Here are two Supreme Court opinions written in the 1980's that confirm our country's Christian heritage:
Marsh v. Chambers (1983) ("The opening of sessions of legislative and other deliberative public bodies with prayer is deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country.")

Lynch v. Donnelly (1983) ("There is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789.")

But the most overwhelming argument ever put forth by the Supreme Court was published back in 1892. In February, 1892 the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion that explained in detail our nation's unquestionable Christian heritage. The case began in the state of New York, and involved a church that contracted with a minister in England to bring him to New York as the new pastor of their church. A New York circuit court ruled that the church broke the federal law described in the 1885 Alien Contract Labor Law. Click here for the text of that law: http://library.uwb.edu/gui des/USimmigration/23%20sta t%20332.pdf (This law established that it was illegal to aid or encourage the immigration of a foreign person for the purposes of employment, with several exceptions.)

The Supreme Court unanimously overturned the circuit court's decision, ruling that a religious minister is an implied exception to the law, and dedicated over half of the supporting opinion to the enumeration of evidences of America's Christian Heritage. Baseless arguments have been made that this portion of the opinion was simply obiter dictum and was not useful for precedent in later cases. To the contrary, the opinion was written to adamantly describe why the Christian nature of the nation was the absolute basis for the decision of the Court. These evidences listed are legal in nature, such as the Mayflower Compact, constitutions and state laws in CT, PA, MA, DE, IN, IL, VA, then the Declaration of Independence, and finally, the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Legally, the First Amendment was the obvious key to this case. Congress has no right to make a law that will prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Our own Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia disagreed with the 1892 decision. He states in book he wrote in 1998 that the "decision was wrong because it failed to follow the text." The text he cites is the 1885 law, which does not specify any First Amendment exemptions, (Which are implied. What need is there to restate the Constitution?). However, even lawyer and Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe recognizes the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to be the correct deciding factor in the 1892 case. This is the man that ardently supported Senator Obama in his presidential campaign, and was one of his professors at Harvard. Did he did not teach Obama about this Supreme Court Opinion? Obama does not seem to care about either of the main issues, the First Amendment, or the Christian heritage of our country.

As a lawyer, Mr. Obama should be very familiar with the term stare decisis , the latin term meaning "to stand by decided matters." While this legal term has been severely abused, there can be few major Supreme Court cases to which this term more clearly applies than to the opinion of 1892.

first posted April 6, 2010