Rare Jewel Insight: Nov 4, 2005
1. PRESS RELEASE
- “Constitutional Supremacy, not Judicial Supremacy”
2. WEBSTER’S 1828 DICTIONARY SAYS…!
- How did the Founders define “Oath”?
1. PRESS RELEASE
- “Constitutional Supremacy, not Judicial Supremacy”
(by Dr Virginia Armstrong, constitutional correspondent for Rare Jewel Magazine)
November 4, 2005: Abilene, TX -- Dr Virginia Armstrong, constitutional correspondent for Rare Jewel Magazine and a leader of Constitutionalist forces, today expressed concern that the battles over George Bush’s judicial nominees are side-stepping the most critical issues facing our nation.
Bush’s selection of Samuel Alito to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor highlights Dr Armstrong’s concern about the war between Constitutional supremacy and judicial supremacy. “The nominations tug-of-war is not really a conflict over people, but over principles. This is not just a fight for a Court, but for a country,” she declares.
Dr Armstrong sees these battles as a unique opportunity for both leaders and laymen to become better educated about the fundamental facts concerning our Constitution, our courts, and our country. Dr Armstrong asserts that there are several fundamental facts constituting a yardstick that must be applied in all judicial actions if our constitutional system and our culture are to survive and thrive:
1) The Constitution, not court decisions, is the supreme law of the land. “Precedents” (existing court decisions) must be over-turned when they violate the Constitution. All federal judges, including district and appellate court judges, are bound by their Constitutional oath of office to “support this Constitution,” not court decisions. The Constitution is the ultimate precedent in America, the ultimate standard to which all other law must conform.
2) The Constitution’s provisions have a fixed meaning. This meaning can be determined by careful, competent study of the express language of the text, the context of the provision being interpreted and of the entire document, the intent of the Framers, and the worldview in which the Constitution was embedded by its Framers.
3) The worldview in which the Constitution is embedded is the Judeo-Christian worldview.
“If these principles had been applied over the last fifty years by judges considered ‘judicial restraintists’ as well as judges avowed to be ‘judicial activists,’” asserts Dr. Armstrong, “American law and culture would be vastly different and better.” She adds, “Every judicial nominee and every judicial opinion must be measured by this yardstick if we are to revive our Constitution, our courts, and our culture.”
[Dr Armstrong is president of the Blackstone Institute (www.BlackstoneInstitute.org) and National Chairman of Eagle Forum’s Court Watch. She served a number of years as Director and Senior Professor of Legal Studies at Hardin-Simmons University in Abilene, Texas.]
2. WEBSTER’S 1828 DICTIONARY SAYS…!
How did the Founders define “Oath”?
Upholding the original intent of the US Constitution is the primary responsibility of the US Supreme Court. In fact, Article VI of the Constitution requires that ALL federal and state, executive and judicial officers, and legislators, “shall be bound by Oath” to support the US Constitution.”
We can understand the original intent of the Founders by seeking to understand the meanings of the words they used --meanings which often vary widely from how we use such words today. Hence, we turn to America’s first English dictionary, published in 1828 by Noah Webster [1].
In this issue of Rare Jewel Insight, we will compare the 1828 definition of “Oath” with a 2002 edition of Webster’s Dictionary -- in next week’s edition of RJI, we will look at how the Founders defined “God” which will provide deeper meaning on how they used the word “Oath.”
1828 definition of OATH:
“A solemn affirmation or declaration, made with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed. The appeal to God in an oath, implies that the person imprecates [invokes] his vengeance and renounces his favor if the declaration is false, or if the declaration is a promise, the person invokes the vengeance of God if he should fail to fulfill it. A false oath is called perjury.”
2002 definition of OATH:
“Solemn appeal to God as a pledge of sincerity.”
For those who claim that the US Constitution is a Godless document, here we have one simple example that refutes such a claim. The Constitution requires that our federal and state public leaders, elected and appointed, hold a basic belief in God before they can be fit for office. If a candidate does not believe in a sovereign God who will reward our good deeds and punish our wrong actions, what good then is an Oath? Clearly the Founders would not have enshrined in one of our nation’s most important documents a meaningless exercise of rhetoric!
Even today’s definition of Oath notes that the pledge is to God.
By taking an Oath of Office, George Washington (like the other public leaders of that age) was invoking God’s vengeance should he fail to keep his promise to adhere to the Constitution -- this was serious business for the Founders!
After taking his Oath of Office, it is no wonder our first president added a phrase which, though not mandatory, has been used by every President since: “So help me, God” -- after which both Houses of Congress, along with the President and Vice President immediately attended St Paul’s Chapel, “where divine service was performed by the Chaplains of Congress.”
As we work to restore America’s Christian foundation, one vital step in this effort is to bring back the original meaning and respect to the Oath of Office as a promise before We the People, but more importantly before our Creator God who alone has the power to bestow upon individuals eternal rewards and punishments.
Stay tuned for next week’s Rare Jewel Insight as we discover the implications of how the Founders defined “God.”
[1] In 1828, Noah Webster published America’s first English dictionary, titled, An American Dictionary of the English Language - with pronouncing vocabularies of Scripture, classical and geographical names. This 26-year project, begun during Thomas Jefferson’s first term as President, contained 70,000 entries and 12,000 new definitions. For the first time in the history of the English language a standardized spelling for vocabulary words was provided.
