Historian Lord Acton’s warned that “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” It applies to individuals, institutions, and governments and is as applicable today as it was when he said it in 1887. In terms of the United States of America, a government, “by the people and for the people,” that has stood as a bastion of freedom to the world, and is allegedly a democracy, one would not expect to find absolute power and the corruption it brings but, never the less, it is there.
Not only is it there but it is enabled by Article III of the U.S. Constitution. This article establishes the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal judiciary. It states, “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.”
When most think of the words “power” and “corruption” in connection with government they immediately think of the type of corruption that involves those in power being paid money in exchange for political and other favors. Although that could happen within the federal judiciary it would probably be discovered and prosecuted. Unfortunately, the type of corruption that the federal judiciary is involved in, although it affects the very moral fabric and value system of our Nation, is so subtle and shrouded in the shadow of “Lady Justice” and the authority of the U.S. Constitution that it is hard to recognize and even harder to do anything about.
At its basic level the word “corrupt” can be defined as, “to ruin morally, to destroy or subvert the honesty or integrity of,” or “to change the original form of” something. Interestingly enough, with the country divided on the issue of the war in Iraq and the economy, most are attributing Presidents Bush’s reelection on November 2 to his stands on conservative social values related to God, abortion, guns, and gays. It is a stand that appears to transcend geographic, social, and economic divisions while, at the same time, flying in the face of the corruption of some of those values by the federal judiciary, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court.
As an example, is it the legislative or executive branches of our government that is trying to remove any mention of God from government? Removed prayer from our schools? Prohibits nativity scenes or the mention of Christ or the story of His birth even as it pertains to the teaching of the meaning of Christmas? The answer is, “No,” it is the unelected and unaccountable federal judiciary. What is their basis for such actions? In the opinion of an Ole Seagull, a judicially invented doctrine called the “separation of church and state” based on the corruption of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by the federal judiciary.
Left uncorrupted, the language of the First Amendment, as is the case with the rest of the Bill of Rights is relatively simple and straightforward. It reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Does it take a legal Solomon to read and understand that the “Congress” referred to is the Congress of the United States not the legislature of a state, a school board, or a sports team that wants to have a prayer before a game?
Is it hard to understand the specific act that Congress may not do? Make a certain type of law. Is anyone aware of a law that congress has passed saying there must be prayer in school or that a high school cross country team must say a prayer before it competes or establishing a national religion? The Ole Seagull isn’t.
Do not most people understand what it means to “establish” something? How can any reasonable person make the transition from the actual wording of the First Amendment to the doctrine of the separation of church and state without changing the original wording of the amendment?
From an Ole Seagull’s perspective it simply can’t be done. The reason the Supreme Court, and its federal judiciary, gets away with what they do has nothing to do with reason or logic. It is because they are not elected, serve for life, and are without accountability to those they serve or anyone else on this earth. To an Ole Seagull it is it is the perfect example of what Lord Acton meant when he said, “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Gary Groman, a.k.a. “The Ole Seagull,” is an independent columnist and the editor and publisher of the Branson Courier. He may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.
