highly religious and perhaps strictly evangelical] context. Can a CC be an agnostic or atheist? Is CC simply a political position or must it also require a religious orientation? Why is this discussion of CCs here in the "On Faith" section rather than in the Politics section where it would seem to belong?

Is it yet another example of people conflating politics and religion, or (wrongly) introducing religion into politics where it doesn't belong?

TheDuck6, you are full of they typical mythologies that arise out of paying far too much attention to those who engage in historical revisionism in this country. Look. The defeat of the tyrannies of Japan and Nazi Germany in was an allied effort. To be certain, Britain could not have fended off the Nazis absent our entry into the war. But, opposition to our entry, opposition to FDR, came from the conservatives. Indeed, many conservative elements in this country were sympathetic to the Nazis. Some of our leading Corporate leaders--among them, the venerable Henry Ford--hosted Nazis and admired Hitler.

As tot he question of "exceptionalism"--at one tie we trurly were exceptional owing to the progressive advances our country made particularly over the 20th century. Teddy Roosevelt overcame the Trusts, and established many progressive reforms, including Child Labor laws, anti-trust legislation that hold to this day and a vigorous tendency to stand up to the powerful and wealthy interests who hated him. FDR was similarly hated and characterized a "traitor to his class". And in the 60s, the conservatives in the democratic party were so enraged at LBJ and the democrats that they defected and joined the republicans, forming a so-called "southern strategy" that enabled Rich Nixon to take the White House in 1968.

The rest of the world has admired America not so much for here military exploits as much as her progressive reforms that made us a beacon to the world for tolerance, egalitarian ideals and simple fair play. Immigrants coming to America came here for that reason. That in America, they would be able to succeed notwithstanding the color of their skin, the nature of their religious beliefs or their origins.

Those are the things that made America exceptional in the world--not martial valor. Your definition of exceptionalism is one borne of excessive nationalism and an overzealous patriotism behind which you rationalize an obnoxious form of prejudice and xenophobia.

IF you want small government with less power, THEN, “Men who rule over men must be just. Ruling in the fear of God.” Until this happens, “big” government will reign supreme. ALL have a right granted, not by man, but by GOD for LIFE, LIBERTY and the pursuit of HAPPINESS. It is the government’s responsibility to ensure these precepts. If each man or woman purposed in their hearts these precepts, with the focus on ALL and not just ME, then this society will be on the road to the smaller government so desperately craved by many Americans.

Posted by: jaxas70 | October 18, 2010 9:49 AM

Isn't an astonishing irony that here in America, which boasts loudly of itself as the "Land of the Free", who continually puts out the arrogant conceit that it is exceptional in the community of nations owing to its moral superiority the main grounding of which is its liberal Constitution which explicitly writes out in some specificity the freedoms and rights held to be "self evident", that there is this loud, pious whine about lost of those freedoms. And yet, not one of the whiners has the evident articulation to describe precisely which liberty, which freedom. which right has specifically been taken away?
How odd it is that only here in America is this such a vital and important concern. One would think that in what conservatives loudly proclaim every day are the more socialist oriented countries where the State is given far more power to arrest human rights--in Europe, Asia and Africa--would one find mobs roaming the streets with sidearms strapped to their bulging girths warning about "second amendment remedies" or complaining about loss of Freedoms. Yet those societies are paragons of stability beside the US.
Look. It is beyond apparent that what is really going on here is not a lament for loss of freedom. It is a partisan weeping over the loss of an election--to a man who's skin is black.
*************************************
America isn't exceptional? Europe,and Asia owe their current freedom to the US on several occasions. We aid Africa more than any other country. When the poo hits the fan the world waits for our reaction before moving.

I've seen the "we hate Obama because he's black "slid into some pretty tight places but this might be the biggest stretch. Almost makes me think that is a kneejerk inclusion at all this posters arguments. Naaaah, couldn't be, could it?

Isn't an astonishing irony that here in America, which boasts loudly of itself as the "Land of the Free", who continually puts out the arrogant conceit that it is exceptional in the community of nations owing to its moral superiority the main grounding of which is its liberal Constitution which explicitly writes out in some specificity the freedoms and rights held to be "self evident", that there is this loud, pious whine about lost of those freedoms. And yet, not one of the whiners has the evident articulation to describe precisely which liberty, which freedom. which right has specifically been taken away?

How odd it is that only here in America is this such a vital and important concern. One would think that in what conservatives loudly proclaim every day are the more socialist oriented countries where the State is given far more power to arrest human rights--in Europe, Asia and Africa--would one find mobs roaming the streets with sidearms strapped to their bulging girths warning about "second amendment remedies" or complaining about loss of Freedoms. Yet those societies are paragons of stability beside the US.

Look. It is beyond apparent that what is really going on here is not a lament for loss of freedom. It is a partisan weeping over the loss of an election--to a man who's skin is black.

Callling Sekulow a "human rights" attorney is like calling Stalin a "man of the people." Human rights to Sekulow means his co-religionists dictate to the rest of us.

I don't need god or any other make-believe super-hero for my rights. God not only is dead, it never was.

Natural law to the Founding Fathers was virulently anti-Catholic. Is this what Sekulow wants?

Most Americans have no clue who John Locke was, nor have they read his writings.

They don't understand the concepts written into the Constitution, where they came from or what they really mean.

With that in mind, it is unfare to poll Americans abot what they think abot this topic because they don't have a clue.

if they did, they'd get out and get real candidates for office and hold givernment accountable for its actions.

instead we as a nationa are content to sit in our relcliners and watch what passes for political discourse and news on cable TV.

we as a nation are getting the fruits of our lack of labor.

we have the government we deserve.

If there is one thing I have learned from a long contemplation of human motivation it is this: Taking a poll that asks simplistic questions to arrive at general conclusions is self defeating. The media and organized pollsters seem manic this year in their transparent drive to create public opinion rather than reflect it. The asking of such a question on the notion that the federal government is a threat to our constitutional freedoms is indicative of this pro-conservative bent in America.

Most average Americans rarely if ever think deeply or critical enough when asked such questions. They are emotive, knee-jerk creatures who in actuality have no idea what or which specific freedoms are being denied them by this oppressive federal government they complain about.

People living in truly oppressive societies must laugh at us on the quiet. What they see is a fat, rich, complacent, gullible America that has not even the vaguest notion of what a freedom or liberty or right actually is. When most Americans--and particularly conservative Americans--lament in such sanctimonious terms about loss of freedoms what they really mean is a purely selfish desire to protect not some constitutional right but rather some unearned privilege or entitlement.

Who is funding the American Center for Law and Justice? The Koch Brothers?

Seriously, before these pundits are allowed to write articles for WAPO they should be forced to disclose who is paying their pay check.

Also, a full resume to see what other "think tanks" they have worked for.

As Obama said in his speach, groups like this are like "Mothers for Motherhood."

PS the article is unworthy of any serious substantive response.

I feel compelled to point out to those who might think that, because Rand Paul is mentioned in this opinion column, the concept of "constitutional conservative" is akin to libertarianism couldn't be more wrong. But don't listen to me; judge for yourself:
http://www.constitutionparty.org/party_platform.php
and http://www.lp.org/blogs/andrew-davis/libertarian-party-vs-constitution-party

The Constitution Party is explicity Christianist. Don't mistake them for anything less. Excerpt from their platform: "This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries."

There is no such thing. Most conservatives are aligned with the seditionist Huckabee who wants to overthrow the Constitution with his twisted, Leviticus cherry-picked version of "God's Standards" Other cherry pick the Constitution for their intolerant agendas - glorify the Second Amendment but ignore the First, Fourth and Fifth when it comes to America's gay, Muslim and Mexican citizens.

Teabaggers hate the Constitution, diversity and tolerance as evil hates the light.

For Jordan Sekulow to call himself a human rights attorney is about like Glenn Beck to call himself a religious instructor. Sekulow is a representative of a religious right wing neo-con domestic terrorist organization that wishes to subvert the constitution and implent their own theocracy. Loons like this are as dangerous as the Taliban in the middle east.

A constitutional conservative is a person of appalling ignorance and an unwillingness to learn. A person so fearful of thought that they will refuse under any circumstance to evaluate the incomplete data that was implanted in their heads by equally ignorant parents. These people are mostly white, Christian and very bigoted. To call them racist bigots would not be a stretch.

Sekulow, WaPost: “Constitutional conservatives do not question the necessity of a government that has the power to protect the right to life without overly suppressing the right to liberty. It is not anti-government to be a constitutional conservative. Nor are constitutional conservatives against change; they believe, however, that fundamental change must come through the voice of the people in a constitutional amendment.”

Citizens might consider the idea that the Bill of Rights was discussed at some length during the ratification process of 1787 to 1789. If he checks carefully, he will find that the ‘inalienable rights’ discussed in the Declaration of Independence were discussed as well but ONLY the rights specified in the first ten Amendments were considered valid so far as the 1789 Founding Generation were concerned. Note that the wording of those Rights was unique in Human history and did not functionally exist anywhere on Earth at that time. They came into existence BECAUSE they had been ratified by citizens throughout the United States and therefore were rights that HAD BEEN GIVEN TO EACH OTHER. Only then did they become ‘inalienable’.

Note the Preamble to the Constitution: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, (1) establish Justice, (2)insure domestic Tranquility, (3)provide for the common defence, (4) promote the general Welfare, and (5)secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and (6)our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

When the author says “protect the right to life without overly suppressing the right to liberty”, he is describing the Preamble Balance that is inherent in the six covenants described at the beginning of the Constitution. The Balance is derived from (3) common defence and (4) general welfare being considered in terms of (5) Liberty which includes freedom from excess taxation and debt and (6) Posterity or leaving something better for the next generation. If a politician had a goal to enhance the country’s success, he could always find some combination of the six components of the Preamble that would apply to a legislative activity, (but not to the benefit of an individual) and the combination MUST have consensus in congress to be legitimate. For a politician to apply an anarchist ideology from the far left (total government and nothing else) or from the far right (no government and nothing else), he would have to renounce all of the six effects of governance OR adhere to one of them to the exclusion of the others. He could not represent a constituency anywhere in the USA if he did either. Constitutional conservatism has little to do with economic or social conservatism; a citizen can apply Preamble Balance at any time on any legislation depending on the needs of our (6) Posterity and he can evaluate the legislation in terms of (1) Justice for all and (2) Tranquility or peace for all.

Yonkers, New York
18 October 2010

These so-called "Constitutional Conservatives" make it clear that all rights human beings are allowed to enjoy are "God-given," and that the U.S. Consitution, a Document made by Man,[a Creator made by "God"], is subordinate to Natural Law, or to "God."

This is as dangerous a Proposition or Doctrine as it gets.

Those constitutional conservatives must be driven by a hidden Machiavellian design to lay aside the U.S. Constitution and in its place install a Theocratic Government [a Christian Government] with the Bible as the Operational "Constitution."

They are counting on deceiving the American people with such bogus claims that the Federal Government has grown so big and so powerful that it represents a threat to the people's fortunes and liberties.

Are the American people prepared to go the way of Iran where the ayatollahs rule as despots in a purely Theocratic System of goverment?

I wonder.

Mariano Patalinju

politics has nothing to do with religion...
in the bible, lawyers like tax collectors were considered the worse of human kind...
and even Jesus Christ stayed out of politics...
so why does on faith always try to bring the two of them up togeather...

A people who willingly abdicate their right to govern themselves to an unelected, unaccountable elite don't deserve to govern themselves and don't deserve to call their society democratic.

Contitutional consercvative:

anti-gay
pro-torture
pro-rendition
pro-rich
pro-military
pro-gun
pro-bully
pro-Christianitst
greedy
selfish
racist
clueless
IQ-challenged

Constitutional conservatives are those who, when asked in debates, to name a SCOTUS case, can not name one yet claim to know that everything a Democrat votes for or passes is unconstitutional.

Simple really.

Perhaps, because of how the Declaration and the Constitution were written, America was actually meant to be a haven for gay men. It all depends on interpretation. Perhaps the founding fathers saw just how insane religious wackos would become.

Hey Edbyronadams, what is the root of Christian rights? Some nonsense written down by camel herders more than 2,000 years ago? And what the hell does "Constitutional conservative" mean anyway? The only thing people really need to say is this: "I have read, and I understand, the U.S. Constitution." Of course, with the state of U.S. education currently, that's impossible -- especially in Southern states like Kansas.

So, the Tea Baggers believe in the phrase "all men are created EQUAL." Why, then, are they opposed to gay marriage? After all, it doesn't mention anything about women.

A "judicial activist" on the other hand is one who believes that anything, including a cure for cancer, can be found in the U.S. Constitution if you just look hard enough.

On the funny side!

I just woke up, took a look at the clock which read 6:10 am but was actually 2:30am.,
I fell asleep around 8 and my internal clock only allows me to sleep for 6 hours, so now I am wide awake with 4 hours til work!
I hope that 5hr. energy drink works! I'm going to need a couple of them!

On a serious note:
Christians, the voting public, our elected officials, the supreme court are owned!

The Wealthy and big business own 96% of our economy and its wealth, that's 317k people out of 300 million, Fox comedy central would call that "fair and ballanced"!

Yes, you still have a voice and a vote, but it's buried under a thick blanket of money muffling your voice and hiding your vote!

IF you are a christian would you vote for liars? Of course you would, you have and will continue to do so, so much for christian morals huh! 60% of this countries citizens don't compromise their morals by participating in a fruitless exercise such as voting for the "lesser of two evils".

There is no such thing as a honest politician, and the last moral christian I know of was Sister Teresa!

Go out and ask 100 tea partiers what it means to be a constitutional conservative.
You'll be met with silence or a dumbfounded look and have 100 different opinions.

Christians are fighting a jihad in defense of christian beliefs, so I find it hard to believe that they "ACTUALLY" support a godless document like the constitution or feel that they are the only ones whose definition of it is correct, and any other interpretation is inherently wrong and there fore ALL laws must past the muster of christian leadership before becoming law.

They didn't read nor do they subscribe to the passage that states "give unto Ceaser .... blah blah blah! and to God what is Gods.

God nor his Son Jesus, would be able to pass the republican tea party mandates of the republican party.
Jesus would kick the heretic out of his house, and then step outside to help one less fortunate or disabled. this is opposite of the republican belief structure
that each person is an island and is proved out by the opposition to programs that would benefit the less fortunate or disabled, given the "high morals" of christians one would expect them to embrace such programs. It's at this point that they exude the properties of the constitution, and exclude christian writings!

Notice carefully the distinction between "Nature's God" and the christian god, or jesus.

Not once, nowhere, nothing is said about the christian god anywhere in our founding documents.

Nature's god was the deist god. You don't have to read far to see that.

But of course, the dominionist monsters like Sekulow and PAT ROBERTSON - Sekulow's owner and master ... want to conflate their particular variant of their particular christian god with the deist god of Thomas Jefferson.

These people are not to be trusted. They are lying not only to secular America, they are lying to you christians as well.

For lack of a better analogy, a constitutional conservative is like a farmer with a 2010 John Deere tractor that keeps breaking down, and the tea partiers would have you fix it with parts from a horse drawn plow.

OR it's like a business that is operating on a 214 year old business plan, which is a plan for failure if all other businesses aren't using a 214 year old plan.

Or maybe it's like adults wearing diapers!

or maybe like teachers using text books printed in 1776.

This is a country, a world that our fore fathers could not even foresee, but if we could somehow bring them back to todays time, would they agree with teapartiers
that there is no wiggle room in the constitution.?

Or will they say your 2010 escalde will run just fine on 1776 crude oil!
Or would they suggest to "refine" the crude so the motor runs more smoothly!

"Natural law" allows conservatives to pull radical interpretations out of ....well you know.

Natural law is supposedly the really, really, really important parts of the Constitution.

And here's the kicker - these essential parts of the Constitution are so important that the Founders didn't write them down! Crazy, right?

But luckily, there are these really really cool guys called 'conservatives" and they have these Ouija boards that let them know what the Founders really thought about all the important stuff, you know, the stuff that they never got around to writing about.

But what really makes the whole thing absurd is to hear 'natural law' coming from people like Palin, O'Donnell, and Miller (a Palin crony). These are theocrats, people who barely graduated college, can't string together coherent sentences, or have personal lives that pass casual examination. They know Madison and Locke? They are grifters and conmen, and this year they are also corporate sponsored Benedict Arnolds

A constitutional conservative is one who believes that legislation without representation is wrong in a democratic society.

Skeptic1,

I'm talking about the America's Founding Fathers- not the people who fought in the Civil War.
The civil war was in the 1860's... And yes, by then, some of the US was fighting for equal rights for all Americans. But at the time the Constitution was adopted, it wasn't considered to include blacks under the title of "men."

Check out the notorious decision of Dred Scott v. Sanford - largely considered one of the worst decisions handed down by the Supreme Court. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1856/1856_0
Basically, the Court held that because the Framer's didn't intend to mean blacks when they said "all men are created equal," blacks weren't protected by the Constitution.

I'm just saying that the Constitution is a thankfully a document that can be adapted to new social realities..

Ah yes. Constitutional conservatives believe the federal government has too much power. But then they want the government to ban the building of an Islamic community center in a neighborhood that already has several mosques. And where is the right of the government to dictate the location of a house of worship written in the constitution?

The full Bill of Rights is under attack as the federal government believes there is always some practical excuse to infringe upon any of those rules.

And November cannot come soon enough...

"Not to mention the Framer's also intended that "men" meant White Men, thus justifying years of unequal rights for black americans and women. "

This is simply not true and is not justified by a reading of the constitution as a whole nor was it justified by an actual reading of history.

It was "White Men" that insisted on equal treatment and it was "White Men" that fought and died by the thousands for your freedom in the civil war.

So please relax and give your ignorance of history a rest. You're just embarrassing yourself.

'Most people in this country support early abortions and oppose late ones because most are uncertain as to when to invest a fetus with personhood and the political process would have found a decent compromise without the warping of the fabric of the polis that Roe gave us.'

Agreed on the first part, but am extremely doubtful that states would have individually or collectively accorded the same sovereignty to women as regards individual reproductive rights that we find with Roe v Wade. Life abides, when it potentially abides outside the womb....

Frankly, there are far too many religious interests at work when it comes to state politics across the board - the truly secular state is hardly to be found, in these here United States.

Rule by judicial edict may also be necessary when neither states nor the federal government (including the military) can make up their own mind on various and disparate matters pertaining to human rights....which is why we currently have a judicial stay on mustering out gay military personnel.

Admittedly, gay rights is a contentious and polarizing third rail of politics, but we've been there before - giving birth to a new way of looking at things is never easy, all glibness aside.

And how much more difficult to contemplate anything smacking of rule by religious edict. Not a place any rational human would want to return to - not that we've completely made our escape quite yet.

In my own view, we're still vigorously contending between secular and religious worldviews here in America. A state of affairs found to greater or lesser degrees pretty much everywhere.

I believe there was every good reason that religion as a political entity was essentially written out of the Constitution.

Its unfortunate that Rand Paul and Michelle Bachmann's idea of what constitutes "Natural Law" was frozen back in the pre-Locke era of 3rd century Christianity. Minus the slavery.

Persiflage,

"Ed, while I agree that a change in values and behavior can be considered evolutionary in the broad sense, your example of Roe v Wade demonstrates that regarding poignant social issues, the rule of law must often be applied well before a general societal consensus (will of the people) has been reached."

I don't see how this follows at all. In my state, we already had a "Therapeutic Abortion Law" (signed by Gov. Ronald Reagan!) which allowed medical necessity abortion and was being used by women for any reason merely by declaring that having a child would drive them insane. A move was underfoot to liberalize the law even further when Roe gave the process an abortion. Most people in this country support early abortions and oppose late ones because most are uncertain as to when to invest a fetus with personhood and the political process would have found a decent compromise without the warping of the fabric of the polis that Roe gave us.

Those who advocate a right to a marriage contract merely are arguing the ends justifies the means when taking it to court. They don't care about the costs. Rule by judicial edit is costly every time it happens. It is only justified when it clearly violates the intentions of the ratifiers of our supreme law and not otherwise.

' I feel rights do not come as a gift of nature or God, but as something that evolves within the consciousness of the people.'

Ed, while I agree that a change in values and behavior can be considered evolutionary in the broad sense, your example of Roe v Wade demonstrates that regarding poignant social issues, the rule of law must often be applied well before a general societal consensus (will of the people) has been reached.

This is the interpretive job of the judicial system and SCOTUS in particular. In any event, the majority of people appear to continue in their support of Roe v Wade, although significant GOP wins next month will no doubt once again resurrect major challenges.

I think this is not because we rely on legal experts to thrash out any inherent meaning in the law, but more for purposes of clarification on the implied or spoken intentions of said laws.

For example Roe v Wade has to do with a woman's right to privacy and accompanying self-governance over reproductive issues.... issues apparently not considered particularly important to the law's detractors. While all opinions are subjective, the legal opinions are the ones we have to live with.

Personally, I see marriage as primarily a civil contractual issue that traditionally concerns the legalities of child welfare and child-rearing responsibilities and personal property distribution - which are generally implied until a legal separation/divorce becomes imminent.

That said, I don't believe we'll ever see a proposed ammendment that pertains specifically to the equal rights of homosexual individuals - because it shouldn't be necessary. We may see a Supreme Court ruling rather soon that opens a legislative back door to the wider issue of gay rights re. gays in the military.

This is currently the federal cutting edge issue that lately seems to supercede and trump states rights concerns over gay marriage, etc.

The religous overlay and the accompanying perception of 'natural' laws that overlay traditional marriage and are seen to govern heterosexual arrangements between men and women for purposes of reproductive control, property distribution, family alliances, and general societal stability are man-made, as you say.

The not-so-ancient notion of romatic love is a compelling and complicated force, and is often the basis for how such legal arrangements come to pass these days - but not by any means at all times and in all places, historically speaking i.e. arranged marriages, etc.

Romantic love can and does occur between members of the same sex, and often with similar consequences. This is simply a reality that garden-variety heterosexual folk are going to have to get used to because it's a fact of life - and sooner than later, a fact of law.

PERSIFLAGE

"I'm pretty sure no one is responding because the answer is so completely obvious - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are all about the larger panorama of human rights, irrespective of religion, color, ethnicity, gender, OR sexual orientation (merely the latest frontier in defining human rights here in the USA)."

Thank you for your response. One correction is that the Bill of Rights, when ratified, did not apply to slaves. It was only the post Civil War amendments that corrected that grave error and it is mostly to those who "equal rights" advocates appeal. I certainly have no problem with the amendment process and see all amendments as equal to the original document.

I do see the appeal for rights for same sex couples to a marriage contract as a novel concept. I feel rights do not come as a gift of nature or God, but as something that evolves within the consciousness of the people. The problem I have is with using the courts instead of public debate, changing peoples' minds as a means to achieve that goal. None of the ratifiers of the 14th amendment had the intention of applying it to same sex marriage and using it in that way breaks the social contract with those who oppose gay marriage on any grounds whatsoever and delegitimizes their voice in defining a bedrock institution of our society. It breeds anger and contempt for government. We have been through this before and can see it in the sequelae from the Roe decision. We don't need it again.

More of the usual stuff from the Religious Right. Small government is mandated by the Constitution, based in Natural Law, which comes from God.

So federal government shouldn't regulate anything, except the things God doesn't approve of. Funny thing is... God shares all our opinions!

If you want anyone to take you seriously, please explain how your Constitutional doctrines limit government from doing something you think it should without that doctrine.

I'm fine with the idea of "constitutional conservatives." It's not exactly a new idea. Many people believe in interpreting the constitution in accordance with the intent of the Framers. Although I personally think the idea is a bit unrealistic, I recognize that the position is legitimate. I think that the Constitution is purposefully vague in order to allow it to adapt to changing times. To suggest that the U.S., and the problems facing the U.S., can be addressed by the same standards that were used during the time of the Founding Fathers, seems to me to be ignoring reality. I think that the Constitution provides a framework for Courts and judges, who then have to actually apply it to particular situations, taking into account particular facts and circumstances.

Even though I disagree, I think the position of "constitutional conservatives" far as constitutional interpretation goes, is legitimate. What I don't think is legitimate is the fact that the people who call themselves "constitutional conservatives" also believe in denying equal rights to homosexuals, non-christians, and other minority groups. In other words, they're not "conservative" at all. I don't think its conservative to read, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," and then say... except for gay people. And muslims of course. And most hispanic people living near the mexican border.

Conservative interpretation to me, would mean interpreting the text as its clearly written- not reading your own agenda into the text and saying that's what the Framer's intended, because you're a white Christian and they were white Christians. Not to mention the Framer's also intended that "men" meant White Men, thus justifying years of unequal rights for black americans and women.

I think its pretty safe to say that we've moved past this sort of thinking. I'm a proponent of a plain-reading method of interpreting the Constitution. Anyone who agrees cannot legitimately support the people listed in this article, who identify themselves "constitutional conservatives," while denying equal rights to all americans and pushing the agenda of a particular religious group. (Christians). I'm a Christian, but I think its pretty clear that the Constitution doesn't designate the U.S. a "christian nation." In fact - it does just the opposite, by guaranteeing freedom of religion.

'I have questioned people on the On Faith site as to what they consider the root of "gay rights", only to be met with silence.'

Ed, I'm pretty sure no one is responding because the answer is so completely obvious - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are all about the larger panorama of human rights, irrespective of religion, color, ethnicity, gender, OR sexual orientation (merely the latest frontier in defining human rights here in the USA).

As far as I know, the Constitution says nothing whatsoever about sexuality or sexual orientation - at least until the 19th ammendment, when a particular human rights oversight regarding women's suffrage was rectified. Clearly the Constitution was not a finished product as originally written. And like gender, sexual orientation is innate, at least as far as current scientific thinking goes. Gay rights is most naturally aligned with the issue of gender rights, in my view. Reproduction and sexual behavior per se, as separate issues, do not figure into this particular equation.

Opposition to same sex arrangements of various kinds (including binding contractual arrangements such as marriage, etc.) is based on cultural bias, the presence and force of pre-existing traditions, prejudice, and personal values and beliefs (often supported by religion) rather than Constitutional law.

Just an opinion, of course.....

I consider myself a Constitutional conservative but don't hold the Declaration as anything more than the political call to arms that it is. Most of it is a list of grievances against the Crown. I will give a nod to Jefferson in that he didn't claim that rights exist because he said they do. He had enough intellectual honesty to claim they had some origin. Repeatedly, I have questioned people on the On Faith site as to what they consider the root of "gay rights", only to be met with silence.

As far as Constitutional conservative, I believe it means expecting the courts to use the ratifiers intentions for the document when issuing rulings, not their imagination or perceptions of auras and penumbras. Once again, the problem I have with opponents of this view is they will not even articulate a consistent philosophy that they expect of the judiciary for debate.