The U.S. Supreme Court strikes again. By a six-to-three vote it has
ruled that student-led pre-game prayers at a public-school football
game in Texas violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The school’s policy, the majority said, “involves both
perceived and actual endorsement of religion.” Well, so does
the First Amendment itself.
The amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....” So
religion enjoys a special status and protection — from Congress.
Congress had made no law in this case. The First Amendment doesn’t
apply. So in asserting its jurisdiction over the local school, the
Court itself violated the Constitution by usurping powers not given
to the federal government and therefore, under the Tenth Amendment,
reserved to the states and the people.
The three dissenting justices argued narrowly that the school hadn’t
violated the Court’s previous strictures against public-school
prayer. But those strictures, established in 1962, are themselves unconstitutional.
They are based on a misreading of the Fourteenth Amendment, which has
served as the basis for generations of bad jurisprudence.
According to that misreading, known as the “incorporation doctrine,” the
Fourteenth Amendment makes the Bill of Rights binding on the states
as well as the federal government. But even if that were true, no “right” is
violated when a state endorses religion, so long as the free exercise
of religion isn’t prohibited. The Fourteenth Amendment didn’t
repeal the Tenth Amendment.
The problem here is judicial review run amok. The whole idea of judicial
review was that the judicial branch of the federal government should
offer a protection against usurpations by the legislative branch. That
is, if Congress exercised a power not delegated to it in the Constitution,
citizens could appeal to the courts to have that power declared void.
But the Court eventually (and not until well into the twentieth century)
found that by invoking a strained interpretation of the Fourteenth
Amendment, it could nullify just about any state law it disliked. Never
mind that this interpretation was dubious on both logical and historical
grounds: the “activist” judiciary decided that the Constitution
was a “living document,” whose meaning could be “adapted
to current needs” — which is to say, the current liberal
agenda, which includes banishing religion from public life, even in
the tiniest towns in Texas.
So instead of being a safeguard against the seizure of new powers
by the federal government, judicial review has been perverted into
a device for stripping the states and localities of their traditional
powers, powers previously sheltered under the Tenth Amendment — powers
whose constitutionality had never been questioned.
Thus the federal judiciary, far from preventing the centralization
of power in the federal government, has become an aggressive agent
of such centralization. The great constitutional design of decentralized
powers has been stood on its head. The states now have powers not by
constitutional right, but by sufferance of an all-powerful sovereign,
the federal government.
This is the grand pattern that has been obscured by all the hair-splitting
arguments over whether this or that prayer, slogan, or posting of the
Ten Commandments is compatible with the First Amendment. If a local
public school chose to have Buddhist prayers, it might be wrong, but
it wouldn’t violate the Constitution.
Liberals don’t like the constitutional plan; they regard it
as a “reactionary” obstacle to “progressive” (read:
limitless) government. So they have adopted a clever strategy of arbitrarily
inflating a few pet phrases in the document to nullify the rest, thereby
making nonsense of the whole and frustrating its purpose of preventing
But conservatives — and honest people generally — ought
to know better. As James Madison wrote in The
Federalist Papers, No.
45, the powers of the federal government are supposed to be “few
and defined,” while those of the states are to be “numerous
and indefinite.” Today federal powers are potentially infinite:
all limits have been removed by the federal government itself, which
has taken control of that instrument by which it was supposed to be
Conservatives who think of the Republican Party as “the lesser
evil” should reflect that four members of the errant majority
in this case were Republican appointees. So were the three dissenters,
all of whom, alas, failed to challenge the majority’s false premise.
Copyright © 2011 by the Fitzgerald
Griffin Foundation. All rights reserved. This column was published originally
by Griffin Internet Syndicate on June 20, 2000.
Joe Sobran was an author and a syndicated columnist. See bio
and archives of some of his columns.
Watch Sobran's last TV appearance on YouTube.
Learn how to get a tape of his last speech
during the FGF Tribute to Joe Sobran in December 2009.
To subscribe to or renew the FGF E-Package, or support the writings of Joe
Sobran, please send a tax-deductible donation to the:
Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation
P.O. Box 1383
or subscribe online.