THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 

In addition to many citations and "other organic utterances" which might be marshaled as evidence of the true intent of our founders and framers, one need look no further than the Declaration of Independence.  It underscores the absurdity of striking down as unconstitutional a law requiring the balanced treatment of creation science and evolutionary science, or any other law or action advancing a knowledge and reverence for the Creator.  The first two sentences of the Declaration of Independence read:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature's God entitles them, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare those causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundations on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

From the onset, one can't help but note that the seminal document of our country not only speaks of a Creator, but stakes our entire purpose as a nation on His existence.  "The Laws of nature and Nature's God" was a familiar expression referring to general and special revelation.  Here, God is recognized as the One who "entitled" us to become a nation.  Moreover, this Creator-God was seen not only as having ordained our nationhood, but as being the source of the rights of individuals.  Significantly, the fact that we have been endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights means that our rights transcend government.  The government can never take away the fundamental rights of the American people because the government was not the giver of those rights to start with.  Moreover, the entire structure of the Constitution is predicated on this concept.  The Constitution is a separation of powers into three branches of government, and a grant of power to each of those branches.  This grant of power seen in the Constitution is only possible if one presupposes that the people so granting that power have the authority to do so.  And the people can only have the authority to do so if they have received an endowment of such rights from some source having the power to confer such rights.  The source of that endowment of individual rights is set forth in the Declaration.  It is our Creator.  If there is no Creator from whom our rights are endowed, the government exists on an invalid grant of power.  And it is only upon a valid grant of power that the Constitution or any other Federal law can have binding effect.  The Constitution therefore, logically and necessarily, rests upon the Declaration.

For our entire existence to be predicated upon a Creator, it would seem wholly natural that the American people should, in their schools or any other organ of the commonwealth, be able to present any evidence for the existence of a Creator, whether scientific, or religious!  But the very fact that creation-science points (axiomatically) to a Creator is the basis of the Court's objection in Edwards.  It is the necessary implication of a Creator, (the same Creator from whom we are endowed with certain unalienable rights), that motivated the Court to find this law unconstitutional.

The preeminent purpose of the Louisiana Legislature was clearly to advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created humankind.  {footnote 11}  The term "creation science" was defined as embracing this particular religious doctrine by those responsible for the passage of the Creationism Act.  Senator Keith's leading expert on creation science, Edward Boudreaux, testified at the legislative hearings that the theory of creation science included belief in the existence of a supernatural creator.  See 1 App. E-421-E-422 (noting that "creation scientists" point to high probability that life was "created by an intelligent mind").  {footnote 12}  Senator Keith also cited testimony from other experts to support the creation-science view that "a creator [was] responsible for the universe and everything in it."  {footnote 13}  2 App. E-497.  The legislative history therefore reveals that the term "creation science," as contemplated by the legislature that adopted this Act embodies the religious belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of humankind.^[1]

The logic of the Court is inescapable:  1.  Creationism implies a Creator.  (The Court's powers of analysis and logic never fail to amaze.)  2.  Any reference to or inference of a "Creator" is religious.  3.  The First Amendment has erected a 'wall of separation' between the state and anything religious.  4.  Therefore, creation science, which necessarily implies a Creator, is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment.  (It must be observed at this point, as this ruling necessarily demonstrates, that a law requiring the teaching of the Declaration in public schools would be unconstitutional!)

In the previous chapters we have seen abundant proof that the purpose of the First Amendment was simply that it prevented the "establishment of a national religion, and forbade preference among religious sects or denominations."^[2]  It established no such "wall of separation," regardless of how many times the High Court repeats this little aphorism.  By examining the Declaration, we can further demonstrate that the "wall of separation" view of the First Amendment must be wrong because it establishes a logical inconsistency with something known to be true.  And what is known to be true is the most fundamental premise of our Republic.  Our rights as Americans are an endowment from our Creator.

Not only does the structure of the Constitution -- the grant of power from "We the people" -- establish Constitutional grounds for insisting on the government's acknowledgment of our Creator; the Bill of Rights, the same body of amendments that houses the First Amendment, corroborates this great truth.  The Ninth Amendment states:  "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."  Quite simply then, the Bill of Rights was not a grant of rights to the people by the government, but an enumeration of rights already retained by the people.  This was also Jefferson's interpretation of the First Amendment in his letter to the Baptist Association of Danbury Connecticut, (discussed supra).  Our rights as Americans were not conferred by the Bill of Rights.  They were simply enumerated by the Bill of Rights.  They pre-existed this document as an endowment by our Creator.  Both Jefferson and the Ninth Amendment expressed this with unmistakable clarity.

In addition to the Ninth Amendment and Jefferson's view of the First Amendment, James Madison, the Chief Architect of the Constitution, wrote Jefferson more than a quarter century after the ratification of the Bill of Rights, but nevertheless recommended the Declaration as the first of "best guides" to "distinctive principals" of government.^[3]

The Declaration also stands in sharp contrast to the Magna Carta, which affirms that governments (in this case, King John) grant and bestow rights.  "We [King John, speaking in the majestic plural] have granted. . . to all free men of our kingdom. . . the liberties written below."^[4]

This distinction is further highlighted by Edmund Burke's observation that (in contrast to the Declaration, which proclaimed that all men were created equal), the Magna Carta granted rights not to men in general, but to Englishmen in particular.  "In. . . the Petition of Right, . . . [English subjects] claim[ ] their franchises not on the abstract principles 'as the rights of men', but as the rights of Englishmen, and as a patrimony derived from their forefathers."^[5]

It would seem strange indeed, that after declaring their independence from Britain and asserting a basis for human rights altogether different than the Magna Carta, that the founding fathers should somehow abandon these principles when organizing their government by constitution.

The Ninth Amendment clearly demonstrates an adherence to the first of these two principles--that rights were a grant from the Creator and not from the King.  As to the second, the equality of all men, the fiasco of slavery permitted in the Constitution admittedly does not appear to affirm that the Constitution's pedigree derives from the Declaration.  It must, however, be remembered that men like George Mason refused to sign the Constitution because of its provisions for slavery.  Inasmuch as Mason drafted Virginia's first constitution, which contained the famous Declaration of Rights from which Thomas Jefferson drew the Declaration of Independence,^[6] it is clear that Mason viewed the Constitution as an inadequate vehicle for discharging the duties of government as set forth in the Declaration of Independence.  These exact sentiments were articulated by Edmund Gerry of Massachusetts, who, alluding to the statement in the Declaration, that "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men. . ," refused to sign the Constitution in its ratification, explaining to the President of Senate and Speaker of House of Representatives of Massachusetts . . :  "[C]onceiving as I did, that the liberties of America were not secured by the system, it was my duty to oppose it.".^[7]  Hence, "even those who refused to sign judged the Constitution by the standards of the Declaration."^[8]

Concerning the framing and ratifying debates, Himelfarb writes:

The political theory articulated in the second sentence of the Declaration consists of several fundamental propositions.  First, all men are naturally and equally endowed with certain inalienable rights.  Second, the purpose of government is the safeguarding of these rights.  Third, because all men are by nature free and equal, none can rule another without his consent; thus legitimate government rests on the consent of the governed. . . fifth, when government becomes destructive of its legitimate ends--i.e., the safeguarding of rights--the people may "alter or abolish" --i.e., withdraw their consent from--government.

These propositions, far from being constitutionally irrelevant, are in fact central to the most important writings and debates surrounding the framing and ratification of the Constitution.^[9]

James Madison, Chief Architect of the Constitution, further reveals his affinity to the Jeffersonian thought expressed in the Declaration, referring to the "great principle of self-preservation[,] . . . the transcendent law of nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim."^[10]  It would seem unlikely, that, after stating that this Jeffersonian concept was the chief aim of all political institutions, that he should oversee the drafting of a constitution distinct from these political principles.

Finally, the Declaration appears to be, by its own design, part one of a two part document.  It states "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, [1] laying its foundations on such principles and [2] organizing its powers in such form, as shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."  The Declaration achieved the first of these stated goals of government.  It laid the foundations of the United States on the principle that our rights as Americans come from our Creator.  The second of these stated goals, the organizing of powers into certain forms, was achieved by the Constitution.  Accordingly, it would be strange indeed to view the Constitution as a new and independent document, unrelated to the Declaration.  Indeed, the Constitution sets forth no new foundational principles, only an arrangement of powers.  This absence of any new declaration of principles set forth in the Constitution can only be construed as reliance upon the principles already set forth in the Declaration.  The Declaration implies that it was part one of a two part document.  The Constitution did nothing to dislodge this inference.

Conclusion:

The Declaration of Independence is the seminal document of our country.  In this document, our right to exist as a nation, and our rights as individuals -- our entire purpose as a nation is predicated upon the existence of our Creator.  One cannot grant that which is not theirs.  The grant of power from We the People to the government, manifested in the Constitution, is valid only if We the People were already endowed with the powers we pretended to be granting to the Federal Government.  And the stated basis of our rights is through endowment by our Creator, as plainly set forth in the Declaration.  Without that endowment, neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights nor any other grant of power to the Federal Government is a valid grant of power.  The Ninth Amendment, passed at the same time as the First Amendment, further affirms that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were endowed to us by our Creator before the Constitution or Bill of Rights were ever ratified.  Statements by Madison, the Chief Architect of the Constitution, as well as statements by other signatories of the Constitution (as well as those who refused to sign) imply that the principles set forth in the Declaration underlie the Constitution.  Finally, statements within the Declaration imply that it is the first of a two part document, setting forth the principles on which our Republic rests.  The Constitution, which "arranges those powers in certain forms," is clearly the second of the two documents needed to articulate our nations political philosophy.  These documents are not independent of one another, they are a compendium -- the founding documents of this great Nation.  Nothing in history has occurred which should lead the American people to conclude that any subsequent revolution or statement of principles should have replaced the Declaration as our Nation's charter.  The Constitution itself never makes this claim of replacing the Declaration.  Rather, the Constitution completes that task that the Declaration required, and then left undone -- the arrangement of government powers.  No historian of reputation has ever asserted that there has been a national decision to throw off the principles of the Declaration.  Indeed, the fact that the Fourth of July remains the primary national holiday of this great nation affirms that both lawmakers and the American people assume we continue, as a people, to abide under the principles and protections set forth in the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration is not a dead letter, it is the charter of the American people.  It affirms our most basic values as a people.  Of all these values, the most fundamental thesis of the Declaration is that our rights as Americans come from our Creator.  The Constitution has not negated this truth, it corroborates it.  In England, men were endowed by the king with whatever rights they were found to possess.  To renounce their king as the sovereign giver of those rights was an act of high treason.  It mattered not whether such perfidiousness was the action of the most trusted courtier, the most venerated magistrate, or the common criminal.  It constituted treason.  Here in America, the fact such an act has taken place at the behest of five men and women in black robes under the aegis of the Supreme Court cannot sanitize the grim reality of this perfidious action.  Renunciation of one's sovereign, the giver of one's rights, has always been, and will always remain an act of high treason.

*************** 

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.

The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America

The legislative history therefore reveals that the term "creation science," as contemplated by the legislature that adopted this Act, embodies the belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of humankind.  *  *  *  Because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to advance [this] particular religious belief, the Act endorses religion in violation of the First Amendment.

Edwards v. Aguillard at 591-592, 593

Why do the nations rage,

And the people imagine a vain thing?

The kings of this earth set themselves,

And the rulers take counsel together

Against the Lord, and against His anointed, saying:

Let us break their bonds asunder

And cast away there cords from us.

Psalm 2

Treason never prospers.  What's the reason?  For if it prospers, none dare call it treason.  -- Anon.

Chapter 5: The Declaration of Independence