AUTHOR'S NOTE: THIS ESSAY, WHICH WAS WRITTEN OVER 20 YEARS AGO IS EVEN
MORE RELEVANT THAN EVER TODAY; THUS WE REPUBLISH IT IN THE YEAR OF
LORD, 2013, WITH ONE ADDED FOOTNOTE BECAUSE SINCE THIS PIECE WAS
ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED THE AUTHOR LEARNED ABOUT GEORGE WASHINGTON'S
INAUGURATION OATH ON HIS MASONIC BIBLE.
Monograph in Response to Michael Carpenter,*
Atty. Gen., State of Maine
February 3, 1992
by Pauly Fongemie
questions of power, then, let no more be said of confidence in man, but
bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
"There is above all, the supreme stamp of the barbarian: the sacrifice
of the permanent to the temporary."
is said to have no official state religion, and to all too many, it
follows that, if there be no established religion, then creed can be
dispensed with, which is oxymoronic, since the dispensation from creed
can be said to be a creed, a specific one, from which no dissent from
its "orthodoxy" will be tolerated. If America has no official
religion, it cannot be said it has not adopted a civil religion, that
holds as its creed, that there are no more right and wrong that bind as
absolutes [per Carpenter,
first day of Constitutional Law class], and thus, in our laws and the
social mores reflected in
them, we are trapped into all sorts of ironic inconsistencies, such as
absolutizing what one claims no longer exists as an absolute; such as
in our claim to know when death occurs, but not when life begins.
[Medical science clearly states, however,
that life begins at conception, but because of the fast paced
technology available, we are no longer as definite about when death can
be established, exactly opposite of the doctrines of the hegemony of
liberalism, our civic "religion".]
While it is a good thing that religion cannot be imposed as a system of
belief on those who choose not to believe, in no way can it be
said that America had no
creed as such. That system of
belief whatever one may wish to name it, was a creed, the Declaration
Independence, which proclaimed the source of all authority and of all
law and the
purposes for which government exists: to safeguard the right to life,
liberty, property, among
other prerequisites for the pursuit of
happiness, and to which end self-evident and [unalienable] rights
be abrogated, since they are derived from God, and are not made and
granted by men.
The modern dogmas of Constitutional supremacy and judicial review [now
unjustly exercised as a form of abrogation by reinterpretation,
not interpretation], have
put the Supreme Court in conflict, on a collision course with the very
purpose of self-government as posited in our national warranty or
creed, now superseded by the audacious predilections of men and women
raised to the highest bar in the land. Let us examine the corpus delecti:
"We hold these truths to be
The current Court under which we suffer a tyranny as severe as if under
an unjust king, is dedicated to the proposition that in law there
is no right or wrong, no self-evident truths, only moral relativism, [Ibid.]
an assertion at odds with
eternal verities known by reason. The foundation of any law, if it is
inspire confidence and thereby gain compliance, is that it conveys a
sense of conviction of these ineluctable first things, and applies them
in justice, thereby a reasonable certainty is guaranteed, given that
man is fallible, and an essential continuity, from year to year,
generation to generation so
that men know what it is that is expected of them, in what consists
one's duty, responsibility, and the guarantee of inherent rights, and
privileges, viz. a viz. his
fellow citizens in accord with human dignity and human nature.
Man does not merely exist through random forces, he was created
for a purpose by his Creator, and the social order that reflects that
end, depends on the right relation of the law, property, and men. Life,
liberty, and property do not exist because men enact laws, but rather,
because these human goods exist a
priori and are indispensable, it is that men make laws.
"That all men are created equal ..."
The Court has denied that which is most binding on
humankind, acknowledgment of the Divine, by sequentially and
incrementally, negating the licitness of any expression of that Creator
in our public institutions, especially in government schools where
young minds are molded. Even voluntary prayer is now banished in some
districts as too intrusive. Supposedly religion is so private a matter,
we must never impose it, even on ourselves, with free will, in
deference to the "sensibilities" of others. Under the rationale of
avoiding the "unfair despotism" of the majority, we have enshrined the
absolute dictates of the few over the many, to benefit the minority,
and not the many who have retained the use of reason. An oligarchy of
anarchy or the anarchical implosion of common sense and reasonable
tolerance by oligarchy.
[Having said this, in no way do I ascribe to the notion that all
men are created equal, as this violates Catholic teaching. However,
what should have been this part of the Declaration is that all men have
a Creator and that because only He can judge our worth, all men are
equal before the law. Be that as it may we must deal with our national
charters as they are.]
It is inconceivable that our Founders did not know their own intent in
the matter of religion, for history is replete with examples of federal
enactments supporting this or that religious enterprise, for the good
of the people, and eventually we inscribed the sovereignty of God on
The Founders were establishing a government of the people that had as
its foundation the natural law of our Creator because self-government
can only succeed where the people are moral and or religious.
[Washington and John Adams]. Justice Douglas acknowledged that "we are
religious people" in reference to the same. But, for the sake of
argument, let us assume that somehow the Founders did not know their
own minds and were in error, and that because of our so-called progress
or enlightenment, we suddenly discover the hidden wall of separation,
which has revealed itself. Why then, was it that the assault on
religious exercise and expression was waged by degree, rather than
entirely all at once? If this new found necessity for liberty was valid
and imperative for justice,
why deprive the people of such a good by making them wait for years?
Only those blinded by ideological intent could fail to comprehend that
the incremental installment plan was deliberately promulgated,
precisely because the intent was in violation of the fundamental
principles of our Constitutional Republic and the natural law. Ergo, the people have to
be "conditioned slowly" until they lack the will to resist, at which
time, all mention of God will be stripped from every building, every
coin, and even our Pledge of Allegiance. Praying silently in public
will be an offense. Even now there have been sporadic forays from the
ACLU to impinge on private prayer in public. In Tennessee a little
Catholic girl, with handicaps, was fond of holding a set of rosary
beads in her
hand on the bus and praying silently.
The ACLU spearheaded a trial case. It did not even need litigation,
for the very threat of ACLU involvement was enough. The little girl was
told she could not pray by herself.
And almost no public outcry. Perhaps it was only because she was
Catholic in a nation where anti-Catholicism is the only politically
correct bigotry. Perhaps it was that creeping lethargy that saps our
will to engage in eternal vigilance. I say without hesitation if she
had been a young Muslim with Koran in hand, not a peep by the ACLU
would have been
raised. You know it within your
heart as I do and I know you know it, because the assault on religion
is always and only on those who espouse various Christian creeds, with
scarcely an exception, that serves to prove the very rule. The
occasional exception, carefully chosen to misdirect until no longer
required as a stratagem, grows rarer as we grow older but not wiser.
"With certain unalienable rights;
that among these is life ..."
And this is the crux, the heart of the matter. As Joseph Sobran, from
whom I have adopted the framework for my own analysis, has so
"The Court has now adopted, in opposition to the Declaration,
the great heresy of the 20th century: that government has not the duty to recognize
and protect ["secure"] innate human rights given by God, but the arbitrary power to
create or destroy positive rights at whim." [SINGLE ISSUES, p. 113.]
Let us look at the social-pyschological dynamics underpinning the Roe v. Wade decision and discovery
of the penumbra in re
dynamic influential twenty years later.
The definition of a penumbra is twofold:
partial or imperfect shadow outside the complete shadow of an opaque
body, as a planet, where the light from the source of illumination is
only partly cut off.
b. the grayish marginal portion of a sunspot.
2. a shadowy, indefinite, or marginal area.
At least we can say that penumbra,
an indefinite, shadowy area
describes accurately the deceptive means of the Court to impose the Roe
decision of which I provide the pertinent paragraphs, red text my
emphasis: Note the subtle shifts of traditional medical terms from one
of biological certainty as found in all my textbooks, to one of
potentiality, human proportions, not human beings, etc. Truly shocking
and indefensible. Moreover, the majority of the Court found that one
cannot destroy in this case. Yet an abortion is designed to do this
thing. This is not only obfuscation or penumbras, this is bold face lying!
As for the Rites of Baptism not being performed, you are referred to
the essay on Shibboleths, in which
address the false claims of the Court. Murder, committed behind close
doors, in private, is always a public act as it involves the violation
of the rights of another person without his consent. Having denied the
personhood of the baby in the womb by penumbras
the Court used it as a
rationale for validating penumbras
themselves. What circular, demonic
reasoning. Regarding the failure of prosecutors to obtain a conviction
of homicide in fetal death as a rationale for declaring the unborn
child a non-person, this is actually irrelevant. Just because one
officer of the Court is negligent or unable to effect a conviction does
not negate the law, in this case the natural law. It is evidence of
nothing of the sort, simply evidence of a discrete incidence of
failure, and only that. It is as if to say that because A fails to
protect a neighbor of B, for whatever reason, B no longer has rights.
This is irrational.
ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
410 U.S. 113
ROE ET AL. v. WADE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF DALLAS COUNTY
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT
Argued December 13, 1971 Reargued October 11, 1972
Decided January 22, 1973
"To say that life is present at
is to give recognition to the potential,
rather than the actual. The unfertilized egg has life, and if
fertilized, it takes on human
proportions. But the law deals in reality, not obscurity -- the
known, rather than the unknown. When sperm meets egg, life may eventually form, but quite
often it does not. The law does not deal in speculation. The phenomenon
of [410 U.S. 218] life takes time to develop, and, until it is actually present, it cannot be destroyed. Its
interruption prior to formation would hardly be homicide, and as we
have seen, society does not regard it as such. The rites of Baptism are not performed
and death certificates are not required when a miscarriage occurs.
No prosecutor has ever returned a murder indictment charging the taking
of the life of a fetus.
This would not be the case if the fetus constituted human life."
the courts are not making law by judicial legislation so
much as they are nullifying the evidence of our predominant, common
experience, Western tradition, in
the name of safeguarding that tradition.
Certainly it is more than a bit odd that after 200 years of certainty,
the Court found itself to have been walking in the dark all along, and
eureka, they have suddenly "seen a great light." How peculiar
Framers of the Constitution, which is rooted in the Declaration, had no
sense of their own intent.
The Constitution does not explicitly mention any
right of privacy. In a line of
decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co.
Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251
(1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a
certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution.
In varying contexts,
the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots
of that right in
the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S.
557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392
U.S. 1, 8-9
(1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S.
347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478
(1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights,
U.S., at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J.,
in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the
Fourteenth Amendment, see
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262
U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal
rights that can
be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered
liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S.
319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy.
But what is even more curious, is precisely how conveniently that the
"new found meanings" in the Constitution, the "penumbras" [so
inelegantly and ill-suited to judicial language] fit so snugly with
ideology, a near perfect fit of the ACLU agenda. The founder of the
ACLU, Roger Baldwin, admitted that his purpose in establishing it was
the abolition of private property----socialism. An intrinsic component
of socialism is the supremacy of the state over the natural family, and the
rights of the child to be born. Abortion is a socialist tenet. A
Holmes, confessed that the ACLU was using the pretext of protecting
civil liberties as a means of manipulating cases towards social change.
Even Mark Campisano, law clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brennan
said: "An accounting of the ACLU
caseload suggests that the organization is an ideological chameleon,
that beneath the protective coloration of civil liberties, the ACLU is
promoting a very different agenda, one contrary to basic principles of
American constitutional democracy." [See George Grant, TRIAL AND
ERROR, Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1989.]
Should we not believe those in on the insidious deception, rather than
those who benefit from an organized attempt to cover it up?
But there is little point of writing law into language, if those
strictures are not going to have some sort of ongoing meaning, or why
code them in the first place? We are now advised [pardon the pun] that
we can not be ruled by the past. This serves to beg the question, for
our legal experts never tell us where the line of the past ends and the
past of the future to come begins. For even yesterday is a kind of
past. So we have endless change, under the pretense of stare decisis, change, but without
common law content, for the pragmatism of the moment reigns. This is
the new stare decisis,
not tradition under the rule of common wisdom and reason, the natural
law. Indeed, the natural law itself is discarded, relegated to a quaint
back room curiosity only for the esoteric eccentric. Where is the law
school based on the natural law foundation of all man made law? Even in
all my undergraduate law classes, it is barely a footnote.
In reality, we have lost our precious legacy, our warranty of
unassailable rights, barely a modest semblance of checks and balances.
Our present system is all checks [on religion and the right to be
in our homes and bear arms, while expanding the other Amendments beyond
reason] and no balance as the Supreme Court feels
little if any restraint against declaring any legislation enacted by
Congress or one of the states as unconstitutional. Instead of weighing
in on disputes between the states, it has arrogated power unto itself
to make war on the states. Federal
power has grown disproportionately
to that of the states, and the rights supposed to be retained by the
people under the Constitution. The ninth and tenth Amendments have
fared as badly as the natural law. And everything has "to be cleared"
Court muster. Each piece of legislation is examined under a microscope
for denouncement by the Court. Normalcy itself is now a suspect class.
In other words we no longer have representative
government but an oligarchy of nine essentially making law, and
unaccountable to the people, a consequence the Founders feared most,
even more than mob rule, since the majority of citizens tend to be
law-abiding except under extreme hardship exacerbated by harsh
government. It is no use objecting that we can impeach judges. The
process is so onerous---by design---that no Supreme Court justice has
ever been impeached, which is not to say that the people found no cause
until now. But if they did, who honestly and competently thinks it
would be accomplished?
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
The Framers of the U.S. Constitution readily admitted that the nation
was utterly dependent upon a Christian social order---and its incumbent
Christian influences. America was founded as a Christian nation, a
Protestant one, like it or not, but it was founded on something other
than mere human will and power because it may be possible.
I may not like it that the Founders were Protestant and Masonically,
Deist-inspired, but this is not the issue at hand. It was that they
held that God is the source of inalienable rights and not the state and
that there is an interdependence
between Church and state. Which is what the Catholic Church has always
taught through the pronouncements of its Pontiffs.
Joseph Story, the foremost historian of the founding era, underscored
this truth in Commentaries on the
Constitution published in 1833:
The First Amendment was not intended to withdraw the Christian
religion as a whole from the protection of Congress. At the time, the
general, if not universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity
ought to receive encouragement from the state so far as compatible with
the rights of conscience and the freedom of worship. Any attempt to
level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold
all in utter indifference would have created universal indignation. 
Justice William O. Douglas reaffirmed that historical veracity:
We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a
Being. We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses. We make room
for as wide a variety of beliefs and creeds as the spiritual needs of
deemed necessary. We sponsor an attitude that shows no partiality to
group and that lets each flourish according to the zeal of its
adherents and the appeal of its dogma. When the state encourages
religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by
adjusting the schedule of
public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our
traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and
accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold
that it may not, would be to find in the Constitution a requirement
that the government show a
callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring
those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. We find no
such Constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for
government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against
efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence. 
Justice Douglas asserted further that "The First Amendment does not say
in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and
It is true that the Founding Fathers designed the Constitution to
clearly differentiate between Church and state. There was to be no
intermingling. They were to be separate institutions---with separate
jurisdictions, separate authorities, and separate functions. 
Thus the Framers ensured that the state could not interfere with the
proper and necessary affairs of the Church. The Church was outside the
jurisdiction of the state and the court. This is the central thrust and
tenet of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The state has no authority over religion, no Constitutional call to
impinge upon it, or to regulate it. Certainly there was never any
intent to place a "gag rule" upon religious exercise as is now the
in judicial philosophy in re
religious freedoms. But the Founders were
just as careful and deliberate to ascertain that the affairs of
religion did not also interfere with the rightful duties and
responsibilities of the state. The state was to be outside the
jurisdiction of the Church. This however did not
mean that they intended that Church and state should have no
interaction. On the contrary the Framers expected cooperation with each
other in building a Christian culture: Church and state were the
balance to one another, serving one another. Just as the separation of
powers were to act as a check on the misuse of power by one branch of
government in relation to the others, so Church and state were to be
checks on each other, not to cancel out each other or neutralize their
critical roles in society, but rather to encourage and ensure their
free interaction. If the three branches were to assume the role imposed
by the current Court onto religious activities in re the state's power to
inhibit them, our government would be a "confederate democracy", not a
Constitutional Republic, where the rule of law, based on moral precepts
is the guiding ethos, not the prejudices of men.
In other words, the Founders never envisioned a "wall of separation."
Instead they held that the state and Church were interdependent: The
state was to protect the Church with just laws and a righteous
restraint upon the body politic so that the Christian creed could do
its work in harmony with the precepts of the law. Law without moral
import, that morality that abides in the human conscience freely and
actively encouraged, is raw power legalized, and is tyranny by any
Liberty can only survive where the people are free by their
own self-imposed restraint, that discipline that flows from adherence
to "Nature's God" or the the natural law. In fact the Church was to
promote the Bible, the
common standard upon which the laws of the state enjoyed their
authority. The Church was to succor the practice of mercy, truth, and
justice, to root out sin, and to prepare the people for self-rule.
Our Constitutional fathers thus established a decentralized,
self-consciously Christian society as the very foundation of government
to preserve it from corruption. The facts are self-evident to those
who choose to set aside their own ill-conceived prejudices and examine
the historical record as to the mind [and intent] of our first leaders:
George Washington, hero of the Revolution and the first President under
the Constitution, added the pledge, "So help me God," to his inaugural
oath, then bent to kiss the Bible as an affirmation of his
submission to the King of nations, and the Lord of history. He later
asserted: It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and
John Adams, the second President, made no secret of the fact that he
studied the Bible often and with diligence in order to discern the
proper administration of a Christian society. He said, "Our
Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. So great
is my veneration of the Bible that the earlier my children begin to
it, the more confident will be my hope that they will prove useful
citizens of their country and respectful members of society." 
Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the Declaration of
Independence and the third President, was explicit in his recognition
Christianity was the underpinning of the Republic. He professed: "The
Bible is the cornerstone of liberty. A student's perusal of the sacred
volume will make him a better citizen." 
He said this notwithstanding that he was known to have excised certain
passages of the New Testament. This is irrelevant to the discussion
here, for no one of the Founders had the same Bible or subscribed to
the same religious tenets. What is relevant is that they recognized one
Eternal God Who has sovereign rights and is the source of all ours
because human nature requires a set of restraints for ordered liberty
to be possible. Liberty is not license.
Benjamin Franklin, grandfather of the Constitutional Convention stated:
"A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know the price
of the rights which God has given them, cannot be enslaved." 
Andrew Jackson, the seventh President read the Bible daily, and was
heard to refer to it habitually as "the Rock on which our Republic
Then there is the great author and lexicographer, Noah Webster who
posited, "The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures
form the basis of all our civil Constitution and laws. All the miseries
and evils which other nations suffer from vice, crime, and ambition,
injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising
or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible." [l0]
During the cataclysmic days of the American Civil War, President
Lincoln called the Bible "the best gift that God has ever given to men.
But for it we could not know right from wrong." [ll]
elaborated on this absolute of public life: "It is the duty of nations,
as well as of men, to owe their dependence upon the overruling power of
God and to recognize the sublime truth announced in the Holy Scriptures
and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose
God is the Lord." 
This is by way of background. We continue with the First and Second
It is most curious indeed, that it is held a dogma of modernism that
there are no hierarchy of rights, yet the first part of the 1st
Amendment [speech] is said to be "sacred", but its twin, expression of
religion, is thought to be inimical to public discourse. Neutrality of
sect is now hostility to all but paganism and the civil religion of
humanism, this last was held to be a religion by the Court. The rights
of the 5th and 6th amendments are safeguarded at every turn, but the
2nd amendment is held to be of minor importance. See table appended
Without continuity with the past, there is no perspective for the
present, human nature does not change, and the relation of law to human
enterprise requires the same today as it did yesterday. It is only in
the application of these unchanging principles that the Framers wove a
flexible framework, to accommodate those legitimate purposes of
government. But we have done the opposite. Rather than apply the
principles sensibly, coherently, and legitimately, we have altered the principles themselves,
and applied them as if they had not changed. The one constant is
inconstancy, as fixed as any
original intent, said to be beyond our reach.
By clever mastery of euphemism we are now under the tyranny of a Court
that has virtually made political policy, but without political
responsibility to the body politic. As the Court has so "interpreted"
the Constitution to grant ever more expansive, intrusive power to the
Congress, by virtue of the fact they are the gatekeepers of what that
power is, they have proportionately increased their own, by definition.
Ironically it is far too independent [Sobran] to be equal, so much so
that it is so supreme, it is in effect supreme over the very
Constitution the Court is to safeguard.
The foundation of the argument for judicial review, as Chief Justice
John Marshall set forth in Marbury
v. Madison, is that whenever a state law conflicts with the
Constitution, the Constitution must have priority.
But the Congress and Chief executive also owe their loyalty to the
Constitution, and when an act of the Judiciary is in conflict with the
Constitution, it is their foremost obligation to restore the right
order of things [Sobran], without which the exercise of this duty,
is no ordered liberty, only chaos, and a fragmented society of
competing special interests pulling the Constitution this way first and
that way next. We are at the mercy of the winds of change, with some
small respite by an occasional breeze of nuance and not outright
And the winds of change have wrought havoc, leaving the common good
vulnerable to the rage and demands of interest groups who have nothing
in common with the common good, but who want to discover "new rights"
in the Constitution, breaking with stare
decisis, to establish a new basis just long enough to qualify as
another stare decisis,
to be used as a rationale for imposing badly decided cases without
reverting to the former guidelines. The "new tradition" is imposed over
the old so as to not violate stare
but to do so it had to violate the common law or common
understanding [the natural stare decisis of the inalienable right to
life for the innocent] in the first place. (Regarding the right to kill
by the state, even criminals can not forfeit their life without due
process, a trial, by Constitutional guarantee). The irony stings with
hypocrisy, mocks our credulity, insults the average intelligence.
In Roe we have sacrificed the
normal to the abnormal because we have to deny even common sense to
prevent any crack in the facade that we do not know when life begins.
Thus in the cases stemming from Edelin, where a baby is born after
intent to abort, doctors have been allowed to strangle the newborn or
merely leave it to starve. Because perversity has its own irrefutable
logic, some medical journals talk openly now of permissible infanticide
for at least until three days after birth. To suggest that this is
immoral or evil is to risk censure, for to permit real exposure of the
reality of this barbarity is to risk someone thinking that if it is
wrong to murder a three-day old baby, maybe it is wrong to murder a
baby just before it is born, etc. Logic is always pure and in one
direction. Truth is a whole, and if one aspect can be denied, it can
all be rationalized away. This is the same with its opposite.
Consequently, in deference to a falsely established stare decisis,
we are told it would be disastrous, unwise to go back, even if the
decision violated the canons of human nature and the natural law, in
fact, precisely because it did, the ACLU and its cohorts demand we must
not go back. Perversity at its best or should I say worst. For the sake
of a hitherto unacknowledged right we are to pretend that means and
ends have no relation to one another, and that socially desired
outcomes [from a militant minority who deliberately used bold lies] are
independent of the means, and thus we warp the arguments to fit the
case, and shape the case to fit the desired end. Anyone who dares to
dissent is now said to be without compassion for rights, but only cares
about safeguarding principle. But it is principle that protects us from
our own worst
instincts, our willful tendency to self-destruct, if left to our own
devices. Right ends can not be derived from improper means, and proper
means, ordered to proper ends, are the essence of liberty. For without
right order in human existence there is no justice. Where there is no
justice, there is no moral authority to bind the civil, and where this
is absent, there exists no peace, and where peace is lacking, there can
be no liberty.
Table source: TRIAL AND ERROR, George Grant,
|THE ACLU SUPPORTS
|THE ACLU OPPOSES
|Legalization of child pornography
|Legalization of [recreational] drugs
|Tax exemptions for Satanists
exemptions for non-Satanic religions
|Legalization of prostitution
displays in public
|Abortion on demand
safety reporting laws in abortion
tests for Court appointees
terms for criminals
demonstrations for Nazis and Communists who favor direct action or
public demonstrations for direct action
|Legalization of polygamy [and now, I
presume "gay marriage and adoption"].
teaching of monogamous heterosexual intercourse within marriage in the
NOTE. Michael Carpenter, who
was the former Attorney General of the State of Maine, was my law
professor for one of two undergraduate Constitutional law courses I
took at the University of Maine. He is an unabashed liberal of the
cafeteria Catholic/semi-lapsed Catholic persuasion. He did not uphold
the supremacy of the natural law over positive human law and believed
in a changing Constitution in re
interpretation, that original intent was not binding. He began the
first day of class with the statement that "there are no moral
absolutes." Unlike many liberal professors he was an honest one and did
not penalize students who disagreed with him, in fact welcomed a robust
debate. He had a sense of humor, too. When he assigned our final paper
he gave us time to think of a topic, as usual. As I was preparing to
exit the classroom, he turned to me and said, "I already know what your
subject will be, Roe v. Wade."
He was correct, but then anyone in that class should have been able to
guess that much. We both chuckled. He then warned me that I had better
have all my ducks lined up as he would be scrupulous in grading my
paper. While it is Catholic decorum in the order of grace and modesty
that one should not boast or even announce one's achievements as in
grades, I do so here, only to show that sometimes a liberal professor,
no matter how politically correct, can be fair or non-punitive, unlike
another professor [administrative law] I had that same year, who
downgraded my final paper purposefully---he admitted it as he knew he
would not be taken to task by administrative officials---because he was
in the mood to punish me for some of the commentary [on affirmative
action---unintended consequences] I presented. I went to the Dean to no
avail. Mike Carpenter gave me an A on the Roe v. Wade
paper, and he was for abortion and thought the decision was right. Even
knowing I would have been penalized I could not have selected another
topic. This essay is in response to much of the discussion in
For instance, he taught that original intent and use of the text alone
was not feasible, as we had need to interpret according to the times.
He did not make distinctions between that which can change logically
and justly and that which can not, the text within context [and the
other writings of same authors], and text alone. When
I posited the availability of the above, he shrugged and seemed to be
uncomfortable. He further posited that the ACLU is fair, takes all
sorts of cases, and existed for civil
liberties, despite the above quote from an insider. He stated that
there is no hierarchy as such, although we "kind of have one", since
the first amendment is "sacred". He did admit that some rights are
subordinate to others in extreme situations, and some conflicts may not
be easily resolved where the rights of the press and the right to a
fair trial intersect. When I again probed him to admit the supremacy of
life and a hierarchy therefore, he demurred by talking around it. He
insisted that those who want to overturn Roe v Wade are not compassionate,
can be overlooked if the ends are important, and that the anti-Roe
group care only for principle and not goals or rights." He
implied that Roe was now part
of stare decisis, and should
not be overturned, although he thinks it will be. The stare decisis aspect is oxymoronic
for Roe was decided by overturning
stare decisis based on the
natural and common law, and thus it is hypocritically and
intellectually dishonest to insist that stare decisis
is now untouchable. Once the principle is surrendered, it is
surrendered. He is against original intent but wants an original intent
in re Roe. This is changing
the rules mid-game, then returning them back again to affect the
outcome. Unbelievable in audacity! But then, he admitted that ends
justify the means, the very mark of tyranny.
1. Joseph Story, Commentaries of the Constitution, (New
York: John Tallirude and Sons, 1833, 1967), 161-162.
2. Zorac v. Clausen, (343 U.S. 306),
4. George Grant, Trial
and Error, (Tennessee: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1989), 73.
Walker Whitman, A Christian History
of the American Republic: A
Textbook for Secondary Schools, (Boston: Greenleaf Press, 1939,
Added Note, 2013: Since this piece
was first published we learned that George Washington was a 32 degree
Mason and took his oath upon the Masonic Bible. This does not change
the principle here because he fervently, if misguidedly' held to the
sacredness of that text and his oath was meant to affirm his belief in
God, which he recognized as above men. The Masonic beliefs of our
Founders were covered in a series we had online years ago, MASONRY,
which we did after this essay had been written.
6. Robert Ferrell,
The Adams Family: Four Generations of Patriots, (New York:
Publius Press, 1969), 12.
8. Ibid, 97.
9. Alfred G. Knopler, The
Lessons of Southern Culture, (Atlanta: Jefferson Davis
Publishers, 1977), 33.
10. Harold K. Lane, Liberty!
Cry Liberty! (Boston: Lamb and Lamb, 1939), 31.
11. Whitman, 109.
12. Lane, 32.
Archer, Geoff. The War Between the
States and Its Aftermath
, Everson College Press, Philadelphia,
Black, Hugo Jr. My Father: A
, Random House, New York, 1975.
Douglas, William O. The Bible and
, Little, Brown, and Co., Boston, 1966.
Evans, Edward J. Freedom of Religion
Lerner Publications Co., Minneapolis, 1990.
Ferrell, Robert. The Adams Family:
Four Generations of Patriots
, publius Press, New York, 1969.
Fisher, Paul A. Behind the Lodge Door
Shield Publishing, Inc. Bowie, MD, 1989.
Grant, George. Trial and Error
Wogelmuth & Hyatt Publishers, Inc. Brentwood, TN, 1989.
Jurjevich, Ratibor-Ray M. The War On
Christ in America
, Ichthys Books, Denver, Co., 1985.
Knophler, Alfred G. The Lessons of
, Jefferson Davis publishers, Atlanta, 1977.
Lamson, Peggy. Roger Baldwin:
Founder of the ACLU,
Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston 1976.
Lane, Harold K. Liberty! Cry Liberty!
Lamb and Lamb, Boston, 1939.
Miller, William L. The First
Liberty: Religion and the American Republic
, Alfred A. Knopf,
New York, 1986.
Murphy, Bruce A. The
, Oxford University Press, New
Phillips. Harlan B. Felix Frankfurter Reminisces
Reynal & Co., New York, .1960.
Roosevelt, Thoedore. The Foes Of Our
, George H. Doan Co., New York, 1917.
Sobran, Op. Cit
. in the essay.
Story, Joseph. Commentaries of the
Tallirude and Sons, New York, 1833, 1967.
Whitman, Walker. A Christian History
of the American Public: A Textbook
for Secondary Schools
, Greenleaf Press, Boston, 1939, 1948.
Zorac and Clausen, 344 U.S. 306.