Op-ed:
A Constitutional Truth Ignored and A Dangerous
Misconception
By: Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / Right Side
Patriots / Right Side Patriots Radio
The article posted here is the authors opinion alone, and does not
necessarily represent the views of blogspot.com
or Google
The United States Constitution is the greatest testament to
freedom ever constructed and codified, and yet it often finds its
words being misinterpreted or simply ignored by those who deem it
either irrelevant or outdated in these modern times. And then there's
those who twist its words to meet a given political or religious
agenda; while state courts tend to see conflicts between their and
federal authority as it pertains to the actual applications of
Constitutional law. But in today's volatile world the Constitution's
actual intent has come into play both by the religious sorts who
still see the Holy Bible as trumping Constitutional law even in
secular matters; and by those who believe that they can throw its
words aside in a game of what is false altruism, especially if it
helps to garner their political party's now hoped for “grab of
power.”
So here I will first focus on the wanted by some religious
inclusion into what the Constitution deems to be our “secular”
governance and law.
“The Government of the United States of America is not, in
any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
The
“Treaty of Tripoli,” submitted to the Senate in 1805 by
then President John Adams.
So as we're now
less then a year away from America's 250th birthday...a day for both
joyous celebration and reflection on who we are as a nation and as a
people... it's also a day to acknowledge that while our nation was
born not from religious conflict in the classic sense it still,
nevertheless, bore the markings of a religious conflict in some ways.
How so...because the original British colonists who came to the “New
World”
were, for the most part, seeking refuge from not just the autocratic
rule of the kings of England, but from what was a theocratic style of
government where thanks to power hungry Henry VlII and his 1534 “Act
of Supremacy,”
England not only broke away from the Catholic Church, but Henry
deemed himself and all future British kings to be the head of what
then became the “Church
of England.”
And
so, Henry VIII gave to himself unlimited power by mingling together both
religion and governance seeing England becoming a theocracy in
principal, the very thing our “Founders
and Framers” abhorred.
And thus they formed a “secular” government where freedom of religion was to be just as accepted
as “freedom
from religion”
in regards to the roll religion played in our new government or their
hoped for lack thereof.
We know our
“Founders
and Framers”...some
of the Christian faith, some deists, and a few actually
nonbelievers...designed the Constitution to be the “rule
of law”
as it pertained to their agreed upon founding principal of
“separation
of Church and State.” No
one religion was deemed to be our new nation's “state
religion,” while
the
“Establishment
Clause”
prevented the government from favoring one religion over another. In
fact, no specific religion or even “God”
himself was mentioned by any given name other than the ubiquitous
word “Creator”...a
word deliberately chosen to leave its meaning open to one's
individual beliefs and/or personal interpretation.
A
well thought out and applied concept that was driven by what was then deemed to be “enlightenment”...as in the European “intellectual movement” of the late 17th and 18th centuries
that emphasized both “reason”
and “individualism”
rather than simple religious traditions and/or blind following. These
ideas were embraced by many of not only our “Founders
and Framers,” but
by the general population as well.
And
in their embracing of “enlightenment”
our “Founders
and Framers”
actually did strive for a “pluralistic
society” of
sorts...a
society where differences of both faith and ideologies would be
accepted if they not only served the common good, but followed the
actual rule of law that was intended to be “secular”
in nature. Simply, our “Founders
and Framers”
wanted to put aside religious doctrines, tenets, dogma, and beliefs
in all matters of actual governance while at the same time protecting
the individual's right to believe as one chose to believe...or chose
not to believe at all.
Simply,
at the time of the Constitution's writing what was to become our new
nation was tired of war in general, as well as being tired of all the
oppressive orders, both religious and otherwise, being mandated from
Britain's King James' autocratic based theocracy that lay “across
the pond.” And
in their wisdom and foresight these four main Constitution “Framers”
openly advocated for “separation
of Church and State.”
James
Madison, a delegate to the Virginia Convention of 1776, was chosen
to be the “Architect
of the Constitution”
and is now more commonly known as the “Father
of the Constitution.”
Madison was an advocate for a strong yet limited federal government,
and was also the chief proponent of a “separation
of Church and State” saying
that“separation”
would
“keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has
soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries”
Thomas
Jefferson, believed religion was a “personal
matter”
that should be kept “separate”
from
political affairs. Saying“separation”
was“essential
to protect both religion and government from corruption,” and
thus “would
protect both religious and non-religious citizens,” it
was
Jefferson's
ideas on “individual
rights”
and “limited
government” that
helped to shape the first ten amendments of the “Bill
of Rights.”
Benjamin
Franklin not only promoted “deism”
and criticized “organized
religion,”
but he believed that morality could exist “independently”
from religion. Also believing that government should not interfere
in religious matters, Franklin believed that a “secular
government”
could “better
promote peace and unity among diverse faiths,” and
thus was able to secure the needed consensus amongst the
Constitutional Convention's delegates.
Alexander
Hamilton, whose writings reflect a “commitment
to pluralism and tolerance in society,”
believed that religion could coexist with government but that it
must be without any direct involvement. Hamilton also
deemed“separation
of Church and State”
as essential in preventing religious conflict and tyranny, and
publicly advocated for a “secular government framework.”
while being
seen as a driving force behind the Constitution’s final
ratification.
Simply,
what these wise men were proposing and what became Constitutional law
was that religion must be kept out of government while government
must be kept out of religion...a fair and equal trade indeed. But
sadly, we now find some very vocal sorts wanting one specific
religion and their interpretation of it to become an integral part of
our government from the local to the state to the federal level,
basically trying to put their religious views over Constitutional
law. This is something “We the People” must never allow
let alone be open to discussion, for if this were to happen our
beloved America could well become just like the theocratic based
governments our “Founders and Framers” sought refuge
from. So
here let's now switch gears and now focus on the misconceptions
regarding both illegal immigration and the now in effect deportations
of the worst of the illegal criminal element type.
“I
am going to create a new special deportation task force, focused on
identifying and removing quickly the most dangerous criminal illegal
immigrants in America.” - President Donald J. Trump in 2016 during his first
term in office.
And
while the original Constitution did not address “immigration”
in the same way as it addressed the aforementioned “separation
of Church and State,”
several key Constitutional provisions adopted years after its
ratification does address the issue. For example, Article
I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress not only the power to
establish a “uniform rule of naturalization,” but
allows Congress to set the “criteria and process” for one
becoming a U.S. citizen. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868,
guarantees “equal protection” under the law to all
including immigrants and non-citizens, while both the 5th and 14th
Amendments provide “due process” rights to all persons,
regardless of their immigration status. Simply, this is taken to mean
that all immigrants are entitled to certain legal protections.
But
in today's reality the fact does remain that what are true “immigrants” are few and
far between for the vast majority of those having entered into our
county during the four horrendous Biden years were what amounts to an
“invading army” of persons “non-grata”...as
in those sorts here only for their Biden promised “free stuff”
in exchange for their vote...with a not so healthy dose of murder
committing gang members and even terrorists embedded amongst them.
So
what does the Constitution say about removing these vile sorts from
our country? Unfortunately, at the time of the Constitution's writing
immigration was not an issue that our “Founders
and Framers”
addressed. However, the
still in effect“Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965”
does outline the procedures for deportation. So while the
Constitution itself does not explicitly address the deportation of
illegals, it does allow for the “enforcement” of our on
the books immigration laws whether they be based upon federal or
state policies.
Desperate times do indeed call for desperate measures.
So here the question now
becomes, is President Trump legally allowed to order the deportation
of these persons without “due process?” I
believe the answer to be a resounding YES for these individuals not
only pose a direct danger to the “health, safety, and
welfare” of “We
American citizens”...the very
people Trump took an oath to protect...while also presenting a threat
to our national security and overall public safety while at the same
time undermining the very integrity of our U.S. immigration laws.
And so we now, as a nation, stand on a
dangerous precipice where Constitutional truth regarding the
“separation of Church and State” fights with
misconceptions regarding the deportation of criminal illegal aliens.
And while those specific issues remain quite different in nature,
it's important to remember the fact that what truly is important is
that Constitutional law alone...whether it be its original text or
amendments added after the fact...does remain the highest law of our
land. Case closed.
Copyright © 2025 Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / All rights reserved.
**************************************************************************************************
For more political commentary please visit my RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS partner Craig Andresen's blog The National Patriot to read his latest article, Texas Tragedy - Liberal Depravity.
*********************************************************************************************
RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS...LIVE! Tomorrow, Tuesday, July 15th from 7 to 8:30pm EST, RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS Craig Andresen and Diane Sori discuss 'A Constitutional Truth Ignored and A Dangerous Misconception'; 'Texas Tragedy - Liberal Depravity'; and important news of the day. Hope you can tune in to RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS on https://rspradio1.com Click 'LISTEN LIVE' starting at 6:50pm EST, show begins at 7pm EST.
These men...again
these patriots...did indeed have a more what was at the time called a
“rationalist”
approach to faith itself for they jointly rejected the so called
“supernatural
elements” of
traditional Christianity while at the same time affirming a belief in
what they deemed to be but a benevolent “Creator.”
And
said “Creator”
remained
unnamed...no
words to the effect of “God”
let
alone
“Jesus”...just
the word
“Creator”
who they and their fellow “Deists”
believed
revealed himself
through “acts of
nature” solely
driven by logic and simple reasoning alone. Sounds to me like our
“Founders and
Framers” were quite
science driven in their thought processes...which again is why the
words “Christian,
Jesus, or God”
appears nowhere in any of our founding documents.
