Why Public Displays of the Ten Commandments Are Constitutional
WHY THE TEN COMMANDMENTS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL
On March 2, 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral arguments on two cases involving the public display of the Ten Commandments. The ACLJ has filed amicus briefs in both cases and is working with the legal teams who will present arguments before the high court. While litigating numerous Commandments cases across the country, the ACLJ also has two Commandments cases pending before the Supreme Court.
With its friend-of-the-court brief, the ACLJ has provided a comprehensive argument to the high court in support of the constitutionality of the Commandments and chronicles the historical significance that the Commandments has played in the development of our legal system. Our brief not only provides solid legal reasoning to the high court, it is also an excellent resource for you and your family. Find out how you can get your free collector's edition copy of our brief today.
Listed below are excerpts taken directly from the brief:
COMMANDMENTS DISPLAYS IN SUPREME COURT
More than once, members of this Court have pointed to the depiction of Moses and the Ten Commandments in the Courts own courtroom to illustrate acceptable accommodation by government of a religious practice or display. Lynch, 465 U.S. at 677; County of Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 652-53. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court building has no fewer than three depictions of Moses and/or the Ten Commandments: 1) as part of the courtroom frieze, 2) dominating the East Pediment, and, 3) as part of a depiction of John Marshall on the West Pediment. The East Pediment shows Moses holding the tables of the law flanked by Solon of Athens and Confucius. App. B 11a-1.
SOURCE AND SYMBOL OF LAW
This case cannot be properly evaluated without an understanding of the history and ubiquity of the Decalogue as both a source and symbol of law in American culture. In fact, an understanding of the Commandments role in the development of Western law, and a survey of judicial, executive, legislative and other secular references to and depictions of the Ten Commandments demonstrates that symbolic use of the Decalogue such as that exemplified by Texas display of the Eagles monument is at least as ubiquitous and as much a part of our Nations cultural landscape, Newdow, 124 S. Ct. at 2322, as other traditional practices expressly or implicitly approved by this Court. See, e.g., Lynch, 465 U.S. at 674-678 (listing practices which do not violate the Establishment Clause such as Thanksgiving and Christmas national holidays, paid military chaplains, legislative invocations, In God We Trust as national motto, One Nation Under God in Pledge of Allegiance, executive proclamations of days of prayer and thanksgiving, display of religious art in public museums, provision of chapels in U.S. Capitol for worship and meditation, and this Courts permanent display of Moses with the Ten Commandments).
HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The portion of the Hebrew Scriptures called the Ten Commandments, or the Decalogue, is an integral part of the legal heritage of Western civilization. To require its removal from the walls of American courthouses and other public settings because it refers to the God of Israel as a source of fundamental legal obligations would be similar to requiring the removal of the Declaration of Independence because it refers to Natures God and to the Creator and to divine providence as the source of the equality of all persons and of the universal rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Indeed, if one were to eliminate religious references from our legal history, one would reduce the time-frame of that history to very recent generations.
The founders of the American Republic, in carrying over to it many features of the English law inherited from the colonial period, were highly conscious of the historical sources of that law, including its source in Biblical law and morals.
INFLUENCE ON AMERICAN LAW
It is hardly an establishment of religion officially to recognize that the Ten Commandments were understood by our ancestors to be the source of the division of law into branches of constitutional law, criminal law, family law, property law, contract law, and tort law.
Not only the authors of the United States Constitution but also their successors who are authorized to interpret it have preserved the historical dimension of American law. The continuity of its development over generations and centuries, which is reflected in the doctrine of precedent as well as in legal scholarship, is symbolized in the display of the Ten Commandments, which for centuries has been considered to be a historical source of universal legal obligations.
SUPREME COURT CITING COMMANDMENTS IN EARLIER CASES
On at least seven occasions, members of this Court have noted the foundational role of the Ten Commandments in the development of our legal system. See, McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961) (Frankfurter, J.,) (Innumerable civil regulations enforce conduct which harmonizes with religious concerns. State prohibitions of murder, theft and adultery reinforce commands of the decalogue); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 529, n.2 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting) (most criminal prohibitions coincide with the prohibitions contained in the Ten Commandments); Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 45 (1980) (Rehnquist, J. dissenting) (the Ten Commandments, undeniably, have had a significant impact on the development of secular legal codes of the Western World); Lynch, 465 U.S. at 677 (Burger, C.J.) (noting with approval the presence of depiction of Moses and Ten Commandments on Supreme Courts wall); Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 593-94 (1987) (Brennan, J.) (Ten Commandments have played both a secular and religious role in the history of Western Civilization); County of Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 65253 (Stevens, J., with whom Brennan, J., and Marshall, J., join concurring in part, dissenting in part) (carving of Moses with Ten Commandments on wall of Supreme Courts courtroom alongside famous secular lawgivers is a fitting message for a courtroom); City of Elkhart v. Books, 532 U.S. 1058 (2001) (Rehnquist, C. J., with whom Scalia, J. and Thomas, J., join, dissenting from denial of certiorari) (Undeniably, however, the Commandments have secular significance as well, because they have made a substantial contribution to our secular legal codes).
"PART OF THE FABRIC OF OUR SOCIETY"
The widespread and longstanding recognition by government and secular society of the Decalogues foundational role is firmly embedded in American culture and, like the traditions and practices catalogued by this Court in Marsh and Lynch, is part of the fabric of our society. Marsh, 463 U.S. at 1792. Petitioners in this case would have this Court adopt a myopic view of religion and culture which this Court has repeatedly rejected. As Justice Goldberg put it:
[n]either government nor this Court can or should ignore the significance of the fact that many of our legal, political and personal values derive historically from religious teachings.
Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 306 (1963) (Goldberg, J., with whom Harlan, J., joins, concurring)