 I have many Catholic friends, and from time to time, one of them will attempt to persuade me that the books of the Apocrypha are just as much Scripture as the Old and New Testaments. After studying the Apocrypha itself, I've developed the response of pointing out that even according to the Catholic church's own criteria, the Apocrypha does not make the cut.
0 Comments
 Alabama Representative Terri Collins, along with 66 cosponsors, has introduced a bill in the Alabama state house which would make abortion a felony in the state of Alabama. As you are well aware, I have been trying to get abortion banned from Alabama ever since I moved back to the state 10 years ago. You would think, then, that I would be ecstatic to see our legislature finally promoting a bill that would accomplish that goal, but this bill is a very dangerous bill. Let me explain why.
 One of the major points of contention in the discussion of America’s Christian foundation is found in a reference that John Adams made to the “general principles of Christianity.” Those who support the idea that America was founded on Christian principles often present this statement as evidence in their favor, while those who disagree with them usually respond by pointing to the context of the statement as evidence for their position. Unfortunately, most of those discussing Adams’ statement seem to be operating under the impression that it was made in a vacuum. In this article, I will attempt to provide a full analysis of Adams’ letter and demonstrate that when we consider all of the variables in their proper order, it becomes clear that this letter supports the claim that America was founded on principles that are unique to Christianity.
 Ever since the Constitution was first submitted for ratification, the final clause in Article VI has been a matter of strong contention among Americans. That clause, known as the religious test clause, simply states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” It is frequently claimed that this clause represents the desire of the founding fathers to keep religion out of the government and to establish a secular nation. But is that really how this phrase was intended to be used?
 Introduction
The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard's Previous Remarks The Debate in the Senate – Sen. Wade’s Proposal The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard’s Amendment The Debate in the Senate - Complete Jurisdiction The Debate in the Senate - More on Complete Jurisdiction The Debate in the Senate - Sovereignty Over the Soil U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - British Citizenship U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - Justice Story on Allegiance U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - The Claims of the Judicial Branch U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - Rejection of Jus Sanguinis U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - The Slaughterhouse Cases U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - Opinions of the Executive Branch U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - A Very Broad Conclusion Supreme Court opinions are often described as being either narrow or broad in their application. An opinion is considered to be narrow if it applies only to the specific case that was brought before the court and other cases just like it. A broad opinion, on the other hand, is an opinion that was written to give guidance to future courts who may have to rule on cases in a similar context. Those who oppose birthright citizenship for the children of aliens often claim that the opinion of the Wong Court was a narrow opinion. They claim that it only applies to the children of permanent residents. The Wong Court itself, on the other hand, presented their opinion as a very broad conclusion which would apply to every child born on American soil.  I recently discovered a document from 1796 which confirms the prevalence of birthright citizenship in the early days of the republic. It's a circular that was sent out by Oliver Wolcott Jr. who was George Washington's Secretary of the Treasury. The circular was written and distributed at Washington's request and with the advice of Attorney General Charles Lee and Secretary of State Timothy Pickering. I've uploaded a photo of the entire document below followed by an explanation of its relevance to the birthright citizenship debate.
 Introduction
The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard's Previous Remarks The Debate in the Senate – Sen. Wade’s Proposal The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard’s Amendment The Debate in the Senate - Complete Jurisdiction The Debate in the Senate - More on Complete Jurisdiction The Debate in the Senate - Sovereignty Over the Soil U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - British Citizenship U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - Justice Story on Allegiance U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - The Claims of the Judicial Branch U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - Rejection of Jus Sanguinis U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - The Slaughterhouse Cases U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - Opinions of the Executive Branch At this point, the Wong Court turned its consideration to the writings of members of the executive branch concerning the legality of birthright citizenship. They began with a letter from Ebenezer Hoar, the Attorney General under President Grant, which had been written to Hamilton Fish, the Secretary of State. In that letter, the Attorney General explained that America had no authority to interfere with the right of other nations to grant citizenship to the children who were born abroad to American parents. He spoke of these children as owing allegiance to the country of their birth even though they were born to American parents.  Introduction
The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard's Previous Remarks The Debate in the Senate – Sen. Wade’s Proposal The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard’s Amendment The Debate in the Senate - Complete Jurisdiction The Debate in the Senate - More on Complete Jurisdiction The Debate in the Senate - Sovereignty Over the Soil U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - British Citizenship U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - Justice Story on Allegiance U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - The Claims of the Judicial Branch U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - Rejection of Jus Sanguinis U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - The Slaughterhouse Cases U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof After dismissing Judge Miller’s statement in the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Wong Court turned to another case which they described as “the only adjudication that has been made by this court upon the meaning of the clause, ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’” That case was the 1884 opinion given in Elk v. Wilkins.  Introduction
The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard's Previous Remarks The Debate in the Senate – Sen. Wade’s Proposal The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard’s Amendment The Debate in the Senate - Complete Jurisdiction The Debate in the Senate - More on Complete Jurisdiction The Debate in the Senate - Sovereignty Over the Soil U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - British Citizenship U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - Justice Story on Allegiance U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - The Claims of the Judicial Branch U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - Rejection of Jus Sanguinis U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - The Slaughterhouse Cases After presenting the history of citizenship in America and concluding from that history that America had always had a jus soli foundation for citizenship, the Court moved on to address the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” which has been the focus of so many of our modern debates on birthright citizenship. The Court began its consideration of this phrase with a look at an 1873 Supreme Court opinion known simply as The Slaughterhouse Cases.  Introduction
The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard's Previous Remarks The Debate in the Senate – Sen. Wade’s Proposal The Debate in the Senate - Sen. Howard’s Amendment The Debate in the Senate - Complete Jurisdiction The Debate in the Senate - More on Complete Jurisdiction The Debate in the Senate - Sovereignty Over the Soil U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - British Citizenship U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - Justice Story on Allegiance U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - The Claims of the Judicial Branch U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark - Rejection of Jus Sanguinis The Latin phrase jus sanguinis means “the right of blood,” and it is used as a reference to the theory that children should inherit the citizenship status of their fathers regardless of the location of their birth. The Wong Court considered this doctrine and rejected the claim that this view of citizenship was the foundational view of citizenship in America. |
Bill Fortenberry is a Christian philosopher and historian in Birmingham, AL. Bill's work has been cited in several legal journals, and he has appeared as a guest on shows including The Dr. Gina Show, The Michael Hart Show, and Real Science Radio.
Contact Us if you would like to schedule Bill to speak to your church, group, or club. "Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning." (Proverbs 9:9)
Search
Topics
All
Archives
November 2019
|
RSS Feed