No other oath is required, "yet he would be charged with insanity who would contend that the legislature might not superadd to the oath directed by the Constitution such other oath of office as its wisdom might suggest." (McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 416) The United States v. Rhodes (by Justice Swayne, in Kentucky, October T. 1867). This is the last and closing clause of the Constitution, and in- 174, 182 serted when the whole framework of the government had been adopted by the convention. It binds the citizens and the States. And certainly no faith could be more deliberately and solemnly pledged than that which every State has pledged to the other States to support the Constitution as it is, in all its provisions, until they shall be altered in the manner which the Constitution itself prescribes. In the emphatic language of the pledge required, it is to support this Constitution. Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 524, 525. 236. The act of Congress of 2d July, 1862, 12 Stat. 502, § 1, requires What is the all federal officers to take the following oath:-"I, A. B., do test oath ? solemnly swear (or affirm), that I have never voluntarily borne arms against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto; that I have neither sought nor accepted, nor attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatever, under any authority or pretended authority in hostility to the United States; that I have not yielded a voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power, or Constitution within the United States, hostile or inimical thereto. And I do further swear (or affirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God." The oath may be taken before any State officer authorized to 142, 143. administer oaths. If it be falsely taken, or if it be subsequently violated, it is perjury. The oath is required of all attorneys practicing in the federal courts, and before any of the departments of government, and of all captains of vessels. 2 Brightly's Dig. p. 348 and p. 50; 12 St. 610. It was held by Judge Busteed, of the United States District Court of Alabama, that, as to lawyers, this test oath was unconstitutional. The statute has been held to be unconstitutional as to attorneys How far of the Supreme Court of the United States who were such before unconstitutional? the rebellion, and who could not take the oath because of their participation in it. Garland's Case, 4 Wall. 381. oath? "NO RELIGIOUS TEST" was doubtless used in the sense of the What is a statute of 25 Charles II., which required an oath and declaration religious against transubstantiation, which all officers, civil and military, were formerly obliged to take within six months after their admission. See Webster's Dic., TEST. The object was to cut off all pretense of alliance between Church and State. Story's Const. § 184, 245. 235. By how many States to be rati fied? 754; 4 Black. Com. 44, 53-57; Kent's Com. Lect. 24, 34, 35; Rawle's Const. ch. 10, p. 121. ARTICLE VII. The ratification of the conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same. Done in Convention, by the unanimous consent of the States present, the seventeenth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth. In witness whereof, we have hereunto subscribed our names. 243. "RATIFICATION " [Ratificare; from ratus, valid, and facere, Define to make. Litt. Sec. 515. Equivalent to "confirmare."]-Co. Litt. ratification? A confirmation of a previous act done either by the party 46. himself or by another. (Story on Agency, § 250, 251; 2 Kent's Com. 237.) Burrill's Law Dic., RATIFICATION. 2956. "OF THE CONVENTIONS OF NINE STATES."-This was intended to leave the action to the people, as the legislatures could only make a league or treaty between the parties. Federalist, No. 43. See Story's Const. § 1850-1856, and 621. "States 99 here used? 6, "BETWEEN THE STATES RATIFYING THE SAME. "-"States" is In what here used in the sense of independent governments, which could sense is, not act, however, through their legislatures; but only through the conventions of the people. But when, is not declared. That the rejection by a convention was no estoppel upon a State, is proved by the case of North Carolina, whose first convention rejected the Constitution. The condition of the non-ratifying States is not defined; but the principles of self-preservation were strongly set forth at that day. Federalist, 43; No. 2 Kent's Com. Lect. 24, 30-36; Rawle's Const. ch. 10, p. 121; Story's Const. § 1851, 1852. "ESTABLISHMENT," is here used in the same sense as the verb 1–18, 248. in the preamble: the putting the government created by the Constitution into operation. Ratifying extends beyond a literal definition of the term. For To what although the "new States," and the independent nation (Texas) does ratifywhich have since been admitted into the Union, cannot be said to ing extend? have ratified the Constitution in the sense of agreeing to the act 229-232. done by themselves or another for them; yet in theory and in practice, they have agreed to all its obligations; and because of this agreement, every citizen for himself, and each State in its 205, 271. sovereign or corporate capacity, is bound by all the obligations which the Constitution and the amendments impose. See the able opinions in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 474. See Preface, p. v. Thus we see that from the first word in the preamble to the end of this stupendous work, there is a constant recurring necessity to carefully weigh every word and phrase; to arrive at the definitions by consulting the whole context, and interpreting each part by the ordinary rules of interpreting other great laws and compacts among men; that is by the words of the instrument, its context, its reason and spirit, the old law, the mischiefs and the remedies intended to be applied; always bearing in mind the great principle, that the compact must strengthen rather than perish. 6. fied by the The Constitution was adopted on the 17th September, 1787, by When was the convention appointed in pursuance of the resolution of the the ConstiCongress of the Confederation, of the 21st February, 1787, and tution ratiwas ratified by the conventions of the several States, as follows, States? viz.: Of Delaware, on the 7th December, 1787; Pennsylvania, 12th Dec., 1787; New Jersey, 18th Dec., 1787; Georgia, 2d Jan., 229, 230. 1788; Connecticut, 9th Jan., 1788; Massachusetts, 6th Feb., 1788; Maryland, 28th April, 1788; South Carolina, 23d May, 1788; New Hampshire, 21st June, 1788; Virginia, 26th June, 1788; New York, 26th July, 1788; North Carolina, 21st Nov. 1789; Rhode Island, 29th May, 1790. North Carolina rejected it at its first convention. Story's Const. § 1851. When were the amend ments proposed? What was the object of the amendments? What restrictions as to religion, speech, the right of pe press, and tition? Define 244. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION.-These thirteen articles proposed by Congress, in addition to, and amendment of the Constitution of the United States, having been ratified by the legislatures of the requisite number of the States, have become parts of the Constitution. The first ten amendments were proposed by Congress at its first session, in 1789. The eleventh was proposed in 1794, the twelfth in 1803, and the thirteenth and fourteenth (in note 275), as explained in notes 274, 275-285. Brightly's Dig. p. 12, note (a). For the reasons which led to these amendments, see 2 Elliot's Debates, 331, 380-427; 1 Id. 119-122; 3 Id. 139, 140, 149, 153; Story's Const. § 1857-1868; 2 American Museum, 423, 425; Id. 534; Id. 540-546; Id. 553; 2 Kent's Com. Lect. 24; Federalist, No. 84; 1 Lloyd's Debates, 414, 420, 430-447. And see the History of the Rebellion for the 13th and 14th. The whole object seems to have been to limit the powers of the government by the prohibitory power of a bill of rights, notwithstanding the government was one of limited powers, and contained many restrictions in the shape of a bill of rights. Story's Const. § 1857-1862. ARTICLE I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 245. "ESTABLISHMENT."-Here it means a system of religion recognized and supported by the State; as the Establishment or 93, 104, 243. Established Church of England. Worcester's Dictionary, ESTABLISHMENT; Story's Const. § 1871. What is roligion? What was 242. OF RELIGION."-[Lat. Religio, from re and ligo to bind.]-An acknowledgment of our obligation to God as our creator, with a feeling of reverence and love, and consequent duty of obedience to him, &c. Here a particular system of faith or worship. Worcester's Dic., RELIGION. Webster, Id. for a more comprehensive definition. The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much the object? less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which would give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. Story's Const. § 1877; 2 Lloyd's Debates, 195-197. For a discussion of the subject, see 2 Kent's Com. (11 ed.) Lect. 24, pp. 35-37; notes 1, a, b, c, d. Rawle's Const. ch. 10, pp. 121, 122; Montesq. Spirit of Laws, B. 24, ch. 3, 5; 1 Tuck. Black. Com. App. 296; 2 Id. note G, pp. 10, 11; 4 Black. Com. 41-59; Lord King's Life of Locke, 373; Jefferson's Notes on Vir ginia, 264-270; Story's Const. § 1870-1879; People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 160; Vidal v. Girard's Executors, 2 How. 127. This, and the clause in the VIth Article, that "no religious test shall ever be required for office," are the only provisions in the federal Constitution upon the subject. Ex parte Garland, 4 Wallace, 397. the action States? No restraint is placed on the action of the States; but the whole Is the repower over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the State straint upon governments. (Story's Const. § 1878.) Ex parte Garland, Id. of the This makes no provision for protecting the citizens of the respective States in their religious liberties; that is left to the State constitutions; nor is there any inhibition imposed by the Constitution. of the United States in this respect on the States. (Permoli v. First Municipality, 3 How. 589, 609; Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 399. 243-245. 17. This court now holds the provision in the Constitution of Missouri void, on the ground that the federal Constitution forbids it. (Such as a test oath to priests.) Ex parte Garland, 4 Wallace, 398. 142, 143. See the subject fully discussed in 1 Kent's Com. 11th edition, Part IV. sec. XXIV. p. 633; Story's Const. § 1870-1879; Andrew v. The Bible, &c., Society, 4 Sandf. N. Y. 156; Ayers v. M. E. Church, 3 Id. 351. of the common Christianity is not a part of the municipal law. Andrew v. N. Y. Is Christi& P. B. Society, 4 Sandf. N. Y. R. 182. With us, all religions are anity a part tolerated, and none is established; each has an equal right to the protection of the law. Ayers v. The Methodist Church, 3 Sandf. 377. law? It must be understood to extend equally to all sects, whether they What is the believed in Christianity or not, and whether they were Jews or In- extent of fidels. (Updegraff v. The Commonwealth, 11 Sergt. & Rawle, 394.) tion? Vidal v. Girard's Executors, 2 How. 198. our tolera ary effect of This declaration (to the same effect in the Constitution of the re- What is the public of Texas) reduced the Roman Catholic Church from the high revolutionprivilege of being the only national church, to a level and an equal- such decla ity with every other denomination of Christians. Blair v. Odin, 3 rations? Tex. 300; Wheeler v. Moody, 9 Tex. 376. After this fundamental change, assessments and contributions could not be levied for the purpose of creating such edifices and supporting ecclesiastics, on the ground that the previous system had destined such contributions. (Antoines v. Esclava, 9 Porter, 527; Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cr. 43.) Paschal's Annotated Digest, note 154; Blair v. Odin, 3 Tex. 300. So far as they (the acts of Congress organizing the territories) 229, 281. conferred political rights, and secured civil and religious liberties (which are political rights), the laws of Congress were all superseded by the State Constitution; nor are any part of them in force, unless they were adopted by the Constitution of Louisiana, as laws of the State. Permoli v. First Municipality, 3 How. 610. 246. "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" [from freo, free, and dom, juris- What is diction].-Liberty; exemption from servitude. Syn. Freedom freedom? and liberty, as applied to nations, are often used synonymously. Freedom is personal and private; liberty public. Worcester's Dic., FREEDOM. |