Kevin, I agree with you completely. [You must be a law professor] The evangelicals and conservative Christians should be more appreciative than most, since this type of group that was most persecuted by the Church of England and Catholics.  The Supreme Court eloquently described the history of the First Amendment in Everson V. Board Of Education Of Ewing Tp., 330 U.S. 1 (1947):
  …it is not inappropriate briefly to review the background and environment of the period in which that constitutional language was fashioned and adopted.... 
  A large proportion of the early settlers of this country came here from Europe to escape the bondage of laws which compelled them to support and attend government favored churches…. With the power of government supporting them, at various times and places, Catholics had persecuted Protestants, Protestants had persecuted Catholics, Protestant sects had persecuted other Protestant sects, Catholics of one shade of belief had persecuted Catholics of another shade of belief, and all of these had from time to time persecuted Jews. In efforts to force loyalty to whatever religious group happened to be on top and in league with the government of a particular time and place, men and women had been fined, cast in jail, cruelly tortured, and killed. Among the offenses for which these punishments had been inflicted were such things as speaking disrespectfully of the views of ministers of government-established churches, nonattendance at those churches, expressions of non-belief in
 their doctrines, and failure to pay taxes and tithes to support them.  
  These practices of the old world were transplanted to and began to thrive in the soil of the new America…   Catholics found themselves hounded and proscribed because of their faith; Quakers who followed their conscience went to jail; Baptists were peculiarly obnoxious to certain dominant Protestant sects; men and women of varied faiths who happened to be in a minority in a particular locality were persecuted because they steadfastly persisted in worshipping God only as their own consciences dictated.  And all of these dissenters were compelled to pay tithes and taxes to support government-sponsored churches whose ministers preached inflammatory sermons designed to strengthen and consolidate the established faith by generating a burning hatred against dissenters. These practices became so commonplace as to shock the freedom-loving colonials into a feeling of abhorrence. The imposition of taxes to pay ministers' salaries and to build and maintain churches and church
 property aroused their indignation. It was these feelings which found expression in the First Amendment. No one locality and no one group throughout the Colonies can rightly be given entire credit for having aroused the sentiment that culminated in adoption of the Bill of Rights' provisions embracing religious liberty. But Virginia, where the established church had achieved a dominant influence in political affairs and where many excesses attracted wide public attention, provided a great stimulus and able leadership for the movement. The people there, as elsewhere, reached the conviction that individual religious liberty could be achieved best under a government which was stripped of all power to tax, to support, or otherwise to assist any or all religions, or to interfere with the beliefs of any religious individual or group. 
     
  Langdon Hagen-Long
  
[log in to unmask] wrote:

  You are not seriously proposing, are you, that each of us can
determine for ourselves what the constitution means? If I
come to believe, for example, that the supreme court
determined badly forty-five years ago, and that hence every
subsequent decision made utilizing that precedent is likewise
contaminated, then can I on that basis decide not to enforce
or uphold the law? I would hope you would agree that the law
obligates obedience, regardless of my own person belief as to
whether it has been properly vetted and determined by the High
Court. If I choose, as a private citizen, to break the law,
for example to publicize why I think it is a bad law, then I
should do so with the full expectation that I will bear the
appropriate sanctions for my actions.

Most of us are not in positions of public authority, and thus
are free to engage in civic disobedience if we so choose. But
the authority of the President of the College of William and
Mary stems from the power of the state, and hence is granted
to him in trust on behalf of all citizens of the State of
Virginia. That is the nature of the social contract in a
democracy, and it places him under higher obligations. 

Moreover, he is in an especially important moral position, in
as much as he heads an institution of education whose mission
is in large part civic in nature. Thus, he is under an
especial obligation to model good citizenship, which,
conservative that I am, I take to include modeling respect for
ordered liberty. Since a core value of ordered liberty is
respect for the law, I take the president of that institution
to have behaved in a commendable fashion. I would suggest
that anyone who thinks that bedrock conservatism matters
should find his actions laudable. 

As a side note, we should note that ordered liberty is itself
in good part derivative from Reformed Christianity. If you
are an evangelical Christian, you have especially strong
reasons to support this notion. To see how and why, I would
urge you to take a look at the famous speech by John Winthrop,
that he gave in 1645 to the General Court of the Colony of
Massachusetts, and which is often referred to as "John
Winthrop's Little Speech on Liberty." Too many evangelicals
today seem to prefer striving for short term, narrow
victories, in the pursuit of which they are willing to
sacrifice their long term interests. Such deeply engrained
lack of prudence is one reason why they remain marginal in our
society. Here, it is very much in the interests of
evangelical conservatives to see the law upheld.

For our purpose here, the question of whether or not the
constitution is a "living" document is irrelevant. The
doctrine of strict separation has been the law of the land
since the 1960s. It in turn is based on constitutional
precedent extending back to the first amendment incorporation
cases of the 1920s and 1930s. The ultimate justification for
it is to be found in the arguments of James Madison, in his
1785 "Memorial and Remonstrance." If you do not like this
well established doctrine, you can and should work to change
it. But in the mean time, you should be celebrating the
principled actions of the President of William and Mary, who
is providing an excellent model of civic responsibility for
his students, and for us.

All best,
Kevin

---- Original message ----
>Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:27:33 -0500
>From: "Donald W. Moore" 
>Subject: Re: The Constitution 
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>>
>> Finally, the Constitution IS a living document. The
example I gave 
>> in a previous message--the expansion of the franchise from
white 
>> property-owners to a more inclusive body--is the ultimate
example.
>
>Justice Scalia would disagree, and has. He was quoted a few
months 
>back--in a speech, not in a legal brief (and no, I don't have
the 
>particulars, but it made the news)--as saying that the
Constitution 
>is a legal document, just like the deed to your house. How
would you 
>like the deed to your house to be a "living document" subject
to re- 
>interpretation every few generations? Wonder what would
happen to 
>legal chain of title? His example, not mine.
>
>___________________
>Donald W. Moore
>Virginia Beach, Virginia
>
>
>To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
instructions
>at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
Department of History
James Madison University

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html


To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html