Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Is America A Christian Nation, Part III

From the last installment of this series, we understand that the authority to consider a new constitution arose from the terms previously agreed under the existing constitution, specifically from articles X and XII of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union (AoC). Also from the last installment, we understand that without authority in place to begin the discussions at the constitutional convention, no authorized actions arising from the constitutional convention could have resulted.  But because the outcome of the proceedings were authorized under the the AoC, as long as the AoC's provisions were adhered, the results of their actions, a proposed new constitution, and the authority for congress to consider it, carried the sovereign authority of the United States of America, as that nation existed in 1787.

In keeping with its assignment from congress, out of the constitutional convention emerged the final draft of the Constitution, which document came as a proposal for consideration by the sitting congress operating under the Articles of Confederation.  Each member of the congress understood that for the new Constitution to carry authority, the principles of the AoC had to be fulfilled without error. Any new constitution, proposed or ratified without first fulfilling the AoC, would either be null and void, or, if ultimately adopted and followed, would comprise a revolutionary document, equal in stature to the Declaration of Independence, one which would have severed the line of authority back to the Declaration, and severed the basis of that authority, and begun a new line of authority based upon a new set of reasons. If that were to occur, that action would practically destroy the old nation and the principles on which it stands, and in the process create a new nation, establishing it on new and different principles. 

So if the American Declaration of Independence were to carry authority beyond the ratification of the new Constitution, that ratification had to be done in such a manner that no principles of the sitting agreement between the states be violated.  Any violation would have been a breach of contract between and among the states, causing it to become null and void, requiring adjudication in an appropriate court of jurisdiction, which of course under the AoC there was none.  So there was no recourse here.

Ratifying the Constitution without a breach of the AoC was not a simple matter.  Comparing the two, and with respect to the ratification process, reasonable people could easily construe them written with conflicting language. If these documents in fact conflicted in the manner that one ultimately might properly supersede the other, or if the process that followed did not follow the requirements of both documents, then a breach in the flow of authority from the first to the second would result.

Specifically, whereas the Constitution required that its principles would take effect in the ratifying states once nine of the thirteen states ratified, the AoC required that any change to its terms be unanimous, all thirteen must ratify.  Today some constitutional scholars argue that a breach in the terms of the AoC did in fact occur during the ratification process, and that therefore there is no line of authority extending from the United States of America, which has operated under the Constitution since 1789, and the previous USA which operated under the Articles of Confederation, and which operated solely under the principles of the Declaration of Independence prior to that.  AND THIS IS THE CRUX OF THE ARGUMENT BETWEEN THOSE WHO ASSERT THAT AMERICA IS NOT A NATION UNDER GOD AND THOSE WHO ASSERT THAT IT IS.  If there is no line of authority which demonstrates a clear logical link from the Constitution, back through the Articles of Confederation, and from that point back to the Declaration of Independence, then the nation which exists today is not the same nation that declared independence on July 4, 1776!  And if that is true, then that first nation, and the principles which underwrote its sovereign authority in 1776, are no longer valid.  They are dead forever, unauthorized, breached by a lack of adherence to the contract of the AoC as certain states began to operate under the Constitution, a document proposed for ratification in 1787, but not unanimously ratified until 1789.   If a breach occurred, then America is NOT a nation under God, much less a Christian nation.  And to make that argument for breach, and against God in America, and specifically against Christ in America, much is spent annually by those who believe it is in their advantage to do so.

In the next installment in this series, we will begin to uncover what really happened in the ratification process of the Constitution, and whether that set of circumstances constitutes a breach of the Articles of Confederation and a breach in the line of authority which extends from the Constitution back to the Declaration of Independence.

Back soon...


1 comment:

  1. Wow! Once again, I'm so impressed with your knowledge of history, Hank. I'm running over right now to your next installment as I saw it pop up on my blog feed!


To post a comment, make sure that "Enable third party cookies" is checked in your browser.