<p>The U. S. Constitution of 1787 was ratified with the general understanding that it was one of enumerated and limited powers; and that the national government had no power over religion. As the great and noble James Madison said: “There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation.” [Note 1] </p>
<p>To James Wilson, fell the responsibility to explain the new Constitution to the Pennsylvania Ratification Convention. In response to the allegation that there was no security for the right of conscience in the Constitution, Wilson asserted, “I ask the honorable gentlemen, what part of this system puts it in the power of Congress to attack those rights? When there is no power to attack it is idle to prepare the means of defense.” [Note 2]</p>
<p>Edmund Randolph at the Virginia Convention declared that “no power is given expressly to Congress over religion” and added that only powers “constitutionally given.” [Note 3] Richard Dobbs Spaight at the North Carolina Ratification Convention maintained “as to the subject of religion no power is given to the general government to interfere with it at all. Any act of Congress on this subject would be an usurpation.” </p>
<p>This understanding of the Constitution was not limited to those who attended the Constitutional convention. Identical arguments were made by such non-attenders as Issac Backus of Massachusetts, James Iredell and Samuel Johnston of North Carolina, and Thomas Tucker of South Carolina. </p>
<p>The First Amendments religion clauses are highly ambiguous. The word religion is not defined and the term an establishment of religion was novel in 1789. The first known interpretation of the First Amendment was offered by Representative T. T. Tucker of S. C., just days after the close of the First U. S. Congress he wrote, you will find our amendments calculated to amuse, or rather to deceive in a letter dated September 30, 1789 to his brother, Saint George Tucker. </p>
<p>During the Early Years of the Republic a political contest was waged between two basic interpretations of the First Amendment. One view was that of the Jeffersonian Republicans who interpreted the Constitution to exempt religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, from the cognizance of the government. The other basic view was that of the Federalists who held the Constitution to intend to prevent the establishment of a National Church, such as the Church of England.</p>
<p>During what the great historian Sanford Cobb referrers to as the Final Settlement (from 1789 to 1833) the issue of religious liberty in the United States was settled in favor of the Jeffersonian Republicans view that the duty which we owe to our Creator was exempt from the cognizance of the government. During the first 50 years of the Republic, the non cognizance interpretation of the U. S. Constitution, as articulated by James Madison, prevailed in every major political dispute over the meaning of the religion clauses.</p>
<p>One of the early political contests over the meaning of the establishment clause occurred in the U. S. House of Representatives in 1811 between the non-cognizance view of President James Madison and the No National Church interpretation of the Federalist. </p>
<p>Representative Laban Wheaton (Connecticut) and Representative Timothy Pitkin (Massachusetts) challenged President James Madisons 1811 veto of a bill incorporating an Episcopal Church in Alexandria in the District of Columbia. President Madison read the bill to establish rules and procedures, that could not be amended by the church, to govern the selection and removal of the minister of the church. Madison claimed the violated the establishment clause.</p>
<p>Laban Wheaton (Connecticut) was a Federalist with a devilish desire for government authority over the duty that we owe to the Creator. During the House debates on Madisons veto, he actually floated the idea of expanding and enlarging the two Congressional Chaplainships established in 1789 to impose a government-established religion over the entire ten miles square of the District of Columbia.</p>
<p>Wheaton argued that Madisons establishment clause principle was incorrect because Congress had already established two religions by electing, paying or contracting with their Chaplains. Wheaton deemed the meaning of the establishment clause to be of very great consequence. [Note 2}</p>
<p>Best I can tell, Representative Wheaton held the view that religion established by the people or by God (instead of the government) was not really religion. He complained, on the floor of the House during the debate regarding the veto, that the people of the District of Columbia were never going to have any religion and made the absurd statement that religion had been entirely excluded from the ten square mile area of the District.</p>