255
July, 1936
THE KI NG' S BUSINESS
(IllfUllllllinilli
at the Constitutional Convention, and in the debates at the State Conventions which ratified the Constitution, it was stressed time after time that the Supreme Court should be absolutely independent—independent not only of politics, but also of the very will of the majority itself. Indeed, it was intended, and it has functioned, to thwart the people themselves in any endeavor their government might make to encroach upon the divinely given rights of man. It was intended to impose moral standards upon the government itself, to keep government from trampling upon the things belonging to God and from tampering with or taking away rights given to men by God. The Supreme Court has only a negative power; it can only watch the boundary line between right and wrong, justice and injustice, as set forth in the Constitution, and prevent government from transgressing it. As the great statesman, William Harper, said, “The Constitution has laid down the fundamental and immutable laws of justice for our Government.” And the Supreme Court simply enforces them; neither the Constitution or the Supreme Court do more than apply, and hold the government accountable to, these “funda mental and immutable laws of justice” ordained of and revealed by God. The system of restraining the State, and even the people, from taking from an individual what God has given him—the system of having an independent tribunal possessed of power to pro tect the individual conscience and the individual home against violation by the most powerful ma jority—has a firm basis in the moral order of the universe. It cannot be fundamentally nullified without doing violence to the laws of God as well as the laws of Constitutional democracy. But, needless to say, this does not mean that individ uals sitting on the Supreme Court may not make mistakes or even be derelict in their duty. The church is still of God, even though bad or blundering men may stand in its pulpits. And individual rights are still of God, even though they may be abused, misused, or misinterpreted. Underlying our Constitutional system are great divine moral truths. Our foundation is sound, even though men may not know, at times, how to build soundly upon it. M atters T h a t C annot B e A mended The Constitution is subject to—and, at times, requires—amendment. But it does contain certain divine principles which cannot be amended, which cannot be abridged, which cannot be altered. It is eternally right that man should have freedom to worship according to his own conscience, that he should be secure in his home, that property which he has honestly acquired should not be seized from him, that in the words of the Supreme Court he should have the right “coupled with the high duty” to bring up his children in the trust and fear of the Lord. All these things, and many more, are derived from the Author of the moral law of the universe, and they are enshrined in our Constitution. Constitutional amertdments might take them out of the latter, but the people themselves have no power to take them out of the former. The people would still be under God, even if they were foolish enough to destroy their [Continued on page 271]
is equivalent to saying that Congress should be almighty, above the Constitution; for if Congress is to judge the constitutionality of its own acts, it can make anything Constitutional which it wishes. This proposal is equivalent to making the prose cuting attorney both judge and ju ry ! Suppose, for instance, Congress passes a law which oppresses, persecutes, some class of citizens. The injured citizens challenge the constitutionality of the oppressive law. Under this proposal, Con gress would then judge whether the victim of its act of aggression had been hurt! No honest Congress would pass any law which it did not think was Constitutional, anyway! Obviously, it would be an impeachment of its own sincerity if Congress, acting in a judicial capacity, should declare unconstitutional its own acts, enacted presumably in good faith while it operated in a legislative capacity! F ounded on C h r is t ia n P r inc iples But, for Christians, there is a vastly more important aspect to this whole suggestion that Congress, by a two-thirds majority for instance, should be permitted to “validate” a law which deprives citizens of Constitutional rights. This system would make the preservation of God-given rights dependent upon the sufferance o f a two- thirds majority of the people— provided of course that representatives in Congress truly represented their constituencies rather than powerful minor ities. This innovation would tear away the Christian foundations of our government and substitute pagan principles. All pagan govern ments are founded on the principle that individ ual rights are the gift of the government to its citizens; and what the government gives, the government may take away. Our government is founded upon the Christian principle that indi vidual rights are the gift of God; and what God gives, government itself may not take away. Therefore, these God-given rights are inalienable. The majority—or a two-thirds majority, or a nine-tenths majority—has no right to infringe, for example, the God-given right of the individ ual to worship his Creator according to the dic tates of his own conscience. Congress is supposed to reflect the will of the people. If vested with judicial power, it would be the duty of Congress to “validate” a law deny ing religious liberty to certain groups, if this were the will of the majority of the people. And if any Congress. should refuse to do this, the people could elect a Congress which would. Thus, the God-given rights of the individual would be made subject to deprivation and destruction at the hands of the majority constituting the govern ment. All things, including that which is God’s, would belong to Caesar—to government. Now the Supreme Court, unlike elected repre sentatives, is not answerable to the majority; it is not supposed to reflect the will of any majority however powerful. If ninety-nine per cent of our people should favor denying religious liberty to some small group or single person, and if Con gress should enact the people’s will into a law, it would be the duty of the Supreme Court to defend and uphold the God-given rights of this small group or single person against the wishes of ninety-nine per cent of our people. In the debates
miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii II1IIIIIIIIII1IIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIII
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online