p. 12 | The Constitutional Amendment Question

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Dec 27, 1870

The Constitutional Amendment Question.

The next National Convention in favor of the proposed amendment of the Constitution of the United States, is to be held in Philadelphia, Pa., Jan. 18 and 19, 1871. A notice of this appointment in the Christian Statesman, of Dec. 15, 1870, speaks of the Pittsburg Convention of last March, as a “grateful and surprising success;” and a “larger and more influential assemblage” is hoped for on this occasion. The committee in the call for the Convention, state that the President, the Congress, and the Courts, are coming more and more into evident agreement with what is written in the Constitution; that its molding power is more and more felt; and hence that it is the more necessary that it should not be “found wanting in any principle, or any matter of fact.” They then hold it up as a deficiency in the Constitution, the fact that, among other things, it contains no law against Sabbath-breaking. They say:—

“But, at the same time, it is a serious matter if that Constitution should be found wanting in any principle, or any matter of fact. The deficiency will in due time work mischief. Error in the Constitution will work as powerfully as truth, and what is left out of it may one day be formally declared un-American. And one such serious matter there is; one unnecessary and most unfortunate omission. God and Christianity are not once alluded to; although the Constitution is itself the product of a Christian civilization, and although it purports to represent the mind of a Christian people, who, in all their State Constitutions had made explicit reference to both God and religion. Hence it is that all the legislation of this country in favor of a Christian morality, are enacted and enforced outside of the Constitution. They rest only upon the basis of what is called Common Law. We have, strictly, no Oath, no law against Blasphemy, Sabbath-breaking, or Polygamy, that has any better foundation.”

In the same paper is the report of a convention held at Newburgh, N. Y., on the 7th inst., in which one of the speakers, Judge J. W. Taylor, is reported to have said:

“There is not a State in the United States which does not recognize God as the supreme Ruler of the universe. All of them prohibit labor on the Sabbath-day, and by that means recognize its sacredness and sanctity. That is the practice of the people of the nation.”

This language indicates in what respect it is thought that the Constitution of the United States is particularly deficient. It is behind the constitutions of the several States. Why? Because they all prohibit labor on the (Sunday) Sabbath.

Once more: The Philadelphia Press, of Dec. 5, stated that some of the Congressmen, including Vice President Colfax, arrived in Washington, by Sunday trains, Dec. 4, on which the Statesman comments as follows (we give italics as we find them):—

1. Not one of those men who thus violated the Sabbath is fit to hold any official position in a Christian nation.

“He who violates the Sabbath may not steal, because the judgment of society so strongly condemns theft, or because he believes that honesty is the best policy; but tempt him with the prospect of concealment, or the prospect of advantage, and there can be no reason why he who robs God will not rob his neighbor also. For this reason, the Sabbath law lies at the foundation of morality. Its observance is an acknowledgment of the sovereign rights of God over us.”

Rather severe on the Vice President. But the Statesman continues in reference to the responsibility of the nation in this matter:—

“2. The sin of these Congressmen is a national sin, because the nation has not said to them in the Constitution, the supreme rule for our public servants, ‘We charge you to serve us in accordance with the higher law of God.’ These Sabbath-breaking railroads, moreover, are corporations created by the State, and amenable to it. The State is responsible to God for the conduct of these creatures which it calls into being. It is bound therefore to restrain them from this, as from other crimes, and any violation of the Sabbath, by any corporation, should work immediate forfeiture of its charter. And the Constitution of the United States, with which all State legislation is required to be in harmony, should be of such a character as to prevent any State from tolerating such infractions of fundamental moral law.

“3. Give us in the National Constitution the simple acknowledgment of the law of God as the supreme law of nations, and all the results indicated in this note will ultimately be secured. Let no one say that the movement does not contemplate sufficiently practical ends.”

From all this we see the important place the Sabbath question is to hold in this movement—the important place it even now holds in the minds of those who are urging it forward. Let the amendment called for be granted, “and all the results indicated in this note,” says the writer, “will ultimately be secured;” that is, individuals and corporations will be restrained from violating the Sunday observance. The acknowledgment of God in the Constitution may do very well as a banner under which to sail; but the practical bearing of the movement relates to the Sabbath. Prophecy clearly indicates that such enactments will be passed as are here called for. When such time comes, will the people regard the divine law instead of the human? Will they obey God rather than men? This is the issue we are to meet; and it is not a great way before us.