Reason Rules, Not Religion

Re “Justice Thomas’ Line to the Deepest Bedrock” by Thomas L. Krannawitter, Commentary, Dec. 12: In 1776, a group of men gathered to sign a document that has come to be regarded as the most treasured in our nation’s history. Not hallowed, revered, nor sacred. Rightly so. That group of men sought, and later fought, to be ruled by reason, not by royalty.

But we must understand that the Declaration of Independence is not, and never was, an official document of the United States of America, as that nation did not yet exist, except in the minds and hearts of these men.

Eleven years later, a largely different group of men framed our Constitution. That document, though flawed in ways that have since been amended, makes no mention of a “creator” or of “natural law.” It was created by learned, wise men of great foresight who clearly meant to leave it to citizens to practice their individual beliefs without interference or aid from our government.

Our Constitution has come to be admired, envied and emulated by peoples around the world. But to have Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, or anyone else, try to distort the intent of its clear language to promote his beliefs is totally contrary to the intent of our founders.

Let us not succumb to being ruled by religion rather than by reason, so dearly bought and kept.

We must be prepared to fight with every legal and politically legitimate means to preserve the strength of our nation and its cherished ideals by keeping religion out of its government.

Hugh Smart

Goleta

*

Krannawitter is dead wrong. The U.S. Constitution does not mention God, divine laws, Holy Scriptures or the Bible -- nowhere. Not one reference, allusion or inclusion.

Rather, the brilliant framers of the U.S. Constitution gave full and complete authority concerning the construction and maintenance of American society to “We, the people” -- not to God, nor to God’s self-appointed hall monitors, such as Krannawitter.

Phil Zuckerman

Claremont

*

As a legal historian, I was bewildered by Krannawitter’s ill-informed defense of Justice Thomas. Contrary to Krannawitter’s claim, Charles Merriam -- not a mere liberal intellectual but also a Republican Chicago alderman and mayoral candidate -- described a principle well established by the Supreme Court long before the 20th century. In fact, the conservative John Marshall argued that the state must define rights because natural law provided judges no clear means of adjudicating competing claims. In particular, in Johnson vs. McIntosh (1823), Marshall greatly limited the principles of natural law and natural rights, fearing that they entitled Native Americans to ownership over most of the United States by dint of prior residence. I happily look forward to the day when Krannawitter and Justice Thomas put their money where their mouths are and demand the return of the nation to its original owners.

Andrew Wender Cohen

Asst. Professor of History

Syracuse University

*

Krannawitter owes his readers an abject apology for so grossly misquoting Supreme Court Justice William Brennan. In his headlong attempt to defend his claim that our constitutional rights are “God-given,” Krannawitter quotes Brennan in 1986 as dismissing the Constitution out of hand because it belonged “to a world that is dead and gone.”

In fact, what Brennan really said in his law review article that year was: “But the ultimate question must be: What do the words of the text mean in our time? For the genius of the Constitution rests not in any static meaning it may have had in a world that is dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and current needs.”

Far from “dismissing” it, Brennan loved and revered the Constitution and particularly the Bill of Rights.

Unlike Krannawitter and other conservatives who think that our rights were frozen in the 18th century, Brennan saw the Constitution, strengthened by the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment, as a “living document.”

Everyone in America is better off because of Brennan’s vision.

Stephen F. Rohde

Los Angeles

*

I cannot find either in natural law or in the Constitution the part that gives the U.S. Supreme Court the legal basis for overruling a state Supreme Court on the results of an election.

Was Thomas practicing strict interpretation, the maligned “legal realism,” or even judicial activism in the case that installed George W. Bush as president in 2000? “Natural-law jurisprudence” -- phooey. Expedience and vested interest(s) win every time.

Kevin Cronin

Playa del Rey