Interpreting Constitution Incorrectly Appears Intentional

Kaye Grogan

With all due respect to the United States Supreme court, I don’t think it sets a good example to be selective in what cases they will hear and won’t hear. They should hear all cases that come before them. In the ongoing battle between what is really the meaning of separation between church and state, Virginia Military Institute (VMI) in Virginia, has been hanging out on a limb for quite awhile now, with no resolution in sight. What alternative is left after being rejected by the highest court in the land to hear their case? They could be hung out to dry. . .permanently.

For many years the military institution has been saying grace before meals, until a lower federal court ruled the mealtime grace was unconstitutional. Baloney! Has anyone ever considered getting nauseated or heartburn after meals could be associated with not thanking God for their food?

This it not the first time VMI has been singled out to be attacked by anti-traditionalists . The first encounter with the liberal courts ruled the all-male academy was discriminating against females by not allowing them to enroll in the school’s program , and after jumping on the issue with all fours, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a prior ruling, the all-male restriction must be tossed out and so another tradition fell by the wayside. This shows a disturbing pattern by the court, for being selective in the cases they will rule on and those they refuse to hear.

It is not difficult to see what is probably the real motives here concerning the VMI issue. Ignoring issues sometimes puts them on the back burner for good. . . or the litigators will just give up and fade off into the sunset. According to some liberals, it would appear, the Constitution is only viable and flexible for covering personal liberal ideology, but God forbid the sacred document and it’s real intent be interpreted as it should be.

Now, for a good example. No where in the Constitution, whether it be read upside down, sideways or straight forward, is there a constitutional right for women to kill their babies in the womb. It is simply nowhere to be found in the Constitution, period. Did this stop the high court from erroneously upholding the Roe v. Wade decision? And nowhere in the Constitution does it prohibit religion or the free practice thereof. Any governmental interference with this practice, is simply breaking the laws set forth by the Bill of Rights. No ifs, ands or buts about it.

Lest the government forget, under the first amendment in the Bill of Rights it reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. In other words, Congress cannot dictate their choice of religion and impose it on the citizens, like many foreign countries establish a religion and the people conform to their choice or else.

The American citizens have the right to choose their own religion. Why is it so difficult to interpret this correctly? Could it be intentional? The definition of prohibit is: To refuse to allow, ban, debar, disallow, enjoin, forbid, inhibit, interdict, outlaw, proscribe, taboo. Congress has been overstepping their boundaries for a long time, by attempting to “prohibit” and suppress the free exercise of religion and allowing groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to take the peoples’ religious rights away under some ridiculous notion it violates the separation of church and state.

Evidently, the “framers” felt this issue to be of the utmost importance, because it leads the way in the amendments, and in their proficient wisdom, they must have known sometime in the future, religion would meet with opposition. And boy, they hit that ole' nail right on the head. . .many moons ago.

###

Kaye Grogan is a freelance writer who lives in Virginia. She writes, produces, and hosts a daily commentary called “Viewpoint” on her local radio station. She has written op-eds and articles for the Daily Republican newspaper. She also writes editorials for online newspapers and local papers. Kaye has many published poems, one published book, and has been featured in a popular woman’s national magazine. She is currently working on two books for children. Her hobbies include photography and she has won photo contests all over the world.
kayeg@adelphia.net