Marriage Certificate

On a trip to the grass valley area of California this past summer our family visited an historic covered bridge. though the bridge was interesting and the day was beautiful, the most interesting part of the day was when I ran across an old marriage certificate for the couple who were responsible for building the bridge.

This simple and once common place document screams to us how far we have fallen as a culture in terms of

• Our fidelity to the God who has been so good to us


• Our connections to the institutions that enabled us to flourish as a stable republic


• Our ability to credibly talk about constitutional interpretation

See for yourself. I have provided close ups of some extremely illustrative portions of this document.

• Given the contemporary popularity of deconstructing gender and its cousin marriage, I find it interesting that this certificate pictures both a man and a woman.


• Notice also that there is a picture with three hands touching, the newly married couple, and the hand of God providing his superintendence.


• Isn't it interesting that the solemnity and permanentness of this covenant (not contract) is made official in the warning "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."


• Don't miss as well the verse quoted from Genesis 2:18 where we find the first marriage and the very basis of marriage recorded in God's word as well as here on a California Marriage certificate.
  

• Toward the middle of the certificate you will see conspicuously placed on the document the foundation of authority by which this marriage and its certification are made legitimate. First and foremost it is by the ordinance of God.


• Additionally you should not that this is dated in its relationship to the year of the LORD Christ Jesus' advent.


• Also Notice the covenental "OUR" used. It was recognized that there was a shared cultural-religious heritage and commitment of the citizens of California.
  

• In this last section of the document down at the bottom you should see what ultimately should put an end to contemporary attempts to advocate pluralism in law and government in our state and country. It is not the toothless god of pluralism that is referenced here. It is the God of the Bible who tells us that "Marriage is honorable in all" Hebrews 13:4


• This certificate was written in 1868, only 100 years before the sexual revolution which publically undermined the very foundations of American culture, law, and government.
  

If anything is obvious from this document it is how clearly American culture is founded on the Christian worldview and Christian Morays. Any person who tries to tell us that our American or Californian constitution prevents Christianity from taking an active role in the affairs of our government has a whole pedigree of documents such as this one to contend with.

It is patently ludicrous to think that we moderns today interpret our constitutions correctly with regard to the relationship of church and state when we contend that the Bible has no place in the halls of public discourse. Tell that to the men who were living in 1868 who were in closer proximity to the intent of the constitutional framers in both time and culture than we are.

Constitutional Questions

I read an article recently that inspired me to fire off a few questions to the author in hopes of him shedding some light on them. I'll call him Dr. Doe because I did not ask him if I could publish his reponses. My questions are in lower case and his reponses are in Caps.

----------------------------------

Dear Dr. Doe,

Your article on Lew Rockwell's site today caught my attention. As a simple exercise I have been reading through the constitution recently asking myself at each point "Does American government today reflect in anyway what the constitution describes". I haven't finished this process, but so far have come up with a few questions that have been really nagging at me and I have no idea where to begin in wrestling through to some answers.

I hesitate to presume upon your time, but I am hoping you might be able to help me with some of these questions. If any of these are answered in your book feel free to say so and I'd be more than happy to pick up a copy. Any help you can provide would be much appreciated.

Question 1: If some of the key benefits of membership as a state in this union were to provide for the common defense and to ensure domestic tranquility, aren't our interventions in foreign countries, whether financial or military, unconstitutional simply because it extends the benefits of state membership to governments that are not members of the union? Doesn't extending these privileges to non member states defeat the whole point of state membership? It appears to provide the benefits of state membership to these governments without allowing for their lawful consent or requiring the duties of states. Am I wrong? Do I need to be more "nuanced"?

I THINK IT OBVIOUS FROM THE TENTH AMENDMENT THAT PROVIDING SCHOOLS TO IRAQIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL; NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DELEGATED THIS FUNCTION (OR THE FUNCTION OF RUNNING IRAQI ELECTIONS, CLEANING UP IRAQI DRINKING WATER, ETC.). I'M ONLY BEING SLIGHTLY FACETIOUS TO MAKE THE GENERAL POINT.

Question 2: Where are the militias of the states? This fundamental institution provided for in the constitution just seems to have disappeared.

THE MILITARY WAS REORGANIZED IN THE WW I ERA. AT THAT POINT, THE MILITIA WAS SUBORDINATED TO THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. THIS WAS CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Question 3: Where'd the National Guard come from? Where's the constitutional warrant for this entity?

IT IS THE NAME FOR THE NOW FEDERALLY-DOMINATED FORMER MILITIA.

Question 4: Where are things like National Parks etc. provided for in the constitution? Section 8 only allows for the acquisition of property by the federal government for the purposes of, Forts, Magazines etc. Given the context of this section and the specific examples provided it seems clear to me that even if one were to allow some leeway regarding what is purchased the purpose would have to be military and defense in orientation.

NOWHERE. HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT NO ONE ASKS THESE QUESTIONS OF FEDERAL OFFICIALS? THE SUPREME COURT HAS BEEN MORE OR LESS OUT OF THE BUSINESS OF PREVENTING CONGRESS FROM LEGISLATING IN AREAS RESERVED TO THE STATES SINCE C. 1937.

Question 5: Wars of intervention. It appears from section 10 that the only reasons provided for by the constitution for a State engaging in war are when "actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." How are conflicts such as the current one in which we are engaged justified constitutionally, or condoned by the Supreme Court? How has the word ?imminent? been defined historically in the law?

CONGRESS HAS A GENERAL POWER TO MAKE WAR UNDER ARTICLE I, SECTION 8. THAT SOMETHING IS UNWISE DOESN'T MEAN IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Question 6: Is an "Authorization to use force" the same in law as a "declaration of war"? Where is the definition of a declaration of war laid out?

NO, IT IS A WAY OF DELEGATING RESPONSIBILITY TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. PLAINLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Question 7: Where'd the Marines and Air force come from? Shouldn't the constitution be amended to provide for these branches considering that the constitution was so explicit in naming the branches of the Army and the Navy?

THE AIR FROCE WAS ORIGINALLY PART OF THE ARMY. THE MARINES ARE STILL PART OF THE DEPT. OF THE NAVY. THERE NEEDS TO BE AN AIR FORCE AMENDMENT, YES.

Question 8: Where'd the "Postal Service" come from? Is there a difference between the Postal Service and the Post Office?

IT EXISTED DURING COLONIAL DAYS. FRANKLIN REMAINED POSTMASTER AFTER 1776. NO DIFFERENCE.

Question 9: What about the common law? If the Seventh Amendment is still law today then why do we not see the common law being enforced, leveraged in judicial decisions, and argued from in questions of precedence?

STATES DECIDED TO WHAT EXTENT THEY WANTED TO RETAIN THE COMMON LAW. ALL RETAINED SOME, SOME RETAINED ALMOST ALL, UNTIL THEIR LEGISLATURES MODIFIED IT.

Question 10: Did juries historically try both fact AND Law? If so then why don't juries continue to do so today? This would seem to me to be a huge departure from precedent and the common law that provides the basis for our legal system and yet it is no longer practiced.

YES, THEY DID. THERE'S A GOOD RECENT BOOK ABOUT THE PROCESS OF GETTING RID OF THIS JURY POWER IN EARLY-19TH-CENTURY NEW HAMPSHIRE; JUST GO TO YAHOO AND SEARCH FOR (it)

Question 11: Why did the states create new constitutions after the civil war? If the civil war was fought to protect the union it does not seem logical that any new constitutions would need to be written. Because constitutions are the legal documents use to create new governments it would appear that the civil war did not preserve the union but actually created an entirely new one. Is my reasoning in error here?

NOT ALL DID. SOUTHERN STATES WERE MADE TO.

Question 12: What happened to the previous governments under the original constitutions?

NEW CONSTITUTIONS PREEMPTED OLDER.