“Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams

The Constitution, like so many other written documents, is subject to interpretation.

When we have disagreements about how it is to be interpreted in light of a specific law or situation we rely on the court system to resolve the situation.  On August 4, 2010 the court dropped the ball.

Judge Vaughn R. Walker made a ruling that religious and moral prohibition of acts are not, by themselves, sufficient reason to enact laws.

Many students of the Constitution wonder how or why we have gone so far away from the original purpose of the Constitution.  The answer in part is that we no longer believe in the appropriateness of enacting and following Natural Law.  Morality does not have a big enough voice in the discussion.

Natural Law posits that there is a Creator, that we all have to answer to the Creator and the best way to guarantee our own happiness and freedom is to live according to Natural Law.

In a sense, we cannot break the Natural Law, we can only break ourselves against it.  There will always be a consequence to violating Natural Law.

Because of this widespread and deeply held belief, people talked in terms of people being endowed by their creator with rights, our God given rights.  Governments were instituted to protect those God given rights.

Many things were considered wrong, evil, or even a crime against nature.  We don’t really talk about things in that kind of language anymore in the halls of government.

This Natural Law perspective made religion important in people’s lives.  The reason the  First Amendment barred the National Government from establishing a religion is because some of the individual states had their own established religions and did not want interference from the National Government.

Massachusetts was the first state to establish public schools to teach and ingrain values and morals in the children because they understood Alexis de Tocqueville’s observation that “[l]iberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith”.

Natural Law and morality was the foundation of their claim to rights, the source of the laws, and how most people lived their lives.

That has all changed now.

People and governments see just how far they can push the boundaries of good behavior and power.

For decades, governments have adopted President Obama’s slogan of “Yes We Can”!

Can we establish an entire branch of government dedicated to education even though there is no Constitutional grant of authority to do it?  Yes We Can!

Can we fight several undeclared wars lasting many years killing thousands of Americans?  Yes We Can!

Can we lock up thousands of people based on their ethnicity without any proof of treasonous intent or activities and force them to lose their property?  Yes We Can!

Can we spend millions of dollars of public money for arts and programs that are radically offensive to most people?  Yes We Can!

Can we subsidize and encourage single motherhood through government welfare programs?  Yes We Can!

Can we limit political speech and campaign spending that severely handicaps political challengers and benefits incumbents?  Yes We Can!

Can we take property from people to sell it to private land developers because we think it will bring in more tax revenue?  Yes We Can!

Can we use the public treasury to insure against losses of a large company while letting the profits accumulate in private hands?  Yes We Can!

We have moved from a place where the national government was established with specific determined powers for preserving and facilitating our rights to a place where the government is only limited by their imagination and the political uproar from the people offended by their actions.

Our government is transforming from a limited government to an unlimited government.

We have lost our moral compass and now, officially, our moral compasses are not welcome in law making.

We are in a sad state of affairs indeed.

Comments Welcome