Dear Editor:
Free Exercise Clause
In response to a letter which rapes the Free Exercise Clause, it revises constitutional wording into "The Federal Government shall make no law messing with the people's right to practice religion," as if the six members of the 1789 joint Senate-House committee, which drafted the wording, did not write what they meant. James Madison, "Father of the Constitution," was a co-chair of that committee.
The First Amendment limits the power of government. However, Madison knew the problems of written constitutions and laws. In 1788, discussing passage of a bill of rights, Madison wrote: "Experience proves the inefficacy [powerlessness] of a bill of rights on those occasions when its control is most needed. Repeated violations of these parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current. ... In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly ... from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the Constituents" (Writings of James Madison, 5:272, Papers of James Madison, 11:297-298).
The Constitutionšs words mean what they say, or it is nothing more than a blank piece of paper. The Free Exercise Clause says "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting" (which means totally) the exercise of religion, as contrasted to the word "abridging," which means reducing and applies to speech, press, peaceable assembly, and petition, not to exercise of religion.
Speech, press, peaceable assembly and petition shall not be reduced. The exercise of religion shall not be totally prohibited. The Free Exercise Clause is not a license for anarchy. While opinions are unlimited, all actions are subject to the laws of the land. No one has a right to do just whatever he or she chooses in the name of religion. In 1879 (Reynolds v. United States) and 1890 (Davis v. Beason), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled polygamy unconstitutional, regardless of religious beliefs. Read those cases.
Gene Garman
Pittsburg, KS