Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Kind of Justice would James Madison appoint to the Supreme Court?
American Minute ^ | by William J. Federer

Posted on 09/10/2018 12:32:55 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

His father was a Boston Tea Party "Indian."

He graduated second in his class from Harvard, was a U.S. Representative, then was elected Massachusetts Speaker of the House.

At age 32, he was appointed as the youngest Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

His name was Joseph Story, and he died SEPTEMBER 10, 1845.

Joseph Story served on the Supreme Court for 34 years.

He helped establish the illegality of the slave trade in the Amistad case, 1841.

When the Supreme Court ruled against the Democrat's Indian Removal Act (Worcester v. Georgia, 1832), Justice Joseph Story wrote March 4, 1832:

"Thanks be to God, the Court can wash their hands clean of the iniquity of oppressing the Indians and disregarding their rights."

Unfortunately, the Democrat President ignored the decision.

In the early period of American history, there were few "law schools," as the common way to become an attorney was to apprentice with a lawyer.

Joseph Story helped establish the Law School at Harvard, the nation's oldest continuously operating law school, stating in a speech there in 1829:

"There never has been a period of history, in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundation."

In 1833, Joseph Story commented on the pamphlet " The Relation of Christianity to Civil Government in the United States" written by Rev. Jasper Adams, President of the College of Charleston, South Carolina:

"I have read it with uncommon satisfaction. I think its tone and spirit excellent.

My own private judgment has long been (and every day's experience more and more confirms me in it) that government can not long exist without an alliance with religion; and that Christianity is indispensable to the true interests and solid foundations of free government."

In Vidal v. Girard's Executors, 1844, Justice Joseph Story wrote:

"Christianity ... is not to be maliciously and openly reviled and blasphemed against, to the annoyance of believers or the injury of the public ...

It is unnecessary for us, however, to consider the establishment of a school or college, for the propagation of ... Deism, or any other form of infidelity.

Such a case is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country ..."

Justice Story continued:

"Why may not laymen instruct in the general principles of Christianity as well as ecclesiastics ...

We cannot overlook the blessings, which such laymen by their conduct, as well as their instructions, may, nay must, impart to their youthful pupils.

Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament, without note or comment, be read and taught as a Divine Revelation ... its general precepts expounded, its evidences explained and its glorious principles of morality inculcated?"

Story added:

"What is there to prevent a work, not sectarian, upon the general evidences of Christianity, from being read and taught in the college by lay teachers?

It may well be asked, what is there in all this, which is positively enjoined, inconsistent with the spirit or truths of the religion of Christ?

Are not these truths all taught by Christianity, although it teaches much more?

Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament?"

Joseph Story's view on religion is all the more significant as he was appointed to the Supreme Court by President James Madison.

James Madison was known as the "Chief Architect of the Constitution" and had introduced the First Amendment in the first session of Congress.

Joseph Story wrote in Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, 1840:

"We are not to attribute this prohibition of a national religious establishment to an indifference to religion in general, and especially to Christianity (which none could hold in more reverence than the framers of the Constitution) ...

At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the Amendment to it now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship.

An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation ...

But the duty of supporting religion, and especially the Christian religion, is very different from the right to force the consciences of other men or to punish them for worshiping God in the manner which they believe their accountability to Him requires ...

The rights of conscience are, indeed, beyond the just reach of any human power. They are given by God, and cannot be encroached upon by human authority without a criminal disobedience of the precepts of natural as well as of revealed religion ..."

Justice Story continued:

"The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government."

In Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833, Justice Joseph Story commented on the reason the Federal Government had no jurisdiction over religion was because religion was under each individual State's jurisdiction:

"In some of the States, Episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in other, Presbyterians; in others, Congregationalists; in others, Quakers; and in others again, there was a close numerical rivalry among contending sects.

It was impossible that there should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in the abolishing the power ...

But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion ...

Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the State governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice and the State constitutions."

Justice Potter Stewart reiterated this (Abington Township v. Schempp, dissent, 1963):

"As a matter of history, the First Amendment was adopted solely as a limitation upon the newly created National Government ...

The Establishment Clause was primarily an attempt to insure that Congress not only would be powerless to establish a national church, but would also be unable to interfere with existing state establishments."

Like a race track with 13 lanes, each State expanded religious freedom at its own speed.

Some State expanded it at faster pace, and other States had "Blue Laws" where all businesses were closed on Sundays, but it was up to the people in each State to decide.

This is similar to today, where:

Some States have Smoking Bans; others not; Some allow Underage Drinking; others not; Some allow Legalized Marijuana; others not; Some allow Gambling & Prostitution; others not.

Regarding the Second Amendment, Justice Joseph Story wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 (3:§§ 1890--91):

"The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted ... The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers.

It is against sound policy for a free people to keep ... standing armies in time of peace ... from ... the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium (defense) of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them ..."

Story warned further:

"And yet ... it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline ... that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt;

and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights."

(Brought to you by AmericanMinute.com)

American Minute is a registered trademark of William J. Federer. Permission is granted to forward, reprint, or duplicate, with acknowledgment.

www.AmericanMinute.com


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: christianfounding; christianity; firstamendment; jamesmadison; josephstory; religiousfreedom; scotus; secondamendment

1 posted on 09/10/2018 12:32:55 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All

http://amerisearch.net/


2 posted on 09/10/2018 12:33:19 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Probably a wise Latina.


3 posted on 09/10/2018 12:39:46 PM PDT by Phillyred (Kieran Hussie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onyx; JustAmy; trisham; RedMDer; musicman; MEG33; deoetdoctrinae; xzins; DoughtyOne; Salvation; ...

I thought this article to be timely in that the democrats seem to be almost totally opposed to a Christian constitutionalist being appointed to the SCOTUS.


4 posted on 09/10/2018 12:51:48 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

LOL, In a way he did, sent Justice Ginsberg, Bernie and Schumer to DC, the common denominator is JMHS Bklyn.


5 posted on 09/10/2018 12:57:46 PM PDT by Bringbackthedraft (What is earned is treasured, what is free is worth what you paid for it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phillyred

a wise Latina….


Yes, so much less time consuming and inefficient than those others who waste time looking up complicated precedents and legal opinions and that messy constitution stuff. Go by her own biases and prejudices. Easy.


6 posted on 09/10/2018 1:19:45 PM PDT by frank ballenger (.End noncitizen & illegals voting & leftist media news censorship or we're finished.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
With unrestricted immigration, including illegal "immigration" and the fact that many do not assimilate to our society, culture and language...it's no wonder so many living in the country today have little to no idea of, or respect for the founders and framers of our country.

"A Republic, if you can keep it."

7 posted on 09/10/2018 1:26:36 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bringbackthedraft

Have they started toppling statues of Madison yet? I know they’re trying with Jefferson and Washington. Lots of schools, street names, cities, counties, even at least one state will have to be renamed.


8 posted on 09/10/2018 1:35:09 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

We’re not going to keep it long when even here on the conservative side we have so many willing to throw out the protections of the natural born citizen clause just so their favorite can run.


9 posted on 09/10/2018 1:38:33 PM PDT by Lurkinanloomin (Natural Born Citizen Means Born Here of Citizen Parents__Know Islam, No Peace - No Islam, Know Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Timely, yes.

The logical follow-on question is how many Anti-Tenth Amendment judges did the Senate confirm to scotus prior to the 17th Amendment?

I suspect the answer is exactly zero.


10 posted on 09/10/2018 1:48:19 PM PDT by Jacquerie (ArticleVBlog.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lurkinanloomin
We’re not going to keep it long when even here on the conservative side we have so many willing to throw out the protections of the natural born citizen clause just so their favorite can run.

Ah yes but it is not just the NBC issue. People of all political persuasions will come up with all sorts of things to rationalize what they want to do -- facts and logic be damned.

11 posted on 09/10/2018 2:21:34 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Excellent find. Thanks for posting it.

L


12 posted on 09/10/2018 2:57:07 PM PDT by Lurker (President Trump isn't our last chance. President Trump is THEIR last chance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Great read. I especially enjoyed this little nugget:

“The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers.”


13 posted on 09/10/2018 6:21:13 PM PDT by Eisenhower Republican (Ready or not... MAGA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurkinanloomin
That does amaze me.

RINO might as well == CINO.

Constitutionalist In Name Only.

14 posted on 09/10/2018 7:02:25 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Imagine a Court with John Marshall and Joseph Story on it.
I wonder how many times they differed in rulings?


15 posted on 09/10/2018 7:30:48 PM PDT by arrogantsob (See "Chaos and Mayhem" at Amazon.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Thank you for posting this - a great read, and yes, quite timely!

Regarding Christian Constitutionalists, was reading a blog earlier this evening and came across the following regarding Alexander Hamilton:

One other consequence of Hamilton’s untimely death was that it permanently halted the formation of a religious society Hamilton had proposed. Hamilton suggested that it be named the Christian Constitutional Society, and listed two goals for its formation: first, the support of the Christian religion; and second, the support of the Constitution of the United States. This organization was to have numerous clubs throughout each state which would meet regularly and work to elect to office those who reflected the goals of the Christian Constitutional Society.

From https://mariomurilloministries.wordpress.com/2018/07/03/the-amazing-quotes-of-founding-fathers-and-early-statesmen-on-jesus-christianity-and-the-bible/

16 posted on 09/10/2018 9:32:49 PM PDT by free-in-nyc (Freeping from the heart of the anti-American phony "resistance")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Phillyred

James Madison would have gutted Ruth Buzzi’s corpse with a butter knife...


17 posted on 09/10/2018 10:47:33 PM PDT by kiryandil (Never pick a fight with an angry beehive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Thanks for posting. A very sound interpretation of the clear meaning of the Amendments referred to.


18 posted on 09/11/2018 10:15:32 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson