The U.S. Constitution - Pilgrims Beacon

THE FOUNDING FATHERS DESIGN FOR GOVERNMENT

The Pilgrims Monument

…now known as The National Monument to the Forefathers — was the apex of an effort by 19th century New Englanders. At 81 feet tall, it’s the largest solid granite sculpture in the U.S. It took 30 years to build.

The monument is topped by a 36-foot-tall statue of Faith, who alone weighs 180 tons. Surrounding statues include Liberty, Peace, Tyranny, Education, Wisdom, Youth, Law, Mercy, Justice, and Morality. It’s an iconographic overload, but every one of the monument’s 13 statues is helpfully inscribed with its name. Thus, even people from non-allegorical times (like the present) can understand it.

In 2012, Kirk Cameron’s “Monumental” documentary brought this largely forgotten monument back into the public eye. On it holds the key ideals the Founding Fathers used as the foundation for America AND it’s government.

Purchase the movie HERE.

The Bible and The Constitution

Jesus did not usher in a political kingdom. But Christianity has been the single largest influence on western society. America’s Founding Fathers had the benefit of thousands of years of history to draw on when establishing their government. They could see what had failed in the past. There had been times when the state had absolute authority and persecuted the church. At other times the church had effective control of the state. The founders saw that neither of these extremes was ideal. They developed a system that stood the test of time. Observers everywhere generally agree that American’s Founding Fathers achieved a solid balance between church and state, one consistent with biblical concepts.

Continue Readin g

The Bible and Our Founding Documents

The United States of America was built upon three fundamental documents: The Declaration of Independence, The U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Taken together, these documents form the basis of all our laws, principles, and heritage. To destroy the principles contained in these documents is to destroy the country. Unfortunately, that is exactly what has been happening for many years now.

Continue the newswithviews.com article

The Faith of the Founding Fathers

Since the early days of this Republic, various of our Founding Fathers were accused of being irreligious, impious, and even atheist. Those accusations are unsupportable lies told by those whose own “tolerance” of the faithful informs not only their personal agendas but taints and twists their biographical descriptions of the Founders, as well.

Often, for example, most of the most renowned and revered of the men of the founding generation are labeled “deists.” Deism was a theological philosophy popular in the 18th century, especially among the stratum of men associated with the Enlightenment. Stated simply, a deist believes in God but considers Him an absent master, unconcerned with the quotidian comings and goings of His earthly creations.

Every one of the Founders listed in the following survey (with the possible exception of Benjamin Franklin) would reject such an appellation and in fact, never referred to themselves as deists (again, with a passing reference to himself made by Franklin).

While the men mentioned herein held different interpretations of the characteristics of God, of His Son, Jesus Christ, and of the most correct way to worship them, they unanimously and sincerely believed that God was an all-powerful Creator and providentially interceded for mankind, particularly in the quest for liberty and the freedom of conscience that permitted diversity of worship.

Continue reading at thenewamerican.com

The Founding Fathers on Jesus, Christianity and the Bible at

The Fore Fathers before the Founding Fathers

The Pilgrim Story is an absolutely amazing story of faith, courage, perseverance and the Providential hand of God. It is no wonder that their story has been a central part of American History and is key to understanding the Thanksgiving Story.

The Founding Fathers called the early Pilgrims and Puritans the Forefathers – those who preceded them and brought with them the Keys to a Healthy Society and began to put them into practice on the American Continent.

Their faith and God’s Providences are everywhere evident in their story and in their principles.

Today in public schools, universities, and in the mainstream media, their story is either completely ignored, censored of every element of faith, or re-written and even besmirched to fit the worldview of modern politically correct historians.

The details of their story are so important to understand the foundations that were being laid 175 years before the US Constitutional System was finally consummated.

Learn More at christiancivicstraining.org

Most people in America simply take other people’s word on what the U.S. Constitution really means. This can be a talking head on television, a “scholar’s” book, or even a “Constitutional Lawyer”. But, these people are not necessarily historians, and sometimes it shows. Unlocking the understanding behind the Constitution’s words is obviously of critical importance in constitutional law. (and for those who want to seriously take part in politics) Yet legal writers often make arguments or reach conclusions based on astonishingly few sources. And of the few that they do use, they often misinterpret them. Among these people are even some Supreme Court justices and contributors to our nation’s most prestigious law reviews.

In an effort to raise the quality of originalist research, Rob Natelson, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence wrote an essay (downloadable HERE) to introduce legal writers, scholars and even people who want to completely understand our founding document a complete list of relevant material available. The good news is that most of it is FREE to download off of the internet!

We the People: The Original Meaning of Popular Sovereignty

by Andrew G. I. Kilberg 100 Va. L. Rev. 1061 (2014)

The Constitution is based on popular sovereignty. But who are the People? Two hundred and twenty-six years after the ratification of the Constitution, the answer to this question is still debated. This Note jumps into the fray, closely examining the Constitution itself and the history surrounding its adoption in order to reverse-engineer a coherent theory of American popular sovereignty as it was understood at the time of ratification and the adoption of the Bill of Rights. Did the state peoples exist as sovereigns before the Constitution? If yes, did the Constitution consolidate them into one unitary national people? If not, is there a national people in addition to the state peoples? In short, there is a national people, but it coexists with the sovereign state peoples. Furthermore, the national people must be interpreted through a lens of state peoples—the People is national in scope and importance, but it is defined in reference to the state peoples. The reservoir of reserved powers—those uses of governmental authority that are not expressly mentioned in the text of the Constitution—defaults to the state level. This balance of peoples means that the American system is one of limited sovereignty. Neither the federal nor the state governments can eliminate or alter the other; they reinforce each other in a structure that presupposes its perpetuity. Dual popular sovereignty is the essence of federalism, and it has broad implications for the fundamental distribution of power between the federal government and the states.

View the Andrew G. I. Kilberg Document

What is Originalist Research?

When lawyers interpret a legal document—whether a contract, statute, or constitution—they generally try to determine the “intent” of those who created the document. “Intent” is a term that has a specialized meaning in a particular field or profession and it can vary somewhat with the kind of document that is trying to be understood. For example, the “intent” behind a contract is how does each Party of that contract understands it, but the “intent” behind a will means you only have to worry about the deceased wishes.

Often the text of a document (made clear by rules of construction) will sufficiently point to the “intent” behind it, making a further study of it unnecessary. Occasionally, the legal meaning of the words is fixed by existing law. Often, however, the readers must examine the circumstances surrounding the document’s creation to figure out the writers “intent.” When the reader cannot determine the creator’s or creators’ actual state(s) of mind, the reader generally asks how a reasonable person would have interpreted the document in the circumstances, and then applies that as the presumed intent.

Originalist researchers simply do the same things with one particular legal document: the United States Constitution.

There has been a lot of discussion among originalist scholars as to what “intent” counts. Should the Constitution be interpreted according to the views of the framers (the ones who wrote it)? Or according to the views of the ratifiers (the ones that ok’d it)? Or according to how the document would have been read by a hypothetical reasonable person during the ratification era (1787 – 1790)? The views of the framers sometimes are called “original intent,” those of the ratifiers “original understanding,” and the interpretation of the hypothetical reasonable person is “original meaning” or “original public meaning.” One way to figure these arguments is to use the rules a judge or a lawyer of the times would have used — in other words, to give the Constitution the same legal force a court would have given it immediately after ratification.

In today’s constitutional law environment, most originalists focus on original public meaning. This is partly due to the influence of Justice Antonin Scalia, an original-meaning originalist. But it also is due to law journal articles written during the 1980s that claimed that when Founding-Era lawyers interpreted legal documents they applied exclusively original public meaning and paid no attention to their own understanding.

But, that conclusion was a mistake. Lawyers of the founding generation interpreted most legal documents (with the notable exception of real estate documents) much the same way they are interpreted today: they applied their own understanding of those who gave the document legal force. If the evidence of that understanding is insufficient or too conflicting, then apply the interpretation a reasonable person would have placed on the document. In constitutional terms, this means

(1) seek the ratifiers’ understanding, but if that is not practical

(2) apply the original public meaning.

The evidence for this conclusion is collected in Robert G. Natelson, The Founders’ Hermeneutic: The Real Original Understanding of Original Intent, 69 OHIO ST. L.J. 1239 (2007). Downloadable for FREE HERE.

In practice, original intent, original understanding, and original public meaning usually overlap, and the same evidence often can be used (with an adjustment in weight) to demonstrate any of the three. For example, at the Constitutional Convention John Dickinson said, without contradiction, that the term “ex post facto law” referred only to a retroactive criminal law, and not to a retroactive civil law. His remark is direct proof of original intent. But it also is evidence (in most cases) of what the term “ex post facto law” generally meant at the time and of how the ratifiers understood it.

What Sort of Evidence is Used in Good Originalist Research?

The evidence used in good originalist research includes the text of the Constitution, plus:

I. Contemporaneous encyclopedias and dictionaries.
II. The founding generation’s educational canon;
III. Evidence of the Founders’ understanding of Anglo-American history;
IV. The historical records surrounding adoption of the Constitution.
V. Legal materials used at the time of ratification.

All of these references can be found with FREE downloadable links to the source material by downloading Rob Natelson’s Essay HERE.